King of Pop

It is safe to say that Michael Jackson’s Facebook fan pages grew tremendously immediately following his death on June 25, 2009. As status’ began to appear with the news of the death, fans started to show their support by creating and joining Michael Jackson fan groups.

One group, entitled “In Memory of Michael Jackson”, with over 20,000 members, shows to have a tremendous amount of activity daily, with video postings, comments, etc. They have also established a foundation where a user can purchase a “white glove watch” which will benefit children in need.

Upon further research, I found that MJ’s death had such a great impact on certain internet sites, that they actually had to be shut down. People who heard news of the rumored death and went to their computer to search it on Google created so much traffic that Google had to shut that search down, and send an error message back to users. Twitter became so infiltrated with new “Tweets” after the death that it, too, had to be shut down temporarily, as the network was overloaded. Wikipedia crashed as it reported over a million searches for MJ’s biography in one hour, as did AOL Instant Messenger, for a short period.

This tells us that first place people will look to confirm news is no longer the radio, newspaper, or television – it is the internet. Most people have internet accessibility at all times, whether it is in their house or on their phone, and it is both the easiest and quickest way to receive information. While I heard about the death of Michael Jackson while watching television, I can not deny that my next move was to turn to my computer and research when, how and why it happened, along with phone calls to the mainland...seems like they're just a little ahead in getting the latest news.

http://www.facebook.com/In.Memory.of.MJ?ref=ts

Love again...

It seems that this case, or any real court case concerning libel is usually very hard to prove in the court of law. Unfortunately for Courtney Love, it seems that her online ranting went a bit too far to allow her to “cover her tracks” afterwards. After she was sued for character defamation through postings on various public forums by Dawn Simorangkir (whom her attacks were geared towards), she tried to save herself under the anti-SLAPP statute in California, which protects against “free speech”.
The article indicates that there were two things necessary for Love to be granted her motion to strike; her comments must have been made in a public forum, and concerning the public interest. Clearly, Love knew that posting on MySpace, Twitter and Etsy, as she did, would cause her comments to be very exposed to the public, as these are extremely popular social tools. In my opinion, once something is written on the internet, it can not be taken back, and Love is clearly just trying to reach for some kind of “life saver” so she does not get sued. Her actions were not thought out, and she should have to suffer for some consequences, despite her fame and money.

Since this article, the courts denied her motion to strike, and said that her words did not protect public interest. This is probably because she said nothing constructively critical about Simorangkir’s products, but rather just personal attacks on her, her products and her past life. There, however, has been no settlement resulting from this case yet, but my guess will be that they will be in favor of Simorangkir.

Facebook Policy

So often this generation either gets overly excited, or we're just plain lazy, and we completely overlook directions, guidelines, rules, and in this case policies. And on top of this, we're quick to point fingers and put blame on individuals for our own faults, when all we had to do was read the fineprint.

If you take a look at some of the Facebook profiles of your friends, and then take a look at the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, chances are they don't match up. Some examples from this page include:

You will not send or otherwise post unauthorized commercial communications (such as spam) on Facebook.

You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission

You will not tag users or send email invitations to non-users without their consent.

I have cousins who are under age 13 with Facebook pages, but I overlooked the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, I didn't know. So many times I see individuals posting false information, false names, age and even location. How does Facebook stay on top of this, they can't really. I suppose they're really just trying to trust their users to be truthful.

The Privacy Policy states, "You own all the content and information you post, and you can control how it is shared..." While doing research I realized that so many questions and comments were so hateful towards Facebook and it's privacy policy. Complaint after complaint was about how Facebook doesn't protect their privacy, how there are loopholes because of constant changes, etc. Personally, I've never had a problem with Facebook. In an article by The New York Times, a user acknowledged how she was able to set everything on her page to private, but now due to changes, the public is able to see her picture (if one), name, gender, connections (if any) and user ID. But imagine if everyone was able to block EVERYTHING on their page and set it to private...there were be a bunch of question marks in place of the profile picture, you wouldn't know who is friend requesting you, it kind of makes this whole social networking thing boring don't you think?

