Children's Fight Club
By Raphael Rowe Panorama
This article has been taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6921555.stm
The police want websites to actively monitor their contentThe internet is without question one of the greatest inventions of our time. For the majority of users it's a great source of information - the good by far out-weighing the bad.
But the bad is becoming more and more of a concern.
When we first came across the hundreds of violent videos that had been uploaded to various websites, we were shocked by the senseless and excessive violence, the age of those involved and the lack of sympathy from those watching and those who used their mobile phones to film the incident and egg-on the attacker/s.
No matter how many videos I witnessed during our research I was shocked and flinched, and still do, at the impact of the blows that rained down on the victims. Be it by foot or fist or weapon.
Meeting and speaking to victims and their parents, like "Joe", from Glasgow in Scotland, who had no idea the assault on their son was on the internet for others' entertainment made our investigation all the more important.
Nobody complained
Joe had been bullied and assaulted by teenagers younger and smaller than him.
His story was one of many I heard:
"I couldn't run from them because they had knives and I was scared they would use them. They filmed the attack so that everyone at my school and people that lived in my area could see what they did to me."
Hayden HewittLiveLeakOver sixteen-hundred viewers watched his attackers taunt and punch him around the head on YouTube, the most successful video broadcast website. Yet no-one used the complaint system to have it taken down.
We did and it was removed.
Hayden Hewitt, the co-founder of LiveLeak, another site that allows its users to upload children fighting or attacking other kids, told me he would not take down the extremely violent videos we brought to his attention.
He told us: "Look all this is happening, this is real life, this is going on, we're going to show it"
When I went to see Google, who own YouTube, their spokesperson Rachel Whetstone told me it was up to the community who use the site to flag up something if they thought it was inappropriate.
YouTube would then decide if it breached its guidelines.
Google are worth more than $170bn. When I asked how many people they employ to actively monitor the content being uploaded to YouTube, I was, and I'm sure many will be, surprised to learn that no-one actively polices the site.
The police say this is not good enough and they want YouTube and other websites to actively police their content and forward details of those who upload violent footage so they can be investigated.
If they were prepared to do this it may reduce the bullying and attacks for entertainment on vulnerable children, like Joe, overnight.
Funded through advertising
We also investigated how the advertisements for blue-chip brands - including British Telecom, John Lewis, Carphone Warehouse and Orange - came to be splashed across an internet website called Pure Street Fights.
These and several other brands all insisted that they had no knowledge of the adverts' appearance on the site and have launched investigations.
Pure Street Fights, which features violent films of anything from vicious playground attacks to bare-knuckle boxing, is funded through its advertising.
Other brands to have appeared on the site are VirginMedia, O2, eBay, Easycar and Peugeot.
Michelle Elliott of Kidscape said: "It's outrageous. The only reason these sites are allowed to be up there is because somebody is paying money and the advertisers are paying money."
However, the brands have all told Panorama that they knew nothing of the adverts - and have since ensured that they have been taken down.
Almost all blamed rogue advertising networks for putting them onto the website. Both Carphone Warehouse and O2 have sacked the advertising networks responsible.
Guy Philpott of the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), which represents online advertising companies, said that brands were often not aware of where advertising networks were placing their adverts.
IPA Statement
When contacted by Panorama, The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) issued a statement.
He said: "This is pretty lamentable isn't it? They (the brands) don't understand what happened in the chain for them to end up on this site. Online advertising is a fairly new science, you know, and it's grown a lot in the last couple of years. And there is an education process to be done."
He said the IAB would be investigating the advertising networks in question.
BT said in a statement: "The advert in question was placed by one of the many networks that BT uses that act as advertising sales houses for thousands of websites.
"On the rare occasion that a network gets it wrong we will take immediate action. The advert in question was removed immediately it was brought to our attention. We take any breach of our guidelines extremely seriously and we are currently investigating with the network how this happened."
Carphone Warehouse said in a statement: "As part of our advertising strategy TalkTalk buy mass online advertising space on third party online advertising networks. Upon investigation, it transpires that one of our online advertising networks mistakenly advertised TalkTalk on Pure Street Fights due to a technical error on their part. This was a breach of contract and we immediately cancelled out contract with this network."
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Our Group Manifesto
The Official Document.
Read More About Us Here:
We initially started to research the issue of racism, as we wanted to work on a topic that has affected many people and has been a problematic issue for many years. Although we felt this was still a dominant issue, we wanted to touch upon an area that the majority of people could relate to as well as something that stems directly from the module itself. We decided after much thought that racism may have been too specific as it only affected a particular group of people rather than all people in general.
