Richtel’s article on high definition (HD) sex movies is relevant to global media on a few interrelated fronts. First, the move to produce porn in HD represents a constant drive towards bigger, better, faster, and snazzier technology. This drive is pushed by both consumers and by corporate wallets. Secondly, the decision by Sony to refuse to produce HD porn represents a desperate clinging to some sense of “morality” within an anarchic system of global media today. Sony is not going to stop the production of porn, or even limit the ability of porn to be distributed in HD. But the fact that they are refusing a clearly lucrative opportunity represents a last ditch effort to sanitize production—at least on one superficial, publicly visible level. The assertion that “pornography helps technologies spread” is clearly relevant to global media. Sex sells, as we know, therefore it comes as no surprise that new ways to enjoy pornography have pushed markets for new technology. Members of the porn industry insist that Sony is making a huge mistake by refusing their business, supposedly because consumers are bound to buy HD porn above any other HD production. Finally, and most importantly, the discussion of the porn industry sheds light on the ways in which American popular culture is exported. It is arguably the lowest example of America’s cultural imperialism—the fact that American made porn (often featuring foreign women) can be found in markets across the world, is a testament to the globalized nature of media today.
The social and cultural implications are complex, many of which are alluded to in Richtel’s article. One social implication of porn’s shift to HD, as it doesn’t take a mastermind to realize, is the impact on girls and women who are urged to emanate sexuality as it is depicted through pornography—by women who have not only been nipped, tucked, and digitally edited, but who also have “lifestyle” coaches, who remind them to eliminate carbs and chain themselves to the treadmill. As Richter reports, producers of HD porn allege that this new technology allows a more intimate, “real” view of actors. As director Robbie D explains, “It puts you in the room.” Attempts to mimic these fabricated women may be harder than ever, given the increased demand for cosmetic surgery by actresses in the industry as result of the sharper picture. If you want to be sexy, you have to look like Jesse Jane, who has had breast surgery twice, or Savanna Samson, who has the luxury of having her pimples craftily avoided by film-makers while the rest of us are left searching for the perfect product to amend our imperfections. The idea that HD is going to make pornography more “real” is ludicrous.
The effects of these meticulously staged depictions of what is sexy or beautiful has both domestic and international reach. A recent article in the New York Times described the influence of Hollywood and American pop-culture, particularly the stick-then models and actresses of the red carpet, on the conception of beauty in Brazil (Rohter, Larry “In the land of bold beauty, a trusted mirror cracks,” NYT, Jan. 14th, 2007). While Brazilian women were traditionally prized for full-figured hips and butts, models are increasingly shaving off inches, and worse yet, the past year saw the first steep rise in eating disorder related deaths. American pop culture has been exported to every corner of the globe, and unfortunately it is not home-made or grassroots productions like those typically found on YouTube. These images have been carefully crafted by people working strictly within American society’s mainstream constructions of sexuality and gender—because, after all, that is what sells. When HD porn sports a tag line that assures realistic sex, it is only offering sharper images of more fictionalized women. America’s perception of beauty, as it becomes ever more distorted, will continue to take casualties from Hollywood to Rio. A similar phenomenon may be seen in the export of American consumerism, a mainstay of our sociocultural landscape. You can get a McDonalds meal super-sized in Bangkok, Quito, Geneva, or anywhere else you care to indulge yourself. Pornography is just one example.
I am a Senior concentrating in Development Studies. I am interested in the way American media depicts other cultures, specifically regarding US foreign policy. I am interested in global media as it affects the heartstrings of America, how the media affects the public’s perception of international affairs, particularly international conflict and international health. I am interested in how different types of leverage can be used through the media to affect change—for example, how YouTube might affect domestic politics, how the celebrity one.org movement featuring George Clooney and Angelina Jolie might affect poverty reduction and HIV/AIDS in the developing world, how Bollywood stars could be mobilized in the fight against HIV/AIDS in India, how the media’s representation of conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, and Darfur has direct implications for the course of events in these war-torn societies. I am interested in how media can be used to change an abstract and distant international problem into something personalized for the viewer, and through that spur action (for example, the recent photo exhibit at List on the genocide in Darfur that forced the audience to move beyond rhetoric and politics to a gruesomely realistic portrayal of the situation). I am interested in how organizations working for social change can best harness the power of media. Besides being a student of development studies and international relations, I have worked abroad extensively, and I am a writer and a teacher—all of these experiences I think will deepen both what I could bring to the table, and what I hope to do with what I will learn from the course.

Posted by Katie Panella at 10:15 PM | Permalink

Youtube is generally accepted as the most expansive open-source media community in the country, if not the world. With a computer, an internet connection, and of course, a video capturing device, a person can display their story to the globe. By using these tools, along with Youtube’s blog function, M Dot Strange, the subject of David Carr’s January 22nd, 2007 New York Times article “M dot Strange Finds a Way at Sundance,” has demonstrated the power of Youtube as a stage for individuals to transmit their independent unadulterated work to a wide audience. But while I am pleased with the democratization of art media that Youtube promotes, I wonder what M dot Strange success stories might yield for the democratization of news media.

As far as art media is concerned, we have long had independent movie studios, art galleries, and independent bookstores through which to transmit alternative artwork. The news media is considerably more fettered. However, the public nature of the production of M dot Strange’s “We are Strange,” in which he kept his viewers abreast of his progress, reminded me of the alternative, open-source news media which we already have at our fingertips: Wikipedia. But just as I thought to praise Wikipedia, I thought of its lack of reliability. As university students and faculty, we have collectively agreed on what constitutes a reputable source, worthy of use in academic research. Wikepedia, of course, is not one of those. As an adherent to this collective ideal, I was stunned when I read the January 29, 2007 New York Times article “Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively.” According to the article written by Noam Cohen, “more than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court.” I was astounded that lawyers and judges had used material from a source that could be so easily edited and/or appended to. But, then, doesn’t Wikipedia do the exact same thing as Youtube, but with text? There is an accepted format for our stories and images in the mainstream that is subverted by folks like M dot Strange through their use of Youtube and similar communities. To get his film seen he has side-stepped conventional studios and producers. Likewise, Wikipedia-type communities subvert mainstream notions of acceptable form and presentation; they are accountable to nobody but the individual authors.

If we are to rejoice in the proliferation of small (media) arms and our expanded access to modes of production, is it possible for us to restrict our beliefs on what media should be fully democratized and what media should be carefully regulated? Even now, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the idea that Wikipedia will one day become an acceptable source of information. But I do know that it unsettles me to think that we may make certain demands for the freedom of art and entertainment media, while leaving the news media fettered, and inaccessible.

I am an MCM concentrator with a keen interest in issues of black representation via film. I am concerned with this notion that upper-middle class white constitutes the norm of characters in films and on TV, and that other characters must be analyzed in reference to this norm. The idea of other, and how to deconstruct that notion in a cinematic sense, is perhaps what interests me most. As far as film experience, I have made some productions on my Digital 8 camera, including a few shorts back in high school. I’m currently working on a script about the traditional conception of American war heroes in opposition to the new impersonal standard of armed warfare. But of course, I’m putting this project to the side so I can first learn the tools of the trade.

Posted by Daliso Ngoma Leslie at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 22nd, New York Times, Business Section
“Gambling Subpoenas on Wall St.”

The crackdown by the Justice Department on four prominent Wall Street firms for underwriting the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) of internet gambling sites outside the United States has recently sparked debate. The main relevance of this article to discussions on global media is that with forms of widely accessible international media like the internet, that transcend geographical borders, it is becoming harder to enforce laws specific to certain regions, and harder to pinpoint responsibility for media that the government of a certain country disapproves of. In this case, gambling online is illegal within the United States but these sites are legal in places like Costa Rica and Antigua where they operate from. This discrepancy in the legality of certain sites is an issue because even though the government can crack down on a few sites, and target a few firms, ultimately controlling the internet is a mammoth task and defining who is responsible for such violations is the main problem. Are the banks at fault for orchestrating these IPOs outside the United States? I don’t believe so: they are ultimately not engaging in online gambling, nor are they increasing access of Americans to these sites.

Such forms of technology (the internet, which makes online gambling possible) and the act by the Justice Department bring up certain interesting ideas. Firstly, the economic effect here is that even though these firms are legal and licensed within the place where they operate, if American investors are not allowed to engage with them, their revenue will decline greatly. This could imply that with legal controls on the internet, a crackdown in one country could affect the economic outlook of another country very easily, without any physical measures like tariffs or sanctions even required. This could be used as a power tool in international relations in the present and future. Secondly, this act raises the question of social control. Gambling is perhaps socially discouraged in the United States, but it is becoming hard with the internet to restrict exposure of US residents to this act. This issue of social control definitely exists with other websites as well as television – for example American TV shows often project a value system very different from countries in Asia but are still widely accessible to citizens there and can influence them greatly, resulting in them growing up to be more Westernized.

Since I’ve been born and brought up in Asia (India), such an act by the Justice department does not surprise me at all. Even though media control is much stricter in China than in India, we do have our fair share of crackdowns. What is most striking is that in such situations the government is usually confused about whom to blame and whom to fine. For example, recently a video was sold on Baazi.com (The Indian version of eBay) that was deemed inappropriate. The person who was prosecuted was the CEO of Baazi, and this raised questions in India about whether it really was his fault – he hadn’t personally encouraged the video, or taken it himself. The video was taken using a cell phone, and was sent across the country in a matter of minutes, so people raised questions about whether the cell phone services should be prosecuted as well. Or should it be the person who took the video? The entire country was confused and since the CEO involved was an American citizen the United States was involved in the matter as well and ultimately negotiated for his release. These issues of identifying responsibility for certain actions and enforcing legal restrictions within physical borders in the age of global media, where the number of players are infinite, and material so easily transcends geography, are definitely going to need dealing with.

Posted by Shveta Raina at 09:09 PM | Permalink

January 22nd, New York Times, Business Section
“Gambling Subpoenas on Wall St.”

