The Rules Change Now

Rules are more like guidelines. Similar words were crudely spoken by some Pirates of the Caribbean, and yet, their fictional roots have more than enough staying power where we live, especially when it comes to journalism. Or, to clarify, new media journalism.

(To be perfectly clear: I'm not talking about issues of ethics, the "will I print this or will I can it?"-type issues.)

I'm talking about how the internet operates. It operates fast. Very fast. There is no way you can demonstrate how we operated on the internet in 2009 is the same as it existed in 1999. Whereas TV news looks similar in that ten-year span, newspapers as well (although admitingly, 1999's newspapers probably were a bit thicker.)

In journalism school, you learn from textbooks preaching the same principles and methods about how to work with that medium that have been passed down from generation to generation. That used to be comforting. Now, its scary. Why? The rules don't fit. Our society has shifted so much, that seeing an Associated Press story on a breaking news situation seems outdated, when we've been following the situation with many more details, on Twitter. We can send an SMS to anyone we want and share the news with anybody and publish it anywhere, and it doesn't have to be a news outlet anymore. Sources don't have to be heard through a news channel, they can start up their own web site.

A few years ago, news web sites realized that people enjoy commenting on anything on the internet, whether they deserved to or not. News sites were not the first to adapt the technologies, but, they eventually got on board. These comment systems may make you register through their own company, or perhaps make you just fill in your name, e-mail and web site every time you make a comment. Fine, right?

Except now its 2009, not 2006. In 2009, you are expected to be able to connect using your Facebook account, Twitter account, or whatever accounts you so choose. As of this posting, this is not the norm amongst news sites. Instead of being ahead of the curve, they are waiting to be on it, or behind.

The internet is proving to us that we may never know what the rules are. As frustrating as this may be to those who have been used to having a stable medium for decades straight, this allows us new opportunities we never appreciated before. The internet forces everyone to find out how the rest of us consume content, constantly.

As journalists go forward into the new world, the digital world, this will be their challenge: to continue to figure out what their audience wants, instead of deciding what their readers would like. To communicate with people, not too them. All done while conveying a sense of authority on the topic(s) of discussion. We no longer look for the voice of god from our news. We just look for a voice who knows what the heck is going on. Be that voice. Talk to people, talk with them, and listen. The modern audience may reward you for doing so, by giving you something that newspapers and radio long for: an audience.

Entertain me, news monkey

As fickle as I am, I'm terribly laid back. However, lately I've been starting to sit up a little more. I've been content with the way news web sites have been laid out for years. After all, why expect anything different? That's how they've always been, that's how they will be, so what's the big deal? The "big deal" is that news sites seem content to be among the worst-designed sites in Internet existence to-date. The more I think about this, the more I'm not fine with this happening. I'm not okay with it, because the Internet, thought to be the newspaper killer, will be killed itself by the next new medium unless it forces a change upon itself.

The death of newspapers, exaggerated though it may be, has become a great example for contemporary forward-thinking journalists to see how a lack of innovation breeds contempt, and if you want a product people want, you need a product that people will want. (Shocking, isn't it? Despite reporting on the entire world, sometimes the journalism world doesn't quite grasp how people work.) Television has been fortunate enough to have the unfortunate problem of needing constant innovation to hold on to people's attention spans. Over the past few decades, the entire news lineup has changed, from Block A being US/Intl, Block B being local, to now leading with local for both blocks and using outside stories when absolutely warranted.

The popular Internet, though, is still a little bit new. For me, personally, "the Internet" really started in full force after Matt Drudge posted a canned Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff outlining an affair then-President Clinton had with a intern. That was 1998. This is 2009. So if the popular Internet is 11 years old, how much can we know about life cycles and how often we need to change things up to keep people interested?

So far, we don't know. Not quite. With the Internet ever evolving, thanks in part to blogs and social media networks, the life cycle of the Internet can be hypothesized, but has yet to be concretely proven. We know it moves fast. Real fast. A web site needs to be re-designed every 1-2 years to keep from getting stale, we know that. (A concept that The Drudge Report has never listened to, and insists on providing its tabloid links in the most 1992-way possible.)

We know the Internet evolves, and that news needs to change, you are thinking. But what does this have to do with news on the web dying? What it means is that over the past few years, news sites have not changed that much. Look at industry leader CNN.com, for example, in the year 2000. The layout, the boxes, the labels, everything looks like a template that could and probably is being used today. Is that, in itself, a bad thing? No... However, if you look at news web sites in multiple markets (like I do), there's not a whole lot of difference. In content, in layout, and not a whole lot of difference between the year 2000 and now. The corners are cleaner, there's the ability to comment on stories. Has the medium fundamentally changed? I'd argue that it hasn't.

