It has been a good two days for me in the entertainment world. First, Michael; now, Seinfeld!
According to Hollywood.com, this fall, Seinfeld stars Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander and Michael Richards will appear on Curb Your Enthusiasm. (I will take that as a direct order since I am definitely excited!)
They will appear in several episodes of the comedy, which stars Seinfeld creator Larry David.
I have to say that I am so happy! My head is just swimming with thoughts of the Soup Nazi, the words "Not that there's anything wrong with that," the old lady that Jerry steals rye bread from and Newman. If Curb Your Enthusiasm includes even one famous Seinfeld moment, I will be hooked forever!
Friday, March 6, 2009
My Life
I have to say this video was a challenge for me. I had no idea what to talk about! I finally decided to talk about The Collegian, and though I promised myself I would not make a video about The Collegian since the professors are sick of those videos, the paper is such a large part of my life that it only seemed natural to do a video about it.
Once I found my topic, the script was extremely easy to write. It probably only took me like 10-15 minutes. Actually remembering the script and not stuttering, on the other hand, was a problem.
As for the video, the editing almost killed me. I couldn't find my sequence for the longest time and was convinced that I had deleted it. Luckily, I had not, but I lost a lot of time freaking out. The transitions and the audio were also tricky for me in this video, and I may need to seek assistance on those topics.
Despite the bads, there were some goods. I had a great Freeplaymusic.com experience, and I did learn more about Final Cut. I have to say the editing took a lot less time overall during this video, so that is an improvement. Like I have said in the past, I think it will take me some time, but I do think I should be able to figure out Final Cut and the overall video-producing process.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
I like Mike!
Exciting news: Michael Jackson is back. What a "Thriller!"
According to the AP, Jackson will perform 10 shows in London in July. Tickets are expected to sell quickly for the concerts despite some concerns about Jackson's health and a failed attempt to relaunch his career in November.
My only regret in life is that I don't live in London. Though people think he is "Bad" and should "Beat it" (yes, I will stop with the bad puns), I personally love the King of Pop. I've had his "Number Ones" CD in my car for the last four years, and I always listen to it when I drive home.
If someone told me they did not like any of Michael Jackson's songs, I wouldn't believe them. From "Billie Jean" to "Black or White" to "Man in the Mirror" (or any of the aforementioned songs), Michael has songs that appeal to almost everyone. Plus, his album "Thriller," which was released in 1982, is still the best-selling album of all time. You can't argue with that.
So though he may have had some legal problems and may be a little messed up, I want everyone to realize that Michael Jackson rocks. And I would say to Michael, "I Just Can't Stop Loving You."
According to the AP, Jackson will perform 10 shows in London in July. Tickets are expected to sell quickly for the concerts despite some concerns about Jackson's health and a failed attempt to relaunch his career in November.
My only regret in life is that I don't live in London. Though people think he is "Bad" and should "Beat it" (yes, I will stop with the bad puns), I personally love the King of Pop. I've had his "Number Ones" CD in my car for the last four years, and I always listen to it when I drive home.
If someone told me they did not like any of Michael Jackson's songs, I wouldn't believe them. From "Billie Jean" to "Black or White" to "Man in the Mirror" (or any of the aforementioned songs), Michael has songs that appeal to almost everyone. Plus, his album "Thriller," which was released in 1982, is still the best-selling album of all time. You can't argue with that.
So though he may have had some legal problems and may be a little messed up, I want everyone to realize that Michael Jackson rocks. And I would say to Michael, "I Just Can't Stop Loving You."
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Are we giving our readers candy before dinner?
In the news businesses, you are always supposed to put the reader first. You need to present the news in an interesting and understandable way to grab their attention, and you need to try to give them stories that match their interests.
I believe it was for these reasons that the Argus Leader decided to run the story about a cat being put in a bong on its Nation and World Section despite having limited space.
I thought the Argus did a great job with story selection in that case because I know that I was interested in the case. The story talked about animal cruelty and a crime that happened in our region, and it was a weird story. These are all elements that interested me and probably interested a large number of people.
A friend, however, was not so pleased with the Argus's selection. She felt the story took up valuable space that could have been dedicated to other national and international issues. By selecting stories like the cat bong instead of current world issues, she said, papers are actually helping to dumb down the population.
Wait, dumb down the population. That is a serious charge.
She does have some good points. By putting that story in the paper as opposed to something like a Mexican prison riot, editors are calling the cat story more newsworthy. Once a culture is established that cat bong stories are more important than international prison riots than people will naturally read those "wild" stories instead of hard-hitting news. That could lead to an uninformed public that just wants strange stories. So in a way, journalists are responsible for giving people the news they might not find the most interesting but that is important to be informed about the world.
