Weegee.

"Girl jumped out of car, and was killed, on Park Ave, c1938"(c/o The Guardian)

  Arthur Fellig, better known as "Weegee" was a street photographer who operated mainly out of New York, and later out of Los Angeles. His claim to fame was in grim crime scene photography that was popular at the time(pre and post world war two era). He was also famous for his ability to show up at a scene just after police or firefighters, or even beforehand. He was also the only reporter in New York that was allowed to carry a police scanner, which would have been a huge advantage in a time with such limited technology. He even went so far as to live next to the police station so he could follow the police to the action. In a way, his early tabloid style made him a macabre TMZ of his time.

  Another very unique aspect of his photography was his darkroom setup. The trunk of his car also served as a mobile darkroom that allowed him to get his photos and have them ready for delivery all in one shot. His methods for pricing pictures were also fairly unique.  Gruesome shots were in high demand, as crime scene tabloids were very popular at the time, and Weegee capitalized on this. He would charge $5 per bullet hole in a picture of a corpse.

  His early work was within the New York area, specializing in street and crime scene/accident  photography. While the majority of his work was in grizzly tabloid styles, he also captured a lot of scenes of daily life and candid New York scenes. Two of his more famous shots, one of children sleeping on a fire escape, and one of a lost boy on Coney Island stray away from this tabloid style and display his interest in every day New York. 

  In 1945 he published his first book called "Naked City", a compilation of 299 accompanied with his text. The book was a big success, and he gained a lot of notoriety for his ability to capture things other than crime scene tabloid shots. This notoriety was his motivation to move to Hollywood. While in Hollywood he worked in movie production and photography and even had some acting experience.(Photo Journalism: The Professionals' Approach, The New York Times: "He Made Blood and Guts Fabulous")

Read More

Book buyback; your books, your money.

Sam Knight(far left) waits for his shot at wealth in the book buyback table.

Not all books get bucks. Sam gets bad news from Robin about the value of his accounting book.

It may not be a total return on investment, but Sam gets something.

Read More

New media ideas and old media ideals.

There I sat in forum 114 of Linn Benton Community College, Albany Oregon. The epicenter of new political ideas and media revolution. Well, maybe not, but it was an interesting discussion on how our political world is changing, and how our media preference is influencing these changes. The speakers in this discussion were from three sets of backgrounds that pertained to the discussion.

Dr Rob Sahr was from Oregon State University's School of Public Policy and political science. He would serve as the panel’s speaker on political process and public opinion.  Hasso Herring; 30 year employee and executive editor for the Albany Democrat Herald would serve as the ‘old world media’ representative, giving a grounding in local print news media influence and process. And finally, LBCC’s own Rob Priewe would serve as the new media/social media advocate, explaining the impact of the net-connected world on the American political scene.

The discussion started out with a brief review and summary of the event by LBCC professor, and advisor of the Democracy in Action Club: Dr. Robert Harrison. He would introduce all three panel members, and serve as a moderator throughout the discussion. He had also mentioned a Democracy in action march from LBCC campus into Salem which sounded very interesting, but I had failed to take notes on time and place. So, after introductions and outlines had been given the discussion started off with Dr Sahr.

Dr Sahr’s first topic of discussion was the American political process, and the growing rift in partisan politics. He explained how many voters feel put off by the fact that the American political scene has become so fiercely partisan. In his words America had the “best political system in the world, but....”. This but was the area in the political system that was muddled by special interests and general party politics. This brought him back to the topic of partisan politics and distrust by voters. Dr Sahr  then introduced a website called www.nolabels.org. No Labels is a non-partisan website that was designed to help people vote on a larger number of presidential candidates that came from a more diverse background. It also allowed for voters to pick and choose the individual aspects that they found appealing about each candidate, and would inform them of their stance on popular topics allowing voters a choice on candidates outside of the normal two party system.  

He would go on to explain the electoral college system, and how it affects voting. This is the point where Dr Sahr covered a lot of ground, really fast. This is also the point where I was struggling to keep notes as fast has he was talking. He went over some pretty interesting points about third party candidates being less effective in their own candidacy, and more effective in robbing a republican or democrat from votes that may win them elections when a race was extremely narrow, or when electoral votes were unbalanced.  As a  summary, I would say that Dr Sahr believed that the power of a political candidate lay in his or her influence over people through speaking ability and less from super pacs, or social media.  

