Insignificantly Interesting
My topic du jour lately has been how regular people are the new superstars. Media is changing. As Chartreuse so astutely put it, “Old media is begging for attention. New media is attention.”
So how did we get here? Hank Steuver’s got a guess: “‘The Real World’ went from exploring how to get your adulthood started (remember that its earliest housemates were trying to do something on their own — one was a doctor, one was a journalist, one was an AIDS activist) to a recurring drama of sloth, ill tempers, wasted days and wasted nights. ‘Real World’ producers quickly surmised that people prefer to watch other people do nothing with their immediate futures.” The seemingly insignificant is often the most interesting.
We are becoming the media and the media is becoming us. One is not taking over the other, they are just converging to become a single entity. Blogging doesn’t spell the end of journalism, it spells a new beginning.
It’s not about the speed of communication for speeds sake, but rather for recognition’s sake. At all times we are both producer and consumer. As McLuhan put it in “At the moment of sputnik the planet became a global theater in which there are no spectators but only actors”, “The mysterious thing about this kind of speed-up of information, whereby the gap is closed between the experience and the meaning, is that the public begins to particpate directly in actions which it had previously heard about at a distance in place or time. At instant speeds the audience becomes actor, and the spectators become participants.”
Hell, it’s even effecting Girls Gone Wild, “In the beginning, when ‘Girls Gone Wild’ cameramen first popped up in clubs, the women who revealed themselves seemed innocent — surprised, even, by their own spontaneity. Now that the brand is so pervasive, the women who participate increasingly appear to be calculating exhibitionists, hoping that an appearance on a video might catapult them to Paris Hilton-like fame.”
Fame is being recognized as a serious factor in people’s motivations. The thing is, fame up to now meant Angelina Jolie or 50 Cent, but today anyone can be internet famous.
The game is changing, for a long time, the only difference between the stars and ‘Joe Scmoe’ was the audience . . . but not any more.
TO BE CONTINUED . . .
Update (8/23/06): Check out part two, The Sniper Effect.
Hi, I'm 
Great post. And not just because I’m mentioned in it.
It’s great because it’s right!
Thanks, glad you think so. Thanks for the inspiration.
When I first appeared in a GIRLS GONE WILD, they told me it would never see the light of day.
Tell me mother that. She has to wear a veil to church.
You too, Jeff? The director told me the same thing. At least your mom’s still allowed in Church.
As for fame or, as Vaspers says, Self as Star, I’m sure that many people are motivated by it. I know all people are hard-wired for connecting with one another. Plato wasn’t the only one who tells us “man is a social animal”, science recently confirmed it (though I thought it was rather obvious from the get-go).
Point is, I’d like to think we’re motivated by sharing thoughts and vetting ideas just as much as we are by fame. The thing I cherish most about social media is giving play to others, like I do in my interviews. Cuz it’s all about them. Instead of like the Agency.com video where it was all about the agency, not about the customers.
The fame quotient, at least for me, doesn’t motivate me. But the connecting with a range of brainy, eclectic people sure does. I find that to be the payoff.
I do dig that Joe Schmo and the Media have somewhat more level footing now–and hope that levels out completely. That will be a while though, and it’s probably better as it lets us more effectively formulate our identity and contributions.
CK, I’m with you. Actually, some of my next post will speak to your point a bit (I hope). I for one do what I do in part as personal reflection, part as means to connecting with likeminded individuals. Especially lately, those face-to-face meetings have inspired me to reach out to more and more people.
On a total side note, I’ve thought about an idea of CQ: Connected Quotient. What if there was a PageRank for people that would let you know what the probability of having a meaningful conversation with someone would be.
Finally, check out this Paul Graham article about why he blogs, he also disputes the fame concept.
Loved Paul Graham’s post — my first visit to his site, but definitely not my last. I know we’ve talked — long ago — about writing as a process of discovery, and how greatly that conflicts with the 5 paragraph essay our schools are now drilling into the minds of kids. Reading Graham discussing Socrates and Darwin, I’m struck by the evolution of writing as medium of communication. In many ways, these blogs are closer to the real meaning of Socratic dialogue than we’ve been since Soc & the Gang sat around discussing their ideas. Being able to communicate on that level is incredibly motivating — at least for me :)
I agree completely, being able to engage in critical dialogue outside academia is a pretty amazing thing, and something I’m not sure was very easy before the whole blog thing happened.
Also amazing is getting to read about “Soc & the Gang” . . . :)
Barbara: While an old post of Paul’s, I might suggest you copy and paste your comment to his blog, too. It was just incredibly insightful (for me) and articulate (for a lot of others, I’d be willing to bet). Thanks.
That’s exactly what blogging is for me. I go right to the thinking, sharing, growing, listening value points of blogging…not the fame stuff. That’s forced. And sorta silly.
Noah: I like CQ…but what’s meaningful to one, is meaningless to another. So how to calculate? That’s the thing about this plane, you’ve got a variety of opinions (some of likemind, some oppositional). Thanks for pointing us to some other great minds/posts, that’s a bonus.
How to calculate is the question I want to answer. While hard, I don’t think it’s impossible. My attention data is a fairly accurate picture of me I think.