Su'per·star'dom (sōō'pər-stär'dəm) n.

Did Michael Jackson’s death bring an end to the era of superstardom? I sure hope not. In my opinion, the time of the superstar has just begun. Now, everyone can be a superstar (for a time). Whip out the garage band, click on an instrument, make a beat, sing a little and voila! A song. There are a lot of talented people out there, and now, with the technology available, people can produce more music, faster. (Granted, there are those who lack talent, but with the help of computers and a tweek here and there, everyone sounds good!) Superstardom is not a thing of the past, as a matter of fact, I believe more people with experience it now than ever before, but for a shorter period of time. People’s short attention spans and the quantity of artists out there make it so no one person will have the spotlight for long. Is this fragmentation a bad thing? I don’t think so. In the past, a rare few were able to get their songs out to the masses, now anyone who is creative and innovative can make it in the music world. Audience diversification also provides initiative for popular and in-coming artists to continually write new and different songs, because rarely does a song stay at the top of the charts for more than 3 weeks. (In 1982, MJ’s Thriller spent 31 weeks at the top of Billboard music charts.)

There will never be another artist like Michael Jackson. He was a gifted musician, singer, songwriter, and dancer who impacted the music industry like no one else. He had a talent and passion that cannot be replicated by any artist. In my book, MJ is surpasses the title of “superstar”, falling into the category of überstar—a very technical term applied to only a handful of the most talented people. The day of the überstar has come to an end, for Michael Jackson was raw talent. Nowadays, artists are large in number and rely on bashing beats or computer tweeks to top the billboards. Michael Jackson did that and more with his love of music and passion for song. There will only be one king of pop, but the days of Superstardom have only begun.

Time Warner Conglomerate

Mainstream vs. Alternative Media Sources

I once used to think that news was just news, plain and simple. Something significant happened, someone investigated it, and then reported back to me all things crucial and important. Then I heard of a little thing called bias. Okay, call me naïve, but isn’t news supposed to be unprejudiced, accurate, and without hidden agendas?

Last Tuesday I headed off to Intro to Mass Media and Society aware that there was bias in the news. With the completion of class, I had come to accept that bias was an inaccurate term. I was asked to question the origins of media, because many factors effect the accuracy of the news delivered to us by newspaper, website, and TV show. Who owns the company? What are their political and religious views? Where does the organization get their funding? What sources do they use? If the big man upstairs wants something, surely he gets it. How does that effect the accuracy of the news we consume each day?

This week, I observed an alternative media source and compared its reporting to that of a major, mainstream media source. Here are a few interesting facts about my chosen sources, Alternet.org and CNN.com:

*Alternet is an online magazine that “creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources...” and whose goal is to “…inspire action and advocacy…”

*Alternet “self-generates” 30% of its funding through online donations.

*CNN is one of thirteen major holdings of the Time-Warner Network, which holds the title of the world's largest entertainment conglomerate.

*Time-Warner, along with its major television holdings, owns major media companies like New Line Cinema, as well as operations in Internet (i.e. AOL), and in telecommunications. Basically, it’s massive.

In comparing these two media outlets, I decided to focus on the topic of environmentalism, as it is a subject I am passionate about. Alternet’s articles on global warming seemed to carry a much more pessimistic view of the actions of politicians than CNN’s reports. Reporters were more informal, using words that implemented a slight bias, for instance implying a lack of CO2 reductions will cause an “Oh Shit” moment in the near future. CNN seemed to be more upbeat about the upcoming UN summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, Denmark. Reports seemed to say that although drastic changes must be made, our representatives are up for the challenge. Alternet claims that any action on the part of politicians will be insufficient. Alternet’s reporters seemed to cover more meticulously, drawing on external sources, like a study by Climatologist Hans Schellnhuber. When I searched the study on CNN.com, no results were found. Funny, because Schellnhuber’s report is to be a huge part of the proceedings at the UN summit in December, and his findings claim immense and immediate changes need to be made in order to stop global warming. The report includes staggering statistics—claiming the U.S. must drop CO2 emissions by 100% by 2025 to avoid catastrophic climate change. To me, such a revelation seems news worthy. Why aren’t major news corporations reporting these facts? Perhaps they are solely relying on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group whose reports, Alternet claims, are “constrained because the world's governments must approve their contents”.

