Transparency... to a whole new level!

This article on Yahoo News talks about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez spying on his political rivals, taping their phone conversations, and then using them in television commercials in an attempt to discredit them. HOLY CRAP! is probably our first reaction... and yet how different is this really for the transparency laws that I talked about in my last blog post? If one argues that a person's private life becomes open to the public when they put themselves in a place of public status, is this really that much different? If a President has to worry about sending e-mails because of transparency laws making his private correspondences public, how are his phone conversations any different? And if they are public couldn't they be used against him? We look upon what Chavez is doing and we think it's pretty ridiculous, but it's not too far off from what's already being done. It seems that anybody is willing to spy on someone else for "juicy gossip," without much moral consideration. Sure some journalists may take ethical considerations and refuse a story, but there are plenty out there who don't and will put it on the air. It seems more and more likely people are interested in airing out each others dirty laundry, the concept of privacy seems to be disappearing all together... Privacy isn't just turning on my privacy settings on facebook, in fact technology has enabled this sort of mass form of global gossip.

This might be a good place for me to say "So watch what you put online," but in all reality anyone can post anything about anybody. It's a weird and scary world we live in, and will we see more people using Chavez's mud slinging methods? This last Presidential election was pretty brutal, will it only get worse from here?

Transparency

In a recent article on BBC News it seems like Barack Obama may "quit" using e-mails... Due to transparency laws, his private e-mails could be subject to the public eye. I had never thought of it being an issue for the president to use a cell phone or it being a problem for him to use e-mail. Is it really ethical that just because he's the President that his e-mails would be open to the public? I'm not sure I agree with this, although many would agree that when your place yourself in a position of public interest like an actor or politician, all aspects of your life are public too. We've used Jenifer Aniston’s boobs several times in class, and Sarah Palin's family as an example several times in class, and even though I can recognize those who agree that their private lives aren't private, I don't agree. Sure some may do it for attention, and really sort of want people hounding them, I feel as though everyone is entitled to their right to privacy regardless of their "Job." Hypothetically speaking if I were to become famous doing what I do, I wouldn't want my private life to become open to the public. Sure it could be argued that if that were to happen, it'd be my own fault of placing myself there, but there's a difference between wanting to succeed and do some great things, and wanting to be featured in tabloids in supermarkets around the US.

Do people really have the “right” to know what e-mails the president is sending? Do people really have a right to know the contents of an e-mail that anyone sends? I could see for security reasons why Obama would have to refrain from using his blackberry, but other than that he shouldn't have to worry about sending an e-mail...

Facebook-Stalking

While reading the chapter named "Deception" in Ron Smith's "Ethics in Journalism," for a little while I was actually agreeing with the use of some deception by journalists for the sake of the story. It didn't strike me as horribly wrong for a reporter to get the "inside scoop" of a prison, but essentially lieing about his identity to the warden and others shouldn't be an issue unless you've got something to hide? I know that's pretty harsh, and the reality comes in when you consider the fact that the reporter has really stopped being a reporter, instead they've become a spy... worse yet this spy reports their findings to the world, essentially airing any dirty laundry they may have found. This sort of covert reporting is taken to a whole new level when TV News casters plant hidden cameras in an effort to get the story. Who hasn't seen or watched a commercial for an undercover news story, one that really rings out to me was one that I watched about news reporters who actually were tracking down sexual predators using the Internet and them luring them in for an interview. Is that wrong or is that a public service?

What scares are reports that I've found on reporters using social tools like Facebook in an attempt to get the "inside scoop." More specifically I found two articles where a New York Times reporter has used facebook in a malicious manor, both here and here. This is creepy and P. J. Gladnick is write when he (I'm assuming it's a he) describes this as sleazy tactics. Its pretty obvious to everyone now that we have to be careful about what we put on our facebook pages, and be sure to set it up so you aren't really visible to the world because what facebook does is enable people to stalk other people. We sort of joke about facebook stalking each other, but it's not so funny when not only do people have to be worried about legitimate predators but also news reporters ready and able to share information about you to the world... if it gets them the story. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that reporters are using facebook as a means to reaching out for more sources to a news story, and when someone may complain of an invasion of privacy, one has to ask the question... can anything you post online be considered private?

The fine line between good reporting and stalking...

