The below blog post is for an assignment in class. So for those of you who read my blog (you do exist, right?) that aren’t in my class…enjoy it for what it is.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
A cruel sacrifice has occurred.
Aslan, the noble, Messianic lion (voice of Liam Neeson) is slaughtered at the Great Stone Table.
Moments before, Aslan is seen proceeding alone to the altar through an onslaught of the White Witch’s (Tilda Swinton) hideous and evil followers. The “great lion” doesn’t put up a fight while being humiliated and laughed at. Subsequently, he is bound up and his mane is shaved off, leaving nothing but the stubble of something that was once glorious.
Aslan is then dragged to the altar where the White Witch panders
“Did you honestly think by all this that you could save the human traitor? You are giving me your life and saving no one. So much for love.”
She then stands and anounces to the cheering, frenzied crowd:
“Tonight, the Deep Magic will be appeased. But tomorrow, we will take Narnia forever! In that knowledge, despair and die!”
She then plunges her dagger into Aslan’s side to kill the “Great Cat.”
Having witnessed the death, Lucy (Georgie Henley) and Susan Pevensie (Anna Popplewell) afterwards approach the altar and grieve over Aslan’s corpse.
Facebook intends to capitalise on the wealth of information it has about its users by offering its 150 million-strong customer base to corporations as a market research tool. The appearance…of corporate polls targeted at certain parts of the Facebook audience because of the information they have posted on their pages, is likely to infuriate privacy campaigners.
Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter – tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…And one fine morning…
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s, The Great Gatsby
Historically, the only way someone could achieve stardom is through talent (and wealth without talent). If you are naturally beautiful, you pursue modeling and acting, if you’ve been blessed with great pipes, you go into the music industry, and if you can swing a bat like Mickey Mantel or run like Michael Johnson, the sports arena is where you head. Inevitably, there are those who are blessingly borne into famous families who follow the paths of their parents, despite the lack of innate ability…or intelligence.
However, these “traditional” paths are being skewed and, albeit, uprooted by the emergence of one, singular sensation – YouTube.
You no longer need the bone structure of Jennifer Aniston (or the body), the subtle tone of Amy Adams, Ben Stiller’s comedic flare, Raphael Nadal’s backhand or a dad named John Voight to become a household name. Rather, all we’ve gotta do to attain a star on Hollywood Boulevard is market ourselves with a video camera and upload the video to YouTube.
I want to hone in on one particular YouTube channel, the infamous LonelyGirl15.
A brief history from her Wikipedia page:
Lonelygirl15 debuted on YouTube posing as a real 16-year-old video blogger with the eponymous username. At first, the videos covered normal, everyday subject matter, as the title character dealt with typical teenage angst, but quickly morphed into a bizarre narrative that portrayed her dealings with secret occult practices within her family and included the mysterious disappearance of her parents after she refused to attend a “secret” ceremony prescribed by the leaders of the family’s cult.
Los Angeles Times reporter Richard Rushfield was the first to provide proof of a hoax, when he wrote of Shaina Wedmedyk, Chris Patterson, and an anonymous law student, who set up a sting on MySpace to reveal that the Creative Artists Agency was behind the videos. Eventually it was revealed that 16-year-old “Bree” was played by 20-year-old New Zealand actress Jessica Rose.
Since the fictional nature of lonelygirl15 has been revealed, the storyline continued to develop via new videos posted to YouTube and now are only viewable via Youtube and MyspaceTV.
So here we have YouTube sensation, a complete hoax, but one that has built a fan base beyond imagination. Since then, Jessica Rose has starred on television shows, been the spokesmodel for the United Nations, been on the cover of Wired magazine, and has won numerous awards for her portrayal of “Bree” on YouTube. She’s also had spinoffs made of her YouTube Channel and a spoof done by Carmen electra in Epic Movie.
YouTube fosters the growth and morphing of art and fame. It changes the tide on what we, as a society, consider as fame and how to become “famous.” Its no longer only reserved for the privileged, lucky, or heiresses.
