http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=1875 - GOOGLE VIDEO.
The article, How to Recognize the Future When it Lands on You by Howard Rheingold, explores the impact of technology and cellular phones on today’s society. These advancements have a large impact on today’s society, especially effecting politics. Today, mobile phones are used for much more then just calling people. They are sold with internet, camera, music, alarms and web services. Mobile phones are processing information that is news and gossip, letting people being informed about every little thing going on. Text messaging has reached a new revolution by organizing people into groups and forming their political stances. Technological advancements are forming many people’s opinions and getting them involved. Rheingold explains that the impact of technology creates smart mobs, which are "The new social form made possible by combination of computation, communication, reputation, and location always-on internet connections to members."
This video is a short clip from Googles Vice President of Global Communication. This video explains how technology is effecting communication through politics. He is questioning what's accepted or not through technology while political issues are going on. For example, in his speech he talks about the issues of mobile phones being used near voting polls. His main goal of the speech is trying to get all people connected politically by using Google to guide them. Although, this is not a form of the mobile aspect that Rheingold uses, this is a form of communication that is derived from technology. Google forms people into smart mobs and lets them be apart of political connections by communicating with a website and their specific applications. To use Google you must be on the Internet therefore, many people can access this political information from their mobile device. This media example correlated with Rheingold’s article because they both talk about how technology interferes/organizes diverse social forms. Using Googles new political options provides you personally a social network, just like Rheingold talks about with mobile phones.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
BLOG RE DO: get a life - Jenkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3N6nAOIkd4 - STAR TREK FANATIC
I am sure everyone was a fan at one point or another to a certain TV show, movie, game, book and even a celebrity. However, there is a large different between having a liking for something and being a true fanatic. According to Jenkins, fanatics hold specific traits. The article, “Get A Life” by Henry Jenkins talks about a SNL episode, where William Shatner interacts with the fanatics on the famous show (that he stars in), Star Track. Another name for these fanatics are called, “Trekkies.” These people are not your usual fans. “Trekkies” world revolves around Star Trek, and sometimes people live their lives through Star Trek characters. Star Trek is not only a television show, but a way of life for many people. For example, in the article Shatner yells at his fans and tells the fans to move out of their parent’s basement and proceed with adult experiences. He then looks into the audience and noticed, “The fans looked confused at first, then, progressively more hurt and embarrassed.” These people are so involved in the show and with the characters that they get emotionally attached and live their lives as though Star Trek is real. Mindless consumers are ones that do not even think, they are just mentally drawn to buy a certain product just because it has to do with a specific thing.
I believe that “Trekkies” hold the trait of being mindless consumers. This You Tube video displays a true Star Trek fanatic. Geroge(the fanatic) who isn’t a little kid anymore, he is a young adult and is still a hardcore fan of Star trek. His mom talks about his past, she took him to a Star Trek convention for fun, little did she know he would become obsessed. He goes to school four times a week wearing Star Trek uniforms and commander outfits. His room is filled with magazines, posters, books, and movies. Jenkins says that Trekkies are “brainless consumers who will buy anything associated with the program or its cast. For example, George’s room was filled with everything Star Trek possible. He owned all ten of the Star Trek movies and had a huge binder filled with Star Trek cards of each character. George is even practicing how to speak the Star Trek language. During the film George kept saying that Star Trek was always there for him. George fit into every stereotype that was stated in Jenkins article. There are many points in the video where George was unable to separate fantasy from reality. The stereotypes of "Trekkies" are that they are social misfits, mindless consumers, and are unable to separate fantasy from reality. The fans picture themselves as being a part of this fiction world. Although these are stereotypes are exaggerated, some of the “Trekkies” actually posses these features.
I am sure everyone was a fan at one point or another to a certain TV show, movie, game, book and even a celebrity. However, there is a large different between having a liking for something and being a true fanatic. According to Jenkins, fanatics hold specific traits. The article, “Get A Life” by Henry Jenkins talks about a SNL episode, where William Shatner interacts with the fanatics on the famous show (that he stars in), Star Track. Another name for these fanatics are called, “Trekkies.” These people are not your usual fans. “Trekkies” world revolves around Star Trek, and sometimes people live their lives through Star Trek characters. Star Trek is not only a television show, but a way of life for many people. For example, in the article Shatner yells at his fans and tells the fans to move out of their parent’s basement and proceed with adult experiences. He then looks into the audience and noticed, “The fans looked confused at first, then, progressively more hurt and embarrassed.” These people are so involved in the show and with the characters that they get emotionally attached and live their lives as though Star Trek is real. Mindless consumers are ones that do not even think, they are just mentally drawn to buy a certain product just because it has to do with a specific thing.
I believe that “Trekkies” hold the trait of being mindless consumers. This You Tube video displays a true Star Trek fanatic. Geroge(the fanatic) who isn’t a little kid anymore, he is a young adult and is still a hardcore fan of Star trek. His mom talks about his past, she took him to a Star Trek convention for fun, little did she know he would become obsessed. He goes to school four times a week wearing Star Trek uniforms and commander outfits. His room is filled with magazines, posters, books, and movies. Jenkins says that Trekkies are “brainless consumers who will buy anything associated with the program or its cast. For example, George’s room was filled with everything Star Trek possible. He owned all ten of the Star Trek movies and had a huge binder filled with Star Trek cards of each character. George is even practicing how to speak the Star Trek language. During the film George kept saying that Star Trek was always there for him. George fit into every stereotype that was stated in Jenkins article. There are many points in the video where George was unable to separate fantasy from reality. The stereotypes of "Trekkies" are that they are social misfits, mindless consumers, and are unable to separate fantasy from reality. The fans picture themselves as being a part of this fiction world. Although these are stereotypes are exaggerated, some of the “Trekkies” actually posses these features.
BLOG RE DO: peek-a-Boo World!
The article Peek-a-Boo World, by Neil Postman brings up a plethora of viewpoints on technologies effect on society. Although, it was a huge technological advancement, he believes that the telegraph had a large negative impact. He said, He said, “The telegraph made a three-prolonged attack on typography’s definition of discourse, introducing on a large scale of irrelevance, impotence and incoherence. Instead of worrying about the information we receive it was more important how much information and how far it came. This is why so much information became so irrelevant to ones life; because there was a lot of information but had no individual impact. The telegraph would give us information that would be spoken about but then easily and unintentionally forgotten. It processed a lot of useless information that didn’t a connection to ones life.
I believe that Postman talking about the telegraph exemplifies today’s impact of technology on society. He clarifies the idea that the telegraph disrupted communication. Everyday people are exposed to useless information that has no effect on their daily lives. Our use of media is merely just another way to escape from reality and into the technological world. I completely agree with Postman, I feel that the information was provided with is mostly useless. A lot of the information people get in today’s society is by using Internet sources.
I went on the news website CNN.com to see what the top stories actually were. The three top stories correlates with postman’s view of useless information that just gives people something to talk about. The three top stories were Man survives 500-foot fall into Pennsylvania strip mine, Singer Winehouse cautioned for assault, and FBI investigates possible kidnap for ransom. All of these articles shows us how useless information is thrown around yet, have no bearing on ones life. Postman writes, “But most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action.” The top stores doesn’t have an impact on ones life. After a day, people move on and talk about the new gossip and news for that day. There are many news sources that provide irrelevant information, which have no impact on an individual’s life. It seems to me that the actual message of the telegraph was for mostly entertainment purposes.
