Showing posts with label Jordan Moody. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jordan Moody. Show all posts
Monday, November 26, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Twitter. The ultimate news source.
Over the past couple months or so, when following current events, I found myself discovering a mass amount of information in a very swift manner, through social media: Twitter to be exact. It seriously blows my mind on how quick information, links, pictures, videos etc. can go viral in a matter of minutes.
For example, when Hurricane Sandy hit, if you followed the tweets containing the hashtag #hurricanesandy, you'd get to see all of these photos and tweets from New Yorkers who were actually there. They posted pictures of cars overturned in the water, the skyline when a majority of the cities power went out, and some that were endangered even tweeted for help and assistance. I was reading tweets about events that many news stations had yet to pick up on. I even remember seeing a tweet from a reputable journalist account that contained a picture of a mainstream news anchors on their smartphones checking twitter.
I think it's safe to say that Twitter has definitely become the fastest news source to date. Although, some of the information posted may be invalid or false news, information is posted so rapidly that if illegitimate data is posted it is quickly analyzed and debunked in a matter of minutes.
Twitter can also be a starting ground for discovering other news articles, if you follow the right accounts. All mainstream news companies have Twitter accounts, as well as the journalists that work for them.
During the election, all I had to do was keep refreshing my timeline to see who was in the lead, and I even found out that Obama was re-elected before viewing CNN's online election race or watching the TV updates.
The thing about Twitter is is that it's easily accessible on smartphones that it's also impossible to keep up with. Everyone has a smartphone nowadays and almost everyone has a Twitter account so whenever you refresh your timeline you learn about events you're unfamiliar with and then have the option of digging further and finding more information on the topic.
Twitter has definitely become the ultimate news platform of our societies generation
Thursday, November 15, 2012
My thoughts on war coverage throughout the media.
In regards to the most recent video we watched in class, which took a look at how politics and war are intertwined with professional football, I caught my self feeling just downright disgusted, in a sense, at our nations methods in war and the way it's viewed in such a positive outlook. I've never been comfortable with the way it is promoted so positively through all these different platforms such as video games, strategically placed advertising, and especially in the news. I've also started to ponder how legitimate all this flashy war coverage really is, and what exactly we're taking in from it
Recently, in my NEWS 108 class we watched a film on how coverage of war through various mediums has evolved over the years, and man... the days of the un-biased embedded reporting of Ernie Pyle, or Edward Murrow are far from gone. Sure, the mediums have evolved over time and I understand that, but war coverage is so glamorized today with over embellished news reports consisting of flashy attractive graphics and embedded journalists attempting to cover the story first handedly, but in reality, do we really know what's going on? I mean, okay sure...they do their news cast from the middle of Iraq with all the sounds of bombs and artillery fire in the back ground, reporting on some new battle, or seizure, or death, or bombing of some town, but why? What were the logistics in engaging this battle? What was the reasoning behind bombing this town? If you stop and think about it, there's never really an in depth report on what the hell is going on over there...
After learning of how Pat Tillman (who I believe to be one of the most patriotic citizens ever, to my knowledge at least) started opposing the war, calling it "illegal" and "wrong," if I remember correctly, I started thinking that this couldn't of been the first person to think that. Surely, if embedded journalists are over there "reporting" they'd take note of that right? What exactly was he seeing that made him think that? Why wasn't there any investigation in to what it was that made him oppose what our country is fighting for?
Corporate media, I feel, is more focused on the "what" as opposed to the "why."It sometimes seems their sights are more set on capturing the most entertaining story, and that fact alone is just so disturbing. War coverage across the mediums has become nothing short of a form of entertainment opposed to a form of news. I mean, think about it. David Petraeus is portrayed in the media in the same way that other popular celebrities are, before and after he got caught spooning with his biographer.
And if war generals are the new A-list celebrities, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Recently, in my NEWS 108 class we watched a film on how coverage of war through various mediums has evolved over the years, and man... the days of the un-biased embedded reporting of Ernie Pyle, or Edward Murrow are far from gone. Sure, the mediums have evolved over time and I understand that, but war coverage is so glamorized today with over embellished news reports consisting of flashy attractive graphics and embedded journalists attempting to cover the story first handedly, but in reality, do we really know what's going on? I mean, okay sure...they do their news cast from the middle of Iraq with all the sounds of bombs and artillery fire in the back ground, reporting on some new battle, or seizure, or death, or bombing of some town, but why? What were the logistics in engaging this battle? What was the reasoning behind bombing this town? If you stop and think about it, there's never really an in depth report on what the hell is going on over there...
After learning of how Pat Tillman (who I believe to be one of the most patriotic citizens ever, to my knowledge at least) started opposing the war, calling it "illegal" and "wrong," if I remember correctly, I started thinking that this couldn't of been the first person to think that. Surely, if embedded journalists are over there "reporting" they'd take note of that right? What exactly was he seeing that made him think that? Why wasn't there any investigation in to what it was that made him oppose what our country is fighting for?
