Posts filed under ‘politics’

transmedia, multimedia, transmodal, multimodal, what defines true interactive digital edutech?

Inspired by an entry by Kelli McGraw, Defining ‘multimodal’ on her blog, the folks over at Inanimate Alice’s educational blog decided to highlight the semantic morass in which Ms. McGraw and her fellow educators in Australia find them selves.

Australia and New Zealand’s official educational bodies and institutions have been early adapters and adopters of digital media in education- both teaching it, as well as making it a tool.  As these types of resources evolve, engaging existing and new curricula, and well as the platforms, hardware, connectivity and interactivity expand, the terms to describe these phenomena have become even more diverse than the subject itself.

We follow these subjects on twitter, Buzz, WordPress, LinkedIn, Google, Educational and ICT sites, but how do we know what we’re missing?  Is it #edtech #edutech #e-books #ICTeducation #transmedia #multimedia #transmodal #multimodal #newmediaed #education2.0…. the list is very, very long.

The environment, the culture, the technology and global adoption of this revolution is happening so quickly and in as many ways as the imagination of the students it is intended to engage.  The question is: do we need common terms?  Is that limiting or part of the ‘content curation’ movement?  Who makes that decision and what do each of these terms mean to all the different people involved- from grade 5 language students in Melbourne to Ministers of Education in the European Union?

Inanimate Alice is a fantastic springboard to solicit input and begin dialogue by its very existence and unique morphology.  So, we ask you to look at Kelli’s post about Australian curriculum, titles and the confusion created, the article by the Inanimate Alice teachers and supporters highlighting the semantic aspect of Kelli’s article.

Then, please, weight in.  What, exactly, are we talking about?  In an increasingly small world and stronger global community- how do we speak the same language?

Kelli McGraw: sharing resources, inviting conversations

iTeach: Inanimate Alice blog

Advertisements

2010/05/13 at 01:30 Leave a comment

Hiding in plain sight- evergreen brands, evolutionary pace and the Wall Street Journal.

When Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, liberals, old-school journalists and hard-core business-philes all bemoaned the end of an era, of an institution.

There was little doubt he’d leave his mark- Murdoch has never been known to be light-handed, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to call him a 21st century William Randolph Hearst.

The majority  readers and admirers were sure he’d promote himself, his agenda (and that of his multitude of businesses).  Fluff pieces on his subsidiaries, corporate profiles of favored friends and partners, an uber-capitalist periodical containing promotional analysis and profiles of businesses that suited Murdoch’s taste.

The Journal has changed, to be sure, but in a much broader sense, inching closer to a right leaning NY Times than a business-anchored daily.  In the upper echelon of global newspapers, The WSJ enjoyed a well-earned spot amongst the elite of the top-tier dailies (elite meaning quality, not snobbish, but that’s a whole other bait and switch of title and subject).

It is increasingly about politics, splashy images and general interest content.  Yet, if you asked most people, including those who cried out at the time of the sale and since, they’d describe it as a business paper.  And that’s exactly what Murdoch and co. are counting on.

For so long, the Journal has been an institution, a cornerstone of commerce reporting and as steady and conservative- in its subject matter, not politics- as can be.  It is ingrained in the collective cultural conscious as such, but that consciousness no longer reflects reality.

How often does this happen?  And how long before we notice?

There are the business school anecdotes about Kleenex starting originally being marketed as a make-up remover, Crisco as candles, Kotex as surgical bandages, Silly Putty as a cheap war-era replacement for rubber, but this is the other end of the brand conversion curve.  Instead of starting out with marketing a product as a specific thing and then finding its unintended usage has far greater upside and viability, this is a brand that has been something for so long that it continues to be perceived to be what it was not what it is.

The reason is lifespan.  Consider TLC, “The Learning Channel,” sister network to Discovery and Animal Planet, it was originally stocked with educational fare.  It has since evolved or devolved into a reality based network with marginal educational value.  It is rarely referred to by its long form name as most people do not perceive it as an educational destination.

