Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
As to your statement
it seems a bit at odds with your statement in post 112 of this thread.
Although perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.
|
Perhaps because I said the *broader* publishing world: what *consumers* see, as opposed to what traditional publishers put out.
Traditional publishers are *curators* of what *they* present, and present themselves as gatekeepers. As if they could (still) control what gets to readers like they could in the old days when all they control is what they publish.
*They* use the term to describe what they do but it no longer is actual gatekeeping. All they do is publish what they think will make them big money and offer it up in the hope that hordes will buy it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And the hordes are getting leaner and less frequent.
(The only real horde last year was for 50 Shades. "Bestsellers" aren't quite as best-selling as they used to be, another source of hand-wringing in traditionalist terms.)
The closest term for what you prefer is "curated" (in its newer sense), not gatekeeping. Although many keep using it past its expiration date.
Now, the TV analogy...
I used the TV analogy because, once upon a time it was easy to keep track of the shows you watched and most people watched the same "good" shows, mostly because selection was limited. The networkers were the gatekeepers; if the networks didn't choose a show, the producers had no recourse. The networks were the gatekeepers of the audience. Then cable evolved and there were hundreds of other venues for content. And now the internet is in place and Joss Whedon can take DOCTOR HORRIBLE'S SING-A-LONG BLOG direct to the public via the net, via DVD, and via video streaming services. And he's not the only content creator of note to "self-publish" successfully without a network of any kind to endorse his work.
Nowadays no TV show can or ever again will get the kind of ratings and audiences as MASH and the COSBY SHOW, simply because the audience is fragmented and watching specialty content all over. There are channels for nothing but cooking shows and channels for family-friendly romance, there are channels for Golf fanatics and channels for gardeners. And, as you poined out, with Youtube (and all the other net-based video services) you don't even *need* a (traditional) channel to distribute content. You want to see a real Library of Babel? Check out the content listed on the various commercial streaming and download services. Most of it is "backlist" but a lot is "midlist" and recent "bestseller" releases.
Some smart producers (Mark Cuban, for one) use those services to distribute brand new Indie movies *before* they get to theaters, as a way to get more people into the theaters. (Seems to be working; they keep n doing it.)
And, yes, keeping track of shows is now harder; new "seasons" start at any time of the year; june, july, august, january, february... It is no longer a matter of new shows all starting to air in sept.
It is easy to lose track.
(And just as easy to catch up.)
And with the emergence of the streaming services you don't need to watch shows when they're aired; the broadcasters no longer have the "power" to make you sit down in front of the TV at a specific day and time, no matter how much you like their show.
Watching TV in the 21st century isn't just about keeping the daily listings handy and sitting down dutifully every week at the same time and channel. Now if your are busy having a life on wednesday evenings, you have five whole weeks to catch up on ARROW. Or, if you come now to the LAW AND ORDER SVU series and want to catch up, HULU and NETFLIX offer up the entire run, 13 seasons for back-to-back watching, ad-free. Ditto for LOST or DRESDEN FILES or NUMBERS or Julia Child's cooking show from the 50's.
The very nature of TV has changed.
The business model has been disrupted and the networks have had to adapt. They still cling to some old-time elements that are becoming harder and harder to justify economically (like local broadcast afiliates) but that too shall pass.
It is more work to find "good" shows in the tsunami of video content engulfing us but, on the other hand, you can *always* find something to watch.
It just takes new habits.
Most people adapt.
Those that don't?
Well, the traditional networks still broadcast over the air. Nobody is forced to watch the new stuff. Some of it even shows up on the OTA networks after it runs on the new cable services.
Consumers have lost nothing of value but have gained a whole lot more choice; some just choose not to avail themselves of that option.
Nothing wrong with that.
But neither is there anything wrong with having the added choices or taking advantage of them, whether as a viewer or a reader.