· The major media companies’ argument that somehow the media are more diversified today is contradictory to their efforts over the past 40 years.
a. Media consolidation inherently means that there are fewer basic sources from which to get news.
i. The elimination of “independently” run companies makes it so that it’s harder to find dissenting viewpoints
ii. The argument that while media companies are consolidating, the internet provides a forum for individual expression is silly because the media companies saying this are also attempting to buy internet sites such as Youtube and Yahoo and junk.
b. Media consolidation allows information to be transferred more efficiently, but it’s just the same information (see a.).
· Mainstream media companies owning everything diminishes the size of the forum for independent journalists to report on stuff.
a. If they work for one of the big companies, their output has to be censored in some way.
b. If they don’t, it’s harder for them to be taken seriously.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
a catch-22 situation only in the military this time weird huh
Had the Vietnam Conflict taken place during a time in which participants could almost immediately upload their own images of the war to a global network of information to be viewed by thousands, public opinion probably would not have needed the more organized news media in order to turn against the war. The streamlined nature of modern information sharing is enough to circumvent the close relationship between the news media and the military that existed during the first part of the war in Iraq. Candid videos depicting the US Armed Forces as a bunch of Duke lacrosse players and the enemy as an unseen collective can turn public support before established news stations begin to question the practices of the military.
Censorship is not a factor (mostly, on Youtube; completely almost everywhere else on the Internet) when uploading videos. Images presented on the Internet can be almost guaranteed to be beyond those which are allowed to be broadcast on television (without some sort of take-your-children-out-of-the-room warning), so they naturally can have a deeper impact on the viewer. While the military can tell the public to ignore these videos, they cannot censor them or stop them from being disemminated (as long as the Net stays Neutral), and any warning that comes from the military about the validity of Youtube videos would likely be transmitted through the mainstream media. If user-created content becomes more credible than the stuff you see on TV, what authority is there to tell you not to take independently obtained information seriously? The military could prohibit soldiers from sending photos and videos over the Internet, but if the aim of all of the suppression is to stop materials that would hurt public support for the war, then their outlawing of independent material hurts them just as much.
Censorship is not a factor (mostly, on Youtube; completely almost everywhere else on the Internet) when uploading videos. Images presented on the Internet can be almost guaranteed to be beyond those which are allowed to be broadcast on television (without some sort of take-your-children-out-of-the-room warning), so they naturally can have a deeper impact on the viewer. While the military can tell the public to ignore these videos, they cannot censor them or stop them from being disemminated (as long as the Net stays Neutral), and any warning that comes from the military about the validity of Youtube videos would likely be transmitted through the mainstream media. If user-created content becomes more credible than the stuff you see on TV, what authority is there to tell you not to take independently obtained information seriously? The military could prohibit soldiers from sending photos and videos over the Internet, but if the aim of all of the suppression is to stop materials that would hurt public support for the war, then their outlawing of independent material hurts them just as much.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
4/16/08 forgot to renumber the endnotes
The North American media have the ability to control which information is disseminated to the people. Any bias that’s present in the media is instilled in viewers to affect their own preconceptions. Whenever the media collectively display a story in a certain light, the skewed version of the truth they broadcast changes they way viewers (arguably the people who will also end up making the news at some point in time) act and think. In the Duke lacrosse rape debacle, the way the media typically handles issues of race, class and gender altered the way society saw the case.
The facts of the case were already well suited to the sensational media. What the accuser described was a team of white, male, upper-class college athletes raping and abusing a black, female, lower-class exotic dancer. The media was quick to hint that the underpriveleged minority as a victimx, when in fact the lacrosse team was innocent. The story presented the lucrative opportunity to cover violent sexism, racism and/or elitism and subsequently enrage viewers.
Unestablished news programs such as Nancy Grace were especially ruthless in creating controversy. By requiring that the titular characterx to rudely cut off anybody presenting evidence of the accused's innocence, the Nancy Grace show angered audiences and hopefully got them to side with the hostx. More successful and respected programs such as 60 Minutes, however, could afford to avoid a possible rise in ratings by presenting factsx.
