Media Ownership
Before taking this class I didn’t know anything about how television is controlled and ran. It was weird to learn that 90% of our media content is owned by 6 TNCs. Companies such as AOL Time Warner brought in more than $4 billion in 2000 (Media Society, pg 35.) It wasn’t always like this however. There used to be more people in charge of what we see, and now that number has decreased to six. Will this trend of “vertical integration” (Media Society, pg 40) continue as the number of owners shrinks?
Information Access
We gain information so quickly due to our different forms of media. Media evolved from newspapers to television to the internet. If there is anything I want to look up, I can do a quick Wikipedia search and have pages of information. What’s next? The book “Feed” by M.T. Anderson suggests computer chips in our brains. A part of what Feed is saying is that this technology in our brains will advertise products to us (Feed, 299.)
Media Ethics
Media ethics refers to the moral standards we see in the media. The way the media goes about their business can be thought of as unethical at times. Breaking every ten minutes for three minutes of advertisements is an example of a questionable ethical topic in media. The media also affects our opinions. Ideologies are created through the media. Eminem’s album. The Marshall Mathers LP was nominated for Album of the Year in 2001 (Media Society, 162.) There was some dispute due to “angry” lyrics. Is it ethical to discredit an artist even when the album is popular?
Facebook/Twitter
Facebook and Twitter are two media tools whose outcome is based on how it’s used. They can be both great tools for group organization, micro-blogging, and mass communication. Facebook has over 6 million users and is expanding rapidly every day (Twitter Nation Has Arrived: How Scared Should We Be? By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet.) Something so popular has to be discussed. There is a lot people don’t like about these sites. Personally, I could care less if you like bonfires and cupcakes. Who doesn’t?
Not to mention it’s a huge time sapper.
The Peek-a-Boo World
Neil Postman writes about “The Peek-a-Boo World” that we live in. It is full of advertisements, flashy montages and bad guys getting blown up. Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” was written in 1985 but his words of wisdom are applied more than ever today. I found a video of Someone walking through Time Square in New York. All you see is ads.
News Objectivity
News and objective are usually two words that aren’t next to each other. We learned that there isn’t just one side, or even two sides to the news. There are many sides to every story.
Conspiracy Theories Debunked
We discussed media’s coverage of 9/11. Television showed the clips of planes flying into the World Trade Center. We were told it was done by terrorists hijacking the planes. Many people don’t believe this. Because the news only showed this one side, many conspiracy theories developed. This is a video that proves many of them wrong.
News as Entertainment
Most people will agree that news should be news and entertainment should be entertainment. With so much going on in the world, you would think major news channels would focus on what’s important. Just look at the Censored books. There are so many stories that are important on an international level; but we hardly hear of them. And just as Postman wrote in 1985, news has become a form of entertainment.
Consumerism
A common theme in the world of media today is the idea of consumerism. Clever marketing and abundance in advertisement creates a desire to buy things we don’t always need. This is a theme that appears in the book Feed. A constant feed and flow of advertisements resulted in them going out and buying items from the newest sale. Everything must go!
Monday, April 27, 2009
“The Obama Deception”
I think the film’s thesis is that Barack Obama is not the hope and change that our country thought they were voting for. It has a lot of points that try to support this. For example, the idea that Barack Obama and our government are actually controlled by groups that aren’t a part of our government such as the Federal Reserve Bank.
Alex Jones attempts to tap into our Triune Brain by various editing techniques and clever narration. Right in the beginning of the film, it shows the inauguration speech of Obama. The clip is originally supported with the sound of cheers and excitement. In this film, there is ominous music ultimately leading up to a shot of Obama. This affects the limbic part of our brain because it creates emotion by the use of music. It’s not something we have real control over naturally. Just from hearing the shady music, it creates a different perspective of Obama. There was also the scene when Alex Jones and his crew were leaving the Marriot and there was a car following them. I thought this was a good example of how our neocortex works. Alex Jones interpreted the car behind them as someone following them for whatever reason. Someone else could also interpret it as someone who just wanted to go to Moe’s to get a taco and they happened to be on the same route as them. But Alex Jones and his editor cut and narrated the film to make it look the other way. It’s hard to know which one is true. How do we know what we know?
