A Royal Wedding in the Digital Era

As Prince William and Kate Middleton tie the knot, there is, of course, a lot of excitement going around (on both sides of the pond). For one, they've started a website containing all sorts of information about the blessed event.

What struck me as slightly odd about the website was the fact that you can get Twitter updates about the wedding!! Seriously?

I completely understand the need for the royal family to maintain a website for the wedding in an effort to connect with the public. But a twitter account?

As the planning for this even unfolds it will be interesting to see the role of social media (and digital media in general) plays. Technically speaking, Prince William and Kate are not the first of the British Royals to be assisted by media--consider the wedding of Prince Charles to Camilla.

Still, it should be an interesting show as they try to use the media to their advantage in publicizing this joyous event!

Cheers!

Youtube and iTunes

I often listen to music on Youtube--it's free and easy to find.

Recently, I noticed that at the bottom of the video, Youtube is starting to provide a link to iTunes and Amazon.com so that the viewers can find an MP3 of the song to purchase.

Is this an effort to combat the copyright problems?

At least it is helpful to Youtube users not having to search for the songs on their own.

Thoughts?

Helen Keller?

I was browsing Freakonomics, and I came across this article about Helen Keller. Apparently schools don't think it is necessary to teach about Helen Keller anymore.

What?!?

Granted, as the article points out, she was a socialist...but that doesn't seem to stop schools from teaching about other socialists.

Whatever her opinion and philosophy, I still think it is important for children to study her. After all, she was both blind and deaf, and overcame many obstacles to acquire a degree and become a speaker and author. The story of Helen Keller teaches kids about perseverance through overwhelming obstacles. I'm not quite sure what "earth day" teaches them, other than to recycle...which they already know about...

The Fate of the Music Industry

As this article at Freakonomics points out, the music industry is struggling in the face of the digital era. File sharing is rampant, and record companies are losing money to illegal downloading.

But aside from all the illegal stuff, Freadonomics brings up an interesting point about albums vs singles. How many people, when they buy a cd, absolutely love every song? I know that even on the cds that I enjoy the most, there is always at least one song that I feel compelled to skip.

Somehow, the music industry doesn't seem to understand the importance of making more singles available so that their customers are not forced to purchase whole albums, half of which they don't want. We discussed in class about the "long tail," in which people are perhaps more willing to spend money on singles than whole albums--and consequently spend more money in the long run.

As a musician, I totally understand that every song a band produces is not necessarily good--and everyone eventually makes a flop. By producing singles, a band doesn't have to release all its bad songs (as it might with an album) and instead can spend its energy on the good stuff.

While the "delivery technology" of the music industry will continue to change, I don't think that the music industry will die out. After all, people are still buying musical instruments (like the harp...which isn't cheap!)

Where Star Wars music really comes from...

Spanish Nun banished for using Facebook?!?!

According to this article (which I found because of the amazing American Papist!), Sister Maria Jesus Galen of Toledo, Spain was banished from her convent.

Why? According to the article, her sisters said it was because her facebook activity had "made life impossible." Apparently Sister Maria was a whiz at computers, digitizing the convent's archives, online banking, etc, and was even awarded a prize by the local government for her prowess in cyberspace.

However, the trouble came when she had gathered too many facebook friends, and she was ousted from the community.

The article states that the nun had over 600 friends--granted, that isn't an extraordinary number by today's standards, but let me explain.

-First of all, nuns are cloistered, meaning that they have little to no contact with the outside world--in fact, they SOLEMNLY VOW to adhere to the standards of their order--which includes giving up worldly possessions, and frequent contact with family and friends.

-With that in mind, in my opinion, there is no reason a cloistered nun should be using facebook.

American Papist Thomas Peters points out that there is probably more to this story than is mentioned in the article--and I agree with him that this punishment seems a bit harsh, considering the facts that we know. However, I also believe that cloistered nuns shouldn't have a facebook page. It's like an alcoholic-turned-teetotaler owning a liquor store...not good.

Cheers!

A little more respect for Justin Bieber

While I don't like the craze and mania that Justin Bieber is causing, I was slightly encouraged when I read this article.