YouTube perfectly captures the essence of the American Dream. Recall the metaphorical “green light” that Gatsby is always staring at? YouTube is that green light, giving anyone and everyone the opportunity to make something of themselves.
**This post is a response/reiteration of this post. While I have added a different level to the conversation, many of the original ideas are Abby Coster’s. I have been riddled with guilt since I posted this blog, so I have found it necessary to give credit where credit is due. Abby, my muse, great work.**
“You will not apply my precept,” he said, shaking his head. “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four
Wikipedia, the great crowd-sourced encyclopedia in the sky. From where and whence it came is no matter, but what it has become, well, now thats a different story.
From the pages of Wikipedia itself:
Wikipedia is a free,web-based, collaborative, multilingualencyclopediaproject…written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site.
We’re gonna dive right into that last bit “almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site.” This is both the beauty of Wikipedia and also the Achilles’ heel. On the one hand, you get realtime updates on subjects and a multitude of minds converging on a subject to create the best possible resource.
But what happens when a stone cracks and the tower begins to fall? Wikipedia has implemented their version of rules and regs and help to abate the vandalism, spam, agenda pushing, and trolls of Wikipedia. But not wanting to bite the very hand that feeds the Wikipedia monster, there’s no true bars on the editing of most Wikipedia articles.
My experiment over the weekend as to change an article. I made a small yet substantial change…aye controversial perhaps…and the change has stuck so far.
I won’t point to the exact article, but the article I changed was that of one of a local, hoity-toity (dare I say racially biased) township, who’s demographics are historically and largely Caucasian. I merely swapped the demographics of the Caucasian and the African-American population percentages.
To date (10/28/09) – the changes have gone unedited by another user or Wikipedia itself.
Quoting the infamous detective once more, “Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
As a celebrity, Lady Gaga has been subject to many rumours and hearsay about her past and her personal life. The latest widespread speculation is that she is a hermaphrodite. Really?
Taking a look at the Lady Gaga Wikipedia article, there’s no mention of the rumour…or any rumour about the artist for that matter.
Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides.
Do rumours get included in the articles? If so, where do they fit? How do you take a NPOV about a rumour? A rumour, in essence, is someone’s POV until it is either explicitly confirmed or denied, right? Let’s examine Lady Gaga’s article’s discussion board.
When Lady Gaga’s article was unlocked, it did include the rumours (and the fact that the rumours were untrue) but that part of the article was “removed, citing WP:HARM.” One editor, C. Farm stated that
at some point, we may have to mention the rumour and its debunking to maintain neutral point-of-viewand not give the appearance of bias by not mentioning. However, I think the tipping point will come not with first-hand confirmation but with the depth and breadth of third-party coverage.
So where is the line drawn on rumours? Editor 86.136.138.119 puts up a great point that
By the reasoning that rumours shouldn’t be posted, neither should the Roswell Incident, right? Or any number of conspiracy theories. But they are, because though false, they are notable. That is the only criteria for being included, and notable it is. We aren’t saying she is or isn’t a hermaphrodite, simply that there are countless, notable rumours of it. Which is 100% true and notable.
I have to agree…right here! When this rumour blossomed in August – I got about 12 text messages from friends around the country stating “Gaga’s a herme” et al. Not to mention the Facebook and Twitter flurry that said rumour created. Editor, The Bookkeeper of the Occult, puts up a great fight for her team
The difference is the Roswell incident has been the subject of WP:WELLKNOWN speculation for decades. WP:HARMstates: If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it. The latter of which clearly applies to Lady Gaga. Three reliable sources amidst widespread unreliable blogs is hardly “numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time.”
The Bookkeeper brings up a great point. Gossip blogs and other tabloid-like sources trounced this rumour around, but did CNN or MSNBC or The Gray Lady (our “reliable” sources of news) publish and speak-out about it? ABC’s website had a blurb. Is that enough of a “reliable source” to include?
