To go a whole day without interactions with electronic media: this was my assignment for a 24 hour period. When I first heard it, I was laughed a bit to myself. Thoughts such as “Is this supposed to be hard?” or “Could I do two days just for fun?” crossed through my mind. I even remember hearing some of the people in class raising objections to the assignment, trying to find loopholes, saying it would be impractical or impossible to accomplish. Wonderment of how dependent on electronic media we are as a culture appeared to me. Am I less dependent than others? Have I somehow escaped this hold? Regardless, the pleas of my classmates only served to bemuse me before I set upon the task set for me.
The essay I had to read which led into this assignment was interesting. All of the students seemed to get a lot out of the assignment. It also reflected rather well our attachment to technology, though I think it overstated our dependence on the electronic media. I do not think we have this constant craving to be doing something or on the go like the essay portrays. I know I have spent countless times just staring off into space, the sky, or something else, lost in and transfixed on my thoughts. May haps I am an exception to the rule. Who knows, regardless, The task I embarked upon was only a little harder than I thought it would be because of some elements beyond my control.
I came up with a plan for my day of deprivation. I made plans with my girlfriend to come over at some point after she woke up and bring some board games, which we would then play for most of the day. She ended up bringing Monopoly, but one game of that lasts so long that it turned out fine. At some point we would go out for a walk and enjoy the nice outdoors. In hindsight, this was a simple plan that did not take some minute problems into account, which I will highlight later.
I started my media deprivation at about 1:30 in the morning, when I went to sleep. I turned off my cell phone and threw it in a corner. It was no longer necessary. I then went to bed and fell asleep. I woke up in the morning to my girlfriend’s greetings and the treasure of monopoly. This was basically our day: Play monopoly, eat food, and go walk around the area a bit, since the neighborhood actually does offer a nice walk. We discovered something in this day: Board games are fun! They offer an alternate social activity with more social interactivity than television/film and video games. They get forgotten and cast aside so easily, but they really are great. A slight hiccup occurred when it came time to eat and I had no food in my house for luncheons.
We went to Quizno’s to pick up some sandwiches for lunch. As I got to the door, a realization dawned on me. I could not go into the place. They play music there. I could not listen to music. I mentally went through a list of all of the places I could think of that serve food and they all played music. I had never even thought about it before! Music is everywhere. I ended up sending my girlfriend inside to get the food for me because we were hungry and I really did not have much in the way of food. I had not considered this obstacle before. This made it so that I could not really go many places because a great many places play music, even just barely audible in the background.
The rest of the day went fine though. I made it through the whole 24 hour period without interacting with electronic media. The hard part was not in resisting the interaction itself; that was easy. The hard part was avoiding it from other people, such as the music in the background. However, I did get these urges every so often to want to show something on the internet or my computer to my girlfriend or play a game with her, with the immediate dismissal of it in my mind because I could not. The thing is that these would not have even really added to the enjoyment of the day too much. They would have been an immediate and quick moments of enjoyment that would likely quickly fade.
I actually learned a lot from this assignment. I went into it thinking it would just be like any other day minus some electronic media, not really learning much other than something trite like a day can still be enjoyed with other means of entertainment, but I ended up taking a bit more away from this assignment. I discovered just how dependent we have, as a society, become on our electronic media. I constantly check my friend list on Instant Messenger to see if anyone I want to talk to has signed on or to see if I have gotten any new messages. I constantly crave to interact with some form of electronic entertainment through movies, games, and the internet in general. Going a day without all of this kind of opened my eyes to it all. I could place the cravings; I could see them and force myself to resist them. If I had planned to do homework at the time, I probably could have gotten quite a bit done.
I definitely felt the need to be connected during my deprivation. I admittedly did have the urge from time to time to call someone and see how their turkey day was the previous day. This need to feel connected I think might have something to do with how we have structured our social interactions with people. Most of our conversations with people, at least in the beginning, are concerned with how they are doing, what they are currently doing in their lives, etc. These are things we get off of the internet from Facebook and the like.
I think we want to constantly be connected partially because people constantly throw out references from the internet, television shows, movies, etc. We want to get these references. They sort of help us fit in. Those who do not understand tend to be more outcast. Friendships can be made based on references; people can be made fun of for not understanding them. By being connected and catching these references, one can avoid the insults and catch the good stuff such as friendships, furthering social interactions, and anything else I could not think of by knowing and putting out or catching these references.
Citation
1) Walker, Danna. “The Longest Day” Washington Post Magazine. 5 Aug. 2007.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101720.html
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
A win for Paglia as she slides into the homeplate? No, the touchdown area.
The person’s argument that won me over in the Television Versus Print argument was Camille Paglia, the one arguing for television. There are many reasons for this that I can see.
I think a part of it is oddly that she is closer in age to me than Postman. One of her arguments is that age is an important factor in how one views mass media, and that is why she looked into the age of Postman. I was raised in a generation that can almost be described as raised by the television by some. Television is a part of my life and I do not have as much of the cynicism regarding television as Postman.
He is wary of television. He sees it more of a thing which destroys that which was once held sacred. Such as taking away the meaning of God through overexposure and differentially associating God with something more mundane such as hot dogs. Paglia pulled her argument on this wonderfully I thought. That these references to symbols only serve to strengthen the meaning of the symbols is incredibly interesting. The symbol is used to reinforce a meaning, and the reinforcement of that meaning, via hot dogs or whatever, serves to reinforce the meaning of the symbol to the public. Postman does have merit in thinking that it would serve to desensitize one to the meaning. In that we are desensitized to violence via constantly seeing it on television is hardly refutable. However, his thinking that it is secularizing religious symbols via their gratuitous replay is thinking that is refuted by Paglia’s previously mentioned thinking. It also seems to base itself very much on his religious practice, which does not reach an agnostic thinker such as myself.