The crackdown by the Justice Department on four prominent Wall Street firms for underwriting the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) of internet gambling sites outside the United States has recently sparked debate. The main relevance of this article to discussions on global media is that with forms of widely accessible international media like the internet, that transcend geographical borders, it is becoming harder to enforce laws specific to certain regions, and harder to pinpoint responsibility for media that the government of a certain country disapproves of. In this case, gambling online is illegal within the United States but these sites are legal in places like Costa Rica and Antigua where they operate from. This discrepancy in the legality of certain sites is an issue because even though the government can crack down on a few sites, and target a few firms, ultimately controlling the internet is a mammoth task and defining who is responsible for such violations is the main problem. Are the banks at fault for orchestrating these IPOs outside the United States? I don’t believe so: they are ultimately not engaging in online gambling, nor are they increasing access of Americans to these sites.

Such forms of technology (the internet, which makes online gambling possible) and the act by the Justice Department bring up certain interesting ideas. Firstly, the economic effect here is that even though these firms are legal and licensed within the place where they operate, if American investors are not allowed to engage with them, their revenue will decline greatly. This could imply that with legal controls on the internet, a crackdown in one country could affect the economic outlook of another country very easily, without any physical measures like tariffs or sanctions even required. This could be used as a power tool in international relations in the present and future. Secondly, this act raises the question of social control. Gambling is perhaps socially discouraged in the United States, but it is becoming hard with the internet to restrict exposure of US residents to this act. This issue of social control definitely exists with other websites as well as television – for example American TV shows often project a value system very different from countries in Asia but are still widely accessible to citizens there and can influence them greatly, resulting in them growing up to be more Westernized.

Since I’ve been born and brought up in Asia (India), such an act by the Justice department does not surprise me at all. Even though media control is much stricter in China than in India, we do have our fair share of crackdowns. What is most striking is that in such situations the government is usually confused about whom to blame and whom to fine. For example, recently a video was sold on Baazi.com (The Indian version of eBay) that was deemed inappropriate. The person who was prosecuted was the CEO of Baazi, and this raised questions in India about whether it really was his fault – he hadn’t personally encouraged the video, or taken it himself. The video was taken using a cell phone, and was sent across the country in a matter of minutes, so people raised questions about whether the cell phone services should be prosecuted as well. Or should it be the person who took the video? The entire country was confused and since the CEO involved was an American citizen the United States was involved in the matter as well and ultimately negotiated for his release. These issues of identifying responsibility for certain actions and enforcing legal restrictions within physical borders in the age of global media, where the number of players are infinite, and material so easily transcends geography, are definitely going to need dealing with.

Posted by Shveta Raina at 09:09 PM | Permalink

The article about whether HD technology makes porno films a little too, um, intimate, is a magnification of a debate that has been going about developing mediums for a very long time. There is a concern within the industry that High Definition will expose those flaws that are hidden in low quality porn watched over an internet connection. This suggests that there is an element of fantasy that is taken away by having a more accurate image. They suspect that some porn viewers do not want to see the entire physical truth of the girl, and favor a fantastic image that gives you the idea of the girl without giving too much away. To these viewers the truth is not appealing. However, there is an audience that finds the little details and flaws that are revealed by high definition more appealing. To them, it feels like they are having a more authentic sexual experience than it feels when they are watching non-high definition pornography. The flaws are like those of an in-the-flesh lover.
A similar issue pertains to the coverage of celebrity gossip and political scandal in the media. Less than half a century ago, other than the occasional scandal, celebrity gossip was little more than an after-thought. Public figures were high up on a pedestal, and usually able to maintain a clean image. Even though there were rumours about the personal lives of movie stars and politicians, the information spread very slowly, so it wasn’t quite the phenomenon it is today. The world wide web really changed all that. Camera phones, video blogs, message boards, and social networking (to name a few), have made it so that anyone with an internet connection can know exactly where their favorite stars were partying on a given night, and even see unflattering images of them at said location, within minutes of all of it actually happening. A whole industry is devoted to making sure such information is readily available. Essentially, there are no secrets. However, like the porn stars in the age of HD, the public figures are both scorned and hailed for the more extensive picture that is being shown of them.
It could be said that new technologies create new audiences. Before high definition porn existed, the audience whom it appeals to now probably never considered the fact that the porn they were already looking at wasn’t the complete picture. When the new technology was introduced, they were probably excited about it, because it is different from what they are used to seeing, and in a way, has a new kind of appeal. Many can learn to appreciate something simply because it is available to them.
It is likely that over time, most people will come to accept porn in high definition as the norm. There will probably always be a group of people who really want to see the older model, but that group will grow smaller and smaller over time

Posted by Samantha Cornwell at 07:08 PM | Permalink

Two weeks ago, Tyree Simmons, a.k.a. DJ Drama, a prominent producer of “mixtapes”—compilation CD’s featuring unreleased and usual unlicensed songs—was arrested on racketeering charges (as reported in the New York Times on January 22, see “Cracking Down on Mixtape CDs”). However, although it is true that he profited off of music that he was not licensed to reproduce, it would be a mistake to pass off DJ Drama’s CD’s merely as unlicensed copies of other people’s music. The mixtape does not merely reproduce culture—it produces it. DJ Drama is regarded by the rap-savvy as an artist in his own right. In selecting and arranging the songs on a mix, DJ Drama performs a creative act; an act that, in itself, impacts culture, as made evident not only by his reputation throughout the rap underground, but also in his ability to make or break artists. Yet the cultural force of his mixes goes far beyond the rap underground—major record labels have approached him and many other such DJs to offer them jobs as talent scouts and producers of licensed compilations. In short, the producers of the so-called dominant or “mass” media follow the lead of DJ’s like Drama. Although the existence of a dominant media has lead many to believe that the rise of the mediated society has lead to a centralized production of culture, the case of DJ Drama, a member of Atlanta’s rap underground, reveals the reality—that in the age of global media, culture continues to flow in from the periphery.

Furthermore, the example of DJ Drama illustrates two trends of current media technology. The first is the effect of digital information technology on the informational commodity. In the market society, an industry can grow up around any commodity that can be produced in a material form. Although one may be able to commodify his/her own ability to recite information, an information industry (to mass produce the commodity for the market) can only exist if the information is tied to a material manifestation that the typical consumer cannot easily produce him/herself. For centuries, media technology did exactly that. After the invention of the printing press, while one had the ability to copy an entire book by hand, so as to create a free copy for a friend, it became easier to simply purchase a copy from a printer, who could produce them cheaply en masse, hence the rise of “print capitalism.” The same phenomenon can be attributed to the rise of the early recording industry (the reproduction of records was no simple task), as well as the early film industry. Thus, tied to various material forms that were difficult to reproduce, information began to be mass-produced for the market. Over time, the information industries grew—and became more centralized. However, the “digital revolution,” which was initially conceived for marketing purposes, has challenged the mass production of informational commodities. By storing information in coded arrangements of numbers that can be easily interpreted and reproduced by personal computers and other accessible technology, digital technology has essentially liberated information from its material manifestation. As computers become more widely disseminated, the power to reproduce information is restored to the average person. As a result, information becomes liberated from the sphere of capitalist economics, and thus is no longer controlled by centralized industry. DJ Drama’s ability to obtain and distribute music with digital technology bears a testament to this shift. Thus, to some extent, when DJ Drama distributes mix CD’s, he is distributing them as cultural items, not as commodities. Rather then reinforce a mainstream culture, digital technology has empowered those outside the mainstream.

Of course, one will note that not only was music being illegally distributed in this case—it was actually being profited off of. It would be a mistake to think that, although information has to a large extent been liberated from its commodity form, it will ever cease to be commodified in some measure. However, the illegal sale of mixes speaks to another trend sparked by new technology—the rise of commodities produced by the masses, as opposed to those produced for the masses. At the time of the birth of the media industries, production was expensive. As technology like printing presses, movie cameras, and recording devices were immensely costly, it was only worth producing newspapers, books, films, and records in large quantities. This meant that media was only produced by those in the industry, and accounts for the rise of the centralized dominant media. However, new technology has undermined the centralized industry by making production (as well as distribution of materials) affordable and available to much of the population. Hundreds of millions throughout the world own computers, digital cameras, digital recorders, printers, and CD burners, which means that a perplexing number of people have the power to participate in the commodity trade of information. If DJ Drama’s mixes are viewed to be in some part his creation, then, in producing and selling CD’s, DJ Drama may be regarded a manufacturer of commodified information. Thus, even if digital technology has not eliminated the commodity trade of information, it has decentralized the production of commodified information, and shifted power to the periphery.

Though many found DJ Drama’s arrest to be a crushing defeat, the fact that the story landed on the front page of the New York Times business section is proof of the cultural impact one person at the margins can make in today’s world of global media. If that’s not sufficient evidence of global media’s democratization, I don’t know what is.

I’m a sophomore with no concentration at the moment. I’ve often been frustrated by the narrow analysis of society made by economists, political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc, and thus prefer to examine society through a broader lens. Accordingly, I’ve discovered that I have a predilection towards critical theory, which I imagine might be useful for a class like this. Also, I’ve worked as an intern with a group that pursues open government and freedom of information, which, to some extent, is in line with the spirit of the class. What motivates me? I’ve been told again and again by adults that their generation messed things up and left our generation in one heck of a predicament—and I completely agree. Maybe it’s typical for any given generation to claim that it’s the last before the end of the world comes, but I think that, in our case, we might actually have some serious crises (like, mondo serious) threatening us, and I’d really like to avoid it if at all possible. What with Ecological threats, security threats, an economic bubble in danger of bursting (i.e. the national debt), and the gradual erosion of democracy in America, we’ve got a lot on our plate, and these problems aren’t going to solve themselves. In fact, a solution will take the coordinated effort of the entire nation, and in some cases, the entire globe. But how can such coordination ever be accomplished? I think media might be the beginning of the answer. I believe that media can be used both to lure people towards their own good and to lure them away from it, and thus it can actually be a liberating force. As of now, the power of media to solve major problems has hardly been unleashed. Yet as media becomes more and more democratized, it becomes more and more in our power to use it to prevent disaster, and to save lives. And I think that’s pretty cool. Which is why I want to take this class. Plus, I don’t really have much practical experience with media production, just intellectual endeavors inside and out of the classroom, so I’m excited to learn the “how to.”

