Category: Allie Boardman

Lessig makes many points in Remix that would peak interesting discussions, but two issues he raises that I would like to reflex further on are:

1.Lessig compares the Remix of digital media to quoting other writings in a critical essay, but it is really the same thing?

2. Lessig warns that since copyright law criminalizes copyright violation instead of prohibits it, that our children are comfortable with breaking the law in terms of copyright, and will therefore become numb to breaking other laws as well.

1. Lessig equates remixing digital media to quoting other writings in a critical essay or other text. But It is not the same thing. In my research paper for this class I may pull from thirty sources to compile my work/creation. But each time I cite another source, I will mark it with a footnote, and at the end of my paper there will be a bibliography giving full credit to each source.

That can’t be done for a song or other such digital media (yet). For the Brazilian producer featured in Good Copy, Bad Copy, he doesn’t credit Gnarls Barkley’s song “Crazy” in any way in his remixed song of the piece. He uses aspects of the original song to augment his new song, like I pull from other sources in my paper to help make my argument, but unlike a writer, the music producer does not credit the originator in anyway. No where in the remixed song does a voice fade in over the bass track saying “lyrics and melody from Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy,” from the album St. Elsewhere, copyright 2006.”

Lessig overlooks a major difference when he compares remixing digital media to citing other sources in another writing. Remixing digital media is taking without giving proper credit or any kind of indication that part of this compilation includes someone else’s work. Citing another source in a paper legitimately references someone else’s work and in no way indicates that the ideas expressed solely belong to the present author.

If some kind of system could be instituted that allows for proper citation for remixed digital works, then the comparison might be more legitimate. I support Lessig’s desire for the two to be the same, but more work has to be done on protocol (like so many things in the copyright realm) before that happens.

2. I think that Lessig is being a little bit over-dramatic when he warns that children who do not think breaking copyright law is wrong will soon grow to think that breaking other laws is not wrong as well. Those who copy CDs will not become assimilated to think that it’s okay to break into a bank as well. But I do think the ethics of breaking copyright law need to be considered. Where is the line drawn?

Personally, I don’t think that sharing song files with a friend is a bad thing, as long as the share-ee supports the artist in some other way if they become a fan of the shared music. However, I think it’s wrong to illegally download movies and choose not to participate in that form of copyright violation whatsoever. Why do I think one is right and one is wrong? How has this copyright war morphed my ethics into being okay with some copyright violation but not all? How people’s viewpoints of copyright violation have evolved over the past ten-twelve years is a very interesting topic, and may provide insight into how to reform the current laws.

Whoever brought up prohibition as an example in class today was right: making the laws tighter will only increase the activity. What copyright law needs is a big makeover. Yet with other aspects of the U.S. government needing a makeover as well, aspects that take precedence over intellectual property (like health care), copyright reform might take a little longer than Lessig would like.

-In Remix, Lessig describes analog technologies as fitting into the Read-Only culture and business model of production/consumption, but what about recordable VCRs? VCRs are analog technology, but one could record their favorite TV show if they weren’t able to watch it at its airtime and then watch it at any other time. The consumer is ‘consuming’ the content (consuming and consuming only is a characteristic of a Read-Only culture), but they are controlling their consumption.

–Brite Revolution is a music website where you pay a small amount per month ($4.99 or so) and can download a bunch of pre-release songs from different artists. Would consumers in a Read-Only culture have patronized this type of business model?

-Lessig compares the Remix of digital media to quoting other writings in a critical essay, but it is really the same thing? How do you properly cite an artist’s song in your song, like you can cite a writer’s work in your paper? How do you attach a footnote to something aural?

I’m more inclined to reflect on Jenkins’ article because it was written ten years ago, so we’re able to look back at his words, and, knowing what 2010 is like, analyze whether his prophecies were on par or not. While Lanier’s book is indeed provocative, and he backs up his argument with past examples from history (MIDI, how the width of railroad tracks impacted the development of the train for decades, etc), his theories are speculation like Jenkins’ were ten years ago, and until some time passes we have to wait to see if Lanier’s warnings in You Are Not a Gadget come true.