And yet, we use the news on the Internet. Because it is the best medium we have... for now. Until it becomes obsolete and irrelevant, like radio, or at least, half as relevant as it once was, like newspapers. Is there hope? I'm not sure. All the creative types have fled the "regular" web to work on applications for mobile devices. There is some true innovation in how news is displayed on these challenging pocket devices. But on a larger canvas, like a 800x600 monitor? Innovation has long stalled.

I've long lamented that most newspaper front pages look the same. More editors are concerned with cookie-cutter designs that their copy editors can quickly throw together, rather than creating a display that is actually engaging and interesting. Newspaper design has become a science, rather than an art. Same thing, I fear, is happening to the web. If Newseum were to archive the front pages of all news web pages, I'm sure we would easily see how similar they are all to each other as well. It would be easier to see how the cookie cutter has started to destroy the innovation, the displays that the Internet can so easily provide.

This may make me a cranky, hypocritical curmudgeon, but I'll still continue to go to news web sites, if only because they are a fast and efficient method. The difference between them and the rest of the web is, I like visiting other web sites, I feel a need to visit news sites. I'm looking forward to a day when the innovators come back to the main Internet and put their heads together to create a new system of disseminating news. To paraphrase the Black Eyed Peas (see? There's some keyword search optimization going on there.), sites like Facebook and Twitter are so 3008, news web sites are so 2000 and late.

--- If you happen to see a visually compelling news web site, one that isn't a cookie-cutter of an existing web page (or decade), please let me know, either in the comments, or Twitter me a mention: @charlesjurries. Thanks.

Make use of your space

Web sites are being redrawn. For mobile applications, Blackberry and iPhone users can now enjoy content in a new type of web site that best utilizes the screen and design of their device. However, what does the desktop user get?

A web optimized for the smallest screen possible.

I realize the web isn't quite ready to go widescreen yet. It wasn't until this spring that I upgraded from my old CRT to a flat panel display, at 1440x900. While my desktop wallpaper looks amazing in widescreen, and I can watch HD shows that fill up my monitor nicely, the rest of the internet is not a particularly incredible experience. I can get used to viewing content on the left hand side of my monitor just fine. In fact, most times, I don't think twice about that.

That doesn't mean it should be fine.

If we can optimize the web experience for a tiny phone, web developers, how about the "regular" internet? I know technologies exist that'll add or subtract widgets based on the detected monitor resolution. Why isn't this become more commonplace? I have all this real estate available on my screen. Shoot, this text editor I'm using to write this blog post only covers about half the width of my screen.

This is my hope for the future of web: That web sites will become smart enough that they will have a fixed site size (for the smallest of small monitors, the ones that they cater to today), but then, based on browser and window size, widgets (added content) will be added (or subtracted). I have this nice widescreen monitor. I'd like the internet to be able to do something with it.

EDIT: Yes, I understand the irony, considering how small my blog's width is.

Keep it to yourself

You know what I don't like? When I explain how I'm feeling, and people tell me I have no right to feel what I'm feeling. I might say, "I've been working for ten hours, I'm kind of tired right now!" and then someone will say "Well, I've been working for twelve hours, so you have no right to complain!"

Guess what?

I do.

Just because you feel tired also does not make me magically not tired. It does not negate what I am feeling.

Even better is my personal favorite, "stop acting like that." Not only does it make it sound like they are treating me like a three-year-old, it also assumes they have some sort of power or dominion over me. And it usually just amplifies whatever I'm feeling at the time. Not too long ago, I had a very bad day at work. My mind was scattered with all sorts of stressful stuff, I did not want to be there, I had very little sleep, I had a headache, and all other sorts of complain-able stuff. I had a bad day, okay? Everyone has them. Except for me, apparently, because everybody told me to snap out of it and be in a good mood. Although my friends were very well-intentioned, it does not work like that. Genuine attitudes are a shift, they are not turned on and off at will. And it just makes me upset that people have decided how I can and cannot feel, and apparently I cannot deviate from their will.

You can ask me how I'm feeling, or why I'm upset. But please, oh please, do not think that I will suddenly feel better because you are having a bad day as well. And please do not tell me to just snap into a new attitude, because, really, if I could, wouldn't I?

Intere-scent-ing opinion

I cannot have you experience what I am smelling now. Nor what I smelled in that nice Dutch bakery in town. Or what it smelled like in Central Park. I can show you pictures, I can show you video, I can take audio clips, I can bring home grass clippings, stones, or other sensory objects so you know what it feels like. But I cannot capture scent. And isn't that funny?

We live in a day and age of unbridled technological advancement. We have the most clarity in motion capture that we have ever seen before. Even high-definition is getting high-definition upgrades. We can communicate with friends and family all over the globe, just as much as if they were by us face-to-face. And as consumers, we can take pictures to capture sight. We can use audio recorders to capture sound. We can taste. We can touch. But smell? There is no way we can share smell. At all.