Paglia also does something which strikes me as exactly what should be done in an argument and I would have done myself had I been there. She called Postman’s statistics into question. In my many psych class, it has been very much emphasized that, in order to understand statistics in research, one really needs to know exactly how that research was conducted. Someone can say that more people than not enjoy hot dogs more than any other food through a survey, but one must ask what question they were asked to get why they put down that they enjoy hot dogs. They could have asked the question, “What food do you enjoy on a hot dog bun, hot dogs, hamburgers, chili, or peanuts,” and of course the answer would then make much more sense. Paglia questioned Postmans statistic about how the literacy rate being high during the American Revolution. Postman did not really seem to know how to respond to this claim. He seemed to change the argument to something else because he lacked a retort.
Something which both sides did but I felt Paglia did particularly well was being flexible in thinking. This includes taking the other side’s opinion into account and being able to speak off of it. She, at many points, agreed with Postman and then explained her perspective on his right opinion. The one part that well sticks out in my mind on this is when they were talking about Charlie’s Angels and how it was about hair. At first, it seemed like an odd sort of argument that the show is not supposed to make sense because it is really about hair. Paglia agrees with this point of Postman, saying that it is a celebration and worship of beauty which had a strong impact on the culture. Put this way, the reason for all of these shows which are so sexually charged and full of “beautiful women” start making more sense. Of course, that does not mean that there is not an over saturation of sexuality going on in the mass media. They seem to have run off with the worship.
Postman, throughout the essay, seems to be trying to present television as this destroying force of culture. He is saying that there might have some not-so-good results from the globalization of development of the brain that television might encourage, as if it would not develop some part of it as much. However, Paglia argues this differently. She edges more on saying that this development is a good thing, that it gives us broader abilities to think and act, which are important. I am more inclined to go with her argument because it is often thought that general development is better than specific development. Then general development can lead into more specific development more easily.
Overall, I really did feel like both critics did a fantastic job presenting their arguments. They were quite intricate and each had some strong arguments. I have the feeling that, had I been about as old as Postman, I would have been more inclined to agree with his arguments more, but I am the age that I am. Yet Paglia’s arguments also seem more applicable to the more modern times than Postman’s somewhat outdated thinking, and thus would probably be more agreed upon.
Citation:
1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Two Cultures—Television versus Print. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 283-295.
I think a part of it is oddly that she is closer in age to me than Postman. One of her arguments is that age is an important factor in how one views mass media, and that is why she looked into the age of Postman. I was raised in a generation that can almost be described as raised by the television by some. Television is a part of my life and I do not have as much of the cynicism regarding television as Postman.
He is wary of television. He sees it more of a thing which destroys that which was once held sacred. Such as taking away the meaning of God through overexposure and differentially associating God with something more mundane such as hot dogs. Paglia pulled her argument on this wonderfully I thought. That these references to symbols only serve to strengthen the meaning of the symbols is incredibly interesting. The symbol is used to reinforce a meaning, and the reinforcement of that meaning, via hot dogs or whatever, serves to reinforce the meaning of the symbol to the public. Postman does have merit in thinking that it would serve to desensitize one to the meaning. In that we are desensitized to violence via constantly seeing it on television is hardly refutable. However, his thinking that it is secularizing religious symbols via their gratuitous replay is thinking that is refuted by Paglia’s previously mentioned thinking. It also seems to base itself very much on his religious practice, which does not reach an agnostic thinker such as myself.
Paglia also does something which strikes me as exactly what should be done in an argument and I would have done myself had I been there. She called Postman’s statistics into question. In my many psych class, it has been very much emphasized that, in order to understand statistics in research, one really needs to know exactly how that research was conducted. Someone can say that more people than not enjoy hot dogs more than any other food through a survey, but one must ask what question they were asked to get why they put down that they enjoy hot dogs. They could have asked the question, “What food do you enjoy on a hot dog bun, hot dogs, hamburgers, chili, or peanuts,” and of course the answer would then make much more sense. Paglia questioned Postmans statistic about how the literacy rate being high during the American Revolution. Postman did not really seem to know how to respond to this claim. He seemed to change the argument to something else because he lacked a retort.
Something which both sides did but I felt Paglia did particularly well was being flexible in thinking. This includes taking the other side’s opinion into account and being able to speak off of it. She, at many points, agreed with Postman and then explained her perspective on his right opinion. The one part that well sticks out in my mind on this is when they were talking about Charlie’s Angels and how it was about hair. At first, it seemed like an odd sort of argument that the show is not supposed to make sense because it is really about hair. Paglia agrees with this point of Postman, saying that it is a celebration and worship of beauty which had a strong impact on the culture. Put this way, the reason for all of these shows which are so sexually charged and full of “beautiful women” start making more sense. Of course, that does not mean that there is not an over saturation of sexuality going on in the mass media. They seem to have run off with the worship.
Postman, throughout the essay, seems to be trying to present television as this destroying force of culture. He is saying that there might have some not-so-good results from the globalization of development of the brain that television might encourage, as if it would not develop some part of it as much. However, Paglia argues this differently. She edges more on saying that this development is a good thing, that it gives us broader abilities to think and act, which are important. I am more inclined to go with her argument because it is often thought that general development is better than specific development. Then general development can lead into more specific development more easily.
