Okay, Manuel Castells. I get it. You know a lot of words. Use less of them to say more.

This is from Manuel Castells' work entitled The Mobile Network Society:

"So the system of mobile communication enables the blurring, mixing, and recomposing of a variety of social practices in a variety of time/space contexts. But the blurring process is not undetermined. It is centered on the communicating individual. So it is an individually centered production of the material and social process of communication. In so doing, networks of individual interaction tend to free themselves from organizations, institutions, norms, and material constraints, on the basis of personal convenience and suitability to individual projects. As a result, there is an extraordinary strengthening of the culture of individualism (meaning the primacy of individual projects and interests over the norms of society or reference groups) [...]

      One consequence of this development is that traditional norms of courtesy have to be redefined in the new context. Since people build their own private space by simply ignoring others around them, a new m-etiquette (and its implicit norms of cultural domination) is struggling to be adopted, specifying when it is proper to isolate oneself from the social environment and when it is not, when it is acceptable to expose one’s personal life in the middle of an audience of strangers and when it is not, or when pupils can talk to or e-mail their buddies in the classroom and when they cannot."

You know how else you could have said that? Watch this.

"So, mobile communication allows blurring of when you can and should talk to others. Corollary to that fact is that this blurring is centered on the fact that individuals are making choices as to when they talk or produce content for others. So, with all of that in mind, there has been an on-going struggle to figure out when you are allowed to isolate yourself and when you need to be connected."

That's three, admittedly poorly constructed, sentences that contain his entire message!

UGH! Don't mistake my frustration at wordiness for dislike. Manuel Castells' work is actually quite thrilling and enlightening if you have any interest in the subject matter, which is best described as Media and Communication Sociology. I really enjoy the message of his work, but I wish he would write 3 sentences for a 3 sentence thought.

Tunnel vision, or how I learned to ignore the opposition

Let me preface this by saying that I deplore murder under any circumstance. With that said, I would like to also say that I deplore anyone who ignores the opposing side of an issue, other than when sighting in their scopes to take a shot.

Disclaimer: I think that George Zimmerman was in his **legal right** from the facts I have found on the issue, to shoot Trayvon Martin. HOWEVER, I don't think what he did was the right choice or that it SHOULD be within his legal rights to have done what he did. It is illegal in the United States to change a law or create a law, then prosecute someone for past actions that violate it, in fact it is made illegal by our constitution and is called ex post facto law.

Here is what I have heard and believe to be an accurate summary of the physical violence that transpired. I compared and summarized several different news sources to figure out what I think is the most likely, personally. I believe that Trayvon was pinning Zimmerman down to the ground and beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete, at which point Zimmerman shot Trayvon. Before the tussle on the ground, Trayvon stuck Zimmerman in the head, possibly from behind. Despite my ideals, in theory, if I was in this situation and I was armed, I would be hard pressed to come up with a reason not to try and use whatever weapon I had against my attacker. I have never been in this sort of situation, though, and even if I want to say something like, "But I would aim better than Zimmerman," that is nonsense because I have no idea what I would do.

Our constitution does not explicitly state a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However, throughout our legal system there are parts that guarantee due process, speedy trial, ect., in addition to several precedents in court cases that establish a need to prove guilt or probable cause before there can be a police action. So, where is the probable cause the George Zimmerman violated a law? Before you say oh, well the witness reports denote a source of probable cause, remember that there are conflicting eyewitness reports. Sometimes eyewitness reports, even ones that conflict, can be used to establish probable cause. This is, I believe, at the discretion of the police handling an investigation.

To sum this up: I think, if George Zimmerman committed a CRIME he should be punished by a legal system, not a mob action. I am so very disappointed by people who paint a saintly picture of Trayvon Martin, and a demonic one of George Zimmerman. If anyone truly wanted justice, they would need to look for the truth before they could then seek out justice.

Here is my honest opinion of these two individuals:

-- George Zimmerman: George Zimmerman appears to be a dim-wit. I believe he is probably prone to bouts of depression, especially considering his weight which is on the heavy side. Also, given his stature of 5'9", I believe he probably has almost crippling insecurities -- this would explain his desire to carry a gun*. This belief is supported by Zimmerman's attempts to associate with various policing forces, as there appears to be a correlation between people who are insecure and a desire to occupy positions that allow you to exert physical force against another.

