Robot ears to fully appreciate my techno music. Yes.
Agil Hearing Aid System Organizes Sounds, Helps With Cognitive Processing
3.29.2010
Agil Hearing Aid System Organizes Sounds, Helps With Cognitive Processing
UGH. FINALLY.
Robot ears to fully appreciate my techno music. Yes.
Agil Hearing Aid System Organizes Sounds, Helps With Cognitive Processing
Robot ears to fully appreciate my techno music. Yes.
Agil Hearing Aid System Organizes Sounds, Helps With Cognitive Processing
5.18.2009
Smart(ass) News Shows for Our Generation
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had news coverage concerning swine flu on April 27. In the typical fashion, much of Stewart’s coverage is less fact and more reaction. He begins by playing a compilation of short clips from other news shows in order to express to the audience exactly how hot of a topic it has been over the past few days. Video clips that he comments on include news coverage on cases that have been found throughout the world, news correspondents terrifying its audience by saying the outbreak can cause hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide, and reporters claiming that they’re intentions are not to ‘freak people out.’ In this all, Stewart finds humor, pointing out all the flaws and fallacies of both traditional news coverage and human nature. Still, there’s always something for the audience members hoping comedy can in fact be informational. Stewart still manages to go over where and how the outbreak began, and make jokes out of both pieces of information. His piece closes with two correspondents, John Oliver reporting from the Center for Disease Control and Jason Jones reporting from the ‘Center for Stuff I Heard from Some Guy,’ again, poking fun at America’s quickness to believe anything they hear regardless of the source.
As one might expect, Fox news handled the news topic a little differently. One news report interviewed clinical psychologist Robin Kerner, who assured people that stressing out about the outbreak may only make you more susceptible to the flu. Further reports discussed the high rate of people going to the hospital with no real symptoms, and a list of real symptoms to be on the lookout for. They close by telling its audience that even if the outbreak should become worse, medications are available to help control the flu. Fox coverage also had an interview with Dr. Siegel, who helped by sharing with the audience what information concerning bird flu is fact, and what is fiction.
It’s clear that The Daily Show and traditional news approached their report on the swine flu differently, but what does that say about each program and its validity as news programs? As Smolkin says in her article, “What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart,” “Stewart and his team often seem to steer closer to the truth than traditional media journalists.” This is most often achieved by showing clips of either other news reporters or politicians tripping on words or contradicting themselves, at which point, “Stewart can state the obvious—ridiculing such blather as it deserves to be ridiculed—or remain silent but speak volumes by merely arching an eyebrow.” Perhaps one of the reasons this is so effective is because it either calls out the validity of others or gives the audience the credit to be able to the hypocrisy themselves. It’s clear that comedy news shows like The Daily Show get a lot of their steam by poking holes in the coverage of traditional news programs.
On the other hand, traditional news coverage never really takes much time commenting on other news programs. They stick to their own reporters and tell the story as they feel is most fair to its audiences. Still, this creates problems when covering hot topics such as swine flu, with which they need to be careful to not terrify its audience, but inform them of the practical dangers they should be concerned over.
Traditional news programs are held to certain standards that comedy news programs are not. They are expected to report the truth in ways that will keep the public calm in such situations as swine flu, which is not always possible when it was difficult to predict the extent of the flu’s danger. Comedy news programs are different in that they are more of a commentary on the traditional news shows than a source of vital information. Instead of taking the time to warn its viewers of the symptoms of the swine flu to be aware of, they can perform a skit making fun of how people will believe some outlandishly false facts in favor of common sense. The humor alone in comedy news programs is enough to give them an advantage of traditional news programs because so much of today’s youth wants to stay informed, but the traditional news programs don’t really cater to the entertainment aspect that newer generations constantly crave.
But perhaps this desire to be entertained in all we watch is one of the points that Malcolm Gladwell tries to make in his work titled “Brain Candy,” as he discusses how, “what is making us smarter is precisely what we thought was making us dumber: popular culture.” Perhaps Jon Stewart’s attempts at news coverage are exactly what our generation needs to be better educated and well informed individuals. Stewart’s coverage reminds viewers to not always blindly accept the things we see and hear from supposedly ‘valid’ sources, by constantly calling them out on their mistakes. Still, it’s important to remember that it’s not really traditional news’ fault given the pressing and fast nature of informing the public of pressing matters.
