Wtf? When did I get a debt of $3000?!

Net Neutrality

Network Neutrality refers to the ideal that all internet content should not be discriminated against by corporate entities that provide internet access. An example of this is an extra charge or suspension of your internet because you have downloaded too much data. 

This heated debate of Network Neutrality is fought by the big, buff, and filthy rich bullies versus the small, meek, average joe. We believe that the internet is free - we can access whatever we like, whenever we like, and best of all, for free (excluding Internet provider fees, that is)! It is never owned by a single person, which makes our internet content so diverse and teeming with creative life. However, being the greedy pigs they are, cable and internet providers such as Bell and Rogers want to lock down on the successful internet and reap in the dollar signs that come with ownership.

The large corporations (aka the big mean bullies on my blog) of ISPs want to capitalize even more on the internet than just providing you with the wires that hook you up. They want to “manage” internet material such as music and movies. “The biggest cable and telephone companies want to decide which Web sites, services and applications go fast or slow. Content providers who wont (or can’t pay) a toll will see their sites slowed to a crawl” (CDM). How are small businesses going to succeed and grow under the weight of all these corporate giants? What about students that don’t have the money and whose family cannot afford the internet anymore because of these extra fees?

Well... I guess I’ll probably have to add Blogger to my already unaffordable expenses of university tuition if that happens... I’ll also probably be up to the sky in debt before I even pass third year university...  =(

God forbid that they decide to charge fees for Facebook access.

They’ll slow down Peer-to-Peer (P2P) sharing of files and information because companies like Bell won’t be able to profit from such services. If they get this kind of managing power, many other companies, such as film and music studios will pay these controlling internet providers big money to block or hand over users sharing their copyrighted content without paying the costly fee. 

Music and film in particular greatly shape our culture to what it presently is. Without these creative works of entertainment, I think you and I would be either very bored or turned into clones from the lack of variation of constant science and math. 

As the graphic novelist Judd Winick says in Lawrence Lessig’s book, Free Culture,

 “‘That’s how [the artists] learn to draw—by going into comic books and not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them’ and building from them.”

A famous example of culture that benefits from network neutrality is Disney. As quoted again from Free Culture, “Disney (or Disney, Inc.) ripped creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his own extraordinary talent, and then burned that mix into the soul of his culture. Rip, mix, and burn.

This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should remember and celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no creativity except this kind.”

How are we going to continue creating culture when we are confined by corporations that just want money? Money can only fuel so much.

The big companies claim that such regulations and material management will not cripple the free flow of internet content and services. They believe that it would actually be beneficial. It will make the internet a faster, higher quality service. To get quality, you must cough up the money.

“In 2008, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that out of 30 countries, Canada was the 28th as most expensive for average-use cell phone packages [and internet services]” (Federal Liberal).

Now, we all know that Canada is a well developed country, ranking as one the best countries in the world for several things such as the UN’s list of “Safest Country to Live In.” You would think that with all our developed infrastructure of a first-world country, we would have one of the cheapest technological and digital services.

Do these companies really have a right to discriminate against certain internet activities, services or material?

Black people, white people, yellow people, or however you prefer to describe us, are all the same - we are all human. We all have eyes, mouth, arms, legs, etc. The only differences that make us different from one another are our size, personalities, how we dress, how we talk, what we like or dislike, and where we come from. 

Do we discriminate other people? No. (Well... most of us, anyway.) Discrimination has been legally abolished for many years now, and very much accepted and practiced in places like Canada.

What makes data any different? They are still packets of information that are made, packaged and sent over the Their content and function may be different, but they are all still a form of data. 

Oh woe, why must the world be so greedy? I say (again) that we should rehumanize and be less greedy. It is the answer we need! Well... at least I hope it's the answer.

Works Cited

CDM - Campaign for Democratic Media. “Saving Our Net.” Network Neutrality. 2009. <http://democraticmedia.ca/sites/democraticmedia.ca/files/Net Neutrality flyer - June.pdf>. Nov. 2 2009. 

Federal Liberal Agency of Canada. “Liberals push for better competition and service for cell phone and internet use.” Liberal. 30 October 2009. <www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/16801_liberals-push-for-better-competition-and-service-for-cell-phone-and-internet-use>. 2 November 2009.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Mobile phone calls lowest in Finland, Netherlands and Sweden, says OECD report.” OECD. 8 October 2009. <www.oecd.org.document/20/0.3343.en_2649_201185_43471316_1_1_1_1.00html>. 2 November 2009.

