Yummy American Media

Writing vs. Television: Ready! Fight!

2008-04-20T08:39:00.000-07:00

With each new medium comes a feud with the old mediums. Orality versus writing, and now writing versus television. Old media vs. new media. Again. Postman and Paglia seemed to have a fabulous time bickering and picking away at each others arguments without really making a strong stance on either of their own preferred mediums.

From what I can tell based on previous readings and discussions, each medium carries with it possibilities weighed down by the history and nostalgia of older mediums. Writing and television both act as that extra somatic memory. Because of the standards of literacy, at least in the United States, writing is something available to most of the population, and is something individuals can each record, share and receive. Very few, however, know how to broadcast a television show or even how to edit or produce the film caught on the family camcorder. To create a piece of writing, all one needs is a pen. To create something for television broadcast, one needs a significant amount of money and a specific skill set. Double or triple that if they want it to be broadcast on something other than a local station too.

In terms of effectiveness television does have writing/print beat, at least on a neurological level. Where print is only evoking one sense (sight), television is calling on two (sight and hearing). Television is also incredibly absorbing, causing viewers to go into a trance of sorts as they completely focus on a single point. Television can be considered more for communicating this extra memory to us. This especially makes it the perfect tool for mass propaganda. Philip Thompson, who compares print journalism and televised journalism also bring two more pairs to the table. Writing's space-focused boundaries versus TV's time-based boundaries and writing's dissemination versus TV's narration. Writing is usually in past tense, read at any time and built in the informational pyramid we were all taught in grade school. Television is restricted by primetime, commercials and news breaks, forces viewers to make time for a broadcast, but has the advantage of having instantaneous information (or "news as it happens") and is shown in the form of a dramatic narrative. In a way, television pounces on all the shortcomings that writing has in regards to mass communication and rolls into a more attractive and entertaining package. This leaves us susceptible to more advertising that we sit through (spend time viewing despite the ability to zone it out).

There is a perfectly good reason that writing holds a more intellectual reputation over television despite there being as much garbage in writing as there is on television. The biggest difference between them is how much capital and effort is spent putting the garbage onto TV, and then how much money is made in turn. A crazy person can print and share their writing, but for some incredibly unknown reason, their literary works are just not as far reaching or popular as reality TV or political pundit shows. Most everything is staged for television as well. Even if something is broadcast live, the "actors" will be prepared for TV, with makeup and knowledge of where to look at the cameras. Where we create the stage when we read, television takes that responsibility away from us and in turn gives our brains less work to do but to
merely pay attention and absorb.

Postman, Neil and Paglia, Camille. “Two Cultures.” Communication in History.
Thompson, Philip. “Two Cultures: The Press and Broadcast Journalism.” http://www.bee.net/panthony/research/TwoCultures.html

Media Deprivation: Impossible

2008-03-30T10:51:00.000-07:00

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

The idea of the media deprivation challenge intrigued me at first. I was excited, thinking about all the time I'd have to sketch, to cook and finish a paperback that's been collecting dust for months, maybe even write some letters or get out for a walk outside. But as I kept trying to plan the 24-hour block to do this, it kept getting pushed farther and farther back in my schedule. Why?

I am an animator. A computer animator at that. A computer animator taking six classes, one of which being a senior thesis project of producing a short film. I’m also a student with a student org event to run. I’m the kind of person that uses my cellphone as an alarm clock. I wake up and the first thing I do is check my email, check the news, read the updated online comics and then start my day. All throughout the day when I’m at a computer, my Gmail is up with my automatic updating inbox and chat that also connects to my AIM account. Hell, I *wanted* to do this assignment but with all the people I needed emails from for Artweek, with all the researching I needed for my project, and with all the time that needed to go into animating it was just impossible and inconvenient.

It’s odd to refer to making time for non-technological period of existence as inconvenient. Ironic since, as I write this very paper, I not only have the Washington Post article open in one window, but also Gmail (where I am chatting with one friend in Baltimore City and another in Osaka, Japan), Facebook, Digg and Livejournal. Pathetic. It’s at the point where it becomes an unconscious cycle to just go from site to site checking for the most minuscule updates, the smallest signs of communication being directed at me. And when none are to be found, the cycle resumes circulating into the biggest waste of time. I don’t recall being diagnosed with ADD, but somehow when the words don’t come out just right, my brain will deviate back to Firefox and mull around until I remember “Oh yeah, I should be writing a paper.” And here I am again. Never mind the fact that Gmail will tell me when I have new mail, I’m compelled to check again for my self.