As one might expect, Fox news handled the news topic a little differently. One news report interviewed clinical psychologist Robin Kerner, who assured people that stressing out about the outbreak may only make you more susceptible to the flu. Further reports discussed the high rate of people going to the hospital with no real symptoms, and a list of real symptoms to be on the lookout for. They close by telling its audience that even if the outbreak should become worse, medications are available to help control the flu. Fox coverage also had an interview with Dr. Siegel, who helped by sharing with the audience what information concerning bird flu is fact, and what is fiction.
It’s clear that The Daily Show and traditional news approached their report on the swine flu differently, but what does that say about each program and its validity as news programs? As Smolkin says in her article, “What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart,” “Stewart and his team often seem to steer closer to the truth than traditional media journalists.” This is most often achieved by showing clips of either other news reporters or politicians tripping on words or contradicting themselves, at which point, “Stewart can state the obvious—ridiculing such blather as it deserves to be ridiculed—or remain silent but speak volumes by merely arching an eyebrow.” Perhaps one of the reasons this is so effective is because it either calls out the validity of others or gives the audience the credit to be able to the hypocrisy themselves. It’s clear that comedy news shows like The Daily Show get a lot of their steam by poking holes in the coverage of traditional news programs.
On the other hand, traditional news coverage never really takes much time commenting on other news programs. They stick to their own reporters and tell the story as they feel is most fair to its audiences. Still, this creates problems when covering hot topics such as swine flu, with which they need to be careful to not terrify its audience, but inform them of the practical dangers they should be concerned over.
Traditional news programs are held to certain standards that comedy news programs are not. They are expected to report the truth in ways that will keep the public calm in such situations as swine flu, which is not always possible when it was difficult to predict the extent of the flu’s danger. Comedy news programs are different in that they are more of a commentary on the traditional news shows than a source of vital information. Instead of taking the time to warn its viewers of the symptoms of the swine flu to be aware of, they can perform a skit making fun of how people will believe some outlandishly false facts in favor of common sense. The humor alone in comedy news programs is enough to give them an advantage of traditional news programs because so much of today’s youth wants to stay informed, but the traditional news programs don’t really cater to the entertainment aspect that newer generations constantly crave.
But perhaps this desire to be entertained in all we watch is one of the points that Malcolm Gladwell tries to make in his work titled “Brain Candy,” as he discusses how, “what is making us smarter is precisely what we thought was making us dumber: popular culture.” Perhaps Jon Stewart’s attempts at news coverage are exactly what our generation needs to be better educated and well informed individuals. Stewart’s coverage reminds viewers to not always blindly accept the things we see and hear from supposedly ‘valid’ sources, by constantly calling them out on their mistakes. Still, it’s important to remember that it’s not really traditional news’ fault given the pressing and fast nature of informing the public of pressing matters.
4.21.2009
"The Medium is the Message"
Marshall McLuhan was a communications theorist who coined the phrase "the medium is the message" is his book, Understanding Media. This expression has been the topic of great discussion amongst other communications theorists throughout the years, and for good reason. McLuhan’s message is deceptively complex, as well as easily misinterpreted. According to Mark Federman’s article, aptly titled “What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message,” McLuhan “meant what he said,” meaning that he had a very clear view on what is meant when he says that the medium is the message.
Here is my take on what I think McLuhan meant by his phrase. McLuhan starts with what he calls “the medium.” While some communications theorists may define a medium as a television set or radio, something through which individuals receive various forms of media, McLuhan significantly broadens the definition. According to Federman, McLuhan tells us that a medium is “any extension of ourselves.” More specifically, a medium is an extension of our body or mind that achieves something that our body and mind cannot complete otherwise. The classic examples mentioned in the article explain how a hammer extends our arms and that the wheel extends our legs and feet. Other examples include glasses that help us read when we would otherwise have difficulty reading, and light bulbs that enable us to see in the dark. More media-centered examples include our cell phones, e-mail service, and even language. The only other qualifier McLuhan places on what a medium is, is that in needs to be something from which a change emerges. While McLuhan’s definition of “the medium” may be broad, it is still specific enough to always apply to how the medium is the message, and still open enough to be timeless.
