Enter: the digital age.

"Mommy, what's happening in the world today?"

It has obliterated the formerly-pertinent barriers of time, distance and speed. The news of pop superstar Michael Jackson’s passing, for instance, was so quickly disseminated, that a crowd gathered outside the UCLA Medical Center (where he was admitted earlier) within minutes. It is a good indication of how information transmission has evolved into a form so rapidly fluid, that halfway across the globe, we seem to get these updates instantaneously. Well, not quite – since the bytes and kilobytes of information still need nanoseconds to travel through this cyberspace; but it could still be described, with sufficient accuracy, that these packets of information are received almost instantly.

Entertainment website TMZ.com’s news manager Mike Walters described how “1,000 comments (were generated on our story) within minutes. That’s how fast people could write in.” CBS News reported that Google “shut down” for a period of time due to the sudden wave of search activity, perceived as a viral attack (Sieberg, 2009). On the mobile telecommunications front, AT&T  recorded a 60 percent spike in cell phone texts - almost 65,000 per second.

Should it come as a surprise then, with the onslaught of digital media that traditional methods of communication have become obsolete? I guess I could still spread the newspaper over my lap while I enjoy my breakfast of fried egg and noodles, but I’m all dosed up on AsiaOne, and my hands are already occupied texting my friends over the latest gossip-worthy tabloid.

We all know about going “virtual”. Businesses have moved from mere occupation of physical space to setting up shop on the Internet. From the cds, dvds, books to ordering Dean & Deluca gift baskets, the cyberspace has become second nature to many online shoppers, and converts are being made even as we speak (of it). But companies are increasingly tapping on this global phenomenon to boost sales and generate much talk over their products; just from picking the right channels, a wider target audience is captured.

Thousands of teenagers are also Allowance-No-More

Take Threadless, for instance. It just had it’s Summer Heatwave Sale!, one of several over the year. Decorating the calendar with seasonal clearance sales that include Easter and Christmas, this innovative brand recently went on Twitter, sending out tweets to update loyal followers/fans/shopperholics or anyone with remaining credit balance on their visa or mastercards. I think one of the most unusual characteristics of this corporation is that it established its online fame before opening its first physical store in September 2007, 7 years after its virtual inception!

What made it so popular though, was the fact that they appealed and catered to a very young and hip market. Selling its shirts online, using widely-recognised and used social networks such as Twitter and Facebook are barely the main reasons for its popularity. Its young, fashion-savvy consumers are billboards themselves; the tees that they purchase and wear so proudly is a common topic for watercooler sessions. Well done, Threadless!

So what do you say, is it Power to the People? Or is it now Power to the Medium-in-disguise?

the happy family with barbara w.

But Beatie has just given birth to his second child the past week. Shortly before that, he was interviewed by veteran journalist and media personality Barbara Walters, and explained that he wasn’t ”trying to change (people’s) minds, just asking (them) to open them”.

Beatie evidently belongs to a group of people that sees this as the norm; it is socially acceptable for couples such as themselves to be proud, rightful parents of a child. And why not? If a partner of a ‘heterosexual couple’ is sterile or physically unable to engage in sexual reproduction (e.g. if one is HIV-positive), they would enlist the services of a sperm bank or even carry out the artificial insemination manually.

So what makes Beatie and his family any different?

That his biological gender was originally female? But couldn’t one’s gender be seen as a mentality? Or maybe it’s unacceptable because it impinges religious and moral values? Then again, not all the denominations of a religion share the same views; there are gay-friendly Christian churches all over the world.

Perhaps it’s the culture we come from, then. Beatie’s ’camp’ suscribes to a different viewpoint simply because they have been exposed to a dissimilar environment. They belong to the queer world where sometimes, married men (some of them with kids) dress up in drag at night, and members of their community regularly fight for civil rights. These subcultures view some of our issues as non-issues, and vice versa, because of the way we all identify ourselves by – our culture. If we had been taught to regard it as the norm, or lived in a society that consists of individuals and families like the Beaties, we would follow a different ethos altogether.

A similar case arose in Spain - but in this case, Ruben Noe Coronado miscarried his twins. Like Beatie, Coronado has retained his female reproductive organs.

And he has planned to keep his lady parts until he is successful.

-Insert sentiment/judgment here-

Obama-supporting convictee.

