Lack of Originality

Madonna and Lady Gaga

Last week, while watching the documentary Copyright Criminals, which explores the issue of DJ’s sampling other artists’ music, I was struck by something that one of the DJs said during his interview. He said that there is no such thing as original music anymore, and essentially all new music has been influenced by past artists’ work in some way or another.

Though it is a very pessimistic way to view the art of music, when looking at the current music industry it is hard to disagree with his statement. Even the extremely radical Lady Gaga, who prides herself in her originality and unconformity, is basically just a modern, more extreme version of Madonna.  In the 1980’s when Madonna first appeared, she was considered to be a revolutionary artist, unique in the way that she embraced her femininity and sexuality. However, even Madonna admits that she was profoundly influenced by the life and career of Marilyn Monroe.

And this idea isn’t exclusive to musical artists either. The same issue was brought up in the film Social Network, when Mark Zuckerberg essentially took an idea for a dating website given to him by two of his classmates, and enhanced it into what we know today as Facebook. And Zuckerberg, like the DJ’s caught sampling other musician’s work, was forced to pay a price.

However, the issue with an idea, unlike a song, is that it’s harder to prove whom the idea actually belongs to. With the ever-growing landscape of the Internet, it’s becoming harder and harder to prove who came up with what first. And if what was said in Copyright Criminals is actually true, and there is no such thing as original ideas anymore, then this idea of intellectual property is only going to get trickier as technology and new media continue to advance.

Bellarmine Forum

As part of the LMU Bellarmine Forum last week, I attended a panel on the “Crisis in Darfur, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.” The panel included a member of the Jewish World Watch organization, a painter and performance artist, as well as the screening of a film by a LMU alum.

The panel began with Janice Kamenir-Reznik, a former environmentalist lawyer and founder of Jewish World Watch. The organization was founded as a post-Holocaust response to genocide and is currently focusing on the on-going crisis in the Sudan and war-related violence, hunger and disease in the Democratic Republic. Kamenir-Reznik spoke about the genocide occurring in the Congo and how women are paying the price for war. Around 1 million women are gang raped every year by armies of men, leaving families and lives destroyed by their violence.

1 million women… I can’t even conceive that amount of suffering.

Even more shocking, is the conflict minerals that are fuelling the multi-million dollar trade that is perpetuating this violence. The minerals found in the Congo that are generating the most violence are the exact same minerals used to make our cell phones and digital cameras.  I was aware that valuable products such as diamonds were causing mass conflicts in these areas, but I never imagined that the device I use all day, everyday was made with the exact same materials responsible for so much death and destruction.

It shows the true selfishness of our country that we walk around with these devices and treat technology like it’s a natural resource without bothering to question where or how its made. Though JWW is not suggesting that we stop using our electronic devices, they stress the importance for us not to let these manufacturers get away with their exploitations and for consumers to demand that their products be made in a safe, legal way.

Though I did not know much about the topic going into this panel, I truly got a lot out of it and thought they made some excellent points. One of my favorite things that was said was when Kamenir-Reznik said that many people will read articles in the newspaper about the genocides occurring in Darfur and other regions, and once it stops appearing in the media people assume that these tragedies aren’t occurring anymore.

In order to keep people aware of the on-going genocides, I think that the media has an obligation to keep the public updated on the issues, instead of just reporting major changes or “news-worthy” information. The fact that this situation is still going on and is not improving is, in itself important news, and if that news were reported more often, I think that more people would be aware of the situation and be willing to help make a difference.

 

Catfish: the “real” Facebook movie

Yaniv Schulman from Catfish (courtesy of muzikistah.com)

After reading about all the hype concerning the new Facebook documentary, I finally saw Catfish over the weekend, and was highly impressed. The documentary follows photographer Yaniv Schulman as he becomes a sort of pen pal to 8-year-old artist Abby, and eventually strikes up a virtual romance with her older sister Megan on Facebook. As Nev falls deeper and deeper into this relationship, he begins to unravel the very twisted truth behind Megan and her family.

