Substantial Paper: The Future of Global Media

           Global media has taken over out world, literally and figuratively. And it won’t stop there. If one looks at the proposed technological products and media of the future, it’s easy to see that we are entering an age where our real and virtual lives blur.  I feel that global media will become more instant, seamless, and convenient parts of our lives, as opposed to the opposite.

Looking at the media trends of the 20^th century, the circulation of information in the developed world was confined to a few well defined standards. In the first half of the century, periodicals and radio dominated. A great example of this is Orson Welles’ 1940 War of the Worlds radio broadcast, which illustrated the impact that radio had on the public. Many people took this broadcast seriously, believing that the Earth was being invaded by aliens, causing a panic. Towards the middle, television took over. This is evidenced by the large American audience that viewed the first lunar landing in 1961. Only in the 1990s did the internet take precedence.

            Today in the United States, computers with broadband-internet are common, as well as internet-connected smartphones. The cellular phones have kept people thousands of miles away connected constantly; people no longer have to feel lonely. This instant access has allowed people to absorb, create, and share media like never before. Every major news company now has a website to update users as soon as new events happen, along with RSS feeds and podcasts. Twitter allows the same companies, along with individuals (famous or pedestrian), to update others in real time. Facebook and YouTube allow people to immortalize and share their photos and videos with others. Access to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has exposed millions of people to virtually limitless un-biased information. Music, movies, and video games can now be consumed sans physical media in the form of downloads, both legally and illegally. The people of the past would be stupefied by the advancements in human technology.

            With all of this progress comes drawbacks, which may become amplified in the future if trends continue. The most obvious of which is an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. This is associated with the obesity epidemic in the United States. The documentary Digital Nation has analyzed this drawback along with a few others. The increasingly distracting environment for youth is one of them. As computers and mobile devices become more powerful, the amount of tasks that can be done at one with them increases. The documentary makes a strong argument that this multitasking is bad for us in multiple ways. It causes our youths to develop with shorter attention spans. The more tasks a person takes on at once, the less effective each individual task becomes. This makes something like texting while driving even more dangerous than drinking and driving. The ability to multitask seems so time-saving and convenient, even though it is not.

            Digital Nation also makes a compelling argument on the addictiveness of all this media around us. It goes into the lives of young South Koreans who are addicted to certain video games. Some stay up all day and night playing. This has led to a few deaths due to sleep, food, and water deprivation. These kids are sent to media-free camps for weeks, but still cannot shake the cravings to play. The fact that this compulsive behavior is a bigger problem than drug addiction in this country is a testament to how far media has come. This cultural and behavioral shift may occur all over the world as Matrix-like video games are developed, where anybody can lead a second life.

            In the short-term, we can look at some highly-publicized product prototypes to get some clues about our future. An extremely note-worthy piece of technology is Microsoft’s PixelSense (formally known as Surface).  It consists of a large multi-touch capacitive touchscreen computer being built into a family’s tabletop.  With this technology, multiple family members can consume and create media, or conduct business all at the same time. There is also object recognition when items are placed down on the table. The fact that all of this can be shared with one another adds a huge social dynamic to traditional family meetings. Consider the fact that sitting down at a table and eating dinner with your whole family has been in decline for decades (with the advent of television and TV dinners). With PixelSense, a family that eats together absorbs media together. Parents would be able to take a glimpse into their children’s lives, observing their interests. The same goes the other way around, where Jr. can get a taste of his father’s profession. I truly believe that technology will become an important staple in the homes of developed nations within the coming years. Soon people may be able to buy tabletop computers at Ikea!

            Another extraordinary piece of tech that will revolutionize our everyday lives with media is Google Glass. It is a small computer with a camera lens mounted on sunglasses frames. This allows it to serve as more than a Go Pro (a first person camcorder worn on your head), because it relay any video to Google’s video chat. This allows spectators to watch what you’re seeing in real time, which could be jogging, biking, or even skydiving. The real allure here is this technology’s potential. It is a gateway to augmented reality glasses, where the lenses double as a screen displaying information in real time. A slight gesture would allow you to Google any image; coupled with GPS information, any geographical landmark could be researched on the fly. It would greatly enhance anything that we’re doing at that moment. This is a huge boon for Google, who makes money off of ad revenue for searches and social networking. However, critics have stated that the use of this technology would lead to excess ads being pushed to your augmented reality glasses, along with a big brother scenario, which would have your point of view being watched at all times. Despite these worries about a dystopian future, I think that Google Glass will be another staple product in the future and will have a tremendous effect on global media. After all, Google’s long-standing model is "Don't be evil."

