Okay, so I went into this assignment trying to find interesting facts about campaign contributions that somehow related to my hometown (Orlando, FL) or my last name (Kaiser). But as it turns out, the information I found was pretty obvious. Using the campaign search engine Political Money Line I learned that Orlando is pretty split on their political views (shock me, shock me...if you’re thinking about the 2000 recount, please don’t get me started) and that quite a few people make campaign contributions with the last name Kaiser (242 to be exact). So for fun I started to randomly look up famous actors and once I reached Ben Affleck I learned something really surprising. Affleck never donated money towards electing John Kerry as president.
Now think back to the 2004 election (I know this is hard, but bear with me). Affleck was basically attached to Kerry’s side. He campaigned for him, talked him up in interviews, and even wore Kerry t-shirts almost every day. So naturally, I expected to find numerous contributions for Kerry from the politically active actor. Instead I saw that Affleck contributed to the presidential campaigns of Dennis Kucinich ($1,000) and General Wesley Clark ($2,000), but not Kerry.
This got me thinking about how some critics claimed Kerry lost the election because of all the publicity he got from big Hollywood players. Whether or not you agree this had a negative impact on his campaign, I’m sure you remember all of the celebrity endorsements. But the truth is a lot of celebrities that supported the presidential candidate didn’t actually donate money to his campaign. Some actually gave money to Kerry’s competition.
This included celebrities such as Matt Damon, Paul Newman, Jane Fonda, Aaron Sorkin, Bradley Whitford, and Martin Sheen.
So while a great deal of Hollywood probably voted for the Massachusetts senator, they didn’t contribute money to his campaign. Those millions came from the general public...and the billion-dollar food company Heinz.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
More Real News
I’ve never really compared video stories from the nightly news and sources online, but once I started to really look at both of them I realized how different they were and that I found the online videos much more interesting.
In terms of the television nightly news, the stories I liked the most were simply because of the subject matter. One package on elephants during the NBC broadcast had some great footage of the cute animals but that was pretty much the only thing that was appealing about it.
Of course the piece was well edited with a variety of different shots and had nice voice over, but those qualities are expected in broadcast news. They’re professional but at the same time pretty boring. There is nothing that grabs the attention of the viewer. And of course the whole piece is through a third-person narrative where the reporter remains objective. While news should remain objective, it can still be done in a way where it doesn’t feel impersonal and stiff.
A great example of this is the stories featured on Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone. The “Occupation: Dreamland” series is fantastic. In Part II we get to follow the camera through a raid in Iraq. Just this fact alone makes the video completely different than anything we might see on the news. But what makes this video great is that it is raw and real.
The camera really gets in the action which makes you feel like you are in there with them. This really took me off guard because stories that I am used to on TV mostly feature action that looks planned and directed. The package isn’t full of stale shots just edited together either. There are longer shots that simply show the audience what is going on. This is what makes the news video great. It’s showing real life as it’s happening.
Another extremely interesting video that shows it like it is on the site is a video about recruitment. You should check it out as well.
Other online videos that are less successful are those on You Witness News and an informational video on You Tube about seahorses. These videos are more amateur with their poor video and sound quality. As well, while they have long sequences like Kevin Sites, they don’t use it in the positive way like the Dreamland sequence does.
Ultimately, I think stories told using online video should be professional like those on TV news, but more raw and realistic. Because sites can be more open without the strict FCC rules in television, they have the opportunity to really capture real life. This can really attract the audience’s attention and make them invest in the stories they are telling.
In terms of the television nightly news, the stories I liked the most were simply because of the subject matter. One package on elephants during the NBC broadcast had some great footage of the cute animals but that was pretty much the only thing that was appealing about it.
Of course the piece was well edited with a variety of different shots and had nice voice over, but those qualities are expected in broadcast news. They’re professional but at the same time pretty boring. There is nothing that grabs the attention of the viewer. And of course the whole piece is through a third-person narrative where the reporter remains objective. While news should remain objective, it can still be done in a way where it doesn’t feel impersonal and stiff.
A great example of this is the stories featured on Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone. The “Occupation: Dreamland” series is fantastic. In Part II we get to follow the camera through a raid in Iraq. Just this fact alone makes the video completely different than anything we might see on the news. But what makes this video great is that it is raw and real.
The camera really gets in the action which makes you feel like you are in there with them. This really took me off guard because stories that I am used to on TV mostly feature action that looks planned and directed. The package isn’t full of stale shots just edited together either. There are longer shots that simply show the audience what is going on. This is what makes the news video great. It’s showing real life as it’s happening.
Another extremely interesting video that shows it like it is on the site is a video about recruitment. You should check it out as well.
Other online videos that are less successful are those on You Witness News and an informational video on You Tube about seahorses. These videos are more amateur with their poor video and sound quality. As well, while they have long sequences like Kevin Sites, they don’t use it in the positive way like the Dreamland sequence does.
Ultimately, I think stories told using online video should be professional like those on TV news, but more raw and realistic. Because sites can be more open without the strict FCC rules in television, they have the opportunity to really capture real life. This can really attract the audience’s attention and make them invest in the stories they are telling.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Beach Day
maggie and milly and molly and may
went down to the beach(to play one day)
and maggie discovered a shell that sang
so sweetly she couldn't remember her troubles,and
milly befriended a stranded star
whose rays five languid fingers were;
and molly was chased by a horrible thing
which raced sideways while blowing bubbles:and
may came home with a smooth round stone
as small as a world and as large as alone.
For whatever we lose(like a you or a me)
it's always ourselves we find in the sea
~ e.e. cummings
went down to the beach(to play one day)
and maggie discovered a shell that sang
so sweetly she couldn't remember her troubles,and
milly befriended a stranded star
whose rays five languid fingers were;
and molly was chased by a horrible thing
which raced sideways while blowing bubbles:and
may came home with a smooth round stone
as small as a world and as large as alone.
For whatever we lose(like a you or a me)
it's always ourselves we find in the sea
~ e.e. cummings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)