Vice President for Public Policy at Facebook Elliot Schrange stated, "Our mission is for Facebook to be the best place in the world to connect and share with friends and family...nobody at Facebook wants to make our users' lives more difficult...we are not doing a good enough job communicating the changes that we are making and providing the user greater control over what and how they share appears to be too confusing for our 400 million users." I appreciate that they realize that they can do better at communicating with users, and that the feedback that they receive is not taken lightly. He also stated, "...Our fate is in the hands of the users, We're held accountable by the people who use our service. When they disagree with our decisions, they let us know..."

In reality, if you don't want something coming back to bite you...DON'T POST IT ON FACEBOOK! It's common sense people.

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/facebook-executive-answers-reader-questions/?hp

Dominos

Dominos has recently remodified their pizza recipe completely, in an effort to rid their existing reputation of having cheap, tasteless pizza. With this effort, they have been marketing their product immensely, both on television and also social networks, including Facebook and Twitter.

On both of these sites, which include links to one another, Dominos is working hard to promote their new recipe, and is not only offering extremely inexpensive online deals (2 medium pizzas for $5.99 each...which isn't the same in Hawaii of course) but also is conducting a marketing promotion called “Taste Bud Bounty” where a customer can earn “rewards” by getting a friend to try the new pizza. They have turned buying pizza into a game that will attract customers’ attention.

On Dominos Facebook, there is a distinctive link for this “Bounty Hunt”, as well as links to the Twitter page, website, e-mail and text offers and customer care, as well. Their Facebook “wall” is smothered in Bounty Hunt promotions, good customer reviews surrounding the pizza, and the like. They are using this device heavily to continue to post and remind people about their product.

The Twitter page, hosted by a member of the headquarters in Michigan, serves the same function – heavily marketing this promotion, and being sure to post a lot of “tweets” and respond to all of the tweets that they receive, to show care for customer responses. It is clear that Dominos uses both of these tools to their fullest extent to attract a young, eager crowd, and to get their message (or product) known quickly.

My first 3-D: Alice in Wonderland

I finally saw my first 3-D movie (I know, I'm a little behind in these type of things). I must say, I WAS ABSOULTELY BLOWN AWAY! We get the whole rundown about objects jumping out of the screen and whatnots, but I was that 22 year old that was reaching my hand out and oohing and awwing, while the 7 year old sitting next to me was looking at me like I had two heads. The 3-D movie was definitely something common for him.

When listening to the podcast "The Future of Animation," I was interested in the developement of the glasses, and the switch from the anaglyphic to polarized lenses. I seriously walked into the movie expecting to be handed the flimsy red and blue glasses, all the while trying to figure out why I had to pay so much more extra! When I was handed the terminator looking glasses I realized this 3-D stuff may actually be legit. It's good to know that this specific kind of technology is constantly being upgraded.

I went and saw "Alice in Wonderland." We all know the classic Disney tale of the little girl who falls down the rabbit hole in search of a little white rabbit, she comes across crazy characters, all of whom are in their own little world...THIS remake however, was NOT that story. The story takes place 12 years later when Alice is given a surprise engagement party and once again follows a little white rabbit and falls down the same hole, to the same place, where all the characters are awaiting her arrival in hopes that she will save them from the Red Queen. Tim Burton did an amazing job (as always), you can always expect the unexpected.

In the podcast, there was talk of one day there might be a possibility that viewers will no longer need the 3-D glasses to view a 3-D film. This amazes me, not only the technololgy, but the way the films are actually shot. Every scene set up for a potential 3-D shot. Studying film, and the actual scene set up, angles, and lighting, I know from personal experience that it could take hours to set up just one shot. I can't even begin to imagine the kind of work, time and creativity that goes into filming a 3-D movie. Not to mention the million or so hours to render the film. But, it's going to be well worth all the work, especially now that Samsung just introduced it's 3-D HDTV, along with Mitsubishi. Personally, I feel 3-D should be kept for the big screen. It's the only way to really get the full experience.

Why Heather Can Write

This was definitely an interesting chapter. I am a Harry Potter fan, but I only say that because I've read the books 10 times each. I've never thought to go as far as creating my own fansite though. This girl seems very mature for her age (well when this happened). Children have very vivid imaginations, but to run with the idea of a newpaper from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, to never tire or bore, or never run out of events to talk about it is amazing. A world that doesn't even exist and these children are creating it.

In reading this chapter, I did start to question the depth and extremity of these writers. We as adults know it's make believe, but where is the line being drawn for some of these kids. I'm not trying to contradict what I said about the imagination of these children being amazing, but in some stories the children were bringing in actual events, real "problems." Things that we didn't necessarily hear about in the books or movies. This could easily be a tool for some children to cope with what could actually be going on in their lives, but is there a point where they could get so wrapped up that they want this world that they're helping to create be real, so real that they don't even face reality? It's just something that crossed my mind while reading the chapter...

As far as the issue with Warner Bros. I can understand where they were coming from when they were monitoring all the websites/fansites. They had to take precautions, however, they should have done their research BEFORE they started outing all these children and right of Freedom of Speech. Because in the end they made themselves look like fools. It's true that no one really knew how Harry Potter would explode into what it is today, but if anything, I would think that all these fansites and blogs would boost sales for Harry Potter memorabilia, wouldn't that be good for Warner Bros. if they bought the film rights?

Blogs in Latin America: Graffiti

Most of us might assume that we know quite a bit about Mexico and South America because it's on the same continent as the U.S., but I'm shocked at how much I don't know about these Latin countries.

Without getting into political depth and overall well being of these countries, something else caught my attention while scrolling through the blogs: Graffiti and Urban Art (voices from Latin America). It's not uncommon to hear a vast majority of people call graffiti vandalism. And though most of it CAN be, because that is what it has turned into, not all of it is. Graffiti started roughly about three decades ago in the United States and was/is considered one of the four elements of Hip Hop. Like all of the elements of hip hop, graffiti was founded on expression. It could be considered tasteful art, and artwork indeed. Today it can be found in almost every inner city in every country. I personally feel it has been abused. No longer is it an expression through art, but gangs have taken a liking to it and tag their names everywhere claiming their territory, it's simply writing on private and public property, leaving neighborhoods and communities looking distasteful.

According to one blog, the countries in Latin America however, are using walls to "represent the voice of the community, marginal groups, and young people that strive to be heard...," "Some of Latin America street art is distinct from what is created by the hip-hop movement, focusing on political messages and stories of struggle that speak directly to the viewer." It's not all about street credibility, but the pieces of these Latinos display messages that only make sense the community. The intricate letters and code numbers represent certain places and names that only the community can identify with. One artist describes that there is a certain power of being in the streets (artwork), and that one must handle it with responsibility and do what is best for the community. This means, "refraining from painting egocentrically and paint only what on wants and what only one can understand. The must be strong willed to represent what the community wants to see and needs to know."

Some of these pieces are beautiful, they are actual masterpieces. It would be nice to see this kind of graffiti come back to the states instead of rival gangs in competition seeing who can tag up the most places with their name.

Media in times of crisis!

Honestly, I hardly EVER watch television, and when I do it's not the news. I went to bed late Friday night thinking about everything I had to do Saturday. At 3:14am I received numerous phone calls from a former roommate, and I ignored every single one of them. Two minutes later when my mom called, I knew something was wrong. Immediately I turned on a local news channel to find that sure enough Chile had just suffered a major earthquake, and a tsunami was headed for Hawaii.
It amazed me how so many people would rather use media sources such as Facebook, Twitter, and even Myspace instead of picking up a phone and calling. Think about it: If you were in the middle of a crisis, or catastrophe would you run to your computer to check your Twitter or Facebook? Grant it, I know most people get Tweets and Facebook posts directly to their phones like text messages...(I however do not). Later I posted that I was okay, and that all we could do was wait it out. But I was amazed to see how many people from the mainland Facebooked me to see if I was okay, yet I only received a phone call from my parents.

I was also shocked to see how many of my peers did not take this tsunami warning serious. Many status' read "I'll be at the beach with my surfboard" or "it's a good chance to catch a good wave." I understand comic relief in times of a crisis, but other people posted that they weren't going anywhere and that there was no need to evacuate. Thankfully, nothing happened, but what about next time? Will we be so lucky, and will the community continue to stay on their toes just in case, or will the next warning be brushed off.

The television was on all day, mostly on a local news channel. Occassionally we would flip to CNN to hear about Chile and the status of the tsunami. While watching the news, I was happy to see that Skype was used. I personally love Skype, so I thought it was pretty "cool" that these broadcasting stations were using it. I personally preferred to watch the local station because we're actually here in Hawaii, whereas my family on the mainland was watching CNN. I was getting phone calls saying, "It hit, they're just waiting to hear about the damage!" And I'm here watching the local channel where the camera is pointed at the shoreline there on the Big Island trying to figure out where CNN is getting their news from. I was literally arguing with my brother that nothing happened, and all he could say was "CNN just said it hit." So, media can go a bit overboard sometimes, and the fact that so many people rely on what is said is kind of scary. The media can basically tell it's audience anything and we're so ready to just receive it without further investigation. The arguement with my brother is a perfect example, CNN said this so it must be true. Whereas, I'm actually HERE and I'm the one who was wrong. It's unbelievable!

I applaud Hawaii safety for getting everyone evacuated and to higher ground. The community responded well also. It was nice to see neighbors ditch the cell phones and just go door to door warning each other.

Youtube Cencorship

YouTube starts their regulation statement by saying that they do not expect the kind of respect reserved for “nuns” – but they do have guidelines of what can and can not be allowed on to the website. These regulations spell out basic rules that one would expect to find on any public content site, however, the company is sure to state these in order to cover their own legal liability.

The website is a public forum encouraging the sharing of thoughts, ideas and content – but with this freedom must come rules. Very generally stated, the guidelines that YouTube enforces cover things like sexual content, child exploitation, any kind of abuse, violence, underage illegal activity, copyright infringements, predatory activities, “hate speech”, spam and many more. It is safe to say that these are very fair and easy rules to abide by.

For an example, I searched “how to make a bomb” on the site. I received over 2,000 results – some being links to songs, kids making harmless bottle bombs, but also, “how-to’s” on making nuclear bombs. While the latter is an action that is prohibited on the site (according to the guidelines), this is, perhaps, an example where no one has yet “flagged” the video and marked it as inappropriate for the site. This goes to show that while the YouTube site enforces these rules and regulations, a public content site is growing every minute, and it would be nearly impossible for the company to police every video that was uploaded onto the site. YouTube depends on its users and their discretion to help them govern the content of the material on their site.

Coke-Cola past, present and future

The Coke company really knows what it is doing. The marketing team continues to advance, continues to keep consumers satisfied. It's easy when someone falls in love with a product (especially soda, because it CAN be addicting) to always have consumers, but Coke has continued to develop along with each "era," and to never lose it's self of individuality as a product. They know just how to make an impact in people's lives, and then turn it around and use it as a marketing tool. Jenkins states, "These themes merge core emotional relationships with core promotional themes, helping people not simply integrate Coca-Cola into their memories of their lives, but also to frame those memories in terms of the marketing pitch" (p. 70). On a part of their website, Coke has a spot for consumers to share personal stories and memories about Coke, including "romance," "special family time," "military," "times with friends" etc. Some stories included how married couples met over a bottle of Coke, engagement proposals happening over a bottle of Coke. Coke is a corporation that any one around the world can relate to, it's something we all have in common, a tie. In a sense, it's kind of like McDonalds. A franchise that the majority of people around the world can recognize when they see those big golden arches.
Pepsi has tried and put great effort into it's marketing, but it's just not personal. For awhile, many celebrities were an advertising tool...that didn't last very long. Now, it's rare that I see any commercials from Pepsi. Coke really is a favorite past time, present, and I believe it will continue to grow in the future.

EXTRA! EXTRA!

Where to even begin...
This generation is growing up in a "digital age," where everything is either transforming into digital media or is being created in this form already. Even I admit to passing up a newspaper that is sitting right in front of me, and getting online to view the news. But 5 years ago, I read the newspaper EVERYDAY. To imagine a world with no more newspapers almost seems unimaginable. All I can do is picture a black and white film of a young boy on the corner of the streets of New York with a stack of newspapers yelling "EXTRA! EXTRA!" The "End Times" article mentioned that the death of old media and end of press, "will mean the end of a certain kind of civilized ritual that has defined most of our adult lives." Out of the entire article, this is what caught my attention. Yes, I understand that many of talented writers would possible lose their jobs, journalists and journalism isn't taken too seriously anymore now that everyone is or can be a journalist through posting blogs. In fact many professional reporters actually get a lead on major stories through random blogs that people post..(but we'll get into that later). I work with senior citizens and I wanted their opinion and thoughts on the issue. The majority of them all still read the newspaper every morning with their cup of coffee. What about them, what happens to them. Grant it, most of them also have a computer today and are learning to use it, but an 88 year old woman told me, "Oh I have a computer, but I don't read the news on it, I just play computer games." Many senior citizens will be "forced" to learn this new media, which is necessary but probably a lot more stressful for them. I do foresee it happening though. I'm from Colorado and we had two major newspapers, one already went out of business which was a HUGE shock to me. It was actually very sad. I grew up reading that newspaper and for it to be no more was like taking a part of my childhood away. It's so amazing how media has such an affect on us.

...Back to what I mentioned earlier about everyone having potential to be a journalist. Citizen journalism through youtube and also through everyday blogging makes this possible. Arianna Huffington stated, "itizen journalism is rapidly emerging as an invaluable part of delivering the news. With the expansion of the web and the ever-decreasing size and cost of camera phones and video cameras, the ability to commit acts of journalism is spreading to everyone." Now, there is actually help out there to add quality to what is being put out by citizens. Interestingly enough, the audience doesn't have to wait for the 5 o'clock news, all one has to do is search keywords on the internet, and youtube videos pop up, blogs pop up. I'm beginning to question how long before newstations are facing the same situation as newspapers. Already here in Hawaii we've seen the merging of broadcast stations and the lay off of many employees. The transformation and new level of the internet is so amazing, sometimes scary...

Bradsucks

After reading the Courtney Love article, Bradsucks is doing almost exactly what she "wants" to do. His main focus and objective is to get his music out there...bottom line. He's advertising himself, making some sacrifices like giving his music away for free online, and he's getting really positive feedback via blogs, podcasts, local and college radio stations are playing his music, he's doing concerts, etc. Everything seems to be working for him and he's doing it all without worrying about copyright laws and headaches.

A question caught my attention on his webpage. First off, I noticed that he actually had albums for sale...and people were buying them! The question asked was, " Why would I buy your music if you give it away for free?" (As a side note, after reading through his webpage I noticed that he seems like a really cool, laid back person who is completely real, open and honest with his audience. As a potential consumer, I really appreciate that he seems so humble.) His response was, "Well I don't know, but people have been doing it and I hope they continue. Maybe they like a CD to hold in their hands, maybe they just want to support artists, maybe it's just flat-out pity.
I put my music online because I want people to hear it. I'd obviously love to make a living making music, but if the worst-case scenario is becoming a well-heard artist that never gets paid, I can live with that."

Something else that caught my attention was the simple fact that he encourages fans, and even has a tab on his website that showcases work that fans have done with his music. Some have made music videos, artwork, and posted lyrics. When an artist really tries, and successfully communicated with their fans I truly appreciate that. So many of these fan websites and social networking outlets with celebrity names on them don't seem legit. Do celebrities REALLY get online and chat and respond to their fans? Or do they hire someone for that job?...guess I'll never know.

Reply Forward

Courtney's a little mad

Wow! Someone is a little angry.
It's understandable though. To be quite honest I knew absolutely nothing about the recording industry and recording artists. I was always under the impression that recording artists made the big bucks. The way that a lot of them are portrayed via television and magazines would falsely lead someone (like myself) to believe this.

Love has every right to be upset with the recording industry. With the copyright laws, artists have no right to their own work, when so many million CDs sell artists see almost none of that money, they're basically working for free. Love states, "Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever." With the "works for hire" under the 19978 Copyright Act songs can be sold to the highest bidder instead of a legacy going back to the artists family. It's easy to see why an artist would be mad when it's harder and harder to file for bankruptcy even when you're being paid 35 cents a cd, like Tony Braxton. I didn't know any of this...when I hear of an artist going bankrupt, I automatically think that they were being foolish and irresponsible with their finances. Never did it occur to me that they weren't being paid!

This is sad for artists who really, truly and honestly have a love and passion for what they do. Why continue to deal with producers, labels, and the recording industry if this is how you're treated? The love of music.

At least Courtney Love isn't "against" sites like Napster. She sees it as an opportunity to get her music out there in a different way, to a wider demographic. Smart. She boldly states that the quality sucks, but if someone really wanted her music, the good stuff, then they would go directly to her. She also stated that there really is no need for gatekeepers anymore. Artists are able to put out there music demos in all types of ways. How are you going to stop an artist for playing live via webcast say in the privacy of their home. You can't. With new media, there are no limitations.

http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

The Artist Formerly Known As...

I am a huge fan of Prince, probably due to the fact that he just isn't "all there." I love the fact that he believes that a simple symbol characterizes him and he just has this interesting vibe about him where it's hard to turn your eyes away from him. Prince threatening to sue Youtube and other websites for what they put up with anything to do with him doesn't seem far fetch for Prince. It's super bizarre, in two ways. First, the obvious, who does he think he is?...Oh, that's right... Did he seriously believe that he had the "power" to do control the situation. He can't sue Youtube, so he goes after his biggest fans? Why would you do that. One would think that these celebrities are indeed celebrities due to their fan base. It makes absolutely no sense. I could understand that if someone is uploading videos of themself portraying Prince and completely humiliating themself and Prince anyone would want that taken down.
On the other hand, why are these fans trying so hard to fight Prince back. If he actually sued, ok I would fight back too. But if not, something like this would turn me off to this celebrity, I would no longer be a fan. I would no longer freely promote him, nor support him. I don't understand...

COMMUNICATION FUTURES 2010

Hello everyone!
My name is Davina, I'm originally from Denver Colorado. I am a senior, so I'm finishing up my last semester, working towards my BA in Visual Communication.

I rarely find myself on any other websites besides my Yahoo email and Facebook. After being completely against Myspace throughtout high school and refusing to join that network, I gave in when I came to college. I used it strictly for friends back home. Then, I joined the Facebook network for college friends...in the mix of it all, I've completely transferred over to Facebook. Even my parents are my friends! So it works out, and everyone is happy. I also am an avid user of Skype. Whenever I want to see my family we just turn our webcams on...when it's it's -3 degrees and snowing, I'll show them the palm trees dancing in the ocean breeze...they hate when I do that.

I'm pretty fond of my iTouch and all the wonderful apps. that are made available. I'm always checking the weather on the other side of the island, or using the maps to find my way around. It's super convenient!

Once upon a time I was guilty of downloading music off the internet, but that was a long time ago. I definitely understand it better as theft now that I'm older. It was a pennyless way of me getting music, but I don't feel that it is right. Of course, I don't feel that musical celebrities who are being "robbed" due to illegal downloading should make as much money as they do either, but that's a whole other topic! Either way, stealing is wrong...we all know "Though shalt not steal" is part of the Ten Commandments.