The Weather Channel Virtual Tour

I opened this thinking I'd seen weather rooms and TV news sets before...we tend to have good ones here in tornado-prone Kansas. But I wasn't prepared for this!

The Weather Channel's HD Studio of the Future is truly state of the art, and fascinating in its detail.

Studios are almost always much smaller than the viewer would imagine, and although this is compact, it is designed to allow for eleven different configurations of the reporters' desks. Eleven!! It's also four stories high and wide enough for an HD camera.

My favorite part are the swivel green screens. They are internally lit and have green on one side and wall-coloring on the other and can be used in both the nook-like interview corner and a side room from which broadcasting is done. It's definitely high-tech, and crams a lot of design into a small space.

It's been a long time since I've watched a Weather Channel broadcast, but that may need to change!

New York Times Virtual Tour

Maybe it's because I'm from Kansas, but I've always been fascinated by downtowns and skyscrapers. As a kid, I loved to look up to the top of the Epic Center and imagine looking out the top windows on to the city. Since then, I've stayed in high-rise buildings and always enjoyed leaving the curtains open and waking up with the cities. Something about feeling so small and still while watching the morning bustle felt a little reassuring, and a little voyeuristic (in a good way!)

That said, I'm fascinated with the architecture found in the new New York Times building. Far from isolating the city, it incorporates it. The lobby in particular creates a seamless transition from outdoor to indoor.

From the outside, the windows create sort of a fishbowl that spotlights the activity in the building. It's interesting to see individual people move about under the huge expanse of the tower above.

My very favorite part is the birch garden indoors. I'm a little obsessed with the idea of the outdoors being just steps away from a busy elevator bank and bustling office building. I've always been the type who occasionally liked to step back from an event, hide and observe, and this is the perfect spot.

At night, the effect is like that of a forest, still calming, but radiating an energy.

I've only been to New York City once, but this building is on my list for the next visit!

Like a Rock Star

It's easy to assume that rock stars always live glamourously. That myth is quickly put to rest upon viewing a backstage area or a tour bus. Been there and done that...on the road, they eat the same junk food and drink from the same Solo cups as you and I

During the recording, the making of the albums that earn them the fame and sell the tour tickets, certainly that must be glamourous, right?

Not really. Many studios offer virtual tours. Some are no more glamourous that my community college music building. Others have a wilderness spa-like quality that seems totally incongrous with rock stars. Or is it?

Of the studios I looked at, I was most drawn to Pachyderm, located about half an hour from Minneapolis. Now I'm not really a rocker chick, I'm more of a spa chick (or I will be once this degree begins paying off) and it seems quite serene. The photos show lush, secluded woods, and the studio owns and offers a guest house for artists' use. It's more reminiscent of a lodge than a rock palace.

The studio itself has the same serene, open feel. Large windows give outdoor views and allow natural light to come through and light wood floors and walls give an airy feel to the rooms. You would expect to hear some sort of panpipe music played softly through this space, yet it's a favorite of hard rock groups, most famously Nirvana.

While it doesn't seem very "rock and roll," obviously something about this setting allows the artists to capture some legendary work. Perhaps it's the perception of isolation and the ability to "make all the noise we want", perhaps it's the camp-like feel of the guest house. Whatever it is, it works!

The State of the Media

Media is changing, that much we can be certain of. The website http://stateofthemedia.org/2010/ shows an annual report of all trends media. There is a lot of information, and it takes a lot of time to digest, but the changes that are occurring seem to be the result of two factors: technology and economy.

Duh, right? Fewer newspapers and magazines are being purchased as the news media turns to websites and apps. Who wants to wait until the next morning to read the whole story in the paper when it will be posted online in near real-time? And who wants to sit in front of the TV when video clips are available on your iPhone? It's convenient, but it has resulted in a loss of jobs. Time and Newsweek employ 47% fewer employees than in 1983. Rather than professional journalists, technology allows it to often be disseminated by amateurs, including bystanders with video phones and bloggers. When former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was killed a few weeks ago, news sites around the world used videos shot on the cell phones of his captors to document his last minutes - videos that cast doubt upon the official reports of his death.

The economy has also affected media consumption and spending. Much of this has coincided with technology, such as the decline of newspaper subscriptions. Why buy a paper when the information is free online? Likewise, advertising campaigns by companies have been cut, and declining sales and ad revenue have forced all forms of media to consider their bottom line, consolidate, and in some cases, to fold.

This report contains a wealth of information, but it remains to be seen how this generation's desire for on-demand and inexpensive (if not free!) media drives future trends.

Ethics in Reporting

Poynter's NewsU consists of free online courses and references for students, journalists, and anyone interested in the workings of the media. Upon being directed to the ethics section, which corresponded with a section in class, I found it interesting applying some of the principles to my own experiences both participating in and watching news stories.

Part of ethical reporting involves accuracy and fairness. Sometimes, telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth involves unpleasant details or those that may seem irrelevant to the story.

The Society of Professional Journalists has set forward four guiding principals for ethics in journalism:

- Seek the truth and report it as fully as possible
- Act independently
- Minimize harm
- Be accountable

Of these, I find the "minimize harm" principle to be the most interesting. When does journalism cross the line from informing to exploiting?

Years ago, my family and I were victims of a prairie wildfire, in which we lost outbuildings and beloved, cherished animals. As I was putting out hotspots on that horrible afternoon, a battered old car with out-of-state plates pulled in the driveway and two young women got out with notepads and cameras and claimed to be writing a story. When asked for a statement, I gave them this, "Get off my property." They complied, and quickly...my mom always credits something she calls my "mad Amazon death stare" (and claims is second only to Frank Martin's in the "looks that could kill" category) with an ability to get my point across. I had no intent of being photographed red-eyed, sooty, and distraught; and I had no intent of providing a statement to wrench anyone else's heart. There were enough already broken, and at that moment my privacy was all that was left to guard.

