Serious professional filmmakers have gotten their big break from internet/YouTube videos.

What exactly is "big break"?

As for other things, I am just tired to ask to first READ book. Guy is wrong in many of his points, but some of the facts and points make your think.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Could this guy be anymore smitten with himself and days of past? He is mad because the status quo he used to feed off of has been dismantled. I agree with his opinions about cat videos, but to single that out as the sole representation of what the internet has to offer is dishonest at best. He separates the "serious" filmmaker from the internet when in reality if you are a serious filmmaker you will have no problem using the internet and taking advantage of it to succeed...and if you're good you will succeed. How many professionals got their big break from the internet? Many! The guy is a bitter elitist. I also find it ironic he is getting his message about his disdain for YouTube/internet content out using YouTube.

One interesting example of that official system can do with amateurs (actually they are not amateurs, but from official POV - they are) if they step on their interests and big money are at stake.

Oh totally, but anyone can find and present data that can help push their agenda, that's basically the tunnel vision I was referring to as a pitfall of taking on the role of curator, either public or personal. You find what you are looking for and look past what you are not. It's our nature, we don't have the capacity to absorb everything at once.

In my opinion, common sense is the best bullshit detector, just as long as you have some common sense, lol. If someone tells me that something is a certain way as a 'fact', I may or may not be inclined to believe them depending on a number of factors, but I will try to never marry myself to a conclusion, especially not an adopted one. At best they set me on my own path to my own conclusions, which may or may not be challenged down the road, by others or even myself. So, I am consciously self-curating this guys perspective and agenda from my sphere of influence because my common sense tells me his perspective is disoriented (hell, he practically admits it as a symptom of modern society). He can present all the data he likes to back his claims, all that tells me is that in the information age, he has taken enough time to find the data that suits him. I'm confident that someone with equal abilities and time could present an equally strong apposing case. Am I going to take that time? No. Common sense is going to save me the trouble on that battle. He is theorizing about how it will affect us in the future based on data he is gathering to support that claim. We're not going back to the way things were now, so we'll all see how it all comes out in the wash.

Certain types of people will always be more comfortable and even gravitate towards the almighty coveted gatekeepers, with their superior understanding of what we should know or not. They will defend their importance and attempt justify their control because it is a safety blanket for deferring personal responsibility. Other people do not accept this model willingly and will challenge any form of information authority, instead seeking information through personally developed peer networks. Both have their blind spots and can succumb to the same pitfalls of ignorance and shaped perspectives, but one scenario leaves someone else to blame if things go wrong (and someone else to shape your perspective), the other scenario leaves the blame only on yourself, which, to someone who spends their life deferring responsibility to structure (which is a large percentage of people); it's just not in their nature.

@VK I may be missing your point. When I think of "local journalism", I think of newspapers that focus on small area. We have a town "Gazette" newspaper that covers a few neighboring towns. It's always been worthless, other than seeing which high school teams won football games or finding out when the next town pie baking sale will be held...or maybe some debate about a local law that is pretty petty. The issues that affect people tend to be state and national politics/taxation/legislation, and big business practices. Those issues were better covered in this area by the Washington Post, and are even better covered by "the internet". Am I missing your point (if so please explain as I'm interested to hear what you mean)?

@VK I see your point re internet companies displacing local shops (we lost a good camera store here locally). I will need to research and think on this more to see how this affects the larger economy as a whole. It's an interesting point.

@VK In terms of a "real sample", I'm not thinking about local small town newspapers, but rather the national news about politics...the reality of money and power. My example is CNN and NBC...vs the internet. You tell me "who do ya trust?!"

@VK I agree that truth alone is not the solution. The society/mechanics need to be altered for change to occur. But 1st step is truth. Will humanity take 2nd step?...I dont know.

This guy suggests a fantasyworld of years past where artists somehow made a comfortable living. What planet was that on? Not to say things are good now, but I believe is paints a misleading picture of how it "used to be". There's a bit of "get off my lawn" in this guy's attitude.

But I'm curious, which charts are you referring to (I'd definitely like to look at those)?

Browse back, you will find many charts how income changed in last years for top ones and the rest.

but among the bloggers that do, some of these bloggers still express their opinions 100%

Such thing does not exist, they can say loud words, but always adjust that they write.

He believes that the controlled media system was superior and truthfully informative, while I believe that the "industrial media ecosystem" was the problem, not the solution. That's his premise, stated plainly for anyone to hear.

He said very compressed version that you understood wrong.

He is talking about professionals doing their work. Yes, it also involves editors, tasks and doing many daily repetitive things. Exactly normal media is being destroyed by cheap copy past news and infortaiment from one side and unprofessional Internet things from another .

I think instead of constant repeats you better read his books, he has many weak points, but some valid ones. Main being that capitalization of Google and other information behemoths are largely based on the fact that they destroyed normal ecosystem and promoted freebie / cheap solution (that was not solutions, but trojan horses, including close connection to government agencies and selling your private information/data/ work).

@Vitaliy_Kiselev I fully understand reality of elites having money and power. But I'm curious, which charts are you referring to (I'd definitely like to look at those)? Are you saying that the internet has helped to increase the power/money of the elite? How has the internet made life worse for the masses?

(What I meant to say regarding bloggers, is that yes many have advertisers/sponsors, but among the bloggers that do, some of these bloggers still express their opinions 100%, and some of them change their content to be in line with their sponsors wishes/products etc.)

Regarding news and spread of information, the internet has clearly increased the ability to find the truth regarding politics, big business, "corruption"/influence, money, and power. It's true that ~90% of people still get news from mainstream media and that mainstream media is consolidating. But the ~10% are now becoming more informed. Whether that will that lead to an increase in freedom and/or any significant change in politics and economics and power/poverty issues is still unknown.

Regarding non-political information, such as camera bitrate and lenses and other areas of interest, the internet has obviously increased the spread of information.

Regarding the quality of art/movies etc., the issue of problem of quality getting lost in the sea of content is perhaps real. It also happens to be that in last 2 decades, the quality of movies has gone down. So together, perhaps we see a culture that is less artistically dynamic.

(RT journalists, for example Abby Martin, do a good job of pointing out money/power/corruption issues worldwide. She has also on occasion criticized Russian action she felt was wrong.)

(Regarding blogger funding, there are some bloggers who let that influence them, and there are those who don't.)

Yep, when anyone could buy a car, no one needed stagecoach drivers. But that problem is entirely different than dignifying media organizations as certified truthtellers, with everyone else designated as amateurs, who should be burned at the stake, or at least, banned from participation, like galileo. That's where it all started right ? The ptb have always retained the authority to say what is valid truth and who's just spouting trash....until the internet. How long will freedom prevail...with so many attempting to destroy her ?