            A Huffington Post article recently made some predictions on the future of media in the short-term. They feel that media devices will be wearable. Much like the latest iPod Nano, they’ll be designed to do most of the tasks your smartphone can do but be even more convenient. The biggest draw here is the fact that it can be a fashion statement and a status symbol. Just imagine a Rolex-Apple collaboration. The article says that people will shift to downloadable/streaming video instead of television (think Hulu and Netflix). Soon we may end up talking to ads, since they can personalize the product based on demographic (think Siri on the iPhone). All in all, this article has reassured me on my longstanding predictions that media will continue to become more convenient. 

            At this year’s E3 expo (a very important video game show), an innovative and exciting action-adventure video game was shown off. Its name is Watch Dogs and it centers around a future where media is king. The game’s plotline deals with the world’s increasing reliance on technology. Everything is interconnected and ran by supercomputers constantly, including city infrastructures. Information warfare is the main weapon in this game, where a simple button-press on an in-game cell phone can have a devastating effect on the city’s state around you. This can be used to your advantage as you manipulate your way through, hacking into the infrastructure and manipulating other people. The primary antagonist is an organization that runs the world’s supercomputers, monitoring and controlling everybody in the process. I find this dystopian future to be extremely intriguing. We may not be far off from this world ourselves. Needless to say, Watch Dogs is now highly anticipated, winning multiple Best of E3 awards.

            With the introduction of such an interesting new intellectual property like Watch Dogs, come some very valid worries. How much will our individual privacy suffer in the future? Many wonder if the government or corporations will be able to spy on us whenever they want to. If you have ever seen The Dark Knight, you’ll know that a violation of privacy happens towards its end. Batman is trying to hunt down the Joker but needs to utilize a feature in all of Wayne Industries’ cellular phones, which are unanimous in Gotham City. He uses the radiation that each phone puts out to paint a motion picture of the surroundings of every person, much like eco-location that dolphins use. Batman’s Chief Executive Officer of Wayne Enterprises, Lucius Fox cooperates with the city-wide tracking system, but isn’t happy about its invasion of privacy. He soon resigns from Wayne Enterprises due to the technology’s intrusiveness. The people of Gotham City were lucky that Bruce Wayne was so altruistic, we may not be so lucky with the private corporations of the future.

            Another extremely valid question that comes up is: Who owns the media? As the media’s presence in our lives increases exponentially, we might as well know who’s behind it all. Many analysts consider the concentration of media ownership to be a major threat to democracy. The Journalism.org article, “News Corp Split, Buffett's Bet Top Year of Big Media Ownership Changes,” analyzes the way that large media properties have changed hands in the past calendar year. Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Company has become a major player in the newspaper industry, with the purchase of 63 newspapers from the failing Media General Company. This has restored faith in the ailing newspaper industry, even though many pundits still feel that it will die off in the coming decades. However, Gannett leads in daily newspaper circulation. Time Warner is the top magazine company based on total circulation. Clear Channel is the top radio company, with a total audience of 160 million. Yahoo is the top internet news company with over 39 million unique visitors every month. Comcast is the top network TV (based on morning and evening news viewership) and ethnic TV Company. News Corporation is the top cable news company (based on combined cable news viewership) and local TV company.

This last statistic is unsettling, because News Corporation is run by the conservative Rupert Murdoch. This media mogul’s company has been marred in controversy. His American news network, Fox News, has been constantly criticized for its promotion of conservative political positions and generally biased reporting. Historically, it has always endorsed Republican candidates and slandered the Democratic ones. As Obama’s health care reform was debated, Fox News often called it “government-run health insurance” to make it seem like socialization in the viewer’s eyes. It has been caught distorting facts and cropping quotes from opposing officials for the Republican Party’s gain. Pew Research conducted a 2009 poll that found that Fox News is viewed “as the most ideological television channel in America.”

Rupert Murdoch’s other media property, the British News of the World tabloid, has been the center of a major scandal that led to its eventual shut down. The periodical was accused of phone hacking for years. This was eventually proven in 2011, when it was found out that the newspaper found and deleted the voicemail of missing teen Milly Dowler a decade ago, who was murdered soon after. This caused a huge public outcry and a withdrawal of advertising money. The shutdown of News of the World cost News Corp over £240 million.

Considering the fact that huge media conglomerates like this have tremendous influence in this capitalist country of ours, News Corporation is here to stay. Imagine a future like in Watch Dogs or the Dark Knight, where a corrupt organization like this has the power to keep tabs on your every move and can even sabotage them. It is a conspiracy theorist’s dream, but extremely valid nonetheless.