In my Orality essay, I mentioned briefly the “toxic loneliness” described in the End of Literacy article. It was mentioned again in the Longest Day as a form of isolation and even homelessness. “The 24 hours I spent in what seemed like complete isolation became known as one of the toughest days I have had to endure." How sad that the uncomfortable silence and the loneliness we feel can be comforted by the humming and buzzing of monitors and the clicking of keys. My family grew up always having some form of media playing in the central part of our house. In the rare case the TV wasn’t on, it was the radio or my little sisters blasting music from their iPods or MySpace pages.

We feel comforted by machines that place us into passivity. Is that where all the time goes; into this passive state of absorption? It’s been programmed into this generation since such a young age. Even in elementary school we students held such a higher preference for days that instead of a worksheet, a science lab or a lecture, we just plopped down to watch a video or got to work in the computer labs. Fact is, we find it easier to learn when we are being entertained. And now that everything has the guise of entertainment, we think we are learning, but in truth we are either being sold something or having money made off us merely by granting them our viewership (and maybe even our consciousness…creepy.) Has it just become second nature to tune out the world, but at the same time rely on the invisible interconnectivity? Even in the absence of these technologies, people are legitimately hit with what we call "internet withdrawl"

You know, after writing this...I find myself asking more questions then answering them. I want to go on a technological diet. It is all so ridiculous. I feel so disgusted and almost ashamed. It is hard to accept that to be an contributing citizen, to be an active person in someone else’s life today, the sacrifice we make to technology is almost required. Those who choose to abandon what we see as ancient technology (ex. electricity), such as the Amish, still survive in their small communities, but as self-exiled outcasts of our progressing society. So now we have the two extremes. Where can the middle ground be found between these two? When will the nostalgia for times before the internet, cellphones and television really surface? Time will tell.

I am actually guilty of this too.

And so, the current score is…
Times I caught myself from going into the webpage cycle: 4
Times I went full circle in the webpage cycle: 2

Vaudeville to Hollywood: The Growth of the American Film

2008-03-29T16:52:00.000-07:00

As per requirement of my animation and art classes here at UMBC, the study of early film, and especially the vast array of optical toys that preceded it, has been covered to death. Most of that had more to do with the tech of it all (most emphasis on “persistence of vision” and the evolution of the machinery to create better quality images) and only touched a little bit on the industrial revolution’s urban sprawl and the booming birth of leisure time. With these readings only a little bit of that data was rehashed and I enjoyed studying more of mass populations role in the transition from film’s niche in vaudevilles and nickelodeons to the heavy industry of entertainment it has become today.

I was a little confused when I read the article “Early Motion Pictures” because during my animation classes in Valencia it was brought to my attention how much of a focus we put on Edison here in the US. This article reminded me of that seeing how much of an after thought the Lumiere Bros achievements in Europe with the development of the cinematographe were when in retrospect, they developed the better-working machinery. But anywho, since we’re back in America now… I found the regulations that cam down on the vaudeville and early theatres very intriguing, especially the psychological reasoning put forth for enforcing it. The comment from Reverend Edwards about the death of “spontaneous play” somewhat jarring. Looking back on my childhood I can say my sisters and I played outside, but sadly we were couch potatoes more of the time. The battle against the “darkness” of the theatre, the fighting of the “impulse” for the passive pleasure that film provided were the first steps in what today we see as loose guidelines for our own free time. Thank goodness for these, since it seems our 1900’s counterparts couldn’t fight the “impulse” no matter how hot, crowded and horrid theatre conditions were.

In “Movies Talk” it was interesting to understand how the industry itself really found its legs to separate itself securely from the dying vaudeville. Through the cooperation of the expensive technology and the immense popularity of synchronized sound, the vaudeville novelty simply couldn’t keep up and ensured the immediate success of the Hollywood studios. This isn’t to say Hollywood wasn’t fantastic as pumping out crap for the masses, that was their specialty, but with the introduction of sound, it allowed for the bigger budget films with the few daring and experimentally artistic directors to break from the commercial hoo-ha for the sake of exploration as film moved forward into the Golden Age. And it is with this flow of money, branching from entertainment empires like the Warner Brothers to non-entertainment companies like Western Electric, we see the beginning of commercial advertisement sphere’s expansion to the clutter-filled ad-fest we have today.

