Black Friday: A Doomed Tradition?

On the night of Thanksgiving last year, I didn't get a wink of sleep. I did shots of expresso and slapped myself awake every once in a while. When the clock finally struck 3, I threw my caffeinated body into my freezing car and picked up my equally zombie-like friends. A few moments later, we arrived at a local mall, which was already bustling with activity. Finding parking was painful, but we were prepared for this. Black Friday comes just once a year, we told ourselves. It's time to get our game faces on.

According to this CNN article, this yearly tradition is on the brink of extinction. And even worse, getting trampled on by flocks of rowdy, shop-crazy tweens at H&M at 4 in the morning could've all been in vain -- thanks to the ever-becoming trend of online shopping. According to the article, online shopping is not only much more convenient, it's where all the best deals are. And while Black Friday lasts just one day (or in many cases, just a limited span in the wee-hours), online sales aren't tied to specific days. This holiday season, analysts are predicting a 9 to 16 percent increase in online sales compared to a mere 2 to 3 percent increase in real-world spending.

This trend adds to my growing concern that everything is going virtual, and we're going to stop experiencing things in real time. With the Web, the world is filled with numerous opportunities for new interactions, new experiences, new niches, but it's not the same as really being there. Many of my favorite memories come from nights like last Black Friday, when at one point, my friends and I -- delirious from lack of sleep -- were fighting off fellow shoppers with such silly tenacity that we laughed ourselves to tears. And at the end of the shopping frenzy, we'd come out with such proud grins on our ashy faces and dark rings around our eyes. True, the deals found during Black Friday are amazing, but I think that's only half the reason why the sleepless night is be worth it. After all, long-lasting memories aren't made from convenience but from fighting some sort of obstacle.

In just five years, I doubt Black Friday will still be around. We'll one day tell our kids about our crazy Black Friday stories, and they'll just stare back blankly, unable to comprehend a concept as ancient as shopping without the click of a mouse. Soon, everything will be done on the Web. Sure, I'll appreciate the few extra hours of sleep in my warm bed, but I'm definitely going to miss these nights.

Giving Birth is NOT a Community Decision

Here's something crazy: A couple is leaving the fate of their unborn baby to the online community. They created a website that allows anonymous visitors to vote whether they should keep the baby or have an abortion. So far, they've received a whopping 200,000 votes-- 64% says to keep the baby, 36% says to abort the fetus.

On the website, they explain the rationale behind this unconventional approach: They want to illustrate the power of democracy and the impact of an individual's voice on the outcome, very much unlike the democracy of today's politics.

Although I understand what they're trying to do, putting the future of their baby fetus at the mercy of strangers behind computer screens is not only abominable in the moral sense but also evidence of a generation becoming too comfortable and reliant on the integrity of the online community.

I believe that giving birth to a child should be a personal decision between the couple. They know best about their financial and emotional readiness. The decision to keep or abort the child under their personal circumstances should be the result of a deep, thought-out analysis by the mother and father -- It should not be the result of a computed online poll of strangers. Sure, the couple briefs the strangers by summarizing their lives with bulletproofs: their level of education, current occupation, marriage background, parents' level of education (this is relevant...why?), etc., but how do they expect these factoids to provide strangers with enough insight to know better than themselves whether they should keep the child or not?

Yes, the online community is the most diverse forum out there, with people from all sorts of religious and political backgrounds, upbringings and beliefs. It's great for general poll-taking, regarding politics, ethics, etc., but it's not always dependable. It can easily become rigged. It can easily become one-sided, if, hypothetically, a pro-(fill in the blank) finds and circulates the website among its followers, while the con side isn't even aware of the poll's existence. That's just one example. Or, someone could think it'd be funny to vote over and over again against the general current. While this wouldn't have a lasting effect in general polls, in this case it will determine the future of the baby and this couple forever.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not condemning the couple for considering abortion as an open option. Rather, I'm condemning their method of making this decision. This should not be a matter of public discourse but a matter of logical dialogue in a family.

The Kindness of Online Strangers

Check this out. The world is filled with fantastically generous people, and Reddit is their outlet.

Op-Ed: Barack Obama, Our President and Celebrity Friend

With his upcoming special appearance in the Dec. 8 episode of Discovery Channel’s "MythBusters" to promote math and science education, President Barack Obama is making one thing clear: He really likes being counted as “one of us.”

And it’s a good thing.

First there was his appearance last May on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Then there was his stint on The View in July, followed by his recent exchanges with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, in which Stewart, at one point, candidly referred to the president as “dude.” He sat down with Rolling Stones magazine last month, and was also interviewed by celebrity MC Ryan Seacrest on the day of the midterm elections.

This is the first time in history that an acting president has so willingly stepped into the pop culture limelight. Critics have been quick to dismiss these acts as degrading, misguided and a waste of time.