What will the global media landscape look like in the long-term? Many agree that media and technology will have an increasingly important part in each of our lives, becoming more immersive, seamless, and convenient. Let’s fast forward forty years, to 2050. Imagine a world like in the video game Deus Ex: Human Revolution, where humans are biomechanically augmented to “enhance” their lives. Imagine having an internet-connected computer chip implanted in our brains. We would have instant access to anything the web has to offer at any time. It would be like Google Glass on a whole new level. Imagine children not knowing a time where they couldn’t check the current weather just by blinking. It would give us access to limitless amounts of information. What if we could change our lives like in the movie Total Recall? Where anybody could implant memories, turning them into something they’re not. What about The Matrix, where people could completely live a second, virtual life? One could just plug their brain into the virtual ecosystem and relive the day’s top stories in real time. This potential role-play could drive the market, making normally mundane people extraordinary.

Intel, the world’s largest semi-conductor company, believes that chips implanted in brains will control computers by 2020. They feel that users will soon tire of the traditional keyboard and mouse input on computers, even the more recent input of capacitive touch. They’ll also become even lazier than they are now; feeling that fishing a device out of their pockets is too inconvenient and slow. Brain waves are the key here, allowing people to “surf the web with the power of their thoughts.” The technology has come a long way; researchers say that they’ve been able to get a monkey to control a robot solely with brain waves. In my opinion this hybrid technology, comprised of synthetic and organic materials, is the next step for global media.

            The book, Feed by M.T. Anderson, describes a future where “television and computers are connected directly into people's brains when they are babies.” Certain websites have psychological effects on users, allowing for drug-like sensations. Privacy is a thing of the past. People are constantly encouraged by specifically catered advertisements in their heads to buy certain things. Companies don’t compete with ad space, but for brain space. Everybody is able to communicate instantly via M-chat, similar to instant messaging. Since this is brain to brain, it could be considered a form of telepathy. Pollution has damaged the planet to the point where technology has to control the weather. There is no longer sexual reproduction, women are fertilized artificially at clinics; designing their children into anything they want. The corporations hold most of the political power, which has caused the Global Alliance of nations to go to war with them. The story’s principle character, Titus, is a teenager who is completely inarticulate and speaks in a text/internet chat manner. He slowly realizes that he’s missing something intellectually in his life. He realizes that he needs to rebel against the system. I feel that this story is more than just science fiction and may be an accurate prediction of our technological future.

            Overall, the future of global media is a hard thing to predict, because it can go in so many different directions. However, it is safe to assume that media will become a more integral part of our daily lives. As media takes precedence, there are many opportunities for it to improve our lives. It can strengthen our health, our educational system, and our ability to get work done. Thanks to technological advancements, media will become even more convenient, seamless, and immersive than it is now. Upcoming technology like Microsoft PixelSense and Google Glass is a testament to that.  Media creations like Watch Dogs and Feed also predict our futures. They bring a possible dystopian future to our attention. A future where our lives are run by private companies and our privacy is non-existent. Now is the time to protect our individual rights and freedoms as the global media evolves, before it’s too late.

Works Cited

"The Dashboard." Media Ownership. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://stateofthemedia.org/media-ownership/>.

"Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/29/fox-news-viewed-as-most-ideological-network/>.

Greene, Richard Allen, Laura Smith-Spark, and Dan Rivers. "Murdoch Flies in as Scandal Closes News of the World." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 July 2011. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/10/uk.phonehacking/>.

"Intel: Chips in Brains Will Control Computers by 2020." Computerworld. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141180/Intel_Chips_in_brains_will_control_computers_by_2020?taxonomyId=11>.

Kanalley, Craig. "10 Predictions For The Future Of Media." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 05 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/predictions-future-of-media_n_996196.html>.

"News Corp Split, Buffett's Bet Top Year of Big Media Ownership Changes." Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://www.journalism.org/commentary_backgrounder/who_owns_news_media_database_summary_findings/>.

SAP. "The Future of Social and Mass Media: Wilber, Wang, and Weigend Weigh-In." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/09/22/the-future-of-social-and-mass-media-wilber-wang-and-weigend-weigh-in/>.

"VentureBeat | News About Tech, Money and Innovation." You Are the Network in Ubisoft’s Watch Dogs. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/04/e3-2012-you-are-the-network-in-ubisofts-watch-dogs/>. 