Lessig, Lawrence. “Piracy.” Free Culture. The Penguin Press HC. 25 March 2004. page 26-7.

Spontaniety Keeps the World Going Round

Culture Jam! Yum!

Culture Jamming refers to the interruption of social norms that been created by culture. Individual artists and even large groups have made it their priority to cause culture jams in public spaces - activities or art - that are strange and abnormal to the average passersby.

One such group is Improv Everywhere, a large core group of actors that plan out-of-the-ordinary scenes. Their goal is to “create chaos and joy” with their spontaneous activities in the city. 

The Lunchtime Musical was nothing out of the ordinary. It was on an ordinary day in an ordinary food court, until a man (one of Improv Everywhere’s actors) started to sing about his love of lunch. Eventually several others joined him in song and dance to the disbelief of other food court users. Their harmless prank created many laugh

Some of their missions include thousands of people who saw Improv Everywhere’s mission and wanted to participate. Some of these large missions included the Invisible Dog, where two thousand participants walked their “invisible dogs” out on the streets of Brooklyn, making thousands of unsuspecting people stare in awe of the cultural “abnormality.”

Improv Everywhere’s spontaneous events prove that we live in a society full of social ideologies - all leashes should have dogs attached, and musicals don’t happen anywhere except at the theatre. Their success in recruiting participants show that there are people who strive to step out of that social norm and create something interesting out of the lives that have become repetitive, daily bores. The reactions that Improv Everywhere receives by those caught in their spontaneity are all of surprise and laughter. Their goodnatured reactions also show that many people in our society would like to see more harmless surprises in their otherwise boring routines of riding the subway, eating lunch and buying groceries (all of which are probably a daily pain for many). A quote from their blog fabulously explains their goal of enriching daily life:

“With our Subway Series, Improv Everywhere attempts to shatter the mundane and bring excitement and happiness to the underground. To us, the subway is a place where long lost brothers can meet, men can exchange outfits, and pants can be sold for $1.”

How eccentrically heartwarming is that for spicing up city life?

All their events are intertextually entwined with popular parts of our life, such as the Big Bad Wolf, the coming of the Olympic Games, and even creates humour out of the stress of city life that pushes people to suicide. Instead of relying on television as the main mode of relief, Improv Everywhere promotes interaction, giving the participants a well balanced dose of media. Doctor Innis no longer needs to fear our culture overdosing on societal norms and specific mediums (Postman). They turn things that normally doesn’t belong into a joyous parade of creativity and humour. 

What’s even better is that their missions, like the Subway Series ‘“Surprise!” birthday party’ bring huge crowds of strangers together, who never ever would have thought of interacting so warmly with each other. This unanticipated event of a birthday party in a subway car created a happy, multicultural party full of laughter out of an ordinary, boring subway ride. Their “Surprise!” birthday party on the subway created lasting, heartwarming impressions on those living and visiting the city. Individual strangers became friends for that small period of time, celebrating a birthday of someone they have never met before. 

Improv Everywhere even threw a free wedding reception for a randomly-picked, unsuspecting, newly-wed couple! How much sweeter can they get?

This is the kind of hospitality and kindness humans should have, as well as having the freedom of expression to harmlessly liven up their lives as displayed by Improv Everywhere. This is a beautiful example of rehumanizing the world in making our cities (which tend to be cold and heartless) a better place to live. I am so proud of their work, and if they ever do anything in Toronto, I’ll make it my business to join!

Embedded videos of their hilarious ingeniousness is provided after the Works Cited.

Works Cited

Chandler, Daniel. “Encoding/Decoding.” Semiotics for Beginners. 3, April 2005. 10 November 2009. Web.

Improv Everywhere. "Improv Everywhere." . 2009. 10 November 2009. 

Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” 2000. 10 November 2009. Web.

Tweet Tweet Tweet and Away We Go!

Participatory Culture

I’m not really a gamer. I can’t for my life play RPG (I’m still not totally sure what that means exactly) games like Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft, or Zelda. Maybe because of my incapability, I don’t particularly like them. Or maybe it’s because my parents never spoiled me with those shiny expensive gaming consoles, and so my definition of fun didn’t revolve around gaming. I think that gaming is a rather solitary and lonely hobby; especially for kids who are an only-child, and whose obsession of gaming prevents them from socializing. Yes, it’s interactive and participatory, but only with the game console.

