Dalton Dodson

After reading more about media law and ethics, I better understand the limitations of censorship. Specifically, I know now that a level of waiting must be involved before something can be censored. That is, the government cannot censor something before it is published as no illegal act actually has been committed until it is published. Despite that, there are still present legal and ethical risks that can warrant prior restraint of something being published. One such example would be in the instance of national security. If the government deems a particular piece of media as a threat to national security, such as if government documents are leaked, then the government has the right to use prior restraint to prevent those documents from being released.

(The image above is from an article I found by Hartford Courant which can be found here: Judge Frazzini’s Censorship Is Extreme — And Wrong – Hartford Courant)

Moreover, my new knowledge about censorship has allowed me to better connect it to the first amendment itself. What I mean is that while you have the right to say anything you want, there are still consequences for if you do. If you decide to threaten someone’s life, you have the right to do so, but immediately afterwards you are now liable for what you said and can be subject to law. While there is nothing stopping you from expressing yourself, there are things that can prevent you from getting away with it after things are said and done.

There have only been a handful of advertisements throughout my life that have really tugged at my heart strings. One of these is an advertisement for Scope, a non-profit charity in the UK that provides service for those with disabilities. The ad itself is titled “Just Another Radiohead Fan” and focuses on two individuals inside a metro station as they wait for their train. One of the individuals is a wheelchair-bound man with cerebral palsy who is singing to himself as he listens to music, and the other is a girl who is watching the man from afar. The girl stares at him with a concerned look on her face in a way that is reminiscent of how many people react when they see someone in public who is mentally handicapped, not really knowing whether to feel sorry or not for them. However, the man seems pretty content and unbothered by the fact that he is alone. What he is singing is the opening segment of the song, “Paranoid Android”, by the band Radiohead. And he gets to the song’s dramatic chorus, a caption appears below telling the audience to “relax”, stating that he is “just another Radiohead fan”. The ad then concludes with the statement “See the person, not the disability”.

(The original ad aired on television back in 2005, but you wish to watch it yourself there is a reupload of the video on YouTube, which can be found below. The image above is a screenshot that I made from said reupload.)

The ad doesn’t just speak to me because I too am a fan of Radiohead, but because it takes me back to when I was in 8th grade. At the time, I was friends with a few classmates that had autism. I never saw them as autistic people, but as people that just happened to have autism. They had their own interests and hobbies that they liked, and I would conversate with them just like I would with anyone else. Whenever we hung out, I noticed that other people would try to talk to them as well. Only, these people weren’t trying to be friendly, they just wanted to get a reaction out of them so they could laugh at them with their friends. Unlike me, these people didn’t see my friends as the persons that they were, they saw them as a prospect of entertainment on the basis of their disability. In their eyes, the disabled were characterized purely by their disability and nothing else.

It is because of these experiences that I relate to the advertisement’s message.

I’m not typically one to watch the news on TV unless it’s a national tragedy or the next election. I don’t exactly know why I tend to avoid broadcast news, but I guess it’s because it doesn’t feel genuine enough to me. Half the time I watch the news I feel like I’m not getting the full story or the other side of it for that matter. Some of the most popular news channels today such as Fox News and CNN are known to have significant political bias that infects the ways in which they portray stories and research them. I don’t like the idea of watching something that is supposed to inform being rearranging into some hit piece against the other side of the political spectrum.

Another thing that puts me off of broadcast news is the culture that surrounds it. In many people’s eyes, getting on TV is one of the most significant things you can do in your life. In the pursuit of that glory, some people will commit unthinkable atrocities just so they get their five minutes of fame in the morning news. I think that some of these criminals get too much attention and coverage on television which eventually leads to other sick-minded people getting inspired, resulting in similar crimes being committed with the sole goal of getting acknowledgement.

To top it all off, in the age of post-information I can get my news from anywhere else that isn’t on the old tube. It’s not like it’s any better than some of the other sources like social media because sometimes, television news also directly gets its information from there. The best example of this is the continued misidentification of mass shooters as internet comedian, Sam Hyde, such as the instance in which CNN did exactly that while identifying the Sutherland Springs church shooter seen in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuq2orVidg8

The image above is an example of the misinformation spread on twitter which most likely led to the CNN incident. I found the image in an article by Craig Haley on thatsnonsense.com which can be found here: Here is the fake news spreading about the Sutherland Springs shooting – ThatsNonsense.com

All in all, I think if I ever were going to watch the news on television it would have to be less political agenda driven, more informed, and tackles stories with a respectful amount of coverage.