-- Trayvon Martin: Was a CHILD. Let me be clear, I believe that he was infinitely capable of change because of his youth. He was also at least a minor drug-dealer or connected with friends who sold drugs. He was currently on suspension from his school. The cause of his suspension appears to have been that marijuana, or a bag containing residue of marijuana was found on his person. He had many tattoos. I have a tattoo, so I don't think they automatically disqualify someone from being civilized. First impressions are shaped by how you appear and it is a simple fact that having numerous visible tattoos lowers opinions of you immediately. He was also 6'3", and tended to wear baggy clothes that could make him appear bigger than the beanstalk he was.

I want to reinforce this point: Trayvon Martin was a child. That is not lost on me, and anyone who attempts to claim that he was, "A drug-dealing, thug, scumbag, etc," is full of shit. He was a child. He should have had time to grow and the tragedy here is that a child lost their life and the world lost their potential.

This tragedy is NOT because of the words in bold, "half-white, half-hispanic man shot and killed a defenseless 17 year-old african american male." I am so very tired of seeing comments and news stories that are transparent attempts to use hurt feelings of a racial nature to sway opinion or sell news.

A few examples:

-- Stories reporting the Black Panthers $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman. The Black Panthers have historically resorted to terrorist acts to further a racially motivated agenda. We give them legitimacy by announcing their interests on nation-wide news. If we simply must talk about the Black Panthers, we should be condemning their desire to perpetrate HATE CRIMES.

-- Sinead O'Connor's comments that amounted to: because Africa is where I heard humanity originated, or maybe read it on wikipedia... or heard it from Jurassic Park, that makes Africa your mom. I proclaim that if you hate black people you hate yourself too, for some reason. So, using that last sentence's logic, if you kill a black person you are also killing yourself. Oh, and going back to the Africa is your mom thing, somehow by killing any black person... you are also killing your mom.

-- The Reverend Al Sharpton's comments and influence throughout this tragedy. I have very little good to say about this man. I believe he has had a negative impact in many racially-charged situations. I am not sure where "the good" of Al Sharpton is, but would happily listen to someone who wished to tell me.

-- The carefully selected images that pervade every story on this issue. Trayvon was 13, I believe, at the time a commonly used picture of him was taken. This is admittedly a nice picture and I understand wanting to remember the best of a loved one lost, but if we are remembering Trayvon at his best we should also present George Zimmerman at his best. This is unfair and stirs up interest in this story for the wrong reasons.

------------------------

The death of Trayvon Martin from a gunshot wound inflicted by George Zimmerman is a tragedy. It is not a hate crime. It is not a case in which one side was completely innocent and wronged unprovoked by the other. Both individuals were at fault, and it is the responsibility of the State government of Florida in addition to the JUDICIAL branch of our Federal government to determine if any of the wrongs, on either side, were criminal in nature. If the population of Florida is unhappy with the outcome in that decision, it is their responsibility to elect popular representation who will better represent their interests.

I have opinions on this issue, obviously. I formed my opinions by listening to different opinions from different sources on the subject. We all are guilty of complaining AFTER the fact when something happens we don't like, but if Florida didn't want a "stand your ground" clause, then the people of Florida should have done something about it. Even in response to this issue, I have been horrified by how uninformed people CHOSE to be.

We have the internet. It has the information. You have the eyes. Go read more than one opinion on a subject. Now make an informed decision how you feel about it. Ah, satisfying!

*Brief aside: Owning a gun and carrying one are two VERY different things. I know this because I own a gun, but would never wish to carry it anywhere other than to a shooting range. There are complex motivators at play when private citizens feel the need to carry a weapon, I do not feel qualified to comment on them all, but suffice to say the motivators I am familiar with seem to be rooted in feelings of powerlessness.

An Ungodly Mess

Okay. I am confused by this.

The owner of Seattle Pi is Hearst Newspapers ( http://www.hearst.com/newspapers/ ). A not insignificant company.

On top of that, Porche is a luxury automobile, whose advertising budget in 2009 was over 300Million Euro, with 10% being specifically set aside for digital advertising. It wasn't possible for me to find data that was more recent, but the value of Porche's parent company has been generally the same since then, so it stands to reason that budget is the same or higher.

