Reflection 4

After watching Killing Us Softly part 4 for a second in class it really got me thinking about the other effects that advertising has on society and I realized that perhaps the most harmful effect is the moral and ethical implication of advertising.  As a capitalist nation the U.S. is for the most part completely dependent on advertising for pretty much everything from movies to health insurance, but I don't know why their aren't more advertisements that actually promotes concepts and ideals that may actually improve peoples lives.  I'm talking about things like the anti-smoking ads that show what smoking does to your lungs, or the above the influence ads that encouraged teens and young adults to avoid drugs and under age drinking.  There needs to be more ads like those that actually encourage people to live healthier, educated, and active lifestyles.  In the future I would like to see "Stay in School Don't be a Fool" ads, or "Hey Have You Helped Improve Your Neighborhood This Month?".  Advertising now for the most part already makes people feel insecure about themselves encouraging them to go buy all these products and it has created this hazardous environment where if we don't buy we won't be accepted.  Advertising holds a lot of power and influence over people and if their were more progressive minds working in the world of advertising that didn't just concern themselves with making money and selling products I strongly believe that people would actually start to care more about improving the state of our society because as it stands people are more worried about what car they drive or what shoes they're going to wear rather than the issues that actually directly affects Americans everyday.  The current state of advertising has created a society of self-centered, judgmental narcissists. Now I'm not saying that everyone is like that because of course they aren't, but if aliens were to come down to Earth I'm almost sure that is exactly what they would think.  I don't think that's the impression we would want to give visitors from another world, and I don't think that is the way we want to think of ourselves, and if that is the case then something has to change.

Week 3!

The topic that I found to be the most interesting this week was the NSA surveillance scandal, and the government’s rights (or non-rights?) to infringe upon our privacy.  In class Prof. Gartside posed the question about peoples right to privacy vs. the governments duty to protect the US from acts of terrorism.  I had to mull this question over in my mind quite a bit before coming up with an overall idea of what I think is right.  On the one hand the Internet is technically the safest place for terrorists, especially those skilled with computers, to conduct their business and if the NSA did not conduct surveillance on the net there could have been many potential attacks upon the unsuspecting US population.  Nobody really knows if this has worked or not because it is all classified information.  On the other hand it is also safe to assume that the government isn’t just targeting known terrorists but even those who may have negative feelings towards the government or members of certain political parties that don’t exactly fall into line with the ideals of our Democracy.  In the early 1960’s my uncle (a Mexican) tried to run for Alderman under the socialist party, with a female campaign partner.  Even though they had the right to run under the socialist party the election committee still rejected them even though they had the appropriate number of signatures to be added to the ballet.  Long story short they were later arrested.  Who is to say that the NSA and Obama administration isn’t doing the same especially since the IRS scandal?  The idea that as long as you have nothing to hide you’ll be spared is comforting to a certain degree, but if the NSA wants the people to actually trust them then I think it would be in their best interest to release the files that detail exactly how many terror plots have been thwarted in order to demonstrate that this has actually worked, and a supervising committee should be put into place in order to lay down some ground rules on this whole surveillance thing in order to ensure that only terrorists are being tracked down and that there are no secret files being kept about everyone in the US.

This week the topic that peeked my interest was when were discussing short films being distributed through the Internet as a means for unknown directors to display what they can do in a short amount of time on fixed and often tight budgets.  The film Panic Attack in particular fascinated me when it was revealed to us that it was shot for like under $600, which to me is incredible since I just finished shooting a 45 min film that cost almost $2000, yet the difference in look is still very obvious.  But I digress my overall point is that short features have come a long way from what they were ten years ago.  With the right promotion and exposure a talented and resourceful director can receive international attention simply by posting his work in the right places on the Internet.

In 2004 I had the pleasure of interviewing Joseph Merideth, who at the time was a professor of animation at Columbia College, about his Oscar nominated animated short Stubble Trouble.  When his short was nominated for an Oscar in 2002 he was even shocked at the exposure he got.  “At the time I had only ever done one commercial for Coca-Cola, so when I herd I was just speechless, but I honestly didn’t expect to win.”  Sadly he really didn’t win, he lost to the Pixar short Mike’s New Car.  Truth be told I thought his was better but Disney and other film Dreamworks still dominate the market when it comes to animated shorts so in this media environment it goes to show that talent comes second to money.  In any case I will let you all decide how good Stubble Trouble is so even if you don’t comment on my post at least check out the link.

http://www.calabashanimation.com/dlink.php?preview=7

Personal Reflection Week 1

This week in COMM 200 we discussed the value of books and other paper forms of media like newspaper and magazines and whether of not they had a future in the world of mass media.  We were able to briefly discuss and write down our opinions about e-readers and tablets and what benefits they bring to the table over books but I felt like we never really got to the heart of the matter.  While creating a blog I was actually able to find an older blog I had written for another class in my first year of college at DePaul, which also had to do with books and something I discussed in class called their irreplaceable value.  Although the statement I made in class was that in case the Internet collapsed or something similar occurred where all Internet content was lost books would provide a good backup for those lost records, and in the article I wrote, which I have linked below, I ascribe a much more aesthetic value to books which I failed to mention in class.  By looking back on this article that I wrote I feel as if I have relearned a very important lesson, that media is essentially what we make of it.  Many people may not view books in the same way that I do and may in fact prefer tablets over books but the important thing is that people actually read in order to ingest new information and expand their imagination, and knowledge.  I absolutely loved the clip we watched from Ted Talks where JD Rangaswami discussed Information as Food because what he said was very accurate.  The more diverse and balanced our diet is the healthier our bodies will be which can be related to our consumption of information.  A mind that only consumes FOX news or MSNBC is not getting a diverse balanced diet and therefore how can that person comprehend someone else’s positions or defend its own without having all the facts.

http://emi912.wordpress.com/what-are-books-for/