I went on the news website CNN.com to see what the top stories actually were. The three top stories correlates with postman’s view of useless information that just gives people something to talk about. The three top stories were Man survives 500-foot fall into Pennsylvania strip mine, Singer Winehouse cautioned for assault, and FBI investigates possible kidnap for ransom. All of these articles shows us how useless information is thrown around yet, have no bearing on ones life. Postman writes, “But most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action.” The top stores doesn’t have an impact on ones life. After a day, people move on and talk about the new gossip and news for that day. There are many news sources that provide irrelevant information, which have no impact on an individual’s life. It seems to me that the actual message of the telegraph was for mostly entertainment purposes.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
EXTRA POST- Facebook
After reading all the articles about Facebook, Myspace and friendster, I still find it so weird how people friend and message random people. I got this message from this random 20 year old from Israel asking about my ancestors. He asked me about my religion and then he proceeded to ask me if I was related to certain people. I find this extremely weird. I didn't answer and I am glad I didn't because I did not know that people can see your profile for 30 days if you answer then in a message. This is something that I learned in class the other day, which I found to be very interesting. This is someone who I would never accept and I would feel no guilt. I don't see how someone can feel guilty to accepting random friends as well as answering random messages. I think people need to be careful of who they accept online these days.
Friday, April 18, 2008
TO BE OR NOT TO BE.. A FRIEND - Boyd
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9759401-7.html - request or reject?
The article Friends, friendsters, and Top 8: Writing Community into being on social network talks about friendship through social online sights such as Myspace and Friendster. Boyd discusses the differences between online friends and real life friends as well as many reasons why people accept others as their friend online. She came up with 13 reasons as to why people accept friend requests. Out of the entire list, I believe the two main reasons that people accept friend requests is because having lots of friends makes you popular and its easier to accept then reject. I can closely relate to this article because I am currently a member of Facebook. I believe that people just accept people all the time just to up their number of friends and to look “cool.” I don’t think people look beyond a random friend request. I for one, only accept people if I know them, if they don’t look familiar then I will reject them. I always question when someone random keeps constantly requesting me while I am rejecting him or her. I question as to why they want to be friends with a complete stranger and many questions come to mind. I sometimes get nervous for many security reasons. For example, this random 24-year-old guy from Indiana keeps requesting me and we have no friends in common. I also reject people that are much younger then me, I don’t feel the need for them to see my pictures of everything going on in my life. I for one, never have a problem denying someone to be my friend. I feel no guilt in rejecting someone, if they are someone I don’t know or that I have no personal connection with I don’t see the need for them to know everything about me. I am a rare case, most people I know accept anyone to be their friend. I have also noticed that even though people don’t really know people, they request them and accept out of guilt. One might feel guilty if they reject someone from being their friend however, I don’t.
I found the article, Facebook users pretty willing to add strangers as 'friends’, to be very interesting. A security firm created a fake Facebook account with the name of Freddi Staur. This account friend requested 200 random people to see how any acceptances and rejections he would receive. The results were, “Out of those 200, 87 accepted the friend request and 82 of those gave 'Freddi' access to "personal information" such as e-mail addresses, dates of birth, addresses and phone numbers, and school or work data. Presumably, the other five had restricted 'Freddi' to limited profile access.” I found this very fascinating, the fact that people would accept a random man. I think this has to do with more then the “cool” factor, I think people need to be more cautious. The fact that people can see all information about you isn’t safe. Compared to Myspace, Facebook has much more privacy settings and is more controlled however, people still accept random people. A security analyst said, "It"s extremely alarming how easy it was to get users to accept Freddi.” Accepting random people as being your friend gives them access to a lot of valuable information about oneself. People need to think about security and safety before popularity when it comes to accepting Facebook friends.
The article Friends, friendsters, and Top 8: Writing Community into being on social network talks about friendship through social online sights such as Myspace and Friendster. Boyd discusses the differences between online friends and real life friends as well as many reasons why people accept others as their friend online. She came up with 13 reasons as to why people accept friend requests. Out of the entire list, I believe the two main reasons that people accept friend requests is because having lots of friends makes you popular and its easier to accept then reject. I can closely relate to this article because I am currently a member of Facebook. I believe that people just accept people all the time just to up their number of friends and to look “cool.” I don’t think people look beyond a random friend request. I for one, only accept people if I know them, if they don’t look familiar then I will reject them. I always question when someone random keeps constantly requesting me while I am rejecting him or her. I question as to why they want to be friends with a complete stranger and many questions come to mind. I sometimes get nervous for many security reasons. For example, this random 24-year-old guy from Indiana keeps requesting me and we have no friends in common. I also reject people that are much younger then me, I don’t feel the need for them to see my pictures of everything going on in my life. I for one, never have a problem denying someone to be my friend. I feel no guilt in rejecting someone, if they are someone I don’t know or that I have no personal connection with I don’t see the need for them to know everything about me. I am a rare case, most people I know accept anyone to be their friend. I have also noticed that even though people don’t really know people, they request them and accept out of guilt. One might feel guilty if they reject someone from being their friend however, I don’t.
I found the article, Facebook users pretty willing to add strangers as 'friends’, to be very interesting. A security firm created a fake Facebook account with the name of Freddi Staur. This account friend requested 200 random people to see how any acceptances and rejections he would receive. The results were, “Out of those 200, 87 accepted the friend request and 82 of those gave 'Freddi' access to "personal information" such as e-mail addresses, dates of birth, addresses and phone numbers, and school or work data. Presumably, the other five had restricted 'Freddi' to limited profile access.” I found this very fascinating, the fact that people would accept a random man. I think this has to do with more then the “cool” factor, I think people need to be more cautious. The fact that people can see all information about you isn’t safe. Compared to Myspace, Facebook has much more privacy settings and is more controlled however, people still accept random people. A security analyst said, "It"s extremely alarming how easy it was to get users to accept Freddi.” Accepting random people as being your friend gives them access to a lot of valuable information about oneself. People need to think about security and safety before popularity when it comes to accepting Facebook friends.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Griefers - Debbell
The article "Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers," by Julian Dibbell talks about griefing in Second Life. Griefers are people who become apart of the game world by making offenses towards other players. “Not that griefers don’t like online games. Its just that what they most enjoy about those games is making other players not enjoy them.” These people take pleasure in destroying others game life. Their goal is to get the player annoyed/upset, while the player will eventually lead to log off. Griefing has become more popular over the years as it transformed into an organization. People take griefing very seriously however, not many understand as to why people grief. I think that griefing is out of control. I don’t see how someone gets such pleasure while they know one is miserable. Griefers actions hurt second life users real life because sometimes there is money involved. I believe that griefers are very immature which makes sense as why they would attack users with penises, thinking its funny.
