Final Project Proposal

I am Vlog Lover, hear me roar!

Concerning the final project for BECA 670, I am really gung-ho on starting a regular vlog. This class has really opened my eyes to the awesomeness of self-broadcasting. I'm not saying I'll be the next Amanda Congdon, (yes, I mention her in every one of my posts)... but I do want to have some fun.



I got a great new digicam that has fantastic video quality up to 22 minutes. However, I don't have a Mac, so in order to make pretty vlogs, I'll need to frequent the BECA Computer Lab to use their Final Cut Pro.

IDEAS:
1. My first love is of course Broadway, I was wondering if I could pair up with my supervisor at BroadwayWorld.com to make a semi-weekly Broadway News Round-Up vlog. I'd take the top stories of the site and compress them into a short 5 minute broadcast with photos and spliced video from the site. This would be a big project and I'd have to work directly alongside Rob Diamond, my supervisor. Perhaps I can tackle this over summer but I'm a little bogged down with work to start it now. But I seriously want this as my long-term PLAN!

2. Last week was National High-Five Day and I totally had fun giving random people high-fives. I got to thinking how fun it'd be to video record the adventure... and then the creative ball kept rolling. What if I did a daily vlog called "Eug Days" or something where I celebrated one of the bizarre National Days each day. Because there are CRAZY/SPECIAL National Days out there! For example, today is National Pretzel Day! I could buy a dozen pretzels and give them to homeless people! What if I seriously did acknowledge the weird National Days, day-by-day, and went to different San Francisco locales to observe them. Giving high-fives to strangers is just the start! I have a friend who wants to be camera-man.

I'd love to do either of these, or some other vlog idea. I'd host the final video broadcasts on my personal SFSU FTP. The only obstacle I have now is access to Final Cut Pro. WHY DOESN'T WINDOWS HAVE A FINAL-CUT EQUIVALENT? *growl*

Online TV Takes the Stand

FIRST:
I am soooo flippin' excited! My parents got me a great new digital camera that has the functionality to make up to 22minute MPEG-4 videos with audio! The quality is fantastic which means I can start vlogging! Seriously, I want to start making a themed broadcast. I smell a Final Project. Amanda Cogdon will quiver in her boots! Okay probably not... but you see my point.

SECOND:
It is not healthy to be awake this late at night watching online videos! But alas, I have to do my homework. Besides Rocketboom, these are some of my more favorite online "TV shows" that have regular episodes and are fine pieces of internet creative writing.

CLASSROOM

From Channel 101 comes the online sitcom equivalent of "Boston Public." Blending sick humor with the teacher-student friendship found in primetime dramas, this is one of the more "long-running" shows on Channel 101 (with only 3 episodes so far). It is described as follows:

Even within the elite halls of prime time, there are thresholds to cross and challenges to overcome, and certainly one of them is a successful third episode. "Classroom" has not only met that challenge, but managed to do so while surviving one of the most brutal months in Channel 101 history... by keeping itself simple and modular, "Classroom" endures.

I like it because even in its short 3-4 minute story, it has characters you can connect to and like. It's gross that I like the slutty woman and crazy teacher so much! It's liberating to watch media where a character says: "He's so cute. I'm about to suck his dick..." I mean COME ON! COME ON! It is mostly character-driven and you keep coming back for more. The video editing is well timed, especially in Episode 3 where the drug-bust and surgery are hilariously juxtaposed.

You'd never see something like this on basic television, but I could definitely see this being adopted by "MAD TV" -- you may have recognized Ron Pederson from MAD Season 9 and 10 as the surgeon. Not a far cry from Late-Night Sketch Comedies!

BETTER BAD NEWS

Definitely one of my more favorite news satires (aside from "The Daily Show"), I'd really like to see this on TV. "BetterBadNews" is described as:

Unbalanced and Half-true News Opinion and Commentary. A video blog using voice, character and audio visual support to extend and recontextualize the conversation. To develop new strategies for surviving the ongoing culture war responsible for the steady and strategic de-funding of independent creative voices in the arts, including small presses, experimental theaters, and alternative media and to provide opportunities for non-commercial voices to be heard in networked media environments. "BetterBadNews" is a viewer produced experiment in new media supported by donations and contributions through PayPal.

They pose questions that are NEVER asked by news media today. I see it as sort of a comedic yet refined way of taking the protestors on the San Francisco street corners and putting them in front of the camera. I cannot discern if the episodes are more for laughs at the ridiculousness of today's news, or to "make you think." Their last broadcast on the falling of one of the WTC Buildings definitely raised my eyebrows.

What I love most about "BetterBadNews" is its presentation. The anchor is so professional, but you'll notice the map in the background is upside-down. Their panel seems to be asking important questions but there are so many jump-cuts and unexplained jokes that you're left giving into the humor that can sometimes fly over your head. And a fuzzy viking hat? But I love it! The writing is brilliant. It's more of an anarchic news project than Jon Stewart.

"BetterBadNews" is even better because it truly is one of the few video blogs that implements participatory media democracy. Via BetterBadNews TV, viewers can actually provide the text the talking-head can read directly off the TelePrompter, with no emotional slant. Just literally having a vessel to express your words.

HAPPY TREE FRIENDS

Lastly, I've got to return to my home-land of online videos. "Happy Tree Friends" is better than a fresh pot of Folgers in the morning. This is definitely the kind of cartoon I'd love to see slipped into commercial spots on [adult swim]. The humor is out of this world, and the episodes are so reliable!

