Our Planet, Our Environment

David Suzuki Foundation. What You Can Do: At Home. 2007. 15 June 2008 http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/at_home.asp.

Tanneeru, Manav. Global Warming: A Natural Cycle or Human Result? 2008. 15 June 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/globalwarming.overview/index.html.

Green Expander. 20 Shocking Facts on the Environment. 20 Oct. 2008. 15 June 2008 http://www.greenexpander.com/2007/10/30/20-shocking-facts-on-the-environment/.

Live Television Production @ MuchMusic

My experience as part of a live audience on Much on Demand (MOD) was quite interesting. If it is one thing that I learned there, it was that what you actually see on TV as a viewer is nothing like the experience of actually being at the television studio and seeing the production of the show.

As a viewer you see so little of what actually goes on. You aren't even exposed to the director, who is a more important part of the show than most people might think. He tells the hosts and at times, even the audience, what to do and when to do it. People have to listen to what he says and the outcome of his directions create what we see on TV. Everything is extremely set up.

The directors of MOD were Kuami and J.P. When we first walked in, Kuami asked us to clap and cheer like huge fans of a celebrity. This was about an hour before the show was even to go on air. He showed us a hand motion. Every time Kuami did that, the audience was to respond by clapping and screaming, so the viewers at home would get a sense that we were really huge fans of the guests, who would soon arrive. However, the environment at the studio was really nothing like that. The two directors also held up big cards every little while, telling the hosts what was coming up next e.g. a commercial, phone question and the cards even informed the hosts what to say every once in a while. For example, one time Matt was talking to the members of N.E.R.D., who were the guests of the show that day, and kept pushing for the answer to a question, all the while J.P. continuously signaled him to look over at Kuami who was holding a card with what Matt needed to say next written on it. At another point in the show, once N.E.R.D. had left, one of the hosts was brought in to sit in one of the audience members' place and interact with another audience member. The person that had to be moved ended up being me. The director came up to me, asked me if I could do him a favour, I said, “sure” and then he asked me to stand on the side and that this was only temporary. I complied and host Hannah sat in my place and asked my friend who'd been sitting beside me a question.

Another thing that was really different about watching TV and actually being in the studio watching it unfold, is that you notice that everything is extremely set up. From the screaming and clapping right down to when the hosts are going to laugh. Every single thing: what the hosts say, who asks the questions and what part of the room they ask it from, the audience answers to hosts' questions and even my getting up for Hannah and then sitting back down afterwards was rehearsed. This is to ensure that everything runs smoothly during the live take.

The lights, cameras and screen graphics are all operated by different people. They know exactly what their jobs are. For example, the person responsible for the lighting has to ensure that the lights are bright enough for high definition viewing and light enough to be able to see everyones' faces properly on TV. The cameraman, of course, are also important. At MuchMusic there were several cameras in the room taking footage from their own part of the room, so that every camera's footage is from a different angle. Another very important job is that of the producer. They have to pick through the takes of each camera and then decide which one is going to go live on air.

During commercials, everyone is busy ensuring that the next time they're on air, everything runs smoothly. For example, Leah would get her hair fixed, the hosts would rehearse their lines as well as chat to audience members and take pictures with them and the director would talk to the hosts and audience members, telling them what they were supposed to do and when. Because the hosts are rehearsing a lot of the times, I would sometimes get confused about whether we were on air or if we were at a commercial break. The environment at all times during the show is quite busy, but casual. People are always doing something.

In my opinion, I think working at MuchMusic would be a pretty exciting place to work because you get to meet different people everyday and while I was there, it looked more like they were having fun than actually working.

Unknown artist. “MuchMusic.” No date. Online image. Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “Much on Demand.” No date. Online image. Forum.CONNpost.com. 15 June 2008.

How Much is Too Much?

When Edward Steichan said: “every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible,” he was totally right.

Whether we know it or not, photo manipulation is all around us. What it all really comes down to is ethics (what one believes to be right or wrong). This term is very important to news reporting because the news media like photojournalists have a responsibility to report truthful news. The issue comes into when photojournalists manipulate images but still use them to represent reality.


This was the issue surrounding the controversy involving 2 images of O.J. Simpson in 1994. O.J. Had made big news when he was accused of murdering his wife and her partner. In 1 news magazine: Newsweek, O.J. Simpson's original mugshot was displayed while in another new magazine:Time, his mugshot was altered to make him look darker. Many major new organizations as well as black journalists said that Time magazine's manipulation was racist and made O.J. “look more sinister and guilty.”

James, Gaines, the managing director of Time magazine at the time said that changing Simpson's mugshot was “defensible.” “...The cold specificity of the picture had been subtly smoothed and shaped into an icon of tragedy....” But Simpson hadn't even been convicted yet. Gaines also called the image “art.” The only thing is, what's a NEWS magazine doing using “art” to represent a true news story. “Art” is human creativity whereas “news” is straight-down reality.

Knowing what I do about the O.J. Simpson magazine cover controversy, I, personally, don't think that the manipulation was "intended" to be racist. Although it is definitely a possibility, I think the bigger intentiion was to sell copies of the magazine. So if they manipulated the image a little, made it look darker, and slapped the title: An American Tragedy on it, it would really sell becuase it would make the readers pick up the magazine out of curiousity, more so than the Newsweek magazine cover.

What distinguishes ethical photo manipulation from the unethical is the intent of the photographer. Intentionally deceiving the viewer, perhaps by using a manipulated photo to represent reality would be unethical. If a photographer's intent is to report, then his/her photos should accurately show what the photographer saw. Once a photo is altered, it becomes an illustration and “art.” If the photographer wanted to manipulate a photo in order to illustrate a point, it would only be ethical if that intent was made clear to the audience.

With photo manipulation being used everywhere; from billboard advertisements we see everyday to news images, such as this photo of Lebanon,

it's getting harder to know what images are actually real. Right now we turn to the news for true info, but if this photo manipulation continues to grow, photographs might just come to be thought of as things to be retouched. Then the credibility of the news will certainly be in question. If the news media is not credible, then we might just stop turning to them for real “news.”

It's also important to keep in mind why people in the media manipulate photos. It's not because it's fun, but because different media organizations compete against each other for the most sales. As for photojournalists, it's their job to take "the right picture." It's what they live on. So when they can't get that perfect shot, they find it easier to just doctor the image to make it look like an award-worthy picture.

The question is, has computer retouching of images gone too far? Well, in my opinion it has. There are many images out there that are deemed to be great, award-winning images. In many of these cases of has turned out that they'd been retouched. For example, the following image of the train andthe Tibetan antelopes going the other way.

It was said to be a fascinating picture that represented the fact that nature could live side by side with technology. However, bloggers discovered the reality; this was another case of photo manipulation. So, as you can see, it's gottten to the point where we don't know what images to believe and what images not to believe.

How much do you think is too much?



Rose, Trevor. "YOU and YOUR RIGHTS." The Washington Post Newspaper in Education Program. 19 Dec. 2002. Rpt.

Unknown artist. “O.J. Simpson's Mug Shot.” No date. Online image. Falsification of History. 15 June 2008.

Hajj, Adnan. “Altered Lebanon War Photo.” No date. Online image. National Press Photographer's Association. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “Tibetan antelopes.” No date. Online image. PhotoshopNews.com. 15 June 2008.

Exposure to Media

Friday, Feb. 22, 2008
Activity:
Walked home from school
Media Encountered:
-saw an ad for Schneider's hotdog through Mac's convenient store window
-saw a lotto-649 ad stand in front of Mac's
-passed Big-Bee and saw ads for Dibs Ice Cream, slushies and lotto-649 through their store window
-saw 2 cars with "Great Glasses" written on the side

Activity:
Watched TV (CNN)
Media Encountered:
-saw ads for cialis, Acura, Aleve, Ditech, ActiveON, HeadON, RenewON

Activity:
Called a friend
Media Encountered:
-talked about the movie she was watching called "Vacancy"

Activity:
Watched TV (Nick)
Media Encountered:
-saw ads for Apple Jacks cereal, Proactive and saw the trailer for "College Roadtrip"

Sat., Feb. 23, 2008
Activity:
Watched TV (CHCH)
Media Encountered:
-saw ads for "Extra" gum, Windex and Pillsburry

Activity:
Checked my E-Mail
Media Encountered:
-saw several ads for Lavalife

Activity:
Went on MSN
Media Encountered:
-saw a picture of Angelina Jolie when "MSN Today" popped up

Sun., Feb. 24, 2008
Activity:
Glanced at the Stoney Creek News
Media Encountered:
-saw an ad for "Parks Furniture" sticking out of it

Activity:
Talked on the phone with a friend while watching TV
Media Encountered:
Talked about how friend's cousin has too mcuh time on her hands because she's 25 and still watches Disney shows like "Hannah Montana" and "The Suite LIfe of Zack and Cody"

After paying extra attention to my media exposure over the past 3 days, I have come to realize that there are so many different forms of media and we encounter them in almost any activity we engage in.

Whether I was walking home from school or or checking my e-mail, I was exposed to various media: ads on posters visible through store windows, ad stands and ads on web pages. We don't often stop and think about it, but media is really all around us. Even when I took a quick glance at the Stoney Creek News sitting on the dining table, what first popped out at me was not a news story but an ad for Park's Furniture sticking out of it. Through this I now realize that there's media in media.

What surprises me is that media is especially found in places where we'd never think to look if someone told us to look for media. For example, I encountered media both times that I talked on the phone with my friend. On Friday, we ended up talking about the movie that she was watching, called “Vacancy.” Then on Sunday we talked about how I was watching “Phil of the Future” as I talked to her and she told me about how her cousin has too much time on her hands because she's 25 and still watches shows like “Hannah Montana” and “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody.”Without even watching these shows and movie for myself at that moment, I was exposed to them by my friend.

I think we all get enough exposure to media without even turning on the computer or TV, which are two huge ways of interacting with media. For example, when I watched the news on CNN, not only was I interacting with the news about what was going on in the world, but I was being exposed to media just as much when I watched commercial after commercial during the break.

Being on the computer, mainly the Internet and MSN, we are all exposed to little bits of media everywhere. When I signed into my e-mail account on hotmail.com, one of the first things I noticed was big pictures of 2 people on a Lavalife ad. Then when I signed into MSN, “MSN Today” popped up. As I dragged my mouse over to close the window, I couldn't help but see a picture of Angelina Jolie with a headline talking about her. Now, you know you're being exposed to too much media when you're practically forced to look at it even when you don't really want to.

Unknown artist. “Media..” No date. Online image. Media. 15 June 2008.

Media Inventory

I use TV most because that's how I spend a lot of my free time at home since my brother is always on the computer

Mom uses phone most because that's the only way she communicates to people who aren't face to face from her- she doesn't use a cell phone or MSN, etc.

Dad uses cell phone most because he's the only person in the house who has one.

Brother uses computer most because he's always on YouTube, playing games and talking to friends on MSN.

Dad uses TV the least because works and is more occupied with other things.

Brother uses phone least because he mostly communicates to friends on MSN, etc.

Mom uses cell phone least because she doesn't have one plus doesn't care to use the technology.

Mom uses computer least because she isn't very interested plus no time because brother is always on, otherwise I'm on and sometimes dad goes on.


My Family Members' Favourite Media Tools:
Mom- TV
Dad-Cell Phone
Brother- Computer
Me- Computer & TV

The telephone is the least favourite because there are more interesting ways of communicating when you're not face-to-face from someone. For example, the cellphone and the computer (internet).

Children of Different ages and sexes do prefer different items because of the society that they've been raised in. Advertisements as well as people that children advertise and influence them to like certain things. For example, dolls are geared towards girls and cars towards boys.

The item that is used most is the computer because of it's variety of uses: videos, music, homework, communication (MSN, facebook, etc.). It also has almost any information you want at your fingertips.

The item that is used least is the telephone because we can substitute another item for the same purpose plus more. For example, the computer (MSN, Facebook) and cellphone (also have texting, etc.).

FREE SPEECH!...Or Maybe Not So Much?

As most of us are aware, the media has great control in deciding what the public hears and sees.

We all turn to things like the news to tell us what's going on in our communities and around the world. However, if you ask most people, they'll tell you that they turn on the news to hear and see factual, objective information. Journalists and the news media should NOT be allowed to express their biased/political opinions without a limit. Yes, they have just as equal a right to free speech as any other citizen, but the only difference is that when they are working as journalists, part of the job description is to be objective, not subjective

However, nowadays that isn't always the case. Some members of the news media do tend to carry their opinions on their sleeves. Viewers are smart enough to make their own judgements and create their own opinions based on FACTS presented by the news media.

