Karnath: Upcoming Nickelodeon channel to feature cherished 90s classics

Before Netflix, Hulu and other streaming websites became popular, most of us 90s kids were entertained by classic Nickelodeon  shows. The network announced that a new channel, The Splat, will exclusively feature beloved 90s programs beginning this October. They have not specified which shows will actually air, however, keeping some hoping and guessing which of their favorites will make a comeback.

Like many others, I grew up watching Nickelodeon shows. I stayed glued to Ashley’s freak-outs on the “Ask Ashley” segment of “All That,” karma always catching up to Angelica on “Rugrats” and a family’s action-packed adventures on “The Wild Thornberrys.”

Today, Nickelodeon shows seem a lot different than what we used to watch. When I sit with a younger cousin to watch television, I can’t tolerate more than a couple minutes of programming. In my opinion, the quality has plummeted with overuse of tacky sound effects and overdramatic child actors.

Perhaps my critical view is because I’m looking at these shows through the lens of a college student instead of a little kid free of any pressing obligations. On the other hand, Nickelodeon seems to portray a more diverse—although limited in every aspect—cast of characters than in the 90s.

As a communication major, I constantly learn how the media have a profound influence on how people learn social behavior starting from a young age. Overall, ‘90s shows portrayed comical situations with quirky characters and never stepped outside the box of social norms. Yes, there were characters from different religious and ethnic backgrounds, but these were rarely the central points of any show.

“Rugrats” comes to mind with episodes centered on Jewish traditions, but the show has been criticized for stereotyping. Some may argue that TV in itself is a mindless and passive activity. So, why does the content really matter? Since most kids learn through what they observe, it seems necessary to present people from different backgrounds while instilling tolerance for all people.

Despite the lack of progressiveness, the older shows were entertaining and led many of us to reminisce about episodes and characters from our childhoods. It’s difficult to completely criticize the content of these shows because they were an integral part of my growing up. I can’t deny that I will probably procrastinate by turning on Nickelodeon to watch some of my favorites and laugh just as hard as I did when I was little.

Nickelodeon’s decision to make this new channel comes at a time when the Internet is rapidly replacing television. It almost seems like a desperate move to increase viewership when people gravitate toward online streaming. I wonder if the network has had trouble making shows that produce the same level of viewership as shows in the 90s. Bringing back these shows might be a way to combat this.

Young kids today probably won’t appreciate these old shows as much as we did, but it will be an opportunity for us to travel back in time when responsibilities were minimal and original shows were plentiful.

TV, games collide with PlayStation Vue

If one poses the question, “Where do you watch TV the most?” to a college student, chances are the response will be Netflix, Hulu or Amazon. The popularity of streaming invites competition to enter the market and further challenge the share of cable and satellite providers. Such is the case with Sony’s PlayStation Vue, Sony’s new digital streaming service that will be released later this year in select markets––including New York––until its wider release in 2015. Whether it’s binge watching that new, addictive series or simply catching up on the latest episode of a favorite show, these services make television more accessible than ever before—especially compared to cable. PlayStation Vue will be packaged with 75 networks, typical for an average cable subscription.

There are more than a few notable absences, however, including any channel owned by Disney––ABC and ESPN––and Time Warner––HBO, TBS and CW. Two of the biggest differences between Vue and other streaming services are its exclusivity to PlayStation consoles and its speculated price of $60 a month.

Sony recognizes that younger generations consume large amounts of entertainment and are reluctant to subscribe to cable when Netflix, Hulu and Amazon offer such good comparative value. The same line of reasoning, however, makes me hesitant about PlayStation Vue.

Much of the same content is offered for a far lower price from other streaming services, and none of them are restricted solely to PlayStation consoles; a further investment ranging from $199 to $399. Its exclusivity to PlayStation devices—where it would face competition from Netflix, Hulu and Amazon—make Vue appealing to a very niche market.  It offers no distinct advantage over the other streaming services, and its rigid structure makes it more akin to a cable package than a streaming service.

Even if PlayStation Vue were marketed more as an alternative to cable, it would still not be well-positioned to succeed. PlayStation users tend to be younger—a demographic less likely to buy cable— similar to Netflix, Hulu and Amazon subscribers.