Editor 83.177.122.248 just wanted some answers…
I came here…simply to find out if this rumour actually had proper evidence behind it, or if it was just yet another story blown up to massive proportions by blogs and ED. I agree [that], an article should be created for the sole reason of saying “There is this rumour, and as far as we can tell, there’s no truth behind it.”
Lady Gaga herself has since stated that “[her] little vagina is offended.” There has been no confirmation of the rumour nor any explicit statement stating otherwise.
If you’ve gone to Lady Gaga’s Wikipedia page for an answer…you won’t find it. Why? Because there is no answer. The only fact is that there is a rumour, but if its merely a fabrication, a publicity stunt, or the truth is unknown.
Editor Abrazame continues his rebuttal, and, although we can’t really claim a “winner,” the article to date doesn’t include a mention of the rumour.
The suggestion that if someone personally denies a rumor, that makes the rumor notable enough to address in their encyclopedia biography is both missing the point about why encyclopedias don’t elevate rumor to the level of encyclopedic biographical detail and it is presenting the subject of a rumor—and editors—with a catch-22, which is unacceptable.
Think about it: if she doesn’t respond, then people say, “why doesn’t she just tell everybody it’s untrue?”; some decide to answer for themselves: “she’s humiliated”, “she has something to hide”, “she’s purposely letting the rumor build up steam for some publicity-hungry reason”, and even “it stemmed from a stunt in which she was a witting participant”. So we blame the victim of the rumor. Yet, if she does issue a denial, through a representative or by speaking to the issue herself, you argue that this causes the rumor to spring into notability to her biography? So we reward the person(s) who started the rumor by doing precisely what they wanted, to biographically associate their lie with this notable person.
No. That’s not the way this works. So a blog reports that in a radio interview she has asserted that this is a false rumor, and made a joke about taking offense; this denial is noted in an MTV.com article. This makes the rumor less notable to her biography, not more so.
In the video above, Miley Cyrus raps about the “reasons” she deleted her Twitter account. She quotes “privacy” and that she’s “too busy.” However, if you take a second look, she says that she was incessantly tweeting about a lot of nonsense…which I assume she was. I don’t know this firsthand because I never followed her.
Twitter is a social networking tool. What you type into your Twitter updates is completely up to you. There is no one prying into your life, invading your privacy…its all what you create – its YOUR Twitter after all.
What Miley Cyrus did by posting this video was call herself out. She joined Twitter to connect to her fans, to let them into her life to make them feel more “connected” to her. Did she bite off more than she could chew? Call me crazy but if you don’t want people to know that you’re “braiding [your] hair” Miley, don’t tweet it.
Over the past year or so, Twitter has become increasingly more popular with celebrities endorsing it, companies having their own Twitter handles, even CNN’s newscasters have their own Twitter accounts for you to follow. As with many social media clients, Twitter can become quite the addiction.
What Miley stresses in her rap is that she was tweeting her entire life – in essence, it became an addiction for her. I applaud her for putting the gestapo on her addiction and then sharing with the world (albeit in a rap video) how and why she came to tis conclusion.
So how do you really know that you are addicted to Twitter? After Googling around, many sites poke fun at “Twitter addicts,” but they could be spot on with their diagnosis. Here’s a few tips from a legit article.
Keep yourself busy I have notice that people who twitter a lot, either bored or don’t have anything to do. So I would suggest keeping day busy with school, work, errands etc. Set aside time during the day to twitter but then go back to doing what you got to do. If necessary, don’t twitter for a day or two. You will then come to realize that, you can survive without twitter!
Twitter on your cellphone If you want to avoid or overcome a twitter addiction, than don’t download it to your phone. When I had the twitter application my phone, I twitter all the time. I would twitter while walking, while in class and it just became a distraction. So when you want to twitter, limit it to the computer. That way you wont have it at your fingertips.
