Friday, December 18, 2009
Avatar
After watching Avatar I found my self once again looking back on the semester and considering the constant changes that occur in media presentation along with the how the 3-D technology works as a way to immerse the audience into the film itself as a supporting character.
This use of technology helps make the movie what McLuhan would consider "cool." With the audience completely emerged into the film visually, the story takes hold and finishes off the viewer. Its use of warm colors and majestic creatures paired with the cool blue color of the skin of the aliens captures the audience and allows them to truly feel the journey unfold.
With the way Cameron wrote the film, the thematic issues did not seemed forced, as they are quite poignant. Issues such as imperialism, exploitation, race issues and economic struggles that come to head with the nature verses technology conflict. The constant evolution of technology has been wreaking havoc on the print culture and it seems to be branching out into the film industry.
However this seems to lead into another problem, a problem that exists with the lack of technology that appears at home. For a movie that was so expensive, to create and film, $300 million ,the money to have payoff needs to happen in the theater. Home theaters do not have the 3-D technology to be able to support the 3-D special effects, and this will be the undoing of the film. Without the unbelievable experience the theater experience creates with he 3-D effects the dvd and blu-ray sales will not be as elevated as possible.
Cameron has a vision of the future technologies which include curved computer screens that the user sits inside the curve and can have panoramic views as well as peripheral views. This works as a way to bring the user inside the work, most likely creating a more functional and diligent worker. When some fills their surroundings with work the more they will feel the need to work hard to remove all their work from the screens. Some other technologies that were predicted for our possible future include, the now clinched, 3-d hologram. These possibilities are interesting because they create another way to pass on information. with multiple view points, and advantages, one can process more information quicker. Now this posses another question, what new forms of media will be in place when these new displays are created? Where will social medias be? Will Google be the first to create 3-D searches and data reproduction? Will things like Google world have topographic depictions of land? Will this take the place of land surveyors?
Just some last thoughts i had after seeing a new film, using new technologies that have changed the face of the film industry.
This use of technology helps make the movie what McLuhan would consider "cool." With the audience completely emerged into the film visually, the story takes hold and finishes off the viewer. Its use of warm colors and majestic creatures paired with the cool blue color of the skin of the aliens captures the audience and allows them to truly feel the journey unfold.
With the way Cameron wrote the film, the thematic issues did not seemed forced, as they are quite poignant. Issues such as imperialism, exploitation, race issues and economic struggles that come to head with the nature verses technology conflict. The constant evolution of technology has been wreaking havoc on the print culture and it seems to be branching out into the film industry.
However this seems to lead into another problem, a problem that exists with the lack of technology that appears at home. For a movie that was so expensive, to create and film, $300 million ,the money to have payoff needs to happen in the theater. Home theaters do not have the 3-D technology to be able to support the 3-D special effects, and this will be the undoing of the film. Without the unbelievable experience the theater experience creates with he 3-D effects the dvd and blu-ray sales will not be as elevated as possible.
Cameron has a vision of the future technologies which include curved computer screens that the user sits inside the curve and can have panoramic views as well as peripheral views. This works as a way to bring the user inside the work, most likely creating a more functional and diligent worker. When some fills their surroundings with work the more they will feel the need to work hard to remove all their work from the screens. Some other technologies that were predicted for our possible future include, the now clinched, 3-d hologram. These possibilities are interesting because they create another way to pass on information. with multiple view points, and advantages, one can process more information quicker. Now this posses another question, what new forms of media will be in place when these new displays are created? Where will social medias be? Will Google be the first to create 3-D searches and data reproduction? Will things like Google world have topographic depictions of land? Will this take the place of land surveyors?
Just some last thoughts i had after seeing a new film, using new technologies that have changed the face of the film industry.
Monday, December 14, 2009
This is the End, my only Friend the end...
I am a little burnt by this semester and I felt like I would leave my last post, to the very last minute. This is my take on the whole semester; I hope you are ready.
The media has gone through many changes. It began with oral tradition and it moved into the written form, against the better judgment of Plato. Then came the industrial age where the printing press made literature and media, in all forms, readily available to the mass public. The radio changed the face of verbal transmission of ideas and concepts which lead into the age of television. All of a sudden that voice has a face, yet you still can not engage in dialogue with it. The television added color as a way to further distract us from the actual facts and subject being discussed, thus leading us to forget that the messages are being spoken at us instead of to us. More people were able to write with the invention of the type writer and then the creation of the word processor. The ability to control the ideas, and how those ideas are delivered became easier and more people had the way to communicate ideas that have been edited and rearranged as a way to get the most persuasive message arranged for massive perversion of facts.
Today, we live in the digital age, an age where information is passed along electronically at speeds close to the blink of an eye. Information can cross the continent in sheer seconds that used to take days. Facebook, Twitter and Myspace have blown onto the scene and places us, the user, at the center of attention for all to see. We place photographs, and witty remarks about “stuff.” We collect items such as “friends” and farm animals, as a way to consume ourselves in meaningless and trivial pursuits. Social networks are a good for some and just plain bad for others. The letter that was sent with personal greetings and photographs with loving remarks tied to them, have been replaced by a computer screen with mass salutations to all whom care enough to seek you out. It just does not seem keep in the same holiday spirit. Do you think Norman Rockwell would paint pictures of the modern day family huddling around the warm glow of a computer screen laughing at the last post from Aunt Edna? I would like to think not.
The more I thought about this, more it dawn on me, how lazy we are getting as a society. It occurred to me that kids and adults do not need to even leave their video games to update their statuses or respond to another gamer. They only need to pause their games and change their dashboard. Game system of today, are internet ready with almost all the faculties a CPU has to offer. The accessibility of these media devices, are in fact changing the face of our society.
Google and its ease of use allow us to take for granted the information gathering that we once did. Days and days in the stacks at a wide variety of different libraries in order to research a term paper has been reduced to a few clicks of a mouse and “viola” we have answers.
If McLuhan is right and the technologies are extensions of us how do we learn to wield this new power? Will this power, in the end, rule us? We have discussed in depth the amount of information collected from us could be as rich as what we collect from it.
The media has gone through many changes. It began with oral tradition and it moved into the written form, against the better judgment of Plato. Then came the industrial age where the printing press made literature and media, in all forms, readily available to the mass public. The radio changed the face of verbal transmission of ideas and concepts which lead into the age of television. All of a sudden that voice has a face, yet you still can not engage in dialogue with it. The television added color as a way to further distract us from the actual facts and subject being discussed, thus leading us to forget that the messages are being spoken at us instead of to us. More people were able to write with the invention of the type writer and then the creation of the word processor. The ability to control the ideas, and how those ideas are delivered became easier and more people had the way to communicate ideas that have been edited and rearranged as a way to get the most persuasive message arranged for massive perversion of facts.
Today, we live in the digital age, an age where information is passed along electronically at speeds close to the blink of an eye. Information can cross the continent in sheer seconds that used to take days. Facebook, Twitter and Myspace have blown onto the scene and places us, the user, at the center of attention for all to see. We place photographs, and witty remarks about “stuff.” We collect items such as “friends” and farm animals, as a way to consume ourselves in meaningless and trivial pursuits. Social networks are a good for some and just plain bad for others. The letter that was sent with personal greetings and photographs with loving remarks tied to them, have been replaced by a computer screen with mass salutations to all whom care enough to seek you out. It just does not seem keep in the same holiday spirit. Do you think Norman Rockwell would paint pictures of the modern day family huddling around the warm glow of a computer screen laughing at the last post from Aunt Edna? I would like to think not.
The more I thought about this, more it dawn on me, how lazy we are getting as a society. It occurred to me that kids and adults do not need to even leave their video games to update their statuses or respond to another gamer. They only need to pause their games and change their dashboard. Game system of today, are internet ready with almost all the faculties a CPU has to offer. The accessibility of these media devices, are in fact changing the face of our society.
Google and its ease of use allow us to take for granted the information gathering that we once did. Days and days in the stacks at a wide variety of different libraries in order to research a term paper has been reduced to a few clicks of a mouse and “viola” we have answers.
If McLuhan is right and the technologies are extensions of us how do we learn to wield this new power? Will this power, in the end, rule us? We have discussed in depth the amount of information collected from us could be as rich as what we collect from it.
Monday, December 7, 2009
CHANGE OF MEDIA PRESENTATION CHANGE IN MEANING
McLuhan suggests that the change in the medium is to change the meaning. For example, the medium the experience of a novel coming alive on screen is different from the deep interest one gains from reading it. In addition, the director’s interpretation of the novel as a whole can be far from the one the reader has. That is why people aggressively agree that a movie is better than the film in almost every case. Taking a book and putting it on the “big screen” changes the way the viewer gains the information that is being passed along. Whether it is Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness modernized to Francis Ford Coppola’s film Apocalypse Now or his interpretation of The Godfather. The messages are clearly changed. The audience is forced to become a spectator rather than one that interacts with the characters as they set upon their journeys. One can do nothing but watch. When one reads a book, one makes predictions and inferences and can slow the rate of action down or they can slow the plot pacing down to a craw to prepare themselves for what is inevitable. When we view a film, we become victim to the pacing of the director. We have no choice but to go along for the ride. This medium of film grants the power to the film makers rather than the audience.
When reading our imagination melds with the author’s descriptions and we design the landscapes and environments, and when we are subjected to the director’s vision, the mis-en-sign creates the world without any input from the audience. Everything visible on screen has been placed on purpose and is used to craft ideal interpretations controlled by the director. Nothing seems out of place or out of the ordinary. When the reader of novel is forced to construct the ambiance of a scene one begins to take ownership of those surroundings continuing the deep interest. That deep interest is lost when the incorporation of the visual is made. The meaning is constructed by the director in film by carefully planned out manipulation of camera angles, lighting, sound, character movements, etc. The audience becomes a witness to the unfolding of the film rather than an intricate part of it. When doing this the message is transformed by the presentation of the content.
When reading our imagination melds with the author’s descriptions and we design the landscapes and environments, and when we are subjected to the director’s vision, the mis-en-sign creates the world without any input from the audience. Everything visible on screen has been placed on purpose and is used to craft ideal interpretations controlled by the director. Nothing seems out of place or out of the ordinary. When the reader of novel is forced to construct the ambiance of a scene one begins to take ownership of those surroundings continuing the deep interest. That deep interest is lost when the incorporation of the visual is made. The meaning is constructed by the director in film by carefully planned out manipulation of camera angles, lighting, sound, character movements, etc. The audience becomes a witness to the unfolding of the film rather than an intricate part of it. When doing this the message is transformed by the presentation of the content.
Perverse Persuasion
As English majors, we are constantly debating worth of content over form. This argument has been raging since the dawn of the of Plato’s academy. Plato had always warned people of the power of the written word. That power can be manipulated and wielded in ways to promote perverse persuasion. Where Plato began this argument, it seems McLuhan caps it off with an explanation mark. McLuhan feels that the medium itself embeds a message creating a symbiotic relationship between the two. One cannot study a single piece of content within the media without studying the whole of that media. The medium holds the power of that content hostage, for the control of the message belongs to the medium.
The more effort the medium has the less the person interacting with it has to put into it. The contrast between comics and film examines this phenomenon. Where comic purposely place a gutter between panels of images and texts a film plays out the scene in its entirety. The gutter of the comic, lends the power to the reader, as a way for them to fill in the blanks. Interpretation and inference forces the reader of the comic to become interactive with the form, as they mull over the content of the read. The power never leaves the visual representation. The film medium controls the visual, audio, and content it its presentation of information. This gives rise to the ability to control more of the information making easier to manipulate to persuade the audience. Where a simple piece of the puzzle cannot be extracted and studied the form that holds that information comes under discussion.
When that conversation gets stale people become focused upon the content. The message that is present in the content is blurred via the layers of media representation of facts. A news story has facts that are interpreted by a writer, which is then edited by an editor, which is then given visuals that portray the facts in a way to sensationalize the story. Once that is done graphic visuals are added along with sound that has the ability to take the facts and control them and make them something that they are not.
This is not a new thing; in fact it is an old thing. During the beginning of the American Revolution, the media misrepresented facts, in the retelling of the story of the “Boston Massacre.” With Revere’s engraving, of his perspective, of what happened that wintery day in Boston, helped the Sons of Liberty to elicit mass popularity for their “revolution” on British tyranny. The media has always used rhetoric as a way to twist facts and construct new meanings via the presentation of the facts.
The more effort the medium has the less the person interacting with it has to put into it. The contrast between comics and film examines this phenomenon. Where comic purposely place a gutter between panels of images and texts a film plays out the scene in its entirety. The gutter of the comic, lends the power to the reader, as a way for them to fill in the blanks. Interpretation and inference forces the reader of the comic to become interactive with the form, as they mull over the content of the read. The power never leaves the visual representation. The film medium controls the visual, audio, and content it its presentation of information. This gives rise to the ability to control more of the information making easier to manipulate to persuade the audience. Where a simple piece of the puzzle cannot be extracted and studied the form that holds that information comes under discussion.
When that conversation gets stale people become focused upon the content. The message that is present in the content is blurred via the layers of media representation of facts. A news story has facts that are interpreted by a writer, which is then edited by an editor, which is then given visuals that portray the facts in a way to sensationalize the story. Once that is done graphic visuals are added along with sound that has the ability to take the facts and control them and make them something that they are not.
This is not a new thing; in fact it is an old thing. During the beginning of the American Revolution, the media misrepresented facts, in the retelling of the story of the “Boston Massacre.” With Revere’s engraving, of his perspective, of what happened that wintery day in Boston, helped the Sons of Liberty to elicit mass popularity for their “revolution” on British tyranny. The media has always used rhetoric as a way to twist facts and construct new meanings via the presentation of the facts.
