I think the responsibilities and the actions of WikiLeaks are completely justifiable and are in service to the good of the general public. The fact that they face scrutiny from the federal security division (which has embezzled illegal currency, funneled arms to terrorist groups, and supplied groups like the cartel with drugs) is to me already a reason to trust them. Such a task could be deemed irresponsible if the WikiLeaks ever became invoked in Political discourse and started to cater to the Elite, but they haven't. They are people who have stuck to their guns and have risked their livelihoods just to get the real story across. Now I feel this way because corruption exists in all forms within not only the Government, but also through lines in the media. Corroborating false stories, favoring one Political monster over another, endorsing horrible candidates. Honestly as bad as many feel WikiLeaks is the only question I have is would you trust the other media circuses to have your back?
The video example given during the TED talk of unarmed Iraqi citizens getting fired upon with no provocation was a good example of how America carries itself out and demonstrates its power and aggression. The Iraq War was a cluster of violence and fatigue and the US did not even try to minimize its destabilization of the country while they occupied it and this video, along with many other videos that have surfaced, just shows how unwilling we are to abide by the rules we create and demand that others follow.
Free Speech and free expression are very broad topics of discussion for me. I think the state of both haven't really changed overtime as many have come to think. Our 'social liberties' have always been encroached upon. Politicians and authority figures like to dangle it in our face that we're 'free' and always bring the constitution and the liberties we are afforded but they often twist them to correlate with their actions, and resolve their guilty actions. Public schools teach impressionable kids to subscribe to their ideas instead of building them up to find out for themselves. While the freedom of our expressions may seem vast we've grown up in such a way that our minds think these sensibilities are nullified while the elite slowly strip us of our autonomy and our own thoughts.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Topic 2: Television Show/Streaming Video Series
The show that I have chosen for this Topic is a show called House of Cards. I watched the very first episode of the first season on 7/11/2018, at roughly 8:00 pm, on the streaming service of Netflix. This show has been lambasted with controversy mostly following Kevin Spacey's scornful antics, but what lies underneath is a very tight, and well written political drama.
In the very first episode Congressman Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is a cold, and vicious man driven to get what he wants. When the newly elected president Garrett Walker (Michel Gill) doesn't honor his agreement to acknowledge the position of Secretary of State and appoint Underwood for that position Frank realizes that it's going to be a dirty game. We also meet Claire (Robin Wright), who is Frank's wife. The two are perfect for one another as they are both driven, determined, and cold to a fault. In the chaos of it all reporter Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) sees the role Underwood could play in revealing the corruption in Washington and turns to him to offer information while also accepting her place as Underwood's informant in return. One thing I've noticed is that there's a certain drive and determination that all the characters have that is constantly shifting as they begin to unravel more information about their situation. With Zoe she is first doubtful of Frank but upon learning of his convictions is willing to open up to him some more.
Critics were all very favorable of the show, lauding Spacey and Wright's performance in their roles. Though Spacey is a well known actor many critics have described his role in the show as 'career defining' and that this is the greatest role in a movie or television show to date. From the first season they wanted to converge with the system of American politics and its corruption but by the time Donald Trump was put into office the show deviated from that and looked to feature a different approach.
The attitude of the show, to me, is America's lack of trust in those that claim to represent them. They wear clean suits with ties but the tasks they do cast a shadow over their clean appearance. Americans, even those that would claim to be apolitical, all have some level of distrust for their Government and this show is the confirmation of all our fears and doubts. It's for the culture of American paranoia in the post-9/11 era.
In comparison to other shows out there that are within the spectrum of dramas such as Breaking Bad, or even Game of Thrones the show is well written, with a strong cast, and it doesn't throw everything at you at once. It gracefully introduces new plot points naturally and uses the 'show-don't-tell' method of storytelling which is what viewers want, and not a lot of tv shows deliver on.
What makes it different, to me is the storyline. We're basically following the antagonists, though there aren't any other characters in the show that really give off the vibe of being heroes, or redeemably good people. Following the bad guys is a much different approach compared to shows like Madam Secretary or the West Wing which try to portray the characters as heroes of the free world. These politicians are not heroes and so there's a gritty realism to the whole show and it follows a path very few shows do.
The only real stereotype that I've found in the show is in the main character, Frank Underwood, himself. He is a driven, cold man who plays the role of a politician. He's sneaky, intelligent, motivated, and an evocative liar. The others are mostly natural characters who avoid clichés and though there are plenty to follow Frank I also believe that his clichés in character flow with a natural purpose to them. To me the show's demographics are mostly towards people in their mid twenties and up who are interested in this kind of thing. When you're younger it's hard to grasp the finer concepts of the show but an older audience will definitely enjoy most of what it has to offer. If I were from another country to me this would make me see America as a place where, behind all the 'American Dream' stuff there's a darker, more violent side to it all.
