Quick Note: A lot of the media we have been dealing with is on the screen (videos, online). When I have been blogging tonight, I have now once again realized how powerful music can be. I have been blaring music (a lot of Beatles) off my iPod through my speakers as I type this. I have realized how much my mood, and what I am writing has been affected by the music I am listening too. Some of the music has the power to literally send tingles down my spine.
The module seven assignment also reminded me of a commercial that Nike aired that aired during the olympics that really inspired me, and I found very powerful, even though it was an add. Going back to what I said before, I think it is the music that makes this video such a powerful peace of media.
I really cling to this video because it is has a lot of my favorite athletes in it (LeBron James, Lance Armstrong, Wayne Rooney, Christiano Ronaldo, Roger Federrer, and others) including my inspirational hero Steve Prefontaine (pause the video at :26) who was not a soldier but had more soul than any other person I have ever heard of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Prefontaine). The video combines quick flashes of courageous athletes doing heroic things, mixed with "primal" things (neurons, human heart, gazelle), and has the inspirational music in the background. It makes me want to go outside and run as hard as I can! (I do actually use it for motivation before races.)Very well done video.
The most fun and exciting module for me would be Module 5, where we had to take our own youtube video and analyze it. We had to see what propaganda techniques were implied, and how our brain interpreted this. I really enjoy analyzing stuff that is part of our everyday world, so this was really fun for me, and I got to see some cool videos.
Overall, however, what I enjoyed the most was interacting with others. I loved commenting on others' work, and especially enjoyed responding to feedback. This kind of stuff really stimulates me. The stuff that was the most fun to comment on was DOTCOMers spontaneous posts - pieces that were not assigned as a module. There was a lot of creativity in these.
B. Most Challenging-
This is a hard question! The most challenging thing for me was getting familiar with the blog, so I could make my blog look very polished. I actually had fun poking around the settings, however, and still could learn a lot more! As far as the blogging goes, the hardest thing was just keeping up with all the new posts flying around. This was a good problem, though!
C. Specific Suggestion-
I think a forum on the main DOTCOM blog for people to comment on each module would be a good, way to centralized way to show everyone's comments. This was, in essence, what the Special Guests blog was, and I thought that worked really well. Something like this would also be a good way to connect the participants from different countries as well. I wouldn't change much; I think it ran really well!!
2. Now, for the really fun part...
The excitement of my first track meet coming up this Thursday got me in the mood for this video.... This is one of the funniest videos that I have seen that can only be found on youtube. You have to have followed Bolt during the Olympics to get the jokes, but I think most probably did.....This video pokes fun at Usain "Lightning" Bolt's island party mentality. His fun-loving attitude is contagious, and is perfect for a sport that desperately needs a star. Anyway, this is pretty simple comedy - just hilariously exaggerate "Insane" Usain's antics (although I don't mean "antics" in a negative sense at all). Very fun video!
Looking up the Bolt video reminded me of one of my favorite skis. While we are still on the Olympics theme witness the creative comedic genius of Monty Python.....
A very interesting phenomenon recently has been the spoofing of cable news. This is most notably featured on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and The Colbert Report, in which Stephen Colbert actually portrays himself, a right wing, Fox News, type reporter. The shows have become incredibly popular, especially with young people (I am big time evidence of this). What is so interesting about this however, is that in a lot of cases, Stewart and Colbert have become young people's primary source of news. These shows are now literally defining how a very large amount of young people see the world. So large in fact that something like this could happen:
A lot of critics, all of which that I have heard, by the way, are over the age of 50, see this as a problem. They say that people who get news from comedians can't look at the world seriously. However, I see Colbert and Stewart as more than just comedians. Anyone who watches their shows and really thinks about them knows this. They are actually incredibly, amazingly smart. The stuff they pick-up, make fun of, and articulate so well is unprecedented in cable news. Colbert and Stewart, in my opinion, are better than anyone else on TV at picking up nuances in the news, and twisting them to show the reality while making it hilarious. I think that the news you get in these shows is actually the least bias. Because the main agenda is comedy, and not political advantage. This leads a startling truth to come out in the Colbert and Stewart programs.
