(cont. from last week’s post)

The media is a double-edged sword.  On the one hand created by the people for the people, particularly in this nation’s political revolution, it is also an outlet for the dissemination of tyrants and profit-seekers.  Yet, isn’t what the media gives us what it thinks we want?  As much as it was conceived to be a public service, what is a public service but something the public wants for itself?  Yet, by doing us this service of feeding us the latest news on Tiger and the whereabouts of Paris Hilton’s lost chihuahua, is the media actually providing a disservice?

But maybe that’s unfair.  After all, we can’t say that we all want to hear about celebrity news or the watered down versions of the war in Afghanistan.  We can’t say that none of us are interested in international affairs and that’s the reason for which foreign news coverage has decreased by almost half in the past decade.  I am certain there are many out there who desire to know about all of the things this world has to offer; equally certain that there are many who do not.  Then, who is to blame?  Is there any one specific person or entity?

Journalists have a hard job.  That job is to report, “objectively”, on every situation at hand.  What does it mean to be “objective”?  That we provide all different viewpoints?  That we quote any relevant parties?  Is there such a thing as objectivity?  Some reporters believe that, no, there is no such thing: once a journalist decide to report on something and not on another thing, then in that moment, that journalist has stopped being objective.  After all, what makes one story more worthy of being reported than another?  Why is one quotation inserted while another is ignored?  How come Person A gets to be interviewed yet not Person B?

And after considering this argument, I would have to say that they are right: there is no objectivity.  In fact, the journalistic ideal of objectivity may even be harmful to journalism itself; journalists strive to maintain the appearance of being objective that they subsequently attempt to incorporate as many point as possible, people as necessary, quotations to be credible, etc, that the true story is lost underneath all of the weight of “objectivity”.  As readers, what are we really being told– that Haiti needs the money or that the US doesn’t believe Haiti deserves the money?  What is with this portrayal of Haiti as an entirely corrupt, immature nation that needs outside guidance for providing stability to its people?  Especially when the real problem has been rooted in centuries of neglect and sometimes even hindrance by the outside world?  And is this story objective?  The way it begins is not like a journalistic, “objective” report but rather a fictional, dramatic novel.  What is this saying about journalism?  What is this saying about objectivity?  Is this written in a way that shows distance and removed reporting?

Journalism doesn’t have to attain the ideal of objectivity– in fact, what is an ideal but that which cannot be attained, only striven for?  Maybe they should just be honest.  Corporate, governmental, external influences/power notwithstanding, the sole responsibility of a journalist is not to be objective, but truthful– in any and every way that may hurt.  The responsibility, first and foremost, of a journalist, is to deliver accurate news and give power to the unheard and oft-ignored, not to serve the powermasters of profit.  I must acknowledge that the “truth” to everyone may be biased– however, we are already in a biased news environment– pundits from the left and right, Fox News, CNN– what are these but biased, partisan news figures and outlets?  And the matter of truthful reporting is hard, particularly in situations where little information is available to anyone and reporters must dig somewhere for the facts, from which they then have to build a concrete idea or story to inform the people.  Being a journalist is HARD.  Yet that is the responsibility that comes with it– full of freedoms and blessings, burdens and hardships.  Being a journalist is like being a soldier or a doctor– they take one for the people.  When those who are to protect the meek become pawns of the strong, where are their priorities going and whom are the serving?

Not all journalists have to be like Mika Brzezinski and throw away their news scripts.  And not all of us should discredit the importance of those who report on celebrity news– they shape our culture and define the trends of our times.  It must only be recognized that “proper” reporting is a hard one– not only because telling the truth is hard, but also because knowing what the people want is sometimes even harder still, because that is what drives a lot of the content we see today.

—–

Gabby Park is a triple concentrator in Communications, French, and History of Art who likes to play with snow.

Fundamentally, literature is a means of introspection, an intuitive method in which human psychology over the span of millennia can be preserved, retrieved and then deposited on the lap of a new unsuspecting reader. It is an anthology that every author who wanted to share his or her two cents contributes to; their knowledge is made relatable. We can see literature (and there are a vast number of examples) as some vessel to impart philosophy, allow for the progress of civilization, provide a unified narrative and a model for ethical conduct, and to create a union between the past and present. Many other commendable functions of literature exist as well. We see that authors bring into the light the ensuing battle between the inexorable human instincts and the societal structures we’ve created for ourselves, beautifully detailing the virtues of both in, the best of which are written in subtle, tactful yet penetrating manner. There’s a quote by Adam Smith, and it dictates that “Happiness never lays its finger on its pulse.” I think that similarly, literature never lays its finger on its pulse – good literature aspires for its readers to not be actively aware of the effects it has on us until it is just too late. I feel that literature is about bringing forth the paradoxes of life while also defamiliarizing us (ridding us of that godforsaken ennui) with what we see to be the encrustations of the mundane in order to reinvent the world as something “new” again – or at least so, reinvigorated in our eyes.

