Another tid-bit from our friends in the UK. I know I might sound paranoid, but trust me - I'm not. On my last post on the texting of immigrants to go home there was mention of biometric cards, so I had to check out the low-down. Who do you think will be the first nation into the fully fledged world of Big Brother: the US or the UK?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3556720.stm
Friday, March 9, 2007
Is American Idol really about singing?
So if you have been hooked by the oh-so-popular show, you are probably as stunned as I am not only that Antonella Barba lasted as long as she did, but that Sanjaya made the top 12. It really does beg the question that Simon is often asking, "Is this really a singing competition?"
Well, yes, and no. It is a popularity contest, and part of what makes you popular is a good voice. But that is not everything. CLearly, looks plays a role, especially for the girls. How else do you explain Antonella making it into the top 20? Personlaity also plays a role, as defined by Sanjaya, who certainly lacks the powerful voice (although it's not bad, just weak) but is seen as such a sweetheart that he pulls in votes.
But would it be better run as a radio contest? I think we would be more likely to choose the ultimate singer, but so much of artist's success is media driven, not just talent driven. And the Media loves pretty, personable people. I find it amusing that it is now so often Simon who is bothered by the way the voting is going, when it was he who in the choosing process told people that they "looked," or "didn't look," like an American Idol. An idol is someone admired, and beauty is something that most of us admire. We are not unthinking though - not every idol has been a true "looker."
Well, yes, and no. It is a popularity contest, and part of what makes you popular is a good voice. But that is not everything. CLearly, looks plays a role, especially for the girls. How else do you explain Antonella making it into the top 20? Personlaity also plays a role, as defined by Sanjaya, who certainly lacks the powerful voice (although it's not bad, just weak) but is seen as such a sweetheart that he pulls in votes.
But would it be better run as a radio contest? I think we would be more likely to choose the ultimate singer, but so much of artist's success is media driven, not just talent driven. And the Media loves pretty, personable people. I find it amusing that it is now so often Simon who is bothered by the way the voting is going, when it was he who in the choosing process told people that they "looked," or "didn't look," like an American Idol. An idol is someone admired, and beauty is something that most of us admire. We are not unthinking though - not every idol has been a true "looker."
Texting Immigrants to Go Home
Stumbled upon this interesting little tid-bit. So Governments of 1st world countries are thinking about sending text messages to illegal immigrants to remind them that they have to go home. Is that crazy or what? I mean, who would have guessed or dreamt up such a scheme? I mean I can just see the picture now: your an immigrant toiling away picking fruit in some orchard when all of a sudden your cell phone gets a text: Please Go Home. So you drop your gear and go pack all your stuff - I don't see that happening. Sounds like Big Brother is going to be a nagging older sibling as well, great!
http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=3850123
http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=3850123
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Another dead philosopher
Jean Baudrillard, the french postmodern philosopher who's work explored the "blurring lines between simulation and reality" died on Tuesday.
here's the story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7761639
The story focus is on his influence on the Matrix movies, which lifted heavily from his work.
In the years since he first published his work, virtual reality technology has developed, giving form to his theories. The article says that, despite the Matrix movies, he felt that the best illustration of his theories in real life was Disneyland.
This seems like really dense stuff and I am intrigued, so, of course, I have to Wikipedia him now.
here's the story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7761639
The story focus is on his influence on the Matrix movies, which lifted heavily from his work.
In the years since he first published his work, virtual reality technology has developed, giving form to his theories. The article says that, despite the Matrix movies, he felt that the best illustration of his theories in real life was Disneyland.
This seems like really dense stuff and I am intrigued, so, of course, I have to Wikipedia him now.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Rosie's Depression
The Associated Press released an article today talking about Rosie O'Donnel's depression. She will be talking about it on her current talk show as well, the View. Rosie says that her depression started after the Columbine shootings in 1999 because she felt as though her own children had been killed. While her own were safe, she clearly empathized with the parents, and suffered a reaction that probably many of them also did.
I appreciate her honesty in talking about depression. I think itis a major problem in our world today, and it is important to have people with some exposure willing to talk about it without it hitting the tabloids. In our time, I think it may be true that depression is overdiagnosed, which I also believe about ADD and ADHD in children. However, I think there are legitimate cases for sure, and that people deserve to be treated - whether with medication like Rosie, or just with therapy.
I can't help thinking- probably as a result of this class - that this could also be a ploy for media attention. Rosie has not exactly been a headliner lately, and although the story is likely true, it is most often something people keep private. Could it be that she decided to share this story to get some publicity? I would certainly not put it past anyone in Hollywood to put her personal life in the spotlight if it brought them along for the ride.
I appreciate her honesty in talking about depression. I think itis a major problem in our world today, and it is important to have people with some exposure willing to talk about it without it hitting the tabloids. In our time, I think it may be true that depression is overdiagnosed, which I also believe about ADD and ADHD in children. However, I think there are legitimate cases for sure, and that people deserve to be treated - whether with medication like Rosie, or just with therapy.
I can't help thinking- probably as a result of this class - that this could also be a ploy for media attention. Rosie has not exactly been a headliner lately, and although the story is likely true, it is most often something people keep private. Could it be that she decided to share this story to get some publicity? I would certainly not put it past anyone in Hollywood to put her personal life in the spotlight if it brought them along for the ride.
R.I.P. Captain America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030701540.html
After 66 years, Captain America was shot dead by a sniper in his last comic which was released today. Many in the comic book community are mourning the loss of America's beloved superhero.
Captain America was first introduced in 1941 as a patriotic adversary for Adolf Hitler. His Alter ego, Steve Rogers, enlisted in the army only to be rejected because of his physical infirmities. Later Roger's take part in an experiment and is injected with "super soldier serum" created by General Chester Phillips which eventually makes him incredibly strong and powerful.
I wrote about this today because I never thought the death of a superhero would e such a big deal. I love superheros, especially x-men, but I never saw myself becoming sad when one of them "died." Although, superheros never really die, their alter ego dies and someone else could potentially take over. Which is was happened in 1993 when Superman died.
Regardless, when I was surfing the web this morning for stories I found something about the death of Captain America on almost every page. Some of the headlines read; "Captain America shot, killed" "Captain America Dead at 66," and "Captain America Dead: National Hero Since 1941."
I don't know about anyone else, but I got the feeling that he was a real person when I read those headlines. Although, some weren't as serious; "Captain America Dead: Movie Still in Development." Nice. Way to acknowledge our national superhero! :)
After 66 years, Captain America was shot dead by a sniper in his last comic which was released today. Many in the comic book community are mourning the loss of America's beloved superhero.
Captain America was first introduced in 1941 as a patriotic adversary for Adolf Hitler. His Alter ego, Steve Rogers, enlisted in the army only to be rejected because of his physical infirmities. Later Roger's take part in an experiment and is injected with "super soldier serum" created by General Chester Phillips which eventually makes him incredibly strong and powerful.
I wrote about this today because I never thought the death of a superhero would e such a big deal. I love superheros, especially x-men, but I never saw myself becoming sad when one of them "died." Although, superheros never really die, their alter ego dies and someone else could potentially take over. Which is was happened in 1993 when Superman died.
Regardless, when I was surfing the web this morning for stories I found something about the death of Captain America on almost every page. Some of the headlines read; "Captain America shot, killed" "Captain America Dead at 66," and "Captain America Dead: National Hero Since 1941."
I don't know about anyone else, but I got the feeling that he was a real person when I read those headlines. Although, some weren't as serious; "Captain America Dead: Movie Still in Development." Nice. Way to acknowledge our national superhero! :)
Cell Phones as Bookkeeping Device?
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=31066
Talk about innovation. Who would have thought to use cell phones as data collectors instead of what they are intended for, talking.
I found this article to be quite interesting. A doctoral student at the UW has found a way for third world countries to use modern technology (one that we take for granted on a daily basis), and use it for bookkeeping purposes, and for authenticating whether or not coffee farms are organic.
Leading countries (like the US), have certainly found innovative ways to help the world! I appreciate that Tapan Parikh took a chance on proposing, and finding funding for his project. He is doing a great service not only for the people of India, but for us as well. He is establishing that innovation is not left to just those at Microsoft, Boeing, Smith Klein Beecham, or any other big name innovator or research facility, but people that have a passion and desire to help those that are definitely less fortunate, and don’t have the luxury or means by which to obtain our technology.
The farmers don’t object to this either. According to the article, they had to schlep journals (paper) with them wherever they went, and god forbid that they would drop their journal in a puddle! The new system affords these people of downloading the information and sending it to a main server, thus preserving the information. It’s a great idea, and my hat goes off to Tapan.
Talk about innovation. Who would have thought to use cell phones as data collectors instead of what they are intended for, talking.
I found this article to be quite interesting. A doctoral student at the UW has found a way for third world countries to use modern technology (one that we take for granted on a daily basis), and use it for bookkeeping purposes, and for authenticating whether or not coffee farms are organic.
Leading countries (like the US), have certainly found innovative ways to help the world! I appreciate that Tapan Parikh took a chance on proposing, and finding funding for his project. He is doing a great service not only for the people of India, but for us as well. He is establishing that innovation is not left to just those at Microsoft, Boeing, Smith Klein Beecham, or any other big name innovator or research facility, but people that have a passion and desire to help those that are definitely less fortunate, and don’t have the luxury or means by which to obtain our technology.
The farmers don’t object to this either. According to the article, they had to schlep journals (paper) with them wherever they went, and god forbid that they would drop their journal in a puddle! The new system affords these people of downloading the information and sending it to a main server, thus preserving the information. It’s a great idea, and my hat goes off to Tapan.
Wikipedia
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2928756&page=1
Even in our age of rapid speed technology, and having information at our fingertips, there is just no substitution for libraries.
Wikipedia is under fire for not authenticating its editors for the online web site. What I found most interesting is Middlebury College has banned students from citing information found on the site. Even though I’ve referenced the site, it should be obvious that most www sites are not authoritative.
With the Internet, it certainly eases the task of having to write lengthy research papers when one is able to hop online instead of making the trek to the local library. Who wants to sit wading through book after book, when you can go online and find virtually anything about anything?
I do think it’s important that when doing Internet searches that credible sites are used for citing and/or when making a determination about a subject or matter. I’ve done numerous searches on health issues, and have found soooooo many inconsistencies, that it is hard to believe that any source is telling the truth or is factual. I’ve learned that there is only one medical site that should ever be referenced when using the Internet (MedWatch), and think that when doing research, especially school related, that it’s important to find sites that journalists use, or actual scientists reference.
There is so much information flying out there, that it takes a sleuth to figure out what is fact and what is fiction. And, above all, DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ!
Even in our age of rapid speed technology, and having information at our fingertips, there is just no substitution for libraries.
Wikipedia is under fire for not authenticating its editors for the online web site. What I found most interesting is Middlebury College has banned students from citing information found on the site. Even though I’ve referenced the site, it should be obvious that most www sites are not authoritative.
With the Internet, it certainly eases the task of having to write lengthy research papers when one is able to hop online instead of making the trek to the local library. Who wants to sit wading through book after book, when you can go online and find virtually anything about anything?
I do think it’s important that when doing Internet searches that credible sites are used for citing and/or when making a determination about a subject or matter. I’ve done numerous searches on health issues, and have found soooooo many inconsistencies, that it is hard to believe that any source is telling the truth or is factual. I’ve learned that there is only one medical site that should ever be referenced when using the Internet (MedWatch), and think that when doing research, especially school related, that it’s important to find sites that journalists use, or actual scientists reference.
There is so much information flying out there, that it takes a sleuth to figure out what is fact and what is fiction. And, above all, DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ!
Sunday, March 4, 2007
REPERATIONS: officially not going to happen…anywhere.
I found this article on the BBC Americas page, and was blown away that I hadn’t heard a thing about it from our local media. Maybe because I was out of touch with technology for three whole days, I could have just missed it. The article discussed a recent vote held within the Cherokee Nation on whether or not to extend the rights and privileges of Nation membership to the descendants of Black slaves owned by members of the Nation. Needless to say a resounding NO! was heard in the Nation’s community. A 76.6% of voters denied access to tribal registration, and the turnout to vote no eclipsed the last constitutional ratification vote held by the Nation. Should membership privileges be extended, then the descendants would be eligible to apply for the federal funds, housing allowances, and medical benefits. Either way I found quite interesting the juxtaposition of the use of western democracy to enact the denial of rights/benefits to a minority, previously enslaved population. It seems that unfortunately the treatment of native populations and forced assimilation to western tradition was finally successful; the mistakes of the USA have come round to being repeated, imitated, and acceptable. It really doesn’t pay to be Black in America; every culture with any leg up seems quite content to deny opportunity to those who helped put them there. How interesting that education, health care, and housing still seem so hard to come by.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6416735.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6416735.stm
Christmas in the Bahamas
An article on MSNBC entitled "Smith's death has been boon for Bahamas," highlights how this small island chain has dealt with the media attention surrounding her burial. Barricades were established, tattoo parlors offered "Anna Nicole" tattoos, and people were offered a tour of the hospital, mansion and church where many events in this saga took place. This article and the whole circus around Anna Nicole Smith's death has been overblown. Circus mentality is proven in a statement by a Nassau resident comparing Anna Nicole's memorial and burial to Christmas. The fact that a big majority of Nassau's residents extorted and manipulated the media is a statement relating to the goodness of people these days. It should make everyone feel a little queasy to know that others can and relish the opportunity to find anyway to turn a buck. Interestingly enough, the concern of the island residents forms a strange dichotomy. Are people these days really good or evil? There is no direct and clear answer, but there is no doubt about the revenue huge media events can bring to the Bahamas. The article also goes into some of the other lengths local residents went to for “Anna Nicole” viewing. One shop resident set up scaffolding and charged $500 for any media outfit to have a view. Other places like the mall which was adjacent to the cemetery was going to charge $5000 for access until the large majority of people spoke out. All of these actions seem to perpetuate both a fascination and sickness we have these days with death. Curiosity is sometimes effective to help us grow as people, but sometimes, it borders on invasion.
watch your mouth
MSNBC reported that conservative columnist Ann Coulter used a deogatory slur at the American Conservative Union’s Political Action Conference on friday. She called presidential hopeful John Edwards a "faggot." Both democrats and republicans alike have spoken out against her use of language in her speech, and Edwards has started a campaign to raise $100,000 to "fight back against the politics of bigotry."
