What I've Learnt So Far

At the moment I have learnt a great amount about Cannabis within the media and the way it is represented. Cannabis is definitely the drug that is not looked down upon as much as other drugs such as heroine, cocaine etc. The media are also beginning to realise that its not just hoodlums that are smoking cannabis, and the amount of people consuming the drug is growing on a vast scale.

What I have also come to learn is the difference between the representations of cannabis by America and Britain. Comedy is constantly used within the media about cannabis in America but in Britain on the other hand it is definitely presented to the public in a much more strict manner.

Cannabis Classification Review>>>Gordon Brown's Views!

This is a very interesting article upon Gordon Browns views upon the classification of Cannabis.

Go to the link and read for yourself.

Interesting Anti-Drug Commercial (Talk To Frank)

During my research I have noticed a large difference in the way America present cannabis to the way it is presented in the UK. Anti-Drug adverts from America generaly display the light affects of cannabis over the user, such as mild hullucinations like a talking dog, but within the UK it is portrayed as much more dangerous. This advert illustrates the affect it has upon the brain using surrealist elements to enforce scare tactics.

I beleive adverts like this have a very large impact upon it's audience, but does force against using drugs actualy work?

This is the american anti-drug advert and you can clearly see the difference in their tactis to give information on the drug.

'Superskunk me: What happened when one woman smoked dope daily for a month for a BBC documentary' By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH

I am nearly getting close to my main focus on Cannabis within the media and I feel that this project was very interesting and could say a lot about what the media has to say about Cannabis . . .but is this project actually correct?

'Just a few puffs on a rolled-up cigarette containing "skunk" - a strong form of cannabis - was all it took to strip Nicky Taylor of all her capabilities and to induce a terrifying combination of paranoia, fear and anxiety.'

This statement immediately leads its audience to give an effect of a ‘give what they want to hear’ factor, due to the fact that when you truly look at this experiment it will open your mind to understand why she felt this way.

'As the drug took effect, she was rendered incapable of doing anything, looking anxiously around her and trying to calm her trembling hands.
But Nicky is not just another of the millions of Britons who smoke cannabis regularly. She chose to experiment with the drug as part of a BBC documentary in which she investigated just how damaging smoking different forms of the drug can be - with herself as a guinea pig.'

What the writer has chosen to exemplify is ‘a divorced mother-of-three’s’ reaction to smoking cannabis but has not chosen to explain about the hardships in her lifestyle which recreational drugs such as cannabis would lead her to think about. She also displays her knowledge of the number of people who smoke cannabis in the UK but how can one person generalize the effects of the intake of cannabis?

"I had a feeling the drug had unlocked some sort of paranoia in my head that would never go away again - I suddenly felt everyone hated me. Without doubt, that was one of the worst moments of my life."

This statement from Nicky is a common effect that smoking cannabis can have upon someone, but she also had people around her, filming, asking questions upon her state etc which would also lead her to feel as if she is paranoid because she is smoking a class c drug that is illegal.

'At one point during her investigation, scientific tests proved that, thanks to the drug, she had developed a level of psychosis well above that seen in individuals with schizophrenia.
It is estimated that 15 million people in the UK have tried cannabis, and up to 5 million smoke it on a regular basis.
In the UK, cannabis use has increased 1,000 per cent since the Seventies, and according to a recent Unicef report, the UK has the third highest rate of young people smoking cannabis in the Western world.'

The use of facts and figures also gives the audience an incite into a generalised view upon cannabis and how it differs to harder drugs such as cocaine or heroine.

"Until now, I hadn't really considered cannabis had that much more effect than a bottle of wine might do, but now I know that's far from the truth.
"The drug took me to some dark and frightening places, to which I hope I never return."

The last statement from Nicky sends a message towards its audience of its true effects upon your mind and body physically and mentally. The way in which this investigation was run can be seen as very responsible due to the fact it would lead many people to not use the drug, but is its portrayal of cannabis responsible?

I feel as though the investigation was very biased and does not send out a true portrayal to its audience about the advantages and disadvantages of the drug because this could easily send teenagers out to do it. The age of Nicky also cannot represent the message either, due to the fact teenagers would not be able to relate or even people ranging between 25-35. It is a very good message which has been sent out but is the experiment responsible? I will leave you to decide, leave your opinions on my comment box.

