Free the Children is an organization that I’ve supported since I discovered it; I even created the Timmins Branch while I was in grade seven. It was started by a young boy when he heard the story of a child slave who was killed for speaking out against child slavery. Knowing this was wrong, twelve year old Craig Kielburger founded the organization with some school friends and it only grew from there.
Kielburger’s organization began to achieve admiration from the public when they launched the campaign to abolish the sex-trade industry, something that used many children in third world countries. At sixteen, Kielburger travelled to Bangkok and witnessed for himself the horror of this industry. I worked on many campaigns in Timmins in support of this movement; including the attempting to change the legal sexual age of consent in Canada from fourteen to eighteen.
It was through the help of this organization that I was able to attract the attention of the local MPP’s in Timmins and actually sit down and have a talk with them in regards to this issue. Of course, following the issue all of the supporters that said they were going to vote for change in front of the camera voted to keep the age the same it was still a good learning experience.
I would definitely say that working through many activist organizations like Free the Children has helped me open my eyes to the world around me, and is even the root of my will to get into journalism in the first place. Even if you are not an activist, there is still a lot that you can learn about the world around us through organizations like this. Even if you don’t want to help, it’s a good idea just to look up the information that’s there.
Works Cited
Free the Children. Children helping children through education. 2009. Web. Nov. 23, 2009.
Monday, November 23, 2009
To tweet, or not to tweet?
Facebook is my cocaine. I will admit it, every time I log on my computer my fingers are tempted to type in that familiar address and let my mind wander through the many pages and applications that Facebook has offered to fulfill my procrastination needs. Why is it that I feel the need to continuously log on? Simple: that little website is a good place to waste time. As far as what the majority of the people in my age group are doing socially on the internet, I am well below the average.
I would have to say that when it comes to communicating with people I am much happier with actually maintaining a conversation face to face, as msn messenger and Facebook chat suck the emotion right out of a conversation. I like to be able to read into what people are saying by looking at the expressions on their faces. Another reason that I like to avoid the internet for fulfilling my social needs is the problems and the fights that are often a result of something being taken the wrong way. I’m not sure if this is because I am used to living in a small city where most of the people with whom I talk are close enough I can just go walk and see them, but the internet is not an ideal way to communicate for me.
The world of MMORPG’s does not tickle my fancy either, mostly because I am probably the most inept gamer that anyone could ever play with or against. Gaming over the internet never appealed to me, partially because that lifestyle instilled the image of some forty-year old in his underwear drinking Mountain Dew and eating cheesepuffs in his mom’s basement. I realize that this is just my opinion, but I really do think that you shouldn’t spend your life connected to a computer screen longer than you have to; there are better things to see than the world from a 15.6” flat screen.
Neil Postman wrote: “…the interaction between media and human beings give a culture its character and, one might say, help a culture to maintain symbolic balance”. (Postman). I believe that this is true, and I think that the lesser the interaction between us and the media the better character we will develop. As most people point out, it’s the lack of the things we rely on that builds character.
Works Cited
Postman, Neil. The Humanism of Media Ecology. Media Ecology Association, 2000. Web. 22 November 2009.
I would have to say that when it comes to communicating with people I am much happier with actually maintaining a conversation face to face, as msn messenger and Facebook chat suck the emotion right out of a conversation. I like to be able to read into what people are saying by looking at the expressions on their faces. Another reason that I like to avoid the internet for fulfilling my social needs is the problems and the fights that are often a result of something being taken the wrong way. I’m not sure if this is because I am used to living in a small city where most of the people with whom I talk are close enough I can just go walk and see them, but the internet is not an ideal way to communicate for me.
The world of MMORPG’s does not tickle my fancy either, mostly because I am probably the most inept gamer that anyone could ever play with or against. Gaming over the internet never appealed to me, partially because that lifestyle instilled the image of some forty-year old in his underwear drinking Mountain Dew and eating cheesepuffs in his mom’s basement. I realize that this is just my opinion, but I really do think that you shouldn’t spend your life connected to a computer screen longer than you have to; there are better things to see than the world from a 15.6” flat screen.
Neil Postman wrote: “…the interaction between media and human beings give a culture its character and, one might say, help a culture to maintain symbolic balance”. (Postman). I believe that this is true, and I think that the lesser the interaction between us and the media the better character we will develop. As most people point out, it’s the lack of the things we rely on that builds character.