The message is also another term that must be defined before the phrase can be fully understood. While it is a common reaction to believe that the content or use of the medium is what is meant by the message, this is not true. Again, Federman’s article explains that a message is the change that the medium introduces to our society. The examples given explain how the message of a theatrical production is not the content of the production, but perhaps the change in tourism that the production may encourage, as well as how the message of a newscast is not the stories they broadcast, but how the audience’s attitudes toward crime and weather change.
So now that our terms our defined, we can complete our understanding of what is meant by the phrase, “the medium is the message.” While we tend to look at the content of media as what affects us the most, it is the process through which media reaches us that dictate how we change in society. With this understanding of McLuhan’s words, we are now able to see examples that support his theory. And perhaps the greatest example of what McLuhan meant relates to the idea of technological determinism—the idea that technology determines the patterns and development of our culture and society.
For example, television itself has been condemned for its effects on young children. Activists claim that television promotes laziness, ignorance, and apathy, all based on the time consuming characteristics of television. Regardless of the content of what is on TV, its ease of access and ability to suck viewers in for hours at a time is what has been deemed responsible for things such as childhood obesity and poor school performance. More specifically, a multitude of shows on the air cater to viewers by cramming in as much new and exciting material as possible. Whether it is "Sesame Street," rapidly switching from Elmo’s world to the letter of the day, or "Punk’d," changing the camera angle or filter every few seconds, producers seem to take advantage of every possible way to keep its audience’s attention. While some may say that it is our lowered attention span that has driven producers to make their shows that way, McLuhan would be more inclined to say that it is because of these shows that coddle our attention span that make us much less eager to pay attention to things outside of television.
Still, the effects of the medium as the message and technological determinism are not always negative. As more shows such as Lost and Heroes emerge, a lot of emphasis has been on complicated story lines happening on multiple time lines, most often with subtle character interactions between story/time lines. Even movies such as Memento, a movie in which black and white scenes occurring in chronological order are shuffled between colored scenes occurring in reverse-chronological order, have become more complex in how they share their story. Even the menu for the DVD is arranged as a psychological test containing random images. As a result, a vast majority of society’s minds have been trained to keep track of such complicated plots and story lines.
While McLuhan tries to convince us that it is the mediums that shape who we are individually and as a society, I believe that it is important to understand that it is not just technology that determines our lives. Human nature is a very important thing to for advertisers of commercials, writers for TV and the movies, and other producers who work through mediums to fully comprehend. I think that humanistic desire for knowledge and pleasure are ultimately what drive the producers to develop their creations in the manner that they do.
Producers know that audiences are tired of simple story lines, so they begin to delve into more complex plots and characters. Some of the most enjoyable movies are the ones that don’t mock the audience’s intelligence by ‘dumbing things down.’ And I don’t believe that TV shows that didn’t make every attempt to keep my attention would be nearly as amusing, or commercials that didn’t try to sell me their products would be nearly as convincing. McLuhan himself says in his essay, “Understanding Radio,” that it was the petitions of radio advocates such as amateur operators/hams and their fans that eventually drove to the formation of radio facilities. Also, in the Kennedy-Nixon debate, those who heard it on the radio believed that Nixon won in a landslide, but those who viewed the televised debate were convinced Kennedy looked much more confident and handsome compared to Nixon’s unhealthy awkwardness. Perhaps McLuhan would argue that it was the medium of the television that lost Nixon the election, but I would argue that it was the preparation and make-up that gave Kennedy the upper hand. Basically, mediums are made for people, so it is important to give its creators some credit for how it affects society, and not just the medium itself
When it comes down to it, McLuhan’s phrase, “the medium is the message” is somewhat of a ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg?’ dilemma. We can either say that as producers of mediums may have their content in mind, they cannot predict the ground—which is comprised of the things that we don’t notice immediately yet still change the structure of our affairs—or we can say that producers of mediums develop their creations in the manner that best attempts to keep the audience’s reactions in mind.
Here is my take on what I think McLuhan meant by his phrase. McLuhan starts with what he calls “the medium.” While some communications theorists may define a medium as a television set or radio, something through which individuals receive various forms of media, McLuhan significantly broadens the definition. According to Federman, McLuhan tells us that a medium is “any extension of ourselves.” More specifically, a medium is an extension of our body or mind that achieves something that our body and mind cannot complete otherwise. The classic examples mentioned in the article explain how a hammer extends our arms and that the wheel extends our legs and feet. Other examples include glasses that help us read when we would otherwise have difficulty reading, and light bulbs that enable us to see in the dark. More media-centered examples include our cell phones, e-mail service, and even language. The only other qualifier McLuhan places on what a medium is, is that in needs to be something from which a change emerges. While McLuhan’s definition of “the medium” may be broad, it is still specific enough to always apply to how the medium is the message, and still open enough to be timeless.
