There's Music on the Net and I Have to Get it Out

One area that has been completely redefined by the internet yet not really mentioned in class is music and the music industry.  While TV may have killed the radio star, by allowing bands to share music and advertise online there is more variety in music available today than perhaps ever before.  Bands such as Ok Go owe their sucess to the nature of viral videos.

As a musician, I find the internet as an excellent tool for various aspects of creativity.  Sites such as Pandora Radio are great for listening to a variety of music, Myspace has come to redefine itself as a place for band to create profiles and share music, and sites such as iTunes have become the primary sellers of music to people.  One thing in particular that I like is the availability of guitar tabulature and sheet music.

There is a great variety of tools and services available for musicians.  While there was, and has been much concern over the state of the music industry it has become more apparent that the internet has, more than anything, helped musicians than hurt them.  It is easier today to advertise and sell music than ever before, the creative tools available are staggering, and people can collaborate on projects acorss continents.  It is a bright, musical future for us.

Calling all Friends, Calling all Friends

People have been using creative ways to rally each other since the dawn of time.


As the internet has proliferated the lives of many a citizen  of the world, a new form of activism has emerged.  Using social media such as Facebook, demonstrations can be planned, organized, shared, collaborated, and executed on a scale impossible before the tools of social networking.  A flash mob is one such example.

According to Wikipedia a flash mob is "a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and sometimes seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment and/or satire."  By most definitions a flash mob is harmless.  The intent is purely for amusement and entertainment. 


Yet this is not the limits of social media.  Protesters in Egypt were able to organize groups of thousands primarily using social media and text messages to stage simultaneous protests across the country in January.  The government cut off all internet connections in response to this.  The effect was an almost immediate cutoff of all information flowing to and from Egypt.  New stations around the globe were in the dark as to the events of the country, and speculation was rampant.  However, the internet shutdown might have helped facilitate the end of president Mubarak.  Crowds swelled as outrage grew.  This is probably one of the first cases of an revolution precipitated by the use of the internet.  It is a brave new world to see how such a form of mass communication will be used for political purposes in the years to come.

Journalism

Journalism is the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues, and trends to a broad audience. Although there is much variation within journalism, the ideal is to inform the citizenry. Besides covering organizations and institutions such as government and business, journalism also covers cultural aspects of society such as arts and entertainment. The field includes jobs such as editing, photojournalism, and documentary.


 Unmentioned in this article is the intent of journalism.  While Wikipedia may do a good job of describing what journalism is, and at least the ideal of what it is, journalism seldom lives up to this ideal. 

A goal of any media is for it to be viewed.  While most networks do a good job of informing, it is selective and many times trivial compared to more important, but less easily televised issues as President Obama complained today in a press release.

The point is that there are two components to journalism: the ideals and dictionary definitions, and the actual "business" of journalism.  What makes an informed citizen is someone who understand media agenda and bias, and is willing to investigate issues on their own.  This is what media literacy is about.

Just a Movie

Is anything just anything?  It is human nature to analyze things but there isn't always meaning there.  A great example is the show Lost, which often uses plot devices episodes back to lead on the the next arc, and at the same time will throw in red hearings and seemingly significant details for nothing.

The difference is that movies are only on average two hours long.  Each detail is combed over for effect. I recently watched the film Source Code.

   
Without giving away too much of the plot there are several details that are specifically put in place to help tell the story.  There is a capsule, which malfunctions and helps show the frame of mind of the main character.  As a movie that goes back to the same point in time, every detail and event is repeated dozens of times in several takes.  It is amazing when you think about it how how the continuity is kept in tact while still progressing the story.  Small details are later investigated, leading to the crux of the plot.


One thing that being "just a movie" is about are moral implications.  Many an action hero has gone on essentially murderous rampages yet because this person is a "hero" it's somehow OK.  There is one controversial decision made in Source Code that has received media attention fairly recently.  A character is found in a vegetative state, and a decision is made whether to pull the life support.  This is a case where a moral argument, where some thing is  a little more than a movie is present.


There is no such thing as an uncontroversial thing.  Every decision, every action is a choice, and for each there is a moral statement made.  Movies portray characters making choices, and often there is a reason for it all, there is almost always a point, some obvious, some buried.  From the stories of the bible to Aesop's fables storytelling has always had a moral component.  Morals commentary and connotations are simply the nature of the beast in movies, or anything else.

