Groovin’ | July 24th, 2009
This is all over YouTube, and I would describe it as “off the chain”:
G would be fine if we had tried that, but you better believe I’d be twisting my knee or something fun.
This is all over YouTube, and I would describe it as “off the chain”:
G would be fine if we had tried that, but you better believe I’d be twisting my knee or something fun.
MTV has been essentially a total negative in cultural energy for the past ten years, but then they go ahead and launch this site and totally redeem themselves:
When they say beta, I really hope this one sticks around, because the site counts more than 21,000 videos dating back to Jimi Hendrix clips and plenty of other goodies: Metallica, Run DMC and Grandmaster Flash. I was happy to see Talking Heads as one of the most-viewed vids, so maybe there’s hope for MTV after all.
The intellectual property rights issues on this must be hella complicated, but this is more than worth it. I no longer hate you, MTV! (And thanks, Mark, for pointing this one out.)
Recent things:
Northwestern, meanwhile, is 3-0.
Bastards.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A what.
I no longer work there, but that won’t stop me from plugging this nicely summarizing Slate piece by Tim Wu detailing the two presidential candidates’ positions on media ownership and net neutrality.
Suffice it to say that I fall squarely within the Obama camp on the question of net neutrality: the Internet can no longer be considered a product, but instead a network similar to the airwaves. Like the airwaves are licensed by the government, there’s room for licensing of the Internet’s physical network by bandwidth costs, but you can’t package “the web” and sell it to consumers in a realistic fashion. That’s a really old-fashioned way of thinking about it. Instead, the web is the marketplace wherein websites sell their goods and duke it out for audience and revenue share. To change the web into a cable-television model is just imposing an old-fashioned dynamic on a system that’s already created its own rules.
As for fair share of political views within the media, the lefty side of me thinks it’s necessary, but the MBA/realist side of me thinks differently: people are going to listen to or watch the crap no matter what you do, so somebody might as well make some money off of it. Do you then require those moneymakers to put on informed, objective (if that’s even possible), educated content as a result? I don’t think it’s even relevant: the media marketplace is so segmented these days anyway that the consumer is going to seek out whatever they want and likely find it, whether that’s on-the-scene reporting from Zimbabwe’s reconstituted parliament or the skateboarding dog.
It’s a dog on a skateboard!
Thanks to Jerry for cluing me in to this awesome commercial. The first nine seconds are blank, but keep watching:
Why didn’t Malkin get an equally terrible/hilarious line?
This guy came out last year, but I had to give blog props to Pittsburgh’s newest and best rapper:
412!
You don’t see these guys living in DC. Some things about New York, I really don’t miss:
Though I’d say hipsterism became a parody of itself around 2003 or so, it’s still funny. (Thanks, John.)
These dudes shared downtown Indy and our hotel with us during the wedding weekend. (I may or may not have mentioned to the Slate V peeps a few weeks prior that the convention would be there with us.)
Good times.
I planned to cancel my HBO subscription this summer, but then I caught Flight of the Conchords and now I’m stuck to the show like a junkie with monkey disease. So I’m going with a copout post of three of the best:
I’m out.