The Axe Factor

Closing thoughts

2011-04-25T13:04:00.000-04:00

OK so once again I did an assignment without reading it all the way through. My summation blog for Project 3 is actually written with my project 3 part 1 post so for this blog I’ll do a little update on that and finish out with a summation of the course as a whole.

To begin, I wasn’t surprised at all to find that my two attempts to crack into the online UGC culture didn’t really generate as many views and comments as I’d hoped. My video only has 22 views as of my writing this, my photo only has about 7 comments, 3 of which are mine, 3 from my Mom and Fiancee, and one from Tori (Thanks Tori!). I haven’t ever been very good at making videos, but more importantly I seem to be pretty bad at promoting my own content, which is a bit frustrating. My Flickr images did not get any comments.

I think one thing I learned from this assignment is that UGC shares something with real estate: Location, location, location. It’s not just about what you post or the quality of what you post, but about where you post it. You need to put things in places where they will draw attention, and part of that is putting it on a frequently visited page, and part of that is using a frequently visited search title or search words. For more about this assignment please see last week’s post.

Now from this course overall I have taken a couple of lessons. The first and foremost is that journalism as a conversation doesn’t refer to certain types of media like letters to the editor, or call in shows, as being specifically designated as conversational journalism, but rather that the entirety of journalism is one big conversation, even if it’s an indirect one. It’s easy to see conversations between reporters and readers in a comment section, but there may also be conversations going on between reporters, like in the conflict between Shirky and Gladwell, where they may not be writing directly to each other, but they are certainly conversing about their subject matter.

There are other types of conversations that go on too, like that between a reporter and a source who writes a letter to the editor, or between a source and a reader, who blogs about how the source is behaving badly, and because of these I have been made to rethink my definition of journalism. Unfortunately I can only say at the moment that journalism encompasses a much broader field of communication than I had considered before taking this class. To try to define it further would be folly, because I’m sure I would end up contradicting myself.

Yelp Yarns...

2011-04-13T13:05:00.000-04:00

OK. I’m instantly in love with Yelp. I think this is an excellent forum for people to get first hand reviews by other customers before they go to a business, or to compare experiences across the board. What I like most about it is that, from what I’ve seen, it tends to cater far more to local businesses that to the big chains. For example Best Buy at the Hampshire Mall only has 4 reviews, while GoBerry up in NOHO has 27. This pattern exists across the site. Nobody really wants to write a review for a big chain that everybody already knows about. They’d much rather write about a little local gem that they think they can share something a little more personal about. I think a lot of local businesses could really benefit by tapping in to this, but I don’t think very many of them know it exists.

I ended up adding two new businesses to the site, which just goes to show how much expansion can really be done here. One I added was the UMass Office of the Undergraduate Registrar. I know right? I actually coincidentally had a really good interaction with them prior to writing this post, so I decided to write them a nice review, in which shared my experience with them. The other one I wrote was about a little grocer called My Market near my house in New York. In this one I gave a bit more of an overview about the business. These reflect two of the three main types of reviews I saw a lot of on Yelp: Personal accounts and General Overviews. The third type is usually pretty uninformative and says something like “OMG This place iz DOPE!!!!”

Digg Days...

2011-04-13T11:17:00.000-04:00

So for this assignment I decided to play around on Digg. I’ve used Digg a couple of times before and my immediate reaction to it is always “man this is such a cool tool, I’m going to use it all the time.” And then inevitably within a few days I’ll forget to go on for a day, and then after that I won’t go on for two or three days, and then I’ll just forget about it entirely. I guess maybe that’s because I get news in a reactionary manner for the most part. People say to me “have you heard about such and such” and then I go look it up. I don’t very often go searching for news, unless I’m being asked to, or am following a specific topic.

So for that reason Digg is almost as equally appealing for me as it is unappealing. On one hand I get to see thousands of people saying “have you heard about…” and then I get to go look it up, while on the other hand it requires me actively going to the site to find out what these other users are saying I should go look at to get the news at all.

Enough about that though. Here are the stories I “Dugg” and commented on this week:

Friday: “Oops! FBI Confirms Roswell UFO Incident”
Saturday: “Boy Saves His Sister Thanks to World of Warcraft”
Tuesday: “Don’t Empty Your Wallet: Top 25 Free Downloadable PC Games”, “Google Invests In Worlds Largest Solar Power Tower Plant”
Wednesday: “A Sexy Girl Tanning.. wait.. what.. (PIC)”

All of these topics are rather highly trending topics within their respective categories. In fact the Roswell story is among the highest trending articles of the last week with 917 Diggs at the time of this posting. One of the nice things about Digg is the ability to go on any given day and not have to spend much time looking for the most interesting stories, because they are typically right on the front page.

As you can see four of my posts involve technology related news, which is one of the nice things about Digg. They know what types of stories their users tend to post, so they offer 10 broad categories of news which reflect those story types. The one real difference here is that Digg has a category specifically for “Gaming” because they see that gamers are avid online content sharers, and make a up a good chuck of their users. When you click on these categories you get the most Dugg stories of the day, week, or month, making it incredibly simple to find news that will likely interest you.

Jumping into the comment section is very interesting because you get a good mix of youtube-esque claptrap, and well informed posters fighting against it. The troll like comments tend to come from people who may not have actually read the article and simply Dugg the headline, while the more informed posters may be those who originally Dugg the story, or seem to have a vested interest in making the story more popular. One of the nice things is that the Top comment seems to tend to be either positive or well informed. I would assume the reason for this is that people who go and dig a story and then look at the comments have generally already decided they like the story content, so they are likely to Digg comments that agree with that positive view, or add something to the story, while at the same time “down-digging” those that troll or are offensive or negative.

For example if we look at the comments section on the Roswell story, the top comment, with 72 diggs, is a clarification about what the story really explains, and it ends with a complimentary remark about the story. On the other hand, commenter ophello says:

You don't have to meet the president to know he exists. You don't have to have an anal probe to believe we're being visited. Get your head out of your ass.

He has a whopping -10 diggs, which reflects the negative nature of his remark, and the lack of any contribution to the discussion.

Final UGC Project Part 1

2011-04-12T15:58:00.001-04:00

This assignment was fun, but I hit a few snags along the way. I had originally thought that we were allowed to post on youtube and Flickr, but the nature of the sites posted with the assignment led me to think otherwise. I browsed around those sites for a while, but they all seemed to be highly targeted. For example Pictory seems to require grade-A photography while iReport seems to want specific topics that are a bit more hard-hitting.

Now here’s the other thing. I’m absolutely horrendous at taking videos on my digital camera. I’m never in the right place at the right time, and when I try to force something to be funny or entertaining or interesting it never seems to be very good. So I had decided to go with the photo instead of the video.

When I got to MassLive, I realized things were a bit more lax there about what topics you could post about, and I noticed that the goal on MassLive was more to stimulate user interaction and expression and to generate a story about their users than it was to create a news story. I found the pets page and decided that this was where I was going to post. I spent all weekend trying to take a picture of one of my pets that was more than just “this is a picture of my dog.”

I actually ended up taking a video of myself and my fiancee giving our cat a bath. I figured that might be amusing enough to post somewhere, but it backfired as my cat was super well behaved and incredibly boring throughout the whole ordeal. I tried uploading it to MassLive anyway, but their video uploader is down. I posted it here anyway.

Anyway I settled on this picture of my dog and cat which I thought stood out because most of the pictures on MassLive of pets are just of one animal, and this picture shows interaction between animals of different species, which is also quite uncommon.

I’m waiting on comments so far, but while I do I decided to post some pictures on Flickr as a backup thing. I went to the Chihuly exhibit at the Museum of Fine Art in Boston this weekend and took some photos of the art there. I posted them to Flickr to add to the Chihuly tag they have running figuring if Flickr was still Kosher, I could have more than just the one photo up.

Viral Videos

2011-04-06T10:41:00.000-04:00

So found this video today on ViralVideos.com. It’s called “Britney Spears: ‘Get the FUCK OUT’ Hollywood.TV”. To answer the questions, yes I think it’s compelling content. The interesting thing about viral videos is that you can evaluate them using the same means you do to evaluate the newsworthiness of a news item. The elements of newsworthiness I’m used to seeing are: proximity, timeliness, conflict, novelty, prominence, and impact. Let’s look at this video in terms of these elements, which a news story must have at least one, if not several or all of these to be considered newsworthy.

First of all prominence is obvious. The name Britney Spears is instantly familiar to millions of people all over the world. Then there’s timeliness. When did this happen? Today or yesterday at the earliest. I’m not actually sure, however it’s fairly recent. Impact may be negligible here. Who besides Britney is impacted by this person telling her to GTFO of their neighborhood? Nobody. Conflict should be fairly obvious. Some crazy lady screams to GTFO at Brit, and the press screams back. Proximity is tricky because most people who see this aren’t going to be even in the same state as Brit, but the frequency with which they see her on TV and on magazine covers, combined with her prominence may make some people, even subconsciously, feel connected with her, so emotional proximity may be quite high. Novelty is interesting because with celebrities, even though you see them all the time, and even though you may be seeing them do completely regular things, their very status as “celebrities” makes their appearance and everything they seem to do a novel experience.

So this video ends up having 5/6 elements of newsworthiness, and I think that alone makes it worthy of virality……nice word Ben…

I think one interesting thing about viral videos that sets their newsworthiness apart from a news item is that proximity for them almost always is going to be more in the realm of emotional than physical, because the audience viewing it is going to be spread possibly all over the world.

Stubborn Scribes

2011-04-05T18:32:00.001-04:00

In this segment Shirky is making a couple of points, which I have heard made since I started studying Journalism here, but which are much more compelling when he places them in this context of the plight of the scribe.

The first point he makes is one that amusingly enough Gladwell would probably agree with, at least to some extent. He says the “remaking of the European intellectual landscape was not caused by the invention of movable type”. What he’s also saying here is that internet technologies alone cannot lead to revolution and drastic change. Where he differs from Gladwell is in the follow up which is that these changes would not have been possible without it.

His second, and more important point is that the struggle of journalists to maintain their professional “journalist” status, is much like the struggle of the scribes to preserve the importance of scribal traditions. I’m not sure I entirely agree with this though. He seems to think that Journalists who are trying to maintain professionalism may in fact be damaging the revolutionary capabilities of a society. I believe however that, whereas the scribe possessed the skill of writing which not everyone could do, the journalist possesses, or ought to possess, the skill of writing well, and writing intelligibly. That s still something which we will need, regardless of the speed at which we can communicate.

4Chan Stories...

2011-03-28T13:51:00.000-04:00

I have not changed my views on internet anonymity after reading this or since the last time we discussed it. I believe it is an important core mechanic to how the internet works, and regardless of Mr. Poole’s personal bias in favor of his site (though he does admit it has failings), I tend to agree with him that internet anonymity helps create authenticity.

More importantly however, I believe, and I know many will disagree with me, that at its core this is a freedom of speech issue. I believe that being allowed to go by a certain name and behave in a certain manner are all types of expression. They are legal as well. In reality we may adopt any name we choose, once we are of a certain age. People may argue that impersonation is an issue, but I would argue that first of all I don’t believe that is as wide spread as everybody tends to think, and also that this is something that we laugh at and cheer in real life. We don’t believe Elvis impersonators are really Elvis, and we don’t let what they say or do define how we feel about the King. Furthermore we don’t believe that just because Mel Gibson portrays a fine upstanding murderer in “The Patriot” that he is really like that in real life. We know he is a malevolent and mean jew-hating law abiding citizen. If we aren’t aware of these distinctions between reality and acting, we must take the blame for it as much as those doing the aping, if not more.

One final point before I move. Internet anonymity protects not only any potential perpetrators, but also potential victims. Don’t believe me? Look at what happens when people reveal themselves on youtube. The following videos are proof of what can happen when a face, or a real identity are used instead of anonymity. Poor Jessi Slaughter never saw 4chan coming…

Now watch what happens after enough 4chan users watched this video…

Obviously I’m not advocating on behalf of 4Chan here, but I am advocating on behalf of internet anonymity for everybody’s sake.

Now as far as Jennings story goes, I felt that this was a cool way to compile information, though I felt overall it may have been better served if he used a few less sources. It was a lot to read through if you clicked all the links, and it was rather repetitive. However the reason it’s set up this way is so that you get the whole story but don’t have to click all the links, which, while not that innovative, is a highly effective way to aggregate news. I would much rather read a story like this than read every story he linked to.

The only problem with the success of aggregate news sources like this is how much readership they take away from the sources from which they get their information. If those sources are losing readers to these sources, it follows that they will produce less content, which means that these aggregate sites will have less sources in the long run. It’s like a self-defeating business model…

Flickr Stories

2011-03-28T09:50:00.000-04:00

One of the difficult things about this assignment is trying to set aside what you already know about an event, and pretend that you are learning about it for the first time. I decided I would see if they had any photos of PAX East, a yearly convention where video games developers and producers come to peddle and show off their current and upcoming merchandise. I had actually written an entire separate blog post about PAX east when I realized that I was writing about what I already know, instead of what was described to me by Flickr. So here’s the second attempt. This time my rule was I am not allowed to know anything about PAX itself, but I am allowed to know about other things in the pictures that I am familiar with.

From the first page of photos tagged “PAX East” on Flickr, this is what I learned. First of all this is an event with a reasonably large number of people which takes place inside a large stadium or warehouse type thing. At this event people can visit different booths, and in these booths they typically have access to a few stations where they can play a game or several games on various video game consoles. These booths are often decorated elaborately with large statues and graphics which seem to be representations of characters in the games people are playing. It is a 3 day long event which attendees must purchase tickets for beforehand. Some booths have long lines waiting outside them, while others are sparsely populated. Many people are walking around in elaborate costumes, or cosplay-ing, and there are periodic presentations on a grand stage, which not all companies seem to have access too.

This is a very interesting platform for explaining something. First of all, in order to really learn about something from this, I have to have an already existing frame of reference, otherwise I would be very confused about this event. This means that how effectively a picture tells a story is less dependent on the skill of the photographer than it is upon the tags the photographer uses. For example the picture linked to here.

