YouTube Fame

We’ve discussed YouTube a lot in class, and about the communities and “celebrities” that have come received international recognition from going viral on the web. Often this “fame” doesn’t amount to more than recognition, unless one is a singer. However, some have found a way to cash in on their fame.

A very popular video “David After Dentist”, which shows a young boy being taped by his father while still under the affects of the anaesthetics, was the second most viewed video on YouTube in 2009. This video has turned into a cash cow for the family of the boy. The family earns revenue from the ads that run beside the video, as well as from a website the family know runs that sells T-shirts and stickers. The video has led to David and his father appearing on many television shows, and the father, also named David, recently made an appearance at SXSW. The money they have made has been enough for the father to quit his job. The family is saving money for David’s college tuition, and has also donated over $6,000 to charity.

A lot of people however, feel like the DeVore’s are exploiting their child. If the family came across this opportunity innocently (posting a video on YouTube so family members who didn’t have Facebook could see) and they have an opportunity to make money off of it, that can benefit their child is it really a bad thing? Or is there too much risk is placing their child in the spotlight?

So many people post things on the internet, and they are only watched by friends and family. Can we say we wouldn’t ourselves take a similar opportunity? Is this all innocent fun, or does it breed a hungry for any form of attention that leads people to make up their own opportunities, for example the boy in a balloon hoax.

It makes me wonder if our society is really changing, or if we are just doing things we have always done (ie filming funny moments of our children), but with an uncontrollable wider audience. Most likely the internet views and fame will fade with time and be forgotten. Whether or not the Devore’s will mind going back into their normal life remains to be seen.

Twitter & the Undead Celebrity

Yesterday the internet was a buzz about the apparent death of legendary Canadian singer Gordon Lightfoot. These reports began on Twitter yesterday afternoon and quickly spread across the site. The speculation became so much that CanWest News picked up the story and reported it on several of their news sites. Once picked up by a “legitimate” news source, the reports began to spread rapidly.

However, Gordon Lightfoot was alive and well, on his way to the dentist office, when he heard a report on the radio that he was dead. The original reports are now being called a prank. This is not the first time that celebrities have been falsely reported as dead on Twitter. While Twitter has proven an impressive force in instantaneously spreading information across the globe, what is the affect it can have on the false information that gets picked up? While news sites have an obligation to retract stories, and will probably delete the original report (whether out of accuracy or embarrassment), Twitter users do not have that obligation and Twitter is much harder to control.

Now, it is not confirmed that it strictly was a Tweet that CanWest went off of in their reporting of Lightfoot’s death, but wouldn’t it be standard procedure for a journalist to contact a representative for Lightfoot to find out from the source? As we have discussed in class, there is a debate about the idea of blogs being journalism. While this story shows the lack of accountability that can be present on the internet, how much credibility can journalism give itself when it relies on random internet sources? Are journalists acting any differently than those who post online?