So, I have not been following this season of American Idol, but while in Florida with my family, I had a chance to see a little bit of the show.
There is this guy named Sanjia on the show who is not particularly vocally talented, but he has a reputation for changing his hairstyle every week. America seems to love him, and as a result of the voting outcome, he keeps surviving on the show. While this is somewhat amusing, it seems to undermine the purpose of the show...
The incredible part is that this element of the show has affected other media sectors...
There is a website right now called "Vote for the Worst" which is encouraging America to vote opposite of what would be logical.
Extending into the world of radio, Howard Stern is now advocating for this website.
All of this is media attempting to shape media consumers who are trying to shape media.
And the issue is of utmost importance. It ranks up there with U.S. foreign policy and global warming.
I reek of sarcasm.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Feliz Cumpleanos a Mi
This past week, I had quite a few emails in my Inbox on Thursday March 29, 2007.
The reason?
I had been sent notices that friends had added posts to my Wall on Facebook.
The reason?
They wanted to wish me Happy Birthday!
How did they know it was my birthday? Well...
Facebook told them that it was my birthday.
Now, I am not saying at all that I am unappreciative that my friends sent messages on Facebook. I love them very much and cherish their words.
What I am saying is technology has shaped how my peers and I interact with each other. Rather than having to keep track of a friend's birthday by making up some crazy cue (Like "John is severely immature and acts like he is 8...Ah yes, May 8, that is John's birthday."), we are free from some element of personal responsibility and come to rely more and more on technology.
Now, if you have read any of my previous blogs, you might know that I am actually an advocate of the "meaningfulness" of Facebook.
All I'm saying is that we ought to be cognizant of how technology shapes our personal interactions.
The reason?
I had been sent notices that friends had added posts to my Wall on Facebook.
The reason?
They wanted to wish me Happy Birthday!
How did they know it was my birthday? Well...
Facebook told them that it was my birthday.
Now, I am not saying at all that I am unappreciative that my friends sent messages on Facebook. I love them very much and cherish their words.
What I am saying is technology has shaped how my peers and I interact with each other. Rather than having to keep track of a friend's birthday by making up some crazy cue (Like "John is severely immature and acts like he is 8...Ah yes, May 8, that is John's birthday."), we are free from some element of personal responsibility and come to rely more and more on technology.
Now, if you have read any of my previous blogs, you might know that I am actually an advocate of the "meaningfulness" of Facebook.
All I'm saying is that we ought to be cognizant of how technology shapes our personal interactions.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Trekkies
Maybe I ought to be mature.
Maybe I ought to say that the video on Friday was just ethnography and not a freak show.
I probably should do both of these things...even though I am not inclined to.
It's just that the content of the video boggled my mind. A Klingon mask sold for FOURTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS!
Its interesting how media affects its audience. I think most of us are much more tied to media than we would like to think. We just don't express this as extremely or outwardly as do the trekkies.
Many people have "their show." People reserve time out of their busy lives to sit down week after week, and shall I say, religiously watch a TV program. People schedule their activities, and even meals around the TV guide. Social interaction within family units is hindered, sedentary lifestyles set in, and people are indulged with messages that are not rooted in truth.
Is this not a bit freakish?
Maybe I ought to say that the video on Friday was just ethnography and not a freak show.
I probably should do both of these things...even though I am not inclined to.
It's just that the content of the video boggled my mind. A Klingon mask sold for FOURTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS!
Its interesting how media affects its audience. I think most of us are much more tied to media than we would like to think. We just don't express this as extremely or outwardly as do the trekkies.
Many people have "their show." People reserve time out of their busy lives to sit down week after week, and shall I say, religiously watch a TV program. People schedule their activities, and even meals around the TV guide. Social interaction within family units is hindered, sedentary lifestyles set in, and people are indulged with messages that are not rooted in truth.
Is this not a bit freakish?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The New Pornographers
In discussing the concept of The Uses and Gratifications Approach to Media in class on Friday Dr. Rudd brought up the oh-so-controversial topic of pornography.
I appreciate the way he dealt with it, because normally, the issue is oversimplified and shoved off on guys as "their" problem.
Women, they suffer from a normative social insecurity, but men...
they are primitive and thoughtless...with only one thing on their mind.
And what do they do to satiate their deviant desires?
They look at naked women.
This is the account that society would give us, but the truth is that we are all constantly making our own porn, devising ways to satisfy ourselves through various means, through media consumption not traditionally associated with porn.
One of the best examples I can think of that involves experiencing media in a "narrowly, self-motivated" way is the obsession that some people develop with video games.
For hours upon hours eyes are glued to the screen - social interaction is minimal and focus is entirely upon the self.
Now, I realize not all people experience video games in this way, but it can become a problem when video games are used in this specific, selfish way.
Conclusion:
Mario is porn.
Chris Tomlin is porn.
The Notebook is porn.
Star Trek is porn.
With a slight disclaimer:
If you view/experience them in a narrowly, self-interested manner.
I appreciate the way he dealt with it, because normally, the issue is oversimplified and shoved off on guys as "their" problem.
Women, they suffer from a normative social insecurity, but men...
they are primitive and thoughtless...with only one thing on their mind.
And what do they do to satiate their deviant desires?
They look at naked women.
This is the account that society would give us, but the truth is that we are all constantly making our own porn, devising ways to satisfy ourselves through various means, through media consumption not traditionally associated with porn.
One of the best examples I can think of that involves experiencing media in a "narrowly, self-motivated" way is the obsession that some people develop with video games.
For hours upon hours eyes are glued to the screen - social interaction is minimal and focus is entirely upon the self.
Now, I realize not all people experience video games in this way, but it can become a problem when video games are used in this specific, selfish way.
