living newspaper

Election Predictions. Look into a crystal ball and I'll Tell ya who'll win. And some will say one thing, others will say the contrary and in the end person A or person B will have predicted correctly, through luck more then any talent of their own and they'll inevitably spend the next four years patting themselves on the back for it. News media is covering EVERY angle of these elections. AOL is tireringly Republican and for this VERY liberal girl, it became redundant and irritating enough to send me else where for news. And elsewhere I found I liked what I saw. Polls were more on my side then AOL had let on EVER, and details where not being skipped and a platform was not being pushed. CNN reporters were refreshingly well rounded. The Yahoo reports definitely steared more toward the left. But what I noticed about all the sites was their use of video clips to not only share the debates long after it had actually occurred, but also to relate the news, to display and relay the facts through visual and audio sensory reception as opposed to the very cranial process of reading. But the news was the same as reading a newspaper article. A traditional newspaper article, uninfected by reporters "blogging" instead of reporting, these video clips where newspaper articles brought to life. Through color and motion and sound no longer where long sentences printed in ridiculously uncomfortable to read 8 pt print black ink on grey paper, but alive for the viewer to take in instantly, without the comprehension translation that occurs during reading. It was all spoon fed to the views, like caramelized onions and candied yams, made sweet for easier ingestion. And I thought to myself "how brilliant this is" that news can now become live action, as opposed to just mental translation. It was a brilliant way to use the Internet. Forget just including a typed story on an online page, you carry the story out in front of a camera and include it as a bite on a page filled with photos on the same event. CNN video was the best, dedicating an entire section of there website to only the video coverage of COMMENTARY, just like a newspaper article would be, instead of just recording video footage of the actual events for viewing at a later time. And it was SO much more effective then ordinary news broadcasts on TV. Those broadcasts always seek to entertain too, so a dramatic spin is always put into each story, each broadcast, which taints the news and sort of irritates the shit out of those who are watching and really just wanted to know what happened that day. It's like trying to candy spinach,,... the ingredients are just all wrong. By taking articles like they'd be written in a newspaper, filled with facts as opposed to drama, and placing into a medium that is itself candy like to ingest, you're using the right ingredients and the correct format. It's such an effective new way to report news. It's sort of like books on tape, only visual too, and not filled with story, but with facts that are presented to you as if you're getting those facts first hand, looking into the eye of the human being that collected them, as opposed to black ink rubbing off on your hands as you fumble through page after page that's way more then an arms length apart and eye straining to take in.

These video clips really were the best way to discuss the debates and relay the information in an unobstructed and approachable way. CNN video was really brilliant, but I noticed more then one website had commentary included on videos. Yes they all had typed articles attached to their news features, but EVERY news feature included this kind of video clip as well, and it was effective. They could play back parts of the debate that had inspired reactions in them and quote directly on a paused frame of footage, as opposed to having to go back and reconstruct the area of the debate by layering word upon word in descriptive text, in a way sooo few writers have enough command over for most readers to comprehend, much less enjoy. You don't have to discribe what you're able to show. Without the burden of having to describe you can then fit in so much more information, because nobody will be using brain energy just to get the idea and setting of it all. Descriptive information like that becomes reliable back drop, we know it's there because we see it so we don't really have waste much mental energy on it and can leave all the excess brain space to absorbing more discussion and fact relay, It's really a lovely idea. Plus, when a reporter is describing another's face, their description is inevitably molded by their interpretation of the candidate. If all the reporter is doing is sharing their commentary through a play back, you, the viewer, can see the face of the candidate yourself, you maintains the final judgement, and there's no risk of a reporter interjecting their emotional response to a candidates gestures before you get to view it yourself.

It's wonderful, when reading a novel, to piece together the authors words into a world of your own invention. That same device is so detrimental to relaying facts. It's much more effective to let people see for themselves, even see the reporters of those facts themselves, so they can make decisions about the person reporting the facts. I watched the debate on my own. My interpretation was one of disappointment mostly. I found the debates to be very dry and uneventful and found McCain being much more charming then I believed he could be. I was a little frightened actually. Yet I saw Obama not backing down, not loosing his resolve to give into John McCains attacks, and it was definately encouraging. It's always impressive to see a young man behaving more maturely and controled then an older man. It's a huge statement of the young man's character. Yet to visually be given an comment on specific points of the debate was so much simpler then having a reporter describe which part they meant in the text of the report. Plus I could see the person who was reporting. That made everything seem more honest. I enjoy this new kind of reporting. Videos are an immensely effective new format for article information. It was actually after reading articles printed in the New York Times that I realized how closely related were the video clips I'd seen on CNN the day before. Honestly, I felt the style and format of the information distribution was identical, but the presentation had been amplified through color and sound. I loved the translation. It was amazingly effective and I hope everyone will visit CNN Video, and watch these video bites on the debate.

