Violent Media

As I take a step back and look critically at what I find most entertaining it's somewhat disconcerting to say that my favorite films and television shows are based in violence. Those most notable of those being the shows Dexter, Homeland, and Breaking Bad. All three shows revolve around acts or professions that call for great bloodshed and you'll hardly find an episode that does not exemplify these traits. So, what is America's obsession with seeing blood, torture, drug-use, and war crimes. The Saw series has been one of the most lucrative in Hollywood. The very nature of the films is just pure torture, to watch awful people do to other people things that we could never do, or feel we would never be justified doing. I feel it's a matter of wanting what we can't have. It's a phenomenon that we experience in many aspects of our lives beyond the films we watch. We want the spouse that's already taken, to be the rockstar we could never be, or simply to commit and act that is considered entirely socially deviant. The desire is overwhelming. Do these shows satisfy just that need. Dexter is a serial killer in every aspect of the term, yet at the end of the episode he is the one you're rooting for. The fact that he has a family only makes you want him to win more, as a lies to them and all his friends and fellow cast members. It is not my belief that it is shows like this that promote this action, but in fact deter it. Allowing such shows to be aired and glorified they satisfy that need in us to break social conformity and do something that we know would be totally socially unacceptable. When the fantasy can be converted to a television screen not only is the violence and injustice broadcast, not only is there room to show the senseless acts of violence, but also that which makes it so wrong and so conflicting. Viewing the darkness makes it that less appealing, the paranoia, the guilt, and inhumanity and glaringly obvious and rooting for a character such as Dexter as almost just as much rooting for him to give up his murderous ways.

Conspiracy

In a world where current events are blown wildly out of proportion on a daily basis there must be a large sect of society that chooses to question that constant flow of information and derives it for what it truly is. A particularly large organization dedicated to questioning the popular media is Zeitgeist. Not only does the Zeitgeist movement choose not to subscribe to common conceptions created by our media, but they are vehemently in opposition. The largest, most significant stance that they were ever took was the radical theory that 9/11 was an inside job. Responses about such a claim include, "Zeitgeist does have a message that's not necessarily invalid, but it's lost underneath the unequivocal dishonesty." The film is seemingly able to offer facts a plenty, many of which seem true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Upon seeing the film for the first time as a sophomore in high school I hardly had the ability to question such a powerful entity. The ideas suggested by the film were to large and lofty to be ignored and for a short period of time I was drawn to the speculation with strong curiosity. While I was ultimately able to discern between what was actually true and what was simply conspiracy. While the power of releasing such a film is apparent simply in the action of doing so little consideration is given to the resounding effect such knowledge can have on a young moldable mind. I was not so easily swayed that viewing the Zeitgeist told turned my views on the events that took place on 9/11 a portion of my mind is still susceptible to the idea that it may have been an inside job and as this was such a tragic, important event in our country's history I feel it's almost unfair of me to dishonor those lives by speculating about those who put in so much effort to first, keep our country safe, and then those who were able to respond to those tragic events and lighten the effects. I just wish I had more faith in those reporting me the news to distinguish between their lies and the lies of those who would like to bring down the system entirely.

Misguided Journalism

For the past month I have been sickened by the handling of the Boston Marathon bombing. I shouldn't be so surprised. The media's at it's best when something terrifying has just happened. I hate that I live in a world where tragedy turns a profit. At one point just a week after the bombing I entered my CNN news application expecting to find a rundown of all the latest world affairs, but was taken aback when every single story on the homepage was regarding the bombing. At least five showing the seemingly innocent face of the young terrorist who was able to outlive his brother/accomplice for a few days. I've seen his face everywhere. They've made him a celebrity. What is a young child supposed to believe about a face that they've seen plastered all of the internet, the television, newspapers and anywhere else other than that this is someone to be revered, that this young man is just as much someone to idolize as a Justin Bieber or a Lil' Wayne. The media holds a very large responsibility in the future of civilization. Media is becoming a much larger social agent than the family, or even the peers, as its infiltrated these agencies and made them a part of it. Family and friends are simply terms for who you talk to on the internet, the ideals that you see on the television, or the celebrities that we so yearn to be. Glorifying the strange and the bizarre as it's seen today, shootings and bombings, it only promotes the idea that if you want to make a change you have to make a boom and the mentally unstable won't hesitate to turn to deviance over therapy, especially considering the state of pharmaceuticals and our over medicated youth. Everything that's in our face 24/7 only points towards destruction as a means to an end, because everybody wants their face plastered all over the news just like a James Holmes or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The change this society needs may depend on the failure of the original.

Crash: A Social Commentary

In 2004, the film Crash was theatrically released to a wave of media frenzy. Not only did the film receive critical acclaim for its acting and storyline, but it also drew great praise for its depiction of highly sensitive issues plaguing both our country and the foundations of our society. The film tackles such issues as race, gender, prejudice, discrimination, and power and does so in a manner that expresses understanding, while sometimes generalizing for dramatic and resonant effect. Crash effectively both illustrates specific scenarios where these themes are prevalent but also highlights the roots and resolutions to these problems. Analysis of this film suggests that while Crash demonstrates a firm grasp on many of the racial and gender issues ailing our society in contemporary America, at times the film generalizes some of the larger problems and inadvertently works to contribute to the mass media’s construction of these matters and leave out some key factors.

