last post for comm 229!

Since it's the last post, I'd like to cover a media related topic that involves something I love, sports. Celtics cavaliers this weekend, game 1, AND bruins flyers, game 1, AND the sox in Baltimore. Couldn't get any better. That being said, I say, to ESPN, to honestly shut up about Lebron. How come the extent of coverage of sports is now just the "superstar" story? Honestly, Lebron James hurt his elbow or at least he "claims" he did (publicity stunt to draw attention to him). But does ESPN really need to show him shooting his left handed free throw a hundred times? WHO CARES. In fact, those were the exact words Paul Pierce spoke when asked about Lebron's elbow: "I really don't care about it." I say how about ESPN goes out and tries to make a story that is actually newsworthy for sports? I just hate the extensive coverage of the national media on superstars like Lebron and Kobe (which makes me dread the TV coverage of these games even more with Jeff Van Gundy having aenurisms over every shot Lebron makes). Besides, why shouldn't we all bow down to great people like Kobe? Sure, he was accused of rape but a huge payout settlement, a jersey number change, and 40 points a night makes it all go away, and is even worthy for a family dinner with the president! Really, I just can't stand extensive media coverage of sports stars in general, but ESPN takes it to the next forsaken level. And I haven't even STARTED talking about their obsession with Bret Favre.

dont be dependent!

I've realized in especially taking a media studies class that we rely far too strongly on technology. My friend works at a business in boston, and he texted me and told me the computers were down, and the office was much like armageddon, and no one knew what to do. It got me thinking of how dependent we are on technology and it's success. Why are we so dependent on technology? I understand that we've shifted to a technological, paperless nation. But it's really quite destructive. If we're so dependent on technology, it leaves no room for mistake. Much like my friend's story, it will be like armageddon. We need to be much less dependent on technology and more dependent on alternative sources. If somehow every computer went down, what would we do? If all cell phone towers were destroyed or somehow disabled, how would people communicate? I think it's something that people need to rethink, and try to be less dependent on technology.

You can take my choice...but you can't take my FREEDOM! Except you did...

I love talking about how we have free choice in the media we consume. I find it comical that it's actually called free choice. Rules and regulations are now becoming more and more prominent on the radio and television that we don't really get to decide if we want to filter out things because someone already did for us. I wish that WE got to decide whether or not we wanted things filtered. I think this conversation links back to the ratings week in class when we watched This Film is not yet rated. For little kids, I think it's important that parents be the role in deciding what is filtered and what their children are allowed to watch. However, beyond that, I think we should get to decide what we watch and consume! Are some things offensive? Sure! To some people. Then some other things are offensive to select people to and not to others. With all our complaints and rules and "morals" (which is such a joke in American culture), we've forced media creators to tip toe around the rules, to avoid offending anyone, with the possibility of being fined or getting hate mail or whatever it may be. I think everyone just needs to RELAX, and decide WHAT YOU want to consume, not what others want to consume.

Newsworthy...

Since we've discussed "newsworthy" items in this class, I have to say something that makes me mad. I saw on the "Today Show" a story about a father and a son who were friends on facebook, then the son deleted his dad because he was posting embarassing photos of him on his facebook. REALLY? REALLLLLY? Is this newsworthy? FACEBOOK???? It makes me so mad because we as a culture have become so OBSESSIVE. EVERYTHING we get our hands on we become obsessed with, whether it be facebook, music, sports teams, you name it, were obsessed with it. However, that is a given and that is how our culture is. But is a facebook story really news worthy? The only newsworthy facebook story to me would be if the creator died or facebook ended. I just don't understand who finds this story interesting. It's much like how extensive coverage of celebrity deaths and break ups are. Yes, Michael Jackson died. Did we need to hear about it on every news station for months? Mmm, NO. It just bothers me that we as a culture even care to follow stories like this, because you know if they're putting it as a news story, they feel pretty confident that a large number of people will be interested.

I'd like to thank...

this week's topic on production got me thinking about how many different crew members play roles on a movie set. I've always hated credits at the end of movies, or on TV shows, that seem to never end, especially when they're at the beginning and you can't just leave. That being said, I guess I never realized how much work goes into making a movie. However, it can't be done by just one person. Well, I guess it could, but that would certainly be the only movie the person ever made because it would take them so long. Having a good crew I never realized plays so much a role. I guess for some reason a mask has been pulled over my eyes, and I feel like a director or a producer doesn't have much to do with the success of a movie, and it's pretty much all the actors. However, I've realized how much behind the scenes action has to take place in order for a movie to be good at all. The success of a film obviously has to do with the actors, but the main idea, the production, the editing, etc. all is behind the scenes crew working their tails off to attempt to tailor a perfect film. Simply put, after reading this chapter, I've come to see how difficult film making can really be, and how much work goes into making a film successful.

