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).”