Java Jive
2023-06-27 14:38:47 UTC
I've started a new thread on this, because I think the potential depth
for discussion justifies doing so ...
In the past, I have used YouTube quite often - finding out how to
repair something, watch a dimly remembered pop-video, hear again an old
comedy LP, etc - however, now, for the Ukraine War, I skim through it
every day, usually watching one or two short videos.
Certainly there's an amount of that, but, as above, there are worthwhile
offerings as well.
free from the artifice, in the worst possible sense of the word, of
modern TV production. Instead of the toe-curlingly embarrassing
awkwardness of presenters walking down busy streets talking to
themselves, we have an old-fashioned talking head to camera, with the
far more natural and therefore comfortable feeling that they are talking
to you personally, and no-one seems to complain about this departure
from 'accepted' modern TV production standards. Instead of pictures of
the countryside laced with birds of prey calls because someone can press
a button in a studio desk to insert it into the soundtrack regardless of
whether it's an appropriate sound for that landscape, we just hear the
natural sounds of that particular scene, and again, no-one seems to
complain. Instead of the use of depressing derelict buildings to
present science documentaries because they are cheaper than renting a
studio, we have people's own homes, and again, no-one seems to complain.
Etc, etc ...
I am sure others can provide many similar examples.
noticed news shorts, so perhaps you have leanings towards conspiracy
theory there?! Nevertheless, whatever the actual reasons for their not
making cheap-looking videos, there is a great deal of truth in your
assertion that a lot of post-production 'gloss' is not needed,
especially for ephemeral items such as news. It's the information given
that is important.
Generally, I find You-Tube a bit of PITA, but useful none the less ...
A PITA because I find its interface rather clunky. The Ukraine War
demonstrates this quite well. For example, if you put Ukraine War into
its search engine you end up with this ...
1) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ukraine+war
... however if you set a filter on upload date so that the most recent
are at the top, you get the startlingly different this ...
2) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ukraine+war&sp=CAI%253D
It seems that you either have to have what YT consider most topical for
you as a UK viewer which removes a lot of the dross, or warts and all
sorted by upload date; seemingly you can't have both.
Further, as far as (1) goes, it doesn't show a fair number of good-ish
more analytical sources, while there is a preponderance of
blood-and-guts shoot 'em ups from The Sun and The Daily Mail. As far as
(2) goes, there is a vast array of stuff in foreign languages and/or of
dodgy provenance to be scrolled through, tens of sensationalist
click-bait headlines like ...
"Wagner Group: Invasion from Belarus! Offensive. Ukraine war footage"
"Ukrainians attack Russians plunged into chaos"
"Ukraine is f*cked..."
"UKRAINE WILL BE DESTROYED"
"Hundreds of NATO troops arrive in Ukraine after crossing the terrifying
Dnipro river"
... or the ones mixing reality with sensational unreality such as ...
"THE UKRAINIAN ARMY HAS CROSSED THE DNIPRO RIVER, RUSSIANS ARE RUNNING
IN FEAR OF BEING ENCIRCLED!
... happily the first part of which is true, but unhappily the second
part is not. Then there are the misleading title maps showing arrows of
Ukrainian flags pushing Russian flags all the way back to the border.
Etc, etc ...
Oh! Really?! Just who do all you guys think you're kidding? Well,
someone, presumably, otherwise they wouldn't be bothering to produce
such dross. All of which goes to show that there are suckers
everywhere, and their votes count as well as anyone else's!
If it's of any interest, I've found the following have had useful things
to say about the Ukraine War on YouTube. Most are openly pro-Ukraine,
and, like everyone else, produced videos too soon about the "impending
Russian Civil War", which quickly became outdated! Nevertheless, in
their different ways, the following are pretty good; some have
particular videos I would recommend underneath:
Anders Puck Nielsen - Danish Security Analyst
https://www.youtube.com/@anderspuck
Excellent English, good knowledge, insightful videos.
Is there a military reason behind the Nova Kakhovka disaster?
How to spot a Russian false flag operation
Nord Stream sabotage and hybrid war on Europe
William Spaniel
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+spaniel
Rather unnaturally over-precise diction and unashamedly intellectual in
style, but useful broad analysis in terms of things like Game Theory.