This picture is simply tagged “PAX East 2011”. If you have no idea that this is Pikachu from the show/game Pokemon and that it is likely there to advertise for a booth displaying the most recent game in that franchise, then you are going to be very confused. Within the context of other pictures in the same tag, you might be able to learn that whatever this thing is it is related to a video game that is at the booth underneath it, however since it is not tagged to any other categories like “Pikachu” or “Pokemon,” the story ends there, since you can’t find other pictures related to it in different ways. Flickr is ripe with examples like this. It has a lot of potential to tell very detailed stories, and it has some great successes like those mentioned in the Shirky Book, but like any other medium that is user generated, it is not reliable 100% of the time.

Wiki Fail

2011-03-23T01:51:00.001-04:00

Well this was amusing. I was so proud of myself. I went in and created a wikipedia entry for a podcast I listen too. I thought it was pretty good too. Of course that was before I realized how freaking hard it is to actually figure out how to get your entry published. Then I went back to the assignment page and realized i actually did the wrong thing. So then I went back and made a small edit int the Lord of the Rings Online wiki page about gold caps. As of the time of this posting, it has not been changed or removed.

Project 2

2011-03-22T22:16:00.000-04:00

NOTE: I completely forgot we were supposed to tape this project. I apologize. I've included links to podcasts of the shows when they are mentioned.

This project was incredibly disappointing for me. I sort of assumed going into it that it would be a cinch to get a question on the air because of all of the time I’ve spent in radio, but what I soon realized was that, at least for me, you can’t just call into a talk radio half-assed because you have to for an assignment. That’s not to say that I feel I did a half-assed job, but I do think that if I had been calling in about an issue I was A) informed better on, and B) I had a deeper connection to, I would have had an easier time getting on the air.

Here’s the blow-by-blow:

On Wednesday the 16th I listened to WAMC’s “Vox Pop.” It’s a show broadcast out of Albany’s NPR member station, but it is very popular and gets a lot of callers. During the first hour they were talking about events in Libya. I had decided to call in and pose the question about whether the host thought oil might be motivation for the U.S. to get involved. The screener asked my name, what city I was calling from, and what my question was. In the podcast linked to here, around 15:00-16:00 minutes in, I was beat to the punch this guy Don, who asked that same question. The response was that Libyan oil holdings were negligible. The screener got back on and asked if I would like to ask a different question since my question had been answered, but I didn’t have anything else, so she dropped the call.

On Thursday the 17th they were talking about hydraulic fracturing, which I know next to nothing about, but I had heard a bit about gas leaking into local water supply, so I figured I give it a shot. There were two guests on that day one in support of companies who went into towns and bought up land to drill and mine for oil and natural gas, and another against it. It rapidly turned into a very heated debate, which from time to time bordered on rude, which is a rare occurrence for this program. I called in and decided to ask why alternative energy wasn’t being pursued as an alternative to these mining and drilling ventures, and after being on hold for about 10-15 minutes, I was told by the screener that the host, Ray Graff, wanted to stick to oil and natural gas and not move to alternative energy. I was dropped. What I figured later was that the heated nature of the debate was really driving the show, and that my question, which wasn’t really related to the conflict between the two guests, was not going to fuel that fire.

On Friday I decided to give it another shot. I had looked online and noticed that during the second hour of the show was an open forum where any question would be answered, so I waited to call until around two-ish, to ask about motivations for U.S. involvement in Libya. There were two problems this time. My question was going to be how the host felt Obama would reconcile U.S. military involvement in Libya with his Nobel prize. The first problem was that by that time the U.S. had already struck, so I was a little late to the game. The second problem was that, apparently, on Fridays, they switch up the schedule and do the open forum first and a science section second. Since my question was not science related, it was dropped immediately.

In retrospect, I think it would probably be more helpful to be a regular listener to a show and understand better how they do things. Also, if I am going to call into a show in the future, it’s going to be a spontaneous thing. It’s going to be a show I listen to regularly and about something I am informed and/or involved in.

Talk Radio vs. Journalism

2011-03-08T21:09:00.002-05:00

This is going to be another one of those frustrating situations where there is no correct answer, because any answer you give is going to be completely subjective. First and most importantly we have to decide what our definition of journalism is. For some it will be simply an informative item you consume which conveys current events. If that is your definition then I suppose all of these qualify as journalism very easily. Personally, however, I believe journalism is a little different and a quite a bit more meaningful and purposeful than that.

Journalism to me is about a professional consuming facts and restructuring them in a logical manner, then presenting that to the public. I hold no delusions about how this is similar to talk radio. The difference to me is that journalism is meant to be a civilized institution and process, whereas talk radio is simply about the passions and charisma of the host. People don’t tune in to talk radio to learn about the events of the day, they tune in to be entertained and fired up by the host. They don’t call in to give civilized opinions about the news, they call in to make knee jerk reactions to whatever spin the host is shooting off.

I am aware also, that neither this, nor the process I described as journalism, could ever be considered objective. The concept is a myth in my opinion. What I am trying to point out is not that one is better than the other either, but rather that I believe that those that consider talk radio journalism, and listen to it for news are really getting mistreated, as they are being led to believe that the beliefs of the host are the news, while the real news, which is being written for the express purpose of being news, is passing them by.

Talk Radio

2011-03-08T19:22:00.000-05:00

Talk Radio was a great little read. Picturing Saber...er I mean Liev Schriber up there spewing this endless rant of venom and biting retorts was very entertaining. Having said that, I found this portrayal of talk radio to be so extreme that it tended to border or foray into the unbelieveable.Talk Radio was a great little read. Picturing Saber...er I mean Liev Schriber up there spewing this endless rant of venom and biting retorts was very entertaining. Having said that, I found this portrayal of talk radio to be so extreme that it tended to border or foray into the unbelievable. My experience with talk radio has always been with public radio talk show hosts like Alan Chartock or the Car guys. Alan tends to keep his cool, even when people are taking digs at him. He has this aura that he’s been in the business so long that nothing, even the most targeted insult frustrates him anymore. Perhaps that is why he is more suited to public radio, where, I believe, people are generally more interested in civilized discussion.

The Car guys host a show where people aren’t typically going to get mad or call in angry about something they care passionately about. They may make some innuendos to their callers, but they generally don’t get mad. My experience listening to callers has generally been either people with a problem that needs solving, or people who want to rant about government or politics. Public radio hosts are usually happy to oblige them.

In Talk Radio, however, they call in sounding like lunatics who are either mad at the host or mad at another caller. This representation is probably fairly accurate for that type of show as well, because a listener to that type of show is listening for entertainment value, and to hear people be degraded and bashed over the air. One who takes pleasure from that is probably likely to get a rise out of conflict, so when they call in, get cut off, yelled at, and humiliated by the host, it shouldn’t be so surprising.

Reaction to Ziegler

2011-03-02T13:04:00.000-05:00

I admit that, growing up, I was very sheltered. My parents listened to the radio all the time, but we either listened to NPR or oldies. It wasn’t until high school that I even learned about these seemingly hateful little men who spew the bigotry which so much of our country seems to consume and believe.

Compared to radio hosts I listen to like Terry Gross and Amy Goodman, Mr. Z strikes me as a problematic, highly deluded, bigoted moron on a personal vendetta against blacks, liberals, and possibly to a lesser extent, women. This image lines up pretty well with what I’ve learned about other popular talk hosts like Limbuagh and Stern, who seem to have all created careers based around sensationalism, hyperbole, racism, sexism, and resentment.

For me possibly the most frustrating part of this whole piece was when he tried to assert that he was not a racist. It is one thing to be controversial and talk about race issues and issues that make people uncomfortable. People do it every day. It is quite another thing to insist on using derogatory language when referring to those issues. Mr. Z seems to think he can defeat the n-word by using it. I would argue that he is subconsciously relishing in getting away with using the term all locked away in his little booth where nobody can retaliate against him. I won’t get into the myriad of reasons why he is a racist and why that word is problematic, but compared to some of the quality talk show hosts out there like Alan Chartock, Mr. Z., and those like him, are a blight.

Twitter Times

2011-02-23T16:52:00.001-05:00

I love twitter. I think the way information flows so quickly and fluidly is really an intuitive system. I think that, with enough people using it, it has the potential to become the greatest manifestation of the ideal of a free and open exchange of information that exists on the internet. This week I tweeted a bunch of different things.

Everything from what I was eating:

@AxeFaktor Ben Axelson

Studying + Wings = bittersweet

To retweeting a job offer to work with Bioware on a new Star Wars project:

@Rockjaw Stephen Reid

Can you write? Love Star Wars? Want to work at BioWare Austin? FOR ME?? Well, click: http://bit.ly/fQZvA5 #gamejobs #starwars

I tweeted about playing video games with my boss, shared a story about Obama recruiting Mark Zuckerberg, and discussed the Bourne trilogy and Matt Damon’s smoking hotness with Nick and Katie-Rose.

Of course this is where we have one of twitters potential problems. Can we really call something a discussion, or a conversation, when you are limited in the number of characters you can say it with. Imagine telling a story to someone, but you could only tell them the most basic points and then say, “if you want to know more go check out the latest issue of Newsweek,” or whatever. Even if you wanted to tell them more in a second 140 character sentence, by the time you said it, three or ten or one hundred other people may have said their own 140 character sentences to that same person, and they have completely forgotten about you.

So on one hand, as much as twitter might be the pinnacle of information exchange, it may also be the extreme negative of the free flow of information, which is that you have so much input coming at you that you become unable to absorb any of it. Fortunately there are ways to regulate this on twitter, but you want to be careful of regulating it to much for fear of missing out on the good information.

Biz Stone Interview

2011-02-23T16:22:00.000-05:00

This was a really interesting interview. When he was discussing twitter’s early development and talking about how it’s a combination of social networking and dispatch software he said something that really stuck out to me. He said that the dispatch software would paint a picture of a living city. I started thinking along those lines. I think twitter paints a picture of a living society, to a greater extent than say Facebook or Myspace ever did. Because twitter is a much more open and accessible forum, with fewer people concerned about limiting the access of others, what happens to people on twitter in one place affects how twitter is perceived by all the other users of twitter, and therefore affects how twitter functions as a whole. It’s like a living entity.

This may all seem a bit farfetched, but I think that twitter really does paint a living picture. We can see what parts of society are working well, what parts are falling apart, what parts are demanding attention, and what parts aren’t receiving enough. And it changes in real time. Spend even a few minutes on twitter and you can see this. You can watch this entity evolve and morph into something completely different in a matter of minutes. At the same time, you have control over your specific aspect of that entity, and influence over those which are connected to you.

Comment Culture

2011-02-16T10:51:00.001-05:00

Commenting on online stories is a mixed bag. The only consistent thing about it is that it’s inconsistent. For example I commented on a story from MSNBC.com, the LATimes.com, and IGN.com and among those three, none of the comment sections were similar. First of all I think it’s important to point out the nature of the three institutions I posted with. The LA Times is your basic large newspaper. It covers a lot of stories, has a lot of readers, and does a reasonably good job staying neutral. MSNBC is one of our big TV news networks. While it tends to cover similar, or in some cases identical stories as the other big ones like CNN and Fox, everyone knows that MSNBC puts a decidedly lefty spin on them. Then there’s IGN: a highly targeted electronic entertainment (read: video games) news website which only covers other news when it directly impacts a video game or the video game industry.

While none of my comments on these stories generated any feedback yet, I did notice some interesting things. The first is that while the LA Times may have more prestige than the other two I was the only person to comment on that story, which was about IBMs Jeopardy-bot. MSNBC had around 40 comments at the time of my writing this, and there was legitimate debate and well thought out points being made in that comment box about budget deficit, like these:

Paul, deficit is based on 2 things, not one. It's not driven by spending alone. It's the balance between spending and revenue. Republicans added $70 billion to the annual deficit by demanding tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. GOP supporters seem to be in denial regarding this fact. I support lots of spending cuts, but also revenue increases. This is what we did in the 90's when 23 million jobs were created.

Man. The commenter’s on this thread seem like children throwing rocks at each other. You do realize that we have already run out of others peoples money. What do we do if China decides to call in their loans? The dollar will lose it's reserve status. We will all be poor and the rich will leave for someplace else. That my friends, is not good. We as a country need to get our act together and quit thinking we can fix this with another ponzi scheme.

Then we come to the IGN comment feed which was around 225 posts, far outpacing either of the other two. This was a story about the tragic history of the Guitar Hero Franchise and the comments were typically from people who had played the games and were there to either mourn their loss or cheer their downfall. They were far less intelligent and far more combative than MSNBCs comments. Comment wars were frequent, as were repetitive points.

So I have to wonder why it is that what I would consider a less newsworthy story from a less prestigious news group gets the most amount of attention in the comment section. I have a couple of conclusions. First is that, while a more targeted web site might have less over all viewers, those who do view it are more likely to be interested in what they are reading about, and are more likely to want to post about it. Second is the intimidation factor. On MSNBC there are bright people having critical arguments, and a person who might just be casually interested in a subject won’t want to post for fear of saying something not quite as well thought out and looking like an idiot. On IGN everyone is posting poorly thought out things and shooting from the hip and clawing each other’s eyes out so it doesn’t matter if you do the same thing.

The facebook effect is quite different, at least from what I’ve seen. On a big news story on facebook, you are likely to find similar posts to those you would find on IGN. But when commenting on something a friend posts you often find people either expressing agreement, or having very civil conversations. I think that is because facebook is very cliquey. If you openly disagree with the consensus on a post you risk being shunned. If a precedent of debate has been set, it’s OK to disagree, but not vehemently, because then you again risk being shunned, and not just online, but in real life.

Letters to the editor reflection

2011-02-09T11:53:00.001-05:00

UPDATE 2/15/11: Both of these letters have since been published by their respective publications here are the links:
Boston Globe
Times Herald Record

I'm going to post the content of the two letters I wrote here in case they don't get puplished.

The first is to the Boston Globe in response to this letter from another reader.

