Anthropology 295: Anthropology of Media

This morning I went to address the Board of Trustees meeting regarding livable wages for contracted workers (people that work for Sodexho) and union busting efforts against the Staff's unionization drive. In order to be able to address the Board, I had to apply at least twenty four hours in advance, cite my purpose, and agree to adhere to the rules of addressing the board. The secretary for the Board has the ability to permit or disallow any application. I was approved and told that I had three minutes with which to address the Board, which seemed like a ridiculous amount of time to address such weighty and controversial issues. I was also told to be at the meeting at eight thirty on saturday morning. When I thought about it a little more, I realized that all of this was intentional. Between the application and the early weekend comment period they were trying to make it as difficult as possible for students or anyone for that matter (but especially students I mean 8:30 on a saturday? Come on.) to dissent or express criticism. My feelings were confirmed when I found the Davis Center completely empty; not a student in sight. I went up to the ballroom where they were holding the event and sat down. They called me and my friend Angela up to speak. They made clear that we only had three minutes and the Chairman of the Board pulled out a timer. He told the board that they could not ask questions or comment on what was said. We spoke. Our rhetoric was pointed yet diplomatic, which is different from our normally agressive rhetoric. Our speach ran over the time limit so we were cut off. After we returned to our seats, several trustees got up and came over and thanked us for speaking, asking that we forward our statement to the president's chief of staff so that it could be included in the minutes. I got the impression that they wanted to hear more. After our speech, the different departments around the university (faculty senate, staff council, SGA president) all addressed the Board regarding their achievements and or concerns. Each groups vociforously complemented the university, all "commending the administration" in one way or another, before launching into any substantive criticism. And when they did, in fact criticize the university they did so in the subtlest of ways. For instance, the staff council which has been part of, though not totally behind, the United Staff organizing drive onyl mentioned livable wages in passing while commending themselves for making their organization more "representative." Perhaps the most egregious in all of the circle jerking that went on was a resolution affirming president Fogel's first five years of service to the university. The Board unanimously passed it and those in the room (except for SLAP) gave him a standing ovation. It was at this point that I realized that the Board of Trustees meetings are not for addressing weighty issues. That is not what the administration, namely Fogel, wants as it would mean that he was truly being held accountable. It is much easier to highlight your achievements than address criticism and concerns. I also realized that it wasn't so much about what you said to the Board that was important, rather how you said it. I suppose this is a universal media paradigm as most media outlets spend countless hours on rhetoric and stylistic framing over actual content. I feel that this obscures intended and understood meanings by encouraging speakers to couch their words in endless fluff while also making direct communication seem combative and undiplomatic. At the same time, I think that it provides an opportunity for activist groups like SLAP because we can employ several different rhetorical styles to keep our adversaries off base. Its like legendary community organizer Saul Alinsky says you've got to act outside of your opponent's experience because they won't know how to react. Thus, I feel we must both offer the "diplomatic" and direct criticism of the administration in order to best their efforts to downplay and deny wage and union busting issues.

After looking over the handout about anthro and the internet, what was the most surprising to me was the fact that only 12% of the world is wired. For some reason, this figure was really astonishing to me. But I’m also a little confused about it, does this mean that 12% of the world actually possesses access? (like they have a computer with internet in their home). Or does this mean that 12% can actually go out and find a computer with internet (like in a internet café or a public library). I realize that as a western society we are very privileged to have access to vast media technologies and basically anyone in this country can access the internet, even if they don’t have a computer. This makes me feel like we have taken for granted this digital power. As we have talked about in class, we cannot really separate our culture out of the media. However, this is obviously not true for much of the world. We often think that technology has the power to save us, but what about the people that cannot be reached?

I think that David Hoffman’s work with IFIwatchnet.org is definitely a revolutionary concept in terms of using the internet for the benefit of certain communities. However, it seems that so many people probably don’t know this tool exists, and if they did they might not be able to access it. I guess this is the only issue I have with this website….access. How can access be guaranteed to everyone? Especially when the people who could benefit from it the most are the hardest to grant access to. With 12% of the world being wired, it seems that it is only this 12% that holds the power (if I’m understanding this notion of 12% in the right way). I think it is commendable that this project (IFIwatchnet) it really focusing on the concept of balance of power, as it is basing its project in Uruguay. I think this whole idea is great, and I would love to see if it all works out as planned. Although there is the issue of the dominance of the English language, I believe that it is possible to connect to everyone simply by having the option of accessing the site in multiple languages. It seems to me that one of the biggest obstacles is making sure that this is not a western-dominated project…it looks like it is on the right track in terms of this. But it is just so hard to maintain a balance of power when in reality this balance often seems to be somewhat unattainable. As we have talked about in class, the internet can have the power to “advance social justice and promote empowerment…” but only when a certain balance exists.

It’s hard for me to remember the time before google. When I’m doing work on my computer I always have one page opened to google. Anything I come across that I don’t know is automatically put into google, and when I think about it, so much of my random knowledge comes from google. But how valid is this knowledge?? It seems that we have learned to trust the internet in a very comfortable way. When I read wikipedia sites its very easy for me to take everything I read as the truth and forget that some random, non-credible source probably wrote it, and it is actually strewn with bias. But all of this is just so easy for us…never before have we been able to access such broad information and so quickly. The process of research has been revolutionized due to the expansion of the internet and sites like wikipedia. But with all of this, it seems that we become more comfortable with accepting information as fact, when in reality this information could just be cyberspace puke. So for me, although it seems that google is the epitomy of efficiency…it doesn’t seem quite so after learning about the “popularity contest” that it is based on. I’ve often wondered how certain sites end up at the top of the list, when they seem to actually have the least relevance. My fantasy is for google to be able to read my mind…when is this going to happen? And it is often frustrating when the most relevant match is actually located on page 19….am I really going to look through all of them just to get there? So I in a way I believe that google and sites like wikipedia have revolutionized the ability to access information on the internet…but just how credible and efficient are these tools? As we continue to rely on them, it seems that we lose our ability to really critique the source of the information that we readily accept as fact.

On a side note…I think that it is funny that Microsoft word has yet to recognize the names “google” and “wikipedia”…I’m getting kind of sick of looking at the wavy red lines under the words…someone should inform Microsoft word that they are a little behind…

Tuesday’s discussion of the Internet and particularly online courses brought up some interesting points. A couple of summers ago I took a course on terrorism in SE Asia. I found it very enlightening, and harder than courses I took on campus. Some points raised in class discussion included, do you get a richer or stripped down version of a schooling experience. I think the answer depends on how much effort you put into the course, on one hand it is easier to slack off, on the other you must be prepared to post comments and such. The professor/student relationship is quite different online, on the one hand, you will never see your professor, on the other the professor may even learn more about you from all of the comments you post. Ironically, the day before our discussion on the internet I read an article on online courses (e-learning). It discussed how professors must deal with students differently, and that more preparation time was necessary for both the professor and student.

NPR article on “e-learning”:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16638700&ft=1&f=1001

I work at admissions giving tours, which is actually a wonderful job because I get to say pretty much whatever I want on tour. However, when there are not a lot of visitors, we get stuck sorting and filing applications, a rather mind numbing task. Every now and again, I'll glance at an application out of curiousity to see what kind of people are applying to UVM. In so doing, I've noticed that more and more people are including glamour shots of themselves, multimedia cds, and even glossy self-composed photo collages of themselves. I usually stop filing, point out the oftentimes ridiculous picture to my co workers, we laugh, and we go on with our business. I have a couple of theories as to why students are including images (which aren't requested in the normal application). First, because more students are applying to more schools and because universities like UVM are becoming more selective, high school students are having to distinguish themselves in new ways from the other applicants. As we all know well, its not good enough to just get good grades anymore.
At the same time, I believe that the inclusion of mixed media in applications is part of students mirroring broader cultural trends towards image based means of communication. In this sense, students are socialized in highly saturated consumer media environments. Sut Jhally, in his article "Image Based Culture" confirms the overabundance of advertising in American culture when he states, "In the contemporary world, messages about goods are all-pervasive- advertising has increasingly filled up the spaces of our daily existence. Our media dominated by advertising images, public space has been taken over by "information" about products, and most of our sporting and cultural events are accompanied by the name of a corporate sponsor. There is even an attempt to get television commercials into the nation's high schools under the pretense of "free" news programming." These media environments, I argue, are and essential part of how individuals conceptualize themselves, others, and their surroundings, serving as cultural signposts for normalcy, desire, and happiness. Jhally confirms, "The commodity-image system thus provides a particular vision of the world- a particular mode of self-validation that is integrally connected with what one has rather than what one is- a distinction often referred to as "having" and "being," with the latter being defined through the former." While I don't necessarily feel that students are defining themselves through their possesions in the photos that they include, they are using images as a means of self-definition which is exactly the means of self-representation upon which advertising is predicated. Additionally, because images emphasize physical characteristics while providing fragmented snippets of the individual, applicants can frame themselves in idealized and potentially edited situations that highlight a perceived desirable trait. In this way, its seems that applicants, by way of their own vanity, tap into cultural concepts of ideal body types and beauty. As such, I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of these alternate media types as they shift attention away from what is, instead asking admissions conselors to focus on what appears to be. Luckily, we have record numbers of applications and the conselors can't pay too much attention to the extraneous materials included.

I heard a radio show today that was closely linked to the media negativity thread. It was on NPR, and it was about a TV news station in Idaho that had somehow found out a piece of information about a local referee at an ice rink, called "Ice World." This ref had, in 1992, committed what amounted to a statutory rape charge that was eventually suspended and then dropped. It was an event that haunted him everyday, and that he would forever regret. It happened when he was a 23 year-old bus driver and he began a flirtation with a 15 year-old. Throughout the course of the radio segment, pieces come together to create a picture of what was going on behind the scenes of this event and it is a great reminder as to all of the different agendas that go into even one news report.
The news channel had just come under new direction 2 weeks earlier and the new manager was eager to prove that he was doing great things for the station. So he sent out a very hesitant young reporter. She was hesitant because she was not confident that all of the information they were spreading about this man was really accurate given all of the details of the case. She thought it would do more harm than good to put this on television, and three times in the first day, at that.
Indeed, through the course of the radio spot we learn that in their haste to have this story as an edge over other stations, they said that this man was a convicted sex offender when he was in fact never convicted. It was almost comic the way in which the television station put a spin on this story. The reporter asked one parent what she thought of this man being near children- in the biased way where if she said anything different it would seem that she was intentionally putting her kids in danger.
To sum it up, the sex offender's life, as well as his family's, was permanently damaged at best, ruined at worst. The reporter who was forced to report on the story felt guilty about having to do this story purely for the sake of the stations ratings. The new manager gained because his station got a boost.
I did consider this man’s potential harm while listening to the radio show. But given all of the details of this specific case, while what he did was wrong and irreparable, the TV stations action's seemed out of line.
This was a great example of some of the reason that negativity is splashed all over the news. It is like a cycle that has been put in motion. Most stations have to report on similar stories because they are constantly in fear of losing ratings, and employees of the stations have a job and a reputation to uphold. This radio story illustrated that what is on the news is often arbitrary to what is important in the world. This "sex offender" had a wife and kids, no record since that incident, and his work at an ice rink seemed to be no sort of story to a common person. But in the eyes of a certain news channel, what is seen by a citizen as unimportant could be just what they need to gain an edge. And I'm sure the night that segment aired, somehow this issue DID become important in the eyes of Idaho residents. This is a case of media creating a new reality, not being a reflection of it.

This post relates to the National Geographic reading and our discussions dealing with representations of the other.
To put it lightly, I am a Wes Anderson fan. For those of you who aren't familiar, Wes Anderson is the director of (in chronological order) Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic and The Darjeeling Limited. I just saw the latter movie at the theatre and could not stop thinking about this class while watching it. It is set mostly on a train that is traveling through India. Three American brothers go on a trip to rekindle their fractured brotherly bond. Wes Anderson movies are very atmospheric and visually distinct, so naturally he capitalizes on the aspects of a culture that would best enhance the film. In our current time of acute political correctness, it is hard to distinguish just what is politically correct anymore. The movie is colorful and definitely portrays the Indian people in a certain way, but then it also portrays the dissident, jaded American characters in a certain way as well. And clearly it's all for to create a certain effect for the film. But I found myself just waiting to see something in the movie that I could criticize as offensive or over-the-top portrayal of Indian culture. There were a couple of things that I thought might have been unrealistic or stereotypical, like when the Indian man on the train trapped and immediately calmed the deadly poisonous snake that got loose. Or the way that the gracious, peaceful rural village people reacted towards the three American newcomers and the sudden tragic death of a village boy. I think it is good to always be critical and watch for discrepancies between reality and what is being portrayed. But what do I know about India? Nothing I haven't learned from National Geographic probably. Funny (or sad), but likely true.
My point here is a question I come back to often. Stereotypes can be dangerous if used wantonly and with ignorance, but do they not stem from a general truth about a place? And how do we know that what we call a stereotype and what we see in a documentary are not the same thing? Wes Anderson distills a feeling, or a scene and this movie is a comedy. This is it: every town, every person, every city, every country, every street on earth has a certain culture to it. We sit in our classrooms and chat about this and that culture, but we never really know a place or a culture until we are there immersed in it, and then it is debatable whether we really know it. So how is media supposed to accurately represent it? It is ALWAYS going to be a certain interpretation of a people and a place. That is, unless the focus is on the very fact that a cultural reality is only what is seen out of the eyes of the viewer, as in the Chichen Itza film. So my heightened awareness during Darjeeling Limited was interesting to notice. But it ultimately led me to realize that be it a fictitious comedy or a documentary film, we must look at them with the same gaze.

P. S. In case anyone was wondering, this is a great film-see it.

I went to the Dartmouth Student Film screening last night on the Dartmouth campus. It was an especially relevant event because these were undergraduate students just like us doing short documentaries for the class Film Studies 30: Documentary Film. Three groups of three or four students completed three great pieces-all very different in style and subject. At the end when asked a question about working in a group they all relayed just how much of a challenge, good and bad, it is to work in a group because everyone inevitably has their own creative vision for the film. I felt this same sort of tension when doing our short film piece.

The first film was called "Sleepless in Hanover" and it was about four different night shift people who worked at the Hanover Inn, a common munchies destination and delivery service called EBAs, an underground bar, and CVS. This one captured the feeling of a small college town in the wee hours with artful shots or carless streets, two drunk people singing on a distant sidewalk, a spider web, or some lone balloons swaying in the breeze. I love the use of "still shots", if you will, as commentary.

The second film was called "Rockbottom Farm: from Father to Son." It was about a dairy farm in Strafford, VT. The filmmakers followed around the current manager of the farm, Earl, and his small son on a daily herd and milk of the cows. They also used archival footage that they dug by Dartmouth students from the seventies. The grainy, black and white footage added texture to the film and painted a picture of the farms sixties-era commune history that could not have otherwise been achieved.

The last film was called "The Man in the Top Hat." This was about the many hauntings at the Colby Sawyer college campus in New London, NH. What made this film and its subject matter so compelling was the wide range of sources used. The filmmakers had interviews of students who had experiences with hauntings. They interviewed a cop who was a skeptic turned believer after a late-night incident where a book "fell" into the middle of the library floor. This was not so bad, he said, until he turned the book over and it was called, Reality in the Fourth Dimension. Goosebumps, don't know about you...They also interviewed a medium who gave tours of the campus where she would communicate with the spirits and they would often communicate back. The filmmakers were able to film one of these tours. During the question and answer section I asked if any of the filmmakers noticed any spirit presence and the one who had filmed it said that he felt a tapping on his sweatshirt. The medium said it was just a spirit saying hello.