The closest way is smelling scents, whether in candles, perfume or air fresheners. These manufactured smells help to share an array of scents, like vanilla, cinnamon, or "skin renewal," whatever that smells like. (That's actually the title of my after shave. I bought it because I thought it smelled nice.) (More parenthesis: Olfaction is the technical term referring to the sense of smell.) We can buy these scents, made diligently in hard-working labs across the globe. But can the average consumer bottle a scent? Can we capture the smell of homemade pizza sauce cooking on the stove? No. There is no real way the average person can share smell. It just is not done.

Now, if someone young enterprising man or woman came out with a "camera for smells," would it be popular, apart from prank-loving teenagers who would abuse it to it's full potential? I don't know. Have there been studies done? Is there a market for smell capturing? It seems to me like there's a market for everything. Surely there must be for this.

Veteran actor speaks out against large paychecks

Hollywood is not glamorous. Sure, there are a few dozen people whom the tabloids love to photograph. Those people who grace the grocery store lanes every week. But what about the millions of other people who work in the industry? They rarely get any recognition. They do not get magazine covers, endorsement deals, And most struggle to meet the rent. Including actors and actresses. If you can land on a successful television show, for example, then you maybe get five years of financial stability before being jobless and in financial trouble once again. And once you've gotten one recognizable job, there is no guarantee you can get another one ever again.

It is to that end that I break one of my personal blogging rules and encourage you to read this very lengthy letter, by actor Peter Coyote, about actors and pay. The actor, whose IMDb I'm sure has at least one project that you've seen or heard him in, wants leading actors to use their power to leverage more pay for the acting professional. In his essay, he writes:

Also, let’s relate to the non-celluloid world for a moment. Once an actor reaches the six or ten million dollar mark for several months work, they are financially secure for life unless they are morons or have extremely bad habits. By the time they’re earning 15-20 million, some measurable percentage of those earnings is meaningless.

I cannot speak from personal experience on this matter, since I have not been a starving, penniless actor waiting tables while waiting for my big break (which is so true of most of the Los Angeles serving community), I've certainly heard enough and read enough to be sympathetic to their plight, and be slightly envious of the huge price tags given to the A+-list.

To clarify (my favorite phrase to say on this blog), I'm not saying that we need to set a price standard or make mandatory cap off salaries. But when you get people like Brad Pitt, who can make $20 million in just one year (see Forbes), you have to wonder exactly why these talented actors are being paid for as much as they are. They do a great job, the fair lot of them. But $20 million for one year? That is way too much money. As Coyote said, once you've hit six million, you are set for life. (I'd say for less even, but, L.A. is expensive to live in, so I'll give him that.)

Do you know what the main difference between a "star" and an "acting professional" is? A star will work for large sums of money. An acting professional will work because it is work. Just like most Americans will work for the sake of just having a job to carry out. The acting professional can relate to the gaffer, the grip, the lighting person, the electrician, the stage manager, and every one else who works on a production and makes just enough money to get by. They rarely make enough "cushion" money. They have no $20 million to fall back on. They have to pay rent, mortgage bills, student loans and the like. It takes dozens and dozens of people to make just show work. Have you ever sat through the credits for a TV show? Or how about a movie? You know how the credits for a film are about six minutes long? Every single person plays a vital role in making that movie. Without them, there would be no movie, just like without the actors there would be no movie.

And while the actor is the most visible and high-profile element of a project, that does not change the fact that there are people who work as hard, sometimes harder, and get paid a disparaging amount.

Most of the time, it is not the actor's "fault" that they get the paycheck that they do, it is their agent. But I think the agents and the movie studios, the people who bankroll any project, can help share the wealth, with at least the other actors on film.

Tomorrow: Product placement in television newscasts: crude, inevitable or both?

Complete and utter confusion

The following is Chuck breaking his promise not to vent about school anymore.

If you saw my Facebook status, you would know that I am still confused about school issues. I really should go talk to my counselor and get his take on my school education. You know that spreadsheet comparing the two degrees I am interested in? I shaded all the classes I will have completed by May, 2009, and guess what? One of the two degrees will only have five classes left to take. 5. Five. Cinco. Normal amount of fingers on a hand. THAT many. The other? 8. Or, depending on which track I take, 10.

My choice is between taking 5 more courses to satisfy requirements for one degree, or taking 10 more courses (these all being, of course, after this upcoming academic year) to satisfy another degree. The easier degree to obtain is Communications (of course), the less prestigious but still employable degree, whereas the tougher of the two is Journalism, which carries more weight around it, at least, in my opinion. But you need either one of the two degrees to get a job in media, so it does not matter so much in that regard. And a fair chunk of employers just care that you have a degree, and it does not matter what it is in. (Not all employers, but, a good amount are like that.)