Clearly, one person's opinion has gathered far too much weight and media attention since word spreads so fast these days via the internet. Not only should it not have ever been said, it also should not have made the news, for that only intensifies the effect which politicians supposedly wanted to downplay. For Edwards to capitalize makes me question him as well. Not his sexuality, honestly, who cares? But I question his integrity for using something that should have just made the reporter look like a jerk to make a profit for himself. Why does this reporter have so much weight that candidates find themselves in a tizzy over her comments? Shouldn't a wise politician (especially a liberal one) just say, "Well, I'm not gay (or, I am gay), but my sexuality has nothing to do with the platform of my running for President."
link to article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17458248?GT1=9145
Clearly, one person's opinion has gathered far too much weight and media attention since word spreads so fast these days via the internet. Not only should it not have ever been said, it also should not have made the news, for that only intensifies the effect which politicians supposedly wanted to downplay. For Edwards to capitalize makes me question him as well. Not his sexuality, honestly, who cares? But I question his integrity for using something that should have just made the reporter look like a jerk to make a profit for himself. Why does this reporter have so much weight that candidates find themselves in a tizzy over her comments? Shouldn't a wise politician (especially a liberal one) just say, "Well, I'm not gay (or, I am gay), but my sexuality has nothing to do with the platform of my running for President."
link to article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17458248?GT1=9145
Fighting Crime with YouTube.com
Police are turning to a popular website to help nab criminals. Police departments are using YouTube.com as a law enforcement tool, asking the Internet-using public to help identify criminals. Video clips of suspected criminals are posted on the site and departments ask the public for their help in identifying them.
The most publicized clip was a surveillance recording in Hamilton, Ontario Canada that was posted on the site in December. The video showed a suspect in a fatal stabbing case that occurred outside a hip-hop concert. Detectives posted links to the clip on popular hip-hop Web sites to draw attention to it. Even though it was only 72 seconds long, the clip received more than 35,000 "hits" and led to an arrest within two weeks.
Members of police forces aren't the only ones using YouTube.com to their advantage. Groups that monitor police behavior use the site to post videos of arrests where officers used excessive force or abuse. Last year, a clip of an officer in Los Angeles repeatedly punching a suspect in the face triggered an FBI investigation.
Critics of the new law enforcement tool argue that posting the videos is an invasion of privacy. They feel that police should be required to gain consent of bystanders or victims before making the videos public. They also suggest that the videos be dated and removed once legal action has been taken. Critics also point out the risks of fruitless tips and misidentification problems.
Police departments can legally post surveillance videos online as long as the video doesn't somehow falsely accuse or defame someone. Experts say it's logical for departments to use the Internet to connect with the public. It provides them with the opportunity to reach younger Internet users who may know valuable information. Police are happy to be using the latest technology tools but still argue that it "will never replace the feet-on-the-street."
http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/6299067.html
The most publicized clip was a surveillance recording in Hamilton, Ontario Canada that was posted on the site in December. The video showed a suspect in a fatal stabbing case that occurred outside a hip-hop concert. Detectives posted links to the clip on popular hip-hop Web sites to draw attention to it. Even though it was only 72 seconds long, the clip received more than 35,000 "hits" and led to an arrest within two weeks.
Members of police forces aren't the only ones using YouTube.com to their advantage. Groups that monitor police behavior use the site to post videos of arrests where officers used excessive force or abuse. Last year, a clip of an officer in Los Angeles repeatedly punching a suspect in the face triggered an FBI investigation.
Critics of the new law enforcement tool argue that posting the videos is an invasion of privacy. They feel that police should be required to gain consent of bystanders or victims before making the videos public. They also suggest that the videos be dated and removed once legal action has been taken. Critics also point out the risks of fruitless tips and misidentification problems.
Police departments can legally post surveillance videos online as long as the video doesn't somehow falsely accuse or defame someone. Experts say it's logical for departments to use the Internet to connect with the public. It provides them with the opportunity to reach younger Internet users who may know valuable information. Police are happy to be using the latest technology tools but still argue that it "will never replace the feet-on-the-street."
http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/6299067.html
Saturday, March 3, 2007
A recent article on MSNBC is based on the new information reveals a disturbing trend among our United States soldiers. Many of the soldiers are learning interrogation and torture tactics from shows like “24” and others. This relates back to an already established set of concerns about the influence of television violence and themes. Upon further reading, I have realized that it is more the lack of training by the military’s soldiers that is the root cause. Because of this deficiency, military people have to use outside sources for motivation and instruction. Television is a convenient media and available to many people across the world. This curious statistic and trend brings up a huge debate among military people and political people. What role does and should torture play in today’s military? Many civilians in the United States would like the all out violence in Iraq to subside. So can torture deter or stop would-be car bombers from detonating outside a crowded shopping plaza? Torturing is about getting answers and people will ultimately tell you whatever you want to know if you torture them long enough. The United States military has met with Fox and the producers of “24” to try to persuade them to be responsible about what they broadcast. At the same time, Fox has to maintain ratings and portray a message, good or bad. All peoples on both sides know that torture is wrong and that everyone should be responsible for their actions. The military cannot also be primarily responsible for a small population of its soldiers who act out on unrealistic scenarios dealing with terrorism and war
Being internet addicted in China
http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/02/22/china-stern-treatment-for-young-internet-addicts/
China doesn't mess around with people whose "souls are gone to the online world". As part of a nation wide campaign, people, mainly young between the ages of 12 and 24, are being forced into hospital treatment for internet addictions. These relatively new clinics use "a tough love approach that includes counseling, military discipline, drugs, hypnosis, and mild electric shocks."
This is, by our standards, over the top (at least the electric shocks). But this does reflect a world wide phenomenon, which is my main interest in the story, of declaring any undesirable behavior as a mental disorder that can be treated with drugs as if it is diagnosable disease. Is personal responsibility, as a social imperative, going to be a thing of the past? It can’t be our fault if it is disease. Is drugging ourselves to perfection going to be the new world order? I find this trend to be very disturbing. We may criticize China for its harsh approach (on many levels and issues) in an attempt to achieve some sort of social and moral greatness. But no country compares to America in the levels of medicating our youth and adults in the same attempt.
Other approaches China is taking to tackle this “grave social problem” is banning kids from internet cafes and electronically booting them off online gaming after a 5 hour time limit. These seem like more reasonable approaches. But whatever happened to the parent’s ability to just pull the plug, and taking charge and responsibility for their child’s use of time. OK, maybe economic forces have changed the family structure disallowing quality time with our children. I’m looking forward for the new drug that will allow us to get away with only one hour of sleep per day. That should solve everything.
China doesn't mess around with people whose "souls are gone to the online world". As part of a nation wide campaign, people, mainly young between the ages of 12 and 24, are being forced into hospital treatment for internet addictions. These relatively new clinics use "a tough love approach that includes counseling, military discipline, drugs, hypnosis, and mild electric shocks."
This is, by our standards, over the top (at least the electric shocks). But this does reflect a world wide phenomenon, which is my main interest in the story, of declaring any undesirable behavior as a mental disorder that can be treated with drugs as if it is diagnosable disease. Is personal responsibility, as a social imperative, going to be a thing of the past? It can’t be our fault if it is disease. Is drugging ourselves to perfection going to be the new world order? I find this trend to be very disturbing. We may criticize China for its harsh approach (on many levels and issues) in an attempt to achieve some sort of social and moral greatness. But no country compares to America in the levels of medicating our youth and adults in the same attempt.
Other approaches China is taking to tackle this “grave social problem” is banning kids from internet cafes and electronically booting them off online gaming after a 5 hour time limit. These seem like more reasonable approaches. But whatever happened to the parent’s ability to just pull the plug, and taking charge and responsibility for their child’s use of time. OK, maybe economic forces have changed the family structure disallowing quality time with our children. I’m looking forward for the new drug that will allow us to get away with only one hour of sleep per day. That should solve everything.
Narcissism
Today’s youth are becoming more narcissistic; this is good and bad. A report has come out stating that college students are more narcissistic then ever before (they began the report in 1982). This might be due to how parents began really trying to improve their children’s self esteem in the 80s. Our society is in a pattern of repeatedly telling our children how special they are and how nothing can stop them if they put their mind to it. This article spoke of a song commonly sung to the tune of “Frere Jacques” in preschool: “I am special, I am special. Look at me.” I personally have never heard a child sing this song, but I can imagine what an impact it would be on a young child who repeatedly sung this tune.
“Narcissism can have benefits, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, suggesting it could be useful in meeting new people "or auditioning on 'American Idol. Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others," he said.” The article states that narcissists are more likely to not have extended romantic relationships, lack of emotional warmth and have over-controlling violent behaviors. They also take criticism poorly, which does not play any kind of positive role in bettering our society.
The younger generation does seem to be more confident in them-selves and assertive, which are good qualities to have, but when taken too far it can become a negative. We are being encouraged to act this way though, threw new technologies such as Myspace and YouTube. Both encourage people to seek attention and do what ever it takes to stand out.
http://www.kirotv.com/education/11119883/detail.html
“Narcissism can have benefits, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, suggesting it could be useful in meeting new people "or auditioning on 'American Idol. Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others," he said.” The article states that narcissists are more likely to not have extended romantic relationships, lack of emotional warmth and have over-controlling violent behaviors. They also take criticism poorly, which does not play any kind of positive role in bettering our society.
The younger generation does seem to be more confident in them-selves and assertive, which are good qualities to have, but when taken too far it can become a negative. We are being encouraged to act this way though, threw new technologies such as Myspace and YouTube. Both encourage people to seek attention and do what ever it takes to stand out.
http://www.kirotv.com/education/11119883/detail.html
Friday, March 2, 2007
Antioxidant Study
Just recently there has been a comprehensive study done of if popular antioxidant really help you live longer. The answer so far is they do not. That Americans should be very careful when taking supplements. There has been several studies and one declared that people taking antioxidant were 5% more likely to die than those who were not. Another test was that consuming garlic does not lower cholesterol. That beta-carotene increased instead of decreased the risk of lung cancer for people who smoke. And vitamin E does push the overall risk of death. All of these were stated in the article that I read.
What caught my attention about this article was that people thought that taking antioxidant could help them live longer. You can read this statement two ways at least I did. First that they want to life as long as they can and by taking a certain supplement they could do so. The second way of looking at this is that people thought they could live to be very old at least older then the average. When I think about this it sounds crazy to me that the only thing I have to do is to remember to take my special vitamin every day and I will live longer. It is what I consider to good to be true. There are many other things you have to do to stay healthy and to live as long as you can then just a vitamin. You have to exercise to keep your blood pressure and heart going. You have to sustain a certain weight for it is very unhealthy to go back in forth in weight by big amounts. You have to eat healthy or at least in this part take your vitamin. You have to have annual check ups with your doctor and dentist. All of these things play a huge part in living longer. Also if you smoke or not or if you drink a lot. Then of course you have to think about your family history as well.
I think people need to be more involved if they are truly trying to live long. That there is more to being able to live longer then just by taking a vitamin.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003592944_vitamins280.html
What caught my attention about this article was that people thought that taking antioxidant could help them live longer. You can read this statement two ways at least I did. First that they want to life as long as they can and by taking a certain supplement they could do so. The second way of looking at this is that people thought they could live to be very old at least older then the average. When I think about this it sounds crazy to me that the only thing I have to do is to remember to take my special vitamin every day and I will live longer. It is what I consider to good to be true. There are many other things you have to do to stay healthy and to live as long as you can then just a vitamin. You have to exercise to keep your blood pressure and heart going. You have to sustain a certain weight for it is very unhealthy to go back in forth in weight by big amounts. You have to eat healthy or at least in this part take your vitamin. You have to have annual check ups with your doctor and dentist. All of these things play a huge part in living longer. Also if you smoke or not or if you drink a lot. Then of course you have to think about your family history as well.
I think people need to be more involved if they are truly trying to live long. That there is more to being able to live longer then just by taking a vitamin.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003592944_vitamins280.html
Rats!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2915161
I'm sure most have heard about the rat problem in NY restaurants KFC and Taco Bell.
The video of this is so disgusting, but worth watching if you like that sort of stuff :)
The restaurant from the video had been inspected the day before the filming, and was given the ok by the health board to operate. THANK GOD for journalists!
"An ADF-owned KFC/Taco Bell was closed by New York health inspectors last week after TV news crews peering through the windows recorded about a dozen rats skittering across the floors and climbing on tables and countertops."