I love, love, loved all three of these films. Even though they were about the area where I grew up they all presented little tidbits that I never would have otherwise known. It was great that these were created by my peers. This is what I so love about indie film, or documentary film. Things that might be otherwise uninteresting, or uninspiring to learn about suddenly become little fascinating gems of information that are pleasing to watch. And I also really appreciated the sense of place that these created. I felt regional pride watching these, especially the one about the farm. Go film students!

Everybody should check this out:

The NY Times has an interesting analysis of social networking sites and how they parallel (and potentially even displace) oral forms of communication, creating what some refer to as "secondary orality."

It asks a great question: are the forms of communication we see on facebook and myspace all that new? I am always cautious about any claims that what we see happening in contexts of new media technologies are radically new, so I like this question. But I also find the article's answer--that we can look to so-called "primitive societies" for possible clues to what we see on facebook and myspace--way too facile and simplistic (which even this article suspects). For one, it reinstates a digital divide in which the Other (Papua New Guinea tribespeople, for example) exist outside of the time and space of modernity, existing as "essential humanity" while we "moderns" are wrapped up in our technological modernity and somehow stumble "back" to patterns that are deeply set in our evolutionary history.

The article is here: Friending, Ancient or Otherwise.

I just read the article "Is This Man Cheating on His Wife?" I'm so conflicted! If i was this man's wife I would definitely be upset. Maybe his avatar is not representative of who he really is as a person, but if he's playing second life for 20 hours a day and sleeping the other 4 hours, he is truly abandoning the obligations he has in his real life. The idea of virtual living is a tough thing to figure out. On the one hand, some people probably only play a couple times a month or so, in which case, I can't really argue that SEcond Life is ruining cultural values. But for people like Ric, Second Life is devouring the elements that make up a lifestyle. Or is Second Life a lifestyle in itself? It's hard to argue whether or not Ric is cheating on his wife (for those of you who havent' read the article, Ric's avatar has been married for seven months). He and the real-life woman behind his virtual wife have no intentions of ever meeting but they spend hours a day together online - vacationing, clubbing, cooking, whatever. My argument is that Ric is not necsesarily cheating on his wife with another woman, but he should still be concerned that he is abandoning his obligations as a husband. His wife must feel completely alone and unwanted. Ric argues that he has tried to get his wife to play second life with her but she's not interested. This shows me that Ric has no desire to compromise and that Second Life is more important to him than his first life. It's stories like these that concern me about the virtual world is eating us all and soon The Matrix will be a real-life situation. Programs like Second Life have increased opportunities to cease wanting the "real" or the "experience." Ric is living vicariously through his younger, studly, and rich avatar but he is not going through anything that is tactile or tangible. Facebook and Myspace work in the same way but in a lesser sense. People spend hours going through people's picturse and reading about their interests, their favorite books, favorite quotes and more. But this is not the experiential way of getting to know somebody, nor is it helping you go out and meet actual people and enjoy the experience of a good friendship or even a good conversation.

This is my concern. Technology should be available to help ourselves gain more insight: i.e. documentaries that inspire us to travel, scholarly articles online that help increase our understanding of a certain political situation, news stories that make us want to spend more time with a charity. Whatever it is, it should send us back into the non-mediated world and affect how we want our life experience to be like. Media that sucks you in and acts as an eraser to your being a contributional member of society does not seem to help or benefit anyone.

While this article covers a variety of different concepts, a statement near the beginning was really depressing to me. It said, "'digital culture' has been posited by postmodern theorists as exemplifying and underlining the post-modern notion of fragmented and decentered human selves." WOW. We are in the post-modernist stage right now and the notion is that we are fragmented and decentered? It really does make sense though. Our society, if choosing to, is living life through myspace, facebook, second life, iPods, laptops, movies, the news, and more. Information is so accessible now that it is impossible to have a one-track, clear idea of what is going on anywhere. The post-modern movement is really cool when it comes to literature and art, for example, but in terms of media and affecting the "real-world," the idea of being decentered is really depressing. I think of things like facebook in which we advertise ourselves and want people to know what our jobs are, what we were doing on friday night, what our favorite websites are. Then we post a picture and leave up many others for people to look at and its our way of being a member of a larger and expanding social network but we are completely decentered! We're not advertising ourselves in person or putting ourselves out in the world for real. "Digital Culture" has so much potential in how our connections with the rest of world can be enhanced but if we get too sucked in for the wrong reasons, it will change our society in a negative way (and already has to a large extent).

I was reading Time Magazine the other day when I stumbled upon an interesting analysis of the current writers strike. I don’t know if the author had Marshall McLuhan in mind (probably not) but he couldn’t have written a more relevant analysis of McLuhan’s argument. The article began by outlining the conflict between writers and the networks. Basically, writers believe that they deserve a bigger cut of profits when material they have written appears on the Internet or when shows are released on DVD. It’s a pretty straightforward dispute over money, however, the changing landscape of media outlets (i.e. the Internet) makes this issue more important than it has been in the past. The rest of the article analyzes each party’s leverage and what it means for their struggle. The writers believe that their strike will bring the networks to their knees by making TV so boring that no one will want to watch it. One genre that survives because it doesn’t require much of a writing staff is reality shows. I watch TV every once and a while but if reality shows were the only thing on I would have no problem never watching it again. To sum up their argument, the striking writers believe that content is the most important issue and people will be quick to abandon TV in exchange for the internet and services like Netflix. The networks, on the other hand, claim that they can hold out indefinitely because the medium is more important than the content and viewers will be satisfied with reruns and reality TV. I am interested to see if loyal TV viewers will prove the networks (and McLuhan) right or if the idea of the medium as the message will be struck down as the writers hope. Either way get used to TV sucking for at least the next couple of weeks.

After we discussed the term “Google bombing”, I further researched the topic. Upon typing “Google bombing” into the Google search engine, my top hit was for Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb . As so many individuals are linked to the site, this came as no great surprise. Wikipedia defined “Google bombing” as, “A Google bomb (also referred to as a 'link bomb') is Internet slang for a certain kind of attempt to influence the ranking of a given page in results returned by the Google search engine, often with humorous or political intentions.” The second result was some random website called “Word Spy” http://www.wordspy.com/words/Googlebombing.asp , which I have never heard of before and quite possibly has used the “Google bombing” technique to increase its ranking status. The third result was a BBC news article from 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1868395.stm , which I found intriguing. This article points out a very good point, “If a few hundred blogs host the same link and describe it in the same way then, as far as Google is concerned, the page they refer to is likely to be a good resource on that subject.” Therefore, you must still exercise some level of common sense when using the Internet as a resource. The top results from search engines like Google may not always be the most credible sources for information.

I just finished reading that article on second life, and I found it incredibly interesting and incredibly depressing at the same time. On a personal note, I just find it sad that people can not have pleasure in their real lives, and they have to go to the internet to form a new facade that will bring them happiness. I believe that it is a hard topic to address, and make a firm decision on if he is cheating on his wife. When looking up the word Cheat online, the Princeton review definition states it as follows: adulterous: not faithful to a spouse or lover. Ric Hoogestraat is not devoted to his wife, and unfaithful on many levels. However, there is no sexual relationship between him and his "second life wife." And i think many would agree that in relationships we wouldn't consider it cheating until Ric and his on line wife met and starting having sex with each other.

However, I would totally be angry and upset with my husband if he was doing was Ric Hoogestraat is doing. His wife must feel neglected and unimportant, and slightly embarrassed. She is being replaced by a person his husband has never seen, and "loves" in a virtual world. I don't think she is out of line in her frustrations and I would not be surprised if this relationship ended in a divorce.

As mentioned in a previous entry: This is a problem with the complex culture we have. It has allowed people to avoid reality, and make their own worlds. Instead of going out and meeting people, or living LIFE, people are sitting on their computers for 10-12+ hours a day living in computer generated worlds. I also understand that technology has brought about many positive things, but in a country where the divorce rates sit at 50% and relationships fail more than succeed, we are only allowing technology to push us further in a negative direction.

Maybe I don't really grasp the second life concept, but it seems silly and uncalled for. Our real lives offer us so much, and I doubt we want to look back at our youth/younger years and think "i spent it all on the computer." The world is huge and at at our fingertips at the same time. Instead of forming a second life..., Live your own.

I find it interesting how quickly YouTube has gained legitimacy in society. I find evidence for it in the fact that the most popular debates this election season have been co-sponsored by CNN and YouTube. Questions are no longer written by faceless writers backstage and read by news anchors, but we submitted by American citizens. Most are filmed with a monitor-mounted webcam, and have a feel very similar to any other confessional YouTube video diary post.
What does it mean when media technology which was previously viewed as illegitimate due to the people’s control over it (YouTube, blogs, Wikipedia) suddenly gains legitimacy, and even gains a interactive role was mainstream corporate media? It seems to me that this represents a growing attractiveness of the people taking control over their media, or at least the appearance of this control. An added consequence of putting the control partially in the hands of the people is that the tone of the debate did indeed change from the serious tone of the past, most famously exemplified by a video narrated by a stop-action animation snowman asking about climate change. Some candidates did not approve of this change, however. Mitt Romney initially refused to participate in the debate, saying, “I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.” Romney himself, however, is apparently not an opponent of YouTube in general, having posted 283 videos on his own YouTube site at the time, more than any other candidate. Romney ultimately decided to participate, and it could be argued that YouTube has now inherited some of the legitimacy held by CNN as the host of the presidential debates.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/12/the_gop_youtube_debate_is_back_1.html#more?hpid=topnews

I thought that the ad for the Peruvian cancer foundation was interesting in light of our discussions about the ways in which television has the power to evoke a sense of nostalgia or sentimentality in us. I always wonder whether ads like this one actually work, that is whether they actually urge people to donate to various causes. They are certainly effective in the sense that they grab our attention (either through visual or audio effects) and at least for a moment take us out of ourselves and force us to think about the causes which they aim to bring our attention to; however, these ads tend to lose their effect and meaning when they are followed by Neutrogena ads filled with bright faced smiling teens, or ads for reality shows. I noticed that I was very touched by the ad while actually watching, but was able to quickly shift my attention away from the ad and onto other things. In one sense I feel like these ads are good and necessary, as they force us to pay attention to things that we might not otherwise know or think about, but on the other hand I feel like, as with other forms of technology, they desensitize us. We are so used to seeing “moving” ads about the “plight” of those who are far removed from us that I feel like many people become used to simply brushing them off.

I thought that the presentation on second life was awesome. I always find people’s serious involvement in virtual realities interesting. One of the things that I find most fascinating about virtual reality is how much it tells us about actual reality. As Marshall McLuhan notes in “The Medium is the Message” whenever a new technology emerges, it fundamentality changes the ways in which individuals think about and relate to one another. It was clear from the presentation that most of the individuals who took second life seriously and who spent vast amounts of time in this virtual world were, in actuality, living in less than ideal situations. The single mom who could not afford to go out, the man who had been unhappily engaged for several years, and the “fury” all seemed to be in situations where they felt unable to relate to others in their actual society, and seemed to feel more comfortable in a virtual reality (or at least felt comfortable using second life as a social outlet). Virtual reality in a sense enables us to work out many of the imperfections in our real lives by creating other lives for ourselves. Technology has in many ways allowed us to exist in complete isolation from one another, which has inevitably effected, either positively or negatively, the ways in which we socialize with one another. The possibility of being able to be whoever we want to be, even if it isn’t real, enables many people who feel socially awkward in reality to relate to others. I personally find virtual realities bizarre, but I think it is difficult to say whether their effects have been wholly good or bad. I don’t know whether the existence of virtual realities has resulted in more isolation, as people no longer have to actually engage with others in order to have social lives, or whether virtual realties have enable many people who previously had no social outlets to relate to others. Regardless, I think that the popularity of virtual reality says a lot about how unfulfilled, or socially disengaged people feel in the actual world.

“The television screen, so unlike the movie screen, sharply reduced human beings, revealed them as small, trivial, flat, in two banal dimensions, drained of color. Wasn't there something reassuring about it! -- that human beings were in fact merely images of a kind registered in one another's eyes and brains, phenomena composed of microscopic flickering dots like atoms. They were atoms -- nothing more. A quick switch of the dial and they disappeared and who could lament the loss?” -- Joyce Carol Oates

I stumbled on this quote while working on another project and thought it was interesting in light of many of the things we have discussed this semester. I think that her cynical approach is in line with many of the media critiques we have learnt about. The TV did reduce ppl to these simple forms that could be entirely understood within the constraints of a television screen. The TV is the ultimate essentializer - it communicates the messages it needs to get across and if we get tired of hearing it, we can change channels or tune out. Additionally, I think that Oates' critique comes down on this baring down of human beings fairly. I think she realizes the destructiveness of TV and has seen how it has changed people and the nature of social interactions - to the point where some people hardly socialize at all, they spend hours in front of the tv instead. This is just like w/ the whole second life phenomenon, only here, people are putting themselves into the monitor in pixelated formats in lieu of living actual lives. I think that this is what Oates was fearing all along (as I am discerning from more of her work.) She's a very interesting author... I suggest you check her out.

I'm killing time between presentations this morning and a business meeting later on, by watching the new music DVD by Incubus. It features both live footage and documentary montages of the bands' past year of touring. It was directed by Christian Lamb and everyone else who worked on it is up and coming. The DVD has cinematographic feel to it is unlike anything I've ever seen; first you realize you're watching a live performance, and at the same time being bombarded with grainy close-ups (filmed with DV cams, some shots are almost unrecognizable) while the main camera is burred out, capturing mood lighting elements which work in conjunction with the song. Much of the footage is captured onstage directly behind the artist themselves, at extreme angles which gives the viewer a sense of intimacy. I realized this early on and this footage came as quite a shock after comparing it to my experience seeing them this past summer on the venues' lawn that was a long distance form the stage. Even then I was watching most of the concert on two screens on either sides of the stage... so really what has changed. Regardless, I am still "feeling" the music. "Music elicits feelings, conjures up memories, and sometimes encompasses all the senses and we feel complete when these things are drawn out by the message." It is interesting that art in the form of media can take so many routes and forms; in other words, this DVD is centered around music and video footage (art in itself) and by blending the two together a new form emerges.

The Second Life and South Park Guitar World presentations were really interesting . Most people in the world are craving to be someone else, have another job, have another spouse.....or be good at something like the guitar, be a part of a rock-band. This alter-reality is allowing these individuals to experience these things....without going through the usual steps of the real world. People can flirt without getting rejected...People can have sex without the thought of an STD (who knows, maybe there are "cyber stds") People can pretend they are playing guitar without knowing the true feel of strumming your fingers across the strings. What is this doing to our society? In some ways I see positive aspects. For many who can't afford to go out dancing or are too busy to find time to flirt...yes, this might be an option. Some are getting the fulfillment that they've always needed in their lives. Maybe depression/anxiety will decrease. There's a scary element to this as well. People not actually "living"... people not taking the proper steps to get themselves out of their boring engagement and actually have the balls to end it. I guess some people aren't having to do the work anymore to reach any goal in life....it all seems a little too easy. Where's the catch?

