If you were to look at this photo and simultaneously read the caption it will lead you to believe that it is a picture of the harbor in downtown Baltimore, but is it true? No, no, NO! I am here to tell you all the truth behind the “My Home Town” image.

It is easy to claim that this was taken in Baltimore when in fact this is an image from the film The Best Night Ever.  “Why didn’t Emil just tell us that that is where the photo is from” you might ask?  Well, it may be the fact that The Best Night Ever is, well, a chick flick.  No, I did not stutter.  This beautiful picturesque image of the hazy blue night sky glistening off the harbor water and casting over the tall city buildings is a scene to remember. This is one of those scenes that ladies ohh and ahh over.  On some occasions the ladies may even lean over and place their head on their man’s shoulder.  Now, STOP and take in what just happened: “My Home Town” is claimed to be a picture of downtown Baltimore when in fact it’s a scene from the chick flick The Best Night Ever.

Hmmm…. So, with all of that said, there is only one conclusion to make and it’s that Emil has a strong hidden like for chick flicks and did not want any of us to know.  If I had not done my homework (hypothetically speaking) I would have fallen for the caption as well, but you can’t get anything by me this time! As they say, “Some things are better left unsaid!”

(Disclaimer: The Film The Best Night Ever was made up for the purposes of this assignment!)

Dorm Room

by Tess Molkette

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/items/show/17

Look at this blog post. Now look at the picture. Now back this blog post. Now once more at the picture. Did you notice that?

No?

Look closer. Not me silly, I’m just a blog post. Look at the picture. Closer. Closer.

Do you see them?

Still no?

Look at the picture

Now look at your dorm room.

Now look at the picture.

Now cover one eye while looking at your dorm room.

Now flip your monitor upside down and look at the picture.

HA!

I didn’t say Simon says.

But in all seriousness, look at the picture. Notice how this is no ordinary picture of a dorm room. What we have is a class 3B ninja invasion on a single room scale. This is poor Tess’ cry for help. She was able to capture three ninjas on film. Peer very carefully under her chair. That dark square shaped shadow is ninja number one. Because I am an expert in ninja tools and technologies (NTaT), I can recognize a cloak of shrouding almost three hundred yards away.

Ninja number two is a very stealthy one. Upon closer inspection of Tess’ apple laptop, one can spot the second ninja in the act of crawling up the webpage she is viewing. Using a ninja disk drive (NDD), a ninja can digitize himself into any device that has a USB port.

Thanks to my degree in the NTaT field, I immediately picked up on the third ninja. He is the one holding the camera. Even ninjas like to be social creatures.

Tess if you are reading this, I believe you have nothing to fear. They should vacate your dorm room by Thanksgiving. They themselves cannot resist the taste of hone hame and turkey.

White MITH mug

by Amanda Visconti

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/items/show/7

This is not just any ordinary picture of a mug. This appears to be a story of a manufacturer of cups and ceramics that has seen better days. At first glance, the mug appears to be clean and possibly brand new. Take a closer look at the lettering. The organization that Amanda works with is known as the Maryland Institute of Technology, or MITH for short. It is almost as if the mug is mocking her because it is printed backwards spelling HTIM.

As of now, there are a few theories behind the “miss-print” of this artifact. One popular theory is that an innocent intern made a mistake while operating the printing press that slapped the big bold letters onto the shipment of mugs one by one. Once the company figured out the issue, it was too late. The case of hundreds of mugs were already on their way to Hornbake Library in University of Maryland College Park. This theory is commonly referred to as the hipster mug theory.

Another common hypothesis is that during production, Amanda and those at MITH had a quarrel with Kirsten Keister, the original designer. No one can imagine what the argument was about, but many speculate that Ms. Keister was a duke fan. In order to throw salt into the wound, Keister and her team of designers decided to spell the name backwards on purpose.

There are many other theories other than these two. However, none have been completely validated.

In case you guys did not see them, here are my five artifacts that I added to the archive:

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/items/show/45 (I’m not sure if anyone commented about this one yet, but I finally added the picture after realizing that I never uploaded it)

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/items/show/37

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/items/show/43

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/items/show/44

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/items/show/27

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/admin/items/show/19

So, Jonathan is protesting ads for the metro. Why would that be, I wonder?
In Maryland, the Metro is our method of public transportation, rather like the Subway in New York or the Underground in London. As a Marylander, then , i must assume that this startling evidence means Jonathan is against our Metro. So is his father. Jonathan included this text in his Omeka file, so he is happy with his parents, a dutiful a n loyal son to his father. By this we can infer that he is, in fact, protesting the Metro fro his father’s sake. What kind of people dislike public transportation? or possible small, underground trains? Well, obviously, those with some stock in private, above-ground transportation.
This text obviously indicates that Jonathan’s father own some sort of scenic, slow, above-ground, private transportation company. Perhaps a horse and carriage business. Jonathan and his family, then, are protesting the Metro, and probably buses, cars, and bicycles, in the hope that they will eventually go away and the age of the horse-drawn chariot will reign again. Good luck!!

