I never really noticed the differences in how news is covered until I watched John Stewarts the Daily Show. I normally do watch political comedies like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report but I have never taken the time to compare and contrast it with the news. First and foremost I have to say that I believe The Daily Show is so much better at getting the news across. Comedy cuts the tension and makes it alright to just say what you are thinking. Using comedy allows the host to not be politically correct and get away with it. In addition to that, it relaxes the viewer and makes absorbing the information easier because it is fun. If you think about it, a news reporter on say ABC, CNN, FOX, NBC or whatever other channel could never get away with putting so much of their opinion in a story because they are supposed to remain impartial (of course we know they do not).
On a Show like The Daily Show, the host has the power to cover any topic they want which is something you do not necessarily find on news channels. For instance, when I watched the Daily Show, John Stewart not only covered Obama’s 100th day in office, but he also talked about congress woman Jane Harman and Senator Arlen Specter. I fell these stories (even if they are being covered by the news channels) have been dummed down to make whatever point the channel wants. News anchors have to attract more viewers so in the end, the story gets lost and whatever brings the most rating in is what gets covered. You can see this with the Anna Nicole story. When she died, her story was covered on every news channel for about a month while other more important stories were pushed aside. It has become so bad that to get news that is not necessarily repeated on every channel, one must go out of their way to watch a world news channel (which does not always cover more). With issues like that, a program like the Daily Show is amazing. It covers a wide spectrum of issues and I feel a lot of times, John Stewart simply wants to draw attention to a story that is not being covered adequately.
I would like to say that the news balances things out by being more factual, or simply less one sided, but unfortunately I cannot say that. In that aspect as well, I feel the Daily Show is triumphant. The problem with news casting is that every channel wants to be the first to cover a story so they will jump on anything, report it, and then research it. Alas, a lot of people do not analyze what they hear on the news and will go on believing a lie. For example Apple’s shares fell dramatically because of a rumor that Steve Jobs was rushed to the ER. [1] There is no reason why we as a society should not critically analyze the information we are given before believing it. It is said that the world has become untrusting and cynical, but this to me is an indication that we are still naïve.
On the Daily Show, John Stewart never ceases to amaze me. He is so educated about all the topics he presents to the point that he can pick out discrepancies in the news coverage. Sadly, I feel at certain times John Stewart brings up unknown or misunderstand ideas that he is not given the due respect for because he is a comedian. I feel people who do not understand the stories may just watch the show for laughs without realizing the fundamental importance of the story.
I think a comparison between the news and the Daily Show can and most definitely should be made. After all, both are covering news stories. So I watched the Daily Show and the first story covered was Obama’s first 100 days in office and whether or not he is doing well. What I loved is that John Stewart covered the frenzy over this because it is entirely too early to judge Obama. He was wonderful at showing how every channel feels the necessity to grade not only Obama but also the first lady. I loved this because I was getting confused by all the news Shows making report cards in light of 100 days when the same was not done for any other president. The rest of the show was very eye opening. Congress woman Jane Harman was covered. I remember vaguely hearing about her but the news channels do not report on her at all anymore. Also Senator Arlen Specter was covered in a way I have never seen. I enjoy it when there are clips about one person shown to make a point because I feel it shows any discrepancies and that is exactly what the show did. John Stewart is so much more effective in reporting the news to me and the reason why I respect his opinion is that he makes sure he educates himself on topics before covering them.
I think I trust the Daily Show because John Stewart has“no obligation to deliver the day's most important news” as Rachel Smolkin stated in her article “What the Mainstream Media Can Learn From Jon Stewart”[2] . That, in my opinion makes the news more truthful. I completely agree with Smolkin about the idea that the Daily Show is forcing us to become less traditional when it comes to news. I feel people are more apt to trust an anchor if the anchor gives them a positive feeling like Stewart does for many people.
In the end, news is news. Anyway we get information is better than having no information.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/04/MNIV13B9E4.DTL
[2] http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4329
Monday, May 4, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Medium is the what?