I thought the "Mr. W" commercial was a great example of many things we have discussed in class this year. Humor, nostalgia, fuzzies, etc.The reason I think the commercial is so effective is because it withholds any information regarding the real purpose of the organization until the very last moment. For the first minute and thirty seconds the viewer watches the advertisement, taking in the humor and the sad story provided by Mr. W. I didn't realize Mr. Wind had it going so badly for him, or I suppose that was until he realized his relationship with wind power. More often than not the idea of diversion is what is most common in commercials. With the exception of bathroom products such as soap where the product is blatantly the center of attention, commercials for organizations and charities always have some sort of alternative notion. And often the goal of the organization is rarely touched upon within the first few moments of an advertisement. My absolute favorite example of these types of ads are produced by charities for supporting children in third world countries. The first few moments of these commercials often begin with a sick child crying in a corner. It is impossible for a viewer to not become emotional with these images. At the very end, the viewer becomes aware of the organization behind the child. Yet, we never learn more about what the organization really does, or how much of the donations really go to helping these children. Without putting extra effort into the cause, there is no way to really find out, that is unless you donate. And for those of us who have seen these ads, it is hard to not want to donate.

After the Secondlife presentation I decided to hop onto youtube to see if I could find any videos which would demonstrate to me how Secondlife works. I found the following video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flkgNn50k14

What is so great about this medium is that it acknowledges how unreal secondlife is.What is interesting to note is that the clip is produced by a company called Draftcb which is a global advertising network. Because the clip is produced by this company, it is more likely that the advertisement has been produced to promote the virtual lifestyle. What I don't understand is why their clip seems to ridicule it. In the clip there is a message on the wall that says, "Create or die" which may imply that the company approves of Secondlife because of the creativity that may be invoked within its players. Just as television shows can be a distraction from life, and at times we like to pretend to relate to a certain character, I believe that Secondlife does the same. Although, they have complete control over their characters, thus making their alternative self into an extension of themselves. At this point the question becomes, when will people notice that their virtual selfs will most likely never be emotionally equal with the real self?

Youtube: Second life by DRAFTCB

Last weekend I saw a bluegrass band called Hot Buttered Rum at Higher Ground. The band is an all string band that plays a mix of traditional and new bluegrass (newgrass). Touring the country tirelessly in their veggie oil bus, they have been part of a larger repopularization of bluegrass music among younger people (and older folks too for that matter). The long and short of it is that they have a really dedicated fan base that loves to see them live (their live performances are high energy musical mastery). However, most fans only were able to catch a live show once or twice a year given the spanning touring schedules that the band maintains. Basically, they couldn't be everywhere at once...until now.
At the show on Saturday, a view dedicated fans did a live simulcast of the show online, streaming high-quality content over the fansite morebutter.com. My friend Colin, who lives in Arizona, listened to the entire show from the comforts of his computer. He later asked me if I thought that the members of another band that sat in for one of the songs were off beat (which they were). While I was impressed by the quality of the broadcast, I really can't imagine listening to a live show on line. Don't get me wrong, I love live music recordings but there's just something that seems boring about listening to a simulcast live show, especially a bluegrass show where half the fun is dancing like a monkey. In this way, the digital radio medium cannot create the energy of being at a concert in a crowd with hundreds of other people dancing to mutually appreciated music. To take this a step further, I believe that the radio remove the ritual context of going to a concert in that you don't wait in line, buy the ticket, get searched by the bouncers, dance with friends, meet strangers, etc. As such, radio carries with it an overtly desocialized message, one that removes direct human interaction as well as ritual context. Jo Tacchi, in his article "Radio Texture: Between Self and Others," clarifies radio's message when he states, "radio sound creates a textured "soundscape"...within which people move around and live their daily lives...these sounds, on both a social and personal level, can be seen to connect with other places and other times. Linked with memories and feelings, either experienced or imagined, they can evoke different states of mind and moods." As Tacchi indicates radio fragments human experience by juxtaposing disparate social places and times while also serving as a component of other experiences within daily life, not the focal point of activity as in live performance. Furthermore, "radio can be used in this pseudo social way to create a self that could, or would like to be, social. This makes listening to the radio a social activity, in that it can act to reinforce sociality and a sense of social self, and at the same time has the potential to fill perceived gaps in one's social life" (Tacchi, 242). Thus, radio is paradoxically, social and unsocial. For instance, my friend Colin, a huge Hot Buttered Rum fan, used the radio to mimick the social experience that he would normally have at a live performance. Accordingly, he confirmed to himself his hardcore fan status (thus constructing the social self) while also filling his social desire for that particular live music experience. Regardless, I still feel that live music ought be lived in context it originates in order to have a truly social experience.

Here's a new one: coloring books and comics to teach kids about molestation and sexual abuse by priests. Check out this article that I first found on the Spanish newspaper El Mundo and then on Newsweek. It explains how certain Catholic schools in New York are distributing these fun cartoons for kids to color and read while instilling some fear about sexual predators and also, continuing to avoid talking to children about things that are unconfortable for adults. The example reprinted in Newsweek warns children against being alone in a closed room with an adult, accompanied by a picture of a waving priest. It advertises to children that people they know and trust, like priests and nuns and bishops, can be the ones who are unsafe to be alone with. But it's not just priests the children must worry about, it's also online predators. And in the comic, the kids can even color in the online predator with his exposed chest hair. If the medium is the message, then what exactly is being said here?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73270

for another perspective, here's the El Mundo version:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/12/05/internacional/1196873786.html

(it may be possible to translate the article into English, but I'm unsure how to do it).

The notion of the “indigenous aesthetic” is something that came up for me a few times in this class, most recently when watching Te Rua. When consuming indigenously-produced media as a westerner, particularly indigenously-produced art, we have certain expectations. Specifically, we expect the product to possess an aesthetic in some way distinct from what we are used to. I believe this came out in class discussion prior to watching Te Rua, in discussion of the Native American film Smoke Signals. Some people overlook the fact that this is an example of indigenous media because the aesthetic of the film is so familiar to us as distinctly Hollywood. The same statement could be made in regards to Te Rua. Despite the fact that this film is even more removed from Hollywood geographically, it still shares many of the same aesthetics that are so familiar to a western audience. In this way, these movies have the potential to lose something to some western viewers. However, despite the borrowed techniques, there is something distinctly Maori about Te Rua, in the way in which Barry Barclay incorporated some of the aesthetics of Maori weaving.
This also reminds me of the film that we saw regarding tourism and the purchase of indigenous art. When westerners consume indigenous art, they have some preconceived notion in their mind of what it should look like. We both other and homogenize indigenous cultures and their art when we make assumptions and expectations regarding their aesthetic qualities. On the other hand, it should not be disregarded that the influences of Western art and culture are permeating the art of other cultures, as evidenced by films such as Te Rua and Smoke Signals.

I stumbled upon an interesting and relevant article today concerning Second Life. With more Universities teaching classes in Second Life’s virtual world, Georgia State University has constructed a virtual island within Second Life to teach Professors how to teach courses in the game (many Second Lifers actually get offended when Second Life is referred to as a game). I initially did not believe that Second Life could be a very valuable teaching tool. This article, however, provides some interesting examples of how it can be used. “For example, architecture students can build a virtual house instead of simply designing one on paper. Clothing design students can hold a virtual fashion show. Business students can start a company and see how it does without risking startup capital. And other students can see the impact of a tsunami or hurricane coming ashore.” One professor praises Second Life for providing a place where students can experience things that might be too expensive or too dangerous in the real world. While I initially doubted that Second Life would be anything more than a game I have to admit that I may have been a little short sighted. The practical implications of Second Life, as well as other forms of virtual reality, could be huge. Someone on this blog likened Second Life to the Matrix and that comparison may not be to far off. I think the fact that Ailin Graef, a Second Life real estate baroness, has made over one million real dollars in Second Life is a testament to its power.

Here's a link to the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22115492/

I really feel that the internet, because of the anonimity and/or social distance it provides, creates the opportunity and nexus for all kinds of nasty and passive agressive behavior. As such, some users avoid resolving conflicts through direct face to face communication, instead choosing to send emails, messages, and angry posts to vetn frustrations. For instance, I am living in a house next year with eight other people and right now we are trying to figure out who will have what room. We picked a date and a time to go and look at the house over email because it is just too hard for us all to get together and agree on a time. During this process, one of my housemates (#1) told us that she wouldn't be able to make a time that was good for everyone else because she had cook crew at Slade (our current house). Another housemate (#2) responded stating, " [name ommitted]! its at 7!! you can still cook dinner, save yourself a plate, and come back to clean.. i think its really important to do this now.. and it seems like this time works for everyone else not to mention the 8 people who live there..and we all know its impossible to find a good time.. so coooperate woman! :)" After speaking to housemate #2 about this later on, she told me that her email was meant to be a friendly reminder about a meeting based on rational arguments and what she felt was best for the groups. However, because housemate #2 could not convey her tone in the email, housemate #1 interpreted her email as being hostile and mean spirited. Accordingly, #1 responded, "Wow [name omitted] I can feel the hostility through your email. I'm not sure why you have to "yell" at me over an email about this. It makes me feel really shitty when you do this and you do it a lot, so please, especially since we're living together next semester watch your tone of voice and be mindful of how you are addressing an issue you have with someone, even if it is over an email." Even though they live less than twenty feet from one another in their current living situation, both parties used the internet to avoid direct communication while also using the social distance to express harsher emotions than normal. Also, using words like "yell" and "tone of voice," #1 perceived a tone that wasn't present because email as a medium limits users to textual expression. While exclamation points can indicate stronger emotion, they still do not convey the range of emotions expressed by vocal tone, as they are ambiguous. Obviously, ambiguity allows for misunderstanding. In this case, when the two housemates sat down and talked face to face, they realized that there wasn't an issue and they apologized to one another. This, in my opinion, confirms the necessesity, even in this digital age for face to face interaction, as it allows those involved to use non-verbal communication (facial expressions and tone) to deal with conflict. I just have to wonder what type of social impact indirect nasty commentary has on people that don't know each other and can't eventually have that face to face interaction. What happens if someone gets says something on second life that's misinterpreted and a huge argument erupts? Has the internet made people feel more entitled to be nasty? Were they always this way? I think its interesting when media types claim that they internet has made communication more convinient and more readily available because while those things are true, the web, if anything, has made communication that much more complicated and alienating.

It occurred to me earlier that television show introductions have the ability to set the tone for the entire show (i.e. writing, cinematographic elements) while also serving a precursor to the shows characters and theme. I began to examine the opening to Dexter, a series on Showtime, and rather than attempting to describe the shows premise myself, I quote from Wikipedia: "The show stars character Dexter Morgan, a Miami-based serial killer who works for the Miami Metro Police Department as a blood spatter analyst." The opening sequence (link at bottom) depicts certain elements of everyday life (blood spots and cuts from shaving, slicing and cooking meat, and flossing) all which reflect and relate to murderous activities (victims blood, stabbing a victim, and strangulation). While watching it for the first time a few days ago, I picked up on these subtle elements in the montage and picked up on the strong link that the show itself has with its opening. Also, for certain shows (like Dexter) it could substitute as its own media/art form. Another example may be the show Nip/Tuck. Its opening is also very effective in drawing in an audience and setting the tone for the entire piece. These openings are also important for first time viewers (such as myself) in conjunction with the recap that is played from the previous weeks' episode. Both worked as a "base" to start my viewing. Therefore acting as a media source and social prompt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5WpxxJpL-g

In class it was mentioned that Google uses the number of times that a site is clicked on to rank it. That means that if someone wants to have a certain site pop up when you search through Google they only have to do what Professor Vivanco called Google bombing. Even with this unfair practice I can’t think of a better way to set up a search engine. With so many new sites being created every day there is no plausible way to have some person or group of people sitting at desks looking at the context of each and every site for their content. Another possibility is to make the site that contains the words or phrase you are looking for the most times. But while a site might mention something multiple times it may not be the most accurate, or applicable site. Aside from the possibility of Google bombing popularity still seems to be the best way to rank sites according to their usefulness. It would however be nice to have the option to rank them in a different way then through popularity. This sort of feature could be done through number of time the word or phrase in mention but wouldn’t be every accurate. Better search engines could help with this problem allowing users to use more specific phrases that would hopefully discourage the type of Google bombing, or at least make it harder for it to be done. Still another possibility to make the program that counts how many times the site is linked to only count an ISP number once. For now how ever we’re still left with the popularity contest.

Hi folks. So after giving my guitar hero presentation the other day, I rewarded myself by playing Guitar Hero. It was such a reminder that although I understand all this academic, sociological stuff going on behind the game, I'm still sucked into it because it is - gasp - fun. Addictively so I would say. Yesterday I moved up from 'easy' to 'medium' on the song settings, which meant that another button got implemented and the game got much harder for me. Because I was playing on a new difficulty level, I didn't do so hot. When the video crowd booed me off for the first time, I got enormously stressed out and HAD to try again immediately. And when the game got intense, I found myself swearing and getting physically antsy and tense. And yes, it's just a game, but it sucks you in!! After playing the game and feeling the sense of accomplishment one gets from getting through say, a really hard solo section, I can see why people are so into this game... Critics have said that the game is a mindless obsession. Well. I can understand that, it does get under your skin and make you just want to play more and more, but it is actually LEGITIMATELY impressive when someone is good at it because it's actually hard. Never mind how they got there via hours of playing. Still impressive. In case you're having ADD at the library as you might be, I've youtubed some select guitar hero videos for your viewing pleasure, starting with the clip that I showed in class.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=7560
This is in insane video of an 8 year-old playing on expert level - this is basically insanely hard. At one point in the video, he actually turns away from the TV because he has memorized what his fingers are supposed to be doing. -- it's been viewed over 4,000,000 times. WHAT?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yEjyuw42YY
This gives you an idea of how the buttons work on the screen - also it's a killer song and ALSO this is just one of many, many, many videos that people put up of the screen as they play along to songs on Guitar hero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLmYPe_jLqg
So, guitar hero is forming its own virtual, ridiculously massive culture and maybe that's ok? Yea, maybe it's a bit pathetic, but it's what's popular today. Whenever there is a party and Guitar Hero is there, people want to play it. Never shuts off. Possibly all this virtuality is just the natural progression of where things are heading...

the presentations that we had last class were really great. but what makes video or audio a media artifact? i find it hard to call something an artifact that is not tangible. what makes something an artifact? is it only something that remains from a previous life?

Merrium-Webster defines an artifact as:

1 a: something created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially : an object remaining from a particular period
b: something characteristic of or resulting from a particular human institution, period, trend, or individual

so, it appears that audio and video does count. it just feels wrong. in a thousand years what is going to remain of our culture? i think that if we keep putting so much of ourselves and our culture into the virtual we will lose ourselves. if electricity can make angles of us all, i suspect that eventually it will make ghosts of us all as well.

During the presentation on the sale of outdoor gear items I was struck by how much companies use the ‘only available for a limited period of time’ tactic to sell items. I can recall numerous commercials in which the viewer is told that he or she will get a discount if they call within the next 5 or 10 minutes. The thing that always struck me as strange was that these ads seemed to be on for hours, proving that the items were not available for a limited period of time. They were always available and probably for the same price. The ads seem to have been created to hook people into to watching them while flipping through channels, to look at an item, which in reality they probably didn’t even really want or need, and to buy it impulsively. The time constraint essentially limits the amount of time you spend actually logically thinking about your purchase. You end up getting caught up in the thrill of the race to buy, and in many cases lose all sense of reality or real needs.

