In the comments to my last post, many readers stated that access to multiple sources of media allows us to speak our thoughts freely. I, however, found out that that constant exposure to other people’s opinions can actually be an obstacle for expression of personal opinion. I'll try to demonstrate this phenomena with the example of people's opinions about the Eurovision.
In about 4 weeks participants from 39 countries will come to Oslo to participate in the Eurovision music contest.
Each country sends a representative (usually chosen by an internal competition in the country). Lena Meyer Landrut is representing Germany on the Eurovision 2010 with her song “Satelite”.
Lena is very young (18 years old). Younger performers generally appeal to the international audience because of the similarity of the musical tastes of the younger generation throughout Europe. The Official Eurovision website states that Lena will be studying for her high school exams before Eurovision- something many young people all over Europe can relate to. So I thought maybe it was a strategic move to appeal to larger audiences and get more votes.
Then I was watching the song, I could not decide whether I like it or not. It is unique and different from anything else on the contest (usually typical pop songs). Historically, the winner often scored because of being different, not necessarily because of having an amazing voice or presenting a beautiful song (Finland’s victory in 2006 being a colorful example of this phenomena).
I compared Lena’s and Jennifer’s performance of “Satellite” in the final competition for the right to represent Germany in Eurovision. Jennifer’s performance of the song was something I expect to hear at the contest. Lena’s performance is very unusual for the format of the competition. Lena got more votes, and the right to represent Germany at the contest.>It was entertaining to read other people’s opinions about Lena, because, like myself, people couldn’t decide whether they like her performance or not. Here’s what I read in the March 19 post of the Eurovision Blog: “her [Lena’s] song, Satellite, sounds like something cobbled together in about two and a half minutes by an angsty student type who’s been listening to too many Alanis Morrissette albums…. Do we actually, possibly think that the Germans have just given up any hope of ever winning? Because frankly if this is the best they can come up with then that second victory could be years, nay decades, away….”
However, in the April 12 post I read a very different opinion: “But we took it away and we listened to it, and we gave it a chance – and we can now categorically say we’ve done a complete about turn and think it is indeed one of the best songs in the contest.”
It puzzles me how these 2 posts can written by the same person and follow one another in the same blog. The review shifted from “the Germans have just given up any hope of ever winning” to “one of the best songs in the contest”. I am not blaming Caroline, the author of the Eurovision blog (if I learned anything from my last post, then it’s that any critics can be perceived as emotionally offensive even when not intended to be). Moreover, I can completely understand her: Lena’s song has become fastest selling German digital release ever. Caroline says that is not the outstanding popularity of the song that has changed her opinion, but lets face it: Caroline would have hard time finding arguments to support the fact that with songs like this one Germany won’t win Eurovision for decades when the songs tops European music charts.
In the world of seemingly infinite sources of information and wide range of opinions we should feel more comfortable to express our personal opinions. However, it seems to me that Caroline’s opinion has changed completely because the many media sources project that the German hit will win the Eurovision this year.
When everyone seems to be so fond of the song, can Caroline still criticize “Satellite” for primitive lyrics without losing credibility and her readership?
While Caroline’s initial critics of the song are somewhat too extreme, it is grounded in reality (I can see how the lyrics “buying blue underwear and painting one’s toenails” can be disliked for being too superficial). I feel disappointed that in only 3 weeks, after the song became a bestseller, Caroline posted that “Satellite” is the best song in the contest. Would the second post still appear if “Satelite” did not have 100,000 copies sold in the first week?
Sources: http://eurovisionblog.wordpress.com/category/germany/
http://www.eurovision.tv/event/artistdetail?song=24883&event=1493
Many people who commented on the posts did not agree with my point that many bloggers do not provide meaningful content that deserves to be followed by thousands.
As I was browsing most subscribed youtube channels- which are essentially just videoblogs- I found some really interesting/funny ones. However, most seem to confirm my general opinion.
I’ll give you an example: CarlieStyle's Channel (#2 subscribed channel on youtube,
I have to confess: despite my passionate believe that blogs can potentially be a source of misinformation, I do subscribe to one- Diana Kimball: regular expressions http://www.dianakimball.com. In this post I will try to evaluate her blog and Diana herself as a leader.
Why I subscribe?
I found Diana’s blog completely by accident as I was searching for GMAT preparation software. In this blog, that was skillfully written and visually appealing, I found interesting thoughts on the concept of GMAT and other standardized tests. Diana’s blog appealed to me because, unlike many other blogs of potential b-school applicants, it emphasizes the experience of studying for and taking GMAT, not the numerical result. I found it well structured, clearly written, and very engaging.
New Age Leadership?
In the blog itself, I found out that an outside agency that provides GMAT tutoring services has contacted Diana and asked to use the services and write about them in her blog. What is it, if not a recognition of leadership? The company believes that if Diana says the services are good, people will follow.
For thousands of years, people considered great innovators and philosophers to be the thought leaders of humanity. Plato and Aristotle spent their days at the city square trying various philosophical questions, and many people spent their days listening to them. People followed them, because these philosophers were very well educated and incredibly intelligent. Their EXPERTISE gave them AUTHORITY to speak their thoughts to large audiences. They were able to answer questions better than everyone else, so everyone else listened. Their EXPERTISE made them THOUGHT LEADERS.
For the first time in thousands of years the definition a THOUGHT LEADER has changed. We get information not only from professional journalists, but also from bloggers- that is, people around us who do not necessarily have EXPERTISE. In the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, the founders of Western thought, noone could even imagine that other people start talking themselves instead of listening to the experts. What has changed?
