What we see on the news today can be easily questioned. Not necessarily for its lack of accuracy but more so for its amount of opinion and bias that goes into each story. Today that can be seen as the case for almost every single news outlet available in mass media, including television. News stations are owned by many of the same people and therefore what is said and what is left out is mediated by a small group that controls the stations. Their opinions become what is heard on the news and as a result become accepted truths.
Often what happens is that these “truths” are then taken as a joke, or in the Daily Show’s case, a means to an end. They take whatever happens in the news and use it in turn to make people laugh. Words are not twisted and stories are not told from a different angle, but rather the stories are re-read with an emphasis on the ridiculousness of the news to make people laugh.
A great example of this would be on the world’s most recent and newest outbreak, The Swine Flu. In an article in the USA Today, Obama announces that the swine flu is being renamed the H1N1 flu because the pork industry does not want to their sales to decrease. Also discussed in this article is the fact that Israel is calling the disease the Mexican Flu because pork is not kosher. In this article, many credible people are quoted and cited, yet The Daily Show does not fail to poke fun at the outlandish ways of the news. Jon Stewart simply re-reads this information and adds blips that make the whole situation seem mundane and ridiculous. The question must then be asked: How important is this information to begin with? Do people take these “epidemics” too far ad over react?
In Rachel Smolkin’s article in the American Journalism Review, “What The Mainstream Media Can Learn From Jon Stewart,” she reveals why The Daily Show can be seen as being more credible even though they claim no credibility. The Daily Show has much more leeway than that of any other news show because it is seen as strictly comedy so they are at a liberty to say the truth or read the news with less bias because they can always fall back on the comedy excuse should people be upset by what is being reported. This can be used to the shows advantage by not only reporting the news from a minimally biased standard, but it also gives the show the liberty to poke fun at the other news outlets for their outlandish ways of trying to please the higher corporations.
Another person who realizes that all news can become garbled is Gene Weingarten from the Washington Post. In his article, Cruel and Usual Punishment, he discusses information overload and how that information is presented on television. How each station he viewed told a the same story from different perspectives. Really it was whoever was in control of the station told the news from their biased opinion. Gene Weingarten describes the mesh of information as, “Overwhelmed with words and imagery, harangued with opinion and beset by twaddle”. To be forced to watch this as credible news every night can be more of a form of torture. And it is for that reason that more and more people find themselves watching The Daily Show for actual news.
Though it is true that The Daily Show is a more unbiased source of news even though it is mainly satire, it is a bit unfair to say that these news anchors are at fault. Many of them would probably prefer to present the news from a different stand point but cannot due to the fact that they have to answer to a man in charge. They must do what the boss says or they find themselves without a job. It is with this that I will end by saying that not only does Jon present the news from a more unbiased angle, but he is given permission to do so with the excuse of comedy.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Media is the Message
“The medium is the message.” Marshall McLuhan declared this as true in his article, “Understanding Radio”. However, what exactly does that mean? How can something that relays messages to others be a message in itself? Not only does McLuhan go on to explain it, but Mark Federman also goes to onto further question what McLuhan means exactly by this phrase.
What I think McLuhan meant by “the medium is the message” is that you can say the same thing on different mediums but depending on what medium is used, the message is conveyed differently. Therefore, the medium actually is the message because what is being said is interpreted depending on the media being used. An example that McLuhan uses in his article is that of the election of John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Originally, while Nixon was heard on the radio his voice gave off an idea of superiority. However, when switching to TV, his public persona changed and he began to give off the image of a ‘phony’, or “something that resonates wrong, that doesn’t ring true.” This example illustrates that the way a person is perceived relies heavily on how that person is portrayed to the public depending on the media used.
Another example of a message changing due to the media in effect is the example of the Orson Well’s experiment with The War of the Worlds. Basically, McLuhan states that the public only believed that this radio announcement as true because it was on the radio. Had this been a television event, then it would not have been as believable because of the images used and the way the information is presented.
