What Does Digg Like? A Cultural Study

Digg is a huge social networking site that some claim has created a subcultural of its own. Following the model of participant observation inspired by the venture of a well-known social anthropologist, I decided to read digg and write this post. Digg's culture is certainly not without it quirks. Some would argue that Digg is nothing more than a collection of quirks. What is clear from my research is what Digg likes...

From watching the front-page for the past few days, I can tell that Digg likes:

1. Ending monarchies that are complacent in the rise of residential coyote attacks related to cooking with bacon.
2. Doing wheelies near dubai while obsessively staring into the eyes of the tumbling economy
3. Making netbooks based on Disney-cloned vampires that enjoy fast and furious web development tutorials
4. Quantum mathematics related to marijuana users on Wordpress that talk at TED in search of lithium at Microsoft
5. Switching Babies with manatees in 1957 during car crashes in Russia covered by Bush-era torture memos

I wasn't totally satisfied with this conclusion, so I decided to create a plot out of this following the model of the Tom Clancy Plot Generator using frequently appearing terms and ideas:

Under the staring eyes of baby manatees, Monarchs devise a scheme to increase coyotee attacks for ransom. The plot twists when the Monarchs threaten to blow up the Disney-cloned vampire netbooks even after their demands are met. Millions of lives are at stake unless a turncoat quantum pot-head blogging mathematician can gain the courage to do the right thing and stop the Monarchs once and for all. The movie ends with a mildly comical and ironic scene in which the Monarchs blow up or go to Dubai. Another satisfying tale of political intrigue and personal redemption closes, and we all walk away from this movie a little poorer as the market plummets.

Read more...

Diving into Web 2.0

Recently I watched a video by anthropologist Michael Wesch, which discusses YouTube as a cultural phenomenon. Is YouTube part of a surge of democratic media or a wasteland of disorder? That is the question. (Image: YouTube) The video by Michael Wesch is a relatively simple capture from a live presentation at the Library of Congress. However, the fact that we can access this video speaks to the power of YouTube as a platform. Before YouTube, finding a video of a specific presentation would have been nearly impossible. Now almost everything is on YouTube or similar services.

The most important point to take from the discussion of YouTube as a cultural item is that it depends on its users to create and (sometimes) filter content. Wesch describes in detail how social sites like Digg and Delicious represent a new level of user control over their portal to the internet. Digg displays user-filtering, while Delicious shows user-organization. Both of these functions work to create a communal browsing experience that depends on users not just for content, like YouTube, but also to define the collective browsing experience.

The Internet user-generated movement has outpaced growth of any other movement; dwarfing the amount of TV content produced by networks over their entire life. In some ways it seems like we isolate ourselves more and more behind screens, but, as Wesch points out, there is a type of networked individualism that emerges. We are creating an individual experience, but we share it and take-in the experiences of others.

The YouTube culture is one of paradoxes. We are isolated, yet part of a community. We are talking to no one, but talking to everyone. We "pirate" content, yet create new things. Our individual experiences turn into collectively embraced internet phenomena. Everyone has an identity, but it might not be rooted in reality. These uncertainties make YouTube a cultural community that serves a different purpose to all of its participants. With either serious or playful motives, everyone seems to enjoy YouTube.

Here's his video for anyone interested:

Read more...

Does Everything Get Worse or Do We Just Get Older?

"Both you fool!" would be the response of many. However, I can't help but think that things don't really get any worse and we just outgrow them as we grow up. (Image: Gamespot) I mean, the kids still like the new video games, don't they? I think this is a question most people come to at many points in their life. I was just flipping through some old games and thinking about how much better they are than the games I rarely get to rent these days.

I realized, after firing up a few of the old games, that they were not perfect at all. In fact there were quite a few problems with the games I had idealized in my mind. I often notice this with TV shows too. The thing is that the problems with these things are alright because they are our things. We hold them to a different standard than we do something we encounter for the first time today.

Now, holding consciousness of this reality hasn't seemed to make any difference, but it is interesting to think about. How does this reflect how we encounter other issues in life? Do we flock to what's familiar and more readily criticize what is not? The common sense concept that people like to avoid change would suggest that we do this.

