Selv om gruppen gang på gang erklærer at de ikke er eksklusive, at alle kan være med, så lenge de har interesse i gruppens fokus, så blir de kritisert for å være lukket for alle andre enn hvite, heterofile menn. De blir også kritisert for å verne om mannen som overgriper, og bidrar til undertrykkelsen av kvinner. Sist, men ikke minst, blir de også kritisert for å være useriøse, og at gruppen er til bare for at folk skal drikke og feste på skolens regning.

Bortsett fra det siste punktet, så tar de helt feil. Jeg har sett på videomaterialet på deres sider, og det er ingenting som støtter opp om at gruppen er diskriminerende på noen måter (jeg har ikke orket å lese gjennom all teksten). De ønsker fokus på drikking, festing og ballspill, ikke fordi det er en del av stereotypen med det å være mann, men fordi det er en ting de ønsker å gjøre som menn, og at det er en måte å promotere deres maskulinitet.

En annen kritikk de har fått er at de ikke ønsker å sette fokus på problemer som homoseksuelle opplever. Til det sier de at de ikke har noe imot å ta opp problemstillingene, men at det finnes grupper på campus som tar for seg dette.

Jeg syns gruppen er interessant på den måten at de representerer et fenomen, oppstått i en kultur hvor den mannlige stereotypen er sterkt negativt. Det er interessant på den måten at argumentene som oppstår mot gruppen, er holdninger som i større og større grad befester seg andre steder, og som på mange måter kan ses på som rutinert diskriminering av menn. Jeg vil ikke kalle meg maskulinist (eller feminist for den saks skyld), men jeg syns det er viktig at alles rettigheter blir tatt vare på, og at man ikke ofrer noens rettigheter for å "gjøre godt" for utsatte grupper.

Importantly, the architecture and ownership of YouTube draw users by fueling their desire for community. While many come to the site to be seen and heard by others, to make friends, they are much better served by the world, or MySpace. For, the very tools and structures for community-building which are hallmarks of web 2.o (or a library or classroom)--those which link, gather, index, search, version, allow participation, commenting, and networking--are studiously refused on the site, even as it remains the poster-child of web 2.0. People go elsewhere for these functions, dragging their favorite YouTube videos with them to more hospitable platforms (with YouTube's permission).

YouTube is a site to upload, store (and move off) videos. The very paucity of its other functions feeds its primary purpose: moving users' eyeballs aimlessly and without direction, scheme, or map, across its unparalleled archive of moving images. YouTube is a mess: videos are hard to find, easy to misname, and quick to lose. While it's users would certainly be aided by a good archivist, the site signals to us in its conscientious failings that it is not a place to hunker down or hang out with others, not a place within which to seriously research or study, not a place for anything but solo-play. Enjoy!

1: Maia plays with the destablization of the aural/visual binary by using her well-written words in a self-consciously “bad” video (it rolls too fast; it has no images) to illustrate the decline of the word on YouTube, and yet, how we still rely upon and need words, in long-form, within higher education.

2. Dan pushes us to consider what we might gain from, and how we need to approach, the waning of the strength of the entertainment/education binary. On YouTube, learning comes best from speed, summary, repetition, humor, and the popular.

3. Ben celebrates YouTube’s “limitless supply of knowledge.” Signature YouTube, he cynically but comically parodies this newly available library of the inane and private, while displaying what results when the binaries of public/private and expert/amateur are undone. YouTube does humor, sincerity, the democratization of voice, and the increased access to an immense archive of moving images and viewpoints really well. But none of these are particularly conducive for higher learning.

4. Delaine’s self-referential performance, as is true for many successful YouTube videos, does and shows the thing itself, in this case the unsettled and unsettling separation of the Aural from the Visual, the Cyber from the Real.

5 Sonya performs a new mode of viewing the same old popular culture. Now, YouTube uses its users to create banal content, self-censorship, and ad revenue providing in return a postmodern television/townsquare whose corporate ownership promotes dominant culture, while forecloseing complex conversation and sustained community in favor of the aimless, disoriented pleasures of the individual (eyeball) or ear.

6. Salim, and his partners in crime, contribute another self-referential video about and formed by YouTube videos about and formed by popular culture, where critique is not popular. Like all the videos in this tour, it is “bad,” at least by the standards of film school. YouTube demands and creates new video standards based upon brevity, consolidation, humor, self-reference, and popular opinion.

And I summarized (always the summary…) in the video I created to begin the tour:

That's the beginning of the tour. The whole thing takes 20 minutes.

And here's is what I said I'd cover when I proposed my talk to my fellow panelists via email:

"YouTube is not a successful educational site or site for education.