Response #2: Comparing Trends: Twitter vs. The News

                Twitter is a widely used form of social media, where people can post statuses in 140 characters or less (known as tweets). Since its creation in 2006, Twitter has become one of the most popular and successful social networking services. It has over 140 million users and is the 8^th most popular website in the world. It has had a tremendous impact on the way information is circulated, because tweets can reach a wide audience almost instantly. Twitter has changed its initial motto from “What are you doing now?” to “Share and discover what’s happening right now, anywhere in the world.” Analyzing the hashtags (#) of Twitter gives us an accurate depiction of its most popular trends. Things start to get interesting when one compares the trending topics on Twitter with national and world news headlines (from a reputable source, such as the New York Times and CNN). There are many differences and parallelisms between the two forms of media.  

            Looking at the news networks and newspapers, these more traditional forms of media have headlines that are more serious in nature.  As of June 23^rd, headlines are mostly centered around the constant tension and unrest in the Middle East. The world section of the New York Times has articles on the state of democracy in Libya and Egypt, the residual effects of the Arab Spring. Articles such as “Libya Democracy Clashes With Fervor for Jihad” and “In Egypt, Declaration of Winner in Presidential Contest Is Said to Be Near” speak of these nations’ futures with uncertainty. Both the New York Times and CNN world sections have articles on the recent turmoil in Syria, caused by President al-Assad’s oppression. The CNN article, “Top Turkish officials in meetings after Syria downs Turkish jet,” analyzes the potential international crisis that has been brewing between these two independent nations.  There’s also a focus on China, with articles on the Chinese dissident, Ai Weiwei, and China’s space program eventually surpassing NASA.

            On the national scale, there’s a wider variety of topics that are more relevant in the lives of American citizens. Both outlets have articles on Obama’s and Romney’s Presidential campaigns. There is an article on whether or not Obama-care will be stopped by the Supreme Court. Another passage states that Penn State pedophile Jerry Sandusky is on suicide watch following his sentencing. On the lighter side, there’s a few articles covering the Miami Heat’s win in the 2012 NBA Finals.

            Based on the preceding news topics and headlines, we can see that legacy media news outlets focus their headlines on fairly serious topics.

            According to a long term study done by Pear Analytics, only 4% of tweets on Twitter are news-based. Regardless of that seemingly low number, many news outlets release headlines on Twitter, and many people rely on Twitter for news. A Journalism.org article stated that while the majority of top stories on legacy media were dedicated towards the Economy, the majority of news on Twitter was based on Middle Eastern unrest.

            Based on the preceding news topics and headlines, it is safe to assume that these articles are presented in an un-biased manner. In my opinion, the agenda of the legacy media is easier to identify than Twitter’s. There is a constant worry about an escalation of violence in the Middle East, a region that the United States polices. Along with the explosive growth of China, the objective here may be to strike fear into the hearts of the public, indirectly controlling them. The actions of Obama and Romney are being scrutinized due to the upcoming elections. The media’s increased focus on the President every four years is often criticized because it causes the executive politician in office to expedite the political agenda, getting things done as fast as possible while keeping their reputations as positive as possible. In my opinion, it is a shame that certain topics like campaign politics control all of the limelight from the more pressing issues.

            Looking at a new Twitter account I made (I have not followed anybody, altering my trends) on June 23^rd, the global trends are much more sports and pop culture based. Hashtags with the words Laurent Blanc, Lionel Messi, Hackney Weekend, Greyson Michael Chance and Swedish House Mafia dominate. The only politically related hashtag is one containing Elena Valenciano, a former Spanish parliament member and a member of the Spanish Socialist Worker’s party. Laurent Blanc and Lionel Messi are both professional footballers (French and Argentine respectively); which is relevant due to the Eurocup taking place. Hackney Weekend is a major British music festival taking place soon. Greyson Michael Chance is a young boy on YouTube who covers famous songs. Swedish House Mafia is an electronic music group, who made headlines when they announced that they would be breaking up at the end of their next tour. The most popular U.S. Twitter trends are mostly meaningless conversation topics (#stillup, #OFTrivia, #SomethingIgetalot etc.). Not surprisingly, Hashtag Syria is on the list.

