Film awards have been, and probably always will be, rooted in Hollywood politics. From snubs to last-minute bidding, it seems as though the merit of individual films are often overlooked in favour of marketability.
The 2015 Oscar nominations were recently announced and have resulted in many discussions about race relations in Hollywood. Not only were the acting categories all white, many have begun to examine why certain films were absent from the Best Director categories.
Intersectionality is always important, but when examining the lack of Best Director nominations for Selma, a film portraying the Martin Luther King Selma march, intersectionality is of the utmost importance. Ava DuVernay was the first black female to be nominated for Best Director in the Golden Globes’ 77-year tenure.
Despite having a 99 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than the critically acclaimed and widely-nominated Boyhood, the film was glaringly absent from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, Producers Guild of America Awards, Directors Guild of America Awards, and Screen Actors Guild Awards nominations, and was snubbed in the Best Director category for the Academy Awards.
Only four women have ever been nominated in the Best Director category, while only one, Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker has won. Comparatively, only three Black men have ever been nominated for Best Director in the Academy Awards 87-year history. Had Ava DuVernay found her way into the category, she would have been the first Black female to ever have a place in the category.
In popular culture, movies and television often reinforce values commonly held in society and overlooking talented black women should remind us that sexism and racism, especially in Hollywood, are still highly prevalent. In 2014, 17 of the 250 top selling films were directed by women, and three of those were Black female directors.
In a 2012 survey, the L.A. Times found that 94 percent of Oscar voters are white, and 77 percent are male. How can Black women expect fairness when their voices are overwhelmingly absent from the voting process? While it is important to note that Selma received nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Song (“Glory” by Common and John Legend), we do a disservice by admitting that “at least we have those.” It is not a matter of charity, and it’s not enough to get crumbs; it should be about fairness.
No, Selma would not have won every award category it was nominated in, but that does not mean that we should overlook the lack of nominations. Black women have continued to prove that they are talented enough and it is time that we, and the film industry, recognized this.
By: Allison Ouellette
“Soap causes cancer!” screamed numerous news outlets this week. The findings from a study produced by researchers from the University of California have been grossly exaggerated.
The university’s press release, “The Dirty Side of Soap,” misrepresents the study’s results. It claims that triclosan, a common antimicrobial agent in hygiene products, “causes liver fibrosis and cancer in mice.” By exaggerating the scope of the research, the press release misleads readers, including journalists.
Shortly after the press release was published, fear-mongering articles from popular news sources arose. They unduly warned readers that triclosan could harm their health. One source called the research a “cancer scare.” Others falsely reported the findings as conclusive and exaggerated the study’s relevance to humans. Many writers distorted the scope of the research to the extent that the “facts” in their articles barely resemble the study’s conclusions.
Contrary to the university’s press release and several online articles, the researchers did not conclude that triclosan causes cancer in mice. The researchers found that large amounts of ingested triclosan may promote tumour growth in mice. To observe triclosan’s effect on tumour growth, the researchers injected mice with a chemical (diethylnitrosamine) that is capable of inducing liver cancer.
In a separate group of mice, the researchers found that ingested triclosan can lead to liver damage.
The study results cannot be applied to humans. Although mice are used to model human disease, some chemicals that are toxic to mice may not be toxic to humans. As the authors of the study recommend, long-term observational studies in humans must be conducted before triclosan’s effect on humans can be understood. Also, since people do not eat large amounts of triclosan as the mice did in the study, the results observed in the mice are not reasonable to expect in humans.
Although the study does not provide enough evidence to condemn antibacterial soap, consumers may want to reconsider purchasing antibacterial soaps for other reasons. Though triclosan and other antibacterial agents are useful to healthcare workers, Health Canada notes that antibacterial soap is usually unnecessary in the home. Further, when triclosan is washed down the drain, it may cause environmental damage. Triclosan in toothpaste, however, can significantly prevent plaque and gingivitis, according to the Cochrane Review.
The study was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal. According to standard practice, to access an article in the journal, one must either belong to an organization or institution that purchases a subscription, or pay for access to the article. Consequently, most people do not have access to articles published in journals.