http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/features/107088.shtml
In the article below a psychiatrist talks about griefers and why they get involved. The article talks about how griefers are split into two different groups, the defiant leader and the scapegoat leader. She said, "The defiant leader is sometimes with the group, but sometimes has one foot out. There is also always a scapegoat leader. This is generally a person everyone dislikes.” There are not only groups but specific psychological disorders that griefers possess. One many have depression, substance abuse, and psychotic disorders. For example, one being anti social personality disorder, which is also said in Debbells article. Pychiatrist Dr. Laio said, “They are likely to go online to vent frustrations with little regard for how it affects other people.” I tend to agree with Dr. Laio because users on second life would constantly be getting annoyed while they were being grifed however, the griefers know and as Debbell made it clear the grifers just continue to attack.
http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/features/107088.shtml
In the article below a psychiatrist talks about griefers and why they get involved. The article talks about how griefers are split into two different groups, the defiant leader and the scapegoat leader. She said, "The defiant leader is sometimes with the group, but sometimes has one foot out. There is also always a scapegoat leader. This is generally a person everyone dislikes.” There are not only groups but specific psychological disorders that griefers possess. One many have depression, substance abuse, and psychotic disorders. For example, one being anti social personality disorder, which is also said in Debbells article. Pychiatrist Dr. Laio said, “They are likely to go online to vent frustrations with little regard for how it affects other people.” I tend to agree with Dr. Laio because users on second life would constantly be getting annoyed while they were being grifed however, the griefers know and as Debbell made it clear the grifers just continue to attack.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Rape? - Dibbell
I found the article, A Rape in Cyberspace by Julian Dibbell to be very interesting. The article talks about a certain incident that goes on in the LamdaMOO community. A LamdaMOO character, Mr. Bungle raped two other LamdaMOO members, Legba and Starsinger. He would say obscene comments to the users, for example, “He made Legba eat his/her own pubic hair. That he caused Starsinger to violate herself with a piece of kitchen cutlery.” As Mr. Bungle laughed, Lebga and Starsinger didn’t find it a joke and they let affect them emotionally in real life. There are many people that question what the repercussions should be for Mr. Bungle. There are a plethora of different view points, if Mr. Bungle should get punished for his actions. The WIRED commentary talks about the different between rape in real and virtual worlds.
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504
This incident showed how people get attached to their avatar emotionally. Although, they are not this person in real life and they are not actually physically getting violated, emotionally they are. The fact that Legba and Starsinger got raped in the living room by another avatar is diminishing. I personally think it’s disgusting that some college student finds it entertaining to go online and say sexual comment to others especially when it gets to the point where someone is being harassed online. The people that are using MUDS have to do into the virtual community knowing that people can say horrific comments just like the real world however, I still don’t think it measures up to an actual rape.
The article, Virtual Rape Is Traumatic, but Is It a Crime?, talks about if virtual rape is actually a crime and should be reported. In the article it said, “I have a hard time calling it "rape," or believing it's a matter for the police. No matter how disturbed you are by a brutal sexual attack online, you cannot equate it to shivering in a hospital with an assailant's sweat or other excretions still damp on your body.” I completely agree with this comment, I would call it sexual harassment because I believe that rape is something that can only happen in real life. In Dibbells article, the two characters Legba and Starsinger never actually was being physically hurt which then affected them mentally. They also never attempted to sign off and log in as another character, something that they could have easily done. They decided to find a way to get Mr. Bungle back, which was completely their choice. In the end, I believe that there is no reason why something virtual online should be called rape. I also think people need to understand that their character is completely made up and so was Mr. Bungles. I tend to agree with the Wired commentary saying, “It's a shitty thing to do to someone. But it's not a crime.”
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504
This incident showed how people get attached to their avatar emotionally. Although, they are not this person in real life and they are not actually physically getting violated, emotionally they are. The fact that Legba and Starsinger got raped in the living room by another avatar is diminishing. I personally think it’s disgusting that some college student finds it entertaining to go online and say sexual comment to others especially when it gets to the point where someone is being harassed online. The people that are using MUDS have to do into the virtual community knowing that people can say horrific comments just like the real world however, I still don’t think it measures up to an actual rape.
The article, Virtual Rape Is Traumatic, but Is It a Crime?, talks about if virtual rape is actually a crime and should be reported. In the article it said, “I have a hard time calling it "rape," or believing it's a matter for the police. No matter how disturbed you are by a brutal sexual attack online, you cannot equate it to shivering in a hospital with an assailant's sweat or other excretions still damp on your body.” I completely agree with this comment, I would call it sexual harassment because I believe that rape is something that can only happen in real life. In Dibbells article, the two characters Legba and Starsinger never actually was being physically hurt which then affected them mentally. They also never attempted to sign off and log in as another character, something that they could have easily done. They decided to find a way to get Mr. Bungle back, which was completely their choice. In the end, I believe that there is no reason why something virtual online should be called rape. I also think people need to understand that their character is completely made up and so was Mr. Bungles. I tend to agree with the Wired commentary saying, “It's a shitty thing to do to someone. But it's not a crime.”
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
EXTRA - Children Communication
I believe the internet has been detrimental factor that has the most negative effects on kids in today’s society. I think simple compter communication like talking on AIM, ca have a negative effect on kids development. I know when I was younger AOl and AIM were big but I didn’t really use it until 6th grade and actively until middle school. Now, kids are starting to have AIM screen names starting at the age of 7 or 8. I think that children get used to the interaction online and have trouble communicaiting face-to-face. In the article, Tiny Sex and Gender Trouble it has been explained exactly. A child stated, “ I think girls online are more communicative.” A 13 year old gir also stated, “ she finds it easier to establish relationships online and then puruse them offline.” She has a boyfriend and feels closer to him when they send electronic mail or talk in a chat room then see eachother in person.”
I think its bad that starting at a young age children use online to become their main source of communication. I feel like each year the ages decrease for kids to be more involved in a lot they aren’t meant to be involved in yet. For example, Facebook is something that used to be meant for only college students. I refused to sign up until I knew where I was going to college, when I finally decided I was coming to Indiana I made a Facebook to start seeing who else is coming. I was never a huge fan of Facebook and I always claimed I would never be apart of it however, after I got into college it seemed like the thing to do. Two months ago, I get a friend request from my cousin who is in 8th grade and I was in complete shock. I could not believe that someone this young was becoming apart of Facebook. I think it affect the development of children and I cant even image what kids will be apart of in years from now.
I think its bad that starting at a young age children use online to become their main source of communication. I feel like each year the ages decrease for kids to be more involved in a lot they aren’t meant to be involved in yet. For example, Facebook is something that used to be meant for only college students. I refused to sign up until I knew where I was going to college, when I finally decided I was coming to Indiana I made a Facebook to start seeing who else is coming. I was never a huge fan of Facebook and I always claimed I would never be apart of it however, after I got into college it seemed like the thing to do. Two months ago, I get a friend request from my cousin who is in 8th grade and I was in complete shock. I could not believe that someone this young was becoming apart of Facebook. I think it affect the development of children and I cant even image what kids will be apart of in years from now.
