Bob Garfield Explores the Implications of the Video-Sharing Revolution
By Bob Garfield Published: December issue of Wired magazine
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.12/youtube.html

Look, before you even get to the second paragraph, try this: Click and watch the YouTube.com "boom goes the dynamite" video below.

Boom Goes the Dynamite
Evolution of Dance

Noah Takes a Photo of Himself Everyday for Six Years
Numa Num
Sweet Tired Cat

It's just a little outtake from a Ball State University campus-TV newscast. It features a courageous but overmatched freshman named Brian Collins presenting the worst sports-highlight rundown in human history, culminating in the worst sportscaster catchphrase ever conceived: "Boom goes the dynamite." It is horrifying. It is cruel. It is hilarious.

Or play "evolution of dance," which has gotten nearly 35 million views in six months. You wouldn't think "Ohio motivational speaker's grand finale" would equal "mesmerizing," but Judson Laipply's seamless sampling of footwork to 30 songs, from Elvis to 'NSync, pretty much is. Or try the accurately titled "Noah takes a photo of himself everyday for six years." A time-lapse documentary of Noah Kalina over 2,356 days, it's a little thin on plot, but it nonetheless racked up more than 3 million views in six weeks. You'd better also see "Numa Numa," which stars a chubby young man in his New Jersey bedroom lip-syncing to an insipid but weirdly fetching Romanian pop song. Or, what the hell, live dangerously. Try "sweet tired cat" and watch a drowsy kitten dozing off. The clip, which was viewed nearly 2 million times in two weeks, is 27 seconds of such concentrated cuteness that you might actually have a stroke and die. It's that excruciatingly adorable.

And, as it turns out, extremely valuable. Google -- as you may have read in every publication, online and off, in the entire freaking world -- just paid $1.65 billion in stock to be the cute little kitty-cat's home.

The price tag for YouTube, just to put the investment in perspective, is what Target paid for 257 Mervyns department stores and four distribution centers in 13 states, and just a bit more than WPP Group paid for the Grey Global Group advertising network with 10,500 employees in 83 countries generating $1.3 billion in revenue. Those, of course, are both profitable enterprises with vast fixed assets. YouTube's fixed assets pretty much consist of a video interface and a cool retro logo. So why is it worth nearly six times the gross domestic product of Micronesia?

This story will definitively answer that question.

Well, maybe not exactly answer.

Has anyone tried to figure out where the line is between comedy and social documentary these days?

Watching Borat the other day, I couldn't help but think that his silly chaplinesque character was luring average folks into situations were they were exposing horrible truths.

If Sacha Baron Cohen wasn't Jewish himself, the anti-Semitic material in Borat would have been the target of brutal criticism.

When he asks a gun dealer 'what gun best kills Jews' and the dealer responds without skipping a beat - 'you'll want a 9mm' - well that's hardly funny. But it is true. Clearly Cohen blurs all kinds of lines, and leaves it up to viewers to sort out what's real and what's set up.
But I remember that feeling watching Fahrenheit 9/11. When Michael Moore drives around the capital in an ice cream truck trying to get Senators to enlist their sons and daughters in the military - it's a stunt for sure, but the hypocrisy he exposed was no less searing than the gun dealer's 9mm comment. Perhaps it's pure coincidence that both Moore and Cohen end up in ice cream trucks - but maybe not.

These two films have created a new reality based wing of political sketch comedy. An art form meant to keep you laughing, and leave you thinking.

Borat wanders across the country, luring religious fundamentalists enlightened into a silly scene where he speaks in tongues and they lay hands upon him. They can't be happy about his film. Then there are the college students who he rides along with in their Winnegbego drinking their way into confessions of their 'enlighten views' on women and jews. It's great their suing him, since a trial would be an excellent way to further explore their views. And who can forget Cohen's performance at a night-time rodeo where he riles up the crowd with promises of Kazakhstan's support of our "War of Terror" and says that we'll flatten Iraq until rats can't survive in the desert. It's notable that his exit from the Rodeo isn't on film.

Calling out America for it's racist, sexist, extreme views on religion and Iraq are long overdue- and this film deserves to be considered as the political commentary that drives it. Clearly - Cohen doesn't find it funny. But humor works as the tool to extract truth, to disarm his subjects, and lure Americans to the theaters for a dose of self examination (complete with funny accent). This is a brave film.

The folks in Kazakhstan needn't worry - Borat doesn't lay a glove on them. His target is stateside. And he lands those punches with hilarious precision.

This won't be the first time that George Bush will have an up-close and personal relationship with one of the Pelosi clan.

It was the 2000 election that first exposed George Bush to the charm and skills of a woman named Pelosi - but it wasn't Nancy. Political groupies should remember that there is a remarkable documentary called "Journeys with George", directed by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy's daughter.

