My Top Ten Electronic Media Writing Revelations, Part II

#6 - Writer's Professional Creations Are Not Their Own

On page 20 Hilliard says the director considers it a nuisance when a writer suggest camera movement or other productions techniques. This is silly because the person writing the scenes should have a say in the way the scenes are presented. It has become clear that in a lot of places where writers get their start, they will not be able to have total control of their work.

Why would a director be upset at some suggestions? It's less work for him or her! That's the dream, isn't it? I understand that directors want their say too, but the writer has that same desire.

Also, a new writer heading into the business will probably be told what to write and how to write it, not left to his own ideas and potential sparks of innovation. Is innovation mainly reserved for those who has persevered through the beginnings of a writing career? Is it only after years of being tempered in the forges of professional writing that one can be left to his or her own actions and ideas?

Photo from here.

#7 - Professional Personalities Have Writers

This seems obvious, but to somebody who came into studying writing believing otherwise, somebody who thought Stephen Colbert and John Steuart were brilliant on the spot, this is certainly a revelation. Hilliard says on page 267 that some programs have formats that have been used for a long time and are thus routine. I imagine that, at this point, John Steuart is pretty familiar with how he's going to deliver the material his writers are giving him.

Stephen Colbert talks a little bit about his word being formed by other writers in his book I Am America (And So Can You) because he says that the content of the book is him yelling into a tape recorder for a bit, handing it to one of his agents and saying, "Sell this."

Hilarious and reflective of the point this revelation wants to make. How amazing is that picture? I would have it bigger if it didn't look ridiculous next to the text.

Photo found here.

#8 - Simplicity Can Be Effective

On page 434 Hilliard says that good comedy has always come from commenting on the seriousness of life. Fantastic comedy has come from commenting on the not so serious parts of life. In a previous post I discussed my love of Seinfeld. This show's effective comedy comes from partially the seriousness of life, but more dominantly the humor comes from the simplicity of certain things. For example, Jerry Seinfeld has a stand up bit featured in one of the shows that talks about the 'what ifs' involved with a plane take off delay. He says that maybe the pilot forgot the keys at home, but they say they are just checking the plane once more for safety reasons. Imagine, he says, that the crew is frantically running around searching for the keys on the runway or somewhere similar. That's quite funny and quite the opposite of serious.

Here's another instance of effective simplicity from the legendary sitcom:

#9 - Writing Can't Be Taught

Techniques and mechanics can be taught, but how to apply them and in what context is up to the writer. You can't teach someone to write for Seinfeld. Jerry Seinfeld captured the cultural life of New York City and daily life so well in his stand up routines. This transferred to his sitcom beautifully. I feel confidant saying that no body told him what his material should be. He thought of a lot of it in his early days I'm sure.

On page 444 Hilliard says that writing requires talents - basically. Kids, or at least me, who grow up thinking about being a writer often base these desires off of the cleverness and effectiveness they see in the big time shows and programs. This builds up a beautiful fantasy but an unfortunately unrealistic concept of getting into the business and getting to that level of success.

Like everything else, good writing depends on the personality, devotion, and motivation within the writer.

Photo from here.

#10 - Companies Need Us

By us, I mean young people, college students, looking to break into the world of the media. On page 459 Hillard says that the internet is a communications phenomenon. Since it is still quite recent, traditional companies might not have a full grasp on the uses of the internet. We college kids grew up saturated in this stuff. We have an edge. Companies might be wiling to throw us a decent wage to help guide the success of their presence on the internet. Already this is being taught at Champlain. In my Sophomore Portfolio class we were tasked with pitching ideas to various Guitar and Music festivals about enhancing their place online.

Having talked to the head of these festivals, Tim Brookes has said that these festivals embrace knowledgable youth such as myself. This raises questions for a writing major, however. What else should be known? Should I take graphic design courses? Web design courses? How much writing course time should be sacrificed so that I might gain a foot hold in another element of convergence on the internet?