The message is also another term that must be defined before the phrase can be fully understood. While it is a common reaction to believe that the content or use of the medium is what is meant by the message, this is not true. Again, Federman’s article explains that a message is the change that the medium introduces to our society. The examples given explain how the message of a theatrical production is not the content of the production, but perhaps the change in tourism that the production may encourage, as well as how the message of a newscast is not the stories they broadcast, but how the audience’s attitudes toward crime and weather change.
So now that our terms our defined, we can complete our understanding of what is meant by the phrase, “the medium is the message.” While we tend to look at the content of media as what affects us the most, it is the process through which media reaches us that dictate how we change in society. With this understanding of McLuhan’s words, we are now able to see examples that support his theory. And perhaps the greatest example of what McLuhan meant relates to the idea of technological determinism—the idea that technology determines the patterns and development of our culture and society.
For example, television itself has been condemned for its effects on young children. Activists claim that television promotes laziness, ignorance, and apathy, all based on the time consuming characteristics of television. Regardless of the content of what is on TV, its ease of access and ability to suck viewers in for hours at a time is what has been deemed responsible for things such as childhood obesity and poor school performance. More specifically, a multitude of shows on the air cater to viewers by cramming in as much new and exciting material as possible. Whether it is "Sesame Street," rapidly switching from Elmo’s world to the letter of the day, or "Punk’d," changing the camera angle or filter every few seconds, producers seem to take advantage of every possible way to keep its audience’s attention. While some may say that it is our lowered attention span that has driven producers to make their shows that way, McLuhan would be more inclined to say that it is because of these shows that coddle our attention span that make us much less eager to pay attention to things outside of television.
Still, the effects of the medium as the message and technological determinism are not always negative. As more shows such as Lost and Heroes emerge, a lot of emphasis has been on complicated story lines happening on multiple time lines, most often with subtle character interactions between story/time lines. Even movies such as Memento, a movie in which black and white scenes occurring in chronological order are shuffled between colored scenes occurring in reverse-chronological order, have become more complex in how they share their story. Even the menu for the DVD is arranged as a psychological test containing random images. As a result, a vast majority of society’s minds have been trained to keep track of such complicated plots and story lines.
While McLuhan tries to convince us that it is the mediums that shape who we are individually and as a society, I believe that it is important to understand that it is not just technology that determines our lives. Human nature is a very important thing to for advertisers of commercials, writers for TV and the movies, and other producers who work through mediums to fully comprehend. I think that humanistic desire for knowledge and pleasure are ultimately what drive the producers to develop their creations in the manner that they do.
Producers know that audiences are tired of simple story lines, so they begin to delve into more complex plots and characters. Some of the most enjoyable movies are the ones that don’t mock the audience’s intelligence by ‘dumbing things down.’ And I don’t believe that TV shows that didn’t make every attempt to keep my attention would be nearly as amusing, or commercials that didn’t try to sell me their products would be nearly as convincing. McLuhan himself says in his essay, “Understanding Radio,” that it was the petitions of radio advocates such as amateur operators/hams and their fans that eventually drove to the formation of radio facilities. Also, in the Kennedy-Nixon debate, those who heard it on the radio believed that Nixon won in a landslide, but those who viewed the televised debate were convinced Kennedy looked much more confident and handsome compared to Nixon’s unhealthy awkwardness. Perhaps McLuhan would argue that it was the medium of the television that lost Nixon the election, but I would argue that it was the preparation and make-up that gave Kennedy the upper hand. Basically, mediums are made for people, so it is important to give its creators some credit for how it affects society, and not just the medium itself
When it comes down to it, McLuhan’s phrase, “the medium is the message” is somewhat of a ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg?’ dilemma. We can either say that as producers of mediums may have their content in mind, they cannot predict the ground—which is comprised of the things that we don’t notice immediately yet still change the structure of our affairs—or we can say that producers of mediums develop their creations in the manner that best attempts to keep the audience’s reactions in mind.