In the article (which quotes an interview), Justin Bieber gives his views on hot issues:

1) abortion kills a baby. Wow. I think this 16-year-old has more guts and sense on this issue than most politicians! The article points out that the upcoming generation is becoming more and more pro-life. Because of technological advances, ultrasound images, etc, it is becoming harder and harder for the youth of today to believe the lies the abortion industry tells them--that an unborn baby isn't a baby (when an ultrasound clearly shows that the "little one" is alive, beautiful and human).

Before this post turns into a debate, let me be clear about one thing: I am against abortion because it ends the life of a beautiful, innocence, precious human being--abortion not only ends the life of the baby, but does so in the most cruel and violent manner imaginable. Abortion is directly prejudiced against the unborn (simply because they exist), the disabled, the poor, minority groups, and all women (pregnant women, and unborn women in countries like China where gendercide is horribly affecting the gender proportion).

Back to Justin Bieber.

2) waiting for sex. While he doesn't seem to advocate waiting until marriage to have sex, it is encouraging that Justin Bieber believes that sex is special, and should not be wasted on every single person that crosses your path.

For a very long while, I was under the impression that purity, beauty and sense were lost in modern culture--perhaps these revelations by Justin Bieber prove that the youth of today are learning to think outside their own selfish desires and think about the real consequences of their actions.

Hopefully Justin Bieber's words will have an impact on the youth of today, and encourage them to make wise decisions.

Cheers!

Justin Bieber...and nail polish?

I have successfully avoided blogging about "the bieb" but this latest news I've read tells me I should attempt to help expose the incredibly idiotic craze that is surrounding this kid!

1) As I was passing through Barnes and Noble's game section, much to my surprise, I saw this:



Apparently it's a game--the sole object of which is to give kisses to Justin Bieber.... sick....

2) More recently, Bieber has come out with a line of (you won't believe this) nail polish--and has already sold over one million bottles.

Yes, you read that correctly. Nail polish. As an article in Time put it "The beauty expert teen girls trust? A 16-year-old boy."

The names of the different colors, of course, are references to Bieber songs--though at least one of them, in my opinion, borders on blasphemy. In some respects, you can hardly blame the kid--after all, he's being treated like a god, and acts like one too.



This video might bring some relief to those who do not look so kindly on Bieber. I thought it was funny.

But let's be serious for a moment. One of the interesting things we can learn about the Justin Bieber craze comes from the fact that it is being helped by the internet (as many other fandoms are these days). Think about it--video posting, mp3 music files, twitter, etc...

If Justin Bieber was not being helped by the internet, do you think he would be a success? I'm not so sure.

Cheers!

Clementines and Media

I was eating a clementine--great snack--and as I was attempting to peel it, I happened to notice the sticker that was on the peel. It said "Make a video starring you! Cutiescitrus.com" Being the avid media student that I am, I checked it out.

The site was very similar to the Cheetos website that we viewed in class, except that it seemed more oriented towards parents, rather than kids. Parents could create incredibly cheesy videos to send to their kids (sort of a morale-booster e-card).

Ok, I totally get the advertising side of this whole thing--however, I do have a problem with trying to get kids to be online for more things. It crossed my mind that the real reason that parents are giving their kids clementines are to keep them healthier, right? So why is a company that is supporting children's health and well-being giving kids more reasons to stay online longer when they should instead be outside playing?

Almost seems like a double-standard to me....

My first impression of the internet...

As I wrote my last post, I remembered what my first impressions of the internet--and so, as a (perhaps odd) member of "generation digital" I thought I would post those thoughts here.

When I was growing up, Google didn't exist. Fact. The library that I went to as a child didn't even have a sophisticated "online" book catalog. To order a book from the system, you had to type into an ancient-looking computer, and then write out by hand an order form for that book to give to the librarian.

For me, the internet always seemed like this ominous creature (one that could potentially swallow little children who played with it too long--apparently adults were immune!) There was internet access at the library, but you had to be a certain age to use it. Furthermore, it was only my father who seemed to know what the internet was and how to use it--during the course of my siblings and my studies, we would ask him questions that weren't in the encyclopedia, and so my father would (presumably) go to this foreign and dangerous place and bring back the desired answers.