Photo from here.

My Top Ten Electronic Media Writing Revelations, Part I

#1 - The stories that are not being told.

I felt this starting at the end of Mass Media & Society my first year here, but now I definitely feel that one of the largest ways in which I have changed how I think about media is centered around the idea of ownership. This concept essentially means that people who are consuming media need to stay aware of the fact that somebody owns whatever it is that is being 'digested.'

Writing for Television, Radio, and New Media by Robert L. Hilliard talks a little bit about the concept of ownership on page 13. He says that owners of media properties want those properties to portray their messages or, at the least, not contradict their ideas.

In trying to find a media production where ownership isn't almost definitely not an issue, there is an inherent challenge: In order for something in the media to exist, somebody needs to create it. Thanks to some friends, however, I was introduced to a series of youtube videos that fulfill the meaninglessness of ownership.

Take this one for example. Apparently this is an internet meme called 'MOAR Krabs,' which is a horrible recreation of Mr. Krabs from Spongebob Squarepants. This video is Spongebob, Squidward, and MOAR Krabs rocking out in the scene of Night at the Roxsbury and I can't make a message from its creator besides, "Enjoy this, it is purely entertainment."

However, a video such as this...

...raises some questions about ownership that I would not have thought about before being presented with the teachings of this class.

Volkswagen is openly endorsing this advertisement. What does this mean for a devout Christian who owns a Volkswagen? What's to stop them from viewing Dudeism as a complete joke? Will they resent Volkswagen? What is Volkswagen trying to say? That they are religiously accepting, no matter how ridiculous the religion?

Stories that aren't being told, people.

#2 - The Image Dominates the Word

On page 8, Hilliard says that television program's writing can be tested by turning the picture off and keeping the audio on. If you still get the same idea, the writing is successful. I would think that if one passes the test, he or she should be valued as a writer. What I actually think, however, is that no one cares about the words as long as the image is shiny enough. Avatar has become a box office legend. I saw it for the first time and it wasn't in IMAX or 3D. I hated it. I hated most of the characters and I thought the plot was horrible with a lot of contradictions. There were several established plot and world elements that were neglected and that got my blood boiling. It is a shame that we now have proof that aesthetic focus can reap great benefits. The thousands upon thousands of people who went to see the film can not have gone because they heard the plot was so good.

Thankfully it didn't get picture of the year. No one should be awarded for foregoing a coherent, fluid plot and replacing it with eye candies.

Here's a trailer for the movie if you don't know about it already:

#3 The Media World is Mostly Established

Throughout Hilliard's book were several instances of detailed guidelines for formatting and scripting. One of the most specific details in the book is on page 55. For scripting a filmed teleplay the Writers Guild of America says that all dialogue should be typed within approximately a 3 inch wide column. What kind of research went into determining that number? Why does it matter?

I realize that whatever profession I get into, I will probably start out riding a very guided route. That's fine, I suppose, but how much does it really matter? Has somebody been fired for having a column that was 5 inches wide? I would personally want a wider column for dialogue so there are less lines and thus less opportunities to get lost and re-read a line or skip a line.

Photo from here.

#4 Commercials are not High Art

On page 70, the start of chapter 4, Hilliard says that commercials have been developed to such a mastered level that they are high art. On page 71 he quotes S. J. Paul who says that commercial makers are the real stars of television and radio structures. How can somebody say that? What do you think of the reasons piracy's popularity is top tier is? You can watch shows with no interruptions. Sites like Hulu and Youtube include advertising not because they think people enjoy commercials (Why do you think sometimes you'll find the option to watch 2 minutes of advertising in the beginning of a video? So you can walk away for two minutes while it plays and come back to watch what you want to watch.) but because it brings in the money.

There's a YouTube series that features terrible commercials and explains some of the reasons they are so bad. This is a more recent commercial based on the upload date, is this a mastery of persuasion?