And it still kind of does not matter since I need a lot more credits anyways to graduate from Grand Valley. I know why the University doesn't want me to just transfer in right away and get a degree from them shortly thereafter; they want to make sure that I have been educated for a good while according to "Grand Valley standards," and then I can be truly counted as a "Grand Valley Student." I get that. I really do. But it still stinks that I have to spend time taking courses, courses that don't even matter, to get my degree.

In the fall, I'm currently scheduled for 12 credits. In the winter, 16. (I know!) That makes for a total of 28 credits. (See my mad math skills at work there?) That leaves 30 credits left to qualify for graduation at GVSU. The remaining classes for the Communications degree fills up about half of that. Meaning I have a "wasted" semester. Which, I can fill up with Journalism classes, A/V production, cross-stitching, or what have you.

But then there's another terrible option. There aren't many sections available for the classes I'll have remaining in the second year. Which means if I can't sign up instantly, I may have to take extra classes and wait for another semester to get the classes I want. This would be horrible. The reason being I want to be done with school yesterday. I spent the summer applying to jobs I had no business applying to, hoping that I could become employed and then start my career, rather than finish getting my 'training' for it at college.

And then there's the finances.... !!!!

If I go for the Bachelor's in Communications, I can conceivably be in and out of the college in two years. Which is what I said about the community college, and I stayed there for three. Of course, then I started as a Photography major, so, being decisive about that degree is probably not my specialty.

Picture This!

While watching The Middleman on ABC Family (whose best line this week was "it's like o'dark thirty in the morning"), I saw a commercial for a direct-to-DVD movie the network is airing. Understanding that the network's primary target age is teenagers and young adults, I can understand why they would take a "underdog at a new high school" movie. I do not fault them for that one bit. However, I do fault them for a bad combination of dialogue and casting.

The dialogue in question: "I don't have to be the most beautiful. I just like to be somebody... to you." Romantic, sappy and honorable, right? It is not anything I would say, but a doey-eyed high schooler in love? Sure, I can buy that. Especially the "I don't have to be the most beautiful" part. Unless those lines are delivered by...

Ashely Tisdale.

Yes, that smiling, gorgeous woman to the right. In this telecast, she is telling the love of her lift that she does not care if she is not the most beautiful woman in the world. I am sorry, Ashley, but if he does not think you are beautiful, you are better off without him.

Worse yet, the guy she is falling in love with appears to be some horrendous stalker who take photos from a distance, like he is a paparazzo and she's Britney Spears. And then he frames his favorite pictures of her. Guys, I am very serious about this.

Do you guys think I am joking about this movie? I am so not.



See? They give Tisdale glasses and supposedly she is not beautiful. The swimming king is also a megaton creep. And, honestly, would an Ashley Tisdale character be singing for a crowd if she were not beautiful? Would she be on Disney's payroll? They force America Ferrera into makeup to become Ugly Betty, but Ferrera herself is very pretty. She may not be Jennifer Garner (nor is miss Tisdale), but they are both very pretty people.

Another complaint: the outsiders try to beat the in-crowd by becoming popular. Hence they become the in-crowd, and then there are outsiders. Nothing is solved. We just switch roles. If the in-crowd is horrible, then it is horrible. It does not suddenly become fine, as long as it's the main character in the in-crowd. No. Not at all. They just become the enemy they thought they were fighting against.

Having this film to try to sell us on the fact that Tisdale's character wants to become more beautiful to impress the stalker photographer is, well, insulting. Now, I know I'm not really the target audience for this film. Nor did I ever have plans on watching it. But the fact that they have that line of dialogue, spoken by that pretty of a lady, just kind of offends me.

Choosing the right role

Last semester, I took an introduction to acting class at school. It was one of the most unique, relaxing, fun classes I have ever taken. We would start the session off with warm-ups (stretches, yoga, all that good stuff), then have some lecture, usually do some "improv" acting on the spot, rehearse our acting scenes, discuss how to break down a scene, and more. It was refreshing and a terrific class to take. And it was an excellent follow-up to a public speaking class. This class had public speaking, but it also had you with no notes, doing physical movements, impacting your scene partner, and dividing your attention. No easy feat. And if I took away one thing, other than more public confidence, is to choose your role carefully.

During the course of the class, I played Henry II from a scene in The Lion in Winter, and Polonius from Hamlet. Both were terrific roles, full of subtext, danger, intrigue, and hidden meanings. They also had very "ye olde English"-style dialogues. And the prose of Shakespeare - it was terrible to memorize! Both roles wound up being too much to chew off, especially for an intro to acting class. It is not that I did terrible. There were many elements that the class told me were good. But I would forget lines. Because they were tough. Very tough. And the characters were not exactly like me. I am not a spiteful old king, manipulating his estranged wife. I am not a conniving court jester hoping to wreak havoc. Having to step into those shoes further added to the troubles.

