There's an interesting column in the latest edition of Newsweek magazine (I read the paper version, I must confess, but I've linked to the electronic version here). Steven Levy writes about how the rise of cell phone cameras and easy Internet access has led to such "radical transparency" that people now have to constantly monitor their behavior so as not to wind up as a figure of ridicule on the internet. All of us, even those who live far from the public eye, now have to worry about public scrutiny. Do we all remember the "screaming teacher" video that was posted on our class blog a few months back? Certainly that guy never thought his less-than-flattering meltdown would wind up viewed by thousands. Levy cites another example of this kind of unexpected exposure:
"But two Bank of America employees at a private function celebrating the company's merger with MBNA couldn't have anticipated what happened to them. Their over-the-top rendition of U2's "One" (with custom lyrics like "Integration has never had us feeling so good") wound up being mocked by thousands of Internet critics. (Adding injury to insult, lawyers for U2's record label threatened a lawsuit for copyright infringement.)"
Now, this particular incident brings up another recent 506 point of discussion. Copyright infringement? Are they @#%*ing kidding?!? Since when does drunk singing at a private function violate copyright? Did they make money from it? Did they ask to be posted to the web? Or are the lawyers going after whoever posted the video? Hmmm... It's not totally clear, but either way, it seems completely ridiculous to me. Any thoughts?
Anyway, to get back to my initial point, the threat of being photographed or videotaped at any moment and having said recordings made public for all the world to see (and mock) is certainly real. Levy points out in his column that this super-transparency could have a positive side if it deters perverts from flashing people or dog owners from leaving their pet's poo behind. But, the idea of always having to worry about one false move destroying your credibility or your career or a relationship or just making a lot of people laugh at you, I think far outweighs these possible benefits. Think about how Winston felt, with Big Brother constantly watching. Is "little brother" any more benign?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This makes me think of the recent Michael Richards racist tirade. If not for a cell phone video, would it have gotten as much press? Would he have been taken to task to the same extent? In this case, was the cell phone used for a "righteous" cause?
I'm not sure what I think. I can see arguments for all sides. This is a direct result of 506 - there's A LOT of gray area where things were once more black and white.
Post a Comment