Enter World: exploring mediated cultures

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Filmmaker Magazine has an article about how MySpace is changing independent film marketing. The potential is so great—but I just can’t get over the horror that is myspace. If the users are truly “overwhelmingly young, hip and media-savvy” WHY ARE THEY USING SUCH AN UGLY SITE? All politics of ownership aside ... where are the aesthetics? Not to mention usability. Though most of my issues are the broken pages due to enormous photos and the constant pummeling by other people’s music. Any site that loads music without letting the viewer choose to play it ... just shouldn’t be.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

In a criticism of updated content in Wikipedia, CNN details a play by play of changes to information on Kenneth Lay’s death. What they fail to mention is that open-source journalism in formats such as IndyMedia encourages readers to take self-responsibility in fact checking—something we should all do with corporate media as well. The benefits to open formats for such information ARE the changing, the fluidity, and the multiple sources. These are not downfalls ...

However, that it was the encyclopedia rather than the “news” being updated is strange.

But the real question is ... did he fake it?

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

When the copier became an accessible means of production, waves of activists began using them to self publish and connect with others through zines. With Google Video and other methods of sharing video without high production and distribution costs, documentaries seem to be more common and more outspoken. Are documentaries this decade’s activist communication tool?

Monday, June 26, 2006

It’s funny to see all the places my business was pushing toward RSS and blogs a couple years ago start using them now. And now we’re closing down our blog in favor of an email and print newsletter. I’m much more excited about variable data printing these days, and other forms of printing, than the online publishing. And I think the online publishing has brought this about for many—a renewed interest in words and ideas in concise published formats. Maybe the next new thing is print.

It looks like the job opportunities in the digital print field are booming. Certainly something to keep an eye on.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

the Empire is putting out The Hooligan in place of the arts & entertainment section that used to run on Thursdays called This Week. They claim it’s so they have something interesting for the 18-35 crowd and draw in new readers. But here’s a tip for you—the only time I ever bought the Empire was on Thursdays for the This Week section. A key to why they’re really changing it is in the linked article above—NO ADVERTISEMENTS.

But let’s play dumb and pretend that Morris Communications really cares about people in Juneau, and more specifically the dwindling “young” crowd that this city keeps trying to attract to town or at least keep in town ...

Why not ask us what we want? We might start with something like more interesting topics and better writing.

Tell us what’s happening outside of Juneau as well as in, but not with the AP Wire because we can read that in an RSS feed before your paper can be printed and distributed.
Tell us both sides to a story, not just the easy one. So there’s a huge debate going on in the political world of Alaska about gas and oil and pipelines—how does this tie to the rest of the world? How does this tie to alternate fuel sources and what does that mean for Alaska? Listening only to the legislators is like getting all your news from corporate press releases.

For local flavor, tell us what young people in town are doing, tell us about the businesses they start and the concerts they organize and why. Tell us why they all work more than one job, why they stay in Juneau anyway, what they’re doing to change the place.

Hell, get really daring and tell us how much we rely on specific cruise lines for our income and how we often bend to their will. Oh wait, if you did that we’d lose all our funding ... can’t have that. Bend baby, bend.

I mean, the Empire is cute and all with it’s Police & Fire section noting the garbage bears, but there’s no meat. And sure, we certainly need something in this town telling us the art happenings, but that’s only coming out once a week. We need real news every day.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Forbes is suggesting the use of ”guerilla marketing” for small businesses. There are a few things about it that seem off. First of all they claim hiring guerilla marketing professionals (an oxymoron in itself?) can cost up to 8% instead of the standard 4% allocated to maketing. Secondly, they say that the concept of guerilla marketing is getting to really know your clients rather than plastering large scale “old-media” with blanket advertisements. And thirdly, the Top Ten Techniques are oddly standardized.

When I think of guerilla marketing I think of graffiti, plastering walls and bulletin boards with fliers, and in general using low-cost options to get information out. This is contrary to everything Forbes is advocating. There is nothing daring or alternative about their top ten list (send out cards to top clients off season, give out information in newsletters or speeches, answer questions through your website...). Ok, I’ll give them the littering of library books with business cards as something a little daring for business—but wouldn’t it be better to run off a really cool bookmark and place that in books instead? But for the most part all of the suggestions seem to be marketing—nothing new about it.

