Shocking Podcast!!!!!!

PODCAST: Episode I
(Meaning its pretty bad)




Creating the Podcast: Afterthoughts

While I believe I sound horrible I think the experience was good. I'd be more than happy to make another as long as I wasn't speaking in it. As far as this podcast goes I interviewed myself using a Digital Audio Recorder, though I would have rather used something I own, since there were a few things I wanted to change or add after I returned the recorder. I interviewed myself, by setting up the recorder in front of a speaker phone and called it with my cell phone and then left the room. I recorded the questions regularly afterward. I then edited everything in Garageband and pulled music from Cowboy Bebop and images via Google: images. It wasn't that hard to edit. I didn't have any difficulties with Garageband and thought they had it setup pretty well to create one. Posting was pretty easy but i'm used top that kind of stuff so I might be bias.
I think that the use of podcasts work really well as an alternative to reading text on a webpage. You can add images to make the listener stay interested, or no images allow for the listener to do other things while listening. I believe it's a very good medium to be used on the internet or your favorite mp3 player (iPod).

Industry Post #3 - Ethics and Representation - (not shocking)

The ethical challenges that can come from blogs for media to consider would be that while blogs can contain facts and helpful information, can what's being said be trusted? Now this isn't the trust issues you might have about news networks, but issues that the information could be completely made up or solely based on opinion. The issue is whether or not to believe what's being posted as fact and then pass that information on saying so. And if a news agency does this the legal consequences that might arise if the info is false.
So when it comes to the matter of putting your information on the internet and what other people may be able to take from it I'm guarded with the things I post. Facebook and myspace do add to this problem in a way by allowing others to see what you post and form opinions about it. But that's where the nice privacy settings come into place. However those settings are restricting the exposure you could get. So if you want more exposure to what your blogging then you have to allow the opinions that might be formed about you. That's the price of putting your thoughts out there. Anyone can interpret them the way they want.
The reader has all the power. The reader must decide whether they can trust the source when they are reading it, when they are commenting on it, or when they are refering to it in their own blog. For regulated media the ethical problem is if their source for information is reliable and if they should pass along that information as being fact.

Industry #2 - (is it shocking that i think this way?)

Hmmmm, this article could generate a lot of opinion based on the laws we have for media and those for free speech, at least in this country. Suing someone because of what they wrote in a blog seems as reasonable to me as any other case of this kind in other media. Although certain factors should be involved. The blogger and the users who comment on the blog should be held accountable for what they post depending on its content as to if it's fact or opinion. Again as someone would be in any other form of media. A blogger's credibility is up to the reader to decide. A blog can be written by anyone about anything and whether or not we believe what's written to be true is up to the us. People question the information they get from other media based on where it comes from, so they should be able to do the same here. If the blogger's content or the user comments are targeted, I believe the ISPs should act towards the personal information of their users the way a journalist would act with their sources and the same laws should apply. Bloggers and users, like sources, would most likely say things differently or not at all if they didn't have a degree of anonymity. Protections should be provided to users and the only regulating that should be involved is that which users define for themselves. There are exceptions (that I agree with) like those applied to mature content and such. Any user on the internet should be able to judge for themselves what they believe to be credible and what they think is acceptable. And if any of them have a problem with that they can post their comments and say so.

That may be a bit contradictory, but this isn't the easiest subject to agree on one way or the other.

Aardman Animations partner with Sony - not so shocking

According to TimesOnline, recently Aardman Animations (Wallace & Gromit) ended their relationship with Dreamworks Animations SKG and began a new one with Sony. The relationship with Dreamworks apparently ended after Flushed Away didn't do as well they hoped. Since all of Aardman Animations works are British in nature, there are claims that the movie didn't do well because of that. The perception is that Aardman won't let go of the British accent the relationship fell through. In my opinion it's because the movies they made didn't make money. Plus, I didn't go see the movie when it was in theaters because it they didn't seem entertaining to me, not because of the animation style or the British feel to it. Dreamworks is going to stay with the animation that makes them the most money whether it's British or not.
The idea is that it was because of the British accent and feel of the films that the relationship ended, but it seems to me that Aardman was talking to Sony for a better deal. The most recent movie came out in November yet the talks have been going on for a year. The new deal allows them to release more movies in a shorter amount of time. So, yes the the movies may not have done very well but to me that doesn't seem like the only reason the relationship ended.

Link to the article.