Finally, when I was about 8 or 9 (or perhaps I was 10?), the internet came to our house.

I remember sending my first email, and my first exposure to this ominous wonderland of knowledge.

"Googling-it", wasn't a term people used back then.

To the common person (like me), words like "blog," "link," and "youtube" were foreign. Social networking sites, other than chatrooms, were unheard of in my house (to be quite frank, when I first started using the internet, Mark Zuckerburg hadn't even invented facebook yet...in fact, I'm not sure if he had even graduated from highschool yet...).

So, am I from the dark ages or what?

Nope! I was born in the early 1990s--on the proverbial "cusp" of the digital generation!

The people who are just a few years younger than me can't even recall a time when they didn't have the internet. I count myself among one of the lucky few who can :)

Cheers!

The Mass and Media

I totally agree with Andi's post about media distraction--people (myself included) have an extremely hard time "disconnecting" from the media world...even to attend church.

This morning, I was at Mass, and it seemed as if EVERYONE (ok, maybe I'm exaggerating!) was texting or forgot to put their phone on vibrate.

Quite seriously, this is a grave matter--this isn't just like going to the movies, or a business meeting--if you're going to Mass, you're going to worship God Himself! So, in other words, some people are disrespectful enough to put the Creator of the Universe "on hold" to answer a stupid text from their sort-of-best friend!

If people can't 'unplug' for a single hour once a week to talk to God, how can they be trusted to listen to their friends?

I know that sounds outrageous, but I am quite frustrated lately with the immense apathy and lack of respect that people have these days!

So I challenge you to spend a few minutes to actually talk to someone, pay a stranger a compliment, smile at a child or elderly person, and remember that although some things cannot be bought or sold, they are more priceless than all the gems and gold in Christendom!

Cheers!

Google is creepy...

Just an observation.

So I'm sitting here listening to opera on youtube.com (yes, I actually like opera...) and on almost every video that I've been switching between, there is an ad for CatholicMatch.com.

Not that there is anything wrong with CatholicMatch.com...it's just that this doesn't seem to be the first time the ads on youtube are catered to my particular demographic...

So, is the ad for CatholicMatch.com just popular today or does Google actually keep track of your searches/keywords and cater the ads on all their sites to you?

Creepy....

Cheers!

BTW... I'm listening to "Une Furtiva Lagrima" sung by Roberto Alagna...bliss...

Generation Digital!!

Today's generation--my generation--is obsessed with media. If it isn't iPhones, iPods, or texting constantly, people are online emailing and checking facebook as if it was as necessary as eating or breathing. Admittedly, I don't feel "connected" to the planet in the morning unless I've at least checked my email, and try to think up a good reason why I shouldn't check my facebook :P

However, as we discussed in class this morning, my generation is sort of an odd generation. Born in the late 80s to very early 90s, my generation still has a vague remembrance of what the world was like without cellphones, iPods, or the internet. I can still remember the first time I ever sent an email.

My generation is the first generation to actually grow up with media access--albeit limited access in some cases. Being the first generation to grow up with this new media, obviously there is much concern by parents about what will happen to this 'digital generation.'

Parental concerns are, in most cases, justly founded. Who wants their little girl to be sent obscene pictures? Who wants their little boy to receive requests for his address from perverted strangers? Who wants their teens to be exposed to the vileness of pornography?

However, there is a gentle balance to be observed (as with all matters of life--if you eat too much, you'll die, but if you don't eat enough, you'll die too!) Just because the internet is new, does not mean that it is necessarily evil--and just because your children have the ability to send emails does not mean that they will be targeted by perverts.

As we discussed in class this morning, there have been fears (some well-founded, others not) about every major addition to the media. However, the internet is the biggest, and most overwhelming addition that we have seen thus far (like the invention of the printing press, only bigger) and so parents have a right to be concerned about the morality of their children.

What they do with that concern--teach their children to use technology to their advantage, rather than letting it take advantage over them--is another matter entirely. And that topic is about parenting skills, not media.

Cheers!