Grand Finale
It is interesting that we complete our term with the reading of McLuhan. As McLuhan describes the new media as a tool he explains that the tools become extensions of ourselves. “Extensions involve mediation. Accordingly, it is not the extension, medium, ‘or machine’ but what one does with the machine that is ‘its meaning or message’” (McLuhan 7). We have spent a semester studying the tools that are forging or future of media. Whether it is Google, Wikipedia, Facebook or Twitter , our future of information gathering is changing: as it always does. Evolution is inevitable. It began when we went from oral traditions to written ones. The use of the type writer to the word processor has changed the way be perceive the way we create new information. The tools or extensions of ourselves are changing and they are changing us with them. The newspapers are dying out and the internet and all of its multimedia facets are soaring. The internet is where more and more people are going in order to find information. Many people, that were born and raised in times where they never have even needed to navigate the stacks , are learning to ask simple questions and receive simple answers.
The sheer accessibility of the tool has created the notion that “Google is making us stupid.” We as a society are more and more dependent upon our tools every day. The more and more that we rely on our tools, the more we do not rely on our selves, or memory or intellect thus leaving us as dependent upon the tools, whether it is a computer or a calculator society is being transformed. Marshall McLuhan knew this and explores it throughout his book. It seems that his book is a call to arms, so to speak. I feel that his intent to use interdisciplinary research to explore the power and the danger of the new media. He also understands that it is not going to go away; therefore we need to educate ourselves in order to combat the influence of these new and constant mediums.
His use of the light bulb idea is interesting because it works well as a metaphor for his book. He is, in effect, trying to illuminate his audience into understanding the need to educate ourselves on how to properly manipulate the tools that we use rather than letting them manipulate us.
All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. The medium is the message. Any understanding of social and cultural change is impossible without knowledge of the way media work as environments (McLuhan 26).
The sheer accessibility of the tool has created the notion that “Google is making us stupid.” We as a society are more and more dependent upon our tools every day. The more and more that we rely on our tools, the more we do not rely on our selves, or memory or intellect thus leaving us as dependent upon the tools, whether it is a computer or a calculator society is being transformed. Marshall McLuhan knew this and explores it throughout his book. It seems that his book is a call to arms, so to speak. I feel that his intent to use interdisciplinary research to explore the power and the danger of the new media. He also understands that it is not going to go away; therefore we need to educate ourselves in order to combat the influence of these new and constant mediums.
His use of the light bulb idea is interesting because it works well as a metaphor for his book. He is, in effect, trying to illuminate his audience into understanding the need to educate ourselves on how to properly manipulate the tools that we use rather than letting them manipulate us.
All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. The medium is the message. Any understanding of social and cultural change is impossible without knowledge of the way media work as environments (McLuhan 26).
Monday, November 30, 2009
2015 The Dust has not yet settled...
Picture this: it is 2015 and there is only darkness. the sun cannot shine through the thickness of the cloud of dust disturbed by 1000 1000 pound bomds that cascaded down upon the earth. The ground is scored black by the nuclear bombing raids. The dust cloud cover has destroyed any and all attempts at satellite communication and therefore we have no phone, e-mail or internet service. Adolescents sit in fetal position rocking back and forth aimlessly hitting keys on their cell phones, in hopes that there is small chance of reaching someone they want to communicate with. Welcome back to the stone age of communication and media.
The newspapers have been out of business for three years, with no hope of returning. With out use of telecommunication, the savior to news media that was projected way back in 2009 as being the last hope for those in search of the worlds current wonders. "What are they doing in Russia?" one might ask. Another might chirp in a response that goes like this: "who cares I can't get to my Facebook page" or "Google it! Oh yeah, that's right, there is no INTERNET!!!" There is a lonely child in the corner, that just learned to speak, and his first three word sentence is: "What is google?"
Education has been forced to return to basics, with a focus on books, paper and handwritten words spread across the page. Students are being forced to know grammar and spell check their own work. Calculators that used to run on solar power have been rendered useless, without the sun powering them. Computers collect dust in the corners as children recall the glory days when school used to be "Fun."
News is spread via mouth. The things that used to be considered gossip is now the contemporary version of TMZ and neighborhood news is followed by everyone. The world now regains verbal communication that spawns discourse and intellectual pursuits. Relationships become stronger and in the darkest days the world has ever seen, a bright light shines within all whom learn the value of speaking to others and learning from others. Gone is the silo effect, gone is trite arguments over why there should be a "dislike button". The future is not written and those that can survive these dark times are going to be stronger for it. They can teach others how to gain personal strength in world without digital media.
The newspapers have been out of business for three years, with no hope of returning. With out use of telecommunication, the savior to news media that was projected way back in 2009 as being the last hope for those in search of the worlds current wonders. "What are they doing in Russia?" one might ask. Another might chirp in a response that goes like this: "who cares I can't get to my Facebook page" or "Google it! Oh yeah, that's right, there is no INTERNET!!!" There is a lonely child in the corner, that just learned to speak, and his first three word sentence is: "What is google?"
Education has been forced to return to basics, with a focus on books, paper and handwritten words spread across the page. Students are being forced to know grammar and spell check their own work. Calculators that used to run on solar power have been rendered useless, without the sun powering them. Computers collect dust in the corners as children recall the glory days when school used to be "Fun."
News is spread via mouth. The things that used to be considered gossip is now the contemporary version of TMZ and neighborhood news is followed by everyone. The world now regains verbal communication that spawns discourse and intellectual pursuits. Relationships become stronger and in the darkest days the world has ever seen, a bright light shines within all whom learn the value of speaking to others and learning from others. Gone is the silo effect, gone is trite arguments over why there should be a "dislike button". The future is not written and those that can survive these dark times are going to be stronger for it. They can teach others how to gain personal strength in world without digital media.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Sony's Crazy Interactive TV Patent Lets You Throw Tomatoes at Actors
Come on already!!! Do we really need stuff like this to spend our hard earned money on? This is a ridiculous idea!!!
'nuff said!!!
'nuff said!!!
I love this!!!
I know that when it comes to many of these "new", well new to me, technological break throughs in the way information is spread I have been a little, okay a lot, skeptical. However, being a movie lover, I love the idea of Flixup. It seems to do the exact thing that I do myself by surfing the net, on websites that I frequently find my way to when looking for an opinion that seems similar to mine. I know this continues the patttern of the Silo Effect, but why not surround yourself with like minded people as you hunt and pillage to find treasure in the vast and undulating sea of information.
What does Flixup do that rotten tomatoes or flixster does not? There answer is a complex one:
...the key is the filtration. Plenty of people say things about movies on Twitter that are worthless, but FlixUp has what it believes to be the perfect algorithm to sort out the useful movie tweets from the not useful ones. They call it the "Twitter Noise Assassin." And the results seem solid for how the collective views the film.
When the need to know is all you need to know this is a great resource.
What does Flixup do that rotten tomatoes or flixster does not? There answer is a complex one:
...the key is the filtration. Plenty of people say things about movies on Twitter that are worthless, but FlixUp has what it believes to be the perfect algorithm to sort out the useful movie tweets from the not useful ones. They call it the "Twitter Noise Assassin." And the results seem solid for how the collective views the film.
When the need to know is all you need to know this is a great resource.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Twihaiku
Thought this was an interesting use of the 140 characters.
TwiHaiku - Twitter Poetry, is a free Twitter application that lets you share your thoughts, feelings, views or ideas about anything in a poetic manner.
Your short verses are reviewed, discussed and rated by broad audience, and moderated selection is uploaded to twiHaiku Twitter page so anyone may subscribe and follow the best collection of free short verse poetry online.
Here are some examples:
taken for granted/ what you had and what you loved/ is gone in the wind.
taken for granted/ what you had and what you loved/ is gone in the wind.
I know where the sky is dark, Somewhere it is blue... I know where the rainbow ends, I am with you
I am following this... whatever it is. I find many of the haiku authors pretty good, however some are pretty aweful also. I will have to wait and see to be able to make more of a determination.
Status update upon Twitter: Things are beginning to look up.
TwiHaiku - Twitter Poetry, is a free Twitter application that lets you share your thoughts, feelings, views or ideas about anything in a poetic manner.
Your short verses are reviewed, discussed and rated by broad audience, and moderated selection is uploaded to twiHaiku Twitter page so anyone may subscribe and follow the best collection of free short verse poetry online.
Here are some examples:
taken for granted/ what you had and what you loved/ is gone in the wind.
taken for granted/ what you had and what you loved/ is gone in the wind.
I know where the sky is dark, Somewhere it is blue... I know where the rainbow ends, I am with you
I am following this... whatever it is. I find many of the haiku authors pretty good, however some are pretty aweful also. I will have to wait and see to be able to make more of a determination.
Status update upon Twitter: Things are beginning to look up.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Illumination in 140 characters
Been playing around with Twitter. Then played around on Facebook to do some croudsourcing about the platform designed to...
My post went like this:
Anyone use Twitter? Please enlighten me as to how and why? I am doing a project for my class on social networking, so I figured I would use one to collect my data!
This is what I got in response:
Derek Cook: people use twitter becasue they have a constant need to feel wanted so if people are stalking them they feel better about themselves
David Montgomery How cleaver and immensly sardonic!
Bryan Pasqualucci: use Omeagle, it can be an example of terrible social networking
John Denton: I use Twitter to stay updated with directors, and what they're working on, they also give tips on filmmaking which I like, but you can pretty much get any kind of news through Twitter, it's micro blogging.
David Montgomery: John, like whom?
John Denton: I follow: Eli Roth, Kevin Smith, David Lynch, Edgar Wright, Richard Kelly, Simon Pegg, Joblo.com, NPH, etc.
Thought this was something interesting to reveal however it did not give me the closing that I was looking for. I still have my reservations about Twitter. What better way to put your mind at ease than to Google what you should be thinking.
I came across an interesting article: What's It All About, Twitter?
the web address is: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2320445,00.asp
This article made the following claims:
If you haven't visited Twitter, you should. Reading the public front page (you can access this "Everyone" page only after you've set up your own account) is like standing in the middle of New York City's Grand Central Terminal and having every single person pause to tell you, in 140 characters or less, exactly what they're doing or thinking at that moment.
IF THAT DOES NOT SELL YOU THIS MIGHT:
So, is the meaning of Twitter more and more followers? Jesus accrued millions of followers. Certainly, his intention was not just to be "followed." That can't be the goal here, either. But as I Twitter incessantly and wait for that flash of light—the "aha!" moment—I grow increasingly frustrated and disappointed. Despite my efforts (I even put my Twitter address in my twice-weekly What's New Now newsletter), nothing is happening!
Still not satisfied, what about now?
John C. Dvorak and I talked about the value of Twitter last week, and I told him that as far as I could tell, there is none. "Au contraire, my friend," said John. He once asked his legion of Twitterers to tell him where and when presidential nominee Barack Obama made a particular statement. Within minutes, he had his answer—many times over. I have to admit that when I post a question in Twitter, someone usually answers, though the answer isn't always useful. Clearly, if I had 100 times more followers, I could, potentially, mobilize a legion of fellow Twitterers to answer my questions and maybe even do my bidding.
Getting there? Beginning to? Me neither!
My post went like this:
Anyone use Twitter? Please enlighten me as to how and why? I am doing a project for my class on social networking, so I figured I would use one to collect my data!
This is what I got in response:
Derek Cook: people use twitter becasue they have a constant need to feel wanted so if people are stalking them they feel better about themselves
David Montgomery How cleaver and immensly sardonic!
Bryan Pasqualucci: use Omeagle, it can be an example of terrible social networking
John Denton: I use Twitter to stay updated with directors, and what they're working on, they also give tips on filmmaking which I like, but you can pretty much get any kind of news through Twitter, it's micro blogging.
David Montgomery: John, like whom?
John Denton: I follow: Eli Roth, Kevin Smith, David Lynch, Edgar Wright, Richard Kelly, Simon Pegg, Joblo.com, NPH, etc.
Thought this was something interesting to reveal however it did not give me the closing that I was looking for. I still have my reservations about Twitter. What better way to put your mind at ease than to Google what you should be thinking.
I came across an interesting article: What's It All About, Twitter?
the web address is: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2320445,00.asp
This article made the following claims:
If you haven't visited Twitter, you should. Reading the public front page (you can access this "Everyone" page only after you've set up your own account) is like standing in the middle of New York City's Grand Central Terminal and having every single person pause to tell you, in 140 characters or less, exactly what they're doing or thinking at that moment.
IF THAT DOES NOT SELL YOU THIS MIGHT:
So, is the meaning of Twitter more and more followers? Jesus accrued millions of followers. Certainly, his intention was not just to be "followed." That can't be the goal here, either. But as I Twitter incessantly and wait for that flash of light—the "aha!" moment—I grow increasingly frustrated and disappointed. Despite my efforts (I even put my Twitter address in my twice-weekly What's New Now newsletter), nothing is happening!
Still not satisfied, what about now?
John C. Dvorak and I talked about the value of Twitter last week, and I told him that as far as I could tell, there is none. "Au contraire, my friend," said John. He once asked his legion of Twitterers to tell him where and when presidential nominee Barack Obama made a particular statement. Within minutes, he had his answer—many times over. I have to admit that when I post a question in Twitter, someone usually answers, though the answer isn't always useful. Clearly, if I had 100 times more followers, I could, potentially, mobilize a legion of fellow Twitterers to answer my questions and maybe even do my bidding.
Getting there? Beginning to? Me neither!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Stalker Stuff
So this Twitter stuff is either kinda of cool or really creepy. I have been playing with it, Twitter I mean, for about hours no. I began following things I am interested in like movie studios, comic book companies, news etc. and I found myself still not that entertained. That is when I realized I could 'cyberstalk' celebrities.'
I typed in a name that I thought would give me some witty quips a couple times a day, and that man was Kevin Smith. As of now, I no longer find him humorous. I now just feel he is trying to hard. It seems a bit sad. However, I did get a chance to see who he is following. Now that as the mother load of the whats up about Twitter.
I found out, via Kevin Smith's tweets that he follows a comic icon. Smith follows a Stan "the man" Lee. What!!! Too cool you say. Just wait until you see what Mr. Lee has to say:
"--But don't get too complacent! Tomorrow's another day and you know how compulsive I am! Sleep tight, heroes!"
this just in... still not that impressed with Twitter. BTW I am leaning towards the creepy thoughts on all this.