Though the movie is a documentary, and not a horror movie as many people have suggested, there are elements of the film that disturbed me more than anything I’ve seen in a scary movie. Without giving anything away, the film makes you view social networking sites in a different way than ever before. It not only makes you think about who you’re talking to and how much you really know about them, but the presence you have on the internet. Everything you publish on Facebook, no matter how private your settings are, is permanent. When you put something out there, it is exactly that… out there. There is no taking it back because you have no idea how many people have viewed it, copied it, republished it, etc.

Not only is Catfish a cautionary tale, but it provides great dramatic insight into how technology has affected the human condition. Social networking sites have become a sort of second life for many people; those who are bored, disappointed, or just outright depression over their own lives turn to these sites to create a escape. On Facebook, people are able to show only those aspects with their lives which they are proud of. Many people use this opportunity to enhance, and even completely fabricate who they really are.

The major theme I took from the film was that even though social media sites can be an excellent escape from reality, they are in no way a substitute for real life. Sites like Facebook are so deceiving because what you’re getting seems like reality. In the film, Nev truly believed that he had fallen in love with Megan, who he had not actually met in real life. But in the end you will see that virtual relationships, no matter how intense or real they may seem, will never be a replacement for real life.

“Citizen” Journalism

In our growing technological society, there has recently been a lot of discussion concerning the dispute over “citizen journalism.” The act of average citizens capturing events and sharing the news via different forms of media, such as cell phones or flip cameras, has caused a lot of people to argue over whether or not this is true journalism.

After attending a lecture by Henry Jenkins, a prominent figure in the world of journalism as well as a professor of Communications and Journalism at USC, one thing he pointed out about the term really struck me. By using the term “citizen journalism” to refer to non-professional news reporters, it implies that journalists aren’t themselves citizens.

I agree with Jenkins’ opinion that the term both limits and distorts this new branch of new journalism. Journalists are in fact the ultimate citizens, taking notice of their community and actively participating within it by providing coverage to those citizens with less access to information.

Likewise, journalists should not be criticizing these new forms a media convergence. Websites such as YouTube and Wikipedia are looked down upon by professional journalists for their lack of censoring and selectivity. Anything can be published on these sights and because of that, they are seen as less legitimate forms of media outlets.

However, instead of criticizing such websites, journalists should be participating in them. As members of the industry they have an obligation to share their insight rather than reserve it for what they consider more prestigious news sources. Maybe by getting involved in these popular sites, journalists could provide the public with more reliable information and then they wouldn’t need to criticize the sites for being unreliable “citizen jounralism.”

Facebook Me

 

Justin Timberlake (Sean Parker) and Jesse Eisenberg (Mark Zuckerberg) in a scene from The Social Network (courtesy of accesshollywood.com)

 

Ironically (and expectedly), the most popular topic on Facebook this week was the “Facebook movie.” Since the premier of The Social Network last Friday, my Facebook homepage has been flooded with statuses like “loved the Facebook movie!” “wish it was still called THE Facebook!” and various praises for Justin Timberlake and quotes from the movie.

When I was at the theater, as soon as the movie ended, what did I notice every person do? They whipped out their cell phones so they could immediately update their status or see what they missed during the two hours their attention was focused on a film about Facebook.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit… I was one of those people. Come on, you know it’s addicting. But that led me to think, can a fad that is so obviously at its peak really sustain this amount of popularity in the long run? I wonder, does Facebook actually have what it takes to overcome the social network curse that plagued websites such as MySpace and Friendster, or are we just waiting for the next brilliant, scorned college tech-nerd to create the next big thing?

Honestly, I can’t say. While watching the film it was hard to even imagine a time before the addictive, time-sucking sight ever existed. It has become such a part of our culture that it has become part of our everyday vernacular. As the movie pointed out, one of the most common forms of communication now is “facebooking someone.” Its even gotten frighteningly to the point where I see girls taking pictures out at parties or events solely for the fact that they need a new profile picture.

