journalism.media.blog

2007-03-03T18:17:00.000-05:00

(Journalism: Editorial Cartoon)
Commercialism

2007-02-23T01:08:00.000-05:00

(Communication Technology: Newspaper Article)
The Changing Face of Communication: Connections Through Wires

     It’s 2007. I’m sure many people vividly recall the scare that was the new millennium. Will the world end? Will the sun explode? Or will my hard-earned computer simply crash? Back then, it wasn’t assumed that every household owned a computer and it was extremely uncommon for ten-year-olds to own their own cell phones. Oh, how the times have changed.
     Years ago, we were all wow-ed by the revolutionary technology that was the cellular phone, but now, we rely on technology for most every -aspect of our lives. There is no doubt that the convenience of communication has drastically increased with the advent of new, twenty-first century technology. However, does the utter convenience of communication through email, MSN, text messages and social profile websites (think Facebook or MySpace) reign over a good, real, face-to-face conversation? Through this technologically enhanced form of communication, we miss out on facial expressions and body language, and these components may be just as important as the conversation itself.
     According to a national 2003 poll, the majority of high school students use instant messaging software such as the ever-popular MSN on a daily basis. We all know by now that instant messaging is a form of real-time communication between two or more people based on typed text.
     Now the question is, just how often do we rely on technology-based communication to interact with the people we care about? I’m sure we’ve all heard of break-ups through emails and text messages. It seems that as a society, we have come to rely on technological communication as a basis for human interaction. Not only that, but we have come to rely on digital communication as our primary form of communication.
     We have become satisfied with instant message conversations to exchange real, intimate, information about our lives. This does not simply apply to strangers and internet predators as is seen on the evening news, but even more so to our friends and the people we may even see on a daily basis. I’m sure it is quite clear that confiding in another person through instant messages and other forms of technology-based conversation is much easier than doing so in person.
     A text message, instant message, or email allows a person to take more time thinking of what they want to say, and though this is convenient, it is not something we are given in real life, face-to-face situations. Some people take courses online in order to avoid face-to-face interaction. These people can feel empowered through technology-based communication. Technology provides people who may not be comfortable speaking their mind with the ability to hide behind a computer monitor or telephone. However, this factor of convenience should not become something we are accustomed to.
     In the past, even the use of the telephone caused concern. People thought that it wasn’t a good way to communicate. But now, the telephone is a very normal form of communication, and communication itself seems as if it has become colder. I personally think that technology - now ranging far and beyond the telephone - has contributed to the deteriorating communication as a principle. I pass by a room where I know my thirteen-year-old sister talking to her friends, but I don’t hear any conversation. There is no comfortable silence between friends. Instead, I hear the clicking of the keys on her keyboard and the “ping” from the speakers as she receives instant messages from a dozen of her friends. When I ask her why she doesn’t just call them, she simply replies, “It’s easier.”
     As a society, I think we are in the midst of forgetting how to really communicate in a genuine manner. The initial goal of communication through all our new technology was to provide an easier way to connect. But ask yourself this – are we really, truly connecting?

2007-02-20T21:49:00.000-05:00

(Communication Technology: Question #3)
Media Mashup

     The concept of “hybridity” is something which I experience in my life on a daily basis. A hybrid is essentially something which is a mix of more than one thing. Such hybrids can be found throughout contemporary life.
     I have an email subscription to Nylon Magazine’s newsletter, and upon checking my email one day, I stumbled across the word “hybrid” in one of my many messages from Nylon. Immediately, I thought back to the media seminar about hybrids and creating my hybrid portrait. In the email newsletter I received, I was being informed of a new “art-bar hybrid” called GalleryBar opening in New York City. At this new bar, a person can browse the debut of artist Kevin Berlin’s “Slaves of Fashion” exhibit while taking in a drink and a snack and later posing for a picture in a vintage photo booth. This space, as the name suggests, integrates the workings of both a bar and an art gallery.
     There are many other examples of hybridity in life, and in my daily life in particular. A popular example of hybridity in my life is my cell phone. It can be used as a phone but also as a clock, calculator, calendar and recording device. Another example of a hybrid is a hybrid car. It uses both electricity and gas to run, and not only is it convenient and less costly on gas, but it also works to help the environment. Hybridity is everywhere. If you think about it enough, I myself could even be considered a hybrid because I am a girl, but I am also a student and a daughter among many other different roles.
     Hybridity in technology is very prevalent today. In our society, functionality has become a key aspect of life and people today are concerned with having things at the utmost convenience, so what’s more convenient than making numerous tasks possible just through the use of one handy gadget?

