Brief Critiques on PS3's & Wii's TV Commercials

many people dislike ps3's commercial of the freaky baby. i, on the contrary, love it! it makes perfect sense to me. please let me explain. the first and foremost canadian communication scholar marshall mcluhan once said "technology is an extension of human senses." there's a reason why the freaky baby is not physically playing the ps3 in front of him. the distance between the two symbolizes that a consumer doesn't need physical interaction to engage in the thrills, adventures, and graphics involved in the game experience because the game cube is meant to connect with your senses rather than your hands. that is why the baby is like laughing and crying all at the same time. it's an exaggeration, but i get the point. seriously, i love this commercial.

i am fond of wii's "we would like to play" commercial as well. it's more easily understood by the masses. i guess that's one appeal. what i particularly like about the commercial is how it includes all kinds of racialized groups. but i must point out one thing that sort of bugs me when i first come across with the commercial. i may be a bit too critical and you can call me cynical but the white men in the last few seconds of the commercial are portrayed as farmers who intend to give a live rooster to the japanese players. i am assuming most viewers take it as a plain joke. the way i see it, however, is that there is a slight implication of "white trash" idea. the white people aren't ceos in suits. they aren't doctors in lab uniforms. they aren't intellectuals with books all around their house. they are farmers who seem to just bum around. do you get my point?

there is no perfect commercial or advertisement. in the world of media, as long as there are people like me, there will always be critiques.

but then again, don't we go to school to learn to be critical thinkers?

CRTC to Review 'Diversity of Voices' in Broadcasting

i know i haven't come here in a while. i've been super busy with school....

today i'm going to talk about canadian broadcasting industry. the article is crtc to review 'diversity of voices' in broadcasting.

i've always had lots to say about topics like this. let me give some brief background to begin with. in canada, according to the media commercial law, we have to broadcast a certain amount of canadian content. this is a good strategy to reinforce canadian culture. however, in my opinion, there are some loose ends. their definition of canadian content is very broad. for example, if a song sung by an american artist is composed or recorded or anything like that by a canadian, that is considered canadian content. likewise, if a famous american music video or a tv show is filmed in somewhere in canada even just for one episode, that is still considered canadian. another way to get around it is that people could just broadcast canadian contents during really shitty times, such as three in the morning or something. they would still be obeying the law. they aren't losing much money, either. who the hell listens to the radio or watches tv at that time anyway?

i also find something ironic about the idea of seeking diversity of voices in broadcasting contents. one of the issues brought up in the article is how crtc is trying to avoid cross-ownership. but then in my opinion, cross-ownership would contribute to diversity of voices. media ownership concentration would worsen the matter in the sense that only the interests of these owners would be put as the priority. how could they achieve diversity in that sense? another problematic aspect of this whole "diversity" is that crtc only considers american and canadian contents as diversity. what about other communities? asians, indians, southern europeans, and so on, are everywhere in canada, especially vancouver and toronto. what about our french canadians? i know they have their own stations in quebec, but don't crtc have any intention of promoting french canadian culture outside of quebec, so then we don't hate french canadains that much and vice versa? this is what i don't get. they claim they're seeking and maintaining diversity, while in fact, their diversity is not diverse at all.

there's this really random group on facebook called something like americans who are for canadian imperialism. when i first saw it, i was like what the hell? i looked up the "officers" for that group, too, and i think one or two of them is NOT even american. i think one is like an asian guy (singaporean, it seems) who was born and raised in singapore but just went to the states for education. jeez. who the hell do people like that think they are? they aren't canadian. they've never lived in canada. they aren't american, either, until they become citizens (which takes a while). what makes them think they have the right to believe in colonizing canada? if you don't know canada's culture well enough, please shut the hell up. thank you. i loathe ignorant people.

Global Warming Is a Human Rights Issue

Today's topic is global warming. The article is titled "Global Warming is Human Rights Issue - Nobel Nominee". Where do I begin?

Our average citizens obtain knowledge and information from media. Free newspapers distributed at public transit stations reach far more readers than many other forms of media. All mainstream newspapers, free or not, rely heavily on advertisers. Financial sponsors tend to avoid being associated with publications that produce controversial contents. As a result, mainstream news journalists detach themselves from controversial or deviant issues. They have to please their money trees. They cannot piss off politicians and gas/oil industries. Lawsuits cost a lot, and newspapers aren't wealthy. At the end, they tend to quote the "elites", who make statements only to serve their personal interests. Threatened by the powerful normative values, mainstream journalists neither take a stand on any side nor quote anyone who might get themselves in trouble. Due to all these commercial and economic imperatives, mainstream news coverage shows little bias and gradually become known as "objective". The notion of "journalistic objectivity" is dangerous in my opinion. Let's take global warming as an example. An objective journalist would tell the readers who says this and who says that but rarely ever clarify whether or not global warming is happening. The readers are left with even more questions, not knowing what is accurate and what isn't. Of course, in many cases, the journalists would avoid implying that global warming is happening, so the politicians would not lose votes and the oil/gas industry would not lose profits. Since they are the "elites", journalists quote them. People who are really suffering from global warming don't get to be quoted. This bad cycle comes around and around. Citizens eventually believe that global warming is not happening.

The practice of journalistic objectivity has been around for more than a century ("straight reporting" emerged around nineteenth century). Some independent newspapers and magazines begin to show their faces recently but they are not widely distributed. Few people know about them. Their agendas are much more different. They usually never take advertisements. Money is not their concern. Their journalists aim to provide accurate information and advocate certain moral/social issues. I wish more people read these publications. Perhaps they would have better understanding of global warming and how it is related to human rights.

We don't live in a place where we literally have to hunt on ice. We don't experience any risk of drowning on melting ice. Many people treat stories like these as fictions. Mainstream journalists are the ones to blame. We need more counter-hegemony social movements to start off with. In times, maybe global warming will be stopped.