From the onset, our seminar groups discussions have been heavily related to the Internet, in particular Facebook. With an increasing number of people joining Facebook, and the internet becoming more of a focal point in our lives, we aimed to explore this issue in more depth. The internet was our main influence for our final topic of discussion. We feel that the internet has taken the world by storm. It is a whole new world that gives ordinary people unrestricted access to completely uncensored information. We discussed positive and negative aspects of the Internet, as well as discussing the issues that have been made most public, controversial, and problematic. One of which was violence. The increase of violence in modern society has always been linked to the increase in violent shows on the media. Now, it appears that the internet is taking the blame as well. Street violence, especially gun violence in Britain is on the rise in the younger generations with teenagers being shot dead almost every week in large cities. Recently, Anthony Anderson was jailed for three years on account of ‘outraging public decency.’ He urinated on a dying woman whilst his friends filmed the footage and then claimed, “This is a youtube moment!” Is the internet to blame for his behaviour or are we just using the internet as a scapegoat for much deeper problems within British society? Is violence is an outcome of the Internet and whether the Internet contributes to violence as a form of entertainment.
Our objective is to present our audience with an issue and tackle it through discussion. We felt that by staging a live debate that concentrated on the issue of the internet contributing to violence being seen as form of entertainment, we would not only be able to express our own individual views on the matter, but also gain the understanding of the public. We wanted to question the public’s understanding of violence as entertainment and whether or not they feel it has a place.
As a group of four strong minded people, we felt it necessary that we all had our own say. Our intent is not to force our opinions on others, but provide them with a choice and let them reach their own decision. There is no right or wrong answer to the question proposed, it all comes down to personal opinion. The aim of the debate is to demonstrate this, by getting our audience involved they too can voice their opinion, after hearing the research and opinions that we put forward and taking part in an in depth discussion. In order to do this we understand that it is vitally important that we have provided them with enough information for them to make a decision for themselves.
Violence affects everyone in one way or another; it is present in all types of media, television, newspapers and the internet! But would violence as entertainment still be present without the internet? Has it contributed to crime rate and sadistic behaviour? What do we view as acceptable entertainment and should we interfere with the contents of the internet by using censorship? Through our discussion and debate we aim to try and bring some light to these subjects, and even if we do not come to solid conclusions- we hope to get our audience members thinking about them.
Our main aim was to produce a live structured debate open to the audience to contribute and speak their opinions. We wanted to use an issue that is growing rapidly but is often disregarded therefore we wanted to raise awareness. By having a debate we hope to produce a valid argument that covers points both for and against violence in the media contributing to real acts of violence in today’s society. We hope to achieve a heated argument between the four of us, but we also hope to provoke to audience, raising elements that they may be able to identify with or feel strongly towards. By having a group debate, we are able to have a general idea of what contribution the media has to violence today. By aiming our debate around young students who are highly opinionated and less influenced by the media than young children for example, we hope to form a successful argument by stepping out of the box and looking at these issues as outsiders. As students and young adults we are very prone to violence, and we often regard it as part of the binge culture we live In today, therefore it is interesting to look closer at something we are affected by everyday, the media, and question whether it is causing or influencing these problems.
By taking part in virtuality in performance, we have learnt the huge affect of the media and technology on our lives without realizing the extremes of these effects. By forming our debate we hope to discover what these effects are.
Read More About Us Here:
We initially started to research the issue of racism, as we wanted to work on a topic that has affected many people and has been a problematic issue for many years. Although we felt this was still a dominant issue, we wanted to touch upon an area that the majority of people could relate to as well as something that stems directly from the module itself. We decided after much thought that racism may have been too specific as it only affected a particular group of people rather than all people in general.
From the onset, our seminar groups discussions have been heavily related to the Internet, in particular Facebook. With an increasing number of people joining Facebook, and the internet becoming more of a focal point in our lives, we aimed to explore this issue in more depth. The internet was our main influence for our final topic of discussion. We feel that the internet has taken the world by storm. It is a whole new world that gives ordinary people unrestricted access to completely uncensored information. We discussed positive and negative aspects of the Internet, as well as discussing the issues that have been made most public, controversial, and problematic. One of which was violence. The increase of violence in modern society has always been linked to the increase in violent shows on the media. Now, it appears that the internet is taking the blame as well. Street violence, especially gun violence in Britain is on the rise in the younger generations with teenagers being shot dead almost every week in large cities. Recently, Anthony Anderson was jailed for three years on account of ‘outraging public decency.’ He urinated on a dying woman whilst his friends filmed the footage and then claimed, “This is a youtube moment!” Is the internet to blame for his behaviour or are we just using the internet as a scapegoat for much deeper problems within British society? Is violence is an outcome of the Internet and whether the Internet contributes to violence as a form of entertainment.