Friday, June 09, 2006

There is something excessive in the wording of this: MEDIA SAFETY A Guide for Parents from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While the effects of media have been studied for years, using the term safety makes it all seem more of a scare tactic than a genuine attempt to help people become literate. Granted, violence and fear are hot topics. Why not play on them for the purpose of promoting all things while it’s trendy? If that’s what you’re after ... 

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

issue_005_web.pdf

We finished rubber cementing the stickers on the covers of issue 6.6.6 just in time (last night) to distribute on 6.6.6. Here’s the web-readable version. You can download an imposed print-ready PDF at the TANGENT site.

Topics in this issue include:

• how to file for office
• Upton Sinclair & Sinclair Lewis
• media rants
• an essay on love
• One night in the singularity (fiction)
• Amazing women: George Sand
• lizard remnants
• animal cruelty

Sunday, March 05, 2006

I hear a lot of complaints about how the Bush administration jumped from illegal wiretapping to uncovering the leak simply to cover its own precarious placement ... The underlying, and more important, problem here is the pacification of the mass media.

In an imitation of the administration, the media launched a campaign against Cheney and the White House following Cheney shooting his hunting buddy because the administration had not told them.

The Bush administration had not called the media to alert them to a faux pas. And this is surprising...why?

Since when is it expected for politicians to alert the media to their wrong-doings? And since when has anyone believed they could expect such an act from an administration that seals presidential archives, restricts Freedom of Information act requests, and hides anything it can (from meeting notes to prisoners) from the public?

The ruckus about Cheney not issuing a press release is either a way for the press to mask the fact that there is no longer any sort of investigative journalism present at the major news corporations or a glaring admission of exactly that.

When the media relies on press releases to uncover the news, is there really anything newsworthy about what is being reported?

My respect goes out to the local reporter at the Corpus Christi Caller-Times in Texas who followed a tip to uncover the story. That’s reporting. 

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Media Sustainability Index 2005

My first reaction to the Media Sustainability Index that I received in the mail from Fielding was eagerness to delve into it and excitement that such a thing existed. Reading through the executive summary had me wishing to be a part of the project in some way, but I also began to question some points. For example, while the study centers on indendent media, I could not locate a working definition of independent and/or independent media. The closest I came to unearthing such a definition is in the final sentence of the exectuvie summary:

… a robust media system that promotes governmental transparency and accountability and brings citizens the information they need and deserve.

Still, my questions were minimal compared to the excitement at apparent growing independent media sustainability in eastern europe and the evidence to follow in country-specific chapters. Until I read the methodology.

When I envision independent media, I think of indymedia.org, grassroots groups, blogs, ‘zines, and in-depth reporting overlooked and under-funded by mainstream, corporate media. These groups are revolutionizing the U.S. media.

Unfortunately, the objectives and indicators included in this study seem to base healthy journalism on steroetypical and out-dated U.S. paradigms. Systems that are being challenged by academics and the masses. Systems that are leading to new definitions of journalism and experimentation by major universities in attempts discover how to research, present and distribute information in this age where trust (of journalists) is waning and information is always available.

Why hold emerging media to flawed visions when they have the potential to show us new opportunities?

My main complaint about the criteria used in the study are the Business Management Indicators. These require that media be profit-generating businesses, use advertising, and use market research to “enhance advertising revenue"… What about media supported by audiences? Media that refuse to play by the rules of advertisers as well as government? This is an especially important question when taking into account the concern by MSI panelists in various countries about “commercialization.”

With domestic and foreign investors seeking solid returns on their capital, many criticize media for seeking the lowest common denominator as they peddle scandal, entertainment, and gossip at the expense of news and public affairs.

Objective 1 covers free speech. In light of the concentration on corporate/for-profit media, a new concern arises. The summary for this section is that “legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information.” While this in and of itself is a positive objective, leaving out the possibility of corporate control of speech when business has such a prominent place in the objectives and indicators leaves a large gap in judgement. For an example of this, look to Fox News’ suffocation of the bovine growth hormone newscast in Florida (due to an advertiser complaint) that led to the termination of employment for the two reporters involved as well as suppression of the information.

Simply having multiple, non-state media outlets does not guarantee free speech nor variety of content.