Free the Children is an organization that I’ve supported since I discovered it; I even created the Timmins Branch while I was in grade seven. It was started by a young boy when he heard the story of a child slave who was killed for speaking out against child slavery. Knowing this was wrong, twelve year old Craig Kielburger founded the organization with some school friends and it only grew from there.
Kielburger’s organization began to achieve admiration from the public when they launched the campaign to abolish the sex-trade industry, something that used many children in third world countries. At sixteen, Kielburger travelled to Bangkok and witnessed for himself the horror of this industry. I worked on many campaigns in Timmins in support of this movement; including the attempting to change the legal sexual age of consent in Canada from fourteen to eighteen.
It was through the help of this organization that I was able to attract the attention of the local MPP’s in Timmins and actually sit down and have a talk with them in regards to this issue. Of course, following the issue all of the supporters that said they were going to vote for change in front of the camera voted to keep the age the same it was still a good learning experience.
I would definitely say that working through many activist organizations like Free the Children has helped me open my eyes to the world around me, and is even the root of my will to get into journalism in the first place. Even if you are not an activist, there is still a lot that you can learn about the world around us through organizations like this. Even if you don’t want to help, it’s a good idea just to look up the information that’s there.
Works Cited
Free the Children. Children helping children through education. 2009. Web. Nov. 23, 2009.
Monday, November 23, 2009
To tweet, or not to tweet?
Facebook is my cocaine. I will admit it, every time I log on my computer my fingers are tempted to type in that familiar address and let my mind wander through the many pages and applications that Facebook has offered to fulfill my procrastination needs. Why is it that I feel the need to continuously log on? Simple: that little website is a good place to waste time. As far as what the majority of the people in my age group are doing socially on the internet, I am well below the average.
I would have to say that when it comes to communicating with people I am much happier with actually maintaining a conversation face to face, as msn messenger and Facebook chat suck the emotion right out of a conversation. I like to be able to read into what people are saying by looking at the expressions on their faces. Another reason that I like to avoid the internet for fulfilling my social needs is the problems and the fights that are often a result of something being taken the wrong way. I’m not sure if this is because I am used to living in a small city where most of the people with whom I talk are close enough I can just go walk and see them, but the internet is not an ideal way to communicate for me.
The world of MMORPG’s does not tickle my fancy either, mostly because I am probably the most inept gamer that anyone could ever play with or against. Gaming over the internet never appealed to me, partially because that lifestyle instilled the image of some forty-year old in his underwear drinking Mountain Dew and eating cheesepuffs in his mom’s basement. I realize that this is just my opinion, but I really do think that you shouldn’t spend your life connected to a computer screen longer than you have to; there are better things to see than the world from a 15.6” flat screen.
Neil Postman wrote: “…the interaction between media and human beings give a culture its character and, one might say, help a culture to maintain symbolic balance”. (Postman). I believe that this is true, and I think that the lesser the interaction between us and the media the better character we will develop. As most people point out, it’s the lack of the things we rely on that builds character.
Works Cited
Postman, Neil. The Humanism of Media Ecology. Media Ecology Association, 2000. Web. 22 November 2009.
I would have to say that when it comes to communicating with people I am much happier with actually maintaining a conversation face to face, as msn messenger and Facebook chat suck the emotion right out of a conversation. I like to be able to read into what people are saying by looking at the expressions on their faces. Another reason that I like to avoid the internet for fulfilling my social needs is the problems and the fights that are often a result of something being taken the wrong way. I’m not sure if this is because I am used to living in a small city where most of the people with whom I talk are close enough I can just go walk and see them, but the internet is not an ideal way to communicate for me.
The world of MMORPG’s does not tickle my fancy either, mostly because I am probably the most inept gamer that anyone could ever play with or against. Gaming over the internet never appealed to me, partially because that lifestyle instilled the image of some forty-year old in his underwear drinking Mountain Dew and eating cheesepuffs in his mom’s basement. I realize that this is just my opinion, but I really do think that you shouldn’t spend your life connected to a computer screen longer than you have to; there are better things to see than the world from a 15.6” flat screen.
