Last Blog :(

So here it is! (My last blog for my media studies class) and I know just what I want to talk about. Yesterday, I was watching TV and a commercial for PlayStation came on. Being the curious one that I am, I decided to find out a little more about this "download,play,connect" tag line they were using.
I discovered a quote by Peter Diller, the Senior VP of Marketing & PlayStation Network for Sony that describes what the advertisement hoped to achieve:
"So with [PS3] tremendous growth and adoption, we thought it was time to give the PlayStation Network its own moment in the sun with a TV spot that sings its praises. This PlayStation Network ad will also make its debut this weekend. The ad is a metaphor and itself depicts the relentless spread of the PlayStation message from user to user. We've featured various ways you can "Download/Play/Connect." (Found on http://www.qj.net/PlayStation-Entertainment-Unleashed-unveils-ad-3-Download-Play-Connect-for-PSN-/pg/49/aid/126510)

This message contributes directly to the concept of what direction is new media taking us in. In other words, how is new media changing the way we live? PlayStation suggests that we can now live in a digital community where we can connect with other people through downloads and playing. Everything that we begin to see, we can transform into a digital image that can be spread from user to user. So when does it get too far? I mean I’m not going to say that there are no benefits of digital technology because personally, I am excited about using Skype or email or blogging when I go to Singapore next semester. Exchanging abroad experiences or even travel experiences is so much easier now that we can put albums on the web. A daughter in California can send pictures to her grandmother in New York. Communication channels have opened. But what concerns me the most about Diller’s comment is that “the ad is a metaphor and itself depicts the relentless spread of the PlayStation message from user to user.” The phrase “relentless spread” has kind of a haunting connotation, doesn’t it? Regardless of how our society thinks about community or old values, new media is relentlessly going to approach and invade our lives. I know this is an extreme, but this situation reminds me of the movie Wall-E in which the people of Earth resort to having automated machines and technology do everything for them. They become so accustomed to not having to walk or interact with other human beings because everything is laid out for them in a screen right in front of their eyes. They also all become overweight and have to learn how to use their legs when they fall off their flying chairs. Obviously this is an extreme, but I think it is a really interesting ironic play on our society. We may eventually become like these people if we do not take responsibility for our actions. In fact, I think that McKibben would really like the movie Wall-E because it is all about reconnecting with nature, taking care of the Earth, and not taking it for granted. We have become so comfortable with letting others or machines do our work for us. PlayStation’s “Download, Play, Connect” campaign replaces our imagination with visual explosions of what PlayStation wants us to see. At what point will we begin to really question new media’s influence and whether or not it is beneficial for our society?

There's nothing on TV!

I woke up this morning at 6:30. A FRIDAY morning at 6:30…think about it...we’re at Babson College where there are practically no Friday classes. So why in the world would I do such a thing? Especially since I went to bed at 2:00am after celebrating the success of performance one of three of Babson Dance Ensemble’s fall show. (BDE presents We Like to Party! December 4th, 5th, &6th 8pm @ Sorenson). Well, I had to wake up this morning to give a presentation for MCE. UGGGHHH. It was awful. Well actually, the presentation went well, it was just awful to wake up. So of course after the presentation I decided to take a nap. However, when I got back to my room…it not only felt oddly quiet, but the luminescent room light was hurting my eyes. So, being that it was neither dark enough to feel like night time, I turned on the T.V. and tried to drift off with it as background noise/light. Well, I couldn’t fall asleep before finding the right channel to leave it on. And that’s when I realized (well maybe I’ve known it before, but this morning I really was just angry about it) that there is NOTHING on tv at 10:30 in the morning. And by nothing, I guess I mean “nothing to my liking.” Which reminded me of the presentation “Sleaze TV” that was discussed in my media and culture class. This presentation discussed the different types of TV content that is out there, dividing it into high and low cultured. One of their major points was that content is chosen to cater towards income stereotypes and how low-culture TV like Jerry Springer provides entertainment that is not intelligent. Well, I couldn’t help but feel that this was true.

