I thought Rushkoff made some valid comments in his article Electronic Community: From birth to backlash. My example is this site, blogger.com, where we were ordered to create personal blogs for this class. I have never had a weblog before this class and I never really had planned on it. Now I feel that I am more technologically advanced and I feel that I have learned so much about the web. My main argument (more like agreement) is about sites like blogger that allow the users to create their own content and has "forced an interconnected community." I feel close to my group memebers, even though I may not know them in person.
Rushkoff ends his article with a very useful statement: "Blogger.com provides a set of publishing tools that allows even a novice to create a weblog, automatically add content to a web site or organize links, commentary and open discussions. In the short time Blogger has been available, it has fostered an interconnected community of tens of thousands of users. These people don't simply surf the Web. They are now empowered to create it" (pg. 31). This is a good piece of information. I agree with Rushkoff that in a world with Blogger, the users control the content and therefore information. Now, if I needed to know some quick information and I didn't want to surf the web, I could create a question on my weblog and communicate with another blogger. Not only could I get an answer or opinion back from someone, but I could post a comment or opinion of my own to get instant feedback. This web-based community allows its users to communicate via the web in its own little community. Like we discussed in class, its almost like bloggers are connected in a group like the USENET groups. We don't all have to be the same age or race or sex. The internet doesn't care about that. You don't have to have a certain amount of money or class to open a weblog and communicate with fellow Americans (I don't want to stress Americans- I'm sure this is widely used in other countries). As far as I know, there isn't really any strict regulation of what types of posts and comments you're allowed to make. Free speech I guess. I just think its amazing that we can create content based on our interests and share it with people all over the world. Content is then shared for free- as long as you have a membership. This web-based tool is a lot like youtube and other online chat rooms where information is sent via the web and with instant results.
This seems like an example of the internet attacking our culture but not necessarily in a bad way. I mean, to be honest I think its cool that we can post our own weblogs and add any content we want. It gives you a sense of control that you don't always have in a personal setting (i.e. class, work, etc.). By creating these web-based tools of communication you are pulling away from personal interaction. Therefore, we're becoming a virtual culture. Who knows, in 5 years this class could potentially be an online course!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Reach Out and Elect Someone
My comments today relate to the article that was posted on wiki about the South Carolina debate:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148213&title=south-carolina-debate&tag=generic_tag_hillary_clinton&itemId=104903
If you didn't get a chance to check it out, look at it before you continue reading, otherwise you won't understand what I'm talking about.
Anyway, I thought that it was interesting how all three candidates appeared. From the way they dressed to their behavior, all of it was scripted by their "image handlers" (as they are called). I learned this word from a Telecommunications professor during her presentation about politics in the media. She explained how these image handlers control how the candidates appear to the audience, in other words, to us. Postman writes on page 24, "He understood that in a world of television and other visual media 'political knowledge' means having pictures in your head more than having words." Here Postman is referring to the way in which candidates appear in order to win over the viewers. It doesn't matter as much about what they said in the debate, as long as they appeared to be the leader, the most intelligent and passionate about the topic, and genuinely clean and well-kept.
According to my professor, Besti Grabe, visuals are far more important than words. In this case and in the case Postman is trying to make, this is clearly true. Certain roles are depicted by our candidates in order to appear a certain way- the way the audience wants them to appear. Of course we all want someone attractive and clean-looking who just so happens to be pretty intelligent here and now about the issue at large. There have been studies done to prove that certain depictions are more effective than others such as: the ideal candidate in which they are presented as the "Statesman" or the "Compassionate." Usually these candidates are seen with flags, confetti, patriotism, depictions of family and God, and the whole "kissing baby" scam. Another role often played by candidates is the popular "Mass Appeal" or the "Ordinary," in which they are portrayed along side celebrities and a large audience or casually dressed to show they are down to earth and can relate to us poor folk. These are good ways to portray candidates, but aren't always who they really are. Image is everything and that is the point Postman is trying to make in his article Reach Out and Elect Someone. I completely agree with him in this example of all three candidates during the South Carolina debate. They are all appearing to be taking on a certain role.
In contrast to making someone look good, the media can also make a candidate look bad. Postman made a comment in a recent article about how photographs have no room for debate and cannot be taken out of context. Here I disagree with him. Hillary Clinton is sometimes depicted as a "cold bitch" when images are shown of her being fierce. This always pisses me off because if she were a man, then these pictures would just make her look strong and the type of leader we want. In this example, I disagree with Postman in that the image is taken out of context.
However, the main point to my argument is that the image is still the most important factor. This I am in agreement with Postman.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148213&title=south-carolina-debate&tag=generic_tag_hillary_clinton&itemId=104903
If you didn't get a chance to check it out, look at it before you continue reading, otherwise you won't understand what I'm talking about.
Anyway, I thought that it was interesting how all three candidates appeared. From the way they dressed to their behavior, all of it was scripted by their "image handlers" (as they are called). I learned this word from a Telecommunications professor during her presentation about politics in the media. She explained how these image handlers control how the candidates appear to the audience, in other words, to us. Postman writes on page 24, "He understood that in a world of television and other visual media 'political knowledge' means having pictures in your head more than having words." Here Postman is referring to the way in which candidates appear in order to win over the viewers. It doesn't matter as much about what they said in the debate, as long as they appeared to be the leader, the most intelligent and passionate about the topic, and genuinely clean and well-kept.