Pelosi, who was traveling with the candidate for NBC News - began to record personal diary segments on her handheld DV camera during the campaign. Pelosi - with her trademark purple glasses - engaged in a complicated relationship with George, and chronicled that relationship on film. "Journeys" represents, in my mind, the only truly unguarded images of Candidate Bush. Pelosi shot him relentlessly, and Bush - who clearly knew that she was the Minority Leader's daughter - turned on the charm.

I know Democrats who fault the film for not 'going for the jugular' - but I'm not one of them. Watching the film again - as I have since the 2004 election - there is so much to be learned about Bush and his tactics. Pelosi, to her credit, didn't make a political film, but instead a remarkably honest portrayal of Bush and his drive to win over even the most ardent critics. The highlight of this can be seen when Candidate Bush tries to convince the young Pelosi to vote for him. It's clear he thinks he has a shot. Was that naiveté? Or was it a moment of pure politics - with Bush willing to ask anyone - even the daughter of a leading democrat - for their vote. It was in my mind, impressive political gamesmanship.

But one thing we do know - every frame of “Journeys with George” - both the images that played on the big screen and the out-takes, have been dinner table conversation for the Pelosi family.

There's no doubt that “Journeys with George” didn't hurt George Bush. The film was warmly received by republicans and the source of a few good belly laughs for democrats. But unlike “Fahrenheit 9/11” - which was a brilliant polemic – “ Journeys with George” was a film that could have changed politics, if we had been paying attention. The fact that he was charming and funny didn't diminish the politics. When Alexandra asked Bush at a press conference about the Death Penalty in Texas - he called the question "below the belt" and shut off her access (and therefore her film) until she had been taught a lesson. The man with all the charm could turn it off just as easily as he turns it on. It should have been a telling moment - if we were paying attention.

So now - it's round two for “Journey's with George”. And the woman with the self-proclaimed "Mommies Voice" is walking into the lion's den with her eyes wide open.

One can only imagine: "Oh, hi Nancy - how's Alexandra?" Pelosi: "She's terrific, thanks for asking Mr. President. Now - let's talk about Iraq." With her keen sense of politics, and four years that have passed since “Journeys with George” was released - Nancy knows better than anyone in America just what she's up against.

Forewarned is forearmed.

This won't be the first time that George Bush will have an up-close and personal relationship with one of the Pelosi clan.

It was the 2000 election that first exposed George Bush to the charm and skills of a woman named Pelosi - but it wasn't Nancy.

Political groupies should remember that there is a remarkable documentary called "Journeys with George", directed by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy's daughter.

Pelosi, who was traveling with the candidate for NBC News - began to record personal diary segments on her handheld DV camera during the campaign. Pelosi - with her trademark purple glasses - engaged in a complicated relationship with George, and chronicled that relationship on film. "Journeys" represents, in my mind, the only truly unguarded images of Candidate Bush. Pelosi shot him relentlessly, and Bush - who clearly knew that she was the Minority Leader's daughter - turned on the charm.

I know Democrats who fault the film for not 'going for the jugular' - but I'm not one of them. Watching the film again - as I have since the 2004 election - there is so much to be learned about Bush and his tactics. Pelosi, to her credit, didn't make a political film, but instead a remarkably honest portrayal of Bush and his drive to win over even the most ardent critics. The highlight of this can be seen when Candidate Bush tries to convince the young Pelosi to vote for him. It's clear he thinks he has a shot. Was that naiveté? Or was it a moment of pure politics - with Bush willing to ask anyone - even the daughter of a leading democrat - for their vote. It was in my mind, impressive political gamesmanship.

But one thing we do know - every frame of "Journeys with George" - both the images that played on the big screen and the out-takes, have been dinner table conversation for the Pelosi family.

There's no doubt that "Journeys with George" didn't hurt George Bush. The film was warmly received by republicans and the source of a few good belly laughs for democrats. But unlike "Fahrenheit 9/11" - which was a brilliant polemic - " Journeys with George" was a film that could have changed politics, if we had been paying attention. The fact that he was charming and funny didn't diminish the politics. When Alexandra asked Bush at a press conference about the Death Penalty in Texas - he called the question "below the belt" and shut off her access (and therefore her film) until she had been taught a lesson. The man with all the charm could turn it off just as easily as he turns it on. It should have been a telling moment - if we were paying attention.

So now - it's round two for "Journey's with George". And the woman with the self-proclaimed "Mommies Voice" is walking into the lion's den with her eyes wide open.

One can only imagine: "Oh, hi Nancy - how's Alexandra?" Pelosi: "She's terrific, thanks for asking Mr. President. Now - let's talk about Iraq." With her keen sense of politics, and four years that have passed since "Journeys with George" was released - Nancy knows better than anyone in America just what she's up against.

Forewarned is forearmed.