This week reading about compassion in journalism, Smith is right that there is a negative stigma behind journalists and photographers. I think it's because good investigative work isn't really recognized, instead we do see a lot of candid shots by journalists and reporters trying to air people's dirty laundry. Take this site for an example, granted this is a British based news source and they have a reputation for their... investigative work anyways but this organization seems to pride it's self on candid shots and gossip reporting. This article about Renee Zellweger for example, feels creepy with these practically stalker style photographs obviously taken without consent at a distance. This article discussing British pop star Jade Goody, featuring pictures of this women breaking down after chemotherapy treatment is sickening. Do we really need such intimate details as "The 27-year-old mother of two was seen leaving the hospital on Friday dressed casually in a Gap hoodie, black tracksuit bottoms and black sheepskin boots." It all seems a bit silly to me, and quite frankly rude. Perhaps some may appreciate the attention, but I can't help but find this sort of thing as allowing the world to stalk a celebrity without having a "stakeout" themselves.

I'm using some pretty extreme, and negative, examples but these are the sorts of things we can see at a daily basis. The best example I can think of is standing in like for the cashier at any supermarket and seeing the tabloids talking about who's cheating on who, and whatever other supposed shocking news that they can come up with. I'm sure there are compassionate reporters and photographers but in a world where good news isn't really exciting news... we don't hear about such things. I'd like to think reporters would hold themselves in a respectable manor, but with thinking about tight deadlines most news organizations hold, would I not take shortcuts as well? Does that sort of environment breed this sort of uncaring competitive nature we associate with the press?

Interfaces and Gate Keepers

(CIMIT Interface Design... number 13)

It's pretty interesting reading about interfaces and the evolution and the homogeneity of visual themes, when I'm actually working on designing an interface for my part time job. I'm working for a group called CIMIT (the Center for the Integration of Media and Innovative Technology), and a big part of the problem that I've been faced is figuring out many of the nuances that Manovich discusses in his book. A big part of the learning curb for me has been figuring out how our eyes flow and cognate information... determining a good layout so the eye flows in the direction you want it to, utilizing color to highlight interactable objects, and all the while not bombarding the eye with too much information. That has been the biggest problem for me is the fact that there is a lot of information my client wants the player to access at any one moment. There are just so many things that we take for granted when using any sort of software, when so much thought goes into not only the content but the functionality of the software. Fonts... who thought that such a simple thing as font has it's own complex ideology and set of rules for which ones can and cannot be known. Times to use Serif or Sans Sarif, sort of funny when most of us use Times New Roman. Being an artist it's also been hard to limit things that could only be considered visual fluff and consider the functionality first. It's sort of like what Manovich was talking about, I had designed different types of scroll bars that I thought were more interesting, and in the end we chose a visual style that has been proven to work before and therefor pretty standard. 

Beyond all of this I started looking for an article to write about tonight and found some pretty fun ones... Articles like "Obama mention pie 15 times in less than two minutes during a speech. That's change we can believe in," "Teen changes her name to website address to prevent students from dissecting chicken wings in class. Cost to change your name: $150. People she will persuade: 0. The stupidity: Priceless," and "Man playing with pet rat accidentally sets ribbon tied to rat's tail on fire. Hilarity ensues after flaming, terrified rat attempts to outrun fire." After some brief laughter, I started to think about the "Gate Keeper Theory" which we discussed in class. Granted many of the sources stated above aren't the most respectable, but still it makes me wonder how much proof reading goes into each article that is published, posted, or put on TV. Perhaps varying degrees... I imagine the News put on TV goes through some critical scrutiny, and News Paper probably more, but how much of this really goes for online reporting? Are reporters, and their editors, more worried about meeting quotas then quality reporting? I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, yet with Florida's WFTV's News 9 taking the time to report on a local's flaming rat... it's got to make me wonder. 

I also found this video from CSI: New York, attempting to use complicated technical jargon to confuse their audience. Yet for those of us who know what a GUI is, visual basic, and how to track IP addresses... makes me also wonder if TV shows ever go through any sort of Gate Keeper process...

Old Media meets New Media, and New Media takes on new challenges.

I find it interesting reading and defining "New Media," as it has taken such a central role in my life. I never take the time to really recognize "new media" pursay, but I'm constantly promoting how powerful new media is... A project that I'm currently working on was recently highlighted by WCAX. It was actually sort of funny at the time, being interviewed only made me start thinking about topics covered in class, such as "Dealing with Sources." Oddly enough I was the source this time around and as interested as "Zack" pretended to be, he still managed to get a few of his facts wrong... yet thinking about it, and our discussions about journalists, his 2:25 local news story did make the evening news.

