| Celebrity or Government official? |
[Nov. 23rd, 2008|09:25 pm] |
Jason McMahon
Social Responsibility in the Media
Blog 9
11/24/08
A few weeks ago I did a blog about government officials being okay targets for the media to do stories on, and keep tab on, because they were putting themselves in the public view, and what they did had a direct effect on the media’s audience. In turn, the families of the people in government positions are subject to being reported on as well, because they have a direct influence on the person in the government position.
I also discussed how the fuzzy line came in when it came to what sort of aspect the media talked about the family of that official. I mentioned Obama’s wife and how the media had come up with cruel nicknames for her, and how I felt that was crossing a line, since they weren’t reporting on an aspect of her life that the world needed to know.
Today I found an article that was an opposite effect (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/22/palin.popularity.oprah.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview). CNN reported on how Sarah Palin, the former running mate to presidential candidate John McCain, has been offered book deals, movie deals, and TV spots. As we talked about in Social Responsibility in the Media, there are three types of people. Private citizens, who shouldn’t really be reported on unless they do something noteworthy, in which case they might have become celebrities, celebrities, who are famous because they did something to do so, and government officials. Sarah Palin seems to be mixing the last two, getting offers to go on various TV shows, book deals, and documentaries. However, she is still a state governor, and should probably be doing the job of one.
So what happens when a government official is covered as a celebrity instead of a government official? On one hand, celebrities are always followed around and the media is looking for them to make mistakes that can be used as news. Celebrity gossip sells magazines on its own. Also, the media has, as we discussed in Social Responsibility in the Media, lately not been covering the important issues about the candidates, so perhaps if they act as a watchdog to a celebrity/government official, it will somewhat make up for the fact that they aren’t acting as a watchdog for any other government officials. |
|
|
| Politicians in Games |
[Nov. 17th, 2008|12:37 am] |
Jason McMahon
Social Responsibility in the Media
Blog 8
11/17/08
Politically themed games are nothing new. They’ve been around for a very long time, and usually are a parody of one political candidate or another. But what sort of guidelines should the makers of these games stick to when making them? Is it okay to make a political attack on a candidate? What about a personal one? The virtual likeness of government officials is no longer just being used by individuals making flash games anymore, games like Mercenaries 2 uses McCain and Obama as fully playable characters that can go around shooting things together. The new advertisement for The Sims 3 features Biden and Palin stripping down to camo underwear and dancing on a stage.
In Social Responsibility in the Media we talked about the fact that becoming a government official makes a person fair game for being reported on, as well as being watched by the public. But where would something like creating a game that shows that person in a bad light fall? There have been a few court cases (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/11/16/sportswriter-madden-should-step-fight-between-union-old-school-players) involving the digital likeness of people being used without permission or compensation for profit, but would something not making any money be different?
I personally think that this would fall under the same scrutiny that any other form of media should fall under. Firstly, in the case of the law, I think that things such as libel and slander should be kept in mind. Ethically, the tenants of Social Responsibility in the Media would probably be a good starting point. Is it fair? Is it true? Does it educate in some fashion?
Mercenaries and The Sims is just the beginning, I think, and I think that we’ll see a lot more politicians showing up in big name games in the near future. Only time will tell what sort of light they’ll be shown in, and what sort of consequences this can hold. |
|
|
| Barack Obama's website |
[Nov. 9th, 2008|09:46 pm] |
Jason McMahon
Social Responsibility in the Media
Blog 7
Since America has elected Barack Obama to be the next president, I decided to stop at his website to get a better idea of his policies and beliefs (possibly an application of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory – I wanted to know more so I looked something up). As with most websites, his designers followed the principle responsibility of a website to create something to represent a reality, in this case Mr. Obama’s view on the world and policies.
As with most websites, they follow the three ways of representing and controlling. They use acceptable methods of selection, and make them visible and easy to find. For example, when I wanted to find out about his views on the issues, I just had to mouse over “Issues” on the top and a list popped up that gave me a series of options that I could choose from.
The website follows the rule of compositing. It is made up of distinct parts. On the right is a bar with quick links to the things that the website designers viewed most important. They made it easy to find where to vote and get voting information for the state that the user lives in. Clicking on this will bring you to a list of the fifty states, where the user can select a state, again giving the semblance of control.