Works Cited
Postman, Neil. The Humanism of Media Ecology. Media Ecology Association, 2000. Web. 22 November 2009.
A touch of wit, and some good photograph manipulation software is all you need.
Culture jamming is described as a picture that is produced from a company used to sell their product. Even if the person who created the picture didn’t mean to make it comical they have participated in culture jamming, which is an act ““usually implies an interruption, a sabotage, hoax, prank, banditry, or blockage of what are seen as the monolithic power structures governing cultural life.” (Harold, 192). One of the most well known of the culture jamming is Adbusters.
Adbusters is a collective of creative culture jammers working in together to change the way that the public views corporations and the information they spoon feed us. Culture jammers like Adbusters feed from the weaknesses of the advertisement, producing funny replicas of the original ads. This collective has targeted many of the major brands like Absolut Vodka, Nike, Calvin Klein, etc...
Two of the spoofs that I found the most entertaining and well put together were the parody of the Absolut vodka and that of Nike. Adbusters put together an add called Absolut Impotence featuring a bottle of the product somewhat withered...The point of this add was to show people the effect of over consuming a product that is over glamorized by the media. Adbusters uses the knowledge of what alcohol can do to the body and presents it in the same way as the original ad, giving us the opposite effect of that the Absolut company wanted.
The second of parodies was the impersonation of the Nike advertisement. Instead of having a good looking sports star with the traditional “Just do it” logo underneath, there is an image of a normal looking guy decked all out in Nike with the logo “Just douche it”. This is meant to embody that “Nike” personality that is portrayed in almost all of their ads.
Whether or not you think these are funny or have any kind of merit, culture jamming is an effective way to prove a point. If you have the resources and the wit it’s a good way to make a stand against the corporations and their power over the public
Works Cited
Harold, Christine. ‘Pranking rhetoric: “culture jamming” as media activism’. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 21: 3, 182-211. Web. 22 November 2009.
Access? That went out with free internet.
I am embarrassed to say that when I first heard the term “net neutrality” I honestly thought it meant that people just had to start getting along on the web. Now of course my opinion has vastly changed on this, and I find myself wondering why I wasn’t aware of it in the first place, or why many people aren’t to this day.
Net-neutrality is a debate that is slowly gaining more and more light in the public and possibly showing the beginnings of massive change for the internet and our technological engineering. For those of you who are still in the dark about net-neutrality, in a nutshell it is corporations stepping in to monitor and charge for use of the internet. Neutrality isn’t really the issue right now; the issue is trying to keep it neutral.
How many times do you use the internet in a day? Whether it’s to check up on Facebook or Twitter, check your email, look at a school site, research an essay, download music. We literally cannot count how many web-pages we use in a day. Now imagine if you were charged every time you needed to look something up. As if school doesn’t cost enough as it is, these corporations are going to ask to pay them to visit sites for school. On top of that, what would happen if a corporation controlled what you were allowed to view in a day, month or year? Now I’m not talking about them pulling videos off of Youtube, I’m talking about limiting your bandwidth (your ability to load, upload, and pretty much do everything). What if a company could tell you that you were listening to too much Billy Talent, and they cut you off? That is the issue that is net-neutrality.
I believe that the heart of the outrage lies in the fact that corporations think they have some errant claim over the internet, when in fact they had nothing in the least to do with its invention. Bell and Rogers did not create the internet, but they are sure going to attempt to turn a profit by bleeding everyone dry for it.
Works Cited
“FAQ: Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management.” CBC News. Oct. 19, 2009. Web. Nov. 20, 2009.
Net-neutrality is a debate that is slowly gaining more and more light in the public and possibly showing the beginnings of massive change for the internet and our technological engineering. For those of you who are still in the dark about net-neutrality, in a nutshell it is corporations stepping in to monitor and charge for use of the internet. Neutrality isn’t really the issue right now; the issue is trying to keep it neutral.
How many times do you use the internet in a day? Whether it’s to check up on Facebook or Twitter, check your email, look at a school site, research an essay, download music. We literally cannot count how many web-pages we use in a day. Now imagine if you were charged every time you needed to look something up. As if school doesn’t cost enough as it is, these corporations are going to ask to pay them to visit sites for school. On top of that, what would happen if a corporation controlled what you were allowed to view in a day, month or year? Now I’m not talking about them pulling videos off of Youtube, I’m talking about limiting your bandwidth (your ability to load, upload, and pretty much do everything). What if a company could tell you that you were listening to too much Billy Talent, and they cut you off? That is the issue that is net-neutrality.