Our objective is to present our audience with an issue and tackle it through discussion. We felt that by staging a live debate that concentrated on the issue of the internet contributing to violence being seen as form of entertainment, we would not only be able to express our own individual views on the matter, but also gain the understanding of the public. We wanted to question the public’s understanding of violence as entertainment and whether or not they feel it has a place.
As a group of four strong minded people, we felt it necessary that we all had our own say. Our intent is not to force our opinions on others, but provide them with a choice and let them reach their own decision. There is no right or wrong answer to the question proposed, it all comes down to personal opinion. The aim of the debate is to demonstrate this, by getting our audience involved they too can voice their opinion, after hearing the research and opinions that we put forward and taking part in an in depth discussion. In order to do this we understand that it is vitally important that we have provided them with enough information for them to make a decision for themselves.
Violence affects everyone in one way or another; it is present in all types of media, television, newspapers and the internet! But would violence as entertainment still be present without the internet? Has it contributed to crime rate and sadistic behaviour? What do we view as acceptable entertainment and should we interfere with the contents of the internet by using censorship? Through our discussion and debate we aim to try and bring some light to these subjects, and even if we do not come to solid conclusions- we hope to get our audience members thinking about them.
Our main aim was to produce a live structured debate open to the audience to contribute and speak their opinions. We wanted to use an issue that is growing rapidly but is often disregarded therefore we wanted to raise awareness. By having a debate we hope to produce a valid argument that covers points both for and against violence in the media contributing to real acts of violence in today’s society. We hope to achieve a heated argument between the four of us, but we also hope to provoke to audience, raising elements that they may be able to identify with or feel strongly towards. By having a group debate, we are able to have a general idea of what contribution the media has to violence today. By aiming our debate around young students who are highly opinionated and less influenced by the media than young children for example, we hope to form a successful argument by stepping out of the box and looking at these issues as outsiders. As students and young adults we are very prone to violence, and we often regard it as part of the binge culture we live In today, therefore it is interesting to look closer at something we are affected by everyday, the media, and question whether it is causing or influencing these problems.
By taking part in virtuality in performance, we have learnt the huge affect of the media and technology on our lives without realizing the extremes of these effects. By forming our debate we hope to discover what these effects are.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Our Aims
Firstly, to tie in with the huge internet emphasis on this module, we have decided to try and bring our subject matter to the masses through using the ever-popular facebook. We have set up a group on facebook entitled "Does the internet contribute to violence being used as entertainment?"
You can visit this at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6925185291
We are simply putting questions forward in the hope to gain answers from other people. We all have different opinions on whether the internet contributes towards violence as entertainment. I personally think that it does make everything more accessible but this isnt necessarily a bad thing. It doesnt make people violent, I think this in inherent in some people's human nature. Violence as entertainment has always been prevalent throughout history so I dont think the internet is to blame for it.
These are the questions that we are asking in our facebook discussion board:
"Is this wrong? Is the internet feeding people's sadistic pleasures, or are some humans inevitably transfixed by violence anyway? Does it matter? And should we be censoring what people can upload and watch more strictly or would we end up living in a 1984 society?"
You can visit this at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6925185291
We are simply putting questions forward in the hope to gain answers from other people. We all have different opinions on whether the internet contributes towards violence as entertainment. I personally think that it does make everything more accessible but this isnt necessarily a bad thing. It doesnt make people violent, I think this in inherent in some people's human nature. Violence as entertainment has always been prevalent throughout history so I dont think the internet is to blame for it.
These are the questions that we are asking in our facebook discussion board:
"Is this wrong? Is the internet feeding people's sadistic pleasures, or are some humans inevitably transfixed by violence anyway? Does it matter? And should we be censoring what people can upload and watch more strictly or would we end up living in a 1984 society?"
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
The Diary of a Virtuality & Performance Student...
The question that we will be answering as part of our module is, "Does the internet contribute towards violence being used as a form of entertainment?"
Why have we chosen this particular area to concentrate on?
Increasingly in the media we are hearing stories of people uploading violent footage onto the internet to provide entertainment for others.
It is a fact that this is happening, people are uploading home videos of gang fights, bullying, animal cruelty and there are also websites dedicated to giving people the voyeuristic pleasure of looking at corpses and mutilated body parts. And the viewing statistics are huge.
Is this wrong? Is the internet feeding people's sadistic pleasures, or are some humans inevitably transfixed by violence anyway? Does it matter? And should we be censoring what people can upload and watch more strictly or would we end up living in a 1984 society?
