Monday, November 09, 2009

Murdoch Fail

Matthew Trevithick
Websites? What for?
Once their content charging scheme is in effect, Rupert Murdoch says newspapers in his News Corp company empire - The Sun, The Times (UK), The Wall Street Journal etc. - will begin removing his papers' stories from Google's index, as means of "encouraging people to pay for content online." In an interview with Sky News Australia, Murdoch said that the blocking plans would begin, once the company had begun the process of charging users for reading their content.

There's only one drawback with this plan. Can Murdoch not see that once he has enacted these plans, he is all but removing himself from the largest source of web traffic on the internet - thus - decreasing the chances that people will even visit his websites? Let alone, pay to read content from them?

This must not be a fun prospect for future advertisers. If the company your paying to display ads on, is - in essence - slashing the chances that your ads will be seen in the first place, simple logic would conclude that said company might think twice about advertising with your website(s).

Secondly, Murdoch has Google, and its news aggregator Google News all wrong. Unless there is another hidden side to it, Google and Google News are sending users towards his websites, thus increasing ad revenue.

Maybe I have it all wrong?

Guardian UK


Thursday, November 05, 2009

[insert something here]

Matthew Trevithick
Rammblings. Nothing but.
It's a shame really. I always used to post entries about certain topics on this blog, but as of late, I haven't really been in the mood. It's not that my opinions have vanished into thin air, it's just that I can't comprehend how in the world I would put them all into text. And believe me, I'm opinionated. For some reason, whenever I blog or rant or what have you, I always find myself trailing off into unrelated tangents full of oddly-worded sentences and awkwardly-started introductions. My ability to write, and write well for that matter, has diminished noticeably in the last few months - probably - due to my lack of motivation.

Hopefully, soon, I will start posting again. I just need some ideas.

MT


Monday, October 05, 2009

My Letter to the UWO Archives

Matthew Trevithick
*Hopes he gets a response!
I wrote this letter to the archives of the University of Western Ontario. They have a massive collection of historical and archived photographs, and my idea was to make them accessable to everyone on the internet. What do you think?
It would be a great service to many in the city, if the archives, which are vastly unknown and unseen by the people who live here, were made accessible via the internet. Finding a way to digitally showcase the photographs accumulated in the archive of both the LFPress Archive and others (LFPress archive with permission of course) would be a great help to people who want to see what life was once like in the city, and for those who have never seen anything like it before. People love seeing their city in the past, and having the chance to compare past to present.

A good example of what I'm talking about, can be found on the Flickr of the New York Public Library (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nypl/), and on its digital website, that offers users the ability to look through over 700,000 archived images, for free. (http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/index.cfm).

If theft is an issue, watermarking of images, or simply the restriction of high-resolution versions is an option. Flickr, when disabling the option of making images downloadable, makes it impossible to "right-click > save" images off of the photos page.

I write, not to say that you should do this, but to offer it as an idea, hopefully for the near future.

Matt
Do you think this is a good idea? Google has been doing things like this with LIFE Magazine - posting their entire 10 million photo collection online for all to see, as well as making every single LIFE publication readable in its entirety. London citizens deserve to learn and see their city in its historical past, and I can see no other way to do it, then to do this.

Comment.


Tuesday, September 01, 2009

WWF Denounces "Tsunami" Ad

Matthew Trevithick
WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!
Apparently some people didn't get the memo - 9/11 is still considered a tragedy.

The Brazilian advertising agency DDB Brasil pitched the ad "Tsunami" to the World Wildlife Fund, which depicts dozens of commercial jets flying in the direction of Lower Manhattan, and the promiment World Trade Center towers, under the tag "The Tsunami Killed 100 Times More People Than 9/11.” The New York Times' online "City Room" blog posted the following:
The World Wildlife Fund on Tuesday condemned an unauthorized advertisement that depicted dozens of planes heading into Lower Manhattan, with a tag line reading, “The Tsunami Killed 100 Times More People Than 9/11.”

The ad had been pitched to the Brazilian branch of the World Wildlife Fund by an advertising agency and rejected, said Steve Ertel, a spokesman for the group. “It was a concept to our office in Brazil and it was rejected. From that point, we have not been able to get a hold of the agency to find out how it got out.”

(more... via City Room Blog)
Apparently the agency totally forgot that exploiting one tragedy in hopes of preventing another, usually (and by usually - I mean NEVER) works.

The World Wildlife Fund released a statement Tuesday afternoon:
The concept was summarily rejected by W.W.F. and should never have seen the light of day. It is an unauthorized use of our logo and we are aggressively pursuing action to have it removed from Web sites where it is being currently featured.