Today while ordering a delicious wrap from Paradise Burrito, I realized I left out a critical part of my podcast/film (use of electronic means of money in our culture). Although there is no doubt that our culture pushes electronic means of exchange, there is still use of and physical results of those kinds of technologies. We see VISA commercials now which depicts groups of individuals paying with credit/debit cards where one disrupts the process only to pay with cash or check. However, my realization came in the form of the actual receipt I received from my transaction. Regardless of paying with cash or electronic means, there will always be some sort of paper trail. I usually keep receipts and verify my debit purchases (monitored online) once they get posted. Acting as a security measure, receipts play a vital role in the transaction. While I don't mean to discuss the environmental implications of this, I did also realize that there seemed to be an unnecessary amount of paper being wasted (from the receipt to the order ticket), which most people trash. I recently heard that many banks are investing in technologies to text message the card owner either every time a purchase is made or when the account balance drops below a certain amount. Again, with identity theft and fraud, these technologies will work to keep consumer account secure.

I found the opening of this Good Eats episode interesting, not only because it's just in time for culmination of the course (also hinting that Christmas is near) and Alton Brown is phenomenal, but because it depicts Santa with “high tech” devices. Everyone my age and older has looked back at our childhood with nostalgia, especially memories during the Christmas season. However, our generation seems to embody the last remains of a "traditional" Santa Claus. Today, children growing up are seeing Santa (sometimes in magazine and advertisements) with technology, in the cause of the video clip, a Blackberry and DV camera. It was quite jarring to see this image of "new age" Santa emailing children through the use of a personal device. This contrast is also depicted in movies like Elf. Examining how media can change such integral part of our childhood (or symbol) is both alarming and fascinating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDCkX6w6cMQ&feature=related

One thing that I wish we talked about more explicitly in this class is how activists affect and are affected by the media. While we examined alternative media spaces created by fourth cinema, the zapatistas, and others in addition to making our own media, I wish we would have engaged in more of a more direct discussion of ways that individuals and collectives are subverting corporate dominated media. I think that this would have provided a nice counterpoint to all the time we spent on how Americans are coerced and thereby marginalized by advertisers and corporate media sources. In this way, deconstructing examples of popular resistance to hierarchical domination is thoroughly empowering, as it shows that fighting back is not only possible, but a viable and necessary means for engendering social change.
For instance, it would have been sweet to examine the Yes Men, an activist collective in which members pose as high level corporate spokespeople that expose corporate human rights violations by providing false statements during press conferences. They establish legitimacy by creating fake websites through which they solicit and accept invitations to appear at business conferences and on television. In one case, one of the Yes Men, posing as a spokesperson for Dow Chemical, promised twelve billion dollars (money obtained by liquiding their subsidiary Union Carbide) to the victims of a massive chemical spill in Bhopal India on BBC News (to access the clip go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlUQ2sUti8o). A couple hours after the liquidation was reported, the real Dow Chemical denied the statement, thus creating even more coverage. As a result, the Yes Men put huge pressure on Dow to take action on continuing impacts of a chemical spill largely forgetten in the main stream media. On a broad level, the Yes Men show how vulnerable corporations are to media based subversion, as they take advantage of the fact that mainstream media sources place so much faith in authority figures, like spokespeople, to disseminate information. Additionally, they draw on most media consumer's willingness to believe what they are told to their advantage by playing off false claims as real in the public arena. Finally, they counter the fact that most mainstream media sources consult corporate leaders far more than activists for information by disseminating their own corporate messages. In essence, the Yes Men respond to corporate controlled media by becoming the media and subverting it from the inside.
Now I know that the semester is only so long and that we can only do so much, but, as an activist, I am floored by this kind of stuff and I absolutely love seeing people use media to serve socially just ends.

Brad Will, and independent American journalist working for the alternative media site indymedia.org, was fatally shot by Mexican paramilitaries in October, 2006 while reporting on massive civilian protests. Will, unlike many reporters who send reports from their hotel rooms when reporting on violent issues, stood in solidarity on the front lines with the thousands of Oaxaqueños who were protesting the corrupt and brutally repressive state government under Ulises Ruiz Ortiz. In many cases, fierce street battles erupted between the protestors organized under the Asemblea Popular de Los Pueblos de Oaxaca (APPO), an umbrella group that declared itself the de-facto rulers of the state, and paramilitaries in which protestors molotov cocktails were met by bullets. Will was filming one such exchange when he was shot. In fact, you can actually watch the video in which Will gets shot on youtube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=quq4zoeZaqU). I must warn you its quite chilling as you can hear him scream as he get shot and then you see the camera bobbing up and down as people rush him to safety. The reason I included this video was that I felt it was an incredible sacrifice made by a journalist to bring the APPO perspective to light. I found this video similar to Robert Cappa's famous image of a Spanish Partisan being shot (http://www.westga.edu/~preinhar/Robert%20Cappa.jpg) as well as the image of the South Vietnamese Police Chief shooting a supposed guerilla (http://www.abc.net.au/southwestwa/stories/Execution_m931614.jpg) as they show normal people at the moment of death. These are not drawn out scenes, rather they are fast paced snapshots of conflicts and the deaths that they provoke. In other words, the photographer or in this case, the videographer, uses technology to fragment and preserve time into single or multiple framed images, freezing that death in time. I find this video particularly interesting on multiple levels, as Will films his own death. First of all, death is almost never recorded by the dying. Also, I find it strange that death would ever be recorded as it is, in my opinion a very intimate, personal experience. I also find it strange that such a video would be available online given its gruesome content. At the same time, that might just be the point. I mean Will was reporting alongside the protestors in an attempt to get a news story that was more gritty and real than the sanitized perspectives of the conflict provided by mainstream media types. The fact that he was shot and that that event was preserved on film represents the gruesome, violent nature of the conflict as well as the government's brutal reaction to rock wielding protestors. Any way you slice it, Brad Will's death was a tragedy and huge loss to the independent media community.

From seeing some of the media artifact presentations, it is obvious that most people either focused on the components of the Internet, or used the Internet to demonstrate their artifact. I think this is a clue to just how widely we rely on the Internet. Because a media artifact can be just about anything: a newspaper, magazine, photograph, etc., it was interesting that most everyone chose to do something on the computer. It seems to me that maybe about 10 years ago, if a group of students were faced with this project, they would probably bring in an actual newspaper or magazine. However, with our technological savvy skills we cannot only focus on many different mediums, but we can use technology and the Internet to further explain our projects. I remember the first time trying to figure out PowerPoint, it was a little annoying, but once understood it is very simple. I would have say that after graduating from college, most students probably know how to use PowerPoint, and can use it to its full potential. For our generation, we did not have the Internet when we were little, but we have been forced to socialize into it as we have grown. Throughout the years we have continued to gain further technological knowledge, and we will still continue to learn. Its crazy for me to think that younger generations will just simply have all of this knowledge, prior to their college experience. I believe that because our lives have not been completely embedded in the technology of the Internet there is still much room for us to criticize it and analyze it. I think it’s very important to understand just how these mediums are used, and to realize how they are influencing us. It is dangerous to accept everything as the truth, and I believe that by doing a project such as this we are really dissecting the true nature of these media technologies.

"This week, I got my collection of National Geographic magazines up at school. You are all welcome to look at them. Please look at them, they are beautiful. Don't cut them up. They are very important to me because I grew up reading National Geographics and having my dad try to work for them..." announced my friend Eric at a recent Slade house meeting, referring to the large boxes of magazines that he so kindly placed in our living room. I haven't seen either Eric or anyone else in the house look at the magazines some or which are from the sixties and seventies. Why the hell does he lug all this crap around I thought to myself. Granted Eric is a pack rat and his room is full of all kinds of random and unnecessary trinkets and curiosities, I think he has a pretty significant cultural attachment to the magazines as well. As Lutz and Collins note, White, middle class Americans used these National Geographic volumes to establish status, while also developing perspectives on the outside world. I think that Eric, a person who hasn't really examined the culture concept, is merely using his massive magazine collection as a cultural signpost for his level of culture and sophistication while trying to subsitute National Geographic's perspective of the outside world for more in depth study. At the same time, I think that Eric also values the magazine's aesthetic appearance over its content. In this way, he didn't want us to cut up his magazines, for fear that we would damage their appearance. Additionally, he has made numerous references to looking at the photographs, indicating that he is not interested in written content as visual content. This perspective plays to the idea forwarded by Lutz and Collins that the aesthetic appearance (sleek and glossy) increased the magazines legitimacy and visual appeal to consumers. Additionally, the fact that Eric found the pictures interesting partially confirms the idea that the photographs produced for the magazine were selected and arranged not to best represent those being photographed, but to appeal to Western consumers visual and cultural paradigms. Regardless of his associations and attachments to National Geographic, I just want him to get his shit out of my living room.

I have been thinking about this since we began talking about the Internet and virtual worlds. Let me tell you a story. I had my ballroom dancing final yesterday. I was a little bit nervous because I didn't remember some of the dances we had learned. How could I study? Aha! I realized, I could look at instructional videos on YouTube. So I did. I can't say they really helped much, but it made me reflect on some of our conversation. I wonder how expectations have changed, in many different arenas of life, but particularly in the academic world. The accessibility of knowledge has increased dramatically, and although some professors and topics of study require peer-reviewed scholarly literature, information about rapidly changing and developing current issues and academic studies is widely published on the internet in "gray literature", and opinion blogs. For my public policy class, my professor encouraged students to use this sort of information for studies of current public policy issues. This relates back to one of our first days of class when we discussed when we can believe what we see, read, hear, etc. This is sort of off the point, which is, how have expectations of students and instructors changed? Shouldn't we all be smarter because of all this information literally at our fingertips? Or have we just become lazier, and has the Internet, as we discussed, become a venue for marketing and entertainment?

Here's another function of the blog-

Are we still meeting on Tuesday to finish viewing the Media Artifact projects???

I found Andrew's presentation on the post to be incredibly funny and interesting. Being from outside New York City, I am quite familiar with the paper, and it is everywhere. I found it particularly interesting that the average income of the post reader was about 74,000. I think this doesn't mean that the Post is the better paper (although since I love gossip, I love the Post), but that it is so cheap. Most people in this day and age can check the news online, especially the New York Times, so why pay over 10 dollars a week (x4=40 a monthx12=480 dollars!) vs. the 1.25 a wee... which equals A LOT less. When people want to read on the go the post provides a cheap method, and then once people are home or at work they can hop on the lovely internet and look at other sources for the daily news. I agree with Andrew's comment that the post is easily read on the subway or a cab, its small, compact and easily fold able. Its cake compared to the origami of the New York Times. I enjoyed that people looked at our sources instead of the internet (I am looking at the internet... what a surprise), it really brought us back to the original form of media. I'm assuming we are all meeting tomorrow.... but you'll see about 10 more posts from me today from projects already presented. I really enjoyed having class with you all!

I got an email saying I received a trackback to an entry of mine for a while ago. I have no clue what a trackback is, but I decided that I would see what was listed on the trackback page. Well lets backtrack, here is a definition of trackbacks:
TrackBack is a feature of Movable Type (and Typepad) that allows you to let other sites know that you have linked to them, and lets you know when other sites have linked to you.

Learningmoveabletype.com claims that trackbacks are cool because it shows you what people liked your work and wanted to tag it. now... if we all go to the trackback section and see what was trackbacked you'd be creeped out. My entry on an advertisement was tagged for a Ritalin and the effects on the brain... maybe they are inferring that kids playing video games need Ritalin? What?

Luis' course description post has a trackback for xanex for sale. what does that have to do with xanex at all.

Continue looking... penis enlargement on a couple, xanex, hydrocodone. Now our simple posts are tagged on drug websites as well as penis enlargement. Im not sure how comfortable this makes me, and I don't think we would essentially want to be trackbacked to those websites. I leraned something new today...

Our class discussion on what the Internet is and what we thought it originally would be, got me thinking. I remember when I first heard it as a concept I was somewhat overwhelmed and confused. This was at a time when I remember having to type in codes to access games to play in “Dos” on my home computer. What a pain in the ass that was. I just remember thinking of how it was this vast ocean or “net” to connect us all over the world, yet I was perplexed to know how this could be done.
Yet what struck me most was the realization of what the Internet is like now, and what we had originally “intended” it as. One of my first introductions to the Internet was actually in Disney world, in Epcott, on the ride in the ball (which is the symbol of Epcott) as known as Spaceship Earth. It is one of the more boring rides, in that it is “educational.” A slow-moving cart takes you through the advancement of technology of communication through out the years. When I was young, the part of the ride that impressed me the most was where a child at one sides of the world was talking to their dad on the other side. Disney did a great job showing the blinking lights, which symbolized the information being send across the world and then showing the image of the child talking to their father on the other side. I was floored. I was not able to fully fathom what was going on. Yet in looking at the Internet now, one truly has to question is it about connections and making connections people to people, or is it people to businesses? The fact that I am bombarded by pop-ups, that I am constantly sent e-mails by that company I bought a t-shirt from 3 years ago, or every page I go to has blinking lights and dancing targets making false promises of ipods and phones, makes me think.
Last spring I went back to Disney. I wanted to go back on the rides that I went on as a child to “re-live the magic.” When we went back to Epcott I convinced my friends and my family to go back on Spaceship Earth. During the course of the ride, I was wondering how they would have updated it or changed it. When we got there, there was no line. Just the ramp of carts moving on and on with no riders, a pretty “happenin” place to be. Once we got on the ride, it proceeded to break down three or four times. At times I was even concerned with the safety of the ride, but considering there were no drops and that it moved less than one mile an hour, I didn’t get up. I sat there re-living what in my childhood had me in awe but now had me nostalgic and almost sad for the days when I could believe such things. While these animated moving manikins moved around, I thought about how this ride probably wouldn’t last much longer. Did Disney leave it up because it was a classic? Watching the child talk to their father on a “cyber camera” miles and miles away left me thinking of how that could happen now, but most people I know do not use the internet for that. It was an idealistic look at what it could be used for, but isn’t always. Just as the ride was breaking down, so is this idea of the Internet bringing people together. In our discussion I came to realize that just as the ride at Epcott was outdated and almost dilapidated, so was this notion of what the internet could be. No one was in line for this ride or this notion.

After we watched the clip of Reverend Billy in class, I decided that seeing his movie "What Would Jesus Buy?" might be interesting. So I... did that. Going into it, I was expecting a highly religious spin but was pleasantly surprised not to be overwhelmed with religiousity and fundamentalist viewpoints being shoved down my throat. Instead, this film focused heavily on the intense debt that the US has gotten itself into. It punctuated all of the information it presented with 'on-the-street' style interviews of Americans saying things like "I know I'm going broke, but I can't help it! It's Christmas (giggles)" or "If all my friends have it, it's not like I'm not going to buy it" or "Christmas is about getting presents." It was scary to see how people's mentality about spending money was so skewed by the fact they were celebrating a holiday and the movie noted that bankruptcy spiked after the holiday season. In this country, it seems that we want to celebrate and party and forget about the consequences - which is where credit cards come in. The movie talked about the huge credit card debt in the nation that is only getting deeper and deeper. Additionally, now that we're in the holiday season, stores are offering their own personal credit cards that can give you an extra percent off if you open an account. Basically, in the interest of "saving money," people are immersing themselves deeper into a culture that emphasized spending now and paying later. Terrifying.
This film certainly got its point across but had a decided lack of counter-points. It's hard to justify the debt we get into at Christmas, to be sure, but the film came across as somewhat lopsided in its presentation of information. Nevertheless, it was interesting and eye-opening and certainly worth seeing.

