“Doors are going to open... doors you can't even imagine exist.”
-Julie Powell
The blogging world is dynamic, eccentric and opinionated, but it is also very welcoming. With access to a computer and just an ounce of tech savvy, anyone can start writing a blog. They could start it for themselves or for a small forum, like my Independent Media class, or they could pursue an audience on a much larger scale. It's almost impossible to predict the potential popularity of one's blog, but if you can follow the basic instructions of those bloggers who came before you, there's no limit to what you can achieve in the online world.
I absolutely love blogs. I got into them right around the time my middle school starting giving us laptops to take home (they quickly found that giving preteen boys their own computers was not the best idea...).
Anyway, I remember the summer reading initiative for freshman year of high school, Freakonomics, and how intrigued I was that so many aspects of life related to economic theory.
When I found the Freakonomics blog that correlated to the book, I was hooked. From there on out, I started turning to blogs for everything from help with school to what to wear to the best movies of the month.
Blogs can be as basic or as complex as the writer decides it should, which is one of the best and worst qualities about blogging. Some are pointless, like this one about a character from Hey Arnold... but the most popular ones are meaningful and informative, like this and this.
I think the coolest part of popular blogs is that many of them started with a pre-made template on an average person's computer. All it takes is inspiration, online connections and word-of-mouth to get a blog going!
Take Julie Powell, for example. Your average, middle-aged mother, working in a cubicle, with an unfulfilled passion for something from earlier in her life. Curiosity struck and one day Julie picked up her favorite cook book and looked at it in a new light...
"So, that book was there and this simmering frustration was there and this idea that had I always wanted to write and was very frustrated as a writer—so it all came together at once. Here is my subject, here is my regimen, this is how I am going to plug writing in it—through this new bizarro thing I don't understand called a blog—and it all came together like that." Read more: http://www.oprah.com/food/Q-and-A-with-Julie-and-Julia-Author-Julie-Powell/2#ixzz2jF6kceRt
Julie began at page 1 and experimented with every recipe from Julia Child's famous "Mastering the Art of French Cooking," all while sharing each adventure on her little blog. And before she could say "Bon Appétit!" her blog was getting thousands of page views a day.
Shortly thereafter, this telemarketer-slash-mother-turned-blogger was offered a book deal, and then came the movie, starring none other than a Miss Meryl Streep and Amy Adams.
Whether or not you like Julie's writing (or cooking), there's no denying the inspiration you'll feel after reading about her climb to the top. Knowing that her blog started as a little "Julie/Julia Project" for her friends and family and turned into so much more would make any journalism kid (who, moi?) look at blogging as less of a "why" and more of a "why not?"
What have we got to lose? If it's not great, nobody will read it and it'll just fade away into Internet oblivion. But if it's good...ooooh if it's good, you could wind up as a bestseller, being played by Amy Adams in your local movie theatre.
It's pretty well-known now that everything we do on the Internet is tracked and noted, even some of the things we do without even being online. In fact- Google just released a statement about their new privacy policy and how they'll be able to offer pretty much anything you do on its mediums, to the public. (Click Here to read a criticism about it)
Anyway, what I was thinking about was, what if someday nobody can be online anonymously?
Most of the time I like being anonymous, like if I'm online shopping or downloading music and movies. And then there are times when I like people to know my name, like when I'm writing a review or using social media. But imagine- what if you couldn't be anonymous?
It would be terrible for the consumer. I mean, I really don't want companies to be able to track my purchases and browsing history to cater to me! I like knowin' I've got options, ya know? But, I was wondering, do you think cyberbullying could end? Would half of the offensive language we see online go away? I bet some of the websites that wobble over the lines of hate speech would get taken down.
I don't know, but I could see that being one good outcome for Internet users of all ages. :)
My heart aches for the children and families suffering on this memorable Monday due to the shooting at Sparks Middle School in Nevada this morning. I cannot imagine the horror felt by students, parents, teachers and friends today as they experienced this news I heard about hours later.
During my semester abroad this year, more than once I was asked by British colleagues or friends what it was like to live in a place where I was never really safe. They asked if I felt scared going to movie theatres, malls or even my own school and I couldn't really think of the right words to say. I think I was a little angry and embarrassed that the society I lived in made me feel differently than what these people did.
One night, I had the most horribly vivid nightmare of my life- about three friends and I going to a grocery store for some snacks when a guy came in and gunned everyone in the store down. It was so realistic that I had to make a long distance call to my poor mother at 4am her time!
I rethought the questions I had been asked about being in public places... and I realized I really was scared.
It was disheartening today to find bitter tweets about the Nevada school shooting, on an outlet that has typically been used to show an outpouring of neighborly love in hard times. Instead, I was witnessing in live time, a chunk of American youth say that they weren't going to pay attention to mass shootings anymore.
It's pretty sad to think teens and young adults are already becoming desensitized to violence in public places, especially those that end in deaths. I even saw a comment today that appeared totally logical, until the person said, "If we only just armed the teachers and trained anyone working with hundreds of people to defend themselves, we would be much better off."
Can you imagine a 13-year-old kid with a gun walking into a classroom full of students and a teacher pulling out another gun and shooting the child? Not that they wouldn't (because who knows) but because I don't ever, EVER, see that as working out for anybody.
This problem we're having in this country has to go back to its roots- in the US legislature and in modern society. Let's even take it baby steps! Maybe create a psych analysis to sort of screen people before letting them purchase guns. Maybe make a limit on one gun per household... maybe take gun advertisements out of the media in the same way cigarettes were! There are a billion ways to start to change the outcomes of guns getting into the wrong hands, and it seems our legislators are taking their sweet time in the grey area surrounding it all.
I suppose it'll take more than that to make people feel safe again, but something's gotta give here.
Hold on to your britches, folks. This post is gonna be a doozy.
Time and time again, big movie producers have taken historical movements, events and individuals and adapted those stories into Hollywood movies. This repetitive trend in American cinema has been both treasured and harshly critiqued throughout the years and for good reason. A famous producer taking the reigns on an autobiographical adaptation can give attention to underplayed moments in history, like "Zero Dark Thirty," directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Mark Boal, which shed light on the American military's long man-hunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
But more often than not, Hollywood has been known to twist history for the sake of entertainment value and a heightened sense of American pride.
Take the recent award-winning historical adaptation, "Argo," directed and produced by Ben Affleck, which got heavy criticism for completely downplaying Canadian involvement in an important CIA operative. So much so, that ex-President Jimmy Carter, who was President in 1979 when said Iran Hostage Crisis occurred, spoke out against the facts presented in the film (The New Yorker)! This blog post by On Violence runs through the historical inaccuracies further, if you're as interested as I am in this topic.
vs
The issue of historical inaccuracies or American adaptations of real events seemed like an important discussion after watching a documentary on I.F. Stone in Indy Media last week. The film highlighted many issues that Izzy felt very strongly about, one, being that journalists should never get too close to their sources for fear of the influence it may have on a story. An example of this is the clip we saw of an NBC reporter playing tennis with the White House press secretary in the White House lawn... *sigh*
This reminded me of an issue that has conflicted me since junior year of high school, when I had an exchange student from Slovakia named Petra.
After being placed in a U.S. History class and studying the material, she said she was shocked by the difference in the way certain events were portrayed in her own European history books. The American dubbed "Vietnam War," for example, was illustrated in our books as primarily the United States military fighting against the North Vietnamese. However, in Petra's books, American ground troops were included in the re-telling, but hers had more of an international focus which reflected heavy influence by foreign troops, like those of Australia and New Zealand, as well as the sustained efforts of the South Vietnamese. Heck, my memory of learning about the War in high school is that the Vietnamese started guerrilla warfare and we should feel bad because the Americans didn't know how to handle it- but now I know that the US caused cruel and unimaginable harm, and was more tactless than I'd ever imagined.
It's a scary thought, that what many Americans know about history is what their public school books are required to teach them. The government plays a large role in choosing what books are read in public schools- from the literature in English classes to which adaptation of history is learned.
Actually, it's downright terrifying. No wonder some states have banned Ayn Rand's "1984" in their schools-- the government wouldn't want kids to learn how easy unchecked censorship is!
It was this thought that led me to connect Hollywood adaptations to the way I was taught history in my predominantly white, middle-class public school growing up. Luckily, my NYS district officials had no problem with us reading and discussing Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and the previously mentioned "1984." The problem is that some Americans aren't as fortunate.
Flash back to that amazing movie trailer for "12 Years as a Slave" at the beginning of this post. The movie, which comes out later this week (Oct. 18th), is based on the 1853 autobiography "Twelve Years as a Slave" by Solomon Northup.
While you probably won't see advertisements for the movie on Twitter or shared by your friends on Facebook, it's an important movie that we all should see. Not because Brad Pitt is in it, but because the director isn't an American and has never worked in Hollywood.
Filmmaker Nelson George recently led a round-table discussion to broaden understanding and provide context for the upcoming film, and was joined by Chiwetel Ejiofor (who plays Northup), director Steve McQueen, and a small assortment of intellectuals who share passion and knowledge about the period of slavery in America and its relevance today.
The discussion that followed was a brief examination of why Americans are reluctant to talk about slavery and why now is an important time for the honest re-telling to be shared with the a larger audience. What I appreciated most about the discussion was the director's acceptance of reality and steady reluctance to create anything other than an honest illustration of what really happened to Solomon Northup.
As children, it seemed only natural to condemn slave owners and voice our disgust about the era in class, but looking back I can recall noticing kids and teachers glancing around the room before talking about it. I'm going to go ahead and assume that a lot of my white peers felt a sort of awkwardness talking about slavery when one or two black peers were in the class-- as if there was a sort of anticipation over whether or not the black students would give their own opinion and whether or not it would feel condemning of the white students. Would the black kids talk about their ancestors and how it affects their family today? That's something white students would have no clue about. Maybe the black students wouldn't even raise their hands because they don't want the white kids to imagine them for even a split-second as second class citizens. And would they? Why is that so taboo? Our country's politics give all races equal rights, right? And public schools' demographics reflect everyone who lives in a certain town, rather than dividing the town by race like it used to. But if that were the case, and if every American, regardless of race, is equal, why do little kids still feel weird talking about it? Is it because racial equality hasn't been fully reached yet? Is it possible to even reach, when a race that makes up 14.1%* of a country's people could have family history of enslavement by the race that makes up 80%* of the same land?