I believe the most important thing we can take from personal revelations such as this is that we do need to focus on how open we are to new things. We also need to remember not to idealize the past or past experiences. If we can't think critically about our past, how can we hold the present and future to a higher standard? We need to keep this in mind to truly move forward.
Read more...

How Do More People Get Involved?

Okay so, as I discussed in my last post, democracy requires a lot of work by citizens for it to be fully effective. The question becomes, how do you motivate people to spend the time required? (Image: CNN) Well, the question puts the onus on the politicians and other concerned bodies to make people care. Though this is not how it should be, it is how it ends up being. How do we deal with this and make the best of it?

Politicians need to make an effort to reach out to the masses on issues that count and get people to believe they're serious. Though this can lead to these politicians being dismissed as all talk, a solid base needs a strong presentation to get anywhere. To see this issue in action we can return again to the often-cited case of Barack Obama.

Early in his campaign, Obama got noticed because he reached out to his audiences at speeches and debates by discussing issues they cared about in a way they cared about. He didn't jump into a typical political speech, but spoke of why these things mattered. This strategy was effective in gaining support early on and motivated some people who would otherwise not have have become involved in the presidential race.

This method got heavily criticized by his opponents during the primaries and general election campaigns for being not specific or substantive. The critics claimed that the message of reaching out and motivating people could not contain the complexity of the issues at hand. This attack is hollow in that it is simply not the case. It is hard to disprove it because there is no evidence to prove it. In the case of Obama, he did not sacrifice being specific for firing people up.

Some pundits, along with his opponents, drilled it into the minds of many that he was not direct and specific, but compared to all of his competitors he was the most substantive. During the election he was also criticized by some pundits for making lofty claims. These doubts too were shown to be false, or at least minor in comparison to John McCain's stubborn view on the supposed strength of the economy.

Though the efforts by some politicians to make the public more active in the process of democracy may leave them open to attack, the public usually makes the right choice at the booth. There is no way to measure the effect of Obama's strategy on voter turnout, but this election had a very high turnout during a grim time. Compared to Canada's turnout around the same time, the United States turnout is all the more impressive. This turnout results in a better democracy; the turnout relies on making citizens care.
Read more...

A Little Bit of Democracy

I know that university student council elections are often dismissed as popularity contests, but I think that might be a bit more under control on a campus as large as Western's. But how important are these elections and does it matter who wins? (Image: USC (Screenshot)) I would like to think that these elections do carry some weight and that the candidates have real differences that matter, but I can't help but be a bit skeptical. The candidates on both the campus-wide council and the faculty-council all seemed competent, but it's hard to judge the platform they aim to execute on their word alone.

Unlike most other elections, student council elections typically are based on how the candidates present themselves now. Other elections would include an element of notable experience that could be verified and examined. Another challenge in student politics is the ambiguity of candidate platforms. While they all put effort into defining their vision, the visions are all very similar.

That said, the ambiguity of a platform is beneficial as there are no "parties" to draw battle lines that hinder compromises on plans. Without battle lines set in stone, the elections are theoretically more democratic than others. In my eyes, there are flaws – such as dis-interested students lowering participation – but the flaws in this system are no different than those in other elections.

I would also argue that these elections offer greater democracy on a continuous basis by including votes on issues. During this year's elections, the ballot had two initiatives to vote yes or no on. These were both very important choices, and I believe that it is great that students are given the chance to vote on issues, not just for a candidate.

Even if you don't know where the candidate you vote for stands on each issue, you get a chance to throw your voice into the discussion. I am eager to see the results of the election, and hope that I made the right choices based on the information I had. Then again, it may be a while before we know that.
Read more...

Social Networking or Social Fracturing

I really do enjoy spending some time on Facebook writing on friends' walls or sending messages, but I can't help but wonder if these sites are to some extent de-socializing. (Image: Wikipedia) I raise this question because they all encourage the use of remote communication instead of face-to-face discussion or even calling friends on the phone. To me, as much as I would advocate the utility of the internet to community, this raises alarm bells about how we communicate.

