My 24 hours of media deprivation began at 12pm on Thanksgiving day, and ended at 12pm the next day. I certainly had ups and downs with this experience. I knew it would be hard not to be on the computer every other minute checking something, constantly texting, or watching TV. I think however, the time and day I chose for this experiment helped me get by.It was a very family oriented day. I'm very proud as well, that I did not give in to my urge to utilize one of the forbidden devices. It was almost heartbreaking to see my cell phone sitting there, vibrating with a new text that I couldn't view, but I resisted. My sister asked me if she could read it to me, my family was not very helpful in this experiment.
It began when I woke up at 12 on the 27Th. I woke up, ate, and then went on a walk with my family. After I returned I helped my mom cook dinner until we all ate, that put me at about 5:30. I hadn't planned anything, so even though it was getting dark I talked my dad into a bike ride, that's another hour down. When I returned I figured I would be alright with the current book I was reading and all the homework I had to do. I finished my book around 9:30pm, this is where the trouble began. I soon realized that almost all of my homework was to be done on a computer. I couldn't even do the communications reading, I had forgotten what chapters we had to read and the syllabus is online. So it was about 10 at this point and I had nothing to do. My family was watching TV., trying to get me to join, and I was just sitting around. A little while later everyone went to sleep. Naturally, having woken up at 12, I wasn't very tired. Usually I watch TV. until I fall asleep, I even put the timer on, but tonight I couldn't, and didn't fall asleep until 2am. That was the worst part of the assignment, I even ended up taking my remote downstairs and left it there for the night. Once I fell asleep however, it was smooth sailing, I didn't wake up until 12pm again, so the assignment was over.
I have mixed feelings for this experience. For one thing, I felt I did a lot more than I normally would have. I may have spent the entire day on the computer or watching TV. if I weren't restricted from them. Like some of Danna Walkers students said, I had to be more creative to find entertainment, and I did things I wouldn't normally do.I don't feel like I was freed though, I don't really think that media and technology hinders us either. Dependence on technology really depends on the person.
It is not a new thing though, to depend on technology. Throughout history we have depended on tools to entertain us and help us interact. The tools of today of just much more complex than before. They also seem to yield different results in society, because of this, the issue of media and technological dependency in society garners more attention. It is normal for us to become dependant on things, I think the consequences of this are blown out of proportion.
Walker, Danna L. "The Longest Day." washingtonpost.com. 5 Aug. 2007. 27 Nov.
2008 AR2007080101720.html>.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Two Cultures: Blog# 4
With this reading, "Two Cultures-Television versus Print", we are presented with a different format, a dialogue between two scholars. This is the perfect way to present two opposing points of view on television and written culture. Paglia takes a more positive view of television, while Postman takes a more negative view. The two discuss the effects of these mediums on today's culture.
I found I agreed more with Paglia's view on television. While I did agree with some of Postman's points, he seemed to have incredibly pessimistic opinions of it. One thing I found I really agreed with on Postman's side however, was the thing about the Hebrew National hot dogs. It makes sense that using a figure like god in a commercial for something like hot dogs could really suck the meaning out of that figure. However, I would have reacted to it more like Paglia, who didn't seem to take it that seriously. As said in the reading, a contributing factor in this difference of opinions could be the age difference in the two. Postman was born before TV. really became popular, so his generation adjusted to it as it came about. Baby boomers and on were born with television.
This also brings me back to Paglia's point about watching TV. and multitasking. She says that "Baby boomers have a multilayered, multitrack ability to deal with the the world."(287) This goes along with her comparison of the madness of TV. and life alike. Postman looks at television as more of a flash of images that distracts from life. This view of television, that it makes you stupid, or that it's meaningless, and reading in comparison, that it will make you smarter, seems popular today. However I find that some books can be just as meaningless as a trashy show, and that some television shows can be rather fulfilling to watch.
Another point that was brought up in the conversation that really resonated with me was when Postman bought up tragedy on television. He seemed so concerned that a tragedy could be reported on the news and in an instant it could flash to some meaningless commercial. It is something I have often thought about. If it weren't for television, most people wouldn't have human tragedy in their daily lives. How often does one encounter or participate in a car accident? How often does one see one on the news with moving images rather than read about it in a newspaper in tiny black and white print? If we let things reported on the news get to us emotionally we would be a much different society, in ways I can't really imagine. Furthermore, because the television contains moving images and images of real people with expressions, more homage is paid to a tragedy on TV. than in a newspaper or magazine that can also have a huge advertisement for slacks next to it.
All of these arguments go back to trying to figure out what the more perfect medium is, the written word or pictures symbolizing the written word. In the end I really don't even think it comes down to that. I think it all depends on how each one is used and how well it is created. Like it is said in the reading, during a certain time in Europe the arts flourished in the south and intellectualism grew in the north. Who's to say the arts weren't as valuable as the developments that came about in the north? The written word is certainly more useful for certain things, however I don't it is the "perfect medium" as Postman puts it. Some thing can be conveyed better through writing, some through moving images. It seems to me that the two shouldn't be pit against each other but in categories of their own.