Simply put, they’re wrong.

As the face of media transforms, it’s crucial that the communication methods of the president follow suit. Imagine if, in this pop culture-infused digital age, President Obama merely depended on the annual state of the union address and newspaper headlines to reach the American people. That would be just about as effective as delivering a heartfelt speech to a snoozing crowd. It’s outdated and pointless.

It would be misguided to dismiss pop culture as irrelevant because let’s face it: Pop culture is what America pays attention to.

And so, the President of the United States is making leaps and bounds to meet us where the majority of America is: buried headfirst in celebrity culture, the internet and popular TV shows. And there, he delivers his message, promotes his political agenda, and raises awareness about the current state of national affairs.

On the other hand, what about Sarah Palin's new, self-promoting, reality Alaska TV show on TLC? Now that's a different story.

Obama and the White House aren’t the only benefactors of his active participation in pop culture. We are, as well.

It’s like this: The old-fashioned ways of the president’s public dialogue work like a production. It takes months of preparation for a well-equipped, able staff and crew to produce the performance. The hired speechwriter writes pretty words, and the president reads them as his own. It’s a largely contrived process.

On the other hand, the president’s appearances on the Tonight Show, the Daily Show and The View are like improv performances—he comes before the audience, raw and unrehearsed, depending only on his wit as he can only guess how the night will unfold.

This is usually the best indicator of one’s persona, intelligence and capabilities. It forces the subject to be real—and vulnerable—without the layers of formalities and publicists. None of us have forgotten former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s brilliant and light-shedding interview with Katie Couric back in ‘08, have we?

Obama’s own interview with the quick-witted Stewart was also a tough night filled with hardball questions and a no-nonsense audience. At one point, Stewart asked Obama if he would alter his famous slogan “Yes We Can” to “Yes We Can…Given Certain Conditions”—in tune with the nation’s current political gridlock. Obama stammered in response, “I think what I would say is yes we can, but… but it’s not going to happen overnight.”

That Obama would repeatedly place himself in vulnerable positions like this one shows that he is confident in his policies and in his aptitude as commander-in-chief.

The coming together of pop culture and politics is not a novel concept, but no acting U.S. president before Obama has ever embraced it like he does. And he does it quite well.

Because a drunken voicemail just isn't enough anymore...

Interesting story: Guy gets dumped, posts nude photo of girlfriend on her Facebook wall, changes her password so she can't delete it, and subsequently gets four months' jail time.

Read it here.

Ashby posted the photo in an "irresponsible drunken jealous rage" after the breakup of their five-month relationship, the judge said.

It is believed to be the first time someone has been sentenced for a crime committed using social media under the seldom-used morality and decency section of the Crimes Act.

What a tool.

Lamebook v. Facebook

Oh come on, Facebook. Don't be such a kill joy.

A website called Lamebook.com, which lets users share and mock all kinds of hilarious, silly or ridiculous content from Facebook, is suing the social networking site. Why? Because Facebook, as the arrogant, power-tripping conglomerate that it has become, has repeatedly threatened to sue the parody website for trademark infringement. So the folks at Lamebook.com decided to attack first as a form of defense.

I've been a fan of Lamebook for quite some time, not much as a regular contributor but more as the occasional lurker. The content, usually composed of status updates, comments, interaction between users and profile photos, can be laugh-out-loud funny. I admit, the construed humor is, more often than not, rudimentary -- ranging from really terrible spelling errors to friends burning one another publicly to, my favorite, parents making surprise contributions on their kids' vulgar status updates.

The folks at Facebook have no reason to lose sleep over Lamebook. It is clearly a parody, not a competitor. It does not in any way dilute the Facebook mark nor does it threaten to steal any of its 500 million+ users. It does not even offer the same services: Facebook is a social-networking website (and might I add, the largest one in the world) whereas Lamebook is just a user-generated niche forum.

Please stop power-tripping and leave everyone alone.

Op-Ed: You're Either a Team Player or You're Not

A news organization works like a sailboat. Its employees—from journalists to editors—write, report and edit, contributing to the operation’s smooth sailing. The intricate procedures within the collective operation all fall under the common umbrella of the organization’s standards and ethics. And these are clearly understood by every member, as the direction of the boat has long been established.

But what happens when one particular sailor whips out a pair of oars and starts paddling like hell in the opposite direction?

Such is the case of NPR veteran Juan Williams, who was recently fired for a controversial comment he made on the Fox News program, The O’Reilly Factor. Williams, who has been a Fox News contributor since 1997, admitted to the notoriously conservative host that he gets “worried and nervous” when he sees people in Muslim-garb on an airplane.