Don't Judge a Book by It's Webpage

Go read a book.  No really, read a book.  Try some Tolkien or "Treasure Island" for a change.  Dr. Sues doesn't count.  I'll be here when you get back.


Okay back?  Yeah I knew you weren't the type to listen to what people say anyways.  Moving on, Internet Literacy is a different animal than English literacy.  The internet was created for the very purpose of rapidly relaying information from one user to another.  This has permeated its design and function in every aspect.  By contrast a novel is to be digested. 


A short story, a poem, a book, or other piece of literature does not intend to convey information easily.  There are forms to be observed; rhyming, alliteration, dissonance, consonance, meter, etc.  There is a plot to be dissected, characters to analyze, hidden meanings to interpret, and allusions to find.  By all means, a book or a poem is not an easy thing.


In one these "book smarts" refer to a type of art: it is poignant, it is meaningful, it is controversial, and it is not easily understood by all, nor do they interpret it the same way.  It seems disingenuous at first to make this comparison, because at a certain level English skills (reading comprehension, grammar, syntax, writing, etc.) are truly essential for people to interact in our society.  But there is such a "higher English" that i am referring to: there is an art.  This perhaps is a small part of the controversy and may help many understand those people who simply "don't get" English and do not appreciate it.  It almost seems trite to say, "Art is never appreciated."


Thus in this context we understand the New York Times Article by Motoko Rich. There exists a sort of "literate elite" that abhors the thought of the garbage of internet speak and unorganized and the sporadic thought process of browsing.  They think that this new form of literacy won't help anyone understand Hemingway or Chaucer.  The truth is: they're right.


Any form of written or symbolic communication is literacy.  Yet as communication serves different functions, so does literacies.  An internet forum will not help an individual develop a comprehension of "Treasure Island" (unless of course it's a forum on comprehending "Treasure Island").  What the person is more likely to develop is rhetorical and interpersonal skills; he/she will learn how to reason, debate, and collaborate better with others in writing.  Something that has all but disappeared since the advent of television has begun to return, the written debate (I of course do not pretend that a majority of these "debaters" are rhetorical geniuses, rather the opposite in fact).  The internet serves a variety of functions that books cannot do to the very nature that the internet is more than just mere text, it is links, audio, pictures, text, and video.  Thus people have creatively utilized these capabilities to communicate with each other.


In conclusion, Internet Literacy is a new form, independent of the old form of written literacy.  Both are important, each uniquely in its own sphere.  Proper English skills are still very much valid in for an idividual to communicate and interact in a professional environment.  On the flip side, much of Internet literacy is an informal, or common, form of communication.  Increased internet usage does not cause a decrease in literacy as may be implied.  A better culprit would be our educational system, parents, and cultural standards (correlation does not imply causation).  No form of literacy shall disappear in the short, or even long term.  What we will see is a greater emphasis on Internet literacy and its function as communication, with acknowledgment of how it evolved from the old standards of written communication.

Video Story

I'll Psych You Out in the End!

Everyone likes a good joke, or mystery, or drama, or crime, or romance, or obscure eighties and nineties references.  Well, for me at least, more of the latter.

Psych is a television show about the adventures (and often misadventures) of Shawn and his friend Gus.  After calling in a tip (for reward money) after viewing a newscast, Shawn is brought in for questioning by Carlton Lassiter, a hardball detective, who is convinced that Shawn must be involved with the crime he solved.  Shawn, who was trained by his father (a career cop) to be the perfect detective, using his hyper-observation and photographic memory to convince the authorities that he is in fact psychic. One 45 minute adventure (plus commercials) later, Shawn is running a psychic detective agency with his unwilling partner in crime, Gus.


There are various steroetypes and tropes present in the series, often for comedic effect.  Shawn Spencer is the classic screw up.  He's charming, brilliant, but lazy and unmotivated.  Burton Guster acts as the perfect foil to Shawn's inanity.  Gus is reserved, responsible, and a little stuck up and humorless at times.  There is a great cast of supporting actors too.  Juliet is a part time love interest part time fem fatal.  Carlton Lassiter is the egotistical, alpha male cop who is just as dedicated to his job as he is socially inept.  Shawn comes from the stereotypical divorced and dysfunctional family. His father is authoritarian and always disaproving of Shawn's actions.  After all, he spent all of his time trying to make Shawn follow his footsteps into being a cop, only to have Shawn rebel against him.  Shawn's mother is as brilliant as she is removed and distant.