I typed in a name that I thought would give me some witty quips a couple times a day, and that man was Kevin Smith. As of now, I no longer find him humorous. I now just feel he is trying to hard. It seems a bit sad. However, I did get a chance to see who he is following. Now that as the mother load of the whats up about Twitter.
I found out, via Kevin Smith's tweets that he follows a comic icon. Smith follows a Stan "the man" Lee. What!!! Too cool you say. Just wait until you see what Mr. Lee has to say:
"--But don't get too complacent! Tomorrow's another day and you know how compulsive I am! Sleep tight, heroes!"
this just in... still not that impressed with Twitter. BTW I am leaning towards the creepy thoughts on all this.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Arod-- Avoided
I was trying out my new Twitter account and found this 'tweet' from the Onion and laughed aloud.
Mickey Mouse Noticeably Avoids A-Rod During Trip To Disney World
November 17, 2009 | Issue 45•46 | Onion Sports
ORLANDO, FL—Members of the Yankees couldn't help but notice that the resort's iconic mascot Mickey Mouse made a special effort to avoid Alex Rodriguez during the team's trip to Walt Disney World to celebrate its World Series victory. "I thought it was weird that whenever Alex would yell, 'Mickey, over here,' Mickey would just walk in the opposite direction," said teammate Johnny Damon, adding that he would never have noticed Mickey's many attempts to avoid the third baseman had Rodriguez not been following the cartoon character around with a little autograph book. "But then we had breakfast with the characters, and Mickey went around and hugged Derek [Jeter] and Mark [Teixeira], even our bullpen catcher. Then he just kind of peeled off when he got to A-Rod." Rodriguez was later seen having an intense, one-sided conversation with Rescue Rangers Chip and Dale about being a famous athlete living in New York City.
Not really what i am supposed to do on Twitter, but i feel a bit like a kid on Christmas experimenting with a new toy.
When I first got on, I began looking for people that are in my addressbook and read a bunch of crap about going to the mall, grocery shopping etc. so I decided to go outside the Usual Suspects and look for anything that could generate an eyebrow raise or chuckle.
Mickey Mouse Noticeably Avoids A-Rod During Trip To Disney World
November 17, 2009 | Issue 45•46 | Onion Sports
ORLANDO, FL—Members of the Yankees couldn't help but notice that the resort's iconic mascot Mickey Mouse made a special effort to avoid Alex Rodriguez during the team's trip to Walt Disney World to celebrate its World Series victory. "I thought it was weird that whenever Alex would yell, 'Mickey, over here,' Mickey would just walk in the opposite direction," said teammate Johnny Damon, adding that he would never have noticed Mickey's many attempts to avoid the third baseman had Rodriguez not been following the cartoon character around with a little autograph book. "But then we had breakfast with the characters, and Mickey went around and hugged Derek [Jeter] and Mark [Teixeira], even our bullpen catcher. Then he just kind of peeled off when he got to A-Rod." Rodriguez was later seen having an intense, one-sided conversation with Rescue Rangers Chip and Dale about being a famous athlete living in New York City.
Not really what i am supposed to do on Twitter, but i feel a bit like a kid on Christmas experimenting with a new toy.
When I first got on, I began looking for people that are in my addressbook and read a bunch of crap about going to the mall, grocery shopping etc. so I decided to go outside the Usual Suspects and look for anything that could generate an eyebrow raise or chuckle.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Capital Report:a.k.a. SNOOZEFEST 09
As a child of the 20th and 21st centuries, let me tell you a little flair goes a long way. For no flair at all; that speaks volumes. Let's be honest with ourselves right from the get go: Connecticut polotics are boring! Unless, that is, there is a juicy scandal unfolding revolving around women, hot tubes or women and hot tubes. Therefore it becomes the responsibility of the vehicle, in which we learn about our home state's polotics, that needs some help to pull the readers in. "Capital Report" has zero, zilch, notta, ought, zippo for flair. They do not even reach the ballpark in order to be remotely considered to be near the minimum amount of flair.
Aestetics and panache is what is needed in this ADD ridden society that we live in. In order to drive readers to one's sight, one must overstimulae the audience's senses. One needs to have crazy pop ups, sound bites, a computer generated musak score that forces one to decide upon a hyperlink, that will dissolve into some wizard like animation which transports you magically to another page where the words beckon your attention. Now, you are ready to recess deep into the wall of words that appear infront of you as you become increasingly interested in what is going on in your Facebook page.
At least this hypothetical website, which I just imagined in my mind, made an effort to extort the senses as a way to drive up readership. That is much more than what I can say about "Capital Report." I fell out of insomnia just looking at the homepage.
Can everyone join in with me as I say.... BORING!!!!!!
Aestetics and panache is what is needed in this ADD ridden society that we live in. In order to drive readers to one's sight, one must overstimulae the audience's senses. One needs to have crazy pop ups, sound bites, a computer generated musak score that forces one to decide upon a hyperlink, that will dissolve into some wizard like animation which transports you magically to another page where the words beckon your attention. Now, you are ready to recess deep into the wall of words that appear infront of you as you become increasingly interested in what is going on in your Facebook page.
At least this hypothetical website, which I just imagined in my mind, made an effort to extort the senses as a way to drive up readership. That is much more than what I can say about "Capital Report." I fell out of insomnia just looking at the homepage.
Can everyone join in with me as I say.... BORING!!!!!!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Steal it, Its okay!
For small independant start ups trying to make a name for themselves what better way is there to generate publicity than letting other companies, in your field, do your publicrelations and marketing for you. The "Steal Our Stories" section can definately help spread the word of ones journalistic integrity.
"You can republish our articles and graphics for free, so long as you credit us, link to us, and don’t edit our material or sell it separately.
We’re licensed under Creative Commons, which provides the legal details. (The license says “no commercial use.” We’re fine with ads appearing on the same page as republished stories, but you can’t resell the stories or sell ads specifically targeted to them.)"
As long as the credit is given and links back to the original source are made tis seems like a real tool to helpd drive readership toward the site. It seems likeit would be beneficial for both parties that could lead to better relationships going forward that could help in the long run when it comes to larger or more diverse stories.
"You can republish our articles and graphics for free, so long as you credit us, link to us, and don’t edit our material or sell it separately.
We’re licensed under Creative Commons, which provides the legal details. (The license says “no commercial use.” We’re fine with ads appearing on the same page as republished stories, but you can’t resell the stories or sell ads specifically targeted to them.)"
As long as the credit is given and links back to the original source are made tis seems like a real tool to helpd drive readership toward the site. It seems likeit would be beneficial for both parties that could lead to better relationships going forward that could help in the long run when it comes to larger or more diverse stories.
Friday, November 13, 2009
What I have learned so far about the business of journalism:
What I have learned so far about the business of journalism:
Newspapers get more money from advertising than from sales of the newspapers.
The news industry has a relatively high profit margin, such as 20 percent, 30 percent or more.
What I learned from:
Online Newspaper Revenue: Puny AND Persuasive (to broadcasters)?
By Gordon Borrell
Aesthetics are important to draw consumers.
The fact is, some sites run by daily newspapers are doing phenomenally well compared with their peers. It is typical to see some newspaper sites making three to four times the average for their peer circulation group. Yet there are others that are trying hard (even a few that have won awards for spectacular site features) but performing poorly on the revenue side.
This inward look at how well the newspaper industry is doing is a step toward an important benchmarking process. It shows newspapers how well they compare against their peers. But as my colleague Clark Gilbert from Harvard Business School says, the best newspapers are just the prettiest of the ugly stepsisters.
Must have money that is consumable and subject matter must not be too serious:
I have a theory for this. All the competitor sites mentioned are pure-play Internet companies that a) have complete dependence on Internet revenues and b) are not dependent on financing, resources or demands of a parent company focused on a competing medium.
Online commerce generates a majority of Profits.
I have a theory for this. All the competitor sites mentioned are pure-play Internet companies that a) have complete dependence on Internet revenues and b) are not dependent on financing, resources or demands of a parent company focused on a competing medium.
Will we use advertisements?
Advertisements are a must. We need to be able to generate a cost basis as a way to spread ourselves throughout the state to be able to cover as much as we can. I feel that the best case scenario would be using local businesses as a generator of economy as well as using them to help spread our word via weekly pamphlets or placemat depending upon the market and venue.
- local restaurants
- local Laundromats
- local grocery
- local schools targeting school board meetings, PTA, and Gridiron clubs
- local artisans and galleries
- vintage shops
- florists
- private book stores
- doctors office
- lawyers
- etc.
Will there be a print campaign?
Limited run of printed copy that has our web address printed all over it that helps spread our word through a grass root campaign.
Will we link up with other local sites for promotion and repay the favor?
I think we make our presence known via major news events around the state placing our product name in very visual places to help piggyback on visual media, such as TV, Podcasts etc. Try to forge relationships by appearing on local radio shows when ever we can to help generate positive public relations. We can trade drive time for ad space in order to further our relationships.
- local radio (FM)
- local radio (AM)
- local TV
How will we get our name out there, and the methods we use, what will that say about us?
We can have weekly writing contests within high schools where the winners article can be a weekly feature on the front home page of the website. This has two purposes: help start a young audience base that will grow as our site does and get interest in journalism boosted throughout the state by teachers, parents and school administrators that will help drive interest in our site. The contests ideas can be placed on the website with new concepts or topics each week that will bring different students trying out their hand at hyperlocal journalism.
Newspapers get more money from advertising than from sales of the newspapers.
The news industry has a relatively high profit margin, such as 20 percent, 30 percent or more.
What I learned from:
Online Newspaper Revenue: Puny AND Persuasive (to broadcasters)?
By Gordon Borrell
Aesthetics are important to draw consumers.
The fact is, some sites run by daily newspapers are doing phenomenally well compared with their peers. It is typical to see some newspaper sites making three to four times the average for their peer circulation group. Yet there are others that are trying hard (even a few that have won awards for spectacular site features) but performing poorly on the revenue side.
This inward look at how well the newspaper industry is doing is a step toward an important benchmarking process. It shows newspapers how well they compare against their peers. But as my colleague Clark Gilbert from Harvard Business School says, the best newspapers are just the prettiest of the ugly stepsisters.
Must have money that is consumable and subject matter must not be too serious:
I have a theory for this. All the competitor sites mentioned are pure-play Internet companies that a) have complete dependence on Internet revenues and b) are not dependent on financing, resources or demands of a parent company focused on a competing medium.
Online commerce generates a majority of Profits.
I have a theory for this. All the competitor sites mentioned are pure-play Internet companies that a) have complete dependence on Internet revenues and b) are not dependent on financing, resources or demands of a parent company focused on a competing medium.
Will we use advertisements?
Advertisements are a must. We need to be able to generate a cost basis as a way to spread ourselves throughout the state to be able to cover as much as we can. I feel that the best case scenario would be using local businesses as a generator of economy as well as using them to help spread our word via weekly pamphlets or placemat depending upon the market and venue.
- local restaurants
- local Laundromats
- local grocery
- local schools targeting school board meetings, PTA, and Gridiron clubs
- local artisans and galleries
- vintage shops
- florists
- private book stores
- doctors office
- lawyers
- etc.
Will there be a print campaign?
Limited run of printed copy that has our web address printed all over it that helps spread our word through a grass root campaign.
Will we link up with other local sites for promotion and repay the favor?
I think we make our presence known via major news events around the state placing our product name in very visual places to help piggyback on visual media, such as TV, Podcasts etc. Try to forge relationships by appearing on local radio shows when ever we can to help generate positive public relations. We can trade drive time for ad space in order to further our relationships.
- local radio (FM)
- local radio (AM)
- local TV
How will we get our name out there, and the methods we use, what will that say about us?
We can have weekly writing contests within high schools where the winners article can be a weekly feature on the front home page of the website. This has two purposes: help start a young audience base that will grow as our site does and get interest in journalism boosted throughout the state by teachers, parents and school administrators that will help drive interest in our site. The contests ideas can be placed on the website with new concepts or topics each week that will bring different students trying out their hand at hyperlocal journalism.
"Electric English" in a digital age
English 811 is entitled Electric English and this title leads a student to understand the complex problems that this title ensues. Digital Literature is a subjective term that has many different connotations. The term contemporary leads one to primarily derive a concept of current topics that apply the real world connections that apply to everybody that is exposed to the digital format. However, the word “Digital” takes on many different functions of it’s as it pertains to literature. The concept of digital is most often associated with the computer, and the idea of images conjoined with text, yet when the medium is switched, perhaps to movie or television, the concept of digital literature is deemed not serious in nature or possibly making tragic attempts at being a serious contender for the current reigning champion of literature: the print culture. If the concept of art, whether it be: theatre, film or literature, is to reach a wide array of multiple audiences with universally appealing themes, than the idea of digital literature certainly has the ability to be considered as a formidable piece of the literary pie. It can take a back seat to the print format of literature, because of its inability to sway the opinions of the academic mind. However, where the world switched from pictorial images upon a cave wall, as the formidable means in which to communicate and convey stories and ideas, to the oral tradition we are witnessing a literary crossroads where we, as scholars are learning more about a new medium that needs to be considered a viable source of literature.
This class took me on a journey from a safe and comfortable understanding of what literature is and revealed to me an uncomfortable realization that my notion is antiquated and stoic. It is through this epic adventure that I was able to realize that what I once believed as being the foundation of education, literacy, is being challenged and revolutionized during my life span. As much as I wage battle against it, it will only grow more potent. It is with this newly gained knowledge of digital literature that I am able to return to my students and teach them using new and improved methods that are visually appealing, interactive and educational at the same time.