Buried within the phrase “The medium is the message” by Marshall McLuhan are some astounding ideas about this belief. In order to understand the phrase itself, some general ideas must be understood. First, the “medium” must be defined. In Marshall McLuhan’s phrase, he is using “medium” as a general term. In this context, the medium is any form of technology that allows us to do something we were unable to do before. This extends the medium from being specific forms of media to any form of technology including glasses, radios, and all other examples. This allows medium to be categorized as an extension of ourselves. Now that the premise of the “medium” in this context is understood, we can focus on the message.
The message according to McLuhan is what you get from whatever the medium is. This suggests that the message is dependent on what type of medium is used. It also suggests that the content of the message is no longer important because it relies on the medium. Through deductive reasoning, we can say that because the message relies on the medium, and the medium is any form of technology just as the message is what we get from it, that technology shapes our world. This is a technology deterministic view that states that the medium will affect not only how the message is viewed, but also what the message is. A great example of how the medium can shape the message is the infamous Kennedy, Nixon debates. In this example, those who were using the radio as their medium felt Nixon was the obvious winner; but those who used television as their medium, saw a handsome, tall, and clean cut Kennedy and felt he was the obvious winner. This is also an example of how the context does not matter because what was being said was not the deciding factor, it was what was viewed.
Digging deeper into the technologically deterministic idea, we can say that technology has caused all of our problems (the idea that makes up this premise). We can say that problems like obesity have all resulted from the advancement of technology. This is an ideal that a lot of Americans hold dearly. We can see this from the lawsuits against fast food restaurants. It has become easy to blame everyone else for our problems but ourselves. Entertainment companies are making more video games like the wii that require more out of the player than a simple thumb movement. Ideas like these are the essence of the technologically deterministic view. It makes life seem as if it is out of our control, like there is no way to break away from technology. Fortunately, this is not McLuhan’s belief.
In McLuhan’s “understanding radio”, he describes “hot and cold” medium. Although I do not understand the exact meaning of this, I do know that television is a cool medium and an example of this covered in the article was the fact that Senator McCarthy was forgotten once he switched to television (page 235). The idea of cold and hot medium seems to me a lot like technology determinism but this may be because the ideas are so complex that they are easy to confuse them. The article “the medium is the message” by Mark Federman attempts to clear up the confusion by taking each idea an explaining it. In this article, Federman states that “Marshall McLuhan was concerned with the observation that we tend to focus on the obvious” and because of this, his ideas are more in dept so as to have us reach our own conclusions but he also guides us by giving us the fundamentals. He even goes on to explain the importance of knowing that the medium is the message which is that it allows us to be one step ahead of “change”.
It was very hard for me to say exactly what the phrase “the medium is the message” actually means to me, because I am unsure of the idea. I cannot say that I agree or disagree with the phrase. I understand certain areas like technology determinism and slightly the meaning of medium, but so far, the rest of this idea is completely over my head. The thought of hot and cool medium throws me absolutely off. I would think television would be viewed as a hot medium because in my opinion it does not “reject hot figures and hot issues and people from the hot press media”. On the contrary, I that it does the opposite because if you turn on a show like entertainment tonight, or even the news; it is easy to see that the headline are whatever will catch the viewer’s attention. My personal experience seems to be keeping me from fully accepting the idea.
Understanding radio (pg 235) Marshall McLuhan
“What does the Medium is the Message mean?”, Mark Federman
The message according to McLuhan is what you get from whatever the medium is. This suggests that the message is dependent on what type of medium is used. It also suggests that the content of the message is no longer important because it relies on the medium. Through deductive reasoning, we can say that because the message relies on the medium, and the medium is any form of technology just as the message is what we get from it, that technology shapes our world. This is a technology deterministic view that states that the medium will affect not only how the message is viewed, but also what the message is. A great example of how the medium can shape the message is the infamous Kennedy, Nixon debates. In this example, those who were using the radio as their medium felt Nixon was the obvious winner; but those who used television as their medium, saw a handsome, tall, and clean cut Kennedy and felt he was the obvious winner. This is also an example of how the context does not matter because what was being said was not the deciding factor, it was what was viewed.