Literature is then, a method to achieve awareness of our lives, to see into the heart of things, and to realize that most of the time, these things we feel are not that unique although revisions are made tailoring the common human experience to particular time periods – essentially, all small alterations. Good literature is the sort that does not bombard you actively with morals so that you are keenly aware of it; it is not didactic, but is passively absorbed the reader through the narrative which is exactly what allegories and other literary techniques do. Though, being aware of literature’s own limitations is also a good thing to keep in mind. Borges puts it well in his short story, The Aleph in the lines: “What my eyes saw was simultaneous: what I shall transcribe is successive, because language is successive.” It’s these little morsels of wisdom and truth, about writing and more importantly, about living that are contained within every piece of good literature. We soon realize that we are not the first people to be confused or sickened at human behavior or notice the paradoxical patterns in which we behave. One of my favorite quotes by J.D. Salinger follows appropriately with “Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You’ll learn from them — if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It’s a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn’t education. It’s history. It’s poetry.” I think it’s this extension of the invitation to take part in a discourse about human nature that makes literature so worthwhile.

Sue majors in Neuroscience & English and tends to lurk in bookstores.

Blogging is synonomous with twittering, facebooking and myspacing (although, I think Myspace is outdated even in this new technological world.)  These three verbs are recent introductions to the English language and holistically represent the consumption of the technological world.

These forms I am referring to are linked with sharing tidbits of information about who you are and what you do.  Status updates and blogs such as this reveal personal thoughts and actions in my life.

The great thing about Facebook and Blogs is that you get to meet somebody without a face-to-face interaction.  You are able to learn about those around you through their words.  If you like what they are saying, seek them out and meet them in person.  Some call this stalking; I simply call it resourceful selection.

This introduction leads me to tell you the point of this here blog today.  I will tell you something about the events in my life that I want to share with you.

This past week I utilized one of the many events this enormous campus has to offer.  I went to the University Musical Societies Orchestra concert, where I contently found myself partaking in an archaic pastime.

Instrumental concerts are like entering a time machine and going back 200 years.  You don’t worry or bother with your cell phone, computer, or any other electronic device.  You are meant to sit back and listen with your ears and eyes to the musical cohesion coming from man made, cordless, batteryless instruments.

You are able to close your eyes and picture yourself in any antiquity setting.  It’s the one activity I have found that can really remove you from your reality and into another world.

Amongst all the technology, attending concerts are still extremely revered and will hopefully never be outdated.

Have a great week!

Sara majors in Art History and enjoys long walks.

“They don’t have it.”
“Have what?”
“They don’t have the movies.”
“So no Superbad or Pineapple Express?”
“Yep.”

 These were the words exchanged between three friends on a Friday afternoon in Askwith Media Library. Rays of artificial light illuminated their dejected faces as they flipped through binder after binder. Just when it seemed that there was no chance for cinematic satisfaction, one of the friends (me… I know, what a surprise!) saw an intriguing image. Underneath a laminated cover was a face. His face was almost as distressed as those of the three friends. His disheveled body stood in front of a large green board. The words CHALK were scrawled across it. Finally. Movie magic.

The film “Chalk” is a mockumentary (much like “The Office”) about the ups and downs of high school through the eyes of teachers and administrators. Directed by Mike Ackel, “Chalk” achieves that perfect balance between humor and sadness. The level of reality portrayed by Ackel made it impossible to not be invested in the characters. I found myself immediately rooting for romantic entanglements between Mr. Lowry (the pathetic first year history teacher) and Coach Webb (the overly pushy gym teacher), while I could not stop laughing at the absurd nature of Mr. Stroope (the teacher who yells at students who use big words).

However, “Chalk” is not superficial in its intrigue. It truly is a fascinating cinematic commentary on the American educational system. According to the director at the start of the film, 50% of teachers quit within the first three years and what’s even more disheartening are the quality of some of the teachers hired. “Chalk” serves to illuminate these facts by showing the day-to-day struggles of being a teacher. Not only does the pay suck, but teachers also have to put up with numerous devil children (watch the first scene and you will understand the plight of teachers). After viewing this film I gained a new perspective on my own teachers, both past and present (maybe it was the students who made my freshman biology teacher a bitch… or maybe not). I also left with a newfound respect for these professionals whose life long goal (at least for some) is to educate and hopefully inspire.

If you are looking for a great way to spend a Friday night definitely check this movie out. It’s definitely better than Superbad.

Is any one else disappointed about the seemingly lack of original movies these days?