“Mass Media and the Star System” was a fabulous read. To be saying that about a school text is strange, but it was exactly what hadn’t been covered in detail from my past classes. I was aware that the industrial revolution was key in the creation of the leisure time, but not to the extent of how much went into the urban sprawl and the coming of an urban identity. The exploration into the attitude of non-conformity, independence and the role of the “American Dream” as the growing entertainment industry was creating jobs. Before this time, to dream to become an entertainer for a living resigned an individual to the vaudevilles and the outer crust of society. But with this new idea that you could be paid to play baseball, paid to make movies and in general survive without having a trade was phenomenal and contributed to the current state of affairs in regards to our country’s value of entertainment over the classical trade skills. The coming of film and leisure en masse also cemented the idea that in America you can “be what you want to be.”

Along these lines, I look at the US as setting itself up for disaster. We are not only our own entertainer, there is also a gigantic global market that invests in our entertainment and pop culture. So here, with the US sacrificing capital that could be put towards its trade skills and training for these skills (that are being outsourced more and more) for more television, more movies and more entertainment that all essentially exist to make money. I hate to say, but if we are struck with disaster and if the economy keeps going the way it’s going, our society won’t have much use for many of those who are involved in the industry except those who could be kept for mass communications. And this also includes people like myself.

Debate: WoW is Addictive

2008-03-04T00:42:00.000-08:00

Another article written for Helium, this was a debate where we had to choose if World of Warcraft was addictive or harmless. I'm on the addictive side of the fence. While it's gotten bumped down to number 8, I can say that this piece has earned me a couple pennies despite some bad typos.
. . . . .

From Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, another creative use for this
timesink of a video game (that I still play /cry).

Like many things in life, it comes down to how you make and shape your experience. Blizzard's World of Warcraft MMORPG is no exception to this little saying, but I fall in with the side of its great capabilities as an addictive alternative reality.

In Azeroth, since the BETA way back in 2004, I have participated in all of the three main aspects of game-play; intensive raiding, player-vs-player combat and role-playing. Two of these have reward systems involving armor and weaponry, but all three involve an intense status ladder to climb and a substantial time investment. No one likes being called a "noob," or being at the bottom of the totem pole, so what else is there to do, but be the best you can be?

Raiding, especially within a guild, players usually meet and play for hours on end, progressing as carefully as possible to be proficient in an instanced area or dungeon. Guilds will set specific meeting times to assault these areas, strictly allowing players to enter group only if they arrive on time. If a player is late, just like a job, they are penalized and not allowed to participate. Time and game currency is heavily invested by dedicated players to create consumables (potions, repair bots, bandages, etc), repair armor and weapon damages, as well as researching the best way to assault a group of enemies or boss. The more difficult the raid dungeon, the higher quality of items drops. Some guilds adopt a Dragon-Kill Points (DKP) system to determine who gets the epic items. DKP points are usually earned according to attendance and contributions to the guild. There is one of the biggest time investment there.

With Player-versus-Player (PVP) combat, high status is gained basically by how many people you defeat in both designated battlegrounds and open, World PVP combat. Over and over again. The more people you kill, the more Honor (PVP currency) you gain and the more high-level items you can buy, and show off. It is sometimes disputed that PVP combat requires much more skill then Raiding. While it does employ much quicker thinking on one's feet, PVP carries with it a great chance to elevate a player's status, but this ladder is flimsy. If a player were to get cocky, but be defeated, their status can be very quickly compromised. While I enjoyed PVP combat much more then raiding, the time investment to grind the point necessary for the items was just as involved and repetitive as the raiding environment. Relationships were also more of rivalries then as teams.

With Roleplaying, status is earned through how many players you know and how many stories you can tell. The most difficult thing I find about the roleplaying environments is how sensitive players can be when their storytelling is compromised by another's. Within these communities, you will have players who will become leaders and guide other players along to fit in with their master plan. With roleplaying, the time investment comes with never missing anyone else's roleplay. To be in attendance and to be as involved as possible is the best way to reach high popularity with their peers. Here there is a very likely chance that egos will be hurt, emotions will be trampled and cliques will be notorious. But if you can be friends with everyone, there is less danger, right?