It would be ideal if the media were able to present nothing but the truth to an audience. One would like to think that it'd be widely appreciated if the media could refrain from reaching any conclusions before the authoritiesx, but the fact that the media require money to survive and provide any information at all requires that they create news that is entertaining enough to get people to keep watching and supporting them. A completely objective media, free of all societal influences and preconceptions, would be boring to the majority of viewers and wind up being as popular as Justin's blog.
x Similarly to Missing White Woman Syndrome, only instead of exploiting the perception that white women are easy to kidnap, rape and kill, exploiting the perception that the majority abuses minority groups.
x You know because she's fake.
x Or alternatively getting them angry at the fact that such an exploitative show called itself journalistic and prompting them to watch more out of morbid curiosity*.
*Because it is commonly accepted that there is no such thing as Bad Publicity.
x Consider, however, that 60 Minutes could have been just presenting information contrary to that covered on Nancy Grace to appear more credible and appeal to a less easily agitated audience. There was less yelling, though.
x Another problem with this is that if the media were to refrain from this, their position as a watchdog would be nonexistant. It's whether or not the educated viewer* would prefer an inquisitive media that sometimes make mistakes or a media that transmit only what the higher-ups want them to**.
*One that doesn't believe in moderation, or something.
**Which they arguably already do.
The facts of the case were already well suited to the sensational media. What the accuser described was a team of white, male, upper-class college athletes raping and abusing a black, female, lower-class exotic dancer. The media was quick to hint that the underpriveleged minority as a victimx, when in fact the lacrosse team was innocent. The story presented the lucrative opportunity to cover violent sexism, racism and/or elitism and subsequently enrage viewers.
Unestablished news programs such as Nancy Grace were especially ruthless in creating controversy. By requiring that the titular characterx to rudely cut off anybody presenting evidence of the accused's innocence, the Nancy Grace show angered audiences and hopefully got them to side with the hostx. More successful and respected programs such as 60 Minutes, however, could afford to avoid a possible rise in ratings by presenting factsx.
It would be ideal if the media were able to present nothing but the truth to an audience. One would like to think that it'd be widely appreciated if the media could refrain from reaching any conclusions before the authoritiesx, but the fact that the media require money to survive and provide any information at all requires that they create news that is entertaining enough to get people to keep watching and supporting them. A completely objective media, free of all societal influences and preconceptions, would be boring to the majority of viewers and wind up being as popular as Justin's blog.
x Similarly to Missing White Woman Syndrome, only instead of exploiting the perception that white women are easy to kidnap, rape and kill, exploiting the perception that the majority abuses minority groups.
x You know because she's fake.
x Or alternatively getting them angry at the fact that such an exploitative show called itself journalistic and prompting them to watch more out of morbid curiosity*.
*Because it is commonly accepted that there is no such thing as Bad Publicity.
x Consider, however, that 60 Minutes could have been just presenting information contrary to that covered on Nancy Grace to appear more credible and appeal to a less easily agitated audience. There was less yelling, though.
x Another problem with this is that if the media were to refrain from this, their position as a watchdog would be nonexistant. It's whether or not the educated viewer* would prefer an inquisitive media that sometimes make mistakes or a media that transmit only what the higher-ups want them to**.
*One that doesn't believe in moderation, or something.
**Which they arguably already do.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Photograph That Ought to Inspire Fear of Falling Past The Event Horizon That Awaits Mankind
Try to imagine this mofo firing subatomic particles at each other at speeds you
can't even begin to imagine. If you can't tell, that's a guy standing in that thing.
This photo, of the ATLAS detector under construction at the Large Hadron Collider1, was published in May of 2006 in a press release by STMicroelectronics. ATLAS is a particle detector experiment being built at the LHC in order to determine the invisible things that make up our universe and how they came about. The image, once widely disseminated, will raise public awareness of the sheer scale of the LHC and its experiments. The ATLAS weighs around 7,000 tons and will be used to detect a very broad spectrum of energy that may be produced.
