The Producer's Mind

The idea of production is, in its most basic form, the refining of raw materials into a valuable end product. The materials can be anything from metals to crops, from labor to vision. Whether the process is the engineering and manufacturing of a product, or the splitting of large bulk orders into progressively smaller lots, that process's goal is to refine a profitable end product and get it into the hands of the end consumer.

Therefore, a successful producer must be able to manage input and output. He must know where he is in the chain of production, what his immediate customer wants, and what the end consumer wants. He must then understand the "raw" material which he is buying, its cost and value. He must be aware of the business politics of his vendors, and to what degree they can be trusted. Basically, to be a success, he must be a gatekeeper of value.

By contrast, a person who primarily fills the role of a consumer only has the need to identify value on one end of the equation. That is, he is "free" to buy what he needs at a price up to what he has or can get through credit. When he uses up his purchase, he must either buy more, or go without. It is a reactionary lifestyle, mostly dependent upon the fluctuations of the larger economy.

The written word is no different. A person who reads to simply pass the time, consumes the words with no potential for output. Mass fiction is little more than a time waster, as it leads to no exploration or personal discovery. It cannot spark conversation of any substance, and it does little to motivate the reader toward any action but turning the page.

A person who reads with a writer's mind (or intakes any media which he also creates), is inclined to seek value in the written word. He hopes to extract lessons, start discussions, and generally be inspired to break his writer's blocks. The greater he wishes his finished products to be, the greater the products he wishes to digest. If he is part of a collaborative effort, he is willing to let his own contribution be overruled by a better idea.

If we want for people to intake better information, it is a waste of our efforts to attempt to get everyone to digest the greatest works. There are those who already do read the Great Books, simply because they know the value in them, even if they have no specific outlet. Some understand the concept, and even read literature from time to time, but would be more inclined to dive into more challenging material if they saw a specific result. Others need a little more encouragement. They need media that is in between what appears to be the daunting challenge of Great Books, and what is the simple ease of genre-based "page turners" and mind-numbing TV.

Make no mistake, there is a need for the thinking-man's media. Even if it comes in the form of "easy" TV and entertaining trade paperbacks. We need people to produce this content, not seek to tear the system down.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain...and most fools do." - Dale Carnegie

FEATURED MEDIA:
How to Read a Book. By Mortimer J. Adler, founder of the Great Books of the Western World

Censorship

Censorship is a hotly contested, often misunderstood practice. One where the very use of its own related words gets people into such an emotional lather of indignation that no one seeks first to understand the meaning of the words. As words like "ban," "boycott," and "censor" seem to have different meanings to many. I know I've been guilty of proposing a "ban" on something when the word I should have said was "boycott."

Censorship is an official practice of using state powers to remove offensive material from media. The consequences of what might seem to be an act of goodwill, is that the responsibility to understand the difficult and ugly side of life is taken away from the people. Broadly applied, this has the same effect on the human mind that modern antiseptics have had on the human body. The more we are removed from any sort of hardship, the more susceptible we become to infections that get past our defenses—mentally or physically speaking. If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger.

My recent experience with censorship is not from so large an organization as the government, it is from the video game company, Nintendo. It seems that Nintendo has found it prudent to ban certain names from its online gaming network. Below is the email I sent to the company about the issue. I don't know for certain if my concerns are founded on actual company policy, or the irrational assumptions of gamers who have too much time to air complaints on forum, but I'm hoping to get to the bottom of this issue.

I am contacting you regarding the apparent banning of certain Mii names on the WFC. I was going to play Mario Kart Wii online with my son, Killien, using his Mii, but was confused to find that his Mii name was restricted. Upon further research, I could only find fairly angry comments on gamers' forums discussing the banning of the "Hitler" Mii. At least I can understand the rationale of banning Hitler, even if I don't agree with it. I'm not a racist and I'm not Jewish, but he's just a cartoon version of a historical figure—why the censorship?