For our last scene, our teacher suggested that we get into groups. Everybody had to think of actors and actresses that inspire them, and why. What did they do? What makes them compelling? Why do we like them? Then we had to think of the types of character we would like to play. For our last scene, we would be doing monologues without a scene partner, so there was more flexibility in finding a role that was more suited for us. Finally, we had to tell our group partners what kind of character we thought they should play, and why. I was told that I seemed like the kind who would play an honest type who would be put upon a lot. Kind of a "Ray from Everybody Loves Raymond," someone who tried to keep things under control but things got out of control from underneath him. I left class that day, reflecting on those exercises and what that could mean for my acting roll.

As I was dwelling on those thoughts, I was flipping through monologue books at the school library. Many of the scenes were either too long (we had a time limit), or too boring. Too uninspired. Too controversial. Too unlike me. I picked up another book, opened it up and found it: my perfect role. The role I would do wonders with in class. The role that fit my criteria, that fit others criteria, the role that would be absolutely perfect for me:

Charlie Brown.

He is shy. Socially stunted. Afraid to try new things. He feels his life is terrible, unaware that he is the one making his life so burdened. It is a terrific character, full of irony and subtext, and had many entry points to which I could relate. I read over the role and it was perfect for me.

Performance day comes and I play my short scene as Charlie Brown. I am very nervous, which plays great into the character, who is made up of nothing but nervousness and worry. I can tell that the whole class is studying me, watching me. Which is great, because if they were looking away, I would know I was not giving a great performance. I get a couple laughs where I was supposed to, which is an amazing rush. It is the same rush you get from public speaking, only slightly more so. Seconds later, the performance ends. I get applause. And I get mostly terrific feedback. I got a couple compliments on choosing a terrific role, one that fit me well.

Life is kind of like that. We go through life, we try different things and hope to figure out what we do well at. We might bite off more than we can chew, absolutely. But through some patience, wisdom and guidance, we just might figure out what role we were meant to play after all. I don't think I quite know what that role is for me yet. All I know is that I'm pretty sure I'm looking in the right section. And I've had advice from people on what careers they think I'd be good at. And I've taken dozens of "what career is best for you" job placer tests and personality quizzes. Unless everybody and every quiz robot gave me bad advice, I'm on the right track. But I just have to find that right role. That perfect job, which may not get me as much applause as playing Charlie Brown did, but will give me an equal amount of satisfaction.

Has TV replaced fine literature?

Happy 4th of July! To celebrate, I'm going to talk about something said over in the United Kingdom. In fact, I'm going to take that something British and make it American. How very patriotic of me.

The control of fiction for the BBC, Jane Tranter, said something very interesting the other day. She was saying that the golden age of television drama wasn't "today, but neither is it yesterday. The golden age is tomorrow." She went on to claim that television drama his the "narrative of our times that gives our lives meaning and shape," just like novels did long ago.

While she was speaking more about programming across the pond, I think that comment translates very well to American television as well. And, by extension, makes her statement very true. It is not that books do not give a good and accurate reflection of someones life in varying stages, give great conflict and show us the muddy process these people have to go through to get a resolution. They do, and many do a great job of doing so. No, it is not so much debating one type of storytelling over another; it is which medium our culture has chosen to embrace. And that is television.

When The Sopranos ended, everybody knew the show ended with a sudden cut to a black screen. Even though the show aired on HBO, it seemed like every American knew about it, and did their own parody on YouTube. Lost attracts thousands of people online who sort through every clue and red herring given by the show, to find hidden symbolism and cryptic clues for the shows narrative. Even beyond that, even the most casual viewer who started to watch Lost but stopped watching because they found it so confusing (to which I say, Lostpedia!) knows the show's basic messages about striving for redemption and how we would start our lives over, if we were given a chance. Not to mention everybody knows there's a big smoke (sand?) monster that kills people.

Books are a very challenging art form. They allow you to give as much information as you want, usually without much page count restraint. (Usually.) It's not like you have to trim five minutes to get the show to fit to broadcast. But no matter how much information you give, how great a word picture you paint, the reader is going to draw from their experiences, their imagination and adapt it to what they want. This is fine. I enjoy this. Books are great. But what television can do is show you how others feel and adapt in a murky situation. You may not be able to use your imagination in television, per se, but a quality television show (Lost, The Closer, some season finales of House) can do is provoke your thoughts. They can make you think about the characters choices, what they will do, how impossible their situation is, what clues need to be pieced together - and how - and whether or not you could act in the same way as the character.