PlayStation Vue has to either vastly improve its value or significantly undercut its competitors. If not, its lack of content, redundancy and confinement to PlayStation platforms will prove that it’s not a worthy financial investment

Kim K “breaks” Internet, not stereotypes

New York-based Paper magazine recently released its Winter 2014 issue. The issue stunned audiences with Kim Kardashian posing nude on the front cover, baring her famous bottom with the words “BREAK THE INTERNET” across the page. What was even more shocking were the full frontal nude pictures plastered across the pages throughout the magazine, indeed outraging the Internet. In one shot, Kardashian is photographed grinning as she bares her bottom, while in another, she holds a bottle of champagne as it shoots through the air and into a glass that rests on her derriére. Known for his photographs of the Jamaican model Grace Jones, French artist Jean-Paul Goude photographed Kardashian, whose pose was influenced by Jones.

Some might remember Kardashian complaining about posing nude for Playboy back in 2007, when she requested to be completely draped in pearls. There was another time in 2010 when she posed nude for the cover of W Magazine and expected that it be censored, but the spread in the magazine pictured her covered in paint with no censors, which outraged Kardashian.

So why the sudden change in thought? It may be that after giving birth, she is proud to show off her body. She is getting a lot of flack from critics who question whether, as a mother, she should be posing nude.

Both mothers and non-mothers alike should applaud Kardashian for being brave enough to display her body after giving birth to baby North West. She is among a long line of celebrities encouraging women to be proud of their bodies no matter their age or shape.

It seems that in today’s society, it is very difficult for women to feel beautiful despite all the pressures of the media. As one of the reigning queens of the celebrity press and social media, Kardashian has a lot of influence on women––and mothers––everywhere.

Although her move is encouraging to mothers, the photo spread is also unrealistic. Throughout the magazine, all of the photographs show Kardashian’s body with no wrinkles, stretch marks or anything else—just a voluptuous, oiled-up body. At 34 years old and after one baby, Photoshop must have been involved to produce such a close to perfect image.

If Kardashian wants to promote the female body, she should show hers off as it is, especially since various sources are admitting to retouching the photos. Critics should be wary of the retouching that goes into the photographs rather than the actions of Kardashian.

Although Kim Kardashian will always be ridiculed for some reason or another, hopefully women will focus on the positive that Kardashian has elicited from her magazine spread—embracing the female body.

Minaj video sparks controversy over Nazi imagery

Rapper Nicki Minaj released a video for her track “Only, ”featuring fellow rappers Drake, Lil Wayne and Chris Brown on Nov. 7. The video sparked immediate controversy due to its use of imagery closely resembling that of the Nazi Party. In the “Only” video, Minaj is depicted as a cartoon dictator with masses of obedient soldiers sporting red armbands, which stand out from the black-and-white video’s color scheme. The militaristic themes, as well as the gas mask over Lil Wayne’s face, make it obvious that Minaj’s video is glorifying Nazi imagery.

As a Minaj fan, I was extremely disappointed while watching “Only.” Nazi imagery presented in a glorified way is deeply anti-Semitic and offensive. Minaj has since issued an apology for the content of the video. Director Jeff Osborne, however, has insisted that he was inspired by Nazi imagery and is unapologetic about it.

Some fans admitted that the Nazi imagery was wrong, but defended Minaj by saying that she was only trying to portray herself as a dictator to show that she is powerful. While it is important to make it understood that making light of Nazism should rightfully be condemned, it is also important to further investigate the intent of the video.

Many feminists admire Minaj’s frankness about sexism. It’s clear that she did intend to make a statement about her power as a woman in this song. It begins with her proclaiming that she has never slept with Drake or Lil Wayne, addressing rumors that she used sex to get where she is today—a common accusation thrown at successful women. She talks about sex acts where she’s the recipient of sexual pleasure, in contrast to how women are normally portrayed.

Seeing these feminist statements played over a video of glorified Nazi imagery is disturbing––it conflates a woman fighting against oppression with a woman becoming oppressive. While the Nazi imagery is anti-Semitic and harmful, any kind of dictator imagery associated with feminism strikes me as negative. Feminism is not about singular women gaining the power to oppress.

It is important to show girls that they can be powerful, but also to analyze what that power is used for. “Empowerment” seems to have become the buzzword associated with feminism lately. The end of sexism is thought to lie within the empowerment of individual women to become political leaders, corporate executives and other influential roles.

There is another word associated with feminism that has a different connotation: “liberation.” While empowerment involves individual women filling powerful roles in institutions that are often oppressive to both women and other groups, liberation involves freeing society of this oppressiveness of said institutions—not an easy task, but a worthy goal.