These high-level item drops and experience, coupled with the players attitude can earn them a high status within their active server community. This someone can now be called upon and admired for their power, knowledge and skill, thus able to get even more shiny new armor and weapons. No longer a "noob," they can strut their stuff on their epic mount through a capitol city, showing off their shiny new armor and glowing weapon to all who can see. It is one thing to try to beat a game that will constantly have new content added on, but it another to sacrifice time that can be invested in true life relationships. The game is fun and challenging and the people I have met through it come from all walks of life, some of them becoming good friends. There is a point however, where a player must sit back and register what their true goals are within this alternative reality and how they weigh in with their current goals outside of the game. Will those purple pixels get you a job? Will that epic mount help you pass your exam? Will the PVP Arena gear set want your spouse to spend more time with you?

I do not mean these things sarcastically, because I have seen people balance game-time with jobs, school and relationships. But as a gamer who has let myself fall far into the game world, I can only implore that you, the player, the player's friend, the player's parent make the effort to intervene when the World of Warcraft begins to consume one's life at an unhealthy rate.

I personally recommend these little tips to helping yourself or helping another who has lost their way a little bit:

1) Make full use of parental controls.
Have a close friend or family member set the password for lesser playing time during the week. This is a great way to ween yourself off of long hours of binge-WoWing.

2) Uninstall the game for a week or two, and just take a break.
You can always download it again and reinstall if the shakes start up.

3) Pick up a hobby during the downtime you would usually play WoW.
Go biking! Go draw! Go dancing! Cook yourself dinner on the stove (non-microwavable)! Call up the friends you've been ignoring for weeks!

Thank you for your time, and safe travels in both real-life and Azeroth folks!

Parents who blame their woes on video games...

2008-03-04T00:34:00.000-08:00

This was originally written to be posted on a website called "Helium" that I got suckered into. I was in Spain, I wanted to find a way to make money blogging, and UMBCworks pointed me to this site. It was a trap!

Anywho, the topic was "Parents who blame video games for their child's inadequacies - Do your research." And surprisingly enough it's still the Number 1 rated article for that category. Awesome.
. . . . .

Imagine what kids would get out of games if more parents
played with them instead of used it as a babysitter. (image yoinked from Kotaku.)

Just like comic books, television and rock n' roll, the parents and politicians of the United States will always need something to point their fingers at for corrupting the children of our country. I ask these individuals and organizations fighting the fight against games and gamers, "How did your child get their hands on that T or M-rated video game in the first place?"

It is one thing for a parent to plead ignorance, but even when the ESRB rating system is a little self-admittedly skewed, if a parent should take the time to read the "Warning: Blood, Gore, Violence, Language" on the back of the box, the outcry could start to decline at a rapid rate. And if the child happened to get a hold of it by their own means, what do you do when you see them playing this game? Do you take it away or do you run to the local media so they can film you kid's Playstation in the act of corrupting them?

Parents, please. I know you are probably working long days but if you are not going to be an active part in your child's lives to oversee what they are going to expose themselves to, then you are in no place to blame video games for your own failing. You have the power to lock up the gaming console. You have the power to yank the credit card from that Warcraft subscription. You have the power to say "No, you need to be older before we can buy that game." If a game was not made for an elementary school child to play, then the odds are it shouldn't be in their hands right now.

Within the hot debate there will always be the many, but it will always be the very few exceptions that become the poster children for the anti-video game movement. It is rare, with the focus on political gain by placing the blame solely on games, that other important factors, like mental illness, a bad home life, depression or medication, all important and unfortunate parts in these media victim's lives will go completely unnoticed. It also goes unmentioned the benefits of video games, like quicker cognitive reflexes or better eye-hand coordination for surgeons. Or that games are beneficial to the treatment of stroke patient recovery. Not to mention the capabilities for learning teamwork and leadership.

The battle is still being waged against video games, but gamers themselves are reaching out to their communities to prove that "Hey, we aren't such bad guys." One of the most touching examples involves the successful online comic strip, "Penny Arcade." These two gaming enthusiasts created a charity foundation called "Child's Play." Here gamers and game companies donate money that goes toward purchasing gaming consoles for the sick kids who are being treated in children's hospitals around the world. These children aren't able to get up and run around, but at least with video games, they can play with each other and have fun.

Gaming culture is certainly evolving from the days of PacMan and even the scandal that was GTA's Hot Coffee fiasco.