2007-02-19T23:51:00.000-05:00

(Communication Technology: Question #5)
Computer Animation vs. Traditional Animation

    When asked whether I prefer traditional hand drawn animation or computer animation, it is hard to come up with a justified answer. Although I respect computer animation and think that it is very visually pleasing, I ultimately prefer traditional hand animation.
    I know that while traditional animation is considered too time-consuming and labour-intensive, computer animation is also a lot of work, taking considerable time, effort and most importantly talent. It is not a simple task to illustrate characters using just a tabloid or mouse and a computer screen.
    However, I believe that with computer animation, animated films have lost some of its "magic." It is clear to see that the most popular animated Disney films such as the Disney Princess movies, like Cinderella and The Little Mermaid for example, were made during a time when computer animation had not yet been introduced. Many of the Disney films that have been created using traditional hand animation are now considered "classics," and I don’t think that this is something that can be achieved through computer animation.
    As technology continues to revolutionize the world, it does not look like animators will be moving backward towards computer animation and therefore the classic animated picture will become a thing of the past. A few years ago, the film "Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within" was created based on the popular video game. Yet, this film was unsuccessful. It is said that this lack of success stems from the highly realistic animation of the characters. People do not want to watch animated films to see images that mirror life perfectly – that’s what actors are for.
    Computer animation is useful and visually pleasing, but being someone who has a difficult time drawing, I have a great deal of respect for traditional hand animators. The process is long and time-consuming, but I think the final product, with all the little details that can only be achieved through hand animation is more satisfying and long-lasting.

2007-02-19T22:39:00.003-05:00

(Communication Technology: Open Question)
Are Wii the Children of the Revolution?

    On December 8, 2006, Nintendo successfully launched their newest video game console. It has since received much hype, and is said to be a technological revolution. What makes the Wii stand out from the competition - namely Sony´s Playstation 3 and Microsoft´s XBOX 360 - is its wireless controller. This controller can be used as a handheld pointing device and detect motion and rotation. Essentially, a person can play video games such as tennis on the Wii using the controller as a racquet. The Wii truly brings gamer-console interaction to another level. The video game player is no longer controlling the action onscreen with just their thumbs, but instead, they become part of the action.
    Some say that the Wii has the ability to "democratize " gaming for people of all ages and ability. To an extent, this is true. Nintendo has released the statement, "Wii sounds like ´we´, which emphasizes that the console is for everyone." The Wii, through its interactive system targets people that do not necessarily hold video games as a prime interest. Because it is so interactive, the Wii can be fun for anyone no matter devoted they are to video games.
    Now, is the Wii a true technological revolution, or just hype? Without question, the Wii has received a lot of hype. The system is considered to be a technological revolution, but in my opinion, it is just another step for technology. Just a few years ago, the Nintendo GameCube and the first Sony Playstation had come out, and gamers were raving with excitement. This just goes to show that as years pass, new technology will continue to be introduced. While the Wii´s technology is incredibly innovative, it is to be expected that another newer, even more ground-breaking technology will hit the market in a few years time. Ultimately, I think that the Wii deserved all the hype surrounding it because of its ingenious interactive technology. It has not created a complete revolution, but instead has contributed greatly to the transformation of video games and the way they are played.