Lastly, and as already mentioned, they follow the rule of tele-action which means that the site implies and creates and illusion of interactivity when in reality all of the options have already been pre-created.
However, the site doesn’t seem to quite follow all the tenants of social responsibility in the media, for better or worse. Of the three basic principles, I don’t think that I would ever trust a candidate’s site to deliver non-biased fact, so I would only take their views on how things should be as truth, not any facts they deliver on the opposition or current policy, which may be warped or twisted. I noticed that on the list of issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) they offered a brief explanation of the opposition’s viewpoints, but no links to find anything particularly factual about it. This lack of debate and transparency left a little to be desired, but again, I wouldn’t look too hard at his views on his opponents.
Overall, it was a decent site but I felt it left a little to be desired for someone looking to be educated on what he actually planned to do. |
|
|
| Privacy and Compassion - Some real life examples |
[Nov. 3rd, 2008|01:16 pm] |
Jason McMahon
Social Responsibility in the Media
Blog 6
Last week in class we talked about privacy vs. the right of the public to know, and included in that was public officials. We categorized it into three groups. The first was government officials, CEOs of companies, and public figures, all of which can have an effect on our day to day lives. The second group was celebrities, and the third group was ordinary citizens.
In class it was generally decided that government officials and their families are valid targets of media attention because of the effects the family has on the officials as well as them being a reflection on the official’s own values. I was thinking about this when I came across the following article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/obama-says-attacks-on-wife-completely-out-of-bounds/.
This article is about an interview that Obama did on CBS about the political attacks on his wife. It got me thinking about the difference between reporting on family members of a candidate and attacking them, and how thin the line was between the two. It mentioned that she supposedly used the term “whitey”, but that there had been no proof of this. Is this an attack, or is this just reporting? It was mentioned that she was being made out to appear angry; something that Obama himself has been trying very hard not to do. If this is a true story, is it something that the public would need to know? It could be a reflection of what Obama’s family is really like, or a glimpse into the mind of the woman who could become the first lady. This would mean that it could be something the public would want to know.
Personally, I think the line is drawn with one of the principles of social responsibilities in the media: Giving the unbiased truth and allowing discussion. If you have proof that his wife could have negative aspects, they should be reported on. But twisting the words into something biased, like “Mrs. Grievance”, I feel is toeing that line a bit. |
|
|
| Another good example of being responsible. Almost makes up for FOX. Almost. |
[Oct. 20th, 2008|01:24 pm] |
Jason McMahon
10/20/08
Social Responsibility in the Media
Blog 5
Most often, I’ve posted about a lack of social responsibility in the media. Time after time, I’ve found things that have made me shake my head in disgust. The first thing I’ve come across that was good was the twitter feed in a game that’s pathetic at best. It seems a bit fitting that the second thing I’ve found also had to do with the current presidential campaign. It was pointed out to me by a friend, and can be found here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/
It’s a show that PBS did on the history of both candidates in relation to both of their personal lives and the current campaign, as well as their politics. The show seems to be balanced between the two, and gives just the facts in a non-biased way to educate the viewers. This piece covers all three basic principles of Social Responsibility in the Media. It informs the viewers by giving them the truth. It delivers non-biased analysis and fact. It nurtures democracy by giving relevance and context to the facts, which allows people to educate themselves on both candidates’ opinions of the issues. Third, it allows for dialogue and debate, and has a transparency in that it is broken into sections about both candidates, which are unrelated to each other.