My own Definition of Literature: Literature is the conveyance of ideas through visual representations of thoughts promoted by an author and received by a reader that has ensues some sort of change in its audience. The impact changes the reader in some way, it either "delights or instructs" Literature is a marriage of form and content set to create a reaction from its audience. This interaction between reader and author is a discourse. It is an active process where the reader must participate via interpretation, evaluation and personal connection. It is through this merging of author intent and the reader response that meaning and understanding of theme and tone emerges. The visual representations can come across in varying forms: words, pictures or illustrations and can meet the needs and desires of many varying audiences, thus creating universal appeal. To my own understanding of what is the purpose of literature: Literature is the way to convey (instruct) audiences the value of the human endeavor. It teaches one to bask in the awesomeness of the mundane and become enlightened by the vastness of the universe and its many intricacies. What is the function of literature? Through a form of entertainment it is designed to explore emotion and strife through visual and emotional experiences that transcends pages and scenes to reach and impact the reader. At the beginning it seemed so clear to me. However it is in my own definitions that cracks to my fundamental founding principals are formed.
Last year, I was teaching a multicultural literature class that I focused on race and gender as themes to explore in American Literature. While I was teaching the feminist movement in literature I came across the following website: http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/gilman.htm. This website worked very well with my students because it exposed them to a journey with the text. If you check this out please choose some of the hyperlinks and see where they bring you. This form of texts does seem to influence its reader, almost in the way the choose your own adventure stories did. It allows the student/reader to be more interactive with the text. I had great success with this tool in the class room and I also found my students interested enough to read the criticisms at the beginning. I was suppressing my interest and excitement of this technology. I have seen it influence the interests of my students and I knew that it was a good tool, but I also knew the original piece were written for a print culture not a digital one. That is where I found myself conflicted, and I took the safe passage across the murky waters of “digital” literature.
I felt isolated and alone while I was reading the article "The End of Books."
I found myself laughing out loud at all the obnoxious remarks Coover was making. He uses rhetoric in this article to push his obvious passion and notions about Electronic literature. Some of the words that caught me off guard were: "Indeed, the very proliferation of books and other print based media, so prevalent in this forest harvesting, paper wasting age, is held to be a sign of its feverish moribundity, the last futile gasp of a once vital form before finally passes away forever, dead as God." He makes a profound argument that paper is a waste of forest resources, and if we don't join the digital age we too are just adding to the problem, and if we don't join it will still pass us by. It is hard to argue that Coover is attacking our guilt and thus making what he is saying more important and indeed dire. To say that print is as dead as God however seems to be a bit overboard. If he is using it as a metaphor to say God is only alive because of a printed book, he has just lost millions of people from his audience. Never mind the fact the line reads in bad taste anyway.
However he goes on to say; "...true freedom from the tyranny of the line is perceived as only really possible now at last with the advent of the hypertext..." Wait, I do not want to be oppressed any longer, I too want freedom. I too want to be joining this bandwagon that is an affront to written and printed literature. Psyche! I soooooooo do not want to be a part of a culture that seems to become outdated as soon as a new program is invented, published and run on multiple computers. Coover wrote this article in 1992, and in 17 years the technology has far surpassed this conceptualized literature. However, teachers are not teaching this kind of literature in school, or how to produce this type of creativity 17 years later. How can this be a living breathing art if it is not fed or if it is not nourished by new authors or creators? Why are authors that are successful in the print culture not hopping aboard this run away train? Why does this seem like a toy and the people using it tinkerers?
I began to think about the implications to that idea. My son, 6 years old, is computer savvy. He has been able to read and write since he was 3 years old. Since he was 4 years old he has been able to navigate cyberspace and find websites such as Noggin.com, Nickjr.com and other educational sites. He has been able to play several educational games that have taught him to read and write better. He has learned to spell, as a way to find what he wants on youtube, which is mostly NASCAR videos and cartoon heroes and it was at this moment I became a believer in “digital” literature.
I will agree that the computer can be used as a great educational tool, but to say that the print age is dying, I am not sure that I can buy that. I believe the computer can instruct on how to build the tools needed for academia, however the work still needs to be written. Whether it be Math, Science, English or Health the written word, the one that is constant will always be the overpowering element. It appears to be concrete and is the exact same written text the students read ten years ago gives it the appearance of longevity so the students feel that what they are learning is meaningful. When reading this article I was angry, but it was in the reflection of what I was angry about that helped me better understand the value of “digital” literature. My anger sent me off on a tangent that seemed to spin me upside down. I began to feel like Lear, outside yelling at the storm.
The use of literature allows the subjective concept of interpretation to be translated by the audience through the text’s role on paper, stage or screen. The audience member, reader or viewer, will than bring forth their own ideas and connections to those texts being written and played out. Here is where the audience member may be influenced by their own prior knowledge, where the intended meaning is lost and consumed by their own interpretation. It is here where the current state of being, of the viewer, influences their own interpretation of the “digital piece”. This could make a classic piece of art and literature, and bring a contemporary interpretation of the text as it is playing out in front of them. Thus leaving the viewer, reader and audience in a place to discern whether or not the “digital” age has brought digital literature to its contemporary form creating tomorrow’s classic art or does it not become art at all? The power is in the audience’s control.
This class took me on a journey from a safe and comfortable understanding of what literature is and revealed to me an uncomfortable realization that my notion is antiquated and stoic. It is through this epic adventure that I was able to realize that what I once believed as being the foundation of education, literacy, is being challenged and revolutionized during my life span. As much as I wage battle against it, it will only grow more potent. It is with this newly gained knowledge of digital literature that I am able to return to my students and teach them using new and improved methods that are visually appealing, interactive and educational at the same time.
My own Definition of Literature: Literature is the conveyance of ideas through visual representations of thoughts promoted by an author and received by a reader that has ensues some sort of change in its audience. The impact changes the reader in some way, it either "delights or instructs" Literature is a marriage of form and content set to create a reaction from its audience. This interaction between reader and author is a discourse. It is an active process where the reader must participate via interpretation, evaluation and personal connection. It is through this merging of author intent and the reader response that meaning and understanding of theme and tone emerges. The visual representations can come across in varying forms: words, pictures or illustrations and can meet the needs and desires of many varying audiences, thus creating universal appeal. To my own understanding of what is the purpose of literature: Literature is the way to convey (instruct) audiences the value of the human endeavor. It teaches one to bask in the awesomeness of the mundane and become enlightened by the vastness of the universe and its many intricacies. What is the function of literature? Through a form of entertainment it is designed to explore emotion and strife through visual and emotional experiences that transcends pages and scenes to reach and impact the reader. At the beginning it seemed so clear to me. However it is in my own definitions that cracks to my fundamental founding principals are formed.
Last year, I was teaching a multicultural literature class that I focused on race and gender as themes to explore in American Literature. While I was teaching the feminist movement in literature I came across the following website: http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/gilman.htm. This website worked very well with my students because it exposed them to a journey with the text. If you check this out please choose some of the hyperlinks and see where they bring you. This form of texts does seem to influence its reader, almost in the way the choose your own adventure stories did. It allows the student/reader to be more interactive with the text. I had great success with this tool in the class room and I also found my students interested enough to read the criticisms at the beginning. I was suppressing my interest and excitement of this technology. I have seen it influence the interests of my students and I knew that it was a good tool, but I also knew the original piece were written for a print culture not a digital one. That is where I found myself conflicted, and I took the safe passage across the murky waters of “digital” literature.
I felt isolated and alone while I was reading the article "The End of Books."
I found myself laughing out loud at all the obnoxious remarks Coover was making. He uses rhetoric in this article to push his obvious passion and notions about Electronic literature. Some of the words that caught me off guard were: "Indeed, the very proliferation of books and other print based media, so prevalent in this forest harvesting, paper wasting age, is held to be a sign of its feverish moribundity, the last futile gasp of a once vital form before finally passes away forever, dead as God." He makes a profound argument that paper is a waste of forest resources, and if we don't join the digital age we too are just adding to the problem, and if we don't join it will still pass us by. It is hard to argue that Coover is attacking our guilt and thus making what he is saying more important and indeed dire. To say that print is as dead as God however seems to be a bit overboard. If he is using it as a metaphor to say God is only alive because of a printed book, he has just lost millions of people from his audience. Never mind the fact the line reads in bad taste anyway.
However he goes on to say; "...true freedom from the tyranny of the line is perceived as only really possible now at last with the advent of the hypertext..." Wait, I do not want to be oppressed any longer, I too want freedom. I too want to be joining this bandwagon that is an affront to written and printed literature. Psyche! I soooooooo do not want to be a part of a culture that seems to become outdated as soon as a new program is invented, published and run on multiple computers. Coover wrote this article in 1992, and in 17 years the technology has far surpassed this conceptualized literature. However, teachers are not teaching this kind of literature in school, or how to produce this type of creativity 17 years later. How can this be a living breathing art if it is not fed or if it is not nourished by new authors or creators? Why are authors that are successful in the print culture not hopping aboard this run away train? Why does this seem like a toy and the people using it tinkerers?
I began to think about the implications to that idea. My son, 6 years old, is computer savvy. He has been able to read and write since he was 3 years old. Since he was 4 years old he has been able to navigate cyberspace and find websites such as Noggin.com, Nickjr.com and other educational sites. He has been able to play several educational games that have taught him to read and write better. He has learned to spell, as a way to find what he wants on youtube, which is mostly NASCAR videos and cartoon heroes and it was at this moment I became a believer in “digital” literature.
I will agree that the computer can be used as a great educational tool, but to say that the print age is dying, I am not sure that I can buy that. I believe the computer can instruct on how to build the tools needed for academia, however the work still needs to be written. Whether it be Math, Science, English or Health the written word, the one that is constant will always be the overpowering element. It appears to be concrete and is the exact same written text the students read ten years ago gives it the appearance of longevity so the students feel that what they are learning is meaningful. When reading this article I was angry, but it was in the reflection of what I was angry about that helped me better understand the value of “digital” literature. My anger sent me off on a tangent that seemed to spin me upside down. I began to feel like Lear, outside yelling at the storm.
The use of literature allows the subjective concept of interpretation to be translated by the audience through the text’s role on paper, stage or screen. The audience member, reader or viewer, will than bring forth their own ideas and connections to those texts being written and played out. Here is where the audience member may be influenced by their own prior knowledge, where the intended meaning is lost and consumed by their own interpretation. It is here where the current state of being, of the viewer, influences their own interpretation of the “digital piece”. This could make a classic piece of art and literature, and bring a contemporary interpretation of the text as it is playing out in front of them. Thus leaving the viewer, reader and audience in a place to discern whether or not the “digital” age has brought digital literature to its contemporary form creating tomorrow’s classic art or does it not become art at all? The power is in the audience’s control.
Role Assignments and the Computer
Learning needs people to read, interpret and evaluate all information and then challenge its validity. It is in the challenging, of that information, that allows the evolution of thought and knowledge occurs. We grow via the information that we acquire and store, the information that can be recalled at the instance that is needed. When someone allows themselves to be immerged in reading anything, whether it be on or offline, they allow themselves to experience the process in which knowledge is gained. It is the user that appears to get in their way. The user chooses what to click on, what bores them or even what keeps their attention. Choice is a factor, it is the choice of the user to function highly when using the internet or just assign the role of entertainment to the computer. Most users have assigned an entertainment role to the computer so when they sit down they desire an entertaining experience. When people are no longer entertained they move on to something that will entertain them.
When scouring the internet I found this incredibly vague description of what the internet is:
Since the advent of written language, tools have been used to enhance and control human communication. The invention of the printing press made communication via the written word on paper documents practical. The telephone, television and radio have had the same kinds of effects on visual and auditory communication. Modern office tools such as voice mail, pagers, and fax machines have done much to change communication, but the bulk of business communication has still been paper documents. As you may be aware, the advent of the Internet has the potential to change the way we communicate in some fundamental ways. We cannot watch the news without hearing a story about the Internet. In one story we hear evangelical praise of the technology that will change everything for the better, and in the next story we hear about the abundance of smut, filth, crime, and other dangers it forces upon us. We need to understand what the Internet is and what it isn't. It is a very real part of our present and future. It will not go away any time soon. The effects it may have on us are profound. Our level understanding of this phenomenon will be the difference between whether it controls our actions or we use it as a powerful tool to advance our personal ideals.
In 2003, the article Redefining the Role of Computers in Education by Neil Mercurius tries to explain the role of the internet in education. During this definition he also interjects a concern in which it could have upon the student using the internet.
Electronic Learning or e-Learning is reinventing the way people learn. The desk, the chalkboard, the paper and pencil, and the knowledge-giver no longer dominate the classroom. The Internet is the biggest influence. When delivered via the Internet, the vendors' curricula can personalize learning. Any student can use the computer as a medium through which the access of information and resources manifest itself as the supernatural agency.
The Internet is dynamic. Up-to-date information on MSN or Yahoo portals, for example, is as current as the click of the mouse. For the Internet to continue to be effective and efficient in delivering current information into the classroom, schools must incorporate clear goals, objectives, and long-term strategic plans to create the best method of delivering of the information to teachers and students. However, the content requires constant monitoring by educators to be certain that content is appropriate and synchronized with the goals and objectives of the institution.
In addition, the Internet shrinks the globe. Collaboration extends from the classroom to distant places; information is global. The ability to link multiple resources worldwide is an advantage of the Internet. It creates the avenue for an integrated curriculum, thus providing individualized learning modules for all learners.
In 2009, some of these issues are still at play. Many of them are now being amplified by other media formats that are popping up all over the net. Many of these websites contain hyper links that will link to new and similar sites. Advertisements that “pop up” while one is engaged in the reading can distract someone as well.
Young students, when given an assignment in my class reading an article online, gave the following testimonials:
“I found it very difficult to read the article on line because I kept going to Facebook.”
“I was distracted by the advertisements on the side of the page and could not keep focus for more than a couple of minutes at a time.”
“It was boring and I stopped reading.”
Students are used to be entertained by what they do in all facets of life. Whether it be through the ipod,stuck in their eas, the cell phone, with friends at a push of a button, on demand programming and the internet kids are bombarded by the me universe that they live in. When they begin to feel sad, or at all uncomfortable they can go to their Facebook page and be reafirmed that they are okay by a slew of "Friends" validating their mediocrity through responses to their staus updates. To be challenged and tested by the bombardment of the information the internet has to offer only intimidats students and makes them feel like dwarfs in a world of giants. That feeling is one they spend 8 hours a day trying to escape, at the end of the day they no longer want to be made to feel stupid so they continue to protect themselves in a world that exists within their control.