I did also find several entries stating that names containing the word "kill" were banned. However, "Killien" is my three-year-old son's NAME. I'm not interested in changing his Mii name, and he is not old enough to understand why I have to. I don't mind explaining it to him, but I would like to hear the reason from the horse's mouth. Are you going to ban the name "Shelly" because it contains the word "hell"? Or what about the name "Dick"? Doesn't the need to explain these things in itself unnecessarily expose children to the uglier aspects of the world in which we live?

In any case, I found no information about bans at all on your official website, so I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and to assume that I am mistaken as a result of the rash assessment of other gamers. That being said, I would like to know how my son's name can be approved for the WFC. Or where I can officially complain about the ban, if in fact, censorship is Nintendo's official policy.

PHOTO CREDITS: ©Elizabeth Klueck

Sell It Not

"Buy the truth and sell it not; also wisdom, instruction, and understanding." (Proverbs 23:23)

This is a verse from the Bible that I have pondered for some time. In light of my theories about profitable stories through Truth in Fiction and my very own Amazon Store, some clarification is in order. I could go into great length about its context, quoting the original Greek, and such. But it is more upon my heart to share what it seems to say to me.

According to Seth Godin, in a recent blog post, "Art is a gift. You can sell the souvenir, the canvas, the recording... but the idea itself is free, and the generosity is a critical part of making art." To me, the Biblical commandment to "buy the truth" is a commandment to those who seek wisdom to volunteer a fair compensation. It is not the job of the wiseman to demand pay for his thoughts, but the responsibility of the seeker to offer.

Any man who would take art (even "free" art) without feeling the need to return the value, surely is in need of the wisdom it possesses. This reminds me of a story I once heard about a thief who broke into a Christian home.

The thief took what he could of value from the home. He was indiscriminant and irreverent. He even grabbed the family Bible, but seeing no value in it, he tore several of the fine paper pages from the book and discarded the rest.

As the story goes, his intention was to use the paper to roll his cigarettes. However, he wound up reading the pages, and was eventually led to Christ.

Regardless of your religious beliefs, would you agree that this fictitious scenario demonstrates the principle of the above verse? Perhaps we should be less concerned with our rights of copy and more concerned with the wisdom contained therein.

The value of capturing truth is in becoming an authority on truth. Should you desire wealth, or the fruits thereof, your honest endorsements will make you a millionaire.

FEATURED MEDIA:
Linchpin: Are You Indispensable? Seth Godin's newest book.

God is Green

Today, I saw a bumper sticker on a mid-sized SUV, which read "God is Green." Aside from the apparent hypocrisy in the context, I couldn't help but judge a few other things about the driver's thinking. First, I recognize that it is wrong to consider my judgements in any way correct. I could not have stopped the driver to ask if he or she was the one who applied the sticker (perhaps it was a son or daughter). I have no way of knowing why that person needed an SUV, perhaps they do have a lot of kids and frequent need to carry equipment for their work. Perhaps they own an organic food store, and judged the SUV as a necessity of business. I don't know.

However, the thoughts that scampered across my mind were as follows. First, "That's true." Second, "Who doesn't agree with that?" Third, "Why do they need to tell me?" Fourth, "Are they suggesting the typical action of government regulation?" I appreciate their sentiments, but the sticker did not send me to a website as is common with statements of an activist nature. If they were trying to do anything but label themselves as green-conscious (which is fine), then they left me with two options in response: pray about it (they invoked the name of God) or go the other "higher power" (the government).

But this article is more self-expository than it is revealing of that driver's intentions. What in my brain left we with those two choices as a knee-jerk response? See, upon further thought, I could look up a green nonprofit with which to get involved, or I could start one. I could also modify my own personal actions and business concerns to reflect my agreement with that statement. All these would collectively have a greater positive impact than that of government meddling, in my opinion.

