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. 

!2-12-12

Rumors of a Nirvana reunion headed by Sir Paul McCartney had taken the Internet by storm in an anticipation of the Hurricane Sandy Benefit Concert to be staged at New York’s Madison Square Garden. It was 12-12-12 and Macca was expected to take the stage following a superstar lineup featuring Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, The Rolling Stones, Kanye West, an unexpected duet between Coldplay’s Chris Martin and REM’s Michael Stipe, and numerous other world-renowned acts. A month earlier Hurricane Sandy had devastated thousands of Americans along the East Coast and the concert was a much needed relief effort. Notably, half of the dozen or so acts performing at the concert were in fact not American, but mainly hailing from Great Britain.

So, to take a step back for a moment, there was more than one moment of significance being generated on stage on 12-12-12. For starters, a wide variety of world-class acts came together to raise money for Hurricane Sandy, including a band that is apparently difficult to book, The Rolling Stones (though they only privileged the audience two songs). Alongside The Rolling Stones were five other artists who do not originally hail from the United States. Is this a sign that patriotism is waning and the concert organizers had to outsource jobs to international acts, or is there just resounding sense of support from non-Americans for the East Coast (more specifically New York City)? As Mick Jagger put it, "This has got to be the biggest collection of old English musicians ever in Madison Square Garden. If it ever rains in London, you've got to come help us." And, this raises another interesting point, while Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on much of the East Coast, why does it seem that there was only support being shown for New York. Yes, it is convenient enough that Madison Square Garden, a long-celebrated arena that has been host to a myriad of notable performers, is in fact in New York City, but what if the show had taken place in West Virginia, or Maine? Would there have been the same outpouring of support? Surely, The Rolling Stones, or The Who, or Billy Joel, a recluse in recent years, wouldn’t have come out for a show at WesBanco Arena in Wheeling, West Virginia. As the proceeds from the event went solely towards relief efforts, obviously it’s difficult to argue against the marketing of the show. I, personally, being an American, but not being of the East Coast, would say that I relate more with New York City than any other city of note in the East. It’s not because I’ve spent a lot of time there, or necessarily spent less time anywhere else on the coast, but it’s because New York City is a symbol of the United States. You heard it when Billy Joel sang his “New York State of Mind” and Alicia Keys closed the show with her own “Empire State of Mind” and the crowd rejoiced. And Paul’s choice to play “Helter Skelter” was eerily reminiscent of his Grammy Award winning performance of the song on his 2009 live album Good Evening New York City.

Despite the glaring peculiarities of the entire show, the concert still earned an estimated $30 million for Hurricane Sandy relief and generated a memorable moment in time.

The Rise and Fall... And Rise Again? of Patrick Stump

Patrick Stump was on top of the world. At 24 Stump's pop punk outfit, Fall Out Boy already had two platinum records, a slew of hit songs on the modern rock circuit, and an ever-growing fan base. He had also lent his hand to such successful commercial bands as Cobra Starship and Gym Class Heroes in producing and co-writing tracks. What could have gone wrong? In 2009 the group disbanded in pursuit of other musical ventures, Stump's being an indulgent solo album. Soul Punk was released in 2011 along with a new, thinner Stump. The album truly was a solo effort as the former drummer turned frontman manned all instrumentation and production tasks. The project allowed Stump to flex his ethnomusicologist skills as he sampled from a variety of different genres and influences (Stump is most notably a Michael Jackson fanatic). The expected result would be an overwhelming support from both the music community and Stump's acquired fan base, but it seems the outcome was quite the opposite. Though Soul Punk initially received positive reviews, the album only went on to sell 23,000 copies in the United States and ultimately prompted Stump to post to his blog an emotional letter in which at one point he quips, "It's tempting to say I won't ever play/tour/record again..." In the letter the refined singer proceeds to explain the amount of negative reception he's experienced around Fall Out Boy's last album and the solo effort, particularly fans denouncing his change in musical direction and stating a clear preference towards the singer when he was "fat."
So who is to blame for the demise of Stump's popularity amongst fans. An evermore timid and particular audience vehemently opposes evolution in an artist. This is a clear sign about the current state of the music industry. It's not about the music. It is not about the art. It is about what sells. In the beginning, Stump and Fall Out Boy produced a certain aesthetic that captivated fans. That singular sound fit cookie cutter mold of what pop music was at the moment, and as the band began to evolve, their pop/rock constituency did not. Stump's case is proof that fame does not guarantee longevity and though he poured his heart and soul into Soul Punk it seemed his fifteen minutes were up...
Or were they? A month ago Fall Out Boy surprised everyone as they announced a new album, released lead single "My Songs Know What You Did in the Dark," and plotted an North American tour to be played in moderately small venues. The single already receives consistent airplay on modern rock stations and much of the tour sold out immediately. Fall Out Boy bassist Pete Wentz even went so far as to admit, "We didn't think anyone would care." Goes to show the power of a moniker. On the success of Fall Out Boy's upcoming release? Time will tell.

Both Sides of the Story

Politics are messy.What's even messier? The media attempting to portray politics. The extremes of both conservatives and liberals are constantly glorified in the news to rile up both sides, create controversy, and ultimately gain a wider audience for just such cases. Both conservative and liberal publications are to blame for these discrepancies, but how exactly are these views demonstrated? To answer this question and further investigate the idea of prostituting politics I plan on researching articles on polarizing political issues within our country from news sites on both sides of the spectrum to better understand the phenomenon.

The first issue I look into is that of election night, and Obama's victory. The headline from liberal CNN, "Obama takes key battlegrounds to win re-election."And from their conservative competitor Fox News, "Obama defeats Romney to win second term, vows he has 'more work to do.'" Now as I interpret it, CNN takes the position of a modest supporter following victory, and Fox News takes the position that Obama has won the battle, but he has not won the war (for lack of a better phrase). As I read through the articles I find that CNN spends most of their words talking about Obama's sweeping victory and the fact that he was able to take swing states and demographics that Romney was unable to. The brief portion of the article pertaining to Romney briefly touches on his conciliation speech and then proceeds to harshly critique the shortcomings of the republican party. It then predicts that the democrats will hold they house. They did not. 

As for the article from Fox News, after a brief introduction paragraph the first quote from Obama saying, "We've got more work to do." Not allowing the democrats any time to revel in their victory the article labels the campaign "one of the nastiest political battles and gridlocked terms in modern American history." The article then goes on to speak of just how close the race was and despite Obama's large margin of victory in electoral votes how tight the popular vote was. The article also takes a jab at Obama asserting that extra time and money spent in swing states had won him the vote and that "Obama sought to cast Romney -- even before he was nominated -- as an elite, tax-dodging, corporate champion."

Ultimately what I gained from these two opposing articles was that both will act maliciously in times of strong debate, the victor often more subtle, and the loser often more bitter. But both sides still buy into the same age-old belief that right and wrong is black and white, especially in politics, and at the end of the day there never really is a winner. The goal of any political agent in the media is to represent its audience as well as it can, but the eventual result is audiences made by the media, rather than the other way around.