My first question concerning Jenkins’ article was: has amateur filmmaking threatened the commercial film industry or just found a niche of its own, mostly separate from mainstream Hollywood?

Jenkins predicted that amateur and fan film would threaten the commercial film industry, but I don’t think it has become a  threat so much as developed a market of its own. Youtube is the amateur filmmaker’s movie theater, and millions of hits do garner attention from strangers all over the world, yet a two minute “Charlie Bit My Finger” video does not compete with Inception.

People enjoy watching and sharing Youtube videos, but those do not replace  the experience of going to the movies or the level quality that Hollywood works on (most of the time). Very rarely an independent movie made on a very small budget will work its way to commercial success, but this isn’t a threat to the commercial movie industry so much as another chance for Hollywood to hop on the independent director and make as much money through them as possible.

Jenkins explains the notion of “books, hooks, and looks” and ancillary markets in his article, two terms that explain the market strategy Hollywood has been using to make as much money off of franchises as possible since the 1970s. My second question was: after almost three decades (or more) of the “entertainment supersystem model” of studios milking as much money as possible out of books, action figures, tee-shirts, video games, and other merchandise from films, are we as an audience more aware of how the gross commercialism outweighs the focus of the film? Do we care if a film was made to make money or made to be art?

My answer to this question is two-sided. Yes I think most (or more) audiences are aware of the fact that gross commercialism can outweigh the focus of a film, but no, I don’t think that a large part of the audience care.

One example of this I always notice, being a Pixar fan, is when I go to Walmart. In the card and giftwrapping section of the store, there are countless greeting cards, party supplies (cups, plates, hats, etc), wrapping paper, gift bags, and stickers covered with characters from the Pixar movie Cars. I’ve never seen Cars because I’ve been advised against it: all of the die-hard and and analytical Pixar fans I know claim Cars is the worst Pixar movie.

Yet the  Cars stuff sells. When Up was being advertised before it was released in theaters, the movie trailer said “From the creators who brought you Cars and Finding Nemo,” even though two critically acclaimed (and amazing) Pixar films had been released since Cars: Ratatouille and (my favorite) Wall-E. The other Pixar movies have won more awards and have received much more praised, but because Cars sells more merchandise, you can throw your kid a Cars-themed birthday party almost 5 years after the movie came out, but might have a harder time throwing a Wall-E party almost 3 years after its released.

It’s easy to tell the difference between the movies that were meant to sell and the movies that were meant to move the audience. Think about all of the promotion that Michael Bay movies receive, all of the excess that comes with the release of a Transformers movie. In fact, with some movies the title is irrelevant, it’s the director’s name that matters because the name has become a product with which to sell seats “From Director Michael Bay, who brought you Transformers and Transformers Two…”

But then there are other movies, like Juno, that aren’t produced by any big names and don’t have any huge hitters in the cast and aren’t marketed in any kind of commercial way, but still grow to earn more and more attention and win an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, not because of the corresponding merchandise but because the film is actually good.

Hopefully that notion, that some good stuff can compete with the rotten, will console Lanier a bit. Not everything conforms!

1. Jenkins argues that “this new production and distribution context profoundly alters our understanding of what amateur cinema is and how it intersects with the commercial film industry.” Ten years (I assume) after this article was written, however, has amateur filmmaking threatened the commercial film industry or just found a niche of its own, mostly separate from mainstream Hollywood?

1b. Jenkins points out that most fan fiction films are parodies. Is this just because parody is the easiest way for fans to express their fandom, or is a more conscious decision in terms of Copyright law, considering parody falls under ‘fair use’?