I found I agreed more with Paglia's view on television. While I did agree with some of Postman's points, he seemed to have incredibly pessimistic opinions of it. One thing I found I really agreed with on Postman's side however, was the thing about the Hebrew National hot dogs. It makes sense that using a figure like god in a commercial for something like hot dogs could really suck the meaning out of that figure. However, I would have reacted to it more like Paglia, who didn't seem to take it that seriously. As said in the reading, a contributing factor in this difference of opinions could be the age difference in the two. Postman was born before TV. really became popular, so his generation adjusted to it as it came about. Baby boomers and on were born with television.
This also brings me back to Paglia's point about watching TV. and multitasking. She says that "Baby boomers have a multilayered, multitrack ability to deal with the the world."(287) This goes along with her comparison of the madness of TV. and life alike. Postman looks at television as more of a flash of images that distracts from life. This view of television, that it makes you stupid, or that it's meaningless, and reading in comparison, that it will make you smarter, seems popular today. However I find that some books can be just as meaningless as a trashy show, and that some television shows can be rather fulfilling to watch.
Another point that was brought up in the conversation that really resonated with me was when Postman bought up tragedy on television. He seemed so concerned that a tragedy could be reported on the news and in an instant it could flash to some meaningless commercial. It is something I have often thought about. If it weren't for television, most people wouldn't have human tragedy in their daily lives. How often does one encounter or participate in a car accident? How often does one see one on the news with moving images rather than read about it in a newspaper in tiny black and white print? If we let things reported on the news get to us emotionally we would be a much different society, in ways I can't really imagine. Furthermore, because the television contains moving images and images of real people with expressions, more homage is paid to a tragedy on TV. than in a newspaper or magazine that can also have a huge advertisement for slacks next to it.
All of these arguments go back to trying to figure out what the more perfect medium is, the written word or pictures symbolizing the written word. In the end I really don't even think it comes down to that. I think it all depends on how each one is used and how well it is created. Like it is said in the reading, during a certain time in Europe the arts flourished in the south and intellectualism grew in the north. Who's to say the arts weren't as valuable as the developments that came about in the north? The written word is certainly more useful for certain things, however I don't it is the "perfect medium" as Postman puts it. Some thing can be conveyed better through writing, some through moving images. It seems to me that the two shouldn't be pit against each other but in categories of their own.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Politcal blog #3
The extent of the media coverage I encountered during election day were the election results on CNN's website and the speeches after Obama was announced the victor. I was on CNN's website periodically throughout the day checking on who had won what states. It was very easy to check, they presented the information very well.It was interesting that one could check on the exact percentages of each state. It was also easy to see who had won which state and which ones were still undecided. They updated the information so often I was able to see each candidates electoral vote amounts growing. I can't really say they had a bias in either direction because it's information you can't sway.
It was interesting then to see the speeches afterward. I thought Obama's was really uplifting. The was a real hopeful air about the whole speech, all the talk of change in America for the good was brought to a head in this, now we just need to see if it will happen. That's one thing that was in the media a lot. Obama's whole image was shaped to be that of and outsider (to a certain degree) who wants to come in and clean up the stale, stalled regime that was under Bush. He was very charismatic in the way he used the media. More than often, if I was hearing bad things about a candidate it was about McCain.
Which brings me to McCain. I don't think he used the media, or was able to use the media nearly as well as Obama did. McCain's imaged to me, throughout the entire election process was that of an old man who wasn't going to change anything. After eight years of Bush that's exactly what most people did not want. It doesn't matter if McCain would have lived up to this image or not, he could not compete with Obama's slogan of change. Another rather unattractive aspect of McCain's campaign that I observed a bit later in the election process were his ads against Obama. They seemed a bit dirtier than the anti-McCain ads. Some try to make him look like a terrorist, like this one, which I'm not sure if was aired or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppQszYT3djE . McCain seemed a little desperate towards the end of the election, which makes it a little funny that he seemed to do such an about-face when his losing speech time came around. Of course he would have to seem like a gracious loser who has a lot of faith in the new president, it is just interesting to observe the quick change.
All in all, Obama was obviously able to use the media to his advantage much more than McCain was able to. With that, I'm not really surprised Obama won, nobody wanted four more years of Bush.
It was interesting then to see the speeches afterward. I thought Obama's was really uplifting. The was a real hopeful air about the whole speech, all the talk of change in America for the good was brought to a head in this, now we just need to see if it will happen. That's one thing that was in the media a lot. Obama's whole image was shaped to be that of and outsider (to a certain degree) who wants to come in and clean up the stale, stalled regime that was under Bush. He was very charismatic in the way he used the media. More than often, if I was hearing bad things about a candidate it was about McCain.
Which brings me to McCain. I don't think he used the media, or was able to use the media nearly as well as Obama did. McCain's imaged to me, throughout the entire election process was that of an old man who wasn't going to change anything. After eight years of Bush that's exactly what most people did not want. It doesn't matter if McCain would have lived up to this image or not, he could not compete with Obama's slogan of change. Another rather unattractive aspect of McCain's campaign that I observed a bit later in the election process were his ads against Obama. They seemed a bit dirtier than the anti-McCain ads. Some try to make him look like a terrorist, like this one, which I'm not sure if was aired or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppQszYT3djE . McCain seemed a little desperate towards the end of the election, which makes it a little funny that he seemed to do such an about-face when his losing speech time came around. Of course he would have to seem like a gracious loser who has a lot of faith in the new president, it is just interesting to observe the quick change.
All in all, Obama was obviously able to use the media to his advantage much more than McCain was able to. With that, I'm not really surprised Obama won, nobody wanted four more years of Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
