Friends, Romans, Twitizens...

Lend me your ears.

"Twitter" was deemed the "Top Word of 2009" by the Global Language Monitor today.

I died a little inside, at first. Wanting to rant and rave about how much I hate Twitter, I went to bbc.com and just did a search for Twitter. I wanted to find something to read to try and wrap my brain around this Twitter idea.

I came upon an article from Time, posted in June of this year, titled "How Twitter Will Change the Way we Live." I scoffed.

However, upon reading it, I understand the points the author made in the name of Tweets. Below is a list of his top 5 reasons why Twitter will change the way we live.

1) Twitter provides an "Open Conversation"
The author uses an example of how he was sitting in a small lecture which had its own Twitter hashtag, that way those in the hall could Tweet about the event in real time, and all posts could be compiled and found via a hashtag search. This sort of act provides a space for long, open conversation.

The same thing happened to me when I attended the Associated Collegiate Press conference in Austin, Texas just a few weeks ago.

The speaker that commencement address stated that he understood why people would constantly be looking down during his speech - they were on Twitter, talking about the event. The event had a hashtag, and so it was easy to post stuff about the event for people to search for.

In the end, though, I couldn't help but wonder - besides for the entertainment of searching through what people thought of the incredibly droll speaker - what good does this serve?

And in the case of the author sitting in a conference of no more than 40 people (when the conference I attended had hundreds if not thousands of people), what was preventing those 40 people from simply talking amongst themselves without Twitter?


2) Twitter represents what some have dubbed the "Super-Fresh Web"
Essentially, this means that, while search engines like Google return the most efficient or best known results, Twitter provides a chronological, live feed. It makes the web "super-fresh," I suppose.

3) From Toasters to Microwaves
Users are constantly updating Twitter by themselves. The addition of the hash, the @ (to tag someone or someone's feed), and the applications for Twitter (on iPhone, BlackBerry, etc.) were all user-created.

4) News, Opinion, Searching, Advertising
Self-explanatory.

5) End-User Innovation
This is essentially the same thing as number 3. The author mentions that many believe America has been ousted by China and India in the field of innovation in the 21st century, but he brings up that America invented Google, Youtube, Facebook, Xbox, Twitter, etc. And while most argue that "inventing a new mouse trap," as he puts it, is true innovation, the author for Time argues that innovation can also come in the form of user innovation. So, again, the user inventions of the hash, @ tagging, etc. are seen as a positive attribute of the age of Twitter.

Terms from this article that offended me:

Twittersphere - a collection of Tweets? a collection of Twitter pages? I don't know.
Twitizens - users of Twitter? Dumb.
Twitterfied - when something becomes like Twitter, I guess.



The issues I have with this analysis and Twitter in general.
While I agree that Twitter provides a fresh place for posting, sharing and reading newsworthy and interesting articles and pieces, I don't believe it's being used to its potential.

An August '09 study found that, from a pool of 2000 random Twitter posts, 40% were found to be "pointless babble," along the lines of "Hey, I'm mowing my lawn," or "Listening to Raffi, lol."

Twitter's purpose is micro-blogging, and the same issue that occurs in blogging occurs in Twitter. When blogs first became big news, the issue became that anyone can have a blog, there is really no efficient way to filter the good from the crap and a lot of it is pointless babble.

The same applies to Twitter. I guess Ashton Kutcher has a million followers, and he promotes non-profits and charitable organizations through his Tweets. These are all great things, and probably a better use of micro-blogging. However, Jim down the street might have a Twitter which he updates every time he changes his kitchen trash liner.

The Time article states that humans find pleasure in reading about the mundane.

"The technology writer Clive Thompson calls this "ambient awareness": by following these quick, abbreviated status reports from members of your extended social network, you get a strangely satisfying glimpse of their daily routines. We don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask."

I couldn't disagree more. I think we find pleasure in procrastinating and in reading what doesn't matter. That's why Facebook status updates are so consistent and why Facebook invented the "Like" button. You can simply scroll through a million friend status updates, decide which ones you "Like," and commit to this act with no more than one finger and a set of eyes. We're lazy, bored, strung-out, and we don't want to do any real work.

If Twitter users used Twitter at least half of the time to post relevant, interesting or newsworthy facts (either by linking articles or even simply posting a controversial opinion on a matter) it would make Twitter worth the while. Granted, I can't say by the numbers that half of Twitter users don't do this already, but I can only imagine they don't.

We already scroll through shortened news updates on news websites. The link is typically the headline and a small chunk of the lede sentence. This is what Twitter is capable of. Only with Twitter, real people are posting these things - your friends, Jim down the street, your mother and maybe Shaq. People you know are becoming involved with the news, and that is how the future of Twitter should be.

