Tuesday, May 6, 2008
May 4th, Feloy Square.
May 4th is international youth day. In this day, Youth of China in the U.S got together to support China and the coming Olympic. Here is a vedio of what was happening.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Jarhead
“Jarhead” is adapted from Anthony Swofford’s best-selling novel of the same title in 2003. The Author is the former marine and serviced in the First Gulf War. Directed by Sam Mendes, who directed “American Beauty,” and its script written by William Broyles Jr., who is the former marine as well, this movie is based on Swofford’s pre-Desert Storm experiences in Saudi Arabia.
The movie starts from a group of “Jarhead,” freshman soldiers who have the haircut similar to the jar shape, are sent to the desert in Saudi Arabia to training and prepare for fighting in Kuwait. They don’t know where their enemies are, but just accept the training and wait for next order in the arid desert day after day. At first, they eager to kill enemies in a real battle; however, they spend most of time to waiting for a battle coming. During the long wait, they just play football, read the letters or pornography from hometown, and get drunk to waste their time and energy. After the long wait, operation of the Desert Storm, they are finally dispatched to the Saudi-Kuwaiti border to practice the military campaign. They walk through the desert, see the burned oil wells, the battle-destroyed ruins and the causalities, but still face no enemy in person. After the war, they join the parade celebrating the victory of war. And their good mood is disturbed by a Vietnam veteran suffering from the memories of the war experiences. Afterwards, they come back home and keep going on their lives, but still have the effects of war.
Basically, this movie is an anti-war movie. Anti-war movies often denounce the brutality of war, and praise the development of friendships from battle via displaying realistically the war scenes. For example, in “Black Hawk Down,” it takes almost over 100 minutes to rebuild the real battle scenes. However, unlike other anti-war movies, “Jarhead” just describes the visceral mentality of soldiers in the war- the endless and aimless waiting.
The marines in the film are not so brave and skillful as the press reports before. They always wait for the command, repeat the military training, play footballs, read letters and pornography to waste their time. Waiting is a whole part of their lives. They are always waiting for next order, next letter, and next mission. There is no battle and killing scene in the movie, except some dead bodies. Even in the end of the war, the marines still don’t encounter any enemy. They are frustrated and anxious, and only they can do is shooting to the sky. After they come home, they still have to try to get used to the normal life and to forget the experiences from the desert. Ironically, they don’t really know what the war really is, but still suffer from the effects of war. This movie points out that the brutality of the war for soldiers is not cruel killing in the battle but endless and aimless waiting during the war and alienation from the real life after the war.
Differing from the former anti-war films, the director uses different techniques to present this film. He doesn’t use the magnificent background music as former war films but use rock music instead. And he uses hand-held camera and fast-rhythm editing to express the anxiety of marines. The director emphasizes on that these marines are not fighting for any humanitarian cause; instead, they don’t know who they are fighting against and they are dying in frustrated and anxious feelings.
The movie uses some elements of classic war movies to make metaphors. For example, a group of soldiers watch the village attack scene in Francis Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now.” For another example, one soldier plays “The Dear Hunter,” but he finds that the content is about his wife having sex with his neighbor. And then he is close to breakdown immediately. On the one hand, the scenes express that these soldiers cannot go to the real battles, they only can watch the Vietnam War movies to be satisfied with the present situation. On the other hand, thee scenes describe the soldiers’ anxiety about the relationship with their lovers. They are afraid that their relationship would be broken up because of the war.
In this movie, it satirizes the credulity of news reports. Staff sergeant forces the unit to wear NBC (an acronym of nuclear, biological, and chemical) suit and play football in high temperature in order to show the good equipment and the discipline of military when the reporters come. However, when the cameras roll, the marines don’t play the game but do some sex-intention actions. Staff is embarrassed by their actions that show poor disciplines. He removes cameras and punishes his crew later.
This scene reflects that the news reporting can be designed and lack of credulity. The report of war shows “the reality of war” might be just propaganda. We cannot just totally believe the news because the news can be made up for political purpose.