Do we want dictators as the protagonists of our “strong woman” narratives? A “female Hitler” is not a positive image, but this video is the logical extension of feminism that advocates for women in positions of power, rather than being critical of the notion of oppressive power.

A female president who does not advocate for the rights of working women, a female CEO who does not crackdown on sexual harassment––powerful women who do not use their power to help the cause of women have less to do with feminism and more to do with personal gain. If powerful women support policies that are racist, homophobic or otherwise oppressive, this is not positive for feminism. To promote gender equality and then turn around and promote anti-Semitism or any other kind of bigotry does no good. Feminism is about the liberation of all women, not just a privileged few.

Minaj should certainly recognize the harmful, anti-Semitic implications of her video. It is very positive that she promotes herself as a powerful woman. I hope, however, that women with positions in politics, business and the media strive for the liberation of all women and not for dictator-like, individual power. We need role models to show girls that they should embrace their power—power that should be used to smash the thrones of dictators rather than to try and sit in them.

New Yorkers “shake off” Taylor Swift’s move to the big city

As a native New Yorker, I am naturally assertive and proud of the rich history and diversity that makes up New York City. Living in the city itself is an acquired lifestyle—one that many cannot handle. It’s possible––and at the same time impossible––for non-natives to assimilate into the unique hustle and bustle and the melting pot of cultures that exists. New Yorkers are very sensitive about how their city is represented and can be extremely territorial. So New Yorkers everywhere squirmed when Tennessee-raised country singer-turned-pop-queen Taylor Swift was recently named New York City’s “Global Welcome Ambassador” for 2014-2015 by the city’s tourism board. Some turned to social media to voice their opinions, and others turned to art.

Local graffiti artist Antonio Garcia––better known by his persona “Chico”––took to the streets of Manhattan’s Lower East Side to paint a semi-ironic “memorial” for Swift that reads “R.I.P. Taylor Swift” and tagged in his infamous yellow, big and blocky letters “CHICO” signature. The street memorial went up after vintage clothing store La Petite Mort owners Kara Mullins and Osvaldo Jimenez commissioned Chico to paint the image on a gate outside their store on the LES.

The couple posted the image—a somber, black and white depiction of a glamorous and pouty looking Swift surrounded by hearts and a cityscape—on their Instagram account “lapetitemortnyc” with an explanation behind the commission.

Although the couple expressed their love for Swift, the caption read, “While we realize and appreciate that New York is ever changing, when a starving artist once representative of the New York spirit is replaced by the modern 19 million dollar condo owner who drinks lattes, we have to shake our heads.”

They went on to claim that the idea of Swift––a 24-year-old who indeed just purchased a reported $15 million apartment complex in Tribeca––as the face of New York is “dead.” The tourism campaign is a part of the singer’s big move to New York, following the release of her latest album 1989 which revolves around her newfound love for the city with happy pop songs like “Welcome to New York.”

The art does make some valid commentary on the gentrification of the city—a process that has been happening slowly but surely in various neighborhoods such as the once predominantly Orthodox Jewish communities in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the Greek community in Astoria, Queens and the Hispanic community in Bushwick, Brooklyn. The problem lies with the fact that many New Yorkers may not identify with Swift, who in her campaign video describes New York City just as any other tourist would.

“It’s unlike anywhere else in the world,” she said. “I was intimidated by the fact that it was bright and bold and loud … there’s so much happening.” This couldn’t be a more cliché, basic statement. Swift represents the whitewashed culture that seems to be taking over the city, pushing out local residents who are struggling with the harsh reality that popular urban areas face high rent increases, competition in the job market and crime. Chico himself has even been “priced out” of his own apartment and has been forced to move to Florida upon the completion of the memorial.

Swift’s sudden fascination with the city seems all too sudden, but completely predictable. For New Yorkers such as myself, it is almost an insult to have Swift––a product of the entertainment industry––simply moving to New York because it is what is currently “trendy.”

What does Swift truly know of the real New York—its nitty-gritty spots that tourists don’t travel to, authentic neighborhoods and underground music and arts scene? I am surprised at the company’s choice of spokesperson, since there are so many other qualified and celebrated native New Yorkers who have made much more of a contribution to preserving the valuable qualities of this great city.