A pivotal scene early on features Terrance Howard’s character Cameron Thayer and his wife Christine (played by Thandie Newton) returning from a night at an awards’ ceremony where Cameron has just received a great honor (something that actually becomes a particular point of racial conflict later on). The couple is African-American. As they are driving home the couple is pulled over by Caucasian two police officers played by Matt Dillon and Ryan Phillippe. The Thayers are supposedly being cited for a frivolous traffic violation, but the situation quickly escalates. It is immediately evident that Matt Dillon’s character, Officer John Ryan, has racist tendencies and is going to treat the couple with some amount of prejudice. It’s evident in both the way that he speaks to Mr. Thayer and the way that he rebuts any logical argument that Mr. Thayer might put forth. At this point, the film is constructing stereotypes revolving around both race and the role of law enforcement in conjunction to that. The film suggests that Officer Ryan being white and in the power position and the Thayers being black and having allegedly broken the law, Ryan will proceed to exert his power as a police officer to unjustly treat the couple with racism and discrimination. Meanwhile, Ryan’s partner, Officer Tom Hansen, a newcomer to the force, stands by idly, recognizing that Ryan’s actions are wrong, but becoming a party to his wrongdoing by not acting in opposition. Hansen symbolizes what many Americans are today. He is aware of racism and prejudice happening, but he initially turns a blind eye as to keep his own welfare in mind. In this case his welfare possibly being his reputation, as he is new to the police force and might not want to ruffle any feathers, or maybe even his job.

A Tale of Two Brothers

Ever since the demise of British rock band Oasis, and the relationship of bandleaders/brothers Liam and Noel Gallagher, their frivolous public quarrels have been hot press. All around the music news circuit every time one of the Gallaghers makes any sort of statement regarding the other, often profanity and insult-filled, publications such as NME, Pitchfork, and Rolling Stone are quick to the headline. Such tag lines include: Liam Gallagher: "Fuck Oasis and Fuck Noel Gallagher," Liam Gallagher: "I Might Reunite Oasis for $30m," Noel Gallagher: "I wouldn't reform Oasis even if all the world's starving children depended on it." It sparked my interest why such "news" was of any great interest to anyone. Granted much of this news does come straight out of Great Britain, the home of the Gallaghers. It seems rock stars are gossiped about and put on a pedestal there just as any pop star or actor would be here. The articles are still dribble. Not only are those headlines included in any sort of fashion on such websites, but the stories are the main billing.

It seems even the boys' mother has taken to the press as a means to end the feuding between the two, as it is clearly the greatest means by which to mediate any of sort of discussion between either of them. Prior to Noel's wedding in 2011 their mother was quoted as saying, "Unless he has broken both his legs, Liam is going to watch his brother get married." In seems a bit out of sorts that family counseling should be taking the form of a petty feud within the media. While the family has been known for infamous spats in the past it seems this one is for real, and certainly only fueled by the media.

Video Games

Review:

7) A MUD is a multiuser dimension, meaning it can be played through cellphones and PDAs because it is text-based.

9) Third-party publishers are companies that create video games for existing consoles i.e. if someone other than Microsoft were to develop a game for the Xbox 360 they'd be considered a third-party publisher.

11) MMO stands for Massively Multiplayer Online role-playing games i.e. Ultima Online, World of Warcraft, Everquest, and Second Life.

14)Advocacy games are those that don't serve of the sole purpose of entertaining, but often times also support a cause or intend to convey a message.

15) The ESRB levels are EC: Early Childhood, E: Everyone, E10+: Ages 10 and Up, T: Teen, M: Mature, and AO: Adults Only.

Pussy Riot

A Russian all-female punk rock group by the name of Pussy Riot recently made headlines around the world when they were arrested and subsequently sentenced to two years in jail for participating in a protest against Russian president Vladimir Putin armed with guitars and drums. The trio, dawning different colored balaclavas on each of their heads, performed a rendition of what they later referred to as “Punk Prayer” in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. “Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish Putin, banish Putin/Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish him, we pray thee!” While the performance met vehement opposition from Russian government the global response was somewhat different. The Pussy Riot tale made headlines daily in the United States and Britain gaining support for the group from such iconic figures as Paul McCartney, Sting, Yoko Ono, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. An HBO produced documentary on the subject is even in the works and received a prestigious Sundance release. So, with the worldwide interest being so strong you'd imagine the charges against Pussy Riot would have been dropped somewhere along the line. But no, only one of the three Pussy Riot players was allowed to walk free, simply because she had been unable to remove her instrument during the proceedings. These facts are proof that while the media can harbor a powerful movement, often the significance of a headline is only so much in comparison to governmental institution. As much as we may like to believe that reading about Pussy Riot every day as we browse the web everyday will ultimately lead to their liberation, we must realize that the power to change the world is not solely in the word count.

This is not to say that the constant media coverage of the case didn't have certain beneficial results. If anything the stories were effective in highlighting the truly unjust rulings of tyrant, Vladimir Putin. While educating ourselves on the Pussy Riot trials did not lead to dismissal of the case, their actions had the intended results. They raised awareness of a pressing human rights and foreign affairs issue. Coverage of such a story on entertainment sites and political sites creates a junction between multiple powerful agents. The unorthodox manner by which the trio chose to riot sparked the media frenzy and their role as women in the music industry, women in Russia, and women in arms were enough strike everyone's attention and hold it for months to come. Two of the members of Pussy Riot sit in prison today, but their story is still ever present in working minds around the world, as a globalized world rallies around such issues and keeps them prevalent.