With social networking a huge success in the digital era, it really emphasizes our desire to be connected to everyone (I don’t know if gamers are too, but they probably are). You can find a huge list of popular social networking sites, and it grows longer everyday. Social networking sites allow users to chat with other users and publish comments, photos, videos and other personalized content for the each other to see. I’m sure I don’t need to list any examples.

The most popular social site of all time has got to be Facebook - your friends have an account, your entire family (yes, unfortunately for the young ones, the oldies are in too) has their own accounts, teachers are on it, and of course, I’m on it too. It is the very definition of social networking - there is not a single application on Facebook that is made for your eyes only. Every application on the site, even if it is a one player game, involves participation or the indirect inclusion of others. You may play Word Challenge (my one and only favourite game on Facebook) on your own, but you will be compared to your friends’ scores and indirectly interact with them when you try and beat their score. Boy, do my friends make me feel stupid. To make myself feel better, I keep playing and playing, trying to beat whoever is in front of me. What a great way to keep us on Facebook, eh?

Okay, so maybe I'm not a Twitter person either (sorry for the misleading intertextual reference in this post's title. It's actually a childhood hand game). Facebook is definitely a big part of my social participation. It connects me to almost all my friends, allowing me to keep in touch with ones that are too far to see. I can check up on and message faraway friends and have them reply at their convenience. It demolished the time difference barrier, which allowed me to connect with travel buddies that otherwise I would never be able to talk to. MSN is not popular in their countries, and time differences between Asia and North America only allowed my friends and I to talk on MSN only if one of us was staying up very, very late at night (which rarely happens)

Being a social shutterbug, I brought my first digital camera to school with me every single day (until it died a year later from excessive use) and took pictures of all my friends and everything that we did. What I loved about Facebook was the ability to upload infinite photo albums and could tag my friends faces in them. I hated taking pictures and not being able to show my friends, so the tagging and the many friends I had on Facebook gave me the chance to conveniently show all my photos. Getting comments on them were particularly enjoyable, and being able to get a broad readership from my friends was a great thing for me.

Many people believe that online networks like Facebook and gaming sites deter people from socializing face-to-face. It all really depends on the theory of media ecology - whether you have a balance between your online and physical world, because too much of it will indeed be bad. To me, Facebook is a way to keep in touch when I can’t see my friends, not a substitute for seeing them - just like how Theuth says that writing is a receipt for recollection, but not for memory (Playboy). 

Works Cited

Playboy. “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1969. 2 November 2009. Web.

Please, selling Violence & Sex is SO overrated

Decoding and Deconstructing Advertising


For this blog, I searched for interesting advertisements on Google as I was at a loss on what to analyze. After a few hours of searching, I found an advertisement for duncan quinn (a luxuriously high class clothier) that I would quite like to express my opinion on. 

First off, I’ll be blunt: to me, it’s revolting, dehumanizing and, in a way, insulting to women who have  the least bit of pride and decency. 

To begin, duncan quinn plays on our culture’s trend of male dominance over women. The actor is portrayed as having the idolized masculine strength to overpower and exploit things to his do his bidding. Note that I said things, as he is quite literally objectifying women, and once he is done with them, he can throw (or drag by the neck with his necktie) them away as if they are inanimate, useless objects that lack the ability to feel.

“Surely,” I thought, “this can’t be the only advertisement that duncan quinn has. There must be another ad by them that is less horrific...”

Nope. This one ad was the only image results of duncan quinn ads that had a woman in it. What was even better (no, not really) was the fact that almost every result on the first five pages turned out to be this ad. I was quite disappointed. I then decided to read up on Duncan Quinn’s company history on the official website. The About Duncan page revealed a shocking statement: “The year was 2003, and New York was still in the thrall of suits bearing a close resemblance to trash bags. The first duncan quinn store opened ... and was an immediate hit” (duncan quinn).

WOW, Egoistic much? 2003 was not too long ago, and the style of men’s suits have not changed radically, so it is a very deprecative, opinionated statement. Clearly the owner does not have much regard for anyone else but himself. Why am I not surprised then that this ad came from his company?

NY Magazine has also stated that it is “The most disturbing ad found in December 2008 fashion magazines” (Ivaskiv). 

Every webpage I found in my searches have given very negative comments regarding this advertisement. With this being said, why would duncan quinn even make an ad that is so offensive to so many people? The meaning of the ad is obvious, but the decoding of it by the audience is of an oppositional view, because who do not agree with this misogynistic ad (Chandler, Daniel). This obviously would not do well for business.

In the twenty-first century, women, for the most part, are now seen and treated as equals of men. Yet in these fashion magazines, we are still seeing the exploitation of women’s sexuality and objectification, to be manipulated by men as they please.