For another example, after the marines come back hometown, they join the parade celebrating the victory of war. People admire and welcome the brave and royal soldiers coming back home. People don’t know the real situation the soldiers meet in the war, the only source of information they can get is from the press reporting. The gap made from the press reporting is not only between the reality and audiences but also between soldiers and the public.
Another interesting point is the interview of individual marine. Someone is conservative to respond the formal answer that he’s glad to fight for justice. Someone is excited about joining the war. Someone keeps quite to express his compliant. Someone misses his relatives and home. And the main character, Anthony Swofford, says that he is scared and regrets to join the war. This not only breaks up the normal image of the marines that is always with one voice, but also reveals that the speech would be controlled by military. The movie shows the duality of the press reporting-it can manipulate or disclose the reality.
“Jarhead,” as an anti-war movie, doesn’t accuse the cruelty of war. It just reflects the mentality of some soldiers. “Welcome to the suck.” is their comment to the nature of the military life. These soldiers waste their time waiting, don’t know what they fight for and who they fight against, and even don’t really encounter any enemy. After the war ends, they feel alienated to the public and still suffer from the memories of war. It seems to be absurd but it’s really happened. In addition, the reality of war is not the same as the press reporting reveals. The information of war can be designed and recombined. This makes a gap between the public and the soldiers. This movie makes some links to the Vietnam War and the First Gulf War, and breaks up the myth of hero soldiers and the war of justice. Just like the character Anthony Swofford says, “Every war is different, every war is the same,” now America encounters another war in the Middle East. The movie seems to warn not to make the same mistake again.
The movie starts from a group of “Jarhead,” freshman soldiers who have the haircut similar to the jar shape, are sent to the desert in Saudi Arabia to training and prepare for fighting in Kuwait. They don’t know where their enemies are, but just accept the training and wait for next order in the arid desert day after day. At first, they eager to kill enemies in a real battle; however, they spend most of time to waiting for a battle coming. During the long wait, they just play football, read the letters or pornography from hometown, and get drunk to waste their time and energy. After the long wait, operation of the Desert Storm, they are finally dispatched to the Saudi-Kuwaiti border to practice the military campaign. They walk through the desert, see the burned oil wells, the battle-destroyed ruins and the causalities, but still face no enemy in person. After the war, they join the parade celebrating the victory of war. And their good mood is disturbed by a Vietnam veteran suffering from the memories of the war experiences. Afterwards, they come back home and keep going on their lives, but still have the effects of war.
Basically, this movie is an anti-war movie. Anti-war movies often denounce the brutality of war, and praise the development of friendships from battle via displaying realistically the war scenes. For example, in “Black Hawk Down,” it takes almost over 100 minutes to rebuild the real battle scenes. However, unlike other anti-war movies, “Jarhead” just describes the visceral mentality of soldiers in the war- the endless and aimless waiting.
The marines in the film are not so brave and skillful as the press reports before. They always wait for the command, repeat the military training, play footballs, read letters and pornography to waste their time. Waiting is a whole part of their lives. They are always waiting for next order, next letter, and next mission. There is no battle and killing scene in the movie, except some dead bodies. Even in the end of the war, the marines still don’t encounter any enemy. They are frustrated and anxious, and only they can do is shooting to the sky. After they come home, they still have to try to get used to the normal life and to forget the experiences from the desert. Ironically, they don’t really know what the war really is, but still suffer from the effects of war. This movie points out that the brutality of the war for soldiers is not cruel killing in the battle but endless and aimless waiting during the war and alienation from the real life after the war.
Differing from the former anti-war films, the director uses different techniques to present this film. He doesn’t use the magnificent background music as former war films but use rock music instead. And he uses hand-held camera and fast-rhythm editing to express the anxiety of marines. The director emphasizes on that these marines are not fighting for any humanitarian cause; instead, they don’t know who they are fighting against and they are dying in frustrated and anxious feelings.
