Media is Dangerous

After reading Mark Edmundson’s article all that I could think about was… WARNING: television, video games, Iphones, Ipads, and all other electronic devices that allow you to fantasize are DANGEROUS and may result in DOMINATION of your personal thoughts and dreams.

I am convinced. McLuhan’s theories about “media numbness” and “medium is the message” prove so true. Every time I watch a movie, I fantasize about being in it. Every time I play a song on my Ipod, I drown myself in this whole new world that only belongs to me and it is MY movie. I understand, now, that I think this way simply because media has driven me to think this way. I do not want to end up having the same fantasies and thoughts as everyone else. I want to have my own thoughts and dreams and now I am starting to feel like my dreams might be the dreams TV and movies have implanted in my brain.

Of course, I am not going to minimize the amount of satisfaction I get when I watch the media, but I believe I am going to have a more cautious view of what is believable and what is not.

When I listened to the narrative I felt plenty more cautious with the ideas and images I form. I watch the media for entertainment, but still, I empathize with the stories that are made to be “real.” Sometimes I even catch myself thinking, “I wish that was me,” or, “I want to be her so I can do things differently.” After listening to the new plot with Astrid and Leo being forced to like each other, I thought it was sick and annoying. If I were Astrid, I would feel like a toy with no voice. And that is exactly what reality television is.

I used to watch the Bachelor with my mom and sisters. We would get so involved with which girls we adored and which we hated and who was going to win and how charming the man is and how sweet some girls were… But what we were really watching were fake relationships and fake, romantic love scenes. Everything was fake.  I know these shows are too dramatic or too good to be true at times, but we imagined it to be true and that was the fun in watching it.

 Now, every time I watch a reality show I am going to feel sorry for the characters who do not have a mind and who are being forced to say things they do not really mean. And when I watch a movie or play a video game, I am going to remember that this is not reality and I need to stop believing that special effects and fabrications stay on the screen.

The Influence of Stereotypes

When I look at someone it is automatic that some bit of judgment is involved in my thinking. Honestly, there is no way for me not to assume ideas before meeting or getting to know someone. I do not necessarily consume this judgment into my final decision of accepting or not accepting the person, but I definitely put a person into a group beforehand. That’s just how I think and I do not know why. In the writing, “Stereotypes,” Dyer explains that “images of” people, places, etc. surround us. We are unable to avoid representing or stereotyping something or someone because that is simply how we form understanding.

One thought that I found very interesting in Dyer’s writing was, “I accept that one apprehends reality only through representations of reality, through texts, discourse, images; there is no such thing as unmediated access to reality. But because one can see reality only through representation, it does not follow that one does not see reality at all,” (Dyer, 2). So do we see reality or not? I believe that the reality is always blocked by representation. I can explain exactly what I do when I meet someone for the first time: I notice how they dress, the way they look, the way they speak, their thoughts. And I form an idea based on representation. This, to me, does seem like I’m losing reality. But at the same time, I accept my ideas as reality. It seems a bit confusing to me to understand the whole concept, but I do understand that perception based off of “images” that have already been created can influence my way of thought.

According to Dyer, the stereotypes of power are, “men, whites, heterosexuals, and the able-bodied,” and these are considered to be the norm (Dyer, 3). Without these titles, they have no power and therefore, are just like anyone else. I am aware that women had little to no power in the past because of their stereotype, but I do not feel that women are limited in this life. Yes, we are still stereotyped as inferior to men (mainly from physical aspects), but I do believe that women are at a high power and very influential.

Another important idea: “It is notoriously difficult to draw the line between harm-free drinking and harmful drinking. But stereotypes can,” (Dyer, 6). It is interesting because stereotypes easily show opposition between an alcoholic and someone who drinks a lot and that is the only way you can tell the difference. The same goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals and the similar feelings and emotions they have. Stereotypes are a very powerful tool that is very influential.

We're Losing Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality- the understanding that whether you are an average citizen or a large conglomerate, you have the equal accessibility of Internet speed and webpage access. We (average citizens) are against it. Major internet providers (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T) are for it.

This understanding, however, could see changes in the future due to major service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. these companies “want a tiered internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don’t, you’ll be in the slow lane” (savetheinternet.com).  Net neutrality means that Internet service providers “may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.” If net neutrality is abused, it means we are facing a great deal of discrimination and problems that many average citizens will not agree with.

In the recent documentary, Barbershop Punk, the potential loss of net neutrality is addressed to us along with one man’s issue with Comcast. Robb Tobolski, seen in Barbershop Punk, “found that Comcast, his Internet service provider, was interfering with his peer-to-peer sharing of public-domain material.” The Federal Communications Commission eventually gave a ruling against Comcast (Webster, 2010).”