The next morning, while I slept, KAKE TV from Wichita interviewed her and a clip aired on the news that night. I didn't know about it until my best friend called to say her dad had seen it. It was tastefully done, my mom looked good, but it was extraordinarily painful to watch. I knew what had happened, I could see the rubble out the window, but it was only slowly becoming reality, until seeing it on TV drove it home in a minute-long clip. The campus newspaper and TV station sent an email asking to do a story. I didn't want to, and asked my boss (himself a former journalist) what I should do. He told me that if I didn't want to, I could just ignore it, I owed them nothing.

Looking back, I can't fault them. What happened was newsworthy, and everyone adhered to the words of the Guiding Principle: Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. When I told one pair to go away, they went; when I ignored another request I was left alone; and the journalist who interviewed my mom was extremely tasteful.

Years later, the Wichita media was focused on the BTK case. A serial killer, long presumed to be dead, imprisoned, or gone from the area, had reappeared and was sending cryptic messages to the media and police. These missives appeared with regularity. Amid straight reporting were human interest stories about the victims, interviews with surviving friends and family members, and stories about how their children were faring after losing parents. Some were tasteful, some were disgusting. KAKE news, apparently one of the killer's favorites, led the way in the over-the-top emotional stories. At the head of this was Susan Peters (who I find annoying on a good day, the woman makes a story about the level of water in the Arkansas sound like a baby's funeral) who in one spectacularly awful interview brought a victim's son back to the house where his mother was murdered while he was locked in the bathroom. He was obviously emotional, but she kept prompting him for memories and feelings all while clinging to him from behind like a baby baboon. I found this disgusting, and so did many other people who saw it.

I would say this example crossed the line, as the code expands the principle to include "avoid pandering to lurid curiosity". If this didn't qualify, I don't know what would...there was no pressing need to bring him to the house, no question of where it was, and no reason to air this other than to exploit his grief.

Ethics are a tricky point, and while there are guidelines, it is up to each journalist and editor to determine whether stories are suitable for airing, and ultimately to the audience to determine the same.

Teaching Internet Safety

As a child of the 80's, I'm sure my parents are grateful that Internet safety wasn't a concern with my sister and I.  The biggest technological dangers we faced were prank-calling the wrong person (Note: Do not answer the phone pretending to be Pizza Hut when Dad's boss calls) or dropping a plugged-in hairdryer into the bathtub.  I think about my young nephews and am fairly terrified by the idea of them going online.  I believe they'll receive adequate supervision and instruction, but will they know how to identify a potential predator, avoid clicking on an ad that will install a virus or, God forbid, deal with cyber-bullying?

Not being a parent myself, I don't know what the best course of action is for any age group.  Certainly, children want some privacy and deserve increasing amounts as they become older and more responsible.  I certainly wouldn't have wanted my parents reading the notes my friends and I passed in grade school.  Harmless as they seem now, a lecture on why it isn't amusing to torment a substitute (when really, it's hilarious!) was something to avoid. 

Some companies now provide games for children of varying ages.  I tried some of these out and found them to be generally useful: 

AT&T's Safety Land (http://www.att.com/Common/images/safety/game.html) presents an online town with several buildings.  Children click on each building and answer a question, which helps the superhero to defeat the bad guy and offers a certificate to completers at the end.  (Do kids now like certificates any more than Gen X'ers did?)  The questions are good, and props to AT&T for showing some multiculturalism and diversity in the hero character, but overall the game is a bit short and is centered mostly around avoiding predators (primarily sexual, although never explicitly stated).  While the game has some good information, it's brevity might mean retention of the information is low, and it only offers education on one facet of internet safety.

Microsoft and the Canadian province of Alberta teamed up to present Bad Guy Patrol (http://www.badguypatrol.ca/).  This site has selections for 5-7 and 8-10 year olds, but the games for each age are very similar.  Each has 4 parts, each hosted by a different member of the Bad Guy Patrol.  Two include trivia questions, one includes idenfication of emoticons, and a fourth uses animals costumed as another species to reinforce the idea that people are not always who they seem online.  The characters are entertaining (a punk porcupine, highbrow owl, semi-creepy buffalo and talkative ram) and the multiple games present a wider range of safety concepts, but they did tend to drag on.  My attention span somewhat outlasts that of a 5 year old and I found myself asking "when is this going to end?"  I can see kids enjoying this game, despite the certificate!

For a little more retro fun, Quia has an Internet Safety Hangman game (http://www.quia.com/hm/40647.html).  It probably isn't the most well-rounded, but it's some entertainment for the few kids out there who might actually play pen-and-paper games when they're bored.  

My favorite were a collection of games from OnguardOnline.gov (http://onguardonline.gov/media/).  These cater more to older kids, teenagers, and even adults, and cover a much broader range of topics, from bullying and predators to spyware, ID theft, and hacking.  Overall, these had the best graphics and most sophisticated concepts.

Games are, of course, no substitute for parental instruction and monitoring, but I'm sure any parent will agree that sometimes their children will pay more attention to someone other than Mom or Dad.

It Goes Too Far

I've been sightly obsessed with Adele lately, so when "Rolling in the Deep" came on the radio last week, I turned it up and started to sing along (no fear...I was in the car alone!).

"Go ahead and sell me out and I'll lay your sqbzhhk bare..."

"What???"  I thought, probably out loud.  "It says SHIP!  They bleeped SHIP?"  Apparently, the reference to piracy was lost on someone.

My curiosity got the better of me and I emailed the station director:

Rolling in the Deep
"I'm curious as to why this song is censored. The line is actually, 'I'll lay your SHIP bare,' which is a reference to piracy. It's blanked out so it sounds like "I'll lay your sh-- bare.'  Political correctness gone a bit far, no?"

Re: Rolling in the Deep
"Good question.  You'd have to ask Columbia Records.  We play the single version that they released."

Seriously, Columbia?  Did someone actually think it said "sh-t"?  Or did they fear calls from parents?

"Columbia Records"

"Yes, I thought songs containing four-letter words couldn't be played on the radio, but that Adele song says, well, the naughty version of 'shoot'.  And now my daughter's singing along to it!"

"Ma'am, the song actually says 'ship,' 'laying a ship bare' is reference to piracy and pillaging.  Tell your daughter to sing 'ship'.  Have a nice day."