Like children's cartoons, we have adorable characters that you immediately fall in love with. We recognize them and have our favorites. They have a simple problem like wanting to play on a swing or get a haircut. But instead of taking 30 minutes to learn a lesson or something new, the characters in "Happy Tree Friends" learn their lessons much quicker. And far more disgusting-er. And we love it. The writer is clever because the action is told without words. I can only imagine what the story-boards are like for these episodes.

I love seeing these kinds of shows online. They've definitely got their following. Part of me wonders if they'd lose some of their "power" on TV because internet video is just so free and uninhibited. The writing, it seems, is far more brilliant... telling a story in 3 minutes instead of 30. Keeping the watcher's interest and raising questions where necessary. Aside from "Happy Tree Friends," both Channel 101 and BetterBadNews put the broadcasting in the consumer's hands! POWER!

News on Gay Marriage

BEFORE I BEGIN: The assignment explained to write a blog entry "assessing the current coverage of your topic, addressing the issues GTN raised and any other issues you see emerging."

I didn't find any "timely" articles in the Grade the News Archives -- they're Archives afterall. So it was sort of hard to find current news broadcasts on something that'd already happened. I was looking for something in the archives about immigration, but instead settled on a "comfort area" of Gay Marriage.

In the GTN Archives, there was one story: Chronicle bans two female journalists from same-sex marriage story for marrying each other.

GTN's article was more of a summary of events from "The San Francisco Chronicle" staff. Specifically, the question was whether reporters Rachel Gordon and Liz Mangelsdorf, having been married a few days ago, should continue to cover the same-sex marriage story in light of questions readers could - and do - ask about the newspaper’s objectivity and integrity. In the end, it was agreed they wouldn't because of a conflict of interest.

I respected "The Chronicle" for being willing to even face a tough issue personally with their staff members instead of making an executive decision. They acknowledged several times that their duty to reporting was to The People, and they'd need to uphold the newspaper's objectivity and integrity. They also said that "The Chronicle" already has a written conflict-of-interest policy. Many of the readers do not know newspapers truly do put effort into maintaining the readers' faith in reporting... so it's a breath of fresh air to know "The Chronicle" considers these things personally.

Additionally, "The Chronicle" staff asked for a second-opinion (which increases fairness) from Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism and vice chair of the Committee of Concerned Journalists.

I wonder if Rachel and/or Liz still work for "The Chronicle" now that the heat of the moment has died down...

During the big boom of same-sex marriages in San Francisco in 2004, there were several stories from majoy news companies, but not everyone got all the facts and/or interviewed people from every side. This was a new new phenomenon and for many people, it was the first time we were seeing "normal" gay people on television. It was shocking. What approach should news companies take? The fact-based approach with focus on the procedures? The emotional-approach with the gays' demands for legal love or the protests? Or just glamourize the entire event with flashy colors and paper-thin writing with a story that barely cut the surface? This was new territory and many news companies didn't know if the American People were "ready" to see gays as normal marrying couples.

I remember KPIX, KRON, ABC, and FOX all having the same stories over and over again because they didn't know where to go without stepping on too many toes. For this, I'd penalize them because it was the news companies that ventured out, in my eyes, that showed their true colors and skill in reporting the news right.

GTI covered many good issues of fairness and objectivity with their article, so I went to their source: "The San Francisco Chronicle." Same-sex marriage was front page news for days/weeks during the events. I acknowledge that San Francisco was definitely more of the audience for the events because it was taking place in our City and because SF is so gay-friendly. But even so, "The Chronicle" had very fair and accurate reporting. It is difficult to dig up the news stories from the archives, but something I specifically remember was their Gay Wedding Album, which documented every single married same-sex couple with names, ages, and a photo. Bringing the love and humanness of the event to the masses.

I saved all my newspapers during this time. They're stacked in my bookshelf behind me. The pages are turning yellow and crispy, but I'm reading them right now. What made the reporting fair in my eyes was the countless stories from every angle. I am using my newspapers as direct reference, and using the links as assistance:
Religious groups anti would run in the same pages as Wedding Bliss. Additionally, "The San Francisco Chronicle" analyzed itself with News Analysis stories that examined the reporting reactions.

A few days into the same-sex marriages, the politics kicked in. The marriages didn't lose their luster, but people started to get a little more opinionated. I especially remember the "talking-heads" syndrome of CNN and FOX where people who really new little about the details of the event were speaking as if they were experts... More "news" was opinions and based on someone preaching their faith instead of speaking to actual married couples or their children or families. Nevertheless, "The Chronicle"'s reporting was honest and dedicated.

FOX and CNN disguised their reporting with talking heads which, in my opinion, are not "extra sources." Meanwhile, newspapers covered their bases getting simple quotes for news stories. Most news companies did, however, look at "the big picture" especially when George W. Bush and his Federal Marriage Act came into play. The questions of who was being effected and what may be compromised.

Newspapers focused in on the little stories with lasting effects while giant broadcast companies could have cared less, it seemed. While "The Chronicle" interviewed priests, pastors, teachers, children, same-sex couples, and the average American. CNN and FOX filled their screens with buzzing words and "white balding men" arguing about the downfall of society and no cameras on the people who were really affected. For that, they get a bad grade!

But concerning Diversity, this was a shoe-in. My opinion stands with that of actor Harvey Fierstein: "Any exposure is good exposure." There is less pain in a negative report than no report at all, when it comes to gay news.