It opens with a section about both candidates during the Bush elections, then goes into the personal history of the two including time in the government previously and their time in college. Those two sections alone show a lot about the two candidate’s characters, and those alone are enough to give a good overview to anyone new to the two candidates. |
|
|
| Hurray for FOX News! |
[Oct. 14th, 2008|11:40 am] |
Jason McMahon
October 14, 2008
So this week, I found what might have been one of the funniest videos I think that I’ve seen in a while in regards to the upcoming election, with the exception of the Saturday Night Live clips of Tina Fey impersonating Palin. This video, as do many others of the same nature, originate from FOX News. Surprised? Me neither. FOX News, originators of the “Terrorist Fist Jab” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy5XS68_Bc&feature=related) has now started on the Obama campaign’s masochistic tendancies (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3150788&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/index.html). I think one of the best parts of this was the comment about how if it had been reversed and had been racist about Obama, it would have gotten media coverage, but it otherwise didn’t get any. If it had been reversed? Like a terrorist fist jab? Good job, FOX. Perhaps no one else is carrying the story because no one really cares? A few extremists wearing shirts you can make online for $18? There are bad shirts on the internet?! Here, in 5 minutes I found a shirt that says “Save Gas” followed by “Ride The Handicapped” (http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/save-gas-ride-the-handicapped/). Quick, alert the media!
So here we have a pretty good example of a horribly irresponsible aspect of the media that regularly ignores every basic principle of social responsibility in the media, I’m fairly certain doesn’t have a code of ethics, turns anything they find that isn’t biased into something that is, and attempts to mold people’s frame of reference to Obama = sexist. And the sad thing is, it will probably work. |
|
|
| Something good in Second Life? |
[Oct. 6th, 2008|11:29 am] |
Jason McMahon
Social Responsibility in the Media
10/6/08
It’s not often that I see any active attempts to give balanced information on the upcoming election, so when I do see it I find it to be quite notable. Second Life is a game in which the player takes on the role of a person and does everything that they could be doing in the real world, except they don’t have to leave their computer. I personally don’t have much (any) respect for Second Life users, but in this case I feel the need to say something nice.
Steve Nelson of Second Life’s Capitol Hill has installed a display which shows the tweets about both main presidential candidates and their running mates. A tweet is something from www.election.twitter.com, which is a site that allows users to post the newest news stories with links about the election. The display searches every minute for the names Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin. If the user touches the display it will give the full posts so that the user can click on any links.
I think that this covers a lot of the good things that we’ve discussed in Social Responsibility in the Media. This is a pretty good attempt to inform people by delivering a non-biased message and analytical facts. The fact that most of the things posted there are user-based and as a whole not affiliated with any particular party or political spectrum means that the readers get a good array of opinions.
This also nurtures good decision making though giving people an easy way to get informed on the issues and see both sides of things. If people are committed to living a second life in a video game, they probably wouldn’t want to take the effort to actually go out and do some research on their own, so having a balanced and fair way to learn about the issues without having to log off means that a lot of people might end up getting out of their mother’s basements and vote. Yes, I hate Second Life that much.
The Tweeter coverage is also following the third principle of being responsible in the media, which is being fair. It doesn’t pick and choose what gets posted, which means that people get to read both sides of the issue as well as the corresponding dialogue and debate about it.
Overall, I think that this is a really good way for people to get balanced coverage on the upcoming election, and would definitely say that Steve Nelson is making a good thing happen. |
|
|
| Drug dealing in video games? |
[Sep. 29th, 2008|04:29 pm] |
Jay McMahon
Social Responsibility in the Media
Blog 2
The new Grand Theft Auto game, Chinatown Wars, has sparked controversy as seems to be the style of most GTA games. Chinatown Wars has a drug dealing mini-game in which the player has the chance to peddle drugs. The article that brought this to the public’s attention begins with “The Chinatown Wars adventure for the family-friendly Nintendo DS console…”
The first thing that struck me about this was the word choice. Adventure? Family-friendly? They were setting the article up to make it more difficult for the casual reader to distinguish between a family-friendly system, which the Nintendo DS may be, and the not so family-friendly game from a series that has always been rated M for Mature, which means 18+. Furthermore, this is hardly the first game in which someone from a “younger audience” might come into contact with mature content. Every gaming system currently available has mature games, including the also family-friendly and casual market targeted Nintendo Wii.
When I was in high school, we used the TI-83 plus graphing calculators for example. They allowed for people to download programs onto them from the internet, and one popular download was called Drug Warz, in which the player attempted to sell drugs and make a profit. This game has since moved on to be available for download on cell phones.