I would agree that it is definitely important to get news from other sources, because there is a lot of silly stuff on these shows as well. However, I feel these shows serve as a much better reality check than other news programs (which claim to be the best reality check). And anyone who claims that these comedians can't be serious, and are not intelligent when it comes to world events should watch this three part interview, in which Jon Stewart ends his much publicized feud with Jim Cramer by totally grilling him. Take a look:
I apologize, but now I must get out my rant on cable news. Recently, I watched Barack Obama's prime time press conference on CNN, who I grudgingly find to be the most balanced major news network. I watched the pundits discuss afterwords for about 15 minutes, before I emphatically turned the TV off in disgust. Everything that the pundits said seemed to have nothing to do with our current crisis. All it was, was "Obama looks on edge on angry - he did a terrible job", and other remarks about his tone of voice or body language. Instead of offering intelligent, insightful, and useful insight on to the plans that he proposed (this could be criticism or explanations of how his plans will be enacted) all the talking heads did was ramble on about tiny nit-picking things that will not help the viewer understand the situation any better. He has already been elected, now is not the time to be questioning his demeanor, but rather plans. The worst, however came when the openly liberal, and the openly conservative pair came in with their own analysis. Of course, the liberal (Roland Martin) said he was professional and he touched on ideas that Americans cared about, etc., etc. Then the conservative (Bill Bennett) came in and only talked about how angry Obama looked, and how his plans made no sense without actually explaining why. During the 15 minutes I watched, I heard not one insightful thing. Cable news is sadly just a manipulative political tool. If you don't believe me, and have not watched the Jim Cramer interview above, I strongly suggest you do. If you do this, and still do not agree (or if do agree with me as well) I would love to hear what you have to say. Personally, I would take Colbert or Stewart any day. That is true, honest reporting.
Also of note: I find it vey interesting how comedy spoofs have shaped elections. The best example, as I am sure everyone knows, is the Tina Fey impression of Sarah Palin. I think it is fascinating, and extremely cool, that this platform of comedy can really make a big difference on important matters.
I recently attended many films at the 12th annual Green Mountain Film Festival put on by the Savoy Theater, Montpelier's arthouse movie theater. There were some really great, interesting, and thought provoking films - all of which were obscure, and would have been missed without this great film festival. I am really a sucker for documentaries, and one in particular, a movie called Examined Life (based off the Plato quote "An unexamined life is not worth living") really got me thinking. The movie consists entirely of philosophers talking about things that stimulate them.
While this post may seem a bit abstract, I think the movie relates directly to media literacy and social issues. First of all, the main subject is "thinking critically", and what that really is. the movie itself tries to be thinking critically by making itself as objective as possible, but in reality everything has an agenda, so how do you get around this? The movie, despite being bare bones in the sense that all it is is philosophers talking, still MUST have a message. A lot of the stuff that was talked about in the film was about you are thinking critically when you see everything around you, think about what it is, what its message is, what the consequence of it existing are, and so on. This is when you truly have critical thinking, and as a result media literacy. I would agree with this, but then again, I am getting this from a movie, which as I said before, MUST be biased, MUST have an agenda. So, am I really thinking about media literacy critically with even my definition of thinking critically is based on something else? Am I really thinking about all aspects of media literacy, and viewing it from totally my own prespective? It is hard to say.
I think if you go with my definition from the previous paragraph of thinking critically, this can be applied to dealing with social conflicts such as the Azerbaijani - Armenian conflict. I believe that everyone must be analyzing the situation TOTALLY BY THEMSELVES for a perfect solution to the conflict to be reached. I think this is also why it is so important to for youth to be involved, because with experience comes knowledge, but also unconsious biases and agendas. The youth more than most, can look at an issue critically.
This film was very provocative for me. It got me thinking about what level of thinking is critical, and what it takes to get to that level. When do you know you are there. These are very difficult questions, and I think I have thought about them enough to have an answer that satisfys me, but is far from complete. Even without a complete answer, and even though many of the ideas brought up in the film I am unsure about, the film still inspired me. I realized that people can work out these conflicts. As long as some level of critical thinking is reached these imense issues can be solved, and I feel the youth are best suited for the task. Just knowing that it can be done inspired me.
Just now, as I am writing this, another revelation just crossed my mind. I suddenly realized that what I was so inspired about, the possibility of issues being solved through critical thinking, was reached through none other than critical thinking. Me analzing the movie and how it applies to social issues reached a level of critical thinking that allowed be to see that these issues can be solved, and now I have proof. What I wrote in the above paragraph has just been proved. Critical thinking can lead to inspiration, and inspiration leads to solutions.
This post might seem somewhat like a rant now, but that is just because I am amazed with my own process of thinking. In just the last half-hour that I have written this, I have answered my own tough questions, that I was wondering about a couple paragraphs above. I now know what thinking critically is.