IN RESPONSE to Christopher P. Flynn’s February 9th letter to the editor “Bottle bill is an expensive, ineffectual law”:

How can you argue against a law which, by your own estimate, would tackle two percent of the “litter stream?” Assuming that is true, if all of America adopted this kind of legislation we could save roughly $220 million per year in litter clean up. That money could be used to fund programs for those more problematic forms of litter you mentioned like cigarette butts and fast food containers.

The argument against recycling legislation always seems to go, “we’d be behind helping the environment as long as it doesn’t cost us anything.” Even if you disagree with the above cost saving figure, you must realize that the irreparable damage done to the environment by the amount of litter we generate is going to have serious consequences in the future, and that there is no way to tackle it on a macro level without putting some money into it.

Those against the law, however, seem to be more content to continue letting the litter pile up than to spend a little money trying to initiate real change and planet saving measures. I ask you which approach is more short-sighted?

Benjamin S. Axelson
Student – University of Massachusetts Amherst

The second was to a local paper from where I live in New York called The Times Herald Record in response to an editorial they wrote about Governor Andrew Cuomo's new budget proposal.

Three cheers for Governor Cuomo doing that which so few political figures seem able to do: presenting the people he governs with a realistic budget.

Too often we fail to notice the contradiction when we demand better public schools, and more road and highway upkeep, but refuse higher taxes.

It doesn’t help, either, when our political leaders are promising both, knowing they cannot possibly accomplish it without leaving things out. You want better schools and no tax increase? We’ll just take a little money away from public health and assistance programs.

On one hand it’s hard to blame them. They are trying to please a public making unrealistic demands. On the other hand, the only way to resolve the problem is force them to swallow the reality they despise.

So here’s to Governor Cuomo stepping outside the box, and here’s to the Record for taking notice.

ANALYSIS:
When I started this project I knew I wanted to write one letter to a larger publication to try to challenge myself, and one letter to a more local one which I figured would be easier to be published in. As of my writing of this I do not know whether either have been published, but I will update the blog if they are.

Initially I was going to try writing to the Gazette, but I didn’t find anything that I thought was particularly interesting to respond to in their recent issue. Then I checked the Boston Globe and found someone writing a letter in response to an editorial regarding the new bottle law in Mass. which I had also read about in the Gazette. I figured that meant that this might be a particularly contentious issue right now, so it would be a good thing to write about because letters about more current issues are the ones that get published. I also figured this was good because first of all it furthers public and disagrees with a previous letter. Second of all it is not the most contentious issue of the day, which means less people will write about it, which means a greater chance of getting published.

For the second letter I decided I wanted to write to a publication in my home state, NY. I had gotten the big publication out of the way by writing to the Globe, so I checked the three local papers where I live in Kingston NY and found out that newly elected Governor Andrew Cuomo recently proposed a new budget and presented a realistic analysis of how things will have to go, which is uncommon. I also saw that it was generating other letters, so I figured it was a safe bet. While the other letters were about specific aspects of the budget, I decided to write about how the governor had challenged the voters to break out of the contradictions of wanting services but being unwilling to be taxed for them, figuring change of topic would give me a good chance of getting published.

Letters To the Editor reactions

2011-02-01T21:40:00.000-05:00

To the Editor:
Enlarge This Image

Christoph Niemann
Re “Egyptians Defiant as Military Does Little to Quash Protests” (front page, Jan. 30):

Is it any wonder the Middle East is in a state of dangerous chaos?

Consider: unbridled corruption, tyrannical governments, religious extremism and intolerance, one-dimensional economies, ridiculously disproportionate distributions of wealth, radicalized education systems, unreliable and mistrusted police forces, and a terrified middle class.

It’s a formula for revolution, not evolution, and a reason chaos will reign supreme in that region for generations to come.

Peter Alkalay
Scarsdale, N.Y., Jan. 30, 2011

COMMENTS: I couldn’t pass up this first post, because I think it illustrates one of the greatest things about the letters page, which is the ability to catch people in their own ignorance. Let’s take a look at the “Consider” paragraph. The man is reacting to the situation in Egypt, but he seems to be trying to dump all the problems America has on the Middle East. Unbridled Corruption? It seems like every week a new politician is getting caught, both proverbially and not so proverbially, with his or her pants down. Tyrannical governments? I think there are many America who would say that is a problem our country faces, particularly right wingers, who seem to view the current administration as all together evil. Religious extremists and the intolerant? We hear about these on our own turf all the time. Disproportionate distribution of wealth? You get the picture. Actually this instance of unbridled ignorance is so blatant it almost makes me think the writer is being sarcastic, but I can’t tell. Certainly it’s why the editors included it.

To the Editor:

Re “No Sign They Get It” (editorial, Jan. 22):

The good news is that “business as usual” for the United States oil and natural gas industry means that we are building on nearly a century of commitment to safe and reliable operations. In the nine months since the tragic accident in the Gulf of Mexico, we’ve been at work carrying out many of the recommendations now finding their way into reports.

We have produced new guidance on well cementing, begun a new standard on deepwater well construction, held workshops on carrying out a comprehensive safety management system, nearly completed work on state-of-the-art well containment systems, and initiated business planning for a new, independently audited safety body.

In addition, our safety management practices have been adopted into government rules.

Last year’s unprecedented accident is the exception to a 60-year record of more than 42,000 safely drilled wells. Our record of declining injuries was achieved by businesses that understand the risks of operating offshore and will continue working hard to reduce them further.

Denigrating our commitment to safety is offensive to the millions of men and women who work in this industry, and it discourages the continued development of energy and jobs our nation needs to stay prosperous and strong.

Jack Gerard
President and C.E.O.
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, Jan. 25, 2011

COMMENTS: This next letter I had to include because it is one of many that I found written by someone representing a business which has recently received criticisms by the paper. I think it really demonstrates the public debate quite well. But more importantly, I think it shows how the letters section can be very revealing about how the paper sympathizes. For example this Oil CEO is reacting to an editorial that accuses Oil companies of not understanding that they need to change and “reinvent” themselves. This guy then turns around with a sort of “how can you say that when…” approach, and cites all these changes being made. I think it’s interesting because it shows how an editor can be just as negligent, or ignorant, in their writing as the first writer was.

Reactions to Wahl-Jorgenson week 2

2011-02-01T00:02:00.000-05:00

Wahl-Jorgensen tries in this quote to sum up his findings about how editors approach letters pages, but I think in chapters 4 and 5 what we actually find is that this statement barely scrapes the surface of describing letter editing. First of all, WJ says that editors practice limited editorial intervention, which, as we read is different from reality. Editors seem to practice a great deal of intervention, but also they do it in varying degrees. There is a general consensus among the editors that hate-speech, bigotry, and other inflammatory language ought to be disallowed, but they also seem to say that they receive a massive quantity of this type of mail, which, while I agree with their choice, means that they are censoring more than just a limited number of people. Furthermore, it’s more than limited when they, in the end, have free reign over what to print and how to print it. Some editors chop out sections of letters, while others leave them all together. Some editors force a balance of letters, while others seek out those which involve conflict and negativity.

And while she generalizes that editors all seek out balance, fairness, and accuracy, I think it is equally as impossible for editors to objectively select and edit letters as it is for a journalist to objectively report on a story. The very act of saying “we don’t show hate speech” eliminates the possibility of objectivity. Every time I consider the editorial and reporting processes, and learn more about news production, I realize how futile objectivity is. Yet at the same time, I realize that it is important for editors to cling to it as an ideal, and to reach for it. Otherwise we would see letters pages chock full of inflammatory speech which, as WJ says, does little to further public debate and conversation.

Reactions to Wahl-Jorgenson

2011-01-24T21:29:00.000-05:00

I mostly agree with these statements. Wahl-Jorgensen says that while many papers hold the letters section as a matter of importance, most do it out of an editor’s sense of tradition, and she noticed that, when she visited a newsroom, greater attention was given to the letters section because of her presence, but that in general, the news writing staff pays it little heed. This goes to show that, at least on the journalistic side of things, little credence is given to the reader’s opinion. I think this presents an interesting paradox.

While people are always clamoring for free speech and a chance to have their voices heard, they are also clamoring for professional, trained, neutral, and objective journalists. Those same professional journalists are the ones who, due to their education and professionalization, feel they know better than the reader, and as such fail to carry out the conversation with them. On the other hand we have commentators, TV anchors, and talk show hosts, all of whom are always criticized for being too opinionated and are accused of not being “real journalists.” Yet these people are engaging the reader in a conversation to a much greater degree than the reporters are. How can we expect journalists to be the way we want them to be when we send messages as mixed as that.

The second quote is an unfortunate one, as it describes a problem which continues to plague journalism, and probably always will. I think it is important to point out though, that we still see many highly partisan news outlets catering to highly partisan audiences. What this quote does is point out that the reason for this has less to do with catering to the reader than it does with catering to the audience, though I think it’s a bit sloppy. It does however explain why the coverage of controversial topics is mostly superficial, and designed to steer the reader/viewer towards what to think about, but not what to think, and it also explains why we have to tolerate stories like balloon boy and celebrity gossip when there are wars, famines and genocides going on.

Christmas Is Not Dead: A Revelation at Yankee Candle

2010-12-06T00:05:00.000-05:00

Every year it’s the same. On the Friday after Thanksgiving I begin an internal battle. Part of me is thrilled December is a week away, and that means, that Christmas is just around the corner. The holidays mean that I get to go home, see the people I love, enjoy their company, exchange gifts, and celebrate how much we care about each other. The other part of me sulks. It’s the part of me that spends too much time getting a liberal arts education. That part believes that Christmas is a sham. That it’s a holiday cooked up by Coca Cola and Macy’s to milk every last dollar out of the American people before the new year starts. I hate that part, because I know that it has just as valid a point as the happy, family reunion part.

Somehow I always manage to side with the optimist in me, but not without the bitter aftertaste left by all the consumption of stuff. Well I’m tired of that aftertaste. I wanted to know one way or another if Christmas really has wholesome meaning, or if it truly has been lost in the torrent of commercials and jingles that we are drowned in during the last two months of every year.

So I went to the one place where I thought the dark side of Christmas would be strongest: the Yankee Candle, in South Deerfield, MA. I thought the self-proclaimed “World’s Best Christmas Shop” would be the ultimate test of Christmas’ meaning. If it could survive there, where you can’t turn your head without some bright packaging or enticing scent to befuddle your senses, then it had to be alive everywhere else. Here’s what I found.

Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised. To be engulfed by throngs of people all being herded through an endless stream of products, and yet have them articulate that Christmas means more than that, tells me that the advertisers and corporations haven’t won, and that I can put aside my fears about a dying Christmas.

I’m not a religious person, so when I asked people what Christmas meant, I actually wasn’t expecting to hear people tell me that it’s about the birth of Jesus. Looking back, I’m a bit surprised that no one made that kind of comment, but I think it says something else about Christmas. In this day and age, the meaning of Christmas has not only not been lost, but it’s evolved to mean something more than was ever intended.

I think Christmas is a holiday for everybody. I don’t care what your religion is. I don’t even care if you want to call it Christmas. It’s the season of giving, of caring, and of enjoying each other’s company. If you’re like me, it’s easy to lose sight of that, and find yourself distraught at the seemingly unstoppable bombardment of consumption. Just remember that beneath that ugly layer of stuff, stuff, and even more stuff, the true meaning of Christmas is not lost, after all, if it can survive here, it ought to be alive and kicking everywhere else.

Hip-Hop Dancing in Movies: A Decade Apart

2010-11-30T20:02:00.005-05:00

With the advent of the new UMass Dance Crew, it’s important to look back and see just how Hip-Hop dance has gained the popularity it has today. Over the last decade we’ve seen a swell of movies centered on Hip-Hop dance culture. But what is this phenomenon and where does it come from.

South Park - You Got Served

Simsyy ™ | Myspace Video

Kyle’s confusion expressed at the end of this scene from season eight of South Park, is representative of how many people felt about the onslaught of Hip-Hop dance related films that were released in the last decade. Where did they come from? Why do we like them? And what is the point?

Movies about dance have been around since the dawn of cinema, and whether they have Gene Kelly “Singin’ in the Rain” or Kevin Bacon bringing rock to the streets (read: Footloose) they are almost always about whatever is considered “pop” during the era the movie was made, or at least the era the movie is trying to portray.

But while films like “Top Hat” highlight the carefree taps of the 30’s (a bit of a contradiction given the depression stricken nature of America) and “Saturday Night Fever” dwells in the stylized posing of disco, the genre of Hip-Hop dance films create a world of their own.

2001’s “Save the Last Dance” started the revolution of Hip-Hop dance movies in the last decade. The story of a young white girl trying to reconcile her desire to go to Juliard for ballet with her passion for Hip-Hop dancing with her new boyfriend, made young people everywhere fall in love with the unforeseen drama that can go along with Hip-Hop dancing.

After that the genre exploded. 2004 saw “You Got Served,” parodied in the South Park video above, about the “underground” world of competitive Hip-Hop dance teams. “Step Up” in 2006 took a traditional dance school and shook things up with the introduction of Hip-Hop dancing. And in 2007 we have “Stomp the Yard,” which introduces a sub-genre of Hip-Hop dance called step-dancing. Some of these have spawned sequels.

Dance movies, for the most part, have always been catered toward the youth of a generation. Dirty Dancing, Footloose, and Saturday Night Fever are all about young people attaining freedom, liberation, or happiness through dance. And why shouldn’t they be? Dance let’s us express ourselves in ways other communication styles can’t.

Hip-Hop dance movies for the most part maintain this trend, but they add to it Hip-Hop culture, which is often associated with crime or violence. Because of that, these movies can go beyond themes of liberation and delve into themes like revenge, atonement, and justice. Often they have elements of violence in them, as urban gang warfare moves onto the dance floor. They go beyond youth upsetting the establishment, and focus instead on the competition, rivalry, and open hostility that exist between the dancers and the teams.