3.24.2009
Media Deprivation Day
It has to be some form of a practical joke--the way a select few college professors seek revenge for the countless lectures that have been interrupted and ignored by cell phones, laptops, mp3 players, and other various forms of electronic media by creating an assignment that bans them for a full 24 hour period. I had heard about it from one of my friends last semester, and was anticipating the assignment since the course had started. Still, I must admit that even though I knew about it, I was worried about how well I would manage.
While I am pretty sure my electronic media usage is about average with most individuals my age, I cannot help but realize that it still consumes most of my spare time, as well as the time I spend doing school work or hanging out with friends. From an early age I would watch TV as soon as I got out of elementary school. By high school, if I wasn’t watching TV I would be playing a video game. And now, on my drive between campus and Rockville, I go nuts if I do not have my iPod and the FM tuner to go with it. Most of my school work is done on a computer, and most of my time with friends is spent indulging in some form or another of electronic media as well. Still, as immersed as I am in my various media forms, I have always enjoyed being able to take the time to relax in a park or walk around my neighborhood (but normally only when the weather is perfect).
My plans for spring break were pretty simple: I would go back home to Montgomery County where I would do my best to spend as much time relaxing and as little time working as possible. And while I was sure I’d do a fine job achieving ultimate laziness, I also knew that at some point I would need to take a day for this assignment. For the first few days of break I would always have something planned with friends that basically revolved around some form of electronic media. Between going to the movie theater, watching South Park seasons or playing Guitar Hero, I was surprised that so much of what my friends and I did together fell under the category of electronic media. Admittedly, all this made starting the assignment significantly more difficult than I would’ve hoped. Still, my desire to procrastinate eventually waned and my electronic media-less day was ready to start.
There was one form of media that I was happy to be without was my alarm clock. Especially since it was spring break, I had already planned on sleeping in pretty late. I woke up around 1 in the afternoon, and had to stop myself from checking my phone for any messages I might have missed. But as I stopped myself from picking up my phone I realized that the desire to check my phone was really more of a reflex than a necessity, which was a realization that put my mind at ease as I thought about the difficult day I was about to face. Normally I would have gotten up and eaten breakfast in front of the TV, but since that was out of the question I grabbed a bite to eat and talked to my brother for a while. He wanted to show me various things he had seen online but as inconvenient as it was, the best he could do is describe them to me instead of being able to simply show me on the computer he was sitting in front of. After a while I went out with my mom to go shopping as I had planned the day before, in hopes that it would dull the pain of being electronic media-less. The trip there was actually fine without the radio because it was easily replaced with conversation, but when we got to the mall it became very obvious that electronic media was everywhere. Still, they were easily avoided for the most part, and the extent of my actual usage of the media didn’t go much further than listening to the music play in some of the stores. By the time we got back home it was already almost 6pm. At this point I had a few hours to burn before I was planning on going out, but I couldn’t think of much to do that didn’t involve some form of electronic media. Even my homework required me to go online. Instead I decided to try clean up some of my room which is somehow always messy. I managed to get a good amount of it tidied up, but as I was cleaning I couldn’t help but think how much easier time would pass if I could just listen to some music while working. When dinner was ready I grabbed some food and ate it on my way out to my friends’ apartment since my family always watches TV while they eat dinner. Luckily when I got to their apartment they were in the mood to play Magic, a card game that thankfully takes up large amount of time, and involves no electronic media. With some convincing I got them to do without the typical TV on in the background, and I was actually able to play for the last 3.5 hours of my media deprivation day.
My 24 hours of electronic media deprivation was in fact NOT as hard as I was planning on it being. Not being able to contact people with my phone wasn’t so bad because I had made plans with friends in advance. And while I definitely tried to check my phone several times throughout the day, after realizing it was in my room I really wasn’t that disappointed that I didn’t have it on me. Knowing that I’d be able to check all my messages the next day was a great comfort though. I had also realized when I was talking to my brother that while having the internet as a tool is incredibly convenient, not being able to actually use that technology was merely an annoyance, and we were still able to carry on our conversation. On top of it all, this experience has helped my understand some of Gardner’s words in his article “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” While some individuals such as Jacoby believe that it is the emerging forms of electronic media that have created a decline in intellectualism as she states in her article, “The Dumbing of America,” Gardner expresses how these forms of media are not meant to replace existing forms with simplified content, but rather, to enhance them. Being deprived of the new and electronic forms of media made me realize that other forms of media with great intellectual value still exist, but they seem to pale in comparison to the convenience of new media today.
