Seems like the sure-fire way to create a buzzword for 2005 is to append “casting” to the end of it. The latest such word, egocasting, is described in Regina Lynn’s latest article on Wired, “Comfortably Numb Relations“. So what is egocasting?
“We have moved beyond (broadcasting and) narrowcasting into ‘egocasting’ — a world where we exercise an unparalleled degree of control over what we watch and what we hear,” writes Christine Rosen in The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society.
I’d add “and what we read” to that too. Of course, Lynn is the Sex Drive columnist on Wired, and so the article centers around that topic:
The real downside to egocasting, in my mind, is that it can numb us not just to the strangers around us, but to our lovers. It can create the expectation that our immediate surroundings will always reflect our own tastes, which is just plain selfish. And we too easily develop the habit of hiding behind distraction when we start to feel awkward or distressed, when we should instead be communicating with our partners.
Fortunately, Lynn does concede that egocasting may be a positive thing. And I don’t see it as anything but! I mean, if I have such complete control over what I am seeing and hearing, does that not mean that I can get rid of the clutter and focus on what’s important? You bet it does.
Blogs and RSS are allowing me to cut down the normal crap I’d have to sift through to find the news that is important to me. Podcasting and videoblogging, when they have matured a little, will allow me to cut out the audio/video that I don’t need to see, just as TiVo and similar devices let you select only what you want to watch, and then let you watch it when you’re good and ready. Future advances in software will do the same for all sorts of media and content. Don’t you feel an overwhelming sense of power?
Ten years ago, your choice of what to watch, hear, or read were much more limited. In another five years, you’ll have complete control. Seems to me egocasting is very aptly named indeed.