Cable 15 Interview
By Lerone D. Wilson | November 14, 2007
I was contacted last spring shortly after writing the Detroit Free Press editorial on No Child Left Behind, regarding an interview with Southfield Cable 15. Southfield being my hometown, I was very excited.
A few weeks ago I received a DVD of the program, and am absolutely floored by the quality of not only the interview, but cable 15 programming in general. Hats off to Art Ford, and everyone involved with the ‘Conversations With…’ program.
The Interview
Topics: Film/Video, Media/Politics | No Comments »
Fraud on the American Voter
By Lerone D. Wilson | July 24, 2007
For many months now I have grown increasingly skeptical with the regard to the increased willingness on behalf of ‘big media’ to promote this ‘New Media’ concept without a firm grasp or consensus on what exactly it is. Finally I was able to put my doubts into words in a recent light hearted post entitled ‘New Media and Your Uncle Keith‘. However in light of Monday’s YouTube/CNN Democratic Presidential ‘debates’, my light hearted skepticism has turned into downright fear.
Throughout the mid 1970’s and early 1980’s presidential debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization who prepared the debate formats and questions. In 1988 however the league abruptly pulled out of the debates, issuing the following statement:
The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
Following the departure of the League of Women Voters, the Republican and Democratic Parties formed the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is currently responsible for the softball ‘debates’ we are now exposed to.
It is frightening that essentially the exact same concern the League of Women Voters had in 1988 has indeed come to pass. However what makes it downright scary, is the fact that ‘New Media’ is becoming an accessory to the ‘hoodwinking of the American public’ which the League of Women Voters feared.
I have no doubt that some hotshot executive at CNN dreamed up their collaboration with YouTube in the debate process, thinking that it would be ‘new’ and ‘edgy’ (all that ‘New Media’ claims to be) and would ‘democratize’ the process. Nevertheless what it has done is create the appearance of democratization through allowing the American populace to ask questions via YouTube videos, while CNN and The Commission on Presidential Debates still retain absolute control over what is being asked, and how it’s being asked.
Have we learned anything new about the candidates from this ‘democratized’ debate? What difference does it make if I’m making a video of my question, or e-mailing, or calling in? For that matter was this debate any different than any of the countless ‘debates’ and forums we’ve already seen this year? Finally, when will the candidates be allowed to actually interact with each other, and speak for more than 1 minute about truly substantial issues… you know, like a real debate?
It strikes me as odd that in this media culture I can find any of a number of media zealots relentlessly prodding and debating a slew of politicians, figureheads, and spin doctors, on cable news, yet when it comes time to hear from the very people we elect to preserve our democracy, they are untouchable.
I’ve long chided YouTube, and ‘new media’ for that matter, as simply being a collection of silly video clips often involving hilarious acts of stupidity, and guys getting kicked in the balls in new and laughable ways. Nevertheless I don’t want this folly conflicting with democracy. When snowballs start asking questions at debates we have a serious problem, and it doesn’t help that we’re writing it off as being ‘democratizing’.
But at the end of the day does it really matter who is asking the questions? As long as the political parties are controlling their own debates how can we expect it to be anything but an extension of their campaign trails? The League of Women Voters was absolutely right in 1988, and the internet is simply making the problem worse.
Topics: Media/Politics | No Comments »
‘Pimp My News’ Part 1: Hard Hitting News
By Lerone D. Wilson | July 14, 2007
In light of Michael Moore recently criticizing CNN for distorting the news, I for one would like to stand up for CNN. CNN is in fact catering to our interests and desires for news. If they falsify it (and I’m not saying they do, but if they did) it’s only because thats what we want. Isn’t that was ‘pimping’ is all about? Hit shows like ‘Pimp My Ride‘ have taught us that no matter how lame our possessions may be, we always have the option to ‘pimp’ them and make them into what we want. News is no exception. I will demonstrate how CNN among others have managed to do just this in a series entitled ‘Pimp My News’.
CNN wasn’t always the ‘most trusted name in news’. In fact, in the beginning it was downright awful. Of course the news industry was a lot different back on June 1, 1980 when CNN first hit the airwaves. Below is a video of the first 30 seconds CNN spent on the air. See if you can spot where they got it wrong.
There are 3 major errors here that I would’ve called ‘detrimental’ to the network’s longevity if I had watched this in 1980. First of all, what is this program called? Whats the angle? If modern news has taught us anything it’s that there cant just be ‘news’. I just can’t have someone report on whats happening, I need, nay I demand, someone I trust to put just the right spin on things.
News is art, not science, which is why I need Bill O’Reilly or Anderson Cooper to bring me the news as only they can deliver, through hard hitting shows such as ‘THE OREILLY FACTOR’, or ‘AC: 360′. See what a difference that makes? Would you rather watch ‘the news’ or ‘WOLF BLITZER REPORTS’? The hard hitting title is the first indicator that hard hitting news is to follow.It’s not enough to simply give me straightforward facts, I need someone that I trust to interpret them, and tell me how I should feel about them.
This is why CNN made such a terrible mistake in having the anchors tell me their names, and move on to the news. Who are these people? Why are you telling me these things? Modern news has taught us that your news team is essentially a sports team. I don’t go out and randomly pick a team to root for. Nor do I root for a team in which I don’t know who the players are. Putting a man behind a desk doesn’t make me believe him. I have to believe he can, and wants to defeat the rival team. As the following clip demonstrates, modern, ‘hard hitting’ news understands that.
But what exactly is ‘hard hitting news’?Hard hitting news is about emotion. I don’t need to know whats going on, as long as I know that something is going on, and I should feel some way about it. However before my trusted news man tells me how I should feel, I have to feel that it’s inherently important to begin with - which is why CNN went so wrong with their inaugural newscast.After introducing themselves, the newscasters just move straight forward with the facts. Wheres the mood? Wheres the action?