Neil Postman wrote: “…the interaction between media and human beings give a culture its character and, one might say, help a culture to maintain symbolic balance”. (Postman). I believe that this is true, and I think that the lesser the interaction between us and the media the better character we will develop. As most people point out, it’s the lack of the things we rely on that builds character.
Works Cited
Postman, Neil. The Humanism of Media Ecology. Media Ecology Association, 2000. Web. 22 November 2009.
A touch of wit, and some good photograph manipulation software is all you need.
Culture jamming is described as a picture that is produced from a company used to sell their product. Even if the person who created the picture didn’t mean to make it comical they have participated in culture jamming, which is an act ““usually implies an interruption, a sabotage, hoax, prank, banditry, or blockage of what are seen as the monolithic power structures governing cultural life.” (Harold, 192). One of the most well known of the culture jamming is Adbusters.
Adbusters is a collective of creative culture jammers working in together to change the way that the public views corporations and the information they spoon feed us. Culture jammers like Adbusters feed from the weaknesses of the advertisement, producing funny replicas of the original ads. This collective has targeted many of the major brands like Absolut Vodka, Nike, Calvin Klein, etc...
Two of the spoofs that I found the most entertaining and well put together were the parody of the Absolut vodka and that of Nike. Adbusters put together an add called Absolut Impotence featuring a bottle of the product somewhat withered...The point of this add was to show people the effect of over consuming a product that is over glamorized by the media. Adbusters uses the knowledge of what alcohol can do to the body and presents it in the same way as the original ad, giving us the opposite effect of that the Absolut company wanted.
The second of parodies was the impersonation of the Nike advertisement. Instead of having a good looking sports star with the traditional “Just do it” logo underneath, there is an image of a normal looking guy decked all out in Nike with the logo “Just douche it”. This is meant to embody that “Nike” personality that is portrayed in almost all of their ads.
Whether or not you think these are funny or have any kind of merit, culture jamming is an effective way to prove a point. If you have the resources and the wit it’s a good way to make a stand against the corporations and their power over the public
Works Cited
Harold, Christine. ‘Pranking rhetoric: “culture jamming” as media activism’. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 21: 3, 182-211. Web. 22 November 2009.
Access? That went out with free internet.
I am embarrassed to say that when I first heard the term “net neutrality” I honestly thought it meant that people just had to start getting along on the web. Now of course my opinion has vastly changed on this, and I find myself wondering why I wasn’t aware of it in the first place, or why many people aren’t to this day.
Net-neutrality is a debate that is slowly gaining more and more light in the public and possibly showing the beginnings of massive change for the internet and our technological engineering. For those of you who are still in the dark about net-neutrality, in a nutshell it is corporations stepping in to monitor and charge for use of the internet. Neutrality isn’t really the issue right now; the issue is trying to keep it neutral.
How many times do you use the internet in a day? Whether it’s to check up on Facebook or Twitter, check your email, look at a school site, research an essay, download music. We literally cannot count how many web-pages we use in a day. Now imagine if you were charged every time you needed to look something up. As if school doesn’t cost enough as it is, these corporations are going to ask to pay them to visit sites for school. On top of that, what would happen if a corporation controlled what you were allowed to view in a day, month or year? Now I’m not talking about them pulling videos off of Youtube, I’m talking about limiting your bandwidth (your ability to load, upload, and pretty much do everything). What if a company could tell you that you were listening to too much Billy Talent, and they cut you off? That is the issue that is net-neutrality.
I believe that the heart of the outrage lies in the fact that corporations think they have some errant claim over the internet, when in fact they had nothing in the least to do with its invention. Bell and Rogers did not create the internet, but they are sure going to attempt to turn a profit by bleeding everyone dry for it.
Works Cited
“FAQ: Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management.” CBC News. Oct. 19, 2009. Web. Nov. 20, 2009.
