Knightfall

Time to change my desktop background.  The only thing that would make me more excited about the July 20, 2012 release of The Dark Knight Rises would we if it were the Chicago Bears at Soldier Field getting blown up by Hurricane Ditka instead of the Pittsburgh Steelers at Heinz Field.  Second favorite team, though?  I’ll take it.

A lot to be discussed here.  Must Batman vanquish two+ villains at once?  Will Anne Hathaway pose nudie throughout the movie?  Will Bane break the bat’s back?  WILL JOKER RETURN?

My answer to these questions and many more is: No, but (in order) neither Bane nor Catwoman will die; no need; it’s possible; not likely.

I can’t imagine this final installment coming out better than the penultimate The Dark Knight.  As pumped as I was for the 2008 sequel to Batman Begins, the film surpassed my expectations.  I anticipate my anticipations will increase* as the film’s viral marketing takes off.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

*Should I skip the waiting and just have high expectations right now?

Grantland

Reading Bill Simmons’ Welcome to Grantland reminded me why, in my heart of hearts, I want to write for a living.  I’m going to New York to teach, which I like because 1) I get paid to learn while directly helping others learn, 2) it’s a totally new experience in a totally new land, and 3) I still possess that optimism from learning who Bob Dylan is while at college.  I want to eventually interact with people and be able to live off the stories I tell about it.  Simmons, like all people who eventually make a name for themselves, has found ways to fully utilize his experiences, his skills and his passions.  He works with good people and I think he uses his blog, podcast and whatever other media to reach out to good people.

With writers such as Klosterman, Charlie Pierce, Eggers, Wright Thompson, Simmons and many more, it’s no wonder why critics are lauding Grantland.  The stories are removed from any commercial obligation; the writers are doing it for the readers.  I’ve got such a hard-on for it not only because it covers sports and pop culture, but contributors also write about writing.  Just like in Tom O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, the reflexive exercise of discussing the process of writing makes me so badly want to continue to try to read and make something of my writing.  I have no immediate plans to use my writing as a vehicle to some future career, but reading from Grantland makes me feel like I’m at least aware of what good writers are doing.

I’d like to do that.

Murdoch’s Hand in Another Honeypot

Something about one of the most powerful businessmen in the world gaining control over education seems afoul to me.  It’s only natural for me to question News Corps leader Rupert Murdoch’s motives when his goal is to “micro-target the eighth grade girls who want to become physicists.”  Maybe this is me being paranoid, but I feel like marketing in an educational setting should raise an eyebrow.  Technology has and will continue to help us grow but we need to be wary of the motives and tactics of the providers.

The New Global Economy

A little bit alarmist…but then again, we are living in an alarming era of information sharing.

I have a book from Fall semester that I read for my Political Economy of the Media class.  I commented on its main points in a DI column, but you can learn more about The Shallows by Nicholas Carr here and there.  I originally lent the book to Henry Roth, thinking he’d be at all interested in how the Internet is affecting us.  Alas, he’s a freshman in high school and this is a little too university-level for him.  I found it to be enlightening, though, and I think you might too.

The video reminds me how in this ever-changing world of ours, we need a strong core in order to ask important questions and make progressive adaptations.  I’m glad I’m heading back to school next Fall — this time to *hopefully* construct a sound foundation in others.

Writing Across Media Project

The class INFO 303 was interesting, but I just wasn’t getting everything I had hoped out of it in the three weeks I was enrolled.  I did plenty of work before dropping the course, including the Image-Text Project.  Here an abridged version of my findings:

“Topical information comes from all different types of media, such as billboards, computers, television, newspapers, books, radio, and cell phones.

It’s important to realize that each medium has strengths and weaknesses in getting messages across to an audience.

People utilize these weaknesses and sometimes take advantage of people in the process.  It’s our responsibility to keep a keen eye when it comes to absorbing information.”

Where will it take us next?

Is that a pessimistic title?  I’m not sure Neil Postmann or Marshall McLuhan would phrase it this way.  Instead, they’d ask, “Where will we take this thing — this medium that is changing our lives in unforeseen ways?”

I’m talking, of course, of…

A digression

Sometimes (right now)…

1. I wish I had a secretary.
2. I wish I could perform osmosis with text and my mind.
3. I wish I owned Hermione’s time-turner.
4. I wish a lot but barely ever do it properly (i.e. wishbones, shooting stars, drinking Felix Felixis liquid luck)

New York Times online to charge for content

The New York Times took an entire page in today’s edition of the newspaper to notify readers that their plan to charge for online content is now in effect. The letter’s momentous impact will surely be felt in the midst of the Internet’s revolutionary shifts to the way we share information.

A similar letter was sent via email to NYTimes online subscribers on March 18. Here it is, with the major changes bulleted:

Potential government control of Internet access as ‘surveillant’ is cause for concern

The role of the Internet as a tool of mass communication is up for grabs. There is a global disconnect between the ways businesses, governments and their people hope to utilize the web in this increasingly wired world.

The Internet was meant to be guided by resplendent democratic principles, allowing all people across the world to share information at the click of a mouse. But recent events raise old questions about media’s place in protecting our values of both freedom and security.

Really think about the potency of the Internet in changing the ways we get things done. I’m talking about the way it was used (and not used) in Egypt this past month during a time of monumental accomplishment. I’m talking about the ways Google tracks our activity in ways the government can’t (yet) do.