Even if the public were granted access to journals, articles would still be inaccessible. Few people possess enough scientific literacy to interpret and evaluate a biological study. Most people rely on writers and journalists to identify and publicize important research findings.
It is the responsibility of science correspondents to be scientifically literate and commit to reporting findings accurately. They must critically evaluate a study and understand the significance of findings before they can communicate truthfully. Just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse for committing a crime, lack of scientific literacy is not an excuse for distributing false information.
Shocking and overblown headlines commit a disservice to readers. Exaggerated research findings may serve to boost traffic to websites, increase research funding, or sway consumers to purchase certain products. None of these reasons justify invoking gratuitous fear in readers.
The latest research does not demonstrate whether triclosan negatively affects human health. It is unethical to claim otherwise. The media must uphold the integrity of science to produce ethical journalism. Fear mongering and sensationalizing disrupts the shared foundation of science and journalism: to report truthfully.
A few months ago I weighed in on John Oliver’s latest comedic effort Last Week Tonight, praising it for its thoughtful commentary and hilarious writing. At the time, the show had just come out, and many were questioning the need for another “fake news show” to compete with the many already on air. So now, as the first season came to a close on Nov. 9, I find myself smiling at all that Oliver has accomplished in a short while.
What makes Last Week Tonight so great is that it doesn’t just spout its biases for comedic effect; instead it works to explain real issues, and analyze them from a journalistic perspective. It does what The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have been doing for ages: provide intelligent discussion on real issues. However, unlike these shows, Last Week Tonight isn’t limited by formatting or content restraints thanks to the lack of restrictions from HBO.
While I hate to compare Last Week Tonight to shows that I like and enjoy, when you watch The Daily Show it is a fairly predictable experience. Viewers know that Stewart will break down political issues, incorporating various jokes in a series of formulaic segments. In comparison, Last Week Tonight can be unpredictable in a good way. Whether it’s explaining the prison system with the Muppets, or launching salmon through a cannon at various newscasters, Oliver breaks up the monotony of late-night television beautifully.
Above all, what makes Last Week Tonight an important contribution to late-night television is its ability to blur the line of when “fake news” ends and real investigative journalism starts. While Oliver assures his audience that the show is much more of a comedic effort than a journalistic one, this claim becomes hard to swallow when one considers some of the stories they have covered, and the way they have covered them. Whether it is investigating the public tax records surrounding the scholarship claims of the Miss America pageant, or explaining the complexity of net neutrality, John Oliver is making a real journalistic effort with Last Week Tonight.
In particular, Last Week Tonight reflects a shift towards kind of “explanatory journalism” in which a reporter attempts to present a complex, nuanced story in a more accessible manner. This practice is nothing new, but it’s the methods Oliver uses that make his work so effective. Put simply, most people don’t want to take the time to follow a complex story spanning several months or even years, so the journalist needs to make their best effort in keeping it concise and entertaining at the same time. While many people in the media are aware of this, few are able to find the balance between informative and entertaining like Oliver.
Whether Oliver admits it or not, Last Week Tonight does real journalism, and it does it brilliantly. His YouTube channel numbers have proved that not only do millions of people enjoy his work, but they simultaneously disprove the idea that long content cannot succeed in an age of increasingly short attention spans. People engage with Oliver’s segments regardless of whether they are five minutes or 15, and leave every segment more informed, even if they don’t agree with Oliver’s position. If you’re looking for a program with as much style as it has substance, Last Week Tonight is the perfect fit.
By: Imaiya Ravichandran
I, and I’m sure many of you as well (at least, I hope), visit Youtube at least once a day. Whether it is to watch the latest viral video, or to indulge in the obligatory daily dose of cute kitten videos, over one billion unique users fall victim to the endless abyss of funny, intriguing, and flat out weird content conveniently catalogued on this website. Standing alongside giant television and movie conglomerates, it is somewhat surprising that this start-up, rooted in humble beginnings above a Japanese restaurant in California, managed to become one of the world’s primary sources of entertainment. Of course, this incredible feat can be attributed to the accessibility and flexibility of the Internet, which most people prefer to the rigidity of TV and movie schedules. However, now that TV and movies are becoming increasingly available online, what else can explain Youtube’s continued success? Perhaps the answer lies in the modern “Youtube celebrity” whose content provides an inimitable degree of intimacy with its viewers.