Look At This Article On Cannabis Within Hollywood!!!

Representation of Marijuana in Hollywood Films
by Philippa Klein

"While the chemical properties of marijuana have never changed, the signification and mythology surrounding the drug has. Its representation in mainstream film has undergone four significant shifts since the 1930s: 1936-60, the "killer weed" period, 1960-1984, the "drop-out weed" period, 1985-1992, the "invisible weed" phase and 1994 to the present, the "environmental weed" period. Each of these phases marks a shift in media representation of the effects of cannabis. Through such bodies as the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), the Motion Picture Production Code (MPPC), and even certain presidencies, representation of the drug was strictly controlled. I suggest that the motivation behind these controls is racial and social, not concerning actual public health issues. As marijuana once again becomes perceived as the drug of choice for the educated middle class, its reputation is improving.

Marijuana was first brought to the United States as a psychotropic drug by Mexican migrant workers at the turn of the century1 It was available legally as a herbalist remedy for headaches, stomach upset, insomnia and a host of other applications until the late 1930s. In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, effectively criminalizing the sale and use of the plant under federal law.2 At this time, the primary users of marijuana were Mexican migrant workers and black jazz musicians. The association of the drug with these marginal ethnic groups sealed its fate as a dangerous psychotropic drug.

It has been argued that the sole motivation behind the criminalization of marijuana was racial and economic. John Helmer, one of the first academics to use the "Mexican Hypothesis", locates
... the economic conflict in which anti-marihuana [sic] sentiments thrived in California's urban areas, where growing masses of unemployed Mexicans during the Depression were perceived as a welfare and crime problem and where a movement to deport surplus Mexican laborers developed. In this context, jailing Mexicans on marihuana charges became part of the general attempt to reduce the labour surplus, and an anti-marihuana ideology became one way of unifying and giving legitimacy to the anti-Mexican sentiment...It also generated an "ideology of marijuana" that grew independently out of the original concern.3 Jerome Himmelstein, in his book The Strange Career of Marihuana, combines this analysis with the concept of "moral entrepreneurship", in which a specific effort of a formally constituted body transforms social mores, and then sees to it that these values are applied. It has been argued that it is exactly this path that H.J. Ainslinger, the U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics, took in order to secure funding and purpose for the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics.4
In my opinion, however, it was the association of marijuana with blacks and Mexicans that ultimately stigmatised the drug as a violent and addictive drug for the following thirty years. As Himmelstein concludes, "Because Mexican laborers and other lower class groups were identified as typical marihuana users, the drug was believed to cause the kind of anti-social behaviour associated with these groups, especially violent crime."5 It is in this period that we see the emergence of films such as Reefer Madness, which first use the dreaded term, "killer-weed."
Reefer Madness (1938) is an important film because it shows the blatant misrepresentation of the effects of marijuana. The story opens with an official speaking to a hall filled with concerned parents and teachers. The speaker warns of the dramatic rise, to almost "epic proportions", of the deadly addictive weed, marijuana. The speaker claims that this new plague cannot be underestimated, and the effects of the "killer-weed" may even be more deadly than that of heroine and cocaine. This "deadly narcotic" is "The Real Public Enemy Number One!" The film portrays evil pushers who pray on unsuspecting teenagers by addicting them to marijuana. The effects are shown to be crazed dancing, violent sexual tendencies, hazardous driving, and ultimately homicidal tendencies. In the final scene, the protagonist is sentenced to death after murdering two others.

It is interesting to note that there seems to be no evidence of an increased use of marijuana by white middle-class teenagers until the mid-1960s. The film warns that this happened to a community "just like yours", when it certainly did not. It is my opinion that the film was made primarily to solidify the myth that marijuana was an addictive and violent drug, not to address "real" social problems.
Filmmakers until the late 1950s were strictly bound to certain restrictions laid out in the Motion Picture Production Code. If a film did not receive approval by this group of censors, it would generally not be distributed as a general release. Seeing as any reference to narcotics, positive, or negative, was strictly forbidden, films such as Reefer Madness (1938) were not readily available to the general public. It was not until 1948, when H.J. Ainslinger himself was involved in an anti-narcotics film, To the Ends of the Earth, that the PCA gave its Certificate of Approval. In later years, the PCA amended its code to allow for films dealing with the use and sale of narcotics as long as these films portrayed this use in a negative light.