Overall, I really did feel like both critics did a fantastic job presenting their arguments. They were quite intricate and each had some strong arguments. I have the feeling that, had I been about as old as Postman, I would have been more inclined to agree with his arguments more, but I am the age that I am. Yet Paglia’s arguments also seem more applicable to the more modern times than Postman’s somewhat outdated thinking, and thus would probably be more agreed upon.
Citation:
1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Two Cultures—Television versus Print. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 283-295.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama Wins! News Networks split between anxiety and joy. Tonight at 11.
The election is finally over. After many months of campaigning by candidates all over the country, incredible amounts of news coverage that could be compared to the whole of the coverage of the “war on Iraq”, and several billion dollars later, we finally have our next president of the United States. The night of the election, tensions were high. A lot was at stake. CNN, in anticipation of this tension, ran a night long ongoing coverage of the debate. Their coverage was all around good, full of constant and seemingly incessant analyzing of the ongoing election process and some rather unnecessary pizzazz with their “hologram” technology. Interestingly enough, after the projection came out that Obama won the state of Ohio, the tone of the analysts changed. They seemed to become a bit more cheerful and optimistic at the announcement.
Before this announcement they emphasized that McCain would definitely have win Ohio in order to have a chance in the election. Before him, there was only one Republican candidate to win without it, and that was Abraham Lincoln. After this news, they started showing projections which indicated that it was very unlikely that McCain was going to win. They even told people they could go to their site to offer their projections of ways it was possible for McCain to win. However, they seemed to know that it was an impossibility from that point on. Yet they could not or would not come right out and say that it was a victory for Obama yet. Still though, their cheerfulness showed through.
Now, I cannot pledge to be able to remember the names of any of the analysts on CNN from election night, I remember Wolf Blitzer was there, and none of the other names really stuck with me. I tried looking up who was on there, but did not have much luck. However, most of them, even the ones that seemed republican or conservative were getting enthusiastic about analyzing the data. It was when the news was announced that McCain was putting in an early withdrawal that everyone in the room really started celebrating. They almost seemed defiant to the typical view that they should have been unbiased in their reporting. If they could jump on their desks and throw chairs around the newsroom they would have. Instead, they showed a dozen live feeds of enthusiastic droves of people celebrating and being happy. They happily and with glee announced the news by raising their tones and adding a happy ring to it. The whole depiction was almost surreal. Like all of the displeasure with Bush simply flowed out of them and seeped into the floors.
I think it is good that they showed this leaning towards Obama in their celebration. The news networks really are biased in how they report, and it has never quite been as clear to me as it has been now. They cannot continue to show unbiased news if they have these leanings and pretend not to have them. I am sure they will continue to pretend they are unbiased, but they, for one night, made those leanings very apparent. Fox news did too with their almost funeral dirge depiction of the Obama victory. They begrudgingly reported the news and then showed the speeches of Obama and McCain. Sadly, I cannot find a video of this clip regardless of much searching. Fox News also showed their bias rather flagrantly. It is good because people need to know these leanings. If they are getting their news, they should know what kinds of biases are put into that news. They should be able to outright know what kind of spin has been put into it so that they can make a better judgment of the information that is being presented to them.
Then I changed the channel to Comedy Central and watched the tail end of their comedy special. They also had an almost surreal atmosphere to their celebration. They brought all the democrats and republicans together on the special and led them out into the open day where the scenery was described by them all as beautiful after all the misery of the Bush years. Everyone was happy, Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart alike. Then they are reminded that Bush is still in office for a few more months and, with a look of disgruntlement, they all walk back inside. The strange part of the video which they pointed out was that it was broad daylight outside, while it should have been nighttime. This indicates that to me that they made the video ahead of time, as if they knew that Obama was going to win. From what I heard from friends, Jon even started his celebrating their victory before complete victory was announced and Colbert was just holding out hope that the slightest miracle might occur and pull McCain up. They had that liberty.
They could do that. The news networks could not. Their biases were clear. Their judgment was immediate and not withdrawn. This is just how the news networks should be doing rather than continuing to play their illusions of having no bias. However, it is tonight that those illusions were at their thinnest, and all one had to do was watch and pay a little attention to their reactions to the news. Then one could easily and simply see them.
Before this announcement they emphasized that McCain would definitely have win Ohio in order to have a chance in the election. Before him, there was only one Republican candidate to win without it, and that was Abraham Lincoln. After this news, they started showing projections which indicated that it was very unlikely that McCain was going to win. They even told people they could go to their site to offer their projections of ways it was possible for McCain to win. However, they seemed to know that it was an impossibility from that point on. Yet they could not or would not come right out and say that it was a victory for Obama yet. Still though, their cheerfulness showed through.
Now, I cannot pledge to be able to remember the names of any of the analysts on CNN from election night, I remember Wolf Blitzer was there, and none of the other names really stuck with me. I tried looking up who was on there, but did not have much luck. However, most of them, even the ones that seemed republican or conservative were getting enthusiastic about analyzing the data. It was when the news was announced that McCain was putting in an early withdrawal that everyone in the room really started celebrating. They almost seemed defiant to the typical view that they should have been unbiased in their reporting. If they could jump on their desks and throw chairs around the newsroom they would have. Instead, they showed a dozen live feeds of enthusiastic droves of people celebrating and being happy. They happily and with glee announced the news by raising their tones and adding a happy ring to it. The whole depiction was almost surreal. Like all of the displeasure with Bush simply flowed out of them and seeped into the floors.