Overall, I would definitely not attempt this media deprivation exercise again voluntarily, but it was still a valuable experience. When it comes down to it, I can have a great day without immersing myself in electronic media, so why should I deny myself the comfort and conveniences of e-media?
Howard Gardner, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html
Susan Jacoby, “The Dumbing of America” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
While I am pretty sure my electronic media usage is about average with most individuals my age, I cannot help but realize that it still consumes most of my spare time, as well as the time I spend doing school work or hanging out with friends. From an early age I would watch TV as soon as I got out of elementary school. By high school, if I wasn’t watching TV I would be playing a video game. And now, on my drive between campus and Rockville, I go nuts if I do not have my iPod and the FM tuner to go with it. Most of my school work is done on a computer, and most of my time with friends is spent indulging in some form or another of electronic media as well. Still, as immersed as I am in my various media forms, I have always enjoyed being able to take the time to relax in a park or walk around my neighborhood (but normally only when the weather is perfect).
My plans for spring break were pretty simple: I would go back home to Montgomery County where I would do my best to spend as much time relaxing and as little time working as possible. And while I was sure I’d do a fine job achieving ultimate laziness, I also knew that at some point I would need to take a day for this assignment. For the first few days of break I would always have something planned with friends that basically revolved around some form of electronic media. Between going to the movie theater, watching South Park seasons or playing Guitar Hero, I was surprised that so much of what my friends and I did together fell under the category of electronic media. Admittedly, all this made starting the assignment significantly more difficult than I would’ve hoped. Still, my desire to procrastinate eventually waned and my electronic media-less day was ready to start.
There was one form of media that I was happy to be without was my alarm clock. Especially since it was spring break, I had already planned on sleeping in pretty late. I woke up around 1 in the afternoon, and had to stop myself from checking my phone for any messages I might have missed. But as I stopped myself from picking up my phone I realized that the desire to check my phone was really more of a reflex than a necessity, which was a realization that put my mind at ease as I thought about the difficult day I was about to face. Normally I would have gotten up and eaten breakfast in front of the TV, but since that was out of the question I grabbed a bite to eat and talked to my brother for a while. He wanted to show me various things he had seen online but as inconvenient as it was, the best he could do is describe them to me instead of being able to simply show me on the computer he was sitting in front of. After a while I went out with my mom to go shopping as I had planned the day before, in hopes that it would dull the pain of being electronic media-less. The trip there was actually fine without the radio because it was easily replaced with conversation, but when we got to the mall it became very obvious that electronic media was everywhere. Still, they were easily avoided for the most part, and the extent of my actual usage of the media didn’t go much further than listening to the music play in some of the stores. By the time we got back home it was already almost 6pm. At this point I had a few hours to burn before I was planning on going out, but I couldn’t think of much to do that didn’t involve some form of electronic media. Even my homework required me to go online. Instead I decided to try clean up some of my room which is somehow always messy. I managed to get a good amount of it tidied up, but as I was cleaning I couldn’t help but think how much easier time would pass if I could just listen to some music while working. When dinner was ready I grabbed some food and ate it on my way out to my friends’ apartment since my family always watches TV while they eat dinner. Luckily when I got to their apartment they were in the mood to play Magic, a card game that thankfully takes up large amount of time, and involves no electronic media. With some convincing I got them to do without the typical TV on in the background, and I was actually able to play for the last 3.5 hours of my media deprivation day.
My 24 hours of electronic media deprivation was in fact NOT as hard as I was planning on it being. Not being able to contact people with my phone wasn’t so bad because I had made plans with friends in advance. And while I definitely tried to check my phone several times throughout the day, after realizing it was in my room I really wasn’t that disappointed that I didn’t have it on me. Knowing that I’d be able to check all my messages the next day was a great comfort though. I had also realized when I was talking to my brother that while having the internet as a tool is incredibly convenient, not being able to actually use that technology was merely an annoyance, and we were still able to carry on our conversation. On top of it all, this experience has helped my understand some of Gardner’s words in his article “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” While some individuals such as Jacoby believe that it is the emerging forms of electronic media that have created a decline in intellectualism as she states in her article, “The Dumbing of America,” Gardner expresses how these forms of media are not meant to replace existing forms with simplified content, but rather, to enhance them. Being deprived of the new and electronic forms of media made me realize that other forms of media with great intellectual value still exist, but they seem to pale in comparison to the convenience of new media today.
Overall, I would definitely not attempt this media deprivation exercise again voluntarily, but it was still a valuable experience. When it comes down to it, I can have a great day without immersing myself in electronic media, so why should I deny myself the comfort and conveniences of e-media?
Howard Gardner, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html
Susan Jacoby, “The Dumbing of America” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
3.05.2009
Speech vs Writing
And so when the question arises of whether speech or writing that is the superior form of communication in today’s society, I suddenly find myself at a near loss for words. I suppose that it might be a bit of an indecisive stance to argue, but in my opinion, not only are both forms of communication so vital to the way live today, but both also serve very specific and unique purposes that the other would not be able to completely fulfill.
Consider the epic milestone of a child’s first word. It is so significant because it marks the beginning of their ability to communicate. Before they are able to write, they can communicate through speech to their parents in order to fulfill their needs, express their desires, and share their observations. Not only that, but it is the observation and imitation of their parents’ speech through which they themselves are able to begin comprehending language. While we grow and develop, speech becomes a vital aspect of life. To educate ourselves and gain knowledge of our surroundings we listen to teachers and professors of higher learning. To socialize ourselves we interact and form relationships with our peers.
Even so, perhaps one of the most unique characteristic of speech is its expressive capabilities. In “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” Howard Gardner explains that after our basic survival needs are met, humans are able “to pursue other needs and desires, including the pleasure of communication, forming friendships, convincing others of our point of view, [and] exercising our imagination…” It is unique form of communication that is speech that allows us do reach these goals through the acts of developing conversations, expressing feelings, debating and performing. How moving would an opera be if you were simply handed the score? How much would you believe the words ‘I love you,’ or even ‘I hate you’ without hearing the intonation of the speaker? How convinced would you be of a person’s argument without being able to listen to the passion within the debater’s voice? Speech has the unique ability to allow a person to express emotions that even they may not be aware of vocally-through their emphasis of words, inflection, and tone. Furthermore, face to face conversations also permit those involved to see a person’s facial expressions, hand gestures and body language as they speak. If a couple is fighting and one individual says, “No, it is fine if you want to cancel our date,” an annoyed tone and crossed arms are sure signs that what was said was not what they truly felt.
But even though speech has a power and emotion that cannot be conveyed through written words, writing also has its many practical and essential aspects. It is not surprising to notice that written word has become much more prevalent in day to day living as we develop new communication technologies. Whether we’re reading news blogs, technology blogs or personal blogs, browsing our social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, or completing online assignments for a class, it is written word that we depend on for convenience, efficiency and dependability.
With internet connections available to anyone who may be seeking it, the World Wide Web is merely a few clicks (but perhaps several dollars) away. Further convenience is found as users are able to seek out specific information using quick answer methods such as Wikipedia or Google. I can’t even begin to imagine the number of times I’ve thanked the wonderful workings of the internet for fast facts, answers to arbitrary questions and identifying new songs that I hear.
On top of all this, there is also the great aspect of practicality that writing embraces. Think about how strange it would be to hear a clock say the time instead of just being able to read it every time you wanted to check it. Written word is a functional way to convey information as simply or detailed, and as close-knit or widespread, as its writer desires. Street signs indicate traffic laws that are to be obeyed. Flyers are plastered all over campus in order to inform the masses of various events to attend, when and where they will be and what they are for. E-mails between my sister and my family update us on how my newborn niece Maile is doing. Facebook events are able to invite the entire campus to bake sales in the Breezeway. In today’s world we are able to virtually write anything we want and send it to whoever we want, given we have the desire to do it.
So why choose between speech and writing? Instead I prefer focusing on how technology as managing to converge both into effective and efficient forms of communication. Consider how advances in technology has allowed us to move past simply writing back and forth to each other through AOL Instant Messenger, and into the realm of being able to see and hear each other by making video connections like Skype allows us to. Both of these forms of communication fulfill their unique purposes of powerful expression and great convenience, so instead of picking one we prefer, we should really be taking advantage of the wonderful ways we are able to connect.
2.16.2009
Communicating with the World
Communication is a very different thing in today’s society than it was just a few years ago. We have a multitude of ways to make connections and send quick information to the people around us, whether it is as old school as using a cell phone to make a call or as groundbreaking as video phone calls on computers. There are even instances such as Kerry Sipe, in which relaying up to the minute updates from inside a courtroom was an intense and suspenseful method of distributing information (Carroll).