The LHC poses many theoretical threats to human existence. While the public is largely unaware of them, particles such as a Micro Black Hole2 or strangelet3 could be created during experiments carried out at the facility. The photograph's illustration of the size of the project is potent enough to concern everybody aware of the risks. It's great enough to make man wary of technology, in the way that roller coasters or really big spaceships can.
The LHC poses many theoretical threats to human existence. While the public is largely unaware of them, particles such as a Micro Black Hole2 or strangelet3 could be created during experiments carried out at the facility. The photograph's illustration of the size of the project is potent enough to concern everybody aware of the risks. It's great enough to make man wary of technology, in the way that roller coasters or really big spaceships can.
Arthur Sasse/AFP-Getty Images
1The Large Hadron Collider (hereafter LHC) is a particle accelerator in Switzerland and France that serves to provide proof of the theoretical Higgs Boson, a very important subatomic particle. Once activated, it will be the largest and most powerful (and most dangerous) particle accelerator on Earth.
2This is like a regular black hole that you hear about. It is an infinitely massive singularity with a gravitational pull so strong that nothing can escape. They can theoretically decay in the form of Hawking Radiation, but the phenomenon is completely untested.
3A strangelet is a type of strange matter containing an equal amount of up, down, and strange quarks. If a strangelet were created, it could possibly catalyze a runaway fusion process that would turn every nucleus in the planet into strange matter.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
whoops i forgot to write a title lol
Sites such as the controversial (as far as I've been told) JuicyCampus.com1 that depend upon user-generated content always seem to fall victim to a very brief media hysteria about their real-world effects. The idea that I think most people fail to consider is that nothing on the Internet guarantees the validity of anything posted on it2. Anyone is able to lie whenever they'd like to, similarly to in what's called real life3. That said, nobody without some superhuman critical skills is going to discount 100% of what they read on the Internet as fabrication. There's a sort of honor system that exists when people are able to create their own content without much intervention from an authority4 (like there's no reason to be cynical or something; there's nothing to be cynical about).
So since people are motivated to tell the truth and everything, all the ethical concerns that arise when college kids discover that they can say bad stuff on the Internet are just souped-up versions of ethical concerns that arise when college kids discover that they can say bad stuff on the walls of bathroom stalls5.
1 Aside: URLs aren't case-sensitive, so why are they always spelled with capitalized letters? Is it just a company name with ".com" at the end? If so, shouldn't a website that I imagine came about recently be created with the dot-com bubble in mind and have the good taste not to stick on a ".com?"
2Yes, I realize the irony. No, I will not mention it.
3 The Internet actually is a part of real life. Real life hereafter colloquially refers to life separate from the Internet*.
*I mean for all posts in the future, since I don't use it again in this particular post.
4...especially when the authority isn't even that much older than them, which is the case for most social networking websites (or at least the ones that are popular).So since people are motivated to tell the truth and everything, all the ethical concerns that arise when college kids discover that they can say bad stuff on the Internet are just souped-up versions of ethical concerns that arise when college kids discover that they can say bad stuff on the walls of bathroom stalls5.
1 Aside: URLs aren't case-sensitive, so why are they always spelled with capitalized letters? Is it just a company name with ".com" at the end? If so, shouldn't a website that I imagine came about recently be created with the dot-com bubble in mind and have the good taste not to stick on a ".com?"
2Yes, I realize the irony. No, I will not mention it.
3 The Internet actually is a part of real life. Real life hereafter colloquially refers to life separate from the Internet*.
*I mean for all posts in the future, since I don't use it again in this particular post.
5 I did not mean for this to rhyme. There was no immediately evident way to avoid it.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Rachel Blake May Have Stolen a Few Months of My Life but Her Story Sure is a Potent Warning
I could cite the oft-cited and refer to the number of advertisements that any average high-school-aged student views in one day to establish my argument. Instead I am going to set myself up for serious moting and say that the overt commercials I take in affect me more than the vast number of subliminal ones that I'm exposed to all the time1.