This is not, of course, implying that all television is great. There is still crap. Stuff like 24 and Heroes exist. Those shows throw out too much logic just to try to do too much, making for terrible television. (Jack Bauer can drive from LA to Santa Monica in ten minutes with no traffic? One character can have how many split personalities that were never, ever noticed before?) But terrible stories are terrible stories, no matter how they are told. A good story can transcend mediums, whether it be in books, graphic novels, movies, television, Internet videos, mobile content, or gas pump monitors. And those good stories are, in my opinion, currently on television right now.

Shows like Pushing Daisies, Samantha Who?, The Closer, The Middleman, Lost, House, Bones, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, 30 Rock, among others, all manage to tell captivating stories that shed plenty of light on a variety of characters in different circumstances, in a wide variety of believable situations. It is not that creativity in books is gone; it is just that there is such incredible creativity in television right now, giving is so many good shows. Good scripted shows.

So here's to you, Jane Tranter. You may have been talking about programming overseas, which include Doctor Who and the seemingly terrible special effects budget of $5/episode. You hit the nail on the head by stating that television is the "narrative" that shapes and defines our lives right now. This is also why there are so many "name" actors in television currently: it is no longer career suicide! There are good, good scripts for television, and television is viewed as a very respectable medium for media professionals. And until those writers shift to somewhere else, I know I'll keep on watching.

Early as 14 years and 9 months, really

While watching the horrible Ford music video on American Idol tonight, I saw David Archuleta get into a car, and I honestly - I am not making this up to be funny - got mad. I thought to myself, but he's not old enough to drive yet!

....Yes, He is.

I would also like to congratulate David Aaaw!chuleta on winning American Idol. I'm sure the coronation ballad will be perfect for you, and will do David Cook absolutely no favors whatsoever. Don't believe me about that? Call up Jordin Sparks and Blake Lewis.

No one heard of it, so it must be awful

Award shows for movies and television can be stupid, self-arrogant and full of grandstanding, not to mention full of lazy voters who nominate the same people year after year. But there's one criticism of award shows that I've become increasingly disenchanted with: "It won and no one's heard of it!"

Just because "no one has heard of it" does not mean it's not great. In fact, maybe it was the best of it's category! Sometimes popularity does not equal quality. (See: According to Jim) Most of the time, for movie and/or television award shows, I have not seen all people or projects nominated. And who do I root for? The people or projects that I know. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the others that I have not seen aren't just as good, if not better, in that category.

A couple of weeks ago I saw a independent film, Bella. It was a great movie, one of my favorites of the year. But, it was an independent film. Not many people see those. (Or can see them; this film had a limited release.) If it got nominated for some Oscars, I'm sure a vast majority of people would be upset because it's a movie they never heard of before. But they have heard of National Treasure II, which was popular, and therefore think that to be "in touch" with America, popular movies should get the peer-to-peer honors. Bella, although a different type of movie than NTII, was much, much better.

I have plenty of problems with award shows. But just because some nominated and award projects that no one has heard of does not necessarily mean it's bad or awful; it could be it deserves the praise. And if you haven't seen the project in question, then hold off any criticism; you just might like it after all.

TV Gripe: No Pain, No Gain

TV writer Jane Espenson had a nice blog entry recently discussing the pitfalls of writing a story where in the end the characters wind up right back where they started. There are few things that annoy me more than when a show winds up doing a plot for weeks or months, only to have the characters in the exact same place where they started. (See: House, Season 3, Tritter plotline.)

Not to anger any DVD spoilerphobes, but when House initiated the Detective Tritter storyline, it started with Dr. House's actions and lifestyle coming under investigation. He was sent to rehab, ordered to change. He went to rehab, but didn't change. How they pulled that off was clever, but, did nothing for character development. (It did millions for character reinforcement, yes.) When the plot ultimately ended, House returned to be being the exact same character he was before, without reforming anything or cutting down on substance abuse. Those episodes became the "never-mind" that Espenson talked about.

There are times when a character may go to a darker place then return to what the character is supposed to be. That's fine, as long as he or she has some scars to show for it. Did they do something bad? Did that certain something result in consequences that will now haunt them? When something like that happens, then you can get some character development. Otherwise, it's just tottering along the "see-saw" that Espenson warned us about.

Also in the Louisiana Creed, and the Iowan Catechism, and...

Why do so many Christians in this area say that they believe in what the "Bible and the creeds" or "the Bible and the catechism"? It's the Bible. Creeds and Catechism's are just man's way of paraphrasing scriptural truths into handy Q&A's and summaries for our benefit. They are not gospel. They may be based in scripture, but they are not divinely inspired. If we give these peripherals as much credence as scripture, it makes Christianity no different than being a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. (Which Christianity proclaims itself to be different from.)

