Academic Proliferation
The following serves as a list of my projected academic accomplishments this semester. while they may only be important to you since you read (seemingly) pointless live-journal posts, these are all of the things that should be occupying my time instead of my similar addiction.
10 pages- Media Law and Ethics final paper.
For this paper I am writing on Jonathan Randal, a former reporter for the Washington Post, who refused to testify at the International Criminal Courts in the trial against Radoslav Brdjanin, a player in ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Randal had written a story (including an interview with Brdjanin) in 1993 that prosecutors said goes "directly to the heart" of their case. Randal refused, they subpoenaed him, Randal appealed and eventually won the right to refuse testimony. My paper will discuss the legal and ethical implications of forcing journalists to testify in court.
At first, I picked this topic because I did not have any topics that really interested me, and I thought that this would be easy to organize around one case. Turns out, this topic is very important in developing journalism. Think of the implications of always being able to force journalists to testify. Even if a reporter wanted to assure people involved in "crimes against humanity" that they would not incriminate them in court, the reporter could not give a guarantee because they can be forced to give testimony. So why would anyone involved in possibly questionable behavior ever talk to a reporter? or not just kill the reporter? But it is part of a journalists job to expose what is happening in the world and tell the story. Journalists need to expose these crimes and put them in a human context to prevent the further raping of humanity.
Some people argue that the first responsibility of a journalist should be as a citizen. And it is a citizen's responsibility to cooperate with courts, so reporters should not be allowed to "perch loftily above the due process of law".
Before I had done any research on the topic, I assumed that this was a case where an annoying little american journalist simply did not want to testify. Where was the real controversy? Jacky Rowland, a journalist from the BBC, had been the first journalist to testify at The Hague when she went on the stand against Slobodon Milosevic. So there are journalists out there willing to testify. And once material is published, it can be used in courts and journalists can sign affidavits that all the information contained in articles is true. So why does it matter if Randal didn't want to testify? An argument could be made that Jonathan Randal was helping the defense in not testifying, but the defense also expressed a great desire gain information from Randal in cross examination.
SO-- Does the absence of a journalist's testimony cripple the fight against perpetrators? I think it may cripple the fight against initially exposing the perpetrators more. Journalists should have a certain privilege above the average citizen or they may not be able fill an objective of their profession- informing the public. For a loose analogy, a cook cannot make a meal for his guests if he is not given ingredients. If a cook is held to the standards (tools) of a guest, the meal would taste like total shit.
There is a slew of other little points of interest. like the multitude of criminals against humanity who are not even being prosecuted.
Enough of this rant. I may as well be writing this silly paper. But, while i will not use your opinions in my paper, i still care about them. What do you think? Do you see why this is a controversial topic? Should journalists testify? ARE YOU STILL READING?
5 pages- History of Graphic Design Paper
In this paper, I am writing about the influence war has had on the developments of graphic design. The importance of using visual manipulation as a new weapon. Talking about British and American design in WWI versus that of the Central Powers. And it turns out (not all that surprisingly) Hitler revolutionized war propaganda. He used the effective methods from all forms of visual persuasion, paired himself with Hohlwein (an amazing designer whose reputation has been soured by involvement with the Nazis), and created an insanely accurate way to appeal to his audience. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that propaganda "should be popular and should adapt its intellectual level to the receptive ability of the least intellectual" citizens. By using this logic, he manipulated a symbol humans have used since prehistory into the powerful mark of his new reign (the swastika, of course). Interesting note- Carl Jung described the swastika as an archetypal image in man's collective unconscious- something our brian has an affinity toward. Unlike the rest of Germany, Dr. Krohn (the designer of the german swastika) acknowledged the ancient Buddhist use of the symbol, and argued that the Nazi Swastika should point "anti-clock-wise" because to Buddhists this signifies "fortune and well-being". Hitler demanded that the Nazi Swastika point "clock-wise", which to Buddhists signifies "cessation" or "away from God".
