The Seattle Times put out an article on Videoblogging.
Read it here.
Here is a standard complaint in this and other articles:
Amateur vlogs (if that isn’t a redundancy), like their blog cousins,
suffer too much from "vlogghorea" (aimless rambling face-on into a
camera).
This statement is ridiculous. Most videoblogs are well-edited and engaging AS LONG AS you are not expecting TV shows.
What are you going to say to someone who doesnt understand that blogs are about context?
Ill let Josh Kinberg answer.
He is a rock in the Videoblogging community. His perpective is smart and to the point.
Its always funny to me to see articles like this because they make one
huge, wrongheaded assumption… the assumption being that mainstream
media is "compelling."
The truth for most people is that much of mainstream media is not
compelling, its just that there’s little else to watch.
Just try surfing through your several hundred cable channels and tell
me when you hit a compelling program. My bet is that you could be
channel surfing for hours before you hit anything even slightly
interesting to you.
Mainstream media can only afford to treat us like demographics, when
the truth is that we are actually individuals. Vlogs can afford to be
way more granular than mainstream media could ever hope for, and this
is what makes them compelling…. well, at least to the audience
(however small or large) that the particular videoblogger is trying to
reach.
See, with guys like Josh, everything will be okay.
People just got to see that we have not only the right, but the ability, to show the world through our own eyes. You dont need anyone’s permission.