Just as I'm using new media to reach a demographic across the world (with a very specific message), some religious leaders are doing the same. In CNN's article YouTube Gets Religion, David Van Biema discusses recent use of Youtube as a way to "celebrate and explain their creeds." Personally I find it troubling to hear about religious activists promoting their messages through the Internet, yet can I blame them? New Media has become more and more effective at delivering whatever the publisher wants a consumer to hear, and in fact I'm doing the exact same thing really... Thinking about it, though, is this what we're going to have to start worrying about? New Media has most definitely defined it's self as entertainment, and sure there has been subliminal messages and promoting of products before, but as the medium gets more and more effective will selling a product and entertainment be any different? Beyond entertainment, and possibly communication and research, is merely promoting a message what's become of modern media? I guess it's like what I've written about before, we have to be careful and critical of what we watch, read, or even play now-a-days in order to "follow the money" in a sense.

Frames of Reference, Constructed Reality, and Stereotyping...

I found last weeks class conversation to be pretty interesting, for it tied in with some things that I had learned quite sometime ago in "Intro to Sociology." Something that has stayed with me is the concept of "Constructed Reality" and the "Five Agents of Socialization." These five agents refer to the five main areas of influence that change and affect how we view the rest of the world; these include influences from the Media, Family, Friends, School, and Special Interest Groups. These all come together and help us create a sort of frame of reference for not only ourselves but for the rest of the world, called a constructed reality. Within the framework of our constructed reality we generate stereotypes, these help us sort of build a basis for understanding the rest of the world. So we can assume that through our experiences (and the theory of the five agents of socialization) we generate our stereotypes... so when someone in class mentions "Chinese-men" several things jump to mind. First of which is the Asian Bistro that opened up in the bottom floor of my building which holds a sign out front that says "We Open." Secondly probably is a flood of Jackie Chan movies sadly... I think its good to recognize that stereotypes shouldn't only be considered a bad thing, it's just our mind's way of being able to attempt to understand the world around us (through our experiences), prejudices born out of stereotypes are the bad stuff.

Anyways bringing it back to class conversation, I thought this whole "Cloned Meat" was a really odd concept. The ideals of "organic" meat and vegetables confused me for quite sometime... I grew up on a farm, a beef farm no less so I grew up on home grown meat and neighborhood's vegetables. So the thoughts of artificial this and artificial that had never really crossed my mind growing up, and is a relatively a new concept for me. The idea of cloned meat gives me mixed feelings... on one hand what's the big deal? It's essentially the same animal, over and over again and as long as these artificial additives aren't being added then what's the big deal? What bothers me is the ideal of not only cultural and ideological hegemony, but also with the food we eat too? Genetically and quite literally we'd be eating the same foods over and over again... just feels odd doesn't it? Yet I'm generating all of these opinions from my experiences and through the lens of my constructed reality...

So when I'm reading chapter 16 of Ron Smith's "Ethics in Journalism," and Smith discusses the ethical dilemmas between the business aspects of a news studio and it's responsibilities for keeping the public fully informed, I get really concerned... After thinking about I've just discussed with constructed reality, is it not essential that we receive the whole news and have it not filtered by monetary interests? The media has a definite influence in how we see ourselves and the world, and if it's been jaded so will our views... We deserve to hear the whole news, not the news picked for us to see... the good, the bad, the whole... and if sources are getting paid to do interviews, like Clay Aiken's interview with People Magazine, then we really have to question the legitimacy of the story or is someone out to just make a buck.

Is it silly that I watch two News Stations?

Are opinions really necessary when reporting news? Am I incapable of reaching my own opinion through hearing both sides of the story? I've been reading and hearing a lot about the concept of "Truth and Objectivity" in regards to journalism and I just can't help but feel as though I want to be presented with merely the facts. It seems as though many of the arguments behind opinion bases reporting is that if a reporter is completely neutral, the audience may get confused with the information they are presented and be unsure of what "side" to take on an issue. I could be wrong in believing that it is ok if someone isn't sure of which side to take after hearing all of the facts, it's up to them to decide or debate about. It's not the media's job to promote one side over the other...