The film High School Confidential (1958) is an interesting example of the changing signification of the dangers of marijuana consumption. The increased use of marijuana by beatniks and other fringe countertcultural groups forced filmmakers to portray the effects of the drug slightly more realistically. In this film, the protagonist, and undercover narcotics officer infiltrates an upper-class secondary school in order to break an evil drug ring. While marijuana is still portrayed as being highly addictive, it is shown more as a stepping stone to the harder drug, heroin. The protagonist says to one poor weed addict, "Do I have to spell it out for you? If you flake with the weed, you'll end up using the hard stuff." Perhaps it is in this period that distinctions between "hard" and "soft" drugs start to be made, and I feel that this is directly related to the fact that more and more university students began experimenting with marijuana.

Films such as I Love You Alice B. Toklas! (1968) and Easy Rider (1969) can be used to demonstrate the changing attitude towards drug culture during the 1960's and 1970's. Marijuana was commuted, as were the laws surrounding its possession, from "killer weed" to "drop-out weed." As it became popular with middle-class white university students, its stigma was diminished greatly; so much so that it was decriminalised in eleven U.S. states. It is during this period that marijuana is portrayed openly in films as a peaceful and even enlightening natural substance.
I Love You, Alice B. Toklas is a charming comedy focusing on the mid-life crisis of the main character played by Peter Sellers. He meets a sweet flower child and is introduced to the hippie world of counterculture and pot. As Frank Thompson, in his article, "Movies on Drugs", writes, "marijuana is an entirely positive force in Toklas; everyone who uses it (even unwittingly Sellers' aging parents) emerges more thoughtful, aware, spontaneous - freer." I was hard-pressed to find films in any of the other historical periods that portray pot in such a benevolent light. Even Cheech and Chong are shown to be at best dull-witted and slow.

Interestingly, certain significations, especially surrounding sexuality and marijuana, continued through this period. The correlation of marijuana to sexual promiscuity is best demonstrated in Russ Meyer's now infamous, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970). In the opening scene we see the main characters smoke a joint and immediately begin having sex. Throughout the film, getting stoned is the excuse behind "deviant" sexual behaviour. At one point, a male character has sex with another male character simply because in his high state he could not control himself.6

The new CARA rating system, which is still in place today, demanded that any film with reference to drugs, even if presented in the most "unglamourous of light," be rated "R" or restricted. This did not seem to deter too many directors in the 60s and 70s, however, because there are countless films from this period portraying drug use in all sorts of ways. Michael Starks writes, Rolling through the sixties with Jimi Hendrix and Panama red - down with Nixon and up with acid. Call it youth revolution, hippie revolt, counterculture or whatever, it was happening big. New drugs, new music, new morals, new life-style. Whether for exploitation and quick money or for honest portrayal, drugs, particularly pot became very common, almost mandatory elements of film seeking to appeal to younger audiences.7

As the consumers and producers of the film industry began lighting up, so did the characters in the films. Dennis Hopper has admitted to actually smoking grass while filming the famous campfire scene in Easy Rider, an admission which would not be politic in the next phase, which I like to call the "Just Say No" generation.

By the 1980s the actual practice of smoking marijuana had levelled off. Statistics from Gallup Polls show that in 1969, only 4% of the American population had ever tried marijuana. In 1973, that percentage rose to 12% and rapidly increased until 1977 where it stabilized at around 25%.8 By 1987,a surveyed showed that 50% of all Americans under the age of 45 had smoked pot at least once, and if anything this percentage has decreased in the last few years.9 When Reagan began his war on drugs, there had been no increase for several years of the instances of marijuana use, nor had there been any new findings confirming that the physical effects were permanently harmful. Michael Schaffer, in his book, Reckoning with Reagan makes some interesting comments on the relationship Reagan's "War on Drugs" to the increased use of certain narcotics among different economic classes and ethnic and minority groups. Schaffer argues that the war on drugs coincided with reduced tensions between the USSR and the US during his second term.
He writes, To an extent, the drug war replaced the Cold War while "narco-terrorism" replaced the Red Army as public enemy #1...Just as the Chinese Communists had been blamed during the 1950s for the surge in heroin addiction, Reagan accused communist governments in Cuba and Nicaragua of abetting cocaine imports...he conveniently overlooked involvement by anti-communist guerrillas in Latin American drug trafficking.10