Federman thinks that people interpret the fact that the meaning of what is being said does in fact rely on the medium being used but what is important to remember is that the information being presented still matters and should be considered as important. He goes on to say that when a new innovation arrives we are always skeptical about how it will change our lives and it is at that time that we look back and realize what kind of affect the old technology had on society to begin with. He also states that all these new technologies that people find themselves experiencing and learning to incorporate into their everyday lives are slowly influencing and changing the way people live their daily lives as well as influence the way people interact with one another and how society exists amongst itself. Though it is one hundred percent possible to live and function without these inventions of technology being introduced into society, people become dependent on these items and find it almost impossible to cope without them.
Whatever innovations are introduced into society, people tend to make it a part of their everyday lives and need them to function throughout their day. Society becomes needy on these items in order to function throughout their days and communicate with others. People begin to forget how lives were led before these inventions and look back on the past with amazement that people were able to function. It is with this statement the following question demands to be addressed: “Do we determine the uses of technology or does technology determine the patterns and development of our culture and society?” I conclude that we do not determine the uses of technology but rather technology determines us. We are what we own. What people have defines them in their place in society. It is this reason that people purchase extravagant phones with a million functions that no one really needs, just wants. Technology also changes the way people interact with each other. I, personally, do not have texting. Upon discovering this, I find that people generally have two separate reactions. They either exclaim, “How do you live? How do you manage to go through your day without it?!” Or they tell me that I am a lucky person because this means I am not as available 24/7. Though I am not particularly sad that I don’t have texting, I often find myself in a disadvantage when it comes to communication with others. I find that it is generally assumed that everyone has texting and so I am, as a result, sent texts that I, of course, never receive. Many of these texts include important information and because I have not “kept up” with the changing ways of communication in society today, I have found myself at a disadvantage and distant in today’s realm of communication. It’s almost as if you don’t keep up with changing forms of communication, you are left out and people no longer communicate with you.
McLuhan, as well as Federman, felt that the new electronic media is changing the way people think, act, and feel. McLuhan suspected that the current technological environment, when reminisced upon, will be seen as a major turning point in the history of communication. Not only is it astonishing how people came to include these new forms of communicating in their everyday lives, but also how important these new ways of communicating has become. The way people use technology today has become almost like a crutch for many people and the amount is steadily increasing. McLuhan dubs this Technological Determinism and found that the evolution of technology has a direct correlation to the way people communicate in existing societies. McLuhan thought it seemed as if each new form of technology acted almost like an extension of every human being rather than a handy tool. I agree with Marshall McLuhan and think that as long as people desire to find quicker and easier ways to communicate with each other, this phenomenon of technology becoming the crutch of society will continue to remain present as a necessary means of human existence.
Works Cited
Federman, Mark. "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?" UTORweb. 20 Apr. 2009.
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Radio. Communication in History. 5th ed. 234-40.
What I think McLuhan meant by “the medium is the message” is that you can say the same thing on different mediums but depending on what medium is used, the message is conveyed differently. Therefore, the medium actually is the message because what is being said is interpreted depending on the media being used. An example that McLuhan uses in his article is that of the election of John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Originally, while Nixon was heard on the radio his voice gave off an idea of superiority. However, when switching to TV, his public persona changed and he began to give off the image of a ‘phony’, or “something that resonates wrong, that doesn’t ring true.” This example illustrates that the way a person is perceived relies heavily on how that person is portrayed to the public depending on the media used.
Another example of a message changing due to the media in effect is the example of the Orson Well’s experiment with The War of the Worlds. Basically, McLuhan states that the public only believed that this radio announcement as true because it was on the radio. Had this been a television event, then it would not have been as believable because of the images used and the way the information is presented.
Federman thinks that people interpret the fact that the meaning of what is being said does in fact rely on the medium being used but what is important to remember is that the information being presented still matters and should be considered as important. He goes on to say that when a new innovation arrives we are always skeptical about how it will change our lives and it is at that time that we look back and realize what kind of affect the old technology had on society to begin with. He also states that all these new technologies that people find themselves experiencing and learning to incorporate into their everyday lives are slowly influencing and changing the way people live their daily lives as well as influence the way people interact with one another and how society exists amongst itself. Though it is one hundred percent possible to live and function without these inventions of technology being introduced into society, people become dependent on these items and find it almost impossible to cope without them.