The single most important component of ‘hard hitting news’ are the video lead ins. Without them I have no indication that news is important and/or emotional.The following is an international montage of the various fully pimped out bumpers CNN is currently using. They have learned quite a bit throughout the past 26 years. They have finally accepted that it’s not so important what news follows the video lead in, because the viewer already knows that CNN is trusted, powerful, and looking out for all of us.
With such an all powerful media god at the helm, who cares if what they are saying is true, or fair? We, the viewers of America simply want to know that important things are happening, and someone, somewhere cares about them.
Topics: Media/Politics | No Comments »
‘New Media’ and Your Uncle Keith
By Lerone D. Wilson | July 8, 2007
I feel like we all have that uncle, or distant relative who we know has a drinking problem, yet everyone completely accepts it. Don’t get me wrong, many people took the time in the beginning to say ‘Keith this stuff is ruining your life’, and ‘Keith, you really should cut back’, but at some point a collective decision was made to write off further demonstrations of the problem as ‘Well, you know Keith’, or ‘What can you say… thats our Keith’, and with a shrug and/or a laugh we all accept the reality that Keith’s life will end in a blaze of alcohol induced organ failure.
…I feel like thats where we are with ‘New Media’.
At some point someone saw the decreasing popularity of radio, and network television, and the increasing popularity of the internet and made the inevitable conclusion that at some point they would collide into this ‘New Media’ concept. I will admit that some progress has been made with regards to this. YouTube and AppleTV have in some ways changed the way we view crazy home videos of adorable animals acting like humans, and middle aged men getting hit in the balls by various objects (we used to have to rely solely on Bob Saget and America’s Funniest Home Videos… ah Bob Saget, that guy cracked me up), nevertheless on the whole we still view television and movies in fundamentally the same way.
I recall reading the hit Bill Gates book ‘The Road Ahead’ back in 1995, which was full of bright eyed promises of digital convergence, yet most of it just hasn’t happened. Of course the future of computing was a lot brighter in 1995. ‘The Internet’ was capable of solving all problems, including making money appear out of thin air from investors through the mere mention of a hot new website. Nevertheless even in retrospect if you asked me today which is more likely: a seamless Windows Media Center PC in the living rooms of millions of households, or a way to sell pet supplies online at Pets.com… I’d take Pets.com in an instant.
So where does that leave us? We have all in many ways accepted this ‘New Media’ reality, yet we don’t want to make promises and have things blow up in our faces like they did in the 90’s. So instead, everyone just assumes ‘New Media’ is this powerful new reality that must be exploited. Unfortunately this leads to just more confusion and misunderstanding, for the exact same reason that Woody Allen films are popular: people pretend that they understand.
So at the end of the day we don’t care, and simply nod at the mention of ‘New Media’. We throw money at countless ‘new media’ initiatives, and write off any suggestion that perhaps it’s not coming along as well or as fast as we thought. But that’s OK… even Uncle Keith has figured out a way to stay alive all these years.
…there may be hope for new media yet.
Topics: Internet/Computing, Media/Politics | 1 Comment »
Why I Don’t Like Most Film Festivals
By Lerone D. Wilson | July 1, 2007
OK, I’ll admit it. I am a bad filmmaker. ‘Colored Frames’, my most recent documentary undertaking premiered at its first film festival last month in Hollywood of all places, and I wasn’t there. Go ahead and gasp, everyone does it. I’ll even wait a moment.
[Pause for gasps]
Hopefully you’ve calmed down enough by now to allow me to explain. I really don’t like film festivals. Here’s why:
I think at some point in the past (prior to when I got into film making) the film festival was truly a local event. People from the community came to cheer on the local films, and get a sense of what was being made, and taking place around the country. It was a beautiful afternoon of the finest in independent film, and I’m sure someone hosted a barbecue afterward.
Then at some point someone decided that film festivals attracted attention, and money… for the festival organizers. At some point, a lot of festivals became essentially a way for the sponsoring entity to get into the newspaper, at the cost of the filmmakers involved. Let me take a moment here to make clear that this isn’t the case with all film festivals. Rather, I see a growing trend towards the festivals that essentially provide a room and a projector for an exorbitant entry fee, in which you are expected to bring your friends to watch the movie (hitting them with a high priced fee as well upon entry). It quickly occurs to you at this point that you could’ve rented a space and projector for just as much (or less in many cases), but never mind that - you’re in a film festival!
A few years ago withoutabox.com entered the scene. I was recently impressed with their new, clean, and edgy web design which seems to be a surface deep call to action for what I feel they presume the independent community is. Unfortunately this only reminds me of what it should be. On one hand Withoutabox has brought the independent a uniform and fairly simple method for keeping track, and applying to film festivals around the country. However on the other hand, it has in many ways contributed to the homogenization of film festivals all over. I feel much is lost now that I can attend the New York International Film Festival, and the Smithtown International Film Festival (by now the word ‘international’ being a part of a festival’s title is about as awe inspiring as the word used in front of the nearest airport) and see the same films, the same traveling film makers doing the circuit, and none of the locals for whom presumably the festival is for.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel however. As earlier stated, there are many quality festivals out there. Of particular note, I must credit the East Lansing Film Festival which I was thrilled to be a part of in 2005, as well as the Detroit Docs Film Festival, which after taking 2006 off is back in 2007. There are many others, however unfortunately my recent no shows on the summer circuit does limit my reccomendations. However I’m sure there are many others as well, perhaps even the few that my films have attended… but I haven’t.
Topics: Film/Video | 2 Comments »