It isn't as if there aren't other, more indecent sounding songs out there?  I mean, am I the only one who never really hears "deuce" in "Blinded By the Light?"

Even if a song did include sh-t, as Eric Cartman would say, what's the big f-cking deal?  Are we really pretending that those words aren't heard by most people on a daily basis?  ("Not my kids!" you say.  Do they go to school, or worse, ride a school bus?  Case closed.)

I remember it being a big deal in the mid-1990s when then-racy TV show NYPD Blue uttered the word sh-t.  Oh, it made headlines.  Never mind the fact that it had shown shootings, homicides, sex, and Dennis Franz's butt (why, oh why, did we get his posterior over Jimmy Smits'?), but sh-t was something to talk about.

Later, in its fifth season, a South Park episode titled "It Hits The Fan" sh-t was uttered 162 times and written 38 times, bringing the total number of sh-ts to 200, or roughly one every eight seconds.  Of course, it caused uproar, but South Park thrives on this.  (For anyone who agrees with Mrs. Broflovski that South Park is just foul language and toilet humor...give it a try, it really is a brilliant, satirical social commentary.)

So we said sh-t a few times on TV, we're still bleeping it out of songs, but why?  Probably because the literal meaning is "feces," and the FCC has declared "any language that pertains to sexual or excretory functions" as indecent speech.  We can't laugh about it or use it as a curse, yet there is no limit to laxative commercials on air.  Wholesome grannies talk about "fiber regularity" as a euphemism for the fact that a healthy person sh-ts once a day and may need some diet adjustments if they don't.  When TV or movie characters hire dog walkers, they're portrayed as taking Fido out for a stroll; never mind that the real goal is taking him outside so he doesn't sh-t in the house and then picking it up in a bag.  Sh-tting is a normal function of a healthy animal of any sort, as regular as sleeping and eating, yet it's so taboo that it can't be referenced on TV.  Very silly, indeed.

Yes, there are more words whose connotations are more overtly sexual and/or violent.  Some cautions need to be put into place so children (and teenagers, and some adults) don't get the idea that it's OK to be obscene and indecent all the time.

Oh sh-t, never mind.  They're watching Jersey Shore.

A media "How Does It Work"

Have you ever wondered why the TV meteorologist doesn't always gesture at quite the right area during his broadcast?  Actually, it's more remarkable that he gets close at all: there is no map behind him, just a blank colored screen.

Chroma key, also called green screen or blue screen, is a technology used to layer two images together, in this case, a human and a background.  Besides weather reports, this techonology is used in special effects for TV and movies.  Backgrounds can be changed, and people can even be dressed in blue or green suits and be rendered invisible.  But how does it work?

The subject, usually a human, is filmed against a solid blue or green background.  These colors were chosen because they are considered to be the furthest away from human skin tones.  Color cameras read and output different proprotions of three different colors of light: red, green and blue (RGB).  Do you remember, as a kid, getting verrrry close to the TV screen and realizing it was made up of tiny rectangles with red, green and blue?  (No?  Maybe that was just me.)  Try it - turn on your TV and go to a channel that doesn't receive and gives you a blue screen.  Get closer and you'll see that it isn't blue, but rather, tiny, tiny blue rectangles amid black.  Now, turn the TV to an actual picture.  You'll see the tiny red, green and blue bars.  RGB.

The blue or green background can be filtered out during filming, as in a live weather broadcast; or during postproduction in a movie.  This was originally done by camera settings, but is now done by computer software.  Chromakey software is set to detect and erase a certain color, in this case blue or green.  Blue was initially favored as it is farther from human skin tone on the color spectrum, but it posed difficulties with blue clothing and even blue eyes.  Bright green is now the color of choice.

Once the color background has been removed, it can be replaced with anything: a weather map, the background of a tornado, or in the case of a movie, our hero hanging off a cliff!

This charismatic kid explains how green screen can be used. Make sure to click on some of his other movies...he gets a bit of an attitude if you don't!

The Great Train Robbery

For most of entertainment history, the only way audiences could see a story brought to life was on the stage. Plays were written to deal with some of the difficulties of such productions; namely the time and break in continuity necessary to change a setting. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, innovative directors saw the possibilities for more fluid, realistic action and storytelling and played on audiences' imaginations in an entirely different way: motion pictures.

In 1903, moving pictures were in their infancy. One of the early "movies" which solidified this new form of entertainment was Edwin S. Porter's The Great Train Robbery, an 11 minute silent Western portraying bandits robbing a rail car only to be chased down and killed by a sheriff's posse. At the first viewing, this film seems rather amateurish to modern audiences. The movements are jerky and exaggerated, the camera is stationary, and it hardly seems groundbreaking. But it was.  Among other techniques, The Great Train Robbery was the first to pioneer a visual trick we take for granted: cross-cutting, which alternates between scenes to depict action taking place in two locations simultaneously. 

To understand the significance of this movie, one has to remember that audiences who saw this had never before seen anything moving on a screen (except, perhaps, hand shadow puppets!).  Stories were depicted in one of three ways: the written word, stationary pictures or artistic renderings, and onstage by live actors.  People who watched this film had likely never before seen any motion that was not done by real people in real time.  I can understand this to an extent; I cannot internalize it.

The film begins in a railroad telegraph office, where two bandits break in and order the operator to stop the train and give the engineer some orders.  After the train starts again, the operator is knocked unconscious and tied up.  The train continues on to the water tank where it stops to take on water, and as it starts up four bandits board it unnoticed.  (Throughout the movie, a rather incongrous soundtrack plays.  It sounds more like the track for a bear cub chasing butterflies through a meadow than a heist movie, and upon further research, I learned the movie originally had no backing music.)

They head for the express car.  Hearing them coming, the messenger locks a trunk, throws a key out the open door, and hides in order to defend himself.  It is useless, as he is shot, a death that seems almost funny to modern audiences as he stretches his arms upward and twirls halfway around before (carefully) falling lifeless.   Not finding the key on his body, the robbers blow up the trunk.  Through this scene, the camera is stationary but movement is perceived, not only by changing scenery through the train door, but the rocking of the car.

