To add to the mix, another character named Jack who is, like Will, gay. However, Jack is vastly more flamboyant and feminine, while Will acts with a more “masculine” demeanor. Herein lies the pitfall; could the writers manage to create and maintain a show featuring gay characters without stereotyping their behavior in a way that would offend the gay community? The answer was yes. Though Jack may be quite feminine, there is no denying that there are gay men like this, and this is also balanced out by the portrayal of almost the opposite extreme with Will, who I honestly didn’t think was gay before watching the show more. I found it incredibly interesting that the writers would avoid such easy options as making a blanket character for an entire sexuality, but instead included many different kinds of people both straight and gay.

Perhaps I found these facts only because I watched a handful of episodes, so Will & Grace may have strayed from such a solid formula in other episodes, and I do not mean to make any claims about the whole series (as it ran for many, many seasons). Yet, based on those episodes which I did watch, it is my opinion that Will & Grace portrayed a balanced and varied view of the homosexual community, and supports an idea that both straight and gay people can interact (and even live together) in a conflict-free environment and maintain meaningful and healthy friendships. It was very refreshing to see how the character’s sexual orientation melted away into the backdrop as more of an afterthought than some very important piece of information, and instead the viewer was able to focus on these characters as real people and treat them the same, regardless of who they chose to become involved with romantically.

A “copyright” provides a company or person the exclusive right to recreate, license, or use a literary, musical, or other artistic work as seen fit. In today’s world, things like Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Burger King, and Disney all have copyrights on their products, logos, and everything that falls in between. Thanks to the ever-present and widespread product placement and advertising used by companies all over the world, most of what we see and encounter each day is copyright-protected and forbidden for the public to use except in special occasions, called “Fair Use” laws. Though perhaps a small light for those opposed to the copyright laws, the options one has when using a copyright are very limited and constricting.

But even more interesting is the amount of time that a copyright lasts. The duration during which something is copyrighted is however long the original author lives plus 70 more years on top of that. At first glance, such a huge number of years seems very excessive, and one would think that it seriously hinders what the public can contribute by using the products for decades, or even centuries.

However, I personally feel like copyrights are a good thing, especially if I manage to come up with a great idea in the future and want my work to be protected under law. In all honesty, how many of those living in the world today would even want to use those things that are under copyright for anything beyond fair use? I would venture to say that most wouldn’t and thus aren’t effected either way by the length.

Even so, a lifetime is a very long time for something to be protected under law before it descends into the public domain, and for it to continue on lasting 70 years after the creator has died seems unnecessary, especially when those family members left behind still have a lifetime’s-worth of cash to inherit, it just makes those extra 70 years look totally ridiculous. If anything, we should reduce the duration of a copyright from the overkill figure of a lifetime and 70 years to simply while the author still lives. I feel a copyright is something beneficial in the end, but the public domain does deserve to receive those ideas and products after the original creator dies. It would be like your recently deceased grandmother’s dinner table still being in her ‘possession’ 70 years after she has moved on from this world.  There’s no question that it is certainly hers while she lives, but there’s no reason it should stay “hers” after she has passed away.

On Nov. 10th, the New York Times website posted an article entitled “Test Drug Does Well Against Hospital Infection” written by Andrew Pollack. It describes a new drug being tested against a bacterium known as Clostridium difficile, a severe infection of the colon which commonly occurs in hospitals and kills thousands of people each year. The number of deaths has begun to go up substantially due to a new viral strand that has been discovered. The standard treatment widely used by most hospitals has proved to cure the problem at first, but some say it resurfaces later and patients have been returning for hospital care on a frequent basis.

Interestingly enough, we had a lecture the week beforehand which looked at how the media covers breakthroughs and new developments in science and health, and the pitfalls one can encounter when doing so. The major danger a reporter will face when covering such topics is the temptation to sensationalize the information given, and spin the story in a positive light. And why wouldn’t they feel the need to do so? A company attempting to release a new type of drug needs funding in order to continue their research and improve on their work, yet a negative article about a new discovery can often sever funding and potentially shut down an entire study just based on one story.

Therein lies the issue with this brand of reporting. On one hand, it is the duty of a reporter to write truthfully and factually, staying away from storytelling and sensationalizing source information to fit a specific goal. If we can’t trust what the media says to be 100% fact in regards to science or health, can we trust it on the larger scale? On the other hand, if the negative effects of a new test drug were played too highly and funding was pulled from a project, there’s no telling if that new antibiotic could have been the next cure for cancer. It is quite the ethical challenge.

The New York Times article shows no signs of sensationalizing, and sticks very well to the basic facts and information about the test drug. The author does not paint the new tester as some “miracle drug” that is a definite cure, but instead compares it’s statistical performance to that of the common antibiotics currently used to treat Clostridium difficile. On top of this, the sources quoted are all those free of any sort of questionable qualification, and even a background of the company producing the test drug is provided, leaving me with virtually no questions after reading the article. Perhaps it is my cynicism-driven nature, but it was great to see a reporter stick to the facts and provide us with accurate information without the frills and unnecessary hype that one can often find in health stories.