So while I was browsing and getting sick of there being nothing on TV, I asked myself, why do I even want this on? Why can’t I turn it off? Why do I need the television to be on to fall asleep? And while I kept responding to myself saying, “I don’t need this on, just turn it off Jes, there’s nothing interesting to watch” I kept the tv on. I just turned it to a channel that I thought might have an interesting show on when I woke up (MTV). Well, while I was trying to drift off, Parental Control came on and I got sucked into watching it. You see, I’ve been trying to figure out why people watch these “reality shows” when it’s obvious that the lines are scripted and the “real people” are acting. Specifically for this show, I couldn’t understand how if someone was actually in a “deep and meaningful” relationship with another person they could potentially break up with that person over television. No talking it out, no compromise, just an ultimatum. What does this type of show reflect about the way relationships have evolved over the years? This course has opened my eyes to the way media saturation has seeped into our culture by teaching us values that deter from traditional ways. While progress/moving forward is not necessarily a bad thing, at some point, we need to stop and think, well wait, is this really progress? Microeconomics has taught me that for an efficiency curve, at some point, no more economies of scale can be achieved and production levels become inefficient. I think this concept can definitely be applied to technology and the media saturation world we live in today. In addition, my organizational behavior class taught me about running businesses with an ethical standpoint. The concept of utilitarianism (which pretty much asks if the ends justify the means) seems to be an important theory that many conglomerates/corporations may not have in mind. Will gaining as much profit as possible justify the (harmful) cultural influences that advertising/tv shows/the media torrent has on society? I really do not see the justification unless the companies are giving back to society in some way (which I don’t think they are).

Reflection

So, it’s been a while since my last blog. (It’s been a while since we’ve had class…) I thought I might close out this month with a little reflection blog. Now that I’ve had time to relax and de-stress, I’ve also been able to think back on the past few class presentations. Initially, our group had a little bit of trouble narrowing down the content that we felt needed to be incorporated into our presentation. The history of film covers so much and with only forty minutes to present, we needed to pinpoint milestones. The only problem with this was that we tried to split up the presenter times by time period and some of these milestones overlapped or derived from each other. However, in the end, I think we did a good job with transitioning from presenter to presenter. I found our information to be applicable to our class because the film conglomerates paralleled the earlier discussions about media conglomerates. I also thought our discussion questions went well and that people were engaged in the conversation.

So, moving on to reflecting about Steven Levy’s “The Perfect Thing” I really disliked this book. In the beginning, I was just annoyed at the tone of voice of the author and how bias he was. His close connection with Apple and Steve Jobs had an overwhelmingly presence and was a little distracting from his overall argument. It’s hard for me to personally believe that the iPod is the greatest invention/thing of the 21st century. No doubt, it is a remarkable piece of technology; however, I do not think the craze is as ridiculous as Levy makes it out to be. I found myself trying to place myself in many of his situations (i.e. only seeing white earpieces in people’s ears) and I didn’t believe him. From my own experience, I do not think that people are obsessed with their iPods. Yes, it is sad when they lose them or scratch them or whatever; but, I do not think that “it gives you the feeling you belong to a tribe” (Levy 88). I think that is just going too far. But then again, I’m not a huge music downloader or obsessed-with-music listener. I do think it’s cool that one can “walk to their own soundtrack”; however, only to a certain degree. I strongly believe in the sense of community and I do think that technology can go too far one day and ultimately remove individuals from that. When individualism overtakes society, it creates self-absorbed people who forget that it is the relationships one builds with others that can truly render happiness.

McCainiac or BarackStar?

Pierre Bourdieu says that “people are sometimes astonished to see on television that historians don’t always agree with each other. They don’t understand that very often these discussions bring together individuals who have nothing in common and who have no reason even to be talking with another (somewhat as if you brought together—in just the sort of encounter bad journalists love—and astronomer and an astrologist, a chemist and an alchemist, or a sociologist of religion and a religious cult leader)” (62). The touchy subject of politics around the dinner table is socially seen as something that is not to be brought up when guests are around. This is because the stir of which party one belongs to can cause a great deal of argument. Bourdieu’s point in the above quote without a doubt applies to this scenario. In the current historical presidential election of 2008, the differences between the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain have encouraged people in the United States to exercise their right as American citizens to vote. While some may think that voicing their opinions to others is impolite, the failure in such communication hinders the possibility of learning more about the other side.