I believe that the heart of the outrage lies in the fact that corporations think they have some errant claim over the internet, when in fact they had nothing in the least to do with its invention. Bell and Rogers did not create the internet, but they are sure going to attempt to turn a profit by bleeding everyone dry for it.
Works Cited
“FAQ: Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management.” CBC News. Oct. 19, 2009. Web. Nov. 20, 2009.
On second hand, I'll skip the morning latte.
I am not going to lie, on November 25th, 2009 I am going to cheat; cheat on Buy Nothing Day. I mean, when I first saw this post I was confused because I had never actually heard of Buy-Nothing Day. I’m not sure if this ignorance stems from my origins in a smaller city where I didn’t actually have to buy anything everyday or from my inattention to its existence.
I buy things just like everyone else does, although I do believe that I am not at a point where I need (or can afford) to buy something for myself every day. I seem to also suffer from an infliction that runs in my family: frivolousness. I hate spending money. Even though it really doesn’t affect me the way it may affect others, I can still commemorate the message that is being passed through this day. In the last chapter of his work, the author John Berger explains the need for the awareness this day will bring. ““The purpose of publicity is to make [people] marginally dissatisfied with [their] present way of life. Not with the way of life of society, but with [their] own within it. It suggests that if [they] buy what it is offering, [their lives] will become better. It offers [them] an improved alternative to what [they] are” (Berger, 142).
Sims is a perfect way to describe this day as these pixel people seem to thrive on just having things bought. A Buy Nothing Day within Simville would probably shake the very fabric of the game to shreds. We are just like these Sims; how many times a day do you spend money? Whether it’s filling up your car, paying bills, having a coffee. I for one know that I will spend money when I go to buy breakfast, and the coffee I will need to actually get some work done that day. Chuck Klosterman says it best: if you consider life as a game then; “To succeed at this game, I am forced to consume like a mofo.” (Klosterman, 20).
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corp. 1972.
Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs. New York, 2003
*NOTE- Upon further researching there are many dates ranging from November 25-28 for Buy Nothing Day. Kept the date that was written in the syllabus description.
I buy things just like everyone else does, although I do believe that I am not at a point where I need (or can afford) to buy something for myself every day. I seem to also suffer from an infliction that runs in my family: frivolousness. I hate spending money. Even though it really doesn’t affect me the way it may affect others, I can still commemorate the message that is being passed through this day. In the last chapter of his work, the author John Berger explains the need for the awareness this day will bring. ““The purpose of publicity is to make [people] marginally dissatisfied with [their] present way of life. Not with the way of life of society, but with [their] own within it. It suggests that if [they] buy what it is offering, [their lives] will become better. It offers [them] an improved alternative to what [they] are” (Berger, 142).
Sims is a perfect way to describe this day as these pixel people seem to thrive on just having things bought. A Buy Nothing Day within Simville would probably shake the very fabric of the game to shreds. We are just like these Sims; how many times a day do you spend money? Whether it’s filling up your car, paying bills, having a coffee. I for one know that I will spend money when I go to buy breakfast, and the coffee I will need to actually get some work done that day. Chuck Klosterman says it best: if you consider life as a game then; “To succeed at this game, I am forced to consume like a mofo.” (Klosterman, 20).
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corp. 1972.
Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs. New York, 2003
*NOTE- Upon further researching there are many dates ranging from November 25-28 for Buy Nothing Day. Kept the date that was written in the syllabus description.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
We own that...and that...and that...oh and that too
Time Warner is one of the World’s leading media outlets, extending its ever present reaches over the vast majority of media platforms. From news publications, cable television, and film Time Warner has been responsible for a plethora of initiatives that encompass entertainment (Warner Bros., etc.) , press (Time Inc., etc) , as well as many personal services for their customers.
In its truest form, cross media ownership is defined as a larger parent company owning many smaller companies beneath it; Time Warner exemplifies this. The issue that arises with this massive cross media ownership is the large bias that it puts on the outlets that are meant to reach out to the public. Every small company has a responsibility to be in agreement with its parent company, which means that anything that comes out of these outlets is biased towards the views of that parent company. What is the most major flaw in this system? Who actually bothers to look up who owns the outlet they are looking at? It’s such a misconception that when a company is a company they only use their name, or have their name stated someway in that denomination of that company.
