#media shit

[gizmofarted]

[28whitepeonies]

I am curious why Daily Mail always gets the exclusives.. the pics were taken by a tmz pap and posted on their Live tv show but the actual print is for Daily Mail. Isnt that like a lesser tabloid? Meaning less than People or TMZ for example. All Olivia pap pics go first to Daily Mail and then every article credits them.

Hi anon

So I’m going for full disclosure here firstly with I got the Daily Mail thing from HLD and HS Daily said TMZ. This sounds like you have actually checked though so kudos to you because I’d rather eat my toes than visit the DM website (I have now done a quick Google and it came up listed so that’s good enough for me)

I know nothing about how popular or wide reaching TMZ is but my only guess would be that it’s because Daily Mail is much more popular in the UK than TMZ. It’s actually the second biggest newspaper here in terms of circulation (beaten only by the Metro which is free) so they’re maybe trying to reach both UK and US audiences - but that’s just a guess. I also know the Daily Mail pays quite a lot for stories, so it could be possible that TMZ get them for TV or whatever and then if the pap sold them to the highest print bidder then I’d expect the DM might have offered the most. Theres always the possibility of tabloid debt too but that seems less likely here.

Edit: But also, what made you think it was a TMZ pap? They’re watermarked The Image Direct and according to their website they’re independent so it could be possible they shopped them out to a US and a UK outlet? Or both a print and media outlet?

Someone with a better understanding of how this kind of thing works might be able to say more.

[reasonreblogs]

Bit of a rant I got on while live reading One Piece to my friend and hitting what was surely political commentary that worked and why some media with political themes works and others don’t.

Attack on Titan spoilers and HS^2 bitching included.  Disclaimer that I am p salty and speaking mostly from memory in this so I might get some specific story details wrong.

(we were talking about tournament arcs between me ranting on this)

The words I finally found to describe what I don’t like in politics in stories though: Whether it stands up in the story that was built or is entirely dependent on the audience having the real world fill in the gaps for context.  Poorly executed politics in stories relies on the viewer to know everything about what they’re alluding to rather than build shit up in universe and often in a story that had been building its own internal logic.

I realized this with One Piece, when characters explain the way people or the world works and the flaws of the systems or mindsets, but it makes sense to the characters, story, and world.  If it parallels real life, then for the people of the time, the metaphor is clear, but it’s not so dependent on that context that as a reader a decade, country, and culture removed I don’t understand what they’re explaining.

And with Attack on Titan, showing the badness of the Nazi Germany metaphor IS important because, believe it or not, we’re getting to that point where so much time has passed since then, people are starting to lose a sense of how vastly fucked up it was.  The oldest people who experienced it firsthand will be gone within the next 20 years, the people who were just born after the war will be gone in another 40.  AoT doesn’t rely on the context of having known people who could tell those stories or having a curiosity separate from the still living memories to remind you of these things to look it up.  It’s why I say, 50 years from now, you will read it and still know why the bad guys are the bad guys and shit like that is political themes done well.

The metaphor and message holding up outside the context of the commentary on current events is the kind of politics I like to see in media.  It becomes more about criticizing the situation and the things that built it rather than what reads more like petty jabs at some public figure because the actual bad shit that happened is something the audience “should already know anyway” otherwise, they’re ignorant peons who are just ~*complacent*~ with how fucked things are. /s

[moderndaycirce]

Okay so I was talking before about new media and how i’d love to write essays on it for a little bit longer so I thought I’d get some thoughts down, so this is about youtube and advertising

Youtube started as just a video sharing platform. Most people can remember it’s use as literally just a platform for funny videos, and I honestly can’t say who the first person to start vlogging was, but I can think of quite a people I remember from the early early days. (I’m talking pre Zoella, pre PewDiePie here, that’s how long I mean)

It only took around two years for the people who run youtube to realise that they can actually use the people making videos for them to make money (after Google acquired it of course, because we all know how much Google likes $$$), which you can see now in the use of YoutubeRed. Youtube TV and the fact you can pay to stream movies (honestly who even uses this service?), and management companies were set up to manage popular youtube faces. More on this later, because this was all clearly driven by the want to make more money.

This is where things get interesting. Suddenly companies have a new way to advertise their products, and it’s not regulated the way that television advertising is. People didn’t have to specify that they were advertising something, and of course, companies lept at the chance to throw free things at vloggers, in the hopes that people would buy their products. Ever wondered why those beauty bloggers were going on about how AMAZING a product was? That’s probably why. 

With the introduction of management companies, you can see where things get just... insane. Channels grew at a rate that hadn’t been seen before, there was a full year where the most popular type of video was a collaboration tag, and if you look closely at this time you can see who belongs to which management company (cough the big british youtubers versus the more “alternative” british youtubers are a great example of this cough cough just look at the sudden growth of literally anyone who popped up in 2012-2014 cough). Up until around a year ago, these people’s content was amassing millions of views and millions of views meant a bigger audience to sell to. 

Book deals were made, people made music, people sold tshirts, people went on tours, literal conventions were held, which just reinforced the idea of this new status of “youtube celebrity”. Videos were sponsored, Affiliate links were created and almost no part of that website has remained untouched in this quest to make money. And people didn’t notice for a very long time. A lot of people probably still don’t notice that a sponsored video is basically just an advert for a company under the guise of “look at us helping you out, we’ll give you 10% off if you use this person’s link!” It all links back to the capitalist society that we live in and the fact that people realised that the people who watch youtubers have the right amount of expendable income to spend on anything that their favourite content producers create. And that’s the messed up thing, that a lot of people might be making money now, but that can so easily be taken away. 

Interestingly, because of recent changes in the website, a lot of content producers are noticing a massive dive in views. Which brings me to my final thought. Content Creators cannot last forever. People need backup plans to fall back on if they decide to quit their day jobs to produce content full time. I have literally seen people who drop out of university to become youtubers, or leave good jobs to pursue literally just making tag videos. People have begun looking elsewhere to make money, and I can name quite a few people off the top of my head who have projects or have used youtube as a platform to spring onto a different career path. It’s a very volatile industry, and very easy to lose everything after making one mistake. 

[ruikh]

The worst part about representation of love (romantic or otherwise) in the media specifically involving individuals not considered conventionally attractive is that the other person is almost always a conventionally attractive (white, cishet, able bodied) person. This basically tells us the only reason people like us are valid is because the dominant groups have deemed us valid through this piece of media where they've graced a character with subordinated identities with the love of a white, cishet, able bodied person. You're only a real person if you are given attention and time by dominant groups. Not to mention, if the relationship depicted isn't between people who are conventionally attractive it's almost always played for laughs.

[sonofbrigid-blog]

...I entered the comment section of a controversial post. I didn't mean to, but it pissed me off how many people were saying "straight people die on tv all the time, it's not an issue when a lesbian character dies, they're being treated like everyone else!"

[allthatsleftbehind]

what is going on with everyone's urls what is happening help

[1sungyeol]

i just thought of the saddest video idea....i must do it i need to find clock tower