Myspace Mayhem

     I'd like to close this semester long blog off on a light note. I've also realized over the course of this assignment that I am just a sucker for that whole 'self marketing' schtick we do online. With that in mind I would like to dissect what I would consider the hallmark of this decade; "The Myspace Pic"

     I think the term has since been a bit supplanted by 'Facebook/Profile pic' or it's bastard cousin 'prof pixz!!1! XD' but at it's heart it has not changed much. I think it could be boiled down in the following fashion:

     ‘Profile Pix’; n. Self-portraits taken without the assistance of a tripod or camera timer, designed for use on social networking websites. Photos are usually taken from a high angle, and usually involve the subject making a face or throwing up a hand gesture with the free hand (when not holding a red plastic party cup.)

Laugh all you want, but you're guilty of it, too. I certainly am, and I even own a tripod!

     Why do we as humans with access to some awesome technology (one being the auto timed exposure on cameras) go time and again back to this?

The drawbacks are obvious in that it isn't a very good photo, with advantages being the ability to take it anywhere, anytime. Are they flattering pictures? Informal undertaken by online dating website OKCupid seems to indicate, yes.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile-pictures/

     There are two reasons I would like to point out as to the Myspace Pic's popularity, one pretty logical, the other my (somewhat esoteric) opinion on the subject.

 It's all in the angles;

     That slight angle (less that 45 degrees) is pretty flattering to most human faces. Emphasis is put on the eyes, and drawn away from the chin and neck. This has obvious advantages, as in our society of stick thin models there has been an increase of disgust in that little patch of skin most people have under their chin.

Look at how I am willing to embarrass myself for you, readers!

     Working at the photographer's, that was by far the most common request "Get rid of my double chin!" when I would never even call it that. Maybe 1.3 chins. Whatever the case, pretty unavoidable for all but the super slender (or those blessed with a strong jawline.) This hides it, no Photoshop required.

Photo from Julie Sterling's Photography Blog. Note the two on the bottom left.
http://juliesterling.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/retail-portraiture/

     Secondly, light plays an important role. Most lights indoors come from directly overhead, which causes shadows on the face, under the eyes and nose, which are not usually seen as desirable. Tilting the head up brings the light more 'forward' and fills in those areas where shadows like to form.

     The social aspects are a different matter. The angle of a photo communicates a lot about power. The lens is the eye that the viewer looks through at the subject. Photographing from below (or even lighting from below) can give the subject an aggressive, threatening feeling. (Many animals react to direct sustained gaze as a threat, and I don't believe we've totally outgrown that one yet, either.) Let's use my favorite actor/director/glorious drunk Orson Welles to illustrate!

High angle shot (with Vermeer lighting, no less.) Myspace pics before they were cool.

Slight low angle, but notice the low lighting. Not nearly so friendly.

Extreme low angle.

      Using an angle slightly above, while maybe not  going so far as making the subject appear submissive, rather invites the viewer to look, as opposed to communicating a vague threat to their subconscious brain.

     Because, after all, isn't social networking all about asking people to look?

When what you say is what you don't say: Newsworthiness

     What sorts of images come to mind when you think of the homeless in America? Depending on where you’ve lived, you may have met them first hand, or your perception may come from their depiction in media. I was curious as to how the media (news, specifically) treat homeless Americans. I read a couple of articles, all interesting, but one in particular caught my attention. Edward Erikson wrote “The Representation of Homelessness in the Nightly News” for a peer journal in 2006. Despite its age, I thought his interpretation of the situation was very interesting.

     According to Erikson in his article "The Representation of Homelessness in the Nightly News" the number of homeless Americans is growing with every year, totaling something like 3 million by 2006 (and still climbing) yet news coverage has not increased to match it. Erikson argues that media, which has, historically, been the voice of the upper class, rather than the poor, ignores homelessness.

Erikson writes:

"During this time, it was common for a network to devote between 3.3 to 11.6 minutes, per year to homelessness. Comparatively, the CBS, NBC and ABC nightly news programs devoted well over 378 minutes, or 6.3 hours to crime in 1988 alone."

     Granted the article is five years old and there are newer studies on homelessness out there, but I chose it to this one up because I was very struck by the conclusion Erikson reached. Why does journalism, very proud of its role as society’s watchdog, ignore the homeless segment of the population (other than the fact that they probably don’t watch TV news)? He cites Timothy Cook's writing on structural bias in "Governing With the News" as the reason behind this underrepresentation.

According to Cook: “For any news medium, whatever the source does must be packaged into a narrative. Not only must the story have protagonists and antagonists in conflict, but the sources’ actions must move the story along to a new episode.”

     Something like crime or natural disasters fit this narrative structure well. There is a story arc, and plenty of middle-to-upperclass individuals (one tends to seek out those like themselves for information and opinions) that can be interviewed for the news package.

     When you think about homelessness, however, it does not work with the news package narrative. There are very few camera friendly or 'official' first hand sources, as you rarely see anyone interviewing a homeless individual for their opinion on a subject. Every case is different, and does not fit neatly into a process, such as the legal proceedings associated with crime.

     Erikson wrote, "the news can report on the condition of homelessness in urban or rural America, but chances are the condition will continue just the same in the days to follow. Thus, the story does not have any movement… [and] may not even be considered a story."

     I found this very intriguing, as I don't think about, whether it is homelessness or any other 'non-narrative' subject, just how important the story is to news.

     I think we are in a special position as Gaylord students. We have a better grasp on what 'makes news' than the general public. I haven't had a single class here that didn't stress, or at least ask at some point 'What's the story?' Individuals don't consume news if it doesn't hold their attention, and stories hold attention.

     The thing I've never thought about however, is what do you do if you are not, in fact, newsworthy? Erikson actually gives suggestions at the end of his article as to ways homeless advocacy groups can make themselves more 'narrative' for news outlets.

     Though I can’t say I agree with everything Erikson writes (I disagree that news coverage can ever be 100% ‘fair’ as when every single voice gets equal time, we just end up with noise) it really wasn’t so much what he said, but that I’d not heard it brought up before.

     My question is, should the news media strive to make important subjects more newsworthy, or is it up to the individuals to grab our attention? How ethical is representing a subject or event differently for the sake of coverage?

Here is the article itself, if you have the time it is worth a read;

http://gnovisjournal.org/files/Edward-Erikson-Representation-of-Homelessness.pdf