Media Blog

Conversations with Screenwriter Dan Gurskis

Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:05:21 -0700

Dan Gurskis is the writer of The Short Screenplay: Your Short Film from Concept to Production. He is Associate Professor and Chairperson of the Film Department at Brooklyn College-CUNY in New York. He received his B.A. from University of Pennsylvania and his M.F.A. in Creative Writing from Brandeis University.

Dan is a member of the Writer's Guild of America and an Emmy-Award Winner, Cable Ace Nominee, Shubert Fellow, and MacDowell Colony Fellow. He is a screenwriter, playwright, producer, director with over 40 credits in feature films, telefilms, episodic television, and the theater and has worked for Columbia, Paramount, RKO, HBO, ABC, Showtime, Cinemax, and the USA Network.

To the video production students: now is your chance to ask Dan questions about working as screenwriter in the industry, specific questions you have about his book and how it relates to your crew's script, or general screenwriting questions to pick his brain. Please keep your questions short and to the point and he will do the best he can to answer them over the next week.

Photoshop and Ethics

Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:47:32 -0700

In the media production and design and time-based media courses, the first assignment entailed either altering a single photograph and changing its context or create a triptych where tools in Photoshop may be used to connect the three images.

As you can probably imagine, Photoshop is a great tool for the creation and alteration of images but there are also ethical considerations when the content involves reality, such as a war, and perceptions of that reality are forever changed in the minds of one's audience who may not know the image has been altered at all.

Here are two examples:

Katie Couric has lost a few quick pounds instantly with the help of Photoshop (you'd think someone would notice when she was on TV that week looking heavier that the jig was up!). This altered photo appeared in a promotional magazine for CBS.

Image courtesy of the NY Times (be sure to check out their article, Ease of Alteration Creates Woes for Picture Editors, registration required). The first 2 images were taken by Photojournalist Brian Walski for the LA Times while he was in Iraq. The last image was the composite he made using the two images.

There are certainly many more examples than this. Our entire celebrity culture is based on creating perfection. Is there something to gain in this ability to edit and alter images or is it appearing to be lose-lose? What is your thinking on this, know that you have a better understanding of Photoshop?

Also check out this Dove video, to further the discussion of ethics involved in alteration and our concept of beauty:

Net Neutrality: Watch "The Net at Risk" - WGBH Broadcast 10/18, 9:00PM

Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:20:03 -0700

Get the facts because this concerns us all as media producers, entrepeneurs, and citizens!

Moyers on America: The Net at Risk
Wednesday, October 18 at 9:00PM on WGBH 2

"The future of the Internet is up for grabs. Big corporations are lobbying Washington to turn the gateway to the Web into a toll road. Yet the public knows little about what's happening behind closed doors where the future of democracy's newest forum is being decided. If a few mega media giants own the content and control the delivery of radio, television, telephone services and the Internet, they'll make a killing and citizens will pay for it. America's ability to compete in the global marketplace, the unfettered exchange of ideas online, and broadband services that could improve quality of life for millions are at stake. Some say the very future of democracy itself may hang in the balance. In "The Net at Risk," Bill Moyers and journalist Rick Karr report on the wannabe "lords of the Internet" and examine how promises by the big tel-co companies of a super-high speed Internet in return for deregulation and tax breaks have gone unfulfilled while the public has paid the price. After the documentary, Moyers leads a discussion on media reform to explore the real-world impact of deregulation on communities and citizen participation in democracy."

Watch it!

Blogging 101 - What is it and why would one do it?

Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:43:15 -0700

[An] important reason to read weblogs is the state of the media today � corporate behemoths own the major outlets of our news and opinion and entertainment. The nanopublishing revolution of weblogging allows individuals an inexpensive and simple way to reach millions of readers.
--- Anton Zuiker, Blogging 101

I thought it would be appropriate to begin this semester's blogging experience with a diary on blogging itself, since it is new to many of you.

Blogging is still in its infancy, but if you notice I've categorized this "diary" under Democracy and Media. The reason being that blogging allows someone like me to write about issues and interests I hold dear and share it with a global audience. It is truly a democratic means of expression.

It also facilitates a sense of community by enabling comments from others to share their thoughts on those issues and interests, whether they agree with them or not. It provides a means for dialogue and complex viewpoints on a range of discussions. It is the one area that mainstream media cannot capture in a bottle and just repackage. The blog must have integrity whereby the subjects discussed have a focused relevance for readers and writers of the blog. What gives a blog its integrity is the sincerity of the author(s) and the comments their diaries generate. And, this can all be accomplished without owning a television or radio station, newspaper, or film studio.

It is a form of communication where artists and media producers, such as yourselves, are using blogs to create journals or portfolios of work, to critique the current state of media, and to communicate with others who have similar interests.

Zuiker has a great site that gives an in depth overview to the history and nature of blogging.

Blogs: A Short History
Blogs: An Anatomy
Blogs: Why Read, Why Write?
Blogs: Create One

The site also lists some great examples of the most popular types of blogs as well as an interesting reading list.

To get this discussion going, my questions to you are:

1. Based on what you know of blogging, why do you think it might be important for the future?
Some examples to consider in the future development of the blog...
- as a form of communication
- as a form of media analysis
- as a form of film/video distribution
- as a form of expression
- as a business
- as a form of rebellion

2. If you follow the Save the Internet link on this page and read up on Net Neutrality and what it means to the current state of the Internet, communication, and people- or citizen-powered media, how do you think losing net neutrality will affect the role of the blog?

Discuss!

OPEN THREAD (Week 6/19-6/23)

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:20:31 -0700

As they say on The DailyKos: chew it up, spit it out...

Comments on All the President's Men should go here.

And, if you've finished reading "1984"...
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. We want there to be peace. We want people to live in peace all around the world. I mean, our vision for peace extends beyond America. We believe in peace in South Asia. We believe in peace in the Middle East. We're going to be steadfast toward a vision that rejects terror and killing, and honors peace and hope. -- George W. Bush
Read the entire speech from 6/18/02.

Check out: SOS: Students for an Orwellian Society. It's a great site! Especially the translated goodspeak news Fox News Site.

Check out the site for the documentary The War Tapes...the first war movie filmed by soldiers themselves. There is also a trailer for the film.

And, check out this upcoming film release: The Road to Guantanomo.

Shantanu's Diary

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:17:41 -0700

Technology has truly taken over the lives of many in this fast paced world. It remains debatable to the extent of its locus of control and operation. Is it beneficial or harmful? Well,that is not the issue I would like to discuss about. If one were to notice, blogging, podcasting, live streaming and radio and more such options are becoming readily available to the public. This is infecting and breeding in the minds of the multitude as fast as any disease, only, it is not a disease. Lets hope not, since some consider dependance on technology and its peripherals a disease.
If one was to read off the screens and obtain all information from it, then what would be the need of newspapers?Why should we want to purchase a tangible and cumbersome item when it can be purchased online in a much more simple and convinient way???Besides, more paper means more and more trees!!!
So my questions follow my premises:
Is the phenomenon of e-world(so as to name it) a positive upshot of development or is it something reprehensibe? (health issues, scarcity of resources and other factors taken into consideration)
Is there a possibility for newspaper to naturally cease to exist because of other dominant sources of information available in a simplified manner?
Finally, is the evolution of advanced technology more reliable than the traditional form of reaching to the world?

Klaus' Diary

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:16:58 -0700

The war on terrorism has finally taken progress! About two and a half weeks ago an F-16 fighter jet managed to fire a bomb on the hide out of Mohammed Al Zarqawi, then America�s most wanted terrorist and consequently killed him. It was clearly a break through in international terrorism and therefore a victory for the western world.

So did anyone watch news that day? If you did, you will most likely agree that no matter what else was going on in the world on the 8th of June did not get any media attention at all.
But that was not the first time something like this has happened, after all �breaking news� is probably the most commonly mentioned sentence in US news. Whenever something in relation to the war on terrorism happens, world news has a shut down. Even if something important happened during that day, the average American, who relies on television news, would never find out about it. Therefore the question arises, whether the continuation of this type of �information blockage� could harm US society in the long run and to what extent we can continue to rely on television news.

OPEN THREAD (Week 6/12-6/16)

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:26:36 -0700

What's on your mind???
Discussions of An Inconvenient Truth are most welcome here!

Etka has inspired me to post this wonderful image!