2006-12-18T13:40:00.003-05:00

(Journalism: Question #2,4)
Fraud, Lies, & Photoshop

    Reuters, an international mainstream news provider featured a photograph of a bombing in Lebabon on August 5th of this year. However, through the use of photo-editing software such as PhotoShop the photograph was manipulated to exaggerate the smoke billowing over Beirut.
    In my opinion, this practice is both unprofessional and unethical. Many people trust Reuters to be a trusted news source but through their photo-manipulation they are manipulating the truth. There are certain instances in photojournalism where it is appropriate to use Photoshop. However, this was not one of those instances. I feel that it is appropriate to use Photoshop to edit images only if such editing does not change what people perceive from the photograph. Small changes like adjustment of brightness, contrast or sharpness would be acceptable if it meant that the initial message of the photograph remained unaltered. Personally, I find that digitally editing a photograph can enhance the message of a picture, but there is a limit as to how far photo-editing should go. Photojournalism should not be edited in Photoshop when there is a possibility that the editing may distort the initial message. The point of photojournalism is to convey some sense of truth, but by editing this photograph, Reuters denied the public this truth. Essentially, a news provider like Reuters should not be publishing lies.
    Reuters is an international, mainstream news provider. Unfortunately, I do not think that an incident such as this will have a large impact on Reuters’ reputation. I think it is likely that an incident such as this instance of photo manipulation will be overlooked because it was not concerning a hard-hitting news story. I think it is very interesting that a blogger was the first to uncover the story. This says a lot about the public’s ability to perceive and think about the information that the mainstream media is providing us. It is important for us to have the ability to dissect information presented and decipher truths from lies such as this. This article definitely sways my view of mainstream media versus independent media. It reminds me that the information being presented through mainstream media may not always be the entire truth, and that I have the right to question the validity of a story. This past summer, a family member of one of my friends was a victim of a crime. Before this, I had not known to what extent the media can distort a story. While I was hearing the facts of what happened from my friend, I was still reading news stories which greatly exaggerated the truth or even made up quotes of my friend’s family members to place in articles. I think that independent media especially recently through the advent of blogging technology can hold a great power in presenting the public with the real, whole truth.

2006-11-16T20:55:00.000-05:00

(Journalism: Question #7)
Photocopied Politics

"Putting out a zine, any zine, is a political act. Whether it's the high school kid who does a zine about Sloan, or the collective's newsletter advocating environmental awareness, both are reclaiming what was essentially theirs to begin with."
~ Hilary Clark

    I completely agree with the words and message of Hilary Clark. I agree with the idea that putting out a zine really is reclaiming something that was an individual´s to begin with. In putting out a zine, a person is publishing their ideas so that they are heard. If I were to write about how I feel about a television show within my own zine, I would be releasing my opinion to the world about how this television show affects the world around me and myself as an individual.
    It is important for people to take a look at what´s out in the world and develop their own ideas about it instead of simply accepting what´s being spoon-fed. Through the creation of a zine, a person is not simply regurgitating the information in other media publications - they are making something of their own. This is what really makes it a political act. Most zines are made because people don´t see content they really want in existing publications. Many magazines aimed at girls of my age group are filled with millions of advertisements and superficial content like articles about clothes, boys and useless (though sometimes entertaining) celebrity gossip. Seeing this, people take action and find their own method of real, meaningful communication for themselves through the creation of a zine. This content of the zine is therefore filled with issues and concerns of interest to the creator and the people they know. The zine this person creates becomes a media form that people can relate to on a more personal level because they can know that there are no subliminal tactics involved - nobody wants you to buy a certain product or watch a certain movie.
    A zine is a political act because it is a form of free speech. People who create zines are essentially getting their own message across without the censorship that people see in the magazines out on news stands. Instead of letting corporations tell them how to think, zine creators lessen the power of these corporations through their own self-expression. A person expresses his or her own voice apart from what mainstream society is feeding them through the creation of a zine, thus reclaiming what is theirs - communication.