I got my first cell phone in middle school as a way to contact my parents to pick me up when I would stay after school for drama club or after hanging out with friends. Texting was never really an option since it was more expensive than my parents thought it ought to be, and you would need to pay for each incoming and outgoing text message, which was a pain. As time passed, the technology increased and calling plans became more affordable, a lot of my phone habits have drastically changed. These days my phone is like my communication hub. Whether it is an e-mail, a text, a phone call or an instant message, it will be sent to my phone. E-mail is particularly handy for school related issues because I have all e-mails sent to my UMBC account forwarded to my phone account, which is a really worthwhile option in today’s world of separating “business,” “school,” and “personal” accounts. Having them separated for the sake of appearing professional is a lot more tolerable now that they all get sent to the same place, and can all be looked at and dealt with as soon is a find it necessary. Texting has become one of my most common ways of getting in touch with people; it is quick, it is easy and it is efficient. Most of the time when I want to get in touch with someone I just need to ask where people are, when we’re meeting up and what we plan on doing, which does not take much more than a sentence or two. For more in depth conversations there is always instant messaging, which has a few advantages of texting in that it’s generally faster to get a response, and you don’t need to try to be efficient with words because not every single message going in and out is being charged. And the original purpose of the phone? Making calls to other people? Yeah, that’s reserved for when I’m driving on the highway and I have too much to type if I were to use a text message or instant message instead. Occasionally I use the phone to get in touch with friends that I don’t see often and catch up with their lives, or to talk to my parents who really can’t figure out how to use much more than the calling feature. Perhaps one reason why I don’t make phone calls as often as I use the other forms of communication that my phone offers is because I have unlimited texting, instant messaging and web browsing, but I only get as many minutes as my family plan allows for.
While some may say that all these ways of getting in touch with another person have become impersonal and removed the significance of connecting with another person, I feel like they are more of a convenient way to communicate with people, and not a replacement for making real connections. When it comes down to it, face to face communication is likely to be the most important way I will ever be able to really connect to another person, and that’s what should be the most important aspect of communication.
Carroll, Brian. "Culture clash: Journalism and the Communal Ethos of the Blogosphere." Into the Blogosphere (2004) 16 Feb 2009
2.05.2009
Here we go.
I'm Cynthia. I'm a sophomore here at UMBC studying pre-nursing. I'm a proud member of the PHA sorority Delta Phi Epsilon, but despite this I'm a bigger nerd than you. The amount of time I've clocked into games such as World of Warcraft, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, Counterstrike (1.6 for sure), Guitar Hero and Katamari Damacy--just to name a few--is absurd. But my nerd-dom does not end at computer and console games...on top of it all, I absolutely love playing the trading card game Magic: The Gathering, and have dabbled in...yes - DnD. Anyways, some other things I enjoy doing include watching movies (some of my favorites: Roman Holiday, Grandma's Boy, Pride and Prejudice, Troy, Moulin Rouge and Fight Club), reading webcomics (XKCD, Questionable Content, and Nerf Now) and randomly browsing the internet.
Clearly, and unsurprisingly, my main sources of entertainment are all derived from various forms of media. Whether I'm going to a theater to watch the new 3D horror film with some friends, listening to the radio in my car, downloading music off of iTunes with what little money I have or watching random YouTube videos, the media is never far from me. I even have a phone with web browsing capabilities to easily look up lyrics to a song I've just heard or to determine exactly how Mitch Hedberg passed away (yes, it was drugs). My media habits fluctuate based on how bored I am. If I'm left alone at home with little do have to do, it won't be very long before I'm sitting in front of the television, or worse, at my computer. With a myriad of time consuming hubs such as Facebook and various image boards, comics and blogs that frequently update. Another favorite of mine is watching TV online. So many networks have caved, offering their primetime shows with limited commercials online. As if my Tivo wasn't enough to satisfying the clashing natures of my addiction to television and a busy schedule, the trashy realty shows and silly dramas that I crave to watch are available for me to watch whenever I find a lull in my week. Overall, I'm incredibly aware of the massive role that media consumption plays in my life, but I'm far from complaining. Entertainment at my fingertips seems like a good deal to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