Check out (NYT registration required):
Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate

eNewspapers: Control, Progress, and the Press

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:05:42 -0700

The Wizda reading for this week deals with the perception of The Times' local news reporting and their model for success. There is something to be said about the need for local news. However, despite the numerous awards bestowed on The Times, more mainstream news outlets and journalists still regard the local paper as nothing more than a collection of fluff pieces. The one main advantage that The Times has over the larger papers is how they write their stories. They use narrative devices and allow stories to be lengthy to create a more natural exposition of all the key players and facts.

Now, the Kunkel reading deals with something else to watch for: the mobile digital enewspaper.

The images above show the current progress that the E Ink Corporation has made in developing this technology. For more information, visit the E Ink Corp. Website.

According to Frank Aherns in his "Ink and Paper or 1s and 0s" (Washington Post registration required)

Storytelling will change (sic). Long articles such as this, with complete sentences and linguistic device, likely will dwindle in number and be restricted to the remaining newspapers and e-papers. News on small screens, such as that of your cell phone, will spit out in headlines and blurbs and sentences without articles: "Mars rodent attacks NASA probe."

Much like what is seen in Spielberg's film "Minority Report":

Notice how the USA Today headline changes immediately and the reader now knows the the person being looked for is right in front of him.

When combining Wizda's and Kunkel's articles, here are some areas to think about:

How will mobile eNewspapers affect a) how they are written and constructed and b) how they are received and interpreted because of the technology and efficiency?
It is troubling that neither Kunkel nor Aherns mention the inherent disadvantages of rapidly changing and altered text in the eNewspaper. Reflecting on Orwell's 1984 and the role of the Ministry of Truth, apply how such "progress" may lead to restrictive control of the press and the rewriting of the past as the accurate "version" of truth.
Like our Napster debate, is this really about progress or corporate/government alignment for control?

Newspapers vs. eNewspapers

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:49:21 -0700

Newspapers and eNewspapers are two different things. First of all, people are used to the newspapers that they receive every morning. Unfortunately, according to the [readings] it seems that newspapers do not really spur discussion when they are written. The articles are given straightforward and there are many of them put forth for the public. The difference with e-newspapers is that people can receive information on the go and at their convenience straight from their hand held devices. The problem now exists that when reading on these hand held devices news articles are more general stating the headlines and not much more of the article it holds. On the other hand, these e-newspaper articles have created a new way to get news. In addition, people can also see the discussions and such blogs associated with these e-newspapers. This spurs more independent thinking for the individual and allows one to see many angles of the story instead of the newspaper, such as the Times, presents it straightforward indicating how it is.Over time this sort of hand held e-newspaper technology will take over, especially when they figure out how to present such large bits of information quickly straight from your palm. The problem is that they might be slow and not enough information is presented on one page. They are now working on ways to create pages on these sorts of devices that allows one to view such information quickly and efficiently.

Once again, progress comes into question. When corporations develop such technology with hand held devices there will definitely be restrictive control of such information. This is because people can get almost any information from the internet. Over time technology will take over, without a doubt. It is unavoidable. What questions me is the fact that when people who are in control of such information and papers such as the Times they are the people in charge of the information. When the information is presented on the internet it will now not be how the paper presents it but it will include such information from individual who discuss the material and put up their own views. It will allow the public to get a better understanding of what is actually happening around them. Now this raises concerns for the people in charge behind the scenes. They will be exposed with the time of information they give out and people will actually come to realize what the truth and the real information is. This could cause some controversy over corporate and government control. News Corporations will be seen differently and they might even have to explain what they presented in the past might have been a little misleading and they will have to cover up for it. In order to prevent such corporations from causing more of the public to see it their way instead of how it is then the government would have to put in their regulations and policies to control the information presented especially when people started scrolling on their hand held devices. More is available and information could be distorted if the wrong person gets their hands on it.

This then leads me to ask the following questions:

1). Do you think in a country where capitalism runs it the government can actually put their hand in it to regulate the media industry? Or does this go against what countries like the United States were built on and represent.

2). Could it be that governments and media corporation leaders already know of such concerns and use it to their advantages? Do they work together? Do you think the government needs to be more assertive in their ways and how would they do this?

3). Control over information is definitely changing especially in today�s day because of the internet. Could it be that over time the public will have to create some sort of uprising in order to be given the right information instead of being given misleading information? Things change all the time. I wonder if over time this issue will really be blown out of the water? Will the leaders be exposed or will they be able to cover themselves for their actions?