When scouring the internet I found this incredibly vague description of what the internet is:
Since the advent of written language, tools have been used to enhance and control human communication. The invention of the printing press made communication via the written word on paper documents practical. The telephone, television and radio have had the same kinds of effects on visual and auditory communication. Modern office tools such as voice mail, pagers, and fax machines have done much to change communication, but the bulk of business communication has still been paper documents. As you may be aware, the advent of the Internet has the potential to change the way we communicate in some fundamental ways. We cannot watch the news without hearing a story about the Internet. In one story we hear evangelical praise of the technology that will change everything for the better, and in the next story we hear about the abundance of smut, filth, crime, and other dangers it forces upon us. We need to understand what the Internet is and what it isn't. It is a very real part of our present and future. It will not go away any time soon. The effects it may have on us are profound. Our level understanding of this phenomenon will be the difference between whether it controls our actions or we use it as a powerful tool to advance our personal ideals.
In 2003, the article Redefining the Role of Computers in Education by Neil Mercurius tries to explain the role of the internet in education. During this definition he also interjects a concern in which it could have upon the student using the internet.
Electronic Learning or e-Learning is reinventing the way people learn. The desk, the chalkboard, the paper and pencil, and the knowledge-giver no longer dominate the classroom. The Internet is the biggest influence. When delivered via the Internet, the vendors' curricula can personalize learning. Any student can use the computer as a medium through which the access of information and resources manifest itself as the supernatural agency.
The Internet is dynamic. Up-to-date information on MSN or Yahoo portals, for example, is as current as the click of the mouse. For the Internet to continue to be effective and efficient in delivering current information into the classroom, schools must incorporate clear goals, objectives, and long-term strategic plans to create the best method of delivering of the information to teachers and students. However, the content requires constant monitoring by educators to be certain that content is appropriate and synchronized with the goals and objectives of the institution.
In addition, the Internet shrinks the globe. Collaboration extends from the classroom to distant places; information is global. The ability to link multiple resources worldwide is an advantage of the Internet. It creates the avenue for an integrated curriculum, thus providing individualized learning modules for all learners.
In 2009, some of these issues are still at play. Many of them are now being amplified by other media formats that are popping up all over the net. Many of these websites contain hyper links that will link to new and similar sites. Advertisements that “pop up” while one is engaged in the reading can distract someone as well.
Young students, when given an assignment in my class reading an article online, gave the following testimonials:
“I found it very difficult to read the article on line because I kept going to Facebook.”
“I was distracted by the advertisements on the side of the page and could not keep focus for more than a couple of minutes at a time.”
“It was boring and I stopped reading.”
Students are used to be entertained by what they do in all facets of life. Whether it be through the ipod,stuck in their eas, the cell phone, with friends at a push of a button, on demand programming and the internet kids are bombarded by the me universe that they live in. When they begin to feel sad, or at all uncomfortable they can go to their Facebook page and be reafirmed that they are okay by a slew of "Friends" validating their mediocrity through responses to their staus updates. To be challenged and tested by the bombardment of the information the internet has to offer only intimidats students and makes them feel like dwarfs in a world of giants. That feeling is one they spend 8 hours a day trying to escape, at the end of the day they no longer want to be made to feel stupid so they continue to protect themselves in a world that exists within their control.
To Google or not to Google?
In the blog titled “Google Makes Us Stupid” Michael Fitzgerald argues the point that Nicholas Carr makes in his article for the Atlantic, entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” In this article by Fitzgerald, he explains how this argument, on the use of tools, has begun to handicap society since the age of Plato. In the days of Plato writing became the tool to write down ideas and concerns. Plato feared this idea because he felt it was a way to chronicle ideas rather than hold on to them and continue to challenge it.
Fitzgerald writes in his blog:
Carr is not a Luddite per se, but he joins a long line of techno-skeptics going all the way back to Socrates, who argued that people should not write things down, because it would impair their memories (Carr knows this, and mentioned Socrates in his essay).
Fitzgerald also writes this in response to Carr’s article in the Atlantic:
What’s most novel here is his argument about how technology changes us. He cites the development of the clock, which changed the rhythm of life. He writes: “In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.” He also relates a vignette about how using a typewriter changed the way Nietzsche wrote. And then he segues into the Internet, which “is becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewrite, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.
It is certainly changing the way we work — we use e-mail to replace direct conversations, we mine data to learn things about our customers they themselves don’t realize, and it appears to flatten organizations — and render many of our jobs obsolete (Carr, in his book, notes that Skype has double the customers of British Telecom and about 99,800 fewer employees). It is unclear what will emerge from this digital maelstrom. But are we being reprogrammed, our brains shifting their circuits to honor how the Web works?
It seems the Fitzgerald is using his blog to defend the Google nation. He even goes as far as saying the users of Google will inevitably outlive Google in the near future. He even quotes Robert Darnton, the director of the university Library at Harvard as saying:
Companies decline rapidly in the fast-changing environment of electronic technology. Google may disappear or be eclipsed by an even greater technology, which could make its database as outdated and inaccessible as many of our old floppy disks and CD-ROMs. Electronic enterprises come and go. Research libraries last for centuries. Better to fortify them than to declare them obsolete, because obsolescence is built into the electronic media.
In conclusion Fitzgerald uses rhetorical questions, which are carefully embedded in his blog to try and defuse the potent juggernaut that was unleashed upon the world via the words of Nicholas Carr.
Fitzgerald writes in his blog:
Carr is not a Luddite per se, but he joins a long line of techno-skeptics going all the way back to Socrates, who argued that people should not write things down, because it would impair their memories (Carr knows this, and mentioned Socrates in his essay).
Fitzgerald also writes this in response to Carr’s article in the Atlantic:
What’s most novel here is his argument about how technology changes us. He cites the development of the clock, which changed the rhythm of life. He writes: “In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.” He also relates a vignette about how using a typewriter changed the way Nietzsche wrote. And then he segues into the Internet, which “is becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewrite, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.
It is certainly changing the way we work — we use e-mail to replace direct conversations, we mine data to learn things about our customers they themselves don’t realize, and it appears to flatten organizations — and render many of our jobs obsolete (Carr, in his book, notes that Skype has double the customers of British Telecom and about 99,800 fewer employees). It is unclear what will emerge from this digital maelstrom. But are we being reprogrammed, our brains shifting their circuits to honor how the Web works?
It seems the Fitzgerald is using his blog to defend the Google nation. He even goes as far as saying the users of Google will inevitably outlive Google in the near future. He even quotes Robert Darnton, the director of the university Library at Harvard as saying:
Companies decline rapidly in the fast-changing environment of electronic technology. Google may disappear or be eclipsed by an even greater technology, which could make its database as outdated and inaccessible as many of our old floppy disks and CD-ROMs. Electronic enterprises come and go. Research libraries last for centuries. Better to fortify them than to declare them obsolete, because obsolescence is built into the electronic media.
In conclusion Fitzgerald uses rhetorical questions, which are carefully embedded in his blog to try and defuse the potent juggernaut that was unleashed upon the world via the words of Nicholas Carr.
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
It is an interesting question that is posed by author Nicholas Carr. He writes early in the article for the Atlantic that something is different.
Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory.
He feels that his capacity for learning is being diminished via the use of technology and its sheer and utter convenience. He carefully crafts a well constructed essay on how the technology and its ease of access have both good qualities and bad. He carefully constructs a rhetorical dialogue between both of these schools of thought that in the ends condemns Google and all internet research.
Carr uses an almost perfect metaphor that describes the mind shaping power of the internet when it writes:
“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”
This is a beautiful example that is both accurate and visually stimulating for the reader. The deep reading that we once did, where we could immerse ourselves deeply in texts and be able to craft excellent nuggets of intuitive interpretations, have given rise to our inability to process large amounts of text because of our reliance of the internet.
Carr furthers his claim by suggesting immediate results that come from the pressing of just a few keys on a keyboard has removed the inefficiency of spending weeks researching in the library and thus becomes a valuable resource. He even quantifies this analysis when he quotes Bruce Friedman, a blogger on computers and technology, as saying:
“I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year.”
Carr goes even further in damning the internet format for reading and researching when he writes about Maryanne Wolf’s study. This evidence he provides lashes out at all contemporary technology as a reason for people’s inability to immerse themselves in “sea of words”:
Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace.
To help Carr make his point he quotes the neuroscience professor who directs the Kransnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, James Olds.
“even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”
Humans end up taking on the qualities of the technologies that we use. It is the case of the tool changing the way the operator works. This argument was established way back when Plato argued against the use of writing in the intellectual pursuits and still rage in schools today with the use of calculators and spell check. People are always arguing against the use of technology for the reasons of too much reliance or fear of its ability to control and change our patterns of thought. It is not a new thing and I am sure it is not the last time we will hear it. Technology: writing, the use of a word processor or spell check can only be the tools at the disposal of the user. It is the user that ends up allowing these items to take control of their thought patterns. I am not sure how one can ascertain how the internet can make us stupid. It is in fact, we have allowed ourselves to become lazier because of the internet’s ease of use. It is people that have lost the desire to pursue “Truth” and settle with facts. Facts that we do not store in our own residual memories in order to be able to recall when needed. We have in fact found it easier to search and agree with the first post found after a search. We are allowing ourselves to become reprogrammed because it is easier than actually learning.
Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory.
He feels that his capacity for learning is being diminished via the use of technology and its sheer and utter convenience. He carefully crafts a well constructed essay on how the technology and its ease of access have both good qualities and bad. He carefully constructs a rhetorical dialogue between both of these schools of thought that in the ends condemns Google and all internet research.
Carr uses an almost perfect metaphor that describes the mind shaping power of the internet when it writes:
“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”
This is a beautiful example that is both accurate and visually stimulating for the reader. The deep reading that we once did, where we could immerse ourselves deeply in texts and be able to craft excellent nuggets of intuitive interpretations, have given rise to our inability to process large amounts of text because of our reliance of the internet.
Carr furthers his claim by suggesting immediate results that come from the pressing of just a few keys on a keyboard has removed the inefficiency of spending weeks researching in the library and thus becomes a valuable resource. He even quantifies this analysis when he quotes Bruce Friedman, a blogger on computers and technology, as saying:
“I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year.”
Carr goes even further in damning the internet format for reading and researching when he writes about Maryanne Wolf’s study. This evidence he provides lashes out at all contemporary technology as a reason for people’s inability to immerse themselves in “sea of words”:
Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace.
To help Carr make his point he quotes the neuroscience professor who directs the Kransnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, James Olds.
“even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”
Humans end up taking on the qualities of the technologies that we use. It is the case of the tool changing the way the operator works. This argument was established way back when Plato argued against the use of writing in the intellectual pursuits and still rage in schools today with the use of calculators and spell check. People are always arguing against the use of technology for the reasons of too much reliance or fear of its ability to control and change our patterns of thought. It is not a new thing and I am sure it is not the last time we will hear it. Technology: writing, the use of a word processor or spell check can only be the tools at the disposal of the user. It is the user that ends up allowing these items to take control of their thought patterns. I am not sure how one can ascertain how the internet can make us stupid. It is in fact, we have allowed ourselves to become lazier because of the internet’s ease of use. It is people that have lost the desire to pursue “Truth” and settle with facts. Facts that we do not store in our own residual memories in order to be able to recall when needed. We have in fact found it easier to search and agree with the first post found after a search. We are allowing ourselves to become reprogrammed because it is easier than actually learning.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Ben and Jerry giving up their shipment of milk for a week
Money, Money and Mo’ Money.
The question where do we cut spending is becoming increasingly more important and news worthy especially as the print age seems to be dying out. The more the end users depends upon the internet for their information on life, politics, local stories, sports and all other things that pertain to money the less people use their newspapers as a source of information. Thus, greatly diminishing the profits sustained by the companies that own that medium.
This becomes problematic however, especially when the internet sources are often driven by facts generated by newspapers. On the flip side of that most newspapers are dependent upon AP news wire as a place to get fast reliable facts for their publications. Now what will happen if they begin to post news without AP to back them up? What will happen when the news comes in at a slower pace and leads for reporters get missed and followed up by the competitors? Would that be sacrificing integrity and name recognition and wouldn’t that be a heavier burden to carry?
Chicago Tribune has chosen to not use AP for a week to see if they can “do without it.” Seems like a steep investment to give up. It seems like this is as if Ben and Jerry giving up their shipment of milk for a week to see if they can sustain their business.
The question where do we cut spending is becoming increasingly more important and news worthy especially as the print age seems to be dying out. The more the end users depends upon the internet for their information on life, politics, local stories, sports and all other things that pertain to money the less people use their newspapers as a source of information. Thus, greatly diminishing the profits sustained by the companies that own that medium.
This becomes problematic however, especially when the internet sources are often driven by facts generated by newspapers. On the flip side of that most newspapers are dependent upon AP news wire as a place to get fast reliable facts for their publications. Now what will happen if they begin to post news without AP to back them up? What will happen when the news comes in at a slower pace and leads for reporters get missed and followed up by the competitors? Would that be sacrificing integrity and name recognition and wouldn’t that be a heavier burden to carry?
Chicago Tribune has chosen to not use AP for a week to see if they can “do without it.” Seems like a steep investment to give up. It seems like this is as if Ben and Jerry giving up their shipment of milk for a week to see if they can sustain their business.
The Google effect on News
Money: everyone wants it and everyone is in pursuit of it. However, it has become a limited resource of late. The New York Times has taken a page from Google’s business model, the one that states “a billion dollars, one nickel at a time.” The Times has taken a larger bite out of what once was considered the bottom of the food chain. The Times has begun to believe that they “can take tiny sources of local revenue and roll them into big money.”