Then there’s KFC- formerly proudly known as Kentucky Fried Chicken.  In the wake of the eighties health craze, 90s vanity and aughts obesity crisis, the company has gone out of its way to market itself as KFC, years before they had a non-fried option on the menu.

But the journal has been around for, well, for forever.  And its identity is so integrated into our cultural DNA that the general population hasn’t noticed that it really has changed. Like someone you see everyday who has lost a not insignificant amount of weight, or gone grey, but so slowly, with changes hardly noticeable from day to day, you don’t notice until you see a picture from last year’s company picnic.

The aforementioned bemoaners were right- they’ve just been lulled into complacency by the slow changes, an almost real life evolutionary pace- there was no relaunch, no rebrand no WSJ2.0 campaign here.  It’s a real and steady (d)evolution into a general news periodical with a right leaning agenda.

It’s just hiding in plain sight- behind its evergreen brand.

The Media Equation

Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal

By DAVID CARR

Published: December 14, 2009

There are growing indications in the news pages that Rupert Murdoch, a lifelong conservative, is looking to use The Wall Street Journal to play politics.

Sunday was the second anniversary of the sale of The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mark Lennihan/Associated Press

Rupert Murdoch, a lifelong conservative, addressing the newsroom at The Wall Street Journal two years ago, when he took over

permalink

2009/12/15 at 02:29 Leave a comment

it seemed a little too easy, didn’t it: hiccups appear in disney/marvel takeover

from today’s new york times:

Heirs to the comic book artist Jack Kirby, above, have sent notices of copyright termination to Marvel, Disney and other media companies.

Heirs to the comic book artist Jack Kirby, above, have sent notices of copyright termination to Marvel, Disney and other media companies.

LOS ANGELES — Walt Disney’s proposed $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Entertainment may come with a headache: newly filed claims challenging Marvel’s long-term rights to some of its superhero characters.

Heirs to the comic book artist Jack Kirby, a creator of characters and stories behind Marvel mainstays like “X-Men” and “Fantastic Four,” last week sent 45 notices of copyright termination to Marvel and Disney, as well as Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, and other companies that have been using the characters.

The notices expressed an intent to regain copyrights to some of Mr. Kirby’s creations as early as 2014, according to a statement disclosed on Sunday by Toberoff & Associates, a law firm in Los Angeles that helped win a court ruling last year returning a share of the copyright in Superman to heirs of one of the character’s creators, Jerome Siegel.

Reached by telephone on Sunday, Marc Toberoff, the firm’s founding partner, declined to elaborate on his firm’s statement. A spokeswoman for Marvel had no comment.

Disney said in a statement, “the notices involved are an attempt to terminate rights 7 to 10 years from now, and involve claims that were fully considered in the acquisition.” Fox, Sony, Paramount and Universal had no comment.

Marvel’s management agreed to sell the company to Disney last month, though the deal still requires the approval of Marvel’s shareholders.

Even before the Kirby family sent its notices, Disney was facing criticism from some Wall Street analysts who expressed concern that Marvel’s complex web of copyright agreements might prevent Disney from capitalizing on some Marvel assets.

Sony has the film rights to Spider-Man in perpetuity, for instance, while Fox has the rights to X-Men and Fantastic Four. Paramount has a distribution agreement for a few movies that Marvel is producing on its own, including a second “Iron Man” film.

Hasbro has rights to produce certain toys, and Universal holds Florida theme park rights to Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk, among other characters.

Mr. Kirby, who died in 1994, worked with the writer and editor Stan Lee to create many of the characters that in the last decade have become especially valuable to Hollywood. Mr. Kirby was involved with the Incredible Hulk, the Mighty Thor, Iron Man and the Avengers, among other characters that have been adapted for the screen since his death.

