Watching Obama’s inauguration streamed online was an amazing experience. Am i commenting on the historic nature of the day? No. The record breaking number of concurrent viewers? No. What struck me most was watching the NYTimes.com feed — there were no pundits, no anchors, just a camera and the voice of whomever was speaking onstage. Why did this seem odd? The moment it struck me was when Obama finished his speech and i had a bit of a “how will i know whether it was good or not, i have no ‘people meter’ or talking heads to tell me what others are thinking.”
Too often i opt into media where there’s a narration suggesting whether something was “good” or “bad” and how i should feel about what i just watched, read, heard, used. Maybe it’s the rise of the conversation facilitated by social media but I’m actually starting to look to absorb some stuff with the pundit volume turned down to zero and just focus on how it makes me feel, not what the experts or crowds are saying.
Sounds like you had a good experience.>>I wish I could have had the same feed, but even BBC had a full staff of commentators.>>I found that just talking with friends afterwards helped me go through my thoughts and feelings on it all. More direct contact would be nice, instead of through the filters of commentators.