The movie uses some elements of classic war movies to make metaphors. For example, a group of soldiers watch the village attack scene in Francis Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now.” For another example, one soldier plays “The Dear Hunter,” but he finds that the content is about his wife having sex with his neighbor. And then he is close to breakdown immediately. On the one hand, the scenes express that these soldiers cannot go to the real battles, they only can watch the Vietnam War movies to be satisfied with the present situation. On the other hand, thee scenes describe the soldiers’ anxiety about the relationship with their lovers. They are afraid that their relationship would be broken up because of the war.
In this movie, it satirizes the credulity of news reports. Staff sergeant forces the unit to wear NBC (an acronym of nuclear, biological, and chemical) suit and play football in high temperature in order to show the good equipment and the discipline of military when the reporters come. However, when the cameras roll, the marines don’t play the game but do some sex-intention actions. Staff is embarrassed by their actions that show poor disciplines. He removes cameras and punishes his crew later.
This scene reflects that the news reporting can be designed and lack of credulity. The report of war shows “the reality of war” might be just propaganda. We cannot just totally believe the news because the news can be made up for political purpose.
For another example, after the marines come back hometown, they join the parade celebrating the victory of war. People admire and welcome the brave and royal soldiers coming back home. People don’t know the real situation the soldiers meet in the war, the only source of information they can get is from the press reporting. The gap made from the press reporting is not only between the reality and audiences but also between soldiers and the public.
Another interesting point is the interview of individual marine. Someone is conservative to respond the formal answer that he’s glad to fight for justice. Someone is excited about joining the war. Someone keeps quite to express his compliant. Someone misses his relatives and home. And the main character, Anthony Swofford, says that he is scared and regrets to join the war. This not only breaks up the normal image of the marines that is always with one voice, but also reveals that the speech would be controlled by military. The movie shows the duality of the press reporting-it can manipulate or disclose the reality.
“Jarhead,” as an anti-war movie, doesn’t accuse the cruelty of war. It just reflects the mentality of some soldiers. “Welcome to the suck.” is their comment to the nature of the military life. These soldiers waste their time waiting, don’t know what they fight for and who they fight against, and even don’t really encounter any enemy. After the war ends, they feel alienated to the public and still suffer from the memories of war. It seems to be absurd but it’s really happened. In addition, the reality of war is not the same as the press reporting reveals. The information of war can be designed and recombined. This makes a gap between the public and the soldiers. This movie makes some links to the Vietnam War and the First Gulf War, and breaks up the myth of hero soldiers and the war of justice. Just like the character Anthony Swofford says, “Every war is different, every war is the same,” now America encounters another war in the Middle East. The movie seems to warn not to make the same mistake again.
Critiques of the bias of media
The main point of “Representation of Class” is that the media deliberately blur the boundary of social classes and attempt to present classlessness and individual class mobility. The media extol the merits of the riches and blame the poor people for their defective personalities. The only resolution of the poor is pursuing “American Dream,” that is, the poor people or the minority can achieve self-transmission by means of diligent working. The middle-upper class lifestyle is the classic pattern of representation of class on the media.
In Joseph Turow’s book, Breaking up America: Advertisers and The New Media World, there is the similar point of view as this article. At the standpoint of Advertising, the media target the middle-upper class which might consume a part of their disposable income in particular lifestyle activities, as well as the riches, so “Upscale” has become the mainstream of the media until now to lure the affluent audiences or the audiences who want to satisfy their fantasy.
As a result, “Hypercommercialism” is a big issue to the media. Advertisers and marketers encourage people to consume luxury products or services which are not really necessary for their daily lives via the media. “Upscale” is still the favorite content in the current media. The media manipulate “lifestyles” as a commercial intrigue to trap audiences into high-consumption, and produce the special formats, such as reality shows and product placement, to send commercial messages to the audiences. Consumers are not easy to escape from the customized, targeted, persuasive messages from the media bombarding, and even enjoy themselves in these products. For example, “Amazing Race” provides big prizes to the competitors to increase the dramatic effects and attract the audiences. On the other hand, these prizes also disseminate their providers’ brands to the audiences. Take Hollywood films for another example, the actors use high-tech or luxury products that show their brands to attract the audiences. There is the same technique applied to the TV shows. Advertisers try to create perceived-to-be status symbols to drive the consumers to buy these products that make them more access to the celebrities. In the past, the audiences could choose to skip the commercials, but now the audiences are exploited their options for the formats and the contents without commercials. They even accept commercials unconsciously and indulge themselves in this marketing strategy.