While many things work well on the site--entertainment, humor, sincerity, viewer control, viewer's ability to gain voice, increased access to images, and immensity of offerings--none of these are particularly conducive for higher learning. Meanwhile, the site inadequately provides many of the elements most critical for critical pedagogy: the ability to search, link, comment, version, use written language or long-form, and particularly to connect across texts or individuals so as to build and maintain ideas and community. YouTube uses its users to create content, self-censorship, and ad revenue providing in return a postmodern television/townsquare whose corporate ownership forecloses complex conversation and sustained community in favor of the aimless, disoriented pleasures of the individual (eyeball). While my students learned to hack YouTube by reformatting its standard forms to hold academic content, we are certain its best pedagogic use is in tandem with other digital and non-digital resources. This said, using YouTube as a learning platform/subject did allow us to see exciting if destabilizling tensions between several dyads which are usually kept in better isolation within more standard sites and forms of pedagogy: public/private, aural/visual, reality/cyber, entertainment/education, amateur/expert, control/chaos. While interesting to observe, each of these destablizations made the course hard to teach, and the content difficult to learn. The course begs us to consider what education will/does/should look like as it becomes a more public, corporate, digital, amateur-created, but uncontrolled form of entertainment."

Perhaps I'll reflect on what worked and what did not after I present at USC on Friday.

I will try to post one per week, with accompanying blogs, for the next 8 weeks, resulting in 9 tours on: education, entertainment, popularity, vernacular, visual, user, owner, community and archive.

It took me awhile to decide how I'd like to present the many things I think we learned during that hectic semester, and I was pleased when I remembered the "tour" method, one we had devised during the semester to try to work YouTube against itself by creating a linked, sharable, and repeatable path, with associated comments, through its chaos. It seemed right to "publish" my results on YouTube, continuing to hack and use its forms to hold our analytical content and designs; to continue to use it to speak to, and about itself.

Attempting to present my analysis of the site on its pages, rather than, say, in those of an academic venue, demanded profound changes in the nature of my work, as a media scholar and educator that, as ever, prove telling about the workings of YouTube. The key differences were a matter of: time and brevity, vernacular, audience, professional standards, and language.

In brief, time is of the essence on YouTube. As I made the video for my tour, and the tour itself, I was hyper-aware that I needed to keep cutting, condensing, summarizing, and simplifying to speak effectively on YouTube (to keep the attention of its distractable, easily bored, viewer), which of course, is also a major part of its vernacular: there is a premium put on ease and efficiency, condensation and simplification. Where as my students are forced to hear me speak, or at least pretend to, the YouTube viewer must want to stay there because of my media skills, useful information, because I entertain her. A language of bullets: quick, exciting, and mobile. And here I would also add, the necssity for non-specialist language, so as to be heard effectively, which gets me to audience, for I assume a general and diverse audience on YouTube, one I do not imagine on this page, and one that has no relation to who reads me in academic journals. I can count on no shared references or lingo, other than that of popular culture, which diminishes the complexity of my thoughts even as it expands their reach. Unlike a classroom, where one speaks to undergraduates equally unschooled in scholarly discourse, but where you can and work to school them and together grow a shared language, the scattered, random nature of YouTube's viewership demands that one always stays at the basic level, never giving the audience an opportunity to grow its vocabulary.

On a different note, the systems of proof and authority are diametrically different on YouTube from those of academia. My proof on YouTube is always another video, any video. Its existence, and mine, on YouTube’s pages gives us as much and no more authority than any other user, that is, of course, unless we have the power of numbers, glorious hits, on our side. Academic writing, on the other hand, also relies upon the affirmation of outside voices, however, what differentiates these voices is that they are accredited (through the systems of veting of publishing and other forms of accredidation) and that their arguments build relationally, one argument building slowly, and in dialogue with a tradition rather than the piecemeal character of the solo rant, or private confession, of YouTube.

Clearly, these reflections make me sound a snob, and not the proponent I have always been of a democratization of access to and discourses about the media. However, expanded access can not itself be a stand alone only goal, as I believe my remarks above attest. Access to media production, and dissemination, needs to be accompanied with the tools that allow for the growing complexity of discourse: and these are quite simply the capacities to work together and to learn from what has been done before. I speak about these ideas in greater length, and through scholarly discourse, as a "real academic talk" stuck on YouTube here:

Meanwhile, the very atmosphere of the classroom has begun to reflect not the (slightly more) studious air we had exhibited for the first half of the semester, but rather has become a fun free-for-all, where laughs, comraderie, and playfulness define our interaction. We get little done, learn less then we did before, and have a good time at it. Once again, the course well reflects what we are learning about digital learning and culture. We have often tried to parse out the differences between entertainment and education, and this section has been helpful at that.

So, interestingly, the class decided today that we'd had enough of the fun. The students' best intentions seem caught between their interest in learning (the old or real way) and the fun they seem to have with popular culture and this inventive class that mirrors or remarks upon it.

For me, the few weeks we've spent thinking about popularity (something that has held little interest for me since Junior High when I chose against my feminist mom's best intentions to be a cheerleader) has merely confirmed my worst estimations of YouTube, and the generation that loves it. It will be interesting to see what they wish to learn in our final weeks.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2eUPc3F08A&feature=PlayList&p=7AD7CD49335B9862&index=27

I began my research into YouTube faulting it as a site for the building and maintaining of community and the failures of our class cement this observation.