The next shot is probably the most thrilling and brutal.  In a fight atop a moving car, the bandits grab and beat a man, continue to pummel him long after he stops resisting, and throw his body from the train car.  It is obvious to us that the flying object is a dummy, but it is still strikingly callous.  The bandits then stop the train and rob the passengers.  One attempts to escape and is shot, perishing in the same melodramatic style as the messenger.  The robbers re-board the now-uncoupled locomotive and order the engineer to take them farther up the track, then stop the engine and escape into the woods where they mount their horses (the original getaway car!) and ride away.

Meanwhile, the telegraph operator comes to and manages to tap out a message with his chin before collapsing again.  A little girl enters and attempts to revive him, cutting his bonds, shaking him and eventually throwing a glass of water in his face.  Hers is the best acting in the film, even in this short scene her timing and talent are obvious.   The freed operator then runs to a dance hall where he summons the sheriff who mounts a posse to chase down the robbers.  The film ends with another gun battle, in which all four bandits are killed and the loot is reclaimed by the law.

Thrilling and wondrous as this must have been to viewers, the final shot prompted the most startled reaction: one of the bandits appears, looks in the camera, aims his gun and fires repeatedly.  Audiences reportedly believed they were about to be shot and took cover or fled.  Some apparently drew guns and fired back at the screen.

It's easy for us to laugh at their naivete, but difficult to imagine that they had never seen anything like this.  The human imagination is powerful and fills in gaps in our sensory experiences.  I remember watching my first IMAX movie at the Cosmosphere and an announcer telling us that should we become dizzy or nauseous, to close our eyes.  Indeed, I got a little queasy as I "rode" in a helicopter above the Great Barrier Reef, but the instant my eyelids dropped, it all went away.  I'm sure someday 3D films will become the norm, and future audiences will be amused at our tendency to duck from objects flying our way.

How do you get your movies?

I love movies, but I don't watch them very often.  I spend several hours a day inert at work and have a hard time slowing myself down afterward.  Despite this fact, I am very aware of movies and have a somewhat Rain Man*-like ability to recite plots and casts for movies I haven't seen, something my family likes to take advantage of.  An actual conversation that occurred when my dad was channel surfing:

Dad:  "Hey, what's this movie on here?"

Me: "Umm, it looks like Se7en.  Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are detectives looking for a serial killer who kills according to the seven deadly sins, Gwyneth Paltrow is in it, too. Kind of noir-ish."

Dad:  "Is it any good?"

Me:  "Don't know, I haven't seen it.  The ending is pretty gory, though."

*Note:  I have only seen about 15 minutes of Rain Man

I'd really like to see more movies, there are a LOT I want to catch up on, but it usually has to be someone else's idea.  I've never tried Redbox, but am somewhat put off by the limited number of movies available.  They all seem to be new-ish releases and a lot of movies over the past few years haven't appealed to me.  I don't like sappy movies (The Notebook, gag!), remakes of remakes, films based on TV series that have already been beaten to death (Sex and the City II, I'm talking about you), movies with kid heroes, predictable rom-coms, or stuff that just sounds stupid. 

I though old-school video stores were fun, especially to visit with someone else to try to choose something everyone would like.  My tastes don't always run towards the newly-released.  I like movies that are suspenseful (Coen Brothers), introspective (Lost in Translation, Vicky Cristina Barcelona), Old Hollywood (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock; Jean Harlow and Marilyn Monroe), and, somewhat incongruously, social commentary presented in middle-school humor (South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut and Borat).  I might also add that I'll happily sit through anything from the "dislike" list should it feature George Clooney or Javier Bardem.  Video stores' return dates also forced me to sit down and watch the movie, which I needed.  I no longer have one in my town.

Not liking either of the available choices, I recently signed up for Netflix.  The ads sounded great, streaming movies on demand!  But almost everything I wanted to watch was available only by mail.  And now, with the new incarnation of Netflix I would've had to sign up for another, different service in order to get them by mail.  No, thank you.  I'm keeping the streaming version, but only because I've found a few TV shows I like.

So I suppose I'll stick to another old-school method of receiving movies: having them handed to me by friends who are movie buffs.  I trust their tastes, and the inevitable "what did you think?" conversation ensures I'll actually watch!

Entertainment: 40's Style

Before TV, our grandparents listened to radio shows.  Much like TV, they were on a regular schedule and the family gathered around to listen.  Were they any good?  Was it still as entertaining with nothing to watch?

Being employed in a research position, I decided to set up the most credible experiment I could and compare a radio show to a similar TV show.  I've long been a fan of I Love Lucy, which ran from 1951-1957 and was the first scripted TV show to be filmed live in front of a studio audience. 

If you've never watched it, it's still funny today.  I can imagine it irritating some hard-core feminists, like the EPAW crowd, but it's also easy to love for what it is: an extremely well written show with excellent comedic timing and storylines that are appropriate to its time period (along with some beautiful, ladylike 1950's fashion).  It's still a model sitcom, with TV Guide voting it second to Seinfeld in their list of greatest television shows, a ranking which may or may not stand the test of time.

What many don't realize is that I Love Lucy was loosely based on a radio show, "My Favorite Husband".  In it, Lucille Ball played Liz Cooper, a melodramatic and accident-prone housewife.  When the decision was made to create a TV show Ball insisted on working with her real-life husband, Desi Arnaz, so a character was created for him: Cuban bandleader Ricky Ricardo.  The cast was rounded out with William Frawley and Kansan Vivian Vance playing Fred and Ethel Mertz, neighbors and landlords of Lucy and Ricky.  Ball's character, despite the name change, was largely the same.

I listened to a few episodes of My Favorite Husband, and found it very similar to I Love Lucy in characterization.  Liz was similarly loveable yet harebrained and sounded just like Lucy (including Lucy's notorious "waaaah" cry), while her husband was much like Ricky: often exasperated with her antics but unfailingly forgiving.   The storylines, writing and soundtrack were all very recognizable.  And, it was funny!