Tinysex & Gender Trouble - Turkle
I found the article, Tinysex and Gender Trouble by Sheryl Turkle to be extremely interesting. Turkle talks about how life through the computer screen makes it much easier to interact. When one enters MUDS, for example, LamdaMOO they know not to expect someone’s real identity. There are many clues and hint according to how one acts and presents themselves to guess at their real gender. The founder of LamdaMOO said that he, “has observed that when a female-presenting character is called something like FaboluousHotBabe, one can almost be sure there is a man behind the mask.” There are many ways in which one can assume weather the real character behind a simple name is male or female. Many MOO users get extremely involved in their virtual character however, there are still many clues to distinguish between male and female. Getting involved with ones character shows how getting involved in LamdaMOO can effect someone psychologically because there are playing two different people between Real life and virtual life. Psychologically MOO users get emotionally attached to their community online and sometimes let that effect their real life. Turkle says that these virtual worlds can encourage personal growth and self awareness yet, sometimes one can become trapped.
I tend to believe that one becomes trapped and almost gets lost in the distinction between virtual life and reality. I don’t think that one can possibly grow as a person by having a fake persona and not being themselves. However, I have never been apart of a MUD as well as posed as anyone else except myself. I believe that MUDS end up having a negative impact on ones personal growth. People get too involved in online interaction that they feel less comfortable with face-to-face communication. I think people get emotionally trapped in the virtual world therefore, it affects them as a person in the real world.
I tend to believe that one becomes trapped and almost gets lost in the distinction between virtual life and reality. I don’t think that one can possibly grow as a person by having a fake persona and not being themselves. However, I have never been apart of a MUD as well as posed as anyone else except myself. I believe that MUDS end up having a negative impact on ones personal growth. People get too involved in online interaction that they feel less comfortable with face-to-face communication. I think people get emotionally trapped in the virtual world therefore, it affects them as a person in the real world.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
EXTRA BLOG!
This is just a random extra blog but I thought it was very interesting so I figured to write about it. My roommate and I were on the phone today with MAC Apple support because her computer had crashed. He was helping us try to fix her computer and while that was happening he said to my roommate, "How are you feeling today, I hear you have a cold." We both started laughing and then she said, "yeah I do, I am good though." We both felt very awkward because then he went on telling us how he just went to Puerto Rico and came back with a cold. After being on the phone with him for two hours, I noticed that we knew a lot of random stuff about each other and almost formed a connection. It reminded me of the MUDS, especially LamdaMOO where you think you won't get addicted/spend a lot of time at first and then all the sudden you form these connections with people and don't even realize that hours have passed. Also, at the end of the phone call he said how we have to contact someone else because he couldn't help with the problem. He was like it might take a while for someone to contact you back so if you want we have chat rooms and discussion boards of the customers explaining their problem and people reply to help. I thought that was very interesting that now for technical support, consumers help others going through the same problem through discussion boards online.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
MUDS - Rheingold
Howard Rheingold introduced us to Multi-User Dungeons also called MUDS which he explained to be, “Imaginary worlds in computer databases where people use worlds and programming languages to improvise melodramas, build worlds and all the objects in them, solve puzzles, invent amusements and tools, compete for prestige power, gain wisdom, seek revenge, indulge greed and lust and violent impulses.” The main component of a MUD is that it forms a community. It lets people interact with each other using alternate, multiple, false, and exploratory identities. The most vital identity is the identity to be “perfect.” People often form identities making them someone that they always wanted to be or just try to live in someone else's shoes. MUDS let people live an alternate life and sometimes spend more time in their online community then actual reality which can effect their social interactions and school performance.
There are times when I am sick of reality and resort to other activities to get my mind of certain things however, not going to the extreme by making a new identity and becoming someone else. I personally feel like people who use alternate identities aren’t comfortable with themselves in reality. I for one am comfortable with myself and don’t see the need to be apart of a community acting as someone else and meeting random people. I understand how one can be addicted to MUDS and spend hours on it a week. I use networks like Facebook and with that I can understand how people can waste hours and become addicted to something so quickly however, I would never make a false/altered identity. I have only one identity and would never be someone else nor reveal false or too much true information. I see MUDS as being very interesting of how thousands of people interact at once and connect with each other yet, I don't think I would ever resort to one. I don’t see the point of interacting with strangers whom you know your never going to meet (lets say they are from a different county) and whom you don’t even really know. Online I have addictions certain websites and AIM however, these never distort my perception from reality, MUDS I believe do. i think it is unhealthy for people to spend so much time using MUDS because it can affect them socially. I think people get to involved in imaginary worlds on computers and they lose touch with reality and the real things that matter in life.
There are times when I am sick of reality and resort to other activities to get my mind of certain things however, not going to the extreme by making a new identity and becoming someone else. I personally feel like people who use alternate identities aren’t comfortable with themselves in reality. I for one am comfortable with myself and don’t see the need to be apart of a community acting as someone else and meeting random people. I understand how one can be addicted to MUDS and spend hours on it a week. I use networks like Facebook and with that I can understand how people can waste hours and become addicted to something so quickly however, I would never make a false/altered identity. I have only one identity and would never be someone else nor reveal false or too much true information. I see MUDS as being very interesting of how thousands of people interact at once and connect with each other yet, I don't think I would ever resort to one. I don’t see the point of interacting with strangers whom you know your never going to meet (lets say they are from a different county) and whom you don’t even really know. Online I have addictions certain websites and AIM however, these never distort my perception from reality, MUDS I believe do. i think it is unhealthy for people to spend so much time using MUDS because it can affect them socially. I think people get to involved in imaginary worlds on computers and they lose touch with reality and the real things that matter in life.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Virtual Community- Rheingold
The reading The Virtual Community by Howard Rheingold had very valid points about communication through the Internet. Rheingold had said ”Although I am enthusiastic about the liberating potentials of computer-mediated communications, I try to keep my eyes open for the pitfalls of mixing technology and human relationships.” He believed that many people spend hours online at a time with a false persona just to relieve their problems or escape from reality. People used communicating on the Internet as a form of psychotherapy. One would rely on certain relationships that they have formed through the Internet to talk and confide in.
I believe that match.com is a great example. Many people go on match.com to find others to talk to and even start a relationship with. I know many of people who are members of match.com. For example, my cousin was a member of match.com. He used it for about a year and then found someone that he had been constantly talking to and connecting with. For a while he only spoke to her through the use of the Internet, after they got closer they exchanged e-mails and spoke a lot. They seemed compatible and got along very well. They had a lot of the same interests and hobbies; they would spend hours at a time talking online. Finally, it came time for them to meet in person. They met in person and their relationship just wasn’t the same. They weren’t compatible for each other and he said, “We didn’t have much in common as I thought we did.” They ended up remaining good friends however, never met again in person. They still speak online all the time; just they weren’t compatible for each other as spouses. This website lets people interact with others of the same age and interests. It lets people find out about each other while interacting through the Internet. On this site people talk and get to know each other. People communicate and look through others pictures. Being a member of Match.com is a form of psychotherapy, where people form relationships and then depend on these people to speak to through online.