Schaffer notes that the media and government rarely discuss the causes of drug abuse and frequently misrepresent the physical consequences. He states that four to five thousand deaths per year are attributed to actual overdose (in the case of marijuana the number is zero), while alcohol-related deaths numbered over 200,000, and tobacco kills over 300,000 Americans per year (Schaffer 86). Ronald Reagan, with his zero tolerance policies, continued to place marijuana on that list of deadly drugs for which we all had to "just say no."
Marc Cooper's article, "Up in Smoke," makes some important comments on the direct relationship of Nancy Reagan's promotion of her husband's new policies and the motion picture industry. He presents a convincing argument that Nancy's direct intervention with the Motion Picture Academy is responsible for the almost complete absence of recreational drug use in mainstream films of the period. Nancy is quoted, during a speech to 1300 members of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences warning, "Your art does not free you from accountability," citing instances of pot smoking in Desperately Seeking Susan and Short Circuit.. She later met with almost all major studio heads to further her campaign.11 It seems "just say no" can be extended to artistic freedom as well.
Nancy's campaign seems to have been successful. Films during this period show that drug use of any kind leads to the inevitable decline of the character's moral stature. In films such as Clean and Sober (1988), the main character is given a choice, drugs or death. Hollywood returned to its pre-sixties attitude of only showing drugs in a negative light.
The usual mainstay of marijuana representation, the teen flick, also seemed to be in a curious state of abstinence. Compare the heros of 1982's Fast Times at Ridgemont High to 1989's Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. In Fast Times, Spicolli, played by a young Sean Penn, is the lovable if irresponsible surfer hero. Even in the epilogue he is given the honour of saving Brooke Shields from drowning. Spicolli and his friends happily toke their way through high school with no serious ill effects. Bill and Ted, on the other hand, shows two portrayals of the "stoner" personality, but with the conspicuous absence of any drug, alcohol or even cigarette use. Marijuana, having been an icon of youth rebellion for decades, was quickly snuffed out with a simple "no, please."

Finally, I will discuss the present change in attitude towards pot smoking in film. In the last six months I have noticed a sharp increase in films where characters smoke joints in plain view of the camera. Dazed and Confused, True Romance, and Reality Bites are interesting because all involve weed smoking, but none of them focus on the morality of the drug. It is perhaps the first time since the sixties that marijuana is portrayed so casually. None of the characters are addicted, harmed or are led to harder drugs on account of their use of pot. Instead, the smoking is portrayed in the same offhand manner as cigarette and alcohol consumption had been during the fifties. In looking through several reviews for these movies I found no reference to the instances of marijuana smoking in the films compared to the late eighties, where a single puff was enough to inspire Nancy Reagan to lecture the Academy on their responsibilities to society.
Is the present environmental movement affecting the general attitude towards the use of marijuana? A medical and herbalist faction is also lobbying for the decriminalization of the drug so that it can be prescribed to AIDS, glaucoma, arthritis and cancer sufferers. Bit by bit the reputation of marijuana is improving. Does this have anything to do with a new Democratic president (even if he didn't inhale)? As marijuana's reputation increases so does its portrayal in mainstream films.

While there has been no marked increase in the actual consumption of marijuana in the last several years,12 there has been a recent boom in its representation in fashion, music and film. It is my feeling, that as in the sixties, marijuana is being perceived, once again, as a middle-class recreational drug. Generation X is clean, white and environmentally responsible. It has been appropriated by both black and white rap groups as a symbol of peace and a break from crack. It is being viewed as the "natural" "non-addictive" high, as opposed to crack, heroin and cocaine.13
Marijuana is the second most consumed drug, after alcohol and before cigarettes in the United States, and its use has remained constant since the late 60's. I do not wish to defend the use of marijuana in North American society. Instead, I would like to show that Hollywood representation of the drug is linked more with prevailing political trends, and cultural and racial bias than the actual incidence of its use. In 1985, only one percent of Americans polled listed drugs as a major threat to national security. By 1989, that number had increased to 50%. There was no actual significant increase in the practice of drug-taking, just its representation in the media. It is impossible to predict the fate of marijuana in the nineties because its signification depends upon political exigencies - not on its inherent properties."