Posted by Andy Garin at 06:33 PM | Permalink

Pornography, not unlike many forms of popular media, functions on its ability to construct an idealization of reality. Though the continual advancements in technology bring the medium closer to visual elements of “real life,” or in this case, real sex, the creators of porn must work harder to compensate for a constantly shrinking gap between idealistic fantasy and crude reality. This problem is a rising issue for directors in a variety of art forms--For example, take the ever-changing technologies that bring us computer-generated animation. In films that successfully utilize the fantastical elements of CG (such as Finding Nemo), human character traits are exaggerated and placed in a world of fantasy. However, films that utilize newly-developed technologies that allowing us to mimic the visual aspects of the real world (as in The Polar Express, where real actors were tracked to have their forms converted to CG animations), the results are slightly off-putting. The people look “almost real”—more than they ever have in 3d simulations—but there’s something disconcerting about the accuracy in the way they move and look, and the fact that they are still unmistakable computer-generated. When we view an animated movie, we don’t want something to be this close to simulating real people, or else we might as well be watching real actors. We want something that utilizes the capabilities of the technology in a way that we can’t get with real actors.

In a way, porn functions under a similar premise: people watch porn because it isn’t real sex. Most scenarios depicted in pornography are very far from those that exist in real life, but that’s what makes them desirable. If they were created to simulate real sex, viewers would be disappointed in the lack sensationalism that we have come to expect from the medium of porn. Because the content of such videos are not changing in the face of new technology, the aesthetics should not either. Porn is enticing not only for its fantastical situations but also for the idealistic portrayal of people (from their sexual performance to their physical traits). Though the argument against porn in HD is a different one from the computer graphics issue, it still founds itself on the principle that porn is what real sex cannot be – an ideal where razor burn isn’t part of the fantasy.

I am a junior Art Semiotics/MCM concentrator with an interest in theory and production. I have a lot of experience working with film, video, and animation, specifically in editing and post-production. Last summer I had the chance to edit a documentary for the Brown Medical School, and I absolutely loved working on all phases of the process. One area of particular interest for me is the creative element to documentary making, specifically with creative non-fiction. I hope to incorporate my technical and artistic interests with the study of global media in this course.

Posted by Emily Friend Roberts at 04:35 PM | Permalink

Pornographers have long made liberal use of makeup, tanning sprays, lighting, and camera angles. Who wants to see real—real blemishes, scars, acne, cottage cheese—when you can see perfect, or so the argument goes. But these tools have been blunted by high definition cameras and increasingly crystal-clear close-ups. New York Times writer Matt Richtel offers his own view into the mutually evolving worlds of porn and technology. Richtel scrubbed away the word porn from his title and replaced it with “sex movies.” His title’s verb, “could be,” implies that he’s speaking hypothetically and ostensibly gives him credibility as an observer and breathing room, lest he come too close to Jesse Jane.
Fortunately for us, plenty of writers in blogs and online magazines don’t care if they get their hands dirty. They don’t bother sanitizing their every sentence for a high brow publication. After all, major American newspapers are the only forum to reflect on global media (here, the movies, articles, blogs, cameras, presentations, etc.). One enormously powerful community of porn watchers, actors, and commentators is the gay audience. Richtel speaks only to women in heterosexual porn, but had he reached out to men of any sexuality, he mightn’t have reprinted the same clichés about men caring more about technology than looks. He would also have realized how old hat this topic has become and that gay viewers and producers have been at the cutting-edge of these technologies for at least five years. (I would be more than happy to share links to blogs, video reviews, and articles which discuss this very topic, but I fear they’ll be edited out.)
Consumers have already demanded high definition porn to watch on their $3000 plasma televisions. Much content has been filmed and released, to mixed reviews. Some consumers lust after the high definition experience and want, or think they want, high definition porn, so they’ll keep buying. Others want the high definition experience without unsightly, if all too human, blemishes magnified 1000-fold. They’ll gravitate to HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs that’ve been heavily edited and airbrushed. To be sure, better editing technology is within reach of anyone willing to commit the time and money. Porn’s rewards ensure that. If gay porn production company Raging Stallion can easily edit away condoms, giving the appearance of unprotected sex (which, though condemned widely by health professionals and gay public, nevertheless makes up a huge percentage of demand), surely moviemakers can paint away blemishes. Maybe they can even import technology from computer animated features like Shrek to make poorly constructed silicone breasts bounce in a more “lifelike” fashion. However, there’s something to be said for amateur porn. Barebones production and grainy video haven’t stopped tens of millions from enjoying XTube, the youtube of porn. Clearly the global community demands porn of all stripes, though I personally enjoy the free kind.

Bio: I’m a senior double concentrator in economics and American history. My major focus in history has been on modern American culture, law, composition, economics, and mythology. If that doesn’t sound terribly cohesive, you’re right. I enjoy putting ideas into context, finding connections, looking for tensions, and generally trying to apply what I’ve learned of critical theory to everyday issues. I’m tremendously interested in learning how global media interprets, clashes with, and furthers conflicts of ideas. Why the war on sex? On porn? On terror? On drugs? Obviously I have more than a cursory knowledge of the inner workings of the porn world, particularly gay porn. At Brown I’ve been involved in community organizations and social activism groups that empower individuals and fight for change. I hope that I can learn the mechanics, strategies, and tools of media to further my causes, which include destigmatizing pornography, and empowering people to make safe, well-informed choices. I also love making amateur clips and setting my favorite songs to music videos I’ve designed. Cheers!

Posted by David Nickels at 04:27 PM | Permalink

The new HD media Matt Richtel explores in his New York Times article calls into question definitions of “sexy” and “arousing.” Pornographic movie studios “have discovered that the technology is sometimes not so sexy” Richtel explains. Perhaps the problem with sexy is that it’s not obvious. Often, sexy is demure, coy, veiled, mysterious and able to build anticipation and arousal. HD, on the other hand, might be sexy’s opposite--bold, clear and obvious. As adult film star Stormy Daniels comments, “I’m not 100 percent sure why anyone would want to see their porn in HD.” HDTV certainly makes porn more vivid and contains more visual information to stimulate the eye. Theoretically when we increase clarity of the image we make porn a more stimulating erotic experience—“realer” genitals, nipples, mouths, fluids etc. However we also increase the clarity of actual flaws such as the “tiny ill-placed pimple,” on adult film star Savana Samson.

Another adult film actress, Kirsten Price embraces the increased clarity of high-def technology explaining that, “People just want to see what’s real.” I’m dubious about this notion of high definition as being somehow “realer.” Pornographic video has never been “real;” thin plots, editing techniques and make-up create a sexy idealized situation. High-definition seems to compensate for the inherent "unsexiness" of its crisper image and hyper reality in an effort to maintain that sexy atmosphere. Ms. Price, for example, received cosmetic surgery to decrease the appearance of unsightly veins and high definition post-production technologies “digitally soften the actors’ skin tone.” So what happens when we increase the ideal and continue to cover up flaws? Perhaps we simply up the standards of the “ideal.” Ms. Price seems to assume that HD represents a move toward the “real,” when in fact HD technology presents the viewer with a “hyper-reality,” packed with more information than the human eye or ear can process and images of bodies even further from our own.

Richtel’s article did not touch on the surge in the amateur porn industry or the thousands of hits the infamous poorly lit Paris Hilton sex video has received. Perhaps these other trends represent a high-definition backlash toward grainy, pixilated, low quality pornography with “real” people.
.
I haven’t had many (any) theory or production classes but I’ve had a number of creative writing classes (in playwriting and creative nonfictions) which I think would serve me well in writing treatments for pitches. I’ve also studied some gender theory and I’m excited to find the intersections between that and media. I was raised (for better or worse) on a strict diet of public television and documentary films as my mom worked for public television. My parents, perhaps contradictorily, treated TV as a necessary evil and as a result I’ve always been fascinated by the way media, especially television and film, manipulates the mind and the eye. I’ve interned with a documentary production company, mostly pushing papers and logging footage but I gained a fascination with the way filmmakers manipulate and construct narrative in documentary film. I remember one afternoon while I was taking inventory of about 1000 master-beta tapes in the editing room I overheard to a conversation between an editor and a producer about creating “a story arc” and building “tension” and “drama” on their documentary about “extreme engineering.” They kept moving index cards around on their storyboard—manipulating time and sequence and I thought to myself, “wait…but isn’t that sort-of…lying?” I realize of course how naïve my idea of the truth of documentary film was. However, the play and moral tension between fact and narrative continues to fascinate and elude me.

Posted by Katherine Cooper at 03:43 PM | Permalink

Pharmaceutical advertisements hold a special place in advertising for being among the most ridiculous commercials out there--healthy, fit, lively adults "celebrate life" or "experience nature" while a soothing, calm voice lists terrible side effects and other warnings for using the medication. At least some people, if not most people, must find them completely frustrating--they are the perfect examples of advertising that seek to gloss over the difficulties of the real world and sell an emotionally charged fantasy of "the good life," when what is really being sold is product that is not depicted in the advertisement at all. Television is the medium to reach the infamous "lowest common denominator;" to sell to the largest and what corporations assume is the least sophisticated demographic. With this point of view it's not hard to see why pharma companies dumb down their ads--they're meant to communicate to a very large, undifferentiated mass of consumers who don't understand medicine. I think that this approach to advertising creates the problems that drug ads run into in Milt Freudenheim's article. When the message is dumbed down, superlative, even hyperbolic statements are far easier to make.

I found it interesting that in the article, the FDA and members of Congress sought to amend the misinformation advertised in drug ads by, in one sense, further limiting the flow of information to the consumer. Government officials in the article ask for a delay in the initiation of drug advertising campaigns--12 months, 15 months, etc. At first it seemed reasonable--How can pharmaceutical companies really advertise a sophisticated chemical formula that treats a complicated disorder to the proverbial lowest common denominator? The government's demands are somewhat sensible--delay the touchy-feely, dumbed down, emotional advertisements until the smart people can really figure out what's going on, and then unleash it on the public. It struck me, though, that this is a very undemocratic way of viewing information. Is there not some way for drug companies to advertise effectively and intelligently? To communicate a nuanced message to a "lowest common denominator" that, due to poverty or lack of education, may have more real-world experience with sickness and/or death than the creators of the ads?