I believe that match.com is a great example. Many people go on match.com to find others to talk to and even start a relationship with. I know many of people who are members of match.com. For example, my cousin was a member of match.com. He used it for about a year and then found someone that he had been constantly talking to and connecting with. For a while he only spoke to her through the use of the Internet, after they got closer they exchanged e-mails and spoke a lot. They seemed compatible and got along very well. They had a lot of the same interests and hobbies; they would spend hours at a time talking online. Finally, it came time for them to meet in person. They met in person and their relationship just wasn’t the same. They weren’t compatible for each other and he said, “We didn’t have much in common as I thought we did.” They ended up remaining good friends however, never met again in person. They still speak online all the time; just they weren’t compatible for each other as spouses. This website lets people interact with others of the same age and interests. It lets people find out about each other while interacting through the Internet. On this site people talk and get to know each other. People communicate and look through others pictures. Being a member of Match.com is a form of psychotherapy, where people form relationships and then depend on these people to speak to through online.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Noble Amateur
I found the reading by Andrew Keen to be very interesting. The Nobel Amateur article had a different outlook on technology, describing how the internet was ruining our society. Keens article talks about his resentment towards misinformation to the public due to “citizen journalists.” Keen said, “citizen journalists have no formal training or expertise, yet they routinely offer up opinion as fact, rumor as reportage, and innuendo as information.” This leads people to retrieve false information while; the people that are sending out the information aren’t getting recognized for the falsity. In contrast to citizen journalists, Keen said, “Professional journalists acquire their craft through education and through firsthand experience of reporting and editing news under the careful eye of other professionals.” A professional journalist takes credit for the news that they deliver to the public and is accountable for everything noted. Citizen journalists write blogs everyday that have false information however, its a much bigger deal when professional journalists tell the public false news.
In 2004 professional journalist Dan Rather made a huge mistake on live television story on George Bush’s National Guard service and a 60-minute report with fake documents that affected his reputation. He violated many rules as a professional journalist. One major mistake that CBS made was that they didn’t know the documents were authentic however; they were still used to report to the public. This video shows the major difference between professional and citizen journalism. Dan rather, a professional journalist came clean and admitted that he had made a mistake yet, like keen had said, professional journalists are accountable for everything they note. Therefore, Dan Rather decided to step down as anchor for CBS broadcast and CBS deeply apologized to the public for leading them to believe inaccurate information.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?channel=/elements/2004/11/24/eveningnews/videoarchive657614_1_videosection_page.shtml
This incident was dragged out for a long time and it’s seen here on the Colbert Show with professional journalist Bob Schieffer (2 min 50 secs) talking about how CBS made a huge mistake.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=120610&title=bob-schieffer
In 2004 professional journalist Dan Rather made a huge mistake on live television story on George Bush’s National Guard service and a 60-minute report with fake documents that affected his reputation. He violated many rules as a professional journalist. One major mistake that CBS made was that they didn’t know the documents were authentic however; they were still used to report to the public. This video shows the major difference between professional and citizen journalism. Dan rather, a professional journalist came clean and admitted that he had made a mistake yet, like keen had said, professional journalists are accountable for everything they note. Therefore, Dan Rather decided to step down as anchor for CBS broadcast and CBS deeply apologized to the public for leading them to believe inaccurate information.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?channel=/elements/2004/11/24/eveningnews/videoarchive657614_1_videosection_page.shtml
This incident was dragged out for a long time and it’s seen here on the Colbert Show with professional journalist Bob Schieffer (2 min 50 secs) talking about how CBS made a huge mistake.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=120610&title=bob-schieffer
Friday, February 29, 2008
Transmedia Storytelling - Jenkins
http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/ - HARRY POTTER SITE WITH DIVERSE MEDIA SOURCES
- LOOK THROUGH SITE AND GO TO COMMUNITY AND MESSAGE BOARDS!
I couldn't agree more with Jenkin's view points on his article, "Transmedia Storytelling." Today, the media is defined through multiple media sources also known as transmedia storytelling. Jenkin's describes Transmedia storytelling as, "A process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels to create a unified and coordinated entertainment experience." This lets each medium make a contribution to the on going story. Therefore, through all different media sources people get diverse parts of the story. The different media sources provide the back story which enhance the consumers knowledge. This tends to get the consumers/viewers more involved in the specific story.
This Harry Potter website describes all of Jenkins article by showing how Harry Potter is more then just a simple book. This website shows how Harry Potter falls across multiple media sources. Originally, Harry Potter was just a novel yet, it has come far from there. After producing over seven novels there then came a movie and media started to spread from there. As you see on the website there are Harry Potter books, dvds, games, comics and collectables, which gives the consumers more insight to the story. Through all these media sources there are a plethora of different information that is being released. You will never find all the information in one specific story therefore, they are spread among the different media sources. The online games lets viewers interact with the characters by understanding the story line behind it. An important factor is collective intelligence. Pierre Levy said, " collective intelligence, to refer to the new social structures that enable the production and circulation of knowledge within a networked society." On this Harry Potter site under "Community," there are message boards where people converse about the Harry Potter movies, books, characters and games. These forums congregate people that have the same likings together to discuss their different knowledge and viewpoints with one another. They try to assess information that would lead them to understanding more about each media source.
- LOOK THROUGH SITE AND GO TO COMMUNITY AND MESSAGE BOARDS!
I couldn't agree more with Jenkin's view points on his article, "Transmedia Storytelling." Today, the media is defined through multiple media sources also known as transmedia storytelling. Jenkin's describes Transmedia storytelling as, "A process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels to create a unified and coordinated entertainment experience." This lets each medium make a contribution to the on going story. Therefore, through all different media sources people get diverse parts of the story. The different media sources provide the back story which enhance the consumers knowledge. This tends to get the consumers/viewers more involved in the specific story.
This Harry Potter website describes all of Jenkins article by showing how Harry Potter is more then just a simple book. This website shows how Harry Potter falls across multiple media sources. Originally, Harry Potter was just a novel yet, it has come far from there. After producing over seven novels there then came a movie and media started to spread from there. As you see on the website there are Harry Potter books, dvds, games, comics and collectables, which gives the consumers more insight to the story. Through all these media sources there are a plethora of different information that is being released. You will never find all the information in one specific story therefore, they are spread among the different media sources. The online games lets viewers interact with the characters by understanding the story line behind it. An important factor is collective intelligence. Pierre Levy said, " collective intelligence, to refer to the new social structures that enable the production and circulation of knowledge within a networked society." On this Harry Potter site under "Community," there are message boards where people converse about the Harry Potter movies, books, characters and games. These forums congregate people that have the same likings together to discuss their different knowledge and viewpoints with one another. They try to assess information that would lead them to understanding more about each media source.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Get a Life - Jenkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3N6nAOIkd4 - STAR TREK FANATIC
I am sure everyone was a fan at one point or another to a certain TV show, movie, game, book and even a celebrity. However, there is a large different between having a liking for something and being a true fanatic. According to Jenkins, fanatics hold specific traits. The article, “Get A Life” by Henry Jenkins talks about a SNL episode, where William Shatner interacts with the fanatics on the famous show (that he stars in), Star Track. Another name for these fanatics are called, “Trekkies.” These people are not your usual fans. “Trekkies” world revolves around Star Trek, and sometimes people live their lives through Star Trek characters. Star Trek is not only a television show, but a way of life for many people. For example, in the article Shatner yells at his fans and tells the fans to move out of their parent’s basement and proceed with adult experiences. He then looks into the audience and noticed, “The fans looked confused at first, then, progressively more hurt and embarrassed.” These people are so involved in the show and with the characters that they get emotionally attached and live their lives as though Star Trek is real. Mindless consumers are ones that do not even think, they are just mentally drawn to buy a certain product just because it has to do with a specific thing.