They're good to inflict upon young children to memorize, but why do so many churches elevate them to such a high level of importance? I've even seen people who argue the Regulative Principle of Worship (use only what can be interpreted from scriptures) that use the catechisms to back up their points. (Which is terribly ironic when you think about it.) I've even heard sermons before preached on a catechism entry.

I have no problem with the creeds or the catechisms, I don't want you to think that I'll be throwing a creed burning party or anything. But how on earth did many reformed churches allow these things to take such a high level of importance?

Changing Lanes

If there is anything out there in a modern, "western" society that can drive one to complete and utter anxiety, it's driving. Why, either you yourself are the best driver there is and everybody else is a moron, or you think you're just an okay driver and still everybody else is a baffoon. Of course, this may not be without warrant. After all, who hasn't been frustrated when someone passes you because you aren't speeding enough? Why, I'm sorry I'm not breaking the law enough for you. If you want to pay a higher speeding fine, be my guest.

Then there are the Invincible's, the (usually) guys who drive fancy sports cars and weave in and out of traffic as if the cars existed solely to be their own personal video game. You also have the Easily Distracted, a group of people who's driving skills significantly worsen if they have to apply makeup, change a CD, take a call or catch their eye on a shiny object.

But the group of people I hate the most are the people who can accelerate in lightning-quick time. They will be behind you and, shudder the thought, my '92 can't exactly get up to 35 in three seconds. These cars naturally assume that all vehicles are like their's, so why on earth isn't this old beater up to speed already? The light turned green two seconds ago! Three seconds into it, they make exaggerated hand motions and pass. By the time they are done getting into the other lane my car has gotten up to speed and we ride side-by-side for miles. I smile just a little. If you want to pay to get my car to accelerate at lightning-fast speeds, then go for it. But until then, I kind of need that car, so please, don't get annoyed if you have to wait a whole six seconds.

Another fascinating variant are the Sudden Breakers. You see a car approaching a intersection going 60 mph. It's not slowing down, even though they have a red light and you have a green light. Twenty feet away now, they still aren't slowing down. Not wanting to file an insurance claim today, you slam on the breaks. Ten feet, the car is still racing towards you. You can't slow down enough, you're going to crash! Thankfully, the other car seems to have been stopped by the Hand of God itself, as it went from careening down in a deadly fashion to a complete stop within one second. The driver looks out through his or her sunglasses and wonders why on earth you aren't going faster.

There is also a rare kind of a driver, the I'm So Late I'm Going to Break Every Law To Get There driver. Usually seen going through a solid red light at a busy intersection. May collide with Too Sleepy to Notice The Light Changed Color-Man.

Driving, if done right, can be great and there are a ton of good drivers out there. However, there are still those out there who do such incredibly weird and, well, stupid things that makes it a little irritating at times. Then again, maybe everybody else is a buffoon...

The One In Which I State an Opinion on: CNN/YouTube Debate Viewership

CNN and YouTube have teamed up for a pair of presidential debates, one for the Republican candidates running in the primaries, the other for the Democrats. The Democratic Debate was held the other night and was watched by 2,552,000 total viewers. 831,000 were in the 25-54 demo, 663,000 in the 18-49 demo, 407,000 in the 18-34 demo. Still with me?

Subtract the "key" demo there, the 18-34's, and you've still got 2,144,593 people who are 35+ years of age who watched the debates. That's still a huge slice of the pie.

On YouTube, the video "Evolution of Dance" has 53,489,655 views. The "Quick Change" "artists" from America's Got Talent had 18,893,597 views. Even "Dramatic Chipmunk" has over two million views.

The umpteenth repeat of High School Musical this past Sunday attracted 5.79 pairs of eyeballs.

CNN.com's Live Player served up 237,315 video streams of the debate on Monday. Let's assume they are 18-34. That's still 644,315 young viewers. Paula Zahn was fired from/left CNN because of low numbers which still exceeded that in TOTAL viewership.

Having YouTuber's ask pompous questions instead of reporters is a nice gimmick. But it would seem that, in the grand scheme of things, YouTubers and the "key demo" just don't care. Total viewship was slightly down from the last debate. And advertisers know that the money is actually made on the older people who watch cable news, not the young people who do lots of other stuff instead.

If the idea was just to increase awareness about YouTube, then the debate probably worked. If the idea was to engage young people and get them to turn out and really care, it looks like it probably failed. Maybe if the debate was 10 minutes or shorter?