Pit of my stomach

There's a glob of emotional sewage growing ever larger in my stomach. Honestly sometimes I find it difficult to eat. I've suspected wrong doing ever since the Obama/Clinton race for the democratic nomination for presidential candidate and it's getting worse not better. Intrusive and heavier everyday I log onto AOL.com, this emotional infestation is hunching my shoulders and greying my hair along with ruining my appetite.
In 2002 I got a job working at the Norwalk Hour Newspaper in Norwalk, CT. It serves the Lower Fairfield County area. They offered email addresses through a little known browser named Netscape, and ever since then, I've logged on every single day, at least once a day to gather and send emails. Not long ago Netscape was over taken by AOL, which in itself became a free service, much to the joy of all my friends parents who had been paying for it for so long. The look of my email page changed, it didn't work as well, but every important contact I had was familiar with my netscape email address, so I continued to use it faithfully. Perhaps it was AOL's advanced talent with web design, a more clever and interesting appearance then netscape, or their relentless placement of featured news announcements on the log in screen to my email account, but I began to read the news every day. Come election time, I was so addicted to what was going on I'd log into AOL to read the news alone, forgetting about my email. I'd never really done this before. Honestly it was a phenomenon. I'd been proud and blissful being an uninformed artist, soully existing in her imagination and shunning the out side world (?????). A pretty excuse for denial I realize, but that's discussion for another blog.
Being artistic is a blessing. You're always content in your own world, your mind occupies itself with fancy, there's always a place to go without leaving the confines of your own room. This makes brain washing pretty damn impossible. So, even though I was reading AOL's news every day, certain features started to pop their ugly mugs out at me. For example, Every time I read about Hillary Clinton, there was a negative and damning headline accompanied by a series of 500 photographs from the most recent speech/rally or convention that where 500 times more unflattering. She's not a gorgeous woman, but lighting can do wonders, and professional photographers know that. They weren't unflattering by accident. The headlines of these articles would always read "Clinton comes off as racist" or "Hillary Not Well received", with some half quote attached to it. Slightly more discriminating then most, I read the entire article. Within the article of course the facts were relayed and the quote completed, the headline featured issues were put into context (at least slightly so) and quickly became malignant in comparison to their advertised previews. As I flipped through the photos I realized almost every photo was taken from a down ward angle, with Hillary's face in a grimace and eye brows furrowed. A few here and there showed her with her daughter Chelsea in an embrace or encouraging glance exchange, but to get to those you'd have to be willing to stick through the first 250 that had presented her poorly. What materialized from this was the realization that most people are not as obsessive as I am. They won't read the whole article or flip through all 500 photos. They're content with the headlines, or first paragraph and won't bother to look beyond the first 10 photos. These AOL reporters were getting away with back door reporting. Yeah they reported the truth, after you dug through two pages of twisted quotations and 250 paparazzi prize photos. It was horrid.
Mean while EVERY photo of Obama made him look like a prince. Really, the big smile, the camera angle looking up at his glowing smile, with the sunlight behind him. Like some sun God or modern Messiah. Now I like Obama. I have no problem telling you that not only will he be getting my vote for president in November, but I've donated to his campaign twice. I believe in his views and I'm down right inspired by his style of leadership. But poor Hillary! The "angle" of the democratic presidential campaign on the AOL sight was painfully clear, and really sickening. I like Hillary Clinton too. Honestly, I was rooting for her for the presidential nomination; I thought Obama would have been a brilliant VP. What made me happy about the democratic situation was that in the end, I believed in both candidates, and knew I'd be happy to support either. But these AOL folks, they were vicious. Hillary was Satan and Obama was a saint. It was fuckin' sick! How the hell could they call themselves reporters when they were campaigning for their personal choices through their articles. It pissed me off, and as I read the message boards located directly under the daily articles, it was igniting the same response in the other's who, like me, had taken the time to pick through the details.
Now here's the rub, the place where things really start to churn and thud around in my tender tummie. Fast forward to current articles on the AOL page, and they're now using the same negative camera angles and chopped quote headlines toward Obama, and the sympathetic headlines and flattering camera angles for Sarah Palin. EEEEWWWWWW. The back stabbery is ohhh sooo Shakespearean. It's slice, tear and rip can be felt all throughout cyberdom. How terribly uncreative to work at picking the candidate for the democratic ticket, build him a pedestal so high no eye could see any other but him, just to be able to control, or think you could control the detonation of that pedestal when the time was ripe. Who the hell owns AOL? And where's the picture of them and Cindy and John at the Hensley and Co. 2007 Christmas party??? Somebody tell me please! And now, for the poison that set me over the edge today, take a look please at the new AOL celebrity feature "Houses of the Stars". Click through three pictures of "This is where Anthony Hopkins spends time with his wife", with no mention of past divorces and "This was Sean Penn's home with Robin Wright" with no mention of current marital trouble, and more of the like, to photo #4 of Obama's $1.7 million dollar home (Not much more expensive then what most of the lawyers around here live in) and then read the quote attached to it. Okay, Okay,...I'm happy to tell you:
"Concrete Barriers, steel barricades and "no parking" signs are what neighbors have to deal with Barack Obama living near by in his $1.65 million home." Hmmmm. Let's think what that's meant to do? If you're eyes have blinked you've had enough time to get this one. It's pretty damn obvious. And how sickening. Especially since McCain can't even remember how many homes he owns! Keep flipping and you'll see three more prominent political figures featured. Bloomberg, Republican mayor of New York City and his 45 million dollar brownstone (!!!!!!!) and Bill and Hillary Clinton and their 1.3 million dollar Dutch vacation home. You seeing a trend here? Cause this writer's definitely got a view point she's pushin on ya! Only I'm not calling myself a reporter am I? I'm not telling you these are the facts as they have presented themselves. I'm letting you know my interpretation of everything I've been observing, and you know it's my personal view point. Maybe you don't share my opinions, but at least you know that's what they are, and exactly where they came from. I'm not telling you this is what is fact and truth and please look no further! That's not reporting, it's campaigning, and that is NOT the job of the press.
We can't really trust these people can we? Where once, or ideally we're supposed to depend on them to reveal social truths others have no access to, we now have to rely on our Internet savvy to gather RAW information for ourselves. It's hard work though, and we really don't have that much time to do it, at least not without risking our jobs or college careers by spending inappropriate amounts of time browsing instead of working or paying attention to our teachers presentations. The press has a responsibility to us all. A duty of sorts, whether they have to be certified and sworn in like Doctors and Lawyers (though that ones a laugh) or not. We need reporters in our society, to dig out the truths for us, 'cause it's a full time job we just can't do in our spare time. Who has spare time anymore any way? AOL should hang there heads in shame for such an absolute abuse of all reporting is suppose to contribute to free thought and autonomy. What if Doctors just started operating on "What ever" once they had you under the knife, or Pilots just decided, "You know where I REALLY want to go this weekend" and took the turn there instead of where you'd paid to go? This crap is unethical, and I can't believe someone hasn't called them out and taken them down for indulging in it so regularly and decadently! I'm disheartened and disgusted, I really am.

ABC Charlie Gibson/ Sarah Palin- Oucch!

OH GOD HELP!!! Did any of you see Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC? Check it out on you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdIni2XhBT0.
Not only does she NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTION she's asked in a direct fashion, but she's unaware of the subject matter on more then one topic. Her first response to almost every question is wide eyed "DUHHH". Seriously, check out the interview! Mr. Gibson does not seem impressed by her at all and he politely eats her answers alive and points out her obvious avoidance of direct answers. Specifically when asked "Do you believe in the Bush Doctrine" she answers, "In what respect Charlie?" he answers, "How do you interpret it?" She answers, "His World View",,, he then says, "No, THE BUSH DOCTRINE, and then has to tell her what it is, what is included in the Doctrine... that we have a right to preemptive strikes against other countries. She didn't know what it was until he told her!!!!! She makes a big, "patriotic" statement about what an honor it was for her to visit the troops in Kuwait RECENTLY- not before she came into the spot light- to cover up her quick answer to Gibson's simple question "Have you ever traveled abroad?" to which, quick as can be, she answers "Canada and Mexico". This is the person who's going to be in charge of foreign policy???? Why does the republican part even try to pretend they care about this country???
She's also supposed to purpose a plan to improve education in the USA. How can she do that when she's not properly educated, not even on the subjects she NEEDS to be prepared for!!!!???? Thank God Hillary's still in the senate.

