Game Story

Alana Birch
“Game Story”

Without A.I., Sixers Walk Over Knicks
January 29, 2006

On January 28, 2006 at 8:00PM, the Philadelphia 76ers took on the New York Knicks at the Wachovia Center in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.

Without Allen Iverson, out due to an injury he sustained on Thursday during the fourth quarter against the Orlando Magic, the Sixers had to rise to the challenge and take on the New York Knicks. With the absence of the Sixers star player, the team, more motivated then ever, collaborated to win over the Knicks in a 91-76 victory.

The star players of the night were Chris “C Webb” Webber who had a double-double, scoring 21 points and getting 10 rebounds. John Salmons added another 18 points. Also, coming up big for the Sixers was Samuel Dalembert who had 15 rebounds and 5 blocked shots.

Even thought the Knicks were defeated, they still had key players in the game. Quentin Woods lead all scorers of the game with 24 points. Franchise player Stephon Marbury played a tiring 42 minutes and 43 seconds, and was limited to only 14 points and 8 assists. Late in the fourth quarter center Eddy Curry committed his sixth personal foul and fouled out of the game. Another notable player was Malik Rose, a former Drexel Dragon, who played just under 15 minutes and scored 5 points.

Since this was a highly anticipated division game, both Sixers and Knicks fans packed the Wachovia Center. There was certainly a ton of energy from the fans for both of the teams. In the start of the game the Knicks came out strong scoring 22 points in the first quarter and led by 3 points. It looked as though the Sixers could not overcome the loss of their star player in the first quarter. However, that quickly changed when they came out to play in the second.

The Sixers sparked up to score twice as many points as the Knicks in the second quarter, rounding out the first half with a 53-39 lead. The Sixers found out how to over come their loss in the second quarter. Swift ball movement, quick and effective scoring, and tight defense was the key to their success.

In the third quarter the Knicks came out and semi-shut down the Sixers, holding them to 17 points while they scored 19, cutting the deficit down to 12 with only one quarter to play.

With the game winding down the Sixes controlled the pace of the final quarter scoring 21 points and holding the Knicks to only 18. The Sixers ended up victorious by 15 points improving their record for the season to 22-21.

The Knicks made 24 of 68 field goals and were 7 of 13 from 3-point range. The Sixers made 32 of 81 field goals and were only 6 of 16 from 3-point range. Both teams however made 21 free throws each. The Sixers dominated the boards and grabbed 51 rebounds while the Knicks had only 37.

Even thought the Sixers were missing A.I., the energy from the stands, and the drive to prove themselves to the crowd, led to victory over the Knicks. The Sixers are only a half game behind the New Jersey Nets for first place in the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference.

So Much For Pundits

Finally - finally! Robert Novak, the up until now avoided-man in the Valerie Plame case, starts to crack. Check this out:


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080605H.shtml

Week in 7

Herb Drill’s theory that news is recycled has really gotten me thinking when I tune into the news. When I began to observe this idea, I realized that it was a common trait throughout many of the television stations here. For example, when we were having that heat wave last week and the week before, apparently nothing else in the country was happening. The news reporters were constantly repeating that there was a heat wave. Obviously people know that if they walked outside. If that was not enough, several of the television stations started to look back at history of Philadelphia heat waves. It really got me to think, do people really care about this? I asked a friend about it and she said that it gets annoying when you want to see what is going on around the world. It’s true, there should be some type of filter that blocks out repeated news. Maybe news reporters should concentrate more and health issues when there is no new news. On the other hand I understand the difficulty of their job. Regardless of what happens in the country that day, they are still responsible to report for the set time. Sometimes there is just nothing that “important” happening. Also there are just so many shootings and killings that a television station can cover. Viewers don’t want to see a whole broadcast on the latest killing.
On the other hand this week, there was a comment made by another classmate about Americans wanting to see international news. I valued and took his opinion into consideration. I seemed to disagree with that statement. Americans are so “self centered.” I do not think many Americans are interested in what’s going on outside of their world. I feel as if it doesn’t affect them many Americans don’t care. Its horrible to say, but I feel that that’s true. I feel Americans have become so accustomed to this filtered recycled news that if there was change many would be upset. I do believe and wish that the news would take out some of the filler and report on news relevant to the people. By slowly filtering in news like that perhaps the news would become more “educational.”
This week I don’t have any questions. I am clear with the reading and topics covered in class.