Digging deeper into the technologically deterministic idea, we can say that technology has caused all of our problems (the idea that makes up this premise). We can say that problems like obesity have all resulted from the advancement of technology. This is an ideal that a lot of Americans hold dearly. We can see this from the lawsuits against fast food restaurants. It has become easy to blame everyone else for our problems but ourselves. Entertainment companies are making more video games like the wii that require more out of the player than a simple thumb movement. Ideas like these are the essence of the technologically deterministic view. It makes life seem as if it is out of our control, like there is no way to break away from technology. Fortunately, this is not McLuhan’s belief.
In McLuhan’s “understanding radio”, he describes “hot and cold” medium. Although I do not understand the exact meaning of this, I do know that television is a cool medium and an example of this covered in the article was the fact that Senator McCarthy was forgotten once he switched to television (page 235). The idea of cold and hot medium seems to me a lot like technology determinism but this may be because the ideas are so complex that they are easy to confuse them. The article “the medium is the message” by Mark Federman attempts to clear up the confusion by taking each idea an explaining it. In this article, Federman states that “Marshall McLuhan was concerned with the observation that we tend to focus on the obvious” and because of this, his ideas are more in dept so as to have us reach our own conclusions but he also guides us by giving us the fundamentals. He even goes on to explain the importance of knowing that the medium is the message which is that it allows us to be one step ahead of “change”.
It was very hard for me to say exactly what the phrase “the medium is the message” actually means to me, because I am unsure of the idea. I cannot say that I agree or disagree with the phrase. I understand certain areas like technology determinism and slightly the meaning of medium, but so far, the rest of this idea is completely over my head. The thought of hot and cool medium throws me absolutely off. I would think television would be viewed as a hot medium because in my opinion it does not “reject hot figures and hot issues and people from the hot press media”. On the contrary, I that it does the opposite because if you turn on a show like entertainment tonight, or even the news; it is easy to see that the headline are whatever will catch the viewer’s attention. My personal experience seems to be keeping me from fully accepting the idea.
Understanding radio (pg 235) Marshall McLuhan
“What does the Medium is the Message mean?”, Mark Federman
Monday, March 23, 2009
Disclaimer:
[I decided to take a different approach to this assignment. This is a more relaxed account of EVERYTHING that happened during my media deprivation assignment]
It began with the sound of a phone ringing; naturally my first instinct was to pick it up, wait! What time is it? I rush to the only bedroom with an analogue clock (my mother’s); oh god. Please say it is 1:30am! PM?!
None of this would have happened if my phone was on...
*much of this account will be done without time because it seems I have forgotten how to use a clock other than the one on my phone*
So it is mid afternoon and my day just began, I feel like, well a bum. Downstairs my brother is playing music so can’t go there (unless of course food becomes a necessity). I am sitting in my room, with a pen and blank paper trying to put my thoughts in writing but it seems my mind is working faster than my hand is writing (this is why I could never have a diary). I have come to the realization that my handwriting is horrific because I honestly have not written in a while. I should turn this in to show what the manifestation of an addiction to technology looks like. But naturally I won’t. I will wait until I can use my handy dandy computer and make this all perfect. Possibly even change things around to make them more scholarly (sorry but I have to). Just imagine if I had to write everything, better yet, imagine needing to chisel away at a tablet whenever you want to put an idea down. The task would be so tedious it would it would seem like more of a burden than a chore (communication in history, pg 23-24) it would take an eternity to get a word down! But it does not stop there. What if I had to take a bucket and get water from a water hole and make a fire to heat it up? What if I had to put oil in a lantern to light it up? But this all sounds familiar…I had to do this as a child when I was living in Ghana. See the government would have to regulate the energy and water consumption and on occasion they would ration water and electricity. It is so strange how I remember distinctly carrying water and how natural it was to me and now I get irritated when my shower does not get hot quick enough. How soon we forget.
At this time it is 1:30. It seems I really do not know how to tell time anymore because it was 12:30 when I woke up. What a shame. This is going to be a long day.