It may have something to do with the connotations with television--actually, I think it is entirely because of the type of medium television is percieved as. Nuanced, "real" advertisements are not expected on television. Perhaps in an upscale magazine or The New York Times, perhaps on certain radio stations or on billboards in elite urban areas--but television remains a medium whose viewers are thought to be incredibly simple and slow. I have no way of knowing how intelligent the average swath of humanity is, but I wonder what would happen to the pharmaceuticals market if advertisements came out and honestly said, we know that sometimes these things don't work, but we spent millions of dollars making this chemical formula, and though it might make you throw up in the mornings, it might actually help. If the sugar coating was stripped away, maybe the pills would go down a little easier.

Posted by Sonia Saraiya at 02:39 PM | Permalink

David Carr’s article on movie maker M dot Strange shows clear transition in the direction of media distribution. While M dot Strange’s video, “We Are the Strange,” was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, its major followers did not even need to leave their homes to view the trailer. With movies, such as this one, appearing on the internet, through You-Tube, even in virtual online communities with their own video centers. Not only is the material reaching out and becoming accessible to more people, but this online culture is allowing greater interaction between the producers and filmmakers, and the audience. In turn, the mainstream, or traditional, models of distribution are being challenged: would you rather watch this movie, or be able to do the same while participating in an online film school started by the film’s director? Which scenario would you gain more from?

The internet has become such a powerful tool for the spreading of information. With all sorts of videos available on You-Tube and online communities such as Second Life, anyone can create a film or introduce their idea. The internet has provided a cheap way for beginning filmmakers, or those with limited resources. To get your idea to reach every corner of the globe, you just need a little time and patience. But there are more than just economic effects to the internet phenomenon. The internet has a great political and cultural impact on the world. While internet is yet to become in developing countries what it is in countries such as the US, it will have great impacts everywhere. No longer will the US be able to have a monopoly on the news distribution (ie CNN), if home-made movies, cell phone videos, and the alike can get the attention of the rest of the world. These new venues are creating choices for the viewers: the no longer have to believe the one source of information, now they can choose and decide for themselves.

I am a senior International Relations concentrator, PED track. I have been able to witness, first hand, the way the CNN effect has affected the way America (among other countries) has viewed different wars. During the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, I was living in Boston, while the rest of my family was in Serbia. I was able to hear what was going on from my relatives and was surprised at how different the two accounts were, and realized that much of the world was only hearing one side. Since then I have always been interested in learning more about how the media can control politics, but have never really had the chance to explore that topic until now.

Posted by Mia Levi at 02:38 PM | Permalink

The New York Times piece "Showdown Looms in Congress over Drug
Advertising on TV" raises a number of important questions about
direct-to-consumer (or DTC) drug advertising by America's
pharmaceutical industry. These ads have been sharply criticized by
watchdog groups and congressional advocates who have argued that these
ads often mislead consumers about the risks and benefits of certain
drugs. Such questions about DTC drug advertising became especially
salient after Vioxx--Merck's heavily marketed painkiller
medication--was found to dramatically increase the risk of stroke and
heart attacks in a number of patients.
This piece brings to light a number of ways in which the media is
changing the face of America's pharmaceutical industry. No longer are
doctors the sole providers of information about medical treatments;
whereas in the past patients would come to a doctor's office so that
the doctor could diagnose their symptoms and prescribe treatments,
today patients often come to doctors' offices knowing exactly what
script they want written out by the end of their appointment. In this
sense, new media forms like DTC drug advertising empower patients by
providing them with information they previously could only get from
their doctors. This power can prove dangerous, especially when
unchecked advertising by pharmaceutical companies misleads patients
about the dangers of certain drugs.
At the same time, new media forms do have the potential to empower
patients in a number of positive ways. Patients can now check
advertisers' claims against a wealth of information available online
from sources like WebMD, and they can discuss their experiences with
different treatments in a range of blogs and self-help forums.
The success of DTC advertising by pharmaceutical companies also says
something about the power of the convergence of different media forms.
Patients can now watch an Ambien commercial on TV, go online and take
a quiz confirming that they do indeed have insomnia, and then go to
the doctor's office and receive a free Ambien sample along with
promotional materials provided to their doctor by the Ambien drug
"representative" (read: salesperson).
Bio: I'm a senior International Relations concentrator, focusing on
political economy of development. Ever since I saw this course in the
course catalog, I've wanted to take it. In IR135, I found our
discussion of the intersection between the media and international
politics fascinating, and I only left wanting more. I'm an avid
reader of online news and blogs like mediamatters; my RSS reader is
pretty much always running on my computer desktop. I'm especially
interested in Middle Eastern politics; I spent Spring 2006 studying
abroad in Israel, a country with a surprisingly open and vibrant news
media. Although I don't have any experience in video production, I'm
excited and willing to learn.

Posted by Ben Grin at 02:17 PM | Permalink

The Justice Department’s investigation into the online gambling industry is a sign of increasing willingness by U.S. authorities to extend their jurisdiction well beyond the traditional limits. This type of action is not unprecedented in the U.S.’s attempts to deal with the illicit transnational economy. However, in this case, authorities have targeted the investors, the money behind the operations. Importantly, the case shows just how vulnerable many internet websites and businesses are to an attack on their finances. While many see the internet as a completely free network of exchange and communication - offering a great deal of hope for those who don’t have the money or means to get their message across conventional media channels - the reality is that money still dominates the means of production and communication. The net is not quite as free as is often assumed. The Justice Department’s “war of intimidation” has already resulted in the arrest of several top executives of foreign-based online casinos, as well as the decision by many others to cease doing business with U.S. residents.

This investigation could have wide-ranging consequences for the free exchange of ideas on the web. As a lawyer in the article observed, “the development was disconcerting because the prevailing wisdom had been that investment in a company that is legal and licensed in its jurisdiction was not grounds for prosecution.” It is troubling that a government would attempt to prosecute against something it does not like, in a place where it is legal. While it’s easy to stomach it when the target is online gambling or child pornography, it would be less acceptable if the target were a government’s critics in another country. The article also points to the effectiveness of government regulation, even in this new age of global media (where, presumably, one nation’s ability to control the media should be diminished). Global communication almost always requires money, at some point in the process. If you cut out the money, you cut out the communication. As a result of this investigation, investors may be more squeamish about investing their money in global enterprises, businesses, and media, for fear of running afoul of a particular nation’s regulations, and subsequently facing prosecution.

A bit about me:
I’m a senior Political Science (IR Track) concentrator, with a strong background in International Relations theory. I would say I’m also a bit of an MCM enthusiast, having taken courses on film theory, critical theory, animation/manga, and African cinema. I’m very interested in new media, its theorization, its impact on discourse. I’m particularly interested in blogs, as I have several of my own and follow countless others – I’m very excited about the class blog! I’m also an experienced YouTuber – I have some videos uploaded and I have some experience exploring the “YouTube community.” I’m familiar with message boards, wikis, listservs, etc. etc. I’m also very interested in film theory and contemporary film. I have a familiarity with global cinemas, especially those in Asia and Africa. I'm excited to explore the ways in which these different types of new media have changed global discourses on war, peace, and politics.

Posted by Daniel Bowman at 02:08 PM | Permalink

Perhaps this may serve as a useful tool in the future for the Pitch Projects... "Non-Celebrities on the Web, Seeming to Make Non-Pitches" (NYTimes)

Posted by chk at 01:40 PM | Permalink

The recent New York Times article “Cracking Down On Mixtape CDs” exemplifies the way in which today’s large media conglomerates work with and simultaneously fight against small media producers. Sales of rap music are often based upon the “street cred” of the artist, and so the major record labels with whom the most famous rappers have signed contracts court, even finance, the mixtape producers that can provide that credibility. Yet the same record labels that back mixtape production simultaneously hope that the mixtape is not overly successful for fear that its artists may not sell as many “official” label releases.

The mixtape itself is a highly charged media of representation, communicating specific social and economic ideas through its packaging and content. A mixtape CD, unless funded to such an extent that its producers can afford the most sophisticated means of production, cannot have the professional polish of a record label release in either sonic or visual quality (though it can certainly come close). Moreover, it is advertised not with television and print media ads but through word of mouth. As a media form that operates at street level rather than at a corporate level, the mixtape challenges the idea of the label release, providing an alternative that, though it is less polished (and precisely because it is less polished), is more “authentic”, more “street”.

The phenomenon portrayed in the New York Times article is not limited to the world of rap music; it is common in political media as well. For example, one might imagine a major television news station that relies on cell phone camera footage for its own “street cred” yet might clandestinely fight independent Internet news outlets, seeking to quash competition, that feature that same cell phone footage. There is a trend in all forms of media of increased access to high-tech media production capabilities—whether low-cost, high-quality recording studios and cheap CD burning services or small camcorders that provide the immediacy that often eludes the mainstream cameras—followed by an attempt by major corporations to harness and limit that increased access in an attempt to continue dominating their media.

I am a senior concentrating in IR (Global Security) and Music (Theory and Composition); I work in the musical theater as a composer and music director. I can bring to the table not only knowledge of international relations but also an understanding of pacing and dramatic storytelling from my theater experience; a documentary must tell a story, just as a work of fiction might, or it will never hold the interest of an audience. Moreover I am interested (though inexperienced) in film scoring, and would like to explore, perhaps by composing music for one of the class’s pitch reels, how music might influence audience perceptions of the ideas of a political film as well as alter and enhance the storytelling aspect of political media.