There are several reasons why one would favour the approachable, flawed Youtuber instead of the inhumanly attractive celebrity. Though I shamelessly admire George Clooney in all his pepper-hair glory on screen, or hysterically shriek at the TV whenever Queen Bey performs, I am aware that these personalities are performing for legions of devoted fans. There is no true sense of connection between them and myself, although I often trick myself into believing otherwise (in a superficial sense…I’m not a stalker, guys). However, when interacting with a Youtube celebrity, this buffer is all but completely eradicated. Their content is so personal and genuine that you lose sight of the other hundreds of thousands of subscribers who are also closely bonding with the Youtuber in question. The reverence once felt towards the distant celebrity is now replaced with a new type of admiration, one that is summed up by the phrase: “they’re just like us!”
But they’re not just like us. In addition to surprisingly hefty salaries, Youtube celebrities possess a type of clout that many would argue is more powerful than that of their Hollywood celebrity counterparts. It stems from their uniquely close relationship with their viewers. While their following may not be as large as a traditional celebrity’s, the reach that they do have is much more influential. We put Youtubers on a pedestal, trusting them as we would a dear friend.
And so, it was understandably appalling for many Youtube audiences when news broke in March 2014 that two beloved British Youtubers, Tom Milsom and Alex Day, had been accused of sexual misconduct with multiple viewers.
In Milsom’s case, Tumblr user Olga accused him of emotionally and sexually abusing her throughout the course of their relationship; at the time of their courtship, she was only 15 and he was 21. Day’s accusers, eight in total, provided various accounts of sordid experiences with the popular vlogger, with the two most harrowing being of him coercing women to sleep with him – by definition, him engaging in rape. Milsom and Day were the second and third artists signed to the Youtube-centric record label DFTBA to be accused of some sort of sexual misconduct. Only a month earlier, former label-mate Mike Lombardo was sentenced to five years in jail for possession of child pornography.
I had been subscribed to Alex Day, or “nerimon” as he is known on Youtube, since I was 13 years old. As a staunch feminist, to hear of him and his friend’s atrocious behavior was certainly infuriating and disgusting, but first and foremost it was disappointing. It was profoundly different than if an elusive, unattainable celebrity had committed a crime. Here was a figure that I had looked up to, who I had laughed with, whose struggles and triumphs it felt like I had shared in. I was not alone in my attachment to Alex, nor in the blow that followed when my trust in him was breached. The allegations against Alex originated as blog posts on Tumblr. The diary-esque nature of the posts lent themselves to a cathartic release of his victims’ frustrations and disturbing tales of how they too had once admired Alex, only to have him use his position of power in an unmistakably inappropriate fashion.
The scandal elicited an impassioned response from the Youtube community. Response videos spread like wildfire, DFTBA swiftly dropped Day and Milsom from their roster, and a general call was made for increased discourse about the rampant presence of sexual abuse, sexism, and abuses of power in the Youtube community. The trope of an authoritative figure manipulating a less powerful victim is deeply embedded within the mores of the entertainment industry. However, it is especially pernicious in the Youtube context because it is a space in which large masses of potential victims feel safe with and close to their potential manipulators.
A small number of critics suggest that audience members guard themselves more warily against famous Youtubers. To always remember that there is a computer screen separating you and that charming British vlogger, and that you can never know anything more than what is depicted in a mere three minute long video. But I resent this suggestion. It goes without saying that it is important to be safe on the internet. It is equally important (and obvious) that one should not blindly trust a celebrity. However, to encourage barriers and distance between viewers and Youtubers would be to erode the very essence of openness upon which the Youtube community is built. If we teach viewers to not grow attached to a Youtuber, should they also not wear short skirts when walking along a street? Or have a drink before going out? Hopefully, you can understand the preposterous nature of these recommendations. They unjustly shift the onus from the Youtubers, who should be cognizant of their powerful positions and not exploit them, to the audience.