#5 Sports Coverage is Mastered

One of the sections of the book that made the most sense to me was its discussion of sports. I have recently gotten into sports and read the sports section in the Times often. On page 179 Hilliard says that sports broadcasts can be more precise and direct than the news. I agree, but I also think that this is because it's easy to be precise and direct when covering something that has facts instead of word of mouth, which news reporters sometimes have to solely rely on. I am interesting in getting into sports writing in my future and in reading the Times, coverage of feature stories seems to be focused on the players' or team's outside of sports lives. Coverage of live contests is such an established practice that a lot of print coverage consists of feature stories. Video's have been recapping events for a long time, but more recently, with the birth of the internet, there have been full length films and stories on specific players.

One of the NBA's biggest stars, Lebron James, has had a film made about him - which was released recently. This trailer and report covers the movie pretty well and there are clearly elements of drama and story development that have become a norm for the sports world.

Also, sorry about the text size but literally nothing I do changes Blogger's rigid formatting decisions.

Media Meditation #6: Feeding the Reader

RSS feeds and Google Alerts have changed my experience on the internet. Considering the expanse that is the internet, to shift its influence is a great feat.

An RSS feed is essentially a service that a website can utilize. By subscribing to a website's RSS feed, the user is telling that website to send updates and new content to a specified reader.Google Reader is an example of one of these readers. Here, a user can have all RSS feeds they are subscribed to organized and ready to be read.

As the content is ready to be read, the four media tool sets are ready to be applied.

The neo cortex of my triune brain was stimulated by all of the written information contained within the news and text given and filtered to me through the Google Alert and RSS feed systems. The limbic portion of my brain was affected by the various emotions I would sometimes feel in the process of engaging these services. For example, when there were way more content updates than I anticpated and I am astonished. My reptilian brain was dormant for the most part, however sometimes an article may tie in my search terms in surprising ways that take me off guard, thus triggered the aforementioned brain sector.

The eight shifts of the 21st century media world apply to RSS feeds and Google Alerts in cultural, economic, and discursive fashions. The cultural shift questions how heavily we are being watched by corportaions and the government. If several users are now using one tool to sift through the countless numbers of journalism, publishing, and other related companies. Now those that are watching readers can use one source to see where people are reading news. Instead of monitoring the different sources of news in their respective places, observers can use Google Reader's data to monitor a more complex flow of information circulation in a very simple way.

In an economic sense, similar to the cultural implications, RSS feeds and Google Alerts disrupt the regular consumer's means of finding news and replacement those means with easier abilities. These abilities, however, threaten the existence of loyal readers, making news available based purely on topic and not on news source. A new reader in the world nowadays may have trouble picking a favorite source of information because they read a wide variety constantly (assuming they use Google Alerts primarily.) RSS feeds safeguard a reader's ability to engage in the news sources of their choosing by being accessed on an individual website basis, rather than collecting articles from across the web and putting them in one play - as Google Alerts does.

The discursive shift applies to these services because the articles you're reading might not be completely balanced in the information they present. Google Reader is not obligated to tell you what is opinionated and what is not, so it is left to the reader to know what they are reading. Chances are they might not know and take opinion for fact, flaunting that fact adamantly but incorrectly. In a way, Google Reader can endanger the ignorant reader.

The eight principles of media education shape Google Alerts and RSS feeds by means ofreality construction, ownership, and production techniques.

The reality being constructed by Google Reader, at least, might be the stitchings of various perspectives that can form an altered and ambiguous whole story. RSS feeds offer content from places the reader has consented to, therefore the reality being constructed is made by the reader and the sources established and selected.

Ownership plays a part in the risk of obeying the constructed reality. News sources are different from one another in that they are owned by different people and have different messages. By using Google Reader you are getting information that may cover the same topics but be owned by different people and thus be geared to make you think a specific way; a way that is going to be different from another source - probably. These messages are shaped by various production techniques that readers need to be aware of.