Posted by Jonathan Russ at 12:49 PM | Permalink

Not the stallion you’d like to be in bed? We’ve got a pill for that. Feeling a little blue lately? We can offer you SEVERAL pills for that. For better or for worse, global media in the form of direct to consumer advertising has put an increasing amount of the onus for health care squarely in the laps of consumers. Gone are the practices of only a few decades ago, when the physician’s word was gospel, and the patient was grateful for whatever diagnosis they got. These days, you can’t go far without being reminded that you’re probably doing quite as well as the happy people in the drug advertisements and that you should definitely, “Ask your doctor about [insert hot drug of the moment here].” Inside the doctor’s office, new media has created an interaction much closer to a dialogue than a diagnosis.

Depending on whom you ask, these new developments are either long-sought improvements to patient care, or in danger of derailing modern medicine completely. The benefits of an informed medical consumer who researches their symptoms, asks intelligent questions and is an active participant in health care decisions can hardly be questioned. Beyond these changes, the effects of global media on medicine are less clear. Media attention focused on the costs of health care in our country has given rise to incremental change, such as states’ importing drugs from Canada, or the current plan before Congress to use the purchasing power of Medicare to negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals. While these plans appear to leverage the global economy for the benefit of the consumer, are we ready to accept drugs shipped in from around the world, of possibly dubious quality? The internet has brought us closer to our drugs; if we decide that we need Viagra, we can now bypass the doctor entirely and order from one of the countless online pharmacies ready to send you the pills from overseas (for more details, check your spam folder). Are we ready for the future where doctors are mostly written out of the picture and we can take our pick of any number of lifestyle-enhancing drugs on the internet that will ship right to our door?

This a la carte perspective on drugs begins to get at the darker side of the union between global media and the pharmaceutical companies. What the drugs companies advertise are essentially false promises: pills alone are not going to make you smarter in school; we do not currently have a pill that reverses the process of aging. Yet these promises are so ubiquitous, people begin to believe them and act on them (one need only look at the statistics for Botox to see how true this is ). This acceptance of the drug company propaganda seems to leave us in a precarious, and possibly untenable situation as we move into the future of medicine: the need to be “better than well”. Those with money will be able to afford new drugs to make themselves smarter, prettier, and happier, while those without will be forced to muddle through with merely the gifts they were born with. While it’s certainly possible that new advances in personalized medicine will reassert the doctor’s dominant role as treatments become based on one’s individual genome, the alternative scenario is certainly not pleasant to think about.

I am a senior cognitive neuroscience concentrator who will be headed to medical school next year, so I offer a rather different academic background through which to interpret the material. I’m currently a DJ at WBRU, so the impact of globalization on media, and where we’ll be getting our information and entertainment in the future is of personal interest to me. I’m also a bit of a technology nerd, as a current employee of Apple, the way in which media affects the market for technology intrigues me. Plus, the subject matter looks fantastic and the class has been highly recommended to me, so I’m hopefully looking forward to the semester.

Posted by Benjamin Schnapp at 12:28 PM | Permalink

Americans seem to like their freedom of choice. Tourists are continually shocked (though less and less so) at the 17 types of dishwashing detergent, 35 types of cat food, and entire aisles devoted toothpaste they find immediately upon entering Stop and Shop, that wonderful utopia of consumer-elected goodness. But what happens when potentially harmful pharmaceutical drugs are put to the same democratic test as the toothpaste in the grocery store aisle? A new debate in Congress over the right of pharmaceutical companies to begin advertising drugs on TV whose full effects have not yet been fully evaluated by doctors and/or the Food and Drug Administration is testing the limits of consumer choice and freedom of information. While the pharmaceutical companies argue that the “First Amendment issues that arise from banning truthful speech…must be carefully considered before legislating this area,” many in government and various watchdog groups contend that such early advertising causes consumers to take medications they do not need, or worse, medications later found to be harmful.

It is notable that this article only concerns advertising on television. However, as the advertising industry discovers more and more regulatory roadblocks regarding this particular medium, it is migrating over to the more anarchic world of the Internet. Therefore, the article has implications beyond its own scope regardless of the outcome in this specific political/legal battle. First, it seems that global media, particularly the advertising industry, is creating a paradox: while “direct-to-consumer” advertising is theoretically an extremely democratic method of exchange, its potential monopoly on the information dispensed about its products (at least for the period during which it is advertised before doctors have understand its effects) may have anti-democratic effects in the end. Secondly, global media may be putting medical science, a field that many believe should be left to the medical establishment, up for popular vote. But should everything be democratized, or are some matters better left to the jurisdiction of elites? In this case, the media may be giving consumers not only the right to choose, but also the right to make uninformed decisions. Wikipedia would understand.

I am a senior International Relations (Global Security) concentrator realizing more and more the degree to which technology drives both history and politics. Information technology (along with other forms of global media) appears to be the strongest driving force right now, and I feel that the current state of international politics is impossible to understand without first understanding how discourses are shaped, who shapes them, and what role reality and truth play in the entire web of information/disinformation that now encompasses political life. I am currently writing a senior thesis on the role of democratization in the Rwandan genocide. A large component of my thesis entails the role of media in dispensing propaganda, in reflecting and legitimating myths already pervading society, and in shaping democratic discourse. Ironically (or perhaps very logically), the very media outlets that contributed to the slaughter of thousands were only able to do so through a newly free press and technological innovation. In addition, I am evaluating the international community’s perceptions of both the democratization process and the genocide in Rwanda, which were largely shaped by the politics underlying foreign media operations in the region. I believe this course will give me the theoretical tools I need not only to conduct analysis for my thesis, but for any future IR projects as these issues become increasingly relevant to any valid explanation of world politics.

Posted by Bethany Gerstein at 12:18 PM | Permalink

To me, the article about M dot Strange illustrates nicely the sea change that’s currently going on in regards to mass media outlets. The old standard of “All the News that’s Fit to Print” is becoming less and less accurate and relevant. It matters less and less every day what the New York Times thinks is a story is worth printing. There are tons of other huge, “respectable” newspapers that might be willing to print something that the New York Times doesn’t see “fit.” Even if no traditionally “respectable” newspapers are willing to research and print an article, there are more and more ways to publish your own news or opinions, often (and with increasing frequency) on a wide-reaching scale.

Of course, this doesn’t just go for newspapers. Traditional Hollywood Blockbusters aren’t the only way for directors, producers, writers, and actors to gain mass appeal and large salaries any more. As shown here with M dot Strange, web-based outlets like YouTube are becoming more and more popular – not to mention more and more “respectable” – as legitimate ways for people to get their creative ideas and social commentary out to large audiences, all while staying within a fairly small budget.

Though I haven’t seen “We Are the Strange,” based in the article’s description, it clearly draws heavily from a wide variety of popular culture icons and media techniques. This, combined with the fact that M dot Strange’s project was able to create such a following through YouTube, illustrates how saturated our world is with media influences. It is exactly by utilizing this saturation that things like M dot Strange’s project can be so successful.

As shown in the article, it is clear that M dot Strange was able to utilize the strengths of the media he had chosen to create a community of people who felt invested in his project. It was through this community building that he was able to create an invested fan base and find such success with his project.

This way in which M dot Strange was able to build a community and therefore create a successful project is a good illustration of how the concept of “respectable” news (and cultural commentary, opinion-based work, etc) sources is drastically changing. When the New York Times came up with their “All the News that’s Fit to Print” tagline, people were much more interested in what “experts” had to say about things. This “expert” opinion mattered so much more because it was assumed by the public that in order to get to a high, decision-making position in a company like the New York Times, a person would have to be very well-versed and deserving of the position. Now, however, since anyone can post anything on YouTube or on their personal blogs or websites, legitimacy and respectability lie much more in mass response to news (or commentary), as opposed to mass publication of news (or commentary).

Publishing to a wide audience is becoming easier and easier as our world is becoming more and more media saturated. However, since there are more and more sources available, gaining the trust and respect of a large audience is getting harder and harder. It will be interesting to see where we get our news and cultural information / commentary from as this process continues…

Posted by Paran Daria Quigley at 11:50 AM | Permalink

Milt Freudenheim’s article entitled "Showdown Looms in Congress Over Drug Advertising on TV" illustrates one of the important impacts that media can have on individuals. While the true influence of advertising is still generally unknown, the fact remains that the pharmaceutical industry has been increasing its spending on drug advertising, focusing particularly on a direct-to-consumer technique. (Spending rose from $1.1 billion in 1997 to $4.2 billion in 2005, according to the article.) In addition, according to Sheila P. Burke, a health policy expert, “broad-scale advertising can sometimes lead to a rapid increase in the use of a drug.” The advertising of drugs so new that doctors have not had time to learn about them is a good example of how the pharmaceutical companies are attempting to directly influence popular tastes. Advertising can be a powerful tool, and when consumers are exposed to a positive and sometimes (as in the case of Merck’s Vioxx and AstraZeneca’s Crestor,) deceitful message about a drug without the counterbalance of advice from a doctor, they may alter their choices to reflect the influence of these advertisements as opposed to looking after their own well being.

This use of media to promote a product as controversial as new drugs is, on a national level, a good example of the conflict between the laws of free speech in the United States and the protection of consumers. Drugs such as Vioxx can be found to have negative and sometimes deadly side effects long after having been placed on the market, an important point to know when pharmaceutical companies have been strongly promoting the drug. The question then remains whether it is more important to curb the drug companies’ influence through the disallowance of direct-to-consumer advertising or to maintain it, as it remains a legal form of free speech (an issue that both sides are avoiding bringing to the Supreme Court for fear of losing.) The article does point out though, that according to recent surveys, the public is indeed wary of the use of the direct-to-consumer method for the promotion of new drugs. This point is compounded by the fact that, according to the article, no other countries allow consumer advertising of drugs apart from New Zealand. Should the US continue to uphold ideals of free speech in the face of the negative influence advertising can have on consumers? Or should it learn from other countries and refuse to let new drugs be advertised right away? At what point does this become censorship?

