Comm 203: Wikileaks

Wikileaks certainly has been in the news quite a lot and not for necessarily good reasons. On the surface, I think Wikileaks comes off as the people's news - giving Joe Plumber the information he deserves to have as a citizen of the United States of America. And I think to a certain extent that holds some truth to it. Still, private documents are private for a reason and I'm not cynical enough to believe it's because the government wants to trick the common peon into making poor decisions. If a government weren't at least a little secretive, it wouldn't be able to function very efficiently. It is incredible suspicious, as this article denotes, that the U.S. might be so determined to remove one man from the public eye. And given the sensitivity of some of the information released, it's hard to blame them. I believe it's less about what the public should see and more about what potential threats would use this information against us. On the other hand, Wikileaks has released information that has shamed the U.S.A. on several different accounts, something that this egotistical nation might have been in sore need of.

Whether or not Wikileak's founder's personal life is relevant to the site's mission is another question. It's a question often posed in government and politics where affairs and other scandals run rampant. In this case, I believe it is only just a little more relevant than the affairs of your basic politician: not really relevant at all. For better or worse, who people are and what they do can often be two different things.

Comm 203: Book Covers

For better of for worse, book covers are a dying art. As more and more authors are publishing solely online for those with access to eReaders to read, book covers are becoming superfluous. And I'm not convinced that that's entirely a bad thing. True, an entire section of people with a specialized job will be out of work and that's never a good thing in today's economy, but the idea of the book cover is something I've never quite been fond of for a number of reasons. The biggest reason of all is that the author often has little to no say on what the cover looks like, which accounts for the thousands of young adult novels with pretty white girls on the cover who play no apparent part in the actual plot. Book covers are, more often than not, a way to sell the book. The Newbery-worth novel with the plain brown book cover won't sell as many copies as the glorified pornography book with a minimalistic rose on the front with a sexy satin ribbon tied around its stem.

Still, there is something to be said about the art of book cover making that makes it worth crying over, and that is reintroducing old classics to a new, easily distracted audience. The covers for Shakespeare's Hamlet or Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, when donning an updated book cover might attract the attention of a young adult who is so easily taken in by aesthetics.

Book covers aren't only for young adult and children's novels, of course. The adult romance novel section would contain naught but bad writing and worse plots without Fabio strutting with some bodacious damsel on the cover.

Still, the completely electronic book world is a while off and we're stuck with book covers, so I'd like to  just appreciate the ones that make even a little bit of sense for now.

Comm 203: Video Games

Anyone who believes today's video games are just for kids needs to get a reality check. I don't know any decent parent who would let their five or six-year-old sit and play Gears of War or Call of Duty or any number of first-person shooter games. In fact, I doubt a five or six-year-old would have the dexterity to play a game; just looking at an Xbox controller might make them give up. Not to mention, the ratings on a lot of games today are rated M for mature. Even games that were originally aimed towards young kids, like the Super Mario Bros. franchise, has evolved to encompass all sorts of genres. You can now beat your friends to a pulp on that friendly-looking Wii system on Super Smash Bros. Although Nintendo has for a very long time been more geared towards a younger audience, I'm not sure how many eight-year-olds could work through the entirety of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess without help from an online guide. (I remember playing LoZ: Ocarina of Time when I was about that age and not having any idea what to do.) With the exception of some really gifted kids, I'd say the majority of games being produced for gaming consoles today are aimed for audiences 15 and older. Of course, there are also games on the phone, as this article discusses, and with the increase in iPhone and other Smart Phone sales, online games are becoming more and more accessible (and addictive).

I believe the video game industry does have a certain sway over the media. What we play shapes how we view the world and what we're more inclined to believe about it. That being said, I don't think violent video games create violent players in real life. Parents should certainly be active in choosing which games his or her child is playing, but after a certain age, most people are able to distinguish reality from media.

Video games might not be an art form in the purest sense, as this article argues, but you have to admit that it takes some serious skill and creative talent to build a CGI ancient Rome like in Assassin's Creed, or entirely new life-like worlds as in Portal or Legend of Zelda or any number of other games. Video games and the art of creating them have evolved from their 2-D Pac-man days into virtual realities. They might not be comparable, as the author of article says, to sculptures by Michelangelo, but given the platform on which their created, I doubt anyone can deny just how much work and talent goes into creating these environments.

Comm 203

While the article is clearly one-sided, I can't help but agree with most of the points in it. I think most of the focus should be on taking down the sites who host exclusively illegal or copyright infringed material instead of going after the individuals who use the sites. It'd be far more efficient and easier to do overall. Looking at a site, like youtube, that is fairly particular about what gets posted and whether any material in a given video is copyrighted, shows just how the internet might be should something like this pass. Information might not be entirely accurate since certain aspects of it can't be discussed without permission from the original source and it might inhibit how fast news can spread. While I agree that overuse of material can occur (downloading full discographies or TV shows, for example), much of the time this so-called "copyrighted" material is being presented for criticism or discussion, and very rarely is something being used for monetary gain.

That being said, I understand where the opposition is coming from. When looking at any number of struggling bands or TV shows, it's easy to see how they're predicament might become permanent if the majority of their fanbase is consuming their work via illegal downloads. I think the attitude of a lot of people who use illegal means to watch TV or download music is that they are one of few; certainly the rest of the fandom is buying and supporting said band or TV show. But if that's not the truth, then their favorite TV show might get cancelled. Better awareness of why a person should purchase something is crucial to the success of any given medium.

I am admittedly guilty of perusing watchseries.eu for easy-to-watch episodes when they can't be found for free on Hulu or Netflix. It's simple and seemingly harmless, but I justify my actions by pointing out that if I really enjoy a show, nine times out of ten I will end up buying the DVDs just so I can have them for rainy days and TV marathons with friends. Streaming also becomes a temptation when shows, like BBC's Sherlock, don't air in the U.S. until months after they air in Britain. Making TV more accessible might curb people's incessant desire to have TV here and now.