The strength of the show is in its consistency, character portrayal, and narrative. The show is so seamless in its narrative and will construct something that is easy to follow, yet very comprehensive as well. The only weakness I had was early on it was hard to get invested in any real character because most of the characters were very bad people but as the season goes on it becomes easier to side with the characters evil motives because they're realistic. It brings a real honest view of character morality and what I once saw as a weakness actually did turn into a strength. Another I wasn't fond of was the pacing, I felt like the season had an issue of running far too long and for Netflix shows that seems to be a running theme.
Most reviews of the show have been very favorable and praise its darker themes. "The tone is dark and delightfully tasteful." One rotten tomato reviewer stated.
To be honest I'm not big on television or watching series because it takes a lot of time to get invested into something like that and I just don't really have the time for it. That being said I have sat and watched quite a few episodes in a row and I've enjoyed the time watching it. I do have a few friendly acquaintances that watch it and they all personally enjoy it. I'm not personally a fan of Facebook. I mostly follow Twitter for updates and Robin Wright has always been one to post updates on the coming episodes as well. Though people used to make favorable comments now the fanbase is centered on Kevin Spacey and his horrible actions.
For the most part I've learned about the shows' response to our political culture and everything that goes along with it. This show isn't satire but the response is almost satire-esque in its approach to how it seems to acknowledge American politics in the 21st century. What was most surprising was the reaction to the show when it first came out and how that changed from applause to dismissal so quickly due to Spacey's antics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULwUzF1q5w4
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/house_of_cards/s01/
https://www.netflix.com/title/70178217
https://twitter.com/HouseofCards
In the very first episode Congressman Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is a cold, and vicious man driven to get what he wants. When the newly elected president Garrett Walker (Michel Gill) doesn't honor his agreement to acknowledge the position of Secretary of State and appoint Underwood for that position Frank realizes that it's going to be a dirty game. We also meet Claire (Robin Wright), who is Frank's wife. The two are perfect for one another as they are both driven, determined, and cold to a fault. In the chaos of it all reporter Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) sees the role Underwood could play in revealing the corruption in Washington and turns to him to offer information while also accepting her place as Underwood's informant in return. One thing I've noticed is that there's a certain drive and determination that all the characters have that is constantly shifting as they begin to unravel more information about their situation. With Zoe she is first doubtful of Frank but upon learning of his convictions is willing to open up to him some more.
Critics were all very favorable of the show, lauding Spacey and Wright's performance in their roles. Though Spacey is a well known actor many critics have described his role in the show as 'career defining' and that this is the greatest role in a movie or television show to date. From the first season they wanted to converge with the system of American politics and its corruption but by the time Donald Trump was put into office the show deviated from that and looked to feature a different approach.
The attitude of the show, to me, is America's lack of trust in those that claim to represent them. They wear clean suits with ties but the tasks they do cast a shadow over their clean appearance. Americans, even those that would claim to be apolitical, all have some level of distrust for their Government and this show is the confirmation of all our fears and doubts. It's for the culture of American paranoia in the post-9/11 era.
In comparison to other shows out there that are within the spectrum of dramas such as Breaking Bad, or even Game of Thrones the show is well written, with a strong cast, and it doesn't throw everything at you at once. It gracefully introduces new plot points naturally and uses the 'show-don't-tell' method of storytelling which is what viewers want, and not a lot of tv shows deliver on.
What makes it different, to me is the storyline. We're basically following the antagonists, though there aren't any other characters in the show that really give off the vibe of being heroes, or redeemably good people. Following the bad guys is a much different approach compared to shows like Madam Secretary or the West Wing which try to portray the characters as heroes of the free world. These politicians are not heroes and so there's a gritty realism to the whole show and it follows a path very few shows do.
The only real stereotype that I've found in the show is in the main character, Frank Underwood, himself. He is a driven, cold man who plays the role of a politician. He's sneaky, intelligent, motivated, and an evocative liar. The others are mostly natural characters who avoid clichés and though there are plenty to follow Frank I also believe that his clichés in character flow with a natural purpose to them. To me the show's demographics are mostly towards people in their mid twenties and up who are interested in this kind of thing. When you're younger it's hard to grasp the finer concepts of the show but an older audience will definitely enjoy most of what it has to offer. If I were from another country to me this would make me see America as a place where, behind all the 'American Dream' stuff there's a darker, more violent side to it all.
The strength of the show is in its consistency, character portrayal, and narrative. The show is so seamless in its narrative and will construct something that is easy to follow, yet very comprehensive as well. The only weakness I had was early on it was hard to get invested in any real character because most of the characters were very bad people but as the season goes on it becomes easier to side with the characters evil motives because they're realistic. It brings a real honest view of character morality and what I once saw as a weakness actually did turn into a strength. Another I wasn't fond of was the pacing, I felt like the season had an issue of running far too long and for Netflix shows that seems to be a running theme.
Most reviews of the show have been very favorable and praise its darker themes. "The tone is dark and delightfully tasteful." One rotten tomato reviewer stated.