(WWF)
According to "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" - (September 1, 2009) the advertising agency, after having the submitted ad rejected, entered it into an advertising awards competition, where they ended up winning an award. One problem - they forgot to take out the WWF logo. [link] [link]. According to the OneClub website, the credits for the advertisment are as follows:
Tsunami

Client
WWF

Agency
DDB Brasil / Sao Paulo

Art Director
Guilherme Jahara

Creative Director
Sergio Valente, Rodolfo Sampaio, Julio Andery, Guilherme Jahara

Writer
Rodolfo Sampaio, Adriano Mattos

09255A


Friday, July 24, 2009

Huzzah for Corporate Crap!

Matthew Trevithick
Get Off My Lawn You Damn Kids!
From time to time, I may utter under my breath, a sad and disappointed sigh, when thinking about what's considered popular in our day and age amongst people of my demographic. It tends to echo to others as that of a 'gloaty/boastful/cynical' tone, exposing a side of myself that shouldn't be making an appearance, until well into my senior years (it is the seniors, after all, that sigh about these types of things.) I don't do it for the sake of annoyance, or the sake of ego-boosting on my part. I do it because I genuinely want to know:

Why is whats popular now, popular?

Having never given much consideration to music that rotates on Much, MTV, and the Billboard Charts, I wouldn't have the slightest idea why songs that repeat the same lyrics over and over again (I Gotta Feeling anyone?) are appealing to my generation; aptly named "the Facebook generation" or, as I like to call it, "the NOW generation," (because everything has to be now, Now, NOW apparently.)

When I would critique the music choices of the people I used to eat lunch with, I would always feel this sense of guilt. It's their music choice, who am I to judge or complain about what they choose to listen to? It's none of my business. But I felt, as a music lover and as someone who can't stand the capitalization and repetitiveness of popular music, I had to give my opinion, no matter how harsh it sounded (or how harsh it didn't appear to sound in my head.) This would usually result in replies like "what makes indie so great?" or "who cares?" or "stop talking Matt, I'm trying to finish a project."

When hearing the first rebuttal, I could never really think of a snappy enough comeback to explain to them, just why I thought their music was lesser in stature than the music I listened to. Maybe I just didn't like the idea of how most bands who are popular (those who tend to make the most profits) are usually just in it for the money.

Because when you look at the bigger picture, it does seem that way. The mega-selling music performers don't really seem to be in it for the pleasure of making a decent album, and instead, try to produce and write it in the way that would result in the most amount of record sales. These songs usually contain the same overused hip-hop beat, feature the words "club" "club" and "girl" (in conjunction with the words "ass" "club" and "sex" in that form or another) are overproduced with layers upon layers of god-awful, ear-bleeding Auto-Tune (poor T. Pain) and all, in the end, sound alike (well, them and those screamo-emo bands. Notice every singer has the same high pitched voice?)

Indie music may not necessarily be 'better' but it, in most cases, is certainly more 'music-oriented' in the sense that they focus more about the quality, over quantity [of sales]. This is more apparent with bands who release albums that are usually non-charted, but are otherwise critically acclaimed.

Most bands who are high on the Billboard charts (like those of Miley Cyrus, Jonas Brothers, and Demi Lovato who are all signed to Disney's "Hollywood Records" label) are usually contained and limited within their music contract. The record company usually wants the band to sound a certain way (a way that is popular at that time) which will, in turn, result in more record sales, as it is more recognizable to that demographic. (This would be why so many Disney bands sound the same. The corporation is scared of floating away from its poppy/shit sounding genre.)

It just all, in the end, makes me sad to think that bands and performers with actual talent and creativity, are never recognized like they deserve. That the recognizable faces and acts, will always be on the charts, until they fade away due to an unpopular single or album. (Maybe it was too "experimental"?)

I just have one question for the acts that are popular. Acts like Flo Rida, Lady Gaga, Soulja Boy (what a joke) and the recently garbage sounding Black Eyed Peas. Is this what you want future generations to look back on when they see what was popular now? Is this the kind of music that you want to be famous for? Is this the kind of music, that you want to implant in the history of popular culture?

If the answer is yes, then we just might all be screwed.

-------------------------

Songs I Recommend
(at the moment)

Fences by Phoenix
You Got Yr. Cherry Bomb/Don't You Evah/Black Like Me by Spoon (or anything by Spoon)
Brainy by The National (or anything by the National really)
Everyone is Guilty by Akron/Family
Cherry Blossom Girl/Mer du Japon/Kelly Watch the Stars by Air
Hooting and Howling by Wild Beasts
While You Wait for the Others by Grizzly Bear
Fire by Kasabian
The Whole Frickin "Manners" album by Passion Pit (hard to choose a favourite)
We Are the People/Delta Bay/Walking on a Dream by Empire of the Sun
With You Forever/Baby/Come Together by Pnau
Said So What/New Man by French Kicks
We've Been Had/Four Provinces by The Walkmen
The Whole Fricken "Parc Avenue" album by Plants and Animals
The Whole Fricken "Seldom Seen Kid" album by Elbow
The Whole Fricken "Fleet Foxes" album by Fleet Foxes

*whew... I think that's good for now. Seriously, check out these songs.


Monday, May 18, 2009

Updates Later

Matthew Trevithick
Where has the time gone?
I have realized that my lack of recent posting has shown. I have been busy with projects and essays for school that are more important at the moment than updating the blog with random rants and tangents about things.

I will post in the summer, when I have more free time to let my mind stew about various topics.

Maybe I will post before then.

Whenever I can find the time.

Cheers
Matt


Monday, March 23, 2009

Opinion: Fox News Lies in the Journalistic Gutter

Matthew Trevithick
Fox News: Here's a Nice Hot Cuppa Misinformation!

You can't expect much in terms of journalistic integrity when it comes to Fox News, I mean they are Fox News after all. Journalistic integrity is a term never before heard, nor understood, by anybody who walks within the walls of its Manhattan headquarters. Since its creation in 1996, the network has been known for its conservative bias, and its denial of said bias; though anybody that graduated elementary school could tell you that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill Orally (sorry, that's O'Reilly) have never been fair nor balanced, as much as the station touted so. During the Bush administration, the network periodically accepted, and read on-air, right-wing talking points from both the White House [1], and the right-wing fringe organization the Media Research Center, run by the near-delusional Brent Bozell [2], showing that when it came to real hard hitting news, the station was being spoon fed propaganda, which it inevitably regurgitated to its viewers.

News Corp. - owners of Fox News and numerous other journalistic institutions like the New York Post and, unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal to name a few - is headed by Rupert Murdoch, a global media powerhouse, famous in the name of turning once honest and well noted publications, into tabloid rags you later find littered amongst the trash on a subway platform. A prime example, the Wall Street Journal; the voice of business America and Wall Street, had in 2007, its owners and publishers (the Dow Jones company) acquired by Murdoch's media conglomerate. It still is highly touted as a newspaper of record, but little nuggets of conservative bias have been popping up here and there since [3][4].

It's obvious that Fox News and its counterparts along the News Corp. ladder, have, in short, never been those to stick to the facts, but instead rely on (as Stephen Colbert would say truthiness: truth that comes from the gut [5].) Their use of political talking points and more, opinion/rambling based journalism, have in recent times caused them to lose the reputation as a fact-based news station, if they ever had that reputation to begin with. The cable channel has frequently come under fire for controversial remarks made by its presenters, and pundits (a simple YouTube search yields numerous clips that can be used as examples.) So it's not to ones surprise that one of their hosts may, and will, say something so offensive and over the line, that a even a whole country is left demanding an apology. Because that is just what happened.

During Fox News Channel's 3AM "comedy-talk show" 'Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld,' Gutfeld made crass remarks about Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie's recent comment that the military (Canadian Forces) may need a year to recover after Canada's mission in Afghanistan ends in 2011. "Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants," he said. Fellow panelist and comedian Doug Benson piped in "I didn't even know they were in the war ... I thought that's where you go if you don't want to fight. Go chill in Canada." [6] They continued to mock the RCMP, and noted that since we 'didn't have an army', if the US ever pondered the idea of invading a western country, now would be the time to do it.

Greg Gutfeld is the former editor of the UK edition of the mens magazine "MAXIM" as well as "Stuff." Watching previous episodes of the show on the programs website, also noting the time it airs, its safe to say that the program doesn't have a large amount of viewers on the Fox News lineup. Unfortunatly it is still watched by 390,000 viewers, on average, according to Neilsen. Defense Minister Peter MacKay appeared on CTV Newsnet early Monday, saying "It's crass, it's insensitive, it's in fact disgusting given the timing where Canada is just receiving back four fallen heroes here at CFB Trenton," [7] noting that the comment came just days before news broke that 4 more Canadian soldiers had died in Afghanistan. Master Cpl. Scott Vernelli, Cpl. Tyler Crooks, Trooper Jack Bouthillier, and Trooper Corey Joseph Hayes, were killed in two separate IED blasts on Friday, injuring another five soldiers, bringing the total count of Canadian soldiers killed to 116. [8] Its curious to wonder just how many viewers see the show as either a 'satirical commentary' or 'hard hitting opinion,' but it should be noted that the show is not meant to be taken as a serious news or opinion show, thankfully.

Because of the remark, Gutfeld has since apologized: "The March 17th episode of Red Eye included a segment discussing Canada's plan for a 'synchronized break,' which was in no way an attempt to make light of troop efforts ... However, I realize that my words may have been misunderstood. It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize." [9]

This is an opinion piece.

Sources:
1 - ThinkProgress.org
2 - Media Matters for America
3 - ThinkProgress.org
4 - The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC - Mar. 20, 2009)
5 - Merriam Webster Online
6/9 - CBC News (Same article)
7 - CTV News
8 - CBC News