The time to fix this issue, for everyone is closing fast. We already have an example of an international industry being brought down through users not being willing to pay — the anime industry. A 2009 Japan Times article includes a quote showing that while there are fans galore, the business model is slowing dying: “The global fan base for Japanese ‘anime’ is increasing, but with the old business model crumbling it isn’t translating into profits,” and claims that profits were halved from 2006 to 2009.  Some of the reason for the decline is due to fansubs. I don’t think we can say that the overall interest in tween/teen teams fighting evil aliens/megomanicial geniuses with magical powers has actually halved in that time period. If anything, the success of American-based superhero movies demonstrates that interest hasn’t waned.

But the continued interest in non-US based media, especially from specific fandom communities helps to show how much more difficult things are for those not in the U.S. trying (!) to both stay up-to-date and pay for entertainment. And the issue if being out of sync with original viewing for US viewers of UK fan favorites, such as Doctor Who, Downton Abbey, and (UK television) Sherlock. There’s been tons of fuss over the U.S. airing of Downton Abbey on Masterpiece. Some Americans have been unwilling to wait for the airing (occurring less than two months after the original airing in the U.K.) and hence have turned to not legal streaming sites to get their costume drama fix. A similar, but less publicized situation occurred with the second season of Sherlock, because who really at this point doesn’t know what happens at the end of A Scandal in Bohemia?

As The Oatmeal discusses in comic form, even when people actually WANT to pay for entertainment, they are stymied. I don’t have cable so there isn’t a convenient means for me to watch and pay for Game of Thrones. I don’t really care enough to track it down– and don’t want to use illegal sites. So what about what I actually watch? I would be willing to pay for Sherlock and Downton Abbey, but it would be great to watch in a way where I don’t have to avoid spoilers (increasingly difficult … in a world with Twitterati et al.).

And what about becoming a member of PBS to support their offerings of fandom favourites? I am so repelled by the pledge drive’s offerings of “Doctors Stand On A Stage And Give You Baby Boomers Advice” and “Irish Ladies’ High Pitched Shrieking” that I refuse to pledge. But if there was an in-app donation option, showing my support for Masterpiece and NOVA, I would be all about that. (And it would be good to hear from PBS if it makes more of a difference to revenue streams to watch their shows live, directly from the PBS website, Hulu, or Netflix. Anyone knows?)

So to big-media cynics who would say, “How do we know people will pay for niche products, solely focused on one show or genre?” I respond — I and others already do. I pay for Dramafever, a provider of legal streamed Korean dramas, despite the fact that I can go to lower quality sites for free. And why? Because I want to support the continued creation of media I want to watch. (And this is actually a place where ads could be very helpful, when not ported in from Hulu — I won’t be buying a car, but I will be buying kimchi). And despite the increasingly limited offerings on Netflix, the month that new Arrested Development episodes are shown, of course, I’ll be subscribing.

But the options for media consumers are still way too limited. I don’t want to need to purchase a season pass to a show — or subscribe to Hulu Plus to stream on my iDevices. I want to be able to rent downloads, especially like now when my home internetz isn’t working. There are plenty of entertainment consumers interested in spending our media dollars, but if we aren’t given the right options, consumers, at least this one, are going to spend our money elsewhere, on super-old media (books!) or new media (video games).

Excuse me while I run home to watch a months old episode (but new to U.S. viewers) of Sherlock, on public TV, from a story that is about a hundred years old.

Now, I watched a couple of episodes of Girls just to see what the fuss was about and predictably, I personally identified with Lena Dunham’s 23-year-old white upper-middle class protagonists as much as I identify with the 40 something white upper-middle class protagonists of Sex and The City. That is, not much at all.