Links:
"Abstract: The Impact of Video Games on Training Surgeons in the 21st Century" - Archives of Surgery
"Games for Learning Resources" - Federation of American Scientists
"Would You Put World of Warcraft on Your Resume?" - Wired.com
Penny Arcade (*Rated M, for Mature: Language, Violence, Angry Fruit Juicers*)
Child's Play

Thank you for your time, safe travels and happy gaming folks!

Spoken vs. Written Word in Today's Media

2008-03-02T15:16:00.001-08:00

When the class was presented with the challenge of defining and defending the superiority of oral communication over written or vice versa, I feel the need to rise to the occasion and take a shot at it.

Now, in today’s society the written word is a cheaper, mass-produced and incredibly potent device that both promotes widespread literacy…but also idiocy. Like most things, it’s how you use it. As we’ve witnessed on the street, in the office, at school and as showcased on the internet and TV, a lot of Americans are really dumb, and really proud of it. From “The Dumbing of America” article, the US has receded even farther into a bubble, both socially and educationally. “What doesn’t directly effect us, we don’t need to care about or even know.” It breaks my heart, but alas, I remember when at 14 all I cared about was staying awake in school and getting home to instant message my friends about how boring that day at school was.

To me, it is hard to pull one method away from the other and raise it onto a higher platform. Orality and written word are linked in the romantic sense of things. You can have an incredibly written speech, but if your orator sucks wind, the message is more likely to be lost to the audience. But then again, if we can mass produce that fantastic speech and hand it out for everyone to read, people can come to their own decisions about it (sometimes to the advantage or disadvantage of the original author). The message itself is subjective and can be aiding to resolve or mercilessly killing what American literacy we have left (ex. “infotainment”). Today with a lot of written communication transpiring over the internet and cell phones electronically, a lot of these words are being misinterpreted (ex. “I AM EITHER YELLING AT YOU THROUGH THE COMPUTER OR MY CAPSLOCK IS STUCK”) or completely butchered (a more mainstream ex. “idk, my bff, jill?”). One thing I always tend to read and observe is how easily textual conversation can be misunderstood to the point of confrontation. The mind’s voice, which most likely is trying to bridge that void in our brains with the absence of sound, can skew what is read depending on our own moods.

I am fascinated by the idea of the biological processes that oral communication can only accomplish over written or video formats. It is an active process, a feeling process. We hear voices. We see gestures and faces. We respond with our own voice and/or gestures. It is an active exchange, more so than the solitary act of reading the written word as mentioned in the essay “The Rise of the Reading Public.” To be honest I had to read this essay about two times over. My mind’s voice could not spice it up enough for me to truly understand the word’s the first time around. But ever since reading that my imagination drifts off to when intense and intimate socialization probably determined the survival of the species. Was it a unique sense of brotherhood or sisterhood we lost when the first pages were stamped from the printing press?

With the new developments in instant communication technology we’ve seen our networks expanding exponentially. In the “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading” article I found these observations interesting “…young people seem to have a compulsion to stay in touch with one another all the time; periods of lonely silence or privacy seem toxic. If this lust for 24/7 online networking continues, one of the dividends of book reading may fade away.” It fascinates me the preference of texting over making an actual phone call (when not sitting in the middle of a class lecture, that is). With the instant messaging I mentioned before and with phone texting now, through the use of these devices we are removing ourselves from any line of sight (or in some case, line of fire). You don’t see or hear me tell you “You smell.” But those pixels on your screen you’re reading are saying so because I made it say so. Confusing as it may be, the social barricade we create through the use of these technologies as old as the written word have, in my opinion, wounded our ability to think faster in dire situations and even to learn more about ourselves.

No matter how revolutionary an idea can be, there is a sad fact that we in this fast-paced Western society are leading sheltered lives that exist on input and output. Yes, we are educated in the Sciences and Arts, but what does it mean if we cannot share it properly with another human being? When we see those rare “people-smart” folk and those few, incredible orators who rise from the masses, we listen to what they have to say and it almost always shakes us up from the half-lidded, passive stupor our device monitors coax us into. They shake us up and give us something to believe in, no matter how ridiculous the message may be. It is in the delivery.

Articles/Links:
Cingular Commercial - Idk, My Bff, Jill? Cingular Wireless. Youtube.
Internet Slang Dictionary.
Lolspeak. Icanhascheezburger.com.
Misintepreting Email Communications. Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society.
The Dumbing of America. Washington Post.
The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading. Washington Post.
The Rise of the Reading Public. Communications in History.