2. After almost three decades (or more) of the “entertainment supersystem model” of studios milking as much money as possible out of books, action figures, tee-shirts, video games, and other merchandise from films, are we as an audience more aware of how the gross commercialism outweighs the focus of the film? Do we care if a film was made to make money or made to be art?

3. Am I a gadget?

The questions I asked at the beginning of the week were pretty elementary in terms of the topics Wealth of Nations covers, yet fundamental to understanding the new world Benkler describes.

In Wealth of Networks, Benkler writes “wanting to communicate with others was not a sufficient condition to being able to do so”(p.3); in other words, in an industrial information economy, only a few have control over communication, as opposed to many or all.

Characteristics of the industrial information economy include big production equipment- mechanical presses, satellites, the telegraph system, radio transmitters- that only a select few (i.e. big businesses/conglomerations) have access to. I can purchase a receiver and listen to the radio, but I cannot transmit my own radio waves over a major wavelength unless I am backed by a broadcasting company.

“decentralized individual action- specifically, new and important cooperative and coordinate action carried out through radically distributed, nonmarket mechanisms that do not depend on proprietary strategies- plays a much greater role than it did, or could have, in the industrial information economy”(p.3)

The networked information economy, which is what society is experiencing now, is the result of computers, storage, and easily accessible technology. Because personal computers are affordable for many, many people, and because the internet is an endless and openly editable source of information, anyone can be a receiver and distributor of communication at any time.

Because of the networked information economy, individual voice is much more powerful than it was within an industrial information economy. Before, if one wanted to be heard, they were at the mercy of a big media company who got to decide whether or not to be their platform (like a newspaper choosing to publish a letter to the editor). Now, with the internet and many ways to access the internet (computers, mobile phones, ipods), individual voice is much more easier to be broadcast and heard.

A great example of this is the story Shirkey uses at the beginning of Here Comes Everybody. A woman in NYC leaves her cell phone in a cab, and the phone is stolen. She finds out who has the phone, but the thief won’t give it back and NYPD won’t press charges. The woman’s friend uses everything in his power- a website, email, his own phone- and the story spreads rapidly until complete strangers are clamoring for the NYPD to press charges and get the woman’s phone back.

Had this been an industrial information economy, the woman would have had a lot less opportunity to have her story broadcast. She would have to lobby the local newspaper to pick up the story, and if they decided not to, she would be out of luck. However, in an networked information economy, there were many platforms for the story to be sent out and an infinite number of people to receive it. Still, not every individual voice is heard, but the internet gives everyone a much better chance.



Framing questions for The Wealth of Nations:

1. What are the characteristics of the industrial information economy? [The old economy]

2. What are the characteristics of the networked information economy? [The current economy]

3. How has the rise of the network information economy affected the power of individual voice? (This ties into Here Comes Everybody as well)

Though this strays from the the questions I asked in my framing post for this week, Lasswell’s Propaganda Theory in Chapter Five really grabbed my attention because my research topic deals with how interactive media facilitates fear-mongering. Fear-mongering, in some cases, is a form of propaganda, and many of the tactics that I refer to when I think of examples of fear-mongering are listed in Lasswell’s seven characteristics of propaganda.

Lasswell published most of his work between the late 20’s and 40’s, and even worked for the government during WWII to determine the effect of media on soldiers. But in 1927 he published Propaganda Technique in the World War (referring, of course, to WWI) and in that book he listed these characteristics of propaganda, summarized in Applied Mass Communication Theory: A Guide for Media Practitioners and grossly paraphrased by myself:

1. name-calling: giving an idea, a bad label to make people reject and condemn it without examining the evidence)

2. glittering generalities: associating something with a “virtue word” that make people accept and approve it without examining the evidence

3. transfer: carrying over the authority or prestige of something respected to something else to make acceptable, or carrying over disapproval to make people reject and disapprove of it

4. testimonial: having a respected person say its good or a hated person say its bad

5. plain folk: attempting to convince the audience that the speaker’s ideas are worthwhile because the speaker is a person of the people or a person of the “common man”

6. card-stacking: selecting and using facts and logical or illogical statements to give the best or worst possible case for an idea

7. bandwagon: attempting to convince people that everyone of a similar group as them has accepted the idea

I am a bit unsure as to how older mass communication theories are treated in present study. It seems like some of the theories we’ve discussed in class have been ruled as outdated and not useful anymore, but to me these characteristics of propaganda remain incredibly relevant today.