Production Technology

It's wierd to look and think how much production technology has really developed. I'm taking a film history class this semester, and the most innovative technology was really nothing in some of the movies we've watched. Dating movies back to the 20's that we've watched, it's been tangible to see the development of technology in film. It's also changed the way films are appreciated and made. If avatar did not have great special effects, would the story line have been enough to draw in fans? If the movie 2012 did not have great special effects too, would people have even liked the story? These great advancements in technology and computer animation have completely changed the movie industry.

Most films early in the industry really were focused on the story, but now it seems special effects have really taken over in films. People love the special effects in films, and now with the surge of 3d films it's really on the rise. Me, personally, would much rather have a better story than good special effects in a film, but special effects work to make more money!

March Madness!

So, unless you live under a rock, you've heard of march madness and know that it's going on right now. Glad to say, my champion, Duke, is still in the running, while over 60 percent of the nation has their champion, Kansas, out. Either way, I was thinking of how marketable big name events like these are. If you've watched at all, I'm sure you've seen the clever Reeses' commercials that incorporate the "sweet sixteen" term into their sweet chocolatey product. I found myself somewhat bothered I guess watching these commercials. I guess the reason I'm bothered is because of how much corporations/companies have their hands on advertising, and how much of commercials you have to sit through. Granted, some commercials are funny, but for the most part, they are becoming really obnoxious. I'm not sure if this is a new fad, but I feel like any show you watch, you get 10 minutes of commercials, 5 minutes of show, 10 minutes of commercial, and this pattern continues. It really annoys the crap out of me, because I hate sitting through commercials. More than that, I hate sitting through commercials on the radio. The radio loves to play one or two songs then have a 20 minute commercial break. In case you haven't gotten the point of my rant, I HATE COMMERCIALS. What drives me even more mad is that I don't feel like many commercials for products are very effective. I hardly ever see a commercial and think "oh cool" or "oh I want that!". But they must work for some people or else these commercials and advertisements wouldn't be thrown in our faces all day every day.

Why talk without doing RESEARCH?

I love listening to sports talk radio. I've strayed from the right wing political station with a glimpse at sports on WEEI (primarily, Dennis and Callahan's illiterate right-wing four hour rants every morning) to the much better, SPORTS focused 985thesportshub. On each of these channels, though, people will call in and chime in about sports or what they think about these athletes or pretty much whatever they want to talk about, as well as it be related to sports. What drives me crazy is when people call in and have absolutely no RESEARCH to back up their points! Granted, every form of research has it's hand in opinion too, but why is it that no one does their research to back up their points? People will call in and say, "Man, Kevinn Gahhnett has nuthin this year", to which they respond, "well, he's had a rough season, but he's still averaging this and that blah blah blah". the caller usually gets defensive, yells, and they hang up on him. I guess my point is if you're going to go on public radio, do some research on what you're talking about, at least to the degree where your point does not make you seem illiterate! I've called in a couple of times, but I always think about what I'm going to say, and make sure my facts are straight so I have a valid point/argument to discuss with them. I wish more callers would simply back up their points with research, or at the very least, a slight bit of knowledge on what their rambling about!

Stereotyping...

In chapter five, it deals with the representation of people in the media. It uses the thought of the media literally re-presenting the person to us, molding them to their own personaly ideas. I've grown really tired of this representation of people in the media. I hate, first of all, how much attention we pay to public figures and their personal lives. First of all, we don't know any of these people. Minus the few who say something along the lines of "oh, tom brady's my dad's co-worker's neighbor's dog's previous owner" and act like they know tom brady personally, for the most part, we don't know any of these people! How come we feel like we've derived an accruate opinion on the type of person any of these public figures are?

Think of it, the only time we ever see these people is when they are IN FRONT OF A CAMERA. They know how to act and look good to us, so why not do anything else? For example, why was everyone shocked when that jon and kate couple split? who cares! How come we thought we knew the guy? Because we see him in front of the camera on his stupid show? It's really insane! And drives me crazy! Also, we see athletes and think we know them because we watch them play sports. Everyone loves Jason Varitek, and says oh man, tek's a great guy. Yet, he cheated on his wife with the freaking analyst on NESN!!! And we're all surprised by it! WHO CARES???!!! the media will obviously present people in a positive light for the most part, and when controversy stirs, re-present them in the darkest light possible. However, the whole point of my rambling is this: who cares. Really. I don't care if Kevin Faulk drives 120 mph with a shotgun and weed in his car. The guy is a great football player and that's all I take him for. We shouldn't spend so much time peering into these public figure's personal lives. Just let them do what they do, and complain about what actually effects us, but for the most part, just let it go!

