I had a blog before, but it was like a diary and I would write an entry every half year or so, just to express my feelings to myself. I wouldn’t even leave the entry to be exposed, I would always make the post into an exclusive one, one that only I could see. So this is the first time I’ve ever had a blog that other people could read, even though it may have been a few. And the blog posts were about my thoughts, but they were more than a diary.
It was hard to write under a consideration of an audience, and the possibility of being exposed to an enormous number of anonymous people. I think to have a blog that has an opinion would require a willfulness to expose oneself to the mass audience, and be able to embrace the various reactions (by their comments).
Before this blog I had a hard time understanding the nature of blog posting. I always wondered why people make blogs and write posts, when there is no direct profit from that action. Some posts are about political issues, and the analysis is very intense and evident that the person had put very much effort to it. Other posts are critiques about films and music, and they are also intense and full with effort, and sometimes even better than critiques on mainstream newspapers or magazines. Why do bloggers put so much effort? And it was hard to explain that it’s just because that that is their field of interest. I have a field of interest, but I do not do intense blog postings. After posting on the blog, I did feel a sense why people have blogs. People have blogs because they are willing to share their interest to the world, and because they are fascinated by the interconnection with the world through the internet, and the possibility of communicating with various people through the internet. I could say that these people have a more positive point of view of the internet than I do.
I realized that one thing that has made me a non-blogger is because I am not that much interested in other people’s point of view, of what others think of my opinion. Also I am not quite openminded to the internet itself, and I have to admit I am skeptical about the democracy the internet could bring.
However, I do think it is time to change my perspective. Sure, the internet would have problems, but still it is no doubt a useful tool to communicate with other people and get what I think out there, no matter how trivial it may seem. I think the blogging experience has given me more confidence about what I could contribute to the internet community.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
My thoughts about the Media System
I think with the internet the media system has changed very much, and the blog postings of various people and the videos and music people post online have changed the production and consumption of the media. I am able to read various opinions about issues without the need of meeting people in person, and able to listen to music that is very good that I would not have known otherwise because it is not mainstream. However, as I have pointed out in some previous blog posts, the internet system is becoming more and more under the capitalistic system and under consumerism. Some blog postings are no longer candid, and are written on the behalf of products of certain corporations. But the biggest problem would be that we are not using the internet to its full possibility.
Even though there are independent news sources, they are not well known. People that have interest in independent news sources would find these sites and read them. However, people who do not have an initial interest in such sources may not find those sites. And these sites do not have the capital to make themselves more exposed to the public. The importance of net neutrality would come here, and people should be aware of telecom companies that are trying to make only the sites that pay them more accessible.
In addition, the internet has opened a place where anyone could post their comments and their opinions, but there are people who do not do that. Some people may just be interested on the headlines on portal sites, on games, or on only a few specific things. Some studies say that blogs could be used to gather people into a certain issue, but many blogs are just like diaries and do not have this kind of ideal function. People should be more acknowledged about what they could do on the internet, and various sites by non-profit organizations should have more exposure.
Even though there are independent news sources, they are not well known. People that have interest in independent news sources would find these sites and read them. However, people who do not have an initial interest in such sources may not find those sites. And these sites do not have the capital to make themselves more exposed to the public. The importance of net neutrality would come here, and people should be aware of telecom companies that are trying to make only the sites that pay them more accessible.
In addition, the internet has opened a place where anyone could post their comments and their opinions, but there are people who do not do that. Some people may just be interested on the headlines on portal sites, on games, or on only a few specific things. Some studies say that blogs could be used to gather people into a certain issue, but many blogs are just like diaries and do not have this kind of ideal function. People should be more acknowledged about what they could do on the internet, and various sites by non-profit organizations should have more exposure.
Giving Ideas or Solace?
Class Dismissed : How TV frames the Working Class talked about the television series Roseanne as a rare television series that has more real life depictions of the working class women than other television dramas. Also the scene that showed Roseanne’s confrontation with her boss as a rare event on television, and that it was disapproved because it could give people ‘ideas’. Class Dismissed must have had in mind that seeing such images about a working class woman fighting back for her rights to her superior would give women in an awakening about their own rights. However, I see this as too much of an optimistic point of view, because I think people find ‘solace’ rather than ‘ideas (or awareness)’ from television dramas.
That is, working class women in real life would not be able to confront their boss one handedly just as Roseanne does. They would wish to, and they are already aware of such injustice and unfairness of women in the working place. However, they cannot. And scenes such as the ones in Roseanne act as a solace for them, and a satisfaction they cannot have in real life but can feel through the television images.(Futhermore, do these images give solace, and block people from contesting the authority?)