I think it is good that they showed this leaning towards Obama in their celebration. The news networks really are biased in how they report, and it has never quite been as clear to me as it has been now. They cannot continue to show unbiased news if they have these leanings and pretend not to have them. I am sure they will continue to pretend they are unbiased, but they, for one night, made those leanings very apparent. Fox news did too with their almost funeral dirge depiction of the Obama victory. They begrudgingly reported the news and then showed the speeches of Obama and McCain. Sadly, I cannot find a video of this clip regardless of much searching. Fox News also showed their bias rather flagrantly. It is good because people need to know these leanings. If they are getting their news, they should know what kinds of biases are put into that news. They should be able to outright know what kind of spin has been put into it so that they can make a better judgment of the information that is being presented to them.
Then I changed the channel to Comedy Central and watched the tail end of their comedy special. They also had an almost surreal atmosphere to their celebration. They brought all the democrats and republicans together on the special and led them out into the open day where the scenery was described by them all as beautiful after all the misery of the Bush years. Everyone was happy, Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart alike. Then they are reminded that Bush is still in office for a few more months and, with a look of disgruntlement, they all walk back inside. The strange part of the video which they pointed out was that it was broad daylight outside, while it should have been nighttime. This indicates that to me that they made the video ahead of time, as if they knew that Obama was going to win. From what I heard from friends, Jon even started his celebrating their victory before complete victory was announced and Colbert was just holding out hope that the slightest miracle might occur and pull McCain up. They had that liberty.
They could do that. The news networks could not. Their biases were clear. Their judgment was immediate and not withdrawn. This is just how the news networks should be doing rather than continuing to play their illusions of having no bias. However, it is tonight that those illusions were at their thinnest, and all one had to do was watch and pay a little attention to their reactions to the news. Then one could easily and simply see them.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Advertising? How dare they make me buy things I don't want!
In forming our consumer society, the mass media started, according to Rosalynd Williams in his paper Dream Worlds of Consumption, with the Paris exposition of 1855. This exposition started out just showing tools and scientific discovery, but it eventually led to more popularity thanks to it being reported on in newspapers and the like. Thus it became glamorized, with consumption becoming its main point starting at the 1900 exposition. Then department stores started coming around, and a little after that, according to Jackson Lears’ paper Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society, magazines were printing off advertisements for these department stores and other stores alike. They promoted everyone being consumers and buying things which they might not even need, such as businessmen buying axes to feel more masculine, even though they’ll never use them. These advertisers were trying to get people to buy things they did not necessarily need because they wanted to sell their product, and that has continued to grow and blossom into the consumer market of today by becoming so commonplace that is almost impossible to go anywhere without seeing an advertisement of something trying to get you to buy something you do not want or need.
In trying to get you to buy into their advertisements, advertisers will get across ideas of somehow making you a better person with their advertisements. They send across ideas such as,”Buy this computer and you will be hip,” or “Buy this deodorant and you will be very manly.” They could probably technically get this across much easier in words, since images can be translated in many different ways, while words tend to be more solid in how they can be translated. However, in reality, images tend to catch people’s attention much easier than words, and the images tend to be simple images that most people can understand somewhat easily, so they work well in communicating their ideas.
The advertisement which I am analyzing is an old spice advertisement, in which a nerdy looking guy is portrayed in a before picture, and a tough “manly” looking guy in an after picture. It has a short quip about how Old Spice Swagger transformed this nerdy person into a “colossal man mountain of awesomeness”. Initially, the advertisement confused me. It came out of a video game magazine, which, at the very least, used to be the arena of these “nerdy” people. Now they are not only putting out the idea that being nerdy is not socially acceptable, but they are putting out the idea that looking tough and masculine is the socially acceptable way to be. It just seems bizarre that these once stereotypically nerdy people of the gaming crowd are having it thrown at them that they should be tough and stereotypically masculine.
Why this advertisement looks the way it does? Why is this nerdy and girly looking boy, dressed in what looks like the get up of a dungeons and dragons player so huge in this advertisement in a huge picture? Why does it portray a tough and mean looking man in a nice suit with no hair underneath this image in a smaller almost wallet sized picture with a quip about how old spice transformed him into a manly manly man? The nerdy boy is the cultural stereotype of a nerdy person. We have an idea of a nerdy person, and it involves glasses, playing dungeons and dragons, having long hair and a moustache, looking weak, nothing “masculine”. Whereas, the “masculine” image has a suit, little to no hair, and a serious mean looking face. This is what a man is. He means business. He does work. He looks neat, clean, and strong due to his muscles which you can only just see. In the differences between these two pictures and the quip between them, there are imbued strong cultural ideals of what it means to be a real man. The man fits that completely. Then there are strong cultural ideals about what it means to be a nerd. This boy fits that bill completely. There has been a stigma attached to being nerdy like this, and just about no one who wants to be socially acceptable will want to look like this. The image of the nerd is also made huge. This is probably to catch the attention of the people reading the magazine. They will be flipping through the pages and see this unacceptable image. With their attention caught, they will read through the advertisement and see that, by using this product: Old Spice Swagger, they will become more masculine than they are, just like this nerdy kid became a “colossal man mountain of awesomeness”. People do not want to be this socially unacceptable nerd. They want to be this socially awesome colossal man mountain of awesomeness. This advertisement also shows humor through this phrase. It is a phrase that, while grandiose, cannot be taken seriously. Thus, they show themselves as a product that people can enjoy and relate to them through light hearted humor. It is promising all this so that whoever sees their advertisement will choose their deodorant over others.