Think of any accusation from a radical political party or commentator and see if you can identify one of these traits in their speech. How about the accusation by staunch conservatives that Obama is a socialist? Sounds like name-calling. Or a glittering generality. Or card-stacking. Or even transfer. If it looks like propaganda and smells like propaganda…

This topic is of great interest to me because anytime someone evokes propaganda to forward their agenda, they are abandoning logic and facts and are not keeping the people’s best interest in mind. In an age where audiences are so smart, it’s a little shocking to see propaganda work so well, but propaganda (or fear-mongering) is the wolf and interactive media- social media, citizen journalism, viral videos, etc.- is the sheep’s clothing.

For an example, here is a clip from The Daily Show from May 12th, 2010. The clip highlights how Glenn Beck tends to relate anything- global warming; President Obama’s supreme court judge choice (“empathy leads you to bad decisions many, many times”); the National Endowment of the Arts; teaching kids about climate change; acorns; the Peace Corps; the economic stimulus package- to Nazi Germany and Hitler.

Card-stacking and name-calling much, Glenn? Many people watch and listen to Glenn Beck as if he provides a journalistic service, yet how can the information he delivers be true and impartial if propaganda and fear-mongering lurk behind his words? By exploring how fear-mongering is fueled by interactive media, I hope to expose to audiences how the media they consume is affected and make audiences even more judicial in what they watch/read/hear. Until then: “Glenn Beck has Nazi Tourette’s”:

back-in-black—glenn-beck-s-nazi-tourette-s

*I will omit poll examinations from my research and will narrow the scope of me thesis, but other than that, this is my proposal*

Allie Boardman

Research Proposal: Fueling the Fear Mongering Media

Thesis: The explosion of interactive media- including social media, 24 hour news stations, citizen journalism, viral videos, and online newspapers- allows too many interpretations of events to be broadcast or published before checked for accuracy or credibility, and it therefore fuels the ability to accomplish fear mongering (or a Culture of Fear) a growing popular political tactic.

This paper will examine:

-A brief history of fear mongering as a political tactic in 20^th and 21^st century American politics

-Five examples of how fear mongering is being used to affect politics today:

-The attempt to slander President Obama’s image (accusations that he is a socialist, Muslim, etc)

-the reaction to the Arizona Immigration law

-the reaction to the proposal of  Islamic Community Center

-the reaction to a pastor of a 30-member church in Gainesville, FL threatening to burn 200 copies of the Quran on September 11^th, 2010.

-bi-partisan reactions to the struggling U.S. economy

Rationale:

Fear mongering and the manufacturing of a Culture of Fear have long had its place in politics and propaganda. In 20^th century America, fear mongering emerged in different ways each decade, from McCarthyism/ the Second Red Scare of the 1950s to the Lyndon B. Johnson “Daisy” commercial of 1964, to the re-escalation of the Cold War War in the early 1980s (the Soviet Union is an “evil empire,” said Reagan).

As the United States entered the 21^st century, fear mongering rose in politics once again to get citizens to support the War on Terror (an arguable loaded title in itself).

Ever since the 2008 presidential election, where interactive media played a large part in exposing all facets of the candidates and the issues, the internet and other new media outlets output so much information, some true, some skewed, that fear mongering has become a main tactic for politicians since it is so easy to blast an opinion out into cyberspace and have people receive it- 24 hour news stations, blogs, message boards, constantly-updated news sites- and there are few checks to ensure the messages are not biased because the information goes out so fast.