            In my opinion, Twitter’s agenda is the same as any other social media entity’s, to get people to act as social as possible. This drives Twitter’s revenue. Compared to Legacy Media, the user demographic is completely different. There is a much younger generation utilizing Twitter than the generation utilizing newspapers. As a result, pop culture and sports come into play much more as Twitter’s trending hashtags.  However, traditional news entities still see the value in Twitter as evidenced above. They realize that it can help generate traffic to their websites by posting headlines and article links. People can see these topics immediately on pretty much any current mobile device. This allows for emergency messages from news groups and other entities (like FEMA) to be relayed instantly to the public. Twitter is also credited for adding to the validity of the news, due to “crowdsourcing.” This means that a person can read about the same topic from many people and not have to rely on a Google algorithm or a single potentially biased news source. 

            Overall, the agendas of legacy media and Twitter are very different but also similar in a few ways. Legacy media stands to inform the public, but it ends up scaring it and putting too much emphasis on certain topics. More biased forms may try to indirectly control people. The purpose of Twitter is to get people to communicate, by sharing their opinions and experiences. The more traffic it receives, the more it can sell promoted tweets and trends to private companies. Both forms of media are common in the way they make money, through traffic (be it the website visitors, paper circulations, or TV ratings), which allows them to sell advertisements. I believe that Twitter is here to stay and will continue to innovate for years to come.

Works Cited

CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 24 June 2012. <http://www.CNN.com/US/>.

CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 24 June 2012. <http://www.CNN.com/WORLD/>.

"How Mainstream Media Outlets Use Twitter." Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). N.p., n.d. Web. 24 June 2012. <http://www.journalism.org/node/27311>.

"Keiths.blog." Twitter vs. News : How Twitter Is Chaging the News. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 June 2012. <http://www.keithrozario.com/2011/07/twitter-vs-news-how-they-reported-the-oslo-bombing.html>.

The New York Times. The New York Times, n.d. Web. 24 June 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.html>.

The New York Times. The New York Times, n.d. Web. 24 June 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html>.

Twitter Study - August 2009. Pear Analytics, n.d. Web. <http://www.pearanalytics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Twitter-Study-August-2009.pdf>. 

Discussion #6: My Life With Media

From an early age, back when I used to sit up close to the TV and watch, I have been enamored with media. Currently I spend most of my time on my desktop computer, surfing the web. I subscribe to many RSS news feeds that supply me with information. 5 years ago, I would spend a large portion of my time playing video games and watching TV. While I still enjoy those activities, I tend to spend most of my time on Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook. To me it’s a perfect trifecta, one that quenches my curiosities and allows me to goof off. While I have found it difficult at times to balance my real life and digital life (usually with respect to schoolwork), it has never taken a huge toll on me. My family used to wonder why I spent so much time with different forms of media, but now they all do so themselves. My friends were usually right there with me absorbing the same media. My time on Wikipedia and YouTube has done the most to widen my horizons, changing my perception of other cultures, religions, the opposite sex, other ideologies, and other professions. I no longer read books during my free time, just Wikipedia pages. I have read so many articles and watched so many videos that no topic remains untouched by me. The opportunities for education have been my favorite part of media adoption; it has probably had the greatest effect on my development.

Practical Assignment: Religulous Review

           Religulous is a humorous, yet informative, 2008 documentary by comedian Bill Maher. He spends the film interviewing various religious people of different faiths, asking them about their faith then pointing out the ridiculousness of it all. Maher interviews Christians, Hasidic Jews, a Jew for Jesus, Muslims, former Mormons, and a man who “prayed his gay away.” He also satirically preaches scientology at one point. Throughout this review I will summarize and analyze all of Bill Maher’s interviews. It’s also important to note that it is almost impossible to review this film without bias, so I’ll lay mine on the line right now: I agree with Bill Maher when he’s standing on the ruins in Megiddo, Israel (where the Book of Revelations says the Apocalypse will start) and says that most religions are poisonous to society and are hindering our development as a whole. It is important to note Maher is not as “radical” as he seems in the film with this statement, 16% of the United States is atheist. I feel that nobody should read past this point without seeing the film first, because spoilers do follow.

            I want my readers to visualize the following interviews in a certain way. Whenever the interviewee answers Bill’s questions with something non-factual (80% of the time), he puts cut-ins right after and text on the bottom. These are timed perfectly and really get his point across. Think of Family Guy mixed with Michael Moore’s documentaries, a hilarious combination. These really upped the humor, in my opinion a difference that separates TV movies from the silver screen. The film was directed by Larry Charles, who also directed Borat, and the comedic similarities run rampant throughout this motion picture. 