One of the great things that the cinematography of the show captures is the back and forth of the characters.  As seen in the link, the focus of the camera is on the eyes.  This is before the viewer even realizes that they are engaged in  a staring contest.  The shifting back and forth between each person only raises the drama.  There are other various small touches that add up.  Close ups of fist bumps and other body language, shifting to a profile shot for the delivery of snide comments, and highlighting objects in a closeup that are key clues to the story.  There are several layers of self referential humor ("I solve a case about once a week and another around Christmas and Thanksgiving" -Shawn)  and running gags.


Overall what makes the show work is the quirky humor and the strength of the actors.

Sell it to Me

Some times what makes an advertisement effective is doing one thing and doing it well. That is what makes this particular advertisement stand out.   There are no characters, an nondescript setting, and the only actors are the mechanical pieces of the Rube Goldberg Machine.  Like looking at a clock, what grabs the attention of the viewer is the complexity and movement of the pieces.


What sells the product is the one line asked by the narrator at the end, "Isn't it nice when things just work?"  and the text "Honda" at the end.  These two small things tie into several cultural biases with just a few claims.  It is implied that just as everything perfectly worked in the Rube Goldberg, so too does a Honda.  Hondas are known for their reliability amongst consumers and this commercial conveys this cultural bias.  This simple and direct message is effectively conveyed in this commercial.

Realistically Biased

"Pretense becomes reality."


                             -Chinese Proverb


The crux of postmodern thought is that what an individual decides for themselves as "true" is thus for all rhetorical purposes true.  What this means for media is that what ever a a source of media shows an individual is what that individual will think of what reality actually is.  As secondary observers, their opinion of any event or story is only based upon what is told to them.  And what is told to the audience is the crux of what good storytelling is in fiction, and unbiased storytelling in non-fiction.

Reflexivity is anything that reduced the audience's belief in a film.  For movies this is what makes it believable.  For a specific fiction to be believable it must have rules that it follows, though not necessarily those that govern the real world.


For example, in Star Wars it is taken for granted that certain people have the abilities of a Jedi.  They can jump to extreme heights, deflect a laser beam with a flick of a lightsaber, and levitate objects.  The only explanation for this that the audience is given is that these are the results of "The Force."  Really this is all that is sufficient for the audience to believe this. 

Yet if someone were to lift something with the wave of a hand in a serious drama the spell would be broken, and the audience would suddenly be aware that they were watching a movie.  For an audience to suspend their beliefs a story must follow a set of rules.  These may not be the rules of reality, but they are rules (with exceptions).

Garbage In: Garbage Out

"Garbage In: Garbage Out"

Thus summarizes the thoughts of my mother on media consumption.  Yet this is somewhat of a simplistic description of her thoughts and philosophy.  As the oldest of three children I've witnessed not only my mother's rules and practices, but also the growth and development of my siblings and how media and other outlets have affected them.

In comparison to many of my peers the controls and restrictions that my parents have exercised have been fairly light in comparison.  Depending on academic performance and behavior t.v. time was allowed on weekends and occasionally during the week.  Video games were tied to t.v. time.  Computer usage was less restricted, although a distinction was made regarding computer games which, being video games, were regulated as such.


The restrictions on content were treated much more strictly.  For the most part they've use the rating guidelines to determine what we watched, but depending on the movie we were allowed to see more "mature" content.  As far as television was concerned my siblings and I never had much of an issue.  The reason why I believe was because our parents would watch t.v. with us during our favorite sitcoms.  They never watched cartoons with us, but those were mostly harmless anyways.


It's hard to criticize your parents, but all in all I think they did a good job.  I feel that their influence always superseded that of media and was a voice of reason in the noise and chaos. 

Media Conglomerates

Since 2006 there have been eight media companies who control and provide a great majority of the news and media that people receive.  These companies are Disney (market value: $72.8 billion), AOL-Time Warner (market value: $90.7 billion), Viacom (market value: $53.9 billion), General Electric (owner of NBC, market value: $390.6 billion), News Corporation (market value: $56.7 billion), Yahoo! (market value: $40.1 billion), Microsoft (market value: $306.8 billion), Google (market value: $154.6 billion).  Each conglomerate also controls many subsidiaries.  Many unique insights may be gained from observing the good and bad aspects of media conglomerates.