So maybe the bigger question is: should Facebook stick around? Have we become such technologically centered culture that, as the Mark Zuckerberg character put it in the movie, we would rather live the college experience online?

After thinking about it, how this social networking site has, in a way made our culture less social, I was almost tempted to delete my Facebook. Then I’d be actually tempted to call people up on the phone to see how they’re doing, or even (gasp!) see them in person. But then again, who am I kidding? I probably wouldn’t last a week.

Hypocritical Journalism

Is it possible for journalists to contradict themselves while still reporting neutral, unbiased news? I say yes, as does New York Times blogger Brian Stelter. In a recent blog post, Stelter discussed the vast media coverage spent on the Apple Corporation, promoting its new technology and latest products. However, the media also spends much of its time preaching about the dangers of new technology and the personal risks that it can cause its users.

Now, one may say that the media is just being fair and reporting all sides of the new technological boom. However, journalists seem to be devoting the majority of their coverage to the Apple Corporation, which Stelter reports as being “only a tiny slice” of the tech world.

So why does the media focus so much coverage on the constantly released new Apple products? Simple. Because it’s like… so popular!

Apple has become the new Starbucks of our culture. You can’t take five steps without seeing someone with one of their products. So obviously, journalists are going to take advantage of this.

However, the flaw in this plan is that when those same journalists go to write their articles about the dangers of texting while driving, the readers are too busy reading about the latest coverage of the release of the iPhone 4 to care.

Caught in the Middle

According to Marc Prensky’s article, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” there are two types of people in our culture: those who were born knowing about technology, and those who avoid it. The immigrants are made up of older generations of people trying to adapt to the digital age and the new “language” of the digital natives. The natives consist mostly of the younger generation of people who basically could figure out a computer program in a matter of hours, but who probably have never picked up a book (unless it was downloaded to their iPad).

While reading the article, I had a hard time placing myself into either of the categories. While my age and the amount of time I spend on my blackberry would probably place me in the digital natives category, I also relate to some of the characteristics of the digital immigrants. Sure, I spend one to two hours on Facebook each day (three on a slow day) and I text like I’m being paid for it. But as an English major, I also enjoy habits from “the good old days,” as digital immigrants would call it. I prefer reading printed novels to downloaded books, I always use a pen and paper rather than my laptop when it comes to taking notes, and I would take snail mail over an e-mail any day. But as Prensky pointed out, the printed word has become outdated and will more and more quickly begin to disappear.

But why can’t the two be reconciled? Who says I have to decide between classic and modern practices? I say we embrace both. Read your Jane Austen novel while listening to your iPod. Pick up a newspaper after checking your Twitter. Blog about what you learned in your lecture class. Just because times are changing, doesn’t mean the past has to disappear.

Democracy through blogging

One of the most important aspects of democracy in America is the right to free speech. However, when our founding fathers wrote this into the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago, they had no idea how far the American public would one day go with this. With the invention of the internet came the information revolution. Information and communication was more accessible than ever before and people began to use this to their advantage. With information at their fingertips, the public was now able to become more involved in the way in which information was reported. Though in the past, journalism and the media was reserved solely to educated professionals, now anyone with a computer was able to contribute the news or opinions that they hold.

While some people consider the blogging trend to be detrimental to the journalism industry, it is simply an extension of the first amendment. Blogging allows people to express their ideas in an unprofessional format and gives the public a wider range of opinions. Whereas before, people were limited to the information given to them by major media outlets, the public is now able to hear the news as reported by people like them. After all, where do most people receive their information anyway? Through their family, friends, coworkers, etc. So why not give those same people a forum through which they can share and receive this same information. Though some argue that this can result in biased or untruthful information, it is an integral part of democracy; it’s what makes this country what it is. America has always rooted for the underdog, which is why blogging has become such a phenomenon. It’s a chance for all those underdogs to finally be heard.

Hello world!

First blog ever! Let’s see how this goes…