Twitter with a purpose Twitter is a great way to meet new people and network. It also allows you to get up with your favorite celebrities. So when you are on twitter, twitter with a purpose. Use that time to promote your blog, communicate with someone new etc. Having random conversations, is what you can cause you to spend hours on the computer.
Twitter Followers I have notice that on Twitter, a lot of people seem obsessed with having a lot of followers. Don’t fall into this trap! Twitter is not about how many people is following you, its about communication. So stop worrying about who will be your 100th follower, is unnecessary and will just feed your addiction. So have fun and don’t sweat the small stuff.
In the end, Twitter is just one of many aspects of social media. Incessant tweeting can become an issue (per Miley Cyrus)…keep a hold of yourself.
and perhaps some actual Disney creations of their own original characters and plot lines. You didn’t actually think the people of Walt Disney had all their own original ideas, right?
Whatever happened to the notion that any publicity, even bad, is actually good publicity? Oscar Wilde once said, “There is only one thing worse than being talked about…and that is not being talked about.”
Ever since the internet became the largest media outlet, legislation has been flying around the Houses to try and regulate the use of material (music, movies, art, design, etc.) and how members of the internet share and/or distribute them.
Enter DMCA (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). This is a hefty piece of legislation that pretty much defines the ways that copyrighted materials can be used digitally…or how digital materials that are copyrighted can be used…or how digitally copyrighted materials can be used. I use these “definitions” because the legislation is quite convoluted and makes some unique twists to include/exclude certain uses and terms of copyright.
So where does all this lead? If you go to YouTube and search any well-known artist, you might click a video of their new single and get a message stating “This video has been removed due to copyright infringement.” Funny, huh? If I was a major recording artist, I’d love my videos to pop up on YouTube and for my fans to post them all over their blogs, MySpace pages, Facebook profiles…or anywhere else they’d like. What’s this copyright infringement bologna? It’s rather obvious to anyone with half a brain that if I post a copy of Lady Gaga’s Poker Face video, that I am not the performer and that I had nothing to do with the making of the video. I most likely would have posted the video for mere entertainment, to share with the world, and, in turn, promote the artist that is Lady Gaga. I’m sure she wouldn’t care…but her label might care.
Herein lies the issue. I don’t think it is the artist, specifically, that doesn’t like people to use their music…its the label. Capitalism reigns around the globe and money makes the world go ’round. The corporations claim to try and “protect” the artist and their work, but that seems a little far-fetched to me. Honestly, I can’t imagine why anyone would deny the publicity. Again, any publicity is good publicity…right?
Remember kids…make sure you you don’t use any work by any artist…ever! Don’t drive down the street with with your windows down and Backstreet Boys blaring…you’re illegally broadcasting and infringing on the copyright. Don’t make a video of yourself dancing wildly to Rehab as performed by the cast of Fox’s Glee…hmmm.
This is the mantra of the future – especially in the blogosphere. With over 70+ million blogs currently online, its becoming more and more difficult to get the readership that you (think you) deserve.
With the overwhelming amount of information thrust at us online everyday, its hard to stay motivated enough to blog or to even know what to blog about. So, how do you know that what you’re doing isn’t a complete waste of your time and energy? The answer is…you don’t.
Take Mario Lavandeira for example. He started his Perez Hilton blog on a dream and a prayer, talking smack about Hollywood and keeping the gossip rags a-flyin’. He now has one of the most popular blogs in the blogosphere, celebrity friends, product endorsement deals, and, along the way, has become pseudo-famous. Will it last? I don’t think so. But his 15-minutes are lasting longer than…say…the Macarena.
What was his secret? Did he have one? Or is his popularity driven by a need that he has created for up-to-the-minute celebrity gossip? I can’t say much for Mario’s character, his personality (other than that portrayed in the media), or his morality (if such a thing exists), but as a creator…an “artist” even…he has paved his path.