Another notice point is “Celebrity-oriented” phenomenon of the media. “American Idol,” “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire,” “The Apprentice” are based on American Dr6eam spirit. The TV programs as shortcuts help common people become rich and famous by means of their intelligence and diligences. The shows present the glory of the celebrities and make the audiences agree with the merits of the riches and the celebrities. And another kind of TV programs is adverse-operation of celebrity-oriented shows. For example, in “The Simple Life,” Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, who are two upper-class girls, do various internships in a road trip. The show seems funny that the audiences can see the celebrities make a fool of themselves. However, the audiences just feel themselves more close to the celebrities by means of watching this reality show. This show does not really degrade the celebrities, but acclaims they are the same as common people instead. It does not apparently extol the merits of the celebrities, but tries to eliminate the dissatisfaction of the celebrities.
On the one hand, the media cover up the socioeconomic diversity to ignore social inequity. On the other hand, the media try to differentiate the audience segments to target potential customers more accurately. In order to target accurately various consumers’ lifestyles, “both competing and cooperating, the executives searched for ways to exploit social rifts they perceived in the nation at large.” The advertisers and the media label Americans, create targeted formats to signal an interest in the specific audiences and tailor to the contents of advertising and the media with new interactive technologies and the responds of the consumers in order to attract the correct potential consumers and exclude the wrong ones. For example, the TV channels divide into different themes to target specific audiences according to different lifestyles. BET (Black Entertainment Television) is a classic black media that targets African Americans. And MTV VH1 targets the twenty-five- to thirty-four-year-old audiences who would be upscale and hip. As a result, the fragmental media will lead to more fractional American society.
This differentiation of American society results in social alienation. The fragmental media respond to social fractionalization and strengthen social diversity. As a result, the media are responsible for social alienation. For example, when we concentrate on watching our favorite TV channels or TV shows, we may overlook other issues which are worthy to care about. Moreover, we may feel annoyed or disturbed by other formats or content we are not interested in. The alienation will undermine the link of interpersonal relationship and the entirety of society. Ironically, American society is composed of diverse cultures and races, but it is gradually losing the macroscopic perspective of a whole society. The audiences have audiovisual identities to choose their favorite contents, but ignore the considerations of other the same important interests.
In conclusion, the bias of media presents not only the representation of class but also the differentiation of society. In hypercommercialism media culture, the media praise the upscale lifestyle of the riches and the celebrities. The media manipulate the upscale lifestyle to drive common people to consume luxury products and ignore social inequity. At the meantime, they also set up the audience segments, customize and tailor to the commercials massages for various audiences. The media present classlessness and individual class mobility; however, they create a more fractional society. Although the interests of commercials is one of the most important economic supports of the media, they should notice this ethical crisis and not to deteriorate the social inequity and the audience segmentation.
In Joseph Turow’s book, Breaking up America: Advertisers and The New Media World, there is the similar point of view as this article. At the standpoint of Advertising, the media target the middle-upper class which might consume a part of their disposable income in particular lifestyle activities, as well as the riches, so “Upscale” has become the mainstream of the media until now to lure the affluent audiences or the audiences who want to satisfy their fantasy.
As a result, “Hypercommercialism” is a big issue to the media. Advertisers and marketers encourage people to consume luxury products or services which are not really necessary for their daily lives via the media. “Upscale” is still the favorite content in the current media. The media manipulate “lifestyles” as a commercial intrigue to trap audiences into high-consumption, and produce the special formats, such as reality shows and product placement, to send commercial messages to the audiences. Consumers are not easy to escape from the customized, targeted, persuasive messages from the media bombarding, and even enjoy themselves in these products. For example, “Amazing Race” provides big prizes to the competitors to increase the dramatic effects and attract the audiences. On the other hand, these prizes also disseminate their providers’ brands to the audiences. Take Hollywood films for another example, the actors use high-tech or luxury products that show their brands to attract the audiences. There is the same technique applied to the TV shows. Advertisers try to create perceived-to-be status symbols to drive the consumers to buy these products that make them more access to the celebrities. In the past, the audiences could choose to skip the commercials, but now the audiences are exploited their options for the formats and the contents without commercials. They even accept commercials unconsciously and indulge themselves in this marketing strategy.