Citations:
1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Dream Worlds of Consumption. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 169-175.
2. 1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 197-202.
In trying to get you to buy into their advertisements, advertisers will get across ideas of somehow making you a better person with their advertisements. They send across ideas such as,”Buy this computer and you will be hip,” or “Buy this deodorant and you will be very manly.” They could probably technically get this across much easier in words, since images can be translated in many different ways, while words tend to be more solid in how they can be translated. However, in reality, images tend to catch people’s attention much easier than words, and the images tend to be simple images that most people can understand somewhat easily, so they work well in communicating their ideas.
The advertisement which I am analyzing is an old spice advertisement, in which a nerdy looking guy is portrayed in a before picture, and a tough “manly” looking guy in an after picture. It has a short quip about how Old Spice Swagger transformed this nerdy person into a “colossal man mountain of awesomeness”. Initially, the advertisement confused me. It came out of a video game magazine, which, at the very least, used to be the arena of these “nerdy” people. Now they are not only putting out the idea that being nerdy is not socially acceptable, but they are putting out the idea that looking tough and masculine is the socially acceptable way to be. It just seems bizarre that these once stereotypically nerdy people of the gaming crowd are having it thrown at them that they should be tough and stereotypically masculine.
Why this advertisement looks the way it does? Why is this nerdy and girly looking boy, dressed in what looks like the get up of a dungeons and dragons player so huge in this advertisement in a huge picture? Why does it portray a tough and mean looking man in a nice suit with no hair underneath this image in a smaller almost wallet sized picture with a quip about how old spice transformed him into a manly manly man? The nerdy boy is the cultural stereotype of a nerdy person. We have an idea of a nerdy person, and it involves glasses, playing dungeons and dragons, having long hair and a moustache, looking weak, nothing “masculine”. Whereas, the “masculine” image has a suit, little to no hair, and a serious mean looking face. This is what a man is. He means business. He does work. He looks neat, clean, and strong due to his muscles which you can only just see. In the differences between these two pictures and the quip between them, there are imbued strong cultural ideals of what it means to be a real man. The man fits that completely. Then there are strong cultural ideals about what it means to be a nerd. This boy fits that bill completely. There has been a stigma attached to being nerdy like this, and just about no one who wants to be socially acceptable will want to look like this. The image of the nerd is also made huge. This is probably to catch the attention of the people reading the magazine. They will be flipping through the pages and see this unacceptable image. With their attention caught, they will read through the advertisement and see that, by using this product: Old Spice Swagger, they will become more masculine than they are, just like this nerdy kid became a “colossal man mountain of awesomeness”. People do not want to be this socially unacceptable nerd. They want to be this socially awesome colossal man mountain of awesomeness. This advertisement also shows humor through this phrase. It is a phrase that, while grandiose, cannot be taken seriously. Thus, they show themselves as a product that people can enjoy and relate to them through light hearted humor. It is promising all this so that whoever sees their advertisement will choose their deodorant over others.
Citations:
1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Dream Worlds of Consumption. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 169-175.
2. 1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 197-202.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Obama Really did do a Good Job
For starts, the post I’m commenting on:
"Why Obama Won Big"
I watched the whole debate. It was the first presidential debate I had ever watched. I might be inexperienced in matters of politics, but Obama seemed to win the debate hands down. He provided some pretty clear points, explained what he was talking about, and he seemed to attack McCain a lot less than McCain attacked him. A good example of Obama being clear is when McCain was accusing him of wanting to have talks with Afghanistan without preconditions. He was trying to be very clear that he understood what preconditions were and would still have preparations for the meeting. McCain’s constant belittling of Obama on being inexperienced and not understand anything was really more annoying than anything. It made McCain look silly, as if he was just attacking Obama because he could not quite a make a good point on his own. In actuality, contrary to what McCain was saying, Obama quite well seemed to know what he was talking about, and he got that across very well in his arguments.
However, Obama did seem a little too submissive in his arguments. Every so often he would just agree with McCain without much argument. This was evident when they were discussing Georgia, where Obama said that he agreed with what McCain said. He really should have thrown in some small differences if there was not a large difference between their arguments, which he did do, but he should have done it with saying he did not quite agree with McCain. Obama also seemed to be a little weak in how he approached how he was going to deal with the threat of Iran. Obama actually seemed to be getting weaker in the last thirty minutes of the debate. McCain seemed to verbally trump over Obama in that, for the most part, though it was not always in a good way. With his point over Obama about going into talks with Ahmadinejad, McCain kept going on about preconditions and he verbally overcame Obama with that, but he did no seem to know what he himself was talking about, even though he said Obama did not know what he was talking about.
In his essay “Why Obama Won Big”, Andrew Sullivan clearly thought Obama won this debate. He made a very interesting point about body language and how McCain very rarely looked at Obama and put it out as a sign of insecurity. I thought it was more that he did not really want to acknowledge Obama as an opponent, which would make sense with how condescending he was with him. However, I did not really notice that McCain did not really look at Obama until I saw it in Sullivan’s post, and as I re-watched the debate, I noticed it well where Obama would look at McCain while he was speaking, and McCain would just look down while Obama was speaking. In a situation where you are supposed to be arguing with someone such as a debate, this seems disrespectful in the sense that you should acknowledge the person you are arguing with. This just made McCain seem more condescending along with his words of “Obama again doesn’t understand” and calling him naïve. I agree with Sullivan that Obama did seem very presidential like. He felt pretty good in his presentation of himself, very sure of what he was saying, while McCain did not quite seem so sure of himself. Most of his answers to questions seemed to loop back onto his experience in the military and how he knows how to do things without present evidence of actually knowing how to do them, which would probably be that sign of insecurity that Sullivan pointed out.