To be honest I'm not big on television or watching series because it takes a lot of time to get invested into something like that and I just don't really have the time for it. That being said I have sat and watched quite a few episodes in a row and I've enjoyed the time watching it. I do have a few friendly acquaintances that watch it and they all personally enjoy it. I'm not personally a fan of Facebook. I mostly follow Twitter for updates and Robin Wright has always been one to post updates on the coming episodes as well. Though people used to make favorable comments now the fanbase is centered on Kevin Spacey and his horrible actions.
For the most part I've learned about the shows' response to our political culture and everything that goes along with it. This show isn't satire but the response is almost satire-esque in its approach to how it seems to acknowledge American politics in the 21st century. What was most surprising was the reaction to the show when it first came out and how that changed from applause to dismissal so quickly due to Spacey's antics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULwUzF1q5w4
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/house_of_cards/s01/
https://www.netflix.com/title/70178217
https://twitter.com/HouseofCards
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Week 3 Questions
Topic 1:
https://www.facebook.com/NATO/<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FNATO%2Fposts%2F1860949817261674&width=500" width="500" height="569" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>
https://twitter.com/NATO
For the organization I've chosen it's NATO, which was a treaty established by the western powers to keep order within their countries, but also to impose on their enemies. Social media is used to showcase the readiness of their military units. This is seen by the posts they make, and the live feeds they stream over social media. They show off troops, training, equipment, and vehicles of the varying NATO countries and even show videos of them training together to show collaboration and how well they can work together.
The target audience isn't just NATO allies, but also those that would seek to challenge NATO in any capacity. During the 2014 crisis in Ukraine NATO escalated the process of sending these videos out, and there were multiple videos released daily showing the effectiveness of their units and even making dramatizations to show what a US campaign against Russia could possibly look like.
I think one thing I'd change in the marketing campaign was to make the videos less directed at an enemy. NATO loves to point the finger at any country they disagree with and make them their guinea pig. To me this shows the type of aggressive antics that NATO is inexplicably known for by quite a few countries.
Topic 2:
I don't watch television but on YouTube I've seen constant advertising of YouTube Red which is YouTube that is subscription based and is supposed to be about special content that is only released on Red. What stood out is that it didn't really change YouTube. Everything I wanted to watch was still made available but what it did was make 'special' videos available and they never really describe just what these videos are so it was a real sloppy advertising campaign if you ask me.I believe the target audience to be young adults. Most young adults are at the center of most online marketing campaigns and YouTube is a clear area where young people often use their own voice to spread their own message.
It's bandwagon effect. They're trying to build their following for Red by trying to indicate that they have some kind of following, which I'm not convinced they do.
I think this campaign has failed. Everyone I know uses YouTube in some capacity but YouTube doesn't work like Netflix or Amazon Prime. YouTube began as a free use model and so people are so accustomed to that. Now they're trying to adopt the pay-to-use model but in a limited way. Every person I talk to has stated that they don't like Red, nor do they use it in any way so I think it's a pretty unpopular thing.
Saturday, July 7, 2018
Week 2: Media
Topic 1:
Three people I follow on the website I primarily use, twitter, is Anarchy Federation which gives more in depth outlooks over class struggles and people who are struggling in poverty. It isn't technically a huge outlet and is more about the individual than anything else. Another is Farah Baker, who is a 20 year-old Palestinian girl that discusses the heavy conflict between Palestine and Israel and while most of our streamlined media sides with Israel it is just as fitting to see what a young person in Palestine has to say about it all. The last is Vice News which is giving mostly up to date news on events transpiring in the world.The best tweet is by Nolan Peterson, correspondent for Daily Signal who talks about the artillery that is exploding overhead on the 100 year end of the first world war. It stood out just because of the history of an event that shaped our world a hundred years ago and how little we've changed since then when it comes to the desire to kill each other.
I feel social media is good for collaborating with others and moving to work together without necessarily gathering at any time. Locally I attended a protest in Portland which was at the ICE headquarters to stand up for the families detained at the southern border and it was all organized through facebook. This allows us to all be interconnected while we're going about our daily tasks and doing what we need to do beforehand without needing to build resources beforehand.
Topic 2:
We don't really have designated rules when it comes to the use of our devices and even use it to coordinate before we even meet. My family is an 'into the future' kind of family so it's easy for us to do what we need to do and get everything taken care of before we meet. We understand that when we're together that we should probably restrict use and engage personally.I don't game on my phone, I just don't like the interface and believe that phone games are so limited that I can't get any fun out of it. On my computer I have over a hundred games on the provider known as Steam. I enjoy RPGS, and Action/Adventures for the most part just because I feel like those kind of games allow us to build who we want to be within that world and we can live out our fantasies and learn in-game skills.
I probably spend around 40-50 hours a week gaming. I am involved in several communities based on the games I play. For games such as ArmA, which is a military simulator, there are communities that refer to themselves as 'units' and operate as such with many key members having previous military experience even. Some communities are integrated and are about building up the player like Payday, or ArmA, some are less inclusive and more vile like League of Legends or even Overwatch which are very toxic and don't really care. There's a community for every type of game out there as well as modding communities for rookie developers that want to add their own wrinkle to an already established game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)