Lack of Empathy in the Media

Though it is a common thought that the age of the internet has spawned idiocracy in teenagers and college students across the country.  And laxadasical attitude has been formed by the quick search of pressing enter on google, or the hours spent on social networking sites such as facebook, then tweeting about it later.  The truth is, our generation have problably birthed more writers than any other generation since or before because of the advantages we've been bestowed upon through technology.

My hope is that in the future, my generation will reap the rewards of this.  In aligning this thought process with that of an artistic endevour one can speculate about the future of filmmaking, video art, and art in general.

The Distortion of Authority Through the Media

Having read the above reading it easy to understand how imperative it is that we as a country resolve the  authorial strucuture in the media.  Since the media has grown in size since it's initual inception, both the rules and grammar of the internet have been made and broke time and again.  We are now in a period of relative change, where the time tables of the how we are perceived is viewed on the web.

In this writer's opinion, the first thing that must be done is establish rules and regulations on the internet. Having said this, doing so is a tricky ordeal though.  We must stay on a thin line of rules and privacy.  This also plays into the idea of big brother and type of control the government has over the internet.  Although, if there is a way we can establish rules on the internet that blocks certain sites such as Wiki Leaks from exposing secret documents that are private, we may have found the key to the internet.  As it excists itself the internet is a source of none rules.  We are seeing more and more now with the creation of Facebook, Google, and other large media sites that rules have been established for them.  Rules that can be controlled by the viewer or blogger in charge of their page.  Having said all this, it is hard to think of something actually existing without a few major conglomerates controlling everything, which seems to becoming the case.

In the end, we can only hope that rules are established in the future that empower the user and not the companies that enlist these websites.  For that will be the way authority is controlled and abandoned on the internet.

The meaning of privacy......psychology and wikileaks

 Does Wikileaks violate the meaning of privacy?

Psychologist believe to understand the act of privacy we need to realize that we have many parts of ourselves. When your going to be broadcast ,  you prepare a version of yourself that fits the occasion , "your public self."Naturally we want to be able to control our self preservation.
 Privacy is the right to use and decide which version of your self will be known to others in a particular time and place. Privacy is a version of control. Does wikileaks violate the act of privacy of robbing diplomats the control of their self-presentation. Is there a difference between state secrecy and personal privacy. Is it ok for the state department to do any business if its limited to one version of itself. This type of state secrecy in our government has decided to withhold information from their own people. Could that be the government abusing its own power?

In this collage  the world represents our public self. How we want to me viewed by the world and how we go out of our way to make sure our public self is suitable for the situation. How does the united States project itself. Does the government have the right to withhold information to keep its reputation so to speak especially for international affairs. Hows does the world view each other in general. The 2 men represent how we communicate to each other.

                Wikileaks has officially broken the dam of confidential and secret government documents, flooding the internet with classified information as we speak. As more and more bits of truth reveal themselves through Julian Assange’s online creation, we will become more informed of what our government is doing. Security and control keep us blind of the truth and higher powers want to keep it that way, for whatever reason. Wikileaks challenges this government attempt to conceal information from the common people. In the case of Bradley Manning, a whistleblower who was put in solitary confinement for releasing government files to wikileaks, there are some really compelling phsycological questions to ask. To what extent will our Government go to keep secrets from us and why?

    Solitary confinement is quite a harsh environment to live in while waiting for trial. There are many different effects that this kind of imprisonment may have on a person’s mind. One student, Carley Fritner, wrote in a research paper that said "depression, despair, anxiety, rage, claustrophobia, hallucinations, problems with impulse control, and/or an impaired ability to think, concentrate, or remember” (1) were all possible outcomes. Fritner also noted an instance In 2003 when a complaint to the Connecticut Department of Correction revealed that solitary confinement caused prisoners to "lash out by swallowing razors, smashing their heads into walls or cutting their flesh." (1) The only reason I can associate with needing to hold someone in these conditions before their trial is having a necessity to change something. Bradley Manning is not just a prisoner; he is a political prisoner. He is awaiting his trial, while the government essentially tortures him and we have to ask why? They obviously want this pre-punishment in solitary confinement to have an effect on him before his trial. Is it that they are trying to make an example out of him for society, to show that the crimes he committed are absolutely unacceptable? Or is it that they are brainwashing him in order to somehow create a direct link

between Manning and Assange to get him as well?

What higher powers in our world perceive as necessary to keep secret is in many cases probably not what we want hidden from us. Recognizing the ambiguity between what we don’t know and what we fear, some people would just rather not know what’s really going on. However, regardless of the fear factor, I believe that everyone has a deeper desire for the truth even if it scares them. Why do Governments want so desperately to keep this information from us and like the case with Bradley Manning, is this the extend they will go to protect it.   