However, let’s not get overboard with the emotions and really analyze this ad. This advertisement shows that sex sells, a ridiculously dominant element in thousands of ads. The model is very seductive in her translucent bra and panties, lying bare and open as if she’s only there for you to look at and devour. Her face is hardly seen, making her a faceless person that you cannot sympathize with. Her lack of facial appearance also gives a generality, stating that this is what all women should be and are like. The ad also shows that if you wear Duncan Quinn’s (minimum) $4000 custom suits, you will be able to get desirable women, and you can even do whatever you want with them, killing included (duncan quinn). 

Better yet, you won’t feel any shame, because you’re wearing a possibly $15,000-or-up suit (if it's custom tailored with textural fabric that only your suit and your suit only will have!) that gives you unimaginable power to do as you please. I mean, look at the guy in the ad! He still looks fresh and having a great time in this dire situation. He’s leading by example, holding her like a dog on a leash. The poor girl is suffering from male hegemony.

Great, now I’m worried about when I grow older and have to attend these high class, fancy, business parties. I see no advantage of putting violence in their ad.

Once again, I have to stress Innis’ theory. He believes that too much exposure to a certain medium will have harmful effects (Postman). This duncan ad is not the only one that displays such dehumanizing acts, as our media constantly promotes violent films and stories. 

A good example of the negative impact of such violent displays is Ted Bundy, the serial killer. He became obsessed with violent pornography, stating that the consumption of it helped shape and mold his horrifically violent behaviour(Cline).

Bundy believed that “sexualized violence” led boys “down the road to being Ted Bundys” (Cline). This ad is clearly violent, with many sexual connotations and denotations. Is this not a form of violent pornography then? Why are we letting it run loose in our media mainstreams, where children can see it?

Like I said before, our society is sadly desensitized and dehumanized. Please help rehumanize our culture so this world is a better place for all of us to live in. No one wants to be like the girl in this ad, or suffer the pain or heartache caused by murderers like Ted Bundy simply because of his exposure to violent pornography.

Works Cited

Chandler, Daniel. “Encoding/Decoding.” Semiotics for Beginners. 3, April 2005. 15 November 2009. Web.

Cline, Victor. “Sex Offenders’ Use of Pornography.” Pornography’s Effect on Adults and Children. New York. Morality Media. Print.

duncan quinn. “About duncan.” duncan quinn. 2008. 15 November 2009. Web.

Justin Ivaskiv. “Sexy violence.” Media Dissemination. 14, July 2009. Web. 15 November 2009.

Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” 2000. 15 November 2009. Web.

If Only I had More Time!

Activist Project

There are many activist organizations with ambitious projects out there, but I am not really active in any. There have been several organizations that I volunteered in for special occasions, but unfortunately I never found the time to give them my continuous support.

          Just because I don’t donate my time constantly doesn’t mean I don’t support the goals they strive to achieve. I was taught by my parents ever since I was born to be thankful and never waste food (thus my chubbiness, as I would still clear the plate despite being full). When my family began to realize the messy state our world was in, they taught me to respect and cherish nature and all things natural.

It is natural then, for me to be attracted towards groups like the David Suzuki Foundation and Second Harvest. Second Harvest is an organization that collects unsold food from businesses at the end of every day, and brings these still-delicious foods to charities and organizations that need these donations to feed the people they are helping. I believe this is an excellent project that benefits all parts of the socioeconomic chain: those who need the donations are supported, food is not wasted, and businesses build a good image when they support these organizations. They are not taking extra resources out of the earth to supply these donations, but are simply using what is already made and may be wasted if not picked up by Second Harvest. This truly eco-friendly system shows that Second Harvest does not focus only on bettering one aspect of society, but really believes in providing a better economic, social, and living environment for all as a whole.

          The David Suzuki Foundation is also a group that I support very much. Although I have not contributed to this foundation, I support every part of their goal of maintaining a world that is sustainable, diverse, safe, and beautiful for generations to come. They do not only focus only on creating awareness and saving endangered animals, but also accept that to improve, the entire environment must improve together in all aspects. Therefore the Foundation also promotes environmentally friendly solutions, and educates on the harms of current practices that are destroying our world. The preservation of beautiful animals is also an integral part of our survival, and the Foundation funds many expeditions to document and save these creatures that you and I rarely get to know.