Those who are quick to criticize NPR’s decision should think twice, as his anti-Muslim comment was not the sole reason behind the organization’s seemingly swift termination of his contract. This event was actually the last draw. For example, Williams said last year on Fox that Michelle Obama has “got this ‘Stokely Carmichael in a dress’ thing going,” alluding to a leader of the black power movement of the 1960s.

One should not mistaken this NPR-Williams affair to be an issue of First Amendment rights of a matter of censorship. It was a matter of compatibility—or lack thereof.

Yes, journalists are people, too. They are entitled to their own judgment, values, opinions and prejudices. At the same time, journalists differ from everyday citizens because their values reflect not only their own but those of their news organizations. When these ideologies conflict in direction with that of the collective operation, it’s not necessarily taboo nor is it the end of a career. It’s a matter of conflict of interest, a conflict in direction. It’s just time to find a new boat.

Which is exactly what Williams did. He accepted a lucrative 3-year contract with Fox News immediately after his ties with NPR were cut.

This incident is not unique in the least. Earlier this month, Rick Sanchez made a controversial comment on a radio show, calling Jon Stewart a “bigot” and saying that Jewish people run CNN and all the other networks. He was subsequently fired from CNN. Octavia Nasr, a then-CNN senior editor for middle-east affairs, was fired for sending out a tweet that expressed reverence for a former leader of Hezbollah, an organization that the U.S. government designated as a terrorist group.

Yes, these statements may not have been politically correct, but that was not the primary reason for these journalists’ termination from their positions.

The success of news organizations largely derives from the trust and support from its readership. That readership is, more often than not, those whose values and political affinities match those of the publication. So when one member puts the entire operation in jeopardy with a comment that is out of line with the organization’s trusted and established standards, it’s a sensible move to let him or her go.

It may be a different story if the crew, as a democratic body, decides to shift gears and change directions. As long as that isn’t the case, however, the boat must keep on sailing towards its pre-established destination, even if the extraneous few must be left behind.

"Superman's social network nightmare"

We've all been there.

Know how to use Photoshop? Gap doesn't

So they've got themselves a new logo. One question: What the hell is that blue box doing there?

After more than 20 years of sticking with the classy, trademark logo, they decided to "up the game" by updating their logo with a design so rudimentary and trivial that my little 8-year-old cousin who recently made a Facebook with the sole purpose of playing Bejeweled would be able to outdo it using Paint in like, five minutes.

This new logo debuted yesterday via the official Gap Facebook page. It was met with so much criticism that they've deemed it as their "crowd-sourcing project" and are taking design submissions for their logo from the Facebook community.

This is fascinating to me, as it precisely illustrates the point Henry Jenkins makes about the blooming power of new media. The interactive nature of social networking sites is blurring the lines between the virtual world, the media and reality. Through Facebook and Twitter, TV sitcoms and films are being born from ordinary people (i.e. CBS's "&^%$ My Dad Says"). And now, laymen such as you and I can be the new logo designers for Gap, an international, multi-billion clothing retailer.

Cyber Bullying is IRL (In Real Life)

Well, Twitter is on the news again.

This time, it's on the spotlight after a freshman at Rutgers University tactlessly ousted his shy, homosexual roommate on the social networking website. The 18-year-old roommate, Tyler Clementi, ended up committing suicide.

On the evening of Sept. 19, student Dharun Ravi is believed to have tweeted: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay." Before leaving his room, he had stealthily set up a web cam to catch his roommate in the act. He went on to broadcast Clementi's sexual encounter on the internet. Two days later, he did it again: "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again."

The next day, Clementi jumped off a bridge and killed himself, just moments after he updated his Facebook status from his mobile: "jumping off the gw bridge sorry"

It's completely incredible how big of a role social networking sites now play in our lives. Just think -- a few strokes on the keyboard have the potential to drive someone to his death. More so than ever, the discrepancy between our digital world and our real world is melting away to form a new realm in which html codes and binary numbers are as relevant as spoken words.

In this digital age, each one of us newly hold significant power in possession, a kind of power that is not unlike that of celebrity tabloid magazines. They make profit out of full-page headlines that shout baseless claims about certain celebrities engaging in steamy affairs, using drugs, abusing their kids, getting liposuction, and the list goes on. Celebrities' lives are flipped inside out for the entire world to scrutinize and gossip about, regardless of whether the claims are true or not. Their reputations are constantly on the line.

Now, with about 20 million users on Facebook, 75 million on Twitter and 100 million on Youtube, it's quite apparent that the internet is the biggest, greatest forum to exist, definitely incomparable to the circulation of a tabloid magazine. And the thing is, we all have the access and the authority to act as its "contributing reporter." We have at our disposal a sizable audience who would read our posts and watch our videos. And with the internet culture's lack of censorship and obsession with memes (definition: "Phrase used to describe a catchphrase or concept that spreads quickly from person to person via the Internet, much like an esoteric inside joke."), achieving a "viral" status takes mere days, if not minutes. For instance, via the web, your average Joe can very easily become a celebrity(i.e. Antoine Dodson of the 'bed intruder' fame).