With the decline of sales in the world of newspaper media, the local ad revenue online has been on a continuous rise and is projected to grow 5.4% in 2009. That kind of rise will add up to $13.3 billion in profits according to media research firm Borrell Associates. That seems like a great market to tap into if you are a fledgling company desperate to raise financial numbers by the end of the fiscal year.
There appears to be real BUSINESS in hyperlocal links, and someone would be foolish to turn their backs to such an idea. In fact the media mogul, Google, has also tried to cash in on these profits via their incorporation of Patch.
Hyperlocal has been met with resistance from many local sites, because they did not want to share their take of the profits of the local market. This seems to becoming a battle of epic proportions. One that can only be compared to the battles fought by the treacherous bands of marauders: the Jets and the Sharks. The casualties being the news: false reports and inaccurate details fill the reports that are being fed to public, as the Alpha dogs rage war against the home teams.
The article begins to contradict itself as it begins to crunch the numbers. At the end of the second section of the article the authors suggest that each town/ market would benefit from such a venture. “The local-ad market represents a great opportunity to create sustainable community specific information sources.” My question is how? How will they better be informed from this type of reporting rather than the homegrown grass roots approach a localized weekly publication takes? So far as hyperlocal, I understand how it has financial gain for its contributors and advertisers, but what concerns me becomes the usage of this idea. Does it function as a creditable source of news and information provider?
In the third section of the article “can Anyone Tap the $100 Billion Potential of Hyperlocal News?” Gluckstadt quotes Schachter as saying: “our hypothesis is that there is a swath of people—experts of various sorts, journalists, self trained bloggers—who would want our assistance in professionalizing their work and who would love to be associated with the Times. We could help those people mobilize their communities and gather local-advertising dollars in extremely low-cost ways. ” This sounds like a public relations comment that appears without confrontation rather than one open to questions. It seems here they are trying to legitimizing the news told by the local amateur and self concerning blogger to propagandize their own towns at a minimal cost to the Time. What about the quality of news or the impartiality that a professional journalist brings to their material?
Schachter finally addresses my concern of quality by claiming “It’s safe to say that we would exercise whatever level of oversight was required to protect the standing of our news brand” and “every word that appears on the Local has a Times editor reviewing it.” This makes me more comfortable in the idea of the editorial process in this local news blogs, however are they editing grammar, spelling diction etc. or are they checking the facts and creating the sheen of impartiality too? I just feel too skeptical about the whole thing. How can anything that seems so profitable to all involved be profitable to masses as well? I guess I will have to wait and see if Chester ever gets its own hyperlocal link and make my own judgments that are free of biases and altered facts.
With the decline of sales in the world of newspaper media, the local ad revenue online has been on a continuous rise and is projected to grow 5.4% in 2009. That kind of rise will add up to $13.3 billion in profits according to media research firm Borrell Associates. That seems like a great market to tap into if you are a fledgling company desperate to raise financial numbers by the end of the fiscal year.
There appears to be real BUSINESS in hyperlocal links, and someone would be foolish to turn their backs to such an idea. In fact the media mogul, Google, has also tried to cash in on these profits via their incorporation of Patch.
Hyperlocal has been met with resistance from many local sites, because they did not want to share their take of the profits of the local market. This seems to becoming a battle of epic proportions. One that can only be compared to the battles fought by the treacherous bands of marauders: the Jets and the Sharks. The casualties being the news: false reports and inaccurate details fill the reports that are being fed to public, as the Alpha dogs rage war against the home teams.
The article begins to contradict itself as it begins to crunch the numbers. At the end of the second section of the article the authors suggest that each town/ market would benefit from such a venture. “The local-ad market represents a great opportunity to create sustainable community specific information sources.” My question is how? How will they better be informed from this type of reporting rather than the homegrown grass roots approach a localized weekly publication takes? So far as hyperlocal, I understand how it has financial gain for its contributors and advertisers, but what concerns me becomes the usage of this idea. Does it function as a creditable source of news and information provider?
In the third section of the article “can Anyone Tap the $100 Billion Potential of Hyperlocal News?” Gluckstadt quotes Schachter as saying: “our hypothesis is that there is a swath of people—experts of various sorts, journalists, self trained bloggers—who would want our assistance in professionalizing their work and who would love to be associated with the Times. We could help those people mobilize their communities and gather local-advertising dollars in extremely low-cost ways. ” This sounds like a public relations comment that appears without confrontation rather than one open to questions. It seems here they are trying to legitimizing the news told by the local amateur and self concerning blogger to propagandize their own towns at a minimal cost to the Time. What about the quality of news or the impartiality that a professional journalist brings to their material?
Schachter finally addresses my concern of quality by claiming “It’s safe to say that we would exercise whatever level of oversight was required to protect the standing of our news brand” and “every word that appears on the Local has a Times editor reviewing it.” This makes me more comfortable in the idea of the editorial process in this local news blogs, however are they editing grammar, spelling diction etc. or are they checking the facts and creating the sheen of impartiality too? I just feel too skeptical about the whole thing. How can anything that seems so profitable to all involved be profitable to masses as well? I guess I will have to wait and see if Chester ever gets its own hyperlocal link and make my own judgments that are free of biases and altered facts.
Hyper "Loco"
Are gone the days where people read printed articles on large format pages? Are the days of getting your local news via the local section of the newspaper? Are the days behind us that leave ink marks on our hands and shirts? Or better yet, gone are the days of conversation and idea sharing?
With a large number of Web start-up companies creating “hyper local news sites that let people zoom in on what is happening closest to them, often without involving traditional journalists” people seem to be getting more of the scoop that is important to them. These sites link several different things together from local government to local fine dining.
When someone is too close to a subject, they tend to have opinions and values upon subject that is all their own. It is in this connection that biases get created and real news gets tainted. If a bill gets past by the local government that implements more money to schools and the writer has the ability to editorialize their point of view upon the subject. This becomes especially dangerous, to the locals, when that writer is not objective to the process of delivering the news and becomes subjective to the gathering of it.
Then there is the question that arises when the local businesses become a controlling interest in the information being reported because as Ms. Miller and Mr. Stone declare, in their New York Times article entitled “’Hyperlocal’ websites Deliver News without Newspapers” “like traditional media, the hyperlocal sites have to find a way to bring in sufficient revenue to support their businesses”. Does this affect the way that news is going to be dispersed? How could it not? A business’s main priority to make money and the best way to make money is to please those that grant you more money. Please the investors and you will be pleased with the bottom line. “Advertisers want that kind of targeting, but they also want to reach more people, so there’s a paradox.”
Another thing that occurs to me is this just seems to be another way to promote self importance. Like how Facebook promotes the individual, the idea of hyperlocal links promotes the individual’s town. When a person wants to bask in their own greatness they can go to Facebook, but if they want to remember that they reside in Eden they can go to the hyper local links. Thus granting the idea of “EveryBlock”
The article written by Miller and stone declares the notion “When you slice further and further down, you get smaller and smaller audiences. ” The idea that people need ease of access to all the local trends: in politics, or what the best restaurant in the area is this just seems to be another way to break down interpersonal relationships and leaves no need to have communication with anyone else. In conclusion, I fear that opinions and “facts” will begin to appear in front of the reader rather than unbiased news reporting. The facts then will be interpreted and evaluated by someone in the local area that is not a professionally trained journalist, tends to cause me worry.
With a large number of Web start-up companies creating “hyper local news sites that let people zoom in on what is happening closest to them, often without involving traditional journalists” people seem to be getting more of the scoop that is important to them. These sites link several different things together from local government to local fine dining.
When someone is too close to a subject, they tend to have opinions and values upon subject that is all their own. It is in this connection that biases get created and real news gets tainted. If a bill gets past by the local government that implements more money to schools and the writer has the ability to editorialize their point of view upon the subject. This becomes especially dangerous, to the locals, when that writer is not objective to the process of delivering the news and becomes subjective to the gathering of it.
Then there is the question that arises when the local businesses become a controlling interest in the information being reported because as Ms. Miller and Mr. Stone declare, in their New York Times article entitled “’Hyperlocal’ websites Deliver News without Newspapers” “like traditional media, the hyperlocal sites have to find a way to bring in sufficient revenue to support their businesses”. Does this affect the way that news is going to be dispersed? How could it not? A business’s main priority to make money and the best way to make money is to please those that grant you more money. Please the investors and you will be pleased with the bottom line. “Advertisers want that kind of targeting, but they also want to reach more people, so there’s a paradox.”
Another thing that occurs to me is this just seems to be another way to promote self importance. Like how Facebook promotes the individual, the idea of hyperlocal links promotes the individual’s town. When a person wants to bask in their own greatness they can go to Facebook, but if they want to remember that they reside in Eden they can go to the hyper local links. Thus granting the idea of “EveryBlock”
The article written by Miller and stone declares the notion “When you slice further and further down, you get smaller and smaller audiences. ” The idea that people need ease of access to all the local trends: in politics, or what the best restaurant in the area is this just seems to be another way to break down interpersonal relationships and leaves no need to have communication with anyone else. In conclusion, I fear that opinions and “facts” will begin to appear in front of the reader rather than unbiased news reporting. The facts then will be interpreted and evaluated by someone in the local area that is not a professionally trained journalist, tends to cause me worry.
Monday, October 26, 2009
About: Wikipedia
What does Wikipedia say about Wikipedia?
“Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles.”
“Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute.”
“… anyone can contribute”
“…older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism.”
These quotes, from Wikipedia, itself does not paint it in a positive light. In fact it has an opposite effect with me, especially because I am an educator. After reading this I wenton line looking for any thing that connected education to Wikipedia and found the following article: http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/wikipedias_impact_on_education
The article wrote: “The reality is that Wikipedia has been accessed heavily by Internet users. Out of 100 prominent K – 12 education terms in U.S. and world history, these terms came up first 87 times and second 12 times. This indicates that students and others are accessing this information on a regular basis, because they are very popular (Michael Petrilli, Hoover Institution of Stanford University)”.
As a teacher I explain to them the dangers of the inaccuracy of the information and explain that is a good jumping off point. I go on to tell them to find information and challenge what they think might be incorrect information or prove what is in Wikipedia is correct, and this way they will double and triple their resources in a way to prove or disprove Wikipedia. The article continues to explain the quality of the writing from the writer’s point of view. “Mainstream terms such as the American Civil War are not prone to many errors; however, the information may be biased one way on the other based on the views of the person entering the information. The important point to remember about Wikipedia entries are that they are not necessarily posted by scholars or unbiased sources.” This suggests a whole different problem with Wikipedia, one that an untrained eye may not pick up on. Whether you are from the North or from the South your entry, on the Civil War, could be biased or heavily in favor of whichever side you consider to have had better reasons for entering the war. The students too often take the information, not as opinion based in fact, but fact or even truth. This becomes an issue when writing thesis driven writing and can often change the view point of the student to construct a completely varying paper topic. Students need to learn proper research skills and i feel that Google and Wikipedia grnat students access to ideas. Ideas that need to be researched, doubted and substantiated through a rigorous process of fact checking. it is the breakdown of the fact checking that leads students off course when really getting to the heart of the topic.
I feel that Wikipedia gives a false sense of security. Let me go further: I would not want a med-student to perform brain surgery on me after taking a test on the medula oblongata, the same way I way I would not want my sole source of information, on any topic, to come from the ramblings, as well informed as they might seem, of Wikipedia. I do plce these two ideas in the same arena and I am sticking to it.
“Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles.”
“Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute.”
“… anyone can contribute”
“…older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism.”
These quotes, from Wikipedia, itself does not paint it in a positive light. In fact it has an opposite effect with me, especially because I am an educator. After reading this I wenton line looking for any thing that connected education to Wikipedia and found the following article: http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/wikipedias_impact_on_education
The article wrote: “The reality is that Wikipedia has been accessed heavily by Internet users. Out of 100 prominent K – 12 education terms in U.S. and world history, these terms came up first 87 times and second 12 times. This indicates that students and others are accessing this information on a regular basis, because they are very popular (Michael Petrilli, Hoover Institution of Stanford University)”.
As a teacher I explain to them the dangers of the inaccuracy of the information and explain that is a good jumping off point. I go on to tell them to find information and challenge what they think might be incorrect information or prove what is in Wikipedia is correct, and this way they will double and triple their resources in a way to prove or disprove Wikipedia. The article continues to explain the quality of the writing from the writer’s point of view. “Mainstream terms such as the American Civil War are not prone to many errors; however, the information may be biased one way on the other based on the views of the person entering the information. The important point to remember about Wikipedia entries are that they are not necessarily posted by scholars or unbiased sources.” This suggests a whole different problem with Wikipedia, one that an untrained eye may not pick up on. Whether you are from the North or from the South your entry, on the Civil War, could be biased or heavily in favor of whichever side you consider to have had better reasons for entering the war. The students too often take the information, not as opinion based in fact, but fact or even truth. This becomes an issue when writing thesis driven writing and can often change the view point of the student to construct a completely varying paper topic. Students need to learn proper research skills and i feel that Google and Wikipedia grnat students access to ideas. Ideas that need to be researched, doubted and substantiated through a rigorous process of fact checking. it is the breakdown of the fact checking that leads students off course when really getting to the heart of the topic.
I feel that Wikipedia gives a false sense of security. Let me go further: I would not want a med-student to perform brain surgery on me after taking a test on the medula oblongata, the same way I way I would not want my sole source of information, on any topic, to come from the ramblings, as well informed as they might seem, of Wikipedia. I do plce these two ideas in the same arena and I am sticking to it.
Publishing Power for All
Heed this warning: Beware all those that cannot read, write or publish if ye cannot publish ye shall perish to the whims and critiques of your peers.
The movie “The Incredibles” puts it best when a conversation between a son and mother poses this idea:
Helen Parr: Everyone is special, Dash.
Dash Parr: Which is another way of saying no one is.
If everyone can publish than does that make everyone publish worthy? This seems to be the debate that Denis Pelli and Charles Bigelow are engaged in. They surmise that with the influx of recent social media (facebook, blogs, Twitter) it seems that today, “at 0.1 percent authorship, many people are trading privacy for influence”. With this idea at play people believe they are giving a roadmap to find the collective “social conscience.”
