Social Interaction Podcast

Hello everyone and welcome to the first podcast episode of "Social Renaissance". Today's topic is social interaction and how social networks are not sufficient supplements for face-to-face interaction and communication. As a society, we have drifted so far from the old-fashioned ways of interacting with our neighbors, family and friends in person. Back then, people spoke to one another even if they didn't know them. Nowadays, people will accept a friend request from a complete stranger on Facebook before they would say hi to that same stranger on the street. Cities had more of a community feel but this is no longer the case because we've become lazy and have opted for virtual communities instead. Granted, in virtual communities, you can interact with people all over the world and that is a great feature. Some also believe it is safer to interact with people online rather than in person. This may be true to an extent but humans were not meant to be cooped up in houses all day looking at a computer screen. According to a trauma specialists website, it is not healthy mentally or physically.

Studies by Social Indicators Research have shown that interaction through social networking is not enough for our well-being as humans. A blogger references the study saying quote "The researchers guess this has something to do with the lack of non-verbal cues, lack of warmth, and the laziness of communication associated with Internet communication" end quote. It is often times hard to decipher a person's tone in written text and lets be honest, virtual hugs just don't make the cut.

Also, as stated in the article, "I Tweet, Therefore I am" people put on a performance on social networks. How do we weed or read through this performance to get to the truth? In the article "Don't Displace Face to Face" Jerry S. Wilson tells us, quote "Face-to-face interactions, on the other hand, allow all parties to discuss issues and identify, in real time, potential disagreements and alternative approaches to a situation. Additionally, people can read nonverbal cues to determine if there is real buy-in to an idea—or mere compliance...Ambiguity can be sorted out immediately, resulting in alignment of priorities and direction. None of this is so easy to do in digital space. " end quote.

We need to return to those old fashioned values and neighborly ways of life in which we trusted one another which meant times were safer. Jerry S. Wilson says, quote "Now, more than in many other years, Americans are being reminded of the power of "retro" values. These include honesty, integrity, credibility, transparency, thriftiness, caring for others, and trust. Face-to-face interactions lead to positive outcomes and better long-term relations than relying on the digital space exclusively." end quote.

Now I know it seems i have been bashing social networks but i propose that we actually use Facebook in particular as a model to return to traditional, face-to-face interaction. I've created an architecture project called "Reality Facebook: The InterFence". The Interfence is a physical infrastructural interface attached to every lawn in the city of Detroit and is equipped with physical features of Facebook. Bascially, it is your Facebook profile transformed into a non-traditional fence on your lawn. It would initiate conversation and create and interactive small town community feel though connections of common interest. Trust and other values mentioned by Mr. Wilson would reemerge creating a better person and city. Thus, quote"in remaking a city, man has remade himself"end quote.

This wraps up this episode of "Social Renaissance". Join us next time when we will be discussing Part 2 of this topic and a deeper analysis of The Interfence. Thanks for listening! Take care!

Future of Journalism Podcast

Podcast

Podcast Script

Welcome back, everyone, and to all you new listeners out there, this is the latest installment of my podcast series entitled “The Evolution of Media.” In this episode, I am looking at the future of journalism, and focusing on a recent spat between two media giants. On Thursday, March 10^th, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, posted online his article for the upcoming edition of the NYT Sunday Magazine, entitled “All the Aggregation that’s fit to Aggregate.” Notice the play off of the standard newspaper motto, “All the News that’s Fit to Print.”

In this article, Mr. Keller argues that the future of serious journalism lies with the like of the New York Times, and not aggregation sites like the Huffington Post. He does not believe all the positive hype surrounding AOL’s recent purchase of the Huffington Post. He doesn’t believe that it’s a sign of AOL moving into the business of actually creating more of their own content. In his view, news aggregation today means taking content created from others, repackaging it onto your own website, and in effect stealing the revenue that might have gone to the originators of that content. In his own words, Mr. Keller believes that Arianna Huffington “has discovered that if you take celebrity gossip, adorable kitten videos, posts from unpaid bloggers and news reports from other publications, array them on your Web site and add a left-wing soundtrack, millions of people will come.”