To Contemplate Many Things

Life is full of stuff to think about. Yet, reasonably so, we spend our days thinking only of a few of these things. Here are some things that I have thought about:
- Whether or not to continue on to grad school. Mind you, this is before I even get my AA, much less my BA. (Current answer: Hahaha! No. I will be a double-major, though.)
- How my old pedometer measured a walk as 6 miles when Google Maps Pedometer-thing measured it as 5.3 miles. And that's when I put on the pedometer right before leaving the house. (I am just special, it would seem, and this gift is something that shouldn't be questioned.)
- Why I come up with elaborate stories. For years I've thought out a series of four movies (whose plot begins with an army that seemingly comes out of nowhere, and, that's maybe the least complex part of the story) and recently I've come up with a television season that explores the lives of some murder suspects. (And most of the suspects are from a underground sideshow.) I do not pretend to understand how my mind works. I am thankful it does, and yet, I wish it generated some stories that does not make me seem more demented than already perceived by observers and casual bystanders.
- I find myself wondering why I like the popular "stalk your friends!" web application, Facebook. I still do not know why I am under it's mystical powers.
- I also find myself contemplating whether or not it was wise not to take up a summer job. Ultimately, yes, it was wise, because I can relax this way.
- My music player just went from classical opera to Gnarls Barkley. I will leave that for the psychologists to sort out.
- The journalism program I am going for has two tracks to choose from, in addition to the core classes: Print Journalism (Three 3-credit classes) or Electronic Media (Four 4-credit classes). I want to chose Print, but the skills in the Electronic Media track may be too valuable to miss out on. Stupid choices!
- The television project is a flashback drama, a la Lost or The Nine. The movies, however, have a traditional linear story telling device. Neither are as riveting as the Adventures of Glu-Glu, which I have sadly forsaken for far too long.
- I also wonder why I don't work more on my other websites, like the Delta Institute Newsblog or GRSermons.com. Especially the latter... I wonder if I could get a partnership/portal/something-deal with another local site? No? Then advertising it will be (in theory)!
- Another thought that crosses my mind is when to hold the next Outdoor Tiki Torch Party. So far I have ruled out December, January, February and March, as these tend to be busy months for many people. They do tend to be cold, too, which makes guests very uncomfortable.
- I have a Chicago wall calender, a Chicago postcard hanging on a bulletin board and five pictures from Chicago hanging on my wall. If this were one person, it would constitute [creepy] stalking. However, since it is a city, I think this is what is referred to as "being a fan" or "an unhealthy obsession."
- I think if I were a fish, swimming with the water flow would be as easy as it looks. This is perhaps something not to think about, but alas, we are not always wise.
- I also contemplate changes to my blogs. However, these may be tricky and may lead to mass confusion and the payoff may not be worth it. I will diligently pretend to care, though.

Deal? No deal? Don't care!

My word, how annoying are the contestants on Deal or No Deal? There's a repeat on in the background as I type. I'm hearing the shrieks of excitement over what's inside the mysterious suitcase props, the three supporters urging the bundle-of-excitement-contestant to keep going!, because obviously hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't enough to make you happy. The most annoying part? When someone says they came to the show to "go all the way." It's a game of random chance! $103,350 was just offered and the friend just said, in essence, that she can do better and that she should keep going. YOU HAVE NO CLUE IF YOU'LL WIN OR NOT!!!

The remaining suitcases could be all those low dollar amounts or they could be the big ones. People lose out on big money all the time because they think they can do "better," when, in fact, they can't. Because this show isn't about skill. It's about randomness. I don't care if you're picking number eleven because "my son is eleven and I like that number" or "I own seventeen CD's, so, let's pick case number seventeen, Howie!" because they don't know. It's a show about people yelling at suitcases. Is the audience supposed to get wrapped up in the contestant, or yell at them? Because I'm definitely in the later category.

That $103,350 offer? It also included installation of power locks and power windows for her car. She said no deal.

It's (pretty much) over

There's one day a year when every American gets a very high-profile, visible say in the government. I'm not just talking about the "usual": e-mails, phone calls, campaigning, and so forth. There is one day a year when the smallest voice makes a difference. One day a year when brilliant politicians can finally stop slinging inhumane amounts of lies and filth at one another. One day a year when the media gets to put on one of the biggest circuses of them all. And we get one day a year when our government changes. Whether it's at a national level, at the state level, or, more importantly, at the local level, the American system of government is constantly being reshaped, remolded and retooled. And it's all because of this one day. Election day.

And now, that day is over. We begin a new day, with a new set of worries. But we don't have to worry about how to vote for proposals, commissioners, governors, representatives or senators. We've had our say. Now, it's time for the rest of the system to do it's thing, while we do ours. There will always be new elections, but for every election day there will be 364 other days to work, laugh, live, learn and have fun.

Election Day is once a year. But there's still all those other days on the calender to contend with. I'm looking forward to returning to those other days, but this time I know that there will be no political campaign commercials out there. Road signs will be taken down. Robo-calls will stop.

Now we're free to deal with the stressers of... the holidays. *sigh* At least Election Day is behind us. That's something to be thankful for!