Furthermore while dance movies of the 20th century tend to focus on white protagonists and dancers, Hip-Hop dance movies focus more on black characters, but also on Latino and Asian dancers as well, which has the effect of both showing Hip-Hop dance as a more diverse dance style, while also stereotyping the kinds of people who can do it based on race.

What is important to remember though is that Hip-Hop dance is highly dramatized in films. In many professional institutions Hip-Hop dance is recognized as a legitimate dance style, and is studied and practiced as such. While many Hip-Hop dance teams do exist, they are more in the vein of UMass’ upcoming dance crew. They compete in officially sanctioned tournaments and perform for audiences. You are unlikely to “Get Served” like the South Park boys in real life.

JOURNALISM 392W - Multimedia piece

2010-11-30T17:43:00.000-05:00

Even though to me it’s clear that one of these pieces (read: We Choose the Moon) has a bit more production value behind it, I enjoyed the first one much more. To me This Land felt like a story which was being read, much like a book on tape, than it did like a multimedia journalistic experience, which to me sounds so cold and doesn’t beg me to read it in the slightest.

I think one of the things which attracted me about the first piece was how it felt like I was being read a book out loud. One thing that really made it work for me was how throughout the slide show of each chapter, the author used pull quotes from the recording to describe her experience, even though there was no text to be seen. I find multitasking when enjoying multi-media to be fun (a personal preference not shared by everyone) so when I have a picture I’m looking at, some recorded sound I’m hearing, and some brie text I’m reading all at once I’m happy. It really grabs you and throws you into the story because you have to be enjoying all the parts of it to get the full experience.

Finally we have the presentation on behalf of the author, which was a wonderfully frank account of her time on the patrol, including emotional expression. She was able to effectively balance the topic at hand with her own personal struggle as a woman, a lesbian, and an unprepared adventurer, without losing either voice to the other.

JOURNALISM 392W - Viral Video Post

2010-11-16T11:53:00.000-05:00

First let me say I'm a bit unsure about what qualifies as a viral video. I tried wikipediaing (yup, it's a verb) it but all it said was it's a video that gets popular through sharing. So I'm going to use 20,000 views as my marker for what counts as viral.

Having said that, the video I found has over 700,000 views. It’s called “3D Video Capture with Kinect” Check it out here:

The Kinect is a new piece of peripheral hardware for the Xbox 360 which was designed to compete with Nintendo’s award winning and record setting Wii. Microsoft, developer of the 360 and the Kinect, is the last of the video game console manufacturers to release its motion sensing software, with the Playstation Move having been released earlier this fall.

The Kinect works differently than the other two however, in that it traces the motion of your body as opposed to tracking a remote which you hold in order to play. This sets it apart, and while the Kinect has received mixed reviews due to the lag experienced between your body motion and the action on the screen, it is still ground breaking in terms of virtual reality.

Since its release a week or two ago, people have been taking it apart, tweaking its innards, rebuilding it and reprogramming it to have different functions and applications. The guy in the video refers to this as being hacked.

This video has gone viral because it shows really groundbreaking technology which we can all have access to (for a few hundred dollars), and it shows us the potential for holographic imagery and new kinds of entertainment. It is part of a series of videos which has been picked up by a variety of gaming blogs including LazyGamer.net.

It is journalistic from a newsworthiness standpoint in that it shows novelty and it has great potential for impact, though I think this guy was just trying to chronicle and showoff what he was doing.

Daylight Savings Time Exposed

2010-11-09T20:45:00.003-05:00

I really hate it when Daylight Savings Time ends -- now it will get dark around here at 5:30 PM. I wish they would just leave it on year round. Any reason for us to still do this? Is there any "savings" in an economic view?
-Steven McCauley on byrnerobotics.com forums

This kind of confusion surrounds the issue of Daylight Savings Time. Those who don't like it seem to just simply not get it, while those fighting for it aren't getting the message to those fighting against it. Check out some of these stories which dig up the dirt on DST and Put the arguments for and against it into perspective.

First Daniel Mangan helps clear up the history of DST. Check out its past, present and future here.

Next Travis Bassett gives us a look at the current controversy surrounding DST including both economic and public health perspectives.

Then head over Arjun's Arrow to find the international perspective on DST.

Megan Valcour examines the recent iPhone alarm debacle.

Finally James Bucklin talks with Joyce Vander Molen about her seasonal affective disorder or SAD.

For those of you experiencing DST blues, here's a tip from ABC 7 on adjusting to the time change...or refusing to.

JOURNALISM 392W - Big Picture Post

2010-11-09T18:44:00.001-05:00

Yesterday's photo on "The Big Picture" shows an indonesian farmer in the foreground, blurred out against the massive eruption of the volcano Mount Mirapi. The image does two things very well.

First it highlights the truly massive eruption by showing an image of it from very far away. Second, it tells a story about a story. The story was the volcano that erupted and forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate their homes. The story about the story is, I think, about the rest of the world. The man in the foreground walks through a lush rice patty with seemingly no regard for the cataclysmic event going on the horizon, and I think this is representative of how the rest of the world has reacted to the eruption.

This event happened far from us, and even though we can see it (on the TV) we aren’t really aware of what it means, and certainly don’t have the motivation to understand and appreciate its significance. We go about our routines much like the farmer without stopping to think about what is going on over there, and what things would be like if it happened here. We remain largely ignorant of the impact of such an event, because we are too preoccupied with what is right in front of us.

I probably just read into the image way to much…but there you have it.

JOURNALISM 392W - Gene Weingarten Lecture

2010-11-09T17:58:00.000-05:00

Pulitzer Prize winner Gene Weingarten’s lecture today was a wonderfully refreshing experience. First of all it is quite clear that Gene is far from the “orthodox journalist” figure journalism students develop in their heads during J-School. He is witty, charismatic, unafraid to break and bend the rules, and more importantly, unashamed to admit he has bent and broken the rules.

He started off with some tips for young reporters.

First, he said the most important words in a story are the one’s you don’t write, but rather those that come about as part of an “Ah-ha!” moment based upon what you do write. Gene is a humor writer in large part, so this tactic is particularly useful for him.

The second piece of advice he gave was in the form of a quote by Franze Kafka: “The meaning of life is that it ends.” He explained that he sees feature story writing as a way to tackle life’s big questions, which in large part deal with death, what comes next, and what’s the point. He says that when writing a feature story, he always tries to relate it in some way to this type of big question.

He went on to give some anecdotes about stories he’d done, and things he’d done which he was less than proud of, but one thing he said to us that was a very nice change of pace was that today you can’t get a job in journalism without a degree. This is refreshing because we spend so much time hearing about how bad the field is doing, and how our degrees might be useless. It was good to hear someone say we are not wasting our time here.

REVIEW: Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions

2010-11-09T11:29:00.001-05:00

I'm on to bigger and much better things now (Fallout: New Vegas) but before it's too late i wanted to give credit where credit is due. Before starting Vegas, and after completing a most disappointing Force Unleashed 2, I was lucky enough to get my hands on an unexpected little gem called Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions.

I remember the first time I played a Spidey game and thought, "man, this is pretty cool." That was the video game adaptation for the first Spidey movie. So imagine my surprise however many years later when I realized that game was pitiful compared to the new Shattered Dimensions. Now I know what a Spidey video game can really be.

This game departs from the traditional Spider-Man open-world style, which, looking back, really only had the effect of slowing down gameplay. In SM:SD, we find ourselves in extremely linear levels with very obvious goals. But fear not, true believers, this design is a very nice improvement, and it is supplemented with the "Web of Destiny" which adds a nice dimension of pseudo-quests to each level. There are a series of tasks one can complete for points which you can then spend on combat and character upgrades, like increased health and new combos. The more tasks you complete on the web, the more are unlocked. Some of these are completed by simply doing the things you need to do to beat the level, while others require you to use certain moves in combat, complete tasks within a certain time limit, or hit a certain number of enemies with the same attack. While these don't add any new physical dimension to the levels, they make a nice addition for those of us who want a little more out of our game play. There are also a huge amount of collectible spider emblems in the game which restore health and give you more points.

Back to level design. It's a mixed bag. Some of the levels are ingenious and very fun to play, like the lauded Sandman level, or the horrifying Carnage level, while others seem like a very irritating trek through hordes of D-bags to get to the boss. In the end, the levels all come down to how well the boss fight is designed. Again this is a mixed bag. They range from Some of the most excellent battles I've ever played, again like the battle with Sandman, in which he turns into a massive sand vortex and you must defeat him from the inside, to hugely disappointing, like the Deadpool fight, which I found to be less than impressive. The fights and levels entertainment value depends on how each different Spidey (there are 4 of them) uses their special abilities. In Noir we see a lot of stealth, which I actually enjoyed, though many have complained about. In Ultimate we get to use the Black Suits rage mode which is very cool and lets you effortlessly slice through swaths of enemies. In 2099 we have the acceleration mode which slows down time to let you dodge missiles and objects during the supremely well done free fall sequences. In amazing we just see Spidey doing what Spidey can, and it works out well.\

Check out this gameplay footage from the Sandman Level:

As far as the nitty gritty goes, the graphics aren't amazing, but they do a good job making each universe feel unique. The sound is a major downside. While traditional thwacks and pows might get some nerds hearts beating, they get very repetitive, as does the in game dialogue between Spidey and his nemeses. And Stan Lee, I love you, but your bit is getting very tiring. As the rightchief narrator for the games cut-scenes, Stan's voice work is just not that compelling, though some of the other voice talent including Neil Patrick Harris, is pretty good.

Lastly there is plenty of replay value here. With the web of destiny alone, there is a reason to go back and try and beat the game again, not to mention three different difficulty levels, and ranking systems on the levels so you can strive for the coveted gold medal. There are plenty of trophies/achievements to go around for those of you who like that sort of thing.

SM:SD was a short fun experience which should make Spidey fans happy while they wait for the Spidey reboot and inevitable game that comes with it. If you want to play a game you can beat in a week and have some fun with, check it out. Don't expect a great story, but do expect some fun gameplay.

Here's the trailer:

JOURNALISM 392W - Live Blog Reflection

2010-11-09T09:53:00.000-05:00

As i said in class, I'm not the biggest fan of live blogging, because I think it is ineffective as a form of communication except to those who already know whats going on. I also see it's benefits as far as historical record keeping goes, but overall I think that the point of Journalism is to always try to be reaching a broader audience, and that becomes very difficult when your story is highly targeted.

As far as my own experience goes, I'll admit that it was kind of fun for me to be constantly updating my blog about the race. It was good to follow the last minute details and watch things develop towards the end of the night. I actually wish I had picked a more interesting race to cover, because I think it was pretty unlikely that Patrick was going to lose. But considering the very blue nature of Massachusetts, I'd say baker gave him a run for his money. We actually saw Baker climbing closer to Patrick as the night continued, rather than farther away, which is what I expected. he started off the count at 39% and climbed to 42% before the the final tally. Compare that to Patrick's wavering between 49 and 48 percent all night and you can see that it wasn't necessarily a done deal for Patrick.

But just because it was a good experience for me doesn't mean it will be for my readers (assuming I have any). For example, I have a lot of family who very kindly read my blog on a regular basis. Most of them are from out of state, though they all live in nearby states. I recall one of them texting me the next day to ask all these questions about the Mass. election and what kinds of things were at stake because they couldn't get them from my blog. Now part of that may well be due to my halfhearted attempt at live blogging, but I think another part was due largely to the nature of live blogging itself, which may be very descriptive, but is highly uninformative.

Live Blog Update 10

2010-11-02T23:36:00.000-04:00

With Patrick and Coakley taking the win in Massachusetts, the election in Massachusetts has panned out pretty much in accordance with pre-election polls. The rest of the country is shaping up to be a bit more interesting. While the democrats still lead in the Senate, the house looks to be decidedly in favor of Republicans. Democrats would need to make up 64 seats before the end of the night in order to catch up, and more in order to be in he majority. The New York Times has an interactive map with projections for the rest of the night.

Click Here

Live Blog Update 9

2010-11-02T22:42:00.000-04:00

Charlie Baker concedes the vote. He says, "Things didn't turn out the way we hoped they would. He won fair and square." And win he did. With 82% of the state reporting, it would no longer be possible for Baker to make up his 6% trail behind Patrick. Baker fan's were reported as booing when he mentioned Patrick's name. Mature. Baker himself seems to have handled it like a gentleman.

Live Blog update 8

2010-11-02T22:32:00.000-04:00

With the AP now confirming the win, bloggers and aggregators are following suit and announcing the win for Patrick, though with 76% now reporting results, Patrick has dropped to 48%, and Baker has risen to 42%. Seems unlikely that any comeback will be made however. WBGH Boston Tweets this:

Tim Cahill is making his concession speech. GOP's Charlie Baker is expected to concede in 5-10 min.

Live Blog Update 7

2010-11-02T22:10:00.001-04:00

One twitter user notes that while the election has been called in favor of Patrick, the AP has yet to make that claim.

Networks have called the race for Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, but not the AP. More on this in a few.
@GlobalPolitical

Interesting that the AP is reluctant to call it yet. Currently the results show Baker with 41% and Patrick with 49% with 64% reporting.

More to come.
Edit: 10:24 - AP just called it for Patrick, though with 71% now reporting, Baker has picked up a point.

Live Blog Update 6

2010-11-02T21:24:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post has officially called the Mass. Gubernatorial race for Deval Patrick.

Boston.com shows that, with 5% of the vote in, Patrick holds a commanding 52% of the vote, to 39% for Charlie Baker. With major cities like Boston and Worcester yet to report, the crack team of statisticians at BMG News feels that Patrick's lead at this point is insurmountable.

Congratulations to Patrick. I'll keep you updated as more results come in.

Live Blog Update 5

2010-11-02T20:48:00.000-04:00

Twitter has begun to light up and it seems Patrick has grabbed this one.

Deval Patrick, our incumbent. That was a very tough race too. WHEW!!
@suzannembest

congratulations @MassGovernor Deval Patrick, yes we can!!! Ah, I love my state.
@janaegreen

On a side note, Christine O'Donnell lost. Which is...quite nice

Live Blog update 4

2010-11-02T20:36:00.000-04:00

Results beginning to come in now. Mixed accuracy. Too close to call.

Some sources seem to be reporting Patrick at 53% and Baker at 39%. A lead right now, could change later. MassLive now saying 50-42 Patrick.

Live Blog Update 3

2010-11-02T20:15:00.000-04:00

The Boston Herald reports that Patrick remains confident despite low city turnout, and high suburban turnout which may benefit Baker.

Click Here

Check out my post from earlier today for insight into why this may be happening.

Live Blog update 2

2010-11-02T19:58:00.000-04:00

By the way polls close here in Mass at 8:00, so more info will probably be coming in within the last hour

Live Blog update 1

2010-11-02T19:49:00.001-04:00

Deval Patrick and Charlie baker are both reported as standing by at their respective campaign HQs with boatloads of balloons ready to be released in the event of a victory.

Click here!

EDIT: Just kidding, I guess they have a smoke machine @ Bakers event, not balloons, FYI

JOURNALISM 392W - Live Blog

2010-11-02T19:00:00.002-04:00

I think live blogging is a very interesting concept that serves a unique purpose, however I don’t personally feel it is very useful. It is nice for people who are interested in a pre-scheduled event to be able to follow it as it happens, however, I would barely call it journalism. If all you’re doing is posting little snippets about what you see every few minutes, or what is currently going on, your not performing one of the primary jobs of a journalist, which is to provide thoughtful interpretation and analysis of events within a context. You’re simply giving a sporting event like blow-by-blow.

Again, I get why this is done. For those who are interested, I’m sure it’s spectacular; however presenting images without interpretation is almost irresponsible journalism, because images by themselves can be misleading without a context.

In the case of the Rally, it’s probably not too big of a deal, because the event is supposed to be entertaining for the most part. But in general it’s important for journalists to be providing organization and interpretation so that their audiences understand the meaning of an event, rather than just see what happened.

Having said that I think I liked the Huffington Post coverage the best, because they continued to provide coverage and updates after the event was over including coverage of other coverage of the event, which is what aggregate media does. It helps the reader understand what went on, rather than just absorbing this massive amount of information.

The New York Times coverage fell short for me, because it simply ended with the rally and provided a limited description at the top. At the same time, the writers would throw little wisecracks and sarcastic remarks throughout the blogging that only serve to confuse the issue, rather than helping to clear things up.

I guess overall I’m saying that I have some reservations about live-blogging. I’m not really sure it’s effective journalism, because while it reports on the event in rapid time, it forces the reader to do a lot of guesswork. To really understand the event you need to go back to the first post and read it through. Journalists should be highlighting the significance of events and guiding audiences through them, not just throwing facts and interviews at them and saying: “Guess!”

JOURNALISM 392W - Project 2: The Rally to Restore Sanity

2010-11-02T17:06:00.000-04:00

200,000 people.

That’s one of the higher end estimates, according to Boston.com, for turnout at last weekend’s “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” hosted by Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the hosts of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report respectively.

One rally attendee, Natasha McKenzie of Boston, MA, had this to say to the Boston Globe:

I think that things in this political climate have gotten very extreme. I feel it’s important for people to come together and stand up against that kind of sentiment…It’s an amazing blend of both [entertainment and politics]. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert leveraged their popularity to bring people out in a political way, and that’s brilliant.

200,000 people.

Do you know what it means when 200,000 people care enough about an issue to get out of their homes at the same time from around the world and all go support something? Not to mention 200,000 Americans, who, in general, are so used to having access to so many things within the comfort of their own homes that it seems unnecessary to go out.

It means that whatever is going on is important.

It means that people are fed up enough with the state of American government that they feel each and every one of their presences at this event will make a difference. And if that many people think this is an important issue, why are the only people who are listening two comedians?

McKenzie seems to think that it’s a good thing that Stewart and Colbert managed to pull this together, but she and many others are missing what’s written in between the lines here. Stewart and Colbert were the ones who did this, because no political figure could, or cared enough to. Nobody in politics is in touch enough with the American people to realize that the insanity and confusion needs to end. That it’s driving people crazy.

What does it say about America when the only people who can get people to turn out for an event, or who care enough to try, are two stand up comedians, who are going to see their ratings skyrocket for this stunt? It says the American people afford more respect to their entertainers than to their politicians, and it says that our politicians are not aware of what America is feeling.

Imagine what might have happened if, rather than Colbert or Stewart, two politicians had gotten behind this rally. Imagine if Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid had realized how America felt, and reached across party lines to rally behind sanity and what is best for the American people.

Stewart’s and Colbert’s rally has already begun to affect some small amount of change among journalists. According to Politico.com, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC has removed the “Worst Person in the World” segment of his show, after it was criticized at the Rally. Imagine what kinds of changes might be affected if two politicians rallied together and started naming names, and criticizing bad policies.

Cheer for the Rally to Restore Sanity if you want, but don’t forget to weep for what it truly represents at the same time.

JOURNALISM 392W - Race Preview

2010-11-02T12:52:00.000-04:00

This year almost every political race has some intriguing element. Whether it's vicious biting attack ads and wildly untrue accusations or the potential to drastically change the political landscape, these mid-term elections have become a truly tumultuous affair.

While the eye of the nation seems to be focused on some of the more deciding or outrageous examples, I think we are having a very interesting race right here in Massachusetts.

Nobody has forgotten the impressive upset victory of Senator Scott Brown, who replaced the late senator Edward Kennedy, and the question on my mind, and I would imagine the minds of many others, is will this happen again? Unfortunately I can't get out to vote today. I'm registered in NY and have already cast my absentee ballot, but I am following this race very closely.

Massachusetts is not usually one of the states that people focus on because it tends to be staunchly blue. However Scott Brown's win signals a potential shift in voting patterns, and shows us that discontented Republicans and Independents may once again flock to the polls in order to topple the norm.

The Boston globe today said that Democrats are going as far as to adopt a risky campaign strategy in order to increase turnout. They are campaigning in typically republican areas in order to bring out more voters, which they think, in the end will work in their favor. This move has the possibility to bring out both more Republican voters, and also voters who favor a local democrat, but not the party standard bearer, governor Deval Patrick. A risky play like this says that democrats are feeling pressed to take action outside their comfort zone of Urban areas, and may make for some very interesting campaign results. I'll be keeping my eye on it.

REVIEW: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II

2010-10-27T15:01:00.003-04:00

I really desperately want to break the trend of bad reviews this game has been getting, because after all, I did enjoy it. My love for Star Wars gives me the ability to enjoy even the worst content Lucasfilm/Arts/Books/etc. puts out, and this is by no means the worst, but my point is that if you don't love Star Wars there is little reason to buy game.

Because I love Star Wars, and want to give the game credit where it deserves it, I'll start with the good. The visuals in SW:TFU2 are truly stunning. Lucas once again proves that he has created easily the prettiest, shiniest, and highest definition science fiction universe ever. The animations are smooth, and the worlds are very real. Every particle effect is brilliant and the force looks cooler and more powerful than ever in the hands of our hero, Starkiller. Facial expressions look very human, and the detail put in to making Starkiller and Kota come alive is astounding. Other reviewers have said it, and I agree, that this is one of the best looking games I've played.

Also worthy of note is that, in typical Star Wars fashion, the audio work is spectacular. From our favorite familiar tunes and some new ones, to the sounds of battle, your ears will always be in the game. The voice acting, combined with the aforementioned attention to detail in facial expressions and character designs really makes it a true Star Wars experience. See the video below:

More Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II Videos

Unfortunately, no matter how glossy the coat of paint, the remainder of the experience falls somewhat short. I bought the game last night, and started playing it at 9:00PM. I was finished by 1:30AM. For those of you who have trouble with math, that's a 4 hour 30 minute run time. Granted I played it through on easy so I could get the story, but even so, thats a disturbingly short game.

During most of that time I found myself endlessly cutting through swaths of enemies with very little variety in order to get to the next cutscene, boss fight, free fall, or button mash sequence, which, in all fairness, are pretty cool when you get to them. The problem is, those sequences make up less than a quarter of the playtime, so most of the time it's just hack and slash. The levels feel needlessly drawn out for the sole purpose of extending playtime, though at least they look good enough to keep you hypnotized by the environment while you cut through the ranks. The Boss fights (all 3 of them) are neat, and epic, but overall pretty simple and repetetive. You fight the big Gorog from the trailer, a big droid, and (SPOILER) Darth Vader...Raise your hand if you're shocked. The free fall sequences are a nice touch, though I'm glad they only had three of them, as they, like much of the rest of the game, are fairly repetetive.

Combat is nearly identical to the original game, with the interesting new power mind trick, which is rarely useful, though rather amusing. The enemies are all very simple to kill. You either hack/force them to bits or only hack them to bits, or only force them to bits.

And now we come to it. The story. Even with all the bad parts, you'd still expect the story to hold up, right? Well, it's a mixed bag. I liked it overall. I'll give you a rundown.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Darth Vader is trying to clone Starkiller on Kamino. He tells you that you are the latest attempt, but that the process is imperfect. You have a vision of Vader killing the original, freak out and run away. You go get Kota because you've had visions of him and you think he can lead you to Juno (your sweety from game 1) who you've also had visions of. You get Kota who tells you Jedi can't be cloned and that you must in fact be the real Starkiller. Meanwhile Vader sends Boba Fett to capture Juno. You go to Dagobah and do some crap in the Dark Side Cave where you have more visions of yourself and Juno. Yoda is there. Just as you are about to reunite with her, the rebel fleet is attacked and Juno is captured by Fett. Jerk. You and Kota and the rebel fleet chase Fett and the Imperials to Kamino where there's a space fight and you crash a ship into a Kamino city. Kota tries to get you to stay with the army and help destroy the Imperials on Kamino, but you say you only care about Juno, so you chase her down. You kill a bunch of dudes then have some visions, then confront Vader, who runs away from you while simultaneously releasing clone versions of you for you to fight. Wimp. He escapes, sort of. You chase him into a room where he has Juno, and he tells you he'll kill her if you don't submit to him. You do so, he lets her go, and she tries to kill him. He force throws her through a window. That pisses you off so you pummel him and then have the option to either be good or evil, which comes down to a single button press, unlike in the first game where this choice determined who you fought for the final boss. If your good, the alliance captures Vader, Juno is alive, you kiss, and the game ends with you still being unsure of whether or not you're a clone, and Fett following you into space. If your bad, another clone of you comes up behind you, kills you, kills the Rebel alliance, and Juno is dead.

END SPOILER

The story is decent. Not good, and not bad. It's very disappointing that we don't get clarification on the main mystery of the game. But at least it wraps up the the Juno thing pretty well, and reunites us with favorites like PROXY and Kota from TFU1. It's a cool adventure over all, and definitely intriguing, but unlike the original, it does very little to affect how we perceive the events of the original or prequel trilogies unlike the first game which dropped a very well done bomb on the Universe, and explained how the alliance was formed. For the most part it serves in a similar manner to the Empire Strikes Back, in that it is mostly just a connector between part one and the inevitable part three. That's OK with me, because now I know what the intent of these games are. They're not supposed to just be Episode 3.5, but rather a whole new stand alone trilogy within the 6 episodes. My other big disappointment was that characters like Yoda and Boba Fett, which were made out to be important in the trailers, served only as cameos, though I would bet money that we get to fight Fett in the third game.

Overall I enjoyed the experience, though only because I am a Star Wars fan. If I wasn't, this would have been a real waste of money. For those of you interested in the game I have two pieces of advice:
1) Make sure you played the original first, as you will be lost otherwise, and
2) Rent it rather than buy it if you can.
You can literally beat this game in an afternoon, and it's simply not worth $50. The story is OK, but not OK enough to excuse the other bad aspects of the game. Honestly, with all the work they put into sound, acting, and visuals, this would have made an awesome feature length CGI movie.

JOURNALISM 392W - Juan Williams

2010-10-27T01:25:00.001-04:00

Juan Williams, like Rick Sanchez before him, has made a terrible mistake. The Washington Post forums are, naturally, alive with differing opinions regarding the situation.
Some of the more interesting comments are those regarding Williams permanent move to Fox news.
WEROWE1 says:

If we want news without opinion or character we should let machines read the news. Oh, I forgot they already do that on National Proletarian Radio.

Interesting. WEROWE1 seems to be making a couple of very…how best to say this…uneducated assumptions here, and he (excuse the assumed pronoun) is not the only one. Why is anybody assuming that NPR did this because they want to stifle opinions? This should be clear. NPR did this to protect itself. NPR is one of the most diverse major news outlets in this country, however one thing they have low tolerance for is intolerance.

That, you might find interesting, is a stand freedom of the press advocate John Locke would agree with, as “the intolerant themselves” appears on his list of those individuals unworthy of tolerance in his Letter Concerning Toleration.

Regardless of whether or not Williams is in fact a tolerant or accepting person, he made an intolerant, divisive, and racist remark, which is something NPR can’t allow on their news staff.

The other half of this and other comments is the notion that Fox news represents diverse views.

…

...

FMAMSTYLE says:

Fox News welcomes diverse opinions. NPR does not.

…

…

First of all, saying you get nervous around Muslims on planes is not a “diverse opinion.” Just because you say something that other people know is wrong and foolish doesn’t mean you represent diversity. In this case in fact it represents a lack of diversity, and at least a lack of cultural awareness.

The message that this trade of allegiance should be giving people is not “Fox News welcomes diversity,” but rather “Fox News welcomes divisive, antagonistic, and uneducated opinions.”

There’s a theme here. Anybody? These types of comments are being made against NPR and in defense of Fox News, and they’re the same types of comments we hear about the “liberal media” stifling opinions, shying away from diversity, and promoting socialist agenda again and again on Fox.

How do you spell “propaganda?” F-O-X!

JOURNALISM 392w - 3rd person Pieces

2010-10-26T18:40:00.000-04:00

I just learned that I respond to sarcasm very well when consuming news. Go figure.