This film also uses several persuasive techniques that have been discussed in our class. One of the most common tools used was Plain Folks. Alex Jones often referred to the viewers as “the people” to connect us to his beliefs. It’s a good way to indirectly connect us to the film. The film also uses Testimonials. Many “experts” such as Webster Tarpley and Gerald Celente are given titles that show their past work which is translated to reliability. Just because Webster Tarpley has written two books doesn’t mean that he is 100% credible. A third technique of persuasion is Timing. Going back to the example I provided before of the car following them around after leaving the hotel. That may have just been clever editing to make it look like the car was directly following them. This next persuasive technique is similar to the Plain Folks technique. Group Dynamics were used in this film. When Alex Jones is outside with all the protestors both at the hotel and the Federal Reserve Bank, he is with a group of followers and supporters of his ideas. It creates a group dynamic which increases his support. Alex Jones’ film also Card Stacks. Information is taken out of context in this film. At one point, Alex Jones says “everything” that Obama has said he would do, he hasn’t done. I am sure there are many things he has done that he has promised so far, but we don’t get the whole story on it by both the news and Alex Jones’ documentary. He also Name Calls a lot. He goes on a rant at one point where he calls Obama a Judas goat.
The “reality” construction of this film has a few trade offs that are worth mentioning. I really enjoy watching documentaries and there’s a lot to learn from them. However, some documentaries such as this one leave me skeptical of the information provided. It is almost always bias and the editing alone can sometimes leave me totally convinced of something I previously knew nothing about. Editing is a production technique this film highly relied on. Since most of the footage was previously recorded, editing those clips together to create a story or perspective is challenging but I think they did it well for this documentary. There was one shot that they did create that I thought was very effective. It was a 3D animation that was made for each of the people in power. It was a serious, darkly lighted pan shot that created a very menacing atmosphere. There were great amounts of emotional transfers in this documentary. For example, many times through the use of music, they would build one idea up, and then knock it down creating the emotion of despair. Then at the end of the movie they build back up a sense of hope to create a will to fight back. It didn’t work too well on me; but I can see how it could inspire certain people. This creates individual meanings for the documentary. Some people are open to the “facts” in this documentary and others are closed. I fall somewhere in between. I think there are some great points about our government and the way things work; but I also think there is some farfetched ideas as well.
This documentary represents some new technological shifts. The video is available online on YouTube. I was also able to download it shortly after it came out from an exclusive downloading site. Having the video to scan through at all times in decent quality made deconstructing it easier. This documentary also represented an epistemological shift. The film threw out a lot of information to the viewer. Because its video, all that information is being showed quickly. The downside to this is that once the information is presented, it’s gone. It was hard to retain a lot of the information the first time around. Unlike text, with video you can’t go back and read…unless you rewind, but that’s too much effort.
Towards the beginning of the film, Alex Jones says that over one million Iraqis have died since the war and that 5000 US soldiers have died. I wasn’t aware of how many Iraqis have died since the war. Until I chose to present the story from Censored 2009 titled, “Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation,” I didn’t really know much about the number of Iraqi deaths from the war. Reading that article and doing some research hasn’t completely changed my opinion about the war but it does deeply impact it. That’s a lot of deaths.
The Bilderberg Group was a group I knew nothing about. We talked about it in class and I also read up on them a little. Because the only information I had about it originally came from this documentary, I was subjected to that perspective only. From what I read, the meetings held by the Bilderberg Group are meetings between successful people in power. Alex Jones proposes that since they don’t allow media coverage or reporting about the meetings, that they are evil and plotting to dominate the world. Just because the meetings are not open to the media, doesn’t mean they’re bad. There are plenty of private meetings in politics. The public has the right to know certain information, and other information I believe should be left to the government.