P.S., please do not think that I am trying to say that protesting the metro ads makes you old-fashioned. That was kind of how it sounded on re-reading and is not at all what I mean.

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/admin/items/show/37

Look at all those video game remote-things!
Obviously, Emil is some kind of mad, game-playing fanatic. But, you would say, he can’t hold all the controllers at once, maybe there are other people who play with him. Ahh, i reply, he can’t hold them all in the form in which we see him in class. But have you ever seen Emil at home? I haven’t.
Form the evidence of these multiple game controllers, we must assume that Emil sprouts eleven extra pairs of hands. Well, maybe only 10 and 1/2, it looks like you only need one hand for that first one.
Why, you ask, why does Emil sprout 10 and 1/5 extra pairs of hands (that’s 21 hands by the way, plus the two he already has)? Or, perhaps if you’re more interested in the technical side, how? The first I cannot answer, maybe you can look at his other objects and find out. The second, however, I have some idea about. I order to use all those appendages to help him with his video games (ah, you realize, that show he gets such good scores), they must all face the front. That’s as best as I can do from the evidence. Maybe you should ask him.
Finally, how does he get all the remotes to play with his many, many hands? Why are they so different? Well, obviously he can;t just walk into a game store and ask for twelve remotes. Besides, think of how much that would cost. My theory is this, he scouts around at garage sales, second-hand stores, and other places where people are prone to get rid of the things which they don’t want anymore. He picks up remotes where he can find them. That’s why some are so old.
I conclude with this, don’t ever challenge Emil to a gaming competition, you never know what he has up his sleeves.

Item #38

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/admin/items/show/38

Monica’s class notes don’t seem like class notes to me. There is some text on the paper, but who knows if it’s relevant to class or not? None of us can read Arabic.

I see the text as some sort of documentation of the mysterious creatures Monica drew, since all the text was written around the drawings. I can recognize three distinct creatures. They are not creatures that exist on Earth, but more like ones that exist in the virtual world, perhaps in computer games since I saw Monica game a lot when we roomed together.

Instead of taking class notes, Monica was actually taking notes of fictional monsters in a computer game. She described them in the upper area of the paper, drew them in the order of their sizes and strength in the middle and listed down their weak points at the bottom.

She did so to seek easier ways to defeat them, and she wrote in Arabic so that those who don’t read Arabic can not figure out her attempt.

Item #7

http://mith.umd.edu/arguing/admin/items/show/7

If you take a closer look at Amanda’s white MITH mug, you will notice one difference between hers and ours—yes, the words printed on Amanda’s mug go from right to left rather than left to right. Although every other feature of the mug, including its ceramic luster, its half oval-shaped handle and the bold black text “MITH MARYLAND INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY IN THE HUMANITIES,” remains the same, the reversed text makes Amanda’s mug unique.

She might have had a talk with Kirsten Keister during the design process, asking Ms. Keister to make her mug look slightly different, but not completely different so that people would not notice the change and request for the same favor. Ms. Keister agreed to help, apparently, and since the mugs were plain white, changing the color of Amanda’s mug to red or blue would be too extreme, the only element left appropriate for Ms. Keister to play around with was the text.

So that’s the secret behind Amanda’s unique mug. She seems to like it a lot, as you can see in the photo that she put it with delicious “MITH-working-time chocolate.”

Short story by Isaac Asimov (possibly my all time favorite?)

PETA Pokemon

WUSA (CBS) September 11, 2001, 9:00 AM

The footage opens with the news station playing video of the first tower burning from several angles, and they keep showing this throughout the broadcast. They’re still not ruling out the possibility that the crash was an accident—the newscaster is asking someone who is phoning in if the area usually has small planes flying around, and the man on the phone agrees that sometimes there are planes. Other than that, the man knows nothing. They put another lady on—it’s clear now they just have regular people calling in to report what they’re seeing. These people have no real info. In the middle of the lady’s description the second plane hits; in the seconds leading up to this you could see the plane flying in the background, but the actual impact is just under the frame. There is an audible shout from someone somewhere in the news station, and the lady on the phone, shocked, reports that the second tower has been hit and declares that there was no way the strike could have been an accident. The newscaster asks why she thinks that and when the lady becomes agitated insisting the crash was deliberate, he seems to realize that he should not go down that road without more information, and asks her to report more on the situation from the ground. Then he seems uncertain whether it was the second tower that was hit or if the first was hit again, and the news station rewinds the tape and watches it from a different angle to confirm that the second tower was hit. He asks again about the condition of the towers, and the lady repeats herself. Then they show the rewound footage again to see if they can spot the plane.

