Bleeding Ink

The downward spiral of print journalism continues.

Conde Nast publisher to cut 5% from popular mags (Vogue, Wired, Glamour)

Christian Science Monitor goes online only.

Omnipotent Technology in Relationships

In Clive Thompson’s article, “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy”, he muses upon the fact that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are both expanding our social networks while shrinking them at the same time.  This is true on both accounts because we can stay ever connected with a greater range of people than we normally could without the usage of such an engrossing technology, but when we get to know these people, the world becomes much smaller as they are keyed into our very lives day by day.  One of the most interesting aspects of this article talks about the capacity of the human brain and then number of social links it can support.  The “dumbar number”,   states that humans can only support 150 healthy social links.  The key word here being healthy.  Yet, when we see people with Facebook friends in the hundreds, do they really feel connected with one another?  Some people are just keen to add anyone to add to their number, as it is almost seen as a popularity contest.  Yet, can these people claim that they really have a connection with the person that they just “friended”.  Now, this connection I speak of isn’t just the fact that they go to school or work with one another.  I believe to be friends, that people should have some sort of commonality.   You could say that being in the same classes is commonality enough, but there should be something that goes deeper than that, shared personality traits, or maybe even like-minded thinking.

Now this shouldn’t read as being judgmental against those with high friend counts, only maybe a call to action to become better acquainted with those people that you add.  I’m under the belief that relationships can grow just from online interaction.  It serves as an easier way for people to communicate.  Just by reading someone’s status message may give you a little insight to what someone is thinking, but they’re often just cursory glances at the surface of someone.  Thompson alludes to this when he states that people would ask one another, why they dislike a certain actor after seeing it on someone’s status.  This is what I am encouraging.  Social networking can be so much more than just keeping tabs on people you barely know.  It can be used to make new friends and develop more rewarding relationships.  Even Thompson himself seemed to strike up a relationship with the Twitter page that he occasionally glanced at.

In a way it is a brave new world when it comes to social relationships.  With technology advancing at an exponential rate, it is much easier to connect with people through social networking sites, web forums, chat rooms, and even instant messaging.  However, I believe that we are just touching the surface.  It only seems to exist now as a casual, complimentary way to keep in touch with someone.  I only half heartedly believe in dunbar’s number.  While it may be true that there is a limited capacity to maintain healthy relationships with people, then things such as Facebook should be able to expand our minds and our numbers.  It makes it easier to keep in touch, but it has to go beyond the simple courtesy that exists now.  Make the effort to get to know someone that you offhandedly friended, it will be rewarding.

It’s Not Procrastinating. It’s Becoming Ambiently Aware.

For all the times I’ve caught myself on facebook when I should be doing homework, I now know the reason.

For all the times I’ve aimlessly clicked through picture after picture of someone I don’t even know, I also now know the reason.

Why, it’s all to keep up with my “ambient awareness” of course.

Clive Thompson really knew what he was talking about in, “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy.” And it makes sense.

Because will I really care about how you can take a picture of yourself in the complicated over-the-head-bathroom-mirror shot angle? Or will I care more if you happen to accidentally jam your foot in the toilet bowl and then manage to snap a picture of that moment? Pursed lips and all.

No lie. It’s a story like that I would want to know. This is like a hunger. Got to keep up on my awareness. I have to know the latest mishap, the biggest news, the most fascinating stories of spontaneous whit that friends have performed without me. If you fall into the toilet, that better be something coming up on my newsfeed.

My ambient awareness needs it.

Knowing these things keeps a person feeling satisfied. It’s a little bit of knowledge that goes a long way. Able to go about a bad day with the knowledge that someone else’s life is always sucking worse than yours  is always the best medicine.

Because at least my foot isn’t dripping toilet water.

-Ryan

lonelygirl15 offers cheap thrills, time waster

I consider myself to be pretty internet savvy, usually informed by either my own research or through various friends as to what’s popular on the web.  Although, I’ve never been one to watch or even care about vlogs (video blogs).  When the loneygirl15 phenomenon took place, I was virtually unaffected.   After viewing one or two, I did not really get what the big deal was.  However, now, looking in retrospect, I still don’t know what the big deal is.  Apparently the whole debacle evolved from what seemed to be just your normal teenage girl became an on-going internet epic soap with themes of religious cults and other such nonsense.  Compared to other sensationalist types of media like J.J. Abrams, lonelygirl15 doesn’t really hold a candle to the high production values or professionalism exhibited by similar story tellers. That doesn’t mean that something rogue and underground can’t succeed.  Just the story behind lonelygirl15 is not all that interesting, or engaging.

Who is to blame for this particular blog rising to prominence?  Can we fault people for generally being inerested in another human being’s plight that spilled out onto the internet?  Sure, from the onset of the whole thing, Bree was presented as a typical girl caught up in extraordinary circumstances.  It’s only natural that other people would sympathize with her and maybe try to help.  However, even after the hoax was reported, the viewership only went up.  This is the part that boggles me.  After being duped, people were still so eager to watch the next chapter of this convuluted drama.  It boggles the mind further to learn that this show even has spinoffs, and a sequel that has been in the pipes since last month.  To me, it signifies what is wrong with writing today.  Rather than developing a good set of characters or a decent plot, the focus is often shifted to lazy, sensationalist, in-your-face twist and turns – going for a quick thrill rather than something truly fufilling.

Maybe people just want to be entertained.  That’s what my friend gets out of watching vlogs.  Especially this one (It can be pretty vulgar or inappropriate, so don’t view at work or school).

