Boing Boing- A critique!

The discovery of weblogs or blogs has developed into one of the foremost mass-communication outlet globally. The weblog provides access for nearly any individual, from almost anywhere on the planet by means of a wide range of computers and computer like devices. Due to this remarkable discovery, people around the world have utilized the weblogs as an alternative method to share information and opinions .In this critique, I shall look at the blog ‘Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things’ to provide an insightful analysis on why this blog is important to me and to the wider community. '

‘Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things’ is created on January, 2000 by Mark Frauenfelder. The content of this blog focused on different themes. However, it revolves mostly around technology, futurism, gadgets and politics. With different themes audiences are able to have different range of choices with the provided information. What’s more, this website is closely affiliated with Google, the most popular search engine in the world.

so why do I choose this blog?

I have always been fascinated with the development of technology these days. By reading this blog I find myself connected to the world and not outdated. It is interesting to note that every entry of this blog is written daily. As a result, audiences around the world are able to view the blog daily and not read the same materials. Some of the entries that are written in this blog are expressed with brevity and clarity. This makes the blog easily readable and not mind-numbing. Additionally, every entry of this blog is equipped with links to intellectual websites that provides more concrete details on certain product spec. For some entries there are also videos to view and newspaper articles to read. Personally, I believe that by having these additional features it will enhances interactivity with the viewers.

The blog site, ‘Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things’ has managed to be the no. 1 most favorite site in Technorati.com. It has also won the Lifetime Achievement and Best Group Blog awards at the 2006 Bloggies ceremony. Furthermore, the site has managed to gained as much as 6.788.626 viewers each month. It is a remarkable number and it just proves the point that everyone else in the world is having a wonderful time tuning to this blog site.

FOX news..is it fair and balance?

A growing section of the world’s media is now privately owned. It has been suggested that there is a fundamental contradiction between the ideal that public media should operate as a public sphere and the reality concentrated in private ownership. Arguably, once the media is privately owned it creates fear that there will be restrictions of information and biasness in disseminating news. These long standing worries have been reinforced in recent years by the emergence of a particular news channel, the Fox News.

In October 1996, right wing American-Australian media conglomerate, Rupert Murdoch announced the launch of Fox news. Today, Fox news has gone to air with approximately 85 millions viewers in the United State. Murdoch proudly publicizes his news channel to be ‘fair and balanced’. However critics saw distortion in Murdoch’s slogan. Ideally, the principal role of a democratic media is to act as a check on the state. According to Curran (2000), the media should be the voice of the people in monitoring the full range of state activity and fearlessly expose abuses of official authority. However, Shawcross (1993) argues that: ‘Murdoch has always been willing to rein in his ideological commitment to his viewers in order to gain regulatory favors from politicians to conform to state-imposed impartiality rules or to woo audiences… Rupert steadfast determination is to promote, wherever possible, right wing values ‘

Due to the right wing perspective of capitalism and being as an entrepreneur, Murdoch views his media empire to be a profit centered business. To further illustrate this, the media also provide a channel of communication between government and the governed. This is to help the society to clarify its objectives, formulate policy and manage itself (Curran, 2000). However, instead of giving politicians with fair and plural representation, Murdoch will only favor politicians whom he thinks can give him advantages (Minehan, 2006). Murdoch fails to embody the ideal principal of a democratic media because he put the needs of profit before democracy.

In the United States, Fox news supported the current American President, George Bush in the invasion of Iraq to put an end to Sadam Hussein’s regime in 2003. According to Minehan (2006), Murdoch’s reward was that fox news reporters would be the first to arrive in Baghdad and was provided with protection from the US military. However, the grand slam was after the Iraq war Murdoch was granted the permission to buy DirecTv, the biggest satellite broadcaster in the United State. By doing this, Murdoch would emerge at the head of a global media empire and is valued at more than US$110 billions. According to Chenoweth (2001):
‘When joined to Sky Global (Murdoch’s satellite broadcaster in Asia) Murdoch satellite platforms would stretch seamlessly from North to South America, to Europe, across central Asia, China and Japan, down to Australia’ (p. xi). This means that Murdoch controls his own world highway, with a global voice and power that no one in history has ever had (ibid.).

It is appalling to witness the misuse of power in the media world. Ken Auletta (1995) one of the correspondent in the PBS (American public television) broadcast of, Who’s Afraid of Rupert Murdoch’, commented that ‘Murdoch is one most admired in a businessman-- bold, decisive, and willing to take the long view. But he is feared because what he produces can be viewed as toxic to our culture and our democracy’. Rupert Murdoch may as well be the most successful capitalist and the head of a global media empire. However, his claims that Fox News is fair and balanced has been untrue. Based on the facts stated in the above it can be seen that the news presented to the world by Rupert Murdoch are partial, influenced and biased. Without a doubt Rupert Murdoch is a brilliant entrepreneur but his means is unquestionably anything but fair and balanced.

References:

Chenoweth, N. 2001. Virtual Murdoch: reality wars on the information highway, Secker and Warburg, London

Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (Ed.) 2000. Mass Media and Society. (3rd ed.). Arnold: London

Minehan, M. 2006, “Rupert Murdoch” Presentation, Insearch, date accessed 19.11.06

Celebrity Craze: why is here to stay?

Due to the help of public relations and advertisement, Celebrity has become a prevalent feature in the mass media. How disappointing though, once upon a time celebrities such as Grace Kelly are deem to be renowned and graceful. Today it’s just about determining who has the bigger tits or the trashiest…

Have you ever wondered why there is an obsession in society when it comes to celebrities?

Simple reasons I guess…

1. Celebrities are categorised as the people most ordinary citizen aspire to become (we want to be “them”) ;
2. Celebrities seem to be the group of people who are “living” the dreams of ordinary people.
3. Consumers like to see celebrities weaknesses and downfalls

Moreover… viewers today failed to distinguish between reality and fantasy. We like to be caught in the moments and say…’if only?’

Now don’t get me wrong I admire some of the celebrities around…Jodie Foster, a Yale graduateor James Wood who graduated from MIT. I guess to me beauty must come with brains. Today’s celebrity craze is just about beauty and body…I wonder sometimes; doesn’t celebrity have a moral responsibility to the viewer?

Playboy Stirs conflict in Indonesia..

Media texts help to define our world and show the appropriate societal behavior and attitudes. However, the scope of media coverage today has been so frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted as ‘mindless trash’. It has been suggested that most media products these days are deemed to be more fixated with the sensationalism of ‘sexual cultures’.

The publication of Playboy magazine in Indonesia provides a sensational and controversial case study on ideological debates surrounding cultural and political issues. Playboy is an American adult entertainment magazine, founded in 1953 by Hugh Hefner. The magazines are published monthly and feature photographs of nude women, along with various articles on fashion, sports, consumer goods and public figures. In addition, Playboy magazines also publish short fiction by top literature writers. Playboy promotes freedom of speech as the magazine has been known to express liberal opinions on most major political issues. Hefner notes that, ‘I wanted to publish a magazine that influenced and reflected on the importance of individual, on his rights and opportunities in a free society.

In Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, Muslims struggle to reconcile radically different sets of social norms and laws, including those derived from Islam, local social norms, and contemporary ideas about gender equality and rule of law. Ideally, Indonesia adopted similar ideologies of a democratic society. However, ideal systems are also an abstract ideal, and in practice, conflicting ideologies do occur.

The Playboy magazines in Indonesia that are published locally by PT. Velvet Silver Media is deemed by the majority of Indonesian radical Muslim leaders (Islam Defender Front) to contain derogatory and degrading pornographic images that could damage the moral fiber of the nation (The Jakarta Post, 9 June 2006). As a result, violent demonstrations occurred to oppose to the idea of turning woman into a sex object. Taufiqurrahman (2006) noted that a day after the first edition of Playboy Indonesia hit newsstands; a throng of Islam Defenders Front (FPI) supporters violently ransacked and burned the editorial office of the magazine in South Jakarta, forcing all staffers to flee. Ironically, these violent outbursts resulted in free publication for the magazine.

In general, the content of Playboy Indonesia is far less provocative than that carried in many other local men’s magazine. According to Ponti Carolus, director of license-holder PT Velvet Silver Media, "(We) will not make women objects and we'll strive to be accepted by women," Ponti said. "Our concept is world-class journalism and lifestyle. We will have a greater emphasis on the literary qualities” (2006, cited in Playboy Indonesia, June 2006). The second edition of Playboy Indonesia is not only free of steamy nude pictorials, but also conspicuously lacking in advertisements. White space occupied the pages where the glossy advertisements that filled April's first edition should have been placed. "These blank pages are dedicated to our loyal clients who have been threatened against placing ads in this magazine," is the message from publisher PT Velvet Silver Media on the blank pages, acknowledging unnamed cell phone, cologne and tobacco advertisers (Playboy Indonesia, June 2006).

Even though, the local adaptation of Playboy Indonesia carries no nudity and instead delves into much more literary subjects, small but noisy groups of Muslim protesters have sought to outlaw it simply because, in their view, the name Playboy is synonymous with obscenity.

I guess the problem is that these people said they were against pornography, when they're not. They're against the name Playboy, the brand. A brand so powerful that it has scared them half to death or moved them to anger. This explains a lot. How intellectually shallow we are, how our society always looks at what's on the surface and doesn't bother to examine what's inside. Regardless, the publication of Playboy magazine in Indonesia exemplifies sexually controversial ideologies in the contemporary media, which stir many disreputable arguments. Ideologies are in fact not neutral and on this view, Indonesian Muslim cultures are continuously involved in constant struggles between competing ideological codes.

Pet Craze leads to Genetic Deffect!

Today, in a world of modern technology scientists has experienced a major breakthrough in exploring the study of genetics. Genetics, by definition, determines much (but not all) of the appearance and action of a certain organisms (wikipedia, 2006).

In Japan, the genetic technology is available to create the perfect pet for you. According to the New York Times (26/12/2006), you can make a poodle in a size of a teacup and it can fit in your purse or what about having a Chihuahua with blue eyes. Anything is possible with the right amount of money. To create your personalised dog you have to be willing to spend an amount of money, starting from $10.000.



However, it has been reported that with this new invention of technology there have been dogs with brain disorders so severe that they spent all day running in circles, and others with bones so frail they dissolved in their bodies. Many carry hidden diseases that crop up years later.

I am fascinated with the speed of technology in this 21st century. Nowadays, although, it still frowned upon, the study of genetics can also be implemented to create the perfect child. If you were Asian you are able to personalise your baby into having blond hair and blue eyes. It all sound so amazing.

What struck me by this news is that humans are capable to do countless of wonderful things but all of that has been useless due to money-oriented perspective. Societies today are so busy with creating the things that we 'want' rather than having to create the things that we 'need'. As much as I am intrigue with the many astounding things science can do I can’t help but to think when will society going to stop playing GOD and be happy with the things that we have.