Why have we chosen this particular area to concentrate on?
Increasingly in the media we are hearing stories of people uploading violent footage onto the internet to provide entertainment for others.
It is a fact that this is happening, people are uploading home videos of gang fights, bullying, animal cruelty and there are also websites dedicated to giving people the voyeuristic pleasure of looking at corpses and mutilated body parts. And the viewing statistics are huge.
Is this wrong? Is the internet feeding people's sadistic pleasures, or are some humans inevitably transfixed by violence anyway? Does it matter? And should we be censoring what people can upload and watch more strictly or would we end up living in a 1984 society?
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Remediation...
The Double Logic of Remediation
Immediacy: (Stanislavski like) Immersion (video-games, virtual reality- forget here and now reality and the distinction between reality and non-reality. Makes you forget the real self and the fact that what you are watching is virtual)
Hyper-mediacy: (Brecht-like) The use of asides, titles, presenters, to withdraw/alienate you. Makes you remember that you are watching media by using a collosal amount of media.
The double logic of remediation makes you realise that you are watching media and then draws you in and consumes your entirity so that you lose track of where you are.
Examples:
The french film "Irreversible" uses hyper-mediacy in its style by starting the film at the end and gradually working towards the beginning which makes the audience aware of the media itself, and then gradually immerses them through the thrilling storyline and complicated characters.
Console games, especially the ps2, ps3 and the Wii are obvious forms of using the double logic of remediation. They initially make it clear that they are oozing with new technology so that the player is aware that it is a superior media form...but then the realistic style of the virtual media immerses you so that you forget that your experience is not in the hear and now.
Immediacy: (Stanislavski like) Immersion (video-games, virtual reality- forget here and now reality and the distinction between reality and non-reality. Makes you forget the real self and the fact that what you are watching is virtual)
Hyper-mediacy: (Brecht-like) The use of asides, titles, presenters, to withdraw/alienate you. Makes you remember that you are watching media by using a collosal amount of media.
The double logic of remediation makes you realise that you are watching media and then draws you in and consumes your entirity so that you lose track of where you are.
Examples:
The french film "Irreversible" uses hyper-mediacy in its style by starting the film at the end and gradually working towards the beginning which makes the audience aware of the media itself, and then gradually immerses them through the thrilling storyline and complicated characters.
Console games, especially the ps2, ps3 and the Wii are obvious forms of using the double logic of remediation. They initially make it clear that they are oozing with new technology so that the player is aware that it is a superior media form...but then the realistic style of the virtual media immerses you so that you forget that your experience is not in the hear and now.
Monday, 12 November 2007
Is YouTube inviting sadistic/perverted voyeurism into our lives....??
This is a copy of a recent case that happened to an elderly lady as she lay dying on her doorstep. Her attacker described the event as "You Tube Material." Was this attack done just for YouTube? Is this what people want to see as YouTube? Has people's perceptions of good entertainment changed for the worse....?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7063366.stm
Man jailed for urinating on woman
Anthony Anderson was filmed urinating on Christine LakinskiA man who urinated on a woman as she lay dying and shouted "this is YouTube material" has been sentenced to three years in prison.
Anthony Anderson also covered Christine Lakinski with shaving foam after she collapsed in a Hartlepool street.
Miss Lakinski, 50, who suffered from a number of medical conditions, was later pronounced dead at the scene.
Anderson, 27, and from Raby Road in the Teesside town, had earlier admitted outraging public decency.
The court heard how, on 27 July, Miss Lakinski was making her way home with a box of laminate flooring when she fell ill and stumbled into a doorway.
Totally shocked
Anderson, a former soldier, had smoked a cannabis joint and been drinking when he and two friends spotted her.
He tried to rouse her by throwing a bucket of water over her, before urinating on her and covering her with shaving foam.
A crowd had gathered around, watching and laughing, and the incident was filmed on a mobile phone.
She was later declared dead at the scene, the cause of death being given as pancreatic failure.
Magistrates in Hartlepool had referred the case to Teesside Crown Court so a longer jail term could be handed out.
Judge Peter Fox, the recorder of Middlesbrough sitting at Teesside Crown Court, said: "You violated this woman in an incredible way, and the shocking nature of your acts over a prolonged period of time must mean that a prison sentence of greater length is appropriate in this case."
'Sick and inhumane'
Outside court, Miss Lakinski's family said in a statement: "We remain totally shocked that anyone could behave in such an appalling way.
"The fact that Christine was dying makes this man's actions even more sick and inhumane.
"However, those who stood by and did nothing to stop Anderson are also guilty in our eyes.
