My Challenge to Frontline’s Digital National
Recently, the PBS program, “Frontline,” featured a 90-minute documentary entitled “Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier” which examined what it means to live, work, socialize, in a digital world. I first heard about the documentary from media theorist, writer, and digital native Douglas Rushkoff during his recent appearance on the virtual talk show, Metanomics. On the show, Rushkoff discussed his most recent book Life, Inc. and the Digital Nation documentary which he wrote with the film’s producer and director Rachel Dretzin. I was excited as he described how segments of the film came together, stating ”It’s not us telling America, ‘This is who you are. You are in a digital nation.’ It was more kind of our digital nation telling us who they are, feeding us the stories that they wanted to see covered.” (watch the full Metanomics episode here)
Unfortunately, when I tuned in I was saddened, disappointed, and frustrated. It’s not that the piece wasn’t interesting or well done, it was just smothered with this overwhelming feeling of inevitable doom. I wasn’t the only one who felt this way. Professor Robert Bloomfield who optimistically hosted Rushkoff’s aforementioned appearance on Metanomics just a few days before the show aired, now wrote on the show’s blog, “The emotional thrust of the piece is clearly that life on the virtual frontier is frightening, dysfunctional, and spells the end of all that is good and wholesome.”
I could easily write pages on how I think this documentary asked the wrong questions, how I think a similar program probably aired decades ago with an identical warning about television, how many of us use computers all day long at work and no one calls us addicts, or how at one point I got up and yelled at a dazed mother to stop mourning over her “addicted” son and do some parenting… but I’ve seen many great blog posts discussing all these points and more. The segment that I haven’t seen discussed enough is the segment on virtual worlds.
The virtual worlds section begins with an interview with Second Life creator Philip Rosedale. While Rosedale does a great job sharing his visions and enthusiasm, Ruschkoff’s explanation of the fundamental question, what is Second Life, misses the mark. Ruschkoff says, “Second Life is an immersive 3D online universe. You make a character called an avatar, and then you live in that worlds as that person.” I can’t speak for all Second Life users, but for me, my avatar is not a character. I also don’t “live” in Second Life, but when I am in-world, I don’t “live as that person.” My avatar is simply an extension of myself, a 3D representation of me.
Almost as bad as the explanation, is the machinima footage of the virtual world. There are multiple clips of Ruschkoff’s avatar hopping around in different poorly build locations as he tries to fly. These are followed by numerous clips of avatars dancing in various locations, and then more dancing, and after that, still more dancing. In another clip, you see several well known and high profile avatars, like Pooky Amsterdam, standing around drinking. Pooky is the avatar behind two of Second Life’s biggest live television shows as part of her award winning production company, PookyMedia. Yet, despite this, there is no high quality machinima, no footage of these shows.. just dancing and drinking and more dancing. It’s simply inexcusable to me, that they could “document” virtual worlds without showing ANY quality content or machinima. I’ve heard several people argue that they might not have had the knowledge, nor the funding to hire professionals. I’m currently working on a project for the University of Southern California in collaboration with PBS Frontline, and we would not even dream of producing anything but the highest quality content and machinima. The paradoxical part about all of this is that the Frontline program is funded by the MacArthur Foundation, who also funds some of the most amazing projects and discussions in Second Life.
As if this wasn’t bad enough, Ruschkoff joins the list of uniformed reporters who covered the “failures” of Second Life stating, “For awhile, companies like Coke and Calvin Klein, thinking Second Life would be the next big thing, opened virtual outposts there. It didn’t work. Marketing real goods in virtual worlds never really took off.” The BBC also published a similar uninformed and angled story (just about four months ago) employing the same premise and even using identical images of the closed virtual American Apparel store. In a response to the BBC, Wagner James Au stated, “It’s astounding any credible media outlet would cite the experiences of American Apparel and Reuters’ ill-fated SL bureau of two-three years ago as if they were relevant to Second Life as it is now.” While those failures are completely irrelevant, they are also not failures of Second Life, but of the delusive developers who relished in all the money companies were impetuously throwing into Second Life, while they created them big superfluous virtual ghost towns. How Second Life can be used successfully by brands is a whole other blog post, but it is being done more and more all the time now when organizations take the time to understand the platform and the communities that exist there, instead of simply just building the virtual equivalent of a billboard.