Another notice point is “Celebrity-oriented” phenomenon of the media. “American Idol,” “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire,” “The Apprentice” are based on American Dr6eam spirit. The TV programs as shortcuts help common people become rich and famous by means of their intelligence and diligences. The shows present the glory of the celebrities and make the audiences agree with the merits of the riches and the celebrities. And another kind of TV programs is adverse-operation of celebrity-oriented shows. For example, in “The Simple Life,” Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, who are two upper-class girls, do various internships in a road trip. The show seems funny that the audiences can see the celebrities make a fool of themselves. However, the audiences just feel themselves more close to the celebrities by means of watching this reality show. This show does not really degrade the celebrities, but acclaims they are the same as common people instead. It does not apparently extol the merits of the celebrities, but tries to eliminate the dissatisfaction of the celebrities.
On the one hand, the media cover up the socioeconomic diversity to ignore social inequity. On the other hand, the media try to differentiate the audience segments to target potential customers more accurately. In order to target accurately various consumers’ lifestyles, “both competing and cooperating, the executives searched for ways to exploit social rifts they perceived in the nation at large.” The advertisers and the media label Americans, create targeted formats to signal an interest in the specific audiences and tailor to the contents of advertising and the media with new interactive technologies and the responds of the consumers in order to attract the correct potential consumers and exclude the wrong ones. For example, the TV channels divide into different themes to target specific audiences according to different lifestyles. BET (Black Entertainment Television) is a classic black media that targets African Americans. And MTV VH1 targets the twenty-five- to thirty-four-year-old audiences who would be upscale and hip. As a result, the fragmental media will lead to more fractional American society.
This differentiation of American society results in social alienation. The fragmental media respond to social fractionalization and strengthen social diversity. As a result, the media are responsible for social alienation. For example, when we concentrate on watching our favorite TV channels or TV shows, we may overlook other issues which are worthy to care about. Moreover, we may feel annoyed or disturbed by other formats or content we are not interested in. The alienation will undermine the link of interpersonal relationship and the entirety of society. Ironically, American society is composed of diverse cultures and races, but it is gradually losing the macroscopic perspective of a whole society. The audiences have audiovisual identities to choose their favorite contents, but ignore the considerations of other the same important interests.
In conclusion, the bias of media presents not only the representation of class but also the differentiation of society. In hypercommercialism media culture, the media praise the upscale lifestyle of the riches and the celebrities. The media manipulate the upscale lifestyle to drive common people to consume luxury products and ignore social inequity. At the meantime, they also set up the audience segments, customize and tailor to the commercials massages for various audiences. The media present classlessness and individual class mobility; however, they create a more fractional society. Although the interests of commercials is one of the most important economic supports of the media, they should notice this ethical crisis and not to deteriorate the social inequity and the audience segmentation.
Is Fox’s “24” political-oriented or just entertainment?
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann criticized that Fox’s drama “24” is a sort of propaganda to keep citizens in fear of domestic terrorism to advocate Bush’s anti-terrorism policy. There are many terrorist attacks in the city in the U.S., such as suicide bombs in the mass transportation. The background and plots are too closed to our daily lives. He questioned that if this drama has a political orientation to lead people to support military activities to anti-terrorism.
In addition, other criticizers complained about that the plots of abusing detainees have negative influences to the military- some military investigators might do the techniques they have watched on television before. Furthermore, some people worried about that these tortures indicated “that the letter of the American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security- was hurting and encouraging real-life U.S. soldiers to think about that torture is acceptable.”