This is where I applaud journalists for going the extra mile and revealing public safety issues. I cannot believe that a restaurant owner would feel it ok to continue serving food (and preparing) when disgusting vermin have been all over the place, contaminating everything!
From the exposure, it has brought out the failing in public health inspectors, and the need to start seriously penalizing restaurants that do not follow health and safety guidelines. There have been numerous programs that show food workers smoking in the facility, dropping food on the floor and still serving it to customers, spitting, shooting boogers (so disgusting), in food, not washing hands after using the restroom, and so on. Usually these types of places have been warned and warned that the establishment will be shut down if changes don’t occur, but rarely does that happen. The reason?? The city is not going to shut down a source of income for government. Period. I think public health officials really need to crack down on repeat offenders. I get so grossed out by stories like this, and know that it happens all the time – even in up-scale restaurants. I think journalists, when they find something like this, should continue to go back to these places and record, as they’ve done, to make sure owners are following health codes.
I'm sure most have heard about the rat problem in NY restaurants KFC and Taco Bell.
The video of this is so disgusting, but worth watching if you like that sort of stuff :)
The restaurant from the video had been inspected the day before the filming, and was given the ok by the health board to operate. THANK GOD for journalists!
"An ADF-owned KFC/Taco Bell was closed by New York health inspectors last week after TV news crews peering through the windows recorded about a dozen rats skittering across the floors and climbing on tables and countertops."
This is where I applaud journalists for going the extra mile and revealing public safety issues. I cannot believe that a restaurant owner would feel it ok to continue serving food (and preparing) when disgusting vermin have been all over the place, contaminating everything!
From the exposure, it has brought out the failing in public health inspectors, and the need to start seriously penalizing restaurants that do not follow health and safety guidelines. There have been numerous programs that show food workers smoking in the facility, dropping food on the floor and still serving it to customers, spitting, shooting boogers (so disgusting), in food, not washing hands after using the restroom, and so on. Usually these types of places have been warned and warned that the establishment will be shut down if changes don’t occur, but rarely does that happen. The reason?? The city is not going to shut down a source of income for government. Period. I think public health officials really need to crack down on repeat offenders. I get so grossed out by stories like this, and know that it happens all the time – even in up-scale restaurants. I think journalists, when they find something like this, should continue to go back to these places and record, as they’ve done, to make sure owners are following health codes.
Flu Shots
Is it just me or does it seem that the media has created some sort of flu-shot epidemic. With the recent reports of school aged children dying from the common flu, it seems like the public is in a mad panic to find flu shots.
Everywhere I turn I'm seeing reports of kids dying from the flu. Channel 4, 5, 7, 13, and even the Seattle Times are reporting cases of children passing away from flu like symptons. When I watching the news the reporter ended his piece with a quick admittance that they couldn't be for sure if the child died from the flu or something else. One would think that they would really think about how they want to communicate these types of stories with the public. In my opinion I think the media has caused some scare for families. Last weekend at a public clinic in Bellevue, 2500 people showed up for free flu shots. The workers said they've never seen a crowd that comes close in comparison show up for flu shots and they've offered free flu shots for the past 5 years.
To not be sure why someone died, and to make a report that hits home with everyone that has kids, is potentially dangerous. You scare the heck out of everyone not knowing if you're assumptions are even accurate. I personally got my daughter a flu shot, but that's because she was a preemie and the doctor said she has too.
Everywhere I turn I'm seeing reports of kids dying from the flu. Channel 4, 5, 7, 13, and even the Seattle Times are reporting cases of children passing away from flu like symptons. When I watching the news the reporter ended his piece with a quick admittance that they couldn't be for sure if the child died from the flu or something else. One would think that they would really think about how they want to communicate these types of stories with the public. In my opinion I think the media has caused some scare for families. Last weekend at a public clinic in Bellevue, 2500 people showed up for free flu shots. The workers said they've never seen a crowd that comes close in comparison show up for flu shots and they've offered free flu shots for the past 5 years.
To not be sure why someone died, and to make a report that hits home with everyone that has kids, is potentially dangerous. You scare the heck out of everyone not knowing if you're assumptions are even accurate. I personally got my daughter a flu shot, but that's because she was a preemie and the doctor said she has too.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Crackdown on Students Illegally Sharing Music Online
Hundreds of college students are being accused of illegally sharing music online. The Recording Industry Association of America plans to sue the students for copyright infringement but are giving them the opportunity to reach settlements before going to court. Letters with discounted settlements are being sent to 400 computers at 13 different universities. The universities who will receive the letters include Arizona State, Marshall, North Carolina State, North Dakota State, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Syracuse, U. of Massachusetts Amherst, U. of Nebraska Lincoln, U. of South Florida, USC, U. of Tennessee Knoxville, and U. of Texas Austin.
The association began its crackdown on sharing copyright files in September 2003 and has successful sued 18,000 computers nationwide, about 1,000 of those were university students. The association claims the "theft of music remains unacceptably high" and is targeting universities because "it is especially the case on college campuses". They say that illegal sharing "undermines the industry's ability to invest in new music".
The Recording Industry Association of America is targeting students who use university Internet services to download music. They have already sent universities three times more copyright complaints this academic year than the previous year. The association hopes the schools will act by removing unauthorized content being shared on their network.
This article is especially interesting because it affects people just like us, students. No one at South or even in Washington State will receive a settlement letter and we're lucky but we could be next. The Recording Industry Association of America was smart to turn to universities because most students know how to download music (in this case illegally) and do download music.
The question I can't make up my mind about is what should universities do? Should they step up and create their own policy on illegal sharing? Do they block students from accessing the information? Or should they let the students learn a lesson the hard way and turn their head?
http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/6166946.html
The association began its crackdown on sharing copyright files in September 2003 and has successful sued 18,000 computers nationwide, about 1,000 of those were university students. The association claims the "theft of music remains unacceptably high" and is targeting universities because "it is especially the case on college campuses". They say that illegal sharing "undermines the industry's ability to invest in new music".
The Recording Industry Association of America is targeting students who use university Internet services to download music. They have already sent universities three times more copyright complaints this academic year than the previous year. The association hopes the schools will act by removing unauthorized content being shared on their network.
This article is especially interesting because it affects people just like us, students. No one at South or even in Washington State will receive a settlement letter and we're lucky but we could be next. The Recording Industry Association of America was smart to turn to universities because most students know how to download music (in this case illegally) and do download music.
The question I can't make up my mind about is what should universities do? Should they step up and create their own policy on illegal sharing? Do they block students from accessing the information? Or should they let the students learn a lesson the hard way and turn their head?
http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/6166946.html
Sunday, February 25, 2007
What I want not if they want me
This article does not deal much with mass media communication except for the fact that many people and institutions let the names of colleges and their reputations decide what type of education a student received. I thought it would be interesting to other students in the class, it was to me. NPR (National Public Radio) is doing a seven part series on the college admissions frenzy and things students should take into consideration. The one I would like to draw attention to is “some students looking for ‘hidden gem’ colleges.” Those highly coveted colleges’ admissions processes are very intense. The students that apply are basing their wants on the reputations and advice of family, friends and highly popular ranking systems. Is this information enough to promise an education based on your needs and personality? College is a time where we start figuring out who we are or who we will be in the future. Will a name help define us or is that exactly what some students don’t want? More and more, students are looking for colleges that fit into the life they hope to make by thinking about the environment, the people, and the studies, not just ranks and G.P.A. I love this outlook because it’s how life should be. Our college education is about what we want it to be, the friends we will make, the places we will live, and the careers we will have.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7384194
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7384194
Is college costly mistake for some?
Opting out of college for blue-collar life was the headline that caught my eyes as I was browsing an NPR website. The article was so interesting and went in-depth information of how some student do not belong in college. Kip Beaudoin, a guidance counselor in Kingsford, Mich, public high school is encouraging the high school students not to seek higher education, if they think it is not for them.
The reason that some educators think the increased college dropouts is the cause of pressure on the students to follow the college track, and they think they might be better suited to other options.
A chemistry teacher at Jefferson community college on Louisville, KY, surprised me with his strong words saying that ‘he often encounters students who should have been told long ago that they don’t belong in college.’
Is this another trick that the blue-collar employee seekers are using to get more students to dropout to fill in those blue-collar positions that have faced a shortage of staff? Or it is the thinking of the intellects went wrong.
It might had been possible in the past that some of those dropouts made it a good life, but is it the same now to take that risk when technology is leading us into the wonders of the future to be without higher education? The economists have cautioned that skipping college is much riskier to day than it was in the past. “It is a bit fool’s gold to think that you can drop out of school to day and …do particularly well in the US economy in the long run,” says Harvard economist Larry Katz. But the question is why some educators are suggesting that some students are better off some other options rather than college? And why some students agree that going college is waste of time. Rob Macdonald from Waltham, Mass, wishes he had been better advised; he tried college, but quit and left with $40,000 in dept.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7504120
The reason that some educators think the increased college dropouts is the cause of pressure on the students to follow the college track, and they think they might be better suited to other options.
A chemistry teacher at Jefferson community college on Louisville, KY, surprised me with his strong words saying that ‘he often encounters students who should have been told long ago that they don’t belong in college.’
Is this another trick that the blue-collar employee seekers are using to get more students to dropout to fill in those blue-collar positions that have faced a shortage of staff? Or it is the thinking of the intellects went wrong.
It might had been possible in the past that some of those dropouts made it a good life, but is it the same now to take that risk when technology is leading us into the wonders of the future to be without higher education? The economists have cautioned that skipping college is much riskier to day than it was in the past. “It is a bit fool’s gold to think that you can drop out of school to day and …do particularly well in the US economy in the long run,” says Harvard economist Larry Katz. But the question is why some educators are suggesting that some students are better off some other options rather than college? And why some students agree that going college is waste of time. Rob Macdonald from Waltham, Mass, wishes he had been better advised; he tried college, but quit and left with $40,000 in dept.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7504120
Mass Communication and Hurricane Katrina
www.hurricaneonthebayou.com
Hurricane on the Bayou is an informative IMAX film and had a message to convey to its audience-Save the Wetlands. Produced and executive produced by Greg MacGillivary and Audubon Nature Institute, respectively. This project began to educate people of all ages about the importance of saving the wetlands because of the protection barrier they provide from the powerful hurricanes of the Gulf Coast. While they were filming, the surveillance message from the media warned of the impending hurricane, and forced the crew to rethink the direction of the film.
In the past 50 years the wetlands have eroded dramatically and must be replenished to be the first line of defense against future hurricane storm surges that cause the sea level to rise or as in the case of Katrina breech levees. It is predicted that without rebuilding the wetlands, the Gulf of Mexico will move 30 miles inland by the year 2050.
A pivotal moment in the film was during the footage of the devastation after the flooding began-“communication was dead,” there was no help coming and it showed neighbors rescuing neighbors from roof tops. This portrayed the impact of the loss of communication on the people who remained in their homes after the flooding began.
The project successfully communicated the message using influential musicians, respecting Louisiana’s history of jazz and blues. Through the side stories of music and devastation the message was clear “this kind of flooding is preventable in the future if we all work together to restore the marshes.”
I knew that I had to see this movie, while I’m researching communication failures during Hurricane Katrina. I realized during my research that I don’t have many visual images in my mind because I didn’t own a television at the time of the hurricane. All of my news came passed on by friends and coworkers loaded with their own interpretations.
Hurricane on the Bayou is an informative IMAX film and had a message to convey to its audience-Save the Wetlands. Produced and executive produced by Greg MacGillivary and Audubon Nature Institute, respectively. This project began to educate people of all ages about the importance of saving the wetlands because of the protection barrier they provide from the powerful hurricanes of the Gulf Coast. While they were filming, the surveillance message from the media warned of the impending hurricane, and forced the crew to rethink the direction of the film.
In the past 50 years the wetlands have eroded dramatically and must be replenished to be the first line of defense against future hurricane storm surges that cause the sea level to rise or as in the case of Katrina breech levees. It is predicted that without rebuilding the wetlands, the Gulf of Mexico will move 30 miles inland by the year 2050.
A pivotal moment in the film was during the footage of the devastation after the flooding began-“communication was dead,” there was no help coming and it showed neighbors rescuing neighbors from roof tops. This portrayed the impact of the loss of communication on the people who remained in their homes after the flooding began.
The project successfully communicated the message using influential musicians, respecting Louisiana’s history of jazz and blues. Through the side stories of music and devastation the message was clear “this kind of flooding is preventable in the future if we all work together to restore the marshes.”
I knew that I had to see this movie, while I’m researching communication failures during Hurricane Katrina. I realized during my research that I don’t have many visual images in my mind because I didn’t own a television at the time of the hurricane. All of my news came passed on by friends and coworkers loaded with their own interpretations.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Where High Tech Meets High Concept
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i25/25a02701.htm
I think the concept of finding new medias, and the exploration of creating new forms by using unconventional means, is pretty exciting. I hadn’t put too much thought on how media is “created,” more on how it is applied. There is a new undergraduate and graduate program at the UW that focuses on innovating new forms of media technology; the idea is to use “the aesthetics of often-obscure or little-considered technology, and the nature of human encounters with it.” I think by allowing students to “reinvent” certain types of media (e.g. filmmaking), one may discover a new method on how the public views movies, TV, radio, etc. It will also translate into how media forms are utilized and for different purposes than what they were originally intended. Mr. Brixey states “With the advent of new technologies — ones based on computers and the Internet, and many others that draw from fields of scientific discovery and insight — new dimensions are opening up that lend themselves to representation beyond two- or even three-dimensional art.”