Fight Against Fox Wages On

2008-02-29T11:51:00.002-08:00

How is that for an agressive title?

So anywho!! So Mr. Rogue Comedian, Lee Camp, has something to say now! (Yes I did not care to learn his name until he wrote a blog post about himself. Too bad!) Read it here via AlterNet Blogs, or below:

As most of you have seen, I ripped into Fox "News" while on a Fox "News" morning show this past Saturday. If you haven't seen it, the clip is to your right. I didn't say what I said in order to get attention. I figured that my statements would piss off a few hundred Fox viewers (or maybe help them question the "facts" they're getting from their sacred channel) and that I would show the clip to a few friends. As it turned out, within a day the clip had been viewed around 300,000 times on various sites, and I was getting interview requests from national radio shows. Apparently I struck a nerve.
I thought I'd answer a bunch of questions people had about the incident. Many have asked what happened before that moment to make me say those horrible things about such a lovely news network. (Isn't it sad that when someone speaks the truth on TV, we all ask "What caused it???") Well, nothing really happened in the interview - A right-wing comedian and I told some lame Huckabee jokes. The anchor, hard hitting journalist Clayton Morris, asked the necessary questions while seeming completely unaware that I was a fellow human being, and that was about it. But in a broader sense, what "happened" to make me call Fox "News" a "festival of ignorance" was the past twelve years of knowing this festering pile of propaganda coated with drivel and wrapped in the American flag has been spewing its poisonous eggs into the brains of average Americans. Now THAT's desecration of the flag - watching it flap back and forth behind a Fox "news" program.
What happened after they cut to a commercial? Clayton Morris was visibly furious but didn't say a word. Neither did anyone in the main studio. I got up, took my microphone off, and walked silently back to the greenroom, itching to the get the fuck out of that sixth circle of hell. Back in the greenroom I saw the female co-host, who was wearing her normal business skirt that is only half an inch away from illegal in 23 states. Even though there are three TV's back there showing nothing but Fox "News" (and we act like water boarding is torture?) she apparently had not watched the segment. She looked at me and said, "GREAT JOB!! We need more humor on the show. It's all so serious!" She did not get to the natural conclusion of her thought, "Now excuse me. I have to go interview strippers wearing Star Trek outfits designed for three-year-olds."
I then left the building without speaking to anyone. Following the break, intrepid newshound Clayton Morris pretended on-air as if he had thrown me out of the building. Here's the clip: He says something like, "I had to get rid of that guy!" The other anchor then says something like, "Well, it shows we have both sides of the issues here at Fox News." They then go on to interview the naked Star Trek chicks. So first of all, Fox "News" shows that it feels the solution to someone speaking their opinion is violence, but then they say it shows they have all viewpoints on their network. Within three seconds they stated that they accept all viewpoints and that they physically throw opposing viewpoints of the building. I'm impressed they're able to walk when they're that deeply drenched in hypocrisy.

Everyone has been amused with the irony that after I said my remarks respectable journalist Clayton Morris hit back with, "You can get all the news you can at Fox," and then sends it over to a story about Captain Kirk's lovers, which would not have been a news story even if it had been covered during Star Trek's actual run 38 years ago.

People have also asked whether I knew I was going to say that stuff or it just came out. My answer will make some like me more and some like me less. I knew I was going to say something, but I didn't exactly know what. When Fox called to ask me to be on, I knew that the only reason I said yes was to tear them down and give some truth to their viewers. (By the way, they clearly had not done their research. They knew I was a left-wing comic, but if they'd looked up my earlier work, they would have known I despise them.) If I wasn't there to speak my mind, I would have no justifiable reason to be on their network. Sure, I would like to be a regular comedian commentator on any network (it's good for my career), but I have no desire to support a propaganda machine that has facilitated the false election of George W. and the unwarranted invasion of Iraq. In all honesty, I thought saying this stuff would hurt my career, and maybe it still will, but I knew I didn't have a choice. Too many people have died for me to look the other way and tell asinine jokes on their couch. Until yesterday I had not seen Montel Williams's appearance on Fox "News," but apparently he also felt he could not sit there and talk about celebrity news while ignoring the truth. (Besides, asinine jokes are my day job. I take weekends off.)