Governments, businesses, and organizations must adapt to a population that wields increasing individual power. What now needs to happen is a governing of this kind of power. Who regulates what is correct to say on these social networks as they begin to infringe upon the civil rights of others life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I feel the story about the coach and his complaints about poor service works as a scenario of too much power. What about the other side of the story or a different perspective. From where was that employee coming from, could he just been caught at a bad moment? Was the coach overreacting or just venting? These become issues that are at play. From the standpoint of the employer, has he not taken too much stock in the information and publicity garnished from a tweet?
Not only can anyone post on the web, whatever they want, they are not liable or brought up on charges of slander. The individual’s power to publish comes from the fact that people are reading. More people are going to read the information written by one who is famous or more well known, however, if anyone reads anyone ones ideas are communicated to another and that learns to have legs and can spread. The internet allows personal opinion to spread fast, like a forest fire, especially when that news and information is “negative” to someone. Gossip ends up working like an accelerant added to a fire. No one knows where it is going to go. In this case of the pizza employee, the fire engulfed him/her.
Any publicity is better than no publicity has become a saying that has come after many stories that have appeared in the press. It is in these stories, where recognition is found, is beneficial rather than negative despite the context. Power to publish is in the hands of many and that power is used and misused daily, people’s behaviors are being modified and their attitudes are changing in this constantly changing world we live in. The new behavior modification technique t hat is becoming prevalent in our society, past operant conditioning, has become this idea that somebody is always watching and ready to flambé you. Social justice is reaching new heights now so call up McCarthy, call up Judge Hawthorne, because we are all becoming witches and Commies at the hands of all the tweeters and Facebook users.
The movie “The Incredibles” puts it best when a conversation between a son and mother poses this idea:
Helen Parr: Everyone is special, Dash.
Dash Parr: Which is another way of saying no one is.
If everyone can publish than does that make everyone publish worthy? This seems to be the debate that Denis Pelli and Charles Bigelow are engaged in. They surmise that with the influx of recent social media (facebook, blogs, Twitter) it seems that today, “at 0.1 percent authorship, many people are trading privacy for influence”. With this idea at play people believe they are giving a roadmap to find the collective “social conscience.”
Governments, businesses, and organizations must adapt to a population that wields increasing individual power. What now needs to happen is a governing of this kind of power. Who regulates what is correct to say on these social networks as they begin to infringe upon the civil rights of others life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I feel the story about the coach and his complaints about poor service works as a scenario of too much power. What about the other side of the story or a different perspective. From where was that employee coming from, could he just been caught at a bad moment? Was the coach overreacting or just venting? These become issues that are at play. From the standpoint of the employer, has he not taken too much stock in the information and publicity garnished from a tweet?
Not only can anyone post on the web, whatever they want, they are not liable or brought up on charges of slander. The individual’s power to publish comes from the fact that people are reading. More people are going to read the information written by one who is famous or more well known, however, if anyone reads anyone ones ideas are communicated to another and that learns to have legs and can spread. The internet allows personal opinion to spread fast, like a forest fire, especially when that news and information is “negative” to someone. Gossip ends up working like an accelerant added to a fire. No one knows where it is going to go. In this case of the pizza employee, the fire engulfed him/her.
Any publicity is better than no publicity has become a saying that has come after many stories that have appeared in the press. It is in these stories, where recognition is found, is beneficial rather than negative despite the context. Power to publish is in the hands of many and that power is used and misused daily, people’s behaviors are being modified and their attitudes are changing in this constantly changing world we live in. The new behavior modification technique t hat is becoming prevalent in our society, past operant conditioning, has become this idea that somebody is always watching and ready to flambé you. Social justice is reaching new heights now so call up McCarthy, call up Judge Hawthorne, because we are all becoming witches and Commies at the hands of all the tweeters and Facebook users.
r u Google dumb?
Is Google Making Us Stupid? As anyone can see that the pursuit of truth is no longer the most desired outcome perpetrated by the acquisition of knowledge. If the pursuit of knowledge is to perpetuate the illusion of truth intelligence than that would be the best definition of what Google is does. It is because of Google’s ease of use that allows its user to be the facilitator of knowledge rather than then the creator and occupier of that knowledge. It is via the use of the tool that it shapes its user rather than the other way around. People have gone from knowing information to a place of accessing that information.
The common person that uses the internet daily becomes victim to that ease of use. When someone utilizes the internet to fill in the blanks that their brain has begun to omit, than they are in fact allowing Google to change the way they think and interact with that knowledge. The need to store knowledge in our own heads has become an obsolete notion, especially when by the pushing of certain buttons can recall that information easier, and most likely more accurately.
This sounds like this recalling, via the computer, is an evolution of the thought process when it is in fact the decline of memory and applicable knowledge. Plato found that the creation and utilization of writing began to affect the thinking process. He believed that more and more people were going to use writing as a place to store their ideas and less effort on holding on to them in their own minds for ease of access. Plato believed that writing could also spin out of control with its misuse and grant power to many people who did not deserve: welcome sophists and rhetoricians.
Google has effectively become the super computer HAL, which Guy Billout, the author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” recurrently writes about as a comparison. Our society constantly relies on the search power of Google and it is affecting our ability to search and create answers of our own. “as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.”
The common person that uses the internet daily becomes victim to that ease of use. When someone utilizes the internet to fill in the blanks that their brain has begun to omit, than they are in fact allowing Google to change the way they think and interact with that knowledge. The need to store knowledge in our own heads has become an obsolete notion, especially when by the pushing of certain buttons can recall that information easier, and most likely more accurately.
This sounds like this recalling, via the computer, is an evolution of the thought process when it is in fact the decline of memory and applicable knowledge. Plato found that the creation and utilization of writing began to affect the thinking process. He believed that more and more people were going to use writing as a place to store their ideas and less effort on holding on to them in their own minds for ease of access. Plato believed that writing could also spin out of control with its misuse and grant power to many people who did not deserve: welcome sophists and rhetoricians.
Google has effectively become the super computer HAL, which Guy Billout, the author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” recurrently writes about as a comparison. Our society constantly relies on the search power of Google and it is affecting our ability to search and create answers of our own. “as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.”
Monday, October 19, 2009
Google it!
How do you know when you have finally arrived? Well, the first indication could be that your company's name has become THE verb that explains how one extracs information from the internet. When people do not know the answer to a question or where to start researching certain topics they reach back into the recesses of their minds where a simple statement lives and breathes. So they Just do it! They Google it.
When this notion becomes a long stnding joke/commentary on popular media venues like House, than that could be yet another indication that you have reached stardom. While I began to research Google I came across this cartoon clip and I thought it was slightly amusing.
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/
Even yahoo has included this search feature on their own toolbars to make searching the internet more accessible. I had always thought Yahoo and Google were rivals. In fact back in 2004 yahoo dumped the internet search engine. See article on http://news.cnet.com/2100-1024_3-5160710.html . Yahoo was on its way to creating its own search engine technology. Well, today it appears that Yahoo still needs to be in bed with Goggle. Yahoo's technology attempts to create a webpage for every user of its e-mail. One has the opportunity to choose to put their own favorite wbsites at easy access, their favorite sports teams and cinemas arranged for quick access. However, it is not a web site for the user, it is an adaptable homepage for their browser and e-mail accounts. It personalization seems to be jumping on the band wagon and appears to be a cheap knock off of Facebook, only providing info for the single user.
Google is a sith Lord! That is another indication that you have made it big time. Your name entices notions of the likes of Darth Vader, Atilla the Hun, Satan and Hitler. Evil doers.
"Is Google evil? " Well to suggest things in terms that are so completely contrasting like good and evil allows this argument to have legs that carry it far beyond CEO pocketbooks, but intrige the tech geek conspiracy theories. Is Google a sith lord? Do I need to use it or I will die? I truly don't think so. If we were to look at Google from the perspective of a competitive company, in a capitalist society, are we not going to look for the chink in this juggarnauts armor? I think so. Are all companies only purpose to provide solely for the users or are they not able to think about how to do for themselves? I think not. I feel that if I were a rival company I would spin-doctor anything that could weaken the mobility of Google. I would use powerful langue and rhetoric to make a company, that in fact does provide for the user a product that is easy to use and free for the end user, look bad in what ever form they can. A search engine will destroy the galaxy.
In contrast to the Evil statement which google must have taken seriously, they instituted a code of conduct that is ethical and puts the idea of "Don't be Evil" into practice. THIS CODE IS FOR EVERYONE THAT WORKS FOR GOOGLE; FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO CONSULTANTS. it seems this idea and attitude trickles from the boardroom to the breakroom and has become a motto inside the doors of the institution.
It just appears to me, that if what you want to get out of the internet information in order to devise and hatch you evil plan from your insidious hidden lair, than the information you look for can than be used for evil. Information is only knowledge and knowledge is never bad or good. One cannot blame google for your irrational behavior. They are there only to be able to provide access to informaion, and profit from it anyway they possibly can. Does that make them Evil? No, just in tune to the capitalist society that we live in.
When this notion becomes a long stnding joke/commentary on popular media venues like House, than that could be yet another indication that you have reached stardom. While I began to research Google I came across this cartoon clip and I thought it was slightly amusing.
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/
Even yahoo has included this search feature on their own toolbars to make searching the internet more accessible. I had always thought Yahoo and Google were rivals. In fact back in 2004 yahoo dumped the internet search engine. See article on http://news.cnet.com/2100-1024_3-5160710.html . Yahoo was on its way to creating its own search engine technology. Well, today it appears that Yahoo still needs to be in bed with Goggle. Yahoo's technology attempts to create a webpage for every user of its e-mail. One has the opportunity to choose to put their own favorite wbsites at easy access, their favorite sports teams and cinemas arranged for quick access. However, it is not a web site for the user, it is an adaptable homepage for their browser and e-mail accounts. It personalization seems to be jumping on the band wagon and appears to be a cheap knock off of Facebook, only providing info for the single user.
Google is a sith Lord! That is another indication that you have made it big time. Your name entices notions of the likes of Darth Vader, Atilla the Hun, Satan and Hitler. Evil doers.
"Is Google evil? " Well to suggest things in terms that are so completely contrasting like good and evil allows this argument to have legs that carry it far beyond CEO pocketbooks, but intrige the tech geek conspiracy theories. Is Google a sith lord? Do I need to use it or I will die? I truly don't think so. If we were to look at Google from the perspective of a competitive company, in a capitalist society, are we not going to look for the chink in this juggarnauts armor? I think so. Are all companies only purpose to provide solely for the users or are they not able to think about how to do for themselves? I think not. I feel that if I were a rival company I would spin-doctor anything that could weaken the mobility of Google. I would use powerful langue and rhetoric to make a company, that in fact does provide for the user a product that is easy to use and free for the end user, look bad in what ever form they can. A search engine will destroy the galaxy.
In contrast to the Evil statement which google must have taken seriously, they instituted a code of conduct that is ethical and puts the idea of "Don't be Evil" into practice. THIS CODE IS FOR EVERYONE THAT WORKS FOR GOOGLE; FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO CONSULTANTS. it seems this idea and attitude trickles from the boardroom to the breakroom and has become a motto inside the doors of the institution.
It just appears to me, that if what you want to get out of the internet information in order to devise and hatch you evil plan from your insidious hidden lair, than the information you look for can than be used for evil. Information is only knowledge and knowledge is never bad or good. One cannot blame google for your irrational behavior. They are there only to be able to provide access to informaion, and profit from it anyway they possibly can. Does that make them Evil? No, just in tune to the capitalist society that we live in.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friends of Facebook
What a world we live in!!!
Where you can break up with someone without uttering a word. Imagine alerting the woman or man that you have been serious about, for quite a while, that you no lnger want to be with them via changing your relationship staus on FACEBOOK. Not guilt from having to look at the other person's face well up with sadness, or the need to tell excuses after excuse like: "Its not you... I need to work on me so I can work on a relationship." Whatever the trite remarks one makes in order to dump someone has effectively been removed from the equation. Now breaking upis as easy as one click of the mouse. Going from "in a relationship" to "single" can now be done without that sticky situation and uncomfortable conversation. One click and you can be on the prowl again. It does seem ilke it is a concept designed especially for the emotionally bankrupt or "the player."
This idea of the dump without words takes on a whole new format of communication. Not only does the opposing side of the relationship findout while checking their own Facebook account, but every friend in common will share the findings simultaneously. One click and hundreds of friends will be notified of your newly declared single status. How wonderfully equipped one must be, in a world that identifies iself through the words placed on or around a social netwoking tool, to be able to navigate such moral merkiness.
I have seen shows like "The Big Bang Theory," "How I Met Your Mother" and many more address this type of thoughtless self promotion as a way to get laughs and spin an unsavory and uncomfortable event into a laugh. I have seen students in my classroom sponteously break out in tears because they too had just become victim to the facebook staus change.
imagine at lunch you get into a fight with your boyfriend/girlfriend and by 6th period yo glance down at your phone only to realize that you became single without warning. It is a dreadful way to learn about the dissolving of your relationship, however you can discuss with your frinds how ironic it was to all find out that you found out the news all at the same time. Small consolation to life altering circumstances, I know, but Cest la vie in a world that is linked via the social networks.
In the article, "Facebook Divorce" this horrific act, that has as much of emotional connection as taking out the trash, a woman filed divorce via her posts on Facebook. "“Lauren went from being ‘married’ to being ‘single,'” read the dry, cold, unsympathetic recitation of fact. The infamous little broken-heart icon, the fixture you hope that, like some medical alert bracelet, you will never have to wear, fluttered up to hang alongside it. This is how life’s big moments unfold on Facebook: Epic emotions are reduced to emoticons." Without remorse and without a chance of reconcilliation a moment changes the trejectory of a marriage for one and fast tracks the conclusion for another.
What a world we live in!