            Bill Maher starts off his documentary by visiting a southern church. There he starts an intelligent discussion with the various parishioners and the reverend. He asks them what they see in their faith, Christianity. The clergy refutes any scientific evidence Maher puts forth. They seem very stubborn and ignorant towards science and evolution. He asks them “Why do you believe in the talking snake and the man who lived in a giant fish?” This is in reference to the Garden of Eden and Jonah and the Whale in the Bible. None of them pose challenging answers. This question quickly angers a church-goer who refuses to be in the documentary any longer and storms off. *This is interestingly the angriest anybody gets at Maher in the whole film. Throughout the movie I was expecting Bill to get punched in the face, but he never did. Everybody was extremely patient with him and his mockeries of them.* Another church-goer states that he used to be a full-blown Satanist who sold drugs, was in charge of many prostitutes, and was always in possession of a large amount of cash. He reformed himself and gave all of those luxuries up. Bill, in shock, asks him why he would give up such pleasures. In his retort, the man states that he did it to save his soul and is now truly happy. This is an important quality of religion that Maher always overlooks in the film; the fact that religion has scared “most” people into doing the right thing, instead of acting like animals (radical martyrs aside). They finish the argument asking each other, what if the opposite is wrong? Maher ends the segment saying that people should not live their lives in fear of an afterlife, something I wholeheartedly agree with and appreciate. 

He then gives the Christian creationist museum in Kentucky a chance, taking in all that it has to offer. Quickly the viewer will notice the museum capitalizing on this religion. There’s a large gift shop and a singing performance of the Passion. The most ridiculous was the exhibit where the biblical figures live side by side with animatronic dinosaurs. Maher quickly gets into an argument with a fervent visitor while the museums PR people freak out over his presence there.

Another sidesplitting encounter takes place in a large Miami church, where a Hispanic man with “Jesus” in his name proclaims to be the second coming of Christ. He is shown to have over 100,000 followers, but Maher is able to break down his hoax during the one-on-one interview. This messiah can barely understand Maher’s jokes and seems more and more of a grounded person as he speaks.

Closing up the section on Christianity, we see a few more interviews in the film. There’s the Christian senator (Mark Pryor) who can barely put a logical sentence together and then states “You don’t need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate.” I liked when Bill expresses his worry that people like this are allowed to run our country. Next there’s the Jew for Jesus who became a believer when he wished for rain on a cloudy day and then it started to rain a minute later. He thanked God for this “miracle” and never looked back. Then there’s the man who “prayed his gay away.” He states that no person is born gay but then later states that nobody can choose to be gay either, something that makes this guy seem woefully ignorant. The man states that all gay people are truly unhappy inside, Maher then says: “How can that be? They have the word gay named after them!” A cut-in of the Manhattan Gay Pride Parade ensues, showing people in bliss. In a funny and ironic twist, Maher ends the interview by hugging the man goodbye and then seeing if he got aroused. Finally the last interview on the subject involves two ex-Mormons, people who completely denounced their cult-like community. I personally liked this change of pace because the interview featured people that were on Bill’s side, people that he didn’t have to argue with.  The two men went on to state how their families and friends shunned them for their decision. In one of my favorite parts of the film, Maher analyzes the Mormon religion with the two men, showing just how ridiculous it really is. He goes on to say how Monotheistic religions and American nationalism normally do not mix and that Mormonism was created to change that. That it’s based on Joseph Smith’s gospel about Jesus resurrecting in America to meet the indigenous people, a lost tribe of Israel. He states that John Smith’s lies have created a cult-like religion, that allows for polygamy and misogyny. Clips of Yiddish-speaking Native Americans were particularly funny. The portion of the film on Christianity has now ended and so have most of the entertaining parts. The sections on Orthodox Judaism and Islam are unfortunately not as over-the-top.

Next up is an interview with a Hasidic Rabbi who is an anti-Zionist, against the existence of the state of Israel. At first the man seems noble since he’s working towards peace in Middle East. He also states that the Jews are undeserving of the state of Israel. He quickly turns into a hypocrite when a cut-in video showing him shaking the radical president of Iran and anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hand. This segment really highlighted the beauty of the film’s cut-in system to completely change your opinion of someone.

The documentary quickly shifts to Amsterdam, where Bill speaks to some of the City’s Muslims. He speaks to a Muslim man, woman, and Imam who all stating their love for Islam. They all proceed to speak about Islam’s focus on peace and completely downplay any emphasis on violence, or jihad, calling it “politics.” As per usual, Maher doesn’t buy it and berates them. He follows it with clips of Middle Eastern riots, jihadist pep rallies, and  9/11. I found this part of the movie to be fairly dry, to the point where I was getting drowsy. I feel that Maher should have had their monologues cut shorter and just have gotten straight to the point.