WUSA (CBS) September 17, 2001, 9:00 AM

This broadcast presents a more polished and calm demeanor, immediately focusing on New York Stock Exchange in the aftermath and then the current information on the attacks in bullet points; the newscasters do refer to them as terrorist attacks and relay that President Bush identified Osama Bin Laden as the prime suspect. They report the casualties from NYC and the Pentagon, and that stores are selling out of American flags. They then switch to footage of New York from the ground, reporting on road and business conditions, mentioning again the NYSE and the effort put into preparing it for trading again. They then discuss the Reagan National Airport’s closing and the limited schedules of other airports before showing a display of patriotism from a Dallas airport.

Overall the September 17^th broadcast was far more organized and informative that the September 11^th one, as well as more visually varied; it showed the newscasters, bulleted slides, and different shots from New York rather than one continuous video stream. Notably, the 17^th showed no footage of the towers at all. The overall tone of the 11^th was one of confusion and shock while the 17^th conveyed solidarity and determination to continue with daily life. While the 11^th had no set narrative of pattern to the information it relayed, the information on the seventeenth followed a logical set of topics in which each subject led to the next.

NHK (Tokyo, Japan) September 11, 2001 9:00 AM EDT (10:00-10:10pm JST)

The Japanese station announces the strike and then goes to live footage of the towers as captured from a helicopter, while the newscasters speak to a correspondent on the phone in voice-over. The broadcast is similar to those in America but the footage is much closer to the tower, so much so that viewers can see into the hole made by the plane. When the second plane hits, the camera is positioned such that the first tower is blocking the view of the second, and the plane is visible in frame for a second before the explosion.  Occasionally, part of the helicopter obscures the footage. The newscasters seem concerned and the broadcast is similar to the American one.

NHK (Tokyo, Japan) September 17, 2001 9:00 AM EDT (10:00-10:10pm JST)

After a brief introduction the broadcast switches to a newscaster at a desk in front of a greenscreen that shows the White House. Then a different broadcaster speaks in front of a greenscreen of a street in New York. The broadcast then focuses on the Federal Reserve. The rest of the broadcast then focuses on Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

While the first Japanese broadcast was very similar to the American one at the same time, the second broadcast was very different in its focus. The Japanese broadcast was more concerned with the economic and political global ramifications of the attack than the effect on day-to-day American life. The narrative presented in the September 17^th Japanese broadcast was one that would have more relevance to the Japanese people.

TV Aztecta- en Mexico: Sept 11, 9:31 a.m.

The clip begins with a replay of footage of the most recent plane hitting one of the buildings. The camera angle prevents the viewer from seeing the point of impact, only the plane flying behind the building, then the explosion on the other side. Then the video cuts to the live stream, which shows the current state of the buildings as they burn. There are two anchors, a male and a female, taking turns speaking.  In their voices, there is a sense of information, but no clear urgency; just involved commentary. The announcer says that at this point they have confirmed only 6 deaths.

CNN – Sept 11, 9:31 a.m.

The clip begins zoomed in on the side of the most recently hit building. The fire is burning strongly. Then the camera zooms out slowly, adding layers of context. The viewer can see the rest of the building, then the other buildings, then the city around it. Meanwhile the female anchor is one the phone with another reporter and he is giving updates on the government’s information about the attacks.

Comparison: The Mexican stream if definitely more from an outsider’s prospective. While there is concern, it is more of shock-and-awe concern than what-does-this-mean-for-America concern. This outsider’s concern is also reflected in the commentary, which is the anchors describing what happens as it appears on the screen (I understand Spanish, by the way), as opposed to elaborating, as the CNN anchor does. Additionally, the fact that the Azteca video does not capture the full image of the plane hitting the tower and the flash back to an earlier scene makes the footage less in the action that the CNN one. The CNN footage is more moving, and more impactful. The anchor giving context and talking to the man on the phone who is giving information about the government’s investigation into who the attackers are, whether it’s a terrorist attack, etc, gives the image more meaning than just blow-by-blow commentary.

BBC World News Report – September 17, 12:50 a.m.

There is one anchor in the studio corresponding with a correspondent in New York. They discuss the effect that the attacks will have on the global economy. She asks him if she thinks there will be any impact on the oil market. And she asks if he thinks Americans are happy with the way Bush is handling “this.” There is no background footage or contextual visuals. The anchor is inside the studio, and the correspondent is surrounded by a dark, blurry background.

FOX News – September 17, 12:50 a.m.

This clip is a montage of footage the news station got of reporters talking to witnesses. It begins with a split screen clip of a person on the street describing what he saw and a clip of the buildings burning. Then, the video transitions to a construction worker being interviewed from inside his car. Across the bottom of the screen, information is being scrolled about the new death count and state of the rescue mission.