Whatever innovations are introduced into society, people tend to make it a part of their everyday lives and need them to function throughout their day. Society becomes needy on these items in order to function throughout their days and communicate with others. People begin to forget how lives were led before these inventions and look back on the past with amazement that people were able to function. It is with this statement the following question demands to be addressed: “Do we determine the uses of technology or does technology determine the patterns and development of our culture and society?” I conclude that we do not determine the uses of technology but rather technology determines us. We are what we own. What people have defines them in their place in society. It is this reason that people purchase extravagant phones with a million functions that no one really needs, just wants. Technology also changes the way people interact with each other. I, personally, do not have texting. Upon discovering this, I find that people generally have two separate reactions. They either exclaim, “How do you live? How do you manage to go through your day without it?!” Or they tell me that I am a lucky person because this means I am not as available 24/7. Though I am not particularly sad that I don’t have texting, I often find myself in a disadvantage when it comes to communication with others. I find that it is generally assumed that everyone has texting and so I am, as a result, sent texts that I, of course, never receive. Many of these texts include important information and because I have not “kept up” with the changing ways of communication in society today, I have found myself at a disadvantage and distant in today’s realm of communication. It’s almost as if you don’t keep up with changing forms of communication, you are left out and people no longer communicate with you.
McLuhan, as well as Federman, felt that the new electronic media is changing the way people think, act, and feel. McLuhan suspected that the current technological environment, when reminisced upon, will be seen as a major turning point in the history of communication. Not only is it astonishing how people came to include these new forms of communicating in their everyday lives, but also how important these new ways of communicating has become. The way people use technology today has become almost like a crutch for many people and the amount is steadily increasing. McLuhan dubs this Technological Determinism and found that the evolution of technology has a direct correlation to the way people communicate in existing societies. McLuhan thought it seemed as if each new form of technology acted almost like an extension of every human being rather than a handy tool. I agree with Marshall McLuhan and think that as long as people desire to find quicker and easier ways to communicate with each other, this phenomenon of technology becoming the crutch of society will continue to remain present as a necessary means of human existence.
Works Cited
Federman, Mark. "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?" UTORweb. 20 Apr. 2009
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Radio. Communication in History. 5th ed. 234-40.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Life Without Music
When we received this assignment, we were told that we were expected to fail. This angered me and I immediately thought that I could easily go an entire day without being exposed to the media. I failed.
Last Friday was the day I decided that I was going to avoid all forms of electronical technologies. I woke up at eight and simply turned off my phone. I was home for spring break and sitting at the kitchen table when my mom laughed at me and said, “This is going to be a looong day for you.” Still, I was determined. I baked a cake from scratch, as well as made icing and I even made brownies complete with cookies inside them. Baking is a hobby. It was only ten in the morning when I finished all that. I read magazines, took a nap, walked the dog and tried to stay busy. The thing I found myself itching for most was music. I realized that my life comes with a soundtrack and I really hate silence. Around four, my mother sent me to the nearest country store to pick up some eggs and milk. Being a small country store, I figured I would be safe. However, this is where my day failed. There was a television playing the news in the store and just like that I failed. It wasn’t that I couldn’t stay away from the media, but more like the media can’t stay away from me. Unless you hole yourself up, you are going to constantly be exposed to the media.
According to Dianna Walker’s Washington Post article, “The Longest Day,” my generation is known as what is called “digital natives, or ‘millennials’.” A millennial is anyone what was born between the year 1980 and 2000. This generation was raised to have electronics be the main focus of their lives. Nothing completes the décor of a bedroom better than a computer or lap top. Not only do I one hundred percent relate to this, I feel as if those born before this time can also agree as an outsider looking in. While working out at my local YMCA the day before this project I was in the locker room talking to an elderly woman when a young girl walked in. She was wearing her iPod and playing it very loud. She came in, used the bathroom, washed her hands and left all with her music playing the entire time. Now I see nothing wrong with this situation, but the woman that I was having a conversation with said, “you kids are always plugged in.” Now, I never really thought about it before, but she was right. Internet on our phones, small music playing devices, all of these inventions allow us to be everywhere at once. Take it away for a mere 24 hours and we all seem to lose a very important piece of ourselves, almost like we lost an arm or an eye.
