Youtube\'s Impact Named the \'Invention

Youtube's Impact

Named the 'invention of the year' by the 2006 Time magazine, YouTube is an extremely popular site which allows its users to view and upload video clips with music, movies, and important moments of their lives. Consequently, on YouTube, you can both hear to Celine Dion's songs and see how a certain user has performed a traditional Italian dance during his trip to Italy. Moreover, the site allows viewers to post their comments regarding the respective clips and to vote in favor of the ones they like. The comments, the number of times a video has been watched and the average rating are all listed on YouTube thus offering a perspective on how popular an item is (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/YouTube).

The rise of YouTube has brought a brand new stage to the evolvement of mass media due to the strong impact it has had on several fields.

First of all, the American website has highly impacted traditional media. One of YouTube's main 'victims' was television. In the beginning, the U.S. TV channels were outraged by the infringement of copyright laws. For instance, NBC Universal asked the site to remove clips with Lazy Sunday and 2006 Olympics. In reply to their request, YouTube established a 10-minute limit to all the clips posted by users. Yet, this measure proved to be ineffective as internauts divided their films into several episodes for obeying the restriction imposed (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/YouTube).

Despite such disputes, TV channels ulteriorly adopted a paradoxical strategy. They accepted to collaborate with the American site and to provide it with video clips that would bring them specific advantages. For example, NBC set an official channel and supplied YouTube with video clips advertising the series the Office. A similar behavior was displayed by CBS which put behind its argument with the website's founders and agreed to, or better said, strived to get a significant virtual presence. This sudden shift from denial to acceptance was excellently emphasized by Sean McManus, the president of CBS News and Sports: "Our inclination now is, the more exposure we get from clips like that, the better it is for CBS News and the CBS television network, so in retrospect we probably should have embraced the exposure, and embraced the attention it was bringing CBS, instead of being parochial and saying 'let's pull it down.'" (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/YouTube)

However, information doesn't flow only from TV channels to YouTube. It also flows the other way around.

A primary issue which proves the existence of an alternative route refers to the 'celebrities' that the site has provided for television. And here the examples are numerous. Brooke Brodack, a former receptionist from Massachusetts was offered a 18-month development contract by NBC's Carson Daly; Esmee Denters, a Dutch singer and song writer signed a recording contract and received media attention after performing on YouTube; the Free Hugs Campaign and the background music played by the Sick Puppies attracted traditional media's attention after showing up on the website (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/YouTube).Another famous example is geriatric1927, the ID used by an English veteran who thought of recording and uploading his memories on the site. Peter Oakley started to post the series entitled - Telling it all, made up of five to ten-minute episodes. Within the framework of his stories, he recounted his experience as a radar mechanic during World War II, his passion for motorcycles and other autobiographical details which mesmerized the audience. Acknowledging the attraction that this character was exerting on the public, BBC strived to bring him on TV. Indeed, this thing happened on February 16, 2007, when Peter consented to be interviewed by the Money Programme (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Geriatric1927).

In conclusion, one could state that YouTube works as both a provider and an intermediary for television. If we consider the two-step flow theory which asserts that mass media convey messages to opinion leaders who endow these with personal interpretations before transmitting them to the audience (http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/),we could say that YouTube has converted such unidirectional flow into a bidirectional one. And here is why. On one hand, YouTube, which owes its existence to its members, supplies clips which are first viewed and rated by internauts and afterwards taken over by television and other traditional media which decide to focus on them due to the high attention it receives from the mass. On the other hand, television supplies promotional clips and other similar materials which are discussed by YouTube members and, implicitly, acknowledged by the mass. Consequently, YouTube members are those who behave as opinion leaders because of their comments which influence the mass audience. The latter encompasses those people who visit the site without signing up. Hence, they view clips, comments, ratings and get a perspective on things.

Secondly, another major impact of YouTube consists of weakening the 'magic bullet' (or hypodermic needle) theory. This highlights that media exert a direct, ample, strong, immediate influence on masses by conveying a message which behaves as a bullet shot into the audience's perception (http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/).Therefore, the possible propaganda which might be favored by certain TV channels, newspapers, magazines and so forth can be deconstructed by the clips posted on the website and by the various comments of the users. Still, there is a limitation to this evolvement. Despite being viewed by millions of people worldwide, YouTube lacks the coverage, credibility, and rapid effect that television has. Thus, deconstructing propaganda or false news takes time.

In this context, an eloquent example is the anti-U.S. insurgent attacks which were displayed on YouTube. The respective clips highlighted the Iraqi snipers' violence to American soldiers by showing "soldiers bleeding, vehicles exploding, troops loaded onto medical helicopters" (Gelles, Fekeiki, 2006). It is true that many internauts use this site for selling a false image intended to manipulate the audience. For instance, the spokesman for U.S. Central Command argues that "Al Qaeda uses the Internet and media to foster the perception that they are more capable than they really are." Thus, they post clips with Arabic subtitles and music outlining their superiority on the battlefield. Yet, replies occur promptly. For example, at a certain moment, a user posted a clip showing several hundred Americans killed in a sniper attack. After a little while, Der Spiegel posted videos in which several American soldiers stated they had survived due to the protective vests they were wearing. Consequently, the manipulative effect which was intended by the first post was rapidly deconstructed by the second one, thus leaving the 'magic bullet' without its effect (Gelles, Fekeiki, 2006).

Thirdly, YouTube has weakened the Spiral of Silence theory. According to Noelle Neumann, the author of the thesis, people tend to be silent when their opinions differ from those of the majority. Consequently, public opinion is based on individuals' fear of isolation because of their 'off-the-wall' views. Literature emphasizes that this technique was successfully used during the Gulf war in 1991 when the American television implied that the conflict was accepted and backed up by Americans even though surveys displayed a negative attitude towards it. Therefore, seeing that most people accepted the war, Americans remained silent despite not sharing their compatriots' opinions (http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/).

Nowadays, the situation looks a bit different. Despite both Bush administration's efforts to censor photographs of the atrocities suffered by American soldiers and Pentagon's attempts to keep combat operations secret, YouTube users post clips which unveil these issues. For example, a user justified his video by stating that he felt "it was information the UK news was unwilling to tell," while another one invoked that "anti-war feelings and Muslim beliefs" motivated him. Hence, Bush administration's censorship attempts were definitively undermined by the various opinions expressed and by the numerous videos posted as a counter example to the federal tagline. However, as a Vietnam veteran pointed out, "It's unfortunate there's no way to stop it even though this is what these groups are over there fighting for: freedom of speech" (Gelles, Fekeiki, 2006).

In conclusion, YouTube encourages people to speak regardless of their opinion's nature especially that users may remain anonymous due to their puzzling nicknames on the website.

Fourthly, another debate which arises refers to the agenda setting theory. In YouTube's case, this thesis proves to be unrealistic because gatekeepers can't decide which material will be posted and which will not. Julie Supan, the website's senior director of marketing, stated that "the company removed videos after that they were flagged by users" (Gelles, Fekeiki, 2006). This implies that the negative impact had already occurred and the audience had watched the prohibited clips. Additionally, the agenda setting theory fails because it is the users who establish the content and not the website. Therefore, the content is very heterogeneous and contradictory, most of the time.