Also nowadays there are television images about old, single women who enjoy dates with young men. Does this actually give ideas to the women, and liberate them from the society in which 'being young' is so idealized? I think it wouldn't be as easy as some television dramas depict it. In real life, relationships with old women and young men are hard to be attain, moreover be maitained. I think this is also an example where television imagaes work as a solace. Television images can give ideas, but it is hard for those ideas to become real life changes.
That is, working class women in real life would not be able to confront their boss one handedly just as Roseanne does. They would wish to, and they are already aware of such injustice and unfairness of women in the working place. However, they cannot. And scenes such as the ones in Roseanne act as a solace for them, and a satisfaction they cannot have in real life but can feel through the television images.(Futhermore, do these images give solace, and block people from contesting the authority?)
Also nowadays there are television images about old, single women who enjoy dates with young men. Does this actually give ideas to the women, and liberate them from the society in which 'being young' is so idealized? I think it wouldn't be as easy as some television dramas depict it. In real life, relationships with old women and young men are hard to be attain, moreover be maitained. I think this is also an example where television imagaes work as a solace. Television images can give ideas, but it is hard for those ideas to become real life changes.
The Audience and Media Representations-a Stake to Take?
There was an article from The New York Times magazine which I needed to read for a class about women in need of help and how people could help them, and there were some interesting discussions about the representations of women inside the article. The article was about the poverty and exploitation of women in countries such as India, Afghanistan, and countries in the African continent.
The article was about how women in such countries were threatened with sex trafficking, acid attacks, and bride burnings and mass rape. The article was trying to explain these situations, and also explain how organizations are now interested in funding women, for they are the key in solving world poverty and terrorism.
Interestingly there were students who had families in India and Afghanistan, and they pointed out the representations of the state of women inside the article were not fair. The women in their families were treated without discrimination and had an education.
Also the reason the article gave for concentration on funding women was because women would use money for the home and children, while the women would use the money for alcohol and other ‘personal’ use. Another reason was that if women in extremist societies were educated, such societies would not have an extremist ideology which leads to terrorism.
Representations of women in foreign counties in this article, and many others could be ‘over-generalized’, and the presumption that women are caring, responsible for their children, and are somehow naturally peaceful does have problems. However, the article aims to show that there are women desperate in need, and is aimed to an audience who perhaps does not know much about the women in those societies. To give out a message, and to show that there is, whether it is a just a part of a society or not, women who are in need of help, some generalization is inevitable.
http://www.charityhelp.org/press/the-new-york-times-magazine-the-womens-crusade.htmlThis is a link where a pdf file of the article is.
The article was about how women in such countries were threatened with sex trafficking, acid attacks, and bride burnings and mass rape. The article was trying to explain these situations, and also explain how organizations are now interested in funding women, for they are the key in solving world poverty and terrorism.
Interestingly there were students who had families in India and Afghanistan, and they pointed out the representations of the state of women inside the article were not fair. The women in their families were treated without discrimination and had an education.
Also the reason the article gave for concentration on funding women was because women would use money for the home and children, while the women would use the money for alcohol and other ‘personal’ use. Another reason was that if women in extremist societies were educated, such societies would not have an extremist ideology which leads to terrorism.
Representations of women in foreign counties in this article, and many others could be ‘over-generalized’, and the presumption that women are caring, responsible for their children, and are somehow naturally peaceful does have problems. However, the article aims to show that there are women desperate in need, and is aimed to an audience who perhaps does not know much about the women in those societies. To give out a message, and to show that there is, whether it is a just a part of a society or not, women who are in need of help, some generalization is inevitable.
http://www.charityhelp.org/press/the-new-york-times-magazine-the-womens-crusade.htmlThis is a link where a pdf file of the article is.
Tiger Woods and the Media-The creation and the dismatlement of sports stars
I do not exactly know how important or influential a figure Tiger Woods is in the American society, but I did grasp how much people thought of him as a star through the media coverage about his recent ‘scandal’. Tiger Woods is indeed a world famous sports star, however is it just me who thinks that the media is excessively interested in this scandal? True, Tiger Woods acknowledged that he has done some wrong, but that is his own personal life, and has actually nothing to do with his ability to play golf well.
Thinking about this, I realized how sports stars revered as a role model, and is demanded to be a person not only good in his area of sport, but also a person who is both a good family person with moral. This would definitely connect to the endorsements of sports stars. And the media plays a big role in forming a ‘sports star’, but also has the role of tearing down the star. People might have a sports star they are interested in and become to see as a role model, but it is definitely the media that forms a kind of myth around a sports star. They write sometimes in a dramatic style about the life, the hardships, and the miraculous accomplishments they have made. Perhaps this is because the media needs someone to on the place of the hero, to feed the public on. I once read an interesting blog entry about Michael Jordan. In that blogger’s opinion, Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player in history. After his retirement, no basketball player was able to revive his legend, thus leaving the media deprived of a hero figure they could use to feed on the interest of the public. And that is why the media kept on making issues about Jordan’s comeback, even when Jordan’s comeback did not bring the results everybody hoped for.
