Champagne Showers!! Champagne Showers!!

Sensationalism vs. Journalism

So most of you who actually read my articles would probably notice that I idolize Jon Stewart. Which is both a good and a bad thing. Although sometimes I disagree with him on certain views (videogames specifically). During the Sunday Morning Fox News show with Chris Wallace appearance, Jon Stewart brought up a good point: the difference between sensationalism vs. journalism.

Sensationalism is the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement. However, sensationalism can also include adding a sense of theatricality at the expense of an informative approach, and/or the enhanced presentation of information. Sensationalism is the plague that is dominating the current journalism community. Instead of a hard truth approach that journalism should uphold and a goal to seek answers to daring questions, most of what we account as 'journalism' is merely stories with theatricality. What news networks search for are ratings, nothing more, nothing less. High ratings bring money and more advertising, low ratings equate to no money and folding. 

Journalism, in recent times, can be seen as key political tool for politics.  This is where it all goes wrong. Journalism should not be a footstep for political figures to use, rather, journalism should report to the general public what exactly these political figures are doing, and seek answers to questions the public has. Questions on platforms, future plans, and hard-hitting facts should be answered through journalism. Yet, journalism now focuses on the personal lives of politicians, overlooking what they are doing and what is needed to be informed to the public. It is Sensationalism that turns journalists into personalities and crafts the public mindset that they are one and the same.

Major news networks now only seek the stories that society wants rather than what society needs. An example of this was when Nancy Pelosi was hyped to talk about the Anthony Weiner scandal. All major news networks were there, ranging from the 'liberal' MSNBC to the 'fair and balanced, but really right-winged' Fox News were filming. As Nancy Pelosi arrived to begin her speech, cameras zoomed in. She then announced that she will not be answering any questions about the Weinergate scandal and will not discuss it at all. Instead she decided to address more important issues, such as education and the current debt issue. As soon as she said these words, the networks were turned off. CNN went back to their normal programming and Fox News just cut the live footage off. All they wanted was the ratings. The ratings that could have been given if Nancy Pelosi had decided to address the recent scandal.

In regards to the Weinergate scandal, Anthony Weiner was a pretty decent representative and posting an 'improper' link should not have been such a big deal. Okay, so he did show his male genitalia to the public. But one mistake does not have to count so much. Take a look at track record vs. mistake and this would have been a small issue. Sensationalism brought it dow, with investigative 'speculation' not investigative 'search for the truth.'


Sensationalism has also become a tool for the now-corporate news channel. To appeal to an audience, news networks generally 'pick-a-side.' Fox News with their right-wing agenda, and MSNBC with their 'liberal' agenda. Networks generally spin their stories and create a form of bias to push these agendas forward towards the viewer... to create a sense of appeal. 

This isn't what Journalism should be. Journalism wants the truth. The truth that cannot be changed by an agenda, by an individual, or by some corporate giant. What talks is what is happening, nothing else. More on this topic in the future.


 

So what's the deal with Google+ ?

So everyone has been hearing the hype about Google+! Who's in and who's not? How do they choose.. and what is this testing group? I just happen to be one of those privileged individuals allowed into "testing". (By this I mean, I have a friend who was privileged and found a backdoor that sent an invite to me even though they say they're full!).

MY TWO CENTS:

This new toolbar! It's nice, I can dig it. I like the integration of the Google+ profile with the other "everyday" google options.

About the Overall Concept
From what I read, understand, see, and generally observe; it seems as if google is trying to change the pace of social networking. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. foster an unnatural social construction that exists in and only in the internet. GOOGLE TO THE RESCUE. Here they come, bright and mighty as ever, creating a new environment! This new network is here to emulate real* social interaction. (That of the sort that you find when in the presence of other humans)*. So here is why. There is no "wall". You post what you are doing and choose who is seeing that particular message. There is a public option, but I get the impression that they're like.. do you really want your mom to see that? Also, HANGOUTS! It's cool! you can be like, hey "friends" let's hangout. So whoever pleases... enters this "hangout" (video chat). They're really there! OMG! It's actually awesome because few chat programs/ web apps allow multiperson video.