Why don't kids and teachers feel comfortable enough in a classroom to talk openly about a time they didn't even have to endure?
Well, what we do know is that slavery happened, and the ripples of its detrimental presence in American history are still felt today. Director McQueen sensed that the time to open the floodgates is now. The country is ready to absorb a real account of slavery without any flashy costumes or feel-good montages.
McQueen states,
"With Trayvon Martin, voting rights, the 150th anniversary of the abolition of slavery, 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and a black president, I think there’s a sort of perfect storm of events. I think people actually want to reflect on that horrendous recent past in order to go forward."
I hope movies as important as "12 Years as a Slave," along with other historically accurate documentaries, news reports and books, become more accessible for the Americans who have trouble with the context and materials their schools are providing them with. It's time for classrooms to offer more honest narratives about the very real events that make up our country's complex history.
I've had a revelation, and it's all thanks to someone named Robert McChesney.
After his visit to the College tonight, I couldn't help but feel inspired. He not only gave us insight into the research he did while writing his 23rd and 24th books, he also took our audience questions. The questions ranged from the typical social media issues of today, to Al Jazeera's new presence in the U.S., and everything in between. While I appreciated the lecture in its entirety, there was one idea McChesney shared that had me on a stream-of-consciousness warpath in my head for the rest of the presentation. He reiterated a point that I'd heard a million times, but summarized it in a way I hadn't even thought about.
When someone asked how the new issue of online surveillance affects the way journalists will be able to do their job, he answered,
"Fascism, right? Large corporations working hand-in-hand with the government! The only thing that will check that is journalism that checks the government, but right now we are getting smaller newsrooms and newspapers are dying!! ...Is there really any hope?"
Yes, yes, we've heard this all before. Print is dying, nobody reads magazines, blah blah blah. But it was what came after, that really struck a chord.
"American history pits and peaks with different eras and we're overdue by a good ten or fifteen years for a peak. I think we're right on the verge of that moment-- maybe we're even in it. For young people now, it's going to be in your best interest to get into this moment."
...Oh my god. He's right.
HE'S RIGHT!?!
When I started in Journalism as a freshman, I dove right in with giddiness and zeal because everything was so new and exciting. Once I hit sophomore year, though, I began to feel the pressure-- everything from the "where will I work?" questions to the "do I even want to do this?" ones. Why was I in a major that everyone around me was constantly discrediting? Sure, we all need news, but who will pay attention to it once nobody has a newspaper to read or they can just check twitter to see the one link everyone is reading? Who listens to Fox or CNN anymore, when they know half of it is bullsh*t?
But that's exactly why they need real journalists! And that's exactly what McChesney is saying.
Journalism shouldn't be "dying." Mainstream media should be.
I'm at this funky stage in my life, where I feel like a little sponge trying to take so much in. Studying abroad, along with being lucky enough to have a hands-on education at IC, has made me see that there's no way our generation is going down without a fight. In this strange time where a new mass shooting happens every day or the government feeds more and more lies to the public to spread throughout social media, there's something coming. I can feel it.
Real journalists aren't going to sit idly by and watch the values they hold so dear slip out of their hands. Have we reached a point where enough is enough? I'm sick of not being able to trust anything on TV. I'm tired of advertisements bombarding me everywhere I go, and learning that those corporations run so much of the world around us. The choices we make in what we eat, watch, spend money on... those all literally change our future! Corporations are using online surveillance and data gathering methods to basically try and control all the parts of our lives that requires decision-making.
I don't know about you, but I think people are starting to catch on. They're right-- turn off that Fox and CNN crap. Sure, end your newspaper subscription if you want. But more and more people are hitting up Independent online sources to figure out what's really going on in the world when they wake up in the morning or go to bed at night. As a general public, maybe we can be a little... uh... well, unintelligent. Ok. But as individuals? This generation coming up is the most tech-savvy we've ever had in America! They can connect the dots on computers and online in a way that those before us have never been able to do. They may be one of the largest groups of consumers we've seen in decades, but the majority of them can tell you what's real and what's fake. My little sister would never sit and tell a "Chat Bot" about her day on AIM the way we used to... "that's just stupid," she's said before. "Who knows where those robot answers are coming from."
I can feel it in my bones, though. Something big is going to happen, and it'll all be part of this technological revolution happening right before our eyes. But I can't just wait around for someone to do it for me. I have to stop giving mainstream media "page views" online and start reporting on the facts.
It's time for Independent media to step into the spotlight and remind society what it really means to tell the truth, and help people remember that each person's contributions to this world are much more powerful than they think.
I absolutely love blogs. I got into them right around the time my middle school starting giving us laptops to take home (they quickly found that giving preteen boys their own computers was not the best idea...). 