But anyway, I digress, the nazi propaganda part intrigues me the most. The ultimate place im going here, is how the graphic representations that come out of war time are contingent on the audience and purpose. So, most symbols were eventually boiled down to flat, simple designs. the swastika, the peace symbol, the uncle sam "I want you". The messages that governments produce need to me clear and simple, or unfortunately, they will go over the target market's head. It would be a silly endeavor for a government to attempt to instill any sort of moral message because it does not help any of their motives. Most graphic designs for wartime come from a few simple objectives: Contribute to the war effort, Deal with shortages due to war/ conserve, Honor soldiers, create cult around national leaders or symbolic figures or ridicule/disparage leaders of enemy forces. This leaves little room for any complicated reasonable messages in lieu of strong emotional appeal. In the end, Im going to bring in visual messages used in the war in Iraq. Obviously, the current administration has used a culmination of designs that worked it the past (like hitler!) Even before we invaded Iraq, the government was dropping propaganda throughout the country. These crude visual designs sent messages along the lines of "get your arms out or we will". In my research, i have yet to find any graphic design work coming from Iraq, so america has assumed both sides of war propaganda. This may be a loose connection, given that this skirmish should hardly be called a war since it seems more of a massive attack and subsequent pervading influence. The Iraqi's have obviously not taken well to our attempted take over of their affairs- even with the pro-US messages printed in insulting, crude representations of how we view their visual culture (i can just see these 'office of war information' type graphic designers sitting around thinking about how Iraqis will pay attention. They either assumed Iraqi people have no graphic taste, or set designs back 50 years and called it a day. Or perhaps the U.S. imitations of Iraqi graphics is brilliantly post-modern! earn that paycheck, fuckwads). Likewise, the graphics the administration has put to its own people have had little affect on how citizens' view its their own country and war (perhaps of any war). This could be because of the overwhelming counter graphic's that actually attempt to evoke a more reasonable response. Yet, do not discount all anti-war graphic arts as methods that do not follow effective propaganda techniques. "no blood for oil" carries the same sort of simplistic, message as "We want you". Propaganda inherently appeals to the sort of mass mentality that causes crowds of people in boston to chant "yankees suck". And often, these simple messages that leaders drill into the hollow lemming heads do not base themselves in any semblance of reason. The Yankees suck what? Hitler knew that repeating effective, simple messages to people would offer them a much easier, clearer alternative to actually thinking. Messages like "the enemy is Russia and Communists. The internal enemies is the Jews." And anyone with conscious thinking ability knows that war often thrives on the absence of education. It would take the most educated, socially conscious group of people to attain and maintain a peaceful society. And even then it may not be possible. Yet, visual campaigns for peace suffer from the same afflictions as war campaigns. Protesters often blindly chant catchy phrases with no knowledge of what they are actually saying.
People need simple things to identify with for any sort of collective idea to come forth. So propaganda evolved into simple, iconic messages appealing to emotions. Less thinking and more emotion leads to more action and blind support for a war. After all, it doesn't matter if the audience actually thinks about issues pertaining to the war, as long as they are an easy sell to help.
I have greatly digressed this time. I may not be able to use a bulk of those ideas in my paper, as i have to keep it applicable to visual messages. But nice little social commentary rant anyway. If nothing else, i plan on explaining the design of the swastika and the design of the peace sign as pinnacles of visual war communication. Bah. i could talk about a lot. Or i could use lots of this (after extraction of gracefully placed "fuckwads")
So yes. If anyone actually read all this, what do you think? Visual raping of humanity? Further examples of the commercial and war advantages in evolving out of conscious thought? ARE WE ALL GOING MAD?!?
8 pages- Aspergers syndrome.
I am also writing four (4) articles on asperger's syndrome. What it is. How it has come to be known. noah britton: the face of aspergers'. commentary and world reactions.
there goes my lovely attempts to marry live-journal and homework. please let me know if you have any thoughts on those things I wrote (/will be writing) on. i am probably more interested in these things since i am studying them, but although biased, I believe these are engaging topics worthy of conversation. so let us converse!
I will also be gang-raped by 2 history of graphic design tests followed by a brutally bloody gutting when the massive cock of a media law and ethics test gorges my tiny, unprepared cooter and comes out my belly-button (dangling my liver directly in front of my eyes, so i can blame the proper villian)
(for any person and/or person who reads this in anti-social attempts to find out more about my actual life, please wait firmly on your seats edge for the next gripping installment. im currently courting the idea of making more of my entries non-private.)