But I still don’t understand why the show – and Lena Dunhman – were singled out for portrayal of a whitewashed New York City. As if we hadn’t already seen it in SATC or Friends or various other network TV shows since TV was invented. Admittedly, Lena Dunham’s clueless initial response to the diversity criticism (“I didn’t write about people of color because I don’t know many!”) pretty much proved everyone’s point, I still don’t see how this response is much different from most TV writers/showrunners in Hollywood these days. These are all folks writing from their experience and if Hollywood is drawing from the same white, upper middle class well, these are the images we will invariably, consistantly see.

So why, in all of the discussion about Girls, have so few critics or cable/broadcast TV responsibility in bringing more diversity to TV through hiring more writers and showrunners of color? Because honestly, until that happens, we will continue to see the same default whiteness of mass media that we’ve been seeing for decades. There’s been quite a bit of attention paid to Shonda Rhimes’ Scandal as the first network TV show since 1974 to have a black female lead – but not as much attention being paid to the fact that it took the only prominent black female TV showrunner in Hollywood to make that happen. This is not a coincidence. But it’s easier to throw criticism at Girls and get a few people of color thrown into subsequent seasons, and say diversity has been achieved, than deal with the real issue of Hollywood’s lack of diversity and nepotism.

But what about the online world? Recently, the Washington Post wrote about how online video has become a platform for writers and producers of color to attract and grow an audience for their work.

Among the 20 most-subscribed-to channels on YouTube, eight feature minorities. Most are Asian American. Many more black and Latino shows populate the top 50. These producers are also finding an audience that has been largely neglected by Hollywood. Nearly 80 percent of minorities regularly watch online videos, compared with less than 70 percent of whites, the Pew Internet & American Life Project says.

I talked about ABG being the future of TV in a past post, and the Washington Post article is encouraging, but now I am not so sure about my proclamation. With the major investors and decision-makers in the online world being just as homogenous as Hollywood, I do wonder if online video will ultimately be much different in terms of providing any exceptional new opportunities for writers, producers and showrunners of color. So, while TV critics and bloggers mull over what Girls more-diverse second season, I’ll be over here wondering if it will take another 38 years to see a black female show lead on TV, and what it will take to avoid that.

As a Marvel comics reader from adolescence, Avengers was everything I wanted it to be and much more than I had hoped. Marvel doesn’t have the best track record, quality wise with films. Yes, the X-Men and Spider-Man films made lots of money but those films aren’t iconic in the way the original Superman films and various incarnations of Batman have been. There’s always been room for improvement. And yes, there’s probably room for improvement with Avengers as well, but this is the first Marvel movie where I’ve left the theater with a list of raves rather than grievances. That’s a big deal for me, considering I still have a chip on my shoulder after what Bryan Singer did to X-Men and Superman.

Now, this year is a big year for comic geeks, with the Spider-Man reboot and the final chapter in Chris Nolan’s epic Batman series coming in July. But honestly, I think it’s going to take a lot for either of these films to match Avengers, not just on a box-office receipt level, but more importantly, fangirl fervor. Here’s why:

Avengers is fun
One element that makes Avengers so highly watchable is its humor, which of course is expected when Joss Whedon is at the helm, but also an element we don’t see in comic book movies these days. Chris Nolan’s Batman movies are fantastic, and have a couple of funny moments, but let’s face it, there’s nothing fun about these movies, and it looks like I may have to be carried out of the theater after Dark Knight Rises, if the trailer is any indication. The Amazing Spider-Man doesn’t look like a laugh riot either, with Peter Parker moping around all emo about his parents. Having deep conversations about the deeper symbolism of comic book heroes is fun (this blog is called the Learned Fangirl, of course we enjoy doing that here.) But there’s been such a push to make comic-book movies “respectable” to the masses that they stopped being fun. Avengers gets back to that feeling of comic book films that make you feel like a kid again without completely insulting your intelligence.