This helps answer the last question - Wasn't my tirade a little rude and lacking in class? A few people who agree with what I said have asked this. My own mother said I should have warned the nice news people that I was going to trash them. My view of a lack of class is knowing that nearly a million civilians have died in Iraq and yet then reporting that 80,000 have. My view of unrefined is calling peace activists "anti-American." My view of barbaric is being aware that genocide goes on in Darfur but refusing to speak about it on-air because the people funding it are your corporate friends. My view of disrespectful is calling the first probable African American nominee for president "Muslim" in hopes that it will inspire enough racism in your viewers to defeat him in November. My idea of vulgar is creating false "news" stories that have some relation to naked women so that you can show clips of those women while you discuss it in a "professional" manner.

I realize I'm a comedian, and I realize my job is not to tell the truth. But in a situation like this, I feel it's a crime not to. Plus, all the best comedians have spoken the truth - Bruce, Carlin, Pryor, Hicks. So I don't give a fuck if people say "that's not funny." Furthermore, I don't consider myself special in any way because I feel all of you who support me would have done the same. And thank you for all the overwhelming support! I had no idea people would be so excited about this. Hopefully my statements and Montel's statements and countless others will continue to grow into an time of truth. Hopefully, if nothing else, we can all renew in people the desire to stop watching tripe, start reading, start forming their own opinions, and start speaking what they learned to the people around them.

I'd love to keep in touch with all of you. My sites are www.leecamp.net and www.YouTube.com/LeeCamp and my email is Camp337@hotmail.com.

Compliments to Digg.com, as always.

As so yes, back to media ethics. Now with instances of the media involvement and "invisible" coverage, and the Catch 22 we discussed in class today with Prince Harry's case, it was really more focused on the idea "To report, or not to report." Now with the reminder of the Montel and Camp instances speaking out against the lack of accurate reporting, I find myself falling into their delicious little hate-trap as with these larger news corporations I wouldn't be surprised if most of the information and data being received has a fat check paper-clipped to the top of the stack. So where do human ethics and business ethics cross, crash and burn in this model? How ignorant or aware are reporters to what they are communicating in these mass outlets? And because of the actions of Montel and Camp, will Fox attract more viewers in the hopes of seeing another squabble that sets the anchormen off balance? Or will most of the people continue not giving a damn?

Guess I'll have to watch the diggers and see.

In Vogue

2008-02-24T07:46:00.000-08:00

Oh Fox News, you seem to be attracting rogue guests onto your show as of late.

Comic
by luvnews

I can't say that people have never challenged the media, it just seems to be a growing trend among these sorta-celebrities to get on air and rant away. In both this video and the Montel Williams' clip, I can't say it is the Iraq rant itself that has resonance, but the bumbling reaction of the news anchors that is most intriguing.

And of course, Fox saves absolutely no face as they cut to Star Trek Chicks immediately afterwards. I believe Captain Picard can help me with this one:

Sources: Digg.com and Breitbart.tv.

Re: Technological Determinism...

2008-02-17T15:06:00.000-08:00

It's how you use it!

A song made entirely of sound files from the Windows 98 & XP OS systems. Miscellaneous fodder, but still creative use of the technology handed to us.

Special thanks to Robbi-985 and Digg.com.

Katie

Project Chanology - Washington DC Raid

2008-02-10T14:57:00.000-08:00

The photos have started rolling in as the Anonymous protests against Scientology draw to a close worldwide today. Hopefully some nighttime news coverage will be in store as well later on.

Check photos from around the freakin' world via SomethingAwful.com's forums.
Washington DC protest photo album, compliments of a goon.

A protester from Sydney explains why these protests are happening.

If y'all still have no idea what is going on...

Read the News

Scientology

Anonymous : Anon@YouTube : Anon@YTMND

Mark Bunker

I'm not sure if this is an awesome day for Internet culture or an incredibly sad one, haha. Either way, it is bad news for the Church of Scientology. Kudos to Anonymous and the Chanology Project for successfully bringing all these people's voices from around the world together. I have to admit under the quite serious message, parading as Guy Fawkes and blasting Rick Astley is pretty damn funny.

They are encouraging people to educate themselves about CoS and they brought the lulz.

Katie

Montel Williams Show Cancelled...

2008-02-10T13:19:00.000-08:00

...and who cares? Well, in light of discussing the ins and outs of the "business" that is reporting the news in class, coupled with the constant reporting over Heath Ledger's death...it may have a little something to do with mentioning the "ratings game" on live television. Take a look:

And it seems a few days after the above took place...