We are not necessarily at net neutrality any longer. Now, we are at semi-net neutrality. New York Times writes, “They ban any outright blocking and any “unreasonable discrimination” of Web sites or applications by fixed-line broadband providers, but they afford more wiggle room to wireless providers like AT&T and Verizon.”

This example shows that we are slowly reaching less and less of net neutrality. The question is, how much further is this “discrimination” going to go? And, when is this process (if it does occur) going to happen? What can we do as an “average citizen” to stop the absence of net neutrality from taking place?

It seems that the further we get into the world of the Internet, the further we are becoming controlled and manipulated. There is no such thing as being protected online, because every time we enter in our personal information, it is being shared and sold to many other major companies (Madison, 2012). The only way to stay fully protected is to not upload that information in the first place. With the fear of putting information on the Internet plus the fear of losing the freedom of net neutrality, the Internet is sounding more and more like an unfriendly place.

I am hoping that the loss of net neutrality does not occur and that we are able to continue using the internet freely; however, the more and more I read into this topic the more I fear that our freedom days are over. If these major corporations get hold of all of our access to the Internet, who knows what is coming next. I hope that the people come together and are loud enough to prevent this from happening.

http://www.techi.com/2012/03/the-latest-reality-of-online-safety-were-all-being-watched/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/movies/barbershop-punk-on-net-neutrality-review.html?ref=netneutrality

http://barbershoppunk.com/ 

What is the media doing to us?

What is the media doing to us? In Bartow’s article, “Behind TV Analysis, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” we hear about another instance where the American people are being “brainwashed” by our government. George Carlin, an American stand-up comedian, speaks about our government in one of his acts and says, “The government doesn’t want critical thinking, that doesn’t help them. They own the biggest media companies; they control all the media and information; they spend billions of dollars lobbying. They want people who are just smart enough to work machines and file paper work but dumb enough to passively accept shitty jobs. IT’S A BIG CLUB AND YOU AIN’T IN IT,” (Youtube). While watching this clip and others that I researched, I feel that the government does not care even a little bit about the people.

According to the reading, the government has been controlling analysts’ (retired military officers) words and ideas through media so that Americans are only receiving information controlled by government.. To get a further understanding of the Pentagon military analyst program that ran from 2002-2008, Wikipedia explains that, “the goal of the operation is to spread the administration’s talking point on Iraq by briefing retired commanders for network and cable television appearance,” (Wikepedia). The biggest media corporations such as Fox News, NBC, and CNN broadcasted many analysts who spoke about the war in Iraq and how we, as Americans, should support the war.  Bartow writes, “Members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.” And a quote from staff member, Mr. Krueger, says, “You could see they were talking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over,” (Barstow, 2008).

I found a cartoon that represents the government’s control over analysts, media, and us. Barstow writes in a later article, “Another military analyst, the report said, told investigators that the outreach program’s intent ‘was to move everyone’s mouth on TV as a sock puppet,’” (Barstow, 2011).

http://www.cipe.org/cartoon/images/winners/democracy2.jpg

In Barstow’s 2011 article, “Pentagon Finds No Fault in Ties to TV Analysts,” he explains that an inquiry was done on the Pentagon in order to detect any wrongdoing with the program, but the inquiry showed that there was none (Barstow, 2011).

The more I read and understand the concept of these analysts and the government’s motives, the more I feel that they do not care for us one bit. In my eyes, (with support of multiple sources) they see us as puppets, and think they can easily pull our strings to agree with any information they give us. I am not into politics and do not read much into it, but I do feel that this is truly what the government is like, they do not care only for themselves and they are gaining more control of us little by little.

While reading the articles about the analysts, I wondered what must have been going through their heads about being told exactly what to say. It’s a shame that they submitted themselves to what seems like a “wrongdoing” and I wonder if they felt that they had an obligation to do so being that they were working for the Department of Defense.

Citations

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_program

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

http://www.cipe.org/cartoon/images/winners/democracy2.jpg

BROADCASTING/GOVERNMENT IN MEDIA

“A Face in the Crowd”: a very interesting movie. I was able to see the growing success of one man and his ability to influence large communities of people into following his interests and beliefs. Seeing this happen from an outsider’s point of view, I looked at all the people who were literally obsessed with this guy and I even laughed at some of the crazy things people would do just to be like him. The funny thing is that Lonesome was a hopeless prisoner in a small southern town. Although he did time in prison, he ran into someone who was able to change his life around through broadcasting.  This young lady found Lonesome a name and a career that boosted him to fame. Of course, Lonesome would not have been as popular without his ecstatic personality and humor. But he was also an attractive man and charmed many women into following him. The more popular Lonesome became, the more corporations wanted to work with him. Many tried to get him to sell their products, which was a smart idea being that everyone was tuning in specifically to watch Lonesome. It was exciting to see how one small local broadcasting station and a mass group of people were able to change a useless prisoner’s life into a luxurious one.