As someone who has tried to keep up a blog (many many times) and failed, I know its hard to find the passion and motivation to write, but even harder to get people to actually read your creation. There’s no magic wand that you can wave to create that drive in your life to write a blog and to increase your creative capital. But – I will say this – the internet is a platform on which your future depends on. You no longer have to have years of college, a degree, a publicist, an editor, or an agent to get published. You are all of these things…an artist all the way thru publisher.
The moral of the story here is that creativity will get you a long way in life. The times are forever changing and new media is emerging everyday. Stay ahead of the game. Take the reigns. Be the creator of your media…of your life. Or (metaphorically…not morbidly) die.
Do you ever feel that you are becoming too plugged in? In a world of constant emails, Twitter updates, news tickers, stock quotes, and the all too dependent nature we have in regards to our smart phones…is there ever a chance we are becoming too connected? And is all this connecting even worthwhile?
As a society, we are more connected than we have ever been. Our connection has normally been computer-based, but as we move forward, our connections are increasingly mobile. From virtually anywhere, I can update my Twitter feed, post a photo to Facebook, change my LinkedIn profile, or watch a YouTube video via a link that I received in a text message or email.
It’s a real Catch-22. In one corner, you have this amazing technology that opens the doors of the future, a society of forever-connected people with the ability to share their thoughts effortlessly (and tirelessly) with each other. In the other corner, there’s a sense of an overload. Referencing an article in the UK’s Telegraph:
According to two newly published scientific studies, the streaming of 24-hour digital news could be running faster than the brain’s ability to make moral decisions. The constant burst of news about terrible occurrences such as stabbings or bomb attacks, is overloading our brains and making our responses dismissive – which ultimately is not a humane reaction. The research has found this overload may also be causing increasing levels of depression and the quicker we know about events, the less it seems to be sinking in and having the expected effect.
So now being overly connected is considered bad for your mental health? Bizarre isn’t it? But the buck doesn’t stop there though. Being plugged-in 24/7 can also take its toll on our physical health. Believe it or not, our bodies need a break every once in awhile. After any extended period of time, our bodies run out of energy, our brains don’t function as quickly, and, as a result, our ability to think clearly (and creatively) is exponentially weakened.
Where do we draw the line? I don’t have the answer. I don’t think anyone does. The trick is to be aware of your connection and to know that it is ok to disconnect. No really, it’s ok.
On a lighter note, do you know (or are you) that person who accepts every friend request on Facebook or connection request on LinkedIn? An iPhone application has hit the iTunes market called Learn That Name that takes your LinkedIn connections and your phone contacts and mashes them into a game show to see if you can match faces with names. You can advance from “schmuck” to “drive-by handshaker” to “self-promoter” all the way to “master networker” if you can match all the faces with names.
The fight of our generation/for our generation is underway in Congress right now. The central hub that we base our lives around is at stake. That’s right. The internet.
There has been talk of a term called “net neutrality” for a few years now…but what is it exactly? Wikipedia defines it as:
“The principle that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.”
So – what’s the deal with all this nonsense? Well – the major network providers want to essentially “own” the internet. They figure since they own the pipes that all the information flows thru that they should be able to control the content of which is freely flowing (for now).
Currently, everyone who has internet access pays for their own level of access, be it Dial-up (heaven forbid), DSL, Cable, or otherwise. With the restrictions that AT&T, Comcast, and their henchmen want to impose, everyday users would be subjected to controlled content, sponsored content, and would potentially be blocked from user-created content such as blogs, YouTube, or even MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter depending on who has paid the providers more money or who has a partnership (i.e., Apple & AT&T).
I’m stating extreme cases here, but the fact that these network bullies want to control what I can see and what I can’t sounds pretty, dare I say it, un-American and perhaps more along the lines of China’s regulation of their citizens’ internet access.
The fight in Congress has heated up and a decision will be made in October by the FCC. I encourage you all to support net neutrality.
dub2.wordpress.com 