1Like I could be any sort of authority on whether subliminally-absorbed messages affect me or not.2Endearing in the way that the commercialism of the Oscars is endearing, although decidedly less cool.
ANECDOTE DETAILING THE WAY IN WHICH THE MOST OVERT ADVERTISEMENTS AFFECT ME SIGNIFICANTLY (1): The summer of 2006 saw the enormous corporate cooperation between ABC, Coca-Cola, Monster.com, and various other brand names that manifested as an "Alternate Reality Game" (hereafter, ARG) for the immensely popular ABC serial drama Lost. The Lost Experience was an online game spanning the internet and even some physical places that merged the universe of the viewer with that of the show's story itself (i.e. the consumer followed Rachel Blake (was that her name?) on her quest to expose the coverup of the crash of flight 815 (the plane containing the main characters of Lost that crashed on an island in the pilot episode) by the shady Hanso foundation (another element of the television show)). The ARG required that viewers trek all over the Internet/world to get clues related to the show's mysteries while being offered products by the game's sponsors. The overly commercial nature of the game proved endearing2 and fans found ironic pleasure in pretending to be easily swayed by the ads. Especially relevant part: During a giveaway of Apollo bars (a brand originating from the show), I unquestioningly went to the mall to receive my free share (and the box they were in (possible collector's item?)) of the illogically-conceived (Rachel Blake somehow infiltrated the Apollo factory and printed a URL on all the bars?) candy, which would amount to nothing more than some frozen chocolate and a couple of wrappers that I once halfheartedly tried to preserve. But I most definitely did tune in enthusiastically to view the show's season premiere on October 6, 2006.
So these viral campaigns are really the things that get me excited to be sold stuff (Examples: Aqua Teen Hunger Force bomb scare in Boston, ilovebees.com, Trent R.'s campaign for his new album, Arcade Fire's Neon Bible website, etc.). And whenever there's a new one my appreciation of commercialism rises noticeably.
1Like I could be any sort of authority on whether subliminally-absorbed messages affect me or not.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Following Blog Post Was Written Under the Assumption that Abercrombie and Fitch Advertisements are Actally Parodic
As though any progressively minded American citizen could buy the idea of one of the wealthiest and most widespread1 brands based in the United States disseminates advertisements that endorse such a limited range of lifestyles. The Abercrombie and Fitch advertisements are brilliant in the way they so overtly exaggerate the abstraction of substantive content from modern commercials so that nothing is left but an exaggerated aesthetic ideal. Another fantastic meta-advertising jab is that the ads depict few non-white, non-athletic2 models, as if the majority of Americans couldn't see through their appeal to the dominant Privileged WASP culture. I'll not even approach how the ad in question cleverly broadcasted a 6:13 ratio of males to females.
Like it's even possible for the American public to not appreciate the ironic appeal of Abercrombie and Fitch's appeal to people whom its demographic will never be.
1(with the exception of Wyoming)
2And let's not even attempt to discuss the skillful way in which they made every model look like wealthy kids trying desperately to relate to the lowest common denominator through unrefined physical activity (e.g. football without need for shirts, etc.)
3About half of one lady is visible in the advertisement.
Like it's even possible for the American public to not appreciate the ironic appeal of Abercrombie and Fitch's appeal to people whom its demographic will never be.
1(with the exception of Wyoming)
2And let's not even attempt to discuss the skillful way in which they made every model look like wealthy kids trying desperately to relate to the lowest common denominator through unrefined physical activity (e.g. football without need for shirts, etc.)
3About half of one lady is visible in the advertisement.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
I Might Consider Buying Your Product, Sony, if Your Ad Included a Man in a Poorly-Made Giraffe Costume Speaking to a Quirky Girl about Walkmen
If television viewers can't avoid1 having things sold to them while they're watching the latest episode of Justice or The West Wing, then it's pretty much in everyone's best interest if the advertisements are entertaining. The growing trend of absurdity in commercials is one that, while yeah, really exploitative of the whole awkward mainstream/indie mentality, I think I can readily support. Those commercials with deadpan acting, intentionally shoddy special effects, &c. that are intended to make people rethink2 things when really all they do is appeal to the already established love of weird, offbeat humor couldn't please me more when they show up on the tube. It's too obvious that they're engineered to be endearing, but you wouldn't be able to quote3 me as saying that I'm not won over by their deliberate awkwardness.