If there are two stories for coverage on driving while on your cellphone, one source may want its readers to feel angry while another source wants you to feel sympathetic. This is done by changing words, changing what is presented, and changing what other production techniques go into it.

The several persuasive techniques unveil Google Reader and RSS feeds by various means.

These services tend to promise "the best of the news at your fingertips!" or something similar. This is a few different things. Hyperbole rears its head because how can this be the best of something so expansive and opinionated? Secondly, this is a big lie because there's no way to prove that they are true, realistically.

Like most services, this one works up its own repetition which becomes appealing (once its easy to use) to users. RSS feeds use timing to their own accord, updating users when they want to, thus getting their hooks in their users whenever they want. Google Alerts can alert users whenever it is told to by the user, but there are a set list of options which might have been set with repetition and recurrence in the minds of the big wigs at Google.

People use these feeds and alerts to get informed. There is a sort of testimonial in these services because their owners are saying, "This information is good enough for us to give to you, is that enough? We say its legitimate, do you believe us?" Their putting their credibility on the line speaks strongly for the content.

RSS feeds and Google Alerts have, at times, been a troublesome habit in terms of consistent attentiveness, but I feel I have a strong handle on their nature and what exactly they can do. I have been enjoying a lot of different perspectives and ideas about my favorites topics, and recently I came up with a fun idea for Google Alerts:

Set up an alert for the word 'revolutionize' and there are a lot of interesting reads. I read about how the iPad can revolutionize wi-fi and, if the information is all valid, this was nothing I have heard or read in the mainstream media. It was fascinating. I also read about television technology with was written in such masterful explanatory prose that I have a mild grasp on what is to come for televisions.

These services will only expand, and what the presents has to offer is scary in terms of accessibility, therefore the future promises ground shaking developments.

For the curious and unenlightened, this video helps to explain the features and usage of Google Reader.

This one tackles Google Alerts:

Media Meditation #5: A Post About Nothing

(From left to right: George Costanza, Elaine Benes, Cosmo Kramer, Jerry Seinfeld.)

Seinfeld was a big part of my childhood. Today, the sitcom-phenomenon is re-run on several popular television stations such as TBS and FOX. It has often been called 'a show about nothing.' Sounds insulting right? If it is, that's alright.

This show is one of my favorites of all time, and I can't imagine another show knocking this one off of it's deserved and glorious pedestal. Being a show about nothing, I felt the four media tool sets might match up uniquely against a program such as this.

Also I get that there might be a struggle inherent in trying to analyze an entire show. I feel like it may be possible with Seinfeld.

For those who are unfamiliar with the show, a basic summary looks like this: There are four main characters - Jerry Seinfeld, George Costanza, Elaine Benes, and Cosmo Kramer - who encounter day to day issues which are parodied or just flat out experienced. Somehow, though, it is hilarious. The show was started by Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. Seinfeld stars as himself and the other three usually congregate in his apartment to talk about issues, crack jokes, or have ridiculous commentary with one another.

It is no longer running, and the biggest issue with the show happens to be the final episode or two, but Seinfeld will almost definitely be apart of television history for the rest of time.

The tool sets, then.

The show is by no means dark or anything of the sort, but the show does have the (what I assume to be) recorded audience laughter which can be uproarious and abrupt - thus triggering the fight or flight reflex in my reptilian brain! I can't imagine any genuinely horrifying moments, however. Sometimes an attractive girlfriend might trigger the mating reflex in there, but nothing too significant beyond the laughter.

As is true for all story-telling mediums, the neocortex of my brain is occupied by attempts to keep up with the moving plot, character development (for example: George likes spicy chicken and Jerry has a lot of ceral) and recurring happenings (apparently there is at least one Superman reference in every single episode). My limbic brain, however, is more amused by facial expressions, body language, and the outrageous span of characters - all with their own quirks, antics, and completely bold and unreal actions (for example: George screams, "You know we're living in a society! We're supposed to act in a civilized way!" This is in a Chinese restaurant after the pay phone was taken from him even though he was there first.) The theme music is so catchy and unique as well, it is so perfect for a notable show. I'd listen to it while reading the rest of this, if you aren't already. Click that link to hear it! Or this one.