Critical Research HYPOTHESIS!!!

My hypothosis is based around the media's portrayal of canabis within different texts and if they are responsible. I am not too sure about my main focus within my research as of yet but hopefully in the next few weeks I will know where.

I have noticed that the drug within different forms of media and life in general, have ranged views upon canabis than the likes of hard drugs such as cocaine, heroine etc. . .but why?

I want to know whether the look upon marajuana within the media is sending out the right message to its audience about the drug and the effects it is having upon the young.

GTA 4 Sales Grow Due To Contreversy It Has Had

I found this post about the advantages of the new Grand Theft Auto even before it was released and i beleive it says a lot about where technology is going and where it is at.

Public outrage boosts game's sales
Realism, humour and collisions also guarantee huge opening
Paul Chapman, The ProvincePublished: Sunday, April 27, 2008
Hype or hot, that's the question about Grand Theft Auto 4, the blockbuster game set to drop on Tuesday.
The name brings a visceral reaction from many: press releases from teachers federations, fist-shaking from old fogies, soap boxes being put into position by politicians.
All of which does nothing but sell a load more games

Analysts are predicting that GTA4 will sell more than Halo 3 in its first week, not only making it the biggest opening for a game, but the biggest opening, revenue wise, of any entertainment entity.
So, is it worth it?
Likely, it will be. The clever thing about the GTA franchise is they get all the outrage -- "Oh my god, this is the game where you go around killing prostitutes for points." But lost to the mainstream jackals, none of whom ever play the game, is the gameplay.
One of the smartest game franchises out there, Grand Theft Auto pioneered open-world gameplay. What that means is, even though there are missions in the game and a storyline to follow, one of the great appeals of the game is the freedom. Jump in a car -- any car, toss out the driver and go explore the city, anywhere, anytime, at your leisure.
This time the story is in present day, April 2008, and you're cast as Niko Bellic, a Russian mafia-type who's landed in Liberty City (basically New York), hoping to live a straight and narrow life.
Well, that ain't going to happen. Your cousin and a host of new acquaintances quickly get you in their clutches, and you're off into the world of organized crime.
What's different about this GTA is the polish. There was a certain charm to the past Grand Theft games, especially the '80s-retro Vice City, in its clunky, almost cartoon look. Now, the game is much more precise.
The graphics are more realistic, completely state-of-the-art, as is a new "physics" model. The way characters move and react now is much more fluid. There was a new movement program used in the making of this game, so if you get hit by a car, you'll react differently each time as the reaction has been made to completely mirror human movement. Get hit in the knee, or the head, or the shoulder, and you'll react differently to each. There is a very smooth and fresh feel to the movement here and it's a huge improvement.
The combat is also evolved. This game now has a much more professional feel, like famous shooters such as Halo or even the new Army of Two. Targeting and accuracy are much more at the forefront.
There are, as you'd imagine in organized crime, a host of nasty firearms to exploit, from Uzis to rocket launchers, and you'll need them all in your arsenal because there's a lot of challenge in this game.
Liberty City and its citizens really are the stars of this game, though. The setting looks, and reacts, amazingly real. If you just punk out a random stranger on the street, some people will drop their belongings and run away, others will come to their aid and even challenge you physically. This is where you can either fight for no reason, and bring the heat of police, or back down and move on.
While the game has grown up with substantially better physics, graphics and combat, there are some wonderfully familiar GTA touches left in.
One, thankfully, is the cars. They're still rough to drive, and too many collisions will set you on fire and will ultimately explode them.
The other is the sense of humour. From the wonderfully wicked radio DJs you listen to in the car between hit songs (yet another great soundtrack), to the billboards around town, to the standup act of Ricky Gervais in the comedy club, this GTA appears to have the same tongue-in-cheek, cheap-shot smarm that the others have all displayed.
Make no mistake, this is a violent game, an interactive Sopranos if you will. It is about organized crime and completing underhanded and illegal missions, so it will no doubt draw a load of fire from the do-gooders who will blame it for setting the kids of today on a path to hell.
However, remember there are ratings, and this one will be rated mature, just like movies are. Stick to the ratings and Grand Theft Auto 4 looks like it will deliver on the hype for weeks, if not months of gameplay.