Pretty much google is always awesome, they bring it to the next level.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I started this, I had just gotten an account. Here I am, with some friends in circles, a fully functioning Google+ participant. I have to say, I do check it less than facebook, but it is a similar medium. Google eliminated the need to publicly communicate by "writing on 'walls'", but still allows the twitter-esque 'tagging'.

One of the great sharing features is notify my circles. I think it is nice to set your friends up as either passerby's or you need to look at this now!!


Also, the photo interface is the fuck awesome. 

DRAG AND DROP! AT LAST! I have albums all set up in iPhoto from uploads, and no more searching through. Just click and drag. Also, the commenting/+1 is nice. ALSO no bad quality truncated photos. It's like flickr and facebook had a lovechild.

That's all for now.

Have a problem? Let me google that for you! ;)

Online Shopping: Ruelala.com

To be honest my interest in fashion started from the fact that I absolutely loved to shop. The thrill of buying new clothes and wearing them to impress others was the sole base for my love of the aesthetic look. However, as the world evolved and internet became king, I had found a way to keep up in trend without having to actually go to a store. Hence, saving me my time and also, saving me money.

Online clothes shopping is generally one of the best ways to find good deals is by online shopping. They usually end up giving you ridiculous discounts for some of the most branded products. (Then again you could argue that those online shopping places sometimes get the raw end of the products that are slightly damaged or last season; then again those are variables that can't be accounted for).

One of the best websites that I have found so far for online clothes shopping is Ruelala.com

Pros:

• Great deals on branded products
• Customer service is superb
• Fast delivery
• Secure connection
• Easy interface
• Doesn't only sell clothes. Sells deals on vouchers for restaurants and stores. Also sells home products and holiday deals.

Cons:

• Members only. (You can sign up for an invite and eventually they'll get to you, but it's easier if a member invites you)
• They mess up deliveries sometimes (Like you bought something but it never shows. But your payment is then voided and you get an extra 20 dollars credit as an apology)
• It isn't like Zappo or Piperlime or Net-a-porter where you have a bunch of clothes from A-Z designers. Ruelala has a 'boutique' system similar to ideeli.
• Easily run out of stock (so get there fast)

The idea is pretty simple. You choose a boutique in which to buy from and from that point you choose from what they have available. Designers can range from Marc by Marc Jacobs to Halston Heritage.

To explain:

'Boutiques' is the concept made by Ruelala (also utilized by other online shopping websites) to organize all the clothes they want to sell. Usually they are grouped by brand and designer, but sometimes by season or trend. Boutiques are only open for two days so you have to get to the website quick if you want to get something for a good deal. After two days, the deals are over and then you just have to wait until your favorite designers/deals come back.

Overall Ruelala.com is my favorite website to shop in. With a large variety of brands to choose from (although limited to 4 designers a day, that's still pretty good) .

The New Liberal

Bluntly speaking, I am a moderate. Some might shout at me for being allegedly 'indecisive,' but that is not the case. I don't believe in partisan politics, but in our current society, our views seem to be shaped by the contrasting sides of friends and enemies. I have leanings on both the progressive side and the conservative viewpoint. However, my sympathies to the conservative side seems to be a downer sometimes, especially in the world I currently live in.

When I was younger I used to think that the donkey was the mascot for the republicans. Why? Because Donkeys are stubborn and elephants never forget the past.

What I've seen lately is what I would call the 'rise of the progressives.' As far back as I can remember, conservatives used to be everywhere. The minority, at least the way I saw it, was the progressives. Political banter was ever present between the Republicans and Democrats, but at least back then we were able to negotiate rather than fight to the finish.

Maybe it's because I've moved to MA, a progressive state, but lately I feel that being a progressive is not liberal at all. It's being a conservative in MA that pushes the boundaries. Liberals want to break the boundaries and push it further for the greater of the people. Progressives tend to be supporters of the social aspects of our lives from pro-choice, to general equality for the people. These goals tend to make progressives seem like socialists as they push democracy to allow programs, high tax, etc for the better of the people. I might be wrong, but I still see the progressive view to be quite noble and valiant.