Having watched one too many ads for “sleep aids” and ED, I personally side close to censorship. Media is a very influential tool, particularly advertising, and I don’t think it is right that large companies should use this tool for products as powerful as drugs. Having spent most of my life abroad, I also believe that the number of drug advertisements on television reflect not only the consumer culture, but also the drug culture of the United States. In fact, media in general is a good way to investigate the culture of different countries, as well as the overall increase in globalization. This then is where I come in. I am a junior International Relations concentrator, focusing on the PCI track, and my two passions are IR and music. I work at WBRU doing both on-air dj-ing and sound production, and I have used these skills to create several sound pieces for other classes. I also have a moderate background in video, from being a character in the BTV show “Double Blind” as a freshman, to taking courses such as French Cinema and Foundation Media of Video/Cinema. I hope to write my thesis on the correlations between popular music and diplomacy, and I believe this course will not only give me a good basis for the investigation of that topic, but also a better understanding of how ideas are effectively communicated in a media-driven world.

Posted by Caitlin Clay at 08:26 AM | Permalink

“People just want to see what’s real,” says Kirsten Price, a porn star interviewed by the NY Times for the article “In Raw World of Sex movies, High Definition Could Be a View Too Real” (Jan, 22). Is it more realistic to see blemishes and scars that the naked eye would not otherwise detect? High Definition’s clearer and crisper imagery follows an aesthetic trend that aims to represent “truth.” As entertainment pushes for more reality T.V that includes unflattering fight scenes, and YouTube popularizes embarrassing home videos, we see a growing desire for something more graphic, albeit vulgar. The crucial relationship between porn and this technology, (As Alex Seitz-Wald discusses), does reflect the emergence of a new erotic aesthetic whether created by pornographers or demanded by audiences.

The argument for showing viewers “real” naked bodies as they are, might follow the lines of reducing the movie star aesthetic and depicting people that actually look like an average American; people having sex who look like you and me. In theory this kind of pornography could promote healthier body images and less sexual shame. High Definition technology, however, is doing just the opposite by bringing us closer to people that look less and less like us. These fantastical porn stars and their cosmetic surgery look more “real” because we can see their pores but in doing so they are redefining what constitutes reality and truth. HD creates, forces and then naturalizes a new form of beauty that relies on hyper-explicit details of fictional humans. What happens when American men are aroused by images of women who look less and less like the women they see on the streets but who look more and more plausible?

Porn director Robby D. says that people watch porn to find closeness and intimacy. This visualized closeness; this aesthetic of the microscope, may in fact limit our sensory abilities and push us farther into isolation. If we can only be aroused or awed by images of this aesthetic, have we lost our attraction to the subtle, to the abstract? Is a black and white porn no longer sexy? What will it take to make real life real enough to be erotic?

On another note, the gendered nature of this article, both the comments of the informants as well as the reporting reflect a heterosexist and patriarchal look at porn. The article presents pornography as only made by men for men with the use of women. While the majority of the porn industry follows this paradigm, does this new aesthetic only apply to this kind of porn? Will this new “look” become the universal technological norm, or could it pertain only to a certain socio-cultural demographic? Ms. Daniels comments that men are “’willing to sacrifice our vanity and imperfections to beat each other’ to high-definition.” She describes the vulnerability of female vanity to not just the male directors but more importantly to the overriding power of technology. High definition therefore becomes a greater force controlling the male structures of desire that control these women.

I am an Anthropology concentrator with a background in photography. I am interested in pushing the connections between anthropology, education and visual media to not just give voice to the marginalized, but to open a more balanced dialogue between those with tools for representation and those without. I have taught and collaborated on photography projects in Nicaragua and Mexico and am currently teaching in Providence. I hope to bring these and other experiences into a conversation that will look for new ways to use video and other media to challenge the current economies of representation. I was similarly energized by last weeks lecture and sincerely hope to be in the class.

Posted by Jchermayeff at 01:40 AM | Permalink

David Carr’s article on M Dot Strange and the Sundance Film Festival raises some interesting questions about this film at the confluence of many new forms of media. M Dot Strange’s enigmatic “We are the Strange” will appear in the real world, at Sundance, online at YouTube and in an totally artificial cyber world in a “theater” on Second Life. What does this mean for global media? More choice. Mainly new means of access for producers and consumers, and a lot more volume or media that can be accessed. We’re witnessing the figurative trade-in of nukes for small-arms, to follow the Orwellian metaphor from class; and that means more arms out there. So choose your weapon --Paramount or YouTube? This may give studios a run for their money, but the fact that M Dot Strange saw it necessary to come to Sundance shows that the mainstream still has a lot of power, and a lot to offer.

As we have seen with MySpace, YouTube and countless sub-sub-culture websites, the internet has provided a means for the previously anonymous to speak their voice or play their music video to a much larger audience. With this in mind, the internet can bridge the gap between media maker and media consumer while allowing a certain level of anonymity and distance promoting more honest critique. M Dot Strange discusses this with Carr in the video attached to the article. Now, media can become more of a collaborative enterprise, blurring the line between creator and audience. This collaboration, could help empower the marginalized to spread their plight or explain their lives. The sex-worker in Amsterdam or the slave laborer in India could have their lives broadcast via fiber optic cable around the would in seconds, perhaps ultimately producing material results. My fear, however, is that the ease of production and the increased media volume will result in dumbed-down culture-jam, or an overwhelmingly large and confusing amount of information that will send us running back into the arms of CNN.

I am a junior international relations concentrator focusing on global security and very much want to be in this class. I wanted to get in last year, without success and was very energized by the first lecture and class introduction. I have had an interest in media and in its relation with politics since I learned about how important it was ending Vietnam. In high school, I spent the better part of a semester researching and writing a paper about the portrayal of war in film before and after Vietnam. I also have video production and editing experience. I used Final Cut Pro to produce a 40 minute long set of shorts for my senior project in high school.

Posted by Alex Seitz-Wald at 11:25 PM | Permalink

“M dot Strange Finds a Way at Sundance” tells the story of a new breed of filmmaker, one who is more interested in promoting his films through personal connection with his audience than distributing them for profit. But the article is just as much about a new type of audience, one that values interaction with the director perhaps more than the actual content of the film. While "We Are the Strange" has inspired cultlike devotion among fans, one of whom responded to a blog posting by director M dot Strange with a film of his own, the film received a poor reception among Sundance attendees. This is less a story of a new kind of director moving in on the territory of the filmmaking elite than it is a story about the emergence of a whole new audience for film, one that favors the intimacy of the personal computer screen over the anonymity of the movie house.

The creators of Second Life, used as a distribution tool for another film mentioned in the article, are fond of discussing the potential of their virtual world to level the playing field for talented programmers, such that a programmer in Romania who makes valuable goods in-world has the potential to tap into the pockets of First World customers. YouTube and Second Life provide venues for directors to take charge of the marketing and distribution of their films, eliminating the promotional expense that has often served as a barrier to entry for low-budget and independent films. While this article tells the story of a young American director of limited means, artists in developing countries could employ a similar strategy, given sufficient bandwidth. I believe we have yet to see complete transnationalization of the YouTube effect. Most content will continue to come from developed countries because of the expense of video equipment and Internet access. Nevertheless, if people in developing countries such as Iraq or Haiti are able to share their on the ground experiences of the impact of American and Western foreign policy directly with citizens of these developed countries, their governments may find it more difficult to use media as a foreign policy tool. Perhaps this will lead to a more personalized dissemination of foreign policy-related news that will resonate with those who crave the (false) intimacy of YouTube, people similar to the devotees of M dot Strange. Maybe in the near future, soldiers and civilians on the front lines of conflict won't need Deborah Scranton's encouragement to make and distribute confessional films. Maybe the actors themselves will find it natural to be their own embedded journalists, and maybe their viewing public will grow as a politial constituency.

I’m a senior IR concentrator in the PCI track, and I’ve been interested in intersections between the study of global politics with media theory ever since “Introduction to Modern Media and Culture” opened my eyes to new theoretical perspectives my sophomore year. I’ve been involved with Brown Student Radio as a features producer for two fictional/documentary collage shows, “Novelty Radio Scrapbook” and “Radio Happening,” and produced short pieces for BSR’s award-winning local news show, “Off The Beat.” Over the course of my junior year, I had the chance to study abroad in two countries, China and France, and to see how those two countries, despite sharing strong tendencies to protect their domestic film and other media industries, situate media very differently within political discourse. I hope to bring these various perspectives to bear on the issues we’ve already raised in class.

Posted by Shepherd Laughlin at 08:50 PM | Permalink

Hey Everyone,

It looks like YouTube is going to start paying users a portion of the ad revenue their videos generate. I think this could have some pretty major consequences for the openness and freedom of expression YouTube has offered. Check out this article from the BBC--->

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6305957.stm

Posted by Alex Seitz-Wald at 07:47 PM | Permalink

Matt Richtel's article in The New York Times on high-definition pornography is a notably topical (literally on the surface of the subject at hand) follow-up to an earlier story that focused on the role adult entertainment has played the adoption of new media technologies. Adult films famously popularized videocassettes when the industry was barred from other formats, and pornography dwarfs all other genres of Internet traffic. In both cases, creators and distributors realized the potential of each medium to reach willing audiences and ultimately to make more money. They proved that, whatever else they may do, new media's power is often made manifest by businesses that are selling a product. Other, more lauded reasons for new media—the betterment of humanity through education and the strengthening of community and understanding, or the leveling of the political discourse between historically powerful and marginal voices—start to look like mere footnotes to the story of the business of media.

This article reports that with the introduction of high-definition video, the pornography industry has had to alter its approach to cope with the emergence of physical details (‘defects’) that weren’t noticeable on conventional film. For many actors and directors, this problem seems to have an obvious solution: tone, augment, or modify the body until imperfections fade back out of view. There is some discussion of whether consumers want to see such high-resolution images, but there seems little doubt that the HD format is beginning to catch on and is primed for widespread use. This article seems to have been intended to be humorous and barely approaches the underlying factors that will shape the adoption of HD. Sure, as Jacob discusses below, people may prefer to see the body's imperfections obscured, but I doubt that the new image clarity will be shunned. Still a recording of mostly fictional characters engaging in a mostly stylized act, high-definition pornography hardly achieves a meaningfully new degree of realism.