Overall, I really agree with what Sullivan said. Obama did seem to win the debate big time, especially in after thought. When checking the facts in the New York Times, Obama seemed to mess up his facts less than McCain, or, when he did mess them up, the mess ups were more minor. He consistently seemed to trump over McCain in being prepared and making good valid points. He even seemed to have a better physical presentation of himself. This could just be my own biases coming into play though. Therefore Contrary to how it was said that there was a tie between the two, it really seemed like Obama came out more on top that night.
Citations:
1) Sullivan, Andrew. “Why Obama Won Big” The Daily Dish. 27 Sept. 2008.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/why-obama-won-b.html#more
2) Bosman, Julie, Calmes, Jackie, Luo, Michael, Rohter, Larry, Wald, Matthew. “Check Point: The First Debate” The New York Times. 26 Sept. 2008.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/check-point-the-first-debate/?hp
"Why Obama Won Big"
I watched the whole debate. It was the first presidential debate I had ever watched. I might be inexperienced in matters of politics, but Obama seemed to win the debate hands down. He provided some pretty clear points, explained what he was talking about, and he seemed to attack McCain a lot less than McCain attacked him. A good example of Obama being clear is when McCain was accusing him of wanting to have talks with Afghanistan without preconditions. He was trying to be very clear that he understood what preconditions were and would still have preparations for the meeting. McCain’s constant belittling of Obama on being inexperienced and not understand anything was really more annoying than anything. It made McCain look silly, as if he was just attacking Obama because he could not quite a make a good point on his own. In actuality, contrary to what McCain was saying, Obama quite well seemed to know what he was talking about, and he got that across very well in his arguments.
However, Obama did seem a little too submissive in his arguments. Every so often he would just agree with McCain without much argument. This was evident when they were discussing Georgia, where Obama said that he agreed with what McCain said. He really should have thrown in some small differences if there was not a large difference between their arguments, which he did do, but he should have done it with saying he did not quite agree with McCain. Obama also seemed to be a little weak in how he approached how he was going to deal with the threat of Iran. Obama actually seemed to be getting weaker in the last thirty minutes of the debate. McCain seemed to verbally trump over Obama in that, for the most part, though it was not always in a good way. With his point over Obama about going into talks with Ahmadinejad, McCain kept going on about preconditions and he verbally overcame Obama with that, but he did no seem to know what he himself was talking about, even though he said Obama did not know what he was talking about.
In his essay “Why Obama Won Big”, Andrew Sullivan clearly thought Obama won this debate. He made a very interesting point about body language and how McCain very rarely looked at Obama and put it out as a sign of insecurity. I thought it was more that he did not really want to acknowledge Obama as an opponent, which would make sense with how condescending he was with him. However, I did not really notice that McCain did not really look at Obama until I saw it in Sullivan’s post, and as I re-watched the debate, I noticed it well where Obama would look at McCain while he was speaking, and McCain would just look down while Obama was speaking. In a situation where you are supposed to be arguing with someone such as a debate, this seems disrespectful in the sense that you should acknowledge the person you are arguing with. This just made McCain seem more condescending along with his words of “Obama again doesn’t understand” and calling him naïve. I agree with Sullivan that Obama did seem very presidential like. He felt pretty good in his presentation of himself, very sure of what he was saying, while McCain did not quite seem so sure of himself. Most of his answers to questions seemed to loop back onto his experience in the military and how he knows how to do things without present evidence of actually knowing how to do them, which would probably be that sign of insecurity that Sullivan pointed out.
Overall, I really agree with what Sullivan said. Obama did seem to win the debate big time, especially in after thought. When checking the facts in the New York Times, Obama seemed to mess up his facts less than McCain, or, when he did mess them up, the mess ups were more minor. He consistently seemed to trump over McCain in being prepared and making good valid points. He even seemed to have a better physical presentation of himself. This could just be my own biases coming into play though. Therefore Contrary to how it was said that there was a tie between the two, it really seemed like Obama came out more on top that night.
Citations:
1) Sullivan, Andrew. “Why Obama Won Big” The Daily Dish. 27 Sept. 2008.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/why-obama-won-b.html#more
2) Bosman, Julie, Calmes, Jackie, Luo, Michael, Rohter, Larry, Wald, Matthew. “Check Point: The First Debate” The New York Times. 26 Sept. 2008.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/check-point-the-first-debate/?hp
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Is the Internet the best way to talk? Who Knows?
Superior. It is a word which means that something or someone is at the top of something. Better than something. In this case, one form of communication is to be better than the others. It is at the top, nothing better. Can one pick one form of communication and say that it is better than every other form of communication? Seeing as how there are many facets to every way of communication, it is incredibly difficult to argue that one form is superior to every other kind. However, there are some that are clearly better than some others, with one to keep in mind that just might make the case that it is close to superior. First of all, the top forms of communication should be put out. It should be noted that some will be collapsed together mostly for the sake of convenience. If one were to look at all the different ways of communicating, it would take more than a page or two to analyze them. Anyway, there is verbal communication face to face, verbal communication not face to face (phone conversation), physically written communication (books, letters, notes, etc), and virtual communication (everything typed up onto a computer, television, text messages, the internet, etc). So we have all of these different ways of communication broken down into these very dense and broad categories. Which one could be best? It would be good to start that investigation by looking at communication.