The exploration of new media technology could certainly bring about changes that could potentially benefit society as a whole. I like the fact that it’s pointed out that it’s “not weird science, but an art form.” Personally, I haven’t really considered media forms as “Art” per se, but do realize that there is much involved in the creation and implementation of media; I think with this new program, individuals could produce some viable “art,” as well as contribute new technology to different industries. I believe it to be a win-win situation.
I think the concept of finding new medias, and the exploration of creating new forms by using unconventional means, is pretty exciting. I hadn’t put too much thought on how media is “created,” more on how it is applied. There is a new undergraduate and graduate program at the UW that focuses on innovating new forms of media technology; the idea is to use “the aesthetics of often-obscure or little-considered technology, and the nature of human encounters with it.” I think by allowing students to “reinvent” certain types of media (e.g. filmmaking), one may discover a new method on how the public views movies, TV, radio, etc. It will also translate into how media forms are utilized and for different purposes than what they were originally intended. Mr. Brixey states “With the advent of new technologies — ones based on computers and the Internet, and many others that draw from fields of scientific discovery and insight — new dimensions are opening up that lend themselves to representation beyond two- or even three-dimensional art.”
The exploration of new media technology could certainly bring about changes that could potentially benefit society as a whole. I like the fact that it’s pointed out that it’s “not weird science, but an art form.” Personally, I haven’t really considered media forms as “Art” per se, but do realize that there is much involved in the creation and implementation of media; I think with this new program, individuals could produce some viable “art,” as well as contribute new technology to different industries. I believe it to be a win-win situation.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Advertising & Children
The Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) and the National Advertising Review Council (NARC) are for promoting better advertisements for children. Recently companies like Campbell Soup, Hershey Company, Kraft foods and McDonald's all agreed to be involved. Right now more then 2/3 of children's food and drinks are advertised on t.v. The goal is to teach children healthier eating styles and an all around better diet for their lives. That teaching them good habits at a young age will stick with them when they are adults.
There are two main agreements which are self-regulation program approval of significant revisions to the self-regulatory guidelines and to monitor advertisement for children under the age of 12. The main point amongst the other companies is that they will promote healthier things on t.v. and all around advertisements. One of the rules is that the companies are not allowed to advertise food or drink products in elementary school. I think this is a great idea! The less children see of advertisement of unhealthy things the better it will be for them.
In the next 6 months we should see these companies doing what they agreed to do. I think it will be interesting to see how the companies are going to promote healthier foods. How they have to rethink there ideas. I am hoping that it will be a success. I do have doubts about if all the companies will stick to the rules and guidelines of the CBBB and the NARC. For it is going to be a huge change now that they have to really think about what they are going to advertise especially since they did sign a contract.
I wish the idea of promoting healthier eating habits on t.v. and all around advertisements would have happened sooner. For we have known for quit some time now what is healthy and what is not for our bodies. I feel as if we would have did this earlier children would be a lot better off. Though people have to remember children do as they see. So if it is a success that the companies do show healthier advertisements I hope the adult will show the same examples. I feel as though the child will benefit hugely if this is done.
http://www.bbb.org/Alerts/article.asp?ID=728
There are two main agreements which are self-regulation program approval of significant revisions to the self-regulatory guidelines and to monitor advertisement for children under the age of 12. The main point amongst the other companies is that they will promote healthier things on t.v. and all around advertisements. One of the rules is that the companies are not allowed to advertise food or drink products in elementary school. I think this is a great idea! The less children see of advertisement of unhealthy things the better it will be for them.
In the next 6 months we should see these companies doing what they agreed to do. I think it will be interesting to see how the companies are going to promote healthier foods. How they have to rethink there ideas. I am hoping that it will be a success. I do have doubts about if all the companies will stick to the rules and guidelines of the CBBB and the NARC. For it is going to be a huge change now that they have to really think about what they are going to advertise especially since they did sign a contract.
I wish the idea of promoting healthier eating habits on t.v. and all around advertisements would have happened sooner. For we have known for quit some time now what is healthy and what is not for our bodies. I feel as if we would have did this earlier children would be a lot better off. Though people have to remember children do as they see. So if it is a success that the companies do show healthier advertisements I hope the adult will show the same examples. I feel as though the child will benefit hugely if this is done.
http://www.bbb.org/Alerts/article.asp?ID=728
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Cingular Wireless the New AT&T and the Old South...Why no protest?
Cingular Wireless, the “new AT & T”, is running a commercial that features a young man on the phone with his future father in law, whose name is Jim. The father states, “I hope you can think of us as buddies.” The young man replies, “o.k. Jim, Jimbo, Jimmy boy, the Jimster” and then proceeds to break into the song “Jimmy Crack Corn”. The shot of the young man cuts at the line, “Jimmy Crack Corn and I don’t care”, back to Jim smiling saying something we don’t hear because the call has dropped. The young man believing he’s gone to far in his friendliness saying, “ah Jim”. The commercial cuts to the phrase, “A dropped call can ruin a conversation.” The last shot is of the young man saying, “Jim, I mean Mr. McDermott.” Cingular asks us to “switch to the network with fewest dropped calls”.
For awhile every time I saw this commercial, I reacted in disbelief. Future showings of the commercial had me running across the room for the remote. Why the severe reaction? I couldn’t believe the commercial was using an old minstrel song to make a point about dropped calls (I would note later others commandeered it and labeled it a folk song). I am curious to know, what made this young character, who is white, sing such an old song? A song, I would presume his generation probably never ever heard growing up (Note again, I am wrong about this too…apparently the song is taught to school children). I was disturb because the lyrics depending on a persons interpretation has mixed meanings. It could be a song about slaves seeking revenge on their master, it might gave been a protest song to abolitionist, an uplifting song for the slaves, and interpretations continue. I think hearing the use of the word “Jimbo” seemed to trigger the word “Sambo” (a negative connotation towards dark skinned people), the words “Jimmy boy” made me think of the negative connotation of the word “boy” when by white southerners, and luckily the word “Jimster” only reminded me of an old Saturday Night Live skit featuring Sting, in which the character proceeds to say “Stinger”, “Stinger ronni”, “Sting man” and so on. The fact, the commercial cuts to another scene before he completes the line with “my massa’s gone away” is a sign the creators knew they were close to crossing a very dangerous line.
I wondered was I the only one to be disturbed by this commercial. Where are the protest from the NACCP? What were the ad people thinking and why develop such a commercial? Where’s Dave Chappelle with a comeback to bring balance. I could only conclude we’ve become to desensitized and we lack understanding of history and its relevancy to today’s culture. It also probably doesn’t help that rappers and various other people have adopted the song further aiding in a lost understanding of the songs meaning which has various interpretations.
What do you think? Should people protest AT & T. Should this commercial have aired? Did they creators cross the line?
Check out the commercial and what some others say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqeMZh1WJs4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Crack_Corn
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a981030.html
For awhile every time I saw this commercial, I reacted in disbelief. Future showings of the commercial had me running across the room for the remote. Why the severe reaction? I couldn’t believe the commercial was using an old minstrel song to make a point about dropped calls (I would note later others commandeered it and labeled it a folk song). I am curious to know, what made this young character, who is white, sing such an old song? A song, I would presume his generation probably never ever heard growing up (Note again, I am wrong about this too…apparently the song is taught to school children). I was disturb because the lyrics depending on a persons interpretation has mixed meanings. It could be a song about slaves seeking revenge on their master, it might gave been a protest song to abolitionist, an uplifting song for the slaves, and interpretations continue. I think hearing the use of the word “Jimbo” seemed to trigger the word “Sambo” (a negative connotation towards dark skinned people), the words “Jimmy boy” made me think of the negative connotation of the word “boy” when by white southerners, and luckily the word “Jimster” only reminded me of an old Saturday Night Live skit featuring Sting, in which the character proceeds to say “Stinger”, “Stinger ronni”, “Sting man” and so on. The fact, the commercial cuts to another scene before he completes the line with “my massa’s gone away” is a sign the creators knew they were close to crossing a very dangerous line.
I wondered was I the only one to be disturbed by this commercial. Where are the protest from the NACCP? What were the ad people thinking and why develop such a commercial? Where’s Dave Chappelle with a comeback to bring balance. I could only conclude we’ve become to desensitized and we lack understanding of history and its relevancy to today’s culture. It also probably doesn’t help that rappers and various other people have adopted the song further aiding in a lost understanding of the songs meaning which has various interpretations.
What do you think? Should people protest AT & T. Should this commercial have aired? Did they creators cross the line?
Check out the commercial and what some others say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqeMZh1WJs4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Crack_Corn
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a981030.html
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
News War
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/
In this very timely and first of a series called News War, Frontline uses the “Plamegate” ordeal, the jailing of Judith Miller, and the current Scooter Libby case to discuss reporter’s privilege. Not only that, but also how our government can use and did use the news in it’s run up to the war in Iraq and to sell to the public the need to topple Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times and many other major publications have a very limited ability to access the intelligence community, due the lack of national security reporters and bureaus internationally. The intelligence that the NYT reporters (Judith Miller) were using in their stories, that supported the war, was coming directly from the Bush administration. In turn, people like Cheney who gave the information to the reporters, would turn around and reference these stories on programs like Meet the Press as if the NYT had gathered this information from independent sources. Not surprising, but appalling nevertheless.
This is appalling not just because of the employment of these sinister tactics by the Bush administration, but because the NYT and Judith Miller seem to have been complicit in this.
The bigger question is whether Miller went to jail on principle, to protect her confidential source, or to protect the Bush administration, which was her source. If it is the latter, and I tend to believe it is, it confirms one of the important messages in this program. Before and during Watergate, confidentiality was used as a tool, by journalists, to coax their potential sources to give up information. Now confidentiality can be a condition imposed on the reporter by the source to spin a story. The D.C. elite and elite media hand in hand manipulating the public. No wonder there’s a major credibility problem in journalism today.
In this very timely and first of a series called News War, Frontline uses the “Plamegate” ordeal, the jailing of Judith Miller, and the current Scooter Libby case to discuss reporter’s privilege. Not only that, but also how our government can use and did use the news in it’s run up to the war in Iraq and to sell to the public the need to topple Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times and many other major publications have a very limited ability to access the intelligence community, due the lack of national security reporters and bureaus internationally. The intelligence that the NYT reporters (Judith Miller) were using in their stories, that supported the war, was coming directly from the Bush administration. In turn, people like Cheney who gave the information to the reporters, would turn around and reference these stories on programs like Meet the Press as if the NYT had gathered this information from independent sources. Not surprising, but appalling nevertheless.
This is appalling not just because of the employment of these sinister tactics by the Bush administration, but because the NYT and Judith Miller seem to have been complicit in this.
The bigger question is whether Miller went to jail on principle, to protect her confidential source, or to protect the Bush administration, which was her source. If it is the latter, and I tend to believe it is, it confirms one of the important messages in this program. Before and during Watergate, confidentiality was used as a tool, by journalists, to coax their potential sources to give up information. Now confidentiality can be a condition imposed on the reporter by the source to spin a story. The D.C. elite and elite media hand in hand manipulating the public. No wonder there’s a major credibility problem in journalism today.
Online Video of Madrid Trial
It is amazing how relevant this class has been to everything that is going on in the World. Hearing earlier about the Radio consolidation proposal, and now seeing this article in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/business/worldbusiness/19media.html?ex=1172638800&en=2f4d263e2fc67c42&ei=5070&emc=eta1
“MADRID, Feb. 18 — On the opening day of Spain’s trial of 29 men accused in the deadly Madrid train bombings, police officers ringed the maximum-security brick courtroom while a helicopter whirled overhead.
"But with the click of a computer mouse, anyone can peek inside the inner sanctum for a glimpse of Spanish judges in black robes with white lace cuffs facing suspects barricaded behind bulletproof glass. [...]
“Datadiar has struck an alliance with the tribunal, the Audiencia Nacional, which has opened the courtroom wide to cameras. Four are posted at various angles in the court, and a fifth shows documents presented as evidence. “
I love that anyone can peek into the courtroom and follow the proceedings online. That is exactly how it should be. Although I agree, that the OJ Simpson circus showed us how NOT to publicize a trial, I hope we have learned our lesson. The world can only become a community if we are all involved and we can only be involved if we are given the chance by opening doors – or tiny little windows in this case – into courtrooms everywhere. I applaud Spain for showing how democracy should operate and for broadcasting without any commentary. For any mistakes that may happen during this trial, the judge seems to say: they have nothing to hide.
I would like to make it clear: I would not be so enthusiastic, if this was a television show, where “experts” weighed in on every word uttered. Although it may be hard for common people - not well versed in legal lingo - to understand what is happening, the symbolism of this opening is enormous. Everyone can take the time to follow the events. The company who is broadcasting is a for-profit firm, but made an exception in this case and made the footage available free of charge. Everyone – including the technology – is coming together and that is just so exciting to see.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/business/worldbusiness/19media.html?ex=1172638800&en=2f4d263e2fc67c42&ei=5070&emc=eta1
“MADRID, Feb. 18 — On the opening day of Spain’s trial of 29 men accused in the deadly Madrid train bombings, police officers ringed the maximum-security brick courtroom while a helicopter whirled overhead.
"But with the click of a computer mouse, anyone can peek inside the inner sanctum for a glimpse of Spanish judges in black robes with white lace cuffs facing suspects barricaded behind bulletproof glass. [...]