Catholicism and iPhones!

Today I came across this article which describes the first application for the iPhone to receive an imprimatur!

For those of you who aren't Catholic:

Imprimatur is the Latin term for "let it be printed," which signifies the approval by a bishop of a religious work for publication. Authors are at liberty to obtain the imprimatur either from the bishop where they reside, or where the book is to be published, or where it is printed. Generally the imprimatur, along with the bishop's name and date of approval, is to be shown in the publication.

--Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

This new iPhone app, although it isn't the first of its kind, apparently includes "a step-by-step guide to the sacrament" as well as an examination of conscience.

I think the appearance of this new app is a sign of our changing times - both good and bad.

On the plus side, I'm positively delighted that the Church is keeping up with modern technology, and, in the spirit of Pope John Paul II, using modern technology as a means of evangelization.

However, I also think the emergence of this app also shows how technologically-centered people have become (as opposed to God-centered) that the Church has been forced to resort to creating iPhone applications just to tell people a simple message of repentance.

For the record, I've got The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis, The Holy Bible, and a plethora of Gregorian chant on my iPod. Now, I just wish someone would come out with a version of the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) for the iPod touch/iPhone!

Cheers!

Got Facebook?

Hey classmates! Recognize anything?

Gendercide in China

While I was in D.C. I had the opportunity to attend the Students for Life of America conference. What struck me was how committed the Pro-Life community is to using all types of media to promote the pro-life cause.

One such organization is All Girls Allowed, which works to raise money for women in China, in an effort to end the horrible "gendercide" that is occurring against women because of China's one-child policy.

Earlier this week, the president of China visited the United States--and was warmly welcomed.

But wait a minute--isn't there some kind of disconnect?

The Chinese government uses forced abortion as a method of population control (which results in approximately 35,000 abortions per day, many of which are determined by gender-selection technology. There are approximately 37 million more men in China than women because of China's one child policy and traditional preference to male children.

The government also heavily controls and restricts the religious and communication rights of its people (placing bans on common websites such as facebook).

How can our government even speak to the Chinese while they refuse to change their human rights policies? Millions of people in China are clearly suffering (women from forced abortions, unwanted children, men without marriageable women, rigorous religious oppression...and so on) and yet, the US appears to be ignoring all these facts in order to conduct profitable business.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems as though communism is no longer seen as a bad thing, but rather, it is seen as an economic booster.

March for Life and Media

This past weekend, I attended the National March for Life in Washington D.C.--along with 300,000 other dedicated pro-lifers.

But what does this have to do with media?

Nothing. In fact, that's the problem.

Year after year, the March for Life is growing larger and larger--but the mainstream media refuses to provide any accurate coverage of the event...or any coverage whatsoever.

Don't believe me? Google it. I did--in fact, Google didn't show ANY major news service reports, and I was forced to go into individual websites just to get some information about the march. Wikipedia was much more informative...for once...

This video by LiveAction demonstrates some of the frustration that pro-lifers have at the misinformation and downright ignorance that the media is showed in 2010:

What do you think?

Cheers!

~Laura

Google and Me

Google is the second most popular site that people visit on the internet (the first being facebook). With its search engine, Google has indexed a little less than 40% of the world wide web--and has become the most popular search engine for the web, which begs the question, are people narrowing their experience of the internet to Google?

I'll admit that "google" common websites--such as my email, college, facebook--rather than typing out the url. I also use Google to search for topics I am interested in, but know very little about. "Googling" a subject typically takes less time, especially if you aren't quite sure of the exact address of an informative website on the subject.

But by constantly turning to Google for searches, am I limiting myself to viewing the internet through "Google's eyes," and am subsequently handicapping myself by referring only to information that appeared as part of Google's result list (which ignores certain de-listed* websites and websites that seek to avoid indexing and high traffic)?

[*De-listed websites are not necessarily illegal websites, but merely sites that Google has de-listed because the authors attempted to manipulated Google's page ranking system.]

I am not here to ridicule Google's website (in fact, it is the first site I turn to for image searches, webmail, directions, and other random searches), however, I would like to pause and consider for a moment what sort of effect Google is having on internet culture.

