One Million Acts of Green

CBC's George Stroumboulopoulos has started a project called One Million Acts of Green. In an attempt to raise awareness about the environment, the project encourages everyone to change one "little thing" that will mean so much to the environment. Each day on the Website, green.cbc.ca, these "little" suggestions are posted. For example, today's Act of Green was to replace and recycle old appliances with ENERGY STAR Appliances (green.cbc.ca). Of course, not all of these daily acts are affordable at that exact moment to all people. All the daily acts serve as are suggestions to help save the environment. They even suggest simple actions, such as switching your household lightbulbs to compact fluorescent lightbulbs (green.cbc.ca).

I'm not an environmental nut, but I feel strongly when it comes to doing these "little things" to help the environment because they are often so simple to take part in. This Website is fantastic because it is not only user friendly, but it brings awareness to people via the Internet, the most commonly observed medium in our society. Many people would take on these daily projects, such as changing their lightbulbs if they only knew that carrying out this action would actually make a difference for the environment. One Million Acts of Green educates us on what we should and should not do, as well as keeps tabs on how many people admitted to taking the advice that the Website provides. From that total, another total is provided with a count of how many greenhouse gases have been saved on a given day. The count of Green Acts currently stands at 380, 186, and the goal is, of course, one million.

To get involved with a project such as this one can be fulfilling because you feel that you are making a difference. We all know that there is so much wrong with this world, but by failing to positively contribute to it we are guilty too. One way or another we're here to make a difference, and I'm starting with the environment. Today when I started my car in the morning I made sure I left within a minute, as opposed to being distracted by which song my iPod should play first (and for me, that's quite the tough decision in the morning). Instead I left right away, put my iPod on shuffle and luckily "A Day in the Life", by The Beatles began playing. That's a true story, and who knows what lies in store for me tomorrow?

Put down the television remote, get off Facebook and go engage yourself with society, with YOUR society. We can't all change the world, but the least you could do is try.

Works Cited

"What is One Million Acts of Green?." CBC. One Million Acts of Green. 25 Nov 2008 . . <http://green.cbc.ca/View.aspx?uid=About_WhatisOneMillionActsofGreen>

Culture jamming and media awareness

On Wednesday, November 12th, millions of Americans awoke thinking it was just like every other day, but it was not like every other day. All who received the New York Times on the morning of November 12th were emotional, reading the front page headline: "Iraq War Ends." Writer Jude Shinbin wrote on the front page, "Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom were brought to an unceremonious close today." (http://www.nytimes-se.com/) How could this be? Was it too good to be true? Unfortunately for Americans everywhere, it was.

This was the clever and challenging work of a culture jamming group, known as The Yes Men, who spent eight months producing the paper. Approximately 1.2 million copies of the fake New York Times were printed and distributed in states across the country. If you were look carefully you would see the flaws in its credibility immediately. First and foremost, the date of the paper was not November 12th, 2008. Instead, it was dated July 4th, 2009, the American Independence Day one year from now. The stories were also phony, as one article in the 'World' section read "United Nations Unanimously Passes Weapons Ban", and in the 'Sports' section, "Washington Redskins Renamed".

The Yes Men were interviewed on CNN, and through Youtube I have placed a portion of the interview at the foot of this post, as well as the reaction of the fake newspaper from the citizens who read it. Andy Bichlbaum, one of the group's leaders, said the following in regards to the production of the newspaper on his CNN interview:

"There is a tremendous desire to see change happen... and this was about showing how much change we really want, and making people realize that the only way we will actually have change is if we continue to give Obama the mandate and the pressure and the support that he needs to accomplish the change that we elected him to do." (CNN)

A culture jam seeks to affect mass media by conveying a message through a medium. The Yes Men affected Americans primarily, but the news of this 'fake news' was transmitted all around the world. The Yes Men created this culture jam as a means of bringing awareness to the media, and it worked superbly. American news stations caught interviews with the leaders of The Yes Men, but also went to the people to hear their reactions. When people gave comment to their first impression of the war being over, emotions included were relief, gratefulness and excitement. Bichlbaum said on CNN that "nobody supports the war", and that it has "incredibly low support at this point." They jolted the minds of the population, leaving them asking each other "why are we still in this war?".

The goal of a culture jamming organization is to create change, and groups like The Yes Men go to extremes to see this change happen. Though a hoax, the fake New York Times helped to create awareness among the people in a time of drastic political and economic transformations. Now we will slowly begin to see where these changes will lead us, hopefully to an era of peace.

