Celebrity gossip, quite possibly the largest waste of time multiplied by the highest output and financially stable markets. Who reads the junk anyways? Apparently any and everyone accept me. I couldn’t walk by a group of people last week without someone talking about Chris Brown and Rhianna. Everyone seemed to be an expert on the matter advising me of what legal advice they would give Chris and warning me how to stay away from rowdy Bajan girls like Rhianna. There was even an infamous you tube video of both of their songs being mixed to the soundtrack of an abusive encounter. Bloggers have become ruthless and are digging up dirt on Chris Browns past, claiming that he may have been abused as a child, which would explain his sudden abusive outbursts today. The tabloids are now better, but for the sake of the readership, it seems as though they have at least been trying to abstain from any overt mockery or satire of the situation. Although I did see a headline at one of the newsstands reading “Friends fear it will end in death.” Really? I’m no expert on abusive relationships but it seemed like from the title alone they were more concerned with bringing home the dollar that actually offer sound relationship advice. From what I have been able to gather so far, blogs are a little more rough around the edges engaging in inappropriate jokes and satire comedy about the celebrity dilemma. The tabloids have been overly dramatic and have gone out of their way to make everyone feel as though they have to care. Both represent certain forms of extremism. Both done with a specific purpose in mind, to gain more viewers/readership. The tabloids probably have more at stake since their well-being depends on how many people purchase their weekly crap fest. The blogs maybe not so much, since many don’t actually profit greatly from massive amounts of viewership. The public discourse and the public sphere in which these celebrities’ lives are torn apart in front of have become a totally unregulated free for all. Has anybody the decency to just leave other people alone? Personally I couldn’t care less who was dating who or why somebody is the way they are. Why can’t everybody be like me, a miserable group of people who don’t care about others… On second thought, it’s probably best most people are not like me; instead I would prefer a certain type of balance. Like maybe if there was a way to regulate the amount of times a worthless story gets mentioned in the public arena, kind of fascist at its roots, but totally with the best intent. Also if you try and put yourselves in their multi-million dollar shoes you would see how annoying it would be to have non-stop gossip being spread through every medium possible. Maybe that’s the price of fame, and I guess for many outlets it’s the way they will be able to make money. What it news papers and tabloids were just about good news? That would be pretty dull, one man’s misery, is another man’s success. I’ll do both a favour and just stop reading.

whats real?

Upon the recent discovery that I could access news while sitting at a TTC station waiting for the train to come, I began to wonder how stories change when they have to be told in 20 words or less. To sum up essential facts or details sometimes means that you are missing much more than such an obvious headline would let you assume. And for that matter, who gets to decide the headlines? Seems like a pretty tricky job, selling the entire story in less than 6 words, while being though provoking, informative and straight to the point. For people like myself who don’t go out of our way to be informative about daily events unless its thrown in our faces, this may be the first and last time I will ever get to hear about “Man eaten by Bear.” Take for instance the story of the conflict in Palestine/Israel and how a simple bias can sometimes be the difference between an informed and misinformed public. I actually had my eyes open for what the world was saying and oddly enough I received way more informative and useful information on facebook by citizen journalists who were not being paid or influenced by lobby groups but instead wanted the same thing we all wanted: the truth. It’s disturbing to know that from now on my most trusted form of media might have to come from random university students around the world compiling what they know into easy to read news briefs. Makes you wonder what the future of blogs and pod casts really holds. Of course war imagery is something that you could clearly find more though blogs than any other place. I don’t think I saw one single image of an injured Israeli, but all I could find online were pictures of blown up Palestinian children and the left over remains of school, markets and society. The sheer shock value and real life look at war could not have necessarily been done through main stream media for many reasons. Firstly, probably because the images I saw were very graphic and depicted acts and scenes of violence that would make grown people quiver. Secondly, I’m not sure if such images would be in line with the mainstream media “unbiased” approach to cover events. What war imagery does in many instances is put a face to a disaster, and once that’s done its hard for people to look the other way. This has taught me a lot about what news is relevant and found to be important by our society. If what I am accessing can only be found “underground” than there is a slight chance its because it does not fall in line with the mainstream agenda, letting me know what’s really real and what’s simply just for show.

Radio sucks

Is anyone even listening, do people even care? It disturbs me sometimes to note that I will be graduating with a degree in Radio and Television but really who cares about radio? I certainly don’t. I don’t have a radio at my house; I don’t drive a car so technically there would never be a need for me to turn one on. Who is radio’s demographic. People who most likely are listening in a car or old people listening to the old juke box cuddled up in front of a fire knitting their grand kids sweaters for Christmas. The news presented on radio must clearly have a defined approach to their specific demographic. I know this from personal experience because I actually auditioned for a show on CBC radio called “Q”. I remember when they were just throwing the idea around and I was approached to possibly host a segment which would be done all in rhyme (don’t ask me why) until they figured out that I spoke way to fast for radio and really people who would be interested in what I had to say probably weren’t going to be tuned into CBC in the first place. Which kind of hurt me because they were basically telling me that my opinion was not relevant to their demographic. So who’s the demographic, who gets the luxury of people considering relevant by CBC radio. Like I assume there are no pre-school shows on radio simply because kids that young would definitely not be listening, but who else gets left out. Luckily there are stations like Flow 93.5 which play continues hop-pop garbage who wouldn’t mind making me a co-host on some pointless random show about nothing. Maybe I could do the whole podcast thing. At least their people are going out of their way to personally select which pieces of information they want to hear, but even so it is still somewhat limited to people who own I pods or some kind of Mp3 device because who else would just randomly listen to some 3 hour program on their computer. Maybe unless it was music or news, otherwise I couldn’t see a Podcast being that accessible to many people like myself. Maybe I’m overanalyzing the whole situation, but I’m just not to sure what the future holds for radio or pod casts or any medium that only involves using one sense. I don’t like radio. Never have and probably never will.

the word blogger is just booger with an L

I am writing this blog for a class but also as a personal experiment for myself. I want to see if people actually take this stuff seriously. I mean I know their are like a billion people around the world blogging a new blog about someones blog about every 15 seconds but still do people really even care. Is this a trusted source for information or is it simply for entertainment? Its seems as though those lines are becoming more blurry everyday. Personal opinionated sites and figures do have the ability to brake stories and after seeing a good friend of mine who is in RTA, gain unseen amounts of popularity simply off of his own youtube hockey commentary video-blog, I am starting to wonder if this might actually have an effect on someones life. Like if some journalist is realy cramed for a serious deadline and needs to serach the web in hopes of coming across a random blogger who is wondering if blogging is really a trustworty source of information or if it is simply just enterainment and than they site my blog as proof that other people are thinkng the same thing. Highly unlikely but fun to think about. To be honest I have never really taken this blog phoenomenm to seriously, I always thought it was a bunch of wierd computer geeks transfering encoded messages on personal pages nobody would ever care to find. I was pleaslty suprised to hear about a guy who is rather popular on youtube and does provide his own take on daily news event. His name is Philip DeDeFranco and he goes by the name "sxephil" on youtube and I actually dont mind his random rants on current events. Guess this blog thing can help shed lights on some things I have been in the dark about forever. P.S. I started this first entry at like 2:30 in the morning and I know it was supposed to be done on the 27th. Please dont duduct marks. Your the best.