Comparison: The contrast between these two clips gives a greater worldly perspective. The American footage is still covering what happened that day and how individuals were impacted. The information scrolling across the bottom of t   the screen highlights how American news organizations are still finding out more and more about the death toll and other relevant information to the day of the attacks. The BBC news is solely focused on how the event impacted the world. They care about how the tragedy will affect them, not about the lives that were lost and the devastation in America. However, they cannot be blamed, because the event did not occur in their country, so they do not have the same sense of powerful emotion and yearning for more details.

Tuesday September 11^th, 2001- 9:00am WJLA (USA)

At 9:00 the first twin tower has already been hit. The screen is a live shot of the flaming building. The reporters discuss personal experiences with flying in airplanes around the World Trade Center and with looking down on airplanes from the top floors of the Twin Towers. At around 9:01am the camera zoom’s in on the gaping hole in the side of the building while the reporters discuss possible casualties. They mention that one of the towers had an observation deck which was a popular tourist attraction. At around 9:02 the reporters begin to interview an eyewitness. A few seconds into the interview a plane hits the second building. This footage was captured and aired live so the audience got the immediate reactions of the reporters and the eyewitness in New York. The angle of the live shot was not ideal because the second building was hidden by the first building. The only visible part of the attack was the fireball after the collision. After the second collision the reporters assert that the plane crashes must be a “concerted effort” against the World Trade Center. The next two minutes that follow are replay and analysis of the collision that was caught on tape. The female commentator mentions that a plane was seen in the footage earlier and expressed curiosity in knowing if this was the same plane that just hit the second tower. Throughout this whole five minute section the visual was always footage of the towers.

Monday September 17^th, 2001- 12:00 WJLA(USA)

Immediately it is noticeable that this news segment is much more planned and organized than the live report on September 11^th. The segment is introduced as “America Recovers.” Latest news is outlined on a bulleted slide. These bulleted items are followed by video footage and voice over comments. The first footage shown is Bush shaking hands with federal workers as they head back to work. The voice over mentions that Bush believes the best way to fight back against the terrorist attack is to head back to work and not let the tragedy affect workers.  What follows is footage of the tower ruins while an onsite reporter discusses the rescue and clean-up operations. Lastly the topic of Wall Street re-opening is discussed through voice over as footage of the workers is displayed. The delivery of information in this report was much more organized than the sporadic bursts of information that was given in the initial 9/11 report.

Tuesday September 11^th, 2001- 9:00am BBC (London)

At 9:00am the visual is a live shot of the burning tower. This footage is zoomed in on the large whole in the side of the building. Just like the WJLA footage, only the first tower is actually visible and the second tower is hidden by the first tower. The reporter narrates a vague description of what happened. She states that a plane crashed into the side of the building. She then quotes an eyewitness account stating that the plane was flying low and hit the building at an angle. All the reporter’s comments seem to be very fact based. She does not make many personal comments. She repeats the same facts several times and mentions that there is no information on casualties. A male commentator joins to give the latest update but he basically restates what was already known. At around 9:02 the reporter begins an interview with someone in New York. Just as the reporter introduces the speaker the second tower is hit. There is a delayed reaction from the reporter. The collision was less visible on this station than on WJLA because the frame was zoomed in and part of the explosion was covered by the “Live Breaking News” subtitle box. The eyewitness describes the chaos that is being caused by the second explosion. During this description better footage, showing both burning towers, is displayed on the screen.  For the next two minutes the reporters discuss the damage on the buildings as multiple photographic angles of the buildings are displayed.

Monday September 17^th, 2001- 12:00 BBC(London)

This news report is clearly more organized and planned than the news report on the morning of September 11^th. The report begins with a short summary of what will be discussed in the next section of the news. While the reporter lists the next topics of discussion footage of Wall Street, the World Trade Center ruins, Osama bin Laden, and Virgin Mobile airplanes are shown. This short commercial clip is the first indication of a more structured report. What follows is a live report by an on-site reporter, in front of the tower ruins. This report mentions the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. About minute later information on “Terror in America” is displayed on a PowerPoint like visual while the anchor discusses the main talking points. This segment gave much more information on the disaster than the segment on 9/11.

Comparison of Stations:

Both stations had similar approaches to delivering the news. On both channels footage of the towers was shown the whole time during September 11^th. A main difference I noticed between the American broadcast and the London broadcast was the emotional and personal comments. The American reporters had a more emotional reaction to the second plane crash and made personal comments throughout the report. The BBC reporter only stated facts and did not have any personal information to add about the buildings like the American reporters. The secondary reports on September 17^th were much more similar for both stations.