I believe that “Trekkies” hold the trait of being mindless consumers. This You Tube video displays a true Star Trek fanatic. Geroge(the fanatic) who isn’t a little kid anymore, he is a young adult and is still a hardcore fan of Star trek. His mom talks about his past, she took him to a Star Trek convention for fun, little did she know he would become obsessed. He goes to school four times a week wearing Star Trek uniforms and commander outfits. His room is filled with magazines, posters, books, and movies. Jenkins says that Trekkies are “brainless consumers who will buy anything associated with the program or its cast. For example, George’s room was filled with everything Star Trek possible. He owned all ten of the Star Trek movies and had a huge binder filled with Star Trek cards of each character. George is even practicing how to speak the Star Trek language. During the film George kept saying that Star Trek was always there for him. George fit into every stereotype that was stated in Jenkins article. There are many points in the video where George was unable to separate fantasy from reality. The stereotypes of "Trekkies" are that they are social misfits, mindless consumers, and are unable to separate fantasy from reality. The fans picture themselves as being a part of this fiction world. Although these are stereotypes are exaggerated, some of the “Trekkies” actually posses these features.
I am sure everyone was a fan at one point or another to a certain TV show, movie, game, book and even a celebrity. However, there is a large different between having a liking for something and being a true fanatic. According to Jenkins, fanatics hold specific traits. The article, “Get A Life” by Henry Jenkins talks about a SNL episode, where William Shatner interacts with the fanatics on the famous show (that he stars in), Star Track. Another name for these fanatics are called, “Trekkies.” These people are not your usual fans. “Trekkies” world revolves around Star Trek, and sometimes people live their lives through Star Trek characters. Star Trek is not only a television show, but a way of life for many people. For example, in the article Shatner yells at his fans and tells the fans to move out of their parent’s basement and proceed with adult experiences. He then looks into the audience and noticed, “The fans looked confused at first, then, progressively more hurt and embarrassed.” These people are so involved in the show and with the characters that they get emotionally attached and live their lives as though Star Trek is real. Mindless consumers are ones that do not even think, they are just mentally drawn to buy a certain product just because it has to do with a specific thing.
I believe that “Trekkies” hold the trait of being mindless consumers. This You Tube video displays a true Star Trek fanatic. Geroge(the fanatic) who isn’t a little kid anymore, he is a young adult and is still a hardcore fan of Star trek. His mom talks about his past, she took him to a Star Trek convention for fun, little did she know he would become obsessed. He goes to school four times a week wearing Star Trek uniforms and commander outfits. His room is filled with magazines, posters, books, and movies. Jenkins says that Trekkies are “brainless consumers who will buy anything associated with the program or its cast. For example, George’s room was filled with everything Star Trek possible. He owned all ten of the Star Trek movies and had a huge binder filled with Star Trek cards of each character. George is even practicing how to speak the Star Trek language. During the film George kept saying that Star Trek was always there for him. George fit into every stereotype that was stated in Jenkins article. There are many points in the video where George was unable to separate fantasy from reality. The stereotypes of "Trekkies" are that they are social misfits, mindless consumers, and are unable to separate fantasy from reality. The fans picture themselves as being a part of this fiction world. Although these are stereotypes are exaggerated, some of the “Trekkies” actually posses these features.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Flickr Project
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23825962@N08/sets/72157603900636390/
I found the Flickr assignment very interesting. My group decided to take different pictures down Kirkwood Av. in the Bloomington town. Instead of making a huge story line, we did a slideshow of comparisons between the old and new Kirkwood. This meant that we had some preparation to do before we went out and took the pictures. We searched online for old Kirkwood, while it was under construction and found great pictures. These pictures showed Kirkwood in the last few years while it was under full construction and then renovated. I don't think Flickr was difficult to use at all. I thought it was very basic, easy to use to upload photos. I am glad we got to do this project because it was a great hands on experience to understanding the media.
I think that Flickr is a great way to be an effective tool in creating user generated content and sharing it with others. Flickr can determine the photos that people look at then act accordingly. The article Flickr Changes Lives, Launches Photog Careers, by Jen Maderazo shows how Flickr is being used so widely based. Maderazo said, "Thousands of images are uploaded from around the world every minute, and refreshing the homepage gives you access to random photos you might never have found through a search." This lets people share as much content of anything by using Flickr while sending messages out to different people. I do belieive this is a great way to create content and share it among millions of people. After personally taking a tour on Flickr, I noticed that this can have a large impact on people. You can search anything you want and thousands of peoples slideshows and photos come up. Flickr can be looked at as a personal news source as well as a huge art museum online.
In the article, How Flickr single-handedly invented collaborative photojournalism describes the impact of Flickr. I believe that this can be used as a citizen photojournalism tool for a plethora of reasons. It has been described that photojournalism is basically another example of news reporting but with the internet. It isn't in an organized manner or collecting certain people. Its very diverse and catch the attention of people that have particular interests. This tool is great to use because it is not focusing on one event rather, millions of events while people get to have input with their own personal opinion. For example, People even rate the importance of the photos making Flickr a news forum where everyone has a say in what they think is important news to look at. According to the article Flickr is thriving with news and getting peoples attention. The fact that it's free even makes it a more useful tool to attend to. Flickr is a source of photojournalism, it is free and anyone can post or view stories. Flickr is a tool that has recently become extremely popular and each day thriving to a higher level. Soon enough, Flickr is going to be used in combination to the media as well as politically. I look at Flickr as a reliable news source. For example, Fox and CNN news can be biased at times therefore, so can Flickr. Yet, in the end it is all news to you. Flickr can have a larger impact because you can search what you are interested in and find out about it. It was stated that, "The slideshows that people make in Flickr can be shared with anyone to send any messages or points In the article, then rates each photo according to "interestingness", a quality that is based on the ways in which other users interact with that photo." This lets the users actively engage in photography community.
I found the Flickr assignment very interesting. My group decided to take different pictures down Kirkwood Av. in the Bloomington town. Instead of making a huge story line, we did a slideshow of comparisons between the old and new Kirkwood. This meant that we had some preparation to do before we went out and took the pictures. We searched online for old Kirkwood, while it was under construction and found great pictures. These pictures showed Kirkwood in the last few years while it was under full construction and then renovated. I don't think Flickr was difficult to use at all. I thought it was very basic, easy to use to upload photos. I am glad we got to do this project because it was a great hands on experience to understanding the media.
I think that Flickr is a great way to be an effective tool in creating user generated content and sharing it with others. Flickr can determine the photos that people look at then act accordingly. The article Flickr Changes Lives, Launches Photog Careers, by Jen Maderazo shows how Flickr is being used so widely based. Maderazo said, "Thousands of images are uploaded from around the world every minute, and refreshing the homepage gives you access to random photos you might never have found through a search." This lets people share as much content of anything by using Flickr while sending messages out to different people. I do belieive this is a great way to create content and share it among millions of people. After personally taking a tour on Flickr, I noticed that this can have a large impact on people. You can search anything you want and thousands of peoples slideshows and photos come up. Flickr can be looked at as a personal news source as well as a huge art museum online.