Works Cited

"New York Times Hoax." CNN. 14 Nov 2008. CNN. 25 Nov 2008 <http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/11/14/issues.ny.hoax.cnn?iref=videosearch>

<http://www.nytimes-se.com/>

Participatory culture - riding the online roller coaster

This afternoon I did something on the Internet that shocked me (I know that sounds awful but bear with me, please!)

I was reading through and editing one of my past blog posts, "Do we REALLY want to know?". After reading the first couple of sentences I began to drift into a daydream, thinking about this and that, when suddenly I got a crazy idea. Being as curious as I am, I copied those first couple of sentences from my blog entry and pasted them into a Google search bar. I bit my lip as I clicked down on the 'search' key. The next page loaded as I held my breath for a moment, quickly scrolling down the page. Nothing. I clicked 'next' and continued onto the next page. As I scrolled down once again, I saw something. Could it be? Was that actually me? There, sitting halfway down the page on the largest search engine via the World Wide Web was my name, my blog, my thoughts and my words. Ladies and gentlemen of the Web, I, Alex Doria, have never been more inspired to write a blog entry as I am at this moment.

I began this blogging assignment completely clueless as to how to create my blog, what to write and how to access my own information after I had finished writing. I quickly solved all of these issues, of course, and began my blogging journey. In my first post I wrote about how I was nervous and excited to begin writing, interested in who would read my thoughts once I posted them. To have started posting only three months ago and to find my writing on Google today was astounding. I have opened a gateway for others into my mind through the Internet, not negatively of course, or else I would never have begun to post in the first place. Instead I have shared my academic discoveries with a grand audience through the Web, and am proud to know that my work can be referenced too by anyone who may stumble upon it. This, my friends, is the pinnacle of participatory culture.

Now that I have published my writing it will remain on the Web for as long as the Web remains. According to Henry Jenkins, that may be forever, "A medium's content may shift, its audience may change and its social status may rise or fall, but once a medium establishes itself it continues to be part of the media ecosystem" (Jenkins). Thus, I have been fitted into the equation as part of the "media ecosystem", and I'm more proud to be a part of it than I thought I might have been three months ago. If I was writing about what I did on my summer vacation, or how my dog likes to do tricks for my friends then that would be one thing. On the other end of the spectrum, my writing has been legitimate, academically-influenced information that I have learned throughout my first year of university.

Engaging in our 21st century participatory culture has been informative, fun and exciting. Blogging will most likely continue for me after Mass Communication has concluded, and why not? Engaging with such a vast online audience is a like riding an online roller coaster: It starts off slowly, but once it gets going you sometimes never want it to end. It's thrilling, and as soon as it's finished you often want to get right back on again. Sometimes though you just need a break to avoid getting a headache, which is why I like to take a few days off after I post. I just need to take a deep breath and rejuvenate my thoughts. I encourage you to hop on board if you haven't already, you never know when the ride will end, or if it ever will.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Henry. "Convergence? I Diverge." Technology Review June 2001. 24 Nov 2008 .

Save some money, spend some time

Where do you live? In a house? In an apartment? Does your home have electricity? Do you have running water? Do you have a bed to sleep in? Do you have clothes to wear every day? Do you provide yourself with food? Do you even have a wallet? If you're online and reading this blog right now, you have responded "yes" to all of these questions, hence, this post is directed to YOU. Read on.

Buy Nothing Day - the name really speaks for itself - falls the day after the American Thanksgiving, known as Black Friday. In one Thanksgiving meal we fill ourselves up with more food than we usually eat in one day, or so the tradition goes. Then the following day we prepare for Christmas and spend more money in less than 24 hours then we usually spend in one week, or so the tradition goes. Buy Nothing Day seeks to change this tradition (the spending, not so much the eating). The concept of saving instead of spending isn't going to be enforced by an entire population, but the idea alone that we must try and devote one whole day to keeping our wallets sealed attempts to bring awareness to the population about over-consumption. Only a small portion of the world's total population consumes over 75% of its resources. As North Americans we are notorious for over-consuming, and Buy Nothing Day is our one chance to lower that discomforting number.

What happens on a day when you don't spend any money? Many of us cannot answer that question due to lack of familiarity. For those of you new to an experience such as this, I suggest giving up driving for one day, staying home and possibly spending time with your family. Do you remember them? Don't just save your money and waste your time. Instead, do something productive and you will wake up the next morning with no regrets.

On November 28th spend time, not money; save, don't splurge. Here's a great video to promote Buy Nothing Day 2008. For further information visit the Adbusters campaign at their website, http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd. Good luck!

Our online wasteland and net neutrality

My father hates sending emails. He only uses a cell phone because his business requires it. The last time he tried to choose a song on an iPod Touch he tried spinning the 'menu' button on the front and wondering why nothing was happening. Are you ready for the irony? My father graduated college majoring in Computer Science. Technology has just come so far so fast that older generations find it difficult to keep up with its pace. My generation finds it so simple to use new technologies because we grew up with them as they were evolving.

Arguably the most utilized of all new technologies is the Internet, a virtual playground in which anyone can enter (even if they're taller than 48 inches). While we pay for our phone use, watching our cable televisions or renting or buying films, we do not pay for all of our visits to the World Wide Web. Our service providers set a flat rate which we pay and in turn we will use the Internet as often as we like. We take part in network neutrality (net neutrality) by freely roaming the Web at our own leisure. However, service providers want this freedom to change.

Ursula Franklin called the Internet a "giant dump: people and organizations dump information in bits and pieces; they also retrieve whatever is of use and interest to them" (Franklin 144). If the Internet is a dump then we are the scavengers, picking what we want from the pile. Apparently, this is also how big media companies view its users. They believe that we are stealing information that isn't rightfully ours, and if we are going to take it then we should be paying for it.

Net neutrality is an issue that is not commonly discussed; my wonder is why it is not. By enforcing such regulations on Internet use it seems as though these companies are stripping us of our freedom. If the Internet was always regulated then this wouldn't be a problem today, but the fact that we have enjoyed this freedom for so long and are having it threatened now is difficult to comprehend. Would I be able to live without the Internet? Yes, I would, but it would completely change my lifestyle. About 75% of the information I use for school is on the Internet, as well as 100% of all course material that I may have missed during in-class lectures. The Internet is a convenience that so many would find it difficult to cope with if access was limited.

My biggest concern with this issue is the suggestion of removing our freedom to use the Internet. If media corporations can get away with taking this freedom away from us then what would be next? Will the government start to feel that its people are easily manipulated and powerless? I can't predict the outcome of such a situation; I can merely brainstorm.

Lawrence Lessig is the founder of an organization called Creative Commons, dedicated to expanding collections of creative works available for all to build upon and share. Lessig wrote a book, Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, in which he said that "never before in human history has the power to control creative progress been so concentrated in the hands of the powerful few, the so-called 'Big-Media'" (Lessig). Lessig presents a case study in his introduction about a Supreme Court case in 1945. Farmers Tinie Causby and Thomas Lee started to lose chickens, as they would fly themselves into the walls of the barn after hearing airplanes flying overhead their property. To help fight their case, the farmers appealed to a common law principle enforced by Englishman Lord Blackstone. Blackstone said that one’s property reached "an infinite extent upwards", and the farmers wanted the planes to stop flying over their property as it was trespassing.

The Supreme Court heard their case, and responded with this statement: "[The] doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts the idea..." (Lessig 2) If "common sense" revolts at an idea presented by common law, who's to say that the government won't use their "common sense" to reverse net neutrality, or other laws that we take for granted in our democracy?

We are surrounded by a fast paced culture which changes every day. My biggest fear is that corporate leaders have been taking advantage of this culture, and the common people are simply scavengers picking at the dump.

Works Cited

Franklin, Ursula M.. The Real World of Technology. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2004.

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2004.

The Day After Tomorrow - Media Hegemonies

I never thought I would say this, but Mickey Mouse and the Animaniacs are slowly taking over the world. I know how that sounds at first, but in the world of big media conglomerates the creators of these playful cartoon characters have been expanding and multiplying like viruses. Both Disney and Time Warner have become two of the biggest media corporations in the world, owning various media companies in every continent. Also, both of these corporations project non-US sales to yield a majority of their revenues within a decade (McChesney). I wasn't kidding when I said that they were taking over the world.

Let's observe Time Warner, originally Warner Communications, Inc., Time Inc., and America Online, Inc. These three companies combined in 2001 to create Time Warner Inc., a corporation with operations in film, television and publishing (just to name a few). Their list of assets is far too long to post, so I will just list some of the biggest names (timewarner.com):

On the Internet: AOL and all of its divisions, including AOL Instant Messenger, AOL International, AOL Latino and AOL Radio, Games.com, Mapquest, Netscape and Weblogs, Inc.

On Television: CNN, HBO and all of its divisions, HTV, NASCAR, NBC, TBS and TNT.

In Film: Castlerock Entertainment, New Line Cinema, Picturehouse and Warner Bros. Entertainment.

As I said, this is a list that is far from completed. The media conglomerates consist of a short list, with names such as Comcast, Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company and Viacom among them. However, it is corporations such as these that claim ownership over all media influences throughout the world, no matter what form of media they present themselves through. Just by looking at the list for Time Warner we see connections to television, the Internet and film.

Media hegemony has been dominated by few corporations in the 21st century, with companies like Warner Communications, Inc. and Time Inc. merging and expanding across the globe. Robert McChesney is a research professor at the University of Illinois who agrees. He wrote an article in The Nation called "The New Global Media". In it he said:

"Together, the deregulation of media ownership, the privatization of television in lucrative European and Asian markets, and new communications technologies have made it possible for media giants to establish powerful distribution and production networks within and among nations. In short order, the global media market has come to be dominated by the same eight transnational corporations, or TNCs, that rule US media." (McChesney)

Earlier I said that these media corporations were like viruses. Precisely what I mean by that comment is linked to McChesney's comments in this quotation on media conglomerates. The fact that so much of our media exposure is dominated by a few corporations is somewhat frightening. The same companies that are streaming the news every night are also the same companies ruling Hollywood. In that case, is the information that I accept as fiction in film being filtered through down into the six o'clock news on my local station? Or do the films take the real-life horror that they see in society through these news stations, like violence and drug abuse, and use it as material for blockbuster movies? The thought alone that so much power is held in the hands of so few is terrifying.

Ian showed the class a Website in which big media CEO's were on the Board of Directors in one company, and another, and another and another. The same individuals were all in control of various corporations. Not only are there few companies ruling media, but the same people are in control of these companies. Is Mickey really taking over the world? Not to the literal point where we'll see him up against Obama in 2012, but the media titans that own him have an inconceivable hidden influence on our lives today.

Works Cited

McChesney, Robert. "The New Global Media: It's A Small Worls of Big Conglomerates." The Nation 11 Nov 1999 19 Nov 2008 <http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991129/mcchesney.>

"Business." TimeWarner. TimeWarner. 19 Nov 2008
<http://www.timewarner.com/corp/management.html>

Do we REALLY want to know?

Welcome to the information age. We live in an era that thrives on knowledge, and conveniently we have countless ways to acquire it. "News", as we like to call it, is information on current events which we absorb through the Internet, print, broadcast, or word of mouth to an audience. When it comes to the quest for information I am just as guilty as the next student who is trying to get by in a Media Studies course. On my computer I have links saved to Websites such as Dan McTeague's gas price updates, The Toronto Star, The Weather Network, Facebook, and The Onion - America's 'Finest' News Source. I trust the information that is being relayed to me...but why? I always thought that it was the duty of a technological society to keep its citizens updated, to let the people know what is affecting them on a daily basis. Again, that's what I thought, until I read a book by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton.

Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry examines PR, and reveals "how public relations wizards concoct and spin the news, organize phony "grassroots" front groups, and conspire with lobbyists and politicians to thwart democracy." (Rampton and Stauber) Concoct? Phony? Thwart? Those are some hostile words, are they not? The authors combine to reveal a series of interesting case studies revolving around the public relations industry and its continuous efforts to provide the world with 'fake news'. The most prominent example that I can think of from the book comes in the form of a comic strip.

Cartoonist Dan Perkins has a comic strip under his pen name, Tom Tomorrow. Called "This Modern World", the comic is a satire of current news. Toxic Sludge is Good For You! placed one of Tom's comics in the first chapter of the book, "Burning Books Before They're Printed." The comic (seen above) outlines a three step process that public relations experts follow in order to sell a message to society. To summarize the four images, the corporations are tired of complaints involving toxic sludge being dumped into water supplies. To 'solve' this 'problem', the corporations decide to manipulate the opinions of the mass population by using various forms of media. By the end of the comic, the people who once complained about toxic sludge agree that they were "silly" to ever think that drinking toxic sludge could be harmful to them. Tom Tomorrow takes events occurring in society and spins them into witty humour; he has taken the role of the PR professional and pointed out how real, yet how absurd their profession is.

As more of a visual learner, images tend to catch my attention much quicker than the written word. This visual example caught my eye in just the first chapter, which encouraged me to read further into the PR industry and uncover what the authors call a "twisted reality". Examples in society like the toxic sludge comic are what fake news is all about, taking facts and throwing a thick blanket over them. As individuals who thrive on knowledge, we don't see the truth. After all, when handled effectively fake news appears to be fact in the eyes of the people. Unfortunately, all that we really see are "lies, damn lies, and the public relations industry." PR is estimated to be paid $10 billion a year in the United States (Rampton and Stauber 13). With number like that I better not see the truth.

Works Cited

Stauber, John C., and Sheldon Rampton. Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry. Monroe, MA: Common Courage Press, 1995.