Facebook. . .Privacy . . .No

Due to Mr White's Last post on the lack of privacy that has been discovered on Facebook, i decided to aim my research this week in the direction of privacy settings because we all know that when we press 'i do accept these terms and conditions' no one actualy reads the 10 page essay before it. Here is a post about the current affair on facebook and its privacy by Rory Cellan-Jones.

Facebook and privacy
Rory Cellan-Jones
1 May 08, 17:28 GMT
How worried are you about the amount of private and personal stuff you have posted on social networking sites? I've always been pretty relaxed - both because I'm very careful about how much information I give away, and because I think I know my way around privacy settings.
But an investigation by my colleagues at Click has made me think again. They set out to explore just how much data is accessible to developers who make applications for Facebook. What they found was that it was relatively simple to write an application which would give the developer access to lots of personal data - not just from those who've installed that application, but also from their list of Facebook friends.
The problem is a by-product of Facebook's decision a year ago to throw open its doors to outside developers. It was a move hailed as a master-stroke at the time, making Facebook a platform for all kinds of innovative new ideas which would benefit developers and the users, and give the social network an edge in its battle with MySpace.
A year on it's not looking so smart. For one thing, a ceaseless flow of new applications of varying quality has cluttered up Facebook. For another, the access to user data given to developers has only served to heighten controversy about privacy, the issue that has become an ever bigger worry for all users of social networks.
By contrast, MySpace was rather slower off the mark in opening up its platform But it exercises far greater control than Facebook over the applications that developers are now producing. For one thing, they all run off MySpace servers, for another the code of every application is inspected before it is allowed onto the site.
Now Facebook points out that users can adjust their privacy settings to limit the access to their data that is given to any application. But how many of us knew that - or do anything about it? I know I haven't.
For Web 2.0 businesses two principles seem to have become gospel over the last year - openness and collaboration with external software developers, and respect for the privacy of your users' data. The trouble is, as Facebook has discovered, they can be mutually incompatible.

GTA 4 OUTRAGE!!!

Finally the highly anticipated game has arrived but why would one game bring such contraversy? Here is a post from Rory Cellen-Jones about how the industry seem to change their tone about the way they think about the new generation of gaming when they open thier minds just a tad.

GTA - the outrage fades
Rory Cellan-Jones
29 Apr 08, 09:08 GMT
May 1996, - and as a reporter on the BBC's business programme Working Lunch, I spend a morning filming at a games business in Dundee. The firm is called DMA and has made its name with a game called Lemmings, which has sold over 20 million copies. But the team of developers is now putting the finishing touches to a big new project, a game which involves car chases, robberies and assorted mayhem in a fictional American city.
We chat with the software developers, film the motion-capture team, and beam it all out live to a lunchtime audience. Then, as we drive our satellite truck away I take a call from a journalist on a tabloid newspaper. He's seen our broadcast and wants a contact number for DMA. The next day his paper features one of the first shock-horror stories about Grand Theft Auto, the forthcoming violent video game which encourages criminal behaviour by the young and must be banned.
Looking back at those pictures today, it seems extraordinary that the crude 2-D graphics of the original game could have been considered so dangerous - a bit like accusing Cluedo of causing a spate of murders in the library with lead piping. But, as we know, that was just the beginning. Throughout its history, GTA in its various manifestations has attracted controversy like no other game series - and that has probably done the franchise no harm at all.
But here's a funny thing. With the arrival of Grand Theft Auto IV, the mood seems to have changed. This is ten times more realistic, immersive and interactive than the original version - and so, if you believe that games can warp young minds, that much more dangerous. But the chorus of anger and accusation has faded. This launch is being seen more as an economic and cultural event rather than an opportunity for another row between the pro and anti-censorship campaigns.
Perhaps that's because, in the wake of the Byron review, we're all more aware of the video games ratings system - and there's an understanding that an 18 game like Grand Theft Auto is aimed at an adult gaming audience that might equally go out and buy 18-rated movies without anyone making a fuss.
But maybe it's also a sign that gaming is entering the mainstream. Until recently, most journalists knew little or nothing about video games, seeing them as something acne-scarred teenage boys did in darkened rooms between bouts of mugging and car-theft. Now a generation which grew up with games can take a more measured view. For the first time, many parents are themselves experienced gamers, and so the generation gap is closing.
Don't expect the arguments over video games content and its effect on young minds to disappear completely. But maybe the launch of Grand Theft Auto IV marks the moment when we can all be just a bit more grown-up about games.

