FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Film Critics and the state of Internet Comments

   
Author Topic: Film Critics and the state of Internet Comments
happymann
Member
Member # 9559

 - posted      Profile for happymann   Email happymann         Edit/Delete Post 
I have a favorite movie critic that recently suggested an article titled The Problem with Film Criticism by Charles Taylor. It was a little difficult to get through but near the end he talked about how he used to receive online communication from rational people until the advent of the "comments" section.
quote:
When I started as a film critic online at Salon.com, readers could click on a link that allowed them to e-mail me directly. Within a month, I heard from more readers than I had in a decade as a print critic. Not all the letters were nice (though the rude writers often apologized if you wrote back to them and reminded them a person was on the other end of their missive), but I felt in touch with my readers. There was also an edited letters column. That all ended when the publication made it possible for readers to post directly without going through an editor. Almost immediately, I and the other writers I knew stopped hearing directly from readers. Instead, instant posting became survival of the loudest. Posturing and haranguing ruled. If the writer was female or Jewish, misogynists and anti-Semites would turn up. Why wouldn’t they? There was no editor to stop them. Bullies and bigots seized the chance to show off. And those reasonable people, the ones I and my colleagues heard from? They went nowhere near the online forums.
.
The whole article is rather fascinating and it led me to thinking about this forum. He says:
quote:
The same progressives who bemoan the way Fox News has polarized political discourse in America, masquerading as news while never troubling its followers with anything that would disturb its most cherished and untested convictions, happily turn to the satellite radio station of their preferred genre or subgenre of music or seek out the support group or message board that fits their demographic, the political site that skews their way. Entering the realm of the other seems done solely to express rage.
And after reading that it makes me appreciate one of the unique aspects of this forum. Yes, we are a group that is united in our appreciation of works by OSC, but our opinions are varied on everything else (and, I suppose, even including OSC's works). And I appreciate that this forum has various opinions and no clear one side from several of its contributors.

So, do you agree with his statement:
quote:
The rigorous division of websites into narrow interests, the attempts of Amazon and Netflix to steer your next purchase based on what you’ve already bought, the ability of Web users to never encounter anything outside of their established political or cultural preferences, and the way technology enables advertisers to identify each potential market and direct advertising to it, all represent the triumph of cultural segregation that is the negation of democracy. It’s the reassurance of never having to face anyone different from ourselves.
or do you feel there's hope for the internet yet?
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
The internet tailoring your experience based on your behavior and advertisers steering you towards products you have previously expressed an interest in doesn't seem like segregation to me. It's not like we are blocked off from going to those regions we haven't seen before.

Say my purchases, music, news, social media, and advertising are all perfectly setup based on my web activity. There's bleed over into many things I am less interested in, but not disinterested in. My news is still relayed by agencies which try (to some degree) to present me with a multiplicity of viewpoints and ideas. There's also the occasionally new things brought into it. An artist might write an album which discusses cause/event which I then go and read about.

I might read the comments section of an article where somebody has linked a video clip on youtube that rebuts what the article says, and subsequently be lead to other similar videos that ultimately leads to youtube changing what it recommends for me.

I just don't think it's nearly as neat and destructive as the article's writer believes.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by happymann:
quote:
... all represent the triumph of cultural segregation that is the negation of democracy. It’s the reassurance of never having to face anyone different from ourselves.

Yeah, I don't buy it.

Take yourselves* back to the 1950s. How much media space is there for understanding gays, atheists, or immigrants (keep in mind that, briefly looking at wiki, the Chinese exclusion act meant that there was no legal Chinese immigration until 1943 and strict quotas meant no significant immigration until 1965)?

The majority of people in North America would watch a handful of television stations (all domestic, probably not much hope of watching a BBC or an anachronistic Al jazeera), read mostly the same domestic newspapers, go to Christian churches have yet to be challenged in their cultural dominance, and that's about it. There's not a whole lot of opportunity to meet those aforementioned minority groups and to exposed to new ideas. However, democracy somehow survived that "negation" and cultural segregation.

Now, it is easy to watch foreign news agencies or read foreign publications. There is space in film and television for leading roles that are atheist, gay, or even Asian. For sure, things could be a lot better, but they don't seem to be getting worse to me. The same people that segregate themselves away, their counterparts would probably have segregated themselves with much more success in 1950, but the rest of us have access to much much more.

* And that is for those of you who envisioned a nice middle class North American existence when throwing yourselves back to 1950, not those who threw themselves back to the chaos of land reforms

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2