At this point, I don’t know what to think. Alternative sources seem to delve further into a topic and be less restrained. At the same time, I think such freedom can lead to opinionated reporting, and thought it’s a strong word, fanaticism. CNN maybe limited by its reliance on government and other screened sources, but it seems to try and take a neutral tone to news. I like not knowing what an author thinks about a subject. So that’s why, despite this experiment, CNN.com will remain my homepage. But next time I read an article, I’ll do so with a bit more skepticism.

Newspapers: Forevermore or Nevermore?

Newspapers have provided thorough investigative research unlike any other media outlet throughout history. Such a level of introspection and investigation is necessary for society—we’ve all heard of that little thing called Watergate. I do not believe that the fall of newspapers will simultaneously bring about the end of proper investigative journalism. If newspapers become obsolete, as I believe they will, other media sources will pick up the slack and continue reporting serious and well-scrutinized news. The people demand it, and where there is demand, there are companies/firms/people vying to deliver and reap the financial rewards. Perhaps the replacement is unknown to us, or maybe Blogs will become the ‘newspaper’ of the future. Only time will tell.

What could possibly replace the newspaper? Well, no one had heard of skyping fifteen years ago, and at my age, my grandparents probably couldn’t have begun to imagine a thing like the web, laptop computers, and facebook. It’s easy to say, “This is it, it’s the best it can be,” and limit ourselves to what is available here and now. But that’s just silly. Didn’t we once think man had done it all with the invention of the radio? Look how far we’ve come. When the only thing constant in life is change, change will come. It’s up to us to embrace it and move forward.

So, goodbye newspapers, hello _______!

To Blog or Not to Blog.

Today is a happy day for me as with this, my first blog, I now enter into a foreign, yet easily reached, online universe—a Blogiverse if you will. I write now as a citizen of this Blogdom, a contributing blogger poised and ready to type and contribute both the excessive and interesting. My goal? To pass J201 and maybe become a competent, and somewhat compelling, blog-writer in the process.

The process of writing a blog is more difficult than I thought it would be. “What should I write about?” is currently going through my head. There are a ton of people out there surfing the web, what would they want to read? Should I appeal to a certain audience? To people like me? Even with a prompt, it’s a challenge to write something others will want to read. Do bloggers really care about what I have to say? Why should they? What are the characteristics of a good blog? Does a good blog discuss topics others have not touched? There are millions of blogs out there on topics ranging from sleeping habits to foreign policies, so how can mine stand out? Should it? Blogging is an excellent way to share opinions, and I guess that’s just what I’ll do.

So, how do I feel about blogging two paragraphs in? I like it.

But that won’t suffice in the way of an answer. I enjoy Blogging, (and I think others do too) because it gives the individual (me) a method in which they (I) can contribute to chat and express opinions on certain issues. I think there is more comfort in using the internet than other sources because it gives one the ability to distance oneself from a discussion. People feel more at ease contributing in such a setting, and more participate. As a result, a debate becomes multifaceted with many viewpoints and ideas, and a reader might be able to discover something that was previously unseen. I’m a big supporter of opening minds to new things.

Another reason I like blogging? Well, an entire site devoted to my thoughts is pretty dang awesome—it’s like being in a conversation and talking the whole time. Everyone likes to hear themself talk, and we all like to think our opinions are relevant and important. A site devoted to just that brings out the blogger in all of us. In a sense, Blogging allows us all to be opinion writers, reporters, and contributors. The question now is, is that a good or a bad thing?

True, there are those out there in Blogistan that write about trimming nose hairs and drooling in their sleep. True, there are those out there that blog in such a biased and prejudiced manor that reading their opinions make you want to either cry, scream, or puke, but most of the time, people do have something interesting to say and listening to them just might bring insight into a topic previously unknown to you. As mentioned before, there’s an informality to blogging that lends itself to freedom of thought and encourages uninhibited communication. Overall, I think it a great catalyst of deeper thought and conducive to establishing an environment of free and uninhibited speech. For stay-at-home moms, hippies, college students like me, and all other bloggers out there, blogging is an outlet of expression, creativity, and purpose, and I’m all for that!