<$BlogRSDUrl$>

3/27/2004

The Men who say Ni…I mean Yes. 

As cited in the Cultural Resistance Reader, "electronic methods of protest are becoming more and more important". From fax jamming to phone zapping to subversive website imitations, activists are getting over their supposed collective technophobia and using new technologies for ‘electronic civil disobedience’. Ricardo Dominguez, co-founder of the Electronic Disturbance Theater, has helped to create a space for "direct non-violent use of the Internet, pushing it away from the paradigm of just communication and documentation".

The Yes-Men (aka Andy and Mike) have similarly chosen such a venue for their own, unique version of electronic activism: Identity Theft Redux. While identity theft commonly refers to the borrowing of an identity in order to falsely misrepresent a given person, the Yes-Men impersonate others in order to expose the true, deceptive nature of those who they pretend to be. And not just one person at a time, either, but entire organizations.

How do they accomplish this, you ask? Well, they create almost identical web pages for the official sites of the evildoers they are hoping to target, but the content of their site reveals the subjects dark side, which the real website conveniently omits. (See gatt.org instead of the actual World Trade Organizaztion site wto.org, georgewbush.org instead of Dubya’s official georgewbush.com)
Granwyth

At first glance the Yes-Men versions of the sites appear to be authentic, some more so than others. So authentic, in the case of their GATT site, that they have sometimes been contacted and invited to speak at lectures around the world as representatives for the WTO. And, being the Yes-Men, how could they say no?

But what they have found time and again at these lectures is that people rarely respond to the outrageous speeches they present. Hoping to get people riled up at the notion that cheap, child labour is the natural successor to slavery and hence the key to successful trade? Think again.

Yes
From the Yes-Men site FAQ page:
-"Why are you called the Yes Men?"
-"You know how a funhouse mirror exaggerates your most hideous features? We do that kind of exaggeration operation, but with ideas. We agree with people—turning up the volume on their ideas as we talk, until they can see their ideas distorted in our funhouse mirror. Or that's what we try to do, anyhow—but as it turns out, the image always seems to look normal to them."

Strange times indeed.


*Look for a new film by Chris Smith and Sarah Price (American Movie) documenting the many adventures of Andy and Mike, aptly titled The Yes-Men. Coming soon to a theater near you.



3/15/2004

Objective Journalism vs. Journalistic Activism 

According to Journalism.org, a journalist’s first obligation is to the truth. Readers want to believe that they can trust their news sources and so a good journalist must aim to be as balanced and honest as possible. Readers must be aware, however, that pure objectivity and absolute journalistic truth are near impossibilities. Sure, every one can agree that 200 people were killed in Madrid’s bombings last week, but when it comes down to the more interesting questions like why this has happened and what it implies for the future, there are a myriad of likely responses, all of which are at least somewhat subjective.

If a photo in all its simplicity can never be objective, then how can we expect a much more complex person with inevitable opinions and subjective ideas to be so? Especially when the papers or stations who employ them are either owned or sponsored by corporations with very specific interests in mind. If our postmodern society has really rejected the notion of an absolute truth and replaced it with a diverse and pragmatic perspective, then why should the news be considered exempt from the rule? It is time we stop viewing journalism as a vessel through which the all-mighty Truth may pass and begin questioning the sources and foundations of our knowledge.

If you follow the advice of Paul Shore, Canadian representative for the Guerrilla News Network (GNN), the best way to get accurate and unbiased world news is to read from as many sources as possible and to think critically about the information they present. Cross checking facts is always a good way to see if you’re being duped. But with so many news sites available to us through the Internet, how can readers assess the reliability of any given source?

As Shore himself admits, the GNN is not free of its own biases. It has a distinct, leftist slant in order to counter balance the biases of mainstream news. Now, to me, this is completely acceptable because I happen to agree with the majority of their ideas. But what differentiates ‘slanted news’(one way or the other) from propaganda? Is it just because the GNN’s values are, for the most part, in sync with my own that I consider them a reliable source? If so, is that really any better than someone with more right-ist tendencies who considers Fox and NBC to be accurate sources?

Wendy M. Grossman’s article Guerrilla Journalism raises similar questions: "if we call one journalism and not the other, aren't we saying that it is journalism as long as we agree with the purpose?"

To a certain extent, yes, and that may be problematic. However, one important difference remains which this statement does not address. A site which practices a certain 'Activist Journalism' like the GNN seems more open with its bias or slant, if you will, and therefore more open to critical thinking as opposed to most mainstream sources which make no apparent distinction between their news and the "truth" and are thus more deceiving towards their audience.


3/08/2004

Fensler Film 

This is just a link to a series of fun cartoons by some creative genius at Fensler Film. By reworking the audio track, he turned cheesy G.I. Joe public service announcements into hilarious short videos. This is what fair use is all about, or should be all about at any rate. Enjoy!

I tend to agree with Stephen E. Weil, author of 'Fair Use and the Visual Arts: Please leave some room for Robin Hood', on the necessity for a certain amount of copyright leway when it comes to art. He quotes federal judge Pierre N. Leval as saying that copyright's initial purpose "was to be an incentive that would stimulate progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public".

As the fair use law now stands, an artist can use copyrighted material if the work they are creating is a parody of the original, but who is to determine what can be considered parody and what falls just beyond?

If in fact copyright is meant to stimulate creativity, artists should not be restricted on the sampling of other art works or pop culture references in their own work. Perhaps they should just be obliged to cite the original authors/artists and leave it at that. See the Creative Commons initiative as a step in the right direction.



3/04/2004

Free Flow 

As a modest music downloader, all this talk of intellectual property and copyright has started me thinking. Can I realistically consider myself an ethical music fan when a significant portion of the music I listen to is "stolen" off the internet? Or is the whole guilt-trip attached to music downloading a mere result of the 'Big Five' record companies' attempt to hold on to their billions in profits?

According to the Recording Industry Association of America ( RIAA ), CD sales in the US only brought in 11.2 Billion dollars in 2003, that's approximately 2 Billion less than in 2000. That's a shame. Really. How are those poor studio executives going to get by?

Of course, it's not really that simple. When CD sales suffer, the artists suffer too. You need only look at the RIAA’s artist testimonials to know that:
Napster is "robbing me blind," says the lead singer for Creed.
"Artists, like anyone else, should be paid for their work," says Lou Reed.
Indeed they should.

The conclusion we’re supposed to draw from these quotes is that systems of digital distribution that don’t compensate artists for their work are unethical. But just how ethical are the record companies who are profiting off the creative work of their signed artists? According to Money for Nothing, a documentary examining the ugly nature of the pop music industry, successful artists are often bankrupted and manipulated into paying the bill for their own promotion while their record company reaps the benefits.

The real problem that the ‘Big five’ have with digital distribution is not that their artists are being ripped off but rather that the new media ethos perpertrated by Napster and friends is one which calls "into question the basic logics of capital"(Thomas), undermining ideas of intellectual property and ownership of information. This is a scary thought for an industry whose profits are based on those very notions.

So by claiming that Internet music theft alone is responsible for their drop in CD sales (of course it couldn't have anything to do with the struggling American economy or a rise in CD prices), record companies are hoping to gain the same control of the on-line market that they already enjoy off-line.

Their motives seem so transparent, and yet somehow they're still getting away with it. And what are we doing about it? ...


Sources:
Thomas, Douglas. "Innovation, Pircay and the Ethos of New Media". The New Media Book. British Film Institute, London, 2002, p 82.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com