Robert W. McChesney states that, “Consumerism, class inequality and individualism tend to be taken as natural and benevolent, whereas political activity, civic values and anti-market activities are marginalized.” (McChesney, 3). I agree with this. Companies like Time Warner start targeting the most impressionable of viewers at a young age, and because they own so many sub-companies it’s impossible to escape their grasp. The little autonomy that the public had from the media is being removed as this happens.
I ran across another quote that I felt solidified these points. Time Warner states that its intiatives “maintain unrivaled reputations for creativity and excellence as they keep people informed, entertained, and connected” (“Our Company”, p.2). Of course it’s unrivaled; it’s hard to be rivaled when you own almost every single company that would rival against you. People are losing that ability to choose which company they prefer, because they are all being headed by the same one company from the start.
Works Cited
“Our Company.” Time Warner. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
McChesney, Robert W. “The New Global Media: It’s a Small World of Big Conglomerates.” 11 Nov. 1999. The Nation. 20 Nov. 2009..
*Note- This is blog #7 Media Hegemonies
In its truest form, cross media ownership is defined as a larger parent company owning many smaller companies beneath it; Time Warner exemplifies this. The issue that arises with this massive cross media ownership is the large bias that it puts on the outlets that are meant to reach out to the public. Every small company has a responsibility to be in agreement with its parent company, which means that anything that comes out of these outlets is biased towards the views of that parent company. What is the most major flaw in this system? Who actually bothers to look up who owns the outlet they are looking at? It’s such a misconception that when a company is a company they only use their name, or have their name stated someway in that denomination of that company.
Robert W. McChesney states that, “Consumerism, class inequality and individualism tend to be taken as natural and benevolent, whereas political activity, civic values and anti-market activities are marginalized.” (McChesney, 3). I agree with this. Companies like Time Warner start targeting the most impressionable of viewers at a young age, and because they own so many sub-companies it’s impossible to escape their grasp. The little autonomy that the public had from the media is being removed as this happens.
I ran across another quote that I felt solidified these points. Time Warner states that its intiatives “maintain unrivaled reputations for creativity and excellence as they keep people informed, entertained, and connected” (“Our Company”, p.2). Of course it’s unrivaled; it’s hard to be rivaled when you own almost every single company that would rival against you. People are losing that ability to choose which company they prefer, because they are all being headed by the same one company from the start.
Works Cited
“Our Company.” Time Warner. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
McChesney, Robert W. “The New Global Media: It’s a Small World of Big Conglomerates.” 11 Nov. 1999. The Nation. 20 Nov. 2009.
*Note- This is blog #7 Media Hegemonies
Monday, October 12, 2009
Peeling back the layers of parody in news
Why is satirical, fake news more entertaining then regular old everyday news? Simple; because it’s humorous and appeals to a larger audience, myself included.
I will admit I am one of those parody news addicts; it is my secret guilty pleasure, something that I really don’t tell people in regular everyday conversation. Of course parodies are more fun to watch then the news! They make the things that are “supposed” to be true but convey it in a way that either makes a lot of people laugh, or a lot of people mad.
Most of the shows that you see on the television are parodies of something that was once “real hard hitting news,” and they are usually the ones with a bigger audience. I believe, out of everything that I have read in my Mass Communications class, author Chuck Klosterman says it best: “People get nervous when they read stories in newspapers, because they always think they are being lied to or manipulated…they always think they are not getting the whole story.” (Klosterman, pg 207) With satirical, fake news there is none of that nervousness, because you know for a fact that you are not getting the full story, just the part that has been twisted to get the most laughs.
I am not saying that this should be considered a right and true form of media, but as a consumer I really enjoy it. I don’t personally see the harm in producing some forms of this kind of “propaganda” or so it has been labeled. I mean, there are times where something is completely out of line and inappropriate, but for the most part it is really harmless fun that everyone can take part in. I have included a few favorites of mine by the hit online site: The Onion, courtesy of YouTube.
Works Cited
Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto. New York: Scribner, 2004.
I am media literate, are you?
It is extremely important to be media literate as a society; as our own individual person we need to have, at the very least, a brief understanding of media literacy, the impact that it has on us, and techniques and mediums that it uses.
