Censorship is a very murky subject. Particularly because it's difficult to provide decent content, without infringing on people's rights to choose for themselves. In the video provided on KSOL, it talks about repealing the "bleeping out" of indecent words on broadcasts and prime time shows. The commentators on the video insist that this law is outdated and should be repealed and presents the argument that parents can control what is watched and taken in by their children. This is also the number one argument in "The Internet's Free Speech Moment" and an article about the Internet being held to the "strictest jurisdiction".
I found a website with a list of several supposed breaking stories with proof that were kept from the mainstream media. http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacorruption details the accounts of several influential newscasters who supposedly had stories that were of vital importance that were threatened or fired if they did not back down and leave the story be. Or sanitize said story to the networks' liking.
I'm somewhat torn as to the censorship. I believe each person has a right to determine the influx of content into their lives. However, I do not agree with extensive cursing, sexual acts, invasion of privacy, and the inclusion of graphic details or images. A major issues, as stated above, is that of children. There are substantial arguments against censorship because there are so many ways for parents to control media for their children. According to an article by kidshealth.org, the average American child will witness 200,000 violent acts on television by age 18. Kids may become desensitized to violence and more aggressive. TV violence sometimes begs for imitation because violence is often promoted as a fun and effective way to get what you want. Violent acts are portrayed by the "good guys" or "heroes". Even though kids are taught by their parents that it's not right to hit, television says it's OK to bite, hit, or kick if you're the good guy. Risky Behaviors are also promoted. TV is full of programs and commercials that depict risky behaviors (such as drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking cigarettes, and having premarital sex) as cool, fun, and exciting. Studies have shown that teens who watch lots of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don't watch sexually explicit shows. A recent study by the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) found that youth exposure to alcohol ads on TV increased by 30% from 2001 to 2006. Kids who watch 5 or more hours of TV per day are far more likely to begin smoking cigarettes than those who watch less than the recommended 2 hours a day. Due to the "product placement" in movies and popular shows.
These are just a few things backing the massive effect media has on consumer life. Some of these programs can be controlled; but not all. These statistics also hold true for adults. An article written by New Media Warrior stated: When your watch TV, your brain enters a stage called alpha state (8 to 12 HZ to be exact), a similar state we experience when we sleep or when we enter hypnosis. If you remember this is the same state hypnotists and professional psychologists use to implant ideas such as to stop smoking, or to lose weight. Those are the same methods of suggestion used by television. This effect is also been called “mind fog.” Therefore, all of the things, even we watch as adults impact our lives heavily. The divorce rate in this country is astronomical. It's no wonder with the laze fare attitude we place on affairs, pre-marital sex, sport sex, multiple partners, etc. If you're in a sleeping/hypnotic type state, the more you watch, the less sensitized you become to these acts and are more likely to commit them to memory of a pleasant sort. The same for violence, cursing, the treatment of family and others, the list goes on and on.
Censorship is not meant to take away the rights of citizens. It is there to help protect them. An article on About.com detailed the different areas in which media censorship arose and is constructed to help. Protection of your privacy is a big one. Would you want news camera crews filming you through your windows because you refused to answer a question? By law the cannot show that shot due to censorship. It censors graphic images and details such as when someone is murdered. If your family was killed by BTK, would you want intricate verbal paintings and renditions of how your family was found and how it was done, and photos and video all over the mainstream media? Probably not. It's also in place for security. Things from the military that should not be public knowledge. These things don't just protect you, but your country and families as well. Some censorship also helps to hide political biases.
So in this lengthy and somewhat difficult argument, censorship has it's place. There are countries who participate in censorship of mainstream media already; China and Iran are two of them. The US is always so concerned about China being ahead of us in the education field. Did we ever stop to look at the reasons and statistics surrounding this? Partly it is because of China's emphasis and values. But maybe censorship of media causes kids not to want to watch, and when they do it has value. In as study written by James U. McNeal, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. Mindy F. Ji, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. The function of mass media for Chinese children will be primarily educational rather than entertainment. Chinese parents instill in their children at a very early age the belief that a good education is one of the most worthy goals (Shao and Herbig, 1994). The parents try to insure that virtually every activity their children undertake has some contribution to learning. Therefore, we expect that children will look to the media primarily for education, or useful information, and only secondarily for entertainment. During the time of this study there were approximately 114 television sets per 100 urban households (Beijing Statistical Bureau, 1996). Given that there is one television set per household, television viewing is mainly a family activity and a recent study confirms this showing that family television viewing is near the top of the list of parents’ desired weekend activities (McNeal and Ji, 1996. Thus, we would expect the parents to focus on educational programming when the children are viewing with them.