Next in the chute was Rob Priewe with his thoughts on super pacs and how social media affected politics. Rob shared the same optimism about super pacs negligible effects on political outcomes that Dr Sahr presented. Like Dr Sahr, he did not seem to believe that super pacs would carry much weight in terms of election results. He did seem to think that the massive amount of money that super pacs could raise was a definite advantage in getting a certain candidate to the forefront of a political party, but like Dr Sahr, he did not believe that money alone could sway an election. Rob even invited the presence of super pacs, as he seemed to consider them to be a good group use of first amendment rights, and trying to impose restrictions would be a violation of those rights. 

The big divergence in Rob’s presentation versus Dr Sahr was in the impact of social media on presidential elections. He cited the extremely successful use of a huge social media campaign by the Obama administration during the 2008 presidential elections. He would also point out that there was no traveling involved in the Obama fundraising, saving a ton of money for the campaign. A campaign that managed to raise far more money than John McCain’s traditional, traveling fundraising efforts, as Rob pointed out. A summary of Mr Priewe’s speaking would be to say that he believed that social media and web interaction were going to be instrumental to the outcomes of future elections,  more so than super pacs or other massive sources of funding that have been the norm until now.

The last speaker was Hasso Herring. His opinion on super pacs was in line with the other two speakers, as he too did not believe that they were unconstitutional, or that they posed any real threat to elections. He would not share Rob’s optimism about social media’s role in the election process. In fact, I believe that his opening sentence pertained to his pessimism of social media’s role in elections. Herring most definitely seemed as if he was an old media believer, and that was readily apparent in his mannerism when speaking about social media. He spoke with a slightly irritated tone for the majority of his lecture. The same irritated tone that a father takes when his teenage son tells him that he doesn’t follow his political train of thought. He went on to speak about the irrelevance of social media in local elections, and how they would have no real impact on issues like voting for open release of who had obtained a concealed carry permit in Linn County. Herring believed that social media was not interested in local events, and was too slow in comparison to traditional print coverage. He would downplay the role that social media had in the Obama election, saying that there were many factors that lead to Obama’s win, and social media was a small player, but not a key one.

Super pacs, social media, the elections, and lots of money; what does all of this mean? My overall impression from this forum was that our political process is in a stage of transformation, just as it has always been, and hopefully it will always be. I believe, just as all three of these speakers believe; that super pacs are something that is a bit ticket topic for right now, but ultimately something that will come to pass with no corporate takeovers of the US election process. I also believe, unlike Mister Herring that social media is a quickly growing player in the way this country chooses a president. While Facebook may not directly lead to an election of any president I believe that it will surely be something that everyone -who wants to be anyone- will have to take seriously from now on. Even if super pacs should strike such a serious blow  to future elections that many are forecasting, I think that the power of social media will be a direct counterpart in this influence. Facebook, and other social media contain a power that money cannot buy. Money will only get at the minds of those who are willing to sit through an advertisement. Social media contains the power of the voices of everyone you know, and anyone you don’t. The recounting of a powerful speech, or the persuasion of opinion by your best friend from high school is much more meaningful to people than a conglomeration of corporations trying to throw money at you through your tv and radio.

Read More

Teen Mom....ugh

I gave into a moment of weakness and watched episode twelve, season two, of Teen Mom 2 on January 12th on MTV.com under the urging of my girlfriend. I normally try to avoid reality shows(or anything on MTV for that matter) as much as possible, but we only have one tv so I was doomed. This episode was not my first Teen Mom rodeo. I had been drug through these trenches a few times before and I would be lying if I wasn't  curious about this episode. This episode follows four teenage girls as they struggle to raise their children(obvious, I know).

Newly single parent Leah and her twin daughters.

Leah is the first girl this episode focouses on. She has recently started into a divorce with her husband after admitting that she had cheated on him for the second time ten days before their wedding. The episode follows her as she goes through the divorce, struggles with custody issues, reclaiming her property, and her move into a new trailer. There are also the occasional 'candid' filmed conversations between Leah and her sister and mother that have a suspiciously scripted and unnatural feel to them. A lot of these conversations seem to be very one sided where her family would ask her a question and she would answer, but there would be very little feedback from the family member, leaving only her side to the situation.

Janelle rehabing it up.

Janelle is the next girl that the episode follows through her rehab process. Prior to this episode she had been arrested with her boyfriend for breaking and entering and possesion of marijuana. After the arrest she decides to dump her boyfriend(partly due to a non-association order order filed against her after her court appearance and after a domestic violence charge that she had filed against him) and attend an inpatient rehab in California. Her daughter has been in the custody of her mother throughout the season, and she has been inconsistent in living with her and the amount that she watches her. She goes through the rehab process and finds out that she may have a bi-polar disorder along the way. She is released and "rehabilitated" by the end of the episode, and returns home to live with her mom and son.

A very orange Chelsea and her super-cool ex-boyfriend.

Chelsea is the next girl in our illustrious lineup. The episode follows her as she takes her initial GED test, gives her dad money for the first time after paying all of her bills since her pregnancy(rent for an expensive-looking house, a brand new jeep, ect), and "tries" to resist the urge to get back with her dirtbag ex-boyfriend after her mother's "advice" against dating him. The episode wraps up with her passing her initial GED tes, and getting a ride in her ex-boyfriend's super-cool truck, and even cooler crotch rocket as the scene closes with a heart framing the shot.

Kailyn and Jo with their child.

Last, but certainly not least in this episode is Kailyn. Early on in the series she had cheated on her boyfriend, and baby daddy Jo, who subsequently broke up with her and kicked her out of his parent's house. From there she moved in with the guy she had cheated on Jo with where she had lived until this episode. She began having Jo over for court appointed visits, and ended up having sex with him after two visits. She eventually told her boyfriend about said sex, and tried to pass it off as if she was the victim, but he still ended up packing up his stuff and leaving her. So, she had now been left by two different guys for cheating on them. Winner winner, chicken dinner.


  Analyzing this train wreck: The attitude of this show is what concerns me the most. Everything in this show seems to be written to cast some sort of rose colored glow on these girl's situations, when a lot of them are setting themselves up to be in potentially disastrous situations in the near future. The show seems to really try hard to target teenage girl's urge to turn everything into a love story, or to try and pull romance where there is potential, or eventual tragedy. The monologues and "candid" interviews are written with the uncalled for optimism and ignorance of a high schooler's Facebook post. They are almost always some sort of one sided personal reflection of the situation with little scope of the possible disparity of these girls situations. Everything seems to be written to draw teenage audiences in with an antagonist, or hurdle that is eventually overcame with blissful optimism(urgent optimism maybe?).
    A good case in point is the situation between Chelsea and her ex-boyfriend. Throughout this series he has consistently cheated on her, insulted her and their child, and has displayed a general pattern of douchebaggery. Chelsea had vowed never to return to him, and was constantly distraught at the thought of not being with him, yet she would get all giddy at the first thought of him calling. Later, when he calls and tells her that he wants to see their child for the weekend she initially refuses because his parents are away, and she is afraid that he will get drunk and leave the child unattended. She then decides to have him over to see the baby after a short giddy "lecture" by her mom, who tells her not to go with him, but conveys otherwise with her giggly schoolgirl attitude. This visit turns into Chelsea going on a ride in superdouche'sdamnit if I'm not" grin. This shot ends with an animation of a pink cartoon broken heart being mended with a question mark floating out of it. Later on she goes on a ride on his crotch rocket(he allows her to ride without a helmet and in flip-flops and a tank top at dusk, real good guy move) and the show brings in the sappy ass teen love song to frame the shot as some love triumphs all scene, completely ignoring this girl's blatant plastic stupidity of her own screwed up situation. This kind of mindless sensationalism of mediocrity and ignorance is the main overtone that is obviously apparent throughout this show.
     This show is neither unique, or different from the usual MTV drivel that seems to be the gold standard in shaping early adults world views.


  Interpreting the embarrassing:   Rarely do you hear any mention of the children themselves. This show is almost completely centered around the melodramatic ups and downs of these teens lives, with the exception of the children themselves. Every one of these girls can be placed into the stupid young teen stereotype that most of our parents probably placed us in.  There is never any real reflection on the seriousness of these girls situations, other than the occasional "oh my gaawd" or "that is like, seriously messed up"  moments with their friends.
     The commercials in this episode seemed to be more associated with the cosmetic industry, but there were a lot of pregnancy test and baby product(diapers, baby wipes, ect). Most of the cosmetic commercials were focused toward younger women, which was no surprise. I think that the typical demographic for this show is probably 10-25 year old women, and young mothers. The commercials for cosmetics would probably be especially interesting for young mothers, as this show paints glowing, bright futures for the mothers on the show, and what could make your future brighter than some new Covergirl products!
      If I were a tourist or newly transplanted American I would watch this show with some feeling of "Shit, I moved to the wrong neighborhood". I would also think that the majority of Americans were ignorant and reckless(probably true).