Avengers is epic
As I mentioned before, Avengers is the first Marvel movie that is actually great, rather than just “good” or “OK” or “awful.” It’s also the first truly epic Marvel movie, and they did a great job of building up anticipation for this film from the previous Iron Man, Thor and Captain America films. Even those who didn’t wait until the end credits for the Avengers teasers in the previous films followed the continuity of the previous films and appreciated the “bigness” of this one. It felt like a gathering of all-stars – that’s what it’ supposed to be – and when many of the iconic heroes were introduced or faced off against each other, I heard cheers and applause. That’s the kind of response you want to get in a comic book movie.

Avengers has eye-candy
I’d be remiss to not mention that there are some hot actors in this film and I don’t think that is coincidence. Regardless of your definition of sexy, there’s at least one or more of the actors that will appeal whether you are into smart-ass swagger of RDJ or you dig pretty boys like Chris Evans. Or in my case, my exciting new discovery of Jeremy Renner’s biceps. Why, hello there! And of course, Scarlett Johansson, if you are into her. (sorry, my anti-Scarlett bias is showing) Either way, in addition to the awesome explosions and Hulk smashing, every member of the Avengers is objectively nice to look at and don’t think that’s not an important factor in a summer film.

So, while I am eagerly awaiting the final chapter of the Dark Knight trilogy (not so much Spiderman) I do think Batman has a lot of work cut out for him. After the whiz-bang fun of Avengers, will fans want to go back to this dark place? After ogling Chris Hemsworth for two hours, will we even want to put up with Andrew Garfield? Guess we’ll have to wait and find out.

Prometheus, if you aren’t already aware, is the newest Ridley Scott sci-fi film, that may or may not be a prequel to, or very loosely based on, the Alien series. I’m not even going to get into that, it’s Ridley Scott’s business. Prometheus actually took me by surprise because i didn’t even know that movie was happening until about a month ago. I was pretty excited to begin with after seeing the original trailer but recently that excitement’s been pushed over the edge into fangirl mania.

Why? The release of the “Happy Birthday David” featurette this week, the 2:40 video features Michael Fassbender as David, the newest android from Weyland Industries. (You know, that fictional company not at all connected to the Alien universe.) It’s actually the third in a series of short videos teasers for the film, one of which features Guy Pearce as Weyland Industries CEO Peter Weyland, speaking at a fictional TED talk in the future.

The Peter Weyland video is cool. but not nearly as intriguing
as the “Happy Birthday David” video, which packs a lot of questions and creepy foreshadowing into such a short film. Michael Fassbender slays with his creepy awesomeness, as the titular robot in question, politely informing of his capability to “carry out directives that my human counterparts might find distressing … or unethical.” YIKES.

While the original trailer may have revealed too much of the plot of Prometheus, these featurettes coyly tease the plot and characters of the film – and the (possibly not) Alien universe in general. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a marketing campaign for a film use video and so-called “viral marketing” so effectively.

I think the reason this campaign works so well has a lot to do with the strength of the material. The “Happy Birthday” David video took off quickly in large part because Michael Fassbender is so great and convincing in it. It’s a memorable video on its own; people want to talk about it. It also just happens to be a teaser for a summer blockbuster. Who knows, perhaps these teasers will be more entertaining and provocative than Prometheus itself (I kinda doubt it, but then I’m a fangirl.) Hopefully, though, the lesson that others will take away from the success of this campaign is make great videos. Use talented actors and writers and create something that stands on its own, then worry about “taking it viral” separately.

At its best, social media is powerful medium to connect people with common interests and drive movements, it can be a tool for change and a great way to spread ideas and creativity. At its worst, it’s filled with stupid in fighting, trolls and self-obsessed, self-promotional douchebaggery. And working in social media, even now, is often about chasing trends or constantly having to justify your existence to employers who think you play on Facebook all day. So I get it.

