I only watched a total of fifteen minutes of the debate. I hoped that for once, Clinton and Trump would really address the issues and answer the questions in an intelligent and well thought out manner. However, that did not happen. In the few minutes that I watched, the debate quickly turned into something of a farce.
That may be my opinion, but there is a reason behind it. At first, both candidates did their best to answer the questions asked, except that it was clear that Clinton was intentionally manipulating things to put Trump on the defensive. Her strategy worked and Trump, though he tried his best to not take the bait, ended up attempting to explain himself and attacking Hillary. Once that happened, it was no longer a debate, but a contest to see who had the most dirt on who.
After I stopped watching, I checked my Twitter feed as well as my Facebook. Unfortunately for me, the majority of those I follow on Twitter and a few friends on Facebook are HRC supporters and it showed. A Tweet from Katy Perry: "I literally just did a dance around the room in my pj's!" in response to Hillary Clinton saying :" Yeah, I prepared for this debate AND i'm prepared to be President!"
Support for either candidate aside, the consensus on both of those social media outlets was that this wasn't a debate as much as it was an opportunity for Hillary to flex her muscle and for both candidates to sling mud at each other. Clinton was making Trump look bad and Trump was defending himself as well as making every attempt to make Hillary look bad.
From my point of view, there is a considerable amount of bias toward Trump and a plethora of support for Clinton in the media and among artists and entertainers, so it was difficult for me to get an assessment on what the medias views were concerning the debate and whether or not actual issues were addressed. Hence my conclusion that the whole thing was a farce.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
On The Media #2
I listened to the broadcast titled After 9/11, Nothing Was Funny. It was a recap of interviews with comedians Will Ferrel and Marc Maron, following the events of 9/11 asking about the future of humor after the tragedy in New York.
Now, ten days after the fifteenth anniversary of September 11, this brought back some interesting memories and feelings.
I had watched the fall of the Twin Towers on television and I remember wondering if it was appropriate to find humor in anything, because how could I laugh, when thousands of people had died and the security of our country was in question?
When I look back at those feelings and realize that at some point, I had realized that it was okay to laugh at things, because humor, at its core, comes from happiness and often times laughter can dissipate even the darkest of moods.
That said, I think we as a society never gave much thought about what was considered comedy prior to 9/11. It seems that nothing was really off limits at the time and after that day, there are definitely things that are not cool to joke about.
One has to wonder why it took such a devastating thing to make Americans take a step back and think about whether or not a certain joke is funny.
Now, ten days after the fifteenth anniversary of September 11, this brought back some interesting memories and feelings.
I had watched the fall of the Twin Towers on television and I remember wondering if it was appropriate to find humor in anything, because how could I laugh, when thousands of people had died and the security of our country was in question?
When I look back at those feelings and realize that at some point, I had realized that it was okay to laugh at things, because humor, at its core, comes from happiness and often times laughter can dissipate even the darkest of moods.
That said, I think we as a society never gave much thought about what was considered comedy prior to 9/11. It seems that nothing was really off limits at the time and after that day, there are definitely things that are not cool to joke about.
One has to wonder why it took such a devastating thing to make Americans take a step back and think about whether or not a certain joke is funny.
Friday, September 16, 2016
Learning and Thinking
Learning and thinking is an interesting topic to reflect on, especially considering that the two supposedly go hand in hand. Typically, an educated or "learn ed" person has the ability to think critically. This means they can take a situation and examine two sides and determine the correct course of action.
To me, this doesn't necessarily mean that an uneducated-or rather-under educated person does not have the ability to think things through. Instead, i think it all comes down to choice. There are those in society who literally choose to let someone else do their thinking for them. Perhaps that is one reason we have some of the problems we have in our current society. People do not take the time to think about how their actions, or lack of it, will affect another.
The question I find myself asking is, " What does learning have to do with thinking?"
I think the answer lies in the current state of our education system. An 2014 article from the Huffington Post by Eric Cooper talks about how schools were beginning to focus more on students testing ability rather than their ability to solve problems. In it he states "...teaching students to take a test is not the same as teaching them to think critically."
This begs the question: Are students in American schools being challenged to come up with their own views and opinions, or are they being told how to think?
I am of the opinion that the future of society is a scary thing if the answer to that question is the latter. Imagine what the world will be like in twenty years, when today's high school students are closing in on their forties having gone through their twenties expecting to be told the answers and not being able to figure things out on their own. Terrifying. A society without creative or critical thinking is a society that has lost its way.
To me, this doesn't necessarily mean that an uneducated-or rather-under educated person does not have the ability to think things through. Instead, i think it all comes down to choice. There are those in society who literally choose to let someone else do their thinking for them. Perhaps that is one reason we have some of the problems we have in our current society. People do not take the time to think about how their actions, or lack of it, will affect another.
The question I find myself asking is, " What does learning have to do with thinking?"
I think the answer lies in the current state of our education system. An 2014 article from the Huffington Post by Eric Cooper talks about how schools were beginning to focus more on students testing ability rather than their ability to solve problems. In it he states "...teaching students to take a test is not the same as teaching them to think critically."
This begs the question: Are students in American schools being challenged to come up with their own views and opinions, or are they being told how to think?
I am of the opinion that the future of society is a scary thing if the answer to that question is the latter. Imagine what the world will be like in twenty years, when today's high school students are closing in on their forties having gone through their twenties expecting to be told the answers and not being able to figure things out on their own. Terrifying. A society without creative or critical thinking is a society that has lost its way.
Radicalization and Religion
I find myself in the middle when it comes to radicalization and religion. This is mainly due to the fact that I've grown up in a religious family and from my point of view, I don't consider religion to be radical.
Consider this: When one is taught a religion from birth to adulthood, that religion becomes a part of their life-a way of living to be more precise. Your actions towards others and the way you view the world as a whole is part of that way of life. This is especially true for Christians and Latter Day Saints. It isn't any less true for Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Islamics; or Pagans . All of these groups approach life according to their beliefs.
So where does the radical part come in?
One definition of the word radical, is something that relates to or affects the fundamental nature of something, far-reaching or thorough. By that definition, religion is radical because it is often far-reaching. There isn't one place in the world that is without some kind of religion.
Perhaps we should consider the definition of religion itself, which is: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. By that definition alone, Atheists and those who are not part of a religion are the only ones who can truly consider religion to be radical, because for them, religion is so far removed from what they believe.
In my opinion, the radicalization of religion is due to the idea that religion itself-the belief in God, a god, or gods is extreme. After all, Christianity is the largest religion in the world, accounting for 32 percent of the worlds population according to an Washington Times article titled " 84 Percent of the World Population Has Faith; a Third Are Christian" posted on December 23, 2012.
In today's society and mainly due to social media trends, it isn't just religion as a whole that is radicalized. Specific religions are considered to be radical simply because those religions are considered to be extreme compared to the mainstream. In fact, the two most radicalized religions are Mormonism and Islam. Islam being the more recent of the two that has received that label because of the actions of an extremist group affiliated with that religion, though it was not the religion itself that committed those atrocities.
I could go on and on, perhaps for pages. A book even.
Let me conclude on this thought: As a society we continually seek for some place to fit in, where we feel accepted and comfortable. Often times that isn't very hard to do, since there are always going to be individuals who believe as we do and who enjoy the same things. When we discover something that is outside of that comfort zone, we tend to feel threatened by it, because there is the possibility that it will change the status quo that we have become so comfortable living in. Religion is that catalyst. It is that thing that is far reaching and affects the fundamental nature of human kinds way of life. Instead of labeling it under the aforementioned definition of radical, perhaps we should consider it to be another definition of the word: very good, excellent.
Consider this: When one is taught a religion from birth to adulthood, that religion becomes a part of their life-a way of living to be more precise. Your actions towards others and the way you view the world as a whole is part of that way of life. This is especially true for Christians and Latter Day Saints. It isn't any less true for Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Islamics; or Pagans . All of these groups approach life according to their beliefs.
So where does the radical part come in?
One definition of the word radical, is something that relates to or affects the fundamental nature of something, far-reaching or thorough. By that definition, religion is radical because it is often far-reaching. There isn't one place in the world that is without some kind of religion.
Perhaps we should consider the definition of religion itself, which is: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. By that definition alone, Atheists and those who are not part of a religion are the only ones who can truly consider religion to be radical, because for them, religion is so far removed from what they believe.
In my opinion, the radicalization of religion is due to the idea that religion itself-the belief in God, a god, or gods is extreme. After all, Christianity is the largest religion in the world, accounting for 32 percent of the worlds population according to an Washington Times article titled " 84 Percent of the World Population Has Faith; a Third Are Christian" posted on December 23, 2012.