Disney is one of the primary examples of a media conglomerate.  It is composed of the divisions of Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, Disney Music Group, Disney-ABC Television Group, Walt Disney Theatrical, Radio Disney, Disney Interactive Media Group, Disney Consumer Products, and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.  Disney’s subsidiaries are Pixar Animation Studios, Marvel Entertainment, Playdom, Tapulous, ESPN, ABC Inc., and A&E Television Networks.

There are several benefits to these large corporations, especially in the case of Disney.  By bringing together the resources of several divisions, a media conglomerate can market and sell a product more effectively and in more ways than if each division acted alone, and no company does this as well as Disney.  Whenever Disney’s writers come up with the next big thing, every division will be selling a piece of it.  There will be a movie, a TV show, songs, a theatrical version, toys, and maybe a ride at Disney World or another park.  The benefits of a well organized and effective company is what allowed many corporations to grow to their size in the first place.

It goes without saying, however, that there are many problems, potential problems, and abuses that may or do result from the oligopoly of media conglomerates.   


“Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility” 
                                                                   --Ambrose Bierce, Devil’s Dictionary


There are certain faults to large companies, and ones specific to media corporations.  News sources rarely report on themselves and even less so in a negative light.  For example; ABC, which is owned by Disney, which manufactures toys, would probably hesitate to report about child labor being used to manufacture toys in China.  This is further complicated when several CEOs sit on the boards of not one, but many companies.  The worst aspect, perhaps, is that in large profit driven conglomerates, real news and journalistic integrity takes a backseat compared to the almighty dollar.  More so today than ever before, our “news” is often a form of cherry picked, and near manufactured entertainment.

When looking at the good and bad aspects of anything, it is especially important not to become too cynical.  Often we give too much credit to the dark, intentional, machinations of men and too little to the slippery slope of indifference, forgetfulness, and incompetence.  I do not propose that Disney or any company is intentionally manipulating the American public for nefarious purposes, but I am not bold in saying that many a wrong has been committed, many a truth manipulated, not “done in those ‘sordid dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint” but with a small sigh, an utterance of “just this once” and “it’s not that bad.”  What media conglomerates are today are organizations of people, with human virtues and failings, and it is by those aspects of humanity that they act as forces of good, evil, and of things that are neither.

Semiotics

Semiotics: noun.  a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics 


Stereotypes can cut both ways. It is natural for humans when observing something to describe it and relate it to something they know.  But in relating, in categorizing, in stereotyping, people can show their ugliness and darkness.  Yet there are many people who deliberately chose to be stereotyped.  For example:

What would most people think about this man?  He's wearing a jacket and tie buisnessman and has an exspensive watch.  Most people would say he's a buisnessman, someone who holds authority and wants people to know that he can buy that watch and those cloathes.

Bikers right?  But how did you know that at first glance?  Was it the pins, hats, jacket, or beards?

Yet semiotics goes further than what people are wearing.  Body language plays a large role in what other people perceive, what signs they portray.  From the crossed arms, furrowed brow, and stuck out bottom lip you can tell that this girl is very upset with you.  This is a universal gesture, children do not need to be taught to pout, but many other gestures we use are learned and only apply to our culture such as the fist bump:

Here's another curiosity:

What does this mean?  If you're from the United States, you may not. This is the running man, an international sign for an exit.  Knowing this, it makes sense, and every aspect of the design was well thought out and debated.  Yet it never caught on here; for some reason the idea of our sign is so ingrained in our culture that we simply assume that anyone will recognize it, even though people live here who can't speak or read English.  It is because of semiotics that his isn't going away anytime soon:

Digital Native

Whenever I hear the term "digital native" i am reminded of a scene in An American Tale where all of the fresh immigrants pass through the customs house on Ellis Island, taking new names and in one sense, stepping from the Old World into the New.  You could see in their eyes the excitement, the apprehension, and the fear.


"I do not repeat DO NOT text nor do I receive text messages" says a recent Facebook post from my grandfather.  Yet in the same household my grandmother has been gushing about her new iPad she got this Christmas.  Funnily enough I don't remember any episodes where I truly felt that there was a "technology gap" between me and my parents.  Rather I've only really seen this with my grandparents, and it has been my parents who are explaining such "simple stupid" things such as changing the settings on a cell phone.  Might parents could perhaps be considered a prototype for the digital native.  My father is somewhat of a techno-phile who always kept his cell phone and computer up to date and is the best I've ever seen at pacman.  My mother, an accountant by degree, does what I can only assume to be black magic in Excel.  