Evaluation(why god...): This show's one big strength is that it is edited in a way that really draws viewers in to stick around for the next show. I would be lying if I did not want to continue watching this downward spiral of mediocre glam. They keep you drawn in with the typical reality show "ooh, what's going to happen next" reveals and commercial breaks. This show is an enabler to all of the high school aged girls who watch it in the fact that it provides an unrealistic view of teen pregnancy. The show seems to consistently ignore the real implications of these girl's situations, and anything other than the best case scenarios.
   Reviews were just as I would have thought them to be. The IMDB ratings show that teen girls love the show, while everyone else considers it to be garbage. The amount of bad ratings by teen girls may be a product of how many teen girls watch the show compared to how little older women watch it, but I still consider the data to reflect the maturity of older viewers, and the fact that they can realize the quality of the show.

The future of Teen Mom viewers?

Conclusions: My first reaction to hearing that my girlfriend watched this show was "oh no, not you"  as if she was one of the bitten in a zombie movie. My first reaction to the show was just as I though it would be. I probably had a lot of bias about the show before I ever watched it, but the show spoke for itself and never really had me second guessing my prejudicial thoughts about how worthless this show really was.

Read More

Interactive advertising, augmented reality, gps aided shopping, and your privacy/sanity.

                                                                                                  The big ideas of AT&T via 1993                                                    

     This was AT&T's take on the future of computers, the internet, and interactivity from 1993. Although no one is renewing their driver's license from an ATM, many of the then lofty aspirations that AT&T had laid out for our tech marriages have come to fruition in some way shape or form. Many handheld, touchscreen, wifi connected things that we take for granted have been around for less than five years and the relationships that we have with our devices and our Internet person as are growing at an astounding rate. In turn, the amount of information a person knowingly or unknowingly gives to outside entities is staggering. From a live stream of a persons location throughout the day to the most intimate details of how we spend our money everything we do while connected to the Internet is being used to tailor a market to our personal likes, dislikes, and habits. The following will explore some of the good, the bad, and the interesting bi products of our constant interconnection with everything and the ideas that marketers and advertisers are producing that are changing the way things are made, and the way we are targeted. 

Interactivity: a really cool way for someone to get in your wallet. Advertisement is about trying to stand out from the rest of the crowd's neon glow in order to prevail as the most interesting 'thing' to consumers. Advertisers are engaged in a constant battle to compete within their own specific product markets where they can predict the viewing and buying habits of their audience. The advertisements that you will find in a copy of Car and Driver are fairly predictable; websites to buy parts for your wanna-be sports car, cool tires to put down all of that horsepower from you wanna-be sports car, and cool beer to drink in your wanna-be sports car(some alcohol warnings are even specific to the types of media they are in, e.g. don't drink and drive). Advertising in these specific markets is fairly predictable, and is often the same from one magazine ad or tv show commercial to another. In comes the Internet(boom goes the dynamite?). A portion of a person's time on the Internet may be spent in easily definable and predictable websites like CarandDriver.com  for instance, or they may be stumbling around Tosh.O's website, a website that has no real relevance to anything other than the Internet itself. The Internet is full of random, seemingly meaningless sites like Tosh.O and swaying a random viewer's attention to your brand of printer paper over some other guy's wanna be sports car is a challenge, and advertisers are coming up with more and more complex ways in which to capture people's attention. In the past advertisement has been a one way street. Your looked at, watched, or read what Company A was trying to sell to you and that was the end of the line. Using this one way advertising is only good for as long as your ad can keep a consumer's attention. As communication goes this is akin to the long lectures your parents would give you, preaching about this or that, stuck in the back seat of the lecture van  your dad is driving, winding down a seemingly endless road of one way rhetoric that you had long ago stopped paying attention to because you had no interaction and quickly lost interest. This is the same reaction that most people have with an average advertisement. The Internet and mobile devices have seen a rise in a new form of advertising that breaks the you sit and listen while I talk kind of ads. Many ads have taken on a more proactive style of engaging their audiences by either involving the consumer in the ads or their products, or by involving themselves with the consumer. 

Read More