This week....

I'm not a big fan of news or current affairs. I'm more of a man who likes to see what is really important in life. I recently saw a fantastic movie that shattered my emotions. Blindsight. A blind man who reaches the peak of Everest. That in itself and in its entirety is one hell of an acheivement. Erik Weihenmayer after his accomplishments, turns his attentions to the blind people of Tibet, who are seen as evil in thier country. Blindness is seen as punishment for a previous life, so they are abused and mocked. Honestly, i have nothing more to say, you really need to see this movie, its a fantastic watch. Here is the trailer:

You can watch the full 108 minute Documentary HERE.





Also, i have another experience to share with you. I recently discovere the Albino people of Tanzinia and more specifically, the Albino United Football Club (Soccer).
In Tanzania, where albinos are murdered and their body parts used for 'magic' potions, a brave group of albinos are using soccer to spread the message that they too are members of society.







Take a look at a small documentary here:

Class reflections: Realism

Going back to Wednesdays discussions and debate about Realism, it made me percieve realism as a more important subject in television. The example i used of Big Brother UK has obvious realism in that it is not scripted and is the monitoring of how 15 people live together confined. However, how much of that is realistic? Many of the people could be acting to the cameras? And how much of the real people do we see in that 1 hour that covers 24 hours of a day. Editing is a system that makes the program more enjoyable, but that doesnt mean they will tweek things in order to make them seem better or worse for better ratings.

However, we now have News and Documentary realism to look at. Traditionally, British broadcasters, for example, in this medium are supposed to be impartial and non-biased. They provide an authoritative and ‘truthful’ news service. This can be seen in the way that news and documentary programmes occupy prime-time slots on TV. Documentaries, too, are regarded as high-status programmes that represent ‘truth’.

In the 1930’s documentaries provided information, education and propaganda to the audience.
From the 1950’s the development of ‘cinéma verité’ (cinema truth) in France moved the representation of ‘reality’ on to the cinema screen.
In the 1960’s the TV became the principal medium for documentaries. The genre was (and to an extent, still is), typified by certain well-defined codes. 

• An authoritative presenter
• The use of ‘voice-over’ commentaries
• Recorded interviews
• Visual evidence via location shots or archive film 

(Val Pope, 2002, News of the World)

These things created (and still create) a sense of ‘truth’ or authenticity, but it must also be noted that editorial choices and values are still at work in the creation of the news or documentary texts. What looks like truth will almost certainly have been ‘filtered’ or ‘massaged’ or manipulated’ or (to use a current term) ‘spun’ by the editorial process. 

From the 1980’s came the ‘fly-on-the-wall’ type of documentary, which has well-defined rules:

• Events are filmed exactly as they happen
• Subjects agree in advance to be filmed
• Participants are shown edited versions of the filming

Sounds ‘fair’ but is it, really? The editorial process still happens and heavy editorial control is applied in post-production. 

Going back to Reality TV (The main staple of most of the output today, it seems!) 

This works in a number of ways:

• By allowing subjects to appear as ‘themselves’, for example the camera tracks professionals doing their jobs, perhaps with dramatic reconstructions of events or real video action sequences.
• The participants become subjects of humour or entertainment (programmes like ‘You’ve been Framed’ and so on)
• Participants are subjects within a ‘fly-on’the-wall’ or verité programme (Big Brother)
• Participants are amateur directors themselves, with personal documentaries of events.

So there is the main coverage of what percieving seperate realism subjects mainly in TV.

Reality Check

Realism in media is something that is a dull subject on appearance. Hollywood Movies that are fictional and a Reality TV show are completely different when we look at realism. The audience will expect two different experiences from those two forms of entertainment.

Im going to use reality TV as my example and more specifically the UK series of Big Brother that just ended its final series this past summer. Although an incredibly popular television show, it provokes negative media attention very often. In the summer of 2005 Big Brother housemate, Kemal Shahin, was 19 when he entered the house. His family are Turkish Cypriots but he was born in London. Theatrical, openly gay and exuberant, Kemals wacky style and an addiction to conflict caused him to be the most discussed man in British television at the time. His face covered the front pages for weeks as stories were uncovered from his past and following his outrageous antics in the house, he was evicted 6 weeks into the series. Kemal caused a controversy from day one as he entered the house in golden stilettos and a sari (long dress).  Here is Kemals highlights of his time in the house.

So looking at this and the results he held over a nation through reality television, i think i can conclude that there is some way a drawing to reality with media. If people can get a sense that its real and they feel like they are there, it entraps them and keeps them entertained.

Another realism subject i look at is "professional wrestling" and how its popularity has risen in the past 2 decades. Millions watch it world-wide and yet its a form of entertainment and not a sport. So how is this? We know its scripted to a point, but the rest is free flow action. So is that reality television? Or is it Hollywood involvement? Or is it both. A good example, i think you'll agree, of the fine line between the two.

