Again, goes to show the impact such media coverage has can go beyond the organization and to the individuals behind it, even so far as to affect them on a physical level.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Update: Kony 2012
Haha, so it seems Jason Russell was working so hard on his Kony 2012 campaign he forgot to eat and drink and sleep, and ended up running around mostly naked vandalizing cars and disturbing the peace. Invisible Children stepped in and said that Russell overworked himself, but his neighbors thought that he was...for lack of a better phrase...tripping balls.
Again, goes to show the impact such media coverage has can go beyond the organization and to the individuals behind it, even so far as to affect them on a physical level.
Again, goes to show the impact such media coverage has can go beyond the organization and to the individuals behind it, even so far as to affect them on a physical level.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Mass Effect of Mass Effect on Mass Media
So, despite the fact that most people who read this may not have a huge affection of videos games, there has been a huge development in that community over the last week. Last Monday was the release of one of the years most highly anticipated games: Mass Effect 3. This RPG/FPS (Role Playing Game/First Person Shooter) was said to be the conclusion to the story arc set in place during the first two games. Players would have concluded the protagonists journey/mission with an ending based on decisions made over the course of not one, not two, but all three games; a feature that is unique in that it was set over so many titles. With breathtaking visuals and incredibly thorough and deeply detailed back-story and lore, this game had a lot of hype to live up to. Now it is difficult to not give the game a review here, but that isn't what this blog is for so I shall not stray into that area, instead I will say that the gameplay and actual story had most gamers content up until the ending itself.
WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW (If you are a gamer who might enjoy this game, be warned there are spoilers to the games ending below)
An outcry from the ME3 community came within twenty-four to fourty-eight hours from the games release as many were compelled to stay awake all night and day finishing a story five years in the making, the common reason being they felt robbed of a 'perfect' ending. (I should note the idea behind the endings of all three of the games is that your choices throughout allow you access to different outcomes, each different and unique to the choices and morality of your character.) Gamers desired an ending that allowed their Commander Shepard to live and not be a sacrifice. Unfortunately, the game only offered three primary possibilities, with slight variations following suit: Sacrifice yourself and postpone doomsday, sacrifice yourself and annihilate the threat also sacrificing some of your allies, and sacrificing yourself and completely re-write all life in the galaxy. This lack of protagonist-saving choices made many players lash out against Bioware (publisher).
Now, how does this play into media? Well, I'm getting to that.
Angry gamers decided to put together a petition to get the developers to re-write the ending and change the possible outcomes; some went so far as to create a fund to promote such a change, a fund now some $40, 000.00 strong. This kind of backlash has been getting publicity around the nation, and even other parts of the world, but why do some people think they have a right to make such demands about the art the developers have worked so hard to create? What makes this different than a book or motion picture where one might not always agree with directorial choices? Well, there is a debate here: some believe they have the right because unlike Film/TV/Books video games such as this have players investing hundreds of hours making decisions that cause them to be morally, emotionally and mentally invested in 'their' story, so why shouldn't they demand better care be given to the writing so that there is a possible ending to satisfy 'their' style of play?
Having played the game myself, and feeling some disappointment in the ending, I can say that I do respect the decisions made and the artistic value, that not all things are as altruistic as some would like to believe, but that some might be jumping the gun on this thing because what if this was a marketing ploy to get consumers fired up over something so that additional materials sell better?
Can consumers make such demands over art and products? I puts it to ya, and I leaves it to ya.
WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW (If you are a gamer who might enjoy this game, be warned there are spoilers to the games ending below)
An outcry from the ME3 community came within twenty-four to fourty-eight hours from the games release as many were compelled to stay awake all night and day finishing a story five years in the making, the common reason being they felt robbed of a 'perfect' ending. (I should note the idea behind the endings of all three of the games is that your choices throughout allow you access to different outcomes, each different and unique to the choices and morality of your character.) Gamers desired an ending that allowed their Commander Shepard to live and not be a sacrifice. Unfortunately, the game only offered three primary possibilities, with slight variations following suit: Sacrifice yourself and postpone doomsday, sacrifice yourself and annihilate the threat also sacrificing some of your allies, and sacrificing yourself and completely re-write all life in the galaxy. This lack of protagonist-saving choices made many players lash out against Bioware (publisher).
Now, how does this play into media? Well, I'm getting to that.
Angry gamers decided to put together a petition to get the developers to re-write the ending and change the possible outcomes; some went so far as to create a fund to promote such a change, a fund now some $40, 000.00 strong. This kind of backlash has been getting publicity around the nation, and even other parts of the world, but why do some people think they have a right to make such demands about the art the developers have worked so hard to create? What makes this different than a book or motion picture where one might not always agree with directorial choices? Well, there is a debate here: some believe they have the right because unlike Film/TV/Books video games such as this have players investing hundreds of hours making decisions that cause them to be morally, emotionally and mentally invested in 'their' story, so why shouldn't they demand better care be given to the writing so that there is a possible ending to satisfy 'their' style of play?
Having played the game myself, and feeling some disappointment in the ending, I can say that I do respect the decisions made and the artistic value, that not all things are as altruistic as some would like to believe, but that some might be jumping the gun on this thing because what if this was a marketing ploy to get consumers fired up over something so that additional materials sell better?
Can consumers make such demands over art and products? I puts it to ya, and I leaves it to ya.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Goodbye my Kony island baby!
Does something have to go viral in order to gain support? Nowadays it seems the answer is yes. The Invisible Children peeps have posted a video that has gone viral, and while I didn't give into it initially because of that very reason, I felt I needed to if i was going to write about it. Now I won't re-cap the video, or even try to talk politics here, but let's take a look at the viral aspect and its impact on the overall campaign.
For years now I.C. has been working to spread the word about the mistreatment and brutal attitude towards Ugandan children as perpetrated by Ugandan warlords. Now they have released a video casting light on one such warlord Joseph Kony in hopes of having him removed from power via an arrest. So, how does and organization that rarely makes it into the papers all of a sudden show up on television and news sites and in the papers? That single viral video.
Facebook, and the internet in general, have opened up doors that have not existed before and given social/political activists (among others) ways to reach out and spread their messages.
But with that kind of attention there are bound to be side effects. For example, once again I.C. is being scrutinized for its tactics both in the media and financially. They have come under heavy fire for their over-generalizations of an event spanning several decades, and for having discrepancies in their financial reviews where it seems only a third of their funds actually go to aid Ugandan children.
It seems that media coverage comes at a cost for both sides.
For years now I.C. has been working to spread the word about the mistreatment and brutal attitude towards Ugandan children as perpetrated by Ugandan warlords. Now they have released a video casting light on one such warlord Joseph Kony in hopes of having him removed from power via an arrest. So, how does and organization that rarely makes it into the papers all of a sudden show up on television and news sites and in the papers? That single viral video.
Facebook, and the internet in general, have opened up doors that have not existed before and given social/political activists (among others) ways to reach out and spread their messages.
But with that kind of attention there are bound to be side effects. For example, once again I.C. is being scrutinized for its tactics both in the media and financially. They have come under heavy fire for their over-generalizations of an event spanning several decades, and for having discrepancies in their financial reviews where it seems only a third of their funds actually go to aid Ugandan children.
It seems that media coverage comes at a cost for both sides.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Re-visitation to a previous subject...
I previously posted particular information regarding certain F.C.C. changes and laws. During that post a comment was made that this was new news despite the fact that it happened two years ago. So, here I am re-visiting the matter hoping it will shed some light for others!
A couple years ago the F.C.C. proposed a change in their regulations that would alter the use of the 700mHz range of frequencies. This was, at the time, used primarily for wireless electronic devices, most notably microphones and audio equipment. Their reasoning behind this change was to free up some digital space so that some could be sold to cellular providers and the rest could be used for emergency communication. Then in 2011 they passed a law that made these changes into a reality.
It would seem that there are obvious advantages to this: more space for cell phones meaning reduced cost, and an increased effective emergency network. However, there were some strong disadvantages that weren't readily made aware to the public before this change was made. The truth is that it put many individuals, small businesses, and organizations between a rock and a hard place as they struggled to adapt and meet the new guidelines. Under the change these people and places could no longer use wireless equipment that operated exclusively in this band, which is actually a lot of equipment considering for years most lower to mid-level equipment operated exclusively in it. Some wireless manufacturers such and Sennheiser and Shure offered some incentive to get new equipment such as buy-back policies where consumers would receive a portion of what they paid for an item back if they upgraded to equipment that operated outside the newly banned range.
Sadly, these incentives did not cover the full prices that had been paid, so many did not receive but a fraction of what their perfectly good items cost. I myself was stuck in this predicament as a wireless set that I owned was worth nothing to its manufacturer despite being new and unused. Many churches around the U.S. operated with equipment that was now banned, and the penalty for being caught using it regardless is $5,000.00 per transmitting device. At the time I was working with a theatre when a fellow performer notified me of their church receiving such fines; apparently a government official came into the church with citation in had for $10,000.00. I can only assume they monitor those frequencies for people using them illegally.
So how is it that the government doesn't support these people and organizations that were robbed of their equipment? How is it that such laws were changed without any great publicity? Well it seems clear that the powers that be avoided media spotlight so that opposition would be minimized. The cost effectiveness has yet to be seem, but the weakness of this change has hurt the pockets of thousands, if not millions, across the U.S.
The following meme is about the FCC but has nothing to do with this article:
A couple years ago the F.C.C. proposed a change in their regulations that would alter the use of the 700mHz range of frequencies. This was, at the time, used primarily for wireless electronic devices, most notably microphones and audio equipment. Their reasoning behind this change was to free up some digital space so that some could be sold to cellular providers and the rest could be used for emergency communication. Then in 2011 they passed a law that made these changes into a reality.
It would seem that there are obvious advantages to this: more space for cell phones meaning reduced cost, and an increased effective emergency network. However, there were some strong disadvantages that weren't readily made aware to the public before this change was made. The truth is that it put many individuals, small businesses, and organizations between a rock and a hard place as they struggled to adapt and meet the new guidelines. Under the change these people and places could no longer use wireless equipment that operated exclusively in this band, which is actually a lot of equipment considering for years most lower to mid-level equipment operated exclusively in it. Some wireless manufacturers such and Sennheiser and Shure offered some incentive to get new equipment such as buy-back policies where consumers would receive a portion of what they paid for an item back if they upgraded to equipment that operated outside the newly banned range.
Sadly, these incentives did not cover the full prices that had been paid, so many did not receive but a fraction of what their perfectly good items cost. I myself was stuck in this predicament as a wireless set that I owned was worth nothing to its manufacturer despite being new and unused. Many churches around the U.S. operated with equipment that was now banned, and the penalty for being caught using it regardless is $5,000.00 per transmitting device. At the time I was working with a theatre when a fellow performer notified me of their church receiving such fines; apparently a government official came into the church with citation in had for $10,000.00. I can only assume they monitor those frequencies for people using them illegally.
So how is it that the government doesn't support these people and organizations that were robbed of their equipment? How is it that such laws were changed without any great publicity? Well it seems clear that the powers that be avoided media spotlight so that opposition would be minimized. The cost effectiveness has yet to be seem, but the weakness of this change has hurt the pockets of thousands, if not millions, across the U.S.
The following meme is about the FCC but has nothing to do with this article:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
A Word. A Blog. A Grade.
Yup.
Well, there sure is a media blitzkrieg taking place right now over the Ellen DeGeneres JCPenney ad campaign. Apparently the protest from One Million Moms is over the notion that JCP is joining the 'pro-gay' movement. The groups accusation was immediately followed with a swift demand that JCP abandon the campaign or suffer the backlash to follow. Now I ask you...what backlash could this be? Losing a million mothers as customers? Offending a society that is already exposed to open homosexual lifestyles? Or the consequence of being a company that doesn't fear prejudice and simply chose a start and entertaining spokeswoman to deliver their ads to a market that was maybe previously unattended? It is silly really, the ads don't really show any sort of preference or sign of homosexuality, the projection of that is coming from the people who oppose it. Ridiculous. In the clip below Ellen addressed her audience and critics and more by expressing her appreciation that JCP did not back down to 'bullies' like One Million Moms. (more after the jump)
Her good nature and attitude just go to show that media attention doesn't always have the focus the people starting it think it will. This group didn't get to her or even JCP, and all they did was bring more negative attention to themselves. It also supports the idea that any publicity is good publicity as I am sure all three parties had more people paying attention to them during this. It will be interesting to see what JCP sales are like this next quarter and if their 'losses' were what O.M.M. said they'd be.
Well, there sure is a media blitzkrieg taking place right now over the Ellen DeGeneres JCPenney ad campaign. Apparently the protest from One Million Moms is over the notion that JCP is joining the 'pro-gay' movement. The groups accusation was immediately followed with a swift demand that JCP abandon the campaign or suffer the backlash to follow. Now I ask you...what backlash could this be? Losing a million mothers as customers? Offending a society that is already exposed to open homosexual lifestyles? Or the consequence of being a company that doesn't fear prejudice and simply chose a start and entertaining spokeswoman to deliver their ads to a market that was maybe previously unattended? It is silly really, the ads don't really show any sort of preference or sign of homosexuality, the projection of that is coming from the people who oppose it. Ridiculous. In the clip below Ellen addressed her audience and critics and more by expressing her appreciation that JCP did not back down to 'bullies' like One Million Moms. (more after the jump)
Her good nature and attitude just go to show that media attention doesn't always have the focus the people starting it think it will. This group didn't get to her or even JCP, and all they did was bring more negative attention to themselves. It also supports the idea that any publicity is good publicity as I am sure all three parties had more people paying attention to them during this. It will be interesting to see what JCP sales are like this next quarter and if their 'losses' were what O.M.M. said they'd be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)