(Click to enlarge)

I found this sort of funny, when looking for an article to "dissect," I went to both CNN and to Fox News... Notice the difference in advertising already? Before I even start reading I'm already presented with blatant forms of each's opinion. We've got angry Obama on the right, on progressive Obama on the left with a convenient little "vote for Obama" informational link. Objectivity has been lost here.

I'm sort of torn at times to try to find the real facts behind an issue, and I find myself hoping between sources like Fox News, to CNN, to even Comedy Central to find some sort of happy medium in reporting. Growing up in a heavily Republican family, and attending College in Vermont has certainly given me it's fare share of opinions all over the board. Although I relish in this and believe that true educated people need to know each side of an argument, understand it, and then can make their decision on their own. I feel the most comfortable when I hear the whole story and cut through the emotions tied to whoever is reporting it. There are many cases where I don't really agree with some one's opinion, but I still want to hear it... I understand that at times it's impossible not to have an opinion when presenting an argument, but I completely disagree with the statement that if an opinion is not given, then the audience will merely be confused. Do we really need to be herded like sheep to one opinion or another? If I'm a Democrat I must watch CNN and agree with their reporting, or if I'm a Republican I agree with Fox. It's silly and limiting... Like we discussed in class, I can recognize the importants of opinions in reporting, only if the audience is recognizing that it is in fact an opinion they are being preview to.

This translates well into gaming world as well. Ever heard of Grand Theft Auto? Sure this is an extremely negative game that promotes some of the most negative aspects of the impact between culture and gaming. Yet at it's most basic concept... it's not half bad. The sole idea behind it is to have a large city that you can do anything in, yet with the name alone it encourages the player to commit immoral acts. What if the game was neutral? What if you could do both good and bad things, what sort of beast would it be then?

For far too long many of us has taken the back seat and absorbed what we've been meant to absorb. Critical thinking and analysis has lost it's place in many aspects of popular culture, and we've allowed ourselves to be fed information. It's now assumed that the general public can't come up with it's own opinions and so they are provided for us. We live in a world where things are never strictly (hope you don't mind the analogy) black and white, there are always shades of grey. I disagree with un-objective reporting and believe that any educated person is going to want the whole story and doesn't really care about where the reporter stands.

A loss of respect...

While reading Chapter's One and Five of Ron F. Smith's "Ethics in Journalism" (6th Edition), I found Smith's portrayal of the general distrust of News media and Journalism quite interesting. When thinking about the distrust of Journalism I couldn't help but think of the Paparazzi incident with the Death of Princess Diana. I had never really taken into account how much bad representation that Journalists and news reporters of the like really get throughout all kinds of media. Movies that I think of throughout my life have mostly all laid our reporters under a very specific stereotype... Thinking of movies such as "Anchorman," "Spiderman," and yes even the Teenage Mutant Turtles all seem to put journalists into a selfish role, only looking for their way to the top and someway to impress their oppressive cigar smoking boss. It's sort of silly really how we dismiss reporters so quickly and yet in a time of crisis we all rely so heavily on them as our source of current and factual news. When something significant happens in the world it's the reporters job to get that information to us, yet we don't really recognize them when they do. "It's their job," and if they weren't able to get us that news than there would be public outcry. I had never through of a reporter's job as a thankless position, but in all reality it is.

The general decline in American's respect for organizations has been a topic that has been on my mind for quite some time. We live in an uncertain age where the "norm" is to think against the "Man" and really anything that may be considered "American." Some still may call themselves patriots, but I'm finding more and more people are ashamed to be considered an American. It's become socially respectable to bash our Nation's leaders with television publications such as "Little Bush." What is this really doing? I'm not writing this as a support of Bush or his policies, but it gets to a point where we wonder why Americans have such a negative stereotype when we don't even like ourselves… In fact if you do your weird.

I find it interesting that so many people of my generation get their news by watching John Stewart or Steven Colbert... (I know I'm making many Comedy Central references but bare with me) It's sad really we don't question the sort of "News" they report or where they are getting their information from. They are funny, and so we watch and listen to them. The thing we don't ask ourselves is if they are Comedians or Journalists? Either way they have a huge impact on today's popular culture and the opinions of many (See the “Colbert Bump” phenomenon). Would we be more apt to question the stereotypical News Anchorman's report? Perhaps more so because of our preconceived expectations, in turn we expect Stewart and Colbert to be funny and so when we watch do we think critically about them at all? I know I don’t.