Conclusion:
Mario is porn.
Chris Tomlin is porn.
The Notebook is porn.
Star Trek is porn.
With a slight disclaimer:
If you view/experience them in a narrowly, self-interested manner.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Ruckus
My friend recently told me about this website called Ruckus.com and tonight, when I should have been working on a paper, I checked it out.
The program is designed for "poor college students" who are unable to afford all the music their hearts may desire. It is kind of like a hybrid between Facebook and Napster.
One creates an account by giving one's name and college e-mail address.
In this way, the company makes sure it caters only to its desired demographic.
You can download many different songs, sometimes even whole albums.
Here is the catch - with the most basic version of the program, you are unable to take the files off your computer onto an mp3 player or an iPod.
I created an account and downloaded some music. Relient K, Johnny Cash, Rage Against the Machine, and the Rolling Stones were some of the bands I sampled. At this point, I am not sure that it is an ethically-sound venture. It almost makes no difference that you cannot take the files off your computer. If you had the right cables, you could just hook your computer up to your stereo system and listen as if you were listening to a CD.
One of the biggest questions I have is this: How do artists give or not give permission for their music to be on this type of database?
Or
How do they prevent their music from being sold digitally?
I have a feeling that I will gain insight as we continue learning about the politics of production.
One thing I did notice was that the site was not devoid of commercialism. There were normal ads on the site, and once, one of those cheesy "Attention-Your-computer-will-explode-if-you-don't-click-OK" ads popped up. Also, when you viewed the song you wanted to download, there was also an icon that would take you to buy.com, so that you could purchase the song.
The premise of the site was that the music was free.
Nevertheless, the site was not completely free of all parties who were interesting in making money.
This is what my Saturday-night ruckus is all about.
The program is designed for "poor college students" who are unable to afford all the music their hearts may desire. It is kind of like a hybrid between Facebook and Napster.
One creates an account by giving one's name and college e-mail address.
In this way, the company makes sure it caters only to its desired demographic.
You can download many different songs, sometimes even whole albums.
Here is the catch - with the most basic version of the program, you are unable to take the files off your computer onto an mp3 player or an iPod.
I created an account and downloaded some music. Relient K, Johnny Cash, Rage Against the Machine, and the Rolling Stones were some of the bands I sampled. At this point, I am not sure that it is an ethically-sound venture. It almost makes no difference that you cannot take the files off your computer. If you had the right cables, you could just hook your computer up to your stereo system and listen as if you were listening to a CD.
One of the biggest questions I have is this: How do artists give or not give permission for their music to be on this type of database?
Or
How do they prevent their music from being sold digitally?
I have a feeling that I will gain insight as we continue learning about the politics of production.
One thing I did notice was that the site was not devoid of commercialism. There were normal ads on the site, and once, one of those cheesy "Attention-Your-computer-will-explode-if-you-don't-click-OK" ads popped up. Also, when you viewed the song you wanted to download, there was also an icon that would take you to buy.com, so that you could purchase the song.
The premise of the site was that the music was free.
Nevertheless, the site was not completely free of all parties who were interesting in making money.
This is what my Saturday-night ruckus is all about.
Conflicted
This Friday we were afforded the opportunity to argue that media conglomerates were
a. Beneficial to society
or
b. Harmful to society.
I was on the team that had to argue that the conglomerates were more beneficial than harmful. This was the harder position to take because the negative aspects of media conglomerates are so apparent, and they appeal to very personal concerns such as individuality how money is handled.
One positive aspect I see in media conglomerates is that they are a testament to the power of free capitalism in the United States. The companies who control the media have gained this control through shrewd business and without the aid of the government. Now, I realize that not all that comes along with a free market is good, yet it would terrify me if the government was the institution that controlled the media. Totalitarianism is what would come of such a set-up.
The most negative aspect I see in media conglomerates has to do with their agenda-setting function. Whereas I am glad that the government is not in charge of the media, I am disappointed with the issues the media attaches importance to. More often than not, the shallow and the sensational replace issues that are of much greater importance and which require action on the part of the people of the United States.
The irony is that, as citizens of a democracy, we have been allowed the freedom to create a system that ultimately ends up controlling us.
The worst part is we think it is "just TV."
The Romans were obsessed with entertainment, and consequently, as a culture, they were rather intellectually stagnant when compared with other civilizations.
We are sacrificing intellect and our ability to think critically when we let the media make decisions for us.
I am just wondering when it will catch up with us.
I am wondering when the empire will fall.
a. Beneficial to society
or
b. Harmful to society.
I was on the team that had to argue that the conglomerates were more beneficial than harmful. This was the harder position to take because the negative aspects of media conglomerates are so apparent, and they appeal to very personal concerns such as individuality how money is handled.
One positive aspect I see in media conglomerates is that they are a testament to the power of free capitalism in the United States. The companies who control the media have gained this control through shrewd business and without the aid of the government. Now, I realize that not all that comes along with a free market is good, yet it would terrify me if the government was the institution that controlled the media. Totalitarianism is what would come of such a set-up.
The most negative aspect I see in media conglomerates has to do with their agenda-setting function. Whereas I am glad that the government is not in charge of the media, I am disappointed with the issues the media attaches importance to. More often than not, the shallow and the sensational replace issues that are of much greater importance and which require action on the part of the people of the United States.
The irony is that, as citizens of a democracy, we have been allowed the freedom to create a system that ultimately ends up controlling us.
The worst part is we think it is "just TV."
The Romans were obsessed with entertainment, and consequently, as a culture, they were rather intellectually stagnant when compared with other civilizations.
We are sacrificing intellect and our ability to think critically when we let the media make decisions for us.
I am just wondering when it will catch up with us.
I am wondering when the empire will fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)