Comment 76790

By Samuel (anonymous) | Posted May 11, 2012 at 11:49:16 in reply to Comment 76668

File alongside “crowdsourcing,” unpaid spec work, “creative internships” and other dodgy workarounds.

The “exposure is its own reward” model may be hailed by some as victory for democratic access.

Some will feel gratified to have a larger audience, or to be seen on the arm of a marketable brand such as the CBC.

But it can lower the bar. It can set a standard that other local media players will feel inclined to emulate, in the name of the “innovation” status quo.

It also stands to undermine the market value of content and the viability of content creators. It puts a premium on the eyeballs, on the audience for content, but not the content itself. It may elevate the self-esteem of a few but not without consequence.

Maybe you won’t choose to call it exploitation if you’re flattered by the attention.

Maybe being told that this is “your CBC” and that it’s “a forum for the local community to exchange and upload their own happenings” muddies the equation.

But if it’s legit, if it’s about valuing and honouring our “distinct culture and community,” there should be total transparency around this relationship. Any good experiment involves disclosure.

The current state of affairs is not the kind of creative thinking we should be encouraging.

It is not the kind of national legacy we would want to spin off to the rest of Canada.

Especially in light of our city’s principled labour history.

No amount of cupcakes can sweeten that deal.

Early days. Let's hope, and work, for better.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds