Friday, February 27, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
I'm #26! Yay!
Ranking blogs is so "old media".
There was a time when Time Magazine was a truly national magazine, without an obvious political agenda and as such, was a valuable resource for newshounds. I think that time was for a year or two in the mid 1970's.
Alas, those days are gone. What better evidence for this than their current list of the top 25 blog sites for 2009? I was discouraged and outraged when I discovered that my own blog A Model Media Ecologist is not considered by Time Magazine to be one of the top 25 blogs (in the country, the world, the blogosphere?) Time seems to be completely unaware that A Model Media Ecologist won the Blogger of the Year Award (see here).
Here's a Media Ecology question. Why aren't magazines in trouble like newspapers? Specifically, why isn't Time in jeopardy?
I realize that such sour grapes are unbecoming a model media ecologist. Time Magazine has as much right to exist as the next main stream media publication, biases and all. Of course, you may wonder why any of the main stream media should be judging and ranking any the new media in the first place. Isn't there a conflict of interest there?
I wrote an imaginary letter of complaint to Time and received this imaginary reply:
Dear (your blog name here):
We appreciate your concern about the many worthy blog sites that did not make it into our pantheon of the Top 25. Perhaps it will be of some solace to you to be told (and this is completely off the record) that your own blog missed it by only that much, that is, (your blog name here) came in at 26!
Congratulations, and better luck next year!
Sincerely,
Time Magazine
It is some solace, but not much. I might feel better if my imaginary Time Magazine correspondent had taken the trouble to actually type the name of my blog into his boilerplate.
Oh well, its on to the Peabody Awards!
There was a time when Time Magazine was a truly national magazine, without an obvious political agenda and as such, was a valuable resource for newshounds. I think that time was for a year or two in the mid 1970's.
Alas, those days are gone. What better evidence for this than their current list of the top 25 blog sites for 2009? I was discouraged and outraged when I discovered that my own blog A Model Media Ecologist is not considered by Time Magazine to be one of the top 25 blogs (in the country, the world, the blogosphere?) Time seems to be completely unaware that A Model Media Ecologist won the Blogger of the Year Award (see here).
Here's a Media Ecology question. Why aren't magazines in trouble like newspapers? Specifically, why isn't Time in jeopardy?
I realize that such sour grapes are unbecoming a model media ecologist. Time Magazine has as much right to exist as the next main stream media publication, biases and all. Of course, you may wonder why any of the main stream media should be judging and ranking any the new media in the first place. Isn't there a conflict of interest there?
I wrote an imaginary letter of complaint to Time and received this imaginary reply:
Dear (your blog name here):
We appreciate your concern about the many worthy blog sites that did not make it into our pantheon of the Top 25. Perhaps it will be of some solace to you to be told (and this is completely off the record) that your own blog missed it by only that much, that is, (your blog name here) came in at 26!
Congratulations, and better luck next year!
Sincerely,
Time Magazine
It is some solace, but not much. I might feel better if my imaginary Time Magazine correspondent had taken the trouble to actually type the name of my blog into his boilerplate.
Oh well, its on to the Peabody Awards!
Monday, February 9, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Un-Buttoning Cinema
Film criticism prospers when time flies like a boomerang.
In the current issue of The New Yorker, David Denby bemoans the decline of the Academy Awards selection process, focusing on the paltry quality of this year’s Oscar picks compared to previous years. In toting up the golden votes present vs. past, he notes:
If we accept Denby’s premise that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards was ever about quality rather than commerce, and concentrate on the seeming vacuity of Benjamin Button it is clear that Denby misses the true message of the film, which is both a savage rebuttal of traditional linear modes of film viewing and a call to arms for all of us to revisit and re-evaluate our cinema favorites by viewing them in reverse.
I have obtained a bootleg DVD of Benjamin Button and have discovered that the film plays much better backward rather than forward. By means of the reverse button on my remote control, I can watch the marvel of the film’s protagonist growing old while everyone and everything around him rejuvenates. For example, Cate Blanchette transforms from a crotchety middle aged woman with a truly Medean mother complex into a vibrant young woman with an alarming Oedipal complex.
In forward time Benjamin Button takes us through a veritable IMDb of cinematic classics as the protagonist de-matures through a Grapes of Wrath New Orleans, an End of an Affair Moscow, a Guns of Navaronne war era, A Harold and Maude 50’s romance, a decidedly non Brando-esque Wild One on a road trip, until finally settling into a perverse version of Look Who’s Talking. In reverse, Benjamin Button’s United States of America progresses from its present Bush-ian chaos back to a golden age when robber barons, racial apartheid and the absence of womens’ or workers’ rights characterized the century.
Benjamin Button is beyond post-modern and therefore deserves something beyond post-modern critcism. Looking backwards, as it were, may be the new technique for looking forwards. For example, run Citizen Kane in reverse, and the Wellsian morality tale takes on a new patina. Rather than summing up or explaining a man's entire life experience by means of a lost childhood toy, getting that "Rosebud" discovery out of the way at the beginning of the film enables us to see that Kane is really about growing young gracefully. In the end (former beginning) of the film, young Kane is joyfully reunited with his beloved sled and returns to a life where happiness is determined by the ups and downs of snow accumulation.
The Godfather: Part II in reverse chronicles the ascent of Michael Corleone from the depths of mafia moral corruption of America circa 1955 to the heights of the mafia moral corruption left over from The Godfather: Part I, setting us up for his ultimate regeneration in the backwards viewing of that previous epic.
This new approach to film criticism, which might be call pre-post modernism, works for film after film, whether its Tom Joad and his family triumphantly returning to their Oklahoma farm, in effect putting the wine back into the grapes, or Moses closing the Red Sea as the Israelites reconsider the relative merits of being the “chosen people.”
I’ve run dozens of films through this reverse critical process and the result has been a deeper understanding of the human condition and the art of filmmaking. The sole exception so far for some reason is Memento, which makes no sense no matter which way its viewed.
In the current issue of The New Yorker, David Denby bemoans the decline of the Academy Awards selection process, focusing on the paltry quality of this year’s Oscar picks compared to previous years. In toting up the golden votes present vs. past, he notes:
The total of thirteen nominations for “Benjamin Button” has to be some sort of scandal. “Citizen Kane” received nine nominations, “The Godfather: Part II” eleven, and this movie, so smooth and mellow that it seems to have been dipped in bourbon aging since the Civil War, is nowhere close to those two.
If we accept Denby’s premise that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards was ever about quality rather than commerce, and concentrate on the seeming vacuity of Benjamin Button it is clear that Denby misses the true message of the film, which is both a savage rebuttal of traditional linear modes of film viewing and a call to arms for all of us to revisit and re-evaluate our cinema favorites by viewing them in reverse.
I have obtained a bootleg DVD of Benjamin Button and have discovered that the film plays much better backward rather than forward. By means of the reverse button on my remote control, I can watch the marvel of the film’s protagonist growing old while everyone and everything around him rejuvenates. For example, Cate Blanchette transforms from a crotchety middle aged woman with a truly Medean mother complex into a vibrant young woman with an alarming Oedipal complex.
In forward time Benjamin Button takes us through a veritable IMDb of cinematic classics as the protagonist de-matures through a Grapes of Wrath New Orleans, an End of an Affair Moscow, a Guns of Navaronne war era, A Harold and Maude 50’s romance, a decidedly non Brando-esque Wild One on a road trip, until finally settling into a perverse version of Look Who’s Talking. In reverse, Benjamin Button’s United States of America progresses from its present Bush-ian chaos back to a golden age when robber barons, racial apartheid and the absence of womens’ or workers’ rights characterized the century.
Benjamin Button is beyond post-modern and therefore deserves something beyond post-modern critcism. Looking backwards, as it were, may be the new technique for looking forwards. For example, run Citizen Kane in reverse, and the Wellsian morality tale takes on a new patina. Rather than summing up or explaining a man's entire life experience by means of a lost childhood toy, getting that "Rosebud" discovery out of the way at the beginning of the film enables us to see that Kane is really about growing young gracefully. In the end (former beginning) of the film, young Kane is joyfully reunited with his beloved sled and returns to a life where happiness is determined by the ups and downs of snow accumulation.
The Godfather: Part II in reverse chronicles the ascent of Michael Corleone from the depths of mafia moral corruption of America circa 1955 to the heights of the mafia moral corruption left over from The Godfather: Part I, setting us up for his ultimate regeneration in the backwards viewing of that previous epic.
This new approach to film criticism, which might be call pre-post modernism, works for film after film, whether its Tom Joad and his family triumphantly returning to their Oklahoma farm, in effect putting the wine back into the grapes, or Moses closing the Red Sea as the Israelites reconsider the relative merits of being the “chosen people.”
I’ve run dozens of films through this reverse critical process and the result has been a deeper understanding of the human condition and the art of filmmaking. The sole exception so far for some reason is Memento, which makes no sense no matter which way its viewed.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What We Know About Battlestar Galactica
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
The final season of Battlestar Galactica has begun and the teaser commercials have posed the question: Who is the 5th secret Cylon? While this will be the focus of the final ten BSG episodes, there are a number of other questions the series has presented that may not be resolved by the final curtain.
1. Why do Cylons’ spines glow red when they make love?
It would seem that such an obvious sexual tell would be counterproductive for a cadre of seductive simulacrums. In all the years of sexual subversion, did no human ever wonder why their incredibly attractive partners insisted on the missionary position?
We do know that Cylons like sex as much as the next automaton and that they are genetically compatible with humans. They claim to experience “Love” and they purport, at times, to having free will. One can only conclude that the glowing red spine was a feature meant to be included only in Christmas Cylons, but someone slipped in production.
2. How did Cylons develop monotheism?
BSG humans are portrayed as generally secular and polytheistic. Neither Greek nor Hebrew, but rather both and more, human BSG characters sport names or appellations like "Adama," "Apollo," "D'Anna" and for the coffee worshippers amongst us "Starbuck." Their twelve colonial worlds correspond to the twelve signs of the zodiac. They say things like "Thank the Gods" and "Gods help us."
The robotic Cylons are monotheistic, fanatical and proselytizing. Despite their claim that their one god is “love,” or perhaps because of it, they bring about the destruction of the twelve human colonies, killing billions of people and then zealously pursue the few survivors. There is one chilling scene from the first season where the Cylon attack is imminent and Number 6 bends over a carriage to kill an infant. It is unclear whether this is an act of mercy or a preemptive strike.
The odd thing is that the Cylons, being robots, have already achieved eternal life. They literally cannot be killed. Or rather, we see them continually dying and then being reborn. Their reincarnation factory vessels are even called “resurrection ships.” A reborn Cylon is not a type or a clone. It is a recreation of the dead individual Cylon, downloaded from the original with memories and emotions intact. In other words, one of the core motivators of many of Earth’s religions is already an integral part of Cylon existence. The only exception to the rule is if a Cylon dies out of range of a resurrection complex. Then they truly die.
If, in spite of being formed in the image of their creators, Cylons reject polytheism, how did they stumble across monotheism?
There is a school of cultural evolutionary thought that suggests that a pre-existing condition to the adoption of monotheism is a phonetic alphabet and some degree of literacy. In a 1977 Issue of ETC: The Journal of General Semantics, in an article titled "Alphabet, Mother of Invention," Marshall McLuhan (yes, that Marshall McLuhan) and Robert K. Logan speculate on the possible origin of monotheism:
While the final verdict on this Media Ecological interpretation of religious thought is still out, there surely is some confusion over how the artificial intelligence products of the pantheistic human culture of BSG could arrive at the notion of one God. Religious robots, while intriguing, remain a problem, especially self-ordained monotheistic robots.
Computer processing, as we understand it, requires at least binary notation, which would imply a minimum of two gods. I believe that the depiction of Cylons as monotheistic in the absence of human mortality or alphabetic literacy can only be seen as a true leap of faith on the part of BSG's creators.
3. Why didn’t the Cylons make their “skin jobs” better than they are?
Humanoid Cylons are stronger, arguably smarter and definitely sexier than their human counterparts. However, given the range of possibilities presented by human/android genetics, one wonders why the Cylons didn’t do more?
How about x-ray vision or invulnerability? Is a spider-like precognition out of the question? At the very least, all Cylons could have been equipped with metallic claws that pop out of their knuckles on command.
When you compare humanity’s current evolutionary state to our closest monkey’s uncle, it is clear we are far superior. Our brains are so large we only need to use 10% and often use much less. Every year some Olympian or Marathoner runs faster, jumps higher, or swims more synchronously. To your average orangutan, we must seem like the types of Super Hominid into which they’d all like to evolve. For those of us already at the summit of Earth’s evolutionary trail, where is there to go but up, as in “Up, Up and Away!”?
It may be that Cylons, while clearly superior to humans in every conceivable way, lack the ability to imagine the next great steps in humanoid evolution and the amount of spandex required.
4. Why do the Cylons want to breed half-human/half-Cylon children? Why have children at all?
Any parent who has been on the receiving end while changing a diaper, who has been involved in any school science project or who has attempted sound moderately coherent while explaining the facts of life to a pre-pubescent human child would wonder why Cylons wouldn’t design their offspring to skip right to adulthood. Would-be Cylon parents will soon discover that it is not possible to annihilate the remainder of the human race while coordinating a schedule of after-school activities.
5. Finally, who is the fifth Cylon? What’s the deal with Starbuck? And what about Earth-that-was?
I personally believe that Starbuck is Amelia Earhart and Colonel Tigh is Jimmy Hoffa. The fifth Cylon is not Ellen Tigh, he's Howard Hughes. Or maybe Walt Disney's head. Wait. Didn't he invent animatronics?
That's it! The Cylons are Disney World Character refugees, who fled Earth when Lawrence Lessig finally got Congress to approve term limits on corporate copyrights! First they evolved from singing bears and cavorting pirates into “toaster-heads.” Now they swing full circle back to humanoid approximations of perfection, but they have not been able to completely eliminate the desire to slavishly cater to the pre-adult offspring of their creators.
If this “Magic Kingdom Galactica” hypothesis is true, we should be on the lookout for an upcoming Battlestar Galactica episode that would be a dead giveaway: “Cylons On Ice”.
The final season of Battlestar Galactica has begun and the teaser commercials have posed the question: Who is the 5th secret Cylon? While this will be the focus of the final ten BSG episodes, there are a number of other questions the series has presented that may not be resolved by the final curtain.
1. Why do Cylons’ spines glow red when they make love?
It would seem that such an obvious sexual tell would be counterproductive for a cadre of seductive simulacrums. In all the years of sexual subversion, did no human ever wonder why their incredibly attractive partners insisted on the missionary position?
We do know that Cylons like sex as much as the next automaton and that they are genetically compatible with humans. They claim to experience “Love” and they purport, at times, to having free will. One can only conclude that the glowing red spine was a feature meant to be included only in Christmas Cylons, but someone slipped in production.
2. How did Cylons develop monotheism?
BSG humans are portrayed as generally secular and polytheistic. Neither Greek nor Hebrew, but rather both and more, human BSG characters sport names or appellations like "Adama," "Apollo," "D'Anna" and for the coffee worshippers amongst us "Starbuck." Their twelve colonial worlds correspond to the twelve signs of the zodiac. They say things like "Thank the Gods" and "Gods help us."
The robotic Cylons are monotheistic, fanatical and proselytizing. Despite their claim that their one god is “love,” or perhaps because of it, they bring about the destruction of the twelve human colonies, killing billions of people and then zealously pursue the few survivors. There is one chilling scene from the first season where the Cylon attack is imminent and Number 6 bends over a carriage to kill an infant. It is unclear whether this is an act of mercy or a preemptive strike.
The odd thing is that the Cylons, being robots, have already achieved eternal life. They literally cannot be killed. Or rather, we see them continually dying and then being reborn. Their reincarnation factory vessels are even called “resurrection ships.” A reborn Cylon is not a type or a clone. It is a recreation of the dead individual Cylon, downloaded from the original with memories and emotions intact. In other words, one of the core motivators of many of Earth’s religions is already an integral part of Cylon existence. The only exception to the rule is if a Cylon dies out of range of a resurrection complex. Then they truly die.
If, in spite of being formed in the image of their creators, Cylons reject polytheism, how did they stumble across monotheism?
There is a school of cultural evolutionary thought that suggests that a pre-existing condition to the adoption of monotheism is a phonetic alphabet and some degree of literacy. In a 1977 Issue of ETC: The Journal of General Semantics, in an article titled "Alphabet, Mother of Invention," Marshall McLuhan (yes, that Marshall McLuhan) and Robert K. Logan speculate on the possible origin of monotheism:
"Western thought patterns are highly abstract, compared with Eastern. There developed in the West, and only in the West, a group of innovations that constitute the basis of Western thought. These include (in addition to the alphabet) codified law, monotheism, abstract science, formal logic, and individualism. All of these innovations, including the alphabet, arose within the very narrow geographic zone between the Tigris-Euphrates river system and the Aegean Sea, and within the very narrow time frame between 2000 B.C. and 500 B.C. We do not consider this to be an accident. While not suggesting a direct causal connection between the alphabet and the other innovations, we would claim, however, that the phonetic alphabet played a particularly dynamic role within this constellation of events and provided the ground or framework for the mutual development of these innovations." (Emphasis added)
While the final verdict on this Media Ecological interpretation of religious thought is still out, there surely is some confusion over how the artificial intelligence products of the pantheistic human culture of BSG could arrive at the notion of one God. Religious robots, while intriguing, remain a problem, especially self-ordained monotheistic robots.
Computer processing, as we understand it, requires at least binary notation, which would imply a minimum of two gods. I believe that the depiction of Cylons as monotheistic in the absence of human mortality or alphabetic literacy can only be seen as a true leap of faith on the part of BSG's creators.
3. Why didn’t the Cylons make their “skin jobs” better than they are?
Humanoid Cylons are stronger, arguably smarter and definitely sexier than their human counterparts. However, given the range of possibilities presented by human/android genetics, one wonders why the Cylons didn’t do more?
How about x-ray vision or invulnerability? Is a spider-like precognition out of the question? At the very least, all Cylons could have been equipped with metallic claws that pop out of their knuckles on command.
When you compare humanity’s current evolutionary state to our closest monkey’s uncle, it is clear we are far superior. Our brains are so large we only need to use 10% and often use much less. Every year some Olympian or Marathoner runs faster, jumps higher, or swims more synchronously. To your average orangutan, we must seem like the types of Super Hominid into which they’d all like to evolve. For those of us already at the summit of Earth’s evolutionary trail, where is there to go but up, as in “Up, Up and Away!”?
It may be that Cylons, while clearly superior to humans in every conceivable way, lack the ability to imagine the next great steps in humanoid evolution and the amount of spandex required.
4. Why do the Cylons want to breed half-human/half-Cylon children? Why have children at all?
Any parent who has been on the receiving end while changing a diaper, who has been involved in any school science project or who has attempted sound moderately coherent while explaining the facts of life to a pre-pubescent human child would wonder why Cylons wouldn’t design their offspring to skip right to adulthood. Would-be Cylon parents will soon discover that it is not possible to annihilate the remainder of the human race while coordinating a schedule of after-school activities.
5. Finally, who is the fifth Cylon? What’s the deal with Starbuck? And what about Earth-that-was?
I personally believe that Starbuck is Amelia Earhart and Colonel Tigh is Jimmy Hoffa. The fifth Cylon is not Ellen Tigh, he's Howard Hughes. Or maybe Walt Disney's head. Wait. Didn't he invent animatronics?
That's it! The Cylons are Disney World Character refugees, who fled Earth when Lawrence Lessig finally got Congress to approve term limits on corporate copyrights! First they evolved from singing bears and cavorting pirates into “toaster-heads.” Now they swing full circle back to humanoid approximations of perfection, but they have not been able to completely eliminate the desire to slavishly cater to the pre-adult offspring of their creators.
If this “Magic Kingdom Galactica” hypothesis is true, we should be on the lookout for an upcoming Battlestar Galactica episode that would be a dead giveaway: “Cylons On Ice”.
Corporate Tax Liabilities
Has anyone ever done a cost/benefit analysis of corporate taxes? I'm sure there are accounting tools which would let us estimate how much Federal, State and Local value a particular corporation realizes each year versus how much they pay in taxes. This would include a pro rata share of usage of public utilities, public services and public spaces. It would give us a yardstick to determine who is paying their fair share and how much their taxes should be increased.
Does anyone know of anything like this?
Does anyone know of anything like this?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Congress Debates Adding Elaborate Dance To Obama's Inauguration Ceremony
The current Onion video was written by my son, Alexander.
Congress Debates Adding Elaborate Dance To Obama's Inauguration Ceremony
Congress Debates Adding Elaborate Dance To Obama's Inauguration Ceremony
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
DWUI-CP: Driving While Under the Influence of a Cell Phone
I was on Thom Hartmann's radio program yesterday, discussing the use of cell phones while driving. Thom's position was that regulating cell phone usage in cars was an imposition and probably unenforceable anyway. I suggested that like drunk driving, driving while cell-phoning impaired responses and may result in hazardous driving. Here is an edited clip of the transcript:
Its not every day that I can trump Thom Hartmann! And while I did get the McLuhan reference in, I'm sorry I wasn't able to work in Media Ecology or my blog site as well.
I think the fact that using the cell phone can be demonstrated to affect perception is an excellent example of McLuhan's "Cool Medium" terminology. Like connect-the-dot drawings as compared to photographs, cartoons as compared to paintings or traditional television as compared to cinema, a cool medium requires that we "fill in the blanks."
We experience a voice we hear over the phone as the same as normal conversation because our brains are filling in the gaps. Its only when we hear a recording of a phone conversation that we become aware of the low fidelity. That the process of talking on a cell phone can result in tunnel vision is truly interesting.
So thank you Thom for having me on and for recognizing how smart McLuhan was!
Hartmann: The Safety Council... now they want to tell you that when you are driving your car you cannot use a hands-free cell phone. You know the little Bluetooth things that most cars have where you've got the phone in your pocket and your car answers the phone and you're just talking at the windshield wipers or the dashboard. You don't even have to take your phone out of your pocket. Hands-free phones. And they're saying we should ban this. It turns out 2600 deaths, 12000 serious injuries per year, this is 6% of vehicel crashes, are attributed to people using phones. Now that's not hands-free phones, that's just phones. But included in that some small percentage of people using hands-free phones and they say "Let's make that illegal."
I say enough of the conservatives telling us what we can do or not do anywhere on earth. Or maybe we should just ban talking in the car, because their argument is that...its not just what you're doing with your hands, its that your head is in the conversation. OK, so lets ban talking to people in the car. In fact, lets even take it a step beyond that. Lets make it required that people have duct tape in their car and that when they get in and sit down not only do you have to fasten your seat belt but you also have to tear off a three inch strip of duct tape and put it over your mouth. Because how are you going to know. I mean, if a police officer's driving by and they see somebody talking, they see their mouth moving, how do they know that that person is not talking to the person next to them or is not talking on a hands-free phone?
....
Blechman: There are researchers who have shown that using a low-fidelity instrument like a cell phone as compared to a high fidelity radio or even talking to a person in a car takes more brain processing power. Its what McLuhan called a cool medium and you actually develop a form of tunnel vision while you're doing that.
Hartmann: Right, but if it was Bluetooth and it was running through the speakers in your car that would not be the case, would it?
Blechman: Its still low fidelity. The signal is coming from the cell carrier, not from the FM radio station.
Hartmann: Oh, so its the bandwidth. Now that's interesting. Now let me extend the logic on this. You're saying that the bandwidth is narrow because there's not such a broad spectrum of frequency the brain has to focus on it more intently. You know AM radio has a narrower bandwidth than FM radio. Should we ban AM radio?
Blechman: Well, I guess you have to find the degree of involvement.
Hartmann: There's some critical threshhold there. That's interesting, Bob! I tell you, I've got the smartest listeners in the world! I thought I was bringing some science to the table here and Bob trumps me! Well done Bob!
Its not every day that I can trump Thom Hartmann! And while I did get the McLuhan reference in, I'm sorry I wasn't able to work in Media Ecology or my blog site as well.
I think the fact that using the cell phone can be demonstrated to affect perception is an excellent example of McLuhan's "Cool Medium" terminology. Like connect-the-dot drawings as compared to photographs, cartoons as compared to paintings or traditional television as compared to cinema, a cool medium requires that we "fill in the blanks."
We experience a voice we hear over the phone as the same as normal conversation because our brains are filling in the gaps. Its only when we hear a recording of a phone conversation that we become aware of the low fidelity. That the process of talking on a cell phone can result in tunnel vision is truly interesting.
So thank you Thom for having me on and for recognizing how smart McLuhan was!
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Revisited: What We Know About the Joker
In honor of Heather Ledger winning the Golden Globe award for best supporting actor in The Dark Knight, I am reposting my piece on The Joker from this past July:
Ruminations about the man behind the masque.
Though this past weekend’s top performing movie is titled The Dark Knight, it might easily have been called "The Clown Prince." Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker, already hailed as Oscar-worthy, owes more to Michael Keaton’s Beetlejuice than it does to previous Batman malefactors. Ironically, Keaton was the first film Batman and could have played off against himself as both the Caped Crusader and the Prince of Fools.
Like Keaton's Beetlejuice, The Joker in this latest Batman-iteration is the ultimate trickster: a destroyer of worlds and a slayer of men, whose word cannot be trusted and whose motives cannot be divined.
The Joker’s wild success throughout The Dark Knight's dark nights depends on a script which constitutes a stacked deck in his favor. For most of the two hours of this latest Batman saga, everything goes the Joker’s way. He knows where mob kingpins will be meeting and gains access with impunity. He easily defeats the defense mechanisms of a high-security bank. He cannily manipulates good guys and bad guys alike seeking both a higher class of criminal and a lower class of law enforcer. He survives high speed truck flips, Kevlar-armored right crosses and highrise bungee jumps.
Though he is painted up to be an enigma wrapped in a riddle (or was that someone else?), based on evidence from The Dark Knight, we do know the following things about The Joker:
Ruminations about the man behind the masque.
Though this past weekend’s top performing movie is titled The Dark Knight, it might easily have been called "The Clown Prince." Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker, already hailed as Oscar-worthy, owes more to Michael Keaton’s Beetlejuice than it does to previous Batman malefactors. Ironically, Keaton was the first film Batman and could have played off against himself as both the Caped Crusader and the Prince of Fools.
Like Keaton's Beetlejuice, The Joker in this latest Batman-iteration is the ultimate trickster: a destroyer of worlds and a slayer of men, whose word cannot be trusted and whose motives cannot be divined.
The Joker’s wild success throughout The Dark Knight's dark nights depends on a script which constitutes a stacked deck in his favor. For most of the two hours of this latest Batman saga, everything goes the Joker’s way. He knows where mob kingpins will be meeting and gains access with impunity. He easily defeats the defense mechanisms of a high-security bank. He cannily manipulates good guys and bad guys alike seeking both a higher class of criminal and a lower class of law enforcer. He survives high speed truck flips, Kevlar-armored right crosses and highrise bungee jumps.
Though he is painted up to be an enigma wrapped in a riddle (or was that someone else?), based on evidence from The Dark Knight, we do know the following things about The Joker:
- He is a munitions expert. He is equally at home with C4 suppositories and oil barrel chemical peels.
- Though he is an expert project manager, at least in the bank-robbery field, he is prone to waste his resources.
- He is empathic. He knows just what to say to push anyone over the edge of madness, and then leap in after him.
- He is a man ahead of his Timex. The Joker can take a likin’ from Batman and keep on tickin’. He may once have belonged to a fight club.
- He obviously was involved in covert ops in the past. He knows how to anticipate scenarios and plan alternatives.
- He knows where to acquire esoteric weapons and how to use them.
- He moonlights as a Mary Kay agent.
- He has had access to Jack Benny’s joke vault.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Blogger of the Year
Update Below: A stunning visual to help you donate more
Update II below: We don't seem to have the hang of this donation thing.
Every year at about this time I feel an incredible need for self-actualization. The old year is over (thank the Gods) and the new year is begun. That's why this year, for the very first time, I have selected myself as Blogger of the Year. I have surveyed the various entries I have written over this past year and have determined that this blog, "A Model Media Ecologist," is absolutely the best blog I could have produced. The writing was sharp, the wit was acerbic, the opinions were always pithy. (Am I describing a blog or a mango?)
I accept this award, Blogger of the Year, with gratitude and humility. If I wasn't doing such a terrific job I wouldn't deserve it, so I must be doing a terrific job. However, this is not the time to rest on my laurels. In these challenging economic times I need to pursue bigger and better ways to monetize my writings:
So you see we're heading in a direction opposite from that desired. Its very simple really. I ask for money and you donate it. I've even drawn you a picture.
Let's try to pick up the pace a bit. Don't make me start selling "Model Media Ecologist" T-shirts and mugs!
Update II below: We don't seem to have the hang of this donation thing.
Every year at about this time I feel an incredible need for self-actualization. The old year is over (thank the Gods) and the new year is begun. That's why this year, for the very first time, I have selected myself as Blogger of the Year. I have surveyed the various entries I have written over this past year and have determined that this blog, "A Model Media Ecologist," is absolutely the best blog I could have produced. The writing was sharp, the wit was acerbic, the opinions were always pithy. (Am I describing a blog or a mango?)
I accept this award, Blogger of the Year, with gratitude and humility. If I wasn't doing such a terrific job I wouldn't deserve it, so I must be doing a terrific job. However, this is not the time to rest on my laurels. In these challenging economic times I need to pursue bigger and better ways to monetize my writings:
- Now that Time Warner Cable is losing Comedy Central I am offering my services to them. (With Bush and all of his cronies leaving office there is no longer any need for John Stewart or Stephen Colbert anyway.)
- With Al Franken joining the Senate there will be an increased need for a humorist for speaking engagements, best-selling books (Judith Regan, call me!) and childrens' birthday parties.
- Those of you who are still reading this self-congratulatory screed could take a second to click on the "Donate" button to your left and be generous. Go ahead. Make my day.
- Or you could send me a check.
- Or you could donate your car.
So thank you, one and all for this great honor. I will continue to serve as Blogger of the Year for the rest of 2009 and, depending on the take and the state of the economy, maybe 2010. Wait, Blogger of the Decade. Doesn't that have a nice metric ring to it?
Update: For some reason, pictures of rising thermometers encourage people to donate money. I've provided this one, cribbed from Buzzflash, for those who require visual aids. As you can now see, we have a long way to go to reach our goal of $250,000. In fact, we have $250,000 to go.
Please give generously!
Update II: Normally during a fundraising drive the thermometer is updated periodically to indicate progress. For example, I had already prepared the graphic for the first report:
However, checking the latest results, I find that the actual state of my finances would best be represented by the following:
So you see we're heading in a direction opposite from that desired. Its very simple really. I ask for money and you donate it. I've even drawn you a picture.
Let's try to pick up the pace a bit. Don't make me start selling "Model Media Ecologist" T-shirts and mugs!
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Glenn Greenwald on the Rule of Law
As in many other blogs this weekend I would like to call attention to Glenn Greenwald's interview on Bill Moyer's Journal which aired this past Friday and is being rebroadcast tonight. It can be viewed on the PBS website here.
Greenwald, who writes a blog on Salon, is a constitutional scholar and tackles head-on the question of whether the Bush regime should be investigated and tried for crimes commited:
Greenwald, who writes a blog on Salon, is a constitutional scholar and tackles head-on the question of whether the Bush regime should be investigated and tried for crimes commited:
What you have is a two-tiered system of justice where ordinary Americans are subjected to the most merciless criminal justice system in the world. They break the law. The full weight of the criminal justice system comes crashing down upon them. But our political class, the same elites who have imposed that incredibly harsh framework on ordinary Americans, have essentially exempted themselves and the leaders of that political class from the law.
They have license to break the law. That’s what we’re deciding now as we say George Bush and his top advisors shouldn’t be investigated let alone prosecuted for the laws that we know that they’ve broken. And I can’t think of anything more damaging to our country because the rule of law is the lynchpin of everything we have.
While Greenwald addresses this issue from his vantage as a constitutional scholar, I will add a Media Ecological slant to his argument shortly
Saturday, December 6, 2008
In a message dated 12/04/08 18:46:39 Eastern Standard Time, Lance Strate writes:
Lance is right. The tradition of humor in Media Ecology goes back over 16,000 years to the Lascaux cave paintings. Recent scholarship has suggested that the cave paintings were actually elaborate knock-knock jokes. The reason the humorous tradition was lost is that the creators of those cave paintings were in the habit of telling their knock-knock jokes with a stone club.
A careful reading of the Socratic dialogues reveals what a kidder Plato was. For example, consider this exchange between Socrates and Phaedrus.
(Phaedrus gives a long exposition on the relationship between lovers and then asks:)
At nearly the same time, Moses was knocking them dead at the Red Sea with his own unique variation on the classic surfer dude/wipeout routine. That was after God had said to Moses, "Take two tablets and call me in the morning."
Fast forward 2000 years, and Johannes Gutenberg was killing the scions of the Catholic Church with his famous "You're not my type" tag line.
Our own electronic era owes a lot to the whimsey of Alexander Graham Bell who liked to play tricks on his assistant:
There are countless other examples of the mirth and humor of the pillars of Media Ecology, but its late, and I'm not getting paid for this. However, I will include one of my favorites, which I've shared here before, the best McLuhan joke ever:
"I'm not sure if you absolutely have to have a sense of humor to be a media ecologist, but it certainly is highly recommended. McLuhan was a notorious punster, Postman loved to people people on, and there is a trickster mentality that constitutes a significant strain in our intellectual tradition."
Lance is right. The tradition of humor in Media Ecology goes back over 16,000 years to the Lascaux cave paintings. Recent scholarship has suggested that the cave paintings were actually elaborate knock-knock jokes. The reason the humorous tradition was lost is that the creators of those cave paintings were in the habit of telling their knock-knock jokes with a stone club.
A careful reading of the Socratic dialogues reveals what a kidder Plato was. For example, consider this exchange between Socrates and Phaedrus.
(Phaedrus gives a long exposition on the relationship between lovers and then asks:)
What a kidder that Socrates was! And a true Media Ecologist!"What do you think of the speech, Socrates? Isn't it extraordinarily fine, especially in point of language?"
Socrates: "Amazingly fine indeed, my friend. I was thrilled by it. And it was you, Phaedrus, that made me feel as I did. I watched your apparent delight in the words as you read. And as I'm sure that you understand such matters better than I do, I took my cue from you, and therefore joined in the ecstasy of my right worshipful companion."
Phaedrus: "Come come! Do you mean to make a joke of it?"
Socrates: "Do you think I'm joking, and don't mean it seriously?"
At nearly the same time, Moses was knocking them dead at the Red Sea with his own unique variation on the classic surfer dude/wipeout routine. That was after God had said to Moses, "Take two tablets and call me in the morning."
Fast forward 2000 years, and Johannes Gutenberg was killing the scions of the Catholic Church with his famous "You're not my type" tag line.
Our own electronic era owes a lot to the whimsey of Alexander Graham Bell who liked to play tricks on his assistant:
Bell: Come here Watson, I need you.
Watson: Who said that?
Bell: He he he.
There are countless other examples of the mirth and humor of the pillars of Media Ecology, but its late, and I'm not getting paid for this. However, I will include one of my favorites, which I've shared here before, the best McLuhan joke ever:
So the next time you are at a media conference, and someone tries to go all serious on you over the biases of communication, technological determinism or hot and cold media, remember that humor is an integral part of Media Ecology and look that person right in the eye and sing "Media Ecology almost is theology!" and walk away. If one person does that, they'll think he's crazy and try to ignore him. If two people do it, they'll think that Media Ecology is some sort of conspiracy and try to have them removed from the building. But if 50 people do it, imagine, 50 people singing "Media Ecology almost is theology!" and then walking out! They'll think its a movement, which it is.Several students of Media Ecology consult a famous psychic in order to contact Marshall McLuhan and finally get a clear explanation of his writings. The seer goes into a trance, but says nothing for several minutes.
Losing patience, one of the students cries out, "Dr. McLuhan, are you there? Why won't you speak to us?"
A deep voice replies, "The Medium is the Message!"
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Rating The Internet
Seven words that you can never say on TV but are OK on the internet
When I seek out entertainment, I depend on the various ratings organizations to help me avoid explicit portrayals of sex, gratuitous graphic violence, foul language or unacceptable vulgarity. I am familiar with the movie ratings systems which warn me of "R" or "NR" or "PG-13" content. When I turn on the TV, I check the rating box in the upper left-hand corner of the screen, and reach for my remote at the first sign of offensive material. When I purchase a video game, I make sure there is no "A", "M" or even "T" on the box.
While there is no comparable safeguard for web browsing, some simple common sense measures have heretofore stood me in good stead. I don't respond to email promises to increase the size of my penis or enhance my sexual experiences. I don't reply to requests from correspondents with names like "CandyPantsXXX" or "NaughtyGirlOXOX" who promise to be my friend or relieve my boredom. Most off-limits web sites reveal their intentions right away by bombarding you with racy music, presenting pre-pubescent nymphs who want you to "get to know them" and, finally, soliciting your credit card number in order to see more.
So imagine my surprise as I was browsing the web site of the Parents Television Council, "ParentsTV.org," which purports to survey and rate the content of television programming for the parents of impressionable children, so they don't have to. According to their "About Us" link, the Parents Television Council "is a non-partisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment. It was founded in 1995 to ensure that children are not constantly assaulted by sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media." Attached to each program is a color code rating, green, yellow, red to serve as a parental guide. These codes are defined briefly as follows:
Well naturally I wanted to know more about what actually goes into the various ratings categories, and so, ignoring the warning that the ratings details contain "graphic descriptions," I clicked on. I don't think I can adequately describe my horror at what I discovered.
To my chagrin, I learned that the "Red" designation refers to the following words (out of modesty, I have replaced letters with random characters): "Sh*t, d&ck, pr$ck, f@ck, !sshole, c^ck, G—damn, profaning Jesus Christ." These words in their unexpurgated form were accompanied by explicit details of the types of sex and violence, and their frequency, that would warrant red, yellow or green designations.
I also learned that the frequency of "veiled or mild innuendo" or "responsible discussion of sexual issues" may bump the rating from "green" to "yellow," where even one depiction or mention of "sexual innuendo, marital sex, sex implied, homosexuality, pre-coital and/or post-coital or responsible discussion of pornography or masturbation" would suffice. More than three occurrences of the former per half hour gets the bump from green to yellow. Three or more per half hour of the latter group gets the red. I think you get the idea.
Here via a link available to anyone, of any age, is web content that would offend everyone, of every age, from the youngest sprout to the oldest beanstalk. So the question springs to mind, who rates the raters? If we can't rely on our media censors to clean up their act, who can we trust? The Parents Television Council may be performing a noble function visavis television, film and literature, but I'm afraid that until they censor themselves, I cannot in good conscience recommend their website.
For that matter, their example suggests that any website, no matter how innocuous, may contain offensive material. Until an organization takes the burden of discovery off of me by publishing a comprehensive rating list of all internet web sites, I'll just have to console myself by listening to my new collection of George Carlin CDs.
When I seek out entertainment, I depend on the various ratings organizations to help me avoid explicit portrayals of sex, gratuitous graphic violence, foul language or unacceptable vulgarity. I am familiar with the movie ratings systems which warn me of "R" or "NR" or "PG-13" content. When I turn on the TV, I check the rating box in the upper left-hand corner of the screen, and reach for my remote at the first sign of offensive material. When I purchase a video game, I make sure there is no "A", "M" or even "T" on the box.
While there is no comparable safeguard for web browsing, some simple common sense measures have heretofore stood me in good stead. I don't respond to email promises to increase the size of my penis or enhance my sexual experiences. I don't reply to requests from correspondents with names like "CandyPantsXXX" or "NaughtyGirlOXOX" who promise to be my friend or relieve my boredom. Most off-limits web sites reveal their intentions right away by bombarding you with racy music, presenting pre-pubescent nymphs who want you to "get to know them" and, finally, soliciting your credit card number in order to see more.
So imagine my surprise as I was browsing the web site of the Parents Television Council, "ParentsTV.org," which purports to survey and rate the content of television programming for the parents of impressionable children, so they don't have to. According to their "About Us" link, the Parents Television Council "is a non-partisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment. It was founded in 1995 to ensure that children are not constantly assaulted by sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media." Attached to each program is a color code rating, green, yellow, red to serve as a parental guide. These codes are defined briefly as follows:
Red: "Show may include gratuitous sex, explicit dialogue, violent content, or obscene language, and is unsuitable for children"
Yellow: "The show contains adult-oriented themes and dialogue that may be inappropriate for youngsters."
Green: "Family-friendly show promoting responsible themes and traditional values.
Blue: "Not yet rated by the PTC."
Well naturally I wanted to know more about what actually goes into the various ratings categories, and so, ignoring the warning that the ratings details contain "graphic descriptions," I clicked on. I don't think I can adequately describe my horror at what I discovered.
To my chagrin, I learned that the "Red" designation refers to the following words (out of modesty, I have replaced letters with random characters): "Sh*t, d&ck, pr$ck, f@ck, !sshole, c^ck, G—damn, profaning Jesus Christ." These words in their unexpurgated form were accompanied by explicit details of the types of sex and violence, and their frequency, that would warrant red, yellow or green designations.
I also learned that the frequency of "veiled or mild innuendo" or "responsible discussion of sexual issues" may bump the rating from "green" to "yellow," where even one depiction or mention of "sexual innuendo, marital sex, sex implied, homosexuality, pre-coital and/or post-coital or responsible discussion of pornography or masturbation" would suffice. More than three occurrences of the former per half hour gets the bump from green to yellow. Three or more per half hour of the latter group gets the red. I think you get the idea.
Here via a link available to anyone, of any age, is web content that would offend everyone, of every age, from the youngest sprout to the oldest beanstalk. So the question springs to mind, who rates the raters? If we can't rely on our media censors to clean up their act, who can we trust? The Parents Television Council may be performing a noble function visavis television, film and literature, but I'm afraid that until they censor themselves, I cannot in good conscience recommend their website.
For that matter, their example suggests that any website, no matter how innocuous, may contain offensive material. Until an organization takes the burden of discovery off of me by publishing a comprehensive rating list of all internet web sites, I'll just have to console myself by listening to my new collection of George Carlin CDs.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Happy 100th Birthday Claude Lévi-Strauss!
Here is my quick take on Claude Lévi-Strauss's contribution to Media Ecology:
His approach to the interpretation of so-called "primitive" cultures revealed the complex patterns of thought that went into the development of systems of myth and kinship. His notion that "primitive" intellectual activities were equal to our "modern" systems of knowledge, just applied to differing objects, put the entire body of anthropological writings, going back to James Fraser's Golden Bough into a new perspective. Lévi-Strauss's work, building on the linguistic structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure and the evolutionary approach to cultural studies of Franz Boas, revealed the biases in the use of terms such as "primitive" and "modern" (even though Lévi-Strauss himself used these terms), and paved the way for Walter Ong's distinction between orality, literacy and secondary-orality as more appropriate explanations for differing cultures.
Lévi-Strauss discovered and demonstrated connections between seemingly disparate mythic stories, and offered explanations for seemingly random elements of those stories. His methodology can be used as model for ways to interpret the products of contemporary culture, which, while seeming to be unrelated, actually constitute a system (or systems) of symbolic meanings.
I find the tools Lévi-Strauss provides useful in a number of ways. I also think that his notion of "things that are good to think with" as powerful as Postman's question regarding a new technology: "What problem does it provide a solution to?"
I like Lévi-Strauss's idea that a myth is not a "false" story or idle tale, but rather a dynamic technique which members of a culture use to address cultural discrepancies. To me, this is a compelling explanation for why myths persist in a culture. It may also explain how, if we know where to look, we can identify the mythic systems of our own culture that provide us with a coherent world view in the face of constant change and turmoil.
I know that structuralism has been in eclipse in academic circles lately, that Lévi-Strauss has been accused of a binary focus that, being Hegelian in origin, cannot apply to current thinking about media. I think that to write off Lévi-Strauss's methodology as a thesis/antithesis/synthesis intellectual game misses the subtlety of his analysis. A closer reading of all 2200+ pages of his Mythologiques shows that, while he may begin an analysis by identifying polar opposites, this is only a starting point. The analysis of a mythic system must account for far more that just a pair of opposites. In the course of his analysis of the myths of the Tupi Indians, Lévi-Strauss moves spiral-like through multiple mythic variations and multiple opposing pairs and by proceeding A to B and B to C, etc., demonstrates internal consistencies within the mythic system that aren't immediately apparent to an outside observer. In other words, Lévi-Strauss provides a useful tool for analysis regardless of whether you wish to extrapolate the function of the method to the deeper structures of the human mind or not.
I also find Lévi-Strauss's methodology completely compatible with McLuhan's Laws of the Media. Where McLuhan, via the Tetrad asks us to consider what a technology or medium enhances, obsolesces, retrieves and reverses into, Lévi-Strauss will start with a pair of opposites "A" and "B", but in the course of his analysis will present examples of what he calls " A' " (A prime) and " B' " (B prime) as recursive iterations of the original pair. Perhaps someone will someday conduct a Lévi-Straussian analysis of McLuhan's system of myths.
Lévi-Strauss is also compatible with Ong's notions of primary orality. Ong discusses how different human thought processes must be without text. Lévi-Strauss gives example after example of exactly how these thought processes work. I don't recall Lévi-Strauss discussing the poetry of the Tupi Indians as a means of perpetuating the culture, but he does demonstrate how interconnected myths can act as intellectual place holders for a non-literate population to help them consider complex systems of thought.
Our current system of myths is not only presented verbally, but also via images, in print, and even in interplay of biases amongst all of our competing media. Since we may be relearning this manner of thinking as we move deeper into secondary orality, Lévi-Strauss provides us with a map of where we may be headed.
So as Professor Lévi-Strauss enters his second century, I wish him a Happy Birthday or Joyeux Anniversaire!
His approach to the interpretation of so-called "primitive" cultures revealed the complex patterns of thought that went into the development of systems of myth and kinship. His notion that "primitive" intellectual activities were equal to our "modern" systems of knowledge, just applied to differing objects, put the entire body of anthropological writings, going back to James Fraser's Golden Bough into a new perspective. Lévi-Strauss's work, building on the linguistic structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure and the evolutionary approach to cultural studies of Franz Boas, revealed the biases in the use of terms such as "primitive" and "modern" (even though Lévi-Strauss himself used these terms), and paved the way for Walter Ong's distinction between orality, literacy and secondary-orality as more appropriate explanations for differing cultures.
Lévi-Strauss discovered and demonstrated connections between seemingly disparate mythic stories, and offered explanations for seemingly random elements of those stories. His methodology can be used as model for ways to interpret the products of contemporary culture, which, while seeming to be unrelated, actually constitute a system (or systems) of symbolic meanings.
I find the tools Lévi-Strauss provides useful in a number of ways. I also think that his notion of "things that are good to think with" as powerful as Postman's question regarding a new technology: "What problem does it provide a solution to?"
I like Lévi-Strauss's idea that a myth is not a "false" story or idle tale, but rather a dynamic technique which members of a culture use to address cultural discrepancies. To me, this is a compelling explanation for why myths persist in a culture. It may also explain how, if we know where to look, we can identify the mythic systems of our own culture that provide us with a coherent world view in the face of constant change and turmoil.
I know that structuralism has been in eclipse in academic circles lately, that Lévi-Strauss has been accused of a binary focus that, being Hegelian in origin, cannot apply to current thinking about media. I think that to write off Lévi-Strauss's methodology as a thesis/antithesis/synthesis intellectual game misses the subtlety of his analysis. A closer reading of all 2200+ pages of his Mythologiques shows that, while he may begin an analysis by identifying polar opposites, this is only a starting point. The analysis of a mythic system must account for far more that just a pair of opposites. In the course of his analysis of the myths of the Tupi Indians, Lévi-Strauss moves spiral-like through multiple mythic variations and multiple opposing pairs and by proceeding A to B and B to C, etc., demonstrates internal consistencies within the mythic system that aren't immediately apparent to an outside observer. In other words, Lévi-Strauss provides a useful tool for analysis regardless of whether you wish to extrapolate the function of the method to the deeper structures of the human mind or not.
I also find Lévi-Strauss's methodology completely compatible with McLuhan's Laws of the Media. Where McLuhan, via the Tetrad asks us to consider what a technology or medium enhances, obsolesces, retrieves and reverses into, Lévi-Strauss will start with a pair of opposites "A" and "B", but in the course of his analysis will present examples of what he calls " A' " (A prime) and " B' " (B prime) as recursive iterations of the original pair. Perhaps someone will someday conduct a Lévi-Straussian analysis of McLuhan's system of myths.