It was a little interesting when Professor Yousman told us that we had to write a blog tying Bourdieu’s analysis on T.V. with current news about the election. To be honest, I haven’t really had the time to watch CNN or other news stations and I found it somewhat ironic that my homework was to “watch T.V.” So, last night, I plopped myself down on the couch and waited for news to begin. Unfortunately, I got caught watching SNL’s “Presidential Bash” and as the program ended, I realized that most of my analysis had nothing to do with Bourdieu’s book. I could however, apply it to many of the other concepts we read in Gitlin and McChesney. It was clear that SNL was “bashing” McCain and Palin’s campaign much more heavily than Obama and Biden’s. In addition, the cameo appearances/hosting by the candidates themselves adds to the level of “celebrity” that politics has become. Bourdieu could relate this to his claim: “One thing leads to another, and, ultimately television, which claims to record reality, creates it instead” (22). Though SNL is a scripted show but performed life, it is in a sense “recording reality” because it spoofs on actual events that occur in the world. Its purpose is to “make light” of the issues surrounding us. However, when the show chooses to make proclamations during “weekend update” such as, “Bitch is the new Black!” (referring to Hilary Clinton); and “Black is the new President, Bitch!” audiences are really seeing a created reality of voiced opinions that in turn may affect their own opinions.

My last train of thought derives from ESPN’s half time show during the Pittsburgh/Washington football game. Chris Berman held a special interview with Barack Obama and John McCain. The most fascinating part of this interview was how Berman was able to divert the questions to ones that had no significance whatsoever with politics. Yes, Berman did ask each candidate one question regarding how they felt about the campaign, but he was able to do so without addressing any actual issues: “Well, we'll get to football in a moment. Senator, it's been a long campaign. Historically, maybe the longest. Looking back on it, What did you learn about yourself?” By having the potential candidate to reflect on his personality demonstrates how audiences are receiving these candidates. What information do we want to know from them? From this question, it can be perceived that the information we want to know about our candidates is what kind of person are they and if their personality will serve best as president. The majority of Berman’s interview reflected upon sports questions: “if you could change one thing in sports, what would that be?” What relevance to the current economic or political situation does such a question have? None. What relevance does such a question have on reflecting the personal/emotional level citizens can relate to? A lot. This interview reminded me of Bourdieu’s argument about how television makes people become “fast thinkers”: “In fact, what we have to ask is why these individuals are able to respond in these absolutely particular conditions, why and how they can think under these conditions in which nobody can think. The answer, it seems to me, is that they think in clichés, in the “received ideas” that Flaubert talks about—banal, conventional, common ideas that are received generally” (27). This concept also relates back to the introduction when he posed the question on “who is your message being delivered to and how are they understanding it?” These seemingly interesting questions about football or sports events are in fact, “banal, conventional, and common ideas that are received generally.” These topics allow audiences to not really have to think about the deeper issues, rather, when going to vote may think, “Hey, McCain? ‘He. Could. Go. All. The. Way ... To the White House!’ (quote said by McCain last night on ESPN).”

Katha Pollitt: Poet, Activist, and Porn Editor!

Dear Readers:

I know you’ve missed me. But the past couple weeks of my life have just been so hectic and this week was MCE Mid-Term week! So, I apologize for my late blogging. Today’s blog topic is on Katha Pollitt: Poet, Activist, and Porn Editor! Last Tuesday (October 21^st), I attended Ms. Pollitt’s talk about her latest book, “Learning to Drive: And Other Life Stories,” and political discussion sponsored by Babson’s History and Society Division. I sat in the audience with my good friend and classmate, Elana Hogan. The two of us whispered and giggled about our day’s events before Ms. Pollitt began. Now, to be perfectly honest, I really had no idea what this speaker had to do with our Media and Studies class. Perhaps because we had recently been discussing the effects of media and democracy, this acclaimed political columnist would give insight to how the next president would finally put some control over the power-hungry corporations. But to my surprise, she began by reading an excerpt from her new book—a quite explicit personal essay from her proofreading porn days. Let’s just say that the other members of the audience were equally surprised by the descriptive content she was narrating.