“Our Democracy is in Danger of Being Paralyzed”: Bill Moyers brings up many appealing points about media in our world today. Moyer is arguing that our media is basically a monopoly and the government is working with media as one to regulate what information is being exposed to the people and what information is remaining behind the scenes. This is a very unprofessional way of running a democracy because, “democracy can’t exist without an informed public” (Moyers). And if we are not given “truth” then how can we call ourselves a democracy? Moyers is right, not very many young people care much about voting, and “only % 13 of young people cast ballots in the last presidential election.” For me, voting isn’t important because I do not feel like I can make a difference in our society, and I believe that is how many of us young people feel. I would like to go back to the earlier times when journalism was more independent and not manipulated or corrupted by the mighty-media-government boss. Moyers makes it seem like there is not as much truth in writing as there used to be and the government is controlling every little thing about media and what comes out of it. I am a little convinced by this reading that government’s hands are too much in the media and journalism should be how Moyers said it used to be.

Understanding Mass Media

In our previous class, we discussed the different ways people receive messages and the different stages of the mass media: elitist stage, popular stage, and specialized stage. In these stages, I could see the evolution in each. The Elite stage was for the wealthier upper class people and focused mainly on communication towards them. The popular stage addressed a broader group of people and less inclusive. The specialized stage focused on more specifics of the popular group. Examples of this transformation could be a television. During the Elite stage, TV was found only in wealthy homes. As the popular stage began to occur, more and more people owned televisions. Now, we are in the specialized stage where TV’s are becoming more detailed and technical, like the 3-D TV or LCD. In class, we also discussed selective retention and selective perception and the difference between both. An example of selective retention is if I look up to Lebron James because he is a famous basketball player and I find out that he is taking drugs and setting a bad example for kids, I would avoid the bad things because I am only interested in the good things about him.  A good example of selective perception is going into the subway and not listening to a homeless man who has something important to say because I believe he never has anything important to say.

The reading, Mass Media in Modern Society, focused on social media during the 18^th-20^th centuries. The four theories of the press shapes how we see media in our world today. We first used media to strictly further government policy. Then we began using it to check on government and also meeting needs of others including entertainment. From this reading, I understood that the media had a lot of controversies. Whether it was publicly or privately posted, media chose to address only the things that they chose to expose. Along with that, they also chose to address the wealthier crowds.

I also understood the different functions of the media; that the media focuses on addressing surveillance, Correlation, and transmission. Some conflicts that the media had to be aware of is the amount of information exposed to the people. For example, if media was addressing a serious hurricane watch and the news was showing a dangerous hurricane, people would react frightened and fearful. Therefore, media has to make sure that the people receive information in a way that they do not over react to, if it is possible. 

I thought it was really interesting how examples were given about reporters leaving out words or descriptions that would jeopardize their community, country, family, etc. The true story changes when it is about something that the reporters/editors are familiar with.

PIPA, SOPA, and Bernays

Imagining the internet world without free music, movies, books, and writing would not make sense to most of us. In fact, I believe that many people would have little reason to be on the internet at all. The PIPA and SOPA acts have triggered a lot of conflict and protest amongst people, and major corporations such as Mozilla and Google. After reading a couple of articles about the two acts, I grew a better understanding of what the internet and life in general would be like if these acts were passed. For example, much of Youtube’s content, like people singing and posting their favorite songs, would violate the act and therefore would have to be removed. The internet would not be as interesting as it is now. Google and all other search engines would be forced to remove sites that would lead us to watching movies, downloading music, and reading books. Youtube probably would not exist and everyone would be worried about what they are posting on Facebook and all other social networks. There were many protestors against the act. In one case, Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, wrote on Twitter, “Thanks for all the calls, e-mails, and tweets. I will be opposing #SOPA and #PIPA.” Merkley was actually one the senators who helped write the bill (NYTimes). Overall, if these bills were passed our lives would be incredibly altered. Thankfully, there are many people, including myself, that are against these acts and are pushing to stop them from being passed.

I was very interested in the “Century of Self” documentary we saw in class. It is incredible how one man, Edward Bernays, can influence an entire world that something is important or accepted. I took a lot of important information from this video. The big example that struck me was the women’s smoking example, where Bernays paid a group of good looking girls to pull out a cigarette and start smoking during a huge parade. The way Bernays organizes this one, simple idea and creates a world change is the coolest thing I have ever seen. Another interesting idea is how people desire stuff; that everything we want are things we really do not need and how we were manipulated into thinking that we need all these things. It made me wonder, “Can I do something like this? Can I organize an idea and instill it in people’s brains so that it remains permanently?” And of course, I have seen this technique in much of our culture today; especially fashion trends. If the celebrities are wearing it, then the people are wearing it. It’s a matter of wanting to fit in and so everyone decides to accept the idea even if they, personally, did not agree with it in the first place. I feel a little more aware of this way of manipulating and now I realize that I am a victim of it.