Then again, the media has a big role in dismantlement of the sports stars, just as in the case of Tiger Woods. The excessive coverage(at least in my point of view) about Tiger Woods adultery, his fight with his wife, and his decision to quit golf, and many other speculations are all part of tearing down a star, just for the same reason the media has established one. The media is manipulating and feeding on the ‘disappointment’ of the public. And in the course, some news sources are not separating fact from rumors. An article in The Washington Post(‘In the Media Frenzy, the Tiger Steak is Served Rare’(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121004315_2.html) says that the mis-reports about Wood’s scandal are due to the fact that journalists are no longer keeping their roles as ‘gatekeepers’. The excessive interest about the star has led to false reports. Is what we see in sports stars, whether good or bad, what the media sees in them?
Thinking about this, I realized how sports stars revered as a role model, and is demanded to be a person not only good in his area of sport, but also a person who is both a good family person with moral. This would definitely connect to the endorsements of sports stars. And the media plays a big role in forming a ‘sports star’, but also has the role of tearing down the star. People might have a sports star they are interested in and become to see as a role model, but it is definitely the media that forms a kind of myth around a sports star. They write sometimes in a dramatic style about the life, the hardships, and the miraculous accomplishments they have made. Perhaps this is because the media needs someone to on the place of the hero, to feed the public on. I once read an interesting blog entry about Michael Jordan. In that blogger’s opinion, Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player in history. After his retirement, no basketball player was able to revive his legend, thus leaving the media deprived of a hero figure they could use to feed on the interest of the public. And that is why the media kept on making issues about Jordan’s comeback, even when Jordan’s comeback did not bring the results everybody hoped for.
Then again, the media has a big role in dismantlement of the sports stars, just as in the case of Tiger Woods. The excessive coverage(at least in my point of view) about Tiger Woods adultery, his fight with his wife, and his decision to quit golf, and many other speculations are all part of tearing down a star, just for the same reason the media has established one. The media is manipulating and feeding on the ‘disappointment’ of the public. And in the course, some news sources are not separating fact from rumors. An article in The Washington Post(‘In the Media Frenzy, the Tiger Steak is Served Rare’(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121004315_2.html) says that the mis-reports about Wood’s scandal are due to the fact that journalists are no longer keeping their roles as ‘gatekeepers’. The excessive interest about the star has led to false reports. Is what we see in sports stars, whether good or bad, what the media sees in them?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
What Kind of Media Consumer am I? Between feeling left out and feeling overwhelmed
I go on the internet daily, listen to music everyday, and watch television from time to time. I could spend hours on the internet with always finding something to do, even though if that 'something to do' is just clicking on anything and going back and forth to various sites. However I wouldn't feel devastated becaused I missed a show or couldn't use the internet for a few days. I even feel that I should put my eyes and ears to rest from all the information I need to process(I'm just a consumer and don't make any contents except for a few blog entries, so the relationship between the media and me would rather be one way). But even so I would feel left out if there is somekind of new information, such as news, a new drama series, or a new on line site. That is, I have a hard time 'ignoring' information-even though it would not effect my life in any way whether I know it or not.
I felt this strongly when I saw the 'Blue Man Group' show. In the middle of the show the three Blue Men each held a set of pannels that had something written on it. The first pannel read that we could choose only one pannel to read, and we would not be able to read all three because of the limit of time. And then, every 7 or so seconds, the Blue men turned each pannel they had. And I couldn't help myself from trying to read all three pannels even though I knew I wouldn't be able to 'process' it all. And it wasn't just me, since everyone laughed at a funny joke written on one pannel. The Blue Man Group even pointed this out, as one of the pannels read that people have an anxiety to consume all the information around them, even over the limit of conception.
Was it because I was just curious what was written on other pannels? Or was it because it was just 'there'?
The Blue Men only had three pannels, but in real life, there are millions of pannels of info. Do I choose from the flood of information, or do I try to get all the information out there, or, am I half forced to see information(with ads popping out of everywhere, ads everywhere outside, television dramas on the internet and portal sites having info about everything crammed into one page)?