It’s the way the world has evolved and it will only progress from here. Times change as the years progress and the way people perceive life changes as much as the tides. Howard Gardner addresses this issue in his article, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading,” which was posted in the Washington Post in February of 2008. “Even in the new digital media, it's essential to be able to read and write fluently and, if you want to capture people's attention, to write well. Of course, what it means to "write well" changes: Virginia Woolf didn't write the same way that Jane Austen did, and Arianna Huffington's blog won't be confused with Walter Lippmann's columns. But the imaginative spheres and real-world needs that all those written words address remain.” Just because things become more electronic does not mean that people are becoming dumb. We are not regressing into illiterate fools who depend on our computers to read out loud for us. Rather, we are becoming people who are learning how to simplify and how to become more efficient in today’s demanding lifestyle. I will agree with my aging acquaintance with whom I met randomly in a dingy locker room. I do miss the aesthetics of a good book or newspaper leaving inky black stains on your fingers.
I tried to make it a full 24 hours. I think I can do it without giving into temptation. However, in order for me to successfully give up all forms of electronic media, I need to hole myself up in my house because unfortunately for me the rest of the world cannot manage to give up electronics and therefore it surrounds me wherever I go. It is unavoidable in today’s world.
Last Friday was the day I decided that I was going to avoid all forms of electronical technologies. I woke up at eight and simply turned off my phone. I was home for spring break and sitting at the kitchen table when my mom laughed at me and said, “This is going to be a looong day for you.” Still, I was determined. I baked a cake from scratch, as well as made icing and I even made brownies complete with cookies inside them. Baking is a hobby. It was only ten in the morning when I finished all that. I read magazines, took a nap, walked the dog and tried to stay busy. The thing I found myself itching for most was music. I realized that my life comes with a soundtrack and I really hate silence. Around four, my mother sent me to the nearest country store to pick up some eggs and milk. Being a small country store, I figured I would be safe. However, this is where my day failed. There was a television playing the news in the store and just like that I failed. It wasn’t that I couldn’t stay away from the media, but more like the media can’t stay away from me. Unless you hole yourself up, you are going to constantly be exposed to the media.
According to Dianna Walker’s Washington Post article, “The Longest Day,” my generation is known as what is called “digital natives, or ‘millennials’.” A millennial is anyone what was born between the year 1980 and 2000. This generation was raised to have electronics be the main focus of their lives. Nothing completes the décor of a bedroom better than a computer or lap top. Not only do I one hundred percent relate to this, I feel as if those born before this time can also agree as an outsider looking in. While working out at my local YMCA the day before this project I was in the locker room talking to an elderly woman when a young girl walked in. She was wearing her iPod and playing it very loud. She came in, used the bathroom, washed her hands and left all with her music playing the entire time. Now I see nothing wrong with this situation, but the woman that I was having a conversation with said, “you kids are always plugged in.” Now, I never really thought about it before, but she was right. Internet on our phones, small music playing devices, all of these inventions allow us to be everywhere at once. Take it away for a mere 24 hours and we all seem to lose a very important piece of ourselves, almost like we lost an arm or an eye.
It’s the way the world has evolved and it will only progress from here. Times change as the years progress and the way people perceive life changes as much as the tides. Howard Gardner addresses this issue in his article, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading,” which was posted in the Washington Post in February of 2008. “Even in the new digital media, it's essential to be able to read and write fluently and, if you want to capture people's attention, to write well. Of course, what it means to "write well" changes: Virginia Woolf didn't write the same way that Jane Austen did, and Arianna Huffington's blog won't be confused with Walter Lippmann's columns. But the imaginative spheres and real-world needs that all those written words address remain.” Just because things become more electronic does not mean that people are becoming dumb. We are not regressing into illiterate fools who depend on our computers to read out loud for us. Rather, we are becoming people who are learning how to simplify and how to become more efficient in today’s demanding lifestyle. I will agree with my aging acquaintance with whom I met randomly in a dingy locker room. I do miss the aesthetics of a good book or newspaper leaving inky black stains on your fingers.
I tried to make it a full 24 hours. I think I can do it without giving into temptation. However, in order for me to successfully give up all forms of electronic media, I need to hole myself up in my house because unfortunately for me the rest of the world cannot manage to give up electronics and therefore it surrounds me wherever I go. It is unavoidable in today’s world.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Speech vs. Writing
Before the era of computers and super cell phones, there was more of an emphasis on the printed word. Newspapers were a social norm and they were everywhere (my parents had at least 3 newspapers delivered to our house in my elementary/ early middle school years), the US postal service was probably working with a few more handwritten letters, and though libraries were never really known for their financial wealth, I am sure they had more business then they do now. Today everything is electronic. Newspapers, as well as book, can be found on line, and texts, emails, blogs and postings on people’s “pages” have decreased the amount of handwritten letters are sent. Along with this wave of new electronic advances, came a change on how people regarded the English language: both how it was spoken and how it was written.
In an article written by Eric Havelock entitled, “The Greek Legacy,” Havelock discussed the original emergence of print and how it changed the world. In the article he says that writing, “…democratized literacy, or rather made democratization possible” (55). Though reading and writing was still only a skill the elite seemed to uphold, it allowed a bigger group of individuals to learn this skill, thus making the opinions and facts of other available to a larger group. This not only changed the way people communicated, but also how they viewed the world. It allowed opinion and views of other people to be communicated, as well as information to be passed as well as documented for future references at a more convenient and quicker rate. This introduction of print media began to change the way people viewed the world in the aspect of print versus speech. It made people realize a new way of communicating. However, oral record remained the primary use of communication and record keeping (Havelock 57). Though the development of writing let people experience a new way of communicating, people found communicating orally to be more beneficial and convenient. Today, the way people communicate is different in that we rely heavily on textual communication. Newspapers, internet, email, texts re all ways in which we communicate on a daily basis. Even when it comes to communicating orally on a phone, people opt to text a message instead.
However, because of these advances in technology that allow us to communicate in a quicker, more convenient way, some people feel as if it is causing humans to regress literally. Susan Jacoby is one of these people. In an article she wrote in the Washington Post in February 2008, she exclaims her fear that the United States in is danger of losing it’s dignity of cultural “capital” due to a mixture of “anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations.” She states that the literacy level amongst college students has steadily decreased between 1984 and 2004, claiming the reason for this decrease is due to the video and thus a decrease in the ability to hold attention for a long period of time. “The shrinking public attention span fostered by video is closely tied to the erosion of general knowledge (Jacoby 2008). Though I can understand Jacoby’ concern about the lack of reading amongst today’s youth, I feel that it isn’t so much of a lack of literacy, but more of a decrease in time. While reading does provide a person with the opportunity to exercise their imagination and also increase their vocabulary, I also feel that in today’s culture time is scarce and a video allows for entertainment in a shorter amount a time that can also allow the person to do other things at the same time. While Jacoby may argue that the need to multitask just proves her point of a short attention span, I think it really is more of a issue of people becoming more efficient.
Not everyone has the view of doom on the American public’s literacy level. Howard Gardner also had an article in the Washington Post in February of 2008, but he had a more optimistic view on things. He believes that people are not becoming dumber, but they are instead adapting to the times and finding better and more convenient ways to convey information to others. The fact that people are no longer writing letters formally to each other means nothing. Rather, he says, people are morphing literacy into a new form. “Few media are likely to disappear completely due to the fact that there are those people that are too stubborn to change and they like things to stay the way that they are. (Gardner 2008). I agree with Gardner and what he is saying. Just because people do not feel that it is necessary to write out long notes and send them in the mail for the recipient to receive it 4 days later does not mean they are stupid. Rather, they are time efficient. The same goes for the way that people now write over text or even email. As I previously mentioned, the American lifestyle is a very busy one that doesn’t allow for much time. If it is possible to write in short hand that is understood by the recipient, then it doesn’t make the sender (or the receiver) illiterate, but instead speaking in a different language.
Gardner also addresses the possibility of disappearance of material books disappearing and becoming completely electronic (Gardner 2008). Though I can see why this may be a concern for many people, I do not think it should be a huge concern. I know that many libraries are putting their books online and make them available to the general public and that books can be purchased online to be put on an ipod for books (of sorts). However, I don’t think that print media will be disappearing completely. People still express a need for books. People like having the physical book in their hands: to underline, to read again and again, to take places where maybe technology isn’t available (such as a plane or the beach). I think the demand for physical books may always be there, t just may not always be as strong as it used to be.
Works Cited
Crowley, David and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, 5th edition. Boston: Pearson, 2007, originally published in 2003. (chapter 7)
Gardner, Howard. "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading." The Washington Post 17 Feb. 2008. 2 Mar. 2008 .
Jacoby, Susan. "The Dumbing of America." The Washington Post 17 Feb. 2008. 2 Mar. 2008 .
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Communication's Role In My Life
Communication has played a large role in my life. From the beginning, learning to talk was an important step to figure out, so that I could communicate with those around me. While I was growing up, technology was beginning to change. Laptops were a new technology and were so big you carried them around in a massive suitcase. Cell phones were pretty new as well and a backpack had to be worn to make them operate. Technology has grown and matured right alongside me and, for me, I would not have that any other way.
Being a communications major, I LOVE to talk and to communicate to others. Talking to other people and learning about their lives are one of my favorite things to do. Though new technologies playing a major role in my life, such as I cant go anywhere without my cell phone, but the important life lessons of old fashioned communication still plays a role in my life today. I still write letters to friends studying abroad, as well as my brother who just flew to Figi for the semester, and there is something to be had for a real conversation with someone. It is much more personal and incorporates all that is lost in writing and phone calls: Visual emotion. When you speak with someone face to face, you get hand gestures and facial gestures to accompany what is being said. You can touch that person with who you are communicating. It is much more real and personal.
With technology continually advancing, it is much easier to keep in touch with people we have known or still know with applications such as Facebook, but I think the old-fashioned way of talking to people face to face will always be the most personable and enjoyable than any other form of communication. Though I will admit, I am a Facebook fan...it fascinates me.
Being a communications major, I LOVE to talk and to communicate to others. Talking to other people and learning about their lives are one of my favorite things to do. Though new technologies playing a major role in my life, such as I cant go anywhere without my cell phone, but the important life lessons of old fashioned communication still plays a role in my life today. I still write letters to friends studying abroad, as well as my brother who just flew to Figi for the semester, and there is something to be had for a real conversation with someone. It is much more personal and incorporates all that is lost in writing and phone calls: Visual emotion. When you speak with someone face to face, you get hand gestures and facial gestures to accompany what is being said. You can touch that person with who you are communicating. It is much more real and personal.
With technology continually advancing, it is much easier to keep in touch with people we have known or still know with applications such as Facebook, but I think the old-fashioned way of talking to people face to face will always be the most personable and enjoyable than any other form of communication. Though I will admit, I am a Facebook fan...it fascinates me.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Blog Numero Uno
My name is Samantha Maccherola and I am currently a junior here at UMBC. I am a transfer student from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, but hail from Carroll County, Maryland. Here at UMBC, I am a member of the Swimming and Diving Team. You can check out our awesome team site here. I am a Media and Communications major with the intentions of one day becoming a news anchor. Oh, and I really like Christmas.
My relationship with the media is pretty intense. however, i feel like it is like every other average American's relationship to the media. We all own and or use a computer every day, we have phones with multiple capabilities besides just the purpose of making phone calls, ipods in everones ears, etc. We are almost all dependant on media to tell us what to think about certain situations as well as help us develope opinions on our world. our dependacy on the media as well as the technology that houses those mediums increases every day. The other day, I borrowed my roomates phone to look for mine (I lose mine a lot) and probably had it for a good half hour. When I returned it she said to me, "You know I never really realized how dependant i was on my blackberry until I didnt have it for thirty minutes. I couldnt check my email or anything!" It is instances such as these that prove that we have become a civilization dependant on the media and the technologies that support them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)