Net-neutrality is a debate that is slowly gaining more and more light in the public and possibly showing the beginnings of massive change for the internet and our technological engineering. For those of you who are still in the dark about net-neutrality, in a nutshell it is corporations stepping in to monitor and charge for use of the internet. Neutrality isn’t really the issue right now; the issue is trying to keep it neutral.
How many times do you use the internet in a day? Whether it’s to check up on Facebook or Twitter, check your email, look at a school site, research an essay, download music. We literally cannot count how many web-pages we use in a day. Now imagine if you were charged every time you needed to look something up. As if school doesn’t cost enough as it is, these corporations are going to ask to pay them to visit sites for school. On top of that, what would happen if a corporation controlled what you were allowed to view in a day, month or year? Now I’m not talking about them pulling videos off of Youtube, I’m talking about limiting your bandwidth (your ability to load, upload, and pretty much do everything). What if a company could tell you that you were listening to too much Billy Talent, and they cut you off? That is the issue that is net-neutrality.
I believe that the heart of the outrage lies in the fact that corporations think they have some errant claim over the internet, when in fact they had nothing in the least to do with its invention. Bell and Rogers did not create the internet, but they are sure going to attempt to turn a profit by bleeding everyone dry for it.
Works Cited
“FAQ: Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management.” CBC News. Oct. 19, 2009. Web. Nov. 20, 2009.
On second hand, I'll skip the morning latte.
I am not going to lie, on November 25th, 2009 I am going to cheat; cheat on Buy Nothing Day. I mean, when I first saw this post I was confused because I had never actually heard of Buy-Nothing Day. I’m not sure if this ignorance stems from my origins in a smaller city where I didn’t actually have to buy anything everyday or from my inattention to its existence.
I buy things just like everyone else does, although I do believe that I am not at a point where I need (or can afford) to buy something for myself every day. I seem to also suffer from an infliction that runs in my family: frivolousness. I hate spending money. Even though it really doesn’t affect me the way it may affect others, I can still commemorate the message that is being passed through this day. In the last chapter of his work, the author John Berger explains the need for the awareness this day will bring. ““The purpose of publicity is to make [people] marginally dissatisfied with [their] present way of life. Not with the way of life of society, but with [their] own within it. It suggests that if [they] buy what it is offering, [their lives] will become better. It offers [them] an improved alternative to what [they] are” (Berger, 142).
Sims is a perfect way to describe this day as these pixel people seem to thrive on just having things bought. A Buy Nothing Day within Simville would probably shake the very fabric of the game to shreds. We are just like these Sims; how many times a day do you spend money? Whether it’s filling up your car, paying bills, having a coffee. I for one know that I will spend money when I go to buy breakfast, and the coffee I will need to actually get some work done that day. Chuck Klosterman says it best: if you consider life as a game then; “To succeed at this game, I am forced to consume like a mofo.” (Klosterman, 20).
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corp. 1972.
Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs. New York, 2003
*NOTE- Upon further researching there are many dates ranging from November 25-28 for Buy Nothing Day. Kept the date that was written in the syllabus description.
I buy things just like everyone else does, although I do believe that I am not at a point where I need (or can afford) to buy something for myself every day. I seem to also suffer from an infliction that runs in my family: frivolousness. I hate spending money. Even though it really doesn’t affect me the way it may affect others, I can still commemorate the message that is being passed through this day. In the last chapter of his work, the author John Berger explains the need for the awareness this day will bring. ““The purpose of publicity is to make [people] marginally dissatisfied with [their] present way of life. Not with the way of life of society, but with [their] own within it. It suggests that if [they] buy what it is offering, [their lives] will become better. It offers [them] an improved alternative to what [they] are” (Berger, 142).