         So the verdict is out - Harvey Phillip Spector has finally been convicted for the murder of Lana Clarkson. An interview with Rachelle (Short) Spector apprently sought to reveal the falsities of the Short-Spector story as told by sceptics and the public in general - from courtship to matrimony, and the prosecution leading up to conviction. The article included Short’s perspective on the assumptions made regarding her relationship with the legendary music producer; ultimately, it was a valiant attempt to challenge the media and their receivers to break the stereotypes - automatic pre-conceptions of how relationships are formed, or the basis for their formations.

Media Rep #1: “In a nutshell, to sell you a juicy storyline, we will manipulate you - you readers/viewers out there – through what you subconsciously suspect or believe.”

Media Rep #2: “That is absolutely correct. We won’t even have to work very hard, because all those pre-conceived notions are already in place – that’s right – connections can only be created if there is mutual physical attraction.. and individuals work on a barter system – which means we communicate in language of commodities..”

Media Rep #3: “So where were we? Yes – Rachelle Short? (because she’ll be re-adopting her own surname when the old man croaks his last, which should come soon anyway now that he’s finally behind bars) Ok, she’ll be your average, garden-variety, gold-digging girl. And Spector? Sure, he knows she’s pretty and young. That equates to ‘prize wife’, won’t it? Oh, and we’ll add the scandalous titbit in, that the entire thing’s a business arrangement. Ok, I’m sending this to the printroom now.”

It is disputable that critics, too, are oft-perpertrators of such hackneyed, defamatory plays/ploys, but we should never forget that if they weren’t so readily distributed by the mass media (Entertainment Tonight and Star Magazine, to name a couple of well-received sources), and affirmed by the masses, they would find it significantly much harder to get heard.

I feel the mass media frequently create their own spin on “news stories”; especially when it involves members of the entertainment industry, they play on clichéd stereotypes that physical appearances has a big impact on the formation and development of relationships (whether it is true for the Short-Spector union is irrelevant here), or how a lack of shared similarities could possibly result in coupling . You can almost feel the collective eye-rolling and sighing from the agents, managers, damage-controllers and any communications-sensitive bystander and critic alike.

So how much of it is true? Or reported in an accurate, objective manner, as is examplarily journalistic?

In this darkly humorous short film, Canning ensures that the non-verbal cues of the featured characters are congruent with the narration of the plot, so that there would be minimal, if any at all, chance for inaccurate decoding of messages or misinterpretation of intent. Additionally, the simultaneous use of several of these (non verbal codes) as well as the seamless flow from one to the other only serves to magnify the effect of these messages.

Disturbia

Facial displays are among the most used tools in this well-directed film – the main character is an excellent externalizer, as he takes us into the world where he is the sole protagonist; he gradually loses the ability to use his fingers, and aside from the incredible hilarity that these expressions add to the situations, the portrayal of his emotions heightens the audience’s sympathy towards him. 

Personal space. And pre-finger flip.

In his orchestration, Canning also manipulates the factor of spatiality: personal space, to be specific. There are different scenarios where the lead protagonist is closer in physical proximity to the minor characters. For instance, he rises from a seated position when he is annoyed by his student’s performance, to a slight distance away, effectively complementing his emotional state. Or when in a display of hostility, there is a distance between the landlord and himself, or a radius of public space. (also, see: Canning’s prudence in arranging for a complementary hand/finger gesture along with this public distance)

Perhaps as a play to the audience’s pre-existing social norms or stereotypes, there was a conceptual reference to the importance of physical appearance; as the main character gradually becomes more destitute, his dress follows suit -descending into sartorial forlornness.

Destitutia

This unkempt, unshaven image conjures feelings of disgust (as channelled by the minor characters), and empathy (from the audience). Ultimately, Canning evokes intense emotions of sympathy from the audience – merely from her scripting of the supporting cast’s non verbal expressions.

As this short gets appraised by critics and fans around the world, do we pause to consider the influence Canning exerts over her audience? She is, herself, a superb externalizer. Is her ability in creating a humorous yet accurate reflection of the human condition matched only by her adeptness at subtle, societal critique? This might not be the case now, but in the near future would we have to guard ourselves against film-makers and other “media dabblers”? Against human emotions that have become so predictable and conspicuous that they can be easily used against us?

This might be cause for concern, seeing how we live in a society that is ever-increasingly conscious of the importance of political correctness, and we feel the need to express ourselves clearly. It gets tiresome though; the constant vigilance in our words, and contention with the occasional paranoia that another person might be taking our verbal output out of context, both wear us down.