Some of this attributes to responsible parenting. I'm not advocating that children shouldn't be allowed free time and to just be kids, however, TV has a profound impact on them and us as a whole that we should not ignore. The same impacts and effects are seen from the interent, video games, social websites, and the like.
As to the question of whether or not it is the job of the government to censor these things or the individual consumer themselves, that is a little more troubling. I believe that the government should look at all of the problems we're having today. Correlate that with the TV and content of said programs, and decide for themselves whether or not the American people as a whole are remaining unaffected by what they allow networks and media to release. However, I also believe each person should be responsible for themselves and govern whether or not that's really something they want to promote to others, their children, and their families. Several cases have been presented here to negate that you can control what your mind retains while intaking different aspects of media take a hint and limit it.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html#
http://www.newmediawarrior.net/2012/07/how-television-affects-your-brain/
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11494
Thursday, February 14, 2013
The Green Screen
Green/blue screens are a fascinating tool used to produce our favorite films like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Batman, etc. They make you feel as if you're really there and the actors/actresses are actually in danger. A green screen uses one of two methods. Either a static or traveling matte. Static mattes work using a double-exposure matte. The cameraman would shoot the actors in a specific landscape. When the shot is created a piece of black paper or tape is used on the lens so the area of the top of the shot is masked out and left unexposed on the film. The scene is shot normally, but the film is exposed on only one half of the frame. The the cameraman rewinds the film in the camera, and films the top half of the shot(whatever they need it to be) They could use a computer generated top half of the film Or use a technique called optical compositing where the two scenes might be short separately on two pieces of film and then brought into the special effects department to be combined onto a third piece of film.
The scene could also use traveling mattes. This technique lets you combine two or more pieces of film into one piece that looks real. You first must film the background plate. Then you film the actor/actress preforming some sort of daring feat and behind them you would have the background screen displaying the background plate. In the special effects department you can easily use special filters to form two mattes from the shot of the actor/actress.
My favorite use of the screen is the use in action films like Batman, Die Hard, Taken, Salt, Law Abiding Citizen, etc. When the hero does a something impossible against the villain and they look as if they are even more of a hero when they complete it because it looks as if they actually did the thing. Such as when the Batman tumbler collided with the police car. A green screen was used to make it look as if there was a nasty crash in a small parking garage. This was particularly captivating because you're already on the edge of your seat rooting for Batman, and then a massive crash pulls you even further into the movie.
The scene could also use traveling mattes. This technique lets you combine two or more pieces of film into one piece that looks real. You first must film the background plate. Then you film the actor/actress preforming some sort of daring feat and behind them you would have the background screen displaying the background plate. In the special effects department you can easily use special filters to form two mattes from the shot of the actor/actress.
My favorite use of the screen is the use in action films like Batman, Die Hard, Taken, Salt, Law Abiding Citizen, etc. When the hero does a something impossible against the villain and they look as if they are even more of a hero when they complete it because it looks as if they actually did the thing. Such as when the Batman tumbler collided with the police car. A green screen was used to make it look as if there was a nasty crash in a small parking garage. This was particularly captivating because you're already on the edge of your seat rooting for Batman, and then a massive crash pulls you even further into the movie.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Old Time Radio Shows
My sisters and I were raised on the old timey shows such as those that used to be on air. I watched shows like Red Skelton, Ed Sullivan, Green Acres, Mr. Ed, The Musters, I Love Lucy, etc. In short, these radio shows weren't a stretch for me because it's what I grew up with.
I chose Red Rider, Red Skelton, and A Date With Judy. I loved all three. I miss shows with clean humor, you did have to censor for your kids. Values were taught and enforced by those listening. There was just enough suspense tied with comical and satirical humor to keep those listening interested.