On the other hand, editors want to please readers. If they want to read about strange stories instead of hard news, who are we to say they can't. In the end, its actually the reader's paper, not just the editors or executives.
So I have to say that I'm officially torn on this issue. I think it's good to give readers a dose of weird news every once and a while, but then again, I don't want newspapers or other serious news outlets to become totally devoted to just offbeat news. I think newspapers need to find a balance, and in this case, I think that's exactly what the Argus was trying to do.
I believe it was for these reasons that the Argus Leader decided to run the story about a cat being put in a bong on its Nation and World Section despite having limited space.
I thought the Argus did a great job with story selection in that case because I know that I was interested in the case. The story talked about animal cruelty and a crime that happened in our region, and it was a weird story. These are all elements that interested me and probably interested a large number of people.
A friend, however, was not so pleased with the Argus's selection. She felt the story took up valuable space that could have been dedicated to other national and international issues. By selecting stories like the cat bong instead of current world issues, she said, papers are actually helping to dumb down the population.
Wait, dumb down the population. That is a serious charge.
She does have some good points. By putting that story in the paper as opposed to something like a Mexican prison riot, editors are calling the cat story more newsworthy. Once a culture is established that cat bong stories are more important than international prison riots than people will naturally read those "wild" stories instead of hard-hitting news. That could lead to an uninformed public that just wants strange stories. So in a way, journalists are responsible for giving people the news they might not find the most interesting but that is important to be informed about the world.
On the other hand, editors want to please readers. If they want to read about strange stories instead of hard news, who are we to say they can't. In the end, its actually the reader's paper, not just the editors or executives.
So I have to say that I'm officially torn on this issue. I think it's good to give readers a dose of weird news every once and a while, but then again, I don't want newspapers or other serious news outlets to become totally devoted to just offbeat news. I think newspapers need to find a balance, and in this case, I think that's exactly what the Argus was trying to do.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
I admit I may have a problem
We all have our dirty little secrets. One of mine is that I read every story I find about Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
It's definitely a curse. If I see a headline about the famous feud, I'm sure to click on the story even if it's two in the morning. It's like I can't help myself; the tabloid gods take over my body, and I absorb every nitty gritty detail.
Today's news from Entertainment Tonight: Aniston told ELLE UK magazine that 'there are no sides' in the apparent feud between the actress and Jolie. Yep, it's pretty lame, but I enjoyed every minute detail anyway.
About the "fight,"Aniston said, "There are no villains and there is no heroine in this story." I disagree. I think whoever decided that they needed to flash Angelina and Brad across the screen while Aniston was presenting at the Oscars is definitley evil. Really, this was Jenn's moment. Brangelina can go have another baby if they want more publicity.
Obviously, I'm on the pro-Jennifer side of things. I'll never forgive Brad and Angelina for sneaking around on Jenn during the filming of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I dislike home wreckers. (Even if Aniston has forgotten about it, apparently I never will.)
Then again, I probably should just move on, because I'm trying to decide if Jolie is more pitiful for interfering with a marriage or if I am more pitiful that I'm actually still reading about it three years later.
Whatever, I'll figure that question out later. I've got more pressing matters at hand. I must read Pitt: 'Jolie didn't wreck my marriage.'
It's definitely a curse. If I see a headline about the famous feud, I'm sure to click on the story even if it's two in the morning. It's like I can't help myself; the tabloid gods take over my body, and I absorb every nitty gritty detail.
Today's news from Entertainment Tonight: Aniston told ELLE UK magazine that 'there are no sides' in the apparent feud between the actress and Jolie. Yep, it's pretty lame, but I enjoyed every minute detail anyway.
About the "fight,"Aniston said, "There are no villains and there is no heroine in this story." I disagree. I think whoever decided that they needed to flash Angelina and Brad across the screen while Aniston was presenting at the Oscars is definitley evil. Really, this was Jenn's moment. Brangelina can go have another baby if they want more publicity.
Obviously, I'm on the pro-Jennifer side of things. I'll never forgive Brad and Angelina for sneaking around on Jenn during the filming of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I dislike home wreckers. (Even if Aniston has forgotten about it, apparently I never will.)
Then again, I probably should just move on, because I'm trying to decide if Jolie is more pitiful for interfering with a marriage or if I am more pitiful that I'm actually still reading about it three years later.
Whatever, I'll figure that question out later. I've got more pressing matters at hand. I must read Pitt: 'Jolie didn't wreck my marriage.'