I’m hesitant in that last statement because of President Obama’s recent budget proposal. What started as a plan to grow economic and social development has spawned another PATRIOT Act-type debate. According to an undisclosed informant in Washington, the proposal known as the Public Safety Broadband Network (which falls under the scope of the National Broadband Plan) expects to spend $10 billion over the next several years, including a proposed $354.2 million for the FCC next fiscal year and its goals of “strengthening the audit and investigation function of the Office of the Inspector General; and supporting the Commission’s public safety and cybersecurity.” Basically, the plan seeks to provide as many people as possible with Internet access, which will also serve as a government surveillant.

Should the Net be monitored just as our cell phones and major cities are?

Let’s look at the example Egypt provides. In the midst of dissension over their governmental tyranny, Egyptian citizens turned to Facebook as the catalyst for their revolution. During the height of the protests, President Mubarak’s government attempted to quell their dissidents by blacking out the country’s Internet and cell phone services. For five days, there was little to no way for Egyptians to communicate via broadband.

We see a form of this communication suppression in China all the time, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.

There’s also the ongoing struggle over the pond as EU antitrust chief Joaquín Almunia investigates Google’s online practices. Cultural differences between US and European ideas of privacy have the latter working to keep Google from dominating its technology sector the way it has in America. And rightly so: The original advertising-based search engine server now has annual worldwide revenue more than $29 billion with monopolistic hopes to continue its expansion across all media platforms.

It’s this confusion across all components of our society that has me worried. I think about the recent NBC-Comcast merger and think, “Who’s to stop them from deciding who I can or can’t talk to?”

Maybe the term ‘Net Neutrality’ doesn’t have you questioning the way we communicate with one another. In due time, it will. We may not yet be able to see where we will go from this crossroads. But as we see these enormously powerful government and corporate entities take on the Internet, we must be privy to its implications in our daily lives.

for more information  on the topic, check out freepress.com or the NYTimes archives.

2/28 edit: Listening to University Professor Bob McChesney’s Media Matters

show is illuminating for its thoughtful discussions with prominent media minds.  In the Feb. 13, 2011 episode, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said, “‘Network Neutrality’ is a god-awful term and I think we should start out by calling it ‘Internet Freedom’ or the ‘Open Internet.’  It basically means to me that consumers should be able to go online and access the legal content of their choice…be able to enjoy benefits of some competition.  There should be openness and transparency in how the system is run and there should be strong principles of non-discrimination so that everyone can participate equally.  If the Internet’s going to be our town square of democracy, and our town square of democracy is going to be paved with broadband bricks we have to make sure that every citizen has access to that…My belief is that the freedom to access Internet websites of our choosing and our freedom to access each other is a defining freedom of the 21st century.  Freedom of expression online is no different than freedom of expression in a town square or from a podium.”

State of the Union sheds light on state of politics and the media

It took seventy-one minutes for President Obama to speak during the recorded coverage of the most watched State of the Union address in U.S. history.

Politicians filed into the Capitol Building by the dozen, and the public waited while they greeted one another. When the President’s arrival was announced, the whooping and hollering made it sound like the next keg had arrived at the party.

I understand that the State of the Union is a big event for policymakers and media alike, but would it be so wrong to just hear what the President has to say about the future of our country? Must we listen to pundits for hours on end discuss the meaning behind Congress’ seating and the significance behind who stands when?

Are the ceremony and ritual behind the State of the Union address really all that important for the health of our nation? Forget the traditional protocol. I think it would be more effective if the President and his cabinet would put this same time and effort toward an annual address directly to the viewer.

They’re all sitting together like a big, happy family for the first time in history… yippee! I bet they’ll be holding hands tomorrow while they solve the world’s problems, too!

As the President said early in the address, “It’s no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that’s a good thing. That’s what a robust democracy demands. That’s what helps set us apart as a nation…Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater.”

Why does it take tragedy for us to realize what sets us apart as a nation? We can not become a nation which rediscovers its priorities only when harrowing events remind us of our purpose. I don’t care that our members of Congress vow to work together in the wake of the Tucson tragedy. I want to see this chummy behavior pan out into results.

The problem is multifaceted. While policymakers try to enact change and focus on what’s truly important, they are worried too much about how the media will analyze and portray their decisions. The media has as much power as does the government in creating a national agenda. “Success is not a function of fame, or PR, but of hard work and discipline,” Obama said. In this age of an ever-expanding public relations industry, I can’t imagine that even the President really believes this.

President Obama remarked, “What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.” The applause began and everyone on the floor looked around to others’ reactions in case there was some deeper meaning. Whether due to uncertainty or stubbornness, it took nineteen seconds for the last person to stand up in reaction (you can see it in the shot of Senator John McCain guffawing with fellow congressmen.)

What do I care if Republicans stand after some statement, or whether Vice President Biden nods his head after everything Obama says? House Speaker John Boehner clearly doesn’t want to clap for anything at this event. He wants to challenge Democrats on their next proposed bill. Time will tell whether the issues we face are above partisan politics.

Anyone who’s watched an episode of “The West Wing” knows how much strategy went into every single word the President uttered. As has become standard, the President’s speech and Congress’ decision to sit together is another marketing ploy to sway public opinion. The whole process has made me question the President’s sincerity. In order for President Obama to follow through with the rhetoric that won him a Nobel Peace Prize, he must find a way to break free from the media’s shackles that so horribly plagued the Bush administration.