“Datadiar has struck an alliance with the tribunal, the Audiencia Nacional, which has opened the courtroom wide to cameras. Four are posted at various angles in the court, and a fifth shows documents presented as evidence. “
I love that anyone can peek into the courtroom and follow the proceedings online. That is exactly how it should be. Although I agree, that the OJ Simpson circus showed us how NOT to publicize a trial, I hope we have learned our lesson. The world can only become a community if we are all involved and we can only be involved if we are given the chance by opening doors – or tiny little windows in this case – into courtrooms everywhere. I applaud Spain for showing how democracy should operate and for broadcasting without any commentary. For any mistakes that may happen during this trial, the judge seems to say: they have nothing to hide.
I would like to make it clear: I would not be so enthusiastic, if this was a television show, where “experts” weighed in on every word uttered. Although it may be hard for common people - not well versed in legal lingo - to understand what is happening, the symbolism of this opening is enormous. Everyone can take the time to follow the events. The company who is broadcasting is a for-profit firm, but made an exception in this case and made the footage available free of charge. Everyone – including the technology – is coming together and that is just so exciting to see.
Proposed Consolidation of the Satellite Radio Industry
The top two rivals in the satellite radio industry have agreed on a merger as an attempt to lower costs. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio hope to merge as equals with shareholders of each company owning approximately 50 percent of the combined entity. They would collectively decide on a new company name and where the company would be based.
Currently, a Federal Communications Commission provision specifically forbids the companies to combined making the proposed plan seem more like a far-fetched idea. The companies would need to demonstrate that the merger would be in public interest, giving consumers more choices and affordable prices. They would also have to meet antitrust approval from the Department of Justice. The two companies plan to argue that they currently compete with traditional radio, advancing digital audio sources as well as each other.
XM and Sirius are working on developing a universal receiver that could receive signals from both companies instead of just one company's signal. This would allow them to eliminate exclusive programming and listeners could enjoy programs offered by each company. The impact on subscription prices is unknown at the time. The merge could either bring down the cost of providing service or it could grant increased pricing power as the only U.S. satellite radio provider.
It is unclear if the FCC will change their regulations regarding the consolidation of two satellite radio companies. The National Association of Broadcasters, a group that represents radio companies released a statement urging federal regulators to block the deal.
This article reminds me of the consolidation of the radio industry following the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act made it possible for a few large group owners to dominate the industry. I would predict that if XM and Sirius were to merge into one satellite radio provider, the consolidation would have similar effects on the sound of satellite radio as the consolidation that occur through out the radio industry.
http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/5934831.html
Currently, a Federal Communications Commission provision specifically forbids the companies to combined making the proposed plan seem more like a far-fetched idea. The companies would need to demonstrate that the merger would be in public interest, giving consumers more choices and affordable prices. They would also have to meet antitrust approval from the Department of Justice. The two companies plan to argue that they currently compete with traditional radio, advancing digital audio sources as well as each other.
XM and Sirius are working on developing a universal receiver that could receive signals from both companies instead of just one company's signal. This would allow them to eliminate exclusive programming and listeners could enjoy programs offered by each company. The impact on subscription prices is unknown at the time. The merge could either bring down the cost of providing service or it could grant increased pricing power as the only U.S. satellite radio provider.
It is unclear if the FCC will change their regulations regarding the consolidation of two satellite radio companies. The National Association of Broadcasters, a group that represents radio companies released a statement urging federal regulators to block the deal.
This article reminds me of the consolidation of the radio industry following the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act made it possible for a few large group owners to dominate the industry. I would predict that if XM and Sirius were to merge into one satellite radio provider, the consolidation would have similar effects on the sound of satellite radio as the consolidation that occur through out the radio industry.
http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/5934831.html
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Thank you Robin Wright Penn....
Thank you Robin Wright Penn for trying to remind the public that your job is an actor not celebrity. These days athletes, politicians, chefs, reality show personalities, and the like achieve the status of celebrity. The public obsesses over their lives wanting to know every intimate detail. The entertainment shows and even national news shows feed the people’s need to know. As Penn points out in a CBC interview, “Do we know these people? Lindsay Lohan? Angelina and Brad? Are we in their f----g bedroom? No, we’re not. Do we hear their conversations? No, we don’t. It’s the most insidious thing in the world. [For actors,] it’s like being a prisoner. The only difference is someone in prison committed a crime. Where did we f--- up? We’re doing art. It’s bizarre.”
I used to love watching the show “Inside the Actors Studio” until I noticed the show started interviewing actors in conjunction with the release of their latest movie and the actors work didn’t contain necessarily a high quality body of work (Jennifer Lopez, Martin Lawrence, and Tim Allen). I liked watching the interviews because I was hearing the actor talk passionately about their craft and how they decided to portray a particular role. They aren’t discussing their personal lives. When Penn states, “I love acting,” and further into the interview states, “We’re all tortured in some way, actors. There’s something that needs to be exposed, and that exposure is a sharing. I’m kind of a shy person. I’m not bold, and it’s an outlet. Hopefully, I touch people and get them to relate to each other, because ultimately, that’s what we’re in this life for, to relate. Otherwise, we’re just whirling-dervish silliness.” She’s talking about her craft as an actor not her celebrity, it makes for a more interesting story to me.
This past weeks reading we read about the media and first amendment right protections and ethics. I am unable to comprehend why it’s necessary or pertinent information to cover the life of someone to the point their stories transcends them to celebrity.
Why do we forget that an actor is just an actor, a athlete is just an athlete, and etc? Why can’t we recognize them as everyday human beings? Why do we place them on the pedestal and continue to support the media’s pursuance of celebrity stories?
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/robin_wright_penn.html
Saturday, February 17, 2007
hottest January ever!
Climate change or global warming is a serious challenge and a threat that we are encountering to day. It has been on the focus of political debate recently. The political debate did not create any significant point for the world against the global warming; because each and every one of them has their own interest.
The affect of the global warming is obvious and have been noticed around the world, increasingly serious sign are developing. According to the U.S scientist, January 2007 was the hottest January ever. It broke all the records they had since they started the temperature record keeping in 1880. The increase was 3.4 degree Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January.
“That is pretty unusual for a record to be broken by that much” said David Easterling, the data center’s scientific service chief “I was surprised”.
In order to prevent a major problem to the health and the economy of this and the future generation, there must be taken an appropriate action towards this progressing mater of global warming issue.
“From one standpoint is not unusual to have a new record” said Jay Lawrimore, climate monitoring branch chief. Bur January, he said, was a bigger jump than the world has seen in about 10 years.
Scientist and the environmentalist cried out loud to solve the problem which seems to be a man-made.
The major factor that contributes to the climate change is the burning of the fossil-fuel, and carbon dioxide releasing gases. If we could eliminate the use of those, and turn towards a renewable energy for our electricity, reduce the dependency on oil, increase of the use of an environmental friendly energy, we would create a saver environment for us and our future generations.
www.komotv.com/news/national/5853221.html
The affect of the global warming is obvious and have been noticed around the world, increasingly serious sign are developing. According to the U.S scientist, January 2007 was the hottest January ever. It broke all the records they had since they started the temperature record keeping in 1880. The increase was 3.4 degree Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January.
“That is pretty unusual for a record to be broken by that much” said David Easterling, the data center’s scientific service chief “I was surprised”.
In order to prevent a major problem to the health and the economy of this and the future generation, there must be taken an appropriate action towards this progressing mater of global warming issue.
“From one standpoint is not unusual to have a new record” said Jay Lawrimore, climate monitoring branch chief. Bur January, he said, was a bigger jump than the world has seen in about 10 years.
Scientist and the environmentalist cried out loud to solve the problem which seems to be a man-made.
The major factor that contributes to the climate change is the burning of the fossil-fuel, and carbon dioxide releasing gases. If we could eliminate the use of those, and turn towards a renewable energy for our electricity, reduce the dependency on oil, increase of the use of an environmental friendly energy, we would create a saver environment for us and our future generations.
www.komotv.com/news/national/5853221.html
Advertisements and the effect...
It’s amazing the effect ads have on people. Volkswagen was asked recently to pull an ad that showed a man about to jump off the top of a building until he learned that the car was selling for less than $17,000 then he easily walked away from the edge of the building. The article said that no one complained about the ad, not the consumers, owners, or dealers, but from suicide prevention groups that were concerned about its message. Volkswagen withdrew the ad, saying that sensitivity was a key element. The issue seemed to be that the ad trivialized a very significant public health problem.
I personally saw this ad and thought nothing of it. But now reading this I can see how some people might not want it to be aired. It is making light of a very serious issue and reflects how our society views the issue. If people that have such issues see society not taking it seriously it could make a bad situation worse. It just goes to show how much an ad can say without realizing it. I’m sure that Volkswagen didn’t want to cause any problems when they aired the ad, and saw it as a good advertising campaign, where someone decides life is worth living after all because a car is affordable. They showed that they didn’t want any controversy when they pulled the ad.
We are surrounded by advertisements and I’m glad that someone is paying attention to the meaning of them or the underlying messages, because I guess I have become numb.
http://www.komotv.com/news/business/5892561.html
I personally saw this ad and thought nothing of it. But now reading this I can see how some people might not want it to be aired. It is making light of a very serious issue and reflects how our society views the issue. If people that have such issues see society not taking it seriously it could make a bad situation worse. It just goes to show how much an ad can say without realizing it. I’m sure that Volkswagen didn’t want to cause any problems when they aired the ad, and saw it as a good advertising campaign, where someone decides life is worth living after all because a car is affordable. They showed that they didn’t want any controversy when they pulled the ad.
We are surrounded by advertisements and I’m glad that someone is paying attention to the meaning of them or the underlying messages, because I guess I have become numb.
http://www.komotv.com/news/business/5892561.html
Shield Laws
Speaking of reporter’s shield law…
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/5913776.html
The house has now passed a bill that would protect journalists from facing prison for not revealing confidential sources. The bill would grant absolute privilege for protecting confidential sources. "It is really important in a democratic society that we have a free press, that we as citizens know what is going on in our society, that the people in power who have an interest in keeping information from us shouldn't be allowed to bury that information," said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, who sponsored the measure.
This is what we have been discussing. Maybe we are getting closer to the shield laws not being so undefined. It did state that under it’s provisions the court could force the discloser of information under circumstances. These circumstances seem to be what the class agreed on the discussion board, that when it is necessary in a criminal or civil case and the material cannot be obtained else where. It also said that the law would provide a more limited privilege on materials such as unpublished notes and tapes.
A point that was made, was that sources are more likely to come forward if they know that their identities will be protected, and this is essential. Our society relies on journalists for a lot of information and news that is important for the public to know. They and their sources need to have protection!
It’s now headed to the Senate… so we’ll have to wait and see where it goes from there.
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/5913776.html
The house has now passed a bill that would protect journalists from facing prison for not revealing confidential sources. The bill would grant absolute privilege for protecting confidential sources. "It is really important in a democratic society that we have a free press, that we as citizens know what is going on in our society, that the people in power who have an interest in keeping information from us shouldn't be allowed to bury that information," said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, who sponsored the measure.
This is what we have been discussing. Maybe we are getting closer to the shield laws not being so undefined. It did state that under it’s provisions the court could force the discloser of information under circumstances. These circumstances seem to be what the class agreed on the discussion board, that when it is necessary in a criminal or civil case and the material cannot be obtained else where. It also said that the law would provide a more limited privilege on materials such as unpublished notes and tapes.
A point that was made, was that sources are more likely to come forward if they know that their identities will be protected, and this is essential. Our society relies on journalists for a lot of information and news that is important for the public to know. They and their sources need to have protection!
It’s now headed to the Senate… so we’ll have to wait and see where it goes from there.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Target Me
Blogging, a place to speaks one’s mind or a new way for companies to reach their target market? Many people use blogs to see reviews on products, places, and even people. Can this be a resource for unswayed opinions? According to a recent article in the Mercury News, blogs are now using blog authors as an outlet for advertising. Microsoft recently gave out free $2000 laptops to blog authors with the hope of a blog review of their new Vista operating system. One thing this new practice does signal is the growing popularity of Blogs. Stated in the article “a choice now facing blogger,s” Do they intend to be a trusted source of insight and information for their readers, or merely the Internet's version of an infomercial?” and goes on to ask another question of should the use of freebies or financial backing be disclosed on that website.
To me this new marketing practice is not surprising. It actually seems like a somewhat inexpensive way to reach the consumer. How many people will start blogging if they know they will receive some sort of compensation for their effort? Millions! Paid vacation? Blog your travels! New Laptop? Write a positive review! Sounds good to me! On the topic of disclosing the freebies received for these blogs, I think it should be up to the author. If as a consumer you take the advice of a review that is the consumer’s decision. We are not forced to purchase products or a service; that is our freedom as consumers. If it makes the blog less trustworthy, then find a new resource for information. There will be blogs that will pride themselves on the fact that they don’t practice this type of influencing. They might even start charging people a small amount to join their oh-so biased blogs. People will find a way. They always do.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/16621026.htm
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Some Convenient Truths
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/global-warming?ca=GoobwGcLwI%2BVplz2kB%2FCB3JmiBypO%2Fcy6koU2wI9t2Y%3D
A friend of mine posted this article on her facebook account the other day and I thought it was worthy of a blog post because it's a different side of the spectrum of global warming.. Or climate change.. Whatever you prefer.