Also of note: I found Cornel West to be the one person in the movie that fascinated me the most, especially on this topic. Here is his link and picture. http://www.cornelwest.com/
Here is my question for Arzu and Onnik for Module 6 and Onnik's very interesting answer.
Question: Arzu and Onnik-
How do you think that the immediacy of blogging and the internet in general has affected your job. What are some negative and positive consequences of the internet taking over as a news source instead something more traditional such as a newspaper. For example, do you think that it is better to be able to go into a country which has no freedom of press and be able to immediately and often report stuff that is going on in the present via a blog, or do you think a longer, more in depth, more thought-out piece by a reporter who had previously spent months in this country written for a periodical or newspaper is preferable. Thank you, and great interview.
Answer: Liam, well, good question, and I don't want to repeat myself with my emphasis on the power of the individual, but I really do believe it's dependent on the person. For example, a reporter can also make mistakes and not fully understand the situation in a country.For sure, as you say, the local media in Armenia is adversely affected by this reality, but some are unhappy about some international coverage too. At the end of the day, if a blogger or reporter (or both as some of us are) wants to do a professional and accurate job, they will.Certainly, in the case of Arzu and myself, we have a thorough understanding of the countries we write about. On the other hand, that doesn't mean a blogger can't give their opinion on a political or social issue. That is their right as a citizen.What is important is to be accurate and not push information you know to be incorrect. And if someone leaves a comment disagreeing or pointing out an inaccuracy, discuss the issue and don't censor. This approach will also make bloggers more credible as a result.
Hi Liam,
The effect of blogging on my job has been great. In fact, because the organization I am with works in the Caucasus they have been very supportive throughout this whole time.
I think there are several benefits of internet taking over simple newspapers- first you save more trees; second you can access as many different newspapers you want online and might not even find sold in your local newspaper kiosk; you can even comment start a discussion online after reading a certain article. The negative side however is that not everyone has access to online media so, at times all they can read is what is available in print and that is not always the most objective newspaper.
Blogs and newspapers are different though. Newspapers have to have periodicals and articles written every day, whereas a blog is uncontrolled, free ground you can access at any time, change, write, whatever you want. And in case of your question I would in fact read both the blog and the newspaper article on that particular country as both will most probably have some common points as well as differences.
Here is an add that aired during Saturday Night Live and the Super Bowl that I really liked.
This appeals to my Reptilian brain with the action (blowing up, and quick flashing images), my Limbic brain with the catchy song that I know well from the SNL skits, and it appeals a lot to my NeoCortex brain because it is a satire of itself, mixed with the normal SNL humor that I am very familiar with (I also thought about SNL selling out while making fun of selling out).
Here are the main techniques that the commercial uses-
1. HUMOR- The commercial has many funny lines that many people who have followed this skit on SNL are familiar with. People immeadiately like this commercial because it is funny. I know that the day after the Super Bowl I talked about the add with my friends, I looked at the others in the series on line, and so on because I found the add so funny. The humor kept the add in my head.
2. TESTIMONIALS- The real MacGyver is in this add, and it is done by the real SNL crew. I was drawn to this add because I have seen the skit before on SNL, and have found it very funny. People immeadiately don't consider it an add because it feature the SNL actors.
3. BANDWAGON- At one point in the add MacGruber says that he will only drink one Pepsi. Related to testimonials, but still different. Pepsi is trying to say that not only do people on SNL drink Pepsi, but so does everyone who finds this add funny.
4. TIMING- This add was run during the Super Bowl. A lot of people watch the Super Bowl to watch the commercials. They look to the commercials for entertainment. This appeals to that crowd because it is so funny. It was also shown during Saturday Night Live. The people watching that are of course going to watch this commercial, because it is pretty much the same thing as SNL.
5. NOSTALGIA- The original SNL skit is a parody of the 1980's show MacGyver. Young people will most likely be familiar with the skit on SNL (like me), and slightly older folks will know the show from the 80's. People reconize MacGyver, think about their past, and as a result pay extra attention to the commercial.
This commercial uses a combination of the different parts of the brain. The music in the background is a very catchy tune with a strong beat - this is LIMBIC. Also, there is the awe of LeBron's athletic ability and pregame routine that is mixed in - this is REPTILIAN. You are instinctively drawn to the basketball skills and athletic ability, and the music gets you hummin' to the beat.
This video is another good example of what I described above. Only slightly more corny.....
Hey I'm Liam! I like to do anything and everything outside especially skiing, sailing and running. I follow politics very closely, and like to get invlolved.