I bring all this up because recently, another Youtuber named Sam Pepper has come under fire for sexual misconduct, which he brazenly displays in multiple of his videos. Moreover, after a seven-month hiatus, Alex Day returned to Youtube with a video entitled “The Past”, in which he embarks on a half-hour tangent detailing a slew of feeble excuses “defending” his past conduct. I’m comforted that a sizeable portion of comments express contempt towards both Sam and Alex’s actions, adjudicating that sexual abuse and its perpetrators have no place in the Youtube community. However, the remaining reactions form a considerably large group who claim solidarity with the ostracized Youtubers. They suggest that “Youtube give them a second chance.” I wonder why these people feel this way. Most do not dispute the accuracy of the allegations against the Youtubers, nor do they challenge the severity of their crimes. Rather, they harken back to videos of the past, ones that depict their fallen heroes in all their charming, charismatic glory. And then, I realize that they too are victims, in some sense, of the intoxicating Youtube celebrity.
On Oct. 7, hip-hop artist Pharrell released a new single from his latest album, G I R L, entitled “Gust of Wind”. The Daft Punk feature may be the most enticing part of this track for the majority of Pharrell fans given his prior work with the electronic duo on “Get Lucky”. One overlooked aspect of the music video, however, was the benefit of Edgar Wright’s unique directive style. Having directed cinematic successes such as The World’s End, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead, Edgar’s resume speaks for itself.
In this article, we analyze and break down two factors in Wright’s unique directive style, which features prominently in his cinematic endeavours, and in his latest project with the music video for “Gust of Wind.”
Edgar Wright uses this fairly common and overdone technique to an increasingly larger degree as the years go on. Not only adding style and general presentation to each of these works, but the addition of lens flare also serves functional purposes.
In Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, lens flare is mostly used unintentionally. The camera picks up the occasional flare without any meaningful addition. The main exception to this is a one-off joke in Hot Fuzz in which character Sgt. Angel is blinded by a car turning on its lights at the same time that one of the underage drinkers in a pub smiles.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a dramatic shift from this hesitance to use lens flare to using it as an obvious visual element. Besides a few comedic exceptions, lens flare is mainly used as anticipation for upcoming action scenes with climaxes of flares at key moments within these fights. While it can be excessive at points, the use of lens flare can add to the intended comic book-inspired cinematography and editing to create a unique viewing experience.
The World’s End features the best progression and development of lens flare out of any of Wright’s works. As the movie becomes more and more hectic with an escalation of tensions heightened, consequences increased, and beverages consumed, lens flares follow suit. As in Scott Pilgrim, the technique is mainly used in action scenes early on in the film, though later scenes in the film also use this in exposition scenes as the central plot and themes begin to come to a climax.
The Gust of Wind music video uses it to a purpose similar to Scott Pilgrim in building anticipation and climax for the sections where Daft Punk is most prevalent. This is also done at some points during the first Pharrell-focused verse as an initial hint, and later as a reminder that Daft Punk is moving around off-frame and still has influence.
While there is not nearly as much time to develop as The World’s End, there is still an element of increased lens flare as the video progresses. This development is minor considering that Daft Punk never takes a long-enough segment to justify anything more significant visually, and is mainly just as a visual climax before the end of the song.
Staging is often used interchangeably with “blocking”, which is the position of the actors on a stage. For this section, we will look at how he uses the frame and staging to add a comedic or quirky element to a scene. Rather than look at all of his preferred actor spots, this tendency analysis will look at one specific part of his directing that is rarely done by others. He has a number of examples where people off-camera will extend hands or objects into medium close-ups. This is an odd thing to point out, but it does represent using the full capabilities of cinema to add a visual or physical element to comedy.
In Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and Scott Pilgrim, the uses of objects coming into the frame are used for comedic effect. Hot Fuzz’s example is a one-off joke that adds to the seemingly nice intent of those offering him the slice of cake; even though everyone in the scene and the audience knows that the actual context of the scene is selfish in nature. Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim use this to add a way to tell the story and advance the plot in a way that is more interesting as compared to simply having a person state someone has a phone call.
This develops in The World’s End as Edgar Wright is able to expand this simple technique to fit even more purposes by having more of his fights incorporate this. Using what he learned from Scott Pilgrim in terms of fairly generic filming of close-quarters fight scenes, he is able to develop these scenes to involve more of his conventional tendencies. This has an additional benefit in making scenes feel more claustrophobic as attacks can occur at seemingly any point during chaos, seemingly at random. While this is typically done by other directors by using quick camera cuts that constantly shift, Edgar Wright is able to convey this same sense of pace and chaos without relying on disorienting the audience.
