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.