If Twitter continues to be a shriveled social networking site, then it will die in five years. People will move onto the next big thing, and Twitter will be left behind with all this potential.

Stereotyping: a tale as old as Time

Time magazine, Nov. 23, 2009.

Front page: A photograph of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, cropped to just the head (as if a mug shot) with a black bar censoring his eyes. In negative lettering across this bar reads "TERRORIST?"



And I thought the stereotyping couldn't get any worse.

The article within (titled: "Terrified... Or Terrorist?") examines Hasan's history, life and apparent motives up to the fateful day where he would take the lives of 13 members of the American Armed Forces at Fort Hood.

The skepticism between whether he was deranged or a acting in a plot of terrorism is understandable, but the way in which it was delivered in a prestigious publication such as Time, is questionable.

The front page illustration aside, the inside page includes another illustration, this one of Hasan in front of a mosque, with red paint splattered over his face and the blue field of stars behind his head. The major's face is stone-cold, and the red paint reads like blood - blood on the face and hands of Hasan.



The article begins with a feature style lede that is offensive to me, a non-Muslim.

It reads verbatim:

"What a surprise it must have been when Major Nidal Malik Hassan woke up from his coma not in paradise but in Brooke Army Medical Center, deep in the heart of Texas, under security so tight that there were armed guards patrolling both the intensive-care unit and checkpoints at the nearest freeway off-ramp."

After the first read of this, I had to double-take and try again. There are so many things wrong with this introduction.

1) It invokes the imagery of Muslim martyrs believing they will be welcomed in "paradise" for doing harm to infidels. The text does not read, literally or even through inference, "heaven." It reads "paradise." It might as well pander to the "being met by 1000 virgins" stereotype as well, and include something about meeting Saddam Hussein for a glass of sherry and a romp down the golden paved streets.

2) Hasan hasn't been on trial yet, and the tone of this story sets him up immediately as the bad guy.

Sure. It's a touchy subject. It just happened. But no where does this article read "commentary" or "editorial." Entering the text, I should find objective information and fact-based sourcing, which there is plenty of. However, the author twists the story to not only demonize Hasan within the very first paragraph, but she glorifies the shooter of Hasan, Kimberly Munley.

"And who denied him his martyrdom? That would be Kimberly Munley, the SWAT-teem markswoman nicknamed Mighty Mouse, who with her partner ran toward the sound of gunshots at the Soldier Readiness Center..."

Her nickname was Mighty Mouse, huh? How about her favorite TV show and other leisure activities she enjoys when she's not saving the country oh-so-valiantly? The tone of the story couldn't be more one-sided.

I am not at all suggesting that we should glorify the shooter. In a time in America's history where school-shootings is perhaps more prevalent than ever and acts of domestic terrorism seem to be occurring more often, I understand the need to analyze the situation. And in a situation as such, I certainly understand the need to pay tribute to those who have died.

But this story is handled so sloppily, that if I were a Muslim-American, I could only respond to a story that demonizes and stereotypes my culture with utter frustration. Already deeply affected and hurt by the fact that their culture has been sullied once again in the US, how else could they respond to a piece of journalism in perhaps the most well known American magazine that essentially reads:

Hasan was a practicing Muslim with a lot of problems. Were those problems the reason why he attacked? We don't know. But he was Muslim, and owned the Koran, and probably was expecting paradise for his martyrdom.

Time should have thought twice before letting emotion sway journalistic insight. The story contains a lot of interesting fact, but it is too darkly construed by the overtones of passion and emotion in the wake of another tragic domestic shooting.

This only provides evidence for the argument that we will never be done stereotyping, and, especially in the event of a tragedy, we would rather define and analyze the event through stereotypes then consider any alternatives.

Stop Banning Video Games

Start taking some responsibility.

One of the game's protagonists, Capt. Soap MacTavish (thatvideogameblog.com)

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 came out two weeks ago.

Even before its release, there was a negative buzz about a couple of issues. 1) The antagonist of the game and 2) one particular level in the game.

First off, the antagonist of the game is Vladimir Makarov, one of Imran Zakhaev's former lieutenants. Zakhaev was the antagonist of the first game. Makarov represents a group of terrorists that have taken hold of Russia. There has been speculation that the Russian government has banned the console version of the game due to the fact that Russia is made to be a terrorist nation and also in relation to point 2. Activision, the game's producer, denied this speculation.