This topic has been tossed around a lot by "concerned parents" organizations and many others to no avail. Apparently, people simply don't see it as problematic for kids to be spending hours on FaceBook. But to put this into perspective, I believe that those who doubt the significance of this need to remember how the time in question was spent before FaceBook and MySpace.

Before the children (and teens) were sitting in front of their computer screens, they would be out and about with friends taking part in far more active pastimes. FaceBook time is increasingly overlapping what used to be hanging out with friends time.

But to stop worrying about the children for a few moments, there are also questions about how these social networking sites affect groups like university students and even older groups. The main concern I have is that the loss of 1-on-1 communication, in an unmediated way, limits how genuine our connections truly are.

When you have the time to look over something you wrote to a friend and get to edit out a bad wording or misstatement, you are mediating something that would have otherwise been communicated unfiltered. The filtration of debate is important because it presents the opportunity for communications to be less genuine because they are so heavily moderated.

Saying the wrong thing before you realize its the wrong thing is a very important part of friendship in my eyes. By removing these Freudian slip moments through moderation, the dialogue becomes a misrepresentation of what you were thinking at the time. So in some ways I believe that FaceBook communications are de-socializing because of this effect. A world where it becomes hard to make a mistake, is not a very human world in my eyes.
Read more...

A Top 5: Musicians Who Have Influenced Me

A lot of people think musicians should talk less politics, but I think that it's great. In my eyes a musician can only write so many meaningful songs about love and other feelings -- at some point they need to have some other thoughts. (Image: CBC) I have nothing against musicians singing about love and whatnot, but I think covering a variety of topics leads to more meaningful art; I would equally criticize a band that made music about Communism every song. The bands and individuals I have highlighted in this list contribute something original on a consistent basis. Their music is not just singing about issues; they put it in context.

Without further ado, here's my top 5:

5. Red Hot Chili Peppers


4. The Beatles


3. Rage Against the Machine


2. Tom Morello


1. John Lennon

5. Red Hot Chili Peppers
The Red Hot Chili Peppers are a unique group with a unique sound to match. Their music covers topics such as love, friendship, loss, addiction problems, and much more. Though very down to earth, the Red Hot Chili Peppers create a disorienting world with heavy funk influences. Though their music doesn't typically feature feel-good lyrics, the songs generally have a sense of completion or satisfaction. (Image: Wikipedia)

4. The Beatles
Anyone who isn't influenced by The Beatles is not my type of person. Seriously though, I think we would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't at least have an appreciation for the influence of The Beatles on music. The Beatles sang about so many important issues it's hard to list something they didn't sing about. Though they didn't usually infuse opinion in an obvious way, they raised issues in ways that got observant listeners thinking. (Image: Wikipedia)

3. Rage Against the Machine
Unlike The Beatles, Rage Against the Machine did nothing to hide their opinions. Though I'm not always in total agreement with the specific messages, the attitude of the band is greatly amusing and empowering. Rage has a totally unique sound that, in much the same was as the Red Hot Chili Peppers, creates a world of its own. Bordering on hard rock musically, Zack de la Rocha adds poetic lyrics in a rap-like style that come across as totally genuine and natural. (Image: Wikipedia)

2. Tom Morello
Going solo as "The Nightwatchman" after the break up and Rage, during and after being part of Audioslave, Tom Morello took on a folksy style and sang of oppression and war. The music is hard to like for some due to Tom's vocal limitations, but the lyrics are packed with eye-opening references that get the gears inside my head spinning. Tom has proven himself again and again in many different genres. (Image: Wikipedia)

1. John Lennon
Again, even though I already mentioned The Bealtes, John Lennon is a great artist and a great thinker. He had a lot of interesting thoughts on many issues and expressed them in totally artistic style. Many people who disagreed with him still listened to him because it was great music. John was funny in both ironic and good natured ways, though usually the former. He's really been a big influence on me in many ways; his music is extremely genuine and stands out to me above all others. (Image: Amazon)
Read more...