The only thing different for me was I couldn't see the things happening. I had to use my imaginations and "paint" the scenes myself. However, back then it wasn't a loss because they'd never seen it on TV anyway. The just assumed it would always be that way. Whereas for myself, it was a little disconcerting to listen and not watch.
I had no trouble at all listening to these classics. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the puns, jokes, and action. I'm planning on listening to several more. These radio shows took me back to when I was little and playing with my sisters, and then going in and sitting on grandpa's lap with a bowl of popcorn and watching these same shows.
I chose Red Rider, Red Skelton, and A Date With Judy. I loved all three. I miss shows with clean humor, you did have to censor for your kids. Values were taught and enforced by those listening. There was just enough suspense tied with comical and satirical humor to keep those listening interested.
The only thing different for me was I couldn't see the things happening. I had to use my imaginations and "paint" the scenes myself. However, back then it wasn't a loss because they'd never seen it on TV anyway. The just assumed it would always be that way. Whereas for myself, it was a little disconcerting to listen and not watch.
I had no trouble at all listening to these classics. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the puns, jokes, and action. I'm planning on listening to several more. These radio shows took me back to when I was little and playing with my sisters, and then going in and sitting on grandpa's lap with a bowl of popcorn and watching these same shows.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
The Great Train Robbery
Most film critiques area bout how well the actors/actresses performed. Or the special effects and whether or not the actor was able to portray the character well. Old films give sanctuary from that. You critique the storyline, the most important part of a movie.
The Great Train Robbery film produced in 1903, was, for its time, an award winning production. 4 robbers rob a train to the tune of an intense piece of music. The robbers pull of the ultimate heist and run into the woods. However, when the townspeople learn of it, they chase them and, in a stand off, kill the robbers and apprehend the stolen goods.
For the time, this move was quite good in my opinion. There was suspense, intrigue, action, and good guy winning. The storyline was strong and had realistic basis. The suspense whether the thieves would pull off the heist or not was certainly very capturing. The action of the shooting, stand off, and chase were all pieces that made it fun to watch. Old movies have an added sort of intrigue because there is nothing said. So in a way, you can make up your own movie to watch, along a certain storyline of course.
The music did an especially good job with the crescendos and intensity with each scene. The only thing that was a little cheesy was the people when the died/were shot, with the overdramatic falling. I did find interesting to watch the dancing scene because, though the whole movies was in black and white, it showed a woman in a yellow dress and highlighted some purples, pinks and violets. All in all the movie was solid in just about all aspects; considering the time in which it was made.
The Great Train Robbery film produced in 1903, was, for its time, an award winning production. 4 robbers rob a train to the tune of an intense piece of music. The robbers pull of the ultimate heist and run into the woods. However, when the townspeople learn of it, they chase them and, in a stand off, kill the robbers and apprehend the stolen goods.
For the time, this move was quite good in my opinion. There was suspense, intrigue, action, and good guy winning. The storyline was strong and had realistic basis. The suspense whether the thieves would pull off the heist or not was certainly very capturing. The action of the shooting, stand off, and chase were all pieces that made it fun to watch. Old movies have an added sort of intrigue because there is nothing said. So in a way, you can make up your own movie to watch, along a certain storyline of course.
The music did an especially good job with the crescendos and intensity with each scene. The only thing that was a little cheesy was the people when the died/were shot, with the overdramatic falling. I did find interesting to watch the dancing scene because, though the whole movies was in black and white, it showed a woman in a yellow dress and highlighted some purples, pinks and violets. All in all the movie was solid in just about all aspects; considering the time in which it was made.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Napster v. iTunes
I myself have always been a loyal iTunes user. The only complaint I have against iTunes is the same one I have against all Apple products, they're hard to get in a compatible form. Specifically if you have Microsoft. Napster has basically the same features. However, Napster isn't compatible with iTunes, it has fewer features, and mediocre streaming sound quality. iTunes has it's downfalls as well. Price being the biggest factor, followed by, no subscriptions and it's processor intensive. Between the two the differences are pretty minute. Forced to choose one, I'm very picky about sound quality, so I'll stick with iTunes v. Napster. I also don't download music that often, so I'm not particularly interested in subscriptions.