          Both organizations use many different types of media to their advantage to create awareness and promote action in bringing in better changes. They get their messages out and supporters in by sending regular newsletters in the mail or email as well as advertisements in television or radio. The large, celebrity-filled, television-documented charity events are also places where they get their donations from to support their cause.

          The David Suzuki Foundation also funds countless television programs for a large range of audiences, as well as academic and business papers for more serious endeavors such as research for companies planning on creating green housing.

          These two groups have my upmost support, as they truly support improvement in all aspects of our communities. Without media attention, these groups may have perished a long time ago because of the little coverage and support they would otherwise receive. In the near future I would like to dedicate some time in helping these groups carry out their missions in making our world a better place. After all, they are trying rehumanize the world too!  =)

Works Cited

David Suzuki Foundation. “About Us.” David Suzuki Foundation.2009. 9 November 2009.

Second Harvest. “About Us.” Second Harvest. 2009. 9 November 2009.

Mom was right? What?

Theory/Praxis

The theory of media ecology, as talked about in Neil Postman’s work, The Humanism of Media Ecology, focuses on whether a medium is beneficial to the society or not. One theory that Postman discussed within his speech was that I found to be particularly relevant when describing media phenomenons and even daily life. Innis believed that too much exposure to a particular medium that emphasized, for example time and space would lead the masses into becoming obsessed with military domination and invasion (Postman). 

I too believe that too much of a medium is not good, as there are many examples available in our society to prove such a theory correct. Even the common-sense saying, “Too much of a good thing is not good” has been implanted in our brains since... God knows when. 

I did not realize it much before, but ever since I read Postman’s article and wrote my Mass Communications essay on the mobile culture, I began to see how obsessed our society is with our media. I began to see the obsessiveness, and then I began to see the negative side-effects that were the consequences of such an obsession. From the research I did for my essay, I began to see that we all started to suffer from physical and mental stress caused by the overuse of cellphones (Mak). I have always been warned of it by my parents, but I never really saw it to such an extent until now. 

To much reading or laptop use will probably result in weakened eyes (that will require glasses) and joint pains in the wrists and fingers. Too much television may result in obesity due to lack of movement (Mak). Too much time spent playing or texting others on our personal portable devices may end up actually isolating us instead of pulling us together (Mak). 

Even on a non-media aspect, Innis’ theory is unshaken - common sense and experience tells us that too much sugar gives you a bad stomachache, and too much water will give you water poisoning (trust me, I tried drinking more water all at once, since everyone said it was healthy. It didn’t turn out so good). 

So now, instead of just brushing off my parents’ concerns of having been on the computer or telephone for too long, I reluctantly listen, because I know they are right. I have learned to take things in slowly bit by bit. After all, the cravings of goodness come only because it is not in excess. Everything seems more fun when you haven’t been doing it for the past ten hours. Besides, variety is what makes life so much more interesting!  =)

Works Cited

Mak, Vivian. “The Mobility Culture.” October 2009. 12 November 2009. Print.

Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” 2000. 12 November 2009. Web.

'Cuz All I Want for Christmas, is YOU~ (yes, just YOU)

Buy Nothing Day!




       The “Go Green!” bandwagon’s building momentum and with the economic crash, many have realized that their excessive consumption of goods have had a negative effect on the environment and society. Buy Nothing Day, in its 17th year now, happens on November 28th. This money-free day was created to spread global awareness of our over-consumption. 

The society of the twenty-first century has become overwhelmingly obsessed with consumerism. Everywhere you look, advertisements, salespeople, logos, slogans, even the price discounts are telling us to “BUY MORE! BUY MORE!” It’s the never ending hunger of the monster, Consumerism, provoked by Capitalism.

Don’t believe it? I see it happening all around me. I can’t even see a single, four by four inch patch of floor (or desk) in my friend’s room, and another friend claimed he got lost in her closet (it isn’t that big either). That right there, my virtual friends, is solid, living proof of over-consumption. She doesn’t need 3 calendars, nor the stuffed animals that take up an entire bed and a half. It sounds like I’m exaggerating, but this is no joke.

Ask yourselves this question before you buy something next time: “Is this something I really want, need, and will use for years?”

“Do I already have something similar to this product?” If you do, and it serves much the same function, why are you wasting money buying a duplicate?

If you really want to spend money, please donate to a worthy cause. There are always people (and animals) out there who are less fortunate than you and me. Some people just need a little push to get them on the right tracks. I’m sure they would appreciate it, and Mother Nature too.