"It beggars belief that these people chose not only to condone his cruelty, but also to walk away from a neighbour who was clearly in distress and needed help."
The family statement added that Christine had "faced immense challenges throughout her life", yet still had managed to "forge an independent life for herself".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7063366.stm
Man jailed for urinating on woman
Anthony Anderson was filmed urinating on Christine LakinskiA man who urinated on a woman as she lay dying and shouted "this is YouTube material" has been sentenced to three years in prison.
Anthony Anderson also covered Christine Lakinski with shaving foam after she collapsed in a Hartlepool street.
Miss Lakinski, 50, who suffered from a number of medical conditions, was later pronounced dead at the scene.
Anderson, 27, and from Raby Road in the Teesside town, had earlier admitted outraging public decency.
The court heard how, on 27 July, Miss Lakinski was making her way home with a box of laminate flooring when she fell ill and stumbled into a doorway.
Totally shocked
Anderson, a former soldier, had smoked a cannabis joint and been drinking when he and two friends spotted her.
He tried to rouse her by throwing a bucket of water over her, before urinating on her and covering her with shaving foam.
A crowd had gathered around, watching and laughing, and the incident was filmed on a mobile phone.
She was later declared dead at the scene, the cause of death being given as pancreatic failure.
Magistrates in Hartlepool had referred the case to Teesside Crown Court so a longer jail term could be handed out.
Judge Peter Fox, the recorder of Middlesbrough sitting at Teesside Crown Court, said: "You violated this woman in an incredible way, and the shocking nature of your acts over a prolonged period of time must mean that a prison sentence of greater length is appropriate in this case."
'Sick and inhumane'
Outside court, Miss Lakinski's family said in a statement: "We remain totally shocked that anyone could behave in such an appalling way.
"The fact that Christine was dying makes this man's actions even more sick and inhumane.
"However, those who stood by and did nothing to stop Anderson are also guilty in our eyes.
"It beggars belief that these people chose not only to condone his cruelty, but also to walk away from a neighbour who was clearly in distress and needed help."
The family statement added that Christine had "faced immense challenges throughout her life", yet still had managed to "forge an independent life for herself".
What consititues a good performance?
What constitutes a worthwhile performance?
It is virtually impossible to give an exact definitive as to what constitutes a worthwhile performance, and it is inevitably personal. For me, a worthwhile performance has to do one of the following things for me: Challenge me, educate me or enlighten me. That is not to say that performances that are purely aesthetic or funny aren't good entertainment- but perhaps they are not worthwhile to me. A performance doesnt have to be something that is deliberate- ie performed in a theatre, a film masterpiece or a comedian's sketch. Some of the best performances I have seen are political protests, home-made cartoons posted on "Youtube", children's tantrums, or simply watching an awkward situation on a bus, or a couple having an argument unaware that I have placed a frame around them just as a TV does to a soap opera.
Worthwhile performances do not have to be sleek and rehearsed, but I do think it is important that a performance has some something to say that will make the viewer think after the performance after it has finished. When I watched "The Glamorous Kitten Killer" on "You-Tube" I was immediatly repulsed & thought it was awful entertainment, which it is. However, it has challenged me and made me think about the sort of world that we are living in; What stage is society at if somebody has deliberately made a film of brutally killing an animal to ensure popular viewing figures on "You-Tube"? And is it human nature that compells some people to watch the footage or are we turning into a colder, selfish & more perverted & voyeuristic society...?
It is virtually impossible to give an exact definitive as to what constitutes a worthwhile performance, and it is inevitably personal. For me, a worthwhile performance has to do one of the following things for me: Challenge me, educate me or enlighten me. That is not to say that performances that are purely aesthetic or funny aren't good entertainment- but perhaps they are not worthwhile to me. A performance doesnt have to be something that is deliberate- ie performed in a theatre, a film masterpiece or a comedian's sketch. Some of the best performances I have seen are political protests, home-made cartoons posted on "Youtube", children's tantrums, or simply watching an awkward situation on a bus, or a couple having an argument unaware that I have placed a frame around them just as a TV does to a soap opera.
Worthwhile performances do not have to be sleek and rehearsed, but I do think it is important that a performance has some something to say that will make the viewer think after the performance after it has finished. When I watched "The Glamorous Kitten Killer" on "You-Tube" I was immediatly repulsed & thought it was awful entertainment, which it is. However, it has challenged me and made me think about the sort of world that we are living in; What stage is society at if somebody has deliberately made a film of brutally killing an animal to ensure popular viewing figures on "You-Tube"? And is it human nature that compells some people to watch the footage or are we turning into a colder, selfish & more perverted & voyeuristic society...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
