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.