I'm really glad that people are beginning to acknowledge the fact that things are changing, especially regarding greenhouse gases, because if something isn't done our future is not going to be so bright.. I do believe though, that some politicians are making it seem like stopping (or slowing down or even controlling) global warming is going to be really hard and really economically expensive. I don't think it will be at all, and I believe our past has proven that. I mean honestly, when you watch the news you never hear about anything that we have done right to help prevent or slow down global climate change, but we've actually done pretty well so far... For the most part... BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP!!!
In the past forty years there have been three major threats to our environment; urban smog, the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) that threatened to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and acid rain that threatened to destroy the dying Appalachian forests. All three of those issues were acknowledged by our past presidents and strict regulations regarding each issue were enacted. In the past thirty years "smog-forming has declined by a third to a half, emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated, studies have shown that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning and since 1990, acid rain has declined by a third (which is a start), while the health of the Appalachian forest has greatly improved."
Now isn't that something to at least be proud of? I didn't know until a couple weeks ago that we have actually been improving... Especially our ozone layer.... I always used to look up at the sky and imagine a huge hole just appearing because I thought the ozone layer would never start getting better.
Why do you think it is that we never hear about the things that we are doing right? Don't you think if people were told that the work they were doing to prevent global warming was paying off it would motivate them to do it more? It would for me.... And did those regulations hurt our economy at all? I don't think so... Did it cost us an arm and a leg? Not so much...Even if it did there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to spend an arm and a leg to help our environment when we're spending thousands of bodies other places doing other things......
A friend of mine posted this article on her facebook account the other day and I thought it was worthy of a blog post because it's a different side of the spectrum of global warming.. Or climate change.. Whatever you prefer.
I'm really glad that people are beginning to acknowledge the fact that things are changing, especially regarding greenhouse gases, because if something isn't done our future is not going to be so bright.. I do believe though, that some politicians are making it seem like stopping (or slowing down or even controlling) global warming is going to be really hard and really economically expensive. I don't think it will be at all, and I believe our past has proven that. I mean honestly, when you watch the news you never hear about anything that we have done right to help prevent or slow down global climate change, but we've actually done pretty well so far... For the most part... BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP!!!
In the past forty years there have been three major threats to our environment; urban smog, the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) that threatened to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and acid rain that threatened to destroy the dying Appalachian forests. All three of those issues were acknowledged by our past presidents and strict regulations regarding each issue were enacted. In the past thirty years "smog-forming has declined by a third to a half, emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated, studies have shown that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning and since 1990, acid rain has declined by a third (which is a start), while the health of the Appalachian forest has greatly improved."
Now isn't that something to at least be proud of? I didn't know until a couple weeks ago that we have actually been improving... Especially our ozone layer.... I always used to look up at the sky and imagine a huge hole just appearing because I thought the ozone layer would never start getting better.
Why do you think it is that we never hear about the things that we are doing right? Don't you think if people were told that the work they were doing to prevent global warming was paying off it would motivate them to do it more? It would for me.... And did those regulations hurt our economy at all? I don't think so... Did it cost us an arm and a leg? Not so much...Even if it did there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to spend an arm and a leg to help our environment when we're spending thousands of bodies other places doing other things......
http://www.kirotv.com/sports/11017440/detail.html
Here's a story that compliments our reading for the week.
I understand the need to report, and the need by which to gather information. But, what I don't understand is why the underhandedness from an attorney? One, the details that he/she leaked is not worth being disbarred over, two, why wouldn't he/she want for a potential fair trial, and three, what did he have to gain in the end?
This story is text book example of the extent that reporters will go in order to secure the informants identity, and the extremes that are gone to in order to have a story. Where were their ethics during this time? Why would they think it's ok to use this type of information, knowing full well that the information is not to be disclosed. How do the defendants have a fair trial when two eager reporters, and a shady attorney are doing all they can to destroy these people. I find this type of reporting and characteristics to be deplorable. I see nothing good that came from this. Now, the reporters get to sit anxiously while they wait for their turn in court. Reporting a viable story is obviously important, but this type of behavior only sullies those reputations of reporters that are seriously seeking information in a legal way. Not all information is obtained legally, but you would think that more caution, or a look at what the potential consequences would be before delving into something like this.
Here's a story that compliments our reading for the week.
I understand the need to report, and the need by which to gather information. But, what I don't understand is why the underhandedness from an attorney? One, the details that he/she leaked is not worth being disbarred over, two, why wouldn't he/she want for a potential fair trial, and three, what did he have to gain in the end?
This story is text book example of the extent that reporters will go in order to secure the informants identity, and the extremes that are gone to in order to have a story. Where were their ethics during this time? Why would they think it's ok to use this type of information, knowing full well that the information is not to be disclosed. How do the defendants have a fair trial when two eager reporters, and a shady attorney are doing all they can to destroy these people. I find this type of reporting and characteristics to be deplorable. I see nothing good that came from this. Now, the reporters get to sit anxiously while they wait for their turn in court. Reporting a viable story is obviously important, but this type of behavior only sullies those reputations of reporters that are seriously seeking information in a legal way. Not all information is obtained legally, but you would think that more caution, or a look at what the potential consequences would be before delving into something like this.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Video will Resurrect the Radio Star
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/media/14radio.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=technology&adxnnlx=1171473237-IuYFEJHhpNd20tKi5dc5RA&pagewanted=print
This is an excellent review of the changes that radio will have to go through to stay competitive. The article argues that video will actually save the radio (star). Many DJs all around the country are already buying into this new medium although some are a bit concerned with their appearances.
Radio stations have been producing some video specials before, but nothing to the extent of which they are embracing video and user generated content now. Some stations are actually asking listeners to tape concerts which they later post on their website. So it seems that listeners, who are already familiar with radio being more involved, more engaging than other media, enjoy seeing themselves in addition to hearing their voices.
Listeners are now becoming viewers and very much enjoying this new dimension to the old medium. Radio stations are trying to capitalize on this by starting personal reality shows with the most popular radio personalities. These shows are posted on the radio’s website - to attract viewers who may turn into listeners. So it seems that the video is the lure and gaining listeners is still the ultimate goal.
It will be interesting to see if there are actually going to be problems with the crossover TV/radio stations on the Internet: “CBS Corporation, which is better known for its television network, to begin integrating some of its video programming into the radio division’s Web sites.” Will this pose the same problems that radio was facing at the beginning of the century in the form of the non-duplication rule?
For now, I’m just happy that radio stations are still around and excited to see this new stage of the evolution of an old friend.
This is an excellent review of the changes that radio will have to go through to stay competitive. The article argues that video will actually save the radio (star). Many DJs all around the country are already buying into this new medium although some are a bit concerned with their appearances.
Radio stations have been producing some video specials before, but nothing to the extent of which they are embracing video and user generated content now. Some stations are actually asking listeners to tape concerts which they later post on their website. So it seems that listeners, who are already familiar with radio being more involved, more engaging than other media, enjoy seeing themselves in addition to hearing their voices.
Listeners are now becoming viewers and very much enjoying this new dimension to the old medium. Radio stations are trying to capitalize on this by starting personal reality shows with the most popular radio personalities. These shows are posted on the radio’s website - to attract viewers who may turn into listeners. So it seems that the video is the lure and gaining listeners is still the ultimate goal.
It will be interesting to see if there are actually going to be problems with the crossover TV/radio stations on the Internet: “CBS Corporation, which is better known for its television network, to begin integrating some of its video programming into the radio division’s Web sites.” Will this pose the same problems that radio was facing at the beginning of the century in the form of the non-duplication rule?
For now, I’m just happy that radio stations are still around and excited to see this new stage of the evolution of an old friend.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
How much is a Planet worth?
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=21200&hed=Branson%2c+Gore+Team+to+Save+Globe#
Richard Branson and Al Gore join forces to try to save our planet. Their approach is not new, but I think it is definitely worth mention: they have posted a reward of $25 Million to anyone who can solve the problem of global warming.
I welcome this idea. First of all, rich people are trying to do something constructive with their money. Secondly, someone uses all the people of the Earth as a resource. This story reminded me of the NPR story we listened to through this class about “Wikinomics”. How wonderful, that a) someone comes out and calls it as it is: global warming is happening and b) offers a reward for a good idea.
I could not imagine a better use for the Internet than to try to solve the World’s problems with it. Why stop there? I'm sure if we started a think-tank of ideas to the most pressing problems around, like trying to irrigate certain parts of Africa, great suggestions may come from the most unlikely places.
I wish the Internet and mass media in general was used more often like this. Information sharing could finally amount to something useful, something tangible. Although I feel $25 Million is somehow not quite enough reward for saving a planet…
Richard Branson and Al Gore join forces to try to save our planet. Their approach is not new, but I think it is definitely worth mention: they have posted a reward of $25 Million to anyone who can solve the problem of global warming.
I welcome this idea. First of all, rich people are trying to do something constructive with their money. Secondly, someone uses all the people of the Earth as a resource. This story reminded me of the NPR story we listened to through this class about “Wikinomics”. How wonderful, that a) someone comes out and calls it as it is: global warming is happening and b) offers a reward for a good idea.
I could not imagine a better use for the Internet than to try to solve the World’s problems with it. Why stop there? I'm sure if we started a think-tank of ideas to the most pressing problems around, like trying to irrigate certain parts of Africa, great suggestions may come from the most unlikely places.
I wish the Internet and mass media in general was used more often like this. Information sharing could finally amount to something useful, something tangible. Although I feel $25 Million is somehow not quite enough reward for saving a planet…
Sea-Tac Luggage Crime
Last week there were two luggage handlers that were arrested for stealing things out of peoples luggage. They worked for a company called Menzies which works with Alaska Airlines. Both of the men were young and 22 years old. They are suspects of stealing cigarettes, lap tops and credit cards. One of the suspects were caught for they were trying to use a credit card in Bellevue and the store called the police who then called the owner. This was the lead on one man for the company was able to identify the man that works for them. The other men was arrested for what police where thinking was a cigarette selling business. That the man was selling what he took from peoples luggage's.
The police and the airports are now trying to tell people if you are missing things in your luggage don't just tell the company that you flew with like Alaska Airlines but let the airport know as well. For the airports feel they will be able to help figure out who is breaking into the luggage and at what airport.
I found this article very interesting for one it was at Sea-Tac airport which is the main airport I use. Also it just reminds me of how much you have to watch everything. Now that there are only certain types of locks you can put on your luggage if any for safety reasons you have to watch out. I understand the protocol but if the luggage's these two men got into didn't have locks then it made it very easy for them. So I see the ups and downs of being able to have locks. I feel as though Menzies needs to have a tighter check of their employees for if there not careful airlines will not want there employees. The best advice I can think of is if your not going on a long trip to pack lightly so you can carry your bag on. I find it a lot more convenient as well for I don't have to wait for my luggage to come down the shoot.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003569894_webhandlers13.html
The police and the airports are now trying to tell people if you are missing things in your luggage don't just tell the company that you flew with like Alaska Airlines but let the airport know as well. For the airports feel they will be able to help figure out who is breaking into the luggage and at what airport.
I found this article very interesting for one it was at Sea-Tac airport which is the main airport I use. Also it just reminds me of how much you have to watch everything. Now that there are only certain types of locks you can put on your luggage if any for safety reasons you have to watch out. I understand the protocol but if the luggage's these two men got into didn't have locks then it made it very easy for them. So I see the ups and downs of being able to have locks. I feel as though Menzies needs to have a tighter check of their employees for if there not careful airlines will not want there employees. The best advice I can think of is if your not going on a long trip to pack lightly so you can carry your bag on. I find it a lot more convenient as well for I don't have to wait for my luggage to come down the shoot.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003569894_webhandlers13.html
Monday, February 12, 2007
"I thought it would be pretentious to sort of write about myself as having participating in the destruction of the American political landscape"
I was listening to "On The Media" and I found this story. I am, to be frank, pleased with the fact that Fox News has been losing ground. I have found them to be crass, dishonest and chilling in their style of "news."
"You aim for a very broad segment of the populace – say, you know, middle-class conservatives or middle-American conservatives, and you do two things. You show them that their way of life is being threatened and then you give them somebody who they can blame for their way of life being threatened.
"You aim for a very broad segment of the populace – say, you know, middle-class conservatives or middle-American conservatives, and you do two things. You show them that their way of life is being threatened and then you give them somebody who they can blame for their way of life being threatened.
You know, so you fill their news with terrible and threatening news, and then you, in the same broadcast, do something like show a lot of pictures of gay people getting married on the steps of the Massachusetts State House. And then in the end, it becomes sort of a team-building exercise where people tune into that radio station not so much to hear that news but to hear other people like themselves tuned in so that they can feel like they're part of something, like part of a group."
So, while the creepy Fox propoganda machine is losing ground, (it's still number one,) it's losing ground to people playing the same crass game.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Another Perspective on the Media & Ms. Smith
*Pre-note this was written the day Anna Nicole Smith died and as far as I can tell I was on the nose…I am so happy for the Cartoon Network.
So today’s top headliner is going to be the death of Anna Nicole Smith. We won’t be able to escape it. All other news will be out the window. I am willing to bet that Good Morning America, the Today Show, and CBS News along with the various entertainment channels and entertainment shows will recount the story over and over. They will either describe Smith in negative ways such as the Fox News headline “Anna Nicole Smith Dies…Outrageous ex-Playmate dies after collapsing at Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in
It’s moments like these that the news becomes so obsessive you wonder what else is happening in the world. It’s also odd to think what we’ve become attracted to hearing tragic storylines. While I am still trying to get a clear picture of what’s happening in the Scooter Libby trial the media will be doing biographies of Anna Nicole Smith for the next few weeks. I am not discounting her death. She’s just one person the media turned into a celebrity and the public’s need to know every detail of her life just didn’t help. The lines are becoming so blurry between what the media considers hard news and soft news.