I feel that with the overflow of information, the ability to find out what you need efficiently without the pain of seeing other information is truly a great one. Otherwise we would be overwhelmed by the superabundance of information, and become passive receivers or just come to totally ignore it. But ignoring the information we get through the media, though it may bring the peace of mind, is not quite pratical. Using the information can be helpful whether it's the info on the internet and ads, or the entertainment we get from television.
I felt this strongly when I saw the 'Blue Man Group' show. In the middle of the show the three Blue Men each held a set of pannels that had something written on it. The first pannel read that we could choose only one pannel to read, and we would not be able to read all three because of the limit of time. And then, every 7 or so seconds, the Blue men turned each pannel they had. And I couldn't help myself from trying to read all three pannels even though I knew I wouldn't be able to 'process' it all. And it wasn't just me, since everyone laughed at a funny joke written on one pannel. The Blue Man Group even pointed this out, as one of the pannels read that people have an anxiety to consume all the information around them, even over the limit of conception.
Was it because I was just curious what was written on other pannels? Or was it because it was just 'there'?
The Blue Men only had three pannels, but in real life, there are millions of pannels of info. Do I choose from the flood of information, or do I try to get all the information out there, or, am I half forced to see information(with ads popping out of everywhere, ads everywhere outside, television dramas on the internet and portal sites having info about everything crammed into one page)?
I feel that with the overflow of information, the ability to find out what you need efficiently without the pain of seeing other information is truly a great one. Otherwise we would be overwhelmed by the superabundance of information, and become passive receivers or just come to totally ignore it. But ignoring the information we get through the media, though it may bring the peace of mind, is not quite pratical. Using the information can be helpful whether it's the info on the internet and ads, or the entertainment we get from television.
Capitalism and Consumerism-An inextricable relationship
To keep the economy growing, people must keep on consuming. Advertisements and other media show products that would make people 'unhappy' unless they have them. So we are living in a society of consumerism. We are buying more than we need, and we are never satisfied with what we have. We would be more happy and less broke if we 'break out' of consumerism and the standards the media has set.
But is it that simple?
Is sustaining consumerism for the growth of the economy? I would rather put it that it's to keep the economy from collapsing. The development of technology has brought an abundance of products, and the products need to be sold, in order to earn the profit a company needs to pay off the expense. If people start consuming less, sales will go down, companies would lay employees off, the layed off employees would not the money to buy products, and the situation will get worse. This is what caused the Great Depression of the 1920s.
The desire to buy, or the superabundance of products-which comes first is hard to know. However I think that the scale of the economy now relies on excessive consuming and the endless desire to have more and have better. This is where the millions of ads and media exposure comes in. Each ad may just be promoting their product, and dramas(such as Sex and the City)and reality shows(such as ProjectRunway and America's Next Top Model) may just be trying to please sponsers. But on the whole, it works as an effort to not stop the cycle of consuming and producing. Or otherwise, the whole system may crash down.
Of course I am not saying that consumerism is 'inevitable' and we should just live with it. I myself try not to buy things I really do not need. I am exposed to ads, dramas, and other media, and I have my own list of what I would like to have-but I try to think more before I consume. However, I just wanted to point out that by just changing how people consume will not solve consumerism-the structure of the economy itself may crash down even before consumerism does. Little changes made can be effective on a long run, but I think the 'producing' part may have to change. Small stores spreaded out rather than big retail stores, independent producing and catering rather than one large source of products may be an alternative.
But is it that simple?
Is sustaining consumerism for the growth of the economy? I would rather put it that it's to keep the economy from collapsing. The development of technology has brought an abundance of products, and the products need to be sold, in order to earn the profit a company needs to pay off the expense. If people start consuming less, sales will go down, companies would lay employees off, the layed off employees would not the money to buy products, and the situation will get worse. This is what caused the Great Depression of the 1920s.
The desire to buy, or the superabundance of products-which comes first is hard to know. However I think that the scale of the economy now relies on excessive consuming and the endless desire to have more and have better. This is where the millions of ads and media exposure comes in. Each ad may just be promoting their product, and dramas(such as Sex and the City)and reality shows(such as ProjectRunway and America's Next Top Model) may just be trying to please sponsers. But on the whole, it works as an effort to not stop the cycle of consuming and producing. Or otherwise, the whole system may crash down.
Of course I am not saying that consumerism is 'inevitable' and we should just live with it. I myself try not to buy things I really do not need. I am exposed to ads, dramas, and other media, and I have my own list of what I would like to have-but I try to think more before I consume. However, I just wanted to point out that by just changing how people consume will not solve consumerism-the structure of the economy itself may crash down even before consumerism does. Little changes made can be effective on a long run, but I think the 'producing' part may have to change. Small stores spreaded out rather than big retail stores, independent producing and catering rather than one large source of products may be an alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)