NEW YORK - Syndicated talk show host Montel Williams is being replaced by a younger version of himself.
CBS Television Distribution announced Wednesday that “The Montel Williams Show” will cease production after this television season, his 17th on the air.
Instead, stations that carried his show will be offered a series of Williams reruns. “Best of Montel” will be 52 weeks worth of “some of the most exciting episodes” from the show’s history, the producers said. “I can’t say thank you enough to those who’ve welcomed me into their homes for the past 17 years,” Williams said. “It has been both an honor and a joy.”
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

After reading around the web, there are some who believe that Williams' show was being canceled for poor ratings aaaaanyway, but then there are others who believe the statements on live TV above were the reason for it being axed.

Guess we'll find out more soon but needless it say it's quite the drama. Har.

Katie

Can You Digg It?

2008-02-07T14:20:00.000-08:00

For this semester I have chosen to stalk Digg.com.

I've heard of Digg before and seen its icons on news and e-zine websites, but never made the effort to actually check it out. What can I say? I'm web-savvy but also pretty web-stubborn. But anyway, I figured it was a website that rated articles and collected then together, and so far that has been what I've found. According to the website itself, Digg.com was founded in late 2004 with the intent of becoming an educational database. Maybe not by school-standards, but in the sense that all content is user-created and shared based on how interesting or popular the subject or article. It is a way to spread knowledge and create a community of people who seek it. After just looking over the front page, I'm pretty convinced that the content will more or less be swayed a bit to the liberal side with the usual Anti-Bush fare. And to go a step farther it has a bit of Pro-Obama/Anti-Hillary feel to it too. (See the latest popular entry "Killer Tornadoes Attack Only Hillary Country" on their index page right now!) While one can never be too sure of the accuracy of blogs and even news articles sometimes, I'm looking forward to reading through and even interacting a bit with a few comments here and there. The way the entire site is set up allows for quick and understandable navigation. I find it curious that there are two sets of comments that can apply to one article. One is hosted on the blog or article itself, and another through Digg. Possibly to start conversation away from the actual scene, or also to allow comments on articles that don't have commenting enabled.

Either way, looks to be an interesting read with lots of fun bias to "Digg" through!

*ba-dum chhh!*

Re: American News and Media Bias

2008-02-03T10:31:00.000-08:00

If you remember JibJab's first big hit Our Land and enjoyed What We Call the News you should know they have been keeping very busy animating more of their satirical shorts as well as creating new e-card sendables "Starring You!"

Check 'em out!

Hello there, my name is Katie.

2008-01-29T13:09:00.000-08:00

Why halo thar.

Well it's blogging time again! Hello folks, my name is Katie and welcome to my fourth blog on Blogger. This one is for my MCS222 class at good ol' UMBC. I have been blogging for about 6 years, keeping both personal online journals and subject-based ones. As someone who stepped into the world of "internet diaries" back in high school it has been a valuable tool in both expressing myself, improving my writing, sharing artwork, keeping in touch with friends from real-life and the digital realm, but most of all recording memories in a digital scrapbook.

About me...let's see... Well, I'm in my final semester at UMBC as a Visual Arts/Animation major. Why in an Intro MCS class now? Well, the class always conflicted with my major classes before. What a bummer, eh? I'm looking forward to sharing my thoughts on media, especially the technology side. Since taking the Pop Culture class at UMBC so long ago, I've been doing more writing on video games, moreso topics that involve explaining the culture of gaming to those who sit on the edge turning their noses up and/or call for government regulation. This was also the topic of my paper for the AMST internship class where I interned at the Imaging Research Center here at UMBC.

Anywho, as someone who wants to go into the video game and major motion picture industry eventually, I feel that these classes are helping me to understand not only the potential audiences, but also the inner workings of our culture, especially with how it grows. However, I am not someone who has just one career goal. I'd call it more of a "life goal" I suppose. In the near future, I'd love to take these American studies and skills developed in the Visual Arts to travel and work abroad. This past Fall semester I got a small taste with a stay in Valencia, Spain. The experience gave me a much greater understanding of what it means to be an American, but also what it means to be world citizen. I kept a blog on those adventures, which can be seen by clicking here.

That's all for now! Stay tuned!

Katie