In recent gaming news, Gun Media has added new dlc (downloadable content) to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre: The Game. Most of the dlc is cometic skins for the in-game characters but the most surprising part about it is the pricing, with some of the dlc, such as the Leatherface cosmetic bundle, costing almost half of the base games price.

The image above is from a Gun Media tweet found on yahoo.com. Here is the link to where it can be found: https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/MJf9ddIVRYbzoS9iQnHHlA–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTE4MDA7aD0xMDEyO2NmPXdlYnA-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/comingsoon_net_477/cb8dead9c301bb59c46b41dd2ab28815

Moreover, the future character packs are also an apparent problem for the state of the game, with many players stating that paying for characters is inherently pay to win and will increase the already bad lobby dodging issue. Gun Media has yet to address the concerns and seemingly has no intention to. For more information about the backlash watch BloodThirstyLord’s video about it:

The lobby dodging issue was already a problem with the game beforehand due to the way lobby searching has been implemented, forcing players to play as a character that they don’t want to play as which leads to many just leaving matches. With the upcoming character packs this problem will worsen, with people not being able to play as the dlc characters that they paid for.

The image above is a screenshot of a steam discussion about Texas Chain Saw Massacre: The Game and its lobby dodging isseu. It can be found here: Please punish lobby dodgers :: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre General Discussions (steamcommunity.com)

The game has only been out for 3 months, coming out August 18th, and with the clear lack of content it’s not hard to see that Gun Media will struggle to keep its player base for the game unless they are willing to change for the better.

While there are several elements that go into making a film such as mise-en-scene, narrative, or editing, the most important aspect of making a film, to me, is the direction. Having a particular direction for a film to follow allows all of its elements to work towards the same end goal. Knowing exactly what you want your audience to think and feel when creating these elements will make them effective for the message you are trying to convey. A good example of this can be found in the film Requiem for a Dream (2000) directed by Darren Aronofsky.

The image above is from the film Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky). I found it from a review of the film written by JPRoscoe. The website can be found here: Requiem for a Dream (2000) Review |BasementRejects

In this film, Darren Aronofsky utilizes disjunctive editing to make the audience disoriented. Additionally, the films soundtrack synchs with the film in way that is almost diegetic to the film’s world but not. What’s interesting about this is that the content of the film is quite realistic, despite the over stylized editing. Both of these elements contribute to the feeling of being disturbed and confused, which is the goal and direction that the filmmaker is going towards. Without this direction and end goal, the elements of the film would lack purpose and meaning, and the film wouldn’t nearly be as effective at portraying its message.

Getting into a media related major, I have had several inspirations that have brought me to where I am now. One such inspiration is the director, Zack Snyder. Throughout high school I had been obsessed with a few of Zack Snyder’s films, namely Sucker Punch (2011) and Watchmen (2009). These films not only redefined the way in which I thought of films, but also the perspective I had on media as a whole.

Image above of Zac Snyder found from an article by Mane Grigoryan titled “Why Is Zack Snyder’s ‘Justice League’ in 4:3 aspect ratio?” The site that I found the image can be found here.

Zack Snyder is widely considered to be a very controversial filmmaker, with many of his movies either being a major hit or miss with the audience. And while several aspects of Snyder’s films are heavily criticized such as lighting and screen writing, one thing that his films do exceptionally well is in their cinematography. The way in which Zack Snyder envisions each scene is nothing short of a gift. None of the shots in his films are wasted, every one of them expresses a great deal of weight and importance. Because of this, I find it very hard to look away when watching his films. The aesthetically pleasing and evocative nature of the visuals make his movies look as though they came straight out of a comic book or a graphic novel. For reference here are some examples of shots from a few of his films:

Moreover, Zack Snyder’s films gave me a brand-new appreciation for movies and how they are able to convey so much emotion and thought with just one shot rather than multiple words. And with that new appreciation, I came to understand that media isn’t just a means of entertainment, it can be so much more. These movies inspired me to think more artistically and critically about how media creates influence on its audience. Without examples of media such as this, I don’t think I would have been as inclined to pick the major that I did.