I have always had a love-hate relationship with Internet culture and social media. But a year and a half ago, I hit a wall, and stayed there. Some of it was driven by what was going on personally in my life, particularly the deaths of two people I loved dearly and me feeling like I had to keep up a “positive attitude” online. But a lot of was just being on social media all the time and not having clear dividing lines between my personal and professional life. I strongly believe that social media at its best is about sharing your genuine self in someway, whether its creative work, or strong opinions or a unique perspective on an issue. But especially for anyone who does community manager work, social media quickly and easily creates a gray area between these two worlds.

Anyway, I did a lot of internal soul searching and I learned a lot. I ditched my Facebook profile for awhile, I even (permanently) blocked it on my laptop. I started to give myself “social media timeouts” and I thought a lot about what it means to do this work, because at the end of the day, I do love it, I do feel like it’s where I belong. But thankfully, blessedly, we are more than what we like, or share or pin. So how do we maintain this balance, if we work in social media? Here’s what has worked for me.

Create a personal social media “editorial policy” I’ve had one of these for about 10 years, when I started my first blog. It’s basically my list of rules about what I will and won’t discuss online, my dividing line for what’s off limits for me to talk about. I won’t list the entire policy here, but for me, off limits includes not mentioning/referencing friends who aren’t online without asking them, and not talking about my personal life in specifics unless it’s really significant news. Over time, this policy evolved and changed over time – and I’ve broken a few of my own rules. But it’s helped me to have rules in the first place and it’s given me a template to draw from when I join new platforms like Pinterest, etc. When coming up with your own personal editorial policy, you don’t have to write it down, or even share it publicly. You do, however, have to specifically define your “off limits” dividing line regarding what you choose to share. I think that’s the most important part.

Cherish your anti-social media friends/loved ones
You know the friends that get mad at you for checking into Foursquare at dinner and call Twitter “Tweeter?” They are THE BEST because they get you away from social media overload, don’t give a rat’s ass about what happened at SXSW this year and get bored when you talk about that article you read on TechCrunch. They want to go to the beach with you or watch “The Good Wife” with you or play basketball with you or make out with you or have mexican food with you. And they don’t want you to talk about Facebook Timeline while you’re doing these things. They’ll tell you that social media is stupid. And you don’t have to always agree with them. But for a few hours a week, you should.

Get a non-screen based hobby
Personally, this saved my sanity. As much as I love writing this blog, it doesn’t get me off the damn computer. But playing bass guitar and writing music does. And running sure does. And as I learned to recommit myself to my career motivations, I equally committed myself to enjoying my non-screen based hobbies and found my focus returning. So when I did get back in front of a computer, I didn’t secretly resent it.

Stop being everyone’s friendly neighborhood unpaid web/social media consultant
This is especially for the ladies. We are notorious for this. Your friend needs a Facebook page for his small business, your uncle needs a “small” website for his church choir, a friend of a friend needs help with understanding Twitter. And they know you do it for a living and want to “pick your brain.” I’m not saying you have to say no. No, I am saying you have to say no. I am bad at this, so I’m not saying it’s easy. But one small project becomes hours of work on Facebook that you could be spending kayaking or making a pie or going to see the Hunger Games, if you are into that. But the more you say no, the easier saying no becomes. Here’s the thing (and web designers, writers and graphic artists can vouch for this) When you do work that’s kind of creative and seemingly “fun” some people think that a.) it’s fun all the time and b.) you get paid in “fun” I think the way to stop this is by putting a hard stop on working for free (or “experience” or “exposure”) If I had the time, I would go on Craigslist and personally go to the office of every small business looking for an unpaid “social media guru/intern” and give them a piece of my mind. I’ve written before that writers have screwed themselves by doing professional jobs for free and social media community manager roles are moving in that direction. So let’s stop making professional social media strategy “fun” and let’s make it work, so we can spend our free time doing actual fun stuff.

So anyway, these are the 4 things that have kept me from losing it and have helped me to create a balance in my social media life and my personal life. It’s not easy, especially when you know will have to work 10 -12 hour days and/or weekends or whatever. But man has it been helpful.