My first moment of epiphany occurred when she retold her editing process and the “claustrophobia” she felt when “forming sentences.” Her chore of reorganizing sentences so that nouns matched up with verbs (such as, does a vice tighten? Or does a vice clamp?) can steer us towards the idea of the power of sentences. In Tuesday’s class, we discussed how McLuhan believed that “the medium is the message.” We also determined that the basic unit of print media is one sentence and the basic unit of visual media (television) is the distilled image. Therefore, print media gives the reader more flexibility and more power to determine what the message is. In visual media, the message is formed by tools that attempt to make the viewer see a certain message (though there is no guarantee). To apply this to Pollitt, what kinds of experiences was she feeling when she was editing these “idiotic sentences”? What kinds of experiences do readers feel when they read these “idiotic sentences”? The difference between visual and textual porn is that textual porn allows the reader to be more imaginative. It makes the reader have to work harder because it is a mental process. And this becomes the power of sentences. If the pornographic text does what it should do (evoke emotions in the reader), the reader should want to “throw down the book and act it out.”

Continuing this idea of the power of sentences, textual porn is different than visual because the situational fantasy becomes individualized. If two people were to watch the same pornographic visual, they would only be able to see the characters on screen. However, if they read the same pornographic novel, the image of the characters would be different. To relate this to McLuhan, it is important to observe that one must be able to know how to read in order to get the message of print media. Therefore, this idea could argue against his “medium is the message” theory because if one cannot comprehend the medium, how can they know what the message is?

Lastly, I would like to conclude on the topic that the content of pornographic novels is also restricted by the larger corporations. While it seems more practical than the issues we have discussed in class (such as, there should be no stories about rape, racial slurs, [blank]phelia, etc) these “set of formal written guidelines” limit the diversity of content. This process parallels the topics discussed by McChesney in “The Problem of the Media.” Therefore, even though the power of print media allows individuals to be imaginative, their creative thoughts are restricted by the narrow range of content.

Eagle Eye!

So over the weekend I saw Eagle Eye. Talk about an influx of media images. I had to close my eyes at one point because I was getting a headache from all the commotion happening on screen. Not that I didn’t enjoy the movie—it was quite thrilling/engaging and kept my attention the whole time—but, it got me to think, is this really necessary? Was the point of the overwhelming number of images there because it added substance to the story or because we, as viewers, want to see them? Or is it what the bigger conglomerations believe we want to see, so they continuously stream action shot after car chase after big explosion after car chase after action shot…you get the idea. I guess this relates to our class last week because the question of “what could films really be?” was brought to attention. This question relates to the idea that we believe that our appetites/desires are being fed because we are given what we want within a very narrow range of what the larger corporations have to offer. The media is feeding us what “we think” should be entertaining and these desires are nurtured throughout our culture.

On a similar note, it was rather interesting that the idea that new mediums (such as Internet) aren’t really transforming or revolutionizing anything. For instance, while YouTube is considered a public space and forum for individuals to express their ideas, the top hits are still linked with the music industry. While I somewhat agree with this, I think that the fact that individuals at least have the option to contribute their ideas is a step in the transformation of media policy. Yes, promotion is limited; however, the question should be how can promotion be changed? Obviously, there is not going to be a huge leap right now, so shouldn’t the small steps count for something? There are exceptions to everything, so let’s not overlook them completely.

For instance, growing up as an Asian American, I have been watching movies of both American and Chinese culture for as long as I can remember. My interest in foreign language films derives from the mixture of cultures that I have grown up with. Therefore, I have been nurtured in a different kind of culture than others (one that integrates my parent’s lifestyle and the life I lead growing up in America). But, I know that I am not the only one like this. In addition, I have often shared with my friends my passion for foreign language films and many of them have branched out their interests. Thus, while we talk in a large generality of who is affected by media policy, we should not fail to see why it is not the solitary opinion of people.