Monday, March 2, 2009
You've got to be kidding!
This may not be necessarily media related, but it definitely needs to be reported. An airline wants to charge its passengers for using the toilet!
Company head Michael O’Leary told the BBC that Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline, might start charging passengers for using an airplane’s toilet, according to blogger Karen Datko.
What’s more is that O’Leary said the charge could be one British pound, which amounts to about $1.40, per use. Holy cow! Way to exploit people for performing a very basic body function! And the sad thing is that people will actually pay that much if they really have to go.
Though charging people for using in-flight toilets seems like an atrocity at the least, it is just the extreme in a long line of airlines’ hidden fees. For example, fees for checked baggage, in-flight amenities, paper tickets and booking have become very popular in the United States, according to MSN Money.
I have to say my favorite hidden fee, though, is the curb-side baggage check-in fee. I can just see myself being stressed and loaded down with luggage when a nice old airline man comes up to me and asks if I want help. I would most definitely say yes, to which he would reply, “That’s $2 and a tip, please!”
When it comes to airline travel, so much for goodwill and bathrooms for all!
Company head Michael O’Leary told the BBC that Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline, might start charging passengers for using an airplane’s toilet, according to blogger Karen Datko.
What’s more is that O’Leary said the charge could be one British pound, which amounts to about $1.40, per use. Holy cow! Way to exploit people for performing a very basic body function! And the sad thing is that people will actually pay that much if they really have to go.
Though charging people for using in-flight toilets seems like an atrocity at the least, it is just the extreme in a long line of airlines’ hidden fees. For example, fees for checked baggage, in-flight amenities, paper tickets and booking have become very popular in the United States, according to MSN Money.
I have to say my favorite hidden fee, though, is the curb-side baggage check-in fee. I can just see myself being stressed and loaded down with luggage when a nice old airline man comes up to me and asks if I want help. I would most definitely say yes, to which he would reply, “That’s $2 and a tip, please!”
When it comes to airline travel, so much for goodwill and bathrooms for all!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Coffin photos
In the last week, the new administration has decided to lift the ban on photographing flag-draped coffins of soldiers returning from war. In the new rule, families will decide if their soldiers' coffin can be photographed.
According to Martin C. Even of Newsday, the previous ban on these photos was put in place in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush.
As a media person, I applaud the administration's effort to make the military more transparent. In the Newsday article, one mother of a fallen soldier said she would have liked to have the media at the airport because that meant that someone was acknowledging the sacrifice her son had made. Other mothers said these photographs could put the war in "human terms" for people who have not been terribly affected by the war.
On the other hand, those on the other side of the issue have valid concerns, too. In an article by Eric Timmons of The Register-Mail, one mother argued that showing these pictures was just hard on the family. The moment when the soldier comes home is personal and private, and she didn't want her son's coffin all over the front page of a paper.
Another concern with the new rule is that more than one coffin may come back to the U.S. at the same time. In this situation, one family could potentially agree to allowing pictures while another does not want anyone to photograph the solider's coffin. That could create problems because the photographer might not know which coffin is okay to photograph and which one is not.
In the end, I am pleased with the new rule. I think the photographing question should be up to the families since they are the ones being the most affected. Many of the families have strong feelings one way or the other so I think giving them a say in how the media will cover their soldier's funeral, etc., is the best way. If nothing else, it will probably give them more respect for the media since someone actually called and asked how they wanted the situation handled.
According to Martin C. Even of Newsday, the previous ban on these photos was put in place in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush.
As a media person, I applaud the administration's effort to make the military more transparent. In the Newsday article, one mother of a fallen soldier said she would have liked to have the media at the airport because that meant that someone was acknowledging the sacrifice her son had made. Other mothers said these photographs could put the war in "human terms" for people who have not been terribly affected by the war.
On the other hand, those on the other side of the issue have valid concerns, too. In an article by Eric Timmons of The Register-Mail, one mother argued that showing these pictures was just hard on the family. The moment when the soldier comes home is personal and private, and she didn't want her son's coffin all over the front page of a paper.
Another concern with the new rule is that more than one coffin may come back to the U.S. at the same time. In this situation, one family could potentially agree to allowing pictures while another does not want anyone to photograph the solider's coffin. That could create problems because the photographer might not know which coffin is okay to photograph and which one is not.
In the end, I am pleased with the new rule. I think the photographing question should be up to the families since they are the ones being the most affected. Many of the families have strong feelings one way or the other so I think giving them a say in how the media will cover their soldier's funeral, etc., is the best way. If nothing else, it will probably give them more respect for the media since someone actually called and asked how they wanted the situation handled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
