via New Mediacracy The backstory: Barrett had...

via New Mediacracy

The backstory: Barrett had delivered his WebTVWorkshop tip of the day video back in May, which got picked up last week by others in the web show world. That led to a passionate discussion on Twitter with quite a few participants. There was a follow-up Tumblr post by Barrett that led to numerous replies. David Nett put forth his thoughts on Facebook, which also had a lively comments exchange afterwards, and there was a Tubefilter article by Marc Hustvedt, which generated similarly passionate comments. There were other blog posts by creators on their own sites, as well.

This morning - while taking the bus and the subway and then the bus again from Valley Village to Blip’s new LA HQs in Santa Monica - I listened to the latest episode of New Mediacracy, titled: The One About “IndieTV” Versus “Immersive Entertainment”, and had one specific point that I wanted to make… apparently I felt it was note-worthy enough to scribble down as the bus swayed and jolted over pot-holes and braked for light-changes. Now, to avoid putting words into anyone else’s mouth, I want to be clear that this was only what Brett Register asked during the episode - and it’s very possible he was simply playing a very convincing devil’s advocate - the question asked, paraphrased, was: is it really *that* bad if the internet is the just another indie TV or indie film. The question was followed by a bit of commotion, but one clear answer was Steve Woolf’s definitive, “yes!”.

I couldn’t agree more - and this is a sentiment I’ve heard before from guest on NM - the idea that as storytellers and creators, and even as an audience, that we should treat the internet as something less-serious as a medium when compared to TV or film, is not only missing the point but it’s dismissing the technology’s uniqueness.

The internet is young, very young - and what I’m afraid of is that letting a wave of up-and-coming TV writers and filmmakers, who see the internet as nothing more than a stepping-stone on their way to “bigger things”, shape its direction and its definition, then the internet is in big fucking trouble. To be blunt.

The internet is not another marker in a linear path that leads from radio, to internet, to TV, to film. It exist on its own - independent from film, independent from TV.

I should stress that I don’t think anyone should be deterred from creating what they eventually hope might become a larger film, or a larger tv series - the internet is an incredibly powerful place to evolve ideas - but my issue comes from people advocating that this *is* its purpose; that other creators and storytellers should not fight for the internet to take full advantage of *what* the internet is and what it is quickly becoming. It is an awful thing to say that the internet is the next indie tv or the next indie film - it is not. Not in regards to technology, not in regards to ability, not in regards potential.

Use the internet how you want - but do not make the case that any of us should treat the internet as something much, much less than what it is.

newmediacracy.com