As it was stated in Danna walker’s article “the longest day”, we have “over-medicated ourselves” but unlike the student; I am highly ashamed of this. The way this is hitting me, is the lack of music. This is possibly the longest I have gone (while awake) without music. Now I think I am going crazy because songs are playing in my head. In fact there is a CD playing in heavy rotation on my head.
I think I will read for a bit.
Readers digest. My monthly routine, tear all advertisements out, read all jokes, then the articles if I have time.
5:45pm Done. Actually half way through, don’t worry I took about a 3hr long nap that crept up on me. Right about now I miss my phone. I keep looking at it lying silently on my table. The assignment is getting so much harder to complete. To say give up the TV for a day is very do-able, to say give up using the phone is ok if I can still check the time, but; to say give up everything including music is truly ridiculous. How can anyone go a day without music?! I am quite ready to give up but I feel the need to finish this successfully and remove the hold media has on me. I hate the thought that anything can control my life; but me.
If I had an eating disorder, this would be my worst nightmare. There is absolutely nothing to do. You may be thinking “get up and go outside!” to that I say; to go where? I know absolutely no one in my neighborhood and I live far away (counties away), there are no parks around, I have no bicycle. This is bad. Just going outside may make me look like a trespasser in my own neighborhood! I have already made two photo albums and read 3 readers digests to pass the time. I have redecorated my room, worked my way through a pack of bubalicious, and I feel like I have accomplished nothing. I just keep thinking of all the ways I could be utilizing my time and it stresses me out that I can’t do those things. I feel lazy; I have been confined to my room for just about a whole day because it is the only place without a TV, radio, or cd on. I have exhausted all the activities I can do to pass the time. WHEN WILL IT END?!
Honestly, I have the urge to sleep through the rest of the time but I have too much energy. It is now 8:45 and I am pacing around my room thinking of ways to make this interesting. When I was mentally preparing myself to do this experiment, I thought it was going to be relaxing. I consider myself (before this experience) as someone who is not at all controlled by technology so this was supposed to be easy. But now I am fining that I am held very firmly by my I-pod, phone and other things.
[So far what have I gained from this: knowledge from 3 readers digests, two new photo albums, and a new found anxiety. Priceless]
What have I learned from this experience? Hatred can form very quickly toward people who can do things you cannot do. I will never do this again. It feels like more of a punishment than an experiment. Instead of raising awareness about the control media has over us, I think I have a new found respect for it. As soon as 12am hits I will use all the forms of technology simultaneously. Just because I can.
10:45pm. almost done. I sang very loudly for about half an hour to pass the time. An hour or so passes, with high anticipation I yell “is it 12 yet?!”... “Almost” is the answer I get. Can freedom come any slower?
8 minutes... what to do.
1 minute...pacing.
12:00 am FREEDOM!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to do a journal like entry because it seemed like the truest way for me to recap the events without missing anything. I learned a lot during this experiment because I did not realize the importance any of these things played in my life.
[I decided to take a different approach to this assignment. This is a more relaxed account of EVERYTHING that happened during my media deprivation assignment]
It began with the sound of a phone ringing; naturally my first instinct was to pick it up, wait! What time is it? I rush to the only bedroom with an analogue clock (my mother’s); oh god. Please say it is 1:30am! PM?!
None of this would have happened if my phone was on...
*much of this account will be done without time because it seems I have forgotten how to use a clock other than the one on my phone*
So it is mid afternoon and my day just began, I feel like, well a bum. Downstairs my brother is playing music so can’t go there (unless of course food becomes a necessity). I am sitting in my room, with a pen and blank paper trying to put my thoughts in writing but it seems my mind is working faster than my hand is writing (this is why I could never have a diary). I have come to the realization that my handwriting is horrific because I honestly have not written in a while. I should turn this in to show what the manifestation of an addiction to technology looks like. But naturally I won’t. I will wait until I can use my handy dandy computer and make this all perfect. Possibly even change things around to make them more scholarly (sorry but I have to). Just imagine if I had to write everything, better yet, imagine needing to chisel away at a tablet whenever you want to put an idea down. The task would be so tedious it would it would seem like more of a burden than a chore (communication in history, pg 23-24) it would take an eternity to get a word down! But it does not stop there. What if I had to take a bucket and get water from a water hole and make a fire to heat it up? What if I had to put oil in a lantern to light it up? But this all sounds familiar…I had to do this as a child when I was living in Ghana. See the government would have to regulate the energy and water consumption and on occasion they would ration water and electricity. It is so strange how I remember distinctly carrying water and how natural it was to me and now I get irritated when my shower does not get hot quick enough. How soon we forget.
