A few days ago, as I was surfing through twitter, I bumped
on a trend called Nikola Tesla day. Not knowing who he was I went deeper only
to realize that the Oatmeal had published it. The Oatmeal being one of those
websites where lame humor is appreciated was the last of the sites to know who Nikola
Tesla was. Surprisingly, in their way of genital humor and 'we-don’t-give-and-eff'
attitude towards the society, they gave me quite information of who he was. To
my amazement, when I googled him further, I realized that the person indeed was
much underrated for who he was and what he had achieved. However in that way,
they produced Nikola Tesla as some kind of a demi god while calling Thomas Edison
to be a power hungry , money minded Satan who just is no more than a good
marketer
However that didn’t seem to stop there. Apparently, Forbes decided to jump on the bandwagon while calling Edison as less of a devil while talking about the achievements of both of them that changed the world. Although the article seemed quite ok, it was still riddled with loopholes that I certainly didn’t seem to understand. Forbes never studied the story really well which Oatmeal replied back with élan'. Forbes although gave a holistic view of the situation, doesn’t seem to understand the importance of studying facts and figures. What makes it even more interesting is the fact that these are two different genres of writes/thinkers/viewers. Forbes has always been the more serious kind, more like the analysts while Oatmeal is nowhere. It relies on the toilet humor which has made it popular amongst its sets of audience.
The most amazing point that Oatmeal however pointed out was that Forbes had written that both of the thinkers were appreciated. I had never heard of Tesla during my school years and every time it was Edison who took the light bulb credit of my ideas and this is what we are being taught right from the start. What Forbes did was simply layered out the achievements of Edison and said; maybe he wasn’t a devil after all. I take nothing away from Edison personally, but both the sides highlight a situation which Oatmeal says it better: Edison was a marketing guy who could afford a bunch of scientists and then take the credit. It’s as similar to Microsoft saying that the inventions done by the small agencies were their idea, so what if they bought them out?
Moreover in a purely media sense, the war between two genres comes alive. Forbes could have always gone the other way and never would have taken them seriously. They did take them in the first place to jump in the running train but what they did later was completely out of mocking terms. What they simply did was simply publish a link of Oatmeal on their page of the retaliation of their article with facts and figures. However they seemed to have placed it in such a way that they don’t care about what Oatmeal has said. Rather it was like saying, 'we said what we wanted to say, now deal with it.'
Tesla should have been appreciated right from the start. It was only through Oatmeal and the power of social media that one came to know about Nikola Tesla and highlight the deficiencies of Thomas Edison. Which Forbes would never thought in the first place. #respect.
However that didn’t seem to stop there. Apparently, Forbes decided to jump on the bandwagon while calling Edison as less of a devil while talking about the achievements of both of them that changed the world. Although the article seemed quite ok, it was still riddled with loopholes that I certainly didn’t seem to understand. Forbes never studied the story really well which Oatmeal replied back with élan'. Forbes although gave a holistic view of the situation, doesn’t seem to understand the importance of studying facts and figures. What makes it even more interesting is the fact that these are two different genres of writes/thinkers/viewers. Forbes has always been the more serious kind, more like the analysts while Oatmeal is nowhere. It relies on the toilet humor which has made it popular amongst its sets of audience.
The most amazing point that Oatmeal however pointed out was that Forbes had written that both of the thinkers were appreciated. I had never heard of Tesla during my school years and every time it was Edison who took the light bulb credit of my ideas and this is what we are being taught right from the start. What Forbes did was simply layered out the achievements of Edison and said; maybe he wasn’t a devil after all. I take nothing away from Edison personally, but both the sides highlight a situation which Oatmeal says it better: Edison was a marketing guy who could afford a bunch of scientists and then take the credit. It’s as similar to Microsoft saying that the inventions done by the small agencies were their idea, so what if they bought them out?
Moreover in a purely media sense, the war between two genres comes alive. Forbes could have always gone the other way and never would have taken them seriously. They did take them in the first place to jump in the running train but what they did later was completely out of mocking terms. What they simply did was simply publish a link of Oatmeal on their page of the retaliation of their article with facts and figures. However they seemed to have placed it in such a way that they don’t care about what Oatmeal has said. Rather it was like saying, 'we said what we wanted to say, now deal with it.'
Tesla should have been appreciated right from the start. It was only through Oatmeal and the power of social media that one came to know about Nikola Tesla and highlight the deficiencies of Thomas Edison. Which Forbes would never thought in the first place. #respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment