Final Extended Blog

Social networking sites will not lead to the death of physical interaction; however it will drastically alter it. While they have enhanced the community or at least convinced it’s participants they are actually apart of one, I would say it still managed to diminish the non-online community. Sometimes people spend so much time online they totally abandon their physical community. The internet has created a more open society by invading privacy. However, this privacy is voluntarily given up, no one is forced to make Facebook or Twitter accounts. People sign up for these free services voluntarily. The internet is the new “Television”; meaning the impact that the television had on the word is comparable to the impact the internet will have.

In Henry Jenkins essay, “TV in the Net-age”, Jenkins split viewers up into three groups, “Zappers”, “Casuals” and “Loyals”.


Zappers-
In the world of television, Zappers are constantly flipping from one channel to the next, looking to be entertained. The second it gets boring they change the channel. These people could be compared to avid Twitter users. Twitter users are a prime example of humanity at it worse. Twitter is about constantly updating your status talking about something or sometimes to yourself. Each tweet is a channel, if you chose to follow that person its like deciding to watch the movie about that person’s life. Also like channel surfing, sometimes you come in on weird parts of the movie and only know parts of the story. Twitter is like the closed caption version of that.


Casuals-
Casuals in the world of television are well…casual. They might watch a certain show when they’re bored, or if there’s nothing else to do. They may watch a show from beginning to end but are more likely to conduct a conversation or not pay that much attention. I would compare these people to the Myspace, Tumblr, etc, users of the world. These people are usually on social networking sites just to keep up. There may be no real dedication to a site, and once the popularity of a site fades so will the casual user.


Loyals-
Loyals in the world of television are more likely to buy merchandise from a series, join fan sites and tape episodes. Loyals are dedicated to their shows; they watch them weekly and buy the DVDs. These users are comparable to Facebook users. Facebook users, devote a lot of time to Facebook, most people check it every day, and use it as a networking tool for business. Facebook is also used to reconnect with family and friends. Because of its popularity, most people are more likely to keep their Facebook accounts after their initial obsession and infatuation with the site fades a little.


Being that Facebook is the most popular social networking site in the world, it is essentially the mold in which all other social networking site will try to follow.
The world has yet to see the major effects of social networking sites. But one major negative effect that we are already seeing is the lack of forgiveness society holds for mistakes. In the New York Times article Jeffery Rosen talks about the impending effects of living in a society where every mistake is recorded and what that means to our society; “Seventy percent of U.S. recruiters report that they have rejected candidates because of information found online, like photos and discussion-board conversations and membership in controversial groups.”

If we thought the job market was competitive before…we haven’t seen anything yet. “Having fun” or doing something “risqué”, being seen at the wrong place or time, has made everyone celebrities and everyone paparazzi. Before social networking sites, celebrities were the only people in the world who had to constantly watch their behavior and fear that their mistakes were being recorded. And while they still are, now average people have to deal with these same fears. The only difference is, we put ourselves in these situations. Celebrities don’t want to be constantly photographed and talked about, but apparently, the average American does. Every day we take pictures of ourselves and post them online. Or post statuses about our lives that let people into our lives who otherwise wouldn’t even know we were alive. This is like a self inflicted pain. But we continue to do it because we have yet to see the major impact on our lives. Similar to the way cigarettes enjoyed years of popularity and success before the effect were discovered and publicized, social networking sites will eventually become regulated.


“Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.” Nicholas Carr for “The Atlantic”

The modern internet is a relatively new entity and the extreme changes that we’ve seen in the last five years of this decade is turning it into a whole other beast. My generation is the first generation to be raised with the computer in our homes and schools, so the effects of the internet on society will be seen in our actions. The rise of social network sites in this decade speaks volumes on our present values as a society. Social networking takes “keeping up with the Jones’” to the next level. While it can be used for good; the black blogging community has done wonders for black women and their self-esteem by teaching them how to take care of their hair in its perm free natural state, and making it a more acceptable and popular trend. It can also be used for bad; online bullying and the rise of general stupidity. But what’s most unique about the social networking sites is that it’s all based in honest. The content on these websites are created by the people, not buy media execs who want to create an image or sell products, but by regular people who want to connect with and be seen by other people.


In essence, the idea behind social networking sites is very wholesome; make friends, start a group, reconnect with family. But like every other form of media technology, it can and will be used for evil. But I suppose this is just the way humans operate. Every form of media technology has its good and bad. The printing press allowed more people power by being able to read for themselves, but it also allowed anyone to print anything, regardless if it was true or not. While people enjoyed watching films and they could be used to spread knowledge, they were also used to spread propaganda. The radio was truly a device that did a lot for the local community but with the rise of other competing technologies it has become another tool for corporations to force products on consumers. The television, while it can bring the family together, also causes laziness, perpetuates stereotypes and subconsciously influences everything we do. The internet’s effects on our socialization has yet to be truly seen but I’m pretty sure, it will be the most dramatic, being that the internet is the most all encompassing media technology yet. It does everything its predecessors do and much more. And the social networking sites has made the internet truly encompassing, the only thing the internet can’t do for you now is feed you. But I’m pretty sure, there making an app for that.


Jenkins, Henry. 2010 “TV in the Net-Age” Communication in History, Sixth Edition. 2010
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google making us Stupid” Retrieved December 12, 2010 (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/)
Rosen, Jeffery. “The Web means the end of forgetting” Retrieved December 12, 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?_r=1)

not multi-tasking is stupid.

I’m attempting to write this blog, as I listen to Chris Brown’s newest mixtape, check Facebook and Twitter, and attempt to read chapters for assigned reading. And I just turned off the TV, it was distracting me. Once, I really start to get into writing this blog, I turn everything off. Because as much as I try, I can’t effectively multi-task when it comes to writing papers, I need complete silence. However, when it comes to eating; I need the hum of the Television.

I started the experiment around 11:00 on black Friday. Since I had no definite plans, or money to go shopping I figured this would be easy. My plan was to watch movies all day. In, retrospect, this was perhaps the stupidest thing I could have done, but I learned the impact TV really has on me.

The First Half
I wake up, my mom has made breakfast. My sister and her are in the living room eating in front of the TV like usual. I eat in the dining room. I have to clear a space on the dining room, because it’s literally a table that holds things. We rarely eat at the table. This is annoying because “Space Jam” has just came on TV and I hadn’t seen that movie in a long time. So I try to wolf down my food so that I won’t miss too much of “Space Jam”. However, my sister Nekia keeps talking to me. I tell her about my project and how I can’t talk and eat at the same time. She narrows her eyes and says, “Imma make you talk.” And proceeds to ask me questions and be annoying. I finish my breakfast and go sit in the Living Room and watch “Space Jam”.
My mother then tries to talk to me, I explain the project to her and she sounds interested, but she continues to talk to me throughout the entire movie. I have to fight the urge to talk to her, because I realize how much bonding time we share, sitting in front of the TV watching movies together and analyzing them. Most of the movies I’ve watched in my life, have been with my mother, she’s always right beside explaining things about the movie, or asking questions. So not being able to communicate during the movie was extremely hard for both of us. Besides, I’m infamous, for talking during movies.
We watch, “Space Jam”, “Legion” and “The Road” back to back. While I usually can sit in front of the TV for about 6 hours straight, I find myself becoming hungry. But because I know I can’t eat and watch TV at the same time, I don’t eat anything. However I do drink water, and I turn my back to the TV to drink water, so I don’t feel like I’m cheating. I talk much more than I should have during those three movies so I would give myself an accuracy rating of 55% for the first half of the day because I honestly tried.

The Car Ride
I decide to go visit my friend Paige around 5:00. So I get in the car and drive to her house without any music. This was actually relaxing, because I get tired of hearing the same songs on the radio every day. While driving, I noticed I do drive a little fast. And I pay very little attention to where I’m actually going, because I usually rely on the GPS or someone else to tell me where I’m going. Once I pull up to her house another friend calls me, and I turn off my car, and sit and talk to her for about 30 minutes. This isn’t unusual though; I usual can’t talk on the phone and do other thing, that’s just rude. I give myself am accuracy rating of 100% for the car ride.

Second Half
The second half, I willingly gave up on, I knew it would be way too much to pull off and I was simply exhausted at trying to uni-task; which seems to be harder than multi-tasking! When I got into Paige’s house we went into the kitchen, she fixed us plates of Thanksgiving leftovers, I talked. I was doing well, but then she said lets, go into the living room to eat. And I knew it wasn’t even worth explaining. Because people love to eat in front of the TV! So yes, I gave up. At exactly, 5:30 I failed my experiment.

Results
Apparently, I have a slight attention disorder. Throughout the experiment, I kept notes of things I noticed about myself and others.

“Kia keeps talking to me”
“In “Space Jam”, there was one line that featured product placement of Hanes, Wheaties, Nike and McDonalds.”
“When I’m in front of the TV, I’m hungry, when I’m not in front of it, I’m not.”
“Legion is a horrible movie, why do the angels speak in Shakespearean language?”
“This is going horribly.”
“I’ve officially failed. Not multi-tasking is stupid.”

“Multitasking makes us feel efficient” according to Jacobs essay, but I realized that, while I don’t multi-task as much as others, for me it’s not a feeling of accomplishment or efficiency. It simple makes the experience better. Had this experiment taken place during a school day, it would have not been as hard. I’m not a good multi-tasker, anyway. I can’t read and listen to music at the same time, nor can I text and drive. But eating, watching TV and talking at the same time are my weakness. It’s what I do best. Watching a movie and talking to other people who are watching it with me, makes what I’m watching seem more like a shared experience. When I watch a movie with my friends and family and we all laugh at a joke, we’ll repeat it, it becomes an inside/running joke that makes us that much closer. I learn about human behaviors through watching a movie and talking about as it happens, I bond with the characters, predict endings and criticize bad ones. Watching a movie in silence is just lonely, and dumb, and not as fun. Lynn Spiegel’s essay, “Making Room for TV”, “Television, it was said, would bring the family ever closer,” and in my opinion it always has.
The eating part I can’t really explain, but I’m just naturally hungrier watching TV, perhaps the millions of fast food commercials. It’s also an absent minded thing, that’s just a hard temptation to fight. Because lounging on the couch and watching TV is complimented by a nice bag of greasy chips. It’s like a mini vacation, where you can just zone out.
However, I was much more focused on what I was doing at the time when I was uni-tasking. But, that did not make the task more fun. My connections to people were stronger, and I realized how much I tune out when I talk to certain people. But I already knew that. And usually if I’m talking to people and start “multi-tasking” it’s on purpose, because they’re boring me.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the experiment was fun. I wish I had more of a plan going into this, though. I underestimated how much I actually multi-task in life. It’s because I do it so often it comes naturally now, so I don’t even know if I’m actually “multi-tasking”. However, I will make more of an effort to eat without watching TV. I’ve realized my addiction to TV is getting slightly out of hand; if I can only eat, when I’m in front of a television. I’m planning on trying this experiment again, perhaps over the Christmas break, and hopefully, I can stick with it.

Speigel, Lynn. 2010. "Making Room for TV". Communication in History.Sixth Edition. 2010
Jacobs, AJ. "How I Stopped the Multitasking Madness" Retrieved November 27 2010. (http://www.realsimple.com/work-life/life-strategies/time-management/stop-the-madness-00000000020965/index.html)

Can Beat Em? Join Em!

According to Henry Jenkins in his essay “TV in the Net-Age” TV watchers are separated into three groups;
“Zappers are people who constantly flit across the dial-watching snippets of shows rather than sitting down for a prolonged engagement. Loyal’s actually watch fewer hours of television each week than the general population…Casuals fall somewhere in between; they watch a particular series when they think of it or have nothing better to do.” (Jenkins).

I am a casual loyalist when it comes to my TV watching pattern. I only seriously watch two shows. I started since the show premiered and always watch it. Those two shows are NBC’s “Community” and HBO’s “TruBlood”. I started watching both with my mother. I would say she watches the most TV out of my household. I really loved those shows since the beginning so I never miss an episode. I try to catch reruns if I do, and watch it online when I can. I’ve even considered getting DVD’s of certain seasons, although I usually only watch an episode once. I love watching “Spongebob”, “Martin” and the “Golden Girls”, but I only watch it when I can, it’s not a priority. I tend to channel surf a lot until I find a movie I haven’t seen before or a show that holds my interest. But I don’t watch as much TV as I used to.


I would say technology has certainly changed the way we watch TV. It competes with the internet for attention, because most of the shows you watch on TV you can find online. However, the television has a few advantages. Most television screens are bigger than computer screens, so watching TV with another person is usually more enjoyable than if you were watching it on a small computer screen with others. Personally, I love to stretch out and watch TV because we have a huge TV. When I stretch out and get comfortable to watch anything on my laptop, it’s usually a bed and it usually results in me falling fast asleep. For me watching television is a much more relaxing activity. On the internet, I have to seek out content whereas the TV delivers it straight to me. It’s much more comfortable that way.


However, the internet does have its advantages. The content is broader than what you’d find on TV. And you have the unique experience of reading and contributing your own feedback. After I watched District Nine online, I had my own thoughts about what I thought the underlying message was, and I wanted to see if others felt the same way. I didn’t have to wait to read the paper the next day, and read a critic’s view. I could read the audience’s view and opinion, like I was in the theater with them.


The meaning and impact of television hasn’t changed…yet. It’s still the center of the physical household. If anything, the computer is trying to become more like the Television. There are hybrids being sold now. It’s basically an enlarged computer screen, or an extremely interactive television. Either way it combined both devices into one. This seems only natural since the computer doesn’t seem able to beat the television, is might as well join it.

Jenkins, Henry. 2010 “TV in the Net-Age” Communication in History, Sixth Edition. 2010

The Extension of Man

The medium is the message means that although an invention was created for a certain purpose its true “message” is the deeper social or culture change it will bring to an unknowing society. “It is not the content or use of the innovation, but the change in inter-personal dynamics that the innovation brings with it”(Federman).
Lets’ use Twitter as an example. Twitter was created by Jack Dorsey in 2008 and in only 2 years acquired more than 175 million users. While its cultural impacts are still being created and it’s “McLuhan Message” has yet to be seen it’s already caused changes in society.


The traditional medium of Twitter, is the internet. And I guess the message behind Twitter is whatever, the user wants it to be. The universal message could be “now you have even more freedom of speech.” However, the “McLuhan medium” of twitter would be the ability it gives human to put their voices and thoughts literally into the floating space that is the internet. When you tweet, no one has to acknowledge it. But you can be sure someone read it. It’s literally like writing in a diary and showing it to the world; whether they give you feedback on what you write is up to them. The “McLuhan message” is the change this new medium can bring.
Other “McLuhan Messages” could possibly be the strange phenomena of people suddenly having nothing to talk about in person, because they already tweeted it and held conversations on the internet. Or perhaps people will lose the ability to filter their selves because of the freedom that twitter gives its users. Or perhaps one day a Trending Topic on Twitter will inspire a turn of events that will change the world. While that has yet to be seen, Federman summed it up best when he said “ a medium - this extension of our body or senses or mind - is anything from which a change emerges.”


When the car was invented it was simply an extension of the human’s legs and it was intended to help us get from one place to another, as well as replace our dependence on horse and buggies. However one unanticipated consequence that came with our dependence on automobiles was the fact that combined with alcohol driving automobiles results in death. Alcohol related deaths are the number cause of death of young Americans. When the car was first invented and popularized the society did not realize that one day in the future, driving could possibly mean the end of your life, even if you haven’t been drinking. In fact, once society did realize this fact it took years for people to stop drunk driving. And to date thousands still die from it.


In relation to radio the “McLuhan Message” is found in the innovative idea of having advertisers pay for radio. In her essay “Early Radio”, Susan Douglas reminds us, “…there was nothing inevitable about the way radio came to be financed and regulated. This was a contested process, with educators and labor organizers, corporate interests, amateur operators, and the government all advancing their very different visions for the future.”In the beginning, the innovators thought their idea would bring about revenue and more opportunities for radio. They did not think about the impending annoyance their audience would face from the constant advertisements. Radio which was possibly one of the last of the personal media devices until the iPod was invented was like a refuge from the world. At the time TV was neglecting a lot of its fans and being that radio was localized one could feel at “home” when listening to it. Decades later, devices such as personal CD players, walkmans, iPods and TiVo would all be invented to stop the uncontrollable influx of advertisements which, at first, seemed like such a good idea.
In conclusion, “McLuhan Messages” are being discovered in our media every day. Because the messages are so un-obvious and occur through changes in society, they take years to notice. But the fact that we can see the change and acknowledge its happenings means that the society is still able to change which is always a good thing.

Douglas, Susan. “Early Radio” Communication in History Sixth Edition 2011
Federman, M. (2004, July 23). What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message? Retrieved from http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm .

"LEVI's" the jean of the Blue Collar Blogger

The ad is a black and white picture of a black male with dreads, and a younger male family member. The grown male is getting dressed for work and the young boy is helping him put on his shirt. The young boy is standing on the bed to help the older male button his shirt, they are in a scarcely furnished bedroom. There are white words written across the picture that says “Everyone’s work is equally important.” The traditional Levi’s tag is under the words “Braddock, PA” in the lower right hand corner.
To thoroughly analyze this ad I will be using the Frith method

Surface Meaning:
A black father and son are up and getting ready for another day of work.

Intended Meaning
Levi’s is for EVERY man; even a black man and his son in Braddock PA. Regardless of your occupation Levi’s jeans are intended for men who work. This ad is selling a lifestyle, or implying that they represent a lifestyle. The lifestyle represented in this ad is one of men who take care of their family and work.

Cultural or Ideological Meaning
First, the fact that Levi’s shows a black man who lives with his son getting up early to go to work breaks two cultural stereotypes immediately. Traditionally, this ad would feature a white man and his son. Second, the son is not helping the father put on a tie, he’s simply putting on a denim shirt over denim jeans to go to work. Where does the father work? Construction worker? Store owner? Drug Dealer? Because the location is written in the bottom right corner and Braddock PA is a small town, destitute old “American” city, it is expected that most of the men who live there work “blue collar” jobs. The ironic part is that Braddock is a town that became destitute after the loss of those “blue collar” jobs, I.E factories, and steel mills. So where is this young father really going off to this early in the morning? That depends on the reader. The Walt Whitman’s quote “Everyone’s work is important” really plays with the reader’s mind. Young black male with no suit or tie going to work, reads as if his “work” is illegal. That plays into the stereotype of black men not having “corporate or desirable” jobs. But at the same time, the use of the Walt Whitman quotes implies that even if your job is “illegal” it’s still important. Also, because this “illegal” job is not blatant, the ad really plays with the readers mind. If you assume he’s going to sell drugs on the corner, what does this say about the reader? If the ad featured a young white, or Asian father would it be assumed that his “work” was to sell drugs?

In the bedroom, there are no pictures on the wall only a lone lamp and a window with the blind pulled down. There is no headboard on the bed either. This bedroom implies that they are a working class family and possibly poor. There are also no women present; this gives the ad a male bonding feeling. The father could quite possibly be a single dad. It also evokes nostalgic images being that the picture is in black and white and the father is up early going to work. This ad stands out and grabs the reader attention subtly because it plays on the assumption that the average reader subscribes to stereotypes. One being that black men aren’t in their children’s life, and that they don’t work. Both stereotypes are challenged in this ad. I think it would be less surprising if it were a black women getting up early and her child helping her put on her clothes. The fact that the company behind the ad is Levi’s also speaks volumes about what direction they are trying to go with this campaign. The complete underlying message would be something like “although you are a young single poor black father living in destitute Braddock PA, you should still buy Levi’s.”
Levi’s would like for the reader to think that the most important part of this ad is the connection between the father and son; i.e. raising a child, parenthood. The connection between father and son stands out the most in the picture; the jeans are actually cut off in the ad. However, everything about the ad evokes seriousness and almost sadness; neither men are smiling, they look almost tired. As if they both know they have a long hard day ahead of them. While these are parts of parenthood, it makes me wonder if the focus of the ad was really about “parenthood” if so, why don’t they look happier? Anyway, the ad effectively touches the reader while coming across as a social statement rather than an advertisement. And I actually like it.

“Go Forth?”
While this is a very nice ad, it’s the ONLY print ad that solely features a black father and son. And the ad was featured on a billboard in Oakland. Targeting much "Levi's"?
Apparently there is a quite a buzz about Levi’s new go forth campaign. When the campaign was first launched by Wieden+Kennedy for Levi’s it featuring young white skinny hipsters running through traditionally “American” green pastures and fields with inspirational quotes scribbled across the ads like “All I Need is all I Got” and “This country was not built by men in suits”. While the intentions seemed nice, the problem was the lack of ethnicities featured in the campaign. And of the minorities represented, they felt specifically placed, the campaign in general felt very contrived. Also, in most of the advertisements, the words were about “working” but the people in the ad were playing and running. The campaign had all the right images to effectively get a point across but they did a horrible job at portraying sincerity.

Take II

With the revitalization of the campaign “Levi’s” has made Braddock , PA the setting for all of its advertisements. This city is going through its own revitalization; it’s lost 90% of its populations since it closed most of its factories in the 70’s and the 80’s. Most of the new Levi ads feature the landscape of Braddock and some citizens. However, the campaign has led a few to believe there is an actual Levi’s factory in Braddock, which is completely untrue. But the company had vowed to donate 2 million to the city over two years. It also sponsors an hour long show that will be played on IFC and the Sundance Channel which highlights the city’s revitalization efforts. So, kudos to you, “Levi’s”.
However, everyone knows no good deed goes unpunished. The cynical American public seems to distrust this sudden interest in a small town. Apparently, it’s believed that “Levi’s” is exploiting the poverty Braddock PA to come across as a socially conscious big corporation (as if that’s possible). Some believe that if “Levi’s” really wants to help Braddock they should open an actual factory there; since “Levi’s” claims there jeans are made in America (they’re actually made in Mexico). The biggest concern from the public is the transparency in the campaign. “Levi’s” is trying to come across as a sincere company that cares and in turn is coming across as the opposite. At least to people who only see the ads. The ad I described before is powered by shock value, “Levi’s” is playing on the concept that no one would expect an ad featuring a black father and son from an historically “white” brand. The ad campaign is so spectacular that the print ads look like “hipster” postcards. But, is that really a bad thing? “Levi’s” is obviously targeting the young college age “individual” who believes they can change their world from their Mac-book. The only problem is that the “blue collar work ethic” "Levi's" is promoting in their ads is something their target audience knows nothing about.

Frith, Katherine. Undressing the Ad: Reading Culture in Advertising Retrived November 3, 2010. (http://blackboard.umbc.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/MCS222_4106_FA2010/Frith1.pdf)

Scary Movies are Based in Truth

“Halloween”, “Friday the 13th”, “Nightmare on Elms St.”, “Scream”, and “I Know What You Did Last Summer” are just some of the classic movies in the horror film genre. Sometimes known as “Slasher” films, these modern horror movies usually have the same structure.

Structure
The young female lead is stalked by deranged male killer. The male killer usually has a reason for wanting to kill her and the other victims; the audience is able to sympathize with him. The main victim is usually taunted and always alone during the terror; this causes a fear and paranoia that isolates her. While everyone else calls her “paranoid” it’s this paranoia that keeps her alive. Her friends and family are killed off, isolating her even more. The killing of the victims is highlighted as every victim is usually killed in accordance to where they stand in order of importance in society. “Sluts” die brutally, mean characters such as “Jocks” or “bullies” die fairly soon, black men and women die first. And the showdown results in her killing her attacker or surviving to the sequel.

The “Slasher” film is obviously aimed towards teenagers and young adults. This group of people became important to the media and to the economy in the 1980’s when America realizes the spending power they have. Most “Slasher” films star extremely popular young movie stars who are usually already starring in hit TV shows. The soundtracks to the movies usually include the latest popular music and if the structure is followed correctly, millions of teenagers will go to the theaters and indulge in the bloody violence.
This structure says a lot about the modern culture of American youth. First, the fact that the lead is female says we are still very much a patriarchal society. If the lead in a horror movie is male it’s usually not a horror movie. It’s basically turned into a good vs. evil showdown unless the villain is an alien. (Because for some reason a real man would never be afraid of another man, but it’s okay for men to be terribly afraid of Aliens) The lead must be female because the audience wouldn’t know how to react to a male running and screaming in terror. To be the lead in a role where you must scream and run is tradition in horror movies. And to do so comes off as feminine. Also the male role is usually expected to the hero. Since the beginning of time men were thought to be the ones who had to save women, i.e. fairy-tales.
The fact that girls get to “survive” in these “Slasher” film also could be linked to patriarchy. Most of the females that survive are “good girls”. They don’t engage in sex or drugs and are smart, pretty and pure. In fact, the girls who do have sex are usually killed the most brutally. This conveys blatant misogyny because it’s basically saying “girls who have sex = bad = should be killed”.
Another important piece in the structure of the “Slasher” film is the audience’s ability to sympathize with the killer. I find this to be unique. The fact that “Slasher” films make it a point to have killers that make audience’s tilt their head, squint their eyes and say “hmm...I see why he went crazy and killed everyone”, is brilliant. Since the 1960’s when the American public as a whole became more cynical of its “reality” it’s been a little more accepting of “Villains”. Humans find their selves at odds with doing the right and wrong thing every day, and I’m sure more people have actually considered killing another person but wouldn’t admit it.. So to see it justified and acted out on screen almost makes it a pleasant, therapeutic experience. However, the killer is almost always “crazy” so that separates the viewer from fully sympathizing and blatantly rooting for the killer. However, this has become more culturally accepted.
The real star of these “Slasher” films seems to be the killer. They survive every movie and are sometimes the only recognizable character in the franchise. In fact, aside from having a female lead and suspense filled scenes, having a popular villain is a strong part of the “Slasher” film structure. In the killer, we find all the problems with society’s youth. So he now represents the evil in the world, while the virginal female lead represents the good.

“Similarly, when an image of a thing becomes a symbol, we know more about what it does mean if know exactly what it does not mean.” (Wright)

So, if Jason is symbolic for childhood trauma, Freddy represents child molestation, and Michael Meyers represents child murderers, the good virginal female lead must represent everything that is not related to negativity in childhood. Most of the females are pretty, smart, popular, well adjusted teenagers. So when movies portray the epic battle between well adjusted youth and the less fortunate ones, what are they really trying to say? In all of the movies the good girl always seems to win, but they always suffer extreme mental illness or seem to be broken emotionally afterward. And the villain always manages to come back for the sequel.
This is symbolic for society’s constant struggle to raise healthy well adjusted sane children, but somehow we keep ending up with “Jason’s”; broken individuals who are misunderstood and turned into monsters. They are either naturally born “evil” or indirectly created “Evil”. For example, Jason Vor Hees, of “Friday the 13th” fame became a killer to avenge his mother’s death, whereas, Michael Meyers from “Halloween” was simply born that way. And in “Scream” Billy killed because he was emotionally distraught over his parent’s divorce. Whichever way it happens, the killers become evil it all starts in their youth. These monsters now become warnings to society of what could happen to children who are traumatized. Just like these killers have become the modern day “boogeyman” to promiscuous teenagers. While “Slasher” films appear to be just about youth, sex, blood and violence, they seem to be sublimely conveying serious social issues that Americans need to address, such as the psychological health of our youth. But can American look past all the gore and entertainment to see what’s really being talked about in these films?


Wright, Will. 2010 “The Structure of Myth” Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader Second Edition. Retrieved October 31, 2010 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LZ7mHdAVajYC&lpg=PA119&ots=ei4bHonFYR&dq=the%20structure%20of%20myth%20the%20structure%20of%20the%20western%20film%20will%20wright&pg=PA119#v=onepage&q&f=false)

"Syph Happens" Jon Stewart vs. Everybody Else

Jon Stewart's coverage of the recent news of America's intentional infection of syphilis on Guatemalan prostitutes, prisoners and mental patients, was sadly hilarious. In the beginning of the show he goes through his usual news blurbs, spending a few minutes on a variety of news topics and making jokes. The picture for the Guatemalan scandal was a sign that read in green letters with a creepy font, “Spyh Happens”. Stewart goes on to make jokes about America using hallmark cards to apologize for intentionally infecting Guatemalans pulling out cards that say, “Sorry” on the front cover and “We secretly infected you with syphilis” on the inside. The joke is not so much about the hallmark cards, it’s more about the lack of sincerity America has when it comes to apologizing for past transgressions.

The first joke Stewart makes about the Guatemalan scandal, starts with pondering on what America could have possibly done to another country in the 1940’s. When he’s learns it was intentionally infect syphilis, he gives a sarcastic sigh of relief and says, “I thought it was that whole atomic bomb thing.” And immediately the crowd erupts in laughter. Jon Stewart opens his shows with a joke on our country’s horrific past and somehow makes America not only laugh but informed.

CNN.com had a viral piece about the scandal as well as a written article. Elizabeth Cohen, the senior medical correspondent stood in front of the camera and gave the gory details about America’s secret medical experiment in Guatemala. She had a look of obvious disgust for the situation and even got choked up when she talked about it. The camera panned to another anchor and they seemed to have what was supposed to seem like an off the cuff discussion on their disgust to the situation. While I don’t question the sincerity of their emotions I do question the reason why CNN decided to let Cohen casually talk to the anchor while they were still on screen. I think CNN wanted to make the viewer feel like the anchors (and consequently CNN) genuinely cared about what happened 40 years ago. Personally I felt slightly suspicious and uncomfortable. Not only at their show of emotions but at the way the camera panned toward the other anchor before Cohen walked toward him, making her actions seem pre-mediated and planned. Their banter which was “spontaneous” was very awkward and they even spoke over one another. Basically, it felt forced.

“While Jon Stewart is a guy in a suit pretending to be a newscaster, and he acts like a guy in a suit pretending to be a newscaster, there's a certain formality and rigidity we've come to expect from our news, so much so that when Katie Couric opens the news with 'Hi,' or now I think it's 'Hello,' this is thought of as some kind of breakdown in the proper etiquette of newscasting," says the Chicago Tribune's Rosenthal.”(Smoklin)

Comparing Stewart’s reaction and coverage of the news to Cohen’s is like comparing apples and oranges. They are two completely different people in two completely different positions. Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” is not supposed to be the same as the “real” news shows. And we trust his opinion and value it more because his viewers know and understand this. Jon Stewart has no other motive besides making us laugh when he gives us the news. The “real” news is heavily censored because it’s made possible by the government and the corporations, the very same entities that need to be monitored and reported about.

I always envisioned the media as a battered wife that has to lie to its family and friends about its deranged and abusive husband. The battered wife is the news company and anchors. The husband is the corporations that fund the news company. Coincidentally, husband has a best friend who is a police officer. The police officer would be the government. While the police officer is possibly the only person who could stop the husband, he doesn’t, because they are friends. And the family and friends are the average American audience who believes the wife’s story. We might think something doesn’t add up in the story, but what can we do about it?

Enter Jon Stewart; a member of the family who tries to get the other family members to see just how wrong and contrived the dysfunctional relationship between the media, the big corporations and the government is. Personally, I think he’s succeeding. More and more news channels are trying to be more personable, and trying to make jokes. The only problem is, they are omitting the hard truth that Jon Stewart is able to bring to his show. Why? Because the news will be beat by the corporations. When Morely Safer famously portrayed the American troops “search and destroy” mission Vietnam in a truthfully horrific light the president of CBS received a call from the president of the United States that same night. And strangely, the news has since then never showcased horrific acts done by the American government. Even the Guatemalan scandal received very little notice. 500 words stories that you have to search to find.

The news does not have an allegiance to the people; it can’t afford to have one.

“Our impatience with television’s view of politics represents, in part, a longing for an era when the news regularly achieved the depth, impartiality and civic lesson- an era that never was.”(Stephens)

Somehow people fell for the friendly faces on the TV and believed they actually had the best interests of the people in mind. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do believe the news was intended to inform the people, and still has those same good intentions. But I do believe the road to hell is paved with good intentions and CBS Camel Caravan ads.

Basically, you can’t trust the news to give you raw facts about the government or big corporations because the government wields the power of access to political affairs over the stations heads, and the corporations cuts the checks. If you want news that has no other ulterior motive other than to make you laugh, then you should be watching the “Daily Show with Jon Stewart”.

Stephens, Mitchell. “Television Transform the News” Communication in History Sixth Edition 2011
Smoklin, Rachel. 2010 “What America can learn from Jon Stewart” American Journalism Review.com Retrieved October 20, 2010. (http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4329)

iPad>The Printing Press?

The printing press is important for the fact that it created mobility for the written word. Sure papyrus paper made writing easier and even a little more mobile than before. But the printing pres made it possible to produce an endless amount of written text a t a time.

Before the printing press, when text was written that was the sole piece of evidence. A scribe only had that one piece of text, and if he wanted to make more copies he had to hand write them out. This process would take a ridiculously long time and if someone even attempted to do such a tedious and strenuous job they were limited in the amount of text they’d be able to produce. Once the printing press arrived not only was it smart but it became popular fast.

“Perfection was achieved “by the book.” Laws were compiled into official tomes, contracts were written down and nothing was valid unless put into words. Painting, music, architecture, dance were all important, but the heartbeat of Western culture was the turning pages of a book. By 1910 three-quarters of the towns in America with more than 2,500 residents had a public library. We became a people of the book.”(Kelly)

Because the book was a tangible object that people had to physically hold, it became a literal symbol of intelligence. If someone had an extensive book collection it made them look not only wise and worldly, it also meant they had a certain amount of money. Once the printing press became standard, the act of writing was no longer only for the royal or extremely rich. Regular people, those who didn’t have “status” were able to write about their lives. The sharing of life stories became easier. Once people were able to read and write and reproduce their stories easily, average people started re-writing history.

Enter the iPad. Although the computer and the internet made it even easier to share stories and reproduce writing, the iPad is creating an even bigger wave. Not only does it look extremely futuristic, but it brings together all media and almost all of the human senses to create a truly unique multimedia experience. Where the computer started a revolution in how humans relate to media the iPad is taking it to the next level. The iPad allows us to see, hear, and touch. (I’m sure they are in the works of incorporating smell and taste in to the experience) Where the computer put up a third wall of simply observing the iPad breaks it down with allowing our fingertips to touch the sacred screen and create, or destroy something we are watching.

“We live on screens of all sizes—from the IMAX to the iPhone. In the near future we will never be far from one. Screens will be the first place we’ll look for answers, for friends, for news, for meaning, for our sense of who we are and who we can be.”(Kelly)

The emergence of the iPad, brings the humans experience with communication and the ways we express ourselves full circle. We started out with tablets. They were made of stone or clay, but they where tablets none the less. Now we find ourselves right back at square one with the iPad tablet, although it’s made of much more sophisticated materials. It’s still a tablet which is much more easier to hold than a book. I see the book eventually become outdated, like VHS tapes and vinyl records. However, I think it will be a long time before that happens. The book still makes money, the creators and producers of e-books haven’t quite figured out how exactly to make money off these products. Because the internet is so open and access is so easy, they will be a few constraints placed on e-books, and it won’t be a central figure in society like the book is. But the e-book is a new invention and as much as I hate to say it is much more efficient than a book.

But, that does not mean they are better. The book has a classiness and aesthetic that the iPad or kindle will never be able to recreate. And the book as well as the printing press will go down in history as one of the most important inventions in the world.

Kelly, Kevin. 2010. “Reading in a Whole New Way” The Smithsonian.com Retrieved October 7, 2010. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialsections/40th-anniversary/Reading-in-a-Whole-New-Way.html)

Free Your Mind and The Rest Will Follow

“Literacy -- or an ensemble of literacies -- will continue to thrive, but in forms and formats we can't yet envision.” (Howard Gardener)

I believe we are shifting from a print based society to a hybrid of print oral and visual culture. With the technology we have today we can effectively do all three and we can usually do it through the same medium. The importance of writing and reading has not been over emphasized; we are still reading and write just in a different form. It’s just that speaking is much more natural than writing. I think the oral culture was always just as strong as the written; it’s just that the written word is a little more respected because learning to read was so hard for so long.. Now that we have learned how to read and write and mastered it we move on to create another medium of expression and communication. It’s the natural progression of human life.

For example, when the Greeks introduced the alphabet around 700 B.C, they opened the flood gates of progression. By creating an alphabet of letters that were similar to the sounds humans created naturally they made the learning of language a little more efficient. “

The Greek system by its superior analysis of sound placed the skill of reading theoretically within the reach of children at the stage where they are still learning the sounds of their oral vocabulary. If acquired in childhood, the skill was convertible into an automatic reflex and thus distributable over a majority of a given population provided it was applied to the spoken vernacular.” (Havelock 38)

Teach people how to read and write while they are still learning how to talk and it becomes second nature.

“The acoustic efficiency of the script had a result which was psychological: once it was learned you did not have to think about it.” (Havelock 39)

Once you don’t have to think about something, you free space in your mind to remember something else or to create something else.

This “freeing of the mind” gives way to innovation, which then leads to progression. Progression isn’t necessarily always a positive thing but it’s something that always moves forward. Once an idea is sparked, spoken and recorded; once it reaches the intended audience there is no going back. To think that this generation will become stupider by the innovation of the internet explosion is to have very little faith in the human spirit.

When the introduction of the written language occurred, it was thought that society was going to lose a lot of its oral culture. This wasn’t necessarily true. In oral culture, the story came from the man, lived in the man, told to the people, died in the man; or was passed on to another man, who more than likely altered the story. Facts and details in oral culture were shaky at best. So in a way the story was bound to change or die eventually. But when written language was introduced humans we were able to record the story will more accuracy. This shift allowed the oral culture to be preserved. Once the culture’s main beliefs, laws and rules were recorded it made life a little less harsh and more civilized. Once the mind isn’t burdened with survival or remembering everything it is free to learn and or create other things.

Now we find ourselves almost coming full circle. In this culture of blogging, and web pages, a human can go to a blog, read the post, hear music or an audio taping or simply watch a video. Three different forms of expression, one medium; the internet. Similar to the first oral culture, the ability to see and hear the storyteller adds a level of community that wasn’t as prevalent in the days before the telephone, radio, TV and internet.

“Like primary orality, secondary orality has generated a strong group sense for listening to spoken words form hearers into a group, a true audience, just as reading written or printed texts turns individuals on themselves.”(Ong 54)

With video websites like YouTube we now are able to hear and see our storytellers as well as share our experiences and thoughts about the story with people around the world instantaneously through the comment button. This new and unique experience is the shifting of a literate cultural to an oral, visual and literate culture.

And this is why I agree with Gardener, we cannot fight progress, all we can do is try to control it or adapt to it. Most of the time we end up adapting and we usually adapt because it’s easier. It’s in our nature to want to be efficient in what we do. Why should we pull out a five pound encyclopedia and search for 15 minutes when we could search Google.com and find the answer in less than three minutes. It just makes sense. Of course when we gain efficiency we lose something. We lose the unnecessary aspect that was making our task harder. The advancements in medicine, science and technology that will come out of our hybrid culture will ultimately outweigh the negativity that comes with any new innovation.

That’s why I get upset when people only see the negative in “video culture”. How can video culture be forced into the narrow box labeled stupidity as if there aren’t any digital media that enrich the mind or influences the soul. As if when the printing press was invented every article and book written was a masterpiece.

“Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.”(Jacoby)

Where do these facts come from? How are they to even be believed? Group studies are largely inaccurate for the simple fact that there is no way to know what “everyone” knows. Ironically, the same mediums that are being blamed for the rise of anti-intellectualism in our culture could possibly be the new way to conduct accurate group studies i.e twitter, facebook, YouTube. Obviously, I am a supporter of video culture, or what I believe to be a hybrid or oral, visual and literate culture. And while there are negative aspects of the video culture that shows America’s unhealthy obsession with celebrities and entertainment, there are also wonderful things being made readily available now thanks to the video culture.

I would even go so far as to say that video culture removes the elitist status of expression over the internet. Before YouTube became popular and the bandwidth of the internet grew, the internet was a place for people who knew how to express themselves through writing and music. Those who could not express themselves through those ways were left in the cold. Those who could only learn something by seeing it also found themselves on the outside looking in. But with the explosion of the video culture we know find ourselves in a day and age where knowledge has become accessible and comprehensible by all.

Havelock, Eric "The Greek Legacy", Communication in History Sixth Edition 2011

Ong,Walter "Orality, Literacy and Modern Media", Communication in History Sixth Edition 2011

Gardener, Howard. 2008. "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading." The Washington Post.com Retrieved October 3, 2010. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html)

Jacoby,Susan. 2008. "The Dumbing of America" The Washington Post.com Retrieved October 3, 2010. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html)