TV, future, and more!

Since the suggested readings for this week were very random and scattered, my reading response is going to be random and scattered as well. To start it off, I would like to discuss the article by Kevin Sites called "Gadgets and Gadflies". In his article, he writes that Tim Robbins said that he 'decried today's news and entertainment content as driven by a "pornographic obsession with celebrity culture.'" (http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/69013/gadgets-and-gadflies;_ylt=AvYnR3...). I unfortunately would have to agree with his statement, but maybe with less emphasis on the celebrity aspect. This can be seen on sites like Youtube, where people try to get others to watch their videos by giving a screenshot and a short description of the clip. There are endless amounts of videos that try to use sex and/or sexual images to try to increase the amount of viewers they have. For example, the top 3 most watched videos today all have screenshots of women coming *this* close to showing their breasts. There are even people who make videos with titles that have nothing to do with the actual content of the clip, like the guy who made this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gzAzE2lN0
As far as I can tell, every time he makes a video he uses some risque picture of his "girlfriend" (who probably isn't even his girlfriend) to try to increase his subscriptions. Why would people go to such lengths to increase viewers? Is it just that it makes them feel good? Or do they think that if they get enough views then one day it might actually take them somewhere in life? This is why I think it would be really interesting to have a serious conversation with one of the top-subscribed video creators on Youtube; I would really like to know what their drive is and what they hope to accomplish along the way.

I would also like to discuss the article by David Carr called "Movie Critics in Print". In his article, he says that some people are "upset by the departures of movie critics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/movies/01crit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). Yes, it may be sad that some people are losing their jobs, but they are losing jobs because a new, more powerful medium is taking their place. In my mind, the role of a movie critic is to let the general population know if a movie is good or bad, who would enjoy it and why, and maybe a little summary of the movie. They are basically being a voice for the people, scouts sent ahead to see if there is really a storm coming. The internet can help do this even better than the critics can. Sites like rottentomatoes use both critics and normal people to judge the quality of movies. Honestly, who can do a better job of saying what the people would like than the people themselves? If I can go online and see that 94% of people liked watching Iron Man, I'm pretty sure that I would feel more comfortable seeing the movie than if one movie critic said that they liked it. So although it may be sad for the critics themselves, I believe that movie critics (especially newspaper ones) will lose their role in society to their online counterparts, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing.