My Blog

panopticon surveillance

Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:39:32 -0600

Cameras are everywhere recording every move in everyone's life. But, this is America. We have privacy laws, right? We don’t spy. We simply watch… for security purposes, for our own good. OK, and maybe for entertainment, too.

In England, it is estimated that approximately 300 different security cameras record the average Londoner each day. Why, and to what effect? Who is hired to watch all that video? What are they trying to see? And what is the difference between security and spying? What are our rights to privacy? Who is exempted from being seen? Why can’t we zoom in and watch those who are watching us? Maybe Cornell University will let us know.

Before long “others” will be watching our every move, and they will claim is for our own good. What happens to a society when we realize there is no privacy, when cameras exploit every relationship? But then, cameras have always been alive in our world.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

journalism and citizenship

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:44 -0600

Ten videos about journalism and citizenship, and their code of ethics. But what are ETHICS? Why are they important? Who should obey them? In a world where egregiously bad reporting is growing at every level, will Citizen Journalists (Is there such a thing?) do any better? The future of news looks dark unless we gain a full understanding of how the purpose, principles, and practices of the craft of journalism are easily fouled.

Media Nipple suggests there is no such thing as Citizen Journalism. Why? Journalism is not a profession; it is a craft. There are no rules and regulations, and no governing body for journalistic practice. But there are, codes of ethics, as there are for citizenship.

While Citizenship and Journalism are not mutually exclusive, they are also not mutually inclusive. One does not beget the other. If you are a citizen doing journalism as sketched below... then you are a Journalist... period. If you are a human attempting journalism, you MAY be performing acts of citizenship... maybe not. It is incorrect to imply citizen journalism encompasses everything other than SALARIED news and information production. Likewise, simply sending CNN a pic from your cell-phone does not make you a citizen journalist. Nor is journalism simply yammering on a public blog... like this one.

So then, what are the ETHICS of journalism? Click the video links below to see how established ethical notions are ignored, stretched, and manipulated in everyday broadcast production:

(From: Elements of Journalism)

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significance interesting and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

Whenever engaging in discussions over citizen journalism... it is best to begin by defining the terms.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

fighting like girls

Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:52:48 -0600

These eight videos visually discuss outward expressions of violence in a mediated world endlessly saturated in deviant behavior.

Why do girls fight? Is it because, as big media always loves to suggest, most women are Lesbians? Is it because men historically attack them first? Most likely, women fight for exactly the same reasons boys do. But today, while cameras are involved in almost every aspect of adolescent life, we see cameras being used to both record and encourage these performances. Examine this Bum Fights video.

While it is unlikely that these schoolgirls performed their violence for the security camera on their bus, is it a stretch to suggest that real violence can be physical expressions of violent behaviors consumed through media? Is there ANY validity to media effects?

We are witnessing more extreme forms of violence by children. Some of it is simply caught BY cameras, and some is being constructed FOR cameras. If audiences create content… can content create audiences? Subsistence Living in a Mediated World sometimes means consuming exactly what you grow. It also means learning to read corporate media oppositionally, in order to see how these issues are typically framed in news programming.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

media as capitalism

Thu, 29 May 2008 18:37:59 -0600

The twenty videos below are just a few obvious examples of how broadcast television has transformed from a communication device into a "desiring machine" - with its content constructed for the sole purpose of serving as the mouth-piece for corporate capitalism. Television has become the ironic national anthem of seductive exploitation for constant consumption. Little is sacred when profit is king:

2. Punk Capitalism
3. Zen Capitalism
4. Communist Capitalism
5. Pakistani Capitalism
6. Black Capitalism
7. Hippy Capitalism
8. Socialist Capitalism
9. Feminist Capitalism
10. Peace Capitalism
11. Christmas Capitalism
12. Bush Capitalism
13. Kid Capitalism
14. Parody Capitalism
15. Jesus Capitalism
16. Catastrophe Capitalism
17. Pet Capitalism
18. Pregnant Capitalism
19. Girlfriend Capitalism
20. Iraqi Capitalism

Is this all TV can be? Can there be a less exploitative, less corporatized, more democratic implementation? Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

Flat Reality

Sat, 24 May 2008 18:56:20 -0600

Flat Daddy. Flat Mommy. Flat reality. These four videos examine how image representation is increasingly inter-changed with human reality.

Of course, coping in times of great stress, like having your loved ones shipped off for war, family psychological demands can manifest in unlikely and abnormal behavior. But we are also clearly seeing deeper examples of images being accepted, even encouraged, as the real thing.

Photo images, in these cases, are not merely hung on walls or mantles for respect and refection. These images of loved ones are not being honored or revered like posters hung on a teenager’s bedroom walls. These life-sized images are also not doll substitutions. Instead, these images are mentally transformed into human reality. The picture is the Daddy - for child and adult. Whether or not this image replacement is done in 2D or 3D, are we increasingly interchanging human existence with image representation – with a “screen reality? Do we prefer to view reality through images and screens? Are these graven images? Can we tell the difference?

Cultural Farming: Screen Reality

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

killer kids

Sat, 17 May 2008 19:09:11 -0600

Twelve videos for discussion. We teach our children. The world teaches our children. Our media teaches our children. But what are our children learning? Are they learning to kill - or just the opposite? Or, are kids learning something else entirely?

In our mediated world, which media are we studying? Is the Koran more powerful than the computer? When children focus their studies on one thing from childhood, does it affect them? Unfortunately, media effects and technological determinism are the whipping-posts within post-modern communication theory. But look around… can media indoctrinate? Does it influence? Should we be revisiting media-effects scholarship?

What messages do we study? How - and what - do our messages disseminate? Is “TV” more powerful than on-line gaming? Do religious Madrassas have any similarities to LAN parties? Is one more REAL than another? If so, how? Do suicide bombers kill significantly differently than the endless slaughter within violent video games? Can children tell the difference? Do we teach them the difference? Is there a difference to teach?

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

news promotion

Sun, 11 May 2008 19:32:31 -0600

These videos ask several important questions – What is news and how should it be promoted?… or more exactly, what is broadcast journalism becoming? When everything in our mediated world is branded and hyped, are we forgetting the very notion of old-school hard-news?

This re-edited MSNBC promotional video focuses on several key words within the text. The “future of news," apparently, is where factual content and straight reportage is seldom mentioned. Instead misguided righteous claims of TRUTH are hypocritical at best, and content and presentation are exploited for the purposes of entertainment.

Is it any wonder we see so many parodies of broadcast news? Watch the extended version of the first MSNBC video again ...and then observe the following promotions. The REAL news for this network is visual sensationalism. Puffery and journalism? You can't have it both ways... but it is apparent constant promotion is here to stay.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

blackness in the media

Mon, 5 May 2008 19:41:25 -0600

Today's post is for Dr. Eric King Watts at UNC Chapel Hill... and for TV viewers out there who might think we are in a post-racial context. But, instead of concentrating on just the exploitative media coverage of Barack Obama's primary campaign (or even Coco Tea), let's take a good look at all of TV.

Today, racist visualization on TV goes a bit further than Danny Bonaduce and the Partridge Family. Even well-intentioned advertisements are constructed with visually racial (anthropological?) overtones. No child has only two choices as suggested by this public service advertisement ad. Inevitably the binary of getting gunned down on a street or staying in school is a false premise - but this kind of constant racial exploitation remains.

Blacks are typically portrayed in the media as underprivileged, backward, and technologically ill-suited for the modern world. Even when cable news rushes in to expose the travesty, it is difficult to judge if CNN is explaining the predicament or promoting it for profit. Jim Crow lives, even when individual citizens try to take matters in their own hands. While Don Imus gets publicly linched for "nappy headed ho's" - corporate visual exploitation continues at every turn. And if you don't believe it, check out some of that good 'ol BET programming. As the good Doctor says, just "look at the coverage."

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

insidious product placement

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:25:43 -0600

Twelve videos that illustrate the insidiousness of product placement in our world today. Does Barak Obama really love Abercrombie & Fitch? Doubtful. But A&F certainly loves any opportunity to strategically position 3 students for the cameras wearing branded T-shirts as free advertising.

Yes, the shock is over, even with KFC. We are accustomed to cross-branding on everything, everywhere - especially our bodies.... our sexy bodies. Of course, in a mediated world, advertisements are not only ubiquitous, they are becoming us. We can sell our own body space for profit. Nothing can escape its inherent marketing potential. But this is nothing new.

What is different is our rush to acknowledge and accept this advertising into every facet of our lives. This is more than symbiosis; it is a cultural embrace of insidious monetization. Every thing is for sale – particularly the human body. The image of the future is the image of product. Our bodies are being bought and sold into corporate slavery.

UPDATE: 24 April: Coincidence?
UPDATE: 6 May: Fixing the product?
UPDATE: 6 May: Visual polysemy?

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

giving kids visual hallucinogens

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:34:31 -0600

Today's post is about legally offering psychotic and hallucinogenic visuals (drugs?) to children. It is done everyday on TV, and in this case, PBS is the pusherman. This Boohbah video is just the program introduction. Question: Why do it this way?

If there is a drug epidemic in the world could it, just maybe, result from TV programming like this? That is doubtful, of course... but also inconclusive. And so the question remains, why make this - is it stimulating education or profit?

Are the visuals in BoohBah any different than the oil-and-water-in-a-glass-pie-plate-on-an-overhead-projector variety used at Fillmore West to jack up that LSD dropping crowd spinning in front of Grace Slick? Why not simply show kids everything available on TV... never mind, we do already.

Or how about those sweat-drenched days of ecstasy and poppers at the gay dance clubs, throbbing to the big-screen digital psychedelics projected onto every wall. In a mediated – VISUAL WORLD - these mushroom induced, rave style, Bjork-ish phantasmagoric images could be fun, harmless, even educational. But could these visuals also be seducing, or addicting, or stimulating and simultaneously numbing to toddlers?

Answer: Look around at how children are behaving today. Even if there seems little connection, why offer such unnatural, sophisticated visuals like these to children? Do we understand that any image can also be employed as a form of visual terrorism? Why do we not openly ask these questions more often?

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

fun with guns

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:38:57 -0600

Remember back to the time when Vice President Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face. Remember the media jokes? Remember the glib, cynical media coverage. Why would this happen?

Guns are commonplace. We simply no longer feel gun violence is surprising. Indeed it is interwoven into the very fabric of our lives. Whether you actually own a gun or not… you probably DO own a MEDIA GUN. Right? Admit it... you DO shoot media people every day. And if not, you probably DO you experience media enjoyment watching the killing of media people. But a crucial question remains. Can we tell the difference anymore between real and fake guns? Most every evening guns, murder, rape violence are broadcast on network TV. We seem to like it, since we certainly watch it all regularly.

In our mediated world, where lines between REAL and IMAGE are blurring… maybe we DO love gun fun. Maybe we DO want to kill everything in our path... with our cameras and our guns,

Cultural Farming: Cameras or Guns: How Cable News Coverage (re)Massacred Virginia Tech

media: pay, steal, or share

Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:16:40 -0600

We swim in media. It is everything and everywhere. It is the ether of our existence. So we find ourselves in a media dilemma. Who pays for our mediated world? This is a matter of human survival.

1. Will citizens rebel against being forced to pay for the very (media) air we breathe?

1. Or will media become more like selling water? That is, will we be able to get free media whenever we want, even though we prefer to pay for bottled water which we believe is healthier? ...Even though most bottle water is more expensive than gasoline?

3. Or do we try to grow, steal, or share whatever we want-need to survive? ...Understanding full well that we all pay mightily now, at every turn, and at every step of of the distribution process for mere access - and questioning why these multiple payments never lead to viewer ownership?

This much is true: we will be paying more for media in the future. And soon we may be paying so much, video blogs like Media Nipple will become too expensive to produce or watch. Consider visual literacy communication and keep your media clean and healthy.

images, propaganda, and war

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:20:47 -0600

Five videos. In this series of video clips from FOX News, we are reminded of not only the individual casualties of war, but also of the importance of visual propaganda. But there is one slight problem – is the US military telling the truth about the death of Al-Zarqawi?

First there was “visual identification” of Al-Zarqawi’s body after two 500 pound bombs were precisely dropped with laser guidance. Scars, tattoos, and fingerprints… but no DNA?

Then, plastic surgeons reconstructed Al-Zarqawi’s face? Was there ever any corroborative evidence or additional eyewitnesses?

Then, FOX News obfuscates the most fundamental issues of legitimacy by focusing on tenets of the Geneva Convention, while maintaining that images are truthful, and vital for convincing our enemies. Moreover, FOX utterly fails to consider how the very nature of TV constructs an endless spectacle parade of human images - dead and alive. Can Al-Zarqawi’s face be any different?

Then, still more TV experts are enlisted by FOX to muddy the facts further by mentioning morticians, and that there might only be Al-Zarqawi’s head.

What’s the problem here? Any high school student, proficient in Photoshop, could easily manipulate a grainy image of a dead, swollen, deformed face of an Iraqi soldier to resemble Al-Zarqawi's. It is even easier to take an existing image of Al-Zarqawi and make it appear to be deceased and bloodied.

So then, couldn’t military experts do the same digital manipulation - particularly when its existance is so crucial to the US visual propaganda machine? And conversely, hasn’t the entire world seen cinema and TV programming where identities are disguised this easily? How can citizens from either side of this conflict believe this method of visual verification? Two months after Al-Zarqawi’s “capture”, does the public know any of the true facts?

Remember, images lie – just as easily as words do.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

you tube news channel

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:25:53 -0600

When 24 hour news organizations are motivated primarily by profit making – everything becomes newsworthy, even YouTube. When foreign bureaus are closed, international reporting curtailed, and visual content is ratcheted to ever-higher levels… newsrooms begin to steal from amateur video bloggers from around the globe as legitimate journalistic content. And what better place to find eyeball catching content than YouTube.

But deep problems exist with this kind of reporting, and CNN even acknowledges some of them here:

1. “CNN cannot independently confirm the authenticity of the origin of this material (nonetheless it is pretty compelling stuff)…apparently from a 14 year old.”

2. “This apparently taken from Haifa…the video quality on some of these is not great and you can see that just looking at it, it’s a bit grainy.”

3. “The fact that is so easily recorded, posted on the internet, and of course the quality not so great. But, some pretty amazing stuff that’s able to be captured pretty easily.”

4. “Some pretty amazing stuff, and this apparently taken from a rooftop in Beirut.”

What happens to journalism when YouTube performs as a ”funnel, and the filter.” YouTube, interestingly, is not responding to how “they are dealing with some of this video, whether they are filtering it, what they are taking down, where they draw the line in terms of how gruesome some of this video is,”

Video blogging is not journalism. And journalism is not rebroadcasting content from YouTube. So then, what is valid accurate news today? And from where does it come? If news organizations do not adhere to their own tenets of journalism – who will? Citizen journalists? Doubtful... but it is happening more and more.

UPDATE - June 09: Neda and Iran

ides of march

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:41:35 -0600

Julius Caesar: William Shakespeare

CICERO
…Why are you breathless? and why stare you so?
CASCA
Are not you moved, when all the sway of earth
Shakes like a thing unfirm?
O Cicero, I have seen
tempests, when the scolding winds
Have rived the knotty oaks, and I have seen
The ambitious ocean swell and rage and foam,
To be exalted with the threatening clouds:
But never till to-night, never till now,
Did I go through a tempest dropping fire.
Either there is a civil strife in heaven,
Or else the world, too saucy with the gods,
Incenses them to send destruction.
….A common slave -you know him well by sight-
Held up his left hand, which did flame and burn
Like twenty torches join'd, and yet his hand,
Not sensible of fire, remain'd unscorch'd.
...Against the Capitol I met a lion,
Who glared upon me, and went surly by,
Without annoying me: and there were drawn
Upon a heap a hundred ghastly women,
Transformed with their fear; who swore they saw
Men all in fire walk up and down the streets.
And yesterday the bird of night did sit
Even at noon-day upon the market-place,
Hooting and shrieking. When these prodigies
Do so conjointly meet, let not men say
'These are their reasons; they are natural;'
For, I believe, they are portentous things
Unto the climate that they point upon.
CICERO
Indeed, it is a strange-disposed time:
But men may construe things after their fashion,
Clean from the purpose of the things themselves.
…Good night then, Casca:
this disturbed sky is not to walk in.

teaching with television

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:49:38 -0700

Twelve videos. Can network TV be used for education? Certainly, there are examples of excellent educational TV -- but, are the Muppets any different than: ABC Kids, or Comcast, or Disney, to name only a few. What and how, exactly, does TV teach our children?

What kind of education does network TV actually provide? Since network television’s main purpose is to promote consumption via entertainment, will it create classroom content for kids any differently than for adults? Do educational products simply encourage another kind of insidious TV consumption?

Watch TV advertisements for student programing... and ask yourself: Is this what children really need? Will CNN “student” news be any different than an American Express ad? Do books today balance our desires for TV education and consumption. Do our schools work? How do we educate our children? And HOW do consumer practices dictate WHO gets to educate them?

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

god damn the pusher man

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:55:20 -0700

Make peace with our bodies? Are our bodies at war? Or, are we just drugged out? How exactly do we visualize a breakthrough in relief for our colons? Apparently, using Imodium is like sitting front row at Fillmore West. Warp speed to Uranus... not mine.

Then again, why go anywhere? The best drugs are at home anyway. Just open your medicine chest. Or maybe just breathe in, right where you are sitting. Visual communication on television often exploits the human body and it celebrates this disconnection from our bodies in numerous ways? Televised bad-trip? Mediated consumerism? Separate the visual lies from the facts.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

blissful ignorance

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:05:24 -0700

Six videos that ask: Are Americans the dumbest people in the world? Of course, the answer depends on one’s definition of intelligence. These questions go well beyond: Are we smarter than 5th graders.

The U.S. may not be dumb, but is it intelligent? That is another matter. As we wage a global war on terrorism, what do we know about the world around us? How can we lead the world when we so ill-informed. Even our leaders struggle with the simplest of foreign questions.

What do we know of our world? For instance, what do we even know of our neighbors like Mexico or Canada - and how do we KNOW it? Then again, how are we known by others in this world? Why do “they” hate us? Is it because we do not know them? In a mediated world, what do we really know? Luckily, we all have a clear idea of the importance of communication scholarship.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

will google buy privacy in second life?

Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:10:38 -0700

Twelve videos. Google, Second Life, and the Internet... a perfect combo like a cheeseburger, fries and a coke. But what happens when the irresistible virtual world seduces every last bit of information from every last citizen - and their avatars?

Most media continue to sing the praises of the internet regardless of how educationally patronizing and clumsily it visualizes the "magic and mystery". But much of what is left unsaid concerns exactly how heavy-weights like Google and Second Life are evolving to exploit their users. When do our virtual actions translate into real-life manipulation?

Of course, everyone Google's themselves, but what happens when Google googles back? Are global gaming venues like World of Warcraft simply tracking vehicles for profiling user behaviors? And what happens when the US government wants the information that Google collects about each user under the guise of stopping crime and pornography in the virtual world? Whatever it is we do on the internet, you can be sure that many companies are keeping a record of it all for future monetization.

While Google pretends to be the "good guy" by lobbying for nonrestrictive web usage, it continues to archive all of our actions. But why? Could it be that while we play in digital worlds, Google is betting that virtual reality is indeed a growing part of our culture, and that we might even prefer cyber worlds to our own. And why not, we already enjoy performing every aspect of our lives for Google's benefit on YouTube.

Willfully and naively "playing" ourselves despite open exploitation - within cyber worlds - simply appears to be the next logical step toward neural marketing in digitally mapping the universe.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

photo journalism

Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:24:39 -0700

Fifteen videos on photo manipulation in news that consider visual intelligence in a mediated world. Remember: One deceptive picture is worth 1000 deceptive words. Today’s post is no different.

We see examples everywhere of the growing awareness to the inherent dangers of visual deception. Unfortunately however, no one has a clear understanding of “journalistic license” or of the “ethical rules” of image construction. So then, what exactly is the “number one rule of responsible reporting”? What are the rules of visual presentation? Accuracy? Truthfulness? Reality? The last photo in this video clip was manipulated in PhotoShop. Why - and for what effect??

But consider this: Nothing in this entire CNN-Reuters news report is visually truthful. Every element - the entire studio background; the graphics; even anchor hair, make-up and wardrobe - has been “deliberately manipulated” and further enhanced by “lighting conditions”. By design, do these deceptively visual theatrics falsify broadcast news content? Maybe. Has the B&W promotional photo of Charles Johnson been cropped and manipulated in PhotoShop? Is this staging reality for propaganda purposes? Maybe.

Certainly the fake city skyline photo of Los Angeles behind Charles Johnson has been doctored in numerous ways. So is the problem here that the Beirut photo was manipulated so clumsily? – or that it was published by the reputable Reuters? - or that Adnan Hajj admitted to the "mistake"?

Did Adnan Hajj's manipulation actually do harm? Did his photo tell a DIFFERENT story?.. or did he simply enhance the presentational impact of a truthful photo? WHY did he do it? These are big, modern media questions.... because we see TV complain about photo manipulation even while they visually lie to us.

Reuters may have visual and ethical standards, but do other “journalism” outlets? But more to the point, what are the problems and guidelines of image manipulation? Media Nipple readers know the answer. We have haven't seen anything yet.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

your secret is safe with me

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:33:18 -0700

Thirteen videos that discuss how governments are radically profiling all citizens. Today even technological strip searches are routine. What are they looking for? Maybe it's our civil liberties.

Travelers already need to prove image identity with driver licenses and passports. Our names are already screened for ethnicity. Our bags are scanned and hand-checked. Our shoes must be removed and our bodies are “sniffed” with mechanical smellers. Our fingernail clippers are taken away, and our toiletry fluids are confiscated. What is possibly left to discover? Feeling naked? Don't worry, some women DO receive full security in times of war - just not on Google.

Of course, big business has always wanted all our secrets. But, now governments want to keep records of everything we do, well beyond airline seating preferences and meal choices. We provide everything they want whether we know it or not. And still, these are not enough. Yes, governments also want to see us naked… and they want to keep this information on record for 40 years.

Privacy is a thing of the past. Still don’t believe? Ask your employer?

Is homeland security a joke today? If so, why? Who make these policies?

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

violent kids - violent cameras

Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:57:33 -0700

Eight videos for your aggressive child's pleasure. Fight clubs, video gaming, even school recess – what is the difference today? Aggression is a blood sport for today’s youth. And it's even better when staged for the camera.

Is youth aggression something new? No. But something has changed. Personal video is combining with aggression. Fight clubs, or bum fights are not considered FUN, or validated, unless the acts are caught on video. Has WATCHING become a funny aggressive act? Should parents “just say no”, and send their kids outside and play!

Are there solutions to these growing trends? Is increasing violence - throughout all media - the problem? No, media is both good nor bad. Never neutral. Maybe, it is the kinds of programming being manufactured and consumed. Promote and support personal, healthy media. Try growing your own. There are too many other important kinds of stories to be told.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

god in media or media god

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:39:10 -0600

Eleven videos that illustrate the increase of spiritual exploitation in media - particularly when news packages religion for vacuous consumption. Why is this? Because everything - even religion - is fair game in the big world of capitalism. ...and, don't forget the internet.

Jesus Christ action figures may only be an animated comedy skit, but Christian representation increasingly embodies Western corporate ethic. And, what happens when the message of god is simply mixed in with all other media messages? But nothing is sacred on TV; all religions are easy parody targets. Zen Buddhism, in particular, is an advertisement favorite. It is exotic enough to ridicule, mysterious enough to claim special powers, and foreign enough to contrast with Western cults of capitalism.

But why stop there? Why not exploit Amazon indigenous peoples to sell pharmaceuticals? Or even stereotypes of Arab “shazzam” incantations. Who cares. It all sells, right? But then, we haven't seen anything yet. Just wait until the 2008 election campaign really heats up!

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

when media preys

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:19:04 -0600

Ten videos. It is very difficult growing up in today’s world. Danger to children seems to lurk around every corner. It appears to come from every form of media. But who, exactly, are the predators? Television, for one, is always blaming someone else.

Media Nipple is intended to educate our viewers on matters concerning visual and media literacy throughout our mediated world. We have posted many times on how we all are exploited visually, mentally, spiritually, and physically by media conglomerates. This is nothing new, of course – but it needs to be illustrated again and again. What can we do about media predators? Viewers have two options, and one is better than the other,

First, we can all try to ignore and turn off the media streaming into our lives. But, unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do. Or second, the better option is to educate ourselves on the powers and seductions of media – and to participate actively and critically in our consumptions. Unless we understand media, we will continue to be exploited on every front.

Cultural Farming: Our Body Media

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

politics and visual slander

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:48:23 -0600

Ten videos that discuss visual language in a world of media politics. Whether in political parody, or off-handed yet premeditated comments, slanderous visual discourse continues on its merry way. Nothing is new.

Slander is often presented visually in forms like this TV advertisement comparing gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, the Michigan son of Amway, to George Bush - or from John Spenser images that claim Hillary Clinton spent thousands of dollars on plastic surgery. Whatever, this is the silly season once more.

None of this is inflammatory discourse is new, or exclusive to the United States. Slander, in all its forms, knows no boundaries. For instance, Russian President Putin “jokes” about rape and Israel’s president, while in Canada, the Liberal government calls an opposition leader “chicken cacciatore”. Will we ever move beyond this stuff? No. But, Media Literacy is one way the viewing public can help decipher the swirling visual slander, on all fronts, seen in the media every day.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

when TV kills every animal in nature

Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:32:38 -0600

Twenty eight videos that ask... Humans - Television - Nature: Exactly who is killing whom? One thing is certain, TV is stoking our fear, stupidity, and ignorance about the natural world - all for our entertainment. And so, in a mediated world, we must defend ourselves, right? Simply put, in TV visuality terms, Nature is going berserk and it wants us dead. That is unless we can force animals to be like us... so we can gawk at their oddness.

Of course, television like all businesses must make money to survive. And one of the very best ways to attract viewer eyeballs for advertisers is to create fear. This makes Nature a perfect target for exploitation. In a mediated world, humans must fear all that is natural.

And so, Nature is presented as no longer gentle or natural - instead, it is visualized as something dangerous, something conspiring to attack us. Nature wants revenge. Animals are portrayed as either stupid-funny or evil-doers, so be prepared to fight back. That is unless humans are doing the exploitation? Maybe if we buy more TV products we can finally make peace with Nature once again? Then again, maybe TV is trying to kill us too? Just in case, let's kill them first...and eat them all...before they eat us.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

the dark side of the camera

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:45:32 -0600

Eleven videos. What happens to the photographer, after the photograph? What happens to our memory of an difficult image? C an an image remain long after it has been deleted?

Tony Zumbado of NBC will not forget the images he recorded in New Orleans. Never. He was paid to do his professional job. We too record images every day, but what happens if we record something personal, tragic, exploitative, profound? What do we do with that image? Do we sell it to the highest bidder? Do we delete it out of respect for the subject? Do we share?

Question: Would you want to be photographed during your time of greatest vulnerability?

The problem is not about our ability to capture endless photos - rather it is about our lack of ethical respect for the inherent power of a recording camera. So, the question remains: Can we delete difficult images from our memories? And it not: Should we take fewer photographs until we can more fully answer that question?

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

nature is dead - long live the screen

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:49:34 -0600

Remember when nature was something real, tangible? Not just exploited in museums called national parks or manipulated for TV? How did that happen? When did nature die? Well, it occurred in parallel with the rise of the screen. Our bodies now are little more than projected surfaces. Our new realties exist only on the screen. If fact, we're convincing ourselves we love it that way.

Today, all our senses are being reproduced. What will this new digital future look like? Certainly not like this. Our new virtual bodies will be sold to us, one product at a time, until flesh and blood fade into digital bits.

The fun of a newly re-mediating behavior appeared innocuous enough. But it's too late version two is here. Everything is becoming a screen... including you and me, because we all look better - and "reality" looks better - when we watch each other on our screens. Stick a fork in it, nature is dead. We love our own images better.

editing for stimulation over cognition

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:58:50 -0600

These two videos illustrate how the language of editing is increasingly marketed simply to stimulate. The recent movie CRANK is a perfect example.

The trailer for CRANK, which is 30 seconds long, has approximately 120 individual edits – or 4 edits per second. Human cognition cannot process visual information at this speed…. but our involuntary human senses can.

Question: Then why do it?
Watch the CRANK video again in slow motion.

Editing is a classical form of montage - juxtaposing images to create new meanings. But Crank's editing is not about meaning. Our eyes can see the edits, but our brains cannot process the information. What is left is sensory overload. And so, our instinctive reactions become more primal. Emotional response kicks in. Flight or fight. The trailer is manipulating our emotions – it cares little for storyline or verbal text. This will simply be an emotional rollercoaster Action Movie.

Fast paced, quick-cut editing is only one way media corporations visually exploit viewers. When media is constructed this way we cannot look away. We are mesmerized by the extreme and strobing visuals. Our minds freeze as we instinctively try to grapple with our inabilities to piece together a message.

Answer: In this state of mental suspended animation, we become primed for still other messages and influences. Try to remember to look away.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

female fashion folly

Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:28:49 -0600

Twelve videos that discuss distortions of female beauty. In a mediated world, ideas of beauty are constructed and commodified. But is something more involved?

Can our notions of beauty be genetic, or whims of biology? Can our perceptions of beauty be directly tied to ovulation? Dr. Martie Haselton from UCLA thinks so. She compared photos of women before and after menstruation cycles and now believes that female notions of beauty can be linked to periods of fertility. But is this “well beyond random chance?” Is it chemical, maybe? Is this indeed “statistically significant” and a “subtle but systematic effect?" Again, maybe. But is there more at work here?

The key to this research, however, lies in the central question asked: “In which photo is the woman trying to look attractive.” …..TRYING to look attractive. Let’s all think about that today… at the mall. It's so much easier being unfashionably..... male.

subliminal perversion

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 19:03:50 -0600

Four videos: New technologies, like TiVo, are encouraging new never before seen advertising models. With more and more viewers fast-forwarding to skip through commercials, more advertisements are constructed in slow-motion so as to re-appear on-screen in “real-time." But another curious tactic is also occurring – new forms of subliminal content: GE One Second Theatre. ...or, placing ads within ads.

With personal digital video recorders, viewers now have the ability to watch all TV frame-by-frame. And so, to encourage this closer inspection of advertising content, corporations are embedding subliminal content to surprise and entertain viewers… like this GE commercial with the dancing elephant in the rain forest. At first glimpse, this is a fairly typical 45 second ad. But now, lets look closer:

One Second Theatre #2: For starters, we are reminded how TiVo cooperated with General Electric by asking TiVo owners to the “press thumbs up” button on their remote. This insidious style of cross-platform promotion is nothing new, but, something deeper is also happening.

One Second Theatre #3: When the ad is slowed down even more, we see hidden content. A red theatre curtain, images, and text.

One Second Theatre #4: Slowed down yet again, we begin to see an entirely new and different embedded advertisement. Of course, “The Lost Casting Tapes” is simply another promotional device to entice viewers to investigate GE advertising.

Subliminal advertising has a long and nefarious history in broadcast television. Oddly, there are few FCC guidelines in theses matters. Watch TV more critically – and less often. You will quickly see the differences between technical glitches, and the techniques used by corporations to exploit viewers and new technologies.

Now, can you see it again in this GE commercial?

Here's another by Iron Chef and McDonalds.
And, another pathetic "trick" to promote KFC and CBS.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

the human touch of bio security

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:22:17 -0600

Thirteen videos that discuss how today’s security technology is visualizing everything about you. The whole world is watching.

Little Brother – the name for the ever-growing myriad forms of security technology – is now embedded into every facet of our lives. There is no escape. Fingerprints, voice patterns, facial features, eyeball composition, body odor… everything is captured secretly, analyzed by computers, and filed into endless databases. Everything about you is recorded somewhere - like Google - and accessible to someone, for some purpose.

These invasive technologies go well beyond old forms of identity snooping like credit cards or phone records. Bio-Metrics is a euphemism for social engineering, psycho-manipulation, cultural and behavioral control. It promotes a polarizing insidious loop: Manufacture global fear and then market invasive technological responses that provoke still more fear which, in turn, is used as a rationale for more invasive technology…. Stop fearing everything and everyone. Of course, manufacturing any fear is a primary media marketing strategy. But, try to resist these invasive technologies. They have more potential for harm than good.

Media Nipple Bonus Video: Designing Homeland Security

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

sexual fetish and erotic technology

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:17:24 -0600

Fourteen videos: Possession and objectification of the female image by the sexualized male mind. What happens when sexual pleasure is performed by technology? Is physical satisfaction as one-way communication, preferable? What happens when human passion, love, sex and human relationship are enacted with machines? Are we truly beginning to believe - and love - our digital world?

(Click image - and links below - to view Quicktime video.)

- Real time polygon stimulation games.
- Interaction that is seemingly believable.
- Seeing 3D characters as alive.
- The holy grail of sexual virtuality.
- Consuming non-human forms of eroticism.
- Japanese erotic doll art.
- Perfecting symbols of male sexual desire.
- Qualities of aliveness and intangibility.
- Growing demand for idoloid Love Dolls.
- Containers for objectification and projection -- Future You.

Historically, most visual communication technology advancements have been spearheaded, expanded, and normalized through practices of pornography, for instance, the VCR, 1-800 phone numbers, digital video, CD and DVD, internet, etc. But, what will we find when the seductions of Second Life, XBox, You Tube, and Maya combine to provide one alienating, but irresistible orgasmic fetish … who will say no? Who will even think to ask? But then, who cares? We are literally fucking our machines already.

Media Nipple bonus mash-up: Thai Pink

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

the facebook conspiracy

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:25:17 -0600

Eleven videos that discuss rumors of the Facebook conspiracy? First, let's take a closer look and define this thing called social networking?

Now that we've defined the social media genre, is Mark Zuckerberg the person behind the Facebook conspiracy? Maybe, but would a kid in flip-flops create such a dangerous mode of communication? But SHARING with others is a good thing, right? So then, is this conspiracy fueled by Facebook itself - or by ignorant (read: lacking common sense) users?

In an interconnected mediated world no one person alone can perpetuate any conspiracy. So who else could be behind these rumors? Let's ask some "seasoned experts" about the backstage machinations at Facebook. Can you smell conspiracy? If not, then what exactly is the problem here? Can globally publishing personal information be bad? What's the big deal about some little company making a little profit on a new technology? No worries, right? ...no need for litigation?

The bottom line is that every business, in every industry, now understands that citizens will increasingly make personal media and submit personal information to the internet. And as long as we comply with these expectations, every industry venue will continue to exploit everything about these growing trends - particularly social networking information - to maximize corporate profits. Conspiracy is a two way street.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

marketing to infants and toddlers

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:58:39 -0600

These seven videos examine Walt Disney, Hot Wheels, Barbi, and NASCAR – and how major corporations (and nations) exploit children for profit by building their brands.