Corporate media, I feel, is more focused on the "what" as opposed to the "why."It sometimes seems their sights are more set on capturing the most entertaining story, and that fact alone is just so disturbing. War coverage across the mediums has become nothing short of a form of entertainment opposed to a form of news. I mean, think about it. David Petraeus is portrayed in the media in the same way that other popular celebrities are, before and after he got caught spooning with his biographer.
And if war generals are the new A-list celebrities, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Is dubstep still cool?
After being assigned a story for the Daily News regarding "the history of dubstep culture", it's almost inevitable to ignore the connection between the studies of the myths of counterculture and the bass heavy genre that started off as just that, a counterculture.
Before becoming commercialized and extremely prominent here in the states, the movement has almost transformed in to the complete polar opposite from that of it's somewhat dark origins. It all began within the underground music scene of South London. The fathers of this genre were basically taking a similar pre existing form of electronic music entitled "drum & bass" and slowing it down, creating what has now been dubbed "dubstep". The culture surrounding the genre was similar to that of the grunge fad that came out of Seattle. Followers and early adapters of the counterculture sported that alternative look that consisted of button down flannels, ripped washed up skinny jeans, and pretty much anything similar to something Kurt Cobain would've worn.
Before it was cool (or perhaps "when" it was cool?):
At this moment in time, dubstep was so new, and so different that no one really wanted anything to do with it simply due to the fact that no one really knew how to react to it. Before the 'early majority' crowd got on board, people viewed it as this weird act where "geeky" musically inclined computer nerds got together and got off by making weird alien type noises with extra heavy bass leads, and then spinning these tracks at some hole in the wall venue that probably almost nobody has heard of. Like any new fresh fad being born, there will always be the early doubters. And just like Gladwell states in that article "The Coolhunt", "..cool is something you can't control, you need someone to find cool and tell you what it is". That's exactly what was going on, the counterculture had been born but no one knew or felt that it was cool yet. Unless you're one of the innovators of a fad, people need other "cool" people to let them know what is "cool" and what isn't. What gave the dubstep culture this kick, was Londons' corporate radio.
When BBC radio DJ Mary Anne Hobbs gave a attention to the newly found counterculture on a national circuit across the UK, the fad really took off and started snowballing a lot faster than probably anyone ever predicted (other than Jim Morrison...). Dubstep night clubs started appearing in New York, San Fransico, and even Tokyo, and Barcelona. Britney Spears started sampling it in some of her radio friendly pop tunes, commercials started using it, and corporate america really just embraced the whole fad as a whole once they took note of the youth catching on.
American producers started revitalizing the genre to make it more dance oriented and this in turn, effected the fashion that went a long with the genre.
When corporate America got it's hand on dubstep culture, it took the genres previous crowd of intellectual social outcasts and completely flopped it. Concert goers now dub dubstep concerts as "raves" and sport wardrobes similar to those found on Halloween. Girls dress up in multi neon colored outfits, and the guys where thins as far out as Mario costumes or maybe nothing but a trash bag, "stunna" shades, and unnecessary amount of glow-sticks as necklaces and bracelets. Dubstep concert attendance is higher than anything else, selling out stadiums, putting on larger than life works of LED lighting, pyrotechnics, and technology. DJs have now been dubbed the new modern day rock star.
After corporate America embraced it:
So the question is, is dubstep still cool? According to the ideologies of Gladwell on cool hunting, it's not, and hasn't been for the past couple years now. It as already been discovered and commercialized; once something cool has been discovered, it is no longer cool. The bigger question is what's next? What will be the cool new genre/fad after dubstep?
Before becoming commercialized and extremely prominent here in the states, the movement has almost transformed in to the complete polar opposite from that of it's somewhat dark origins. It all began within the underground music scene of South London. The fathers of this genre were basically taking a similar pre existing form of electronic music entitled "drum & bass" and slowing it down, creating what has now been dubbed "dubstep". The culture surrounding the genre was similar to that of the grunge fad that came out of Seattle. Followers and early adapters of the counterculture sported that alternative look that consisted of button down flannels, ripped washed up skinny jeans, and pretty much anything similar to something Kurt Cobain would've worn.
Before it was cool (or perhaps "when" it was cool?):
At this moment in time, dubstep was so new, and so different that no one really wanted anything to do with it simply due to the fact that no one really knew how to react to it. Before the 'early majority' crowd got on board, people viewed it as this weird act where "geeky" musically inclined computer nerds got together and got off by making weird alien type noises with extra heavy bass leads, and then spinning these tracks at some hole in the wall venue that probably almost nobody has heard of. Like any new fresh fad being born, there will always be the early doubters. And just like Gladwell states in that article "The Coolhunt", "..cool is something you can't control, you need someone to find cool and tell you what it is". That's exactly what was going on, the counterculture had been born but no one knew or felt that it was cool yet. Unless you're one of the innovators of a fad, people need other "cool" people to let them know what is "cool" and what isn't. What gave the dubstep culture this kick, was Londons' corporate radio.