I frequently hop from one news web-site to the next and I can’t help but notice what different stories are the headliners for today on various news sites.
- BBC news (international version) web-site is “Palestinian rivals in unity deal” and a small picture of Anna Nicole Smith.
- The
- CNN.com- “CPR fails to save Anna Nicole Smith”
- The NY Times- lead story is “Palestinians Announce Unity Deal”
- NPR.org-“Libby’s Attorneys Pick at Russert’s Account of Leak”
The examples above are only of print media. If you’ve ever watched Good Morning America, the Today Show, CBS News, and Fox News during the morning, it’s always intriguing to notice what their top 3 stories are and what order importance they place these stories. It sometimes reads like a who’s who of celebrity news or if the viewer is lucky they hear the hard news first before the entertainment.
It just reminds me that as a person who wants to know what’s happening in the world I should be vigilant to check every available source of information I can find and never take for granted that I do have access and the ability to conclude my own views about the world.
25 month old died
In the Seattle Times this morning there was an article about an adult named Gomez and her trial for abuse and 1st degree manslaughter back in September 2003. The article was about the foster care organization that was in charge of Gomez's son Rafael also known as Raffy. The baby was born with methamphetamine "meth". Three days after his birth he was put into foster care. Over a short time he was in 4 different foster homes but kept getting sent back to his birth mother.
Six months after Raffy was with his birth mother he died. Gomez says Raffy threw himself out of his high chair 3 times when eating his meal which lead to his death. Raffy had severe force drama to his head. The question is why didn't his mother do something? I mean after the first time her son supposedly threw himself out of the high chair why did she put him back in it? The other question is why was Raffy in the care of his birth mother. The adjacency did not do a good job at all checking out the mother. I'm wondering why this is. Why didn't they look into Gomez since she is into meth and she also has 5 other children in foster homes. It just doesn't add up to me.
I feel as though the adjacency is to blame along with Gomez. There is an apparent reason why her other children do not live with her. I feel as though this case was over looked. The poor child was in and out of foster homes 4 times over 2 years. Something is not right. I hope the investigators figure out what really happened for I do not think the child threw himself out of his chair 3 times and if so he should not have been able to do so if Gomez was watching him properly. Now a child has paid the price for a mother that was careless and should have not had rights to him.
Here is the link to the article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003566167_webtrial10.html
Six months after Raffy was with his birth mother he died. Gomez says Raffy threw himself out of his high chair 3 times when eating his meal which lead to his death. Raffy had severe force drama to his head. The question is why didn't his mother do something? I mean after the first time her son supposedly threw himself out of the high chair why did she put him back in it? The other question is why was Raffy in the care of his birth mother. The adjacency did not do a good job at all checking out the mother. I'm wondering why this is. Why didn't they look into Gomez since she is into meth and she also has 5 other children in foster homes. It just doesn't add up to me.
I feel as though the adjacency is to blame along with Gomez. There is an apparent reason why her other children do not live with her. I feel as though this case was over looked. The poor child was in and out of foster homes 4 times over 2 years. Something is not right. I hope the investigators figure out what really happened for I do not think the child threw himself out of his chair 3 times and if so he should not have been able to do so if Gomez was watching him properly. Now a child has paid the price for a mother that was careless and should have not had rights to him.
Here is the link to the article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003566167_webtrial10.html
News medium
Chapter 12 critical thinking #3
To respond this question one should really compare the existing media news we have. It is very clear that all (broadcasting, print, or online medias) have their weakness in one way or the other. And one to say that type of media is the most believable source is not that easy. All the Medias are formed by some inevitable factors that can not be ignored. Some of those factors was mentioned in the text are tradition, technology, and economics. Those factors can formulate the news worthiness among the media. Since economic is also a main factor it will play a major role in the news media; its weakness or worthiness.
Online news is the least believable news media among those I mentioned above. Because the web journalists are too quick to post their news online, and they do not have enough time and enough gatekeepers to edit or check the credibility of the story, thus, the online journalism is not a source that can be relied on as a fact.
It seems that the other two media (broadcasting and print) are somewhat to be believable. But recent years, the broadcasting news, seems to be less believable than that of print due to the troubling events in the broadcasting media that damaged the industry’s credibility.
Printing media seems to have a higher rating on the believability of the news. The reason can be that it has the potential to present in-depth reporting and length analysis; which the broadcasting media lacks because of the time pressure. The print media have the time to check and edit its news before it reaches the readers, while the broadcast media do not have this advantage. Although the critics describe the printing media is a “slow and old fashion”; but it is an accurate and believable source of media that exist.
To respond this question one should really compare the existing media news we have. It is very clear that all (broadcasting, print, or online medias) have their weakness in one way or the other. And one to say that type of media is the most believable source is not that easy. All the Medias are formed by some inevitable factors that can not be ignored. Some of those factors was mentioned in the text are tradition, technology, and economics. Those factors can formulate the news worthiness among the media. Since economic is also a main factor it will play a major role in the news media; its weakness or worthiness.
Online news is the least believable news media among those I mentioned above. Because the web journalists are too quick to post their news online, and they do not have enough time and enough gatekeepers to edit or check the credibility of the story, thus, the online journalism is not a source that can be relied on as a fact.
It seems that the other two media (broadcasting and print) are somewhat to be believable. But recent years, the broadcasting news, seems to be less believable than that of print due to the troubling events in the broadcasting media that damaged the industry’s credibility.
Printing media seems to have a higher rating on the believability of the news. The reason can be that it has the potential to present in-depth reporting and length analysis; which the broadcasting media lacks because of the time pressure. The print media have the time to check and edit its news before it reaches the readers, while the broadcast media do not have this advantage. Although the critics describe the printing media is a “slow and old fashion”; but it is an accurate and believable source of media that exist.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Free Speech Victory
http://www.freepress.net/news/print/20748
A story within a story, Sarah Olson an independent journalist and radio producer from California was subpoenaed by the Army prosecutor in the case of the Fort Lewis soldier, Ehren Watada. The prosecutors dropped 2 of the 4 counts on Watada and Olson’s testimony was no longer needed. However, being free from the subpoena did not quiet the uproar from Olson’s supporters’ demands “that a journalist should not be forced to assist the courts in limiting free speech.” Olson received legal assistance from First Amendment Center, the Society of Professional Journalist and many reporters and celebrities. Olson’s case and other similar scenarios have made headlines in independent and alternative media.
Had Olson refused to testify she could have faced 6 months in jail, $500 fine, and a felony charge. I believe journalists are responsible for reporting news to the public without fearing implications from the government. In this case the distinct line between the government and the press has been blurred. Olson states, “It is clear that we must continue to demand that the separation between press and government be strong, and that the press be a platform for all perspectives, regardless of their popularity with the current administration.”
Freedom of speech and free press play a tremendous role in society and our democracy. It is the role of the journalist to report the news as they see it. History has shown that we need our journalists to be able to function as “watch dogs” on government affairs. I believe the prosecutors realized they did not have a case and that the charges against Watada violated his Freedom of Speech. This article made me realize how important the independent journalists are and the amount of attention to important topics that one or two people can bring.
A story within a story, Sarah Olson an independent journalist and radio producer from California was subpoenaed by the Army prosecutor in the case of the Fort Lewis soldier, Ehren Watada. The prosecutors dropped 2 of the 4 counts on Watada and Olson’s testimony was no longer needed. However, being free from the subpoena did not quiet the uproar from Olson’s supporters’ demands “that a journalist should not be forced to assist the courts in limiting free speech.” Olson received legal assistance from First Amendment Center, the Society of Professional Journalist and many reporters and celebrities. Olson’s case and other similar scenarios have made headlines in independent and alternative media.
Had Olson refused to testify she could have faced 6 months in jail, $500 fine, and a felony charge. I believe journalists are responsible for reporting news to the public without fearing implications from the government. In this case the distinct line between the government and the press has been blurred. Olson states, “It is clear that we must continue to demand that the separation between press and government be strong, and that the press be a platform for all perspectives, regardless of their popularity with the current administration.”
Freedom of speech and free press play a tremendous role in society and our democracy. It is the role of the journalist to report the news as they see it. History has shown that we need our journalists to be able to function as “watch dogs” on government affairs. I believe the prosecutors realized they did not have a case and that the charges against Watada violated his Freedom of Speech. This article made me realize how important the independent journalists are and the amount of attention to important topics that one or two people can bring.
I doubt I could talk about anything else today
I think that a mass communication course such as ours must take this moment to think about Anna Nicole Smith. Anna Nicole died yesterday, bringing a desperately sad end to a desperately sad life. I've gotten the feeling, over the past 24 hours or so, that obituary writers have been scrambling to put together stories celebrating her life, while answering the question, "so why was she famous?"
Writers have drawn parallels with Marilyn Monroe, who was the bombshell of her time, blond with a childlike voice, exploited by men, the media and her "fans" and dying in her late thirties of a drug overdose. While this may be an apt comparison, I think that Anna Nicole was quintessentially of her, and our time. She was a celebrity that could have only existed now, in the generation of E!, of reality shows, of Paris Hilton and K-Fed.
Before The Real World was broadcast, we had the illusion, at least, that celebrity was something given to the exceptional. The best, brightest, most attractive artists, writers, actors and directors, etc. were the subject of scrutiny and adoration. It made sense. People could love or hate them, but their work would stand on its own to defend them.
Now, as celebrities are chosen specifically for their mediocrity, they are purely famous to be ridiculed. Since they are not exceptional, they don't have their "work" to defend them.
Anna Nicole was famous for being a train wreck. Her fame as a train wreck fed in to her own self destruction. As she became more and more dysfunctional, she became more and more famous for it. Yesterday, it killed her.
I'm personally feeling some guilt for it. I laughed at her cooking, "Pasghetti" a few weeks ago. I chuckled at her fake wedding, the paternity suits, the Tony Hawk Mad TV episode...
I haven't figured out exactly what it means, but I'm pretty sure that her death is a snapshot of mass media in 2007 that cannot be ignored.
Writers have drawn parallels with Marilyn Monroe, who was the bombshell of her time, blond with a childlike voice, exploited by men, the media and her "fans" and dying in her late thirties of a drug overdose. While this may be an apt comparison, I think that Anna Nicole was quintessentially of her, and our time. She was a celebrity that could have only existed now, in the generation of E!, of reality shows, of Paris Hilton and K-Fed.
Before The Real World was broadcast, we had the illusion, at least, that celebrity was something given to the exceptional. The best, brightest, most attractive artists, writers, actors and directors, etc. were the subject of scrutiny and adoration. It made sense. People could love or hate them, but their work would stand on its own to defend them.
Now, as celebrities are chosen specifically for their mediocrity, they are purely famous to be ridiculed. Since they are not exceptional, they don't have their "work" to defend them.
Anna Nicole was famous for being a train wreck. Her fame as a train wreck fed in to her own self destruction. As she became more and more dysfunctional, she became more and more famous for it. Yesterday, it killed her.
I'm personally feeling some guilt for it. I laughed at her cooking, "Pasghetti" a few weeks ago. I chuckled at her fake wedding, the paternity suits, the Tony Hawk Mad TV episode...
I haven't figured out exactly what it means, but I'm pretty sure that her death is a snapshot of mass media in 2007 that cannot be ignored.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Digital Divide
DIGITAL DIVIDE IS SEPERATING PARENTS, KIDS
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/uweek/uweekarticle.asp?articleID=30377
Here’s an article that discusses the issues of children and etiquette online. I was reading another article online with regard to schools instituting new regulations for students and “bullying” online. My older children access the Internet everyday – whether from home or school, and there have been incidences of questionable etiquette. At that point, they lose their privilege of using the computer. Also, I think it’s true that there is a gap between those children that are computer savvy, and their parents that don’t use Internet as part of their daily lives. Me, on the other hand, have to keep abreast of most advances, as my job requires it. But for some, the need to be up-to-date with the latest gadgets isn’t necessary. More schools (public and private) are beginning to use those levy dollars for the purpose they were intended – upgrades to computer technology programs. Our children today (well, at least mine) are familiar with computer techniques, and can out perform many of their adult relatives. Leaving them looking like prodigies! There are definitely many safety issues that should be discussed with children while using the Internet. There have been so many incidences of child luring, pornography, and other less than desirable contact made with children, that it’s imperative to help them be responsible and make good decisions while on the Internet. Children (and adults) have the perspective that just because they are not sitting face-to-face with another human, that it’s ok to say whatever you want without recourse or consequence. The old saying of “There’s no excuse for bad manners” still applies whether in the privacy of your own home, and communicating via on-line, or in person.