Merchandizing to kids is like shooting fish in a barrel. Or, stated more bluntly, these examples are nothing short of corporate pedophilia. Of course, Disney family products have long been a mainstay of global consumerism. Today, green with envy, every company races to win fast-money from demographics as young as 2-6 year olds. And when NASCAR is on NBC, we see full frontal marketing assaults.

The trick, however, is to hook them young - as early as possible. Business plans are devised to imprint colors, logos, stories, folklore into homes eager for entertainment and recognizable tradition. Once complete, companies can sit back and watch their coffers swell. Kids are a captive audience. Let’s steal their allowance.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

manufacturing style

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:06:22 -0600

These seven videos examine the debut of Katie Couric on CBS and how the majority of media reviews focused on Couric’s image presentation rather than news content.

More than any other topic, Couric’s style and on-camera look dominated most discussions. And of course, that discussion particularly revolved around her face. These are bad enough, but oddly, this review illustrates the disconnection between reality and mediated image construction. Botox? These discussions assume the on-air image of Couric is REAL. This entire segment discounts “production value” – make-up and lighting…and MSNBC and CNBC often have bad studio lighting.

Network news lighting is an exacting art; every attempt is made to flatten and soften by employing various types of light and multiple angles. How can analysts or viewers not recognize this? No one with media savy appears –willingly– on camera without stylistic help. Still don’t get it? Now watch Barbara Boxer again.

Every TV anchor goes to great lengths to enhance their media image. And who can blame them? Media teaches us that at every turn. We live in a picture-perfect world.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

visualizing bad weather

Sun, 27 May 2007 22:57:53 -0600

The weather isn’t bad…the weather reporting is bad. It is a bit of modern mystery why weather reporting is so idiotic. But the real problems with TV weather reporting are the maps made by the weather people. Collectively, weather maps represent some of the worst examples of visual design seen today.

For this post, lets examine just a few of the presentational color schemes. For instance, what do these COLORS represent:

RED means: Low pressure, warm front, heavy rain, moderate risk, hurricane track, hot temperature, boundaries of severe storms, jet stream, intensity of a hurricane wall, graphics and networks logos, and a downward stock market.

BLUE means: High pressure, cold front, cool, ocean, land, rain, snow, wind, graphics and network logo.

GREEN means: Land, low land, rain, snow, cool temperature, and upward stock market.

YELLOW means: Warm, land, high land, rain, snow, slight risk of severe weather, rising pressure, boundaries of severe storms, hot, graphics and network logos

WHITE means: Clouds, cool front, windy, mountains, high risk, tornado, lightning, outer atmosphere, wind, clock time, graphics and network logos.

ORANGE, PURPLE, TEAL, BROWN? Is it any wonder viewers never know the weather?

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

visual communication literacy

Tue, 15 May 2007 20:42:34 -0600

Eleven Videos. In a verbal world, culture is primarily expressed and recorded with words; and of course, those who master words become the primary spokespeople and builders of that culture. Our growing understanding of Visual Communication, however, is reconsidering the privilege of words.

In a visual world, image construction and visual design gain equality, and forms of visual expression gain communicative currency. Font design is a perfect example of this transformation. Individual letters grouped together communicate words and ideas, but they also communicate other notions with their visual form and design. But, this can also be performed badly.

In our mediated world of endlessly streaming images, visual literacy is vital to deciphering the visual languages surrounding us. For instance, most everything within your field of vision has been designed by someone. But what do these things communicate – what is being said? (One example: What is the communcative intention of the images of the female breasts in this video blog?)

Television, like so much of the world around us, is a visual medium. It is a medium where words say one thing, but the accompanying images often communicate something entirely different. But what? Here is the problem: Do TV designers understand the language of their images? If so, how can so many visual designers communicate so badly? This issue is becoming so wide-spread, it is now one of the primary problems of modern tele-visuality? Watch TV more critically, and learn to read the language of mediated images, especially when presented badly.

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

youth video violence

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:52:06 -0600

Thirteen videos. On this day of insane tragedy on the Virginia Tech campus, we are reminded again of growing youth violence. But what we are also seeing is how these violent acts are recorded for our prurient viewing pleasure.

Does video beget violence? Are youth compelled to mimic media violence - or do they simply perform violence for the camera? Bum fights... girl fights... bus fights... wilding... violence overwhelms our media. Is it becasue we love to watch? Is it for fame or notariety? Or is it because we constantly desire more extreme images to maintain our curiosity. Why do our children love violence? Do you hear them begging to see it? Or is it because we feed the addiction to perform it, and watch it?

Throughout this day, as CNN regularly updated the Virginia Tech body count. However, CNN also made sure to promote just how many new hits accumulated for their exclusive "citizen" video. What is to blame - Our media? This will not be the last violent youth incident in our mediated lifetime. The worst is still to come. We are growing the consequences of our media right now.

television & vaginal predators

Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:34:03 -0600

Who or what is the real sexual predator today? Who really stalks little girls all day, everyday? It is television. Who hasn’t seen adult sexual inference and extreme animated imagery targeting children on TV? How can content like this get broadcast into every home? In a ‘free” media market, money rules regardless of who it hurts, even if it means exploiting our most vulnerable.

Big media considers itself proactive in regard to community service. By airing PSA’s broadcasters feel they are doing honorable work by informing the public. However, as usual, these two advertisements from Comcast and the Ad Council conveniently neglect to mention that TV content, like some cartoons, can "stalk" children in equally dangerous ways - and more frequently.

Networks blatantly defy, circumvent, and ignore existing governmental guidelines including those that outline content suitable for children, and at what times of the day that content can be aired. They disregard realities of unchaperoned viewing throughout the day, and time shifting. Certainly no one can believe these pathetic "parental warnings" do any good. Plus, in public, the networks oversimplify and obfuscate dangers with illogical comparisons. There is an obvious difference between an anvil dropped on a coyote’s head and a “princess” pulling up her dress to expose her genitalia. FCC crimes are committed at every turn, but our “police” look the other way... as big media gets richer.

Sexual and violent content that objectifies girls is promoted everywhere. Everyone knows it, acknowledges it, and watches it. Televison, visually exploits girls at every turn, even if it is packaged as phony news. Is any of this entertaining? Ultimately, viewers swim in an immersive environment of visual, sexual distortion that is continually ratcheted upward to more extremes… BUT, we are also choosing to watch.

One small way to inoculate yourself from the avalanche of sex and violence is to consider media and visual literacy communication and grow your own, mash-ups. Try it. Click to see just one small example.

clinton obama in 1984

Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:59:29 -0600

Seven videos about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Macintosh 1984, YouTube, political advertising, and our new social media landscape. Is "Hillary 1984" an amateur video? Is this a clever product-placement marketing ploy by Apple Macintosh? Is this the new expressive face of citizen media?

How did this video remake become a political statement? Let’s examine both more closely. Here is the famous, ideological, original Macintosh 1984 Superbowl TV ad. And here is the new ideological remake of the same commercial. What are the differences – and do these differences make any difference?

To better compare, see them again side-by-side. Both are almost identical. But there are few significant observations:

1. In the original, the woman (athlete, Anya Major ) wears no iPod. Why? It is because Apple authorized this new version of the Original in 2004 to publicize the company’s 20 year anniversary… and, of course, to promote their new iPod product. Apple digitally composited the iPod onto her body. The Obama remake video was manipulated from this second version. Why?

2. In the Original, Big Brother is announcing totalitarian propaganda. In the Remake, Hillary is discussing her presidential candidacy. Is this the same thing? Maybe, but in comparison, Clinton’s language is warm, earnest, and inviting. Nor does she look menacing. Her head remains largely within the frame, not as tightly shot as Big Brother. Why?

3. In the Remake, the technical expertise of the visual manipulation is rather crude, as is the audio splicing. Is this intentional? For instance, the shapes of the video screen are not accurate; the Obama logo on the t-shirt is poorly positioned; and the over-all editing is not identical – the Remake has several fast cross-fades, instead of the hard cuts in the Original. Why?

4. The Remake video is longer, by seven seconds, in order to extend Clinton’s spoken text. Why? In this extension, Hillary speaks of “joining the team, the American team.” Why?

5. But this same extended segment also contains new text superimposed across the large screen. It reads: “BE PART OF THE TEAM.” (cut to troops, cut to hammer toss, cut to close-up) “THIS IS OUR CONVERSATION.” Is there a hidden message here? If so, what is it? Are we being asked to join some covert discussion group? Why? What kind of “oppositional reading” does this Remake inspire?

6. The credits also are dissimilar length, because the Remake used a shorter, partial clip, and then slowed it down (the clothing does flap as fast), over which new type is scrolled. Why?

7. In the Remake, the fake Obama-Apple logo is missing the bottom blue stripe. Why? Is it just clumsy artwork?

In all, what is the big fuss here? There are MANY other, more biting, disparaging, and cynical political statements than this. Does this video manipulation add up to any kind of critical political persuasiveness? No, instead, it portends something much worse - because there is no clear indication of who made this Remake (parkridge47), or why.

In our fragmented media environment, manipulations of this sort (it is not a ‘mash-up” in the traditional sense) are the most dangerous kinds of personal media. How so? It is because the video is UN-SIGNED. Conspiring to speak publicly in this manner – without contextual accompaniment - is cheap, deceptive, and itself a dirty political trick.

The Internet is a public sphere; and within it, political discourse is a public duty for every citizen. Making political movies of ANY ideological stripe can and should be attempted by everyone. It is good that parkridge47 exercised this right and privilege. Hiding behind anonymity, however, is the work of cowards and Little Brothers - it should not be tolerated, promoted, or rewarded.

In our rush to join political partisan dialogue, citizen videos like these, without ownership, become media terrorists – visual suicide bombers against free speech and open democracy… they innocently walk up to us, explode and damage; without a face, without a warning, without a remedy. We must all take responsibility for our media; it is the primary democratic privilege that enables all others.

NOTE: Philip de Vellis, a strategist with Blue State Digital, the firm which designed Obama's Web site, acknowledged he is "ParkRidge47,'' creator of the ad.

when nature kills

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:52:26 -0700

Eight videos that show exactly how Nature is killing us. We must defend ourselves. Nature is going berserk and it wants us dead.

Television must make money. And one of the very best ways to attract viewer eyeballs is to create fear. This makes Nature a perfect target for exploitation. In a mediated world, humans must fear all that is natural.

And so, Nature is presented as no longer gentle - it is conspiring to attack. It wants revenge. Animals are evil-doers, and we must fight back. Right? Or are humans doing the exploitation? Maybe if we buy more TV products we can finally make peace with Nature once again? Then again, maybe TV is trying to kill us too?

Consider visual literacy and grow better media communication.

bush and the existential stranger

Wed, 9 Aug 2006 21:16:40 -0600

The Stranger is Albert Camus’ enticement to readers to think about their own mortality and the meaning of their existence. The hero, or anti-hero, of The Stranger is Meursault. His life and attitudes possess no rational order. His actions are strange to us, there seems to be no reason behind them. We are given no reason why he chooses to marry Marie or gun down an Arab. For this, he is a stranger amongst us. And when confronted with the absurdity of the stranger's life, society reacts by imposing meaning on the stranger.

Camus does not want us to think of Meursault as ‘the stranger who lives ‘outside' of his society' but of a man who is ‘the stranger within his society'. Had Meursault been some kind of outsider, a foreigner, then quite probably his acts would have been accepted as irrational evil. But Meursault was not an outsider; he was a member of his society – a society that wants meaning behind action.

An interesting motif in The Stranger is that of watching or observation. Camus is writing a book about our endless search for meaning. We are all looking for a purpose in our lives. The characters of The Stranger all watch each other and the world around them.
(from: http://www.camus-society.com/the-stranger-summary.htm)

…and now, let’s consider the three Shakespeares George W. Bush just read. They are probably named Doug, Randy and Steve...