As for the Gust of Wind music video, the use of staging in this regard is done as a purely visual element without any additional effect. It does not have nearly the same influence that the other examples have on the scene as a result, and is relatively meaningless. This also differs from the previous examples in using a shot in which you can see Pharrell in his entirety rather than the medium close-ups. This contain the vocal point on the center towards him while also adding additional stimuli relevant to the song on either side.
While music videos are typically quite restricted in what a director can do with it due to the requirement of a constant song, Edgar Wright is still able to demonstrate these two tendencies in particular to show his unique style.
All in all, he manages to create interesting visuals to complement the song, which is all you can really ask for in a music video.
“Who killed Laura Palmer?”
It was the unanswerable question that fuelled the world of Twin Peaks—the dark and dreamy 1990s drama about the death of a high school homecoming queen, and a television series that faced a premature ending of its own.
After being axed by ABC one and a half seasons in, the tension-filled mystery left the airwaves with viewers wondering how the critically acclaimed drama could disappear so quickly and unexpectedly.
But just as the show constantly surprised with unexpected mysteries and details, it continues to live up to its mindfucking legacy as it will be returning for a third season more than two decades later.
Twin Peaks will be returning as a nine-episode series on Showtime with show creators David Lynch and Mark Frost writing and producing. The revived series will make its official comeback in 2016, coinciding with the show’s 25th anniversary.
Thanks to the internet and its charming offspring Netflix, Twin Peaks has become an accessible and binge-able series. Its newfound availability has evolved its status from ABC’s rejected wild card to a certified cult classic with a renewed following and interest.
At the time of the show’s first airing, network television served the purpose of funneling the norm into households with three-camera sitcoms and artistically diluted programming. But when Twin Peaks ripped its way through TV guides, it brought artsy and weird to the front lines and set a new standard for primetime television.
Frost and Lynch were accredited with bringing “weirdness” to television with their groundbreaking dark humour and artistic and cinematic filming. Unlike anything else that was offered on network TV, Twin Peaks’ acceptance of the bizarre and questionable served the purpose of slowly euthanizing network television until normalcy would be no more.
Twin Peaks now has the chance to air alongside some of the series it has influenced and essentially made possible. Shows like American Horror Story, True Blood, and The Sopranos have brought oddities and unique visions to TV, but it’s hard to say if any of those styles would have ever been picked up had it not been for Twin Peaks’ initial introductions and scene setting. With complex characters, bold directorial choices, and non-linear plotlines, Twin Peaks changed the game for primetime TV.
Although it appeared to have met its end almost 25 years ago, Twin Peaks continues to surprise and thrive today. The revival will be set in the present, acknowledging the amount of time that has passed and the previous goings on of the fictional Washington town. The cast has yet to be revealed, but the show’s protagonist, Special Agent Dale Cooper (played by Kyle Maclachlan), is rumoured to be coming back.
We may never know who killed Laura Palmer, but we do know for sure that Twin Peaks lives on.
By: Nimra Khan
When you think of Scotland, what usually comes to mind? I know, I know: kilts and bagpipes. I used to be on the same page. Thankfully, the recently released Outlander TV show, has begun to shine some new light on our highland cousins. When I first heard of Outlander, it was for its amazing openness to the independence of a woman in a world of men, and how the show was promised not to shy away from a woman enjoying sex--without repercussions. But mostly I thought: "Scottish history and time travel? What more could I ask for!"
Outlander follows the story of Claire Beauchamp - a woman who was a nurse during the Second World War - as she travels through Scotland with her husband Frank Randall. During their visit to a Scottish town, Claire is transported back in time to 1743 Scotland opening up a world of possibilities. The show is based on the book series by Diana Gabaldon, originally published in 1991; because of this, it already had a huge fan following. I recently finished the book myself, and the show really does well to mould itself to the original. In particular, Claire is a refreshingly independent, realistic, and strong female character, helping to make Outlander so appealing. Whether it's nearly getting raped, or almost killed for being a spy, Claire is a fighter. Or, as they would call her in the show, a Sassenach (an English person, an outsider, someone who doesn't belong).