My understanding is this: if most people believe that God is Green, or to put it another way, green practices are in sync with the nature of the physical world, then wouldn't such bumper stickers have the effect of reminding them to buy green? If so, doesn't that mean that the market favors those businesses that satisfy that demand? If you agree, then why does government need to regulate business into being green? We the people are through our spending habits, we need give no more taxes to the issue.

The answer, of course, is a lack of thinking. Or, more kindly put, a functional blind spot. Big media is the platform of the dominant political parties, both which now continue to "campaign" throughout their terms, rather than settling into non-partisan activities. The result of this is that we are held to believe, by any political discussion in all mainstream media, that our [legitimate] choices are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. I put the word "legitimate" in brackets because they'd rather not suggest there's even a poor third choice, and indeed they rarely do.

Now, I'm not writing this to suggest that you vote for a green party, but at least that's thinking outside the box. It is another choice, but it is still a government solution to a private problem. I submit that mainstream media is often an enforcer of limiting beliefs, if not its primary provider. This is especially true with network television, which relies upon revenue generated through the advertising of mediocre products (not cheap, but not necessarily the best). Subsequently, network television has an interest in hosting ideas that are also middle-of-the-road (not wrong, but also not completely right). They like to stick to big labels and stereotypes that are easy to identify by viewers. They fear if TV is too smart, their audience will dwindle.

Independents are thinking people, and are growing in number to the degree that they become disenchanted with the two party system championed by mainstream media. If God is Green, but God has no place in government, then ought we look elsewhere for the care of our environment?

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For more information on Independents in modern political times, check out the blog at The Center For Social Leadership.

"LOST: What Kate Does"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"What Kate Does"

It has been pointed out by executive producer, Damen Lindelof, that "like all good mythologies, it ultimately comes down to the battle between good and evil." The unique thing about LOST is the ambiguity with which it has always approached the concepts. For example, time and time again, we find ourselves wondering if we can trust Ben Linus, even though he is a self-confessed liar ("The Incident"). Also, despite their ominous nature, the Others maintain that they are the good-guys.

So let me ask the question that the show implies: how do you define good and evil. It seems to me that Jacob and his nemesis are on opposite sides of that fence. Though, despite the colors they wear, we are not clear what actions are attributed to which character. For example, when Ben was sent to kill Danielle Rousseau, but discovered baby Alex, he was concerned that the baby's death would not have been what Jacob wanted. So who gave the order? Was it Jacob, for the larger service of the Island? Is the Island worth the life of a baby? Is Jacob evil for ordering such a thing, or was it really Nemesis who gave the order? It is unanswerable, therefore, we cannot assume that the man in black is evil and Jacob is good. To make this ruling, one must define evil. Then one must identify its source.

Which brings me to the predominant philosophical theme of this episode: guilt. I don't exactly mean the feeling of guilt, but the fact of guilt. Who is responsible for a given action or its results? Jack had already taken responsibility for Sayid's death in "LA X," and maintains his guilt in this episode. The fact that Sayid is now alive, is a subject I will return to momentarily.

The episode centers around Kate, whose story is the very definition of guilt as a matter of fact. This episode, we discover that, like the Kate we know, "sideways" Kate is also under arrest for murder. Interestingly, she has a remorseless demeanor in spite of her guilt. This is another thing they still share. In previous flashbacks, we find that she feels justified in her actions ("What Kate Did"), and is shocked that others do not agree.

Sayid expressed remorse for his actions, when he pondered his impending death last episode. He reminds us of what he has done and asks where he will go in the afterlife. In contrast to Kate, Sayid does not seem to feel justified in his actions, but expects something terrible. We find he is partially right as made manifest by Dogen's "diagnosis," which Sayid considered torture despite the lack of questions asked. This harkens back to "The Brig" where the idea was presented that the Island is like Hell for those who deserve it.