We’ve all seen these branded communities in such forms as the “Taco Bell Dog,” Burger King’s “King” and the “Chicken,” or the “White Gold is White Gold” website for milk. These all offer engaging and silly ways of presenting a product, but the problem is it just doesn’t make me want to buy what they have to offer. Yes, I may giggle at the long-haired and bearded white man thrusting his pelvis around to stereotypical 80′s glamrock, but I still don’t like and won’t be drinking milk today after viewing their site. The major question here being: Is all the money put into these sites really worth it? No, I really don’t think so. Sure, the Geico gecko has a great accent and has always been superior to the cavemen, yet I’m not going to look to which company has the better branded community when choosing my preferred carrier of automobile insurance.

Then again, I can’t simply say that what applies to me will apply to everyone. Herein lies the worth of such marketing tools, “White Gold” will certainly make someone want to drink milk while clicking around their site, and I’m sure the awkwardly creepy Burger King King has caused some people to crave a burger so it’s a very interesting technique. It certainly does provide a large source of entertainment during the periods between the program I’m trying to watch (though on-line t.v. and Tivo have started to make watching commercials in between t.v. obsolete), a branded community will always only work on certain audiences, and the rest will just be able to enjoy the humor of it. All in all, it makes for more interesting television, and I’m thankful we’ve taken this step towards something interesting, but “yo quiero Taco Bell” still doesn’t apply to me.

Violence in video games used to be a topic of great interest for me, as I’ve been playing video games since I was in Elementary school, and thoroughly enjoy the medium. It had always been a debate in the backdrop of the larger gaming world, and many of the popular gaming magazines (Such as Electronic Gaming Monthly, PC Gamer, Play etc) usually featured some form of news in the regard of the latest study involving the effects of this violent content on children. Interestingly enough, our latest assignment was to take a look at types of media that could send out a harmful message to the youth of today, and what better media type to choose than something I enjoy doing very much? The debate and controversy which surrounds that of video games and their alleged effect on children has been one of great importance for many people, and threatens a major industry both financially and creatively. But, there shouldn’t be any room for debate within this topic because the cases used are too flimsily to fully support an argument.

The studies of this medium have been numerous, but the same basic arguments can be found throughout. The basic idea, as written very well in “How Violence and Frustration in Video Games Affect Agression,” states that the difference between television violence and that of gaming is “violence on television occurs regardless of what the viewer does but in video games the players are responsible for the violence that occurs within the game.” This statement is also echoed in “The effects of violent video games on aggression. A meta-analysis.” and “Review of Research on the Impact of Violent Computer Games on Young People.” There is no doubt that this statement about video games is quite true, one does participate in the on-screen carnage rather than simply witness it. In this way it is quite easy to assume that this would lead to real-world actions based on this fictional “training field,” but we’ve yet to see it happen.

One such study, “How Violence…Affect Aggression,” goes so far as to mention the Columbine shooters in the introduction to the study. However, to say that these individuals were able to carry out their horrible acts due to the playing of a video game is truly ridiculous. Yes, they may have listened to “artists” such as Marylin Manson and played a primitive first-person-shooter called Doom, but they were also bullied extensively. Failure to realize that the deciding factor in their violent outburst wasn’t because they listened to some man singing or enjoyed a video game in their free time, but that their extensive harassment at the hands of other students was in fact the real main motivator is depressing. There’s no way that a rational person could argue that real-life physical and emotional trauma at the hands of your peers would come second to a fictional fantasy world created by a game developer for entertainment purposes in the “reason list” of why someone snapped.

Other studies and articles not on EBSCO also discuss other cases, but ultimately, shouldn’t it be the parents call as to whether or not their child is exposed to these games? There’s a rating system applied to every game to ensure that each individual product is clearly designated for the suitable target audience. It’s like taking a child to see Rambo, and then blaming the film when he ties a bandana around his head and pretends to kill hordes of bad guys in the back yard. In the end, it was the parent’s decision, and it is the same case with video games, but some fail to see that fact.

(Note: I have, and many of my friends across the country and the world have been playing these “harmful” violent video games for a long time, and yet we all are against war in general, and advocate peace.)

Reference List

Williams K. High Scores: How Violence and Frustration in Video Games Affect Aggression. Conference Papers — International Communication Association [serial online]. 2006 Annual Meeting 2006:1-37. Available from: Communication & Mass Media Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 30, 2008.

Sherry J. The effects of violent video games on aggression. A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research [serial online]. July 2001;27(3). Available from: Communication & Mass Media Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 30, 2008.

Hibberd M. Review of Research on the Impact of Violent Computer Games on Young People. Conference Papers — International Communication Association [serial online]. 2007 Annual Meeting 2007:1-1. Available from: Communication & Mass Media Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 30, 2008.

