Perezhilton.com is a stunning, if ridiculous, phenomenon. "Perez Hilton," whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, is a celebrity blogger who boasts controlling and writing for "Hollywood's Most-Hated Web Site (perezhilton.com)." What I find most interesting about Hilton's blog is the many layers of media that make up the gossip site. First, there is the news Hilton prints, the stories he feels are newsworthy. Hilton often times includes false information or caddy remarks in his stories, and then crosses them out and inserts the "right" or accurate words, correspondingly printing the news and instilling his opinions on the story or the subject at the same time. Hilton also displays photos of the subjects of his news and often times draws on them to display certain emotions he feels or emphasis a characteristic of theirs that he finds prevalent or consequential. An example of this is a drool mark of sorts that connotes stupidness or cluelessness, a mark he uses often in his blog. He also gives nicknames to some celebrities as a way of emphasizing his opinions of them. Lindsay Lohan has received the nickname "Lindsanity" and Jeremy Piven has been deemed "The Pivert." While reading Hilton's blog it is difficult to read the stories from one's own perspective. Hilton has so completely and systematically infused his news stories with his opinions that he has skewed all edges of subjectivity and objectivity. At this point his opinion completely overlaps with the news, making it impossible to distinguish between true and false. It is easier to just unwaveringly believe what he is saying because if a person starts questioning his words nothing will be left unquestioned. If a person is using Perez Hilton as their only news source their actions are clashing severely with the principles of formulating one's own opinion or doing research before formulating those opinions. Even using Hilton's blog as a source for celebrity gossip/news is faulty as he often seems to miss some celebrity stories, favoring covering the celebrities he finds most interesting. If most celebrity gossip reported by upstanding news sources, ones apparently less hated by Hollywood, such as People or Us Weekly, sources that we public often seem to trust, is false, then what does that make Perez Hilton's news? Is it even news anymore or fictional stories? Most celebrities seem to deny what magazines and gossip columns print, so is there any way to even distinguish? How important is it to acknowledge the level of accuracy a source has before reading it or using it to inform one's knowledge on a certain occurrence or story? Is it possible to really determine whether or not one source, such as People, is more accurate that one like that of Perez? Does People magazine infuse their magazine with more subtle opinions and subjectivity than Perez? Correspondingly, could Perez be considered more honest by openly acknowledging disdain for a celebrity than People magazine, whose writers might inconspicuously take a point of view when writing an article ? Has celebrity news already parted from the limits of accuracy completely, when even photos, something usually trusted as a sign of accuracy, can be staged and manipulated?

After class today I launched a, what I thought would be, quick look into the life and work of Spike Lee. I figured I would find movie titles he directed and then head over to the library to grab a few before the weekend set in. My search was not close to quick, as Spike Lee's name elicits almost 5 million hits on google. The articles I was viewing started out addressing his career. There was imdb.com, which is a movie site that lists all the works of a specific actor, director or producer, and the standard wikipedia page. Below all those sites were news results addressing Spike Lee's entrance onto the committee that is working to host the World Cup in the U.S.A. in 2018, 2022. Other news stories from USA Today displayed titles such as "Iowa football players chat up Spike Lee in Miami" and "Michael Jackson's "This Is It" by Spike Lee." Lee is truly a monumental figure in our country, and paralleling his influence on the American public is his influence on the media. Media sources of all kind appear to be lapping up information about the director. He's involved in sports, politics, and entertainment. One google hit was an article complaining that Spike Lee is inhibiting the advancement of the American black community in his work. Other hits praised him for his response to Katrina and the way he dealt with portraying the story in the documentary, When the Levees Broke. Another suprising aspect of the Spike Lee google search is that the news on him is constantly being updated. One of the "news results" was from eight hours ago. It is amazing how newspapers and websites that deliver the news are able to act so quickly. I'm a chronic googler and am also constantly surprised by the breadth of material google presents and the way it couples advertising with providing information. Spike Lee brought a link to the lavin agency (thelavinagency.com) which is a group that provides speakers to companies or schools such as Andover and helps them track down and book the speaker. There was a bio on Lee advertising his many cinema achievements and also a look into his life and the way he has lived in the spotlight. The website advertised his articulacy and worked to sell him as a speaker. It is amazing how searching a name can bring one to so many different results. I know so much more about Spike Lee now, and have received this information from many different news sources working from different angles. Spike Lee, director, producer, actor, avid soccer fan, mourner of Michael Jackson, sparker of controversy, and his many other personas are available through typing two words into google. The many media sources of the world come together on the web to deliver information. There were reporters behind my google search, writers, and editors. By searching one name on google I was reaching out all over the world, and receiving a host of information. Without meaning to I was being exposed to information well outside the realm of my search, while acting as a target for advertising. It is an amazing, albeit daunting thing, how accessible the world is. In the future I hope to learn more about the way google receives links to websites and in what categories it sorts these sites. What does google consider newsworthy?

Media, Media, Media, Oh my!

My media landscape is spread out across magazines, books, newspapers, television, and the radio. While I don't interact with all of these sources on a daily basis, I do interact with many of them every day. I try to read the news each morning and usually frequent Boston.com, the Boston Globe's website, where I can unearth a mix of local and national news as well as special-interests stories, which are often really interesting. While I use the web often, I am not very adventurous with the sites I visit. On any given day I look at PAnet, Hotmail.com, facebook.com, wordreference.com (an english to spanish translation site), weather.com, and often dictionary.com. These sites tend to hold strong to their content in that they rarely venture from providing what they've promised, such as spanish words or the weather. Many of them though have advertisements that are constantly changing above a given article or weather report. Facebook seems to be capable of tracking a users interests as I've often seen advertisements targeting bands I am interested or states I have visited. The ads on facebook switch every time a person looks at a different page, so I might see up to twenty ads depending on the duration of my time on facebook.

I am also interested in music, so I am on the itunes music store daily, as well as paste.com and rollingstone.com, the websites of two music based magazines. Both of these sites advertise new artists or magazine issues themselves, and often have advertisements not pertaining to the music. This morning rollingstone. com had a Cole Haan shoe advertisement above the article I was reading. I often see advertisements for special deals or sales on rollingstone.com, usually in a really bright print that distracts the reader from the article.

My final regular interaction with a specific type of media are magazines. While I don't receive magazines monthly, my family members and roommate do. My father passes down his music magazines to me, my mother the gossip-types such as People and Us Weekly, and my roommate the fashion-based ones such as Nylon, Vogue, and Instyle. I find myself reading a magazine in each of these categories at least once in a two-week span, and none of them stick to just fashion or music or gossip. Their content ranges from politics to movies to the best restaurants in Boston, and beyond.

As far as radio and television go, I interact with these usually only over break in exceedingly large amounts. I often find myself watching television for the first three days of break almost constantly as I recover from exams. Coupled with sleeping, the channel cwtv, which runs teen-oriented shows such as Melrose Place and Vampire Diaries, comprises my vacation existence. I also watch music videos on MTV occasionally. Both of these channels tend to display the latest in teenage interest, such as vampires or a particular artist. The shows on the CW are constantly changing and each show employs twenty-somethings playing fifteen to eighteen year olds in high school. Once the comatose stage of break ends I like to catch up on music and I listen to the radio, usually gravitating towards local stations such as Jammin 94.5, The River or Mix 104.1. Jammin and Mix play the latest hit pop music and tend to have ads reaching out to the young-American population (under 30), it seems, whereas the river often plays more indie music, including music from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and hosts advertisements that don't seem to target a particular age group or demographic, but most likely do. Something I am looking forward to in this class is exploring the demographics media sources target and how they do it.