I thought it was a weird coincidence that, at the same time that the Scottish independence vote was happening, Outlander had reached a climax of the Scottish versus the British. While most Scots have voted "no thanks" to independence now, it really makes me wonder how Scotland and England came to stand at such different sides.
Despite the educational aspect of this story, Outlander definitely has sex appeal. Shocking, I know. Other than Claire's first husband Frank, there comes Claire’s love with Jaime Fraser (a Scottish Highlander). Ladies, this one hunk is really enough to get you watching. But to all the guys, I promise there is something for everyone. With the mid-season finale having just finished at eight episodes, now is the time to catch up. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to learn some Scottish Gaelic.
Every time I turn on my television, my screen seems to be bombarded with images of ruins, blood and burning furniture being used as barricades. We’re into the third year of protest for Egypt and a second year for Ukraine, just to name two countries facing such turmoil. Citizens all over the world are taking up arms against the very states that should be protecting them, but what is the media, a medium of communication with such great power doing to help stop such violence?
Living in a country whose history has little experience with deadly protest, we often cannot relate to the men and women covered in ash and blood we see on our televisions. We have no understanding as to what would force a schoolteacher, university student or dentist to leave their comfortable lives to hurl homemade firebombs over makeshift barricades at their government. The media is not doing its part to help relate the rest of the world to the individuals in these situations. The public needs to be informed as to why these events are happening, rather than just being shown that they are happening.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Ask a passerby if they know about the protests happening around the world and they will most likely say yes. With Facebook posts and newspaper headlines stating gruesome facts such as, “Three children dead in Thailand protests,” it’s hard to avoid.
Then ask them why these protests are happening; most will draw to a blank. The media is focusing more on the esthetically catching aspects of these protests around the world, rather than informing the public as to why these things are happening. As outside observers, the only way in which we can help is by knowing why such circumstances have resulted in the first place. Knowledge is in fact power.
Students in San Cristobal, Venezuela started protesting at the beginning of February. Less than a month later protests have spread across the country leaving more than a dozen dead and more than 500 arrested. Venezuela is now on the brink of a civil war.
This was the basis of the first five articles I read when looking up “Venezuela protests”. No mention of why anywhere. The reasons I finally found in the sixth article I read. Citizens are protesting for higher security, against basic food shortages and the record inflation. This should be the headline, the first sentence of an article. Inform and action will follow.
The visuals and hard facts are just as important, however are incomplete as attempts to influence the rest of the world to step in.
Allison Barrie / The Silhouette
Well, it’s official. Steubenville, Ohio’s football team is ruined. The lives of Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond are destroyed, along with their reputations as good students with promising football careers. Nothing will ever come easily to these boys; for the rest of their lives they will forever be publicly known as registered sex offenders.
Oh, I almost forgot, the 16-year-old girl that they raped might be damaged as well - the CNN glossed over that part.
This past Sunday, the most recent report by the CNN on their website mentioned the boys’ verdicts. According to Judge Thomas Lipps, they are guilty and will be sentenced to time in a correctional facility for raping a 16-year-old girl. However, the way that reporter Poppy Harlow presented the story makes the viewers sympathize with the two people involved in this case that should be receiving the least amount of sympathy in the entire story. In her piece, she expresses how emotional and difficult it was to watch these two young men apologize in court and realize that their lives would forever be changed because of the crime that they committed.
The problem here is that the media is so focused on sympathizing with these boys, that we forget about what they actually did. They took advantage of and raped a 16-year-old girl. She was drunk and she was passed out, but none of these facts should take away from what actually happened and how her life has changed because of it.
It all started in August of 2012 at a string of parties where the victim got very drunk and was raped by two members of the local football team, Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond.
What started out as a small-town incident turned into a national issue and is now getting worldwide attention. Not only just because of what happened, but because these boys were star football players on the town’s prized football team. Matters have only gotten worse now for this young woman who was victimized when she began receiving threatening messages over Twitter simply because she testified against her abusers.