Is “24” really political propaganda, or a bad example to the U.S. military, or just entertainment we don’t have to be too serious? Does the TV show have to pay attention to its plots that cannot violate the norm or basic spirits of nation, or the producers have rights to produce whatever contents they want except violating the laws?
In my point of view, I don’t think we should be too serious to this drama. The TV dramas often do exaggerative performances and have unreality plots to attract the audiences. The audiences can have fulfillments and achievements via the behavior of the actors that the normal people cannot experience in their daily lives. The dramas are fictional, not realistic. After 911, many events would be looked too political. Anti-terrorism is emphasized by the media. However, the political view cannot interfere in the entertainment.
On the other hand, some army trainers is angry about the plots about torture hurting the reputation of military and give soldiers a bad example to learn. Admittedly, torture and abuse in the real life are criminal and violate human rights. However, in the drama, they are just the attraction for the tensional and dramatic entertainment purpose. We can worry about that these plots are not appropriate for children, but adults can have their own judgments to tell from reality and fiction.
Syracuse University media scholar Robert Thompson said such TV melodrama, while shocking to some, serves as a kind of wish fulfillment for the masses. “If you can’t be shown kicking the enemy’s butt in real life, we then demand it in fiction. And that’s what’s so satisfying about ’24.’ It’s the Lone Ranger fantasy,” Thompson said. ”So while I would never want to support the kinds of torture that go on in ’24’ in real life, I would miss them if they went away in the show.”
In conclusion, the TV shows have their rights to create fictional, even absurd plots to allure the audiences to watch them in order to raise the ratings, as long as they don’t violate the regulation. For example, “Desperate Housewives” have many plots about murders, affairs, sick mentality. However, there is less criticism to this drama than “24.” We don’t have to be too serious and critical to the subjects about the terrorism and military activities in this show. “24” just adapt today’s news for the tension of the drama.
In addition, other criticizers complained about that the plots of abusing detainees have negative influences to the military- some military investigators might do the techniques they have watched on television before. Furthermore, some people worried about that these tortures indicated “that the letter of the American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security- was hurting and encouraging real-life U.S. soldiers to think about that torture is acceptable.”
Is “24” really political propaganda, or a bad example to the U.S. military, or just entertainment we don’t have to be too serious? Does the TV show have to pay attention to its plots that cannot violate the norm or basic spirits of nation, or the producers have rights to produce whatever contents they want except violating the laws?
In my point of view, I don’t think we should be too serious to this drama. The TV dramas often do exaggerative performances and have unreality plots to attract the audiences. The audiences can have fulfillments and achievements via the behavior of the actors that the normal people cannot experience in their daily lives. The dramas are fictional, not realistic. After 911, many events would be looked too political. Anti-terrorism is emphasized by the media. However, the political view cannot interfere in the entertainment.
On the other hand, some army trainers is angry about the plots about torture hurting the reputation of military and give soldiers a bad example to learn. Admittedly, torture and abuse in the real life are criminal and violate human rights. However, in the drama, they are just the attraction for the tensional and dramatic entertainment purpose. We can worry about that these plots are not appropriate for children, but adults can have their own judgments to tell from reality and fiction.
Syracuse University media scholar Robert Thompson said such TV melodrama, while shocking to some, serves as a kind of wish fulfillment for the masses. “If you can’t be shown kicking the enemy’s butt in real life, we then demand it in fiction. And that’s what’s so satisfying about ’24.’ It’s the Lone Ranger fantasy,” Thompson said. ”So while I would never want to support the kinds of torture that go on in ’24’ in real life, I would miss them if they went away in the show.”
In conclusion, the TV shows have their rights to create fictional, even absurd plots to allure the audiences to watch them in order to raise the ratings, as long as they don’t violate the regulation. For example, “Desperate Housewives” have many plots about murders, affairs, sick mentality. However, there is less criticism to this drama than “24.” We don’t have to be too serious and critical to the subjects about the terrorism and military activities in this show. “24” just adapt today’s news for the tension of the drama.