Me and Mrs. Jones, We Got a Thing Going On

The second wife of the Prophet Muhammad, Aisha, and her romantic encounters in the book The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones is a topic of controvery in the Muslim world. The book is banned in the UK due to fears of a violent reaction. 

BBC

Blogger Shelina Zahra Janmohamed points out the historical inaccuracies and sleazy portrayals in a BBC article:

Her life is reduced to a parody of a smutty Bridget Jones diary.

If Shelina is right, it’s a shame this book isn’t dedicated to the most accurate depiction of Aisha’s life. Okay, even if it is fictional and romantic it’s a shame it isn’t actually good. But the biggest shame is that it’s banned. Regardless.

But speaking of Bridget Jones Diary, I’m watching it right now. I must say it’s quite depressing how much of myself I see in her.

 

Are newspapers writing their own obituaries?

The Media’s Obama Bias

Michael Malone, in an article for ABCNews, recently talked about the media’s current and apparent to him, bias for Democratic nominee Barack Obama.  Malone talks about how journalists should strive to be fair and balanced in their coverage of the election instead of what is going on these days.

“No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side — or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.“

Malone states that this bias has even influenced his own life.  He strives to call himself a “writer” versus a “journalist” because of the negative connotations that exist with the latter classification.  Having been a journalism student myself in the past, one of the things we were first taught is to be objective.  Our stories had to be from a neutral perspective, and should avoid using judgments.  Yet, Malone states that it really isn’t the writer’s fault for this ongoing bias, but rather the editors of the news networks and papers that encourage this type of writing.  Perhaps their own politics match the same as this candidate, and they wish to further their own agendas, or at least fix what is perceived to be a failing newspaper industry.

I would not flat out say that Malone is wrong in his accusations, as there seems to be a left-leaning stance in the media these days.  Although, I would call him wrong in saying that this kind of writing is immoral.  When it comes to something like an election, how can there really be any fair coverage?  Everything that we say or do in the name of politics is charged with some sort of emotion or thought behind it.  It would be impossible to separate the business world from our own thoughts and feelings.  This extends far beyond just the realm of writing and Journalism, as you can see in other workplaces that politics becomes mingled in with a person’s identity.  There are teachers who are quite vocal in their support of one candidate over the other, and share it with their class.  Is school not supposed to be neutral as well?  Shouldn’t students have the option to make up their own minds and not be influenced by their superiors?  Where is Malone’s outcry over our faculties in public institutions making their opinions known?

All this reads to me is hypocracy, or maybe anger.  I will admit that I am an Obama supporter, maybe that may sway my own feelings of the media being biased.  I do not know which way that Malone stands in this election, but I think he needs to get a grasp on his own belief.  The state of media is changing and becoming more personal.  Those values associated with “neutral” journalism seem to be fading as more pieces these days read like OP/ED.  With newspaper circulating dwindling, they need to offer fresh perspectives that you cannot find anywhere else.  If you could find the same reprinted AP story online, why would you buy a paper?  Often I’ve heard of journalists being criticized for being so robotic, detatched, and cold from a story.  What’s wrong with showing who you are in your writing?  After all, it’s what Malone is doing in his article.

Painting the White House PINK

I love Paris Hilton. I know this is probably an unpopular opinion, but that’s okay.
NYLON magazine’s interview this month quoted her saying,

“I can laugh at myself. I’m in on the joke. I know what you guys think of me, and I’m going to play into it and make you laugh at the same time.”

Now the question is, is she really in on the joke? Or is she just the dumb blonde she claims producers tell her to be?

You’re Smart..So Why Aren’t You Drunk?

Watch out all you “baby genius kids.”

You just may be our future drunkards.

But to me there’s something “unfit” about this study that those with a high IQ are more likely to have alcohol related problems.

See, it looks like the assumption is if you’re intelligent, you must be carrying stress. And when you’re stressed, you turn to drinking for a reliever. So therefore, when you turn to popping that cap, you might as well just be grabbing the newspaper and staking out your rightful place on that curb. Because, clearly…alcohol does that to people…or should I say smart people?

My assumption was (and still is) the complete opposite. If you’ve got a high IQ, you would know right from wrong. Sure the statistics are there. I can see that. But seriously?? Isn’t that a little drastic to say? I know plenty of intelligent people and in no way can I see them becoming drunks in their lifetimes.

Then again, I’m running only my optimistic naivety here and I like to think that this doesn’t normally happen.

That when I say I’m going to go sit in my room and do some homework, I’m actually going to do my work. Oh but this awkwardly shaped bottle I have under my shirt?

It’s nothing. Nothing at all.

-Ryan

As Computers May Think

According to Vannevar Bush’s 1945 As We May Think

Selection, by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized. One cannot hope thus to equal the speed and flexibility with which the mind follows an associative trail, but it should be possible to beat the mind decisively in regard to the permanence and clarity of the items resurrected from storage.

Indexing makes me think of index cards and Dewy Decimal systems. The Internet makes me think of Myspace, Facebook, Gmail, and blogging, all which have associative properties to them. Computer files make me think of indexing as well, involved storage of knowledge that a human could not retain. And just then I’ve been associating, in a way a computer could not do. How far technology has come is impressive, especially thinking about the Internet’s ability to link interests of someone together. Plug a few bands you like into Rhapsody and it gives you more you are likely to be interested with. The Hype Machine compiles all sorts of music blogs Mp3’s onto their homepage and has a link to spy on different parts of the country to see what other people are listening to. I don’t even know if it has to be said, but Bush was way ahead of his time.