Entertaining as it was, it's clear why "My Favorite Husband" slipped into the background and Ball became a sensation on TV: she was a very gifted physical comedienne.  No scripting could take advantage of her facial expressions or disguises and some of her most famous scenes could never have happened on the radio. 

Below is a clip of an episode in which the group is on a trip to Hollywood so Ricky can film a part in a movie.  Lucy has bragged to frenemy and fellow New Yorker Carolyn Appleby about all the stars she's met - but doesn't expect that Carolyn will show up asking for an introduction!  Trying to save face, Lucy and Ethel scheme to steal severely myopic Carolyn's glasses.  Ethel entertains her while Lucy goes in and out dressed up as various actors, each with a different excuse about why they can't stay or can't speak.  The last was Harpo Marx, only Lucy didn't know that Ricky had just met the real Harpo and sent him up to their suite say hi:

While radio didn't take full advantage of some stars' talent, it did have its own advantages: the ability to multitask.  I work and attend school full-time, so I often have to get creative to balance my time.  With TV I'm forced to choose: watch TV or do anything else.  Studying has taken precedence over TV, but it would be nice to be able to keep up with my favorite episodes while doing laundry, washing dishes, etc.  (Yes, I know I could put a TV in the kitchen.  No, I'm not going to.)  For that we have the modern descendants of radio shows: audiobooks, podcasts, etc.  They may not be serial episodes, and thankfully they're without hokey laugh tracks, but their popularity shows that our desire just to listen and our ability to fill in the pictures with our imaginations is no different from that of our grandparents.

Napster vs. iTunes

Electronically delivered music is something I'm adjusting to.  As a self-labeled music snob I'm still mourning the downfall of the album. 

Music in an electronic form is something I tolerate only because I don't (yet) have a surround sound system hooked up to a turntable.  (My uncle does, and the best Christmas present I received last year was curling up with a glass of good wine after the rest of the family had gone and listening to The Rolling Stones Let it Bleed album on vinyl.  From the beginning riff of Gimme Shelter to the fadeout of You Can't Always Get What You Want, I had chills.)  An electronic track goes in your ears, but the sound is canned, perfected, too bright.  Vinyl picks you up and hurls you back through time, taking you with it to the studio or onstage.  You feel the energy, the rhythm thumps in your chest until you can't tell the music from your heartbeat.  But I digress.

Despite my Luddite tendencies, I've reluctantly come over to electronic music to pick up some tracks because it's easier.  I have a song in my head, and two minutes later it's on my computer or iPhone.  I use iTunes, and have since before procuring the phone, and am likely to stay with them.

I'm old enough to remember Napster in its original incarnation, when it was free file-sharing, and resented it then.  "How can you dislike something free?," you ask.  At the time, and still, some of my favorite artists were not insanely wealthy rock stars but new-ish, struggling bands whose members didn't live luxuriously and who owed their labels plenty in recoupable debt.  One hit does not always bring a windfall.  One of my favorite bands, Semisonic, is somewhat known for their ubiquitous 1998 hit, "Closing Time," but it didn't make them rich.  Drummer Jacob Slichter wrote an eye-opening book, So You Wanna Be a Rock & Roll Star about their years before and after Closing Time.  It isn't all fortune and partying.  I didn't really mind Napster happening to bands like Green Day and Matchbox Twenty, it didn't hurt them, but I felt some righteous anger at what amounted to theft from nearly-starving artists.

I could be accused of holding a grudge, but today's Napster isn't much better for me.  I like to download music and listen to it on several devices: my work computer, my laptop, my iPhone, and even burned on CDs to listen to in the car.  (Yes, I still do this.)  Paying a subscription fee, when I'll sometimes go weeks without downloading, and only being able to listen on a computer with its heinous sound quality aren't features that appeal to me.

iTunes does charge per track, but it's mine.  All mine, to use how I like.  iTunes also rips the rare CD I buy from my favorite artists, adds them to the queue and allows me to transfer the entire album or just a track or two.  I get mine, my favorite bands you've never heard of get theirs.  And that's as good as it gets, without being on vinyl!

The fate of newspapers

Around the country, newspapers are struggling.  As online media continues to grow, print media shrinks  Many small-town newspapers are publishing fewer issues a week, consolidating with nearby towns, or closing altogether.  Big city newspapers aren't immune as they too see subscriptions fall.  As subscriptions go, so goes advertising.  As income goes, so go jobs.

The newspaper industry is looking at solutions.  Many papers have an online counterpart, and a few charge a subscription fee or a fee per story.  Some of these have also added apps for smartphones and tablets.  Some are even looking at big-screen e-readers, larger than a Kindle, thinner, and more durable.  But will consumers pay for these? 

I do keep up on the local news, but I do so almost exclusively online.  The Wichita Eagle posts most of their main headlines on their site, http://www.kansas.com/, and has a free iPhone app which I check daily.  As much as the paper itself, particularly the Sunday edition, has been a major source of information for me for most of my life, I have to admit that my draw to the print version is mostly nostalgic. 

In 2001 I moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas to attend the University of Arkansas.  I enrolled in a 100 level mass communications class (which, obviously, K-State did not find sufficient) and one of our class requirements was to subscribe to Time Magazine and to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.  I enjoyed Time, there were some great issues and some I still have somewhere, such as the 9-11 commemorative issue and one that featured the life and death of George Harrison.  The paper, however, was a nuisance.

One morning, soon after subscribing, I woke at 4:30 AM to SMACK! on the door of my apartment.  As a single girl living on my own for the first time, I was halfway to the knife drawer before I realized what the sound was.  It continued every morning for six months and I was never able to sleep through it.  I hated dragging them inside when they were wet or dirty, and they piled up quickly.  Fayetteville didn't have much in the way of recycling options at the time, so I was forced to throw stacks of them in the dumpster. 

Newspapers are a bit inconvenient.  They're large, they require a lot of folding and unfolding, I get ink on my hands.  And then they sit, until I either cart them off or use them to wash windows (so much better than paper towels - try it!). 