I felt this post to be very fitting today; those of you who may have seen me parading around this blog with the name "Ron Mexico" and may have not gotten my pop cultural reference. You may have perhaps thought it was a pornstar, or maybe something else. But with the sentencing of Mike "Ron Mexico" Vick today on counts of dog fighting, I feel as if I need to explain myself. Well, a few years back, Mr. Vick began visiting clinics to get treated for a VD, while living in the every growing media limelight of pro sports, Michael thought it would be a good idea to disguise his identity by using an alias. But we now know, because of his interests with dog fighting, that Vick is not the sharpest tool in the shed, he chose "Ron Mexico." He was of course recognized and a media circus ensued. People attempted to buy customized Atlanta Falcon's jerseys with Vick's #7 and the name "Mexico" on the back. I didn't stumble across this fact until later, when over this summer I was reading his wikipedia page after the whole scandal broke about his involvement in dog fighting. So to pay tribute to one of the greatest aliases of all time I chose it for myself.

But what's interesting here, is the role that media played not only in regards to Michael Vick but also in my ability to learn about this incident. It was over the summer when I was reading espn.com by the hour to check up on baseball news along with listening to sports radio every morning while I drove a van delivering mail for the University, when the whole Vick case broke up. I heard about it from radio, learned about it from the internet and watched it on TV. I decided to check the ever changing hot bed of trivial knowledge, Wikipedia, to learn more about who exactly was Michael Vick. This is when I came across the prior incident and in realizing the ridiculousness of this all and began to really think about it.

The media plays several roles in this little story; it was Vick's attempting to avoid it that lead to it coming back and biting him in the end (no pun intended). It was also media that lead me to it and informed me about it. It may not be quite as important as perhaps news coming out of the Middle East but it is still news nonetheless. So tomorrow when you pick up a newspaper, read an online news source or happen to be flipping through the channels and you see Michael Vicks face pictured, think about the overall power of the media and how you can never actually hide from it. If there's news out there someone's bound to report it and others are probably going to learn about it.

I thought Ray's presentation was both interesting and hilarious, and being an outsider to the world of both X-Box and Halo 3 I found myself asking questions about my own relationship with video games. I haven't bought a video game consul since I was a wee freshman in high school and wouldn't say that I am a huge video kid (aside from my old school Sega). I remember visiting my friend's houses and being perfectly content with them just watching them play. Then again one of my friends was a video game junkie and getting beating in everything lost its appeal after awhile. But even now I find myself completely disinterested in them. Well for starters I'm not very good at them, maybe my hand-eye motor skills aren't as advanced as some peoples but in a way I'm glad that I was never a huge video gamer (if that term is still relevant). I have had extended flings with certain video games, there was that period before I could drive when my friends and I would play PS2 on the weekend nights. But this was a social gathering, communicating with others not sitting alone in a dark room totally at the mercy of the glow of the TV. But I could also never bring myself to constantly dropping $50 on a new game.

So now why are some many young people (Jesus, I sound old) so attached to video games, whether it be Halo 3 or Guitar Hero? Is it the thrill of doing something that you know would be difficult in real life? Is it the escapist qualities of video games? Or perhaps the networking between players that we now have seen rise with the presence of the internet? While I know that it would be awesome to have one of those new fancy game systems out now, I'll stick with my Sega that makes me blow into the cartridges to make them work. I like reality too much, I guess is what I'm trying to say here.

I take that back, Second Life seems to be some cyber world inhabited by the lazy, the bizarre, socially inept and all others who can't find a functioning place in real life. This idea of a completely fictionalized community where you can be anything you want to be and do anything you want to do and say anything you want to say, is BS. People, get up and get out into the world. It much more rewarding, trust me. So maybe you can't chose the way you look in real life, hell I'm dealing with my flaws, you have to take the bitter with the sweet, eh? This whole idea of real money being used in a fictionalized world is just ridiculous. I'm going to spend my hard earned money on tangible objects, not electronic avatars, substitutes for the real thing. Like I quoted before were all dancing animals get out and do something. While I have not tired this, I know my dislike of video games, the unreal and other things that go against realism will lead to my subsequent opinion of this. Uh, quality over quantity, maybe I should take a break from writing so many blog posts in such a short time.

Some cynical conspiracy theorists believe that flu shots are actually a combined ploy by the U.S. government and high ranking companies in the consumer sector. Let's think about the facts; flu shots are only administered prior to the holiday season, they are altered every year as a way to sway consumer trends (the "elmo" strain released in '96 was exceptionally powerful and successful), and they are usually given to the elderly who studies have shown are highest spending demographic during this festive time of year due to the increasing number of grandchildren. All signals point to a plot to turn American's into mindless money spending robots who are also immune to influenza.

Upon searching senate documents from the period after the devastating Pandemic influenza of 1918, the administration under President Wilson managed to pass a little known provision allowing for government funding to be allocated to research into whether or not mind control could be accomplished through immunization. The bill called "The Olde-Timey Disease Prevention Act" was voted into law by congress in the spring of 1919. This bill also worked toward the prevention of: Rickets, Whooping Cough, Cholera, and Typhoid Fever. Considered overly successful in the work of eradicating these illnesses, the mind control possibilities were recognized early into the research but, because of the combination of the ravages of the great depression and the rationing of resources during WWII, the full potential was not recognized until the early 1950's. Combined with the economic boom of the post war society, the government able to administer mind controlling immunization across the socio-economic grid.

The technology only got better through the following decades and by increasing certain bacteria scientists and government officials could sway trends. It reached a high water mark in the early 80's with the cabbage patch craze around the holiday seasons. With increased tax revenues obtained in the past decades the U.S. government has been forced to keep this project deeper and deeper under wraps.

Don't believe anything you read on the internet. Who says you can't create your own media. I was thinking about submitting this to wikipedia.

A couple of weeks ago I was watching an episode of "Modern Marvels" on the History Channel which examined future technologies. During one segment, they showed new video/television technologies and I found some of these inventions interesting primarily because we spent much the semester examining and analyzing everything surrounding media on television (ad campaigns, PSA's, etc.) but more importantly these devices could help shape how media is consumed in the future. One in particular, the OLED display, is a basically a piece of plastic that can display images and video. This not only means that it is flexible (see link to video), but also that it can be utilized virtually anywhere without the fuss of dealing with a plasma, LCD, or any other flat panel display (these pieces of equipment are fragile and costly). The program talked about one day placing these OLED displays, in large scale, on the sides of building forming massive billboards. I thought about the implications of one day having advertising and media on such a large scale. Everything we learned about this semester, such as the interaction or culture with the media, would multiply. Walking down the street would not entail simply looking at a posted image on a billboard (in New Jersey, surely not Vermont), but being immersed in a digital surrounding. These displays can also be utilized in laptops making virtually anything that requires a screen more portable and lightweight. Something to think about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1buy3N_Fvsg&feature=related

I’d like to share a new development concerning one of my last entries about the writers strike. I read an article recently about how NBC, as well as a few other major networks, are reimbursing advertisers for not supplying the guaranteed ratings levels the advertisers were promised. The networks blame a new ratings system but anyone who has turned on the tube lately will notice that TV sucks significantly more than it did before the strike. The drop in ratings can be attributed to the lack of new material that has led many networks to endlessly rerun their most successful shows. This lack of written material has also led to an increase in reality programming which, despite the popularity of shows like American Idol, the average television consumer can only take so much of. These reimbursements average about $500,000 per advertiser, which multiplied by the number of advertisers, is a significant loss for the networks. Of course the networks problems are about to get worse as their small stockpiles of original scripted shows start running out. With the writers’ strike possibly lasting until, or even through, the spring, I have a feeling that the networks will feel enough pressure to give in to the requests of the writers. As I mentioned in my last entry, the networks are faced with a much different entertainment landscape than they were in the past. Television has lost some of its captivative power with the advent of Netflix and the popularity of television shows on DVD as well as on the Internet. Ironically, shows on the Internet and DVD are exactly what the writers are striking about.

With the media artifacts all wrapped up I have to say I am rather amazed at the different directions that everybody took this. From graffiti to Second Life, verbal presentations to Power Point, I think this project really highlighted the eclectic nature of media and how we can talk about them. I found it interesting that many of the presentations focused on some aspect of the Internet. While the Internet itself is a medium, it also provides almost endless opportunities for other media (Facebook, Youtube, etc.). It is interesting to note that the television ads that were presented were shown through Youtube or other Internet sites, rather from their original source, the television, which would be almost impossible. With all the potential of the Internet, it was also nice to see that some people stayed away from it and recognized the importance of other media. Just goes to show how diverse the media landscape really is.

While doing some research, I stumbled across this article which was... very relevant to our class. Here is the written description from the site I found it:
Information and communication technologies based on the Internet have enabled the emergence of new sorts of communities and communicative practices—phenomena worthy of the attention of anthropological researchers. Despite early assessments of the revolutionary nature of the Internet and the enormous transformations it would bring about, the changes have been less dramatic and more embedded in existing practices and power relations of everyday life. This review explores researchers' questions, approaches, and insights within anthropology and some relevant related fields, and it seeks to identify promising new directions for study. The general conclusion is that the technologies comprising the Internet, and all the text and media that exist within it, are in themselves cultural products. Anthropology is thus well suited to the further investigation of these new, and not so new, phenomena.

And here is the link if you want to check it out...
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085436

It's pretty good.

Two nights ago, I was watching a movie on TBS when I couldn't help but want to pull my hair out during each commercial break. I don't know if any of you have seen this, but Rachel Ray has a new holiday commercial for Dunkin Donuts. It's one of those commercials that consists of two separate commericals - one says one thing and the other says pretty much the same thing but a little differently (something about how you should make your holiday guests happy by providing them with dunkin donuts coffee). Here's the catch though - I dont' know if it was a network mistake or what, but during that one hour of television, this commercial would run during each commericial break but three times in a row. With two mini commercials for each one, that's Rachel Ray talking in her too-perky voice six times, saying "America runs on Dunkin'" each time. It was possibly the most annoying and nagging commercial i've seen in years. I wonder though - because of this obnoxious form in which the commercial was introduced to me, are they effectively gaining business by implanting themselves in my head? Even though the commercial does not inspire me in any way to throw on my coat and walk downtwon for a coffee, maybe now, by me telling you about this commercial, you'll be more alert when you see it on TV, waiting to see if it runs three times in a row. Is this a technique we can add to the persuasive-techniques list? Or is it actually so ridiculous that everyone will be on the same page as me after they hear this commercial at least twelve times in one hour?!?!

For some reason i've always had some desire to build a time capsule....mainly for the reason that i believe that when we look back at how life was we usually are not that surprised at how things have changed unless we have tangible comparisons. If we were to put all of the media artifacts into a time capsule and open them in less than 50 years we would probably laugh at how cool we thought everything was. And for some reason this scares me a little, because it just seems there is endless possibilities for technology, and this is a little frightening. During our generation there have been some really awesome discoveries and trends. Its really interesting to have lived to see the move from tapes to cd's to stealing music online (like napster) and to ipods. In only a span of about 20 years an entire medium of music has continued to change multiple times. How will we be listening to music 50 years from now? Hmm maybe there will be some chip that we just place in our ear, that reads our mind and knows exactly what we want to listen to. maybe not? I don't know, i just think its crazy to think how things change, and at the rate they change we often do not sit back and really think about them. I think in a way this class has taught us do this, to really contemplate the way media affects our lives and the way it is presented to us and in turn how we can present it in multiple mediums. Like our parents and our grandparents generation it is often hard for them to pick up on these new technology trends. Although its probably worse off for grandparents, my grandfather is still transfixed with the idea of internet and has pretty much given up on it. I think that for us, because we grew up in such a media-saturated world we will continue to stay on top of all new technology that's out there, so hopefully when we are like 60 or 70 we don't feel lost or out of it. As Luis said at the end today, as much as this was an Anthropology class it was equally a class of introducing us to all of these mediums and even teaching us how to use them. I think now and especially in the future most classes will become structured in a more media-oriented way, using the media in other ways for education besides just powerpoints....

All this discussion of virtual worlds and the meshing of online and real worlds has led me to reflect on the very real impacts of virtual reality in my life. My mom met my stepfather on an internet dating website seven years ago. For antisocial people like my mom this was a mighty convenient way to meet people. Also, I went abroad to Mexico, and while I was there I corresponded with my mom via email sometimes several times a day. These emails are like a diary, I can look back on them as a recollection of my experience abroad, comparable to Margaret Mead's letters home, which she used as a way of drafting her ethnographic research and reflections.
While I was in Mexico, I acquired a "novio", and when I came back home, we communicated using MSN messenger, webcams and all. The continuation of our relationship would have been unlikely without communication via the internet. It is quite hard to talk on the phone in Spanish...However, I attribute the fact that we spent more time communicating online than we spent in person over the course of our year-long relationship to its eventual failure. Interpersonal communication cannot, in my opinion, be cast aside.
I met a fellow over the summer who has a blog of his poetry, which I thought was very good and insightful, and he was somewhat of an inspiration to me. However, whenever he communicated face to face, these insights were masked by social awkwardness and fronts. I had also been writing poetry, and in jest of all those who use blogs and online communication as their form of social relationships, i titled it: interpersonalcommunicationisoverrated (.blogspot.com). So I now have an anonymous, permanent record of my cryptically disguised deepest inner thoughts and concerns. And I, like my friend the inspiration, will not choose to develop my ability to communicate these thoughts orally, because then I cannot edit them.

I've expressed my undying love for the tube before, but in the hours that I should usually be studying/doing work I usually find myself watching "To Catch a Predator" when ever it's on. I don't know what's so unusually interesting about this show but I've spent many an hour sitting around with my roommates watching the ridiculous situations that Chris Hansen continues to find himself in. It's in the details where I am most interested; the things like how they set up the sting operations, the fake screen names that "Perverted Justice" comes up with for their decoys and the final arrests that the local police make (on one episode, an officer dressed in a Gilly suit jumped out of the bushes to tackle a fleeing suspect, the suit might have been a bit much).

While I feel absolutely no sympathy for the men that get caught in these sting operations, but I read an interesting article regarding the publication and documentation of these men's very visual arrests. It said that it was more difficult for men to reenter society after their rehabilitative prison sentences because they have been so publicly identified and arrested (makes sense). While these men are essentially at the bottom of society's totem pole of upstanding citizens and rightfully deserve to be publicly humiliated; they also deserve a second chance. My neighbor happens to be a registered sex offender and living in a quiet suburban neighborhood, he has managed to regain some semblance of a normal life. While this man was publicly arrested (the FBI broke down his door with shotguns drawn and took his computer in as evidence), he was not publicly dragged through media mud. We all make mistakes, some more gruesome then others, but I guess my Catholic back ground has taught me that all people deserve a second chance in life after they fall. There was an incident on the show where an assistant district attorney in Texas was caught in one of these sting operations and subsequently killed himself. Now, jusitice should be served but if he has not been so publicly arrested, who he have killed himself? I cannot say.