I like to think that I am a more media literate since choosing to work in the media field. That being said, in many ways my whole life was consumed by the media, which I gladly followed without questioning. I wanted what everyone had on the television because that’s what you were supposed to want; I thought that the people that you saw in magazines and movies were “normal.” I never bothered really to give thought to the fact that there would be anything deeper going on than what was on the page. I let what the media portrayed was right and good for me dictate what was right and good for me. It’s so easy to just get sucked into that rut where you just accept that this is the way that things are, with no semblance of deeper thought to anything.
Marshall McLuhan, a veritable expert on media and its implications stated that: “all media, from the phonetic alphabet to the computer, are extensions of man that cause deep and lasting changes in him and transform his environment.” From this we can draw the necessity to be media literate. Every and any form of media is all an extension of ourselves and as such will leave a lasting change within us. We need to be aware of these changes and be able to question media, find out who it’s targeting, and see what it really is doing to us.
I believe that when we can step back and view media objectively, and control the amount of an impact that it has on us we can change the way that media is portrayed. Instead of being this harbinger of bad morals, sex, and eating disorders we can start to see it for what it was really designed for, a way to communicate with the masses.
I am Kaileigh Russell and I am media literate, are you?
Works Cited
“The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1960. Web. 2 Oct. 2009..
I like to think that I am a more media literate since choosing to work in the media field. That being said, in many ways my whole life was consumed by the media, which I gladly followed without questioning. I wanted what everyone had on the television because that’s what you were supposed to want; I thought that the people that you saw in magazines and movies were “normal.” I never bothered really to give thought to the fact that there would be anything deeper going on than what was on the page. I let what the media portrayed was right and good for me dictate what was right and good for me. It’s so easy to just get sucked into that rut where you just accept that this is the way that things are, with no semblance of deeper thought to anything.
Marshall McLuhan, a veritable expert on media and its implications stated that: “all media, from the phonetic alphabet to the computer, are extensions of man that cause deep and lasting changes in him and transform his environment.” From this we can draw the necessity to be media literate. Every and any form of media is all an extension of ourselves and as such will leave a lasting change within us. We need to be aware of these changes and be able to question media, find out who it’s targeting, and see what it really is doing to us.
I believe that when we can step back and view media objectively, and control the amount of an impact that it has on us we can change the way that media is portrayed. Instead of being this harbinger of bad morals, sex, and eating disorders we can start to see it for what it was really designed for, a way to communicate with the masses.
I am Kaileigh Russell and I am media literate, are you?
Works Cited
“The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1960. Web. 2 Oct. 2009.
Crouching lady hidden chauvinism
After reading what I had to do, it was beyond easy to find a plethora of ads that pertained to this topic. However, ignoring my usual tendency to just continue looking at something else, I stopped and looked at it. At first glance there is nothing really abnormal about it; it’s the exact thing that you see in every month of Cosmo, or any other magazine out there. Without taking it like any other ad, I looked at it from a completely different point of view. This ad was a perfect of example of John Berger’s look on art that has been repeated continuously for hundreds of years.
This ad is for “Escape for men”, by Calvin Klein, with a simple black and white close up photo of presumably a topless woman and man. If I would have been just looking at this photo under any other circumstances, I would not have picked up anything different about it. However, stopping to analyze this photo allowed me to pick out the following things that Berger described to a tee.
If you just look at the position of the man compared to the woman you can start to see the things wrong with this ad. The man is standing above the woman in a dominating position that clearly exemplifies that the woman is inferior to the man. When you look at the ad, your eye immediately goes to the man’s face, and the woman is lost in the picture; her status as a human is lost and she becomes an object for the man within the ad. "A man's presence suggests what he is capable of doing to you or for you." (Berger, 45) It is easy to see what the man in this picture can “do” to and for you, which is why it makes it so appealing to men and women. Men who see this ad think that if they wear this they will be that powerful and appealing and women will just bend to their will, and women who see this ad are attracted to the men in it, because it shows how powerful and dominating they are. "[A] woman's presence expresses her own attitude to herself, and defines what can and cannot be done to her." (Berger, 46) It’s simple to see in this ad that a woman in her position would bend to the every will of a man in that dominant position, because he is a “real man”.
Those two descriptions seem to fit this ad exactly, and of course many other ads that are out there today, but in fact that was Berger’s description of art in 1972, and how it has been for hundreds of years. Then, whereas the art may not be the same, the roles of men and women within it are.