At this time it is 1:30. It seems I really do not know how to tell time anymore because it was 12:30 when I woke up. What a shame. This is going to be a long day.
As it was stated in Danna walker’s article “the longest day”, we have “over-medicated ourselves” but unlike the student; I am highly ashamed of this. The way this is hitting me, is the lack of music. This is possibly the longest I have gone (while awake) without music. Now I think I am going crazy because songs are playing in my head. In fact there is a CD playing in heavy rotation on my head.
I think I will read for a bit.
Readers digest. My monthly routine, tear all advertisements out, read all jokes, then the articles if I have time.
5:45pm Done. Actually half way through, don’t worry I took about a 3hr long nap that crept up on me. Right about now I miss my phone. I keep looking at it lying silently on my table. The assignment is getting so much harder to complete. To say give up the TV for a day is very do-able, to say give up using the phone is ok if I can still check the time, but; to say give up everything including music is truly ridiculous. How can anyone go a day without music?! I am quite ready to give up but I feel the need to finish this successfully and remove the hold media has on me. I hate the thought that anything can control my life; but me.
If I had an eating disorder, this would be my worst nightmare. There is absolutely nothing to do. You may be thinking “get up and go outside!” to that I say; to go where? I know absolutely no one in my neighborhood and I live far away (counties away), there are no parks around, I have no bicycle. This is bad. Just going outside may make me look like a trespasser in my own neighborhood! I have already made two photo albums and read 3 readers digests to pass the time. I have redecorated my room, worked my way through a pack of bubalicious, and I feel like I have accomplished nothing. I just keep thinking of all the ways I could be utilizing my time and it stresses me out that I can’t do those things. I feel lazy; I have been confined to my room for just about a whole day because it is the only place without a TV, radio, or cd on. I have exhausted all the activities I can do to pass the time. WHEN WILL IT END?!
Honestly, I have the urge to sleep through the rest of the time but I have too much energy. It is now 8:45 and I am pacing around my room thinking of ways to make this interesting. When I was mentally preparing myself to do this experiment, I thought it was going to be relaxing. I consider myself (before this experience) as someone who is not at all controlled by technology so this was supposed to be easy. But now I am fining that I am held very firmly by my I-pod, phone and other things.
[So far what have I gained from this: knowledge from 3 readers digests, two new photo albums, and a new found anxiety. Priceless]
What have I learned from this experience? Hatred can form very quickly toward people who can do things you cannot do. I will never do this again. It feels like more of a punishment than an experiment. Instead of raising awareness about the control media has over us, I think I have a new found respect for it. As soon as 12am hits I will use all the forms of technology simultaneously. Just because I can.
10:45pm. almost done. I sang very loudly for about half an hour to pass the time. An hour or so passes, with high anticipation I yell “is it 12 yet?!”... “Almost” is the answer I get. Can freedom come any slower?
8 minutes... what to do.
1 minute...pacing.
12:00 am FREEDOM!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to do a journal like entry because it seemed like the truest way for me to recap the events without missing anything. I learned a lot during this experiment because I did not realize the importance any of these things played in my life.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The big question: which is better? Speaking or writing?
To answer this question, we have to go to the fundamentals. We have to go back and dig deep into not only the history of each, but also what each means. When it all comes down to it, speech came first. It was the basis for all that we recognize now as writing. In the article “the End of literacy? Don’t Stop Reading”, Howard Gardner argues that writing is disappearing in today’s society; I would argue that speech is. Writing has come to dominate our society to the point where face to face communication is almost nonexistent.