The article does not focus on—but seems to revolve around the question of—the direction of the relationship between the spread of HD discs and screens and the appetite for desirable products in that format. Will the quality and inherent goodness of HD lead producers to use it? Or will producers affect the growth of the new technology by funneling their material into it? I think the latter will almost certainly prove to be the correct portrayal of the growth of HD pornography. Whether or not it happens is not immediately clear, however. The Internet still seems to be the most effective way for the adult entertainment industry to draw hordes of viewers.

The earlier news item, which I read in The Times in print but now can’t find online, discussed Sony’s prohibition on manufacturing HD discs (Blu-ray) for pornography. That article basically argued that a media historian would realize that—all moralizing aside—a medium that prohibits such a lucrative market is stacking the evolutionary deck against itself. This article from the blog Plagiarism Today discusses pornography’s relationship with file-sharing from a similar angle. It asks, why don't pornography companies sue people who trade pirated material in the same way as Hollywood and music organizations? It concludes that the pornography industry actually benefits from the openness of the networks across which it flows even though it seems to be undercut by piracy.

I’m fascinated by this kind of stuff; I don’t really know what else to call it except media ecology. I’m in the process of developing a project that uses the Internet to create an international, inter-university current affairs publication. At Brown, I have been involved with the Journal of World Affairs and interned at Radio Open Source, where I was exposed to a constant stream of Internet journalism (and meta-Internet journalism). Previously, I spent a gap year as a writing intern at the Worcester, Mass., Telegram & Gazette. I’ve been thinking about how media work at least since I was 11, when I wondered what it would be like to have baseball cards on my computer.

Posted by Henry Shepherd at 05:05 PM | Permalink

Being from an urban area and an avid rap fan, my first experiences with mixtapes came at a rather young age. In New York, where record stores (mom-and-pop and chain alike) have closed at brisk pace during my lifetime, it’s always made sense to browse street vendors, purveyors of these cds, when in search of hip-hop. Mixtapes are cheaper than regular cds, often running about $7 as opposed to $18 or so; they contain material not available anywhere else, such as beef (feuding and insult) tracks; and, they have a more entertaining format, either blending tracks together (so the party doesn’t slow down) or taking on a “radio show feel” by incorporating hosts. At the same time, mixtapes almost always feature some sort of ridiculous and amusing cover or title. A recent search of mixtapekings.com turned up a cover on which rapper Tru Life is laughing at his current rivals, Jim Jones and Juelz Santana, both of Dipset fame, as the duo are dressed (presumably via Photoshop) in drag. Another features a photo of Freekey Zeeky, of the Diplomats/Byrd Gang group, on the front page of a newspaper while begging the question “Who Shot Zeke?” I think at the end of the day, though, one should acknowledge what is at the core of the New York Times article about DJ Grillz: Are these tapes promotional tools or simply a way to skirt money away from the recoding industry?

Mixtapes have a special place in hip-hop music. They represent rapping free of the recording industry and they offer aspiring artists a chance to build a fan-base in the streets. Equally notable, they offer the recording a barometer on which to gauge potential sales as artists can experiment on tapes to see what the public is feeling. Going “Ghetto Gold,” or selling a lot of tapes, is considered a badge of honor among rappers. Socially, mixtapes allow for an element of hip-hop not often seen on major commercial releases: competition, beef and feuding. Without the possibility of censorship by execs, rappers are free to talk trash and compete with their peers to see who can diss the other guy worse. This is a significant part of hip-hop culture. Politically, and legally too, the record industry has to recognize that these tapes are a cultural phenomenon; they are something that moves the genre or lifestyle forward and thus, promotes the product (if that’s the only concern). Mixtapes are not simply bootlegs and thus, Grillz should not be in custody.

And then there’s the bio you’ve requested:

I am a senior, who is very much hoping to be let into the class. I’ve interned at three newspapers in the past four years and had a weekly item in the New York Sun for most of Sophomore year. Although I don’t agree with their political slant, I interned with Fox News over a summer in New York. I worked at ground zero of the largest and most-watched (for better or worse) cable news outfit in this nation. Thus, I think that I can provide insights as to how and why various types of journalists operate. I also coordinated a blogging project and website advancement for the United Nations Association as an intern this summer. More important, I have a strong interest in both International Relations and Media.

Posted by Joshua Rosenthal at 04:53 PM | Permalink

The New York Times piece “Cracking Down on Mixtape CDs” of January 22, 2007 explores a number of issues involving modern sources of media. The article discusses the selling of mixtape CDs (mixtape because originally these were in the form of cassette tapes), CDs that often include in their track-lists unreleased and/or illegally copied songs. These CDs are especially important to the hip-hop world, though they can be produced by any number of individuals interested in any genre. On the one hand, the recording industry is concerned about piracy of the music it produces and sells and the, arguably, corresponding harm to record sales. On the other hand, these CDs, like other forms of illegal music distribution, can generate interest in the music, and act as a means of rapidly, easily, and inexpensively distributing music or other media. In this latter sense, the mixtape CD, or more generally, the burnable CD (or more recently DVD) relates to Global Media in a way similar to how Professor? Mr.? Dr.? Jarecki described YouTube. It has a democratizing effect, as he put it, allowing all sorts of people to create a piece of media that is easily accessible to the community. At the same time, especially in the case of the CD, which more often than not contains illegal material, it comes with the same issues of piracy and copyright infringement that arise with YouTube when copyrighted material is used.

The burnable CD, and the accompanying CD burner, as a source of media, has a number of different effects. In the economic realm, label executives worry their sales are being hindered by the abundance of their music available for free. The music industry has certainly seen clear losses in sales in the past decade and some of those losses can most likely be attributed to the availability of free sources of music like the mitxape CD. This free distribution medium also has an impact on the creators of the music. For some it is a great boon, a great way to get their art or their statement out to the world efficiently. For others this does considerable damage to their financial situation, because they loose the royalties that would have been earned through legal sale of their work. Another impact, and a major reason why this issue is so strong in America currently, is that this piracy does damage to American values of the sanctity of personal and intellectual property. Finally, one more effect I’ll mention, and one particularly interesting from a global perspective, is the fact that the streets of Atlanta are not the only place that these CDs are found. They show up in great abundance in places like China and other countries around the world. The presence of cheap sources of American music and other media can more easily leave an American cultural impact on those countries. Instead of paying $20, or I don’t know how many 元, apiece for a new CD, a young Chinese person can indulge in the wonders of gangsta rap for only a few dollars.

Though my experience in actual video production is limited, I’ve gained a reasonable amount of experience in the media/entertainment world. I also have a strong interest in global security and international affairs. My primary source of media experience comes from my work at WBRU (the commercial, alt rock one). As a radio DJ I spend time in front of a microphone broadcasting to a large audience, representing an important media outlet, and learning something about how the media world works. Maybe even more relevant, as part of my obligations as a DJ, I have been trained to use Pro Tools audio production software. I make commercials as well as pieces of station imaging, mixing, editing, etc. So, if my video production experience is limited, my audio production experience is considerable, and music and other audio is certainly crucial to any video. Additionally, I spent time in high school interning at a music publishing company and learned a good deal about how the entertainment business works, more knowledge that I could contribute. My interest in IR spans a range of issues, especially of global security—terrorism, WMD, human rights and development, as well as issues of energy and the environment. I can certainly add my interest in exploring these issues more deeply, and in learning how to communicate them well to the group. Finally, though I’ve never studied media per se, it has often occurred to me how important the media is to perceptions, and how crucial those perceptions are to the choices made in a democratic country. I think of the idea that history is written by the victors and the impact that having the means to record and present one or another side of a story changes the story itself and the impact it has for the future. And I think of how cherished free expression has been as a right, and what the impact of that right has been on society. I would really enjoy having the ability to consider and analyze these issues in a more significant and constructive way

Posted by GAdler at 04:43 PM | Permalink

The January 22, 2007 New York Times article, “In Raw World of Sex Movies, High Definition Could Be a View Too Real,” by Matt Richtel, discusses the problems the adult film industry faces as it adopts new high-definition DVD technology, a format which reveals a level of detail that many porn-enthusiasts find too realistic for its own good. Though HD technology may not be as problematic for global media networks as it is for pornographers, there is nonetheless an important metaphorical connection between Debbie Does Dallas…Again (to be released on HD-DVD and Blue-ray in March, mark your calendars) and the Fox News Channel. Rather than extremely-detailed film formats exposing unsightly breast-augmentation scars and ill-placed pimples, the world is now faced with the problem of new technologies and media outlets – like Al Jazeera, embedded journalists, camera phones, and YouTube – which reveal, in “higher definition” than the traditional mainstream media had ever been able to supply, events from around the globe. The dignified, airbrushed fantasy of your daddy’s nightly news has been replaced by the nasty close-ups of an alternative 24/7 global news network controlled by “the enemy,” graphic internet video of Saddam Hussein’s execution, and Geraldo Rivera weeping as he holds a malnourished African-American baby in the New Orleans Superdome. Just as in porno, viewers are having a hard time adjusting to this new level of “real” – just ask the Sunnis spurred to anger by the sight of Hussein’s execution, which several years ago would have remained as invisible as Stormy Daniels’ razor burn. How will humanity react to a more raw view of world events, in which it is impossible to hide the sight of death, destruction, and devastation behind the smile of a newscaster sitting calmly behind his desk?