According to my professor, Besti Grabe, visuals are far more important than words. In this case and in the case Postman is trying to make, this is clearly true. Certain roles are depicted by our candidates in order to appear a certain way- the way the audience wants them to appear. Of course we all want someone attractive and clean-looking who just so happens to be pretty intelligent here and now about the issue at large. There have been studies done to prove that certain depictions are more effective than others such as: the ideal candidate in which they are presented as the "Statesman" or the "Compassionate." Usually these candidates are seen with flags, confetti, patriotism, depictions of family and God, and the whole "kissing baby" scam. Another role often played by candidates is the popular "Mass Appeal" or the "Ordinary," in which they are portrayed along side celebrities and a large audience or casually dressed to show they are down to earth and can relate to us poor folk. These are good ways to portray candidates, but aren't always who they really are. Image is everything and that is the point Postman is trying to make in his article Reach Out and Elect Someone. I completely agree with him in this example of all three candidates during the South Carolina debate. They are all appearing to be taking on a certain role.
In contrast to making someone look good, the media can also make a candidate look bad. Postman made a comment in a recent article about how photographs have no room for debate and cannot be taken out of context. Here I disagree with him. Hillary Clinton is sometimes depicted as a "cold bitch" when images are shown of her being fierce. This always pisses me off because if she were a man, then these pictures would just make her look strong and the type of leader we want. In this example, I disagree with Postman in that the image is taken out of context.
However, the main point to my argument is that the image is still the most important factor. This I am in agreement with Postman.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Disagreement with Postman
Ok so we've just read Neil Postman's articles and I agreed with mostly everything he said until I came across an article this morning. Postman's article The Age of Show Business says that "every technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others" (pg. 13). I, at first, pretty much agreed with that statement. I mean, a phone is used to make phone calls to communicate to one another. A computer is used for checking emails and surfing the web, etc. He even used the example about a TV being used as a bookshelf. He claims that a TV is used for entertainment and that is all. A TV shouldn't be used for anything else. I thought I agreed with him.
However, I came across a story about a double amputee who can now walk again thanks to the help of prosthetic legs made with Bluetooth technology (which is known for their hands-free cell phones- they use the little ear piece that you don't notice and think people are talking to themselves, haha). Anyway, according to the article, Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bleill uses "computer chips in each leg that send signals to motors in the artificial joints so the knees and ankles move in a coordinated fashion. Each set of prosthetics have Bluetooth receivers strapped to the ankle area. The Bluetooth device on each leg tells the other leg what it's doing, how it's moving, whether walking, standing or climbing steps, for example." THAT IS CRAZY! Who would have thought that technology originally created for a more convenient way to use a cell phone and multi task would be helpful in the use of prosthetics?
I would think that Neil Postman would be blown away. What would he say about this? Doesn't think contradict what he is saying about technology being inherently bias? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what he is saying, but it seems to me that he is wrong. I now disagree with him. Even technology such as an iPod originally was inherently bias but now you can watch movie clips and even surf the web. That wasn't iPod's original usage. In this case of the prosthetics, are we to assume this Bluetooth technology as a medium, instead of a technology? If we did that then is Postman still correct in that technology is inherently bias but not a particular medium? I would like to hear some opinions because I'm a bit confused. I'm amazed that Bluetooth can create new technology like this in the first place! Here is the link to the story if you want to check it out!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/25/bluetooth.legs/
However, I came across a story about a double amputee who can now walk again thanks to the help of prosthetic legs made with Bluetooth technology (which is known for their hands-free cell phones- they use the little ear piece that you don't notice and think people are talking to themselves, haha). Anyway, according to the article, Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bleill uses "computer chips in each leg that send signals to motors in the artificial joints so the knees and ankles move in a coordinated fashion. Each set of prosthetics have Bluetooth receivers strapped to the ankle area. The Bluetooth device on each leg tells the other leg what it's doing, how it's moving, whether walking, standing or climbing steps, for example." THAT IS CRAZY! Who would have thought that technology originally created for a more convenient way to use a cell phone and multi task would be helpful in the use of prosthetics?
I would think that Neil Postman would be blown away. What would he say about this? Doesn't think contradict what he is saying about technology being inherently bias? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what he is saying, but it seems to me that he is wrong. I now disagree with him. Even technology such as an iPod originally was inherently bias but now you can watch movie clips and even surf the web. That wasn't iPod's original usage. In this case of the prosthetics, are we to assume this Bluetooth technology as a medium, instead of a technology? If we did that then is Postman still correct in that technology is inherently bias but not a particular medium? I would like to hear some opinions because I'm a bit confused. I'm amazed that Bluetooth can create new technology like this in the first place! Here is the link to the story if you want to check it out!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/25/bluetooth.legs/
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
test
Hey guys! I'm testing this out for class. I've never had a blog and never really intended on doing so but hopefully I like it. Let me know if someone sees a problem with the way I post or something else. Thanks for the help!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