Take Your Pick: YouTube or Hollywood

No, I'm not literally asking you to pick, or suggesting that one will die in battle with the other. When recently listening to discussions about the "social web" and citizen journalism, I got to thinking that, while some believe we're witnessing an evolutionary step, we're really just playing into the old system. (Image: Digg) YouTube is a great example of a Web 2.0 site that is often directly compared to, what are now called, "old media" counterparts. Some hold the belief that YouTube is a viable replacement for the Hollywood studios, television networks, or broadcast news. This is simply not the case.

As mentioned by Michael Wesch, YouTube's content is not directly comparable to television content by any means. While there is explosive growth in the amount of content, most of the content is not meant for mass consumption. There are a few standout examples of people putting up high quality products for mass consumption (usually created during YouTube contests), but generally the content and production are not that great.

YouTube can provide endless hours of entertainment, but I would not pick it over the few TV shows I watch regularly. Likewise, I would never sacrifice CNN, or more broadly the Associate Press or Reuters, in favour of the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. Though both are great and tend to provide excellent background mainstream press tends to glide over, I would be uncomfortable relying on the Web community to not only produce opinion, but also to gather news as it happens in a credible and responsible way.

What I find more interesting than blogs, YouTube, or collaborative content is the concept behind sites like Digg. While Digg is primarily fed by mainstream sources, users control what content gets featured. What surprises me about Digg is how quickly stories can explode to the top of the list; many sites are competing for that spot and, more often than not, the best site for any given news item usually is the one to catch the wave of Diggs.

In some ways I see Digg as more democratic than citizen content creation because it is not a shouting match to get your voice heard, but a collaborative effort to pick out what's newsworthy or entertaining. It's an entirely different beast, and it's really something special. When it comes to the future of democratic media, I believe it will be the content presentation (via sites like Digg) that is far more valuable than the direct contributions of the blogosphere.

The blogosphere is a great thing in many ways and blogs really are a liberating force in allowing opinions to flow freely. However, what brings order to this is the power of collaborative filtering -- both in the form of Digg and in the form of social bookmarking like Stumble Upon or Delicious. Everyone should have their say as to what's newsworthy.
Read more...

The Blogosphere: Reflecting on a 2007 Snapshot

For several years, Technorati has provided a wealth of data on the development of the blogosphere. After recently reading a slightly dated State of the Blogosphere, I got to thinking about how fast this movement has taken hold. (Image: Screen shot -- Flickr) The State of the Blogosphere posts are by David Sifry, the founder and CEO of Technorati. These posts highlight some of the many statistics his site gathers.

The post I read was from April 2007, but it revealed continuing trends in the blogosphere. The one that Sifry identifies as most important is the tagging movement. I agree with this assessment, and in the nearly two years since this State of the Blogosphere tagging has gained more traction.

What Sifry describes as the "Live web" is built around the ability to tag items. Tags can be broad or specific, but their basic function is simple: tags link items together. Networking pages by common topics through tags is invaluable to the casual browser as it exposes them to a variety of sites by following natural language links.

Social networking has introduced many users to the notion of tagging by tagging people to specific items like photos, videos, or notes/blogs. Media-sharing services, such as flickr and YouTube offer tag-based browsing or encourage tagging to organize content, as demonstrated by the links, respectively.

Since 2007 bloggers have gained on Mainstream Media (MSM). On the day of U.S. Election, a TechCrunch traffic survey revealed 3 non-MSM sites in the top 15 news sites. This shows the power of non-MSM outlets to survive the fierce competition with MSM conglomerates.

For the blogosphere to remain competitive it will need technologies such as tagging to boost the flow of users to non-MSM sites.
Read more...

U.S. Policy: Can "Change" Be Anything But More of the Same?

One item which flew under the radar of the Saturday discussions of news pundits was yesterday's move by Obama to lift the ban on international abortion funding. Will U.S. law always mirror the ideology of the party in power? (Image: Wikipedia) The decision by President Obama to reverse this ban, which was created by Reagan (Republican) during his first term. The first President Bush (R) let it stand, but Clinton (Democrat) terminated the order in his first term. George W. Bush (R) reinstated it, and now Obama (D) has cancelled it again. What does all of this mean?