When BBC radio DJ Mary Anne Hobbs gave a attention to the newly found counterculture on a national circuit across the UK, the fad really took off and started snowballing a lot faster than probably anyone ever predicted (other than Jim Morrison...). Dubstep night clubs started appearing in New York, San Fransico, and even Tokyo, and Barcelona. Britney Spears started sampling it in some of her radio friendly pop tunes, commercials started using it, and corporate america really just embraced the whole fad as a whole once they took note of the youth catching on.
American producers started revitalizing the genre to make it more dance oriented and this in turn, effected the fashion that went a long with the genre.
When corporate America got it's hand on dubstep culture, it took the genres previous crowd of intellectual social outcasts and completely flopped it. Concert goers now dub dubstep concerts as "raves" and sport wardrobes similar to those found on Halloween. Girls dress up in multi neon colored outfits, and the guys where thins as far out as Mario costumes or maybe nothing but a trash bag, "stunna" shades, and unnecessary amount of glow-sticks as necklaces and bracelets. Dubstep concert attendance is higher than anything else, selling out stadiums, putting on larger than life works of LED lighting, pyrotechnics, and technology. DJs have now been dubbed the new modern day rock star.
After corporate America embraced it:
So the question is, is dubstep still cool? According to the ideologies of Gladwell on cool hunting, it's not, and hasn't been for the past couple years now. It as already been discovered and commercialized; once something cool has been discovered, it is no longer cool. The bigger question is what's next? What will be the cool new genre/fad after dubstep?
Monday, September 10, 2012
Communication Within Social Networks
After reading the articles assigned regarding Facebook and other social media sites, it became rather disturbing to think that the idea of socializing holds a completely revitalized meaning than it did a century ago. This common notion that we find it easier to interact virtually opposed to in real life, says a lot about how dependent we've all become on social media to hold and maintain relationships with people in real time. Or rather we'd like to think they do...
Personally, I'd say at times social media can be helpful in allowing us to stay connected with those that may live far from us, and those outside of our daily social circles. But more often I feel these networks can do more damage than anything. Especially regarding relationships.
In relation to the South Park clip that was shown in class today, as silly and as over the top some of those situations may seem, it actually depicts dead on situations I've found my self in in real life. The jealousy that can arise when dating within social networks is unreal, especially on Facebook. There have been times in past relationships where I have found that making the wrong move on Facebook could lead to a swift unexpected argument in no time. Liking a different girls picture, posting on another girls wall, being tagged in photos with another girl, failing to reply to a message or wall post within a certain amount of time, or even simply being logged or making some kind of online movement at a time where I stated I'd being doing something else could lead to tension. I'm sure we've all fallen victim to this dilemma at some point in some shape or form, some probably more than others but I guess thats just a matter or how tuned in you are.
The same rules can apply to texting or communicating via text in some form. It's so easy for a meaning to get misconstrued if you don't use the correct wording or context. For example, in one of the articles it stated how many individuals write "haha" or "lol" within messages in which they are not realistically laughing at all. They do this in order to not come off as too sincere or "overly earnest". I found that interesting because ever since I started texting (I actually think I picked up a majority of this jargon from those ancient AIM days...) I have always done this, but I never realized why, or why everyone else did it, until today.
Despite all the benefits social networks and digital media can provide us, when it comes to the communication aspect I feel it can be a bit more difficult at times than communicating in real life. There's almost like a science to it... I'm not saying I'm completely against it, I think these networks are excellent for gathering information quickly, organizing groups, and other things of the sort. I just think that simple face to face conversation or even conversing on the phone is still and most likely will always be the more efficient forms of communication.
Personally, I'd say at times social media can be helpful in allowing us to stay connected with those that may live far from us, and those outside of our daily social circles. But more often I feel these networks can do more damage than anything. Especially regarding relationships.
In relation to the South Park clip that was shown in class today, as silly and as over the top some of those situations may seem, it actually depicts dead on situations I've found my self in in real life. The jealousy that can arise when dating within social networks is unreal, especially on Facebook. There have been times in past relationships where I have found that making the wrong move on Facebook could lead to a swift unexpected argument in no time. Liking a different girls picture, posting on another girls wall, being tagged in photos with another girl, failing to reply to a message or wall post within a certain amount of time, or even simply being logged or making some kind of online movement at a time where I stated I'd being doing something else could lead to tension. I'm sure we've all fallen victim to this dilemma at some point in some shape or form, some probably more than others but I guess thats just a matter or how tuned in you are.
The same rules can apply to texting or communicating via text in some form. It's so easy for a meaning to get misconstrued if you don't use the correct wording or context. For example, in one of the articles it stated how many individuals write "haha" or "lol" within messages in which they are not realistically laughing at all. They do this in order to not come off as too sincere or "overly earnest". I found that interesting because ever since I started texting (I actually think I picked up a majority of this jargon from those ancient AIM days...) I have always done this, but I never realized why, or why everyone else did it, until today.
Despite all the benefits social networks and digital media can provide us, when it comes to the communication aspect I feel it can be a bit more difficult at times than communicating in real life. There's almost like a science to it... I'm not saying I'm completely against it, I think these networks are excellent for gathering information quickly, organizing groups, and other things of the sort. I just think that simple face to face conversation or even conversing on the phone is still and most likely will always be the more efficient forms of communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)