But I also see the show as a way to inform and educate people about a growing epidemic of internet crimes. Before I began watching the show I had no idea as to what extent this problem was. It showed me that people, behind the masks of appearing as upstanding citizens, can have deep perverse tendencies. Maybe I didn't need Chris Hansen to shed light on this but it certainly made me more aware of it all. Essentially anyone can lead a double life on the web, unknowingly to people around him. These men could be doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers and the list goes on.

Well all I know is it makes for interesting television, and uses technology and the media in interesting ways.

I'm really surprised that no one has commented about the latest Radiohead album, In Rainbows. While the album's content continues the innovative sound that fans have come to expect over the past two decades, the way in which it was released is markedly different than their previous releases or anyone's previous releases for that matter. Having fulfilled their contract with EMI with 2003's "Hail to the Thief," Radiohead became one of the biggest "free agents" in the music market with numerous labels offering the band massive contracts. Instead of signing, Radiohead decided to remain independent, so that they could write, record, and tour at their own pace. Although band members had been writing and recording solo material during this period as well as band material, there was little indication as to when the band was to release a new album. Then, after almost four years of anticipation, Radiohead announced that it would be coming out with a new album. Fan's excitement was generally tempered by the fact that most thought it would take a couple months to actually be released. Then, a couple weeks later, Radiohead did something that hasn't really been done before. They sent out a message on their website saying that In Rainbows was going to be online within a couple of days and that they fans could pay what they wanted for the album, including nothing. Fans and the media responded almost instantaneously, spreading the word virally around the internet through articles, blog posts, and other clips. While the articles emphasized content, they concentrated more on how the album was released, asking how music is valued in the digital age while questioning the relevance of corporate media in the 21st century.
Like most of the fans, I downloaded the album and payed nothing, which felt really good. I like knowing that the artists want me to have their music regardless of cost. In my opinion, corporatization and commodification detract from the actual artwork itself, as they play up marketing and image over quality. Radiohead, with the help of the internet, has subverted corporate domination of the music industry by proving that bands do not need record labels to create hype or to distribute their records, as the internet allowed them to use a direct distributive medium to create buzz. Also, because many people have chosen to act outside of their rational self interest and pay something for the record (some have payed over $200.00), it shows that decommercialized distribution can provide decent income. At the same time, we are talking about Radiohead, one of the largest rock bands of our era. They can get away with this kind of thing because they have such a large fan base and because they don't care about making millions of dollars. To even suggest that smaller, independent acts could make any money doing this now seems like a bit of a stretch, but I don't think its too far off. More and more bands are deciding to forgo large records deals, instead chosing to produce their own records. I think that some fans even prefer this type of production to corporate controlled media, as these bands are generally not as large and image based as corporate media and they tend to focus more on creating really good music than making millions. In so doing they, like Radiohead, have made decent amounts of money. In this way, independent record distribution seemingly provides an economically viable alternative to the doldrums of corporate record production. I really hope that more bands follow Radiohead, hastening the decline of the outdated and unnecessary corporate noisemakers.

Considering the Google is possibly the most commonly used search engine on the internet today, the idea of Google bombing is decidedly disturbing. This concept was brought the public eye a few years ago, when someone Google bombed George W. Bush. At the time, whenever a Google user typed in “total failure,” the first result that they received would by the official presidential website.

Google bombing has been used by many groups and organizations as a way of manipulating the search results that uses receive from a Google search. It is a simple matter of manipulating the information that is input into Google’s PageRank algorithm, which Google then uses to determine what pages to output, and in what order. The George W. Bush prank is an amusing stunt, but what larger implications could this technology hold of the dissemination of information?

Thanks to Google bombing, individual people, equipped with nothing more than an internet connection and a whole lot of free time, can effectively control the information that we, the people, receive. What does it mean for our freedom of speech if this speech can effectively be masked by Google bombing? For that matter, what is the effectiveness of a search engine that operates solely on the popularity of a given website? From this perspective, it seems that Google does not exhibit necessarily exhibit the necessary characteristics of net neutrality. While all sites are given even ground from which to distribute their information, this level ground has the ability to be strategically manipulated in ways that may seem equitable. True, this analysis does stretch the definition of net neutrality, and there are probably no legal qualms related to the practice of Google bombing, but it certainly does raise some interesting questions regarding the fairness of one of the most prominent methods of internet media dissemination.

I found our class discussion about Facebook very interesting especially in regards to what qualifies as a person as a “friend.” It seems somewhat ridiculous, yet there are varying degrees of friendship. For the most part I generally accept people I know as “Facebook friends.” And while we make joke about how now we are official friends because we are Facebook friends, there is a reality to it as well. It is as if Facebook “legitimizes” the relationship by making it official. It is also interesting in looking at how many friends people have. I know some people that have around over 500 friends, while others that simply have 50. What’s interesting is what the number of friends a person means. A person with a lot of friends could mean that they friend everyone they meet, in wanting to make many random friendship or to seem “cool” or maybe they just really have 500 friends. On the otherhand people with few friends could mean that they have a ‘higher standards” for what qualifies as a friend, that they do not use facebook really or that maybe they do not have a lot of friends.
I also thought it was interesting to think about how on facebook we can “create” an identity that we want. We can be who we want to be. We can put up the pictures that make us look best, due to cropping and such. We can say what we want about ourselves even if it’s not true.
All in all in looking at facebook and examining it even more it showed me how funny of a thing it truly is. I always find myself laughing at how ridiculous it is, but then two seconds later seeing what is new on there and what is happening with my friends.

David Hoffman’s write-up was interesting because I was not really acquainted this issue before reading it. To be honest I learned a lot. There is a lot going on and there is a lot to consider. The impact that IFIwatchnet.orgproject has is important. As Hoffman states, “The added-value of IFIwatchnet to our work then is the opportunities it provides to promote campaigns of grassroots groups to a broader international audience, and to consolidate the experiences of other movements within one comprehensive framework.” It seems to be all about opportunities. Yet this is not just about just getting the message out there. It is about having an equal playing field for these opportunities which means English is not the universal language and is also shown through being aware that other areas of the world may not have easy access to the internet and electricity as well. In looking over the information one major thing stuck out in my head which was a point mentioned midway through. I wondered about people may not have easy access to technology. What are the actual efforts being done for them? What does an open-source web content system do and how is it helpful, specifically in regards to people who do not have easily available access to technology?

So I decided to watch the movie Playing Unfair: The Media Image of the Female Athlete. Being a female athlete I found it interesting to see what would be said about the media and its portal of women athletes. One statistic that surprised me was in the movie they say that while 40% of athletes they only make up 3-5% of the media coverage. It does not surprise me that women get less coverage, I knew that but what surprised me was how low it actually was reported to then be.
Another major topic the movie touched upon was how female athletes are supposed to be sexy. A male athlete can be simply good at sports and be considered “sexy” for that, but for a woman it seems beauty is valued more than actual skill. A guy can be an athlete and be seen as an athlete while a woman has to be good looking to in order to attract “positive attention.” Anna Kournikova is a key example. She receives tons of endorsements, yet has not really won anything. The movie argues that a woman objectifies herself more by posing in comprising was for such magazines as Sport’s Illustrated.
Another interesting concept brought up was called the “glass closet.” The glass closet refers to how in women’s sports there is homophobia and people are aware of it, yet it is not addressed. A woman may be gay, and it is known, yet it kept within this glass closet. This is due to “society” but also because of how women’s sports are for young girls and having this out would not be fit for a “family atmosphere.” An example they bring up Billie Jean King and how she was “outed.” Once she was outed she lost most of her sponsors. The movie claims that as a woman athlete we need to portray a wholesome image. The most extreme example of wholesome and having it all image was Chris Evert, a professional tennis player. She was really good, and decided to retire early to get married. Yet when Sport’s Illustrated put her on the cover they did so with a picture of her holding a racquet with the title, “ I’m Going to be a Full Time Wife”. I literally had to pause when I saw that. Instead of respecting her athletic accomplishments, she was being labeled as a wife. I found it somewhat disheartening and upsetting. Granted this happened quite some time ago, I find it sad that it even occurred.
Yet in regards to homophobia in sports, I did not fully agree with the film. While it is not easy for a woman to be gay in sports, I think it is equally hard for a man, if not harder. The image that a male I feel makes it harder to be gay in men’s sports. I feel as though men and women have to deal with this “glass closet” in sports.

I was intrigued by the presentation today involving the “To Catch a Predator” television series. When examining this series from the perspective of the persuasive techniques what we discussed for media analysis, it seems that this strongly exhibited examples of both diversion and simple solutions. I did some reading into both the television program, and Perverted Justice, the private watchdog group that NBC hires to actually catch the predators. While it is true that Perverted Justice as a solid track record of catching online predators and taking them to trial, their record is not so impressive when it comes to actual convictions. Apparently, the techniques that they use to actually catch the predators are not entirely legal, and violate the rights of the predators, who are then able to get their case dropped in trial.

If NBC was so inclined, I’m sure that they could consult with an attorney or two and get some advice on how to catch the predators in a way that would be more legally sound, and that might result in putting these alleged child molesters behind bars. However, if these changes were made to the show, it would undoubtedly lose much of the drama and sensationalism expected from primetime television. It is this drama that diverts the viewer’s attention, and prevents the audience from questioning what actually happens after the cameras are turned off. We assume that because we see the bad guy being led off in handcuffs, that justice is about to be served. This is the “simple solution.” In reality, criminal justice, and the larger issue of internet predation, is much more complex, and is not being effectively addressed by the tactics of the show.

NBC is willing to sacrifice the integrity of the show in exchange for a larger viewing audience. By using diversion, simple solution, and possibly even big lie tactics, viewers are fooled into thinking that the show is actually simply exploiting a serious problem for their own gain.

I wrote a little while ago about how individualized forms of internet media such as blogs and YouTube sites are rapidly gaining validity and legitimacy in the public eye. Well, I just found out, thanks to the New York Times (link below), that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been blogging for over a year. Given most American’s perceptions of Ahmadinejad, I think this probably comes as quite a surprise. Also, in a country where most things we hear from our own president must first come through an intermediary of a press secretary, it is shocking to me that Ahmadinejad is communicating so directly with the world.

The tone of the blog is often times much more personable than one might expect. Like any political blog, he writes small commentaries outlining his opinions on various issues. In a recent entry, Ahmadinejad wrote that “the purpose of running this blog is to have a direct and mutual ‎contact and communication with the viewers.” Readers are invited to comment, and he often responds directly to individual comments.

Personally, I think this sort of interaction is nice for a world leader to have. How often in the past has this sort of relationship been possible. True, it may be that his posts have been carefully crafted by staffers or PR people, but it does seem to be a legitimate outlet for the Iranian president. To me, this seems to be yet another recent example of blogs gaining more and more legitimacy in the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/world/asia/11blog.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

There are countless organizations devoted to providing aid to underprivileged people all over the world. This aid can come in the form of food, clothes, money, or even livestock. However, one organization that has received a lot of press recently is devoted to putting a laptop computer into the hands of every child in the world. The organization is aptly named “One Laptop per Child” (OLPC), and has developed a laptop that can be produced for under $100. A few large scale plans have been introduced to distribute the laptops to children. Nigeria has ordered one million computers, and Mitt Romney attempted to pass a bill that would provide a computer to every child in Massachusetts. This holiday season, there is a “Give One, Get One” program, in which shoppers purchasing a computer to donate to a child will receive a free computer for themselves. Currently, approximately 190,000 computers have been purchased in this fashion.

It is interesting that, given the ways in which this money could potentially be spent providing food, clean water, or other necessities, so many people feel that the money would be better spent on computers. Have computers reached the point in society where they are on a par with food, water and shelter? I feel like the primary reason behind this shift is the rising importance to global connectivity of the internet. It is now considered imperative for people to have internet access in order to be involved global citizens. In addition, the internet is one of the most common forms of media consumption today. In this way, this organization could be said to be indicative of an ideology which states that consumption of media is sometimes considered to be of comparable importance with consumption of food.

In looking back at our soundscape experience, it was a truly informative experience. I really enjoyed going all over campus and listening to the different sounds that each environments and atmospheres had. At times I felt really odd and out of place just standing there and not doing anything. I remember being at the library and standing by the computers and having people star at me because they were wondering why I was standing there if I wasn’t using a computer. I found myself pretending to be texting, writing something down or looking in my backpack to try and not seem so weird.
It was a very interesting experience in listening to the actual sounds of what our campus are. Usually I walk around campus in a rush talking on my phone or ipod. It was cool to take the time and notice what the “ambient” noises around campus are.
But to be honest the most interesting part of this assignment was how much I learned about myself. The fact that in the library I need to pretend I was doing something because of how out of place or uncomfortable I felt showed me a lot about myself. I was not alone in that other people in the class were checking the e-mail and using their phones as well. Why is it that we cannot just simply sit there and do nothing? What is wrong with me that I cannot just listen to the sounds of my environment? Is it that I am so used to multi tasking that I am basically too restless to sit around? I think it is deeper. Personally I think it has to do with the silence and not being ok with it. It’s the silence that I think people find scary. I think it could be the silence of being alone or the silence of our own thoughts. But to be honest I’m really not sure.

In the past, celebrities were chosen by the public for a particular trait or ability – acting, musicianship, athletics, etc. However, today online communities have made it possible for people to develop their own celebrity through nothing but their own involvement in these communities. For example, Tila Tequila became a celebrity based solely on the number of friends she has on MySpace. After she gained notoriety in the MySpace community, she somehow managed a mediocre modeling/music career and became someone known outside of MySpace. Recently, she landed herself an MTV dating show to make all other dating shows look like Masterpiece Theater. By some unknown reason, the show became inexplicably popular, and viola, Tila Tequila is a real life celebrity for doing absolutely nothing. What?

This same sort of phenomenon is also evident on smaller-scale virtual communities, such as the UVM Facebook server. UVM has its own variation on Tila Tequila: Vanessa Burke. Vanessa Burke is one of those names that is familiar to most UVM students, though most of them have not actually met her. We know her simply because she added us on Facebook. Now there are even Facebook groups devoted to discussing Vanessa Burke.

What is the nature of this form of celebrity? The celebrity is based in a world which is entirely virtual, yet the fame leaks into the real world as well. What does this say about our celebrities, if they can simply create themselves by spending hours adding friends on the computer and then receive a reality show? It seems like we might soon need to reevaluate our concept of celebrity to incorporate these new flexible and individually-controlled notions of celebrity.

I really enjoyed the thoughtful analysis in class of John Cage’s famous piece, “Four Minutes, Thirty-three seconds.” The main point that I took away from the presentation was the way in which Cage ingeniously employed the use of silence, or nothing sounds, as a way of encouraging the listener to hear all of the sounds around them. This reminded me of the exercise we did in class in which we sat in silence in various places around campus in order to observe the soundscape around us.

One of the things that I noticed when we did this exercise was the way in which familiar individual sounds transformed to become a soundscape. For example, the sound of a car engine and a generator would blend together and fade back and forth to create one continuous sound. Also, familiar sounds, such as a truck backing up, would generally be easily identifiable to me. However, when forced to focus solely on the sound alone, the sound became much more difficult to identify, even though it was very familiar to me. This is also an important quality for 4’33”. In order for people to hear the soundscape around them, they must be able to take the individual sounds surrounding them and weave them into a continuous sound.