Who is to blame?

I haven’t decided yet whether or not taking this class has damaged the way I view media. For instance, I am considerably much more aware of what type of navigational style I have when I am picking out what show to watch. I used to just think that I was keener than others when I could spot subliminal messages, or pick up on oblivious satire. But now, all I can think is that just makes me, as Gitlin describes, a “paranoid” or an “ironist.” And then again, I am also an “exhibitionist” because I embrace the torrent of media and often wish that I could be “America’s Next Top Model.” If I didn’t wish that, I never would have tried out for the show. But what exactly is so appealing about “reality” TV shows that make ordinary people want to be on them? Despite knowing that the network has edited and selectively chosen what parts of “reality” will give them the best ratings; we still strongly believe that it is the whole truth.

I think we believe this because we don’t want to face the fact that media isn’t serving its actual purpose: which is to deliver content that is overall beneficial for our society. And if it isn’t doing this, well what “real harm” is it actually inflicting on us? Or, the better question is, what can we, the mass population, actually do to change what’s happening? Just because we recognize and address the multiple issues that media reinforce or propel in our society isn’t enough. Today the idea that the government is to blame for the allowance of corporate domination over media outlets was brought up. I would have to agree. The mass population, or rather, the minority of us who recognize what is happening, do not have enough power to threaten the larger conglomerates. It has gotten to a point where any small organization that has enough courage to voice against the mainstream will be crushed instantly (in the sense that they could be bought or pushed out). So the idea that it is now our responsibility to do something against this rise of power is almost devastating because it seems impossible. The only way that I can see the way media is structured changing is to position myself into the media industry. That is, get a job at one of the larger corporations and work my way up to the leadership position where I could then enforce change. But, as I thought about that, I had to realistically ask myself, if that was even possible? Who is to say that once I am in that leadership position I will be able to do anything? Will I not just be a puppet of the large corporation and their profit-driven ways? Am I not so easily replaceable? So the question that we really must answer is not who can change the large corporations but what content and values must be reinstituted into our culture that can cause such a historic change?

First Thoughts

As discussed in class, the term “media” is commonly identified as a single term. We often forget that it is the plural of the word “medium” because when used contextually, people often say, “the media.” Using this catchphrase, the different mediums such as television, radio, literature, etc. conglomerate into one unit. Thus, associating all these mediums as a single identity allows society to take media for granted. For instance, media convergence has blended the mode of media delivery so that one is now able to watch a television program on his iPod. Or, receive caller i.d. on their television. This combinational approach gives less distinction and uniqueness to each type of medium. While a lot of this has to do with advancements in technology, I often wonder if it is really necessary. Many of the additional features of technological advancements appear to support the laziness of our society. Either that, or demonstrate how easily media can pull one away from social interactions.

The idea that media create para-social relationships is an interesting proposition. Gitlin writes, “But child or adult, we do demand something from our images, even if they are only ‘almost real.’ We expect them to heighten life, to intensify and focus it by being better than real, more vivid, more stark, more something” (23). These para-social relationships are perhaps relationships that we want because they are “better than real” relationships. They are “better than real” because the people that we listen to on the radio or see on the television are not people whom we socially interact with. They are people with whom we react to. But what is the purpose of these evoked emotions? Why do we constantly seek the stimulation of a quick sensational feeling? To be perfectly honest, I don’t even really know how to answer this question. It is almost scary to think about because when I ask myself why I continually watch reality television shows or yell angrily at Tyra Banks when she name-drops her own name, I don’t know. But then again, I can’t forget that television is the only form of media that stirs these types of feelings. The last Harry Potter book roused an argument between me and my friend where we were practically shouting at the top of our lungs at each other. Tell me, what is the point of arguing over one word a character says in 800 pages? Probably nothing. But, perhaps something. Who knows? I guess I have somewhat diverged from the origin of this blog. But that is probably the most fascinating thing about media: it allows for a boundless amount of topic conversation.

In case you were wondering, the word was “bitch.”