ITV joins Bebo’s ‘open media’ platform and possible implications for telecommunicationsPosted by Paul r

Yesterday Bebo announced that ITV is to join the ‘open media’ platform “giving free and open access to premium TV content to Bebo’s community of 40 million users worldwide”. ITV will have a ‘member profile’ on Bebo that will host multiple channels, each promoting individual programs. Bebo users could then choose to become ‘fans’ of programs and be notified when new content is uploaded to the ITV profile.
Users will be able to integrate video content into their own profiles. Interactivity elements include teaser clips, interviews, blogs, forums, galleries, a wall for users to post comments.
Imagine the possibilities:
highly popular individual users (those with many ‘fans’) developing their own channels based on open media content?
viral distribution/marketing?
Media companies can use their own video players which can carry their own advertising. Bebo gets to facilitate value-added experiences to their customers, increasing the likelihood of network extension and member-retention.
Somewhat ironically, I was reading about this idea in a Telco 2.0 posting this morning that questioned the sustainability of telcos morphing into media companies. In fact, Telco 2.0 stated that “Someone who isn’t a telco will have a smash-hit way of blending video, interactivity and social networking”. Rather than become a media business, Telco 2.0 say that the role of the telco is to become a logistics solution provider.
Key trends
For me, the Bebo/ITV announcement is another indicator of the symbiosis between traditional media and social media; it marks another important milestone in the migration from closed to open content distribution, and the use of social networks as a hub for entertainment and connectivity.

Convergence Within Social Networking!

Heres a report on convergence within social networking, its a bit old but still elaborates the issue.


Social Media and E-Commerce Converging: Report
By Matthew G. Nelson, The ClickZ Network, Oct 12, 2006 news
)
-->Articles Contact Matthew G. Subscribe


Market research firm Compete has released a report on the convergence of social networking and e-commerce, and in the process has tried to coin a new buzzword: “social commerce,” or s-commerce for short.The report, “s-commerce: beyond MySpace and YouTube,” finds consumer visits to social networking sites have increased 109 percent since January 2004, and page views per visitor have grown by 414 percent in the same time period. "Social networkers” spend less time viewing traditional media and have more discretionary income and agreater penchant for online shopping than non-social networking site users.Marketers having the most success with s-commerce are using a combination of branded micro-sites, customer reviews, forums, peer-to-peer transactions, product blogs and user-generated content projects, according to Compete. Advertising on social Web sites is an entirely different prospect, said report author Stephen DiMarco, VP of marketing at Compete. “Some marketers are going to advertise on MySpace and YouTube because they are the two easier places to go. That will be an obvious choice. But the return on investment isn’t going to be any better than traditional customer acquisition campaigns,” he said. “It’s stupid to just advertise on MySpace and assume you are a social marketer. The better thing to do is get your customers associated with your brand.”On the other hand, launching a branded social network means competing for a dwindling slice of end users' attention. Compete found visitors to social networking services are currently involved with an average of three such sites, and that these would only be willing to add a fourth Web site before losing interest.“Consumers have limited social bandwidth. People only want so manyfriends, so the bar is high for marketers to create that bond that socialnetworks have,” he said. “Already people are starting to become social-saturated. For marketers, there are not going to be as many opportunities as they think there are. So they need to be more creative.”The key, DiMarco says, is to create social Web sites as part of a brand designed to track customers and listen to them at the same time.“Companies would be better served to build online forums on their sites, micro sites that support their brand, or explore other ways to get consumers to participate with them versus going to social networks to find more consumers,” he said. “If I we’re a CMO or VP of marketing or head of media buying for an ad agency, I would seriously reexamine the sites that I’m looking to spend my money on in 2007 and see how I can redirect it back into more research and internally customer focused marketing.”

10 Past Exam Questions On NMT!!!

I have found some very helpful questions which i aim to complete by the time i sit my exam because i beleive these will help me to understand the subject of social networking in greater detail.