olympics

Does anyone else think it's strange how much media popularity that the olympics received this winter? Most winters, I feel like people are not really that much into the olympics, because they simply don't care that much. However, so many people tuned into the olympics this year, and especially for the USA hockey team. The rating for the gold medal game was the highest rated hockey game since the miracle on ice game in the 80's. I just wonder how this has gained so much popularity. Was it advertised more to us? I know that speed skater Apolo Ohno had a lot of advertisements for him, especially with nyquil cold medicine. Maybe that's why these olympics were so highly rated, because we saw it advertised so much. I sometimes wonder how much power advertising really has, but I bet it has more power than we realize.

mo' power

I've been thinking alot about our discussions last week on audiences and their power. It's wierd how much power we have in what is thrown in front of us. What's even stranger is that we don't know how much power we have! I always feel like we're just floating along and the media is throwing in front of us random things that we'll consume. But the fact of the matter is, if we don't like it then we won't watch it or listen to it. And more truth would be that these media producers probably have crazy meetings where they discuss what is popular and what is not and how they can reach out to us better, and draw in more of a crowd, which obviously for them means more money.

I think we have made some realization, though, to the fact that we have some level of control over media. With the popularity of youtube and user produced media, we've realized what people like, and put it out there, with great popularity as well. It's almost like we're beating the "big dogs" to the punch, and throwing OUR media out there before they even know what we like. Wonder if they use youtube to see what's popular...

i'm tiger woods! i'm tiger woods!

Tiger Woods has a press conference being held tomorrow for his numerous sex scandals that surfaced a few months ago. He has yet to show his face because more than likely that nine iron his wife had met his two front teeth. He's holding a press conference to apologize for all of his actions, and the rest of what he will say can only be determined by watching tomorrow. That being said, since we're talking about the rating system and parents actions in it, I can't help but wonder if I would let my kids watch this press conference. He'll obviously be talking about some pretty bad stuff, and I can only imagine the questions from kids that could arise. "Why's he sorry?" or "what's cheating?" or "why does his wife look so mad?"

Is it really appropriate for kids to watch something like this? However, of course, since it's nationally televised, TV shows do hold some rating system, but nothing near the movie rating system, and while some parents lock programs that have a more mature rating, most don't, and alot of kids might be able to watch this. So if people are bothered by what their kids are viewing and the current rating system, it leads me to believe that this is a cheap cop-out for not PARENTING. It's ultimately their job to try to control what their children watch and are exposed to, not the rating system's. As for tomorrow, good luck Tiger. Just don't go A-rod's route and say you didn't know what cheating was at the time.

olympics!

Vancouver 2010 olympics have been all the rage! Actually they really haven't been, as they're currently on and i'm 100 times more interested in kansas vs. texas a&m college hoops. could be an upset...that being said, there's been some media-related controversy in the olympics, that has pretty much been looked over by the general public but is a pretty big deal. People are arguing what type of media is "newsworthy". As I'm sure alot of you have heard, there was a USA luger who was only 21 that was killed in a bad crash during a practice run the day of the opening ceremonies. There was raw video footage of this crash, and since the olympics started saturday morning, this video was aired Saturday morning, showing the very violent crash.

This is controversial because many people feel that this video should not have been aired at this time of the day because many little kids are flicking through the channels watching their cartoons or hannah montana or whatever they watch these days. People are mad that their kids saw that crash, because it was very accessible and easily viewed at that time obviously. However, I heard a journalist call in on a radio show about this and said it was "newsworthy" and it's any media person obligation to air that video if they have it. From a media perspective, I completely agree that the video should have been shown. It was a very big deal, and something that if it's available, it should be shown. For example, we've all seen at one point or another the assassination video of JFK. Imagine if no one had ever released that footage? Would it have felt like you were robbed at being shown something "newsworthy"? That being said, the controversy stirs up in me a little bit as well. Should this have been shown at this time of day? I'm sure if I had a little kid I wouldn't want them to see a violent video like this when they're watching power rangers. So how far does the "newsworthy" argument go? Since the olypmpics started early, it was fitting to show the video, but should there have been more warning? Just food for thought...

horror genre..

I'm so sick of horror movies. Now in our society it's like every horror movie needs to have insane amounts of violence in order to be scary. To be honest, having violent horror movies like that is what makes me not want to watch it. Sure, it's pretty frightening to see someone ripped to shreds in "saw", but it's not really that clever. It's like a comedian that gets all their laughs from swearing. I just don't get it, and it feels like you don't have to put much effort in, and it's a cheap laugh, or in the horror movie case, a cheap scare.