In the five pieces we just read, those that held my attention, regardless of brevity, were those that used sarcasm, or at least some type of humor, to convey their point. One of the things I found most interesting was that the two pieces that covered individuals who I find very entertaining, held my attention least of all. Granted the piece about Jon Stewart barely qualifies as a “piece,” but even the one about Rachel Madow, which actually had some interesting content, held my attention less than the one about today’s sports news from Deadspin.

So this was a learning experience for me.

As for the articles, I think this series does a good job illustrating the different styles of 3rd person news. Some of them border dangerously on becoming 1st person news, in fact in the story about the protester, the author uses the term “I,” though it’s part of a phrase which is intended to mean “it’s common sense that,” so it’s really not exactly 1st person.

It’s interesting to see how authors are able to write in third person, but give a first person perspective. I’ve always had a hard time with that. I usually feel like I’m really forcing it too much, but these authors seem to be able to do it very naturally.

Max Read appeals to our common sense, Brian Hickey uses stereotypes about sports, and Jeff T. Wattrick is so damn sarcastic you might actually think he means it. Wish I had that.

JOURNALISM 392W - First Person Piece

2010-10-26T17:17:00.001-04:00

It’s the same question every journalism student must face: What’s the point?

David Folkenflik’s story on NPR last week was certainly not the first time I’d heard it. He asked students at the University of Southern California about why they were, or weren’t, completing journalism majors. While he tried to get a well rounded view, his piece couldn’t help giving off the same “doom and gloom” vibe that I find among professors and peers.

When I first heard that I was in a dying field I was in my sophomore year, taking Journalism 225: Readings in Journalism with Razvan Sibii. We were talking about online media, and he was explaining how so much of it is free and user generated. He told us that it was becoming harder and harder to make money in journalism, because anybody can be a journalist. So he asked the inevitable question:

Why are you here?

I remember being taken aback. Is he really telling us there’s no point in being a Journalism major, because anybody can “do journalism?” I’d never thought about it before. Why am I paying whatever exorbitant sum every year to learn how to do something that thousands, if not millions, of people are doing every day with no training at all?

My mind went through a very rapid series of thoughts. Confusion. Helplessness. Fear. Anger. Defiance. Rationalization. Acceptance.

He wasn’t trying to get everyone to walk away, but he was giving us the chance, or at least the opportunity to realize that we were heading for a challenge.

Since then I’ve come to believe that Raz doesn’t really feel journalism is dead by a longshot, but rather that he recognizes the change that has come to the profession. He sees that professional journalists are forced to compete with the booming and unpredictable world of online media, and he knows it isn’t easy. He wants us to understand that the real challenges facing reporters and editors aren’t simply “what’s my next lead,” and “how am I going to make this deadline,” but rather “how am I going to stand out,” and “how am I going to compete in a world where the audience is making news for themselves.”

Journalism is not dead. In fact it’s booming more than we can imagine. Shouldn’t the fact that everyone wants a piece of it clue us into that? Why I’d argue that journalism is at the most popular it’s ever been, which means that it if you want to succeed, it’s more important than ever to have education and training.

Why I Will Never Buy Another JRPG

2010-10-19T21:24:00.000-04:00

Today I was sitting in my room reading the latest issue of GameInformer, and something in the issue really hit home for me.

It was intended to be a humorous article, as the lovely folks at GI often publish, but much of it actually rings true. It's essentially a flow chart of what they refer to as "every RPG ever." I would title it more accurately "every JRPG ever."

Though much of the flow chart is supposed to be funny, the unfortunate fact is that most of it is true, and most of it applies to every JRPG I've ever played.

It's always Amnesia followed by a ritual, followed by some sort of devastating reason to set out on a journey, followed by a Boss you will probably encounter again later, followed by many hours of grinding and acquiring new crap, followed by massive plot twist, followed by more grinding and finishing up sidequests, followed by a seemingly endless final boss sequence.

Seeing this all laid out in front of me brought me to the epiphany that I actually hate JRPGs. I started thinking about the countless hours I've spent in front of them over the years, and I realized that the only JRPG I ever finished was the Final Fantasy III remake for NDS. And that took me a year. I really forced myself to finish that game.

Then I thought about the JRPGs I never finished:

Final Fantasy 1&2 - GBA
Final Fantasy 4 - NDS
Rogue Galaxy - PS2
DQM: Joker - NDS
Final Fantasy 10 - PS2
Final Fantasy 7 - PS
Tales of Symphonia - GCN
and most recently Final Fantasy 13 - PS3.

Then I thought about my overall RPG experience over the years, and all the games I've loved and completed.

Icewind Dale 2 - PC
Diablo - PS
Diablo 2 - PC
Baldur's Gate + Expansions - PC
Baldur's Gate - PS2
X-Men Legends 2 - PS2
Marvel Ultimate Alliance - PS2
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 - PS3
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2 - PC
The Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion - PC
Mass Effect - PC
and my absolute favorite RPG of all time: Neverwinter Nights, which I just started a new game on after almost 10 years of playing it.

Notice anything? NO JRPGs on my completed list. It's not manufactured. It's the truth. I always go buy these "critically acclaimed," or classic JRPGs because I feel like I should like them. And I'll admit that they can be temporarily entertaining, but in retrospect, the sheer unoriginality of them makes me realize that there is very little fresh gaming to be done in JRPGs. The RPGs I've completed and love strive to break from the norms of JRPGs by providing deeper plots, more meaningful choices, and more colorful characters. JRPGs are just rehashed content and the same plot over and over again with a new coat of paint. Well I say f*** 'em. I'm going in tomorrow and trading in my copy of DQ IX, and I don't think I will ever get another JRPG again.

JOURNALISM 392W - First Person Journalism

2010-10-19T19:45:00.001-04:00

These types of stories are always interesting to me. It’s the type of writing I most enjoy doing, because it essentially boils down to storytelling, and since the story being told is one that centers around the tellers experience, the demand for certain journalistic norms like objectivity, neutrality, and specific formula are nearly non-existent. You can really write whatever you want to say about the topic, and you don’t even have to necessarily worry about staying within the confines of common decency, as can be seen in Scott Brodeur’s piece about Joe Lieberman, which is essentially a story about two men peeing.

What I think is important to note is that the newsworthiness of these types of stories often varies a lot from the majority of hard news. For example in the Lieberman story the newsworthiness essentially comes from the novelty of seeing a famous politician in a rest area bathroom, and the fact that it’s a famous politician. In the “Sucking Up” article, the newsworthiness seems to come almost strictly from the emotional proximity the author’s scenario might have to other people. One commonality here is that the newsworthiness for these articles is more about what is newsworthy for the author than what is newsworthy for the reader.

Yet somehow I still find myself interested in reading them. Like I said, I really enjoy first person journalism, but on another level, I’m glad the majority of professional journalism isn’t written in the first person, because I think it has the affect of really detracting from important issues, and discussions of societal trends in favor of gossipy sort of pseudoinformation.

JOURNALISM 392W - Congressman Neal Profile

2010-10-18T19:07:00.001-04:00

I’m not quite sure who Richard Neal is.

I know he represents the Springfield area in the United States Congress. I know he has been a grade school teacher in the past, and is a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. And I know his history of supporting his constituents, their city, and their various causes, has made him well liked as a politician.

But I don’t think I really know who he is.

Last year I took a class with him: the Journalist and the Politician. Great class. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to go into either field. It gives Journalists an idea of what to expect when dealing with politicians, as well as giving people looking to go into politics an idea of how to handle us pesky journalists.

If there’s one thing I took away from that class, it’s that if you want to make it in either politics or journalism, you have to learn how to, in Neal’s own words, “play the game.”
Neal is a real master of this. To him, playing the game is really about putting on the politician mask, and never taking it off until you absolutely know you’re away from prying eyes. You can see this in both his teaching style, and how he handles himself during an interview.

A couple weeks ago I got to do an interview with Neal over the phone. We talked about Springfield’s Magnet Schools Assistance Program. He and Senator Kerry had worked to get this money to support Springfield’s minority students. This is what he said when I asked him why the investment was personally important to him:

“I think it augments 21st century global communication skills, and I think it emphasizes heavily what the new economy looks like. As a former teacher I think assisting these children … is just a good idea and it should be treated as an investment.”

If that’s not a cookie cutter response taken right out of some speech or press release I don’t know what is. I didn’t ask him for that; I asked him why it was personally important.

I remember getting responses like this in his class. Somebody would ask about how he felt about something, or how he would have reacted in a situation, and the response we would get was always like reading out of a textbook. You couldn’t get the guy to tell how he really felt about anything. Any anecdotes he gave were always about times when he won or did something exemplary as a politician.

Later in the interview I tried to get him to open up again. I asked him how he would like to see the money spent. That’s not even a very prying question. He said:

“I really refrain from that. I think the partnership is based upon the priorities that are determined by local officials, with the understanding that having children that excel is something good for America.”

How patriotic, and how very political.

It’s stuff like this that makes it very difficult for me to figure out who he is. He’s a great politician, and a very informative and interesting professor. But I wish I understood him a little better. I guess it all comes back to playing the game though. He’s better at it than most I think. Certainly better than me.

Here's a link to the audio from my interview with Neal:

http://www.zshare.net/myzshare/my-uploads.php

JOURNALISM 392W - Bullying Project

2010-10-05T18:29:00.000-04:00

I think my favorite part of this project so far was the article about the anti-bullying task force by Heikkinen. It was the first one in the series that showed me that something real is being done to affect change in South Hadley Schools. That's something I had not seen before. Most of the coverage up until now has been highly critical of every aspect of the school leading up to and immediately following the case.

Because of that I also think that this project serves a community service purpose. Rather than focus on the conflict and try to determine who was wrong and how to punish everyone, Steve Fox' class is framing this story on a civic level. They are focusing on the community and on the steps being taken to rebuild and restructure. On top of that, they are taking their coverage of the situation and putting in context. They have other articles citing other suicides and what they have been related too. They talk about bullying related to everything from homosexuality to food allergies. I think it's an important part of processing something like this to have it placed within the context of a larger national or global trend.

Having said all of this, I should say that I am a bit concerned that some of the articles are rather shallow. While they have covered many issues, they have rarely been able to dig into them. I would imagine that has a lot to do with being inexperienced or being a college student, but as the project progresses I would like to see more thorough investigation.

JOURNALISM 392W - Knee Jerk Tweeting

2010-10-05T13:49:00.000-04:00

CNN’s political ticker may be my favorite news entity to follow on twitter. One thing I like about it is that it really enables me to make rash judgments about beat style news without considering implications or delving into the issue at all.

I’m actually being serious. For example today the political ticker tweeted “Gingrich advice to GOP: Hammer foodstamps.” Instantly I was furious. I thought, that goddam Newt Gingrch always making life harder for those who already have it tough. Somebody oughta…etc. That was all before I even clicked on the article link, which I won’t get into.

My point is that twitter serves as an excellent outlet for me to sit down and stop being so academic all the time. Look, in a journalism class we all boast about how we like a good in depth story that really delves into an issue. If that’s true, that’s great, but honestly I can’t think of a single time I’ve picked up the Times and read more than two articles (unless I’m really trying). I spend so much time analyzing the hell out of everything in class all day that it can be really refreshing for me to sit down in front of twitter and experience knee jerk reactions to incomplete stories. If you don’t know what I’m talking about try it sometime. I think you’ll agree.

JOURNALISM 392W - Dancing with the Stars Elimination week 2

2010-09-29T01:20:00.000-04:00

Well week two of Dancing with the Stars is over, and another contestant has been voted off the stage. To anyone who watched, it was really no surprise at all.

Michael Bolton delivered quite possibly the worst performance the show has ever seen. In fact the shows most flamboyant, and typically most enthusiastic, judge Bruno Tonioli said it was “probably the worst” in the shows 11 seasons, according to this Hollywood Reporter article.

While Bruno’s criticism was a bit harsh, he hit the nail on the head. The routine was barely passable, and completely unwatchable. That should be evident from the four seconds of it seen in this clip, in which we see extremely poor footwork, and dancing that only your weird uncle who’s drunk at your wedding could get away with…and everybody would talk about what a fool he made out of himself afterwards…

Bolton only got 12 out of the 30 possible points. He followed the elimination last week of David Hasselhoff, who performed almost as badly. Hasselhoff was able to secure 15 points.

JOURNALISM 392W - Q & A Thoughts

2010-09-27T16:07:00.000-04:00

This was a very entertaining series of assignments for me, mostly because this is the kind of stuff I already love to do anyway, so I got to just have fun with my hobby and hand it in for course credit. Hard to argue with that. My absolute favorite type of interview has always been face to face. Unfortunately I didn’t get to do that for any of these assignments, but it was still a good experience.

One thing I liked about these Q & As was that they illustrate very well something we were told about in Journalism 300, but were never really given a good chance to experience. I’m referring to the idea that the face to face interview is the best way to conduct an interview, followed by video chat (like Skype), then by phone, then by back and forth email, and finally by a one shot email. In 300, most of our assignments came in the form of pre-constructed scenarios in which we were given data, facts, and quotes, and told to turn it into a story. Then towards the end we were given two big assignments: the feature and the court feature, and we were simply instructed to do them. Most people did face to face interviews. But never during the semester were we given sequential assignments like this which offer the opportunity to compare different styles and really get a feel for the difference.

Having said that, I think the most challenging style for me was the back and forth email. I can see how it has obvious benefits over the one shot email as it allows you to ask follow up questions, but it was made harder by the fact that I was working on deadline (as we so often are in journalism). See with the one shot email it was simple. I called up my friend, asked her if it would be alright if I sent her some questions to answer, she agreed, and sent them back the next day. I did that two days before the assignment was due. But in the back and forth email, I had to make sure my friend Scott would reply to me in time meaning I couldn’t wait to a day before deadline, because what if he didn’t respond fast enough. Furthermore with the ability to follow up, it becomes easier to get sidetracked, and often becomes a much longer interview than initially intended. Those two factors signify a much greater time commitment, and make for a more stressful situation overall.

As for editing, I was lucky enough not to have to do very much. Richard Neal is a fairly eloquent human being, and I felt that whatever grammatical errors he made did more to add a human element to the interview than detract from it.

JOURNALISM 392W - Q & A # 3

2010-09-27T14:34:00.001-04:00

Richard Neal is the congressional representative from Springfield, Massachusetts. He and Senator John Kerry recently succeeded in securing nearly 12 million dollars in federal money from the Magnet Schools Assistance Program to go towards Springfield Public Schools. I was able to reach the congressman by phone just as he was landing from a flight to Springfield from D.C. He agreed to do a brief Q & A about the grant.

Q: Can you tell me a little bit about the program first just so I can get some background on it?

A: Well, it's under the magnet schools assistance program, and Springfield's had a long and successful history of effectively utilizing these investments. The department of education at the United States level has worked on this for more than fifteen years, so I think that there's substantial evidence here that this improves opportunities for many of the children that are in the Springfield School system.

Q: And can you tell me why this investment is important to you personally?

A: Because I think it augments 21st century global communication skills, and I think that it emphasizes heavily what the new economy looks like. As a former teacher I think assisting these children in Springfield's public schools is just a good idea and it should be treated as an investment, and that's precisely what we're suggesting.

Q: Why do you think Springfield is the right school district for this kind of investment?

A: Well, I think Springfield represents a great laboratory with which to experiment and I think that this is an opportunity for that experiment; taking these students with advanced skills into the new decade. There is here, I think, an understanding that many of the children who might find themselves disadvantaged, none the less, have ample opportunity based upon the assistance that this magnet school proposal is offering t give them the sort of skills they're going to need down the road.

Q: And do other school districts in Mass. have this sort of funding?

A: I believe that Boston would have the same sort of opportunity, as they've had in the past, but we have done very well here over the last few years, based upon this suggestion that there is a partnership with the federal government that allows our students to learn and to grow.

Q: How do you go about securing this money?

A: Well, there are a variety of ways. We're generally called upon to do a little bit of lobbying behind the scenes including through the grant application. We assist the respective school department officials as they raise questions or have questions, and in the past we've helped them get right to the deadline in making sure that it was packaged and applied for at the right time. Now it's done electronically so that we assist them even at this stage.

Q: Can you comment on any of the initiatives? Do you know about how the schools are going to be using the money?

A: Well there's great flexibility that's built in and I think there are going to be an array of choices for students and their parents according to Dr. Ingram [NOTE: the Superintendent] who has been a terrific and, I think, effective advocate on behalf of these children.

Q: Have you thought about how you personally would like to see the money spent?

A: I mean, I really refrain from that. I think the partnership is based upon the priorities that are determined by local officials, with the understanding that having children that excel is something good for America.

EDITORS NOTE: A magnet school is type of education system which sets up different schools which target different types of learning and have highly specialized courses. For example in Springfield they have one school oriented towards fine arts, and one oriented towards science and technology, among others. Also, the Magnet Schools Assistance Program is designed to help draw minority students into this type of educational environment.

Finally, this interview was part of a spot I wrote for WFCR about the MSAP on Friday the 24th. for the full piece, featuring a clip from the interview, click here

JOURNALISM 392W - Dancing with the Stars Live Results Show

2010-09-21T21:38:00.001-04:00

What a well done show. I think DWTS is my guiltiest pleasure when it comes to TV watching. From the opening performance featuring Santana, a favorite of mine, I was instantly hooked.

I don't know what it is, but the show is somehow able to keep me hooked. I don’t even really like dance so much, but I think it’s a combination of the completely star-studded nature of the whole affair and the biting and flamboyant commentary on the part of the judges. I love to hate them when they bash people I like, and love them when they bash people I hate.

Anybody who didn’t see the show, I would highly recommend looking up the clip of Santana and India Arie doing “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.” I think this was my favorite part of tonight’s show. This is such an excellent classic rock ballad, and oh God, Santana is just so spectacular at it. India Arie has an amazing voice as well and with the exception of the rendition performed at the concert for George Harrison, I think this is the best this song has been.

JOURNALISM 392W - Picture Post

2010-09-21T19:45:00.001-04:00

This is a picture from a New York Times article out today called “Afghan Boys Are Prized, So Girls Live the Part.” I read it in this morning’s Times and I found this picture to be a very interesting symbol of the both the story’s message, and the issue at hand.

The piece is about a phenomenon, which occurs in Afghanistan in which families who bear no sons will often choose one of their daughters to dress up and raise as a boy. It was an extremely well written feature, which I felt was prize winning material. Among other things the story details the social and cultural pressure on these families and young girls, the varying degrees of success these attempts at transformation achieve, and the frequent emotional stress inflicted upon these “bacha posh,” an Afghan expression meaning “dressed as boy,” when they are told it is time to go back to being a girl, typically around the age of puberty.

The reason I was drawn to this picture is because it illustrates the reality of the culture surrounding Afghan children. It shows three girls, all sisters. On the right the two girls are sitting, dressed in matching “girly” outfits. On the left the girl, Mehran, wears a decidedly male outfit, and stands separate from the other girls. Her hair is cropped short, and while she definitely looks like a boy, something in her face, perhaps the positioning of her hand so similar to the other girls, shows that she is still one of them. I see the standing and separation as signs of the males’ superiority in the culture.

I highly recommend the article. I found it compelling and it made me want to reach out to those who do not experience the same degrees of equality we do in America.

Summer Feature with Leonard Nimoy

2010-09-21T18:17:00.000-04:00

This is the first of my past work I'm putting up here. I did this piece over the summer in August (2010). It's a feature story with Leonard Nimoy about his most recent photography exhibit at MassMOCA. I interviewed him at a gallery in Northampton, MA. Wish I could get the player to work. Anyway, here's the link!

Leonard Nimoy Reveals "Secret Selves" In MassMOCA Photo Exhibit

JOURNALISM 392W - Q & A #2

2010-09-20T23:06:00.001-04:00

Scott Maxson is a Junior at UMass Amherst and a Resident Assistant in Washington Tower. I knew Scott was involved in something called Parkour, but I didn't know much about it, so I asked him if he would be willing to answer some questions. It proved to be an enlightening and at times hilarious (as I think you'll find) conversation. Here's what he told me.

Q: Tell me a little bit about what Parkour is?

A: Parkour is the art of getting from point A to point B as efficiently as possible given only the human body. So if I had to get from one side of a wall to another side of a wall, rather than walk all the way around the wall, I would just climb up the wall and go over it. It has evolved into a discipline almost like a martial art, in that by training you can make your mind and body capable of more effective ways of overcoming obstacles.

Q: Are you part of a group that does Parkour? If so tell me a bit about them.

A: I am a member and the treasurer of UMass Parkour. The club meets twice a week. We don’t just do Parkour. There’s this other similar art called free running which is less about efficiency, and more about flashy things like flips. We have about 60 members.

Q: Before, you compared Parkour to a martial art. In many martial arts there are symbols like belts which signify your skill level. How, if at all, is skill level measured or signified in Parkour?

A: It’s nearly impossible to measure Parkour level quantitatively. In martial arts you can do it because knowledge of specific moves or katas signifies your rank. For Parkour what you learn is much less concrete. It’s more about figuring out your body. There are certain techniques that we teach, but in the end what it comes down is how capable you are of moving your body to adapt to the situation. It’s pretty much a qualitative judgment. It’s also different for each person because our own bodies and physical conditions vary so strongly. What is an impressive feat for one person might be more or less so for someone else given different strengths, weaknesses, or handicaps.

Q: Is it dangerous?

A: It depends. Anything can be dangerous. If you push yourself too far, and start doing things like jumps that are very far outside your development, sure it can be dangerous. But with enough training what may have been dangerous once, will become less dangerous.

Q: How would you qualify your own Parkour skill level?

A: I would say I’m an experienced practitioner, but I still have a long way to go. There’s no end point to the journey unless you can somehow manage to reach some level of mental and physical enlightenment that gives you perfect form no matter what the situation is. That would be cool. I guess that’s the goal. Personally I think I’m capable, and certainly better than I was at first.

Q: Think of the most epic awesome Parkour experience you’ve ever had personally. Now try describing it for me in detail.

A: Well there’s some stuff that means a lot to me, because I’ve worked up to it, but one of my favorite stories to tell is a little off color. It wasn’t part of any organized Parkour activity, but I was able to do what I did because of my Parkour training. What happened was, I was streaking through this town at night in the middle of winter. Don’t ask why. Anyway this cop car came up and the guy got out and told me to stop running and stay still. I figured I could probably outrun him, so I started booking it down this road. Turns out this cop was faster than I gave him credit for, and he was chasing me down. There was this fence up ahead that I knew would throw him off because there was a 15 foot drop on the other side. So I hopped it and rolled out on the other side. Rolling is big in Parkour. I remember he looked so dumbfounded up on top of the drop. He kept telling me to stop and I was like “nope!” I ran into the woods and hopped up in this tree. I’m not sure what happened but after a little while these lights started shining round the woods and the cops were searching for me. I remember I was sitting butt naked up in a tree in the middle of a winter night as these cops were passing right below me. Anyway I didn’t get caught, but it was pretty intense.

JORUNALISM 392W - New people on twitter

2010-09-14T19:48:00.002-04:00

Since I already have a twitter, this was kind of interesting. I was already following most of the people or groups I thought would be fun, but I added a few more, so here it goes.

The first person I added was Simon Pegg. He popped up as a verified account on people to follow sidebar, and he's hilarious, so I went for it. For those of you who don't know, he's an actor who usually portrays some ridiculous or funny British man.

Next I realized I'm not following any sports teams, or personalities, and I thought that was a bit remiss so I added the Major League Soccer Insider, the NY Red Bulls, and the NY Mets. I tried to find a legit looking NY Giants page, but had no luck. If anybody wants to recommend one I'd appreciate it.

Then I found Wil Wheaton. I had to follow him. He was the actor who portrayed Wesley Crusher in Star Trek the Next Generation. I had heard he had sort of a cult following, and since I'm already following Brent Spiner (Data) and Leonard Nimoy (Spock from the original series) I figured I'd add him to that list.

Next I followed The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. No explanation required.

After that I followed Twitter, because I figured that might come in handy if there are any major changes or additions to the site.

Lastly I added Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer. They're two of my favorite anchors, and I have a sort of CNN trend going now because I already subscribe to CNNBRK, which is there breaking news page.

Most of these are for entertainment purposes, with the exception of the sports ones and the last two. Those I'll use for news. Following celebrities can be a mixed bag. Some of them are twitter crazy, others never use it, and still others use it so sporadically that it can be really frustrating to follow them. Wil Wheaton and Simon Pegg look like that won't be an issue.

JOURNALISM 392W - Q & A #1

2010-09-13T23:20:00.006-04:00

June Hart is a graduate student in the Environmental Conservation department here at UMass. We have known each other since high school and over the course of the last five years she has told me about her experiences growing up in a variety of places. One of her most memorable was Egypt where she lived from the ages of 8 to 10. She has also lived in Burundi, Brazil, and in a couple of different states. She agreed to tell me about some of her more memorable moments in Egypt.

BA: Tell me about some of your memories from Egypt.

JH: We did all sorts of things. Camel riding, visiting the great pyramids, snorkeling in the Red Sea. It was an incredibly unique place with an interesting culture and environment. I’ll always remember the sandstorms too. They can be really dangerous, but they were kind of fun to experience…from a safe place.

BA: Why were you in Egypt?

JH: My dad is an international business consultant, which basically means he’s an economist but he focuses on working with trade organizations. It was a U.S. government job. I was just along for the ride. I went to an American school there.

BA: What was daily life like in Egypt? How was it different from your life in the U.S?

JH: We never had school on Fridays, but we did on Sundays. That was because Friday is the Muslim Holy day. Several times a day you would hear prayers going on. It was part of their routine. The people would stop whatever they were doing, set up their prayer mats, face East, and do this prayer. I had a nanny who would do this named Aziza. Another unique thing was that there were armed guards everywhere. They were like our police, except they were with the military and carried loaded rifles.

BA: Did you do any sightseeing while you lived there and if so tell me a bit about it.

JH: We went to see the Pyramids. You could ride horses up to them or take guided tours inside. At that point you could get really close to them, but you couldn’t climb on them. You could go inside of a few of them. I’m not sure how close you can get to them anymore. But I remember going inside was kind of neat. It was really dark and creepy and there were mice scurrying around. I remember thinking “Why would they build all this just to rot in?” Some of the tombs were really interesting though. They had some artifacts like pottery and figurines in them, though most of the stuff had been removed to museums. The tour guide taught me how to read hieroglyphs.

BA: Was there anything else about your time in Egypt that stands out in your memories?

JH: There were really relaxing felucca tours. Those are Egyptian sailing boats that toured the Nile. They would go through some of the more commercial areas, but also through some really cool locations where we would sail through papyrus stalks. I remember the guide teaching us how to make paper, but I don’t remember the process. I still have this bejeweled regal black cat painting on papyrus.

NOTE: This interview was conducted via email on September 11th through September 13th.

JOURNALISM 392W - Intro Post

2010-09-13T13:57:00.000-04:00

Hi everyone. I hope you all had a great first week back. Mine was really busy. Anyway, I’m a Junior Journalism major, and I took this course because it seemed like a logical choice. At some point during every Journalism class I’ve taken the professor has made some comment about how the internet is the future of journalism. I’ve heard over and over again how print news will become obsolete and replaced by online news almost entirely. I figured it would be helpful to get a firm grounding in online news since there are probably more available jobs online than there are in print, radio, and TV combined. Furthermore, I would like to get an internship with a larger news group next summer (I’m currently working with WFCR), so I figure online experience can’t hurt.

Movie News: The Hobbit

2010-05-26T17:17:00.003-04:00

Editors note: The following post was written by Dan Petrelli, a fellow nerd, good friend, and new contributor to the Axe Factor. Enjoy.

In case you hadn't heard, there's a Hobbit film due out for 2012.