What this means, in my eyes, is that United States politics has very little stability. Major issues such as abortion and military or intelligence strategy and more recently gay marriage, "Don't ask, don't tell" or healthcare are dictated by the ideology of the ruling party. So can change mean anything but more of the same party-line legislation?

I'm not belittling Obama's message or his policy, but, in an infinitely cynical way, I am asking if it really matters. If Obama puts America back on par with the rest of the G8 world in terms of health care, schooling, equal rights, citizen freedom, and countless other measures, will it survive the next Republican president?

Here in Canada our policies remain much more stable. When the Conservatives came in (who I should point out are more and more like the Reform party), they did not reverse long-standing legislation on public healthcare, ban abortions, and stop funding public schools or even review recent decisions such as allowing gay marriage.

This has nothing to do with the status of the Conservatives as a minority government, but, I argue, it is a matter of tradition. In a country where you are not guaranteed a 4 year term, you must remain in line -- and that means that you must always be ready to answer to the electorate. I believe most citizens in the United States or Canada prefer stability, which makes it all the more odd that the flip-flopping laws in the U.S. don't raise more eyebrows.
Read more...

Work. School. Sleep. No time for living?

I got to thinking, after a few conversations with friends over recent weeks, how little free time we all have. It seems university life is a trade-off between having fun and doing well. Is there time for both? Is this any different than work life? (Image: Clock from Apple System Preferences) It's midterm season and everyone is feeling it. "It" being the pressure to pull off passable marks without driving yourself so far up a tree of isolation that you can't come back down. Well, I shouldn't say "everyone." There are a privileged few who know how to balance both in perfect harmony.

I'm not one of those people, so, with a bit of envy, I have been pondering what they do that I don't. It seems to me that when I take a day off to relax, I don't really get to relax. If the people who can balance both are at one end of a scale, I would be at the other.

Well, maybe not the other end of the scale. I have no problem forgetting about the insane amount of school work and work-related tasks for sustained periods of time, but I struggle to not feel as though I've wasted a day after the fact. I think the main difference between those who can feel balanced and those who are more like me is the mindset that social life is equally important to school or work.

I'm not accusing myself or others of undervaluing a social life. What I am saying is that we can get the notion that 'school (or work) will make or break us' stuck in our head too readily. There is no reason that we have to pick one over the other. It may be easier to get an 80 if you shut down socially, but it would be a very empty term.

Finding the balance is important. It's an entirely individual thing. While first year is fun, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us were way off in our attempts to balance, or lack of attempts to balance. I know that I am a lot closer this year, and it's been more enjoyable on the whole. Carrying this balance forward will be important, because, from what I can tell, balancing work and life is no different.
Read more...

McDonald's Likes Recessions

When I was reading the site of the ever-yellow Matt Drudge, I came across a very interesting story about McDonald's and the economic downturn. It seems that people are increasingly turning to McDonald's for food during these hard times. (Image: Wikipedia) Now this story in itself is interesting enough to justify a read, but there are some broader lessons here. Let's just look at this objectively. Economy is down, budgets are tight, so let's eat fast-food more. Weird, huh?

Call me crazy, but I would venture a guess that it's more economical and healthier to make food at home and take it with you for lunch than it is to get something from McDonald's. Sure they make cheap fast food, but they also are a business with surprisingly high margins. I see the draw of the low advertised price, but we can do better ourselves.

Even if we couldn't get our homemade lunch cheaper than a $3 meal, it would be a lot healthier. I don't want to come off as too hard on McDonald's here, because, while I think they make a terrible product, they are not nearly as evil as most companies of their size. Rarely do I hear a news story bashing McDonald's for anything besides the low health standards of their foods. Meanwhile, most corporations of their size are riddled with financial mishaps or labour controversies.

McDonald's is relatively good from the perspective of business ethics and financial stability — and that's important. I won't degrade McDonald's as a business. I also won't categorically say that I will never eat McDonald's foods; sometimes it just happens, during long road trips or late nights, that McDonald's is nearby. It's convenient, it's cheap, and it's addictive.