As respectable citizens of the World Wide Web, we should recognize the power of the typed word and the streamed videos as well as the diminishing line between reality and the virtual world. For Ravi, who has been charged with invasion of privacy and possibly with bias intimidation for targeting Clementi for his sexual orientation, he had to learn the hard way that merely deleting those immature tweets won't bring his roommate back.

To borrow a line from Spider-man's beloved Uncle Ben (may he rest in peace): "With great power comes great responsibility."

The Swanky, Videogame-Loving Public Intellectual

And that person is Henry Jenkins. Self-described as a devout fan of science fiction, pop culture and video games, the 52-year-old Jenkins is probably not the first person to surface on one's mind upon thinking about today's public intellectuals. However, one mustn't be fooled by his swanky facade to believe that he is anything but.

To start off, what is or qualifies someone as a public intellectual? In his blog post "The 'Decline' of Public Intellectuals?" Steven Mack debunks the ill-advised theory that a public intellectual is one who is "grounded in the myth of an aristocracy of experts," lending the title to an exclusive number of those who fit the traditional mold of an academically-driven, doctorate-holding connoisseur. He also dismisses the idea that the population of public intellectuals in today's society is quickly diminishing, and claims that the narrow spectrum of what constitutes a public intellectual is misguided. With the help of Jean Bethke Elshtain, Mack proposes a set of more wholesome, democratic criteria to classify a figure as a public intellectual:

... [T]he public intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs.

In both respects -- that of the traditional, distinction-based sense of the title and that of which focuses on the role -- Henry Jenkins is the paradoxical quintessence of what constitutes today's public intellectual.

Jenkins boasts a decorated academic background. After earning his BA in Political Science and Journalism at Georgia State University, Jenkins went on to obtain his MA in Communication Studies from the University of Iowa and a PhD in Communication Arts from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. For the past decade, he acted as the director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT as well as the Peter de Florez Professor of Humanities. He recently joined the team at USC in the fall of 2009 as the Provost's Professor of Communications, Journalism and Cinematic Arts. Throughout his career, he has authored and edited twelve books on various aspects of popular culture and media, and is also currently the principal investigator for Project New Media Literacies (NML).

Given his perceived intellectual chops and superfluous career, Jenkins aptly fits the mold of a public intellectual. However, those aspects could be almost dispensable to traditionalists upon learning some of his proudest landmarks in his career: As a public advocate for fans, gamers and bloggers and a promoter of the educational use of computer and video games, he testified before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee following the Columbine shootings, signed amicus briefs in opposition to games censorship, and regularly speaks to the press about these beliefs. In this sense, he would be classified as an "anti-intellectual," as he actually promotes (i.e. video games) what is typically perceived as anti-intellectual. This illustrates the limitations of the traditional definition of the public intellectual.

In other focal endeavors, Jenkins has explored the recent developments of media convergence with a focus on the phenomenon of transmedia storytelling, which develops the same story throughout a variety of media platforms, "not to be redundant but complementary." In his 2003 article titled "Transmedia Storytelling," he writes about the potential of a complete "enhanced storytelling [that] represents the future of entertainment" but is hampered by the ill-intentioned media conglomerates:

The media industries haven't done a very good job of collaborating to produce compelling transmedia experiences. Even within the media conglomerates, units compete aggressively rather than collaborate ... Each industry sector has specialized talent, but the conglomerates lack a common language or vision to unify them.

Jenkins shares his vision of a cohesive transmedia experience, in which media platforms work together to bring a deeper understanding and developments of characters, themes and plots -- "a more complex, more sophisticated, more rewarding mode of narrative." One of the examples he gives television series Dawson's Creek, whose producers used the Web to provide deeper understanding of the characters by mimicking the characters' desktop along with their emails, school essays and journals.

In this video clip , Jenkins gives the most relevant example of the emergence and effectiveness of transmedia: the Obama campaign. He states that the Obama campaign explored every available media platform, including social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace, cell phone technology and Youtube for sharing official videos and allowing people to produce their own. With Obama as the "character," transmedia storytelling allowed citizens to gain a deeper understanding of our now-president.

In a historic moment of our transition into the new digital age wherein the audience's participation is emphasized more than ever, Jenkins acts as a pioneer, expert and visionary for the potentials of this new convergence culture that allows the public to tell their own stories, bring new perspectives and challenge societal norms. And more so, he dutifully stands as a critic against the traditionalists and conglomerates that stand in the way -- marking the boldness of true public intellectual.

Learn more about Henry Jenkins on his blog.

This blog will mostly deal with:

Topics of youth culture, concerning issues such as education, fads, trends, communication technologies, etc.