This is old news, but still worth getting excited about. If I had a buddy who was in a coma for the past ten years and who upon waking wanted to know what the most important movies of the 2000s were, I'd show him the Lord of the Rings trilogy first. The LOTR films were, at least in my mind, the biggest movie event of the last decade. Then again, it doesn't hurt that I'm a huge fan of both the books and the films (they are two different entities, for those of you who haven't read 'em). But fans and non-fans alike loved these movies, because they were awesome. Great acting, great effects, great costumes, great sets.

So an incoming Hobbit film should be a source for excitment. After all, The Hobbit was the original story. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings later, as a kind of greatly-expanding sequel. Characters like Gollum and Gandalf are still around. And for those confused by the elaborate and intricate scope of the other films, The Hobbit is simpler and should make for a much more straightforward, coherent watch. And hey...more Lord of the Rings! Should be good enough for anyone.

That said, not everything is looking rosy. The biggest issues of concern are that the original director, Peter Jackson, isn't directing. Wtf? He's producing, sure, but due to a number of legal squibbles surrounding the original trilogy, he didn't sign up to direct. Something about never directing for New Line again. And switching directors mid-franchise seldom works out (X-Men 3?).

Things that don't look good

• New Director: Guillermo Del Toro

At first glance, Del Toro seems like a decent choice. He hasn't done much, but Pan's Labyrinth was good, and it was a fantasy movie, and his Hellboy movies incorporate some fantasy elements.
But wait! The guy doesn't even like Lord of the Rings! Check this interview out from 2006:

Interviewer: I couldn't help thinking of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis in this film. Were you a fan of those books?
Del Toro: I was never into heroic fantasy. At all. I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits -- I've never been into that at all. I don't like sword and sorcery, I hate all that stuff.

Hey, what? Who the fuck hired this guy? Sure buddy, you hate Lord of the Rings...because Hellboy was better. Oh, come on.
So I think having a director that doesn't actually like Tolkien qualifies as an area of concern. Of course, after he was attached, he changed his song quickly and started talking about how when he re-read the books, he really liked them, blah blah blah, bullshit bullshit. The internet doesn't forget, my friend.

• Two Movies

Actually, at first this looked sweet. When they originally announced The Hobbit, they mentioned a mysterious "second film" that would cover "other events" and lead into Fellowship. Later, Jackson leaked a little of what this second film was going to be...

Jackson, 2006: "There [are] a lot of sections [in The Hobbit] in which a character like Gandalf disappears for a while. From memory – I mean, I haven't read it for a while now – but I think he references going off to meet with the White Council, who are actually characters like Galadriel and Saruman and people who we see in Lord of the Rings. He mysteriously vanishes for a while and then comes back, but we don't really know what goes on."

I'll tell you what's going on. In the background of The Hobbit, The White Council (like he said, Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel, Cirdan) launches an attack on a shadowy figure calling himself The Necromancer, who has set up shop in Mirkwood (the woods Legolas is from) and has been up to no good. In fact, directly prior to the events of The Hobbit, Gandalf is undercover in the dungeons of the Necromancer trying to find clues of who he really is. Instead of finding out, he discovers an old dwarf, Thrain II, who has a treasure map that shows the location of the lost Arkenstone. Gandalf puts together a party of dwarves to go recover their lost stone, and Bilbo Baggins (the uncle of Frodo Baggins, who gives him the ring in the beginning of Fellowship) gets brought reluctantly along. With one expedition set up, Gandalf reports his findings to the White Council, and they debate over what to do. They decide to attack, and in doing so discover that The Necromancer is actually SAURON, or some shadow of him. They expel him, but know that another war is coming.
So basically, we get all the coolest characters (and some of the best acting talent) from LOTR together in a big council: Gandalf played by Ian McKellan, Elrond by Hugo Weaving, Saruman by Christopher Lee, Galadriel by Cate Blanchett, and Cirdan the Shipwright (that old guy at Grey Havens at the very very end of Return of the King) played by a total nobody.

And this council decides to wage wizard war on some mysterious wooded fortress inhabited by the Dark Lord Sauron, likely slaying large numbers of goblins and wolves in doing so, probably ended by a climactic boss battle. That sounds, well, awesome. I'd go see that.
Unfortunately, more recent comments suggest that instead of making this awesome second movie, they're just going to split The Hobbit into two parts. What a downer. First of all, The Hobbit can fit into one movie. It's not that long. Second, I want to watch that other movie.
Recent comments suggest that they just place these events alongside The Hobbit. I don't really know where a natural "split" in the Hobbit would be though. It's got one clear story arc. Let's hope they figure it out.

• Talking Animals

Not sure what to make of this, but Del Toro has made some odd comments about wanting more talking animals in the film. His rationale is reasonable: at the end, the dragon Smaug can talk, so why can't other animals talk? The same goes for the spiders that capture the dwarves in Mirkwood Forest; they chat pretty freely. So Del Toro reasons, why not have more animals talk?
I guess the obvious answer is, because they don't talk in LOTR? Hopefully we don't get any George-Lucas-style retcon revisions with Sam's pony Bill replying "good-bye Sam" at the entrance to the Mines of Moria.

Inherent continuity troubles

These aren't specific to this production, but to anyone trying to make prequels to Jackon's trilogy.

• The Ring

We all know by now that the ring Bilbo finds in Gollum's cave is The One Ring, but when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, it wasn't yet. Nope, for the purposes of this book, it's just a ring that grants invisibility. Tolkien decided later that he wanted to expand its importance.
And the ring works a little differently. In LOTR, when Frodo puts the ring on, he sees the Spirit Realm (where there's a big evil red eye, and Nazgul look white), but in The Hobbit, Bilbo just goes invisible without any weird side effects.
Needless to say, this is a shift in tone. If they decide to stay true to the book, they need to downplay the weirdness of the Ring to its original simple magic, but if they want to stay connected to the films, they will need to change its effects to match their portrayal in the trilogy. We'll see.

• Elves

Elves are good guys in LOTR, but they're bastards in The Hobbit. They trick and tie up the dwarves, leaving it to invisible-Bilbo to spring them out of their dungeons. And when they show up at the end, they're bastards again. It's not a problem or anything, but for folks who have only seen the film, having the pure and noble elves be total dicks is going to feel weird.

• Wolves

This is another tone piece, but Del Toro has already said that he's going to be revising the way the wolves looked in LOTR. Not a major point, but he said that Wargs need to be changed because "the classical incarnation of the demonic wolf in Nordic mythology is not a hyena-shaped creature." In other words, I don't like how you did it, Jackson. I'm kinda with you on that one, GDT, that whole Warg scene was written in to Two Towers and was pretty extraneous.

Things that look good

Ok, enough griping. There's still plenty to be excited about.

• Returning actors

The films have only three definite returners so far:

1. Gandalf (Ian McKellan) is back. Thank god. This is pretty much reason enough to go see it.
2. Gollum (Andy Serkis) is back. Awesome. They also stated that they will be using the same technology, which is fine because it looks fine.
3. Elrond (Hugo Weaving) is back. And if they show the Mirkwood siege, we could even see him fight.

There's room for some other returners though:

1. Since both The Hobbit and the other movie visit Mirkwood at a time when Legolas would be living there, there's no reason they couldn't invite Orlando Bloom back for a cameo. Note that Elves don't age, so that's not an issue.
2. Gimli isn't around yet, but he's the son of Gloin, who is one of the twelves dwarves, so casting John Rhys-Davies with different makeup isn't out of the question.
3. Ian Holm plays Bilbo in LOTR. That role is a relatively small one, whereas Bilbo's role in The Hobbit is central/title character, so my guess with Hollywood is that they wouldn't use the same guy. However, Del Toro said he wanted every actor to reprise their role, including Ian Holm, so maybe it'll happen. I would like that fine. Not only would it connect the two movies better, but honestly, Holm did a great job. Though I might spend half the movie in fear of Bilbo making that evil face again like in Fellowship.
4. Christopher Lee as Saruman. Might not happen. Not only does Saruman not appear in The Hobbit, but Lee has already stated that he didn't want to return to NZ again, due to health reasons. Which is too bad, because if they DO show the White Council side of the story, Saruman would have a complicated role. At that point, he's partly corrupted...but not all the way. This would be a great chance to show the corruption in process; a nice nuanced piece for a fantastic actor.

• Smaug

At the end of the story (spoilers), they encounter a dragon called Smaug who has the Arkenstone in his possession. After what this special effects team did with the Balrog, there's plenty of reason to be excited about their portrayal of a dragon. Not only that, Del Toro has a thing for dragons which makes me believe he's not going to screw it up. His favorite portrayal of dragons is apparently Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, which is honestly pretty cool.

• Spectral Motion

Del Toro wants to put some animatronics in there, which is fine with me. The animatronics sequences in Hellboy were my favorite part of the films. (What to animate? Probably the trolls and the spiders.)

• Beorn

Beorn is one of my favorite Tolkien characters, and if you don't know who he is, I won't spoil it. I can't wait for a modern portrayal.

That's all I've got. If that's not enough, I recommend theonering.net for rabid, hyper-vigilant Hobbit news, including casting rumors both founded and unfounded. And for a fantastic FAQ
Thanks to anyone who slogged through all of it, and thanks to Axe for letting me hijack his blog for a while. Petrelli out.

Review: Final Fantasy XIII: First Impressions

2010-03-11T12:31:00.003-05:00

First of all this won't be a full review, as the game is long and I'm only on the Fourth Chapter. To start it off, here's the official trailer if you haven't seen it already.

The first thing I want to say is that, as expected, this is the most visually impressive Final Fantasy ever. Sometimes I have to double check to see if the cutscene I'm watching is pre-rendered or uses in game graphics. Most of them obviously use in game graphics, but that doesn't detract from the experience. Emotions and animations all look very realistic regardless of being in game graphics. The only visual complaint I have is that some of the textures are a little muddier than expected. Final Fantasy has always been known for its stunning graphics, so I sort of expected crystal clarity from everything. I guess thats my fault for having too high expectations, and for playing it on a 46 inch screen.

The chief criticism the game has been getting is that it's so different from past Final Fantasy entries in the gameplay mechanics that hardcore fans are not pleased. Well I say to hell with them. I will admit, as a huge fan of FFX, I hated the fact at first that combat resembled that traditional turn based style in no way at all. First of all, combat is real time, so like in many other FFs, you have a time guage that you have to keep track of. That's not what threw me off. In every other FF, you have control over every characters actions. You can say to your black mage "cast firaga," and she'll do it. In this, you have control over only one character, the party leader, during combat. The other party members perform predetermined actions based on their jobs, which are controlled via a new function called the "Paradigm Shift." It took a little warming up to, but after working with it for some time, I now enjoy the combat system quite a bit. Narrowing it down to one character keeps things a little more focused, and allows combat to be faster paced. It has a more action packed feel than turn based, though at its core it is still turn based. You still have to keep track of your parties HP and buffs/debuffs so that you know when to paradigm shift. Here's a look at what to expect from combat.

One of the nice things the game does is ease you in very gradually. There is so much new material here that it takes a while to get used to. I've been playing for about 4 or 5 hours already and I'm only just getting into upgrading items and whatnot. Two things that I think will shock veterans. You only have 3 stats: HP, Magic, and Strength. While this may seem overly simple, it actually works to the advantage of the player, keeping things more focused. It also helps you cope with debuffs easier, as it takes less time to select the right heal for them. The second shocker is that the game is completely linear. I don't mean like FFX linear, I mean like there is no revisiting old areas...ever. But the nice thing is that you don't ever need to. There are no towns, because all shopping is done via save points.

Bleh...I wish I had more time. I don't want to give away to many spoilers, so as far as characters go I'll say this. Hope looks like a chick, but is a dude with, as previously mentioned, an Oedipus complex. He's essentially a big sissy hellbent on revenge against a big tool (Snow). There is nothing cool about him, yet. Sazh is overall a walking stereotype, though having said that, he seems to be the only character who is somewhat grounded in reality, and his afro doubles as a birds nest, so I'm cool with him. Lightning's a bitch with attachment issues who throws punches like dude, so I like her. Vanille is super peppy with an annoyingly high voice. She's like santa...in a candy shop...on ecstasy...getting laid. She sucks. Snow looks like he should be cool...like Auron cool...but it turns out he's just a scene idiot who other scene idiots look up to. Having said that, the story, while a bit convoluted at first, seems to be pretty cool so far. K...I gotta go to class.

Review: Planet Hulk

2010-02-11T18:23:00.002-05:00

Well folks, here it is, your first of many Axe Factor reviews. I picked up the recent Planet Hulk release on Blu-Ray on Tuesday, and I've got to say, I liked it. The Hulk is my absolute favorite super-hero of all time, so I was wary of what this release would do to what I consider his best story arc to date on one hand, but eager to dive into this animated version of Planet Hulk on the other.

First of all, if you haven't read Planet Hulk yet, and are a fan of the Marvel Universe, definitely go pick up the book. It takes the Hulk out of his normal environment (Earth) and throws him headfirst into an even more hostile world, which he, of course, conquers. This animated version did a lot of things right. The voice acting was nothing outstanding, but did justice to the characters, and was solid throughout. The animation was quite impressive. While the artists do a reasonably good job of bringing the new planet to life, where they really shine is in their ability to bring the Hulk's all consuming rage and strength into sharp focus. Kudos! The plot is fairly close to the comic, however it's deviations are primarily what caused me to deduct a point an a half from my rating.

While the story overall is solid, there are several key omissions that hurt it pretty badly. They actually leave out the true ending to the story, which leads me to believe that there are no plans for the equally excellent WW:H sequel. They also swap out the silver surfer for Beta Ray Bill, due to licensing issues. Several large chunks of the original plot have been removed for the sake of time throughout, and while the story still stands, I feel that in the comic, those sections allowed you to explore and delve into this new world, so they should have been left in.

I won't say more, because I don't want to give away too much, but I'll leave you with this. As far as Marvel animated features go, this is the best. If you like them pick it up, but if your not a fan of the Hulk or Marvel, you may not find that this really drags you in. The Blu-Ray is chocked full of some excellent Bonus features as well, so if you have the option, go with Blu-Ray over DVD.