Was talking about this earlier with a friend, and as its something i feel quite passionate about ( mainly due to the lack of funding/ media coverage) is something i decided to write about.
So, why dont people care about the paralympics?
the paralympic games receive less funding, less media coverage and less support?
and why? I think its almost a form of discrimination- the IOC has written its commitment to equal access to athletics for all people, and until the 2012 olympics, cities HAVE to hold both olympic and paralympic games.
But it isnt equal is it? if i wanted to watch the parlympic sports at the winter 2010 games ( which i did) the BBC only allowed either internet streaming of the sports or a one hour highlight show after the games have finished.. This was done in spite of a The reduction in coverage was done in spite of increased ratings for the 2008 Summer Paralympics, which was watched by 23% of the population of Great Britain!!
People WANT to watch the paralympics, i personally would rather watch it than the Olympic activities, why? maybe im biased, i have two disability in my close family and the thought that,in any way they are thought of less important than an "average" person makes my blood boil. This pattern of thought continues for ALL disabled people, a close friend of mine has a severe degenerative disorder and the thought of anyone ever thinking less of him, or that he isnt worth as much time because he cant go out as much as a normal uni student, or find stuff harder really upsets me.
so yeah, im biased i suppose.. but arent we supposed to be a liberal EQUAL country? didnt the IOC say they were to be all be equal? and yeah clearly this is not happening... theres no reason for it, to see someone "normal" break a world record or win in an event is great, but even greater is to watch someone who has to overcome extra challenges in their normal life do something EXTRAORDINARY!!
Well, i have gone completely off tangent here, and im actually angrily typing this now, but its something im really passionate about ( as you can tell) and, really im sorry for anyone who reads my rant haha.
Over and out ( and hopefully a bit happier next time)
xx
Monday 28 November 2011
Friday 18 November 2011
Are violent video games linked to violent behaviour?
Many studies have linked violent video games to an increase of violent behaviour in an individual, and it is a common ( and sometimes very heated debate) and as someone who quite enjoyis blowing zombies heads off in games i thought it would be interesting to look at;
lets look at one study more closely -
okay so- Many studies have linked violence in TV shows and video games to violent behavior. But when states have tried to keep under-18 kids from playing games rated M ( or 18 in the uk), the proposed restrictions have often been challenged and beaten in court.
In the study Dr. Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., of Iowa State University in Ames, and his colleagues looked at how children and teen's video game habits at one time point related to their behavior three to six months later.
The study included three groups of kids: 181 Japanese students ages 12 to 15; 1,050 Japanese students aged 13 to 18; and 364 U.S. kids ages 9 to 12.
The U.S. children listed their three favorite games and how often they played them. In the younger Japanese group, the researchers looked at how often the children played five different violent video game genres, e.g fighting, shooting...
and in the older group they looked at the amount of violence in the their favorite game genres and the time they spent playing them each week.
SO
In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure.( both the children involved in the study and their peers ( parents/friends/teachers) rated their levels of agression of the course of the study.
This was true even after the researchers took into account how aggressive the children were at the beginning of the study -- a strong predictor of future bad behavior.
Not too good!!
Many studies agree with the basic hypothesis this one studied, that playing violent video games does have an effect on how violent you are yourself.. for example, one study cited this as a true fact,
Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).
so, from the looks of it, violent video games CAN ( though of course this is not to say EVERYONE will be affected) make you more violent?!
Not going to stop me playing Left 4 Dead though im afraid...
Over and Out :D x
lets look at one study more closely -
okay so- Many studies have linked violence in TV shows and video games to violent behavior. But when states have tried to keep under-18 kids from playing games rated M ( or 18 in the uk), the proposed restrictions have often been challenged and beaten in court.
In the study Dr. Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., of Iowa State University in Ames, and his colleagues looked at how children and teen's video game habits at one time point related to their behavior three to six months later.
The study included three groups of kids: 181 Japanese students ages 12 to 15; 1,050 Japanese students aged 13 to 18; and 364 U.S. kids ages 9 to 12.
The U.S. children listed their three favorite games and how often they played them. In the younger Japanese group, the researchers looked at how often the children played five different violent video game genres, e.g fighting, shooting...
and in the older group they looked at the amount of violence in the their favorite game genres and the time they spent playing them each week.
SO
In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure.( both the children involved in the study and their peers ( parents/friends/teachers) rated their levels of agression of the course of the study.