So, why then is this such an ungodly mess?

It is a common problem. Overload. Many websites, especially ones that are interested in as much publicity as possible will present at least five social media links, so you can "share this article with your friends" or what have you. This isn't a bad thing, but it can be done without taking up nonsensical amounts of space. The disorganized and jumbled mess that is shown is not a place I would want to advertise anything, let alone a luxury car like a Porsche 911.

When I look at a news story: I want to SEE the news. I want to ABSORB advertisements.

I learned a long time ago that I am vulnerable to advertising. I am not vulnerable to having someone desperately try to shove an advertisement through my eyes and into my brain. Just go slow, take me to dinner first and I'll put out... my wallet and buy whatever is being sold.

I won't say that Seattle Pi is uniquely guilty where other local news outlets are not. I was only shocked because of the client being advertised. Porsche is a luxury automobile, with their lowest cost vehicle still sitting just around $50,000. That means they have a vested interest in not appearing desperate. They need to look prestigious to sell the idea of porsche.

I worked as a PR intern last summer and I found something out that I kind-of but didn't-really-quite know: news is advertising. So let me pose an alternate option for porsche. Instead of spending the money on ad space at the seattle pi. Porsche could have created an event. Be it an exhibition race between their various product lines, or a more subtle event such as sending a dozen or so of their cars out onto the streets of seattle with either give-aways or some sort of "special" incentive for people to look for Porsches and pay attention to them -- Events like these are news worthy, low-cost and would be an effective hook for a local news source like the Seattle Pi.

I assume what happened was that someone at Porsche looked at numbers for Seattle, including the median income and the number of Porsche sold Vs. other areas with similar income and decided Seattle was lower than what they wanted. Then someone was told they needed to fix this, which resulted in this ad space being bought from the Seattle Pi.

That sort of nonsense is ineffective, especially when a luxury item like Porsche is forced to compete for your attention against Twitter, Facebook, RSS, Buying Seahawks gear, or The Daily Deal! I am decidedly less likely to ever want to buy a porsche because of this advertisement. That's not good for porsche or for the Seattle Pi's online service.

If the Seattle Pi, or any local online news outlet, wants to be truly successful and not just limp along through their advertising sales then they need a change. Most importantly, they need to reduce the amount of "Overload" on their sites. Then the practice of standardizing all sales of advertising by size, depth, frequency and duration of run needs to go away. No one style of advertising is right for every product in the world.

I don't want to see local news outlets die. I really don't. I hope that the online side of papers like the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post and even the Seattle Pi realize they need real and innovative change not a bigger bandwagon to hop on. I also hope they realize this sooner rather than later.

-James

A justification

Hello.

My name is James. This blog is here because I need an outlet. I constantly throw my thoughts and opinions, for all intents and purposes, to the wind.

There is no one topic I plan to stick to, other than my own interests.

To anyone who might be curious, I am as of March 2012, a 23 year old student who is about to graduate with a degree in communication (* -- see note at end) with minors in american studies and biology. I am not psychic, but I am very perceptive, so I tend to be able to read people like books. I have many talents because I have many interests, and if I like something I will keep doing it. I don't get discouraged easily and can have fun doing things even if I'm doing them wrong. People tend to be surprised at how good I am at so many things, but its just a side effect. I start off terrible at most things, but I just don't care if I mess up at so I keep going.

Anyways, I hope anyone who reads these bits of my thoughts will enjoy them. If nothing else, at the very least I hope anyone who reads this will not hate what I have to say and me with it, even if they disagree.

Thanks for reading what I had and have to say.

Sincerely,

James

* -- I have heard people bad mouth communication, and in fact my college does not call a communications degree a communications degree, but instead refers to as Media and Communication studies (MCS, from here on). It isn't an underhanded technique, I assure you. Much the opposite, it is an honest attempt by those who care to not under sell something with value. MCS has taught me how to read, watch, and listen while at the same time dissecting and building something new from every form of media; it taught me how to produce and then use digital media to convey a message; it gave me the tools to understand everything around me then the means to share that understanding. Without these skills, I wouldn't be confident. Its easy to fake your way through almost anything, except for confidence. Everyone wants to hire and hear from confidence. Thank you, MCS.