That being said, I love really suspenseful horror movies. The ring's kind of like that. It's really creepy and gets into your head, but it's not very violent at all. The most blood in that movie is probably a nose bleed. But the ideas and that samarah girl gets into my head, and creeps me out at night. I work as a janitor at a high school, and i'm there by myself alot at night. Sometimes I'll look down the hallway and think i'm going to see that little girl standing there with a flickering light over her head. It's yet to happen by the way, but at least these horror movies did a good job of scaring the crap out of me. I've never once been terrified of jigsaw standing in the hallway, because he's practically on his death bed in all his movies (and isn't he dead in the last one? how does that work out??)

Technology outbreak...

In the world of communications, we are certainly media obsessed. We all go on facebook 24/7, text, skype, and write on blogs (like right now!). I feel like this has changed our ability to be able to communicate face to face. I find so many people that can text me a lot or write on my "wall", but when you see them in person, they act very differently sometimes. Why is this? I think all this media is really changing the way we communicate with human beings, and it's made us more socially inept, which is obviously a downfall to it. However, all this new media does have alot of upsides too, where people can stay in touch as much as they want, which used to be much more difficult to do. so which is better? none of these forms of communication or having it?

GOOD GUY bad guy

talking all these theories this week has got me thinking: america as a whole tends to always take the view and appreciate and enjoy the view of good guy bad guy. If it's in politics, you like your candidate your voting for, the good guy, and you hate the other, the bad guy, and follow appropriate news stations and discussions. In sports, we (the red sox) are the good guys and the yankees are the bad guys. In TV or movies you are rooting for the good guys and as the plot develops you want those good guys to stick it to the bad guys, preferably violently. Why is that? has our society molded us to be far too competitive and violent against one another. I think Levi-Strauss' theory had it all wrong. Can't we all just get along??

CELTICS LAKERS collapse...

I was watching the Celtics game Sunday when they horrendously collapsed in the fourth quarter and lost a disguisting game they never should have lost to the lakers at home. During this game, because it was on ABC, I couldn't help but notice how incredibly biased the commentating was. All the "generic" announcers were clearly not fans of the celtics, especially jeff van gundy. They were all anchoring viewers into pretty much rooting against the celtics, and complaining about every foul call against the lakers. I can't stand these sports commentators just as much as I can't stand news anchors for the way they try to impress the way they view things on fans watching the games. That's why I hate FOX sports or TBS whenever ANY sports playoffs come around. I can't take it!

State of the Union Address

I thought Obama did a really good job on his State of the Union address to the nation. He made a lot of really good points and emphasized the importance of unity in our country if we want to get out of our economic disaster and overall issues that were facing, including the issue of health care. He promised that we would be out of war by July 2011, which I think is huge that he has stuck to that date since his election. Now, that being said, I watched the address on (what other network than FOXNEWS!). I was at work and only had basic cable so I was forced to watch it on this network. All fox news had to say was "well, he did okay, but he didn't elaborate on more important issues, like how we treat terror suspects." really??? TERROR SUSPECTS? My apologies, FOX, but I think that the slipping economy and getting us out of a decade long war is more important than how we treat terror suspects. It just led me to confirm my suspicions of my previous post. FOX news, you are evil, and the world would be a lot less dumb and better off if you were gone.

Let ME think about it...

In discussing semiotics this week it seems like alot of ideas and the way we perceive things are pretty automatic, and we don't even think about them at all. This chapter talks very briefly about "anchoring," which is a process that tries to select and therefore control the meanings which could legitimately be made by the reader or viewer. This also could have some tie in to news "anchors" and what they want you to believe and be swayed to feel watching their network. I haven't watched the "outfoxed" movie yet, but I understand it's about FOX news, or at least that's what I think its about. This is why I absolutely refuse to watch a crap news network like fox news. Granted, every major news network has their somewhat understand party loyalty, but FOX news takes it to the next level. Their pressing political views are so disguisting that I can't stand it. For example, directly after any of the debates during the presidential election, all they did was go down a list of criticisms about Obama, how he coughed here or smiled wierd here or didn't take long enough in between words there. Then next thing you know they're freaking analyzing michelle obama's outfit at inauguration. Her OUTFIT!!!! Why call yourself a news station if you're going to be more like a TMZ magazine article? FOX is crap and I hate they're pressing views. Also, on a side note, they've breed Joe Buck to be their sports commentator for nearly every fox sporting event, and he is more annoying and biased than the news network itself. That's all for today!