Reading this, and many of the other blogs might cause a lot more feminist propaganda, but it really has merit. Look at some of the ads that are out there that you would normally glance through. Instead of thumbing past them actually break it down, you will find that what you “see” and what is actually being conveyed are morally quite different.
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin, 1990. Print.
Richardson, Tim. “Kewl Commercials/ Weird Ads.” Witiger. 27 March 2009. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Mass Media Stuck in a Box
“Mass media” refers to all communications that are provided for a large mass of people by any medium, mostly television, radio, internet, and newspapers. Media can be projected through words, pictures, sounds and just about any other way that is deemed communicative.
This is only as effective as the population that it’s reaching. There is this exchange, almost like a media economy, that goes hand in hand with the supply and demand portion of mass media. More and more people are relying on digital mediums, therefore digital media is booming. People know that sex sells, therefore scandalous stories that may not be that hard-hitting are always being reported.
Media can almost be described as a box with two slots. One slot is where the demanded material goes in, the other where the wanted material comes out. The majority of this “mass” doesn’t know where it came from, or how it got there, or even why it’s there in the first place, they only know that they asked for it and they got it.
Supply and demand has always changed the way that we look at media, for as long as people have produced anything that the masses have access to. Quoting John Berger: “The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object-and most particularly an object of vision: a sight” (Berger 41). Mass media shapes the way we view reality, like a a pair of hypothetical rose coloured glasses. We look at women in modern advertising as an object, a beautiful porcelain object which damages the way that we look at reality on a whole. We are given pictures of unattainable beauty that we can't meet that's pushed to be the norm, and we just look, agree and move on. Mass media is influencing the way that we see what goes on around us, and the stigma of this being reality has earned it the scorn that it has gotten amongst the public.
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin, 1990. Print.
This is only as effective as the population that it’s reaching. There is this exchange, almost like a media economy, that goes hand in hand with the supply and demand portion of mass media. More and more people are relying on digital mediums, therefore digital media is booming. People know that sex sells, therefore scandalous stories that may not be that hard-hitting are always being reported.
Media can almost be described as a box with two slots. One slot is where the demanded material goes in, the other where the wanted material comes out. The majority of this “mass” doesn’t know where it came from, or how it got there, or even why it’s there in the first place, they only know that they asked for it and they got it.
Supply and demand has always changed the way that we look at media, for as long as people have produced anything that the masses have access to. Quoting John Berger: “The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object-and most particularly an object of vision: a sight” (Berger 41). Mass media shapes the way we view reality, like a a pair of hypothetical rose coloured glasses. We look at women in modern advertising as an object, a beautiful porcelain object which damages the way that we look at reality on a whole. We are given pictures of unattainable beauty that we can't meet that's pushed to be the norm, and we just look, agree and move on. Mass media is influencing the way that we see what goes on around us, and the stigma of this being reality has earned it the scorn that it has gotten amongst the public.
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin, 1990. Print.
The Ecology of Crackberries
Ecology is a pretty wide based term meaning the study of interaction between people in different environments. In my opinion, the largest instigator of social interaction in a number of different ways is one little miracle machine: the Blackberry.
The impact of Blackberries has been astronomical for the general public. After first being marketed out for businessmen, the focus has shifted onto a younger generation of people. With the introduction of student Blackberry plans offering all of the social perks of the internet, it’s become rare to see a student walking around without one of these phones as an extension of his/her hand. Their primary function was to provide businessmen with the means to keep in contact with their work while away from the office; their basic function now is as a networking tool for the younger generation. People don’t even have to carry around a laptop for “mobile” internet anymore - with a few clicks of the small buttons, people anywhere are able to access the internet from wherever they can get service.
It’s important to discuss Neil Postman with regards to the growing popularity of Blackberries and their functional capacity. In an address called “The Humanism of Media Ecology,” Postman writes, “A medium is a technology within which a culture grows; that is to say, it gives form to a culture’s politics, social organization, and habitual ways of thinking.” What we can take away from Postman’s ideas is the idea that the Blackberry Corporation has really appealed and grown with the publics demand for new mobile technology that never has to be held in anything bigger than your pocket. The ways of thinking have changed dramatically since these became available and affordable to the general public - people have simply stopped. You don’t need to think, really; there’s a little machine in your pocket that can do all of your thinking for you. Blackberries are a medium, containing the internet and an infinite amount of other applications that you can use to access information and news.