(1)

Fritner, Carly. "Lonely Madness: The Effects of Solitary Confinement and Social Isolation on Mental and Emotional Health." Serendip. N.p., Spring 2005. Web. 3 Feb. 2011.

The blending of intellectual and creativity

THE BLENDING OF

INTELLECT AND CREATIVITY

Bob King introduces us to his philosophy teacher, Macomber, who was his teacher at UCSB in 1971. Macomber made an immense impression upon him helping him to formulate his course, "Digital Media for the Artist".  King's story is a tribute, a personal story, a scientific, professional and technology story all in one. 

King's essay, "The Play of Mind on Mind" explains to us how Macomber viewed education.  Macomber believed that knowledge involves reading, writing and conversation and unlike most professors recommended Cliff Notes.  Cliff Notes would give you the main ideas on which to build a conversation.  Macomber points out that artists practice and perform.  He believed that liberal artists play conversation - it was their creative medium.  Macomber points out that you start elementary school by being told to be still and be quiet.  As one grows one has to re-learn conversational skills.  Macomber points out that students of the arts should see conversation as a creative activity, as a dance.  He says, "try picturing liberal arts education as noisy, talkative, comfortable, very creative and artful like dance".  King notes that Jenlink and Carr proposed different types of conversation, i.e. transacting, transforming and transcendent.  Macomber was ahead of his time by pointing out that people learn by building on what they already know.  King takes this further and calls it the "Katamari style" of learning.

In Kings' essay, "The Crux of the Matter", he describes Macomber's conflict with the Greek-Indo European and Christian/Semitic way of looking at life.  King further explains that Macomber believed that if you added emotion and sexuality to reading, writing and talking a life of the spirit would develop.

In "A Concluding Reflection"  King explains that there are four basic types of knowledge, scientific, aesthetic, intellectual and spiritual.  The common feature of them all is conversation.  He concludes his conversational telling of the story telling us about the next phase of writing a script and adding music.

Thien Nhat Hahn's passage uses the example of a poet who sees a cloud floating in a sheet of paper.  Basically, that nothing in this world is separate, everything is related.

Malcolm Gladwell's article, "the Physical Genius" describes how a sports hero, a master cellist and a renowned brain surgeon all have their imagination as a common denominator.

"Media Studies: A Field Guide" by King demonstrates how intellect and creativity are intertwined.  He describes the context, history, content and method of media studies.  He introduces various concepts from such well known writers as Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong, Mimi Ito among others.  King shows that what one learns in higher education is "verticality".  It is an education that is higher and deeper enabling one to talk with intelligence and creativity.

Tron and Wikileaks: Comparisons

For a time when the internet and digital blogging and interfacing was a thing of the future, Tron predicted in a humble and entertaining way the future of our own security.  In terms of the uses of security and privacy on the internet, Wikileaks has opened a floodgate of controversy.  Watching the film you see how Flynn was an early hacker trying to foil a larger scheme of a cyber security fiasco.  Their similarities comes down to the privacy and security questions of how we hide and maintain secret information in large organizations.  It can be dangerous for documents to be leaked as the Secretary of State has pointed out repeatedly in response to the WikiLeaks phenomena. 

As the internet grows, there becomes more information to obtain.  Whether it's bad, secret, or dangerous information that could be detrimental to lives is in question.  Yet, there seems to be a rebellious cry from Americans who are distrust-worthy of the government and want to expose their secrets.  This is the dilemma that we are faced with.  How secret should we allow ourselves to be when it concerns to government information?  

Psychiatrist Kerry Sulkowicz discusses that the will to do "something good" is a driving factor in those who leak documents. 

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/08/02/wikileaks-and-the-psychology-of-leaking/


"WikiLeaks controversy sparks cyber war"

http://nazret.com/blog/index.php/2010/12/08/wikileaks-controversy-sparks-cyber-war


Julian Assange's arrest is based on sexual charges but it is misleading to the public.  Writer Jamal Elabiad compares this reasoning of arrest to in 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq because it was believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and it turned out that Iraq did not have WMDs.  In other words the rape charges on Assange may or may not be true but they are used as a scapegoat to cover up for the government's own reasoning of arresting Assange.

http://www.talkmorocco.net/articles/2010/12/the-real-reasons-behind-the-arrest-of-wikileaks-founder/


Congressman Ron Paul believes that "what we need is more WikiLeaks about the Federal Reserve".   Paul goes on to say that the public would be outraged to see what the U.S. Federal Reserve is doing with the money.  He also states "In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth.  In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/ron-paul-what-wikileaks/

Wikileaks is an international non-profit organization that publishes secret , classified media from anonymous sources. This site was created by journalists , mathematicians and start up company technologists from all over the world. The site began as a dialogue between activists who wanted to allievaite suffering. Since 2007 it posted thousands of documents with the intention of getting information to the public domain.

