DISQUS

Chuck Olsen · 2 years ago

Tell that to Hollywood. ;-)

I think there's something in human nature that will keep us interested in beautiful / talented / outrageous people. But you're certainly right about the growing importance of engaging with your community or audience.

The case of Amanda parting ways with ABC doesn't really play into your premise. In all likelihood Amanda is moving on to a Hollywood project and feeding into celebrity-centric culture. Perhaps it's specifically news media becoming less celeb-obsessed? But, there's so much evidence to the contrary.

I also think Amanda/Joanne are far more than simply custodians of community. That doesn't fly at all. If they weren't talented, engaging, funny and beautiful people, the show would not work. The community contributes to the show, and the community is part of its success, I'd say the show is at least 80% producer-driven.

Again, I agree with your premise - I often say we're moving into the age of authenticity - I just don't think we'll ever escape celebrity, or thirst for well-produced content. Even as I promote raw citizen journalism with my project The Uptake, we're trying to train CJs on how to produce better stories and be part of our brand, because we want people to stay interested in our content.

Jim Long · 2 years ago

Chuck, never said they weren't talented and beautiful! In respect to both, talent and beauty are abundantly clear. Sorry to all involved if i gave that short shrift!

Chuck Olsen · 2 years ago

No worries! To your point - I'm sure Andrew hugely considered the Rocketboom community when choosing Joanne to host. The community was well-established by then, and he had to find someone whose particular talent and personality would be accepted by the community.

Annie Boccio · 2 years ago

Celeb involvement has rarely swayed my decision to watch something. Celebrity in and of itself doesn't tell me something is worth my time. I'd rather watch a fun new show with stars I've never heard of than the latest from Kelsey Grammar or whoever. But I've always been that way, and I guess with the tremendous increase in available content combined with the decrease in time available to watch it, more people are putting substance ahead of glitter. Hopefully that will mean talent and creativity will be able to shine more, but one look at the checkout magazine racks with stories about Britney- and Katie Couric- and I don't know how fast the change will occur!

Jackson West · 2 years ago

In a conversation with the folks at Buzznet back in January, Marc Brown broached the idea of "meta-celebrity" -- certainly, new media is dominated itself by celebrity culture, from Gawker Media's celebrity obsession to the fact that Perez Hilton is reportedly the number one "blog" out there. Even Chris Crocker, while already fairly well known in the YouTube community, didn't go "mainstream" until the Britney incident.

I've got a whole theory about the interplay of celebrity and new religious movements, especially within the context of Hollywood, and I'm not sure that I'd be so quick to disregard cults of personality, since those are very much older than any media. It's just the new celebrities (and cult leaders) will live and die by their mastery of the new tools for promotion and attraction.

Steve Woolf · 2 years ago

I agree that individual stars will be less important as we move forward. One only has to look at the longer trend of film to television to cable to web to see the vast array of choices at hand. Imagine the days when Tony Orlando's show got canceled with a 30 share. These days nothing even sniffs a 30 on TV.

From my perspective I think brands will still be very important and the idea of a brand is slowly replacing individual celebrity. A brand can be a person, too. So the new celebrity is as much about star power as it is about their brand -- what do they bring to the table that we identify them for?

jay dedman · 2 years ago

What I want know is to find people who can be filters for me. News media especially created celebrity that were simply cardboard cutouts. Think the local TV news anchor. I think newspapers are the best to adapt to the web since good print journalists are actual filters that find information and distill it to us.

As you said Jim, good websites also have a community, but someone has to be the cat wrangler to keep the community energized. The new celebrities are the ons that help us all connect with each other. No more "authoritative" voices.

Isabel Wang · 2 years ago

I recently came across this year-old blog post. It describes Paris Hilton as a post-Madonna celebrity. Old school stars, it says, are like web destinations. They attract attention based on what they themselves have to offer. But Paris Hilton has more in common with web platforms such as YouTube or Digg. She happily mentions brands and venues that she likes without being asked (ie, gives out links), which makes it fun for designers and promoters to hang out with her, which gives her more opportunities for being in the spotlight.

Katie Couric’s core competency is creating destination-type content. I'm guessing Amanda Condon's mission at ABC was to produce the same. Old media was probably much less interested in her platform-building skills. They hired her to get - rather than give out - attention.

The problem is, today's audience doesn't just want to watch. They expect to be engaged, to feel a sense of connection. Which is why it's not enough to "make things look webby". In addition, the folks on the screen have to act webby. Their celebrity is no less important before. What's changing is their job description.

Mark Forman · 2 years ago

Interesting post Jim. Don't have a lot to add to what's been said in comments. I think that the scarcity model of network news has been severely eroded by the Internet. I don't think the value of pretty faces, legs or whatever's will ever go away as long as people still have eyes. I think human nature has been around since way before media so celebrity gossip will always have an appeal at the check out counter, browser, or under the hair dryer. personally I am thrilled by the new media choices(unlimited) that I have and am part of.

Jim Long · 2 years ago

Wow! once again you guys have completed the post, filling in the blanks and adding unique perspectives.

Kami Huyse · 2 years ago

I think people want their celebs to be approachable, to be more like them. Still, starpower is still a factor. The most searched for terms online are often celebrity names.

Jan / The Faux Press · 2 years ago

It's easy to allow your eyes and mind to follow that which easily grabs and holds your attention: the olympically beautiful or well done, the car wreck, the female breast or leg. Work is required to focus on other things - things arguably more human, more evolved.

While researching MSM's online television scene, I get hooked on various network lineups of 'death porn' (crime scene / forensics teams featuring women in low-cut blouses posing rumps up over cadavers). I have to giggle at NCIS' full-frontal, naked corpses' blurred genitalia.

Watching those shows isolates, alienates, and creates in me an atmosphere of distrust and fear.

On the other hand, when I watch media created by folks I know from the vlogosphere - folks with whom I've stayed or have stayed with me, folks who've inspired, or extended hands in kindness - I am further inspired, and my soul is filled with things like hope and warmth, rather than diminished.

Celebrity? I hang out with lots of media celebs. Real ones (from work), and the ones I've created. The 'real' stars have rarely inspired anything in me but fear and trembling (with a few notable exceptions). The celebs I created make me warm, fuzzy and creatively hot. I've breathed the same air they breathe, broken bread with them, celebrated their successes and vulnerabilities.

The idea that you will never hang out with the actor you admire over a meal is one that by its nature diminishes your place in the world. Turn that idea on its head. "I can have lunch with whomever I please," is an idea I played around with for years. It's now a reality. I regularly hang out with folks I find totally amazing, and life is rich as a result.

Now THAT's star power.

Justin Kownacki · 2 years ago

The gap between "normal" people and celebrities is always shrinking. Pop culture, like religion, is built upon a concept that there's an ideal lifestyle to aspire to. But when someone can ride a wave of democratized YouTube success toward even a fraction of the power that "real" (industry-created) celebrities have, that shakes the paradigm.

You're right to say content is swiftly becoming the magnet, not celebrity. Enter: the death of net neutrality. (We can't have the people choosing their media without corporate oversight indefinitely, now, can we?)

Jim Long · 2 years ago

Jan, wonderful, thoughtful remarks.

Dayngr · 2 years ago

"...treat your community, your audience as a valuable partner in your media and youll likely have a winner. Celebrity in and of itself is of limited value."

That says it all. So very true!

Alfreda Barlow · 1 year ago

dn403ylridkjxaop