The other thing that I noticed while watching the video of 4’33” was that just as the reactions of the other audience members played a pivotal role in the experiences of each individual audience member, I found myself observing the reactions of everyone else in the class. These reactions, I incorporated into my own experience.

I thought I'd post a blog about the media artifact in which I presented yesterday, mainly because I felt as though I left out information I meant to discuss. Firstly, I forgot to say what www.avaaz.org is about, it consists of 1 million plus members from every recognized country in the world. This illustrates that the Internet is an extremely powerful medium, if it weren't for the platform, how else would the group organize? The message of the advertisement is clear, demand peace talks in the Middle East, the producers get their message across from various techniques we looked at as a class over the course of the semester. I felt as though the use of group dynamics was a key piece in building group solidarity to "help the cause". The advertisement has over 1.5 million views on Youtube, a statement that people are interested in both the cause and organization.

Link to organization, various ads can be found: www.avaaz.org
P.S--> one of the ads combines Paul Wolfowitz and the Office (Hilarious)

I was flipping through a magazine the other day and came across very interesting ad. I have to say that this class has made me more aware of ads and I find it to be a lot of fun to look at one and dissect it into it main themes and techniques.

The company- Thermador, " An American Icon", the product- a super efficient oven, its tag line " the beauty of POWER". It features a women in her late 20's with her hair up in a scarf, wearing blue, collar popped, cuffed at the sleeve, her arm raised gripping the the oven handle in a "we can do it" attitude. sound familiar? it should. ladies and gentleman, i introduce Rosie the Riveter of our era. except this one doesn't wear overalls, but a beautiful gown with pumps.

I recognized the iconic image right away, it jumped off the page at me. I am disturbed that this once powerful icon of WWII had been made into a kitchen maven. Her once inspirational call to the women of the United States, "We Can Do It" has been turned into a cry from the kitchen aid market saying " Come on ladies, we can bake that ham in half the time".
Talk about raising morale.

For those of you who are unsure of who Rosie the Riveter was ( if you haven't stopped reading this to google her by now) here is brief explanation. Rosie was an ad campaign during WWII to draw women into factories, plants, and shipyards across the country. She actually IS an American icon

So, is this really a call to women everywhere? Has the kitchen become our call of duty? To serve from it while our brave men and boys leave home to wage a new century's war? Or perhaps it is only the doings of a clever advertiser.

To see the Thermador ad go here
http://www.thermador.com

To see and read a little about Rosie go here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter

In thinking about virtual relationships versus real life ones I went back to our dear old friend Facebook. On Facebook there is this application where one can play the game of Scrabble. It is addictive. I was sitting around my house the other day with some friends and realized that I was currently engaged in scrabble games with them on Facebook. Yet what I found to be humorous was the fact that at that very moment in that very room was the actual board game of Scrabble and we were not playing it. I was in an actual room, with actual people that I was playing virtual Scrabble with, yet when the actual opportunity arose to play Scrabble in real life, we opted out. I found this to be interesting. We actually started joking around about it, but the question arose in my mind as to why? Why didn’t we just play? Was it because it is easier online because the dictionaries and word verifiers were there one hand? Yet I realized that while both online and real life Scrabble were the same game, they had there differences. In “real life” scrabble you are there in the moment. It is more intense in that you must make your decisions in a timely manner. Also when I play with my friends we don’t allow the use of dictionaries, unless you are looking up a word that you already have and want to double check on it. Virtual Scrabble is more leisurely in that one can play at when it is more convenient for one to do so. You can pick it up and stop whenever you want to. You are more apt to get “better” words because you have more time and more resources so you end up looking better or smarter in the end.
It might mean nothing the fact that currently my friends and I prefer online to real life. It might just be a fad. Or it might be a reflection of where things are going.

I enjoyed Barry Barclay’s film Te Rua. It was a very interesting movie. I loved the way it was told as well as the messages it conveyed. The views were also amazing. I was not really acquainted with Maori culture and the issues concerned with it until this film. The issue of having museums return artifact to the original owner is not a new topic, yet it was done with an interesting twist. I loved how the Maori demonstrators took hold of the Berlin statues and held them hostage. It was an interesting perspective to flip the situation on westerns who were not used to being taken advantage of or being “othered.”
One line that really stuck out to me in the movie was how the museum needed their artifacts, their “congos” their “africas”, otherwise they were nothing, they were left this emptiness. It’s as though museums/western civilization needed an other to use as a reference to define themselves even more. They are essentially nothing without other cultures and artifacts.
Also in class we talked about the part in the movie where the Maori girl yelled a the news reporter, and told him that they would let them know the news when it was “our news.” I thought it was interesting because it was a show of power. A similar part was when the older white woman was talking to the younger one. The younger woman was upset that she was not invited to be a part of demonstration. The older woman consoled her by telling her that it is not their fight to fight. In both these scenarios there is the split where the Maori want to define themselves and fight their own fights their way. It showed the Maori taking hold of their situation rather than use the “people” who put them in that situation for help. They are taking their situation and in making it their own and solving it on their terms taking back the power that they initially been stripped of. It’s a powerful and influential move.

Daniel Miller and Don Slater’s article “Relationships” was cool look into seeing what other cultures view and use the Internet for. Personally I use it for more entertainment purposes, as well at times communication. Yet Miller’s and Slater’s perspective on the use of it in Trinidadian culture was interesting to see. The fact that the Internet helped to patch up the void that distance created when people left home is important. While telephones were always an option, the expense made it more of a special occasion type deal rather than a day-to-day one. With the email and the Internet, Trinidadians were able to maintain strong ties by talking with one another whenever one wanted more casually. The use of email not only allowed maintaining of relationships that pre-existed, but also make friendship with people that had never met. The most interesting example I found was the one where someone looked up there father online, and now thanks to the Internet maintains a relationship with their father that they had not known growing up.
One of the lines that I found interesting was from on of the interviews that they conducted. The questioner asks, “So part of being in a real relationship is getting into real issues?” The interviewee agrees. Yet this notion of the qualifications of a real relationship is established through value of the content versus proximity or distance is valid. What ones talks about is a vital part of the degree of intimacy and friendship a person has with someone. It all depends on how ones utilize it. Before reading this article I would have most likely argued that online relationships were secondary to “real” life ones. Yet after reading this, I realize that that is not necessarily so. Online line relationships can help solidify pre-existing ones, if not create new ones on their own. While in person may seem the better means of communication, the Internet is not as trivial as I had once viewed it to be in forming quality connections.

So I decided to write a blog about my media artifact. I’m not doing this is simply write a blog, but more so because in being sick I did not really have much of a voice and may not have hit upon my topic they way I had wanted to.
My artifact was the picture of two men in a field taking pictures. I found it to be an extremely interesting picture because to me it hit upon so many of the topics that we have been discussing in class. The first and somewhat more obvious one is the issue of subject. We have seen this theme touched upon in books and movies on how subjects are used to create an “other” or an exotic. To emphasize this point I decided to put a piece of white cardboard to in the picture to represent the emptiness or “hollowness” of simply being European/western has. Yet the white was also supposed to represent how pictures are just random and it is the photographer that decides what is important. What I love about the picture is while these men are looking into the field, right behind them is just as beautiful as in front of them. It shows that not only beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that pictures themselves are simply the perspective of the photographer. The picture may seem “honest” yet it is not in that no matter what the photographer has an influence as impartial as they may try to be.
With the tinfoil I wanted to represent the point of how pictures themselves show us more about the photographer and society that the picture is being taken for more than the actual subject itself. By taking pictures of certain things in certain ways it shows the ideals, values in that society it is being taken for. The picture is almost more honest about its audience than it is about the subject it is in fact of.
With the recording I found it to be fun and fitting and in the end decided to add it to emphasize the point of how we take from media not only what we want to, but also what w put in. I thought the songs match up with the whole picture explorer theme but also in that with a re-recordable button people can leave any mark as they so wish to leave.

In doing our reading I found it interesting when it referred to Jacque Cousteau and his many adventures. The way that these were staged got me thinking about the movie Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou by Wes Anderson. I love Wes Anderson and thought it was interesting to look back at the movie in thinking about it as a spoof of old time explorers. I found the movie to be really funny, but I realized that part of it had to do with the ridiculousness had to do with what these staged explorations were about. When Zissou is question as to what the scientific purpose of killing the endangered species Jaguar shark that killed his best friend was, he simply replied “revenge.” I may have laughed because this answer is absurd; it brings to light the issue of authenticity or scientific-ness of media. The fact that events had to be staged reflects that media producers felt the need to reflect something that may not be totally honest. And while some events may not have been the full truth, others were blatantly lies. The fact that movies made in the US in movie studios about an exploration did better than the movie filmed at the actual exploration says a lot about the value of authenticity. Yet it also says a lot about the purpose of media in the role it has in our everyday life. It seems sometimes people would rather be lied to and entertained, rather than bored with brutally honest truth. Is media supposed to tell the truth? It all depends on why one uses the media. It can do both. Media can do anything we want it too because we are what control it. We can make it what we wish. And while Steve Zissou makes claims such as, “It’s a documentary! It’s all really happening!” it causes one to question if a true documentary is even possible?

'Twas not so long ago you see (perhaps a year, or two or three)
I first learned of this thing: "anthropology"
it will get you nowhere! "adults" forewarned
I sighed a sigh, drawn out and forlorn
I'm already nowhere! I exclaimed, a cynic
(I'll tell you that much hasn't changed a bit)

Prof. Vivanco taught my first anthropology class
where I learned not to use the pass-
ive voice. It's evil! like Ruiz Ortiz
el mapache de Oaxaca, just ask Luis.

Que pasa? Que paso?
Que rapido pasa el tiempo.

And now I transition to another stage
I read the book, but not the page
that says you have to know what to do
to be financially independent at 22.

I digress! The point is this
it doesn't matter if all is amiss
and I don't know what to do at all,
because, I can just recall
what I learned in media anthropology
that on the internet I can be whoever I want to be!

I should have been an astronaut! A lesbian too!
Well by god, they've got a MOO for you!
I think I'll be a sailor! Or a UPS delivery man!
I'll play every part the best that I can

Until my identity breaks like a fragile vase
and the fragments of myself are all over the place
It's alright though, I'll glue them back together
but Elmer's doesn't last forever.
Plus I lost a piece in the corner over there,
and stuck in the cracks are nasty pieces of hair...

I guess it's probably a better idea to maintain a "real" identity,
and be part of a physical community,
where people use their voices, that handy evolutionary device
that could become obsolete like ice (when global warming strikes
which is a myth, by the way,
like erosion and terrorism and monogo-may)

Whatever. I'm done. It's over like Kevin and Britney.
But I will always love you, media of anthro, in the words of Whitney.

I'm in the library right now writing my last paper of the semester. My phone starts vibrating, so I check to see who it is, and the phone says that the caller number is 000-000-0000. um, what? I answer it, thinking maybe it was Sprint telling me I need to upgrade my phone plan or something. Instead, a recorded message starts playing. "Hi, this is Jake calling to see if you wanted to get your carpets cleaned for only $29.99......" I hung up and the problem was over but seriously? telemarketing calls to the cell phone? Is this going to become a trend? Is this normal? I'm so irked by the idea of telemarketers calling my on my cell phone that I suddenly feel like I want to chuck my phone at the wall. At home at least, the phone feels more formal - the people in my family don't feel the need to answer the phone all the time because really, it could be anyone. My cell phone however, feels so much more personal. 99% of all the calls I get are from friends and family, and those who aren't are usually co-workers or bosses and the likes. But now this carpet cleaner guy has my cell phone number and could potentially call me back anytime. Guys, please tell me this isn't a new phenomenon that's going to skyrocket until the telemarketing jokes are back in action but this time, referring to cell phones.

Sidenote: I just remembered a comic I saw one time in which a guy is sitting on the couch watching TV and his wife is on the phone. She's saying to him, "Honey, it's a telemarketer. He said if you're not busy right now he can call back some time when you are." WIth the phone call I just received, I'm feeling a little too empathetic toward this kind of situation. ahhhhhhh.

One of the main characteristics of the virtual worlds of the internet that we discussed is the ability for users to create their own identities. But what I think is just as interesting is the fact that within the anonymity of the internet, users can choose to have no defined identity at all. Perhaps no identity is not the right way to describe this. What I’m referring to are the horrible things that people will say online that they would never actually say in real life. Go read through any discussion board on a popular Facebook group or YouTube video to read some of the most disgusting and hateful thoughts you will ever see. If you really want to ruin your day, try a race-themed discussion.

I suppose my question is this: with one person expressing two distinctly different personalities (one online and one offline), which is their true self? Are they truly as angry and hateful as they seem in their online posts, and this side is just repressed by the conventions of society? Or rather, are they in reality kind and accepting, and something about the internet brings out these hateful tendencies? That said, is there actually a difference between these two possibilities?

This is something that has been bothering me for a while, because it is frankly disturbing to think that the authors of these comments living among us. Another possibility: could it be that people with these socially unacceptable beliefs seek out these online communities to express themselves, and it is for this reason that they are seemingly overrepresented? I don’t know. It scares me.

One of the common techniques of advertising that we discussed was the ability of an ad to be disguised so that the viewer would not know that they were watching an ad. Well, this just happened to me. Ages ago, I saw this video on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XH7p3xWyv7g&feature=user
It shows a girl being given a car for her birthday, then proceeding to throw a tantrum because it wasn’t the right color. The video is hilarious (and tragic), and I was just watching it again when my friend looked it up on Wikipedia and discovered that the entire thing was staged by actors as an ad campaign for Dominos pizza. Apparently, there were sequels to the video made, in which the girl finally gets the right car, then sells the old one on eBay for $9.99. In the last video, she announces that she used the money to buy a Dominos pizza. I’d totally been had.

But seriously, what an interesting idea for an ad campaign. And how appropriate, given today’s media climate. It’s typical of advertisers to use particular cultural trends as a canvas for advertising: graffiti ads, the Nike swoosh shaved into the back of heads, etc. In the age of YouTube, why not disguise an ad as a YouTube video? It’s really brilliant, I have to admit.

While I’m on the topic, I have to give a nod of the head to probably one of the greatest efforts in subliminal advertising ever carried out: the Boston Mooninite Scare. If you forgot, this was when this past January, people placed little LED displays around Boston of that character from Aqua Teen Hunger Force around Boston. People saw them, thought they were bombs in a terrorist attack, and freaked out. The whole city was on full alert for a while until they figured out that they were just harmless toys.

You have to admit, this is brilliant. Stupid, yes. Careless, yes. Selfish, definitely. But really, it’s genius. Aqua Teen Hunger Force was this little cult TV show on cartoon network that no one had heard of. They could have shelled out the money for advertising if they had wanted to. Or they could have just staged a fake terrorist attack and get the series discussed on every news program on every channel for the next two weeks.

As much as I hate watching ads on TV, I really do have to respect these new and creative techniques. I’m very curious to see what comes next.