Netflix fortunately adapts beloved Lemony Snicket series

Self-proclaimed adolescent bookworms of the early 2000s: I come to you with enthusiastic tidings. Author Lemony Snicket’s––the pen name of Daniel Handler––beloved, bizarre children’s mystery novels A Series of Unfortunate Events are going to be adapted into a Netflix series. Upon hearing the news, my immediate reaction was one of pure excitement. This twisted, darkly comical collection of books was one of my most cherished literary treasures throughout elementary school and beyond. Like so many others, I loved the novels for their incredibly captivating story lines and narrative style that were unlike anything else in children’s fiction. As Netflix Vice President of Original Content Cindy Holland put it, “The world created by Lemony Snicket is unique, darkly funny and relatable.”

For those of you unfamiliar with the series––something that is truly unfortunate––it follows the darkly ludicrous lives of the three Baudelaire children, Violet, Klaus and Sunny, whose parents die in a fire that destroys their mansion. After being placed in the brief guardianship of their villainous distant relative Count Olaf, the children spend the rest of the series being pursued by Olaf as he disguises himself and concocts dangerous, absurd schemes to get his hands on the Baudelaire fortune that is supposed to be bequeathed to Violet when she turns 18. While a bit formulaic, the adventures that the children experience are strange, suspenseful and transfixing.

Apart from the plot itself, one of the best aspects of the series is the intelligence and resolve of the children. No matter how many adults dismiss their cries about Olaf in disguise and no matter how many friends of theirs Olaf kills in his pursuit to get their fortune, the children press onward with impressive courage. They constantly come up with daring ways to keep their family safe and out of Olaf’s clutches even when all seems lost.

I am sincerely hoping that Netflix will avoid any similarities in its production to the god-awful 2004 film adaptation of the series. The movie was kitschy and the humor was forced. The darker elements were ignored. The worst part was that the perpetually silly Jim Carrey portrayed the murderous, diabolical Olaf. In summation, the film was a trainwreck.

I have high hopes that Netflix will strive to successfully create a series that accurately reflects the darker elements of the stories along with the unique brand of mystery and dry humor that made A Series of Unfortunate Events so iconic, especially because the age demographic will primarily be teens and 20-something-year-olds. I’m definitely going to revisit the world of the Baudelaire children in print before I see it come to life on my computer screen.

Fake Bansky arrest report sparks Internet outrage

A recent article claiming that London-based street artist Banksy was arrested, duped Internet users everywhere after a sketchy press release made its way around the web. It claimed that the London Metropolitan Police had discovered Banksy’s identity and apprehended the artist in his apartment. The release claimed that police had identified the elusive artist as Paul Homer and that he was arrested on charges including counterfeiting, vandalism and conspiracy. The story quickly blew up, with Banksy supporters taking to Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook with cries of protest. A deeper look into the story makes it clear that the arrest was a hoax, citing false sources and identifying people involved who do not even exist.

Although often criticized for being contrived and sometimes unoriginal, Banksy’s work is widely known for its controversial political themes, critiquing capitalism, big business and war. Remaining anonymous, his work developed in the Bristol underground scene and can be seen covering public spaces primarily throughout England.

With a huge, worldwide fan base––largely thanks to the Internet––the news of Banksy’s apparent arrest was met with overwhelming backlash. Twitter users tweeted at the London Metropolitan Police, demanding his release. Websites immediately began running articles in response to the arrest.

The consensus among his supporters was that Banksy’s pieces are works of art and should not be treated as a violation of the law. Many felt that bigger, “realer” problems should have taken precedence over his arrest.

One of my personal favorite tweets, mentioned in the Huffington Post, came from former conservative Member of Parliament of Corby Louise Mensch. Mensch tweeted at the UK Metropolitan police, saying, “You have to be kidding me, @metpoliceuk, Banksy? There are so many criminals out there—Banksy? The great artist?” She later corrected the misinformation by tweeting, “OK. Apparently it’s bullshit. Sorry @metpoliceuk #Banksy.”

One interesting theme of discussion among certain users was the issue of race. Many people expressed feelings that, had a person of color been caught creating graffiti, they would be labeled as a thug and met with anger from their community, whereas Banksy’s arrest led to criticism of the police and support from his fans. While it could be argued that this is simply because of Banksy’s notoriety, it was interesting to see the varying responses and discussions sparked by the hoax.

The amount of uproar and publicity generated by a single inaccurate source is what I find most provoking about this story. What started with one press release provoked a worldwide response on the Internet, which is somewhat alarming. The number of people who immediately read the article, accepted it as fact and continued to spread it just proves true all the times our teachers and parents told us not to believe everything you read on the Internet.