If you were to write the story of your life until now, what would you title it? Why?  
            The story of my life, like any other, is a path of complexity mixed in with moments of simplicity. As I desperately try to think of ideas for this column, details, at irregular intervals, enter my mind for the best possible title. I could write words from fancy literature, quote a famous author, or even some hidden proverb that talks about the evolution of humans. But in order to answer this question truthfully, I had to find the source behind what gets me through the day. Not to take anything away from my education, religion, or family, but this title is something only I can explain. I pay hundreds of dollars a year for it and coined the phrase myself. If I were to write the story of my life, the title would most definitely be www.caseylamarca.com.

            It began when I was thirteen years old. On Monday nights, my father and I were left with the house to ourselves when my older brother and mother where out doing weekly activities. We started a tradition that not only bonded us as father and son, but as critics to film. We began to see a film every Monday regardless of our schedules. After months of this ritual had passed, my father suggested that I write down my thoughts on all the debates we had over the films we saw. I created this thing called a Blogger, new at the time, but now internationally popular. As we continued to go to the theater every Monday for almost four years, my website skyrocketed into my daily routine, writing full columns and reviews as both a hobby and a career.

            When I began to write for my high-school newspaper, I became known as the “Critic” of my class. The first piece I wrote was actually a request from a Journalism teacher, who wanted me to review George Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck, a biopic of the legendary anchor Edward R. Murrow. It was an honor to be taken seriously by someone three times my age. It’s the kind of confidence I needed to major in my passion and not worry about the hunt for a steady job. Also, in the days where I would be completely stressed out, if some random person from school would could up to me and say “Hey Casey, should I see this movie?” Not only would I give an honest answer, but I would also thank that person for trusting my judgment and making my day. It only takes a few simple words to capture a human’s verve.

            I will never be able to sum up my life of nineteen years in a title, but I can create one that has given me the inspiration to believe why humans exist. In days that make or break us, throw us into disarray, and think life has completely let us down, there is always a small vision of an esoteric utopia that keeps our heart pumping. Something as simple as watching a film has given me a reason to keep on dreaming a dream. In the time right before I fall asleep, I wonder what the next day will bring me. Until then I’ll say Good Night, and Good Luck.  

JUNE 11, 2008: There are some days when I hate the internet. Today is one of them.

JUNE 9, 2008: (As I write my review on You Don't Mess with the Zohan, I tell readers this) Don't worry, this movie still sucks.

JUNE 8, 2008: The Celtics have just one Game 2! But they almost blew it. After a blowout of a 20+ point lead, the Lakers came back within two. I was yelling at my television along side my brother. Then it went to commercial. We saw an ad for Game 3 on Tuesday night showing Kobe dunking, Garnett screaming, and....and....Will Smith flying? It seems in the past few years, we are not only watching Basketball, but also a cross between medias (it was a Hancock Promotion during the game). Only certain films can pull that off. Could you imagine if they had Kobe dunking, Garnett screaming, and then Hugh Grant stuttering? Haha, that would be the day.

JUNE 6, 2008:
6:47pm: I am about to go see You Don't Mess with the Zohan. After the terrible I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, I hope Sandler gets back on track. I will come back in three hours to give you my reaction.

7:20-9:23pm: (I am in the theater watching it thinking) This movie kinda sucks.

9:24pm: (As I left the theater) This movie sucked.

9:51: (I am back at my house) This movie really sucked.

-Chiwetel Eljiofor: For me, this would be a great choice. He is an underrated actor and universally known, but he is not such a huge star where he would be questioned for controversy or lack of authenticity.

-Will Smith: If whoever is financing the film and wants to go for a blockbuster to rake in the dough, this is the man for the job. Both resemble one another, with those big dumbo ears and a skinny but built frame.

-Fred Armisen: If comedy is what people are looking for, then the man behind Obama's impersonation on Saturday Night Live is the one to go to. It may not be the best impression, but he has the man concreted in his mind.

-Obama could play himself: When he is done being President, he may sell himself out for an acting career. Something like a reversal of Ronald Reagan.

The Framers: What has happened to our Watchdog?

The title of this column does not refer to the Founding Fathers of the United States, but rather those in power today who can create the image of their choosing that represents a certain America. By analyzing just this one primary in West Virginia, the different kinds of media can expose individualistic ideas through hidden messages and give the term “Watchdog” little to no meaning. Because only a handful of conglomerates run this country’s media content, do we ever really know for certain what the truth is anymore? Rather than living in a social responsibility media world, the media has more freedom than to do what’s just morally right. For example, a journalist can form a personal relationship with a political figure or be forced to write a story for someone who controls what news is actually being shown. We can learn more by seeing what’s not actually shown on broadcast, cable, and print journalism.