Sims is a perfect way to describe this day as these pixel people seem to thrive on just having things bought. A Buy Nothing Day within Simville would probably shake the very fabric of the game to shreds. We are just like these Sims; how many times a day do you spend money? Whether it’s filling up your car, paying bills, having a coffee. I for one know that I will spend money when I go to buy breakfast, and the coffee I will need to actually get some work done that day. Chuck Klosterman says it best: if you consider life as a game then; “To succeed at this game, I am forced to consume like a mofo.” (Klosterman, 20).
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corp. 1972.
Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs. New York, 2003
*NOTE- Upon further researching there are many dates ranging from November 25-28 for Buy Nothing Day. Kept the date that was written in the syllabus description.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
We own that...and that...and that...oh and that too
Time Warner is one of the World’s leading media outlets, extending its ever present reaches over the vast majority of media platforms. From news publications, cable television, and film Time Warner has been responsible for a plethora of initiatives that encompass entertainment (Warner Bros., etc.) , press (Time Inc., etc) , as well as many personal services for their customers.
In its truest form, cross media ownership is defined as a larger parent company owning many smaller companies beneath it; Time Warner exemplifies this. The issue that arises with this massive cross media ownership is the large bias that it puts on the outlets that are meant to reach out to the public. Every small company has a responsibility to be in agreement with its parent company, which means that anything that comes out of these outlets is biased towards the views of that parent company. What is the most major flaw in this system? Who actually bothers to look up who owns the outlet they are looking at? It’s such a misconception that when a company is a company they only use their name, or have their name stated someway in that denomination of that company.
Robert W. McChesney states that, “Consumerism, class inequality and individualism tend to be taken as natural and benevolent, whereas political activity, civic values and anti-market activities are marginalized.” (McChesney, 3). I agree with this. Companies like Time Warner start targeting the most impressionable of viewers at a young age, and because they own so many sub-companies it’s impossible to escape their grasp. The little autonomy that the public had from the media is being removed as this happens.
I ran across another quote that I felt solidified these points. Time Warner states that its intiatives “maintain unrivaled reputations for creativity and excellence as they keep people informed, entertained, and connected” (“Our Company”, p.2). Of course it’s unrivaled; it’s hard to be rivaled when you own almost every single company that would rival against you. People are losing that ability to choose which company they prefer, because they are all being headed by the same one company from the start.
Works Cited
“Our Company.” Time Warner. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
McChesney, Robert W. “The New Global Media: It’s a Small World of Big Conglomerates.” 11 Nov. 1999. The Nation. 20 Nov. 2009..
*Note- This is blog #7 Media Hegemonies
In its truest form, cross media ownership is defined as a larger parent company owning many smaller companies beneath it; Time Warner exemplifies this. The issue that arises with this massive cross media ownership is the large bias that it puts on the outlets that are meant to reach out to the public. Every small company has a responsibility to be in agreement with its parent company, which means that anything that comes out of these outlets is biased towards the views of that parent company. What is the most major flaw in this system? Who actually bothers to look up who owns the outlet they are looking at? It’s such a misconception that when a company is a company they only use their name, or have their name stated someway in that denomination of that company.
Robert W. McChesney states that, “Consumerism, class inequality and individualism tend to be taken as natural and benevolent, whereas political activity, civic values and anti-market activities are marginalized.” (McChesney, 3). I agree with this. Companies like Time Warner start targeting the most impressionable of viewers at a young age, and because they own so many sub-companies it’s impossible to escape their grasp. The little autonomy that the public had from the media is being removed as this happens.
I ran across another quote that I felt solidified these points. Time Warner states that its intiatives “maintain unrivaled reputations for creativity and excellence as they keep people informed, entertained, and connected” (“Our Company”, p.2). Of course it’s unrivaled; it’s hard to be rivaled when you own almost every single company that would rival against you. People are losing that ability to choose which company they prefer, because they are all being headed by the same one company from the start.
Works Cited
“Our Company.” Time Warner. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
McChesney, Robert W. “The New Global Media: It’s a Small World of Big Conglomerates.” 11 Nov. 1999. The Nation. 20 Nov. 2009.
*Note- This is blog #7 Media Hegemonies
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