The last scene lampooning religions takes place at the Speakers' Corner in London, where Maher poses as a Scientologist. He preaches the beliefs of the religion, mainly its science fiction core. Normally a farfetched religious premise, Scientology seems right at home with the deadly fairy tales of the monotheistic religions from earlier in the film. I really liked how he mentioned the fees associated with their church’s “auditing,”  which is similar to Christian church dues that aren’t even taxed.

My harshest criticisms on Religulous are neatly summed up by Kenneth Turan’s LA Times review:

The humor he creates at their expense proves nothing except that dealing from a stacked deck benefits no one but the dealer… If people are incautious enough to be interviewed without knowing anything about the interviewer, if they are foolish enough not to recognize how foolish they will look, they have, in effect, signed their own death warrant, agreeing to be mercilessly drawn and quartered by some of the sharpest blades in the business.

He continues to state that Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark) should have known better during the interview, and that his verbal commentary leaves a “sour taste” in his mouth.

At heart, Bill Maher is a comedian, an entertainer. It would take an entertainer to bring a topic this controversial to the big screen. It is job to make the audience laugh, but if they think a little bit afterwards it is a bonus. I just wish that he was a little more forgiving and less brutal towards his interviewees. Maybe then these religious pundits would reevaluate their beliefs.

Overall, Religulous is a hilarious documentary that refutes religion, and is sure to get a lot of peoples’ blood boiling.  In the end the story comes full circle as Maher is once again standing on the ruins in Megiddo, Israel stating that religion is poisonous and will lead to nuclear annihilation of the human race. I just wish that Bill Maher could have eased up on his subjects and didn’t berate them as much. I also wish that his segments on Islam and Judaism showed more direction and were as entertaining as the others. Maybe one day there will be a sequel where he addresses Hinduism and Buddhism.

Works Cited

03, October. "Maher Toys with Religion's Fringes." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 03 Oct. 2008. Web. 14 June 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/03/entertainment/et-Religulous3>.

"Believers, Skeptics and a Pool of Sitting Ducks." Bill Maher and Larry Charles Offer an Irreverent Debate on Faith. N.p., 30 Sept. 2008. Web. 14 June 2012. <http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/movies/01reli.html>.

"Religulous :: Rogerebert.com :: Reviews." Religulous :: Rogerebert.com :: Reviews. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2012. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/REVIEWS/810020306>.

Response #1: Mark Twain and 19th Century Journalism

            I believe that Mark Twain’s short stories, “Journalism in Tennessee” and “How I Edited an Agricultural Paper Once,”  show many instances of irony and journalism of the era, even though they are both fairly hard to analyze. We can also see that Twain is fairly critical about the practice of journalism at that time.

            “Journalism in Tennessee” tells us the story of the narrator’s trip to Tennessee for his health. He starts work at a small local newspaper company, and realizes after writing his first article and a prolonged stay at the office, that the state’s journalism is biased, violent, and only caters to a specific demographic. He comes to the conclusion that the periodical never seeks the truth through its inquiries. Once the narrator brings this up at the newspaper office, many acts of violence and name-calling are directed to him. Soon after, he quits his job and leaves Tennessee. He is modest in his opinion of Tennessee, ironically stating that it’s “stirring.” It is ironic that he came to Tennessee to save his own life, but almost loses it on his first day of work there. It is apparent that Twain did not base this story on reality; all one has to do is look at how flat and boring some of the newspaper’s stories seem to be. The quote, "Thunder and lightning! Do you suppose I am going to speak of those cattle that way? Do you suppose my subscribers are going to stand such gruel as that? Give me the pen!", demonstrates how sensitive people are in the story when it comes to content. It also sheds light on the long-standing customers that the newspaper had to keep happy. It really focuses on how easily people got upset about newspapers at the time. At no point in the story do the characters even consider the events as odd, everything is told in a serious tone. Elements that are opposite of today’s real world journalism occur when the chief editor revises the narrator’s first article on the railroad. He cuts and changes many parts of the article, turning it into something unusual. What remains makes little sense to the reader. In this instance, the inverted pyramid is completely ignored. His focus is on the background information and minor details instead of the who, what, when, where, why, and how. One could say that the newspaper is guilty of reverse yellow journalism. Ultimately, I feel that Twain is showing the reader the common struggle between the journalist and his editor, who often strips their articles down and completely changes them. Twain is also showing us the day to day politics, arguments, and grudges held between members of journalistic offices through the displays of gratuitous violence.