Say Everything
Since the blogs become popular, more people put their personal information on their blogs, such as pictures, albums, diaries, and videos, etc. The attitude to privacy transfers from keeping personal affairs in privacy to expressing ourselves by personal styles. About this transformation, the author claims that since the real privacy become utopian because whatever we do can be tracked, the young generation has changed their attitudes to personal information. They “show off” their personalities via editing blogs to grasp more people’s attention, document their daily lives, and establish the bridge to others.
First, I don’t think people who are willing to express themselves on internet are bold and don’t scruple others’ opinions. Some people would use the blogs as their rostrums to announce their opinions, share their thoughts, and even state some speeches they have no chance to speak up to others in the real life. On the one hand, they can write publicly whatever they want on internet to express their thoughts to their friends or other invisible audience. On the other hand, they are protected by indirectness and anonymousness so that they can avoid face-to-face responds. They don’t have to receive the immediate reactions. They are not shine, but they are not bold and show-off as we thought before.
Second, do people reveal the real life on internet or just make up the life they want to be in? Admittedly, some people won’t hide themselves and are willing to show imperfect pictures on blogs. However, most people will pick up the pretty, dreamlike, and aesthetic pictures to exhibit themselves. The blogs are like the ideal-life exhibitions more than the real-life documents. People select the pictures and the thoughts that they want the public to see in order to shape the images they want the public think about them and correspond to the expectations they give themselves.
As for the connection between users on internet, the blog users might build the connection between themselves via responds and replies the contents. The connection may not be limited to different regions; however, the connection is so fragile. They can express themselves easily, but they can hide the real selves much more easily. The connection won’t be solid if it bases on the unreal foundation. It is possible that when we meet someone we know from internet, and then we find he’s not the person we thought. The connection based on internet is wild but unreliable.
Finally, should people be judged by the information you put on internet? I think the performance on internet is as the same as in the real life. Since we choose this kind of expression and cannot stop others googling us from internet, we have to bear others judge us from that. That’s the way we show who we are and it becomes a part of our lives. We cannot distinguish the two lives so separately. We still have to be responsible for our behavior.
First, I don’t think people who are willing to express themselves on internet are bold and don’t scruple others’ opinions. Some people would use the blogs as their rostrums to announce their opinions, share their thoughts, and even state some speeches they have no chance to speak up to others in the real life. On the one hand, they can write publicly whatever they want on internet to express their thoughts to their friends or other invisible audience. On the other hand, they are protected by indirectness and anonymousness so that they can avoid face-to-face responds. They don’t have to receive the immediate reactions. They are not shine, but they are not bold and show-off as we thought before.
Second, do people reveal the real life on internet or just make up the life they want to be in? Admittedly, some people won’t hide themselves and are willing to show imperfect pictures on blogs. However, most people will pick up the pretty, dreamlike, and aesthetic pictures to exhibit themselves. The blogs are like the ideal-life exhibitions more than the real-life documents. People select the pictures and the thoughts that they want the public to see in order to shape the images they want the public think about them and correspond to the expectations they give themselves.
As for the connection between users on internet, the blog users might build the connection between themselves via responds and replies the contents. The connection may not be limited to different regions; however, the connection is so fragile. They can express themselves easily, but they can hide the real selves much more easily. The connection won’t be solid if it bases on the unreal foundation. It is possible that when we meet someone we know from internet, and then we find he’s not the person we thought. The connection based on internet is wild but unreliable.
Finally, should people be judged by the information you put on internet? I think the performance on internet is as the same as in the real life. Since we choose this kind of expression and cannot stop others googling us from internet, we have to bear others judge us from that. That’s the way we show who we are and it becomes a part of our lives. We cannot distinguish the two lives so separately. We still have to be responsible for our behavior.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Truth
March 14th, 2008, riots happened in Tibet. Many harmless people were killed. Buildings and cars were burnt. Many of Chinese consulates were destoried by exiled Tibets... I made this video to record this riots and expose the truth.
Tibet
I did my best to avoid bias in this video. I just want to show some fact and let my audiences to tell the truth themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)