In today's society and mainly due to social media trends, it isn't just religion as a whole that is radicalized. Specific religions are considered to be radical simply because those religions are considered to be extreme compared to the mainstream. In fact, the two most radicalized religions are Mormonism and Islam. Islam being the more recent of the two that has received that label because of the actions of an extremist group affiliated with that religion, though it was not the religion itself that committed those atrocities.
I could go on and on, perhaps for pages. A book even.
Let me conclude on this thought: As a society we continually seek for some place to fit in, where we feel accepted and comfortable. Often times that isn't very hard to do, since there are always going to be individuals who believe as we do and who enjoy the same things. When we discover something that is outside of that comfort zone, we tend to feel threatened by it, because there is the possibility that it will change the status quo that we have become so comfortable living in. Religion is that catalyst. It is that thing that is far reaching and affects the fundamental nature of human kinds way of life. Instead of labeling it under the aforementioned definition of radical, perhaps we should consider it to be another definition of the word: very good, excellent.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Law Enforcement and Racism
An interesting thing occurred while I researched this topic. My internet search using Bing turned up next to nothing on this topic. As a matter of fact, I was linked to a number of articles that were either about racism, or law enforcement and its use of social media, not one of the articles I was lead to had anything to do with law enforcement and racism, or racism among law enforcement officials.
I decided to attempt a different search using Twitter as my tool. By simply searching Twitter for the hashtags: #lawenforcement #racism. I found a long list of tweets that were reactions to incidents involving the police and someone of color, as well as tweets sharing articles addressing the issue of racism and the law. It begs the question: Why is it easier to find articles covering Law enforcement and racism on Twitter than it is through an internet search engine? Is there some kind of bias at work here?
During my search, an article from The Root peaked my interest. "The 7 Most Outrageous and Racist Acts Found in DOJ's report on Baltimore Police Department". which pinpoints seven egregious and unlawful acts committed by the Baltimore Police Department.
One of the acts cited in the article, reports that a police Sergeant instructed another officer to make up a reason for stopping a group of black men, who were not breaking the law; all while investigators from the DOJ were riding in the squad car.
The thing that stands out to me the most in that incident is the apparent disregard that the Sergeant had, not only for the rights of the black men-who had done nothing wrong-but also for the officials riding in the car. He must have assumed the DOJ investigators were already on his side. His blatant attitude is staggeringly mind boggling. Surely, this kind of attitude is at the center of the controversy.
I decided to attempt a different search using Twitter as my tool. By simply searching Twitter for the hashtags: #lawenforcement #racism. I found a long list of tweets that were reactions to incidents involving the police and someone of color, as well as tweets sharing articles addressing the issue of racism and the law. It begs the question: Why is it easier to find articles covering Law enforcement and racism on Twitter than it is through an internet search engine? Is there some kind of bias at work here?
During my search, an article from The Root peaked my interest. "The 7 Most Outrageous and Racist Acts Found in DOJ's report on Baltimore Police Department". which pinpoints seven egregious and unlawful acts committed by the Baltimore Police Department.
One of the acts cited in the article, reports that a police Sergeant instructed another officer to make up a reason for stopping a group of black men, who were not breaking the law; all while investigators from the DOJ were riding in the squad car.
The thing that stands out to me the most in that incident is the apparent disregard that the Sergeant had, not only for the rights of the black men-who had done nothing wrong-but also for the officials riding in the car. He must have assumed the DOJ investigators were already on his side. His blatant attitude is staggeringly mind boggling. Surely, this kind of attitude is at the center of the controversy.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
On the Media #1
I listened to "Covering the First Atomic Bombs" which is an account of two journalists; George Weller and William L Laurence, who each reported on very different aspects of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and how, in George Weller's case, his report was covered up and lost for sixty years, until his son found old carbon copies of Weller's initial reports in 2005. The latter being eventually published.
This podcast talks about how George Weller, disobeyed government instructions to stay away from both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, to report on the effects of what he considered to be a bigger bomb, upon seeing the devastation caused by the explosion. Until he went to one of the local hospitals and saw what he coined as "Disease X" knowing nothing of radiation.
Brooke Gladstone, in an interview with Author Greg Mitchell, speculates that the government did not publish Weller's articles and allowed them to become lost, because they knew about the effects of the radiation on human beings.
The podcast goes on to suggest that this could have been the reason journalists were, in fact barred from even approaching the affected areas.
Another interview included in the podcast speaks of William L Laurence, who was commissioned by the government to report on the bombing, which he witnessed from high above the island of Hiroshima in the B-52 that dropped the bomb. He essentially described the explosion as something beautiful in its power and destructiveness.
As the podcast continues, it becomes apparent that the government did take precautions to keep the truth of just how devastating and destructive the atomic bomb was, not wanting the American to know that the radiation caused by the bomb could cause such a horrific disease, but also spread, unseen for miles.
The knowledge that there was a cover up of this magnitude seventy one years ago, does not necessarily sway my opinion on whether or not America should have dropped the A bomb or not. For the record, millions of lives would have been lost, had the war with the Japanese continued and the Japanese people very nearly made extinct. Thus, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though terrible and horrific the affects were, was necessary to save those millions of lives in my opinion.
Additionally, it is my feeling that the government felt that covering up the truth was necessary in order to maintain the idea that bombing Japan was the only option they had to end the war, which it eventually did, because once Japan realized that the America had such immense destructive power at their disposal, it became more important to preserve the existence of the Japanese people and culture.
This podcast talks about how George Weller, disobeyed government instructions to stay away from both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, to report on the effects of what he considered to be a bigger bomb, upon seeing the devastation caused by the explosion. Until he went to one of the local hospitals and saw what he coined as "Disease X" knowing nothing of radiation.
Brooke Gladstone, in an interview with Author Greg Mitchell, speculates that the government did not publish Weller's articles and allowed them to become lost, because they knew about the effects of the radiation on human beings.
The podcast goes on to suggest that this could have been the reason journalists were, in fact barred from even approaching the affected areas.
Another interview included in the podcast speaks of William L Laurence, who was commissioned by the government to report on the bombing, which he witnessed from high above the island of Hiroshima in the B-52 that dropped the bomb. He essentially described the explosion as something beautiful in its power and destructiveness.
As the podcast continues, it becomes apparent that the government did take precautions to keep the truth of just how devastating and destructive the atomic bomb was, not wanting the American to know that the radiation caused by the bomb could cause such a horrific disease, but also spread, unseen for miles.
The knowledge that there was a cover up of this magnitude seventy one years ago, does not necessarily sway my opinion on whether or not America should have dropped the A bomb or not. For the record, millions of lives would have been lost, had the war with the Japanese continued and the Japanese people very nearly made extinct. Thus, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though terrible and horrific the affects were, was necessary to save those millions of lives in my opinion.
Additionally, it is my feeling that the government felt that covering up the truth was necessary in order to maintain the idea that bombing Japan was the only option they had to end the war, which it eventually did, because once Japan realized that the America had such immense destructive power at their disposal, it became more important to preserve the existence of the Japanese people and culture.
Social Media Campaign Plan
My Facebook page is the Facebook page for new game development company Triple Pew Studios LLC, of which I a am a co founder, along with my brother and our artist, Will Bryant. Our Facebook page is being used to promote our company and more importantly, our first game: Void Slayer. Our target audience are individuals between 14 and 47 years of age, of diverse backgrounds. The goal is to spread the word about our company's mission and the games we have developed and will develop. The ultimate goal, is to gain interest in our games, especially our first.
Personas
Danny is 14 and a Freshman in high school. He loves video games so much, that he saves most of his allowance, so he has money for video games. Setting aside his allowance frequently has allowed him to purchase a Wii, XBox One and a Playstation 4. However, he does not only play video games on those platforms, but also has a number of different games on his smart phone. For Danny, playing video games is a way of life.
Lisa is a 45 year old mother of four children, one of whom has graduated high school and attends the local University. With three children still in high school, Lisa does many activities to relieve stress. She takes a yoga class, exercises often and enjoys playing a game or two on her iPhone. While she isn't the quintessential "gamer" she does appreciate finding exciting and fun games to add to her collection of mobile apps, or to replace games she has become tired of.
Russell, 20, is a college student and athlete, who spends most of his free time maintaining his health and physical prowess, or with his girlfriend. He doesn't have much time for video games, but finds that having a good game on his phone helps keep him from getting bored when his girl is talking on the phone, or shopping.
Tactics
Use Facebook , Twitter and Instagram to communicate with and involve our target audience by sharing updates, art and ads across all three social media platforms. One that has already been utilized was to create a poll showing new title art concepts and giving visitors an opportunity to vote on their favorite and sharing that poll on all three social media platforms. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram will also be used as a means to inform our audience and the general public of updates to the current game and sharing with them the process of developing upcoming games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)