Our latest assignment in class was to look at some “alternative” news media sources. Alternative means, in this use, that these news sites are non-profit, independently run media outlets that can sometimes provide a different perspective on things as they happen. For instance, we were asked to look at sources such as Wiretap, Democracy Now!, Free Speech Radio News and the New Internationalist. After browsing these, I found something in Wiretap that I really liked, and couldn’t find in the other options; not just news articles, but information useful to the younger generation.

Now, you may be thinking that, as I’m in college, I need to discard my younger mentality and move towards more “grown up” methods of living, but Wiretap combines big news stories with such things as voting myths but also features blogs from young adults, and useful articles about life in general. A site like the New Internationalist certainly wouldn’t have a section devoted to such taboo things as “Sex and Relationships” or “Racial Justice” but Wiretap does. In this way, I found it very refreshing to see a news outlet that doesn’t shy away from subjects that American people might feel slightly uncomfortable towards.

At the same time, I can see how Wiretap isn’t the one-stop source for all your news needs. The downside to having a target audience is that it may exclude other possible readers by not including straight news stories. Whereas a site like Democracy Now! has an appeal to the older audience as well as those younger people who wish to stay well informed in all matters of the world. Yet this can alienate too, the “bland” writing can turn off many younger readers who then turn to such comedic acts as The Daily Show to milk whatever actual news Comedy Central puts out through those programs.

These alternative media sources are very promising, and help to provide a different way of reporting from the “classic” sources such as CNN, or MSNBC. The accessibility of these sites is the only feasible hindering factor, as I hadn’t even heard of them before our class lecture. It’s a shame that something as fresh and interesting as Wiretap or Democracy Now! won’t reach many readers due to their “alternative” status, but it just might be their saving grace. Who’s to say that these same sites wouldn’t go the mainstream route of CNN or Fox News (Seriously hope not) if given the chance? In any case, more people should seek out these refreshing and interesting media sources to get new spins on old news.

On Oct. 11, the Register Guard featured two articles, one for each republican party-mate. The first was an article about Sen. Sarah Palin‘s abuse of power, and although it doesn’t place the possible Vice President in the nicest of lights, the reporter managed to keep most of the writing based in fact and even went as far as quoting Republican Sen. Gary Stevens, which balanced out an article that could be seen as perhaps a bit anti-Palin, although the basic facts do the job well enough. The second article, focused on Sen. John McCain‘s rallies, sways more in favor of a “press as storyteller” writing style. In this instance, rather than simply report on a McCain rally, the author focused heavily on those audience members who chose to shout out negative things when the Republican presidential candidate mentioned Barack Obama. Regardless of how I’m going to vote (Obama), an article should not play so heavily towards putting down McCain’s conduct during rallies (claiming that he was supporting these shouts rather than correcting them). The author specifically picked facts which cast the candidate and his supporters in a negative light, which is a clear example of storyteller tactics.

Thankfully, as if to counter-balance the rally article on the 11Th, the Register Guard featured another, longer article which made an effort to show that both candidates were conducting themselves with civility. Although it was perhaps a small case of storytelling, the author made sure to make mention of the campaign ads that both parties release, and those supporters who are still sporting biased just to make sure that the article didn’t stray too far into optimism.

All in all, the Register Guard is always a good source when it comes to facts and information about this upcoming election. However,  I was surprised to find articles that were clearly not in the editorial section leaning in favor of one candidate over the other. Do keep in mind that I only looked at 3 day’s worth of news, which considerably narrows the field of information provided, but I suppose now I’ll have to take everything I read with a grain of salt, and remember to pay attention to what roles the media plays in my life.

I’m currently employed as a Photoshop worker for a local skate store called Tactics, where I make sure all the photos of the clothing that go up look nice and are correctly colored. It’s a repetitive job but it pays well, everyone there is very cool, and it’s a really integral part of their online catalogue so it’s quite rewarding. I’m really interested in Film (especially foreign films) and hope to somehow become involved with that industry and fashion a career out of one aspect or another. Music, with a large focus in hip-hop, has also been a major interest of mine since I was very little and also played a major role in my life thus far. On top of those two major interests I also enjoy reading, especially thriller novels, watching sports (especially futbol), and spending time browsing the Internet.

As for blogging, I haven’t done too much. I may have started a couple film review blogs in the past, but quickly dropped those ideas based on the fact that I really have no place reviewing film. Call me a cynic, but I also figured that no one really reads 90% of the blogs in today’s world, so whatever I was writing really just felt like I was sending little pieces of my writing directly into the digital dustbin. I’m hoping that a blog of this type might inspire me to stick with a personal e-space such as a blog later in life, depending on how rewarding I feel the experience is. This particular blog has been started as part of my Mass Media and Society course, and I will be discussing the assigned topics related to Media, Society, or whatever else they throw at us.

Talk to you soon,

Jeff

At the Picos de Europa in 2006