Every year around this time, I always end up buying the Vanity Fair Hollywood issue. I used to subscribe to the magazine, but over time, I dropped it. Probably because I felt like instead of offering interesting nonfiction pieces, I felt more and more out of touch with what they were selling — that is a luxury lifestyle with a self-congratulatory liberal touch that always kind of irks me.

But I still buy the Hollywood issue. I can’t help it. I think it’s the photographs and mentions of actors, directors and producers that I find compelling. Not to mention, there’s interesting scholarly pieces on the history of film and how it resonates up to today (I may need to watch Diner now, after S.L. Price’s article — it was that persuasive on the film’s impact).

Maybe it’s that I’m older, but I couldn’t help but notice how white this year’s cover is. Granted, it’s always been white and young — an emphasis on PYTs and ingenues, with one token minority for inclusiveness — but instead of admiring the composition or the fashion, this year I found myself going “Really?”

I think it’s because this is the year where movies like The Help (rightly or wrongly) resonated with people and garnered an Oscar nod for Viola Davis. Or what about Oscar nominee Melissa McCarthy and her insanely fun turn in Bridesmaids? This was the year women supposedly broke out in comedy, showing that girls can do gross humor too, but there’s nary a mention of Kiristin Wiig or Maya Rudolph.

I don’t buy the idea that the cover’s just for pretty young things and the current “it” girl sensation. Back in 2001, the cover featured women such as Catherine Deneuve, Meryl Streep and the eternal sex goddess Sophia Loren — women who passed their 20s awhile ago.

So why no Viola Davis? Why no Melissa McCarthy? Why no Octavia Spencer?

I find this kind of sexist because when you look at their past covers featuring men, the age gamut is definitely older featuring the likes of Jack Nicholson (who is definitely not a pretty young thing) and Robert Duvall to Andrew Garfield.

I shouldn’t be surprised, I know this, but I can’t help but be disappointed. Vanity Fair literally is that white liberal friend we all have — that one who asks their minority friends “As a (insert race here), how do you feel about (issue)?” It’s incredibly tone deaf in its attempt to be inclusive, thinking that one picture of people of color in the back half of its issue is good enough, when we all know the damn truth.

Maybe I’m not the one out of touch with reality. Maybe Vanity Fair is.

… the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create media in a variety of forms.

We worked a lot with schools and individual teachers to help integrate media literacy into various curricula. We also focused on critical media studies, particularly analyzing the portrayal of women and girls in mass media – generally underrepresented and then objectified and hyper-sexualized when shown at all. Keep in mind, this was a pre-Kardashian world, so at the time the focus was mostly MTV, network TV and women’s magazines, which makes me LOL to think of a time so quaint.

One of the more popular videos used by media literacy educators and gender students educators was Jean Kilbourne’s Killing Us Softly which looks at the portrayal of women in advertising. It’s an insightful video, continually updated in its critique (the video is on its 4th edition.) I highly recommend it, as it’s become even more resonant in the age of Photoshop – retouched beauty standards.

And now we have Miss Representation by actor/filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom as a companion to Killing Us Softly, it’s the same media critique made relevant for a social media/reality TV world, and extending that critique to how women are misrepresented and underrepresented in positions of authority, including politics and business. You have no clue how much it depresses me that we still need a film like this.

Newsom tackles this weighty, nuanced topic with deft and insight, using her own personal narrative (the birth of her daughter, her own teenage struggles with low self-esteem, eating disorders and sexual abuse) as a springboard to explore a broader narrative told through dozens of interviews with high-profile women in news, entertainment, business and politics and a parade of often troubling stats on women in media. (For example: Women hold only 3% high-level positions in entertainment, advertising and publishing and make up only 16% of Hollywood writers, directors, producers, cinematographers and editors.)