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/uweek/uweekarticle.asp?articleID=30377
Here’s an article that discusses the issues of children and etiquette online. I was reading another article online with regard to schools instituting new regulations for students and “bullying” online. My older children access the Internet everyday – whether from home or school, and there have been incidences of questionable etiquette. At that point, they lose their privilege of using the computer. Also, I think it’s true that there is a gap between those children that are computer savvy, and their parents that don’t use Internet as part of their daily lives. Me, on the other hand, have to keep abreast of most advances, as my job requires it. But for some, the need to be up-to-date with the latest gadgets isn’t necessary. More schools (public and private) are beginning to use those levy dollars for the purpose they were intended – upgrades to computer technology programs. Our children today (well, at least mine) are familiar with computer techniques, and can out perform many of their adult relatives. Leaving them looking like prodigies! There are definitely many safety issues that should be discussed with children while using the Internet. There have been so many incidences of child luring, pornography, and other less than desirable contact made with children, that it’s imperative to help them be responsible and make good decisions while on the Internet. Children (and adults) have the perspective that just because they are not sitting face-to-face with another human, that it’s ok to say whatever you want without recourse or consequence. The old saying of “There’s no excuse for bad manners” still applies whether in the privacy of your own home, and communicating via on-line, or in person.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
E-books V "Real" Books
I find it so interesting, that while the entire world is springing forward, there are some people who are holding onto their old ways – and are getting away with it. Case in point is J.K. Rowling. The best selling author of the Harry Potter books prefers to write by hand on a piece of actual paper. She is also causing some problems for the - small - camp of e-book readers. She refuses to publish any of her books through this medium, as she believes, that to experience her stories fully, one must hold a (paper) book. Does she have the right to stall progress like this? I believe so.
And this is what really struck a cord with me. In today’s world of immediate information sharing, there are a few books, real, old fashioned paper books that still cause a stir, which people still get excited about. What is this “different” experience a book can provide? It is the atmosphere. It is the feeling one gets while sitting in a comfortable chair, sipping tea and focusing on only one thing at a time. It is difficult to multitask while submerging in an excellent book. Some may argue that this can be achieved with an e-book or a laptop also, but I disagree. This is not a cognitive decision, it is an emotional one, and paper books still win the battle here.
However, there is definitely a place for the modern e-books also: textbooks first come to mind. How much easier it would be to find a reference in an e-book on a Tablet PC just by typing in a search word? Much better than trying to manually search through hundreds of pages for that one sentence, but will it make us study more? Hm, I guess I am just scratching the surface now.
For better or for worst, I do believe that paper and e-books should co-exist and both should be available for their best possible use. Maybe one for recreation and the other for work…
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-02-05-potter-no-ebook_x.htm
And this is what really struck a cord with me. In today’s world of immediate information sharing, there are a few books, real, old fashioned paper books that still cause a stir, which people still get excited about. What is this “different” experience a book can provide? It is the atmosphere. It is the feeling one gets while sitting in a comfortable chair, sipping tea and focusing on only one thing at a time. It is difficult to multitask while submerging in an excellent book. Some may argue that this can be achieved with an e-book or a laptop also, but I disagree. This is not a cognitive decision, it is an emotional one, and paper books still win the battle here.
However, there is definitely a place for the modern e-books also: textbooks first come to mind. How much easier it would be to find a reference in an e-book on a Tablet PC just by typing in a search word? Much better than trying to manually search through hundreds of pages for that one sentence, but will it make us study more? Hm, I guess I am just scratching the surface now.
For better or for worst, I do believe that paper and e-books should co-exist and both should be available for their best possible use. Maybe one for recreation and the other for work…
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-02-05-potter-no-ebook_x.htm
Monday, February 5, 2007
NPR Article
http://www.kuow.org/programs/theconversation.asp
today on the conversation they will be discussing the homogeny of radio broadcasting due to the conglomerate coporations owning so many stations....
today on the conversation they will be discussing the homogeny of radio broadcasting due to the conglomerate coporations owning so many stations....
Downloads v Brick - and - Mortar
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2850042&page=1
I thought this was an interesting article. It’s contrary to what the book reads (to some degree), in that, the experience of actually shopping for music is not quite dead (at least in some cities). It’s not all about just downloading one song from an album, but rummaging through stack after stack of CDs, looking for something obscure, or searching for the latest Top 40 album. It’s also about connecting with others that have the same interests, and also a place to network. Many people do enjoy the hands-on experience, and the personal attention received. Internet can be quite impersonal. I agree with the commentary that there are many individuals that prefer brick-and-mortar to that of online shopping for music. For Amoeba music shop, it was probably beneficial that Tower Records filed for bankruptcy. It left Amoeba as the one source in the area that provides every type of genre available, all under one roof. And, without the competition, they are sitting pretty good. The article also points out that Amoeba doesn’t have numerous stores around the globe, thus, allowing them to be more focused on just a few stores, providing customers personal attention and a vast variety of music. Another aspect of Amoeba is that many famous band members frequent the place drawing fans there as well in the hopes that they will be able to bump into them. The atmosphere plays a huge role in drawing customers, something you don’t get with Internet.
I thought this was an interesting article. It’s contrary to what the book reads (to some degree), in that, the experience of actually shopping for music is not quite dead (at least in some cities). It’s not all about just downloading one song from an album, but rummaging through stack after stack of CDs, looking for something obscure, or searching for the latest Top 40 album. It’s also about connecting with others that have the same interests, and also a place to network. Many people do enjoy the hands-on experience, and the personal attention received. Internet can be quite impersonal. I agree with the commentary that there are many individuals that prefer brick-and-mortar to that of online shopping for music. For Amoeba music shop, it was probably beneficial that Tower Records filed for bankruptcy. It left Amoeba as the one source in the area that provides every type of genre available, all under one roof. And, without the competition, they are sitting pretty good. The article also points out that Amoeba doesn’t have numerous stores around the globe, thus, allowing them to be more focused on just a few stores, providing customers personal attention and a vast variety of music. Another aspect of Amoeba is that many famous band members frequent the place drawing fans there as well in the hopes that they will be able to bump into them. The atmosphere plays a huge role in drawing customers, something you don’t get with Internet.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Social Responsibilty....
Chapter 9 Critical Thinking Question #3
Filmmakers are only so socially responsible in so far as their own conscience leads them. Just as is the case in all other forms of art, the artist is responsible for creating and the audience for interpreting. If we decide that certain types of art need to fall within parameters how do you set those parameters without bias. Is it okay to have smoking onscreen even though we all know how dangerous that is? What about religious content, do filmmakers have an obligation to inform the audience on the multiple points of view available there? What is required to classify something as "socially responsible" or "not". Who decides where that line lives? And even if we had a classification system in place why should we require filmmakers to work within those boundaries. It seems that individuals should be responsible for what they expose themselves to. If you disagree with something on the screen you have the right to ask for your money back and ask voice your opinion; so long as the content has been reviewed and rated then the rest is a matter of personal choice.
I would hope that the people creating film have a level of personal integrity and taste that would curtail any major damage through film. At the same time it could be easy label controversial films that show the reality of war, or alternative lifestyles, or scenes with sexual assault irresponsible. Recently a movie screened at the Cannes Film Festival found controversy for the inclusion of an assault scene (see link)
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/07/21/dakota-fanning-tackles-sex-abuse-in-controversial-role/3
It seems that this could be irresponsible for the effect it could have on the actress, the actor opposite her, and any one exposed to the film. It is a potentially scarring moment but, could it also be an opportunity to educate. It just seems greedy for us to expect filmmakers to not only entertain us, but also inform and inspire in a responsible manner. I think we all should just make good decisions for ourselves.
Filmmakers are only so socially responsible in so far as their own conscience leads them. Just as is the case in all other forms of art, the artist is responsible for creating and the audience for interpreting. If we decide that certain types of art need to fall within parameters how do you set those parameters without bias. Is it okay to have smoking onscreen even though we all know how dangerous that is? What about religious content, do filmmakers have an obligation to inform the audience on the multiple points of view available there? What is required to classify something as "socially responsible" or "not". Who decides where that line lives? And even if we had a classification system in place why should we require filmmakers to work within those boundaries. It seems that individuals should be responsible for what they expose themselves to. If you disagree with something on the screen you have the right to ask for your money back and ask voice your opinion; so long as the content has been reviewed and rated then the rest is a matter of personal choice.
I would hope that the people creating film have a level of personal integrity and taste that would curtail any major damage through film. At the same time it could be easy label controversial films that show the reality of war, or alternative lifestyles, or scenes with sexual assault irresponsible. Recently a movie screened at the Cannes Film Festival found controversy for the inclusion of an assault scene (see link)
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/07/21/dakota-fanning-tackles-sex-abuse-in-controversial-role/3
It seems that this could be irresponsible for the effect it could have on the actress, the actor opposite her, and any one exposed to the film. It is a potentially scarring moment but, could it also be an opportunity to educate. It just seems greedy for us to expect filmmakers to not only entertain us, but also inform and inspire in a responsible manner. I think we all should just make good decisions for ourselves.
VOD and the TV Industry
Video on demand will effect the TV industry greatly. Its was slow to catch on when it first came out but it programs have changed to make it easier to access. Products like TiVo or Comcast boxes allows the viewers to record TV shows when they are away so they could watch it at a more convenient time. With those products they are allowed to fast forward parts that they don’t want to watch and re-watch parts that they enjoyed. It also allows people to purchase movies to watch when they are bored. I believe this products will make money for the television industry because they are allowed to tape one show and watch another. The TV industry will be getting viewers that weren’t able to fit TV into their schedule before.
The downside to VOD is that TV channels could possible lose money in the long run from commercials because people are no longer forced to watch them while waiting for there show to come back on. It also effects the movie rentals places like Blockbuster or Hollywood videos now that there is the option to rent from home people aren’t required to come drive to rent movies. No more late fees.
Once it becomes a more popular trend to have VOD in every cable box installed. I think cable companies or TiVo will raise there monthly fee to access it because there is now a demand. It causes people to spend more money for television. Money that is probably better spent elsewhere.
The downside to VOD is that TV channels could possible lose money in the long run from commercials because people are no longer forced to watch them while waiting for there show to come back on. It also effects the movie rentals places like Blockbuster or Hollywood videos now that there is the option to rent from home people aren’t required to come drive to rent movies. No more late fees.
Once it becomes a more popular trend to have VOD in every cable box installed. I think cable companies or TiVo will raise there monthly fee to access it because there is now a demand. It causes people to spend more money for television. Money that is probably better spent elsewhere.
Legal p2p in Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html
Here's an interesting twist to the controversial peer to peer file sharing dilemma. The above is not a very recent story, but it's something the music industry is trying to fight right now. For our neighbor's to the north, it is legal to download music from internet service providers, such as Kazaa. In June, 2004, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that these service providers do not have to pay royalties for downloaded music files. They found that these ISPs are not responsible for how individuals use the technology they provide. Also, individuals placing songs on a file sharing directory, like Kazaa, is not considered to be distribution. However, I read in another article that while downloading songs is legal, uploading is not.http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html Is not placing a song in a directory and uploading a song the same thing? Even so, I guess as long as the uploading of a song occurs in a different country,
Well, anyway, to deal with matter of royalties, the Canadian government has placed a tariff on the sale of hardware or software that deals with digital recordings. The money collected from this tariff is meant to be distributed to the artists, publishers, and record labels. In a two year period, 28 million dollars was collected. However, the tax no longer applies to MP3 players. Apparently, the current Canadian Copyright Act does not have language dealing with Mp3 players specifically.
The point is, American artists and American labels may be able to cope with the downloading behaviors of American consumers, but how should they deal with every country with their own set of copyright laws?
Public Television
*What should be the goal of public television? And
*Should the government support Public Broadcasting?
Well, the goal of public television is clear, in my opinion, and it is towards the public benefit; educational programs.
Since the creation of CPB by the public broadcasting act of 1967, which setup public broadcasting service in 1969, the PBS has done a tremendous service for the public. Its achievement is obvious. Thus, Its goal is to reach as much audience as it can, and educate them of the variety of different and diverse programs it offers; from children to adults, presenting them the educational programs in the areas of wonderful science and the children’s sesame street, respectively.
Public television is the safest TV program to let your child watch at all times, since the concern over the impact of TV’s violence programs on the children grows widely. It has a substantial audience, (as J.R. Dominick describes in the book), and that more than half of American homes watched the public TV at least once a week. That shows the public has an interest in public TV. It gives the education tools up to college level for the students, and educational materials for the teachers up to K-12.
I think the government should support and fund the public television, as the government does support in other nonprofit organizations that benefit the public in some way or another. Public television has devoted in the public education and consciousness,and it has an important role in the soceity. Thus, PBS is such a wonderful broadcasting network that has earned the trust and the respect of its audience. Thanks to the donations from its supporters, the hard work, and the determination of its stuff.
*Should the government support Public Broadcasting?
Well, the goal of public television is clear, in my opinion, and it is towards the public benefit; educational programs.
Since the creation of CPB by the public broadcasting act of 1967, which setup public broadcasting service in 1969, the PBS has done a tremendous service for the public. Its achievement is obvious. Thus, Its goal is to reach as much audience as it can, and educate them of the variety of different and diverse programs it offers; from children to adults, presenting them the educational programs in the areas of wonderful science and the children’s sesame street, respectively.
Public television is the safest TV program to let your child watch at all times, since the concern over the impact of TV’s violence programs on the children grows widely. It has a substantial audience, (as J.R. Dominick describes in the book), and that more than half of American homes watched the public TV at least once a week. That shows the public has an interest in public TV. It gives the education tools up to college level for the students, and educational materials for the teachers up to K-12.
I think the government should support and fund the public television, as the government does support in other nonprofit organizations that benefit the public in some way or another. Public television has devoted in the public education and consciousness,and it has an important role in the soceity. Thus, PBS is such a wonderful broadcasting network that has earned the trust and the respect of its audience. Thanks to the donations from its supporters, the hard work, and the determination of its stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)