But the level of business McDonald's is receiving during this downturn is more than just a few new casual customers dropping in. This is an increase in the occasional visitors and in the frequent visitors. Going to McDonald's as a regular source of food is terribly unhealthy -- which I'm sure everyone knows. So why are people doing it?

I believe it comes down to the psychological aspect of the low advertised prices. It's convenient and it seems cheap. However, people need to be aware that there are other options. Even if it costs you $4 or even $5 to fill a lunchbox with a homemade meal compared to $2 or $3 to get a Big Mac Meal, I'm sure your homemade meal won't include 72% of your recommended daily fat intake.
Read more...

Popular News: Code for News to an Even Lower Standard

Ever since my first post on journalism, I've been noticing quite a few shady practices in mainstream news. Yesterday, when I wrote about yellow journalism, I noticed some even more weird patterns around the web. (Image: Screen capture of CNN.com) On the CNN website, I noticed a section called "Popular News" below the latest headlines. This news seems to be primarily soft-news or articles from the entertainment industry.

Now, I have nothing against entertainment or soft-news outright, however, I think a news organization like CNN should be prioritizing a bit better. From my observations, on a typical news day, CNN posts 10 headlines under "latest news" and post about 6 soft-news stories under the "popular news" portal page section or in the sections beside it.

Despite the fact that CNN posts more real news than soft-news, the soft-news takes up as much if not more of the portal page's main section. This is a very odd decision in that CNN's brand relies on a tag line like "the most trusted name in news" when their website is increasingly dominated by fluff.

Much is said about the so-called "CNN-Effect" and how it has increased the amount of soft-news and editorialization due to the need to fill 24 hours. Though other news organizations have contributed to this problem, CNN was the root of the trend. Ironically, Fox News dedicates less space to soft-news entertainment stories -- called "Features and Faces" on their portal page.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not against this type of news categorically, however there is a time and a place for it. Placing this type of news side-by-side with the hard-news of the day is an injustice for the implications of the serious news. It's also interesting to see how these news stories resemble advertisements rather than news articles. They seem to have a "hook" in their title while using buzz words.

Overall, I believe there needs to be a clear distinction between hard- and soft-news for the casual reader. The web blurs the line a lot more readily than television tends to. On TV there are usually different programs for different styles of news, but on the internet these stories can appear right beside each other. This lack of distinction, as well as the fact that these stories are increasingly prevalent, are where I take issue with soft-news. Again, as I have found with all matters of journalistic integrity, the need for responsibility is key to fixing the problem.
Read more...

Self-Censorship Beyond Traditional Media

Ever since watching OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, I've been thinking about how much self-censorhsip occurs in the media -- especially online. Having witnessed some first hand, I have some experience with the tricky issue. Before I was Assistant Publisher at MacNN and for its associated sites, I wrote the news on a day-to-day basis. In writing news, I had moments where I censored my own writing, sometimes unprovoked.

As a website our revenue depends on our advertisers. Knowing this, I was always mindful in some ways not to unnecessarily run down our partners. Especially when writing about Apple, who I believe is our biggest advertiser, I avoided saying too many harsh things.

Now, in my case, I didn't avoid reporting negative news about Apple, but I avoided pushing the envelope when doing so. Negative stories often draw the most page views for us, so they often draw the most comments; in these comments I, and almost every writer since, received criticism for refusing to 'take it to Apple' for obvious mistakes.

As Assistant Publisher I have an inside look at many online practices. While MacNN and other sites I am involved with do not accept bribes for reviews, many websites receive free products or additional advertising offers in exchange for favourable reviews. Our reviews department requires disclosure about any deals or products received, but many do not.

It is a clear trend though that few reviewers around the internet give ratings less than 50% unless the product does not work at all. I would say that it is a safe bet that this is the case because these reviewers want to assure that they are given more deals in the future. These reviewers work in active self-censorship in order to achieve personal gains, which should be very concerning.

To say that there will ever be a truly free medium without pressures is naive to some extent, but I believe full disclosure is the best step to take. The internet is very unregulated right now and my site operators have an anything goes mentality. There is no way for regulation to occur without violating the promise of internet neutrality, so it requires good will on the part of many. Hopefully more websites choose to do this.
Read more...