That being said, James "Sawyer" Ford is enduring the emotional agony of having lost the woman he loves, Juliet Burke. He recants Sayid's crimes by way of saying it's not fair that a torturer gets a second chance. Kate tries to reason with Sawyer by saying it's her fault that she got on the sub ("The Incident"), preventing his escape. But Sawyer feels nothing for Kate, and again she seems suprised. Sawyer blames his own selfishness because he talked Juliet into staying on the Island. In a twist of irony, it was because he didn't want to be alone that he talked her into staying, and now he is alone.

We learn that Sayid's hell is possibly owed to the fact that he is "claimed" by some "darkness." It seems apparent that this refers to the Nemesis. This bears a similarity with the way characters are taken by the dark side of the force in the Star Wars Trilogy. However, unlike Star Wars, we learn that Claire has already been claimed. Archetypically, Claire has represented what is good and nurturing, even being a stand-in for an angel or the Virgin Mary in Charlie Pace's vision ("Fire + Water").

In the flashsideways, Kate takes Claire to the hospital, an action that is strange in the context of their recent interactions. It is as though the good nature of Claire awakens something human in the hardcore fugitive that is Kate. Claire helps her escape in return for her help. When Kate suggests she might be innocent of her crime, Claire seems to make a character judgement and replies to the effect that she could believe it. On-Island Claire seems to be the antithesis of what she has always been, unless we simply do not understand the nature of good. Very thought provoking.

Perhaps the Nemesis is the rightful inhabitant of the Island, righteously sworn to protect it by any means. I submit the story of the Ark of the Covenant from the Bible. When God told them not to touch it, He meant it. As the tale goes one of its carriers tried to stop it from falling over, and he was struck dead. Perhaps the Island is that important, and Jacob and all the people he brought are merely intruders.

Or perhaps we can take the Nemesis at face value, perhaps he is over stepping his bounds. Maybe he wishes to control the Island when it is not his place. To reference the Bible again, this is similar to the conflict between Satan and God, where the evil one was the highest of angels, but was cast out because he wanted to be God.

What do you think?

FEATURED MEDIA: Season 6 of LOST!

Media and Monsters

Many of you know that I am the proud father of a bright three and a half year old son (but I'm biased, I know). It is as much for his sake as anyone else's that I do what I do. The influence of media on people's minds starts at around 18 months. My wife and I have tried, to the best of our human abilities, to take the hard road in raising him.

Many people fall into the trap of letting their children watch too much television, because it's easier than perpetual playtime. I'm not condemning, I know how tempting it is to let them sit there quietly.

I've settled on a compromise. Children's movies, if not always perfect (and no subtitute for imaginative play), are often repeated again and again. This gives willing parents the chance to discuss themes with their children and weave lessons into daily life. It is important for this reason that children's programming be suitable for adults as well, and not limited to shapes and colors.

My favorite is "Monsters, Inc." In my opinion this is Pixar's best film to date (though I've yet to see the critically acclaimed "Toy Story"). It is solidly entertaining and well developed at every point, and holds my attention and his attention alike. It has been a spark for imaginative play (with my help) and a reference for concerns.

The basic plot of the movie revolves around a company (Monsters, Inc.), which harvests children's screams as a source of energy (i.e.: instead of coal). "Scarers" travel through portals from the factory floor through the closet doors of human chidren to scare a scream out of them and collect the power.

Ultimately, a child gets loose in the monster world, and it turns out that monsters are more afraid of us than we are of them. Despite their jobs, the main characters are portrayed as good-natured and heroic, in contrast to the antagonists who have compromised their morals to get ahead during the "scream shortage."

In the end, the hero discovers an alternative energy which is ten times more powerful and does not require scaring children. So innovation triumphs over tradition and bureaucracy. And this is a kids' movie!

The reason I thought to do this article was that just tonight, Monsters, Inc. allowed me to talk to my son about monsters in his closet. I was able to comfort him with the thought that most monsters are nice and reasonable. I even "worked out a deal" so they wouldn't come through his closet.