This seems like a perfect example of what we discussed in Social Responsibility in the Media when we talked about how people would have a filter that could be influenced by the media which changed the way they perceived things, as well as an example of not telling the unbiased truth. The wording of the article alone, not even looking at the content in it and left out of it, strongly slants the viewer’s mental filter against the game that they are trying to bash.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fun/gizmo/article1732166.ece |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 22nd, 2008|04:22 pm] |
Jay McMahon
Social Responsibility in the Media
9/22/08
Blog 1
For years, the game America’s Army, a free first person shooter for the pc, has come under fire for being used as a recruitment tool for the army targeted at underage teenagers. Two years ago some developers from America’s Army came to talk to the game design majors here at Champlain College. One of the first questions asked was whether this game was a recruitment tool. The developers strongly said that it wasn’t. They told us how strict the army was about the game. They need to have a specialist check over every aspect of every level and situation. The game is fully funded by the army.
In Social Responsibility in the Media, the first of the golden rules is to “follow the money”. Why would the army pay for a game that they’re getting no use out of? That question has two possible answers. The first is that it is a recruitment tool, which can’t be proven. The second can be proven: the game is made to show the army in the best light possible, which is strictly controlled by their specialists. Over the summer I had the opportunity to work at the Emergent Media Center, where my classmates and friends developed two maps for America’s Army. They had to change several things to fit in with the requirements that the army had for the game. One was that grenades had to be less useful, because the army doesn’t like the idea that it’s troops would use grenades in any areas with civilians around. Another was in the terminology of the mission objectives. They weren’t allowed to specify what the mission was to recover, or even where it would take place. Some acceptable locations were “a desert locale” and “an urban area”. These facts leave little doubt that the game is at best a propaganda tool to make the army look better, and at worst a recruitment tool.
The army will now be partnering with Project Lead The Way to bring the game into high schools across the nation “to enhance student curriculum by using a variety of Army technologies to promote student interest in the engineering and technical fields.” One of the three basic principles of Social Responsibility in the Media is to inform, or deliver a non-biased message. While teaching aids for children is nice, the pro-military slant of the software makes me think that this is a rather irresponsible thing to do.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/21/move-bring-america039s-army-game-high-schools-raises-questions |
|
|
| Let's play a game |
[Mar. 5th, 2008|04:56 pm] |
|
It's called, "7 page with a visual paper as well as a 3 page proposal due tomorrow". Fun. |
|
|
| Consider yourself lucky Meesh. |
[May. 9th, 2007|03:27 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  amused | ] |
01. who are you, what's our relationship:
02. how and where did we meet:
03. what's my middle name:
04. how long have you known me:
05. tell me one good thing about myself:
06. when you first saw me what was your impression:
07. my age:
08. my birthday:
09. my favorite band at the moment (any of them):
10. colour eyes:
11. do i have any siblings:
12. have you ever had a crush on me (doesn't have to be answered):
13. what's one of my favorite things to do:
14. do you remember one of the 1st things I said to you:
15. describe me in 3 words:
16. name 5 things i love:
17. do you think i'm good looking:
18. how would you describe me to someone:
19. would you ever date me (doesn't have to be answered):
20. tell me one thing you've always wanted to say but never did:
21: what do you like most about me:
22: if we could spend a day together what would we do:
23: have we ever gotten in a fight:
24: do you think we will be friends for at least 3 or 4 more years:
25. Give me a nickname and explain why you picked it.
26. What do you think my weakness is?
27. Do you think I'll get married?
28. What makes me happy?
29. What makes me sad?
30. What reminds you of me?
31. If you could give me anything what would it be?
32. When's the last time you saw me?
33. Do you think our friendship is getting stronger/weaker/or staying the same?
34. Do you feel that you could talk to me about anything and I would listen?
35. Are you going to put this on your livejournal and see what I say about you?
36. If I was an ice cream flavor, which would I be and why?
37. What song (if any) reminds you of me?
38. If you could change one thing about me, what would it be?
39. Do I cross your mind at least 1 time a day?
40. If you could change one thing about our relationship past present and future what would it be: |
|
|
| Hi everyone! |
[Nov. 21st, 2006|11:07 pm] |
|
I have live journal! No more anonymous? |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
reinkai's journal