I prefer to read the Eagle online, but I know that the paper has to make money.  This means that the more the print subscriptions fall, either the paper will have to charge for online subscriptions or the ads will become more and more intrusive.  Neither sounds like a great option to me, and it likely won't to other readers either.  We've been spoiled to free news and easily ignorable ads for too long.  It's hard to say which I would prefer.  I don't want to pay, but I also don't want to have to watch an ad video every time I check the page.

Ultimately, the fate of newspapers will be up to the consumers.  Will they continue to buy hard copies?  Probably not.  Will they buy another device just for the purpose of reading newspapers?  It's questionable.  The choice is likely between paying for content or dealing with advertising.  Collectively, we'll decide the lesser of two evils.

The hypocrisy of "banning" books

Stories of books banned, especially in schools, are nothing new.  Parents have long requested that books be removed for language and obscenities, violence, sexuality and a host of other content deemed unsuitable for children.  Surprisingly, many of these books are considered classics, including "James and the Giant Peach" by Roald Dahl (obscenity/violence) and Shel Silverstein's "A Light in the Attic" (disrespect/horror/violence).

Anything involving sexuality has been hotly contested of late.  Is it any wonder?  For the past few election cycles, candidates' platforms have addressed gay marriage and sex ed.  Opposition to gay marriage and support for abstinence-only education is usually, if not always, a stance based on a candidate's religious beliefs and those of his or her intended constituents.  As these have become more important social issues, it's only natural that we find a way to explain them to our youngest members.   Hence books, such as "Daddy's Roommate," and "Heather Has Two Mommies," which are often met with outrage and demand for withdrawal when they appear in libraries. 

One of the newest targets?  The Merriam-Webster dictionary.  Its offense is the inclusion of a clinical definition for "oral sex."  "We don't want our children seeing this," they say, or, "We want to teach these things at home." 

Often, the same people who challenge these books keep a book (usually more than one) in their homes which they use to tell their children stories of disobedience, rape, incest, homosexuality, heterosexuality, war, adultery, racism and the death of children, not to mention many, many horrifically violent murders.  Children sing songs about genocide (death by drowning for most of the world's population), murders attempted in various ways (burning the victims alive, throwing them to lions) and satanic forces.  They do this all in places decorated with artistic renderings of a torture victim.

Who are these people?  Christians of all denominations. 

Before I go any further, I'll make a couple of disclaimers:  I know that not every parent who challenges a book or asks for its removal does so for religious reasons.  However, it is a very popular rationale, particularly for content involving sexuality.  Second, I mean this in no way to disparage Christianity or the Bible; I am a Christian, but I also believe in using common sense.

What this comes down to is that children are either able to process these topics or they aren't.  Clearly, Christians believe their children are able to handle the following, as they are classic Sunday School stories:

Genocide: Noah's Ark (Genesis chapters 6-9)
Ethnic cleansing: Pharaoh's oppression of Israel (Exodus chapter 1)
Murder:  Cain and Abel (Genesis chapter 4)
Attempted murder: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace (Daniel chapter 3), Daniel in the lion's den (Daniel chapter 6)
Nudity, lust, adultery, murder and the death of a child: David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel chapter 11)
Torture and murder: Jesus' crucifixion (Matthew chapter 27, Mark chapter 15, Luke chapter 23, John chapter 19)

Children's Bibles or Bible story books often present drawings of such (these are taken from my own childhood Bible story book):

Read N Grow Picture Bible. Fort Worth, TX: Sweet, 1984. 134. Print

These stories are perfectly acceptable, they say, because they are true, it's the Bible, they teach the consequences of sin and/or they are being taught at home.  All fine points.

However, violence and sexuality also happen in real life and in non-religious books.  Can't parents also use these to teach consequences or to reinforce values?

The Bible certainly doesn't hide that homosexuality exists, and any curious child can easily stumble upon the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis chapter 19).  Is it any worse to bring home a fictional book about a child who has two daddies or two mommies (and in which no one offers their children up to sex-starved crowd)?  I say no, it isn't. 

A common-sense approach to finding a library book dealing with these topics in a child's backpack would be to read it together and discuss it.  Parents can share with their children their views on homosexuality and gay marriage and teach that it isn't OK to ostracize or make fun of classmates for the makeup of their family.  It also reinforces that home is the place to ask about confusing or uncomfortable topics.  The same goes for depictions of heterosexuality.  The Song of Solomon is all about the sexual relationship between a husband and wife.  While it contains no graphic depictions of sexual acts, it is far more lustful and passionate than a very unsexy dictionary definition.

So let's use some common sense.  Children are able to understand a variety of "adult" topics if presented to them in an age-appropriate way and discussed with a parent.  Besides, most children who first hear of "oral sex" by reading the dictionary will likely need to look up the words "oral," "stimulation," and "genitals" to fully comprehend the act.  In children this young, comprehension is likely to be followed by, "EWWWWWWW!"

Some wisdom is timeless...

In 1732 Benjamin Franklin began publishing the annual Poor Richard's Almanack.  Like many other almanacks (yes, this was the correct spelling!) Poor Richard's offered weather predictions, a calendar, astrological and astronomical information, poems, household tips and such which colonial Americans relied on.  However, it is best remembered for Franklin's proverbs and words of wisdom, some of which remain today.  Ever heard a saying beginning, "early to bed, early to rise"? 

Some of Franklin's sayings in Poor Richard's Almanack are outdated or don't translate to modern humor.  Some are still funny ("He that lives upon Hope, dies farting").  Some are sexist to today's culture ("Let thy maidservant be faithful, strong and homely").  Some are sexist and funny ("You cannot pluck roses without fear of thorns, Nor enjoy a fair wife without danger of horns").

But many are timeless, and while perhaps simplistic to us, definitely worth considering.  A favorite of mine:

He that would live in peace & at ease, Must not speak all he knows, nor judge all he sees.

I didn't read another passage that I thought spoke so clearly to modern media or culture.  Thanks to our ease of communication, including texting, Facebook statuses, Twitter, message boards and yes, blogging, we're given endless outlets to speak all we know.  And enjoy it.  While this can be fun and provoke a lively discussion or debate, we all know someone who gets a little too intense or wound up, or is just a know-it-all.  And if we're honest, some days we're that person.  It can be frustrating to see someone giving out bad information or poor advice, but is it worth getting worked up about if it isn't harmful?  (Dear best friend's ex-boyfriend: I know you know everything, but trust me: drinking beer while taking Lortab IS dangerous.) 