            “How I Edited an Agriculture Paper” describes Mark Twain’s experiences after taking over an agricultural paper. The overarching theme here is a satire of the newspapers that criticize things they know nothing about. Also it seems that putting the narrator in charge of anything is never a good idea. The narrator’s decision to write this story around agriculture is a great one, because most people depended on it for their food in 1870.  At first, he is tasked with presenting his article on agriculture, something that he knows nothing about. An old man soon comes in and criticizes the narrator’s statements on Turnips, causing the man to go hysterical. As expected, violence ensues all over the place and the man storms off. Soon the paper’s real editor arrives stating that while the paper’s reputation has been ruined, it has gotten very popular. This increase in popularity is due to the crazy things stated in the paper. The editor continues to berate and accuse the narrator, he ends his monologue saying that he’ll never go on a vacation again. The narrator then calls the editor names (after vegetables), and argues that a man doesn’t need to know anything about a subject to write an article on it. He proceeds to give many examples, such as: book reviewers, financial leaders, and experts on Indian campaigns. The less a man knows about his assignment, the more pay he’ll receive and attention will be garnered.  He asserts that a man should be able to state whatever he wants in his article, no matter how ridiculous, and never be constrained by the actual facts on the matter at hand. The narrator feels that ignorance is key and that truthful articles are dull and lifeless. He soon quits, stating that he did a good job by getting the paper more viewers. In my opinion, the irony and satire in this short story are even more apparent than in “Journalism in Tennessee.” Once again the inverted pyramid of journalism is blatantly ignored, with an emphasis on random details in the agriculture article. True yellow journalism is at work here, where quality is set aside for quantity. The narrator’s quote, “a solitary individual who could tell a watermelon tree from a peach-vine to save his life,” hilariously demonstrates general ignorance (these two fruits are not grown by these respective methods). In this instance, Twain is satirizing the people who are considered “experts” in the media. The people who are not very qualified in their area of work. These people are talking the talk, while the real experts are walking the walk (scientists, engineers, etc.). The most striking journalistic satire comes from the editor’s lecture on how to write the article; the person who has no skill or business writing articles in the first place. I feel that Mark Twain is critical about journalism in this respect, because authors lose their creative control as soon as the editor steps in.

            Overall, Mark Twain makes some grand gestures of irony and satire in his short stories: “Journalism in Tennessee” and “How I Edited an Agricultural Paper Once.” One can easily identify the 19^th century American journalism in his stories. Depending on the clientele, the papers in question tend to be made into exciting or boring passages. This shows us that writers are often at the mercy of their editors, a frustrating circumstance that Twain is critical of.

Works Cited

Gahr, Elton. "Short Story Reviews: How I Edited an Agriculture Paper, by Mark Twain." Helium. Helium, 24 Sept. 2010. Web. 04 June 2012. <http://www.helium.com/items/1963461-short-story-reviews-how-i-edited-an-agriculture-paper-by-mark-twain>.

Gahr, Elton. "Short Story Reviews: Journalism in Tennessee, by Mark Twain." Helium. Helium, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 04 June 2012. <http://www.helium.com/items/1951193-short-story-reviews-journalism-in-tennessee-by-mark-twain>.

"How I Edited an Agricultural Paper By: Mark Twain." How I Edited an Agricultural Paper By: Mark Twain - Home. Web. 04 June 2012. <http://twainshameek.weebly.com/index.html>. 

Discussion #5: Media is Hurting Democracy

I agree with Robert McChesney statements that the mass media has become an anti-Democratic force. I attribute this change to the conglomerates that own the media companies. They have used the media to further their own political agendas. Fox News immediately comes to mind, along with the Rupert Murdoch News of the World scandal in Britain. They have consistently supported our nation’s two party system, something the Founding Father’s disagreed with. The most dastardly deed that the media commits is the over exaggeration of scandals that cause the public to forget about the real problems at hand, like the national debt. Media has always been necessary to Democracy, but it has gotten too large and powerful in this day and age.

Discussion #4: Gotcha.

Going with Gotcha as the front page story for the New York Sun obviously would have been the wrong thing to do at that time. It was their media responsibility to report what they knew, and that was the Brooklyn Boys’ innocence. Henry Hacket took the risk in bringing this case to justice, and it worked. Alicia Clark represents cheap thrills and yellow journalism in the industry; evil and ignorance. Ultimately, going with Gotcha on the front page wouldn’t have done much harm to the Sun’s journalistic integrity, because it’s tabloid that is not taken as seriously as the New York Sentinel. Based on the readings, going with Gotcha would have set a bad example in the eyes of the impressionable public.