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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)