This was true even after the researchers took into account how aggressive the children were at the beginning of the study -- a strong predictor of future bad behavior.
Not too good!!
Many studies agree with the basic hypothesis this one studied, that playing violent video games does have an effect on how violent you are yourself.. for example, one study cited this as a true fact,
Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).
so, from the looks of it, violent video games CAN ( though of course this is not to say EVERYONE will be affected) make you more violent?!
Not going to stop me playing Left 4 Dead though im afraid...
Over and Out :D x
Thursday 10 November 2011
3D, is it worth the bother?
One, 3D is COMPLICATED to get right!
- The fundamental requirements for 3D are:
1 -Two working eyes, each viewing the world from a slightly different perspective (a couple of inches apart).
2- A brain that can take the two views and piece them together into one 3D view.
Basically, is we look at a 2D tv, we see it in 2D, because even with our two eyes making a 3D image there is no depth, just a flat screen.
3D images however suceed as they send a seperate image to each eye and when connected this creates the 3D effect we have looking at the world normally. TA DA
Doesnt sound too bad but is it MUCH more complicated than that simple description.But as someone who doesnt really understand it myself, i wont bore you. Basically, two images, one per eye- brain makes it 3D through glasses - one eye red light, the other cyan ( lets all other light through) and we should in theory have 3D.
But does it add enough to the movie to justify the huge amount of time and money it takes compared to a normal 2D film?
In my opinion, No, Some movies add a few 3D special effects just to advertise that it is 3D, but lack any real 3D quality. Others, such as Avatar, really spend a lot of money to enhance the 3D viewing experience of the movie. But typically most movies fall into the first category, a few more "jumpy" moments when something strikes "out" of the screen and they advertise the movie as 3D and worth seeing??
Personally i would rather buy the £4 less ticket and just have those few short clips in 2D and avoid the annoyment of having to wear the glasses for the whole film ( which as well never seem to fit my face and so i spend most of the time fidgiting with them)
Now, im not saying 3D COULDNT be amazing,if films continued, like Avatar to use 3D well, and often but without being too obvious that certain points were added just for a little bit of 3D ( Im sorry Harry Potter, i love you, but this happened too much in the last film.) it would be really effective and make very exciting footage.
Some people, also, like Jon (Y) cannot actually view 3D for whatever reason, in fact, Johnny Depp, who has starred in various 3D films, cannot actually view them either, so when 3D becomes increasingly common, some people will still be missing out on the experience?? Basically, i prefer 2D, but lots of people love the idea of 3D, for the moment i would rather view 2D cheaper and easier until 3D becomes more efficient, and i hope there is always the option of 2D for people that cannot view 3D.
Rant over, goodbyeeee xx
- The fundamental requirements for 3D are:
1 -Two working eyes, each viewing the world from a slightly different perspective (a couple of inches apart).
2- A brain that can take the two views and piece them together into one 3D view.
Basically, is we look at a 2D tv, we see it in 2D, because even with our two eyes making a 3D image there is no depth, just a flat screen.
3D images however suceed as they send a seperate image to each eye and when connected this creates the 3D effect we have looking at the world normally. TA DA
Doesnt sound too bad but is it MUCH more complicated than that simple description.But as someone who doesnt really understand it myself, i wont bore you. Basically, two images, one per eye- brain makes it 3D through glasses - one eye red light, the other cyan ( lets all other light through) and we should in theory have 3D.
But does it add enough to the movie to justify the huge amount of time and money it takes compared to a normal 2D film?
In my opinion, No, Some movies add a few 3D special effects just to advertise that it is 3D, but lack any real 3D quality. Others, such as Avatar, really spend a lot of money to enhance the 3D viewing experience of the movie. But typically most movies fall into the first category, a few more "jumpy" moments when something strikes "out" of the screen and they advertise the movie as 3D and worth seeing??
Personally i would rather buy the £4 less ticket and just have those few short clips in 2D and avoid the annoyment of having to wear the glasses for the whole film ( which as well never seem to fit my face and so i spend most of the time fidgiting with them)
Now, im not saying 3D COULDNT be amazing,if films continued, like Avatar to use 3D well, and often but without being too obvious that certain points were added just for a little bit of 3D ( Im sorry Harry Potter, i love you, but this happened too much in the last film.) it would be really effective and make very exciting footage.