Now that being a liberal is part of society in MA, I feel the pressure to join them. Political fights erupt wherever I go because of  my sympathy towards the conservatives. Liberals usually look to non-conformity, yet here I feel a push to conform  with them. On campus, so far, there are two conservatives... out of 400 or so students. Being a conservative here... means non-conformity. Being a liberal here, is being a part of a tradition on campus, ---> (in my logic) the liberal is the conservative on campus as they follow what has already been set as 'progressive' rules on campus. The conservatives have turned into the liberals on campus as they push for either, a)better security b)decrease in student power over admin c) turning the school into a more educational campus. It might sound like we're party poopers but that is not the case. I like having just as much fun as everyone else, illicit or not. Sophie is a party animal.

Being a liberal means to free yourself from the chains of tradition and orthodoxy. What is orthodox here on campus is to be a liberal and to support non-conformist views. Hence, a new liberal has been born in the area, the conservatives.

Music of the Day

Had to post another song. From one of my personal favorite bands, Swedish House Mafia:

Solutions to the Greece crisis -Polemics-

For the past couple of days, I've been discussing the Greecian economic crisis and what possible solutions can be put in place. It is obvious why this was a topic of conversation as it is the 'main issue' of the world.


So I've decided to put my two cents in the situation, here goes:


Solution one:


The first solution I encountered was one by the magazine, "The Economist", wherein:

• Greece, instead of defaulting, should just restructure its loans
• Greece owes 160% of its GDP. If we decreased the amount that Greece owes to 80% (with financing from France and Germany) then systematic risk will be decreased.
• Also, the world economy will not collapse and die and we will all not lose that much money.

Okay so here's the thing with this solution. Restructuring the debt does not solve the problem. It just allows more time to solve the issue. So is this a solution? Not really. Can it be useful? Totally. Is it worth it? Maybe.


Solution Two:


The second solution was one I encountered in "The Financial Times":

• Greece does not have to default at all
• Get rid of systematic risk by having Greece pay in long-term payment plans.
• Finance debt with loans from France and Germany. Pay them back with interest and in accordance to their regulations.

I ranted about this one in a conversation in facebook:

I just think this is a good plan... in the eyes of everyone else other than Greece. By restructuring their debts into a long term one WITH interest rates. If Greece finances their debts utilizing the terms of France and Germany.... A) Both F and G will be looking to make profit B) Greece will never be a 'free' country again.


For B), think about it as if it were an interaction between the IMF/World Bank and Indonesia. Indonesia had debt. A lot of it too. Specifically, to America and a bunch of other developed nations who helped kick out the Japanese and Dutch way back when. So to help finance those debts they looked for a loan from the IMF/WB, which they got. So they paid back those debts etc.... and then we got fucked over because we had to make long term payments to IMF and WB for the loan we took from them. So even if we are more prosperous now (and we have a high abundance of resources, including oil, but people forget that) we have to use all of that money made to pay back the IMF/WB (as per their terms).

So in conclusion, if Greece followed that plan.... Yes the systematic risk would be overturned, yes the world will not end, and America would be the focus of the debt again. But Greece will have a shitty shitty life from that point on.

So yeah, that's what I thought of it.


Solution 3:

This is not really a solution... more like a possible scenario.

• France and Germany invest in Greece
• Greece fucks up and defaults anyway
• Everyone loses money and we cry in fetal positions under our desks.

Obviously if this were to happen then everyone fucked up and they are idiots. But then again, at least the problem is over right???? (We have more problems but oh well, at least that one is dealt with).

Solution 4:

I saw this one in the Economist as well:

• Greece does not default
• Changes currency back to drachma
• Systematic risk depleted (but not entirely)

Well... this could work. But I use this quite lightly. Mainly because I think that if Greece were to change back to Drachma, the currency would be too volatile and the debt would increase rather than decrease. Although it could be argued that Greece can have better control of it's debt that way. Also the Eurozone will be saved from demolishment.

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

All in all, we're fucked wherever we go with this.