As long as it isn't hurting anyone, oftentimes it's best to present one's case and then walk away with a cool head.  And hey, it's also an easier walk with a bit of smug satisfaction at not having to worry about being the one to be caught giving misinformation!

I believe speaking all one knows also implies discretion and maintaining privacy.  It seems that the proliferation of me-centric media has led most everyone to believe they're starring in their own reality show, but is it really wise to publicize everything we do?  There have been numerous instances of people losing out on job opportunities due to less-than-flattering photos gleefully and publicly posted after nights out.  Even though you might find a photo of yourself doing a keg stand hilarious, chances are your prospective boss won't.  A lot of Gen Y-ers (or Millenials, whichever you prefer) seem to believe, and have been raised to believe, that self-expression of all forms and for all reasons is necessary and to be celebrated.  (You can identify them at a very young age: they are screaming on an airplane and their parents think they're within their rights to express their displeasure this way, with very little regard for the displeasure of other passengers and their throbbing eardrums.)   These are the people who tend to carry out every little drama and irritation in public, and while this might garner attention, is it a good kind?

We're also given plenty of opportunities to pass judgement, but here also, sometimes it's worth it to our sanity to live and let live.  Reality TV invites and encourages judgement, celebrating and publicizing the latest antics or misfortunes of the self-destructive and famewhoring.  These give us an outlet to gossip and sometimes scorn, but does it really improve our day to insult someone who calls himself "The Situation"?  Does the latest inquest into whether or not an actress has had a nose job have any bearing on our lives? 

Politics is always a hotbed for judgement and passionate opinions.  Citizens have a duty to be informed and involved voters and seek out knowledge to form their own views.  Unfortunately, straight reporting and unbiased publications can be hard to find.  I question the usefulness of partisan political talk shows who bring on guests with different viewpoints seemingly for no other reason than to interrupt and shout at them.  Do shows like these really educate us, or do they just inflame our emotions?

A discussion on judgement wouldn't be complete without including Facebook.  We pass judgement on our "friends" without even thinking about it.  Remember these people who post everything?  We tend to think badly of them.  "Does so-and-so REALLY have to post their dinner  menu every night?"  "I get really tired of seeing so-and-so bash his ex!", etc.  Some of these people are simply immature and bordering on narcissistic.  Others do so for different reasons; some are desperate for interaction and friendship, some are hurting and don't know another outlet for their pain.  Rather than growing frustrated with them or trying to correct them, there's an easy option: Hide.

It might seems as though Franklin's wisdom was almost prophetic, but I believe it was a wise man living much earlier than Franklin who said it all:  "There is nothing new under the sun."  (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

"Hi! We're Facebook friends!"

For a long time, researchers and individuals have pondered whether or not the internet and other media have helped or hurt social interaction.  Have email, Facebook and text messages distanced us from each other, or have they brought us closer together? 

My lifestyle and experience has led me to a firm conclusion: it depends.

Everyone has friends and a social circle around their local area.  Almost everyone has a good friend or a few who lives a few hours or even states away, and media makes it easier to stay in touch. 

My life is a little different.  I live and work full-time in the Wichita area but travel at least half the weekends of the year, all over the country, for a hobby.  Because of this, my social circle is geographically large, my good friends are far-flung, and I don't get to spend as much time as I like face to face with my local friends.  Sometimes I spend more time in a month or year with "hobby" friends who live on the coasts than I do with "normal" friends who live in my hometown.

Facebook has made a revolutionary impact on my hobby group.  I have close to 1300 friends, and while this probably makes me seem like a promiscuous friender, probably 3/4 of them are involved in the hobby.  I have met most of them in person, and the others are friends of friends. 

It's becoming common within the hobby to "friend" someone you said hi with, then get to know the person online.  When we are at an event, talk often turns to Facebook.  Pictures someone posted, a trip another wrote about, etc.  "Hi, I'm ___________________, we're Facebook friends!" is a common refrain heard several times a day.  It has, for us, been a networking tool.  I've even geared my Facebook page to fostering this and getting people to talk.  I often post a Question of the Day, which starts a lot of discussion and is very popular among the group! 

Talking to and meeting people in person isn't too difficult.  Since there is a common interest there is always something to start a conversation about. But even with these commonalities there are some obvious lifestyle and personality differences that can be intimidating for some.

For example, this spring I noticed a woman, M., who came to an event I was participating in just to help out.  I was impressed by her willingness to help and wanted to thank her, but didn't have time.  At least that's my excuse; the reality is that I didn't know quite what she'd think of me.  M. is heavily tattooed and pierced, with short, dyed black hair.  She favors baggy pants and has a wallet chain.  I'm a girly girl who doesn't leave the hotel room without my makeup done, my hair done, and often in heels.  A good friend had worked with M. and found her to be a cool person, so I decided to "friend" her on Facebook.  We ended up commenting on each others' pages and finding out we had some very unique things in common: we both eat M&Ms and Skittles in a color order, and we would both be sea otters if given the choice.  (This, thanks to "Questions of the Day.")  I'm now looking forward to the next time I see M., getting to know her in person and seeing her sea otter tattoo (well...depending on where it's at!).  The ice has been broken and a friendship has begun.

But for local friendships, electronic social interaction, as opposed to face to face meetings, can have a detrimental effect.  My best friend from high school lives only 2 1/2 hours away.  Due to both of us having hobbies and interests that take up our weekends, we haven't managed to talk much for the past several months except by email and text.  I recently attended her wedding shower and felt unexpectedly sad at not having spent time with her for so long.

I think most of us will find that while the internet and social media can bridge some gaps, it can foster others.  It lets us stay in touch when we can't meet in person, but we must be careful not to let it become a substitute for face time!

Do we still need storytellers?