Society has looked upon Wikileaks with both a positive and negative reactions. Some fear Wikileaks is endangering the lives of Amercians diplomats and soldiers. They also feel it puts extra pressure for foreign diplomats and professionals coming to the US at risk. Former intelligence analyst Bob Ayers belives that the information posted on the site might not be a direct threat but it has the power to be a threat to combatants fighting in the area. Wiklileaks founder says his organization has a "Harm-minimization process to identify , redict , or withhold anything that might hurt a source or anyone involved."

"The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of perversely causing the information to be publicized more widely and to a greater extent than would have occurred if no contrary action had been attempted."

-Wikipedia.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

1) Why are we so fascinated by the concept of secrets? According to the New Zealand Herald, the Barbra Streisand effect is keeping Wikileaks online. Various times, when the site was attempted to be shut down, "mirror image" sites popped up. In other words, several more sites with the same information popped up to replace Wikileaks whenever it was taken offline, duplicating instead of destroying the information. The mirror sites are "a replica of the contents of the original site, ensuring that the thousands of US diplomatic cables WikiLeaks has been leaking since last Sunday remain available for inspection." ("How the Barbra Streisand Effect keeps WikiLeaks online." The New Zealand Herald. Dec. 2010. LexisNexis. Jan. 2011)

Why does forbidden material become what people are most interested in? In the Greek myth, Pandora was forbidden to open the box. However, her curiosity got the better of her. (When she opened the box, she wound up releasing evil and sin into the world. ["Pandora." TheOI.com. Jan. 2011. <http://www.theoi.com/Heroine/Pandora.html>] This story demonstrates the stress society places on KEEPING SECRETS HIDDEN, while simultaneously demonstrating the human tendency to WANT to EXPOSE secrets). Why do we experience the Streisand effect?

Maybe it is resisting the feeling of repression, as the New Zealand Herald also says: "the strong libertarian sensibility shared by large parts of the online community means that any hint of censorship provokes an instant riposte designed to produce the opposite effect" ("How the Barbra Streisand Effect keeps Wikileaks online." The New Zealand Herald. Dec. 2010. LexisNexis. Jan. 2011). In other words, perhaps this phenomenon arises as a strong, sudden defense thrown up against the feeling of censorship, repression, control, or being trapped. Perhaps it is a survival instinct. Whatever the reason, the phenomenon is very real.

The APS Observer details experiments in which, "[w]hen a subject was released from suppression and told to express a hidden thought, it poured out with greater frequency than if it had been mentionable from the start." Also, "People will tend to misread the return of unwanted thoughts," Wegner said recently. "We don't realize that in keeping it secret we've created an obsession in a jar." Daniel Wegner claims that, when we catch ourselves repressing a thought, we assume that this thought must be valid. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by relationships. We've all had that friend who made fun of us for hanging out with a member of the opposite sex. "Rachyl and fill-in-the-blank, sitting in a tree... you guys are in loooove!" Even if there is no such mutual attraction, the feeling that we have to prove others wrong can sometimes convince us that we actually feel a more-than-friends attraction to our friend. Then everything is messed up. Wegner says, "We can end up...interested in things that aren't at all important, because we had to keep them quiet" Therefore, perhaps another reason that people tend to want to expose secrets is that "the logical opposite of an unhealthy obsession based on secrets is a healthy result from disclosing such secrets." Releasing secrets can be psychologically liberating. The article shows "evidence that divulging a secret, which can mean anything from telling someone to writing it on a piece of paper that is later burned, is correlated with tangible health improvements, both physical and mental."

(Jaffe, Eric. "The Science Behind Secrets.APS Observer. July 2006. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2015) Important note: "Secrets that could be considered "non-personal," for example, information concealed as part of a job, were not specifically addressed."

The question is, however, how much of this is coming into play in regard to the public reaction to Wikileaks. When the government tries to shut down Wikileaks, why does the public recreate the site multiple times over? How much is due to the psychological aspect, and how much is due to other factors - such as the actual importance of releasing this information to the public? (To be explored later.)

2) I discussed the question of why the public wants to expose secrets; but I also wonder why those in charge wanted to hide the secrets in the first place. Most people fear having their secrets exposed. It is a common fear. Is this because we worry what people will think of us when they know the truth? Is it because we don't want to admit the truth to ourselves? Is it a combination of both?