Something else I didn’t know about before was that the Federal Reserve Bank is an independent company that isn’t an actual part of the government. It is as federal as federal express. The day we talked about this in class, in my next class our teacher brought it up and I was one of the only people who also knew about it. Ironic how that works. But I found that strange that this organization would name themselves with the word “federal” in the front. I found that really strange and after doing some later research I learned that many previous US presidents were against it. I don’t really know much about banking and how it fits into politics and all that; but anytime you give one organization too much power, there is a risk of their responsibility being jeopardized.
I liked watching this documentary. Like I said, there were some things I liked and some things I didn’t like. Even if I don’t agree with everything, there’s usually something I can take from these sort of films.
Alex Jones attempts to tap into our Triune Brain by various editing techniques and clever narration. Right in the beginning of the film, it shows the inauguration speech of Obama. The clip is originally supported with the sound of cheers and excitement. In this film, there is ominous music ultimately leading up to a shot of Obama. This affects the limbic part of our brain because it creates emotion by the use of music. It’s not something we have real control over naturally. Just from hearing the shady music, it creates a different perspective of Obama. There was also the scene when Alex Jones and his crew were leaving the Marriot and there was a car following them. I thought this was a good example of how our neocortex works. Alex Jones interpreted the car behind them as someone following them for whatever reason. Someone else could also interpret it as someone who just wanted to go to Moe’s to get a taco and they happened to be on the same route as them. But Alex Jones and his editor cut and narrated the film to make it look the other way. It’s hard to know which one is true. How do we know what we know?
This film also uses several persuasive techniques that have been discussed in our class. One of the most common tools used was Plain Folks. Alex Jones often referred to the viewers as “the people” to connect us to his beliefs. It’s a good way to indirectly connect us to the film. The film also uses Testimonials. Many “experts” such as Webster Tarpley and Gerald Celente are given titles that show their past work which is translated to reliability. Just because Webster Tarpley has written two books doesn’t mean that he is 100% credible. A third technique of persuasion is Timing. Going back to the example I provided before of the car following them around after leaving the hotel. That may have just been clever editing to make it look like the car was directly following them. This next persuasive technique is similar to the Plain Folks technique. Group Dynamics were used in this film. When Alex Jones is outside with all the protestors both at the hotel and the Federal Reserve Bank, he is with a group of followers and supporters of his ideas. It creates a group dynamic which increases his support. Alex Jones’ film also Card Stacks. Information is taken out of context in this film. At one point, Alex Jones says “everything” that Obama has said he would do, he hasn’t done. I am sure there are many things he has done that he has promised so far, but we don’t get the whole story on it by both the news and Alex Jones’ documentary. He also Name Calls a lot. He goes on a rant at one point where he calls Obama a Judas goat.
The “reality” construction of this film has a few trade offs that are worth mentioning. I really enjoy watching documentaries and there’s a lot to learn from them. However, some documentaries such as this one leave me skeptical of the information provided. It is almost always bias and the editing alone can sometimes leave me totally convinced of something I previously knew nothing about. Editing is a production technique this film highly relied on. Since most of the footage was previously recorded, editing those clips together to create a story or perspective is challenging but I think they did it well for this documentary. There was one shot that they did create that I thought was very effective. It was a 3D animation that was made for each of the people in power. It was a serious, darkly lighted pan shot that created a very menacing atmosphere. There were great amounts of emotional transfers in this documentary. For example, many times through the use of music, they would build one idea up, and then knock it down creating the emotion of despair. Then at the end of the movie they build back up a sense of hope to create a will to fight back. It didn’t work too well on me; but I can see how it could inspire certain people. This creates individual meanings for the documentary. Some people are open to the “facts” in this documentary and others are closed. I fall somewhere in between. I think there are some great points about our government and the way things work; but I also think there is some farfetched ideas as well.