Fear mongering is no new tactic, but the tools that 21^st century fear mongers use are fresh and not fully understood. By exposing the specific tactics and through what interactive media tools politicians and commentators use to create a Culture of Fear in America and push moderate opinions behind in favor of radical notions, this paper will make audiences aware of how many ways they are being manipulated and will hopefully make audiences think twice before they instantly believe what they read, hear or see.

Methodology:

Most of my research will be literature and study based, especially in the section where I briefly summarize the history of fear mongering in America. I will also analyze content from different news sources, websites, blogs, message boards, etc. to compare and contrast how the same stories are manipulated in many different ways. Lastly, I will examine survey/poll results taken at different times during President Obama’s term so far to see if the public view changed in correlation with what conservative politicians and commentators were saying about President Obama at the time (the survey [August 2010] that reports 18% of Americans think Obama is Muslim, 34% say he is Christian, and 43% do not know what religion he is comes to mind).

*          *          *

On the frenzy over the proposed Islamic Cultural Center in New York City:

“Fox [News] tells us, the terrible thing about this Kingdom Foundation is where they fund, and it’s a very bad guy. But they never mention this fella’s name. And they never show this fella’s picture. And they certainly never mention that the fellow that they’re talking about is part owner of their company.  Did the gang at Fox and friends genuinely not know the head of the Kingdom Foundation’s name, and the fact that he is one of their part-owners, or were they purposefully covering it up because it did not help their fear-driven narrative?”

-John Stuart, The Daily Show 8/23/2010

The reading in the book this week goes over the origins of mass communications theory and describes the popular theories of the science. My interest is in the relationship between the individual and the media rather than a mass audience and the media, because no one person is affected in the same way.

My questions are: which theories have to do with the individual and the mass media? How can those relate into interactive content creation? Are the older paradigms still accepted theories or are they kept in the past?

The questions I asked at the beginning of the week were:

-what falls under the realm of mass communications?
-how has mass communication theory affected me/ been present in the news/ in society (whether I realized it or not)
-how is theory applicable to media production?

As soon as I started reading the first chapter of Applied Mass Communication Theory, I realized how obvious the answers to my questions were. Of course mass communication has affected me, been present in the news and in society. The potential correlation between violence on tv and in video games has been a hot bed in the news ever since I can remember. I can specifically recall when WWF wrestling was hugely popular and mass marketed (action figures, video games, lunch boxes, tee-shirts, etc) and there were a few terrible incidents where a few children were accidentally killed while wrestling with a sibling or friend.

De-sensitization is a spin-off of the ‘violence in the media’ argument. Of course people do not like to think that they are affected so easily by the media (‘I’m an intelligent human being, I could clearly recognize if I changed because of something  I saw on TV’), but are we less shocked by horrific events that we see on the news because of the gruesome CSI-esque shows? Is warfare not as big a cost because we play ‘capture the flag’ in HALO three times a week?

Theory, especially in communication, changes constantly, and Rosenberry and Vicker make this clear.  In fact, two of the three types of communication theories that are listed (critical theory and normative theory) are not aimed at the status quo but rather are an active reform of the status quo (critical theory) and an attempt to describe how things should be according to an ideal standard of social values (normative theory).

Theory is extremely useful in media production (my third question) because knowing what research has been done will help to reach audiences better with the media one produces. Audiences are getting much smarter, and demand much more than they used to, and this is critical to understand for anyone who wants to produce media. While critical and normative theories might be more useful for politicians (*cough* Nancy Reagan and the ratings board) and social activists, they can also help in creating better media that has a positive influence on a society.

As we study the interactive realm of media, which is largely unknown and uncharted, theories and research will be pivotal in the understanding of how audiences have changed and what media needs to be produced because of that. Technology and relationships, as we discussed today, mobile media, and more are all things that we need to consider and theory will lead the way in understanding.