In the article, How Flickr single-handedly invented collaborative photojournalism describes the impact of Flickr. I believe that this can be used as a citizen photojournalism tool for a plethora of reasons. It has been described that photojournalism is basically another example of news reporting but with the internet. It isn't in an organized manner or collecting certain people. Its very diverse and catch the attention of people that have particular interests. This tool is great to use because it is not focusing on one event rather, millions of events while people get to have input with their own personal opinion. For example, People even rate the importance of the photos making Flickr a news forum where everyone has a say in what they think is important news to look at. According to the article Flickr is thriving with news and getting peoples attention. The fact that it's free even makes it a more useful tool to attend to. Flickr is a source of photojournalism, it is free and anyone can post or view stories. Flickr is a tool that has recently become extremely popular and each day thriving to a higher level. Soon enough, Flickr is going to be used in combination to the media as well as politically. I look at Flickr as a reliable news source. For example, Fox and CNN news can be biased at times therefore, so can Flickr. Yet, in the end it is all news to you. Flickr can have a larger impact because you can search what you are interested in and find out about it. It was stated that, "The slideshows that people make in Flickr can be shared with anyone to send any messages or points In the article, then rates each photo according to "interestingness", a quality that is based on the ways in which other users interact with that photo." This lets the users actively engage in photography community.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Photoshop for Democracy
In the article Photoshop for Democracy, Henry Jenkins talks about the many different of media and its impact on society. He explains how we used to rely on television for electing candidates however, now it's much more then that. The use of internet and mobile phones are taking place while having people interact more. One theory that is discussed throughout the reading is the media convergence theory. This is that techonoliges have multiple funcions, not just one purpose. This theory has a large effect on politics that can change citizens views and opinions. These images are traveling across multiple media sources. I think that Jenkins brings up very valid points through out his article. One effect Jenkins talks about is the effect it has on politics. He believes that our culture is being formed by using new media that collide and that the consumer interacts with the media producer.
My example is a video of John McCain - http://www.jibjab.com/view/203207
I think that this video is a perfect example of media convergence and how the consumer and media producer interact. This video is showing how Bush is boring McCain while he is making a speech. This video is showing a plethora of points that Jenkins talks about in his article. One being that, this video is attracting the youth. After talking about the 2004 campaign that was effected by new media technologies Jenkins said, "On the other hand, the closeness made both campaigns desperate to mobilize their base, attract undecided voters and register new participants- especially the young." This is video is an example of on type of media that was attracting the youth because it is something that they can relate to. This will grab their attention and have the desire to watch it. McCain is being compared to the famous television show, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, while they are stating why he would make a good president. This video makes the public look at Bush and McCain in a different way and persuades the public.
My example is a video of John McCain - http://www.jibjab.com/view/203207
I think that this video is a perfect example of media convergence and how the consumer and media producer interact. This video is showing how Bush is boring McCain while he is making a speech. This video is showing a plethora of points that Jenkins talks about in his article. One being that, this video is attracting the youth. After talking about the 2004 campaign that was effected by new media technologies Jenkins said, "On the other hand, the closeness made both campaigns desperate to mobilize their base, attract undecided voters and register new participants- especially the young." This is video is an example of on type of media that was attracting the youth because it is something that they can relate to. This will grab their attention and have the desire to watch it. McCain is being compared to the famous television show, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, while they are stating why he would make a good president. This video makes the public look at Bush and McCain in a different way and persuades the public.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Cellular Connection
http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=1875 - GOOGLE VIDEO.
The article, How to Recognize the Future When it Lands on You by Howard Rheingold, explores the impact of technology and cellular phones on today’s society. These advancements have a large impact on today’s society, especially effecting politics. Today, mobile phones are used for much more then just calling people. They are sold with internet, camera, music, alarms and web services. Mobile phones are processing information that is news and gossip, letting people being informed about every little thing going on. Text messaging has reached a new revolution by organizing people into groups and forming their political stances. Technological advancements are forming many people’s opinions and getting them involved. Rheingold explains that the impact of technology creates smart mobs, which are "The new social form made possible by combination of computation, communication, reputation, and location always-on internet connections to members."
This video is a short clip from Googles Vice President of Global Communication. This video explains how technology is effecting communication through politics. He is questioning what's accepted or not through technology while political issues are going on. For example, in his speech he talks about the issues of mobile phones being used near voting polls. His main goal of the speech is trying to get all people connected politically by using Google to guide them. Although, this is not a form of the mobile aspect that Rheingold uses, this is a form of communication that is derived from technology. Google forms people into smart mobs and lets them be apart of political connections by communicating with a website and their specific applications. To use Google you must be on the Internet therefore, many people can access this political information from their mobile device. This media example correlated with Rheingold’s article because they both talk about how technology interferes/organizes diverse social forms. Using Googles new political options provides you personally a social network, just like Rheingold talks about with mobile phones.
The article, How to Recognize the Future When it Lands on You by Howard Rheingold, explores the impact of technology and cellular phones on today’s society. These advancements have a large impact on today’s society, especially effecting politics. Today, mobile phones are used for much more then just calling people. They are sold with internet, camera, music, alarms and web services. Mobile phones are processing information that is news and gossip, letting people being informed about every little thing going on. Text messaging has reached a new revolution by organizing people into groups and forming their political stances. Technological advancements are forming many people’s opinions and getting them involved. Rheingold explains that the impact of technology creates smart mobs, which are "The new social form made possible by combination of computation, communication, reputation, and location always-on internet connections to members."
This video is a short clip from Googles Vice President of Global Communication. This video explains how technology is effecting communication through politics. He is questioning what's accepted or not through technology while political issues are going on. For example, in his speech he talks about the issues of mobile phones being used near voting polls. His main goal of the speech is trying to get all people connected politically by using Google to guide them. Although, this is not a form of the mobile aspect that Rheingold uses, this is a form of communication that is derived from technology. Google forms people into smart mobs and lets them be apart of political connections by communicating with a website and their specific applications. To use Google you must be on the Internet therefore, many people can access this political information from their mobile device. This media example correlated with Rheingold’s article because they both talk about how technology interferes/organizes diverse social forms. Using Googles new political options provides you personally a social network, just like Rheingold talks about with mobile phones.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Electronic Community: From Birth to Backlash
In the article, From Birth to Backlash, Rushkoff had a plethora of valid points. In todays society technological advancements are taking over and effecting other sources of media. As time passes each year the internet has more ways of communicating and downloading files. The internet went through a drastic change from being used as a simple source of communication to an effect on commerce.
The program AOL (America Online) is a perfect example of Rushkoff's argument. Years ago, America Online was used by millions of people all over the world. This service provided people with everything they needed, various ways of communication, webpages, and profiles. People who used this service had to pay a certain amount each month to be able to use these utilities. AOL was the main form of communication however, in todays society it's not. There are various ways of communicating with others across the world using different services, such as AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) and other programs like Internet Explorer, which lets you surf the web and look up anything. All of these services are free. There is no fee needed to go on a website, talk to your friend across the world or even create your own blog. Yet, there is a major downfall to these programs. There are many pop ups and advertisements that are influencing many web users. Instead of paying for internet, now people search on the world wide web to buy products online. Overall, internet has become a much larger complexity reaching out to much more then it was originally designed for. It let the internet become a hands on where people can create many things for themselves. Just like Rushkoff said,"These people don’t simply surf the Web. They are now empowered to create it."