For its 30th anniversary, CBS Sunday Morning invited its original media critic, Jeff Greenfield, to speak about how convergence has affected the media.  He began his segment by noting that he'd been invited back at the 25th anniversary to reflect on how the media landscape had changed since he began, and remarked that in the past five years (from the 25th to 30th anniversaries, or from 2004 - 2009)  "can't even be captured by the word change."

It is, Greenfield said, "as if the most fundamental laws of the media universe have been utterly overthrown."  He discussed the changes in media, which are almost difficult to remember. We once had different forms for different types of media (print, TV, radio, recorded music, movies, etc.).  We as consumers took this media how and when it was delivered to us.  In just a few short years we have the ability to consume only the media we want, no matter the format in which it was originally published, on a computer or smartphone.  We can share it instantly using email, text, YouTube, or Facebook.  (The clip, recorded in 2009, also listed the then-ubiquitous, now severely uncool Myspace.)

Despite the changes, Greenfield states that some things should remain, that media users should still have, "a love for storytelling, a love of clear, vivid language, and a respect for history." 

This thought struck me at first as somewhat quaint: 

Storytelling, in a Twitter world?  (140 characters or less!) 

Clear, vivid language in a society where text-speak is slowly encroaching into our everyday lexicon?  ("OMG, my BFF's LBD is totes adorbs!!!!") 

A respect for history, when traditional age college students don't remember a world without the Internet?  (Just Google it!)

However, as I think more about this, I agree.  We can capture the headlines and the updates, but does news become reality to us without the storytelling, without the vivid language and a context in history?  I think we're programmed to need these things in order to internalize news and information.

Ten years ago, cell phones were in their infancy, texting was just beginning, and while the Internet was a fairly rapid-fire source of news, we still tuned into the TV stations and watched.  Watched, in horror and disbelief, as the two towers of the World Trade Center fell.  We bought newspapers and magazines and read the articles and accompanying photographs as we tried to understand, tried to wrap our heads around the enormity of the destruction and what it meant for the country and the world. 

As we mark the ten year anniversary of the terrorist attacks our reactions have faded.  The facts of that day are something that everyone knows and can recite with some form of detachment.  But as the retrospectives come on, we hear survivors and loved ones of those who didn't survive tell their stories.  We see photos and read firsthand accounts of what the scenes were like, how people were and still are physically and emotionally scarred from that day.  We're reminded of how the politics of the world changed; of the fear, fury and demand for justice that drove a war.  We're drawn in, moved in a visceral way, reminded that this day was part of our own personal history. 


I imagine many of our grandparents would feel the same way viewing this.  Although Cronkite's words were straight reporting, his emotion was rare and unmistakable:

 


Our parents, (and some of us nontraditional students), will never forget the day President Reagan delivered this eloquently simple speech about seven astronauts who "slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."

I believe something in our psyches needs this storytelling, this language, and this connection to our past to make these things real and not just another sensation.  The words of our storytellers bring a humanity to events that are nearly unfathomable, prompting us to shock, grief and healing.

The first step is admitting you have a problem

My name is Briony, and I'm a media junkie.

Most of my waking hours are spent connected to one form of technology or another.  I wake up to the alarm on my iPhone, and as I'm coming to, check my email.  Somewhere between bed and the bathroom my morning app routine starts.  As I brush my teeth, I open one of my favorite Hollywood gossip apps (no judgement!), then check the Wichita Eagle for the morning news.  On my way back to the bedroom post-shower I check the Accuweather forecast so I can choose something resembling a seasonal ensemble.  I tell myself this is the modern-day equivalent to reading the morning newspaper before work.

I work an office job, so I'm in front of the computer all day.  As I eat breakfast at my desk I check my work and personal email, and then cruise over to Facebook to peruse the latest in posts and status updates.  My friends have come to expect my morning updates, which are usually themes: Question of the Day, Mispronounced Word of the Day, etc.  Throughout, my iPhone sits next to me, sometimes buzzing with texts and always alerting me to my replies.  I tell myself this is my virtual water cooler.

From 8-5 I'm tied to my work email and on breaks or while I'm on hold (or, when just plain goofing off...you do it too!) check some favorite websites.  News sites, Facebook, fashion blogs, Facebook, stores I like and Facebook.  I don't like to check my bank balance on my work computer to see if I have enough "fun money" for something I want, but I have an app for that!  I tell myself this saves much time and gas.

I do attempt to disconnect after coming home.  Some days are more successful than others.  The iPhone usually stays in my bag in the bedroom while I let the dogs out and spend time outside with other animals.  The insulation in the barn doesn't allow me to receive texts or most calls, which I enjoy.  There are, however, people who make me feel guilty about this, particularly my grandma.  Grandma believes that anyone who owns a cell phone has it permanently attached to their hip and worries if I don't answer.  When I call her back, I also hear again that I need to set up my voicemail.  Failing to have voicemail on my iPhone is my favorite act of techno-rebellion.  I know most people who call me and despise voicemails that consist of either, "Hi, this is ____________, call me back!" or a long, drawn-out story that I'd rather hear in real time.  I tell myself that this time is what keeps me from being too tied down to technology.

I've just started a full-time, online bachelor's degree program, so my evenings are usually spent working on my laptop.  I listen to lectures, respond to message board questions, research for assignments, type papers, and compose blog posts.  Compared to this activity, time spent reading textbooks seems rather serene and quaint.  Through this all, I'll usually have a text conversation running.  I tell myself that texting allows me to multitask, and that if I were to do it old-school and actually talk on the phone, I would have to choose between maintaining friendships and schoolwork.

When I total up and consider the time I spend on media daily, it's a bit surprising and quite conflicting for me.  I don't like being expected to always be "there," but I do like always having technology and media there for me.  I'm proud of the fact that I don't play online games or own a video game system.  I use Facebook only to socialize with people I know, as I have no interest in having contact with someone I don't know in real life or need to interact with for work or school.  I resisted owning a smartphone until my travel schedule finally made it too inconvenient for me not to have one.  Now, it is a large part of my day.  The ability to multitask saves me a lot of time that I can use to work harder, study harder, or play harder.  At least, I tell myself this.