This documentary represents some new technological shifts. The video is available online on YouTube. I was also able to download it shortly after it came out from an exclusive downloading site. Having the video to scan through at all times in decent quality made deconstructing it easier. This documentary also represented an epistemological shift. The film threw out a lot of information to the viewer. Because its video, all that information is being showed quickly. The downside to this is that once the information is presented, it’s gone. It was hard to retain a lot of the information the first time around. Unlike text, with video you can’t go back and read…unless you rewind, but that’s too much effort.
Towards the beginning of the film, Alex Jones says that over one million Iraqis have died since the war and that 5000 US soldiers have died. I wasn’t aware of how many Iraqis have died since the war. Until I chose to present the story from Censored 2009 titled, “Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation,” I didn’t really know much about the number of Iraqi deaths from the war. Reading that article and doing some research hasn’t completely changed my opinion about the war but it does deeply impact it. That’s a lot of deaths.
The Bilderberg Group was a group I knew nothing about. We talked about it in class and I also read up on them a little. Because the only information I had about it originally came from this documentary, I was subjected to that perspective only. From what I read, the meetings held by the Bilderberg Group are meetings between successful people in power. Alex Jones proposes that since they don’t allow media coverage or reporting about the meetings, that they are evil and plotting to dominate the world. Just because the meetings are not open to the media, doesn’t mean they’re bad. There are plenty of private meetings in politics. The public has the right to know certain information, and other information I believe should be left to the government.
Something else I didn’t know about before was that the Federal Reserve Bank is an independent company that isn’t an actual part of the government. It is as federal as federal express. The day we talked about this in class, in my next class our teacher brought it up and I was one of the only people who also knew about it. Ironic how that works. But I found that strange that this organization would name themselves with the word “federal” in the front. I found that really strange and after doing some later research I learned that many previous US presidents were against it. I don’t really know much about banking and how it fits into politics and all that; but anytime you give one organization too much power, there is a risk of their responsibility being jeopardized.
I liked watching this documentary. Like I said, there were some things I liked and some things I didn’t like. Even if I don’t agree with everything, there’s usually something I can take from these sort of films.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
With Friends Like These…
1.
Tom Hodgkinson makes the argument that Facebook users want as many friends as possible and that it gives them a sense of being “popular.” I don’t think this is a valid criticism. I have 289 friends on Facebook. Most of them being people that I went to high school with and that I’m not really friends with. So why click “Add Friend” on their profile? Just so I can stay somewhat connected to the people I grew up with and to see how they’ve changed. I don’t feel any more popular because they’re my Facebook friends. And I’ve never heard anyone else brag about how many friends they have to make them feel better about themselves.
For a large amount of the article, Hodgkinson criticizes Peter Thiel, one of the board members of Facebook. He labels him as a futurist philosopher and claims that he is trying to destroy the world with his investments in technologies such as artificial intelligence, direct-brain user interfaces, and genetic engineering. At the end of the paragraph he says, “Not someone I want to help get any richer.” I think this is irrelevant to Facebook and to his whole argument. Just because he’s interested in futuristic technologies doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve the money he’s making or that he is evil.
Hodgkinson later makes the point that Facebook with benefitting and making money off of relationships that already exist. I think that this is one of his valid arguments. It is true; however I don’t that makes Facebook evil or corrupt.
I think his statement about how Facebook advertises is important. If you list one of your favorite movies, similar movies will be targeted to your Facebook specifically to target you. This is true, so I consider it valid. Once again however, I don’t consider it a bad thing. If anything, I’d want to be targeted by products that interest me. It doesn’t mean I’m going to go buy that product or see that movie; but at least I’m aware that it exists.
2. The Facebook in Real Life video has been done countless times on youtube. They all make the same point which that most of the things Facebook users do is really irrelevant. “Ritchie created group, Tree Bark is the Bomb.” True, this is irrelevant, as most entertaining things on the internet are. But it’s funny, so why not join. It doesn’t mean anything in “real life” so why not? Heck, I’d join a group that loves tree bark because it’s true, tree bark is the bomb. The tag at the end saying “Doesn’t make much sense in real life does it?” is true; but that’s why we do it on the internet. It’s fun.