Now, of course Ms. Huffington herself had to respond to this harsh criticism of her work. She posted a response later that same day on her site, with a title of “Bill Keller Accuses Me of “Aggregating” an Idea He Had Actually “Aggregated” From Me.” In this post, she defends the work of the Huffington Post, citing the fact that along with AOL News, it has over 70 percent more unique visitors than the New York Times. She flat-out refutes his characterization of her site and reminds us that it is in fact in the business of content creation. In her words, “Even before we merged with AOL, HuffPost had 148 full-time editors, writers, and reporters engaged in the serious, old-fashioned work of traditional journalism.”

Well, to be fair, the New York Times does have approximately 1100 full-time employees engaged in the same old-fashioned work or traditional journalism. But, I’m not here to decide who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m here to put this in context and maybe offer some of my own original thoughts. This back-and-forth is a part of the larger discussion of what the future of quote-unquote serious journalism looks like in this country. Can old-fashioned newspaper stalwarts like the New York Times survive and make enough money in this digital age where more and more people read their content for free online? And can sites like the Huffington Post earn enough revenue from advertising to support their business-model of aggregation and minimal original content creation?

Mr. Keller and Ms. Huffington are leaders of two of the most prominent media empires of our day, so we are smart to pay attention to what they have to say on this topic and of each other. While I want to side with Mr. Keller out of respect for the institution of newspapers, I do think that the Huffington Post is making the right move with AOL. Although I do want to challenge Arianna Huffington to ensure that she defies her critics and uses this merger to beef up on paid content providers for her online newspaper. I hope she resists the urge to focus on her unique view count, and places serious and well-researched articles at the top of her site rather than “sexy” or “eye-catching” pieces. She can also avoid the labels bestowed upon her by Mr. Keller by making a clearer distinction between stories that belong on the front page, and stories that belong on the Tabloids. Her site does itself a disservice when it places these two kinds of content next to each other, giving viewers the impression it believes they are of equal importance to society.

Well, that’s it for this episode of “The Evolution of Media.” Stay tuned next week when I will be discussing the uses and abuses of Twitter.

Television: A Fickle Mistress?

---
Vlog Transcript

[“How to Save a Life” – The Fray]

My So-Called Life

Freaks and Geeks

Arrested Development

What do all of these shows have in common? They were cancelled before they could really shine. This television phenomenon will be explained in this segment called “Television: A Fickle Mistress?”

Currently, television networks are in the throws of pilot and renewal season which means two things: First, new projects are purchased and new actors are cast, all in the hopes that this script is the next success story and second, network execs decide if a show is performing well enough to move on to next season. However, what exactly is a success story in the television landscape? Is it great acting? Is it a new and unique story? Is it critical praise?

Unfortunately, the answer to all of these questions is sadly, no. In television today, success is synonymous with ratings, ratings, and only ratings. High rating shares mean advertising dollars for the networks and therefore television shows that are out of the box or that are from a new perspective are often thrown by the wayside, never given the time or money to develop.

This story is common in television, with great programs handed a premature cancellation because of the ever-feared low ratings.  

A current example of a show that was not given enough network attention is Friday Night Lights.

Although there have been five seasons of the show, their episode count per season was shortened after season 2 and the final three seasons have been relegated to premiere on DirectTV before a run on NBC in off-months. Here is a scene of the amazing acting and portrayal of emotion in Friday Night Lights.

TEXT: “SPOILER ALERT! For Season 4”

[Tim: Hey guys, can I steal Billy for a sec, Minds?

Mindy: Aww, this is my first break ever…

Tim: It won’t be long.

Billy: I’ll be back in a second…What’s up, man?

Tim: I did it. I did it all.

Billy: What are you taking about?

Tim: You did not do anything. When we closed the shop, I reopened it.

Billy: Tim…

Tim: You had no idea this was happening.

Billy: Timmy, I can’t let you do that.

Tim: I stripped the cars. I took the money.

Billy: No…

Tim: I took the frames to the junkyard.

Billy: I can’t let you do that.

Tim: You are my brother. You are all I have. You have a family now. You are a father and you need to be one. This is my decision, this is what I’ve decided. This is what’s going to happen. You are my brother.

Billy: I’m sorry, I’m so sorry.]