Newspaper's Future
Newspapers are unfortunately a dying breed. I could certainly see them making a marginal comeback in the next 5 years due to the retirement of baby boomers. However, newspapers are on their way out. Senior Americans are not as open to the use of technology as the younger(30 and down) generation. They're also not as apt to want to take the time to learn about a new piece of software, when they can sit down with their coffee, at their kitchen table, and open up the their newsPAPER. That's they way they've done it for years and they don't want that to change.
E-readers are soon going to become the mainstream way of getting your news, minus the paper part. Particularly the reader that updates itself. This way you can carry the paper with you and watch it through something small like your eyeglasses, and not have to carry something separate. In spite of all of this, I can't help but wonder if the e-reader will really be that popular due to iPads and smartphones. You can already get your news quickly updated and play a game and look at photos and play words with friends on an iPad. With your smartphone you could be taking a business call, texting your spouse, and checking the news and it's all in one, easy to use, easy to transport, gadget. Therefore, I'm not so sure that the e-reader will be a huge success. Why would you pay $800 for something that doesn't do as much as it's $250 counterpart?
E-readers are soon going to become the mainstream way of getting your news, minus the paper part. Particularly the reader that updates itself. This way you can carry the paper with you and watch it through something small like your eyeglasses, and not have to carry something separate. In spite of all of this, I can't help but wonder if the e-reader will really be that popular due to iPads and smartphones. You can already get your news quickly updated and play a game and look at photos and play words with friends on an iPad. With your smartphone you could be taking a business call, texting your spouse, and checking the news and it's all in one, easy to use, easy to transport, gadget. Therefore, I'm not so sure that the e-reader will be a huge success. Why would you pay $800 for something that doesn't do as much as it's $250 counterpart?
Book Banning
Book banning is an issue that has been debated extensively. For me the issue is two-sided. On the one hand, banning books is a good, and I would say, essential practice. Banning books like 50 Shades of Grey, Catchier In The Rye, etc. I think is completely justified. Students can and should be allowed to read what they like. However, as a school you need to consider what it is you want to foster in young minds. By allowing explicit sex scenes and rape to be described in detail, you're certainly not discouraging the acts. Mandy parents present the argument that if your child doesn't want to read, or they don't want them to read that content, then they should just not check it out. In this case, why isn't it ok for teachers to show adult films in sex education class? An extreme example, but when compared to the content in these books, not unreasonable.
On the other hand however, I don't think every little dislike should be accommodated. For example, I don't let my daughter read Harry Potter for religious reasons. That's my preference and right. However, I don't expect those with other beliefs to conform to mine. Some people like Harry Potter and that's ok. Others still, don't like To Kill A Mockingbird. My personal belief is it's a classic and excellent story of our history. Each is entitled to his/her own beliefs. Honestly there isn't a simple solution. The only one that seems to make some sense is if you plan to use these in your class, then you need would use permission forms for each child. Have alternates ready for those students to read if they, or their parents are not comfortable.
As for libraries, I think those are a little more lenient. If an adult wants to read a book, he/she should be allowed to. I think Stephen King novels are inappropriate for children up through at least sophomores in high school. However, if a library decides to have them, I don't have to check them out. I guess it all depends on what the library wants to portray. Do they want those books on the shelves? A tricky issue to say the least, and one without an easy solution.
On the other hand however, I don't think every little dislike should be accommodated. For example, I don't let my daughter read Harry Potter for religious reasons. That's my preference and right. However, I don't expect those with other beliefs to conform to mine. Some people like Harry Potter and that's ok. Others still, don't like To Kill A Mockingbird. My personal belief is it's a classic and excellent story of our history. Each is entitled to his/her own beliefs. Honestly there isn't a simple solution. The only one that seems to make some sense is if you plan to use these in your class, then you need would use permission forms for each child. Have alternates ready for those students to read if they, or their parents are not comfortable.
As for libraries, I think those are a little more lenient. If an adult wants to read a book, he/she should be allowed to. I think Stephen King novels are inappropriate for children up through at least sophomores in high school. However, if a library decides to have them, I don't have to check them out. I guess it all depends on what the library wants to portray. Do they want those books on the shelves? A tricky issue to say the least, and one without an easy solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)