What message does this send to our society? The upsetting truth is that by reporting your case to the authorities, your perpetrator may receive justice. But in doing so, you will also be harassed and criticized by media and people on the opposition, especially if the accused are viewed highly in the eyes of everyone else. So now why in the world would a woman who was sexually abused even think about reporting her case? She won’t, and this is the problem that we now as a society need to deal with.
What we need to remember is that rape cases such as this in Steubenville occur all the time. The only difference with this case is that this young girl spoke out and got justice for the crimes committed against her.
The media and the people harassing this victim are prime examples of what is discouraging people all over the world from reporting similar cases. The common belief around reporting such crimes is that embarrassment, harassment and shame all come hand in hand with the justice that you may receive.
How do we fix this issue? We need to rethink how we report news and issues that are occurring everyday.
Although it may be easier to take a certain side on an issue, it’s important to understand all of the facts and understand who is reporting and what kind of bias might be involved. It’s easy to get swept away with a convincing story from a trusted news station, but one must also recognize the importance of understanding facts for oneself instead of believing everything that is said in the news.
In the end, we can all breathe a sigh of relief for this young girl as her case is now coming to a close and she can get on with her life, but the question of “what happens now?” will always be in the back of our minds. It’s impossible to predict how Trent and Ma’lik will live their lives and what kind of obstacles they will face with their new titles as sex offenders. What we do know is that they are not to be pitied for the mistake that they made. They’ll learn their lesson and eventually move on, and that’s all that can be said in their defense.
By Samhita Misra
In the days that I used to be an avid blogger, I had a pet peeve. And that pet peeve was bloggers who posted editorials, look-books, collections or daily “inspiration.” I get it - once and a while you’re really busy, your inspiration has literally run dry and you know all your followers are going to love the new Mario Testino editorial with Karlie Kloss. (Note: I exclude mostly original content creators, writers and collage-makers from this group). So, why not guarantee a few comments without having to do much work?
Well, because there are those who despite their subpar resources – such as dated laptops and ancient digital cameras - go out and make their own stuff, or conceptualize each post, which requires a lot more thought than mindlessly digging through fashiongonerogue. I felt like this for a while, until at last, Drake himself put my sentiments to words:
“I’m really scared for my generation, you know. The thing that scares me most is Tumblr. I hate what Tumblr has become…Instead of kids going out and making their own moments, they’re just taking these images and living vicariously through other people’s moments. It just kills me.” And before it was killing Drake, it was killing the independent blogger spirit.
When you think of bloggers who consistently post material that isn’t theirs, if it’s not theirs, then whose is it? Using the case of fashion, since it is one of the top three Tumblr tags, these images belong to the likes of Style.com, Vogue, TeenVogue, Harper’s Bazaar, Elle and Marie Claire, owned by media conglomerates Condé Nast and Hearst Corporation, respectively.
To make matters worse, although Condé Nast does not allow their media properties to share content, rival Hearst Corporation, does. This means they can save money by sharing the same photographer, writer or videographer at the cost of limiting perspective and the diversity of content. Given that media content is already controlled by the few, reblogging their photos is really just perpetuating the status quo, especially since according to Tumblr CEO David Karp, fashion-related Tumblr posts are reblogged on a much greater scale than general Tumblr posts.
So, how exactly is this crushing the independent blogger spirit? For starters, it defeats the purpose of digitization, supposedly eliminating entry barriers to the media market by blurring the line between producer and consumer in what is known as the “prosumer.” It was supposed to be all about regular people fighting corporations with their own materials and giving the market variety. Instead, we’re using our Tumblr accounts to reblog unoriginal content owned in one form or another by conglomerates. This might give us instant gratification, a few more followers, notes or comments, and corporations free advertising platforms and dominance. It’s ironic given how much we complain about how pervasive advertising is when we willingly spread it ourselves.
A lot of this is rooted in the fact that sharing is fundamental to the micro-blogging experience that is Tumblr. It takes away the incentive to do it yourself; there is no need to with the plethora of high-quality images at your fingertips. It’s the same thing that happened way back, when the introduction of the written word discouraged people from memorizing the stories they were used to, because they didn’t have to anymore.
Despite the fact that ‘we don’t have to,’ if original and diverse content matters enough to us, we’ll listen to Drake and start making our own moments.