Shira Cohen

Week In 5

I have always found it to be very interesting as to where advertisers place their ads in magazines/newspapers. I believe that were each advertisement is placed plays a key roll in the effect of the ad. For example, the idea raised in class about an advertisement for an airline placed in front of an article about plan crashes, isn’t going to be very affective. I do think the placement does play an important roll if the content following the advertisement is negative. I do not think that that Huggies placing and advertisement before a story about triples being born will affect the sales of Huggies. I think people would pass by the advertisement and not notice anything different. So overall, I believe that unless the content is negative it will not impact the advertisement near it.

Until today’s class I never realized how much media is influenced by advertisers. I knew that a large chunk of their money came from advertisers, but I didn’t realize that advertisers essentially ran them. The study by Soley & Craig really got me thinking that 71% of American editors had to kill a story because of an advertiser. As a reader, I want to know the truth. I don’t want the stories to be fabricated. I want to know the exact facts. I don’t care that Company X is paying money so that they can look good. Most people don’t buy magazines for advertisements; they buy them for the stories. I just wonder what news and stories would come out if magazines weren’t run buy advertisers. I also believe that it is wrong to use direct pressure. By telling a magazine that an editorial must be about a certain story that is completely wrong. An editorial is meant to be ones own beliefs on a situation or story. An outside source should not be telling that person how to feel. I can see limiting content to reach your audience, but not to just please the advertisers. For example, if you are running a magazine to reach middle aged women, I can see forgetting stories about male lifestyles and what not. I have begun to wonder if there will ever be a day when the media stands up to advertisers and really “works for the people.”

As for questions this week, I am still having some confusion on synergy. I’ve been reading the book, but I still am not certain on what definitely defines a case of synergy. Should our paper deal with a company or one situation where that company uses synergy?
Shira Cohen

Week In 6

I am a firm believer that companies donating to organizations mainly for public relations is a good idea. I feel this way for several reasons. The first reason is that it brings attention to that organization or cause. Oftentimes when large companies are giving money to the press is “all over the story” through photos, television, or radio. When people see or here stories about this it brings attention to that organization. Many times people are flipping though magazines and see a picture of that. Either these people flip right by the picture, or else they stop to see who gave to what. I believe that even if a million people look at that magazine and only one person stops to look and support that organization it still makes a difference. That is still one more person supporting their cause that they did not have before. Just the other day on the Today Show, there was an actress on television supporting a cause that I had never heard of. When I heard the about the organization I immediately looked it up because it sounded interesting. Oftentimes people don’t even know the cause of the organization they are donating to, but they know its “good” because “Company A,” who is a large company is donating there. I also think its important when celebrities give to organizations and are shown interacting with the organizations. Even though in reality they may only interact with the organization by giving them money or going on television shows for ten minutes, it still makes a difference. Someone sees such a thing and is inspired because that celebrity does it, and if he or she does it then I should do it.

I do not believe that America is a “Dewey Society.” I wish I could say that America was a Dewey Society, but we are not. I feel that right now our society goes along with the Whitman beliefs. Americans basically need to be told how to feel or act. Like the organizations belief that I have, in many situations Americans are used to forming an opinion based on what they are influenced by. I think American’s hands have been held for so long taking them in steps to reach a conclusion that it would be hard to form a Dewey Society. I think that a Dewey Society is what we should have because we are a democratic nation. “We the People” should be capable to make our own decisions. For so many years the media has done it for us and told the viewers who the “good people are and who the bad people are.” Its going to take many years for America to change, but I feel it is important in order for America to truly be a democratic society.

I was also wondering has there been studies done to see if by large organizations donating to certain causes have increased the popularity? I think it would be interesting to see a study done on that.

Shira Cohen

Daniel Boorstin

Greetings:

In addition to trying to find the most obvious example of PR-driven news coverage (try to find the least obvious, too), please read this short section of Daniel Boorstin's "The Image" for Thursday.

Do you agree with Boorstin that you can be "known for being well-known" and not much else these days?

What about the idea that there's simply not enough news to go around - which is why we see so many "pseudo-events" these days?

Good luck - see you Thursday.

Daniel Boorstin: "

Daniel Boorstin"

About Public Relations

For Thursday, please read Chapter 1 of Stuart Ewen's "PR: A Social History of Spin." It can be found at this URL: http://www.bway.net/~drstu/chapter.html.