In closing, i think i should touch on the way we perceive media in its form when it comes to realism. How much are we as the consumer, meant to see as real and what are we meant to see as fake?

A problem for concern.

In this media world, there are often dangers that we can encounter on a daily basis. I have most recently had to turn my laptop into the IT department on campus and hope they could fix whatever it was that was wrong with my hardware and it turned out it was a virus from my email. So we know there are dangers out there.

What we dont know, is what do the Digital immigrants think of all of this?

I sat down with Lynn Reynolds, a mother of 2 teeneage children, to ask her views.

#1: Lynn, what would you say would be your biggest fear/worry when it comes to Digital Media?

I know that the media has been incredibly influential to my children. Both of my kids have Facebook and other sites of that nature. I often come home to find Hamp (her son) on the desktop computer watching videos. My biggest fear is that these things are a big distraction to our new generation. But as a whole, i think its great progress. 

#2: How do you filter what your children see or watch? Is there any program in place?

Unfortunately no. The best i do is that i can tell them when its time to get off because they have been on too long. My son plays video games online for hours, but once dinner is ready i ask him to turn it off for the evening. I think it works so far but i am not aware of what consequences it has on him in the classroom or with his socila etiquette for example.


#3: What part of the media is your biggest concern?

I think the Internet is a great tool. Its just too free i think. There is not enough filtering and advertisemnts are far too accesible. Im just glad it has not clearly affected my children in a way that they are "zombies".

#4: What part of the media do you understand the most?

I know how to work a TV, Computer, Radio etc. however i have no idea what an Ipad is or how to use it. Hamp showed me this game he was playing once, my husband understood it but i had no idea what was going on. Also, we have added Netflix to our Blu-ray player, its such a great tool, but again security is absent and if my children were young enough, they would end up being easily able to watch R rated movies.

So after reviewing my talk with Lynn, i can decipher that there is worries with the Media and its affect. The most influential people in our childrens lives are incapable of monitoring the consumerism of that child. ITs incredible how this is allowed when you put it into hindsight. The riots in Egypt recently remind us that Digital media is a privelage that although in this country seems to be unlimited access, is a tool that can be withdrawn and without it, revolt.

There is a website dedicated to parents who have concern for thier children with the internet. It is an extremely interesting look at what questions we need to ask ourselves.

To summarise, I think the media world is so fast. Its too fast. And only the next generation can pick up where we left off, leaving us to struggle and try keep up. Children need to be monitored otherwise more problems will become a reality.

An intersesting video form the University of Michigan.

Media Conglomates and Ownership

Adam Reakes
COM 103
MW 12:00-1:15

Understanding the business and economic side of media messages: Media ownership and Conglomerates

You might not be surprised to know that Disney is the largest media conglomerate in the world. Its yearly revenue exceeds $38 billion. Joining them at the top of media companies are News Corporation, Google and CBS. (Time Magazine) It is an incredible bit of viewing to see the numbers thrown around at these sorts of companies. I can think of the day I first saw Disney World in Florida and it never fails to astound me when I think of the great scale of the place and that is just a portion of the company. I’m going to focus on Google. Google is the big “new media” company. Google has its hand in every main Internet company out there. The blog that I use for my Communications class is owned and run by Google. Google has 30 subsidiary companies in the USA alone. The top 3 being @Last Software Inc. Android Inc. and Applied Semantics Inc. with all being heavy-hitters in the internet game.

So what do these aspects of the media now hold? They are more accessible now for us as users. With one Google account I can access many different websites without having to sign up or register multiple times. YouTube for example is a huge company on the internet and is an acquisition of Google and is linked with Google account, so I can use YouTube with another account setup. Personally, I think it’s a great idea to have and Google’s “greed” of wealth, is actually a very useful tool. Another company who own a strong collection of subsidiary companies is Viacom. Viacom own a lot of the entertainment TV channels and broadcast to over 60 million people a day. (Viacom International report on leechon.com)From a business point of view is incredible outreach and can only be good for the company.

People who argue that this is not good for the media growth as a whole, I must disagree. If one company has one idea but places that idea into 45 different boxes, it’s got more of a chance of reaching further corners of the earth. Business is about growth and development after all. Why stop the big companies from expanding and creating more profit? Especially if it makes it easier for us as consumers.

An interesting section of the internet from Wall Street Journal reports that Google is planning to expand even further to south-east Asia. Google will be opening up a new office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which will be their first new office in the Asia region in four years. Google’s president, Japan and Asia-Pacific operations, Daniel Alegre said “We’re seeing a tremendous amount of growth in Southeast Asia. Malaysia has very high mobile penetration … and most of the Internet users that are coming online will probably start to interact with the Internet through mobile phones rather than PCs.”

So looking at this as a whole and summarising, I can deter that companies are expanding or planning to expand, it is the way media works. Companies know we are using other means of technology to find our news, resources or to socialise. For example, Google has “ebooks” which has a wide selection of Books, as the name suggests, and can be accessed by anyone. Times are changing, so are companies and so must we.