Sherlock Holmes and The Lovely Bones are both recent releases based off of books, and who can forget the popularity of the movie adaptations of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings?  I’ll admit, I’ve seen the last two HP movies at the midnight release, complete with costume. And cult movies like Blade Runner? You can thank Philip K. Dick for writing the story it’s based on.

Graphic novels are also a primary source.  V for Vendetta was based off one, as was 300.  And let’s not get into the movies that come from superhero comics.  Those have been produced by Hollywood since the late 70s.

I’m not saying this is a bad thing (I love Ironman, LotR will always be dear to my heart, and we’ll just skip over my obsession for Transformers, shall we?) but I’m simply saying I would love originality.  What’s next, movies based on RPGs?

Actually, Prince of Persia is in the works.

I’ve never actually played Prince of Persia, so I can’t say anything about the game, but since we’re on a kick of bringing old school things into a new light, such as Star Trek, why can’t we do the same with games?  Why not re-version classic arcade games, like Frogger?

Why not Pac-Man?

It’s got action, romance, guns, mystery, and a hip new look for a favorite figure from our childhood. What’s not to like? My roomie would be the first in line for this movie if it was real.

But me? I want a little more drama, a little more angst. Tetris seems to satisfy that for me.

And if none of these suit you, you can always chose Minesweeper.

But would these be amazing to watch? They would be able to reach out to the older generation, hoping to remind them of their childhood and draw in a new and younger audience. And it’s this timelessness that makes a movie a classic. Watch, in five years one of these will actually be made and land an Oscar nomination.

You arcade loitering blogger,

Jenny

As far back as we have records, heroes have existed.  It’s not just all about Superman, but about Hercules, Aeschylus, Odysseus.  It’s about Joseph and Jesus and Abraham and Mohammed.  About Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Neil Armstrong, Martin Luther King, Jr.  In the 21st century, it’s about Arnold Shwarzenegger, Barack Obama, soldiers in the Middle East, Tiger Woods.  Etc etc etc.  Heroes are everywhere.  With them comes this great image about them that is cast far and wide, projecting a perspective of awe and admiration, fear and respect, intimacy and personality.

Back up… Tiger Woods?  He who has had countless mistresses and who apparently has a sham of a marriage that was alleged to have been a mere media ploy?  Hmm…

I’m not one who is interested in celebrity news.  Like anyone else, I will admit that yeah, maybe it can be kind of interesting, but typically I don’t even glance at Perez or read the People magazine cover in the grocery line.  I’m just not that into it.  But taking a class on journalism has made me become aware of something: the media is a powerful, powerful tool.  And Tiger Woods is someone who knows just how to use it.

The thing with Tiger is that everyone is up in arms about him right now.  But why?  Because he was Tiger, the untouchable, the unbreakable, undefeatable.  Oh la la, and lookie here, now he’s the baddd mannn Mommy always warned us about.  Mmm… maybe.  People are always drawn to drama, especially celebrity drama, so the hubbub about  the straying hubby isn’t all that surprising.  What is surprising, however, is how long this scandal has been kept wrapped up.  According to my instructor, a journalist herself, the news of Tiger’s busy hands has mostly likely been long known.  He has so many journalists on his tail everyday, there were countless rumors about certain bars and rooms he frequented for questionable purposes.  But no one ever reported it.  Why?  Because Tiger had essentially built up an empire controlling the sports media– if anyone ever wanted to be in Tiger’s circle, they would never write anything bad about him.  Once an enemy, always on the blacklist for life.  And because Tiger was such a big name and thus drew in tons of revenue, no high-aspiring sports journalist would ever report anything negative about the heroic Tiger Woods.  He had developed a myth about him that created around him an untouchable aura.  His PR team was gooood.

Achilles didn’t have a PR Team, neither did Jesus.  Jackie Robinson rose to fame on his own and Martin Luther King was a preacher.  Yet, these people all became heroes and mythical figures (in the sense of their power, not that they never existed) and still retain some power in the media today.  Achilles is in countless translations and editions of The Iliad, Jesus has the Bible, Babe and Jackie still lived in a time where media was used to broadcast sports and thus spread their names to the national listeners of baseball.  Martin Luther King, Jr.’s sermons and speeches were reported in newspapers and televised.  Perhaps they didn’t all have a PR team that possessed the same kind of imperial hold over media, but the fact is that they live today because of and through the media.  This is how powerful the concept of media, especially mass media, is.  Isn’t it crazy to think about the fact that people who work in and with the media have such a tremendous power over its audience?  How every choice they make determines the scope of the knowledge received and understood by the public?  It’s a double-edged sword, the media…

(To be continued next week…)

—–

Gabby Park is a thinker who is fascinated by the concept of communication in society and who aspires to one day be someone who actively pursues the acquisition of hidden knowledge.