OUTFOXED: Blurring Commentary With Fact

After viewing OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, I realized how accurate its title is. The film sought not only to show the problems with FOX News Channel and its network, but also to prove how effective the format of FOX can be (Image: Video Screen capture) When making documentary films there's a fine line between dramatizing fact and pushing it too far. In spite of my immense disgust with Fox News Channel (FNC) and its affiliates, I can't help but feel somewhat annoyed with the film's approach to the issue.

In an effort to prove its point regarding the power of FNC's format, I believe OUTFOXED took the Fox news format and turned it against Fox. The rapid-fire cuts and overlapping rants from commentators created the confusion and overflow of information that creates the bewildering Fox-effect. There were also obvious moments where the documentary filtered information; one specifically obvious moment was when a narrator was skipping sentences that minimized the effect of the film's argument while reading internal FNC memos.

Beyond the format of the film, the fact that it was sponsored by MoveOn.org and The Center for American Progress, two politically involved progressive groups, raises question marks about its legitimacy. While I fully agree with the film's assessment of FNC, OUTFOXED's did nothing for its case by seeking the sponsorships of these groups and mainly interviewing former FOX employees who were potentially motivated by anger.

I am well aware that this film is about Fox and the problems with the network, but I don't think OUTFOXED's target audience, primarily left-wing viewers, would not know Fox's problems already. I believe, especially due to the involvement of FAIR and Media Matters for America, the film should have also spoke of the problems with the left-leaning Fox imitators including MSNBC (which is problematic, as funny as it is).

I don't want to imply that I disagree with the message of the film, but I believe that a film arguing for objectivity in the media should make an effort to appear objective. While it may gain laughs from those such as myself in the short term, it misses an opportunity to raise some serious issues about the media in general.
Read more...

Blogosphere or Jim Bob's, how will we be viewed in history?

It's hard to pin down what qualifies as culture today. No matter what form it takes, be it a night club or a web page, it's contribution is usually isolated. (Image: Jim Bob Ray's) Culture seems to be getting less and less centralized; sporadic contributions from various sources are not adding up to much of anything. Though history often views the past through the lens of romanticism, there seems to be a stark difference in the culture of today in comparison to eras past.

Never before in history has such a large portion of the population had the ability to publish their voices directly to the masses. Until recently, closed distribution methods ranging from the printing press to television have limited direct access to the general population. Only the rich or famous could voice their thoughts on an unfiltered public stage. The internet changed this.

Adding more voices to the general discourse of society has not been all good. While it is great to include more voices for the sake of democracy, the result so far has been a scattered mess of opinions. This will no doubt make the challenge of future historians all the more complicated, while giving them a great wealth of knowledge to work with.

With all the knowledge they will have access to, how will our culture be reflected upon? Is there even a culture to be examined? Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that we have no culture, but culture as we know it today is quite different than the cultures of previous eras.

There's a big difference between pre-capitalist eras' producing of cultural works to secure a bare necessity life and today's lavish lifestyle for a few cultural producers creating content from a specific mold. Today, few cultural artifacts enter the mainstream of our culture without being conformed to a clearly defined set of values and specifications. When culture is an industry, there is less creativity and fewer published perspectives. Economics dictate what is allowed and what is rejected to remain in obscurity.

Culture is more than entertainment, of course, but the same problems exist throughout our culture beyond entertainment media. The fellowship among citizens is diminished. People have started to live their lives in a bubble with only their personal interests at heart. Communal experience is a rare occurrence, even when people get together in droves. Nightclubs certainly are not about a shared experience.

Perhaps what got me thinking about this recently were events such as those which I described in my last posting or the Obama Inauguration Celebration concert. Even watching them from a far, through a television no less, the sense of a shared experience is present. The crowd seems to be sharing the experience together with a common purpose that I can feel connected to. It's something that is noticeably missing in culture today.

So while I don't doubt that there are these moments of shared experience, it is ironically missing in a culture where people often imitate a select few celebrities. So how will we be viewed in history? Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but I am hoping that this era of disconnect and dehumanization is going to be short lived. I'm hoping that we'll find a culture in the true sense of the word.
Read more...