Some people, also, like Jon (Y) cannot actually view 3D for whatever reason, in fact, Johnny Depp, who has starred in various 3D films, cannot actually view them either, so when 3D becomes increasingly common, some people will still be missing out on the experience?? Basically, i prefer 2D, but lots of people love the idea of 3D, for the moment i would rather view 2D cheaper and easier until 3D becomes more efficient, and i hope there is always the option of 2D for people that cannot view 3D.
Rant over, goodbyeeee xx
Monday 7 November 2011
My wild ramble about Convergence Culture
Henry Jenkins, the author of “Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide” (2006) defines Convergence culture as “where old and new media collide,where grassroots and corporate media collide, where the power of the media producer and the power of the consumer interact in unpredictable ways.”
Basically, Jenkins believes that as we mix media we develop a ‘culture’ that grows use to his and in fact demands that type of mashed-up media. Convergence culture is highly participatory – encouraging individuals to “to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content,” it has created new modes of engagement with media.
One Example of this “collision” of old and new media is watching TV programmes on the internet easily and usually available to all. This is hugely popular now, with many major TV channels have an alternate website ( or YouTube) which allows viewer to watch the programmes at a later time on their home computer ( something which almost renders TV not needed – as a uni student who doesn’t want to pay for a tv license i spend a lot of time on such websites ha-ha) Some of these programmes have been especially made JUST for the internet viewing, such as Vic & Bob’s Afternoon Delights produced by Foster’s lager. After having their latest programme idea turned down by the BBC the two already famous comedians ended up being offered to make shorter videos ( about 5 minutes) and have them posted on the internet, thus allowing them both more freedom in what they do and the chance to be watched by a large audience ( although probably not as many as had the show been broadcasted on national television) the two, as already said, are successful comedians so their fanbase is likely to watch their “skits” be it on television or the internet and so they keep a large following. However, small production groups also choose to broadcast their videos on the internet, through either personal choice, or perhaps because television companies are not interested in their program. One example of this is the web series “Continuum” which has put its first three under ten minute programmes on facebook to gain exposure. Although, it is much harder for this team to get a large amount of viewers as unlike Vic and Bob they do not already have a fan-base from any previous work. However, broadcasting the short segments on the internet allows them to reach a different audience, especially as they have uploaded the videos through facebook, allowing word to travel “facebook friend to facebook friend”
Whilst these two programmes are no threat to the old media of television, there may be a time int he future where it is simply easier to watch television programs on the internet ( especially if it become more popular to make programmes JUST for the internet) and the television may eventually become less popular and relevant with the internet and personal computers combining with and taking over the old media form of a "television programme"
Basically, Jenkins believes that as we mix media we develop a ‘culture’ that grows use to his and in fact demands that type of mashed-up media. Convergence culture is highly participatory – encouraging individuals to “to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content,” it has created new modes of engagement with media.
One Example of this “collision” of old and new media is watching TV programmes on the internet easily and usually available to all. This is hugely popular now, with many major TV channels have an alternate website ( or YouTube) which allows viewer to watch the programmes at a later time on their home computer ( something which almost renders TV not needed – as a uni student who doesn’t want to pay for a tv license i spend a lot of time on such websites ha-ha) Some of these programmes have been especially made JUST for the internet viewing, such as Vic & Bob’s Afternoon Delights produced by Foster’s lager. After having their latest programme idea turned down by the BBC the two already famous comedians ended up being offered to make shorter videos ( about 5 minutes) and have them posted on the internet, thus allowing them both more freedom in what they do and the chance to be watched by a large audience ( although probably not as many as had the show been broadcasted on national television) the two, as already said, are successful comedians so their fanbase is likely to watch their “skits” be it on television or the internet and so they keep a large following. However, small production groups also choose to broadcast their videos on the internet, through either personal choice, or perhaps because television companies are not interested in their program. One example of this is the web series “Continuum” which has put its first three under ten minute programmes on facebook to gain exposure. Although, it is much harder for this team to get a large amount of viewers as unlike Vic and Bob they do not already have a fan-base from any previous work. However, broadcasting the short segments on the internet allows them to reach a different audience, especially as they have uploaded the videos through facebook, allowing word to travel “facebook friend to facebook friend”
Whilst these two programmes are no threat to the old media of television, there may be a time int he future where it is simply easier to watch television programs on the internet ( especially if it become more popular to make programmes JUST for the internet) and the television may eventually become less popular and relevant with the internet and personal computers combining with and taking over the old media form of a "television programme"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)