At first there was speech, then this new form of technology arose that permitted its users to expand their capacity to hold information. This new technology was writing. The world was never the same after that. It is nearly impossible to go back to such a place where important events, tasks and so forth can not be recorded. Writing was recognized as the most efficient way to retrieve information on command without clogging up vital cranial space. This is possibly the only reason why it is so important that we educate the illiterate. Writing all began with the use of symbols such as tokens that were prehistorically used as a way to transfer goods (Crowley) then, once that was not efficient enough, stone tablets were used as a more permanent form of record. After stone tablets were parchment and the rest is history. It was not until the alphabet was formed that writing completely took over our world. The alphabet opened a whole new door to an untapped form of technology. Not only was writing used as a way to preserve the necessary information, but it was also a form of communication. Writing bridged many gaps because it allowed large groups to learn one basic language that was not as restrictive and could connect it to all situations. Writing has grown into a culture of its own at this point. We now have many different forms of writing that are all understood by the general public.
The newest and most detrimental to the society (although it is very quickly spreading) is the texting language. The amazing thing about texting is that it is so limited to writing that it is almost unbelievable. A phrase like “lol” (laugh out loud) would never be uttered because we can simply laugh, but in the world of texting it is used almost every sentence as a descriptive term. It seems that as a society we have exhausted every other way of writing efficiently that now this grammatically incorrect language has formed. Texting has allowed us to say a paragraph worth in a few combinations of letters and numbers. So when I say that writing is superior in today’s society, it is not to say that it is better. The fact that a day with just non verbal interaction is not impossible shows that we have (as a society) adapted to this new form of technology.
I disagree with Jacoby that our society is not engaging in literary activities. In fact, a slew of blogging sites have proven that is not the case. The problem is, we are not engaging in intellectual literary activities. When an article comes out that says that today’s youth are not read for pleasure, that may not always be the case. Today’s youth are simply using less and less traditionally stimulating forms of literature. If we really want to be technical, we can consider writing on a friend’s Facebook wall a journalistic venture. I think the problem is that our generation’s definition of writing is extremely different than that of older and past generations. It is true that we are no longer spending long summer days in which we discover the author who speaks to us (Gardner) but we have become a society of self educators. We are voicing our thoughts and ideas on paper now (actually on blogger) and this is the new wave of writers.
Of course the writing I am talking about is not nearly as sophisticated or eloquent as a journalist (let’s say) may hope for. It has evolved into this mutant literary form that we are finding now. We have developed so many new types of writing for all situations, such as texting, that it has now become so much easier to confront someone or reveal a secret via AIM than actually opening your mouth and talking. Writing has become our way of staying eternally connected to others.
In my opinion, speech should be the more important/prevalent form of communication in our society but it seems we have evolved past that. I still hold that speech is the truest form of communication because it is very difficult to hide what you are feeling through speech. Writing has given us the chance to censor our thoughts and “sugar coat” our feelings to make them into more “acceptable” things. It has made it so difficult to have a true emotion because we often second guess our thoughts and feelings. We have been told to think before we speak; now it seems we are writing instead of speaking. A world without speech is unimaginable in my opinion but I think we are living in a scripted world. Politicians write and proofread what they are going to say so as to play to the audience. Now, even debates are being written on paper first when honestly, it is supposed to be a portal for passion and thoughts to be expressed on the spot. Writing has become our crutch because it seems to make everything go smoother than just talking. Because of this, I agree with Jacoby when she says that we are dumbing down America.
In the end, although I personally believe that society is headed in the wrong direction because it is relying more on writing than mental capacities; it seems like an inevitable fate. Soon talking to someone will be not only unnecessary, but also ridiculous and the value of face-to-face communication will slowly fade away. On the other hand though, new technologies may form to replace these.