And then FOX emailed this morning. And I decided quickly... no. No more fear; no more second-guessing myself; no more wasting my time on something that proves at once inconsequential and stressful to me. But then, of course, finally... yes. I started this thing: it's my responsibility; if I won't stand up to say why I'm attending critically if playfully to YouTube, who will? My students? The blogisphere? That's not fair. So, I must play the media professor, maker and scholar who wants to think about using this sudden expansion of access to media production and distribution to do better what media has always done: to try to enrich and change the lives of individuals and community, self and world. And this I will say, as best I can, and as me, when they ask me to speak, and I hope I can stay focused, and I hope I can keep on mark. I can only do my best, but I shouldn't run away. And that's my last post on celebrity and YouTube even if I continue to have to play this game for the time being.

I knew that the form, and even content, of Learning from YouTube would be sexy, getable, marketable but I did not know what that would mean for me. Most strikingly, it has made me engage in thoughts of self-censorship (whether I will follow through or not is another matter), where I worry that the radical nature of my work will disallow me to be taken seriously, thus closing down channels before they open, and minimizing my credibility, as well as the more general and less ideological intellectual ideas raised.

But beyond this, given that my documentary, "SCALE: Ending the Bush Agenda in the Media Age," is all about celebrity, and the power of not being known while still doing good work, and the left's inability to successfully think through how or why to use the media machine as a way towards power and change, it seems downright ridiculous that I'm suddenly having just such a moment after having determined that the nature and focus of my work would, by definition, keep it small, intimate, in my control, and as radical as am I.

At the end of the film, I ask my sister why she never got on the morning talk shows, and she suggests that it is because she is "too left and also too right, too correct." So, why am I being invited? I'm not too left and also not too right? That sounds correct to me. How am I being seen and used? And what can I make if this access, if anything?

After two class sessions I realize this course is going to be really fun and super hard, challenging me as a professor in new ways that I am unaccustomed to. Let's start with the press, the numbers, and the public nature of the course (all related). After the first course, I was interviewed for an article about the course for "Issues in Higher Education" (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/06/youtube) which came out before the second class, where there were two journalists and a photographer attending. This, added to the fact that we tape and put on YouTube each class, and that I had learned that people actually were watching these classes, led me to be self-conscious to a degree I am usually not when I teach. Typically, over an hour of teaching you hit some high notes, make a few blunders, and otherwise get through. You're human, and undergraduates are your witness. During our second class, the issues got serious and complex quickly, primarily concerning the ubiquitous representations of race and racism on YouTube and in our class (and this is good) but I was self-conscious about how my colleagues would view the way I didn't hit gold in the live processing of these complex ideas. The self-consciousness slowed down my thinking and so on and so forth. Now the class is about, among other things, issues of privacy and access in higher education. And while I'm committed to what it means to open access to my class, it now seems clear to me that it limits my teaching (and perhaps my students' learning, in that they are equally self-conscious).

Numbers (hits to the page keep doubling) also add a weird and unwieldy stress to my teaching, and the course. Yes, they are informative about the logic of YouTube, but ultimately invasive. As is simply managing the outside communication this brings (emails, letters, requests) that expand the demands on me from my 30 enrolled students to anyone interested.

I am also concerned that the experimental nature of the class (largely student led and limited to YouTube for all coursework--assignments and research) is going to make our work much harder, and my chances of failing much larger. It was exciting to see that in the second class, and with only the most superficial of assignments, the students were already touching on many of the BIG IDEAS about YouTube and digital culture: its postmodern reliance on humor, celebrity, and referentiality to mainstream culture; its democratic function as soap box for the talent/opinions/expression of regular people; its mind-numbing, time-wasting superficiality; the raucous and unruly nature of conversation it produces. My challenge will be to work with the class to hone, focus, and systematize such conversations given that we can not refer to other scholarly works, and given that I have ceded a certain amount of real control to them. How will I guide the conversation ways scholarly and rigorous given that our frame and guide is not?

Frankly, I'm not certain, now that we're doing it, that there's enough to do or know about YouTube (given Youtube as the tight structure for gaining such knowledge) to sustain a course. While I've succeeded in developing a structure that models the content I seek, I am not certain we need 15 weeks to figure this out.

Lauren was going to Los Angeles to go check out some colleges up there. Pitzer College, I think it was. She brought Kelly, Ryan, and I along too. It is the second day of having my camera and we tested out the video feature on my camera. I'll have a video up of it later.

We went straight to the college campus which was in Claremont and we took a little tour. The campus seems really nice and the people really relaxed and chill. As we were walking around, we spotted a group of people gathered in the grassy area and surrounded by this makeshift fence was a keg. A keg on a college quad! Now that's a school I want to go to. Ha.

After that, we went to this burger place in Pasadena and then the high school football game. We met up with some of her friends and then went to this hookah bar. Something happened and we couldn't stay there too long -- I think we had too many people to one hookah -- so we ended up going to this party in Pasadena. I took video of that too but I don't think I'll put it up. We didn't stay too long.

After that, we went to Venice Beach to try to find a spot to sleep but couldn't and kept driving. We tried to get a hotel room but couldn't do that either so we ended up driving more and just pulling over somewhere in Burbank and sleeping in the car parked on the street in front of someone's house. Let me just say that I've had a better night's sleep before.

More pictures here ====>