10 pages- Media Law and Ethics final paper.
For this paper I am writing on Jonathan Randal, a former reporter for the Washington Post, who refused to testify at the International Criminal Courts in the trial against Radoslav Brdjanin, a player in ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Randal had written a story (including an interview with Brdjanin) in 1993 that prosecutors said goes "directly to the heart" of their case. Randal refused, they subpoenaed him, Randal appealed and eventually won the right to refuse testimony. My paper will discuss the legal and ethical implications of forcing journalists to testify in court.
At first, I picked this topic because I did not have any topics that really interested me, and I thought that this would be easy to organize around one case. Turns out, this topic is very important in developing journalism. Think of the implications of always being able to force journalists to testify. Even if a reporter wanted to assure people involved in "crimes against humanity" that they would not incriminate them in court, the reporter could not give a guarantee because they can be forced to give testimony. So why would anyone involved in possibly questionable behavior ever talk to a reporter? or not just kill the reporter? But it is part of a journalists job to expose what is happening in the world and tell the story. Journalists need to expose these crimes and put them in a human context to prevent the further raping of humanity.
Some people argue that the first responsibility of a journalist should be as a citizen. And it is a citizen's responsibility to cooperate with courts, so reporters should not be allowed to "perch loftily above the due process of law".
Before I had done any research on the topic, I assumed that this was a case where an annoying little american journalist simply did not want to testify. Where was the real controversy? Jacky Rowland, a journalist from the BBC, had been the first journalist to testify at The Hague when she went on the stand against Slobodon Milosevic. So there are journalists out there willing to testify. And once material is published, it can be used in courts and journalists can sign affidavits that all the information contained in articles is true. So why does it matter if Randal didn't want to testify? An argument could be made that Jonathan Randal was helping the defense in not testifying, but the defense also expressed a great desire gain information from Randal in cross examination.
SO-- Does the absence of a journalist's testimony cripple the fight against perpetrators? I think it may cripple the fight against initially exposing the perpetrators more. Journalists should have a certain privilege above the average citizen or they may not be able fill an objective of their profession- informing the public. For a loose analogy, a cook cannot make a meal for his guests if he is not given ingredients. If a cook is held to the standards (tools) of a guest, the meal would taste like total shit.
There is a slew of other little points of interest. like the multitude of criminals against humanity who are not even being prosecuted.
Enough of this rant. I may as well be writing this silly paper. But, while i will not use your opinions in my paper, i still care about them. What do you think? Do you see why this is a controversial topic? Should journalists testify? ARE YOU STILL READING?
5 pages- History of Graphic Design Paper
In this paper, I am writing about the influence war has had on the developments of graphic design. The importance of using visual manipulation as a new weapon. Talking about British and American design in WWI versus that of the Central Powers. And it turns out (not all that surprisingly) Hitler revolutionized war propaganda. He used the effective methods from all forms of visual persuasion, paired himself with Hohlwein (an amazing designer whose reputation has been soured by involvement with the Nazis), and created an insanely accurate way to appeal to his audience. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that propaganda "should be popular and should adapt its intellectual level to the receptive ability of the least intellectual" citizens. By using this logic, he manipulated a symbol humans have used since prehistory into the powerful mark of his new reign (the swastika, of course). Interesting note- Carl Jung described the swastika as an archetypal image in man's collective unconscious- something our brian has an affinity toward. Unlike the rest of Germany, Dr. Krohn (the designer of the german swastika) acknowledged the ancient Buddhist use of the symbol, and argued that the Nazi Swastika should point "anti-clock-wise" because to Buddhists this signifies "fortune and well-being". Hitler demanded that the Nazi Swastika point "clock-wise", which to Buddhists signifies "cessation" or "away from God".