Lévi-Strauss is also compatible with Ong's notions of primary orality. Ong discusses how different human thought processes must be without text. Lévi-Strauss gives example after example of exactly how these thought processes work. I don't recall Lévi-Strauss discussing the poetry of the Tupi Indians as a means of perpetuating the culture, but he does demonstrate how interconnected myths can act as intellectual place holders for a non-literate population to help them consider complex systems of thought.
Our current system of myths is not only presented verbally, but also via images, in print, and even in interplay of biases amongst all of our competing media. Since we may be relearning this manner of thinking as we move deeper into secondary orality, Lévi-Strauss provides us with a map of where we may be headed.
So as Professor Lévi-Strauss enters his second century, I wish him a Happy Birthday or Joyeux Anniversaire!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Television's "Good News"
University of Maryland study finds television causes unhappiness.
There is a posting in Tuesday's Canada.com entertainment section concerning a recent University of Maryland study on television. Commenting on how the study asserts that television makes viewers unhappy, Alex Strachan writes:
"The study's conclusion is that TV has addictive qualities, and that viewers addicted to TV share behavioral traits with those who are prone to substance abuse, "since addictive activities produce momentary please but long-term misery and regret. People most vulnerable to addiction tend to be socially or personally disadvantaged, with TV becoming an opiate."
The point Strachan misses is that the purpose of television is to make us unhappy and then to provide solutions to our discomforts through advertising. As former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson pointed out nearly 40 years ago, the viewer is not the consumer of television, he is the product, offered to advertisers at a cost per thousand. (see his book, How To Talk Back to Your Television Set).
Without the bad news of "News", the end-of-the-world melodramas of "Dramas" or the embarrassment provoking unlikelihoods of "Comedies," advertisers would not have the properly conditioned audience to pitch their products to.
That is why Marshall McLuhan, also almost 40 years ago, called advertising television's "good news" or "gospel."
So Strachan's concern over which came first, the unhappy viewer or the television is misplaced. Sure unhappy people may naturally gravitate toward television, but why they do so has less to do with chickens and eggs and more to do with the underlying purpose of television broadcasters.
And as for the University of Maryland's study, as I haven't read it yet, I won't comment except to note Charles Schultz's take on the impact of television on children:
Charlie Brown: Do you think television is harmful to children?
Linus: I don't know. I've never had one fall on me.
There is a posting in Tuesday's Canada.com entertainment section concerning a recent University of Maryland study on television. Commenting on how the study asserts that television makes viewers unhappy, Alex Strachan writes:
"The study's conclusion is that TV has addictive qualities, and that viewers addicted to TV share behavioral traits with those who are prone to substance abuse, "since addictive activities produce momentary please but long-term misery and regret. People most vulnerable to addiction tend to be socially or personally disadvantaged, with TV becoming an opiate."
The point Strachan misses is that the purpose of television is to make us unhappy and then to provide solutions to our discomforts through advertising. As former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson pointed out nearly 40 years ago, the viewer is not the consumer of television, he is the product, offered to advertisers at a cost per thousand. (see his book, How To Talk Back to Your Television Set).
Without the bad news of "News", the end-of-the-world melodramas of "Dramas" or the embarrassment provoking unlikelihoods of "Comedies," advertisers would not have the properly conditioned audience to pitch their products to.
That is why Marshall McLuhan, also almost 40 years ago, called advertising television's "good news" or "gospel."
So Strachan's concern over which came first, the unhappy viewer or the television is misplaced. Sure unhappy people may naturally gravitate toward television, but why they do so has less to do with chickens and eggs and more to do with the underlying purpose of television broadcasters.
And as for the University of Maryland's study, as I haven't read it yet, I won't comment except to note Charles Schultz's take on the impact of television on children:
Charlie Brown: Do you think television is harmful to children?
Linus: I don't know. I've never had one fall on me.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Google Searches Can Also Track Intellectual Outbreaks
Simple steps to avoid an epidemic of Media Ecology.
An article in yesterday's New York Times discusses how Google queries can anticipate the rise in reported flu outbreaks and beat the forecasts of the CDC, sometimes by weeks at at time.
A similar technique could be used to track Media Ecology activity through Google queries. We have known since the early 1970's that there is a correlation between the rise of reported flu queries and Media Ecology activities. Sometimes, the rise in temperature, the muscle aches and feelings of nausea due to the latter are attributed to the former.
Using the data gathered from Google searches, we can anticipate an increase in Media Ecology activity before it occurs and take steps to prevent it. While there is currently no preventive vaccine or cure available for Media Ecology activity, a few basic steps of mental hygiene can reduce the severity of the outbreak:
An article in yesterday's New York Times discusses how Google queries can anticipate the rise in reported flu outbreaks and beat the forecasts of the CDC, sometimes by weeks at at time.
A similar technique could be used to track Media Ecology activity through Google queries. We have known since the early 1970's that there is a correlation between the rise of reported flu queries and Media Ecology activities. Sometimes, the rise in temperature, the muscle aches and feelings of nausea due to the latter are attributed to the former.
Using the data gathered from Google searches, we can anticipate an increase in Media Ecology activity before it occurs and take steps to prevent it. While there is currently no preventive vaccine or cure available for Media Ecology activity, a few basic steps of mental hygiene can reduce the severity of the outbreak:
- An outbreak of Media Ecology activity often is preceded by a discussion of the works of any of a number of scholars, including Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, Walter J. Ong, Neil Postman, Lewis Mumford, Alfred Korzybski or Suzanne Langer.
This may be followed by secondary discussion of Paul Levinson, Lance Strate, Robert Logan, Joshua Meyerowitz or James Carey. Should you encounter a group discussing any of these authors, immediately change the topic to sports, the weather, politics or religion. A good lead in is: "Yes, technology may have influenced the course of human evolution, but weren't weather patterns, available raw material resources and the ineluctable modalities of warfare more significant?" - While there is no evidence that Media Ecology activity can be picked up on toilet seats, it is advisable to always have a supply of alternative reading material available, including old issues of Consumers Reports, copies of Mad Libs or almost any graphic novel, except any by Douglas Rushkoff or Neil Gaiman.
- Media Ecology activity is easily spread among college students and can then be brought into the home during semester breaks or over weekends. One approach is to make enormous quantities of food available when anticipating a home visit and make sure the student's mouth is always full. Others suggest planning a trip to areas of the world not currently experiencing any Media Ecology outbreaks and leaving before the infected student arrives. While Canada has long been off limits, recent outbreaks in Mexico have put that country in doubt. However, many Caribbean islands are still considered pristine.
- Media Ecology activity is most detrimental to the very young and to the elderly. Special steps should be taken to shield these groups from exposure.
- Avoid enclosed areas where Media Ecologists are known to converge. For example, this weekend at Fordham University in New York City, the Media Ecology Association is co-sponsoring an Institute of General Semantics Symposium, "Creating the Future: Conscious Time-Binding for a Better Tomorrow." It is anticipated that the reported incidents of Media Ecology activity will rise exponentially by the conclusion of this symposium.
- Should you begin to feel any of the symptoms of Media Ecology, bed rest, fluids and aspirin-lots of aspirin- are recommended. Symptoms may persist for up to two weeks, with feelings of lethargy and agoraphobia continuing for up to a month after that.
WARNING: Do not under any circumstances attempt to consult a Ph.D. They will only prolong the course of the disease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)