At first there was speech, then this new form of technology arose that permitted its users to expand their capacity to hold information. This new technology was writing. The world was never the same after that. It is nearly impossible to go back to such a place where important events, tasks and so forth can not be recorded. Writing was recognized as the most efficient way to retrieve information on command without clogging up vital cranial space. This is possibly the only reason why it is so important that we educate the illiterate. Writing all began with the use of symbols such as tokens that were prehistorically used as a way to transfer goods (Crowley) then, once that was not efficient enough, stone tablets were used as a more permanent form of record. After stone tablets were parchment and the rest is history. It was not until the alphabet was formed that writing completely took over our world. The alphabet opened a whole new door to an untapped form of technology. Not only was writing used as a way to preserve the necessary information, but it was also a form of communication. Writing bridged many gaps because it allowed large groups to learn one basic language that was not as restrictive and could connect it to all situations. Writing has grown into a culture of its own at this point. We now have many different forms of writing that are all understood by the general public.
The newest and most detrimental to the society (although it is very quickly spreading) is the texting language. The amazing thing about texting is that it is so limited to writing that it is almost unbelievable. A phrase like “lol” (laugh out loud) would never be uttered because we can simply laugh, but in the world of texting it is used almost every sentence as a descriptive term. It seems that as a society we have exhausted every other way of writing efficiently that now this grammatically incorrect language has formed. Texting has allowed us to say a paragraph worth in a few combinations of letters and numbers. So when I say that writing is superior in today’s society, it is not to say that it is better. The fact that a day with just non verbal interaction is not impossible shows that we have (as a society) adapted to this new form of technology.
I disagree with Jacoby that our society is not engaging in literary activities. In fact, a slew of blogging sites have proven that is not the case. The problem is, we are not engaging in intellectual literary activities. When an article comes out that says that today’s youth are not read for pleasure, that may not always be the case. Today’s youth are simply using less and less traditionally stimulating forms of literature. If we really want to be technical, we can consider writing on a friend’s Facebook wall a journalistic venture. I think the problem is that our generation’s definition of writing is extremely different than that of older and past generations. It is true that we are no longer spending long summer days in which we discover the author who speaks to us (Gardner) but we have become a society of self educators. We are voicing our thoughts and ideas on paper now (actually on blogger) and this is the new wave of writers.
Of course the writing I am talking about is not nearly as sophisticated or eloquent as a journalist (let’s say) may hope for. It has evolved into this mutant literary form that we are finding now. We have developed so many new types of writing for all situations, such as texting, that it has now become so much easier to confront someone or reveal a secret via AIM than actually opening your mouth and talking. Writing has become our way of staying eternally connected to others.
In my opinion, speech should be the more important/prevalent form of communication in our society but it seems we have evolved past that. I still hold that speech is the truest form of communication because it is very difficult to hide what you are feeling through speech. Writing has given us the chance to censor our thoughts and “sugar coat” our feelings to make them into more “acceptable” things. It has made it so difficult to have a true emotion because we often second guess our thoughts and feelings. We have been told to think before we speak; now it seems we are writing instead of speaking. A world without speech is unimaginable in my opinion but I think we are living in a scripted world. Politicians write and proofread what they are going to say so as to play to the audience. Now, even debates are being written on paper first when honestly, it is supposed to be a portal for passion and thoughts to be expressed on the spot. Writing has become our crutch because it seems to make everything go smoother than just talking. Because of this, I agree with Jacoby when she says that we are dumbing down America.
In the end, although I personally believe that society is headed in the wrong direction because it is relying more on writing than mental capacities; it seems like an inevitable fate. Soon talking to someone will be not only unnecessary, but also ridiculous and the value of face-to-face communication will slowly fade away. On the other hand though, new technologies may form to replace these.
Monday, February 16, 2009
HOW EXACTLY DOES COMMUNICATION EFFECT ME?
To some, communication has become an art form full of collectable electronics. Some strive to acquire the newest and more high tech electronics that are supposedly “made” for a better form of communication. For me, communication is a nuisance. I have no problem with writing a letter, or talking face-to-face, but it seems the forms of communication are evolving so rapidly that if I tried to keep up I would either go crazy or broke. It is a shame that we can not go back to the days in which people simply waited to see each other to talk or write on stone tablets like in the egyptian times (communication in history, pg 23-24) , but now it seems you can be in the same house, possibly even in the same room and instead of opening your mouth to talk, you text. Unfortunately, this has become the world we live in. Companies know that everyone wants the newest, coolest ways of simply saying hi. In fact, I have noticed that the new PC commercials are spotlighting children as young as 4 using their technology to upload images. Call me old fashioned, but I miss the days when I could go to a Kodak store without being told it is a waste of time. As a society, we look down on older forms of communication once something newer (although not necessarily better) comes along. Honestly, I would actually not have a problem with the new forms of communication if I was not being forced to use them.