Should this be encouraged, though? Where we are “hoodwinked” into having particular notions only to discover that it was untrue? Where we start being overly cautious and even paranoid that we are “reading the messages” incorrectly? Comic relief aside, is there a reason why creative/advertising companies are licensed to display and perpetuate such examples of deliberate communicational bypassing? This could very well lead to an increased and unbridled employment of this linguistic deviance.

Or result in a supremely creative generation with a healthy indulgence in the subculture of double-entendres.

Following this, newly-installed Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster spoke on the issue, and described the implicated clergymen as ’courageous’. Thus, there are 2 differing views on the matter; on one side we have natural revulsion from the public at the fact that children had been submitted to all sorts of abuse (including rape), and on the other, the taking of a pseudo-defensive stance by a representative of the Church, that the perpetrators be commended for their bravery in coming out.

It could be debated that the contrasting perceptions are simply so - there is no ’incorrect perception’ and both views could be justified. But clearly in this case, the lasting damages to the victims of abuse are far more prevalent and undeniable. These children were entrusted to institutions sworn by faith to guard and safekeep them, and breaking this vow only serves as an exacerbation of the problem.

If there was a fatal error here, it would be the flawed delivery of the Archbishop’s message. By phrasing it in a way that protected the modesty and reputation of the Church and its religious, Nichols retained his role as a loyal steward, but it would not appease the masses. Perhaps it could have been done differently: a more overt admission of the crime, or the immediate issuing of an apology and review of the message. Ironically, Nichols is known for his good communication skills.

A writer, Mary Kenny, has also published her thoughts on the issue of abuse by priests. Regardless of how ridiculous it may seem, there is a stubborn persistence to hold on to an initial impression of an individual. And so one would defend this view accordingly, with much zeal.

It is apt, then,  in the local community’s current furor over homosexuality, that I chanced upon an article on the treatment of similar-sex couples by hospitals in the United States.

read it here.

In a nutshell, it raised the issue of gay couples being denied the rights(to visit and call decisions, etc.) in a medical emergency that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy:  just on account of their homosexuality. There is a disparity across the states in gay marriage- or civil union-recognition; and even so, as illustrated, discrimination based on sexual preference does exist. Recognition that gives the rights every straight breeder has taken for granted - authorizing medical procedures and immediate visitation.

Gay domestic partners would be so privileged to access these without the need to brandish evidence of their marriage registration.

[note: Same-sex marriage is currently legalised in four states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachussetts and Iowa), with Vermont recognising civil unions. If that isn't muddling enough, the State of New York recognises gay marriage but doesn't perform it.]

The use of classical, persuasive rhetoric runs freely throughout the article, with Parker-Pope identifying the flaws of having to carry legal proof of matrimony wherever one went.

That is, assuming one was gay.

The pathos is subtle yet pervasive: of the three examples of bias perpetrated by hospitals, two involve fatality/near-death. Parker-Pope was careful to include delicate insight in the Washingtonian case, which was that the deceased partner’s adopted children were unable to see her for the last time as a result of the “problem(of unfair treatment)”.

Furthermore, references in the writer’s blogpost include The Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association in an effort to employ ethos. These groups have orchestrated numerous projects that educate the general public as well as outreach programs for the LGBTQ community, and the May 2009 Healthcare Equality Index is just the latest in such efforts. These were probably mentioned to provide a sense of credibility to the article, and an attempt to keep to a level of journalistic objectivity.

Parker-Pope adopted a tone that was fair and logical, especially when she gently explains how sometimes healthcare professionals fail to carry out patient protection measures. General absolutes were strictly avoided, to better aid in the delivery and acceptance of her viewpoints.

It’s no longer a mere issue of whether same-sex couples are treated fairly, or how to go about really putting the purported policies in place, or even if these policies could be revised to expedite admininstrative hospital matters. Does a homosexual life partner really have to prove his/her relations to the patient in the form of physical documentation? Or resort to assuming the faux identity of a “sibling” just to be allowed into a patient’s room? Imagine the added distress of having to procure a marriage certificate outside an emergency room (making prior arrangements to have a friend send it via fascimile, no less). Is gay marriage really recognised (in the US) if only a handful of states have acknowledged it?

I know more than a few straight couples who truly appreciate their legal marriage rights, but for those that do not and remain silent, impassive observers in the war against the Gay Agenda , perhaps it is time to take note of the privileges that have been taken for granted, and give voice to a side.