3. I’m looking at the most recently updated statuses on Facebook as I type this. The most recent says, “Yay zombie jesus day! thanks for the chocolate rabbits ZJC.” I consider this a pretty funny Facebook experience.
I play dodgeball here at Champlain College every Sunday with a handful of my friends and many other students. So I decided to create a Facebook group titled, “Dodgeball at Champlain College.” Since I created it, 28 other people have joined. A few of them I have added to my friends list because we got along with them when we played. There have been some photos taken from games that that person linked to at the group. Discussions have been created for further organization of the sport. A student from Saginaw Valley in Michigan contacted me about the dodgeball league he plays in out in the Midwest. It is a growing league and they’re looking for more teams to join. He also posted information about the league on our page. I consider this a very positive, pro Facebook experience. We’ve been able to organize, keep in touch, and reach out to other schools about our similar interests.
Tom Hodgkinson makes the argument that Facebook users want as many friends as possible and that it gives them a sense of being “popular.” I don’t think this is a valid criticism. I have 289 friends on Facebook. Most of them being people that I went to high school with and that I’m not really friends with. So why click “Add Friend” on their profile? Just so I can stay somewhat connected to the people I grew up with and to see how they’ve changed. I don’t feel any more popular because they’re my Facebook friends. And I’ve never heard anyone else brag about how many friends they have to make them feel better about themselves.
For a large amount of the article, Hodgkinson criticizes Peter Thiel, one of the board members of Facebook. He labels him as a futurist philosopher and claims that he is trying to destroy the world with his investments in technologies such as artificial intelligence, direct-brain user interfaces, and genetic engineering. At the end of the paragraph he says, “Not someone I want to help get any richer.” I think this is irrelevant to Facebook and to his whole argument. Just because he’s interested in futuristic technologies doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve the money he’s making or that he is evil.
Hodgkinson later makes the point that Facebook with benefitting and making money off of relationships that already exist. I think that this is one of his valid arguments. It is true; however I don’t that makes Facebook evil or corrupt.
I think his statement about how Facebook advertises is important. If you list one of your favorite movies, similar movies will be targeted to your Facebook specifically to target you. This is true, so I consider it valid. Once again however, I don’t consider it a bad thing. If anything, I’d want to be targeted by products that interest me. It doesn’t mean I’m going to go buy that product or see that movie; but at least I’m aware that it exists.
2. The Facebook in Real Life video has been done countless times on youtube. They all make the same point which that most of the things Facebook users do is really irrelevant. “Ritchie created group, Tree Bark is the Bomb.” True, this is irrelevant, as most entertaining things on the internet are. But it’s funny, so why not join. It doesn’t mean anything in “real life” so why not? Heck, I’d join a group that loves tree bark because it’s true, tree bark is the bomb. The tag at the end saying “Doesn’t make much sense in real life does it?” is true; but that’s why we do it on the internet. It’s fun.
3. I’m looking at the most recently updated statuses on Facebook as I type this. The most recent says, “Yay zombie jesus day! thanks for the chocolate rabbits ZJC.” I consider this a pretty funny Facebook experience.
I play dodgeball here at Champlain College every Sunday with a handful of my friends and many other students. So I decided to create a Facebook group titled, “Dodgeball at Champlain College.” Since I created it, 28 other people have joined. A few of them I have added to my friends list because we got along with them when we played. There have been some photos taken from games that that person linked to at the group. Discussions have been created for further organization of the sport. A student from Saginaw Valley in Michigan contacted me about the dodgeball league he plays in out in the Midwest. It is a growing league and they’re looking for more teams to join. He also posted information about the league on our page. I consider this a very positive, pro Facebook experience. We’ve been able to organize, keep in touch, and reach out to other schools about our similar interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)