Apologies are in order...

Apologies for no new updates. Things have been a tad hectic as of recent. Here's to hoping they settle down soon. I should have an update up tomorrow.

Also, apologies to those who I owe the favor of a reply email. Again, things have been hectic here (both professionally and personally), and that, combined with a bout with viral infection, have left me both tired and away from my PC much of the weekend.

In other news, the next week or so is shaping up to be an exciting time. Stay tuned.

e-voting takes another hit:
Ciber Inc. loses certification.

In what I feel is the most important fallout from the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" to date, Ciber Inc. has been decertified from testing and approving electronic voting machines, due to lack of quality control and accountability.

This is a good step towards securing the e-voting procedures that our governments insist we use. By decertifing a lab who seemed to be nothing more than a "shill" for Diebold Election Systems, we can begin to genuinely test these systems and see whether they are as secure as Diebold claims (or as insecure as many people claim.)

But, I believe that we need to go a step further. As it has been proven (on film) that the Diebold machines can be compromised, and these machines were, in fact, certified by Ciber, I believe we need to examine any links which may exist between Ciber and Diebold, especially financial links. Does anyone within Diebold hold ownership in Cyber, or vice-versa? Have there been large payments of money between Diebold and Ciber? Have there been any signs at all of any improprieties between Diebold and Ciber?

I voted on a Diebold voting machine in the last general election, but I will not vote on the same machine during the next Presidential election. After recent revelations, I no longer trust Diebold Election Systems or Ciber Inc. And, while I may be only one voter, I can't be the only one. And, if enough voters voice their objections, we just may win this battle, after all.

Music Video of the Week:
Blur - Coffee and T.V.

I can't pinpoint what it is exactly that I enjoy about this video. Most likely it's the improbability of a walking milk carton. Still, you must admit that Damon and the boys tug at your heartstrings in this one.

Embedded Journalism...
...or why truth can be more dramatic than fiction.

Many of us have watched the news coverage of the so-called "War on Terror," and have seen what can only be considered an unprecedented use of what's referred to as "embedded journalists." Embedded journalists eat, sleep, live, and move with combat troops in the front lines, and the embedding process is designed to give us a good look at what "really happens" in wartime situations.

But, have we stopped and considered whether or not we're really getting the whole story from these embedded newscasters? For most of us, I doubt the thought has crossed our minds. But, I've thought about it. And, so have the members of a team of researchers from the University of Oklahoma, led by Professor Michael Pfau. Their study, published in the December 2005 edition of the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media sought to see whether or not these embeds, as I will refer to them, were straying from impartiality.

As I thought, the study did show this to be the case. The results of the study confirmed that the results "revealed that compared to nonembedded reports, embedded television news reports were ore positive toward the military...and conveyed greater trust toward military personnel." (Pfau et al, 478.) But, what caused these results? Looking at the causes is the only way we, as informed media consumers, can understand why this happens.

Irwin Altman and Dalmas A. Taylor are leading researchers in the field of interpersonal communications, and their Social Penetration Theory can be used to make an attempt to explain these results. According to Altman and Taylor, closeness in a relationship only occurs with gradual buildup of self-disclosure, or "talking about yourself." However, Pfau and his team propose that, under stressful or "hot" situations, self-disclosure would seem to be accellerated, thus creating a closer relationship sooner than would otherwise be expected.

This rapid buildup of a close relationship, it seems, would cause problems with objective news reporting. As a general rule, reporters frown upon "getting too close to" their sources, in an attempt to preserve objectivity. Also, the quick buildup (referred to as "swift trust" by Pfau) would tend to cause people's perceptions to be more biased towards their sources than otherwise would be expected.

The combination of a close relationship (and almost symbiotic reliance on) a source, combined with the biases inherent in a "swift trust" situation would appear to be almost entirely counterproductive to providing an adequate level of objectivity in reporting. Yet, I fear that "embedding" will continue. Because, you see, embedding provides a dramatic feel to a real situation, and it seems that drama sells, even in news.

It's an unfortunate situation. But, what should we do?

All I know is that I'm not watching the news anymore. When news looks like fiction to me...it's kind of a turnoff.

More re-hashed old material.

I wrote a new entry today while at work, but I need to polish it up a little more before I post it. So, in the meantime, here's a short writeup from Film 102 in Spring 2006 about William Eggleston's "Stranded in Canton" (a damn fine film, if you ask me.)

---

William Eggleston and “Stranded in Canton”

The question posed for this week is a simple one: “What do you think could have been the intentions of Robert Gordon when choosing only about 1 hour of footage out of 70 hours?” I believe that Robert Gordon’s intentions during the editing process were exceedingly similar to William Eggleston’s intentions during the original filming of “Stranded in Canton.” It seems to me that Eggleston was intent on making a document of life in the south in the 1970s. By filming everyone and everything, from the dentist in the town to the chicken geeks on the street corner, Eggleston was able to create a vibrant, almost living document of the ways in which he perceived life as being. In his approach to editing Eggleston’s footage, Gordon had to have been thinking along similar lines, or else the work in question would not have had the same qualities. Also, remember that Gordon worked very closely with Eggleston during the editing process; from what I’ve learned of Eggleston, he would not have allowed someone to edit his footage unless they shared similar hopes, dreams, and desires in the end product.

---
...Boy, has my writing improved since then. I credit my English instructor Dr. Peter Blewett and my Media Writing TA Tyler Gaskill for really improving my writing over the last year or so. Without those two, I'd still be really, really bad. Or, worse than I am, anyways.

**disappears off to watch "Snakes on a Plane" for the fifth time today.**

Layout changes coming.

This is a note marking my intention to change the layout of this blog to something more visually appealing.

Don't expect it right away: I'm more concerned with writing some content. But, change is forthcoming. Stay tuned.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to purchase "Snakes on a Plane" on DVD. Movie of the year, dammit...movie of the year.

A New Year is Here!
(...So why do I feel the same?)

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you....twenty-oh-seven!

As promised, a new year brings a new layout and new content. I will now (officially) be updating this blog at least twice a week (most likely on Monday and Thursday nights), or more. That's right...I'm finally delivering on the promise I made to the blog-world three years ago.

So...New Years. As I drove home from this evening's festivities (Cake @ the Riverside Theater with FM 102 One), I began to think about resolutions. More specifically, I thought about the concept of a resolution. What, exactly is a resolution? Why do we make them? And who among us has (honestly) followed through on any resolution they have made?

To me, a resolution is a promise to the world and to ourselves. It's a commitment to better ourselves in a specific way and improve both our lives and the lives of others. But, shouldn't we be striving each and every day to better ourselves? Why do we instead focus on it only once a year? If you ask me, that's a pointless concept, and one that I feel should be examined further.

If you ask me, we should not be making resolutions only at New Year's. We should make resolutions each and every day; resolutions to better ourselves, our relationships, and the global community.

But, since I know that people will harass me, I'll still post some resolutions.

• A half-drunken Adler mentioned something to me tonight about wanting me to be more involved with FM 102 One and the morning show this year. So, I resolve to fully embrace my internship and strive to be as active with the station as I possibly can be.
• I fully resolve to finally stick to my diet and lose some weight.
• I fully resolve to get back into shape and tone my body.
• I fully resolve to raise my cumulative GPA over a 3.0 by the end of the academic year.
• I fully resolve to throw myself completely into each and every project I take on as opposed to half-assing it and throwing things together at the last moment.
• I fully resolve to end my self-depreciating humor and embrace who I am as a person.
• I fully resolve to be less of an asshole.

There. Yearly resolutions. Now, get off my back, world.