To start, communications are a form of interaction between people. This includes indirect communication between the author of a book and the reader of that book, though it is, for the most part, a one sided communication from the author to the reader unless the reader somehow establishes a conversation with the writer outside of the book. Therefore, written communications are still communications between people. To extend this reasoning, a lot the information we get about the world comes from words written down in some form, virtual or physical. Most of what we say is based off of these written down words we have learned in some form. Due to the introduction of literacy and writing, we have been able to retain knowledge and build upon it at quick rates. What we learned as kids came from other people who learned it from other people, most often with the origin of the source of the information relatively unknown. There is a huge fountain of known knowledge. Drawing upon this knowledge which is passed onto others through written means, radio, or other people who heard it from somewhere, we are participating in secondary orality. A sort of indirect communication of other people’s found knowledge, communication. Since our knowledge base builds upon itself, it is nearly impossible to speak and not be participating in this secondary orality.
With all of this in mind we can start to look at which form of communication is closest to superior. It could easily be said that virtual communication is far superior to other means, even if you just use the internet and computers and compare them to everything else. They can hold massive amounts of information in small amounts of space, are easily accessible and transported, can still communicate with other people through digital means (instant messenger and e-mail), etc. However, there are significant disadvantages to this medium which start to make it look less superior. For one thing, humans are social creatures, and do best when socializing physically with other people face to face. One learns to read actions, facial expressions, body language, say the right things in the right situations, all that goes with an interaction with two people in a face to face meeting. When one is communicating via virtual means, there is simply no way to get this across, so that socialization is lost.
The other forms of communication do still provide information, but all of that information could easily come from virtual means, such as an internet database or newspaper and therefore be secondary orality. However, that orality still serves to spread information which may not spread like it does via virtual means. Surroundings can serve as motivators for conversation and set a background for conversation, as opposed to anything which might come from a computer simulation of that (chat rooms, video chat rooms, etc. There is also definite quality of authenticity which comes from being in the “real world” that one does not quite get from the virtual world.
Is virtual communication the most superior form of communication? The answer is yes in relation to being connected to people and information in the most efficient manner possible. Focusing on the different facets of the forms of communication though, each one has their own benefits to be gotten.
Citations:
1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 66-72.
2. Gardner, Howard. “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” The Washington Post 17 Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html
3. Jacoby, Susan. The Dumbing of America.” The Washington Post. 17 Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
To start, communications are a form of interaction between people. This includes indirect communication between the author of a book and the reader of that book, though it is, for the most part, a one sided communication from the author to the reader unless the reader somehow establishes a conversation with the writer outside of the book. Therefore, written communications are still communications between people. To extend this reasoning, a lot the information we get about the world comes from words written down in some form, virtual or physical. Most of what we say is based off of these written down words we have learned in some form. Due to the introduction of literacy and writing, we have been able to retain knowledge and build upon it at quick rates. What we learned as kids came from other people who learned it from other people, most often with the origin of the source of the information relatively unknown. There is a huge fountain of known knowledge. Drawing upon this knowledge which is passed onto others through written means, radio, or other people who heard it from somewhere, we are participating in secondary orality. A sort of indirect communication of other people’s found knowledge, communication. Since our knowledge base builds upon itself, it is nearly impossible to speak and not be participating in this secondary orality.
With all of this in mind we can start to look at which form of communication is closest to superior. It could easily be said that virtual communication is far superior to other means, even if you just use the internet and computers and compare them to everything else. They can hold massive amounts of information in small amounts of space, are easily accessible and transported, can still communicate with other people through digital means (instant messenger and e-mail), etc. However, there are significant disadvantages to this medium which start to make it look less superior. For one thing, humans are social creatures, and do best when socializing physically with other people face to face. One learns to read actions, facial expressions, body language, say the right things in the right situations, all that goes with an interaction with two people in a face to face meeting. When one is communicating via virtual means, there is simply no way to get this across, so that socialization is lost.
The other forms of communication do still provide information, but all of that information could easily come from virtual means, such as an internet database or newspaper and therefore be secondary orality. However, that orality still serves to spread information which may not spread like it does via virtual means. Surroundings can serve as motivators for conversation and set a background for conversation, as opposed to anything which might come from a computer simulation of that (chat rooms, video chat rooms, etc. There is also definite quality of authenticity which comes from being in the “real world” that one does not quite get from the virtual world.
Is virtual communication the most superior form of communication? The answer is yes in relation to being connected to people and information in the most efficient manner possible. Focusing on the different facets of the forms of communication though, each one has their own benefits to be gotten.
Citations:
1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 66-72.
2. Gardner, Howard. “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” The Washington Post 17 Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html
3. Jacoby, Susan. The Dumbing of America.” The Washington Post. 17 Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
Sunday, September 14, 2008
McCain and Palin are liars like all politicians are
In his blog post McCain: Liar Who Won’t Correct in the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan talks about how terrible it is that John McCain is lying very explicitly in the media and seemingly getting away with it. I actually agree with his position here. I have long felt that politics is too much of a popularity contest where people just say what they want in order to get ahead and be regarded with favor by others. This seems to be what McCain is doing. He is lying about his vice president candidate’s record of the past in order for people to recognize his vice president candidate as better than she really is. He knows that people will not look favorably at all upon her for supporting a project that just seemed to be a total waste of money. However, since she is his candidate, he will just outright lie about it, regardless of the fact that she did actually support the Bridge to Nowhere project until it was stopped by Congress. He could be so openly lying about this when most people who have looked into Sarah Palin know this is not true because he is hoping that the people who have not looked into her see what he is saying and take it at face value.