Films like this can be hard to pull off because it’s easy to turn didactic when relying on talking heads and stats to move the narrative forward. Miss Representation doesn’t always avoid this, but the A-list caliber of talking heads in question (Katie Couric, Condoleezza Rice, Gloria Steinem, Lisa Ling, among others) helps to keep the movie engaging. The film is at its best when it focuses on young activists making a difference in their everyday lives, such as then-high school student Devanshi Patel, active in student government and working toward a career in politics.

Another underlying topic of the film, media ownership and political economy gets attention here too. It’s a topic that media activists and scholars are passionate about, but can be a real snoozer for anyone else. Newsom integrates an overview of media ownership and political economy issues into the film to provide insight and context – but without getting all Noam Chomsky on folks who may be new to these concepts. However, this left me longing for a film that does delve deeper into these issues of gender and media/content ownership, though maybe a film isn’t the best medium for such an exploration.

When the film ended with a “An Inconvenient Truth” – style roundup of strategies to create change, I was hoping for something a little more radical. Most of the suggestions were still very based around media consumption. Here we are, in a stunning disruptive age of media and technology, where it’s easier than ever for individuals to create and share media and technology, and there’s no serious talk of independent media, entrepreneurship and alternative sources of media funding and distribution? No discussion of media literacy as a tool? The one mention of independent media production as a solution was mentioned in the context of one of the talking heads (I can’t remember who) mentioned a “little film” that her young daughter and her friends created. That’s it. The end of the film just seemed like a string of missed opportunities to me. However, the Miss Representation website seems to now serve as the homebase for broader movement-building around the topic of media representation of women and girls, so perhaps something those more proactive solutions are presented there.

In general, I do recommend Miss Representation as a media literacy education tool and an eye-opening, entertaining film. It would be great to see media literacy – as a concept, a tactic, and a movement – return to the forefront of conversation among educators and activists, with this film leading the way.

For some TV fandoms, YouTube serves as a living archive of sorts for the show’s history. Dedicated fans upload clips (and sometimes full episodes) of TV shows and fans of older shows and “legacy” programming like soap operas and sporting events in turn, acquaint themselves with past storylines and events, or relive their favorite moments. When One Life To Live was cancelled, I consoled myself by watching iconic scenes/storylines (Megan’s death, the controversial gang rape storyline, Jessica’s many breakdowns) and even storylines I was too young to have seen when they aired (Judith Light’s Emmy winning turn as sex worker-turned housewife Karen Wolek in the 70′s.)

Have you ever used YouTube as a way to catch up with the history of a TV show or relive your favorite scenes?

I’ve written in the past about De Capo’s “Best Music Writing” book series, an annual purchase and usually one of my favorite reads of the year. In recent years, as some of the best music writing has been increasingly found in blogs and the underground press, it’s been interesting to see the anthology reflect that evolution and include writing from non-professional bloggers, zinesters and other non-professional writers. Last month, The Village Voice reported that Daphne Carr, longtime editor of the anthology planned to publish the Best Music Writing series indpendently, with an open submission process that considers:

“features, essays, profiles, news articles, interviews, creative non-fiction, fiction, book reviews, long-format reviews, blog posts, and journal articles on musical and music culture-related topics. We also actively seek work that doesn’t fit into these categories-more whimsical and/or emergent forms of music writing, such as tweets, blogs, Tumblr posts, substantive online comments/discussions, and joint writing efforts.”

This is exciting news for readers of the anthology and for fans that write about music.. Some of the most interesting music writing I’ve read in the past decade or so – the most impassioned, funny, critical and knowledgeable stuff – increasingly comes from the fan community,  from non-professionals writing for non-traditional publishing outlets: personal blogs, Twitter feeds, etc. Carr has done a great job of identifying such writers and publications in past anthologies but I really appreciate that this new submission policy broadens this spectrum even more. Writers of all genres and backgrounds who have contributed exceptional music writing may reach a bigger audience because of this new submission policy. It’s great news for music fans and music writers.   The 2012 Best Music Writing book has a Kickstarter campaign going, check it out and support the project if you can.