The scene in the game that has many people sick to their metaphorical stomachs is one in which your character, a CIA operative and under the guise of a Russian terrorist, enters an airport in Russia with other terrorists. Your character witnesses these terrorists kill and destroy practically everything in the airport - civilians, police, etc. This scene of domestic terrorism is so touchy, the game's developer Infinity Ward included an option in the beginning of the game to skip all mature content and scenes. It asks you not once, but twice if you would like to skip this scene and level.

So why did they allow the game to include the scene at all if they realized it was so disturbing?

I understand it for a few reasons:

1) The game is rated M for Mature.

The British parliament, amidst a lot of unrest about the game in the UK, recently supported the game, despite the disturbing content. The Culture, Media, and Sport minister stated,

"This game ... is a certificate 18 game. It should not be sold to children and the government’s job is to make sure that adults - clearly labelled - can get what adults should be able to, and that children are not in danger of being subjected to adult content."

Of course, the speculators are saying that a rating has not stopped kids from stealing the game, getting someone to buy it for them or playing it at an older friends house. The point is, the company cannot be liable for these situations, just as you would not hold James Cameron responsible if a child snuck into Terminator and was disturbed or turned violent by its content.

2) The scene described above is meant to be disturbing. During the scene, your character is not allowed to run. You must simply walk slowly, methodically and watch the terrorists shoot down civilians in the airport. Like a murder scene in a movie, it is meant to be out of the norm. It is meant to evoke terror and fear in the user. The entire time I was playing the level, I felt awwwww-ful. The scene that is set up is meant to feel horrific. You are meant to feel awful. You are meant to feel like you are doing a bad deed. Because you are.

It's not as if before the scene, there is a black screen with white letters that says, "The next scene will include images of innocent people dying. Please feel jubilant."

Nor is there happy music setting the scene, or even cheers from your Russian comrades. They don't even talk to you the whole time. And to make things worse, they kill you at the end of the mission. They find out your true identity (as a CIA op) and kill you. Not only did you press on through the valley of the shadow of death, but now you have nothing to show for it. And you feel even worse.

This claim is corroborated by Activision, who stated in a press release regarding the scene:

"The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold-bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them."

[...]

"The game includes a plot involving a mission carried out by a Russian villain who wants to trigger a global war. In order to defeat him, the player infiltrates his inner circle. The scene is designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism. "

(source)

No critic of video games accepts video games as an art form. To the critics, video games are simply products made for mass consumption, like a pogo stick or a gordita from Taco Bell. They are unwilling to see the cinematic beauty in a game like COD:MW2 or the cinematic quality in a scene like the one in question. The emotion it invokes is Oscar-worthy. But instead of analyzing it like a piece of art, they see video games as disgusting portrayals of useless violence and sex. Video games are art, and like all good art, they are not independent of society.

Again, speculation will speak to the fact that children or young adults might not feel so terrible gunning down people in a video game. The point again being, children should not play this game.

Some blurry screen shots of the scene in question. Above is one of the terrorists in body armor wielding an automatic weapon. Below is the first-person view the user would see when leaving the elevator just before the shooting starts. (gamespot.com)

3) You don't even have to shoot. You have a gun, but you personally do not have to kill anyone. Just throwing that out there.

So all the criticism out there about your character being forced to shoot civilians is false. Play the game. You are not required to shoot. You merely have to watch, which makes the scene more like a movie at its heart.

Also, Earth to Russia. If the speculation is true, and they really did ban the game, they need to think about something. And if you agree with that choice, think about this.

The argument could be that the Russian government (allegedly) banned the game because it portrays Russia as a terrorist nation. Here's the thing. Terrorists are often thought of as extremists. And when I say "often," I mean if you don't think a terrorist is an extremist you just might be an extreme terrorist. And what's the definition of an "extreme?" An outlier. Something at the far end of the spectrum. Not the norm. The game is not depicting Russia as an entire nation of terrorists, fundamentalists, commies, Nazis or anything of the sort.

It is portraying the bad people doing bad things. And that is how they should be perceived.

Fox News is not for Journalists

On the heels of a South Park episode mocking Glenn Beck, I have decided to look a little further at Fox News, and why people continually watch it and believe it to be a credible "news" source.

South Park just might be the greatest form of satire this generation has. Mark Twain would be proud. The latest episode, which aired Wednesday, Nov. 11, depicted Eric Cartman, the show's not-so-lovable loud mouth, as the newest reader of the morning announcements in South Park Elementary.

Cartman soon takes his position to the extreme and begins "asking questions," as he puts it, of the administration, especially Wendy Testeburger, the student body presidents. The parallels to Glenn Beck and President Obama are unmistakable, especially when Cartman opts to broadcast the morning announcements over TV, complete with rockin' intro music, an EC logo in the style of Beck's GB logo, and the infamous chalkboard.