Consummate Digital Native

As a digital native I've been well versed in the culture from an early age.  Perhaps it has something to do with inheriting the brain of an engineer and accountant, but I've always "got" technology.  Yet also I have some perspective of the proliferation of digital devices.  It was a big deal in elementary school when we got a computer lab.  I remember simple math games where we students had to solve multiplication problems to keep a cowboy from falling off a bucking bronco.  It was a strange feeling going to a middle school that wasn't ready to attempt to integrate new technologies and ideas of learning.  Their feeble attempt to show some type of "progress" was to put us in their computer lab, where the first thing a student learned (after how much "Type to Learn" sucked), was how to ALT+TAB between whichever game website wasn't blocked and what we were actually supposed to be doing.  In contrast to this high school was some revolution of beauty and light. Now every paper was required to be typed, double spaced, and perfect MLA format.  Teachers emailed and used powerpoints.  There was one exception to this, I wonder, like sometimes soldiers were with their guns, math teachers are buried with their overhead projects, especially with the way a few of mine clung to them so.

What is Media Literacy

"When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook. Some noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear. Students have been assigned to write Wikipedia articles as an exercise in clearly and succinctly explaining difficult concepts to an uninitiated audience."
     --From Wikipedia's article about Wikipedia  (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)


For most of human history "truth", the information that the majority of people accept as factual and real, has been defined by authorities.  The kings of old wielded their power deftly and absolutely; If by royal decree you, a peasent, were forced to move because the king declared your farm infertile, no protest would save you.  What the king says trumps what you say, you would be forced off your land no matter who's opinion was closer to reality because the king's was excepted and acted upon as "truth".  With the brief emergence of democracy and republicanism in antiquity, and its resurgence in the 17th and later centuries cultures saw a different type of "truth", the world defined by a few.  Though many societies were democratic, they were still hierarchal, and not every voice was heard.  Scholors, writers, inventors, doctors, and politicians held an aura of authority beyond the layman.  Also, it took money, time, and resources to create media such as newspaper and organize rallies and events.  The chasm between the layman and authority seemed only to grow with the invention of television and mass media.  In the U.S. the ogliopoly of NBC, CBS, and ABC served to create a soapbox of unprecedented porportions, yet the flow of information was in the hands of these few corporations, their trustees, emplyees, and owners.  While not neccesarily insidious, no organization that is not composed in entirety of the people can serve to voice their needs and opinions.  With the innovations and opening of the internet to the public in the 90's this changed.  In two decades a single person, armed with a voice and an internet connection can reach billions with his/her message.  With the dissolution of traditional media authorities (especially newsprint in the U.S.) we in the digital age have reached the logical conclusion of post-modern thought, "truth" as defined by the many.  It is against this backdrop that I cast the questions, "What is Media Literacy, and what can we do to become more Media Literate?"


Dr. David Considine of Appalachian State University defines Media Literacy as "The ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate information in a variety of formats, including print and nonprint(sic)."  (http://www.ced.appstate.edu/departments/ci/programs/edmedia/medialit/article.html#What%20is%20Media%20Literacy)  This means a Media Literate person can find information, determine what it is saying, assess the accuracy and validity of the source, and communicate what was learned. to this definition I add the concept of comparing: finding what other people have interpreted and contrasting this with your own interpretation.  In analyzation and evaluation an individual begins to form an opinion, but it is in communication and comparing that the individual (and public view) is finalized.


The Center for Media Literacy in Santa Monica, California created five concepts of media literacy:

• All media messages are constructed.
• Media messages are constructed using creative language using its own rules.
• Different people experience the same media message differently.
• Media have embedded values and points of view.
• Most media messages are constructed to gain profit/and or value.(http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Media_literacy)

 The wiki article then goes on to list a question that corresponds to each concept and that I have summerized here: Who made this message? What are they communicating and why are they doing it in this manner? How might other people interpret this? What biases are behind this message? What is this trying to sell me?

Com 103 Introduction

"Hello world."


To whomever is reading this welcome to my blog.  I am currently a student at Reinhardt University in Waleska, GA.  This blog was created as an ongoing project in my Media Literacies class.  For better or worse, this will serve as the canvas for my thoughts on a variety of subjects.  Now about me: I am a Georgia native and have lived in Woodstock and Marietta.  I play guitar and piano and am an avid reader. My favorite writers are Tolkien, Verne, and C.S. Lewis.  I have an opinion for just about everything and you deserve to know it.  So, get ready...