I support Buy Nothing Day completely, as I am an environmentally conscious individual and not a fan of shopping. The only real problem with this event is that stores will have significantly less profit, and to them I say, “DEAL WITH IT.” Most companies make enough money to be able to afford a day of less revenue. Oh, and they might get annoyed with AdBuster’s prankishly fun ideas in support of BND!

So! Remember to come out on November 28th for some free fun! (Without the shopping bags, you’ll definitely have the hands to.) 

Works Cited

AdBusters Media Foundation. "Buy Nothing Day." AdBusters. 6, October 2009.

Who Needs Megaphone when there's Television?

Mass Media

Mass media is part of the twenty-first century bandwagon which starts mainstream trends. The term medium defines a form of communication; mass media means a way of communication to vast populations. Mediums such as television, radio, internet, print, and mobile phones are examples that communicate to the masses. 

The term mass media on a prima facie understanding simply means: communicating to a large group of audience. In my understanding of mass media, it is a process which ideas are created and manifested in a form of medium. This medium is then passed on and decoded by the audience to be information which they perceive. This process is done but not limited to mediums that may range from radio to internet to book and prints. What is difficult to get across in mass media is the accuracy of interpretation of the message, because the way an individual interprets an idea is often heterogenous compared others within that same mass. 

McLuhan’s “medium is the message” regarding mass media’s effects proves to be quite true (Playboy). For example, at the beginning of the year for Mass Communications class, I designed my autobiography to be a double sided billboard which passed a generic but overlooked health message. Explaining it simply by word of mouth would not have been enough, and some audience members may not fully understand my poster as a whole. However, with the billboard, I was able to produce a solid visual for each of my concepts. With the flip motion, I can present the first concept as a single identity that everyone can quickly understand without having to interpret the relationship between it and the hidden second concept. When that first concept is fully understood, I can then flip the image to the second image to explain my second concept. With both concepts solidly understood, the audience will put two and two together and understand the whole theme of my poster. With my visual medium, I can effectively and accurately relay my thoughts to a much bigger audience, rather than just the few who understand the verbal explanation.

     Simply put, a medium is the bridge in which invisible thoughts and ideas are able to cross from one mind to another (McCloud, p. 195). Without media (and ESP), we would never have been able to communicate from mind to mind. 

Works Cited

Playboy. “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1969. 

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. New York. HarperCollins. 1994

What's Really Behind that Perfect Mask?

Fake News

News generally means recent and relevant information. Journalists receive, research, then broadcast these pieces of information to the public through various sources such as radio, television, online or printed newspapers, etc. Journalists, however, are not the only ones able to broadcast news. Public relations practitioners can also broadcast news. The difference is PR has an agenda of using the news to sell a product, or to create a better public image for a corporation. In other words, information brought by PR is corporately-funded and primarily suited to their clients’ needs. Journalism’s primary goal on the other hand, is to serve the public’s best interests and right to know; even if there are harmful effects to their employers (Turney).

Most corporations that fund news are not sincerely doing it as a public service. More often than not, their “news” relates to a product they are selling, or to give themselves a better reputation. They simply want viewers to agree with their “news” and therefore will:

1. Buy [more] of their product, or 
2. Trust that company

In my opinion, this is propaganda, not news. Propaganda looks and sounds like regular, unbiased news for the average citizen’s well-being, but there is always a hidden agenda of self-glorification and/or profit when corporations are involved. (We are in a capitalistic economy after all, where man goes to great lengths to increase profit.) These corporately-funded news are only meant to convey a certain idea or view, and thus aren’t news at all, but simply an opinion on a current issue (in which they try to make us agree with them). Some can see through the propaganda, but most cannot (which is why such hypes work, with the desired results). Unfortunately, most corporations can “disprove” (bribing, more corporately-funded news, or whatever else is up their greasy sleeves) those who try to show the public what is really news.

Thankfully, we have alternative ways to express the truth: the internet, where the average Joe or justice-serving organization can get his voice heard and the news spread without all the excessive, mind-warping sugarcoating (think of it this way: too much sugar = bad stomach ache). Be careful though when going through such sites, as some are just as fake and believable as non-virtual scams.

     To help put this into a better perspective, I found an article from the website of the International Food Safety Network. Although this site is no longer being updated (a new, up-to-date one is now available to access), this particular article in this site gave me good insights on how exactly corporations’ fundings are negatively affecting research that should and could have been beneficial ecologically, economically and socially.  The body of the article does not directly tell us what is bad, but the implication is quite clear. Since the research and corporate practices take many years to complete, the age of this article makes no difference in explaining the results of such practices. I hope this article helps you further understand this much debated topic of fake news.

