BEHOLD THE INTERNET, THOSE WORTHY OF TIME'S "PERSON OF THE YEAR":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjV0DKCCJbY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRuxCs-Ojno
As much as Time might be supportive of it’s Person of the Year award, this year’s winner goes to show just how meaningless and empty this award can truly be. You, all of the pasty faces self-diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, the light of the monitor screen lighting the otherwise blackened room filled with empty chips bags and hokey gimmick t-shirts and stacked collection of DVDs/pornography, YOU are the person of the year because you were smart enough to figure out how dub Japanese music over a Spongebob Squarepants cartoon and then posting on the internet, your delicate contribution to the world wide web. Time’s choice personally sickens me; this is the kind of schlock that gets critics like Andrew Keen all worked up over the state of society today. Time Magazine ought to be ashamed of their choice, no matter how difficult they attempt. The editors of the magazine should’ve spent a thorough 24 hours observing the internet in it’s finest and crudest forms before declaring YOU the winner: the sex fetishists of a horribly wide variety, the empty headed preteen “vloggers” (who chose video cameras to do their writing work for them), and the inane journeys made in the name of mongloid science (see clip #3). Then they might not be able to truly call YOU the person of the year. This is not the same Time magazine that once voted Adolf Hitler as Man of the Year back in 1938. (http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa050400a.html)
This is the Time magazine that voted in Rudolph “Jerk-off” Giuliani over Osama bin Laden at the end of 2001. For those not in the know, Time says it bases it’s decision on the person that changed the world the most within one year, and regardless of your political philosophy stance, it’s hard to argue that the man who masterminded one of the most without-a-doubt-world-changing event would be beaten out by a greasy smiling city mayor who walked around Ground Zero just to make sure he looked good in the photo-ops, and earn that spot in American hearts that would one day propel him for a shot at the Presidency. If Time Magazine didn’t ruin its credibility right then and there, they have certainly done so now.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Reflection on "Internet Smackdown"
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/theluddite/2007/06/luddite_0621?currentPage=2
I enjoyed reading Tony Long's piece, not just because I agree with him, but because he makes some very encouraging points about the state of journalism.
Especially his point about the "on-site" insta-journalist. A fantastic example of this would be the ten second or so cell phone video some college student took outside of the Norris Building in Virgina Tech. What we were treated to on every single news channel was a grainy video in which one or two men are running about on the screen, almost immediately running off screen, and then the popping of several gunfire shots. Nothing more than this, and the empty roars of criticism were heard loud and clear across the nation about the inability for a camera crew to "capture the action" like this "brave" college student standing by the window of a building did with his trusty cell phone camera. As much as I dislike television media, it was rather senseless to place such shoddy footage of the incident on the air. For all we, the viewer, could tell, this could've been any college campus in the country, or any business square for that matter, dealing with some crazed gunman who's walking around with his gun in the air, popping off shots until his brains are finally removed from his head by the assistance of an officer's rifle.
Only when the amaetur proves himself worthy of our attention should it be granted to him.
I enjoyed reading Tony Long's piece, not just because I agree with him, but because he makes some very encouraging points about the state of journalism.
Especially his point about the "on-site" insta-journalist. A fantastic example of this would be the ten second or so cell phone video some college student took outside of the Norris Building in Virgina Tech. What we were treated to on every single news channel was a grainy video in which one or two men are running about on the screen, almost immediately running off screen, and then the popping of several gunfire shots. Nothing more than this, and the empty roars of criticism were heard loud and clear across the nation about the inability for a camera crew to "capture the action" like this "brave" college student standing by the window of a building did with his trusty cell phone camera. As much as I dislike television media, it was rather senseless to place such shoddy footage of the incident on the air. For all we, the viewer, could tell, this could've been any college campus in the country, or any business square for that matter, dealing with some crazed gunman who's walking around with his gun in the air, popping off shots until his brains are finally removed from his head by the assistance of an officer's rifle.
Only when the amaetur proves himself worthy of our attention should it be granted to him.
Reflections on "The Cult of the Amateur"
Once again, it seems that Andrew Keen is repeating his belief that Wikipedia and Digg will be the sites that bring the downfall of man. Does Keen even associate himself with an educated crowd? Wouldn't he have figured by now that the majority of the educated (if not of all internet users) have forever conddemned Wikipedia as a simple playground where morons can go and shift and shape history however they please? Does he truly not understand that there is specific criteria taught throughout grades 6-12 to define what makes a website trustworthy and what makes it empty of useful knowledge? Why would any person who had at least attended a semester of online community college leave it up to Digg to determine what was important?