Consider this question:

Do we know that much of what see in the media is public relations-generated? And does it bother us? Should it?

OK, that's three questions - I lost my head.

Catch you Thursday.

The Talk That Would Have Been

One of the major themes in "The Merchants of Cool" was the use by advertising and marketing folks of "anti-marketing marketing," which is just a flashy of saying "self-reflexivity."

Self-reflexivity occurs, at least for our purposes, when the media talk about themselves and their impact on us. It seems strange at first - ripping yourself - but the intent is the same as an ad or a news story - get the audience to pay attention.

So for example, when an ad pokes fun at the company doing the advertising, or the practices of advertising, or the excesses of the media - that's self-reflexivity, advertising-style.

When a movie like "The Truman Show" arrives on the scene - same thing. Or when a news reporter covers the "media feeding frenzy" that develops during a story like the Michael Jackson trial. Or a TV show like "Sports Night" - boy, was I sad to see that go off the air.

The problem with so much self-reflexivity is that it crowds more original, less media-oriented ideas. This happens, by the way, in all fields.

It sells us back our own skepticism of the media, of advertisings. We end up forgetting how to really experience things, how to grasp history and culture.

It's also insular - kind of "don't go outside the compound" mentality. All the answers are right here, in our own little world.

Our memories become cluttered with useless media references (trust me, I know this), and our collective memory includes far more than its share of media references.

More process, more "back stage" behind the scenes stuff pops up.

All of this, it should be noted, is easy - easier than coming up with challenging ideas, easier than thinking critically.

It also damages the distance between a work of fiction and the audience - it is necessary to create a sense of strangeness, alienation - an aura around the work. If you remind the audience of how artificial something is, it denies them the pleasure of escaping our crazy world for a time. In a warped way, it empowers us, too.

Now, the cynic is possibly saying: isn't more interpretation a good thing? Yes, if it's your own. If you take the direction suggested by a media content producer, then you're just being drawn into the dialogue. Let's go back to The Truman Show - what's the message of the film?

To me, it's "fame sucks" - not "we should lessen the importance of the media in our lives" or "isn't it nuts how everything we do is being recorded" but "fame sucks" - Yet, we're told by critics that the movie is an allegory for what happens when everyone wants fame.

The critical distance I spoke of earlier is thus actually created by the media.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

More in a few minutes.

Week IN # 4

I agree with the idea that advertisements manipulate minds. Many advertisements promote people to buy stuff that they really do not need. I don’t necessarily believe that advertisements make people want to run out to the store and buy the goods. I believe that instead it gets the person thinking about the product that they are interested in. Then that person goes around talking about it. Eventually, if the person comes across the product they will buy it. I think its also an interesting point that we buy stuff that we do not need. I feel that this is becoming part of the American culture. I believe this is part of “I need to have” idea. This is the idea that many Americans see something and need to have it. I have also been thinking about the celebrities playing a role in advertising. The more I think about it the more I realize that it does impact people to buy it. Just the other day I was talking to someone who said they made their mom buy a dress because Sarah Jessica Parker wore it on Sex in the City. It may not be directly though an advertisement, but it still occurs through mass media. When I played basketball in high school I knew a lot of people who would by specific basketball shoes because Shaq or Kobe were wearing them.
I have been thinking a lot lately about the idea of advertisers treating audience as a commodity. Being a graphic design student with a strong interest in print advertising I have mixed views. On the professional side of this I agree that advertisers need to treat customers as a commodity. When designing its important to think of the group that you are selling to as an object. It’s easier to give the group characteristics so that the advertisement is appropriate. Essentially it comes down to advertisers fitting over a group of people, which makes them at wanted good. In order for there to be that completion there needs to by that idea of commodity. On the other hand as a viewer, I do not necessarily like to be thought of as a commodity. I would rather walk down the street and see advertisements direct towards everyone. I don’t like having ads that are directed right at people my age or gender. I think in a way it takes away the personal characteristics of each of those members of that group. Because I am in twenty, a female, and white does not automatically mean that I am going to like a certain product. I don’t personally agree with the idea of treating audience as a commodity, but then again I feel it is important for the design aspects.
Are there many groups out there that use “cool hunters?” Also, for television shows for people in their 50s and 60s do they also use “culture spies?” How do they collect their information?
--Shira