Another point: Having these services for free exposes people to a variety of different media and economical advancements. There can be advantages and disadvantages to this. For example, when people paid for AOL there were more parental controls therefore, children could not see obscene things. Having everything free, exposes children to inappropriate things.
The program AOL (America Online) is a perfect example of Rushkoff's argument. Years ago, America Online was used by millions of people all over the world. This service provided people with everything they needed, various ways of communication, webpages, and profiles. People who used this service had to pay a certain amount each month to be able to use these utilities. AOL was the main form of communication however, in todays society it's not. There are various ways of communicating with others across the world using different services, such as AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) and other programs like Internet Explorer, which lets you surf the web and look up anything. All of these services are free. There is no fee needed to go on a website, talk to your friend across the world or even create your own blog. Yet, there is a major downfall to these programs. There are many pop ups and advertisements that are influencing many web users. Instead of paying for internet, now people search on the world wide web to buy products online. Overall, internet has become a much larger complexity reaching out to much more then it was originally designed for. It let the internet become a hands on where people can create many things for themselves. Just like Rushkoff said,"These people don’t simply surf the Web. They are now empowered to create it."
Another point: Having these services for free exposes people to a variety of different media and economical advancements. There can be advantages and disadvantages to this. For example, when people paid for AOL there were more parental controls therefore, children could not see obscene things. Having everything free, exposes children to inappropriate things.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Reach Out and Elect Someone
I couldn't agree more with Postman's view points on his article, Reach Out and Elect Someone. Today, politics had become like television commercials to get peoples attention. In my telecommunication class, we learned about "copy cat" programming. This is when television shows are similar and not varied due to the risk of audience loss. I believe that consumers have very little control concerning the media therefore, when it comes time for politics commercials they are made to appeal to the audience. An important factor is image. One must have a good image of themselves, you would never see a candidate making a speech in sweatpants and a sweatshirt. Ones image says a lot about themselves. Most people that watch are inclined to see the candidates and know more personal information about them then actually hear their thoughts. Like Postman said, "We are not permitted to know who's best at Governor or Senator, but whose image is best in touching and soothing the deep reaches of our discontent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo - Watch quick commercial and then read blog!
This political commercial flashes attention to the audience for a plethora of reasons that Postman described in his article. This commercial was for Claire McCaskill when she was running for United States Senate. I believe that this got hold of the audiences attention. Having Michael J. Fox (a celebrity) speaking, i would assume that he would get peoples attention and for them to listen to what he has to say. This is getting the viewers to focus on the celebrity and then at the end of the ad it quickly says Claire McCaskill, this creates a compelling image for the interest of the viewers. It gets the viewers to remember Claire McCaskill by having Michael J. Fox with Parkinson's disease being the celebrity representing her. In this case, the commercial would be represting the "copy cat" method by having a celebrity basically advertising for McCaskill. This gives the viewers the ad of self intrest by knowing that McCaskill is looking to help find cures for stem cell research. Also, this ad talks about how Jim Talent, who is also running for senator is against this. Even in commercials for candidates, the people are depicted in certain ways. Michael J. Fox is clean looking and attractive, while seems to know about stem cell research.
I agree with Postman and his view on Image and how politics resemble television commercials by having the same goals to focus the view in with a slogan or symbol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo - Watch quick commercial and then read blog!
This political commercial flashes attention to the audience for a plethora of reasons that Postman described in his article. This commercial was for Claire McCaskill when she was running for United States Senate. I believe that this got hold of the audiences attention. Having Michael J. Fox (a celebrity) speaking, i would assume that he would get peoples attention and for them to listen to what he has to say. This is getting the viewers to focus on the celebrity and then at the end of the ad it quickly says Claire McCaskill, this creates a compelling image for the interest of the viewers. It gets the viewers to remember Claire McCaskill by having Michael J. Fox with Parkinson's disease being the celebrity representing her. In this case, the commercial would be represting the "copy cat" method by having a celebrity basically advertising for McCaskill. This gives the viewers the ad of self intrest by knowing that McCaskill is looking to help find cures for stem cell research. Also, this ad talks about how Jim Talent, who is also running for senator is against this. Even in commercials for candidates, the people are depicted in certain ways. Michael J. Fox is clean looking and attractive, while seems to know about stem cell research.
I agree with Postman and his view on Image and how politics resemble television commercials by having the same goals to focus the view in with a slogan or symbol.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Peek-a-Boo World
The article Peek-a-Boo World, by Neil Postman brings up a plethora of viewpoints on technologies effect on society. Although, it was a huge technological advancement, he believes that the telegraph had a large negative impact. He said, He said, “The telegraph made a three-prolonged attack on typography’s definition of discourse, introducing on a large scale of irrelevance, impotence and incoherence. Instead of worrying about the information we receive it was more important how much information and how far it came. This is why so much information became so irrelevant to ones life; because there was a lot of information but had no individual impact. The telegraph would give us information that would be spoken about but then easily and unintentionally forgotten. It processed a lot of useless information that didn’t a connection to ones life.
I believe that Postman talking about the telegraph exemplifies today’s impact of technology on society. He clarifying the idea that the telegraph disrupted communication. Everyday people are exposed to useless information that has no effect on their daily lives. Our use of media is merely just another way to escape from reality and into the technological world. Postman then goes to talk about media and electronics like film, radio and television. People become so drawn to these advancements that get so caught up and forgot about living their own lives. I believe Postman’s viewpoints on technology. I think that people get too caught up in advancements. After reading his two articles, I concluded that in today’s society technology and the media block out us from reality.
Postman's articles and viewpoints directly correlates with the novel, A Brave New World. Science and technology play a large role in this novel by being a threat to society. Social stability and control were maintained by technology, which is what society today is going through. In the novel and todays society, religion is being taken over by technology. People become so averted to reality and look towards technology to maintain their lives.
After reading his article, I thought to myself where is the fine line of technology between adults and children? It clearly affects us differently, how so? I found this article in the news and I think its very interesting because it talks about internet (technology) and how each age groups view it very differently.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/01/23/technological.turfwar.ap/index.html
I believe that Postman talking about the telegraph exemplifies today’s impact of technology on society. He clarifying the idea that the telegraph disrupted communication. Everyday people are exposed to useless information that has no effect on their daily lives. Our use of media is merely just another way to escape from reality and into the technological world. Postman then goes to talk about media and electronics like film, radio and television. People become so drawn to these advancements that get so caught up and forgot about living their own lives. I believe Postman’s viewpoints on technology. I think that people get too caught up in advancements. After reading his two articles, I concluded that in today’s society technology and the media block out us from reality.
Postman's articles and viewpoints directly correlates with the novel, A Brave New World. Science and technology play a large role in this novel by being a threat to society. Social stability and control were maintained by technology, which is what society today is going through. In the novel and todays society, religion is being taken over by technology. People become so averted to reality and look towards technology to maintain their lives.
After reading his article, I thought to myself where is the fine line of technology between adults and children? It clearly affects us differently, how so? I found this article in the news and I think its very interesting because it talks about internet (technology) and how each age groups view it very differently.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/01/23/technological.turfwar.ap/index.html
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)