1.Discuss how new media technologies are changing the ways that audiences are consuming the media.
2.To what extent are new media technologies advantageous for audiences?
3.How important are size and design to audiences using new media technologies?
4.How far is competition amongst media industries dependent upon new media technologies?
5.To what extent are new media technologies more interactive for audiences than traditional media technologies?
6.What benefits do media industries hope to gain from the introduction of new media technologies?
7.To what extent do new media technologies deliver new experiences for audiences?
8.Why do media industries regularly introduce new media technologies?
9.To what extent are new media technologies changing the way that audiences consume the media?
10.Discuss the way media industries develop and promote new media technologies.

Information On the iPhone

Phone - key features - users can make calls by simply pointing at a name or number. - iPhone syncs all contacts from your PC, Mac or Internet service so you always have a full list of contacts with you. - ability to easily construct a 'favorites list' for your most frequently made calls- ability to merge calls together to create conference calls.

Voice-mail key featureVisual Voicemail allows users to look at a list of their voicemails, decide which messages to listen to, then go directly to those messages without listening to the prior messages.
SMS key featuresiPhone includes an SMS application with a full QWERTY soft keyboard to send and receive SMS messages in multiple sessions. iPhone also includes a calendar application that allows calendars to be automatically synced with your PC or Mac.
Camera - key features - 2 megapixel camera- photo management application which allows users to browse their photo library, be easily synced from PC or Macs and choose a photo for their wallpaper or to include in an email.
iPhone is a quad-band GSM phone which also features Wi-Fi wireless technologies for data networking.

iPod key features
iPhone is a widescreen iPod with touch controls allowing users to scroll through lists of songs, artists, albums and playlists with the album artwork presented on iPhone's large display.
iPhone syncs content from a user's iTunes library on their PC or Mac and can play any music or video content they have purchased from the online iTunes store.
TV - key featuresiPhone's 3.5-inch widescreen display offers the ability to watch TV shows and movies with touch controls for play-pause, chapter forward-backward and volume. iPhone plays the same videos purchased from the online iTunes Store for computers and iPods.

Internet access - key features
iPhone features a rich HTML email client which fetches your email in the background from most POP3 or IMAP mail services and displays photos and graphics along with the text. iPhone is fully multi-tasking, so you can be reading a web page while downloading your email in the background.
iPhone will work with most industry standard IMAP and POP based email services such as your ISP mail services, Microsoft Exchange, Apple .Mac Mail and Google Gmail. Yahoo! Mail is offering a free "push" IMAP email service to all iPhone users.
iPhone also features a web browser which allows users to to surf the web over Wi-Fi and will automatically sync bookmarks from PCs or Macs. iPhone also includes Google Maps.

iPhone's Advanced Sensors
iPhone employs advanced built-in sensors - an accelerometer, a proximity sensor and an ambient light sensor- that automatically enhance the user experience and extend battery life. iPhone's built-in accelerometer detects when the user has rotated the device from portrait to landscape, then automatically changes the contents of the display accordingly, with users immediately seeing the entire width of a web page, or a photo in its proper landscape aspect ratio.
iPhone's built-in proximity sensor detects when you lift iPhone to your ear and immediately turns off the display to save power and prevent inadvertent touches until iPhone is moved away. iPhone's built-in ambient light sensor automatically adjusts the display's brightness to the appropriate level for the current ambient light which helps to conserve battery power.

I've Had A Go On The iPod Touch!!!

I have finaly been able to play around with the iPod touch and to be truly honest I am amazed. I was amazed about how technology has progressed and in a few years i wonder how higher technology will grow. The only thing that i did not like about the iPod touch is that if your thumbs are quite big it does not work as easily and sometimes it moves too fast if you want to listen to a certain song. All in all it a great invention but I would rather stay with my iPod video.

Il be back with more news on NMT

Greatest New Gadgets Of 2008

THE TRIBOT!!!

The next generation in home robots has arrived boys and girls with many new accessores that the world has never experienced. The tribot comes from the same firm that created the Robosapien. But where Robosapien was a clunking walker, Tribot has three wheels for complete omni-directional movement. . . . he even shout's at you if he falls over!!!!

I know this is a very short update but i thought i would begin the new year with a simple update so that i can release much more infromtion in the future on different subjects, as i will be updating weekly about new media technology and magazines.

WELCOME TO 2008!!!!