Just when I thought the piece couldn’t be any more off base, Ruschoff dares to ask, “Do virtual worlds really bring us together with others, or do they just make being utterly alone a little more bearable?” Again, I can’t speak for everyone, but I use Second Life often as my company works in-world almost as much as we do outside of Second Life. It has nothing to do with feeling lonely. I am surrounded by people in the real world and in the virtual world. I don’t go in-world because I am lonely, I go there because I get to experience so many amazing things I would never have had the opportunity to do otherwise (like the time I met Yoko Ono in-world) and because I love helping organizations harness the power of these worlds so that together we can create those opportunities for others.
Despite the documentary’s tone of impending doom, Ruschoff closes the film by stating that you can still count him “among the believers.” While I doubt that resonated with very many viewers after just being subjected to 90 minutes of fear mongering, I was glad to see that he hadn’t actually changed his mind about technology. With that in mind, I extend to him an invitation to come back to Second Life, leave the sensationalism behind, and for lack of better words.. take a second look.
Though I disagreed with much of this documentary, it was still very though provoking. It raises many questions which generate important conversations about technology and the future. I encourage all of you to take the time to watch it in full and come back and share your thoughts.
I saw it. I have seen this type of stuff so much b before and I was looking for something new, so I thought the Second half was actually quite enjoyable. The spotlighted parts of Second Life weren’t great, but they were still quite favorable versus the WOW spotlight, which was long and drawn out only focusing on their weird relationships. I would have liked to see more on virtual businesses. So much was not covered, just the typical. Overall, worth the watch for sure.
It was rubbish. Beginning to end it was rubbish. Media frenzy crap. It obviously when the guy does a casual yet complete 180 flip at the end. Is this what Frontline has become? Scare tactics for fake drama? Eliminating the truth for a dramatic story?
I used to think that Frontline was a program at least partially immune to the common afflictions plaguing modern television news media. Like biased sensationalism. I guess I was wrong.
Okay, so it was biased sensationalism. Did you expect that it would be otherwise? No one actually care how we are represented. The mass public has not accepted Second Life. They think it is all sex and dysfunction so writers play into the stereotype. They did the same thing with WOW. I had no expectation that it would be an honest look at SL, so I enjoyed it for what it was. Who knew Philip was a pilot? What was that shirt he was wearing? It was so interesting to see more inside Linden Lab. What Lindens were those?
I couldn’t possibly agree more. Thank you for expressing my feelings so eloquently. It could be worse, though. I once took an interview from a CNN reporter who refused to try Second Life. His story was about SL, but no… he couldn’t be bothered to try it himself. It’s beyond unfair… it’s irresponsible reporting. I’d rather have less coverage and more insight. I did expect more from PBS.
Great post. I felt myself thinking many of the same things while watching, but I think your challenge is off. You are targeting the filmmakers or Frontline. My challenge is not to them. They already had their say. My challenge is to the residents of Second Life. It is our job to make our voices heard and show them where they were wrong much like your post did. I was disappointed to see my fellow residents like Pooky or Eureka covered and not talk more about the great work they do in-world. Maybe their footage was altered by PBS, but Eureka even responded and praised their work. Maybe they felt they had to, but more painful then watching journalist after journalist inaccurately portray SL, is watching its own do the same. So my challenge is to them, and all of us. Don’t get caught up in the attention just for the sake of attention, stay true to SL and the amazing things you do here.
i was also a bit disappointed, because a lot of the issues that are discussed here (perpetual distraction, addiction etc) are NOT new!! and as a parent i gotta say, that more parental involvement is the key to providing balance in a child’s life so that he/she can grow up not only media-savvy but also appreciative of the “physical” world. and i absolutely hate this constant editorializing in the piece, where they speak to the webcam, especially after the VW/SL segment. why not let the footage speak for itself?? and WHY NOT HIRE A CAPABLE machinima-maker for the machinima segments???????????????
forgot to mention: the internet does not make kids crazy and distracted, but the enormous class sizes and stressed out teachers, obsessed with teaching to the test. if we continue to cut funding for education while parents are so caught up surviving with multiple jobs, all of them with no adequate pay, then create our own mess…..i propose providing balance to digital media by engaging kids in music education (later orchestra etc), which demands focus and is giving tremendous rewards to the player!! try it, it is awesome! but needs public funding in order to be applied to everyone.
and here i am again, apologizing for a bit of a typo (“…then WE create our own mess…”) but i am so emotional about this issue, so was typing away without double checking. anyhow – public funding = NOT socialism as in Soviet Union or former East Germany, public funding acknowledges that we all should have a vested interest in having an educated generation running the world of tomorrow.
[...] feelings known, rather than complaining directly to the company. Many people argue this is a negative consequence of social media.. that we have become a culture of complainers. Others argue, that is exactly why social media is [...]