I was just trawling the depths of the Internet for media-related things to write about, like usual, when I stumbled upon what is quickly becoming the most overused demographic term since Generation X: the “YouTube generation.”
Whilst dissecting Oprah’s “Big Give” page (like I said, the depths of the Internet), I came upon an introduction of the contestants for her new philanthropic reality show. On the page, a well-meaning contestant opined that he wanted to teach the “MySpace and YouTube generation” a lesson about philanthropy.
However well-intentioned that was, it made me realize how much that term is being overused, as well as the amount of negative connotations that older generations have attached to that name.
Maybe it just bothers me because this is the name that I’m going to be subjected to whenever I read about my generation in the press, a fate that has befallen both the baby boomers and Gen X. The term is dangerously close to becoming a pejorative, like Gen X eventually did. However, it doesn’t deserve to be, if one takes a look closer at the swath that YouTube cuts across worldwide culture.
As usual, I’m the first one to come to the defense of YouTube, mainly because of the amount of time I spend on it, and the amount of wonderful flotsam, jetsam and R. Kelly videos that it has provided me in order to avoid epic-length papers. Although it seems obvious, I’ve finally realized that I, like a good deal of other college students in dorms, probably watch more YouTube videos than television. The argument has been made that YouTube, as a more democratic media-distribution system, actually produces more enjoyable content than the top-down dynamics of TV (read: “Pelican Eats Pigeon” on YouTube versus “Bad Girls Club” on Oxygen). Although this contributes to the YouTube coup, the focus of dorm life on the computer most certainly creates a preference for the accessibility of YouTube, especially while multitasking.
So maybe we are the “YouTube generation.” What really bothers me is that “YouTube generation” has just become shorthand for “vanity generation.” Albeit, every generation since the “Greatest Generation” has come up with a nickname for the forthcoming one that is cultural shorthand for “Those Lazy, Good-For-Nothing Philistines That We Raised,” possibly due to the fact that no generation since the “Greatest” has had an era-defining triumphant war.
However, our generational nickname is unique in that it incorporates technology, even back when we were called just the plain old “Internet Generation.” It seems to me that the term “MySpace and YouTube generation” is a sort of downgrade from our original moniker, in that while the term Internet inspires visions of unlimited informational expansion, the term MySpace conjures up images of emaciated high school girls holding cameras up to bathroom mirrors.
So, what information is YouTube ultimately a conduit for? And based on that, does it deserve the audible sneer when mentioned in conjunction with our generation?
Although there is a great deal of wasted bandwidth on YouTube, clogged with meaningless vlogs and idiotic lip-syncing, we still have not realized the ultimate implications and potential of YouTube. The amount of immediately accessible knowledge in visual form is just astounding. Want to watch Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” in its entirety? Now it’s available on demand, provided some kind soul has uploaded it. The same would apply for a more academically elevated or useful topic, such as footage of the Rodney King riots or uploaded clips of documentaries or famous films. My professor has even suggested YouTube as a resource for footage of mining projects in Brazil.
Also, we can see the applications and importance of YouTube in its adoption by the American political machine. A mere three years after its founding in 2005, YouTube has already become host to online debates and submissions of debate questions to candidates. Candidates have also used YouTube as a forum to upload video addresses to their supporters more immediately, where ordinarily there would be no such channel for such rapid communication. Politicians did not even adopt television that fast.
Clearly, the benefits and applications, both potential and current, of YouTube absolve it of being so maligned in our generational nickname. Sure, there are videos of monkeys having sex. But they’re there alongside Vietnam documentaries. Sure, there are people of our generation desperately seeking attention through the lens of their handycam, but that’s alongside people posting political information or how-tos. Until the term “YouTube generation” is dropped altogether or comes without a smirk, the media should respect our ability to embrace new technology fast, using it for good, bad and ugly.
If you’d prefer to be called the “Wii generation,” e-mail Ayres at jayres@media.ucla.edu.