Look at how easy I made that for you.

In terms of the eight shifts, I have a comment on the technological shift that doesn't apply to the show as a televised program, but rather the content of the show. The shift says from analog to digital. I consider Seinfeld to be an analog show, if you will. By that I mean, the show takes place in a time that predates the saturation of Facebook, laptops, cell phones, and just convergence in general.

That's one of my favorite parts of the show, the technology is low key - the characters use home phones (no way!), pay phones, and are probably never on a computer. That is one of the reason this show also hits more a human side, rather than having popular product placement, snappy hip-pop, or generic plot devices. The plots are generic, but only in terms of real life. The plots are generic in the best way.

I also greatly enjoy how this show appears through the cultural shift. One of the reasons I greatly media research on viewers and audience interests is because due to that very research this show is still shown on TV very often. This show is popular, and that's proven by its ratings and consistent persistence (I love that 'sisten' repetition) in breaking through the layered and formulated 21st century media. So thank you, whoever did the research that kept the show on at the respective stations - you made the right choice.

This show constructs reality in such a recognizable way to the average Joe. That is partially why it is about nothing and so revered. Using that same episode where George was yelling, look at this scene: Jerry and Elaine are trying to figure out who a woman sitting at one of the tables is because Jerry recognizes her but can't identify her. Eventually, the woman says hello to him and they talk. Eventually she says that Jerry "should come by" (presumably to her office, where Jerry's uncle works.) Jerry responds by saying, "Definitely, I plan to..." And after a short pause he finishes, "...and I'm not just saying that."

That's real. That's what people do sometimes, just say things. The show has so many moments like that. The way the viewers relate to the situations establish individual meanings for them. Some people may be like, "Hey, that just happened to me!" or "Meh, I don't know about that." I'm usually laughing and thinking, "boy that's realistic."

Ownership can be a game breaker for what a certain creation of the media is actually trying to say. Seinfeld was produced by Castle Rock Entertainment and distributed etc. by Columbia Pictures Television. However, the people who created the ideas were primarily Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. The show is partially based on Larry David's life but there was certainly input from Seinfeld and some other screen writers. The content, to me, seems from the genius of the two co-creators. Even if there was some corporate influence, it doesn't show because everything in the show seems to be a cultural comment as well as some of the most entertaining writing and acting I've ever seen. As a writing major, and a man who enjoys humor (and a man who enjoys writing humor!) I have been paying more and more attention to what writing in the shows looks like and have honestly noticed that during Seinfeld I will more often be thinking, "That's clever," or, "That's just perfect."

The persuasive techniques are abundant in Seinfeld but there is one that is the dominant. Can you guess what it is? I'll help - it's humor! The characters are funny, the situations are funny, the writing is funny, the development makes everything funnier. The ending could've been different but going along with the "show about nothing" reputation, the ending was fitting. Simple solutions is employed in most conflicts. The four of them usually suggest ridiculous but simple fixes to issues. One time Elaine, Jerry, and George couldn't get a table at a restaurant so they decide to slip the waiter $20 bucks. Easy, right?

Hyperbole is employed to emphasise some minor but widespeard and commmonly known issues in day to day life. A perfect example being when the cable or phone guy tells you they are going to be there between 11:00am and 5:00pm. In another episode, Kramer ends up being chased across rooftops and the city by a cable guy because Kramer was avoiding him. Eventually, the cable guy apologizes and says something along the lines of, 'When we say two o' clock, it's gonna be two o' clock.' He's out of breathe, as this happened just after the lengthy chase, and its hilarious.

Beautiful people has had a big impact on me from this show because I think Julia Louis-Dreyfus (the actress who plays Elaine) is gorgeous. The girlfriends the three guys get are usually easy to look at too.

Nostalgia is used when they reference Superman. This happens often.

Repetition is used to create the 'traditional Seinfeld experience.' By that I mean, most episodes start with a short clip of stand up by Jerry himself. Sometimes there are more than one clip per show, the clip appears in the middle, or the clip doesn't appear at all - but for the most part, a clip of Jerry doing stand up means Seinfeld is on. The theme music, as mentioned before, is completely a product of that show and is hopefully going to be remembered.

Seinfeld is incredible and there are so many moments to show. Below are a couple of videos that are some of the most memorable moments in the series.

This video is of George's answering machine message that he creates. My friends and I in high school had a long time where we would reference that sometimes. It's priceless (forgive the mild advertising):

This next one is going to require a little bit of background. So in this episode, Jerry runs into an old friend of his and George's. He tells her that George is a marine biologist, since she asked about him. George isn't a marine biologist. He also tells her that he is.

At another point in the episode, Kramer wants to go hit golf balls at the beach with George and Jerry. He does so.

When George is on a date with his old friend, they see a crowd on the beach. It turns out there's a beached whale. Someone yells, "Is anyone a marine biologist?!"

The video pretty much picks up from there. At the end of the video you'll hear Kramer respond to George. He says, "Is that a Titleist?"

A Titleist is a type of golf ball.

Kramer was hitting golf balls into the ocean, remember?

Classic.

Media Meditation #4: Enter Vonnegut

I read my first book by Kurt Vonnegut. It's called Breakfast of Champions. It was published in 1973, which is one of his later works. Now I'm reading Slaughterhouse-Five which is apparently quite great. He gave (Kurt Vonnegut graded his other works in one of his books, comparing himself to himself, as he would say.) Breakfast of Champions a C while giving Slaughterhouse-Five an A+. It must be good.

The book being analyzed, however, is Breakfast of Champions. I just finished it last night and it was different, but great. Let's apply the four media toolsets to the book and see what we're looking at. Vonnegut's book includes illustrations he himself created. The limbic area of my triune brain was quite stimulated by these pictures, especially when I glanced over at the next page to see what the image was and, noticing that it has nothing to do with what I am currently reading, wondering what the hell it was there for.

My neocortex spent the entire time trying to decipher the plot mechanics being used - trying to find a point. The reptilian area of my brain caught a break for the most part; nothing stimulated or scared it too much.

There is so much text and so many messages. Within these messages are the subtle yet plentiful persuasive techniques of the 21st century media culture. Vonnegut plays the race card out to be one of his larger topics. Racial issues are scattered throughout the book and presented in such a way that it makes the reader realize the truth of racial discrimination, but also presents the mindset most humans take: an ambiguous understanding paired with a desire to do nothing about it but get away from it, ignore it, and hope it goes away while enjoying the robotic (as Kilgore Trout would agree) activities of day to day life.

Symbols are everywhere. Vonnegut boldly explains his own symbolism. In one part of the book he explains that two characters grasped hands and shook. After that he drew a picture of two hands shaking. He went on to say that this was a symbol of friendship between humans. He includes pictures and messages that are obvious but never too thought about, and that is more of the appeal, it seems, that Vonnegut has to offer.

My favorite part of the book is when Dwayne Hoover reads Kilgore Trout's book (read the book.) The idea in the book is a big form of flattery, as well as being profoundly deep and humanistic. The idea in Trout's book (in Vonnegut's book) says that the reader is the only creature with free will. Everything else that looks like the reader is a machine programmed to do what they do. It's a hyperbole on life, but it is not untrue. The herd instinct in America and in humans is blatantly real and the way Vonnegut presents that statement was genius.

The thing about a book like this is that it is almost mocking how people appeal to other people. The persuasive technique of rhetorical questions is so clearly presented that Kurt Vonnegut actually set it away from the text using line breaks and white space and illustrated it in massive font. The question is: "What is the purpose of life?" The words take up about a third of an entire page. It makes sense in context of the book, but regardless, that question is slapped in your face. Even if there is no context, that question gets people thinking.

A final example of persuasive techniques would be group dynamics. Vonnegut's statements on life are about Midland City, but this seems to be used as a small representation of humans in general. Midland City is representing Earth, if you will. Humans are machines, humans are competitive. He talks about people's racial tensions, passive or not, within Midland City. The situation can be transfered to a global scale and stay true proportionately. He has characters make mistakes and live their life off of that mistake, which everybody does.

Take the eight shifts of media education and Vonnegut's book has some revealing aspects inherent with it's content and message. One can see ideas that saturate media education in today's 21st century were somewhat alive thirty years ago, because it is pretty evident that either Vonnegut had the idea of an epistemological shift while writing or he happened to coincide with the idea because of how his book is presented. That he includes images can be a statement that appreciates humans' love for images (as media experts would agree) or a statement that is mocking humans' love for images. Either way the illustrations recognize the aforementioned shift as well as the aesthetic shift because this book is completely meshing the word and the image into one great piece of work.

This book is Vonnegut's take on life. The discursive shift suggests that nowadays third person objectivity is trying to dominate subjectivity, but literature that challenges the quest to define 'truth' has existed since day one. This book is an example that portrays the subject matter just as one person (or group) wants to portray the subject matter.

There are the eight principles of media education that Breakfast of Champions applies to. A small note on ownership: The illustrations in the book are drawn a certain way. There are vaginas, cows, signs, illustrated words, illustrated dates, ducks, and other standard objects in day to day American life. These illustrations are done by Kurt Vonnegut and drawn the way he wanted to draw them. The illustrations add some pizazz to the book, and not the kind of pizazz the illustrator recommended, but that the author and whatever editors and consultants thought.

Vonnegut has a rather strong construction of reality in this book. It is a satire on American life and, while it is written thirty years ago, portrays humans in an outrageous, simple, and true way. The beauty of the book and probably one of Vonnegut's most appealing techniques of writing is how he constructs what is actually reality. He talks about racial problems, comparing it to reindeer season for hunters. The minorities were called 'reindeer' by some of the book's characters and Vonnegut goes on to explain that in Midland City, the book's main setting, the majority would engage in 'reindeer season,' making a comparison that isn't, unfortunately, too far off when one considers racial discrimination in the US (remember this book was written in the 70s.)

This book threw me a curve ball in terms of what I have established for myself as story telling. I am still trying to make order out of the beautiful chaos. I am definitely going to re-read the book and see if some of the more hazy ideas clear up.

Consider me a Vonnegut follower now.

Time for Slaughterhouse-Five.

Promoting the Self

I've started a second blog! It has been around for a few weeks and I have been tweaking and tinkering, but there are some starting posts, featuring the beginnings of my series, Brociology.

If you've heard the term 'bromance' or have watched the show How I Met Your Mother, you'll appreciate what I have and will be talking about. Check it out!

Midterm Reflection

1. Because of the ideas in this course I have started to view media in an entirely new way. That's what I've learned. I was watching Katt Williams do stand up recently and thought, 'Who writes these jokes? Is this all his material? How much improvisation is involved?' I was questioning the ownership of the material and the program itself, and that questioning showed me how I've been changing from this course.

2. As a critical reader I've realized that it is important to consider the stories that are not being told. Taking something at face value can be deceptive and influential in ways that you might not have intended.

As a writer I need to remember that I'm writing for an audience, not just for myself. I have to make the transition from private to public.

As a thinker I've began to consider why something is being shown, not just what is being shown. I'm now thinking about who owns this and what message it is really showing. I wonder what demographics a commercial is appealing to and judge if it does it well or not.

3. I would've liked Twitter to be introduced from the start. I read an article that said 79% of twitter accounts don't have more than 10 tweets, so the network seems to be largely used as a news feed from whoever you want. If the class is engaged in this the entire course they may find some of the ideas of the course reflected in the community of twitter and Web 2.0.

4. I don't know what the agenda is for the rest of the semester, but I would like to learn about historical and/or current events that are contributing to the massive changes and technological advancements of the 21st century media culture.

5. The course blog is an easier-to-use version of Angel in some ways. It is quite easy to clarify what is due when by going to the blog. It is especially effective because the posting order compliments the structure of a class.

Hilliard's book has been great so far. It is great as showing rather than just telling as well as makes several allusions that give its readers (students mostly) some more familiarity. The videos shown have been great and have served their purpose quit well every time.

As for the personal blog, this is a good way to keep the work done organized as well as introduce students to the blogosphere. It allows students to customize the feel of their assignments with the many tools available as well as gives them/us something to look back to with ease.

Last Party on Earth (With John Stamos!) - Media Meditation #3

Jokes.com
Nick Swardson - My Funeral
comedians.comedycentral.com
Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games

This is one of my favorite stand up bits. Comedian Nick Swardson is a big hit on the stand up comedy scene. This is an older skit of his, posted to Comedy Central's web base in '06. It's hilarious. I wanted to see how stand-up comedy stands-up against the four media tool sets.

My triune brain was triggered mostly in the neocortex. I had to keep up with the joke and the continuous funnies. My limbic brain is calmed by his attire and the serene glow of the stage. His voice is entertaining and nonthreatening, allowing me to relax and enjoy. In a reptilian reaction, my brain would jump at the sudden burst of laughter from the audience.

The eight shifts are dominantly relevant when looking at the discursive shift. Stand up comedy is almost always subjective. The whole profession is people telling their personal take on topics to an audience. Each comedian is a prime example of a shift from objective focuses to subjective expressions.

The economic shift offers some interesting thoughts. This routine by Nick Swardson is owned by somebody. How often this is exposed on public programming is based not on how hilarious or acutally clever it is, but rather how many numbers it rakes in.

Through a technological scope, stand up comedy used to be mostly an act to be seen in person. It was televised swiftly, but now we can see it archived and archived on websites, ready to be streamed at the user's will.

The seven princples further the understanding of this stand up comedy. Individual meaning is a big player in this medium's effectiveness. If you share his take on funerals, you'll love him. If you like to party, you'll like this skit. If you remember John Stamos, you'll like the skit. He covers a wide range of areas that viewers can relate to so that there is more potential for engagement.

Emotional transfers happen often in this industry. Laughter, in this case, is derived from a good thought - something funny. The comedian can transfer his funny ideas into your mind, causing the same reaction. He also talks about dying in the beginning which is a topic that whirls up much deeper and more spiritual thinking.

Production techniques are used mainly by the comedian himself. He dresses with the audience in mind. Nick Swardson has a nice looking outfit on, but it is casual enough that he doesn't look too professional in order to reflect the environment he wants to create. Everything he says is made to build a story where the climax is a hilarious occurrence or realization.

The several persuasive techniques shed some light on the nature of this bit.

Humor is the dominant technique of persuasion. It is the focus and central point of this videos creation. Swardson is there to make people laugh.

Nostaliga is induced when he talks about John Stamos. Anybody who appreciates the kind of humor he is using will probably know John Stamos from Full House. He was in his prime awhile before Nick Swardson, so this is a throw back for appreciative audience members.

Hyperbole. One case where this is used is the scenario of paying John Stamos to come to your funeral and cry. This is a ridiculous, but not entirely unrealistic, thing to do.

Nick Swardson uses timing in his delivery of a joke to enhance the effect. He builds up the supporting information in quick succession and then, after a lull, suddenly says a big, unexpected event or realization that makes everything hilarious.

Warm fuzzies: He is a pretty nonthreatening looking guy with a nice looking outfit. His voice is kicked back and soothing in a way.

There are several elements of this performance that are often under the radar for viewers. These viewers have one thing in mind: Be entertained. By asking the questions these tool sets guide you to, you can gain some perspective on what is being made, for what reasons, and what is effective.