IFSN: CORPORATE FUNDED RESEARCH NEGATIVE AT UNIVERSITIES

Works Cited

Turney, Michael. “Ethics Codes for PR.” Practicing Public Relations. 21, November 2006. <http://www.nku.edu/~turney/prclass/ethics.html> 7, October 2009.

Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

Media Hegemonies

      Who remembers turning on the television after school to watch Pokemon on YTV? Do your younger siblings tune in on Treehouse? Is 102.1 The Edge on your car radio? How many of your childhood books are published by Kids Can Press?

I bet you’re wondering what all these have in common, as they all seem different in their content. YTV, Treehouse, 102.1 The Edge, Kids Can Press, and a list of 69 other popular brands of media service providers are all owned by media giant Corus Entertainment. 

This conglomerate of many media organizations is one of the few that run much of Canada’s media sector. This type of ownership is called cross media ownership, where a company of a particular medium owns another similar company of a different type of communication (Fiji). With the money and ability to buy up smaller media firms, the larger firms reduce competition and increase revenue, which repeats the cycle of buy and dominate. In the past several decades, the world is seeing more such merges, where larger firms eat up smaller ones, resulting in a smaller number of much larger firms dominating the media industry (McChesney, p. 2). Now, these media giants are going international to further increase their property. 

Sounds kind of scary, doesn’t it: only ten or less companies feeding you and your entire country of billions of people what they want.

Much controversy has occurred over this topic, such as the reduction of diversity within viewpoints. The Federal Communications Commission, in a research, deemed in a cross media ownership as “unrealistic to expect true diversity from a commonly-owned ... combination” (Pritchard, p. 2). The commission also feared that the owner of such cross media ownership would manipulate news and content broadcasted by its media properties to negatively influence public opinion (Pritchard, p. 2).

It seems logical: each person has their own opinion and view that might be similar to a few others. Companies - media related or not - are still run by groups of individuals, and being individuals, they will have an opinion that will inevitably leak through the channels to thousands of people. With less companies portraying different outlooks, we will be forced to take what they feed us. Watching, reading or listening to the same opinions and views everyday are bound influence the masses. If everyone has similar tastes, then making entertainment that majority will like will definitely be easier and more profitable - killing two birds with one stone, or twice as many people with one movie. So watch out, the media giants might be out to homogenize us (McChesney, p. 3)!

The research by the FCC, mentioned above, was performed during the 2000 United States Presidential election as a chance to see how these merged companies would influence the public. The goal was to see if all the newspaper and television service owned by a single company would endorse or influence voters towards or against a certain candidate. However, the results of the research has deemed that despite having the same owner. Each organization had different endorsements without [possibly] influence from ownership(Pritchard, p.12). 

Concluding from the FCC’s research, the media conglomerates aren’t out to brainwash us. Don’t breathe a sigh of relieve though! The FCC paper did state possibilities of influence that they were unable to determine solidly. Even so, presidential elections do not earn the media giants as much money as your newspaper and television subscriptions and movie tickets. All these companies (non-media related companies too) have one goal: and no, not to provide you with great entertainment, but providing a great entertainment so you will spend - and therefore give them... MONEY! If getting everyone to watch one movie or television show was possible... Heck! Imagine how much money they would save on production costs by creating one instead of twenty movies to satisfy all of us! It sounds like a great money mountain of a plan to me... if I was a media firm’s (slightly evil?) CEO. 
BUT.. being the nice person I am, I'll just remove all the bloody gore in the media in an attempt to make the world a nicer place(Rehumanize...).  Use what power you have and do good stuff with it!  =)

Works Cited

Corus Entertainment Inc. About Corus. Corus Entertainment. 2009. <http://www.corusent.com/home/Corporate/AboutCorus/tabid/1668/Default.aspx> 8, October 2009.

Fiji Government. “Government Policy on Cross-Media Ownership.” Fiji Government Online Portal. 14, September 2005. <http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_5408.shtml> 8, October 2009.

McChesney, Robert. “The New Global Media.” The Nation. 11, November 1999.<http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991129/mcchesney/2> 8, October 2009.

Pritchard, David. Viewpoint Diversity in Cross-Ownership Newspapers and Television Stations: A Study of News Coverage of the 2000 Presidential Campaign. Federal Communications Commission. September 2002. <http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/viewpoint090002.pdf> 8, October 2009. PDF file. 