2006-10-15T18:43:00.000-04:00

(Journalism: Question #5/6)
Seeing RED: Bono's (RED) Campaign

    Bono, the lead singer for the world-renowned Irish band U2 has recently launched the American version of his RED campaign. The Nobel Prize nominated rock singer has been involved with humanitarian work for the past twenty years, taking part in the Band Aid, Live Aid and Live 8 projects. (PROJECT) RED was started by Bono and Bobby Shriver of the Debt Aids Trade in Africa organization. Its goal is to raise funds for the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
     The (PROJECT) RED brand is licensed to various big-name corporations as their global partners. Such brands include Apple, Converse, American Eagle, Motorola, Gap and Giorgio Armani. Using this logo, each company is creating a product with the RED logo. These manufactures have pledged a percentage of the profits from sales of these products to AIDS programs financed by the Global Fund. The (PROJECT) RED brand has already raised about $10-million since its launch early last year.
    The Gap is selling a new line of RED t-shirts made in the African country of Lesotho from African-grown cotton with half of the profits going towards AIDS organizations supporting women and children. If you happened to walk into The Gap during the weekend of October 13th, you may have noticed the many signs for RED and the flyers saying that a t-shirt can change the world. Gap was also selling cookies and cupcakes bake sale-style with 100% of the profits going towards AIDS research as well as red rubber bracelets similar to the Livestrong bracelets which had been popular a couple years ago.
    On May 15, 2006, Motorola as (PROJECT) RED´s exclusive wireless partner released a new special edition (PROJECT) RED Motorola SLVR cellular phone alongside its RED brand Motorola RAZR. Being launched in the U.S. in October, the new product is only receiving a two-week promotional period, though it has been highly publicized in Britain. From the profit per phone, up to $17 goes towards AIDS
relief. Despite the fact that these phones are merely red–coloured versions of Motorola´s old cellular phone models, they sell for a $30 premium in comparison to older models and are being advertised as designed to eliminate AIDS in Africa according to the Motorola website. U.S. Cellular COO Jay Ellison says, It´s a new colour, there is going to be strong demand for that colour. So, if the idea of saving a child in Africa suffering from AIDS doesn´t work to promote sales, it seems the new colour of the product will.
    Essentially, with Bono´s RED campaign companies are incorporating consumerism with humanitarianism. In today´s society, we are very aware of the low quality of life and the AIDS epidemic in Third World countries, yet it appears that there isn´t a great deal we can do about it from so far away. However, with RED, corporations are providing people with an opportunity to get involved by simply buying a t–shirt, cupcake, cell phone, or other material item. (PROJECT) RED is aimed at the conscience consumer. In a statement about the campaign, Bono said, "The idea is simple, the products are sexy and people live instead of die." I find it interesting that he is able to put this so simply. In actuality, the world doesn´t seem to work quite so easily — "Buy a t-shirt and congratulations, you just saved a life!" In my opinion, it seems that this campaign may just be taking advantage of the consumer conscience, making people feel guilty about the AIDS epidemic in Africa so that they will buy a product they do not necessarily need. To me personally, it seems morally wrong for these big corporations to use AIDS as an added incentive for consumers to purchase their products.

2006-09-15T20:41:00.000-04:00

Here's to Something New...
Hi, I'm Maegan Fidelino and this is my blog for Journalism (IDC4U1) and Media (TGJ4M1). I wanted to write a nice little introductory post, but I'm really not sure of what there is to say. I'm pretty excited about both of these courses, especially journalism because it seems to incorporate two things I really enjoy - media and writing. I'm hoping to learn a lot from both courses and try out new, different things. It should be fun...
Also, you may be wondering why I decided to make the Blogspot address for my blog 'vibrant wreck'. Basically, I like that it's sort of a contradiction and I couldn't think of any other name due to my lack of decision-making skills =)