Facts have not yet been abandonded, and it's unlikely that Wikipedia, as condemned as it is, will be responsible for it's toppling. No one is looking to morons telling us about the minute details of their life in a day-to-day setting to replace actual entertainment, to replace a newspaper or a news report. No obese thirtysomething living in a Cheetos-encrusted environment (which he leaves three times a day) will replace our beloved smiling news anchor. If there even is any truth left in the media at all, then people certianly won't look to the common blogger to become their source of information.
Facts have not yet been abandonded, and it's unlikely that Wikipedia, as condemned as it is, will be responsible for it's toppling. No one is looking to morons telling us about the minute details of their life in a day-to-day setting to replace actual entertainment, to replace a newspaper or a news report. No obese thirtysomething living in a Cheetos-encrusted environment (which he leaves three times a day) will replace our beloved smiling news anchor. If there even is any truth left in the media at all, then people certianly won't look to the common blogger to become their source of information.
Reflection on "Web 2.0"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp?pg=2
The day a person becomes defined by Craiglist will be a sad day indeed.
But I feel convinced that that day will never occur in society. It's hard to imagine that someone would honestly believe that culture is becoming diluted by an "abundance" of authors. In the mind of author Andrew Keen, there is no longer a way to declare a blog entry insightful or worthless. Keen thinks society will no longer be able to decipher Monet from MSPaint, so to say. Media has not reached the technological extent where it can simply render shit into something valued. There is no doubt that there is an exponential amount of pretentiousness and emptiness in the billions of words in the millions of blogs, but it's suprising that Keen refuses to see that there are many among our society who are educated enough to see through the vanity and see work that's insightful and meaningful, art that is practiced and unique, voices that have been well-thought out enough to deserve being heard.
The day a person becomes defined by Craiglist will be a sad day indeed.
But I feel convinced that that day will never occur in society. It's hard to imagine that someone would honestly believe that culture is becoming diluted by an "abundance" of authors. In the mind of author Andrew Keen, there is no longer a way to declare a blog entry insightful or worthless. Keen thinks society will no longer be able to decipher Monet from MSPaint, so to say. Media has not reached the technological extent where it can simply render shit into something valued. There is no doubt that there is an exponential amount of pretentiousness and emptiness in the billions of words in the millions of blogs, but it's suprising that Keen refuses to see that there are many among our society who are educated enough to see through the vanity and see work that's insightful and meaningful, art that is practiced and unique, voices that have been well-thought out enough to deserve being heard.
On "Relections on the first decade of blogging"
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4541
Blogs, I believe, are hit and miss. And it's especially difficult that we should put so much faith into a person's specific tale when we can't even tell whether they're speaking truth or just making things up as they go along. It's unfortunate really, but so goes the internet. I don't think we will ever be able to completely put faith into blogs, just as it's difficult for people to place faith in the media. There's no denying that blogs offer the ability for a thousand million perspectives to be told, endless stories and "truths" to be revealed, but it is not possible for these writings to recieve end-all faith from any intelligent reader.
Blogs, I believe, are hit and miss. And it's especially difficult that we should put so much faith into a person's specific tale when we can't even tell whether they're speaking truth or just making things up as they go along. It's unfortunate really, but so goes the internet. I don't think we will ever be able to completely put faith into blogs, just as it's difficult for people to place faith in the media. There's no denying that blogs offer the ability for a thousand million perspectives to be told, endless stories and "truths" to be revealed, but it is not possible for these writings to recieve end-all faith from any intelligent reader.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Five words
Far too often people think they can't describe themselves using just five words but I can:
1) journalism
2) writing
3) rock-n'-roll (counts as 1 word)
4) travel
5) reading
Yes, that is all there is to know about me personality wise. I can see why some would judge me as shallow and/or lazy, and I cannot argue against this. All I hope is that I don't get lose points for this (whatsup CO 302)
1) journalism
2) writing
3) rock-n'-roll (counts as 1 word)
4) travel
5) reading
Yes, that is all there is to know about me personality wise. I can see why some would judge me as shallow and/or lazy, and I cannot argue against this. All I hope is that I don't get lose points for this (whatsup CO 302)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)