Palin

No woman in her right mind that is a Hillary Clinton supporter, would except Sarah Palin as an alternative. Even with a gun to my head, I'd think more clearly than that. The whole of Palin's speach at the RNC was to rip, tear, and make fun of everything Obama is and has done. This is a tactic commonly used by elementary school bullies world wide. They have no thoughts of their own, and wish to tear down those who do. They are incapable of deserving positive attention, but desperate to get any at all, settle for the negative kind. With no substantial educational back ground, reflected by her lack of concern for the state of our current public education system, how can we expect more from her? She brings down moose with her teeth and thinks this qualifies her as an independent woman. If we stilled lived in caves and had never evolved beyond neanderthals I suppose this would be true, but thankfully, women now realize we can be strong and independent and be ladies at the same time. Perhaps if she were singing a country song I'd like her. She'd be a redneck woman, no high class gal ( no class at all actually) and I'd like to listen to her catchy rhythms, but listening to her politics is just painful. Everything she says is against all that I believe makes America great. Individual thought, opportunities to better ones self wide open for the taking of anyone willing to work for them, safety for this country, not from bombs and guns and fear, but from international respect and transoceanic community, these make up the foundation of all our opportunities and growth. She mentions supporting clean coal and green policies, then promotes drilling in Alaska, a state she's supposed to protect, by telling those wanton listeners it's to create new jobs for them so their lives will be better. Their lives will be at risk, facing the ridiculous elemental challenges facing all Alaskan workers, only to have jobs that will be temporary and leave them nothing, and big oil raking in the millions. Al Gore is probably cussing under breath when he listens to her supposed support of all his hard work, while supporting such a degradation of our natural resources in the same sentence. It makes me cringe that the hard working people of Alaska have to depend on her to represent them. She can bring down a moose single handed huh? Well, she did assosiate herself with a pitbull. Pitbulls however are restricted in most housing complexes through out the 50 states due to there less then savory reputations and the distruction they tend to leave in their wake. I need not say any more.
I just pray all those bible belt religious fanatics, who have been brain washed from youth to believe global warming doesn't exsist and any one who isn't white is of the devil and will vote for exactly who they are told to vote for by their church leaders who depend on their mindlessness and fear to perpetuate the control exacted over them, will not out weigh the votes off all those dreamers, strivers and future leaders who can think for themselves. We don't tend to show up around election time, thinking too much of our already busy lives and because of it, have played a huge part in ruining our country for the past eight years. You know, only about seven votes threw Bush and Gore into a tie to begin with. Gore could have easily won eight years ago, actually was ahead far enough in the electorial votes to only end about seven votes behind Bush after Bush took all 48 of Florida's electorial votes. Gore had it in his grasp, but Florida took it away by giving all their votes to a man who'd won the popular election by only a handfull of stinking papers. But they were votes fair and square and deserved to be counted. After that the rules were the rules and had to apply. I was living in Florida at that time. A new single mother without a job and "boyfriend" that kept breaking my heart, I had better things to think about then the presidential election. Eight years later I live in a country that is far less then my beautiful child deserves. The one thing wrong with us liberals is we spend too much time in our dreams and thoughts. We gotta get the fuck out of our heads and into those GD voting booths. I know those brainwashed religious freaks of the midwest will be lining up to vote exactly the way they've been told, Rep. all the way, so damn it, we have to make sure we do the exact same. There are more of us then them! We can out vote them and turn this amazing country around. We have a responsibility to do so. We owe it to ourselves, and I owe it to my son.

New to it all

I've never blogged before. Up until about a year ago I swore against it. Myspace really accumulated to the concept. You see, I'm from one of the last generations of young adults that was raised on good old paper and pens. People didn't "blog", they WROTE, with their hands connecting to a pen, connecting to a paper. It was tactile and fulfilling in being so. I still find it very difficult to type and think at the same time. I like to start out with a written copy ESPECIALLY if it's something of extreme importance to be graded or voted on, or judged in any way. I like the crossing out and scribbles, it's all a part of my thought process. Still, I must say, for an old gal like me, a die hard paper and pen person, I think I'm adjusting very well to the virtual world of blogging. 

The most difficult concept of blogging for me to grasp is how many people will have access to what I've written. When I'd hand in a paper, I'd know exactly who was going to read it. If it was to be printed in the newspaper, a sense of pride would arise, knowing mom and grandma would hang the cut out on their refrigerators, but now, it's the whole wide web. Who's out there, and what do they want with me? For some it may be exciting, perhaps visions of being the next Pulitzer prize winner, discovered in blogland dance through there heads. For me it's still kind of frightening, having no connection what so ever with the people that have access to my work and what's contained in it. Facts and information are just the surface content of one's writings. Beneath those is me, the real me. My thoughts, feelings and opinions, my honesty, hopes, dreams and prejudices, all lie within the words, lines and paragraphs of what I've written. With each statement people get a clearer view of who I am, without ever revealing themselves. It's point blank freaky. 

This assignment has pushed me over my fear line. I'd stopped dead in my blogging tracks prior to this class. I'd forgotten that I already had an account with blogger.com through gmail. Amazing, I didn't even remember, yet here I was, am, with a blog all ready to go, and an audience of possibly millions ready. I'm glad for it actually because I was that tentative individual, standing on the edge of something frightening, but irrisistable in theory, with out the motivation to thrust myself forward. Now, I have no choice but to thrust myself forward and I'm excited.

I hope to read many blogs myself. Honestly I can't wait to see what people in the class have to say. It's usually easier to write honestly then to speak honestly, so I might get a whole new perspective of an individual who other wise would have played it safe during class. Good luck everyone in the semester upon us, it's gonna be great.