The window for serving notice of termination on the oldest of the properties opened several years ago, and will remain open for some time under copyright law. But Disney’s pending purchase of Marvel has given anyone with possible Marvel claims more reason to pose a challenge.

Under copyright law, the author or his heirs can begin a process to regain copyrights for a period of time after the original grant. If Mr. Kirby’s four children were to gain the copyright to a character Mr. Kirby helped create, they might become entitled to a share of profits from films or other properties using it.

They might also find themselves able to sell rights to certain characters without consent from Marvel, Disney or the various studios that have licensed the Marvel properties for their hit films.

In July, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that Warner Brothers and its DC Comics unit had not violated rights of the Siegel heirs in handling internal transactions related to Superman. But an earlier ruling had granted the heirs a return of their share in the copyright.

Copyright matters have become increasingly tangled for Hollywood, as it continues to trade on characters and stories that were created decades ago but are now subject to deadlines and expiration dates under federal copyright law.

2009/09/21 at 07:50 1 comment

District 9 movie marketing- will the political/ cultural allegories resonate?*

I have many (mostly) male friends, nerdboys of the highest order.  Like me, they collect action figures, watch Star Wars on a regular basis, debating the merits of the chapters, characters, arc and colors of the light-sabres and generally revel in the outright fantasy without guilt or embarrassment.

And rightly so.  They are some of the smartest, most successful people I interact with and I’m proud to stand in line with them for hours to get in to see Iron Man’s first showing.  However, they tend not to know too much about international politics, or at least don’t discuss it.

So when one of them, JET, came to me and insisted I watch a preview for District 9, I was struck by the plot and setting.  Aliens have landed, neither to hurt nor to help, they are refugees and are being kept away from humans in tin roofed shacks in a contained area in Johannesburg.  I didn’t need to wait to see the credits, hear the accents or even the remaining 90 seconds of the trailer to know that I was looking at Soweto.  It kind of hit me in the stomach- I wasn’t expecting this from what is clearly a sci-fi/ action film aimed at young men.  But the setting was striking.

It’s not a coincidence, the title refers to the District 6 township in Cape Town.  I wonder if the “9” is a nod to the ward in New Orleans.  The director is South African and the set design, terminology and visuals are striking to anyone who has even set foot in South Africa- during or after apartheid.  The psychic sucker punch were nearly identical images broadcast from the  Soweto riots of a year ago, where frustrated, unemployed black South Africans, afraid for what little they’ve been able to gain in the 13 years since Apartheid ended, began attacking the refugees from Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Nigeria… anyone who might take their potential jobs, or recognition they’d so long been denied.

I’m still unsure as to why this unsettles me so much or surprises me.  Comic books and science fiction have always been social and cultural mirrors disguised in fantastic situations and characters, but mainstream studios making the connections more obvious (think Iron Man, Stark Industries and Afghanistan) is intriguing.

I suppose there are several questions which I will chew over before and after seeing this film (I’ve never been accused of under-analyzing anything, including action movies).  The question I am mainly interested in opening for discussion is this:  are the studio execs putting their money where their mouths are in making some aspect of more mainstream movies politically relevant, are they not thinking about it, or do they think their audience won’t notice, or worse, won’t care?

Click here to see trailer.

*or am I imagining all of this?

2009/08/04 at 22:26 2 comments


Contributors

tweets

  • EXCLUSIVE: Li & Fung Acquires TLC | License! Global lnkd.in/b83qw9rat 4 years ago
  • Cannot believe Licensing Show is in 5 weeks. Better get those appointments in now! #Sony #LicensingShow2013at 5 years ago
  • Does anyone have a contact at the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles? Please message me. Thanks!at 5 years ago
  • Anyone looking for a creative, talented senior graphic designer? I know a great candidate looking in LA. Message me, please.at 5 years ago
  • Anyone in LA looking for a hardworking, talented senior Graphic Designer? Great candidate looking to make a move. Message me ASAP. Thanks!at 5 years ago

posterity