I would totally agree with a ratings system or an on-screen message for news that would inform the viewer whether opinions were being represented or pure factual information. This would be a great way of ensuring that viewers were not manipulated into taking in peoples' opinions as facts.

However, when it comes to celebrities and other personalities, I think as long as they are in no way related to the news media or any other organization that claims to tell the “news”, they should definitely be able to express their opinions, both biased & political. Why? BECAUSE WE'RE A NATION THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE FREE SPEECH. And free speech is what defines us as a democratic country.

So in 2003, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks diecided to use that right of free speech. At a concert in London, England, she told the audience while laughing, “"Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." It turned out, using her right of free speech had many consequences. Lipton, the Dixie Chick's sponsor of their 2003 “Top of the World” tour disassociated themselves from the group, many country radio stations pulled the group's songs off air and former fans destroyed their CDs. Why? Well, President Bush's popularity was sky high which was why people were shocked and upset that, “Texas' own have attacked the state and the president.” For example, Terry Dorsey, host of WBAP 820 in Arlington, Texas said, “Natalie Maines is not paid to espouse her ideas on stage.” Others told the Dixie Chicks to “Shut up & sing.” What didn't come to the minds of many was why. Maines is a citizen of the U.S., and as such has the right to express her opinions freely. By telling the Dixie Chicks that they need to "Shut up and Sing," they were sending a messgage to everyone else who doesn't agree with the government to also shutup. What happened to democracy? So instead of asking the question, should they be allowed to express their biased or political opinions, we should be asking the question, why not? It's just the news media that shouldn't have been allowed to express their opinions as some did.

Songs aren't news; they have the opinions, feelings and emotions of the artist(s) embedded in them. The Dixie Chicks weren't the only non-news media related celebrities that spoke out politically against George Bush, the president of the United States.

During a live Hurricane Katrina fundraiser on TV, Kanye West said, “George Bush doesn't care about black people,” referring to the late and slow recovery efforts in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He was then immediately cut off air, which I think is wrong. What ever happened to FREE SPEECH? Although I would definitely say that this comment was much worse than Natalie Maines' comment about President Bush, Kanye West wasn't as highly criticized for it and didn't have to pay as many consequences as the Dixie Chicks. Weird, right? Well, not exactly. The key was that Kanye West made his comment after President Bush's approval rating had dropped and was at it's all time low because of the late response to Hurricane Katrina. Natalie Maines' comment came at a time when the president's approval rating was high. What message does that bring to the public...It's wrong to publically say the oppposite of what the majority is believing but when the majority also starts to believe that way, then it alright to express your belief?

Many other artists have written protest songs. Pink and the very popular Rolling Stones are just some examples from the recent past. However, it's important to note that Pink's song has unofficially been banned from American radio stations and DJ's have been told not to talk about her song if if she's a guest on their show. TALK ABOUT CENSORSHIP! This all sends out a message to the public that says that you really don't have the right to free speech as much as you think you do and if you use your right to free speech and go against the majority belief, there could be consequences.

Protest songs aren't a new trend at all. There have been many in the past. In the sixites, youth culture was defined by protest songs. They were well recieved too. Just take Edwin Starr's 'War' for example. it rose to become the United States' #1 song in 1970. Another proetst song of the past is Bob Marley and Wailers 'Get Up, Stand Up' (1973), rebelling against opression and Phil Ochs' 'I Ain't Marching Anymore'(1965) , rebelling against war. Check out this list of even more past protest songs:
http://www.spinner.com/2007/07/13/20-protest-songs-that-mattered-no-20/.

All in all, do I think that there should be NO limit to free speech? The answer: no. There should be certain limits as are already in place such as no hate speech (e.g. racist and sexist comments) and things of that extent. But expressing our feelings about the government should not be limited...because isn't that what a democratic government is all about?

Froomkin, Dan. Was Kanye West Right? 13 Sep. 2005. 15 June 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/09/13/BL2005091300884_pf.html.

Edgers, Geoff . Protest Singers Renew Their Cry. 16 Apr. 2006. 15 June 2008 .
http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2006/04/16/protest_singers_renew_their_cry/

Unknown artist. “Dixie Chicks' album.” No date. Online image. 8notes.com. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “Pink-the singer.” No date. Online image. EnjoyFrance.com. 15 June 2008

Unknown artist. “Kanye West singing.” No date. Online image. DirectNews. 15 June 2008.