[“Hang On” – Guster]

Unlike films, which tell stories in a brief, two-hour time slot, television shows are able to expand their characters and stories over a (hopefully) long period of time. However, the current model of television development precludes this kind of evolution and creativity by forcing television shows to find an audience in one or two episodes.

Like Friday Night Lights, Fringe, which airs on Fox has struggled to find a mass audience, but has a cult following and has received consistent mass critical praise throughout its first three seasons. Although fans and entertainment news organizations alike have launched a campaign to save the show, its future remains uncertain.

I would like to see a television industry that praises and rewards innovation, rather than merely reproducing stale and tired plotlines that have been seen time and time again but that are sure to bring in high ratings. Programs like Friday Night Lights and Fringe bring something fresh to television, and it is a shame that this work is not rewarded. 

The Captivating Fringe

I have an addiction to TV shows and once I start, I just cannot stop. Recently, a friend recommended I start watching Fringe, mostly because I had run out of other things to watch. The sci-fi series portrays the FBI's “Fringe-Division,” solving unexplained, mysterious, and quite often gruesome events. With this in mind, I decided to watch the very first episode.

Well, it was gross. The episode was about a bio-terrorist attack on an in flight plane, where a self-administered shot led to an airborne epidemic causing everyones skin to fall off and turn into goo. But, if it was so gross, how was I so into it! The ideas, the concepts, the thrill, the science, it was all just so... gripping! It caused my jaw to drop just like the skin dropping off those peoples body. The idea of Fringe science just seemed so possible. So I set out on a quest to find out what exactly was it about this disgusting show that was so entertaining.

So I set out to find some testimonials, to see if I was the only one so tied into the plot. Just as I had thought, many other were just as caught up in the action as I was.
Camdpt on TV.com claimed that Fringe is the

“Best paranormal show since X Files. Great plot twists, great character development, it gets on all cylinders. Fringe has a great Sci Fi component, from the believable to the not so believable, but its all done in great fun and excitement.”

Another by Mark_Barnes420 stated

“Finally, something intelligent on television”

Barry Garon at the Hollywood Reporter said that

“Although [the] episodes are self-contained, each has a clue that points to the overall involvement of a shadowy, giant corporation, Massive Dynamics. Combine these elements with solid special effects and confident direction and you get some heavy-duty counter programming to ABC's "Dancing With the Stars."

And personally, I agree. With all the TV shows out there, like Greys Anatomy, The Office, and Castle, it is about time that the sci-fi lovers got a show too! But these testimonials only showed I wasn't alone, and I was on a quest for why this show was so addicting as nasty as it was.

Many claimed that the reason the show was so interesting was due to Peter Bishop, the mad scientist who seems to be able to solve every freaky mystery. That the human addiction with fringe science, such as teleportation and reading ones thoughts after death, is something viewers often ponder about.

Could it be that viewers are so drawn into the idea of the government hiding things from its public, that we consider these things to actually happen. There is a sort of intensity in all these themes that is only reiterated in the way the series is set up itself. Since the episodes only solve what occurs within them, they slowly answer the broader question that set within the series.

On one hand this may seem like a giant risk to its producers. Yet then again, Fringe is in its third series and from what I have read it is only getting better. The show may be gripping because of its cast, its mysteries, and its speculation on government conspiracy, but the way the plot is revealed brings out the attention on these subjects.

Most TV shows seem to have two to three big issues per season. They slowly get revealed and every episode is a continuation of that problem. Often, a series will have a two-part episode that continuous the problem but that doesn't come close to J. J Abrams' Fringe. The show does the same, but it operates differently for every episode has a beginning and an end with the problem at hand, but the seasons problem is constantly in question. Rarely does the audience get answers, leaving them hooked and begging for more.

This is why I sat glued to my computer while watching the first episode, because I was yearning for a solution but none came. It wasn't the skin dripping off their bodies, which frankly, I am relieved to find out. It was the amazing way this series has chosen to define itself, that strikes everyone that watches.


Fringe uses this different and compelling set up to entice its audience, to draw them into the season. Each episode acts like a cookie crumb on Hansel and Gretel path, leading them to the final and climactic situation. I am now currently on episode 11 and from what I hear, I will only get further into it.