Where you can break up with someone without uttering a word. Imagine alerting the woman or man that you have been serious about, for quite a while, that you no lnger want to be with them via changing your relationship staus on FACEBOOK. Not guilt from having to look at the other person's face well up with sadness, or the need to tell excuses after excuse like: "Its not you... I need to work on me so I can work on a relationship." Whatever the trite remarks one makes in order to dump someone has effectively been removed from the equation. Now breaking upis as easy as one click of the mouse. Going from "in a relationship" to "single" can now be done without that sticky situation and uncomfortable conversation. One click and you can be on the prowl again. It does seem ilke it is a concept designed especially for the emotionally bankrupt or "the player."
This idea of the dump without words takes on a whole new format of communication. Not only does the opposing side of the relationship findout while checking their own Facebook account, but every friend in common will share the findings simultaneously. One click and hundreds of friends will be notified of your newly declared single status. How wonderfully equipped one must be, in a world that identifies iself through the words placed on or around a social netwoking tool, to be able to navigate such moral merkiness.
I have seen shows like "The Big Bang Theory," "How I Met Your Mother" and many more address this type of thoughtless self promotion as a way to get laughs and spin an unsavory and uncomfortable event into a laugh. I have seen students in my classroom sponteously break out in tears because they too had just become victim to the facebook staus change.
imagine at lunch you get into a fight with your boyfriend/girlfriend and by 6th period yo glance down at your phone only to realize that you became single without warning. It is a dreadful way to learn about the dissolving of your relationship, however you can discuss with your frinds how ironic it was to all find out that you found out the news all at the same time. Small consolation to life altering circumstances, I know, but Cest la vie in a world that is linked via the social networks.
In the article, "Facebook Divorce" this horrific act, that has as much of emotional connection as taking out the trash, a woman filed divorce via her posts on Facebook. "“Lauren went from being ‘married’ to being ‘single,'” read the dry, cold, unsympathetic recitation of fact. The infamous little broken-heart icon, the fixture you hope that, like some medical alert bracelet, you will never have to wear, fluttered up to hang alongside it. This is how life’s big moments unfold on Facebook: Epic emotions are reduced to emoticons." Without remorse and without a chance of reconcilliation a moment changes the trejectory of a marriage for one and fast tracks the conclusion for another.
What a world we live in!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Not-so-Crazy about the Courant
At first glance one might miss the Courant (the whole pile) as other newspapers appear to reach for the heavens, and conceal it with their shadows. The newspaper appears to have the girth of a pencil shaving, whittled from an old school # 2.
The front page, of Monday’s paper, dons the photograph of a women chomping down on an apple while “balancing a handful of others that she had just picked.” Of all the possible pictures, from any event that was going in CT this past weekend, they agreed to put this picture on the front page. I have no idea what they were thinking. Your eye is brought to this picture, because it takes up the most room on the cover. If I was Shivani Madan, I would not be pleased by the way the Courant sold out my dignity in order to sell papers. Right next to the photograph is a bi-line that reads, “Workplace violence: How Common is it?” Above the photograph is a headline that states “A jump in Homelessness” that includes a bar graph that displays the information gained from a statewide survey showing 4,154 residents are currently living in shelters or outdoors. However the human interest story about Apple picking surviving a cold and rainy growing season draws in the reader’s attention. What a good way to bury the real news behind the illusion of state happiness.
Many years ago, I was a subscriber and an avid reader of the Courant. It was larger and incorporated what I considered the best that Connecticut news papers could offer. Looking at the its competition of the New Haven Registrar, the New London Day, the Connecticut Post and so on one was to ascertain that the courant offered its readers the best articles and the best quality over the other options. That was until one day when they realized that they were beginning to lose their customer base and decided to dumb down the writing rather than making strives to raise the quality and maintain its, better than most, reputation, thus leaving the public with ramblings of writers that were writing for the 3rd grade reading levels. It was around this same time that the editorial staff began to stop correcting the writer’s grammar and punctuation. It seemed that sentences were going on forever, as they read like they were written by immigrants that just got of the boat from wherever they came.
Today, the Courant consists of 3 measly sections: CT News, CT Sports and CT Living. Hidden, amongst the section entitled CT News, is the World and Nation section that, at most, is 3 pages long. This section appears to give each story equal press. Roman Polanski’s arrest shares a page with the story about economic sanctions, created by the west, are affecting Iran’s young people forcing them to change their “nuclear ambitions.” It seems that the most important world news does not seem to be an investment that The Courant cares to make.
The all important sports section still the highlight of the day to any sports fan. There is nothing like waking up on a nice crisp fall day and reading about the BOSTON Red Sox, New England Patriots, New York Jets , Giants, and Yankees. You can check the scores and compare them to scores and records from all around the league. There are injury reports for the gambler and box scores if you missed the game. However, if you want to read about your state’s professional sports, you need to move to Massachusetts or New York. The state of Connecticut cannot sustain a professional sports team. Why? I don’t know? Last week we even got news that one of our semi pro teams are relocating down south. Maybe they are all running away because of the bad press. The Courant is a bad paper. It once stood tall and held itself up with respect. Today, the Courant only is a sad degraded newspaper that seems to insult its readers with subpar writing and less meat than its competitors. Yesterday, there was news about Obama wanting to extend the school year as a way to raise student achievement circulating around the internet. It was showing up on social networks like Facebook and Twitter, however, there is no mention of this anywhere in the Courant. I find it ironic that the Courant dedicates the exact amount of press to the funny pages as it does for their coverage of World and national news. If that does not work as a metaphor for its media presence, I am not sure what would.
After reading some of the articles, I had a hard time swallowing the poison pill that was being served to me in the form of right winged media manipulation. I am not sure why it was so hard for me after seeinhow many correspondants also worked Fox 61 news. It occurred to me that a state that is populated, mostly by democrats, this line of persuasion would fall upon deaf ears. Just mylast and final thoughts on the dying institution tht was once so noble.
The front page, of Monday’s paper, dons the photograph of a women chomping down on an apple while “balancing a handful of others that she had just picked.” Of all the possible pictures, from any event that was going in CT this past weekend, they agreed to put this picture on the front page. I have no idea what they were thinking. Your eye is brought to this picture, because it takes up the most room on the cover. If I was Shivani Madan, I would not be pleased by the way the Courant sold out my dignity in order to sell papers. Right next to the photograph is a bi-line that reads, “Workplace violence: How Common is it?” Above the photograph is a headline that states “A jump in Homelessness” that includes a bar graph that displays the information gained from a statewide survey showing 4,154 residents are currently living in shelters or outdoors. However the human interest story about Apple picking surviving a cold and rainy growing season draws in the reader’s attention. What a good way to bury the real news behind the illusion of state happiness.
Many years ago, I was a subscriber and an avid reader of the Courant. It was larger and incorporated what I considered the best that Connecticut news papers could offer. Looking at the its competition of the New Haven Registrar, the New London Day, the Connecticut Post and so on one was to ascertain that the courant offered its readers the best articles and the best quality over the other options. That was until one day when they realized that they were beginning to lose their customer base and decided to dumb down the writing rather than making strives to raise the quality and maintain its, better than most, reputation, thus leaving the public with ramblings of writers that were writing for the 3rd grade reading levels. It was around this same time that the editorial staff began to stop correcting the writer’s grammar and punctuation. It seemed that sentences were going on forever, as they read like they were written by immigrants that just got of the boat from wherever they came.
Today, the Courant consists of 3 measly sections: CT News, CT Sports and CT Living. Hidden, amongst the section entitled CT News, is the World and Nation section that, at most, is 3 pages long. This section appears to give each story equal press. Roman Polanski’s arrest shares a page with the story about economic sanctions, created by the west, are affecting Iran’s young people forcing them to change their “nuclear ambitions.” It seems that the most important world news does not seem to be an investment that The Courant cares to make.
The all important sports section still the highlight of the day to any sports fan. There is nothing like waking up on a nice crisp fall day and reading about the BOSTON Red Sox, New England Patriots, New York Jets , Giants, and Yankees. You can check the scores and compare them to scores and records from all around the league. There are injury reports for the gambler and box scores if you missed the game. However, if you want to read about your state’s professional sports, you need to move to Massachusetts or New York. The state of Connecticut cannot sustain a professional sports team. Why? I don’t know? Last week we even got news that one of our semi pro teams are relocating down south. Maybe they are all running away because of the bad press. The Courant is a bad paper. It once stood tall and held itself up with respect. Today, the Courant only is a sad degraded newspaper that seems to insult its readers with subpar writing and less meat than its competitors. Yesterday, there was news about Obama wanting to extend the school year as a way to raise student achievement circulating around the internet. It was showing up on social networks like Facebook and Twitter, however, there is no mention of this anywhere in the Courant. I find it ironic that the Courant dedicates the exact amount of press to the funny pages as it does for their coverage of World and national news. If that does not work as a metaphor for its media presence, I am not sure what would.
After reading some of the articles, I had a hard time swallowing the poison pill that was being served to me in the form of right winged media manipulation. I am not sure why it was so hard for me after seeinhow many correspondants also worked Fox 61 news. It occurred to me that a state that is populated, mostly by democrats, this line of persuasion would fall upon deaf ears. Just mylast and final thoughts on the dying institution tht was once so noble.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Murder Draped in Ivy
MURDER DRAPED IN IVY is a title that has a ring to it that evokes the memories of Saturday afternoon serials, from the time of yore, or a pocket novel that is dog eared because you have been carrying it around in your pants for days, or possibly weeks. The cover consists of bloody letters, that try to spook the unsuspecting on lookers, and a bare leg wrapped in Ivy.The words just ooze media hype and cheesy cop show. YET IT HOOKS!
When you think of the media bizarre that occurred during and post the investigation you begin to realize why. This was not a gang banger without future that died in the service of his brotherhood, it was a beautiful young woman in the prime of her life, that is about to take the next step towards her limitless future by exchanging nuptials with her fiancee. The future was full of promise and looked bright. The media circus paraded pictures of Annie Le as if she was on "Next Top Model." Her beauty was only than parrelled to her intellect and academic pursuits, she was a Yale grad student. A prestigous school and a "beautiful mind" don't seem like the neccessary elements to make up the background of a murder victim.
Someone said, on Monday night, that all the plot points are acconted for to be able to write a Law and Order: SVU episode and that point could not be more spot on. The tevision media with heir whilwind of intel. and moment to mment updates continued to keep the sensational plot in constant rotation via crawls and special update cut ins durig or favorite show so we don't forget that we are witnessing news tht can't be missed. I can't remember what day it was, but it was the day that our perp. was holed up in the hotel in cromwell, I know this becuse every 5 minutes the TV had to remind me of these very important developments. In fact I felt the TV was beginning to proke me into some sort of vigilant stand. The constant bombardment of iformation streamig in front of me, and I am sure thousands of other people, appeared to me as a way to constantly provoke an emotional reaction to late breaking news regarding Annie Le. I tried to round up my possee, but my six and three year old were already in bead.
When you think of the media bizarre that occurred during and post the investigation you begin to realize why. This was not a gang banger without future that died in the service of his brotherhood, it was a beautiful young woman in the prime of her life, that is about to take the next step towards her limitless future by exchanging nuptials with her fiancee. The future was full of promise and looked bright. The media circus paraded pictures of Annie Le as if she was on "Next Top Model." Her beauty was only than parrelled to her intellect and academic pursuits, she was a Yale grad student. A prestigous school and a "beautiful mind" don't seem like the neccessary elements to make up the background of a murder victim.
Someone said, on Monday night, that all the plot points are acconted for to be able to write a Law and Order: SVU episode and that point could not be more spot on. The tevision media with heir whilwind of intel. and moment to mment updates continued to keep the sensational plot in constant rotation via crawls and special update cut ins durig or favorite show so we don't forget that we are witnessing news tht can't be missed. I can't remember what day it was, but it was the day that our perp. was holed up in the hotel in cromwell, I know this becuse every 5 minutes the TV had to remind me of these very important developments. In fact I felt the TV was beginning to proke me into some sort of vigilant stand. The constant bombardment of iformation streamig in front of me, and I am sure thousands of other people, appeared to me as a way to constantly provoke an emotional reaction to late breaking news regarding Annie Le. I tried to round up my possee, but my six and three year old were already in bead.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Just when I was beginning to think that we could not become more of a "me" dominated society, and I don't mean the me that is writing. If it was not bad enough to outfit ourselves with televisions that had so many channels that when surfed them all, it was time to do it all over again because the hour changed along with the programming. Well after reading about the future of radio, which seems to morphed into the notion of sound altogether, I realized that "I-world" is here with all of it's I-pods and I-phones and I-TV etc. Well the trends that are coming with radio seem to be more of what you want when you want it. It seems to be becoming The Burger King of Sound I guess.
While the strength of the sector still remains AM/FM stations their hold seems to be loosening grip upon the market with new technologies each taking a nipple from the proverbial pie. HD-Radio, Satellite Radio and Internet Radio like Pandora are up and stealing some of the public response the heavy handed use of regular radio. However Pandora, a favorite of mine, is said will face problems that are set to come down the pike with copyright issues that will dwindle the number of participants putting out the music.
Along with copyright issues, financial issues plague this me, me, me-verse with the price of special receivers for satellite and HD radio. Radio has moved from the primary source of news in many homes and has become a source of etertainment only. When you want to beebop around the office or sache across the room with the broom there is noting to fear because radio will not be going anywhere, except to episitomology old folks home. Goodbye Radio. Hello Audio!
While the strength of the sector still remains AM/FM stations their hold seems to be loosening grip upon the market with new technologies each taking a nipple from the proverbial pie. HD-Radio, Satellite Radio and Internet Radio like Pandora are up and stealing some of the public response the heavy handed use of regular radio. However Pandora, a favorite of mine, is said will face problems that are set to come down the pike with copyright issues that will dwindle the number of participants putting out the music.
Along with copyright issues, financial issues plague this me, me, me-verse with the price of special receivers for satellite and HD radio. Radio has moved from the primary source of news in many homes and has become a source of etertainment only. When you want to beebop around the office or sache across the room with the broom there is noting to fear because radio will not be going anywhere, except to episitomology old folks home. Goodbye Radio. Hello Audio!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)