Beck's response can be heard here, from his radio show:




The full episode can be viewed for free here, courtesy southparkstudios.com:

The issue at hand here is multi-layered, and I will do my best to describe each one.

First off, Beck finds it complementary to be made fun of on South Park. While it's true that South Park has made fun of some famous people in the past, anywhere from Phil Collins to Jesus himself, Beck misses the point. They are making fun of these people because they believe what they are doing is wrong. (If you don't believe it, watch Team America, in which a slew of movie stars from the Screen Actors Guild are killed in malicious and hilarious fashion.) It's satire, not a humorous jest or mere poking fun. Satire is defined as using humor to reveal the fallacies and falsehoods of some institution, belief, person, etc.

Second off, Fox News, by namesake, should be a news corporation. But in modern times, where new media dominate our lives, news has taken the backseat to entertainment, spoof and fluff. The entirety of Fox's primetime line up - Beck, Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, Bill O'Reilly, etc. - is not news. It's punditry. It's entertainment.

That's not only my opinion, but it was stated by Fox news officials. The hours of programming they consider "News" are 9am-4p.m. and 6p.m.-8p.m. And the rest? Well, people certainly know when something is opinion and something is actual, legitimate, researched, sourced News, right? (Watch this clip of The Daily Show that covers this.)

According to the novel American Carnival: Journalism Under Siege in an Age of New Media, they don't.

"Shortly after the 2004 presidential election, the University of Maryland reported in a survey that more than 70 percent of those who voted for George W. Bush in the November 2004 elections believed wrongly that the administration had found proof that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. These same voters believed wrongly that world opinion supported the American invasion of Iraq. These voters also were convinced that Saddam Hussein's regime had a direct link to al-Qaeda terrorists and the 9/11 attack on America, despite all official evidence and widespread news coverage to the contrary on each point. This poll showed that millions of these voters relied heavily on Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, as their chief source for news and information...

The researchers reported that viewers of Fox, today the nation's most highly rated news channel and the news source most closely aligned with Republican Party interests, were nearly four times as likely to hold demonstrably untrue views about the circumstances surrounding the war in Iraq as Americans who relied instead on National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)" (41-42) (emphasis added).

Another survey took place in the spring of 2005. 1500 adults were surveyed and of those polled, 27 percent considered Rush Limbaugh a journalist, and an even higher 44 percent considered Mr. O'Reilly a journalist.

The point isn't that Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the likes claim to be journalists. I don't think they necessarily do. But, they certainly don't argue it when people say they are.

Again from American Carnival:

"Limbaugh reacted by saying he was 'not surprised' by the findings and claimed that it reflected the public disenchantment with the performance of traditional media" (266, footnote 72).

The issue, I'm afraid, isn't the public's "disenchantment" with traditional media, but rather, their inability to discern between what is JOURNALISM and what is ENTERTAINMENT/OPINION.

It is frustrating to think that there are people out there so uneducated that they believe Fox News is just looking out for the little guy, that they are "fair and balanced," when they couldn't be any further from it, and that they are "news." Fox is not news. It is a charade.

"To the average American citizen, a Journalist is the television talker who is paid a considerable retainer to regularly make noise on cable news programs, arguing any questions of the day regardless of whether he or she knows anything about the topic or not. The figure who hosts the show is a Journalist, too, paid a high salary not to seek out and report the news but to entertain an audience with a certain glibness and an argumentative personality" (American Carnival, 55) (emphasis added).

Some analysts on Fox argued that Obama's administration, by attacking Fox News, is inhibiting "freedom of the press" (here, I quote a clip from the Daily Show). It's hard to attack "freedom of the press" when Fox News can hardly call themselves "the press."

I refuse to argue that MSNBC does the same thing as Fox. Not because MSNBC isn't biased. It is. Not because I agree with MSNBC, which I do generally. But rather because, MSNBC acts as an editorial. They present journalistic fact, and follow up with their opinion (typically from the left). Fox does not operate under the standards of journalistic editorial. Instead, they act the same as any random 13-year-old with a blog and a poor attitude - ranting, raving and with no remorse or responsibility for what they say.

To paraphrase both Beck and O'Reilly, they refuse to honor certain points or answer honest questions because those asking the questions are "pinheads."

This doesn't create a center for debate. Instead, it gives whoever has the microphone thirty minutes or an hour to simply say whatever they want, and those naive people watching, those a part of the percentages listed above, believe it to be "News."

To tie it back to South Park, you don't have to listen to Beck because he has a microphone. He's just a guy with a microphone (and a stupid chalk board) who thinks he's doing America a favor by just "asking questions," when in reality, Americans need to be the ones asking the questions of all entertainment "journalists."