It all started when I was in middle school and teachers said they “preferred” typed papers to hand written ones. Slowly but surely, by the time I reached high school, in order to keep myself from having to go to the library everyday to complete assignments, I had to have a computer and then having a computer was not good enough, I needed a laptop. Now there are internet assignments and classes that are partly and fully online that leave your major source of communication with the instructor to your computer. Then the evolution from the phone started. A teacher said parents should call to make a parent teacher appointment until once again slowly; the e-mail became basically the only way to contact almost anyone. And now I am being told to switch to texts? UMBC sends text messages about school closings/delays and other very important information that if you do not have a texting plan; your bill will run ridiculously high.
I have to say, as such a negative voice about this whole technology/communication craze I find myself becoming more and more connected to my phone and computer. I check my e-mail about 20 times a day (and that is not an exaggeration!) and even though I do not like to text people, I receive about 50 texts a day. I have always felt I was the one person who was not connected to their phone or any other form of communication until I went through my pictures this Christmas and it seemed in almost every picture of me, my phone was out and being used.After reaching this very sad realization, I have now started to accept the importance in these things because these are not only the major forms of communication but also the most important. (Heck I even bought myself a GPS system!) I started analyzing all the forms of communication I have to deal with daily and I have to say, thankfully, I still see people in my daily life. As a society, this is a point that is almost always over looked. I believe that we are losing the significance of simply sitting and talking and the passion that can rise from it because unfortunately these new forms of communication do not hold as much emotion as talking does. I am just curious to see what is next.
It all started when I was in middle school and teachers said they “preferred” typed papers to hand written ones. Slowly but surely, by the time I reached high school, in order to keep myself from having to go to the library everyday to complete assignments, I had to have a computer and then having a computer was not good enough, I needed a laptop. Now there are internet assignments and classes that are partly and fully online that leave your major source of communication with the instructor to your computer. Then the evolution from the phone started. A teacher said parents should call to make a parent teacher appointment until once again slowly; the e-mail became basically the only way to contact almost anyone. And now I am being told to switch to texts? UMBC sends text messages about school closings/delays and other very important information that if you do not have a texting plan; your bill will run ridiculously high.
I have to say, as such a negative voice about this whole technology/communication craze I find myself becoming more and more connected to my phone and computer. I check my e-mail about 20 times a day (and that is not an exaggeration!) and even though I do not like to text people, I receive about 50 texts a day. I have always felt I was the one person who was not connected to their phone or any other form of communication until I went through my pictures this Christmas and it seemed in almost every picture of me, my phone was out and being used.After reaching this very sad realization, I have now started to accept the importance in these things because these are not only the major forms of communication but also the most important. (Heck I even bought myself a GPS system!) I started analyzing all the forms of communication I have to deal with daily and I have to say, thankfully, I still see people in my daily life. As a society, this is a point that is almost always over looked. I believe that we are losing the significance of simply sitting and talking and the passion that can rise from it because unfortunately these new forms of communication do not hold as much emotion as talking does. I am just curious to see what is next.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
It's sad how addicted i am to myumbc....
I am not much of a blogger and i read...sparingly. After exposing myself to news reports from other countries, i stopped listening to the news because i feel it is too difficult to actually hear the real story. If you listen to FOX news, you will hear something completely different than if you listen to msmbc. This to me is ridiculous. I love shows that are made to help better ourselves but i HATE reality tv. I hate the fact that it is so addictive and with all my disgust toward it, i find myself watching it if someone puts it on. I feel all of the shows are strange and unrealistic which is completely the opposite of what they are supposed to be doing.
The media plays a humongous role in my life. I do not like feeling like i am the only one who is uneducated about a topic.
I have ranted for too long now. BYE!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)