               Right after Hillary Clinton won big in West Virginia, the news began to focus on very specific things. FoxNews was showing viewer polls about Barack Obama’s ties to Jeremiah Wright’s philosophy (I’m glad we learned in class that there was more to that speech than just God Damn America) and whether or not people believe that they share that same viewpoint. A FoxNews reporter was saying that West Virginia is a very religious state and actually compared this fiasco with accusations that in the 2004 election, John Kerry would be strolling around the state burning your bible. We all know that Fox is known for having a conservative bias, but the way they framed this story can show its plan for who they want to win the 2008 election. His name is John McCain. I think Fox realizes that Hillary’s chances are slim of winning the Democratic nomination, so they are now focused on attacking Obama. How? By showing support for Hillary. If people continue to support her, then the Democratic race continues and the party becomes to feel separated. I think Fox realizes that McCain has a better chance to win over Hillary than Obama.

            I know I have been hard on Fox this year, so I admit there are other stations doing the same thing. A Good Morning America segment (on ABC) showed voters in West Virginia literally saying that they won’t vote for Obama because he is a Muslim. What baffles me is that people still believe that being a Muslim is a bad thing. But when the news frames the word Muslim, they show it as a gateway to other terrible things. That must mean he has ties to Middle Eastern enemies, the support from terrorists, and the fact that if he becomes President, he will destroy our country. You can literally say that about anything and anyone, it’s just the way you frame it. For example, I am Italian. You could easily say that because I have ancestors from Italy, I have ties to the Italian Mob back in Europe, even though I have never set one foot on Europe’s soil.

            Print Journalism (in this case, newspapers) has always had much better information to give to us on a story than Broadcast Journalism. Although not as timely, it can easily go into detail about news that we can’t really learn about through transient content. I analyzed Thursday’s Boston Globe and what I found really interesting was its choice to choose Edwards Endorsement of Obama as its head story. Usually you find these stories tucked away in the B section somewhere but I’m glad to see that Edwards is important to this race (maybe that’s because I voted for him). Am I being bias? I think in some way, we all are. However, I admit that the Boston Globe’s analysis of both Edwards’s endorsement and Clinton’s victory has sustained some social stability. I did not find one sentence that threatened to claim who the Globe was for or against. The globe is known for being slightly liberal, but it never went for the candidate they wanted. Clinton’s campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe was quoted in the article about how they were disappointed they didn’t receive Edward’s endorsement, but that the race is far from over. It was nice to see that the article did not include opinions as to whether or not Clinton should drop out or not. That can be saved for debates on Hardball with Chris Matthews and The O’Reilly Factor.

            It was also nice to see the same thing in The Union Leader, a more conservative paper (located in Manchester, New Hampshire). I have grown up on this paper and it does run stories that support more conservative views, but in this case of the West Virginia Primary, it has stayed mostly and respectively neutral. In fact, they also quote McAuliffe’s thoughts on the Edwards endorsement.

            I think we have concluded in our discussions in class that Print Journalism can give us much more insight on news stories. The way news can impact the political process is based on the type of medium. A 30-minute news segment on broadcast television (not cable) usually has to write a story in 90 seconds or less. The problem lies with what is not shown. For example, how can we learn about McCain’s sex scandal in ninety seconds when the New York Times goes into much more detail? Why do we watch the story on TV when we can just go right out and read the actual story itself? This is because America is addicted to television. It is the only medium that has the ability to be received as a window to the world. Politically, when we watch Broadcast Television, we follow each candidate through there day almost by the minute, as we always know where they are. Because of this, they don’t look like flawless candidates, they look like humans. This can be both positive and negative to a campaign. Positive, because it feels like a voter can relate more to the candidate, but negative because we want our leaders to be flawless. It is an ironical circumstance that can never be fully understood.  

            News will always have a slant or bias in some sense. Human nature consists of having individual opinions and thoughts. The way a story is written or the way a program is visually shown (O’Reilly looks like he is reporting news, but it’s an opinionated show) impacts our view on the world. The West Virginia primary has been shown like many other primaries. There are things that are being analyzed that have nothing to do with anything. In Pennsylvania, we saw Clinton at a bar. In West Virginia, CNN ran a segment that asked voters if they would mind if Barack Obama called them “Sweetie”. Having nothing to do with the issues, something this bland and pointless is still managing to receive airtime. Broadcast television can do wondrous things and can give us information faster than ever before. However, there are backlashes to this. When you have 24 hours to fill each day, there are things that can be perceived as news but in reality are meant for a dinnertime discussion with friends. What I have taken from the West Virginia coverage is not Clinton’s victory or Edwards’s endorsement, but how I would react if our potentially next President called me “Sweetie”. Like most of the voters who were interviewed, I guess I wouldn’t mind. The term “Watchdog” is being defined much differently in this historical, yet quite silly Presidential race.

 JUNE 3, 2008: Welcome to another new selection from www.caseylamarca.com! I decided that I would like to keep a daily blog to vent, review, analyze, or just talk about something happening in the world today. It will most likely be related back to a film, but I would just like to let all readers know that I do enjoy discussing other topics than just film. This category of my site is 100% open to all topics. Let's begin.