The following Skittles ad totally exemplifies what I'm talking about:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qp0WBiME_fM
1 I'm not any sort of expert but I assume that the popularity of digital video recorders (e.g. TiVo) sort of confounds the whole practice of making televised advertisements.
2 (E.g. commercials that start out with the brand being advertised and then taking you on a crazy voyage where absolutely nothing is commercial-like or even "mainstream"* media-like.)
*Keep in mind that offbeat humor/indie mentality is now as much a part of the mainstream culture of the United States as Prison Break.
3 Barring any sort of creative citation on your part
The following Skittles ad totally exemplifies what I'm talking about:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qp0WBiME_fM
1 I'm not any sort of expert but I assume that the popularity of digital video recorders (e.g. TiVo) sort of confounds the whole practice of making televised advertisements.
2 (E.g. commercials that start out with the brand being advertised and then taking you on a crazy voyage where absolutely nothing is commercial-like or even "mainstream"* media-like.)
*Keep in mind that offbeat humor/indie mentality is now as much a part of the mainstream culture of the United States as Prison Break.
3 Barring any sort of creative citation on your part
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Picture The Youth as Those Doing Their Precalculus Homework While I'm Here Typing All This or, A Test Post to Set The Tone for The Rest of This Blog
Solution to problem 11 on page 253:
The quantity of x minus three all over x, minus three over the quantity of x plus one, plus 3 over the quantity of x squared plus x equals zero. Multiply all of this by the least common denominator (i.e. the quantity of x plus one, all times x). You 'll get the quantity of x minus three times the quantity of x plus one, minus three x, plus three, which is all equal to zero. Once you multiply out the two binomials, the negative three and the positive three cancel, leaving you with (once you add like terms) x squared minus five x (which equals, again, zero). You can factor an x out of this, making it x times the quantity of x minus five (zero). Some intuitive steps can be omitted here, but they involve setting both x and x minus five equal to zero and then solving for two different values of x. You'll end up with x equaling zero and x equaling 5. But if you look back at the original equation, you'll see that x cannot equal zero because x is a denominator in the original equation. Since a function can never be legit with an x in the denominator, zero is an extraneous root, which leaves 5 as the only possible value of x.1
1 This is what I'm pretty sure is the best way to illustrate how I think the youth looked at the article about the whole snow day/superintendent's wife/Facebook thing (i.e. "Or, for something so obvious to the limit, you could say it in a way that's tons more appropriately efficient...").
The quantity of x minus three all over x, minus three over the quantity of x plus one, plus 3 over the quantity of x squared plus x equals zero. Multiply all of this by the least common denominator (i.e. the quantity of x plus one, all times x). You 'll get the quantity of x minus three times the quantity of x plus one, minus three x, plus three, which is all equal to zero. Once you multiply out the two binomials, the negative three and the positive three cancel, leaving you with (once you add like terms) x squared minus five x (which equals, again, zero). You can factor an x out of this, making it x times the quantity of x minus five (zero). Some intuitive steps can be omitted here, but they involve setting both x and x minus five equal to zero and then solving for two different values of x. You'll end up with x equaling zero and x equaling 5. But if you look back at the original equation, you'll see that x cannot equal zero because x is a denominator in the original equation. Since a function can never be legit with an x in the denominator, zero is an extraneous root, which leaves 5 as the only possible value of x.1
1 This is what I'm pretty sure is the best way to illustrate how I think the youth looked at the article about the whole snow day/superintendent's wife/Facebook thing (i.e. "Or, for something so obvious to the limit, you could say it in a way that's tons more appropriately efficient...").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)