Republicans such as Sarah Palin and George Bush often preach the importance of keeping certain information from being leaked to the public ("Right Wing Reaction To Wikileaks - Cenk Attack on MSNBC." Youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhD0pgs44JI). Many of the general public also believe that leaking the government's confidential information is dangerous. ("Nov. 30th, 2010 Timescast." Vimeo.com http://vimeo.com/17339983). However, many others argue for leaks. For example, in a Times Newscast from 2010, Bill Keller claims that when lives aren't put at risk, the government may disapprove of the leaked information but not enough to put a stop to it. ("Nov. 30th, 2010 Timescast." Vimeo.com http://vimeo.com/17339983). Plus, there is a large population of the public who believe that information should be out there for the public to know the truth. There are definitely opinions on both sides. "The White House has called Assange's release of the diplomatic cables "reckless and dangerous" while sources in the Kremlin linked to President Dmitry Medvedev suggested that he "could be awarded a Nobel prize." ("Julian Assange." Wikipedia.com. Jan 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange). How important is it that the government keeps certain secrets?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau invented the literary medium of the "confession," in which one honestly confesses every part of his own life in order to tell a story. Several autobiographical novels or memoirs follow such a pattern. Plus, this phenomenon exists on a general level as well. People constantly confess their feelings in facebook statuses. If one searches "confessions" on youtube or google, it is obvious that confessing one's secrets is a common phenomenon. People talk about the importance of confessions ("The Secret EXposed" Youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5v-DymTs3M). People confess in songs, internet video, novels, etc. Postsecret.com, secrettalk.com, and other such sites also show that sometimes it can feel liberating to let go of secrets. Confessions are happening all over the place.

So, if confessing seems to be a rather popular notion, then how come most of the time, we feel that we have to keep these secrets instead of confessing them? What makes us want to keep our secrets... What makes the authorities try to shut down Wikileaks?

What would it REALLY hurt if people knew the truth? The public? The politicians? The country? Anyone? No one?

In The Secret EXposed, the creator of the video says, "The key point is that I fear [for] survival, and the mind is just this extreme form that allows me not only to analyze everything around me but to make judgments about it" ("The Secret EXposed Youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5v-DymTs3M). Why do we feel like keeping secrets from ourselves and others will keep us safe? Is it because it causes us to withhold judgement? Do we fear that JUDGEMENT might cause people to alienate us? Long ago, people had to make a positive impression on their group or family. If they were alienated, they would die. How does this instinct for survival carry over into our minds today? Does this instinct interfere with the truth?

Does it ACTUALLY decrease our safety to expose our secrets? Are there multiple answers to this question? As James Pennebaker said, "Most people in psychology have been trained to think of a single, parsimonious explanation for an event," ...Well, welcome to the real world. There are multiple levels of explanation here." (Jaffe, Eric. "The Science Behind Secrets.APS Observer. July 2006.)

In the end, the questions are: why does the public feel the urge for secrets to be exposed? How appropriate is it that those in charge want to keep certain information secret or classified? And which opinion is correct?

3) Now, to explore the earlier question, "how much of the public's wish to expose secrets arises from actual necessity, and how much from psychological motives?" Drew Broach says, "Sure, George W. Bush might have tipped his enemy to his intentions had he shared with the public the information that led him to wage war in Iraq. But just as surely the public would have been able to form intelligent opinions about whether war was the right course and worth the expense of thousands of lives and billions of dollars." http://blog.nola.com/editorials/2009/05/why_government_shouldnt_keep_s.html This displays the duplicity of the Wikileaks controversy. Which is more important - that we protect the US from Iraqi spies, or that we allow the US access to real information about current politics? Which will benefit us more?

In my personal opinion, I believe that the true access to government information will benefit us more.

a) If the government is open to the public, however difficult, we will gain some abstract qualities. We will TRUST the government more or less, depending on which is accurate. If we pass a NEGATIVE JUDGEMENT on the TRUTH of a situation, the situation can be changed because we are a democratic society. I feel that politicians are paranoid about exposing the truth. Yes, there is often controversy when a shocking detail about the truth is revealed to the public. They might even be thrown out of office. However, if someone would get thrown out of office when they knew the truth, they SHOULD STILL BE THROWN OUT OF OFFICE. We are so obsessed with keeping secrets because we KNOW that, even though no one else might know, the secret still is (or may still be) the TRUTH. On the other hand, if our government is doing a perfect job of managing everything, why should we not know this either? We, the people, should have the power to effect change. In order to know what needs to be changed, we need to know the truth.

b) If the government is open to the public, the public will be more educated. We will become more beneficially involved in criticism, reform, and positive critiques of the government. The more people we have involved in strengthening our government, the better we will stand as a nation.

c) If the government doesn't try to keep secrets, the psychological effects would be different than we might imagine. Normally, when people expose secrets, they feel better; and in the end, the people who discover the truth feel better. It will take a long time, and it may be gnarly and difficult, and we might even have some huge conflicts between the government and the two sides of people in our country. But why should that stop us? Difficult progress is better than ignoring the truth and remaining static. In the end, people who know the truth are ENLIGHTENED. An enlightened country is a better country.