Andrew Sullivan does seem to go too far with his claim that McCain is telling many lies. It is a universally agreed upon truth that politicians are all around big liars. His claim would be that McCain is one of the biggest liars. I have heard from news reports and friends that he has been lying quite a bit, but it seems his lies are just easier to see through than the other politicians. He is being a bit sloppy, but there are many presidents who have said one thing while running for president and never come through on their word or even attempted to. They were just saying what people wanted to hear to get them elected. Chief among this is just about any president’s claim that they will lower taxes or that they will uphold the people’s best interests. They more so tend to represent their party’s best interests. So he is slipping on his lies. It is no surprise that he is obviously lying. It would seem that Palin is making it really hard for him to keep a good image up for his candidacy by messing up in interviews and her beliefs seemingly not lining up with his. She appears to know very little about our foreign policy, as can be seen by her not knowing anything about the policy that Bush passed soon after getting into office where we can preemptively attack another nation if we believe they are going to attack us. It is really hard to cover up that sort of thing and make it look good.
Overall, it would appear that Palin is still new at the politician game. She has not been scrutinized so much in the past, so she has probably not made much effort to really appear to be great. However, now she is being looked over by just about everyone in the nation, and they are seeing all of her flaws that she never bothered to cover up. McCain is trying his best, but he definitely has quite the job ahead of him while trying to do so. He would even go so far as to noticeably lie like this, which one would think is a very bad thing to do. However, maybe he has a few tricks up his sleeve that he has yet to pull out in choosing Palin as his candidate. We will have to wait and see. If Andrew Sullivan could stop picking at every little thing wrong with her and try seeing some positive things about her, she might not appear to be so bad a candidate in his blog posts.
Citation
1) Sullivan, Andrew. “McCain: Liar Who Won’t Correct.” The Daily Dish. 13 Sept. 2008.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Advent of this Blog
I am Chris. Many years ago I thought I was far separated from culture and the media. Over time I have come to learn that to be a huge falsity. Media is more than news, newspapers, politics, and everything pertaining to them. They are within just about every facet of life. From clothes that give messages to computers such as Macs that say you're hip, media is everywhere! However, I actively participate in specific parts of media. Like most college students, I have a Facebook account and I check it about once a day for updates on what could be birthdays or odd events. However, I really do not check it more than that. Another part of the media I engage in is video games. Often times they can reflect the popular opinion of the society at the time, and people's public opinions influence what goes into a game and generally what games get made. Though I play less video games than I used to before I got to college(I actually started the studying thing once I got here), I definitely still play them, especially when a break comes around. I do actually listen to radio more often than cds, though mostly for classical music. What I often end up hearing is the news, since the station I listen to most frequently broadcasts news around when I am driving and listening to the radio. Oh, but that music is darn good while it lasts...
I quite enjoy watching movies, if only because movies are interesting forms of media. They often show different perspectives on issues with the popular values of the times the movie was made in layered into it. Then sometimes they throw in perspectives that are new and different and make you think. Another thing about me...after a lot of thought, is how my clothes fit into media and who I am as a result. Fashion designers and their ilk produce different clothing lines and all that happy stuff. People see their advertisements on television and see their advertisements in department stores. Then they buy the clothing they like. Fashion people get feedback on what is liked and not liked and...I think most of you get the idea. My clothes I try to make as plain and blue as I can. I like not being a walking billboard of a brand or a walking billboard of some silly or stupid phrase that a lot of people get shirts of(I'm not suffering from laziness, I'm enjoying every minute of it).
I should really say more about myself than my participations in media. I am a laid back senior at UMBC. I enjoy wombats, almost all kinds of music, video games, Japanese animation, thinking about life, and David Bowie. Also, like all of you, I am a child of the media as a whole.
Oh, I almost forgot. I looked into the different blogs, and I know which one it is that I will be following. It's the Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan. He is conservative but seemingly not to an extreme, and I am more edging on the liberal side. therefore, I think I will have stuff to say on his writings.
Link to his blog: The Daily Dish
Enjoy
I quite enjoy watching movies, if only because movies are interesting forms of media. They often show different perspectives on issues with the popular values of the times the movie was made in layered into it. Then sometimes they throw in perspectives that are new and different and make you think. Another thing about me...after a lot of thought, is how my clothes fit into media and who I am as a result. Fashion designers and their ilk produce different clothing lines and all that happy stuff. People see their advertisements on television and see their advertisements in department stores. Then they buy the clothing they like. Fashion people get feedback on what is liked and not liked and...I think most of you get the idea. My clothes I try to make as plain and blue as I can. I like not being a walking billboard of a brand or a walking billboard of some silly or stupid phrase that a lot of people get shirts of(I'm not suffering from laziness, I'm enjoying every minute of it).
I should really say more about myself than my participations in media. I am a laid back senior at UMBC. I enjoy wombats, almost all kinds of music, video games, Japanese animation, thinking about life, and David Bowie. Also, like all of you, I am a child of the media as a whole.
Oh, I almost forgot. I looked into the different blogs, and I know which one it is that I will be following. It's the Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan. He is conservative but seemingly not to an extreme, and I am more edging on the liberal side. therefore, I think I will have stuff to say on his writings.
Link to his blog: The Daily Dish
Enjoy
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)