Everyone Just Wants Someone to Listen

Media Ecology


The twenty-first century is an era where everything can be in your hands in an instant, anytime, anywhere. How? The advancement of the mobile phones. It has made our lives easier and has become a necessity. It’s portable and accessible almost everywhere so you can connect to friends and family wherever they may be. The phone has become a tiny, all-in-one functional packet. In Asia, you can even pay with your phone. How convenient. Like Neil Postman though, I too wonder whether the mobile phone is really all that great for us.

Innis was afraid a culture would be obsessed with conquest if a medium overemphasized time and space (Postman, 2000). Maybe this medium - the mobile phone - is overemphasizing instantaneous connectivity with everything and everyone. Many may agree cell phones bring the world together immediately and effortlessly. Ironically at the same time, it is disconnecting all of us. Phone calls are so convenient that people no longer feel the need to make physical efforts (travelling) to see each other. Also everyone is so absorbed in texting and calling those who aren’t with them that they ignore the people that are physically right there beside them. 

“...Today is a gift and that is why we call it the present.” 

Think about it - have you really focused on the people around you while having your phone out? Have you made the effort to see your family and friends or did a phone call replace that need? Are we taking this gift for granted and missing out on the moments that make life worth living?

After this post, I hope you’ll put the phone down more often. 

Go outside. Smile, play, and smell the roses.

Listen to the entire world, not just part of it.

Works Cited

Postman, Neil. "The Humanism of Media Ecology." Media Ecology Association. 2000. Media Ecology Association, Web. 20 Sep 2009.

Intro to My Mind

Academic Blogging

Blogs are about personal thoughts, views and opinions - self expression, really. The great thing about them is that that they are not like letters: you don’t have to wait a week or a month to get a reply from a loved one overseas, or worse, three years for the government (a true story from yours truly). You can read what others have to say and their response on your thoughts faster than you can grab a snack from the kitchen, and all in the comfort of your own home (or where ever you happen to be). Most people have personal blogs detailing their adventures in life. I thought blogging was so cool, I decided to make my own in junior high. It was great getting a piece of others’ thoughts on things that, if it weren’t for blogging, would never come up. Unfortunately, being a slow writer (and slow in everything else) I found no time to keep it up.

This time, however, I have to keep going at it. Until, at least, first-year is over. Rehumanizing the World, as you see it, is my academic blog being marked for university. I don’t know how well it will turn out, as I’m not too good at writing (anyone willing to point out grammar mistakes, please do!), nor am I good at putting my thoughts down in a straight line.

I chose this title, Rehumanzing the World, because to me, the more I watch movies, television, and hear the people around me, I feel like the world is becoming increasingly desensitized and cold-hearted. Some of my friends watch so many horror movies that they get used to them and don’t even get scared or grossed out.

To make this entry more like the popular ‘personal’ blog, here is my story of this one incident that made me finally snap, and feel so strongly about the desensitizing effect of media and the need to 'rehumanize':

I watched the movie Gamer two months ago. What made me snap was the serious overdo of unnecessary killing and "inappropriate flaunting" (I'm trying to be nice and toning it down extremely) of bodies. I was so livid with anger I refused to watch most of the movie, ranting the entire way through, and continued to rant long after the movie ended. It didn't help knowing that the rating for Gamer was only 14A. I’m pretty sure most fourteen year olds won't really understand or remember the brief moral at the end (That moral is the only good credit I'm giving it). Of course, not all fourteen year olds will be ignorant like that. Maybe I’m just still bitter from the time my father forbade me from watching The Matrix sequels, simply because the radio announced that some kid shot someone after watching it. The child was expecting the poor guy to jump right back up again like Agent Smith. Sadly, after that I don’t really expect anyone under fifteen to understand much more than the surface.

Medium is the message, right (Playboy)? Well, content plays a role too, and we get influenced by what we choose to watch, read, listen, or do (refer to the idiot killing someone after watching the Matrix). We're using media as the vehicle to communicate violence, hostility and indifference to the masses.  With all the killing, hurting and lack of compassion, I think we need to REHUMANIZE THE WORLD. Yes, by now you’ve probably realized that I made that word up and you won’t find it in the dictionary. However, I think it sums up the idea very well.

Humanize: to (make something) more humane and civilized. (New Oxford American Dictionary)

REHUMANIZING: returning human and civilized characteristics to a society and culture that has lost it.

Whoever agrees that the world needs 'rehumanizing' say, "Aye!"

Whoever doesn't agree, tell me why!  =]


Works Cited

Playboy. “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1969. 

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. New York. HarperCollins. 1994