Sure this kind of parental guidance requires imagination on my behalf. Sure it's not always easy, but it will be worth it when he grows up to face his fears with a clear head rather than paranoia.

Media and Marketing

In order to discuss the union of these two concepts, one must first define their differences. Because they are so intertwined in the post-modern world, many definitions simply consider them the same thing. At the very least, I believe they are different branches on the same tree, if not separate and distinct trees altogether. They both possess their own aspects of both science and art, while I think it is their art (and not their science) that creates the greatest divide.

Permit me to save a lengthy discussion of the etymology of the word "media," and just say, for our purposes that media is referring primarily to entertainment mass media such as television, movies, novels, and their digital kin. The content of such media is a creative (if not artistic) endeavor, which by its nature attracts a crowd. The easier such media content is for people to access, the bigger the following will be. Therefore, it is only natural that such media would ideally be free and widely accessible.

Marketing is about getting products and services into people's hands. Because it is, at its core, merely a transfer of information, it requires some form of media to have a mass effect. (As a side bar, it should be noted that the most effective form of marketing, word-of-mouth, does not inherently need any form of media at all—though visual aids help.) The art of marketing is not in convincing people they need the product, but in finding those people who do. Therefore, it is ideal that the products and services being offered are of the highest quality and directed at the individuals who understand that quality.

In the early days of radio, companies like Colgate-Pamolive realized that they could increase sales to their target audience by providing dramatic, serialized programming. These "soap operas" were designed to develop loyal listeners comprised mostly of the company's target audience (housewives, in this case). The company could then market new products or additional services to the audience in the form of mass advertising. Because companies advertised high quality products to individuals who understood that quality, those companies developed enough profits to expand the funding for the production of media.

As companies began to grow in size and new forms of media (like television) were invented, advertising became its own industry—and entertainment media exploded along with it. While the Motion Picture industry kept itself independently funded (until product placements) through ticket sales and the like, television (at least in the US) had always been a free service funded by advertising. The consequence of this was that the entertainment was primarily influenced by commercial interests.

Television, as it became mainstream, became the culture in America. Because of its accessibility, it became the most widespread source of information, and therefore one of the widest influences on people's thinking. As industrial innovation slowed, companies shifted from larger-scale manufacturing to smaller-scale consumer production. This drove them to enlist mass advertising, rather than learn how to market to customers directly. The rising demand for advertising space, in turn, threatened to over-saturate the market, driving demand for larger audiences. "Larger audiences" were not defined by the quality, but by the quantity of viewers.

Therefore, the advertising industry called for media programming which was directed at the lowest common-denominator. Psychologists, and other marketing "experts" were employed to make the process more efficient. The result of which was the realization that media could teach audiences to be emotionally susceptible. An individual with low emotional intelligence, was more likely to impulse-buy, buy on credit, and buy non-essential or luxury items.

If media, however, is set up as the driving force of the media-marketing continuum, then the results might be quite different. Markets fluctuate—that is just a fact of economics and people—but what people never need less of is good information. If media takes the lead, then the leading media would be that which possessed the best information or the most truth. The very best entertainment, valuable for the mind and spirit; the very best news and documentaries, definitely truthful; and the demand for the very best products as sponsors, once again.

How would media "take the lead"? Well, if the best media imparts the most truth, then simply by refusing to be dependent upon any entity whose purpose is not truth. This is a decision that requires emotional maturity. There is no reason that media cannot be provided for free, but the costs have to be covered by a source that has no control over what the media creators decide to do. Ideally, the media creators would own the marketing concerns (more on this later).

The interesting thing is that if media takes the lead, but maintains funding from marketing, its growth is restrained by the markets. There are many examples in the history of free enterprise to indicate that those who have a passion for their business will figure out how to adapt. Basically, this will give media creators the incentive to understand the marketing process and fix the problems, further informing their creation of compelling and wise media.