Why is it that people can’t really seem to put these things down? What is so mesmerizing about colored plastic coated wires with a little screen that it has made people coin the term “crackberries”? Are we so dependant on technology that we are obligated to invest in something that can keep us “plugged in” constantly, even when we’re out and about?
Works Cited
Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” Media Ecology Association. 17 June 2000. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
The impact of Blackberries has been astronomical for the general public. After first being marketed out for businessmen, the focus has shifted onto a younger generation of people. With the introduction of student Blackberry plans offering all of the social perks of the internet, it’s become rare to see a student walking around without one of these phones as an extension of his/her hand. Their primary function was to provide businessmen with the means to keep in contact with their work while away from the office; their basic function now is as a networking tool for the younger generation. People don’t even have to carry around a laptop for “mobile” internet anymore - with a few clicks of the small buttons, people anywhere are able to access the internet from wherever they can get service.
It’s important to discuss Neil Postman with regards to the growing popularity of Blackberries and their functional capacity. In an address called “The Humanism of Media Ecology,” Postman writes, “A medium is a technology within which a culture grows; that is to say, it gives form to a culture’s politics, social organization, and habitual ways of thinking.” What we can take away from Postman’s ideas is the idea that the Blackberry Corporation has really appealed and grown with the publics demand for new mobile technology that never has to be held in anything bigger than your pocket. The ways of thinking have changed dramatically since these became available and affordable to the general public - people have simply stopped. You don’t need to think, really; there’s a little machine in your pocket that can do all of your thinking for you. Blackberries are a medium, containing the internet and an infinite amount of other applications that you can use to access information and news.
Why is it that people can’t really seem to put these things down? What is so mesmerizing about colored plastic coated wires with a little screen that it has made people coin the term “crackberries”? Are we so dependant on technology that we are obligated to invest in something that can keep us “plugged in” constantly, even when we’re out and about?
Works Cited
Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” Media Ecology Association. 17 June 2000. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Academic Blogging- The beginning.
So after much procrastination I, Kaileigh Russell, have finally began my contribution to the big, bad world of blogging. I will not lie to you, at first I was terrified of doing this, which may play a part in me taking so long to actually starting one of these. It’s horribly humbling knowing that so many people in so many places will have access to my words, thoughts, feelings, and ideas. So let me give you a glimpse as to what this is all shaping up to be for me.
At first I was terrified about just how much this is actually worth. How can what I think be worth half of my overall mark! So I sat down, forgot to breathe for a little while, let the butterflies do their thing, and finally got over my initial panic attack. Looking at it now, I’m excited for this. It’s exhilarating, it’s so many different feelings at the same time knowing that what I think will be able to be seen the way that I want it to. I’ve secretly always wanted to start a blog, but was never really given a good opportunity to start one, until now. My role in the public has gone from consumer, to producer in a matter of quick minutes. I may not produce material for a large amount of people, but I will produce it nonetheless.
Starting my blog was a lot easier then I originally thought. I am beyond technologically challenged, and was expecting to have to wrestle with many sites, and information forms. I found a blog that attaches to my G-mail, which is a bonus, as it is one less sticky note of users and passwords that I have to keep track of. Within minutes, I picked my rocking background, a cool name, and voila! Blogger.
I can’t promise you that you will always agree with me, or even think remotely the way I do, but I will try to remain as open to any ideas, questions and points you have, and try to be as entertaining and creative with my own ideas.
At first I was terrified about just how much this is actually worth. How can what I think be worth half of my overall mark! So I sat down, forgot to breathe for a little while, let the butterflies do their thing, and finally got over my initial panic attack. Looking at it now, I’m excited for this. It’s exhilarating, it’s so many different feelings at the same time knowing that what I think will be able to be seen the way that I want it to. I’ve secretly always wanted to start a blog, but was never really given a good opportunity to start one, until now. My role in the public has gone from consumer, to producer in a matter of quick minutes. I may not produce material for a large amount of people, but I will produce it nonetheless.
Starting my blog was a lot easier then I originally thought. I am beyond technologically challenged, and was expecting to have to wrestle with many sites, and information forms. I found a blog that attaches to my G-mail, which is a bonus, as it is one less sticky note of users and passwords that I have to keep track of. Within minutes, I picked my rocking background, a cool name, and voila! Blogger.
I can’t promise you that you will always agree with me, or even think remotely the way I do, but I will try to remain as open to any ideas, questions and points you have, and try to be as entertaining and creative with my own ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