The social, political, and cultural implications of new HD-DVD technology are clearly profound, but the reaction of the adult film industry to the new format simultaneously reveals the limitations of supposedly “revolutionary” technologies of representation. Jean Baudrillard, the French cultural theorist, described the current era as one of “simulation,” in which representation displaces the very reality it depicts. Somewhere in a café in Paris he’s smiling as a new technology of representation (HD-DVD), seeking to represent reality more perfectly (at a higher level of detail), forces performers (porn-stars) to physically modify and mortify their bodies in order to look better “on-screen.” But this privileging of representation over reality, what Baudrillard termed “simulation,” may not be as toe-curlingly revolutionary as today’s techno-punks would like us to expect. The phenomenon described by the article is in fact a twisted simulation, because reality is being displaced by images that are themselves superseded by the rules of an older representation – the high-def simulation of HD is warped, on the level of the real via plastic surgery, to conform to the fantasies created by the norms of older technologies of representation. Before the era of high-definition DVDs, porn-stars’ imperfections were invisible. Now that they have been exposed to the light of HD, actors are forced to change physically in order to improve virtually, because viewers are used to seeing things through the lens of an older, more flawed, technology. Though HD may change the way people make and watch pornography, the norms established by older technologies of representation continue to haunt the format, forcing it to look less real and more traditional even as it strives to copy reality more perfectly and revolutionize the erotic experience. Though time may decide this tension between the norms established by older forms of representation and the revolutionary power of modern formats in favor of the new technologies, there is no denying the importance of the residue left on our perceptions by past technologies of representation. Even as YouTube, cell phone videos, Al Jazeera, and other new media outlets and technologies change media and create new ways of viewing, they continued to be constrained – through viewer expectations, perceptions, and the limits of their creators’ own imaginations – by the norms established by traditional mainstream media. Our world of infinite source material to which all people have instant and unfettered access cannot just yet escape the spirit of Walter Cronkite. The implications of new media technology, immense in some ways, smaller in others, are best described, for now, as unbalanced.

I actually had read this article before it was assigned in class, and mentioned it to a few of my friends. They had all already seen it and read it. I suppose the words “raw” and “sex” jump out at you when they’re in a New York Times headline. Sexuality is obviously an essential part of the human experience, and the ways in which cultures relate to sex is often used as a standard of judgment by anthropologists, critical theorists, and religious zealots. For anyone who thought Jean Baudrillard was a nutcase (I admit, I’ve been on the fence about him), reading an article about how viewers find the sex portrayed by HD “too real looking” makes you think twice about what he wrote. Of course, watching sex is very different from having sex – hopefully, viewers who object to the imperfections revealed by HD don’t have the same problem when they’re with their partners in real life. Then again, if, as video gains even higher levels of detail and becomes even harder to distinguish from reality, it continues to copy the fantasy of how things looked on-screen in the past, we may one day find that people prefer experiencing sex through super-HD porn with super-physically modified stars rather than in real, imperfect, life.

Posted by Jacob Schuman at 04:19 PM | Permalink

Subpoenas issued to "at least four Wall Street investment banks" as part of the US Department of Justice's ongoing investigation of the online gambling industry demonstrate the US government's attempts to extend its control. The crack down on online casinos is really just an attempt by the American government to prevent gambling in jurisdictions where it cannot be taxed and to make sure that the currency transactions involved can be traced. Unable to directly attack the casinos--which are based outside the US--that host online gambling sites, the DoJ has gone after the American portions of the industry: "American partners, marketing arms and now, possibly, investors." Since US residents comprise over half of all customers, the DoJ's "war of intimidation against Internet gambling," has had a serious effect on casinos, such as BetonSports, that have decided to eschew US bets. These subpoenas have brought questions of sovereignty and boundaries as pertaining to the internet to the forefront.

Due to the increased connectivity of the world since the end of the Cold War, states are being presented with more and more frequent situations where questions of control, jurisdiction and regulatory abilities are ambiguous. Every question from legally defining and prosecuting terrorists, to controlling online gambling further reveals the inadequacy of current forms of government to adapt convincingly to these new problems. While the DoJ may have managed to force major, legitimate online casinos to refuse US bets, there are still smaller, less respectable online gambling companies in operation. (Therefore, rather ironically, moves by the DoJ to "protect" American residents may actually leave them more susceptible to fraud .)

While industries have moved to embrace new technologies (whether through promotional mixtapes or online casinos), governments have not kept pace with these new developments trying instead to impose old laws and definitions on new problems. As stated by lawyer Lawrence G. Walters in the New York Times article, "the prevailing wisdom had been that investment in a company that is legal and licensed in its jurisdiction was not grounds for prosecution," yet the DoJ's mistrust of the online gambling industry has led to an investigation that will merely serve to drive away legitimate casinos while leaving smaller, but more questionable casinos behind. Just as those companies that are unable to adjust to this new environment that will not survive, governments that are unable or unwilling to accommodate the evolving landscape of the international market may find themselves ineffective when dealing with new, global, and perhaps virtual, concerns.

I'm a junior Visual Arts and International Relations double concentrator. I'm mainly interested in print media and am hoping to write my thesis on the different representations of North Korea in Japanese, Korean (both North and South) and American media and how these different perspectives effect the viewpoints of citizens and, ultimately, policymakers. However, I'm also curious about the growth of online communities and their ability to influence mainstream media, big business, and politics.

Posted by Ann Kidder at 10:48 PM | Permalink

....this Wednesday for the first of our GlobalMediaLabs. Guest speaker/critic will be Nick Fraser, Exec.Producer of BBC's permier documentary series, Storyville. On the chopping block will be ....me, and our proto-doc 'The Culture of War', produced in collaboration with the Udris bros. Background can be found at the MIlitary Cultural Awareness website ( http://watsoninstitute.org/project_detail.cfm?id=71); and some interesting (if troubling) real-world application of critical theory and anthropology to warfighting can be found at:
http://www.frieze.com/feature_single.asp?f=1165.

Stay tuned for more info and sources. And if you wnat to be in the class, be sure to complete the assignment by COB Tuesday.

VTY
JDD

Posted by James Der Derian at 02:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Greetings 180.95 2007:

The bell has rung, Round 2 of the Global Mediafest has officially commenced, and if you want to get into the ring, you need to post your read of any single article from the front-page (C1) of the Business Section of the New York Times, 22 January 2007. Your response (due next Tuesday) should:

a) identify relevance to Global Media (what it is)
b) show how a particular technology of representation produces a social, cultural, economic, political, or other effect (how it works)
c) demonstrate what you bring to the table (brio or bio)

To assist you in this assignment, the paper is posted outside room 205. Watson Institute, 111 Thayer. I'm 2 doors down if you have pertinent and pressing questions. If you prefer the e-versions, they can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22drug.html?_r=1=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22carr.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/22gaming.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/22mixtape.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22porn.html

(with thanks to Christina Kim for tracking these down)

News:

Screening of Why We Fight will be this coming Tuesday, Jan. 30, 4-6 pm, Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute.

Finally, a heads-up on room shift: Next class (corrected: Jan 31), the first Jarecki GlobalMediaLab with special guest Nick Fraser, producer of BBC's Storyville documentary series, will be held in the Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute. Come focused.

VTY
JDD

Posted by James Der Derian at 02:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)

... You're going to need it."

M dot Strange’s YouTube trailer for his film “We are the Strange” doesn't use cute kittens falling asleep or lonely people talking to their cameras. Instead, a collision of images (anime, dolls, video games) and sound (music, voice over, noise) introduce us to his cryptic fairy tale. It is, at first watch, jarring, frenetic, and verging on the ridiculous, the tagline reading: "Monster's Inc! meets the Nightmare Before Christmas inside of a retro Japanese video game!" The Jan. 22 New York Times article “M dot Strange Finds a Way at Sundance” proposes that an increasing number of virtual outlets are allowing filmmakers like Michael Belmont (M dot Strange’s real “handle”) to reach audiences otherwise nonexistent, to challenge "the traditional models of film production, distribution and animation.”

Opportunities to “screen” films on sites such as YouTube and Second Life are enabling filmmakers and audiences to talk to one another in what appear to be free and open exchanges. Perhaps creating a virtual universe wherein communities emerge that allow and support these kinds of endeavors is a way to poke at traditional definitions of the “global” or the “international.” When our virtually real lives begin to appear in real reality, what happens? Even though Sundance and the rest of us may not be ready for “We are the Strange,” as Lynn Hershman Leeson, filmmaker and artist, says in the article, “We have two streams [Sundance and Second Life] that we hope will eventually become many. And that’s really exciting.”

Exciting, yes—but scary, too. There is a constructed sense of community and belonging that's at once alluring and misleading. As we increasingly depend on the virtual to supplant or (even so far as to) entirely replace the actual, technology more and more seems to promise the real, the actual, the truth. Now, we are more dependent on what (e.g. TV, mobile phones, the Internet) French theorist Paul Virilio has called “simulators of proximity ,” pushing us more and more toward a world where the lines of real/nonreal are disappearing. The trailer of "We are the Strange" says this of our protagonist: "He's always lived in dreams. Now reality is trying to wake him up." Maybe it's the same for us and we have to ask what happens when we turn the computer, the television, the telephones off and wake up from these dreams.

I am a senior double concentrator in International Relations (Global Security) and Modern Culture & Media. My studies have been primarily focused on the transformation of warfare—for better and for worse—and how this has and continues to affect the ways in which we conceptualize the enemy. I am also interested in how media and technology are involved with these shifts in perception. Being IR and MCM, I have spent many long nights reading media/visual, culture, critical and international relations theory and know that my experience in both fields can add to the seminar’s “dialogical” exchanges and I hope to be a part of what M dot Strange would call a "mega hella awesome" seminar.

Posted by chk at 05:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Greetings 180.95 2007:

The bell has rung, Round 2 of the Global Mediafest has officially commenced, and if you want to get into the ring, you need to post your read of any single article from the front-page (C1) of the Business Section of the New York Times, 22 January 2007. Your response (due next Tuesday) should:

a) identify relevance to Global Media (what it is)
b) show how a particular technology of representation produces a social, cultural, economic, political, or other effect (how it works)
c) demonstrate what you bring to the table (brio or bio)

To assist you in this assignment, the paper is posted outside room 205. Watson Institute, 111 Thayer. I'm 2 doors down if you have pertinent and pressing questions. If you prefer the e-versions, they can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22drug.html?_r=1=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22carr.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/22gaming.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/22mixtape.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22porn.html

(with thanks to Christina Kim for tracking these down)

News:

Screening of Why We Fight will be this coming Tuesday, Jan. 30, 4-6 pm, Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute.

Finally, a heads-up on room shift: Next class (corrected: Jan 31), the first Jarecki GlobalMediaLab with special guest Nick Fraser, producer of BBC's Storyville documentary series, will be held in the Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute. Come focused.

VTY
JDD

Posted by James Der Derian at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)