But anyway, I digress, the nazi propaganda part intrigues me the most. The ultimate place im going here, is how the graphic representations that come out of war time are contingent on the audience and purpose. So, most symbols were eventually boiled down to flat, simple designs. the swastika, the peace symbol, the uncle sam "I want you". The messages that governments produce need to me clear and simple, or unfortunately, they will go over the target market's head. It would be a silly endeavor for a government to attempt to instill any sort of moral message because it does not help any of their motives. Most graphic designs for wartime come from a few simple objectives: Contribute to the war effort, Deal with shortages due to war/ conserve, Honor soldiers, create cult around national leaders or symbolic figures or ridicule/disparage leaders of enemy forces. This leaves little room for any complicated reasonable messages in lieu of strong emotional appeal. In the end, Im going to bring in visual messages used in the war in Iraq. Obviously, the current administration has used a culmination of designs that worked it the past (like hitler!) Even before we invaded Iraq, the government was dropping propaganda throughout the country. These crude visual designs sent messages along the lines of "get your arms out or we will". In my research, i have yet to find any graphic design work coming from Iraq, so america has assumed both sides of war propaganda. This may be a loose connection, given that this skirmish should hardly be called a war since it seems more of a massive attack and subsequent pervading influence. The Iraqi's have obviously not taken well to our attempted take over of their affairs- even with the pro-US messages printed in insulting, crude representations of how we view their visual culture (i can just see these 'office of war information' type graphic designers sitting around thinking about how Iraqis will pay attention. They either assumed Iraqi people have no graphic taste, or set designs back 50 years and called it a day. Or perhaps the U.S. imitations of Iraqi graphics is brilliantly post-modern! earn that paycheck, fuckwads). Likewise, the graphics the administration has put to its own people have had little affect on how citizens' view its their own country and war (perhaps of any war). This could be because of the overwhelming counter graphic's that actually attempt to evoke a more reasonable response. Yet, do not discount all anti-war graphic arts as methods that do not follow effective propaganda techniques. "no blood for oil" carries the same sort of simplistic, message as "We want you". Propaganda inherently appeals to the sort of mass mentality that causes crowds of people in boston to chant "yankees suck". And often, these simple messages that leaders drill into the hollow lemming heads do not base themselves in any semblance of reason. The Yankees suck what? Hitler knew that repeating effective, simple messages to people would offer them a much easier, clearer alternative to actually thinking. Messages like "the enemy is Russia and Communists. The internal enemies is the Jews." And anyone with conscious thinking ability knows that war often thrives on the absence of education. It would take the most educated, socially conscious group of people to attain and maintain a peaceful society. And even then it may not be possible. Yet, visual campaigns for peace suffer from the same afflictions as war campaigns. Protesters often blindly chant catchy phrases with no knowledge of what they are actually saying.
People need simple things to identify with for any sort of collective idea to come forth. So propaganda evolved into simple, iconic messages appealing to emotions. Less thinking and more emotion leads to more action and blind support for a war. After all, it doesn't matter if the audience actually thinks about issues pertaining to the war, as long as they are an easy sell to help.
I have greatly digressed this time. I may not be able to use a bulk of those ideas in my paper, as i have to keep it applicable to visual messages. But nice little social commentary rant anyway. If nothing else, i plan on explaining the design of the swastika and the design of the peace sign as pinnacles of visual war communication. Bah. i could talk about a lot. Or i could use lots of this (after extraction of gracefully placed "fuckwads")
So yes. If anyone actually read all this, what do you think? Visual raping of humanity? Further examples of the commercial and war advantages in evolving out of conscious thought? ARE WE ALL GOING MAD?!?
8 pages- Aspergers syndrome.
I am also writing four (4) articles on asperger's syndrome. What it is. How it has come to be known. noah britton: the face of aspergers'. commentary and world reactions.
there goes my lovely attempts to marry live-journal and homework. please let me know if you have any thoughts on those things I wrote (/will be writing) on. i am probably more interested in these things since i am studying them, but although biased, I believe these are engaging topics worthy of conversation. so let us converse!
I will also be gang-raped by 2 history of graphic design tests followed by a brutally bloody gutting when the massive cock of a media law and ethics test gorges my tiny, unprepared cooter and comes out my belly-button (dangling my liver directly in front of my eyes, so i can blame the proper villian)
(for any person and/or person who reads this in anti-social attempts to find out more about my actual life, please wait firmly on your seats edge for the next gripping installment. im currently courting the idea of making more of my entries non-private.)