The Counterattack Begins
How Ukraine Crafted a Potential Russian Nightmare
Why Putin Fragmented His Military:
A Tale of Internal Rivalries and Intentional Mismanagement
Why Won’t Hungary and Turkey Let Sweden into NATO?
Inside the Alliance’s Bizarre Unanimity Rule
Denys Davydov
https://www.youtube.com/@DenysDavydov
A former Ukrainian civil pilot, so unsurprisingly pro-Ukraine. Gives
daily round-up of news and map updates in pretty good, but not perfect,
English.
Jake Broe
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jake+broe
Former USAF veteran. Rather long-winded, occasionally finds stuff I've
missed elsewhere, but also perhaps a little to prone to conspiracy
theory, cf the recent one about Prigozhin's rebellion.
'Combat Veteran Reacts' - Paul, US Army veteran.
https://www.youtube.com/@CombatVeteranReacts
Occasional slight stutter. Besides daily updates, does videos on
particular subtopics, for example, there's quite a funny clip today
about cringe-worthy Russian propaganda. Some of his more political
stuff seems wide of the mark to me:
Russian MoD is Still Disconnected From Reality!
Also, a month or two ago, I spent some time analysing the Russian deaths
in Ukraine, because there seemed to be so little hard information out
there. If anybody's interested, this what I made of the numbers at the
time (it's free-flow text, not a webpage, so probably you'll want to
enable text wrap if choosing to view it in an editor):
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Russian_Deaths_In_Ukraine.txt
for discussion justifies doing so ...
If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
YouTube and other streaming platforms.
YouTube and other streaming platforms.
repair something, watch a dimly remembered pop-video, hear again an old
comedy LP, etc - however, now, for the Ukraine War, I skim through it
every day, usually watching one or two short videos.
I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly
done by young kids full of their own self-importance.
done by young kids full of their own self-importance.
offerings as well.
True, but for me that makes the genuine ones all the more valuable. An
inevitable consequence of material being presented on Youtube rather
than a traditional broadcast channel is that it won't have had to run
the gauntlet of producers, editors, consultants etc before being
chosen as suitable for broadcast, thus depriving you of the need to
think for yourself. You must use your own knowledge and common sense
and judge for yourself what you think is worthwhile, just as you would
judge the validity of what someone says in real life. The better
Youtube channels usually have the absolute minimum of 'production
values' or none at all, sometimes just a simple presentation by a
single individual who knows their stuff.
Yes, particularly that latter point. YouTube videos are refreshinglyinevitable consequence of material being presented on Youtube rather
than a traditional broadcast channel is that it won't have had to run
the gauntlet of producers, editors, consultants etc before being
chosen as suitable for broadcast, thus depriving you of the need to
think for yourself. You must use your own knowledge and common sense
and judge for yourself what you think is worthwhile, just as you would
judge the validity of what someone says in real life. The better
Youtube channels usually have the absolute minimum of 'production
values' or none at all, sometimes just a simple presentation by a
single individual who knows their stuff.
free from the artifice, in the worst possible sense of the word, of
modern TV production. Instead of the toe-curlingly embarrassing
awkwardness of presenters walking down busy streets talking to
themselves, we have an old-fashioned talking head to camera, with the
far more natural and therefore comfortable feeling that they are talking
to you personally, and no-one seems to complain about this departure
from 'accepted' modern TV production standards. Instead of pictures of
the countryside laced with birds of prey calls because someone can press
a button in a studio desk to insert it into the soundtrack regardless of
whether it's an appropriate sound for that landscape, we just hear the
natural sounds of that particular scene, and again, no-one seems to
complain. Instead of the use of depressing derelict buildings to
present science documentaries because they are cheaper than renting a
studio, we have people's own homes, and again, no-one seems to complain.
Etc, etc ...
I am sure others can provide many similar examples.
Mainstream media don't even
try to compete on these terms, presumably because it would involve an
admission that much of what they do in the interests of presentation
is pointless and wouldn't justify the money they are paid to do it.
However, main stream media do put stuff on YouTube, particularly I'vetry to compete on these terms, presumably because it would involve an
admission that much of what they do in the interests of presentation
is pointless and wouldn't justify the money they are paid to do it.
noticed news shorts, so perhaps you have leanings towards conspiracy
theory there?! Nevertheless, whatever the actual reasons for their not
making cheap-looking videos, there is a great deal of truth in your
assertion that a lot of post-production 'gloss' is not needed,
especially for ephemeral items such as news. It's the information given
that is important.
