8 responses so far ↓

• 1 Charles // Apr 2, 2007 at 3:09 pm

  Let’s see… you’re smart, cute, and sort of goofy. You should videoblog more.

  And then turn gay.

  Or in the alternative, videoblog shirtless. A detailed examination of the seedy underbelly of the welfare state can only be improved by a coeval examination of your underbelly.

• 2 Julian Sanchez // Apr 2, 2007 at 3:40 pm

  “Or in the alternative, videoblog shirtless.”

  Er, yeah: True to type as an urban wordnerd, my sartorial sense is substantially more developed than my pecs, so I think I’ll just spare both myself and the readers any such spectacles.

• 3 Laure // Apr 2, 2007 at 5:22 pm

  You’re just trolling for more blog groupies, it’s clear…

  But don’t turn gay.

• 4 Anthony C // Apr 2, 2007 at 6:50 pm

  (insert generic sexuality-based quip here)

  My initial instinct here was to defend video blogging on the basis that I tend to prefer seeing an expert lay out his views on a topic in verbal form than in op-ed form – for example, we had Ali Ansari come into the Department of War Studies recently and I think the value-added over, say, reading one of his newspaper pieces was substantial (though perhaps not over reading his books). However, the more I think about it, the value-added stemmed largely not from Ansari’s presentation itself but from the lengthy Q&A session that followed on, which is the sort of thing that tends not to be present in a “vlog”.

  Also, I tend instinctively to associate solo video blogs with either a) teenage shut-ins or b) people whose house is a compound and who have urgent things to tell you about the radio waves the UN is trying to transmit into their heads.

  I suppose the problem is that in order for the video format to meet the criteria for effectiveness (at least the criteria I would suggest, which would involve relatively in depth treatments and the involvement of more than one party in order to allow new ideas and routes of discussion to emerge during recording), it might be argued that it comes pretty close to ceasing to be “blogging” at all. I mean, if a blog consists of, say, a series of pre-recorded interviews or one-on-one discussions, is it still really a blog, or is it just a collection of… stuff?

• 5 Lester Hunt // Apr 2, 2007 at 11:46 pm

  First thought: not as stunning as Megan McArdle, but easier on the eye than Matt Yglesias. Conclusion: keep on vlogging.

  Also, I think your comment about the lack of a makeup artist was well taken. The glare from your cheekbones might have damaged my retinas. I’m still seeing afterimages when I close my eyes. A little talcum powder wouldn’t hurt, good buddy!

• 6 Julian Sanchez // Apr 3, 2007 at 12:04 am

  Well, I’m never going to compete with Megs on the stunning-scale, but I do feel compelled to add that folk who know me in real life are saying I look unusually weird here, so presumably I could set something like this up and come out looking less freakish with better thought-out lighting. Also, I seem to have utterly backslid on “umming” despite some four years of collegiate debate spent having that tic beat out of me.

• 7 Lord Duppy // Apr 4, 2007 at 12:25 pm

  Hm. I liked you better as a brain in a vat.

  I think that means I’m extremely antisocial.

• 8 Tomas Stephens // Apr 6, 2007 at 4:55 am

  Your voice would be a passable impersonation of David Cross, without you having to do anything special.

  Now that you’ve v-logged it’s clear why you are against the border-fence: you’re not a white American. I’ve informed vdare.