Google, through its indexing and other facets of search capabilities, largely seems to own the internet. It owns Youtube.com, the popular video site, as well as Blogger (the program I am using right now).

Right now, it might make sense for one single company to index the entire internet--but I think that sometime in the future, perhaps if Google ever starts charging for its services, we will wish that we had created a more competitive search engine system.

To answer my own question, yes, I do think that right now people are too dependent on Google as their "sole source" of information.

It's perfectly ok to "Google" information every once in a while--but I guess my closing question is: whatever happened to encyclopedias--even online encyclopedias?

Cheers!

Media Convergence and ipods

For Christmas, I got an ipod touch. Before that, all I had was a simple mp3 player/recording device. I really didn't know too much about ipods, except that some people could access the internet with them in addition to playing music. Was I in for a shock!

My new ipod touch literally does everything but clean the sink! I can read books on it, listen to music, record memos or lectures, access the internet and send emails. It has a game application, a calendar, a timer, weather updates, a calculator...and the list goes on and on!

As I was reading the class text, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide by Henry Jenkins, it struck me how much and how fast the media world is changing.

Now, not only are media ideas converging, but hardware as well. The ipod touch is a perfect example. Jenkins explains that no longer can you simply buy a phone that only has one function (or, in this case, an ipod that has only one function)--the phone (or ipod) must be programed to perform many functions.

In this case, the delivery technologies have changed in the way people consume media--the ipod is now not just used for music, but also for reading, accessing internet, and getting news updates. However, even though the "delivery technology" has changed, the medium has not changed.

According to Jenkins, mediums (such as music) never die--the delivery technologies are the things that die and/or change over time.

In class this morning, someone posed the thought that there have been some mediums that have died--for instance: oral storytelling--and that now, people go to the theatre or see a movie to have the same experience.

I disagree. Oral storytelling, theatre, and film are merely different types of "delivery technologies." The true content of oral storytelling, theatre, and film--a story, tale, history--hasn't really changed.

Jenkins is right when he says that the medium will never die--but the modes of delivery will as modern technology progresses.

But what do you think? Is Jenkins wrong? Are there some mediums that will die out?

Cheers!

Networking and Participatory Journalism in Blogging

In 2006-07, Rebecca Blood conducted a series of interviews with other bloggers, asking them why they blog.

What struck me about the interview with Trine-Maria Kristensen was how much she saw blogging as a way to socially connect with other people, while at the same time engaging in an intelligent dialog about current events and technology. For her, blogging has become an integral part of the personal side of the internet.

While I understand Kristensen's love of blogging for personal opinions on current events, I still cannot see any part of the internet as being truly personal. Blogger profiles, just like any other internet profiles, are constructed to show only what the user wishes to show about himself/herself. There is no way that internet profiles can be truly genuine--which therefore, in my opinion, renders them to be very impersonal.

However, I do agree with her that blogging is carving a new path for journalists in cyberspace. Not only can journalists express their opinions in printed forums, they can also engage in the current dialogue on events through blogging--'participatory journalism' as Kristensen calls it.

But engaging in conversation on current issues by no means makes the internet 'personal.' I think that what Kristensen likes about blogging is not how people can seemingly connect with each other on a personal level--but rather, the intense and lively discussion that stems from the blogging community. Personal opinions can be expressed on the internet. Anyone can keep a blog because there are no qualifications that exclude certain people--as in the realm of printed media, where opinions can only be expressed by journalists or people of influence and wealth.

The internet opens new channels of communication--and lets people who would not have otherwise met, discuss current issues as they are unfolding.

While there are many blessings associated with the internet--so many ways to meet new people and ways to share media with other people--I still wonder if the internet is helping to downgrade traditional forms of personal communication.

When was the last time you took time to send a letter to someone rather than an email? When did you last personally invite someone to an event (with a printed invitation) rather then just sending them a facebook invite?

Is the change for the better? Good question.

Cheers!

My First Post!!

Greetings Cyberspace!

Welcome to my new blog! I shall be blogging on media and whatever comes up in SPC 260.

Cheers!

~Laura