Archive for March, 2010

Soc of mass media, week 10

| Gabriel |

On Monday I talked about cultural capital and on Wednesday I did cultural consecration. Since UCLA is on the quarter system, ten weeks and we’re done, so back to a monomaniacal devotion to research.

The best way to get the whole course (including the slides) is the ITunes U link.

March 10, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Ok, what’s your second favorite movie?

| Gabriel |

A few journalists have asked me about the recent changes to the “best picture” category at the Oscars. I’m reproducing my answer here. Also see my previous post on the increasing performativity of Oscar bait. Finally, the official version of the article on centrality and spillovers is finally out.

The Academy’s recent changes to the “best picture” category were a reaction to the increasing dominance of the category by obscure films. This has increasingly been an issue since the surprise win of “Shakespeare in Love” at the 1999 Oscars. This film was much less popular that “Saving Private Ryan” but took the Oscar in part because of an aggressive lobbying campaign from Miramax. Ever since, the Oscars have been increasingly dominated by obscure art films rather than big tentpole films for the simple reason that the small films benefit much more from Oscar attention than do the big films. Simply put, “Avatar” won’t sell any more tickets or DVDs if it wins or doesn’t win an Oscar, whereas Oscars could make a huge difference to the box office and DVD for films like “Precious” or “The Hurt Locker.” We saw this again last year in that “Slumdog Millionaire” made most of its money after the Oscars.

This dynamic has created a niche for “Oscar bait” films, which are released in November or December and often feature unpleasant (or if you prefer, challenging) material. The best example of this in the current slate is “Precious,” which is not exactly a “fun” movie. The downside for the Academy is that because audiences aren’t very interested in these movies, it depresses attention for the Oscars. Probably the breaking incident was that last year none of the nominated films had made over $40 million domestic in calendar year 2008, but “Dark Knight” (which made over $530 million domestic in calendar year 2008) was not nominated. This despite the fact that “Dark Knight” was not just a popcorn movie but artistically defensible, having been well-received by critics who saw in it a lot of interesting themes about morality and moral culpability. In large part because “Dark Knight” was not nominated, the Oscars had poor ratings, lower than many episodes of the game show “American Idol.” The hope was that by expanding the nominee list and changing the voting system, the Academy could ensure that at least a few hits would be nominated and would be likely to win, thereby halting the evolution of the Oscars into a ghetto for obscure art films.

Of course the downside to expanding the nomination list is that it makes it plausible that a few broadly popular films could split the vote and a film with a cohesive minority of supporters could attain a plurality, despite broad distaste. Similar issues are seen every once in awhile in politics when two mainstream political parties split the vote and seats go to an extremist party. To avoid such a possibility, the Academy has adopted an “instant runoff” voting system wherein voters do not just choose their favorite, but rank all of their choices. The tally then considers second and third choices until a film achieves a majority. The effect of the voting system should work as intended, which is to say it should ensure a consensus pick that most voters are reasonably happy with rather than a divisive pick with a few fervent fans but which is otherwise despised. The instant runoff system is less likely to produce a dark horse win than the old simple plurality system, but it’s worth noting that according to the “Arrow impossibility theorem” no voting system can reflect voter preferences with perfect accuracy.

In theory, one potential problem with instant runoff is strategic voting. With strategic voting, somebody might write a false second choice if they are afraid that their true second choice is likely to beat out their actual favorite. So if my favorite movie is “Hurt Locker” and my second favorite is “Avatar,” I might falsely claim that my second favorite is “District 9” because I see it as a longshot and I’m thereby assuring that I won’t contribute to “Avatar” beating “Hurt Locker.” In reality, I think this is unlikely to happen to any great extent because strategic voting requires a lot of coordination and the Academy is very strict about policing negative campaigning. In fact, they just censured a producer of “Hurt Locker” for implying that voters should vote against “Avatar.”

March 6, 2010 at 3:46 pm 4 comments

Soc of Mass Media, week 9

| Gabriel |

On Monday I did logics of gatekeeping in the entertainment industry: aesthetics, fads, and research. On Wednesday I did journalism “objectivity,” both how it is practiced (Tuchman) and where it came from historically (Starr).

Next week, cultural capital and cultural consecration. Since UCLA is on the quarter system, that’ll be it.

March 4, 2010 at 4:45 am


| Gabriel |

I hadn’t been paying much attention to Editra since my last comparison shopping of text editors, but recently the project has made some really big strides and is shaping up to be a great cross-platform text editor. Most notably for me, it has both syntax highlighting and code-folding support for Stata. (In addition to R, perl, LaTex, bash, html, and plenty of languages I don’t use).  Furthermore, it now has a plug-in framework for language syntax so adding support for additional languages is easy if you have a Scintilla file. (The old method was to recompile from source — yes, really). There’s also a great “Generate” feature which will let you preserve your syntax highlighting in html, rtf, or tex, though in my experience the tex filter is buggy. (Note that there is a similar “copy as RTF” plug-in for TextMate). Finally, the Mac version comes as a binary and actually looks like a Quartz-native Mac program — no Fink / X11 hassle.

Editra is still considered an alpha release and I remain happy with TextMate for my own use, but if you need cross-platform and/or free, I’d recommend considering it. Note that these features could be especially valuable for teaching stats, since students have little money and use a variety of platforms.

Also, another free cross-platform editor worth checking out is Komodo. It has code-folding and syntax highlighting but as far as I can tell, the Stata syntax only supports highlighting (no folding) and there’s no R support at all, though it has a well-documented plug-in system so it should be feasible for someone to write or port an R syntax file to it.

March 3, 2010 at 4:54 am 2 comments

Network slideshow

| Gabriel |

Now that I’ve gotten R and igraph to make a set of 53 png files (see yesterday’s post), the next step is animating them. I did this using the command line tool ImageMagick, which I installed using Fink, the (buggy) Mac version of the Debian package manager. Once ImageMagick is installed, I can do everything from directly within R using system(). To accomplish this, I just added these lines of code to the end of yesterday’s script. The “mv” commands are necessary because ImageMagick has a naive view of alphabetical order.

#create animated gif in image magick
system("mv chrnet_hc0.png chrnet_hc00.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc1.png chrnet_hc01.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc2.png chrnet_hc02.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc3.png chrnet_hc03.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc4.png chrnet_hc04.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc5.png chrnet_hc05.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc6.png chrnet_hc06.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc7.png chrnet_hc07.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc8.png chrnet_hc08.png")
system("mv chrnet_hc9.png chrnet_hc09.png")
system("convert *.png chrnet_humps.gif")

Here are the results. Vertices are stations, which turn black when the station has begun playing “My Humps” by Black Eyed Peas. Yellow vertices have missing data on airplay (true missing data, not just right-censored). The graph layout is based on directed nominations from a survey so vertices near each other have low path length, but I hid the actual edges to preserve some privacy about the stations social network ties. My substantive interpretation of this animation (and a comparable event history) is that the network doesn’t really matter and the endogenous cascade is based on attention to aggregate peer behavior rather than that of specific alters.

Note that you may have to click on the image to see the animation.

March 1, 2010 at 1:35 pm 1 comment

Newer Posts

The Culture Geeks