Generally, I find You-Tube a bit of PITA, but useful none the less ...
A PITA because I find its interface rather clunky. The Ukraine War
demonstrates this quite well. For example, if you put Ukraine War into
its search engine you end up with this ...
1) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ukraine+war
... however if you set a filter on upload date so that the most recent
are at the top, you get the startlingly different this ...
2) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ukraine+war&sp=CAI%253D
It seems that you either have to have what YT consider most topical for
you as a UK viewer which removes a lot of the dross, or warts and all
sorted by upload date; seemingly you can't have both.
Further, as far as (1) goes, it doesn't show a fair number of good-ish
more analytical sources, while there is a preponderance of
blood-and-guts shoot 'em ups from The Sun and The Daily Mail. As far as
(2) goes, there is a vast array of stuff in foreign languages and/or of
dodgy provenance to be scrolled through, tens of sensationalist
click-bait headlines like ...
"Wagner Group: Invasion from Belarus! Offensive. Ukraine war footage"
"Ukrainians attack Russians plunged into chaos"
"Ukraine is f*cked..."
"UKRAINE WILL BE DESTROYED"
"Hundreds of NATO troops arrive in Ukraine after crossing the terrifying
Dnipro river"
... or the ones mixing reality with sensational unreality such as ...
"THE UKRAINIAN ARMY HAS CROSSED THE DNIPRO RIVER, RUSSIANS ARE RUNNING
IN FEAR OF BEING ENCIRCLED!
... happily the first part of which is true, but unhappily the second
part is not. Then there are the misleading title maps showing arrows of
Ukrainian flags pushing Russian flags all the way back to the border.
Etc, etc ...
Oh! Really?! Just who do all you guys think you're kidding? Well,
someone, presumably, otherwise they wouldn't be bothering to produce
such dross. All of which goes to show that there are suckers
everywhere, and their votes count as well as anyone else's!
If it's of any interest, I've found the following have had useful things
to say about the Ukraine War on YouTube. Most are openly pro-Ukraine,
and, like everyone else, produced videos too soon about the "impending
Russian Civil War", which quickly became outdated! Nevertheless, in
their different ways, the following are pretty good; some have
particular videos I would recommend underneath:
Anders Puck Nielsen - Danish Security Analyst
https://www.youtube.com/@anderspuck
Excellent English, good knowledge, insightful videos.
Is there a military reason behind the Nova Kakhovka disaster?
How to spot a Russian false flag operation
Nord Stream sabotage and hybrid war on Europe
William Spaniel
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+spaniel
Rather unnaturally over-precise diction and unashamedly intellectual in
style, but useful broad analysis in terms of things like Game Theory.
The Counterattack Begins
How Ukraine Crafted a Potential Russian Nightmare
Why Putin Fragmented His Military:
A Tale of Internal Rivalries and Intentional Mismanagement
Why Won’t Hungary and Turkey Let Sweden into NATO?
Inside the Alliance’s Bizarre Unanimity Rule
Denys Davydov
https://www.youtube.com/@DenysDavydov
A former Ukrainian civil pilot, so unsurprisingly pro-Ukraine. Gives
daily round-up of news and map updates in pretty good, but not perfect,
English.
Jake Broe
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jake+broe
Former USAF veteran. Rather long-winded, occasionally finds stuff I've
missed elsewhere, but also perhaps a little to prone to conspiracy
theory, cf the recent one about Prigozhin's rebellion.
'Combat Veteran Reacts' - Paul, US Army veteran.
https://www.youtube.com/@CombatVeteranReacts
Occasional slight stutter. Besides daily updates, does videos on
particular subtopics, for example, there's quite a funny clip today
about cringe-worthy Russian propaganda. Some of his more political
stuff seems wide of the mark to me:
Russian MoD is Still Disconnected From Reality!
Also, a month or two ago, I spent some time analysing the Russian deaths
in Ukraine, because there seemed to be so little hard information out
there. If anybody's interested, this what I made of the numbers at the
time (it's free-flow text, not a webpage, so probably you'll want to
enable text wrap if choosing to view it in an editor):
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Russian_Deaths_In_Ukraine.txt
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk