"Everything Bad Is Good For You"

For the fourth and final book to read and summarize, I chose "Everything Bad Is Good For You" by Steven Johnson. In the book, Johnson uses our current culture to try to break down the 'myth' that current generations are dumber/less sophisticated than previous ones. He tries to prove (sometimes successfully, sometimes not,) that everything that surrounds us- from video games to movies, music, etc, aides and not detracts from our cognitive abilities and overall knowledge and IQ.

I enjoyed reading the book for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it is a positive look at pop culture, which is something rare. As Johnson outlines, many look down at video games, etc and try to say that various forms of entertainment lead to breakdowns in our society (just look at when violent video games were blamed for Columbine and countless other examples). It was refreshing to hear a different take.

Johnson explains everything in a breezy manner and presents some very complex ideas in a very accessible way. "Everything Bad Is Good For You" reminded me of another book I recently read called "Sex, Drugs and CoCoa Puffs" by Chuck Klosterman. Klosterman, like Johnson, uses pop culture to illustrate various points about life and society in general. Klosterman's book, though, is much more humorous than Johnsons.

I'm a fan of pop culture in general, so it was an easy and interesting read for me. However, there were some points were I disagreed with some points Johnson made. I thought that he was generalizing too much- at certain points he was light on actual evidence and details and heavy on his own opinion and sweeping generalization. There are exceptions to every rule and to state flatly that "everything bad is good for you" culture wise and to discount how much some forms of media are distractions is pretty silly. Was he trying to say that kids who don't partake in video games aren't as smart as kids that study? If kids that play video games are smarter, does that mean their grades are higher than kids who don't?

At one point, Johnson writes:

" The interactive nature of games is that they inevitably require more decision making than passive forms like television or film".

It's arguments like that which make some ideas in this book come off as flimsy. At another point, Johnson writes that junk TV (like Joe Millionaire or other reality shows of the like) make people...

"following the narrative .... you are asked to analyze."

I think this is kind of like saying eating an entire pizza cures your hunger. Sure it does- but you're still consuming junk.

All in all, "Everything Bad Is Good For You" showcases a variety of ideas, both good and bad, and should be read and considered by everyone.

Thanks!

Ingrid Dahl Response

Dahl presents some solid ideas and thoughts concerning the use of MySpace and Youtube in relation to youth activism. Unfortunately, many of her ideas are A) already out of date or B) have been said a million times before.

To say that MySpace is still considered an important tool is to totally forget about Facebook, which has taken over MySpace's power tenfold. If you ask the youth of today about MySpace, guaranteed they will laugh and say they haven't used it in a few years. Groups and businesses have shifted their entire online precense to MySpace. In order to become as relevant as it was, MySpace should totally rebrand their site and change a lot- right now it's very confusing and noisy. As a joke on "Saturday Night Live" recently went: 'MySpace is like the abandoned carnival park of the internet."

Dahl writes:

When in dialogue with youth about the fact that News Corporation, owner of Fox broadcasting channels and other major media outlets, owns and operates MySpace, many youth frown upon the news. Nevertheless, this does not stop them from usingMySpace as an accessible tool of connecting, researching, and mobilizing their communities.

I think this is off the mark as well. If Dahl is trying to say that youth today get their news from social networking sites, I would have to disagree. They definitely use it to rally others and get the word out about various issues, but to compare MySpace to FoxNews is a big stretch.

It'd be interesting to see what Dahl would have said if that article were written yesterday. I would bet she'd at least changed the title of it to include Facebook as well.

Thanks!

Final Project: Video

Here's my final video! Hopefully it goes viral and I make millions.

Viral Videos and You: A Final Project @ Yahoo! Video

"Life on Screen" Response

Sherry Turkle's book "Life on Screen" is an interesting and intriguing look at modern day life in the age of the Internet and how the Internet is changing everything about ourselves and our world. Turkle, who is an MIT professor, breaks down the effects of the Internet and showcases activities that are unique to it, including role playing games (which she calls MUDS,) in which someone can electronically make believe they are someone else and trek around a fantasy world. Many people can be playing together, but every one of them can be in a different state, time zone or even hemisphere- it's a communal experience without the actual community.

Turkle argues that these experiences can lead to a new postmodern way of knowing, different than any other before the electronic age of the internet. People are found to respect and become addicted to these games, because they treat them like real life suspending disbelief since they are pretending to be someone else and succeeding at it. Turkle poses some intriguing analysis to this phenomenon- who's to say what's real and what's not? Are these virtual reality games any real or fake than our own actual lives? What's more exciting- the games or life? Also, for the players do the lines blur between the real and the virtual?

Turkles book was most educational when it focused on the actual people that play these games, giving the reader a sense of who these people are exactly and what makes them "tick." She showcases a guy named Doug who comments on the fact his own life is just an extension of his video game life...

"I split my mind, I'm getting better at it. I see myself as being two or three or more.. I go from window to window. And then I'll get a real time message and then that's real life... It's just one more window. Real Life is just one more window.. and it's usually not my best."

Reading that quote is both eye opening and partly frightening- we are now living in a world where some people feel they are more comfortable pretending to be someone else behind a computer screen as opposed to actually living a real life in the real world. The frightening aspect is that this is only the very beginning of this phenomenon- video games in general have only been around for around 25 or so years and computer games for even shorter. If some people have this reaction to video games at this stage, how will it transform over the next 10, 30, 50 or even 100 years?

Another aspect to think about is that many people that are fans of these games are young people. Many are students, whether it be in high school or college. Is it a generational gap that there are few older people playing video games? Is it something about these games that only young people are attracted to? Or is it something else.. Also, how do these young people that are obsessed with virtual reality age? Will they still be interested in these games when they grow old, or is it just a drug out "fad?"

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE IT'S BEEN PUBLISHED

Obviously there has been a mountain of changes since "Life on Screen" was published in 1997, even though it reads like a book that could have been written yesterday- there's just a lot left out. Since publication, the world is even more obsessed with computers as it was in 1997 and there's been an amazing shift towards all things related to the internet and all things electronic. New inventions like the iPhone and iPad have only aided these shifts by leaps and bounds. Also, video games have become much, much more advanced- not only the graphics of them, but also how intricate they are, and how such a majority of young people play them now- it's no longer a "niche" activity as it probably was when Turkle wrote "Life on Screen," rather now it's on par with watching television or playing basketball outside.

Another change is the amount of money both poured into the production of these games and how many units they are selling. New installments of role playing games such as "Halo" and "Call of Duty" make more money than most big budget films and along with these fantasy and adventure interactive games, there are countless other ones geared toward varying interests, including the "Rock Band" series (where people pretend they are musicians,) or the variety of sports featured on the Wii games package (where people make believe they are athletes).

All in all, the fact that the internet has changed all of our lives is undeniable, but what are the long term effects, both good and bad? Time will tell. Until then, we'll just have to play another level.......

Olberman's Wikipedia Report

On an episode of "Countdown with Keith Olberman," Olberman discusses the story of how Wikipedia, which is a user driven information site that anyone can edit, can be tweaked and modified in accordance with nefarious purposes by specific people and/or companies.

Apparently, someone figured out how to track who edits particular Wikipedia pages and something interesting was discovered- the page on the Exxon Valdeez Oil Spill was edited by.... someone at a computer at Exxon. A page on some Presidents were tweaked by someone from the headquarters of the CIA. Olberman showcased another example of his very own Wikipedia page being edited by someone by his "enemies" at the Fox News headquarters. All of the pages were planted with information that is either positive (the Exxon people putting positive spin on the Oil Spill,) or negative (someone at Fox writing something critical of Olberman).

This is probably something we should all be wary about but not worry over. Wikipedia changes enough and is fact checked enough to be protected in many aspects by wrong information. It's not like the Exxon people can change the history of the spill... or the Fox people making the public critical of Olberman just by using a paltry Wiki page. The truth will always prevail in these instances and if something seems amiss on Wikipedia, it probably is. Also, by now the public knows that Wikipedia may not be the source for 100 percent correct information, and if they wanted to double check something they can always back it up by looking on another site/book/encyclopedia etc.

Lastly, it's not clear who at these companies headquarters are editing the pages. It could be a public relations guy, or it could be some random intern goofing around. There's really no way to know- but I can almost guarantee that editing Wikipedia pages are not the first thing on Exxon's mind and/or mission.

Thanks!

BORN INTO BROTHELS

"...and the Oscar goes to: BORN INTO BROTHELS!"

That's what was proclaimed during the 2005 Academy Awards, a much deserved win for a heart wrenching and dramatic documentary which thrust the problematic issues of prostitution in India's Kolkata front and center.

The story is centered around children who are literally born into brothels- their mothers are all prostitutes. The writer, director (Zana Briski,) intially travled to Kolkata to photograph prostitutes, but in return got much, much more. Children of postitutes were given cameras and lessons on photography and told to take pictures of their daily life. The poverty of Kolkata's Sonagachi (their red light district) is displayed in sad detail.

The documentary is a grim look at the underbelly of a world many of us in the United States seem to pretend doesn't exsist, or worse, want to ignore. The upbringing of these kids is rediculous, and being the child of a prostitute is bound to spur a viscous cycle of more prositution, which leads to crime, more poverty, etc.

After viewing the film, I wondered what came of the children featured and upon googling the subject, I found that there is some controversy around it. While some went to boarding school, many dropped out after filming was completed and moved back to Sonagachi. There is also controversy over how much the kids made doing this movie & creating a book of their photos. From what I've read, there are conflicting facts about what the kids featured are doing presently- are some in school? Or living again in distress?

BORN INTO BROTHELS is a powerful film that I've always heard a lot about but never watched. The subject matter is so important and powerful, it shouldn't be missed. It also showcases how important a tool a simple documentary film could be to gain some attention to a terrible situation and how kids can take that situation and create art and (arguably) a new life..

Thoughts on "Avatar" & Environmental Awareness

James Cameron's AVATAR is the most popular film ( at least in gross wise,) ever; beating TITANIC a few months ago. While losing the all important Best Picture trophy at the Oscar's (to another film that deals with social change- THE HURT LOCKER,) AVATAR's effects are being felt far and wide. Not only revolutionizing a new era in 3D filmmaking, but raising a plethora of awareness on various environmental issues.

The interweaving of political and environmental issues into the story was not accidental. AVATAR's director, James Cameron, (who also wrote the film,) has intentionally not only built his entire story around them, but his marketing plan as well. The recent DVD/BLU-RAY release of AVATAR coincided on this past week's Earth Day- a day set aside as a reminder to live a more "green" life.

I think AVATAR's effect on the viewing public's environmental awareness is minimal, though minimal is indeed better than nothing. Anyone who has seen the film has memories of scenes where lush rain forests filled with nature loving people are wiped out, burned away and killed. The villains in the film could care less about their effects on the land and people they are destroying, while the protagonists are much more open minded and caring about the earth and natives that inhabit it.

Out of the millions who have seen or bought the film, I don't think many are going to run out and join Greenpeace, or suddenly start recycling, but perhaps they are more thoughtful about harming the earth after having seen it. Having the DVD release of the film on Earth Day was nothing more than a marketing gimmick to stir up discussion. Whether it was a gimmick or not, the Earth Day release was a smashing success- it's currently the title holder of fastest selling Blu-Ray DVD ever.....

Even if the public doesn't go out and change much, Cameron will.... on the heals of the success of the movie, he recently started helming another project, though it's not a film......

"James Cameron attended the Avatar Home Tree Initiative Launch in Los Angeles on Thursday evening. The plan is to plant one million native trees in 15 countries by the end of 2010. Director David Cameron, Avatar actress Michelle Rodriguez and Heroes star Hayden Panettiere spoke to reporters about the cause and why they thought Avatar was such a success. "


SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8640086.stm