So my friend just invited me to a group on facebook called "Amazing New Way to Lower Gas Prices!" I checked it out and i thought it was a bit of a stretch but i decided to join just because i really am frustrated with gas prices and they are costing me an arm and a leg. But get this - if you check out the group (http://uvm.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2408671448) be sure to read the bottom link under the discussion posts, the one called "amazing new idea to pay more for gas." right now, there are about three guys who are in a HOT debate over god-knows-what. I havent' read through their conversation entirely but it seems as if some little comment against this group spiraled into a heavy-weighted discussion on political groups and american failures. They have gotten to an extreme level of name-calling and angry sentiments which totally took me by surprise. They appear to be from different states and most likely will never meet in person. I find it crazy that they are having a full-fledged political debate that is being broken up in awkward time stops because they can't just talk on top of each other or scream, but they have to wait for a reply, and then type their own, all the while thousands of people are intently "listening" in on this conversation. It's another one of those things about facebook - good because it allows us to expand our experiences and connections with people, or bad because it just allows mre possibility for negativity and tense social connections?

I found the presentation on cooking shows to be fascinating. I personally am a huge fan of Top Chef. I am kind of addicted to it. But I have never really sat down and tried to analyze why this is so. I just figured it was because I was a fan of food and cooking and wanted to try to learn some tricks on how to become a better cook. Yet in thinking about it more critically I came to the realization that was more than just that. In thinking about it deeper, I realized that the comfort I feel in watching cooking shows may also to be to fill a void. Not simply the void of how I myself do not cook and rely on frozen and easy to prepare meals. I also am filling the void of distance from my family. At home there are always meals being made. I have a large family so preparing meals in my house takes help from everyone. It takes the whole family helping to make the meal all come together. It usually is my mother, sister and myself, but sometimes by my complaining about how it should not be a woman’s job to be in the kitchen draws in my dad and brothers. When I am at school I miss it. I miss the Sunday night meals my family does especially. I miss the aroma of foods being prepared. It gives a comforting sense of being “home.” In watching these cooking shows I find that I am partially doing it for the entertainment aspect, but also for the fact that I miss home and my family.
Another major interesting part of the presentation was the concept of “gastro porn.” I had never heard of that terminology and was really interested to learn about it. I had never really thought of food in that sense. All in all I learned a lot from the presentation and would love to learn more because of how fascinating it is as a current topic. Nice job!

In doing our media project on ipods it got me thinking about ipods in general. While with our podcast we let the data “speak for itself”, with our video we took a different approach. We did little skits based upon the data we collected through our podcast. We ended our video posing the question of whether or not if ipods formed bubbles or not. Personally I love my ipod. It gets me from place to place. I agree with a lot of the people we interviewed who enjoyed their ipod because it was like a soundtrack to their life. It kind of is. My ipod gives me that extra needed boost when I need energy or that “chill” song that I need in times of relaxation. It makes the day that much better, not to sound like an apple ad or anything.
Yet on the other side, wearing by my ipod I am aware people are less apt to talk to me and vice versa. It essential does cause little “bubbles” of isolation where conversation that normally would take place, do not because we are blocking other people out with our ipods. I have had instances where I would have yelled over to a friend, but there were too far away and I realized that they were wearing an ipod, so they would not heard me anyways. It is interesting when one is standing on the corner waiting for the bus or waiting for the light to change, but no one is talking to one another because we are all wearing ipods. While it may not mean anything, yet I feel as though people are viewed as being isolated and somewhat insensitive when they go around wearing ipods all the time. When saying insensitive I mean that they do not care about others or the world around them because they are ignoring them due to listening to their music.
Yet I feel, as though the next question is, are bubbles a bad thing? Do they prevent relationships and connections? Or if a relationship was a real or true one would a simple piece of technology prevent it from being made and continued? One could argue that true friendships are above an ipods bubble of isolation. I am not sure. All I know is that I enjoy listening and using my ipod. Yet sometimes I enjoy walking around a just listening to my surrounding environment.

I decided to do my last blog as a reflection on blogging itself. All semester long I have read the blogs, but had somewhat of a fear of posting. I always wanted to make sure what I put up wasn’t stupid and that whatever I said I said it properly. Looking back on it now I feel a little ridiculous for feeling self-conscious about it because everyone else had to do it as well.
In class we discussed the difference between classes at school and ones taken online. I think what stuck out to me was the different between verbal words and written words. I feel as if people are more careful with written words because of how long they last. Written words are a lot more permanent than something that someone has said. Spoken discussions are a lot more of a free flowy environment because people can say what they want. With written words, every word that one says is important and we are held accountable for. I think a major fear I had and many others do has to do with accountability. We are held more accountable when we write things because of its permanence. I think that this concept to had to do with my fear of posting. Even though I could edit my blogs I felt that it still had to be up to standards because it was being viewed.
Through this blogging experience I have learned a lot. I got over my initial fear and apprehension of writing them and posting them themselves. On another level I learned a lot from everyone else in the class. Not to be overly corny, but it’s an amazing what we can learn from one another. We all have so many different perspectives and interest that we all bring something unique to the table. I have thoroughly enjoyed this experience and have learned about a lot about technology. I learned the major issues and theories as well, our final and most current one being net neutrality. I feel as though the most important thing though I have done is in conquering my fear of blogging, taking it by the horns and completing my last one. Thanks everyone for making this a great experience and Happy Holidays!

If you have any remaining blogs and/or comments to submit to meet the course blogging assignment, today is the day to wrap them up and get them posted. The cut-off time is 5pm.

You can keep posting -- I hope you will! -- and visiting this site in the coming months to keep conversations going, report interesting course-related finds, etc.

I really enjoyed the newspaper cartoon that mentioned how that drunken picture of you on facebook will last forever. It was incredibly amusing, and witty. I have heard that peoples facebooks are being looked at by companies, graduate schools, and authoritative powers. I'm not sure how I feel about this, it is a high grade background check. Essentially, you could be a drunken mess in your spare time as long as there is no photographic evidence. If you drink all the time, but then on facebook there are only pictures of you smiling and enjoying life, then companies will be more inclined to like you. However, when that picture shows up it automatically seems like you're a drunk and need assistance. There is this one group of facebook ways to know if a girl should go home, and girls post pictures of themselves wasted, peeing, throwing up, flashing, etc onto the group. Do they not realize that they could come back to haunt them? In addition, when did it become so "cool" to put it out to the world that you drink excessively and make a fool of yourself? I'm fairly certain that this would not go over well 40 years ago (if the technology was available). I think people have to be informed and make better decisions. If the reason I didn't get the job was because of my facebook pictures, I would be: #1 angry, #2 embarrassed. I don't want the world to know everything about me.... there is no need for it.

On November 21, Lexus began it ad campaign for the holiday season. To celebrate the "December Sales Event," the ads feature giving Lexus vehicle as gift and all contain a family presence and the symbol of the big red bow. One in particular, called "Hockey Practice" caught my attention: "In the spot titled, “Hockey Practice,” a husband and son surprise the wife/mother with a brand new Lexus adorned with the red bow. The husband tricks his wife into thinking that he is unable to pick up their son from hockey practice. When the frustrated wife steps outside their home, she receives the surprise of a lifetime—a Lexus for the holidays." I found it interesting that they used themes like "the frustrated wife" which is usually not depicted in commercials as warm and glamorous as those other during the holiday season. Usually everything in the commercials is "picture perfect," and in this, there is disappointment in the husband on the part of wife. Also, it plays on the theme of "plain folks" in that rather than being "picture perfect," it shows a realistic example of what could happen in real life. Sometimes during gift giving, there is disappointment, or in revealing a gift, things go wrong. This commercial encompasses those themes.

(link)

I'm not usually a fan of People magazine but when I'm standing in line at Rite-Aid and everyone in Burlington seems to be standing in line in front of me, I think to myself, why not? An interesting story on the cover dealt with Jennifer Love Hewitts recent weight issues. Photographers caught her on a Hawaiian beach celebrating her recent engagement. "They could not have looked happier, holding hands, kidding around the whole time". But the media had to ruin it all by calling her 'obese' and coming up with the catchy phrase: "We know what you ate last summer, Love - everything!" The company that got the photos of Love in a bikini and invited people from all over the world to comment on their blog. There were a variety of responses, ranging from "It's nice to see normal" to "time to put down that fork". The online comments that drew the most attention came from a very upset Lovet, who showed the world through her online blog, that she was proud of her body and very happy in life. "What I should be doing is celebrating some of the best days of my life and my engagement, instead of having to deal with photographers take invasive pictures from bad angles....Like all women out there should, I love my body". It's a little surprising to see that Hewitt took time out of the "best days of her life" to comment on a photographer's blog. Hmmm.

I usually don’t find MadTV skits very amusing, however, this one touches both on the way technology is used and social commentary about the war. In the technology segment, Michael McDonald who satirizes Apple creator Steve Jobs goes on to introduce the typical Apple products: the iPod, the Macbook, iPhone but then spoofs the iMicrowave, the iVacuum and lastly the iRack. This first part plays on the consumption of culture and way we value these products as essential to daily life. It’s basically saying that we need Apple to create products that fit in to every part of our lives. The skit then goes on to comment on the war in Iraq by using the iRack as a medium to do so. It mentions that we are putting too many resources into the war and the situation there is unstable. While I currently cant pull more quotes from the video (the internet is very slow at the library, so much for Net Neutrality… thanks Comcast and Verizon), the skit is very well done and clever.

MadTV's iRack

I recently came upon a very funny youtube video that Andy Dick had cleverly put together about Bush's impeccable ways of speaking to America. This short video puts Andy Dick in the position of "Speech Writer" for President Bush. At the beginning of the video Bush is shown saying his incredible statements like, "Families is where our nation takes hope, wings take dream" and "If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything". I just thought I would provide all of you with this interesting spin on presidential speeches AND also a friendly reminder of just how dumb our president is..just incase you forgot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_RSQSYgGB4

The U.S. military has been caught editing sites like Wikipedia and Digg -- an issue that demonstrates both the dilemmas of "truthiness" (Colbert's on-target analysis of wiki sites -- that truth is easily manipulable -- as well as the power of netroots groups like Wiki Leaks to expose such activity. See the article here

2006 marked the 75th anniversary of the famous Coca-Cola Santa Claus. This kind, jolly man in a red suit was featured in Coca Cola ads since the 1920s. Coca-Cola representatives believe this image of Santa is what has shaped most of the world's view of what Santa really looks like. Before this generic image of Santa Claus was brought out into the advertising world, there were extremely contrasting views on what this magical man looked like. The image of Santa ranged from big to small and fat to tall. Santa even appeared as an elf and looked a bit spooky. In the 1920's, Coca-Cola began featuring artist Haddon Sundblom's image of Santa during the Christmas season. At this time, many people thought of Coca-Cola as a drink only for warm weather. The company began a campaign to remind people that Coca-Cola was a great choice in any month. This began with the 1922 slogan, "Thirst Knows No Season", and showed a very happy Santa, sipping back an iced cold coke. I remember seeing Santa Claus on some coke cans my friend's family had recently bought at the store. Not being a huge fan of coke, I was surprised when I felt the urge to grab one. Maybe I wanted to feel closer to Santa, maybe I was just thirsty. Who knows. Another ad campaign that Coca-Cola put together in 1993 was called "Always Coca Cola" and featured the kind mother and child polar bears, running around in the magical world of the arctic, sipping their cokes. Again, this image of a freezing climate and snow was correlated with the need to drink a nice cold drink. How does this make sense? Do we as consumer ever think, hmmmm maybe a cold coke really wouldn't be a good idea right now, considering its 20 degrees outside...and remember how it rots your teeth and leaches your bones of calcium? If Santa and the polar bears are drinking it, then we all should be. Right?

So... I'm taking a History of Christmas class, with one of the countries "Christmas experts", Stephen Nissenbuam. I am currently finishing my paper on nothing other than Christmas presents and their depictions through advertisements. After spending hours in front of a machine looking at microfilm, and staring at ads through computer bases, I have realized that even in 1820, Christmas advertisements were everywhere. While the gifts you could purchase were much less complex, they were advertise for people to see. As Christmas became a more industrialized and consumer holiday, advertisements changed with the holiday. Advertisers would attempt to sell anything for the holiday (for example: Buy your wife a fridge cause you're going to have to buy it eventually!) and the size of the advertisements increased. Instead of having 40-50 ads on a page, one Christmas ad would take up a 1/10 of the page. Now in 2007 ads are on the television, internet and take up full pages in magazines. The media has taken Christmas and ran with it. But its partially our fault, but we are now heavily drawn to holiday media, and love it.

In response to Luis' post... are we really surprised that the military and the government is editing websites like wikipedia? It sounds pretty distressing to us, however, isn't that what wikapedia is all about? People are suppose to read it and edit it to their knowledge. We are suppose to go and edit it ourselves. We have to decide what is the truth and what isn't. Furthermore, more and more people are realizing that wikipedia is not a good source of information, and shouldn't be taken for face value. Therefore, stop going to wikipedia, research stuff yourself, and figure out the truth then. I know that professors that refuse to acknowledge Wiki as a source, and it shouldn't be. Its great we can work together to edit something, but things get skewed in the process. Reject wikipedia, and lets get back to real sources, and real education.

Now that i'm posting 10 entries in a row, I thought I'd mention guitar hero. My roommates are OBSESSED with guitar hero in an unhealthy matter. Guitar hero is a daily part of their lives. I do not really understand the appeal of the game, but I do not mind watching them play. However, guitar hero is not only a game, it has its own soundtrack. My one roommate Travis downloaded the soundtrack and comes out and tells us " This is my favorite guitar hero song!" Yes, he has a favorite guitar hero song. I love that a company can make such a success out of the game, and i asked him why do you enjoy it, your not even playing a real guitar. Trav told me that when you are playing and seeing the buttons and moving your finger it really feels like you are playing a guitar. Then i asked him why doesn't he just learn to play a real guitar... and he said he didn't have the time. Essentially guitar hero gives people the satisfaction that they are musicians, when really they aren't. However, it is their reality.

Katherine and Nick's presentation was great, and I find the idea of a symphony of silence to be a wonderful idea. Since I have played the violin for 10 years I understand the concept of playing music and being part of a larger production. In addition, I have been to many symphony's and know that sometimes you get so lost in the music that you really miss the point and the real meaning behind the music. I believe that the silence shows us that we do not necessarily need all the pomp and stance to make a point. Today people believe you need to be the loudest, grandest to make a statement, but sometimes that leads to your message getting lost in the process. Silence forces you to listen, and brings the point home.

As I'm studying for my finals, and working on my papers I started thinking about our discussion of online classes and power points. My roommate is studying for his psych test with the power points the teacher posted on line. He has attended only a quarter of the classes, because the power points are posted and there is no need to go to class if he could just read them in his room. I mentioned this point during our conversation that technology has hurt the education system. With the use of power points i truly believe class attendance decreases. The class I TAed for this semester had about 100 students in it, and since he put all the power points up he had an attendance policy of about 50 people. It seems that students really do not think its worth to go to hear a teacher read off the power point. Maybe we have to evaluate the use of power point, and maybe, just maybe.... the chalkboard is better.

On my last blog-
I just wanted to tell everyone that I really enjoyed having class with each and every one of you. I believe that this was a very important class, and people need to have media literacy. I feel that we are often so manipulated by the media, that we need to know what they use and how they use it against us. I never knew about net neutrality before this class, and that is so incredibly important. I strongly believe that net neutrality has to be in existence because without it we are being censored.

I really hope you all enjoyed the class too... It will be weird not watching youtube videos in class. However, a lot of the things we learned I have already passed on to my friends and family. Thank you Luis for teaching a class on this topic!