A Day Without E-Media

For some the idea of living without digital media is horrifying. For others they would hardly notice a difference at all. For myself, it would be painful. I would consider myself a more than moderate user of digital media. There are very few times in the day when I'm not watching TV or sitting in front of a computer, or talking to friends on my phone. So for me, going an entire day with out media was quite a struggle. I decided to do the deprivation experiment over Thanksgiving, that way I could spend most of my time talking with my family and cooking, I knew i would need something to distract me from my usual media intake.

I woke up in the morning to my cell phones alarm going off.  Although we weren't supposed to use phones, I figured an alarm didn't really count as media. That is unless the clock really is a game. After I rolled out of bed I walked into my bathroom to do my usual hygiene routine, then went back into my room and sat down at my desk like I always do. I sat there for about thirty minutes trying to figure out what to do. Normally I would open my laptop, check my email, talk to some friends online, and read some internet news. But i couldn't do any of that. I turned to my left and looked at my tv sitting about 3 feet away from me and just though of how useless that big box would be today. After sitting there and just staring at my closed laptop for a while, my mom finally called me to come look at something, and its a good thing she did, I'm not sure how much longer i would have been sitting there if she hadn't. 

After the morning I spent most of the day cooking food with my family. I really enjoy cooking, so it kept me well entertained. Admittedly I did respond to two text messages from people wishing my happy Thanksgiving, and I did talk on the phone when my grandmother called me. After all I didn't want to be totally rude. Once dinner was served and eaten, my stepfather put on a football game in the living room. I'm not a big fan of sports so it was easy for me to ignore it and help my mom clean up from dinner. I then made my way upstairs where I sat back down at my desk. I realized just how boring my room was without my tv or computer on. After about 10 minutes of sitting I started feeling tired, it seemed that the turkey's tryptophan had started going to work on me. So I laid down in my bed where I ended up sleeping for 4 hours.

When I woke up it was about 11:30, my parents were sleeping so I didn't really have any one to talk to or otherwise keep me entertained. I started to feel totally alone. I had no connection with any one. I thought for a moment about driving to one of my friends houses, but most of them were out of state, visiting family. I did have one friend that lived near by that I thought about driving to go see. Then I thought about how i would have no way to get in contact with him to see if it would be okay for me to come over. If I couldn't use the phone or IM then how could I get in contact with him with out just driving over and knocking on the door. I thought for a while how, before phones, people planned things with each other. I thought that they must have had to plan on meet at a specific time at a certain place. Either that or just be very polite about people randomly knocking on your door to see if you were available to hang out. I gave up on the idea of hanging out with any one after I realized that all we would do if play video games and watch movies if I did go over anyones house. so I just laid there on my bed thinking for a while. I knew that I wouldn't be able to go to bed for at least a few more hours, not after the 4 hour nap I just had. I started feeling like I was being punished. When I was younger my parents would punish me by taking away video games and tv for extended periods of time. Maybe its just because of my parents methods of punishment, or the fact that I got in trouble very often as a kid, but I really started feeling anxious without being able to use my computer and TV. I started reliving the memories of middle school, how I would get my games taken away and then I would fight with my parents, yelling and screaming at them to give them back. "god I was a brat" I thought to myself. But the feeling of anxiety didn't go away.

Eventually I gave up, I got out of bed opened my laptop, turned on the tv and called up a friend on my cell phone. It was about midnight when I did this, and I had woken up at 10 am. 14 hours I went without using any form of e-media, I figured that was enough. I spent the next 4 hours watching a House marathon on tv, talking to friends online through IM's, and playing a video game on my PSP. I kind of felt bad for breaking the fast, but its not like I didn't learn anything. I really saw just how much I depend on e-media for entertainment and to stay in contact with people. As well, for me at least, I felt some what like i saw in jail. Trapped in the walls of my parents house, with no where to go and no one to talk to. I really think that in todays society most people depend on digital media to release them from the bonds of solitude. As well I think that it is hard for most people to keep themselves entertained with out electronics.

TV vs Print (fought by two writers)

After reading the essay Two Cultures I must say that neither side truly won me over. I Suppose that if I had to pick a side it would be with Paglia since I would generally rather watch TV than read myself. What i really can't agree with either side on is their reasoning. Perhaps I just can't get my mind around their ideas but the things they say sound very strange to me. Postman brings up an essay by John Locke talking about how “the body must become a slave to the mind” and notes that one of her students can only read if her body is in a some what strange position. I find myself to be a horrible reader, but I have never found myself unable to read unless I doing so in an exact posture. So long as the way I am sitting isn't distracting me then I am able to read just as well in any physical position. It seems that the idea that Postman was trying to convey was that ones physical state is connected with the way one reads. This is shown more when Paglia agrees with Postman's idea and explains how she noticed a connection between successful dancers and unsuccessful readers. This may simply be because I haven't had as much experience with as large of a number of dancers as Paglia, but every one of my personal friends that are dancers have been very interested in books and read far more proficiently than myself. I can understand the idea that if someone spends time trying to become better at one activity then will become less proficient with the activities they are forgoing. However it has always seemed to me that most people that are physically good in the arts, such as dance, usually enjoy reading as an art form as well. It almost seems like Postman and Paglia are taking being a reader and being athletic to the extremes, and referring to people people who never read and are constantly physically active and vice versa. Though I would wager that even the most intense Olympic athletes still pick up a book every so often.

Another topic the two discussed that I entirely disagree with is when they both agreed that when people watch TV they don't learn or retain any information. As I said before, I don't read very much at all, in fact I almost never read books unless it's for a class, and I don't think I have ever read more than one or two articles in a news paper. Almost all of the news I hear about is from the TV and many of the historical facts I know I learned from either the History Channel or from movies about a time period. But by the logic of Postman and Paglia I should know very little more than the information I was taught in school, which to me is somewhat insulting. I will say that I don't know nearly as much about Greco-Roman transitions influencing Judeo-Christian beliefs or about pegan ideals and teachings as the two of them. However this is probably because the History Channel hasn't done a special about it yet.

This November 4th our country watched as Barack Obama became our nations new president elect. Nearly every one saw this of course by watching some media news network and like wise, almost every person who voted based their decision on information they got from some media coverage. In a perfect world the media wouldn't have any influence of who wins an election. It would simply show each candidates points of view and ideas of how the country would be led. However, this is not a perfect world, it is far from it. So what role did the media have in deciding the outcome of the votes? Well stats show that a far greater percentage of media coverage was negative towards McCain. As well, much more of the coverage was positive towards Obama. So does this mean that since the new stations apparently talked about Obama more favorably than McCain that they are the reason why Obama won? I personally personally don't think so.

I feel that the reason why McCain lost is because he didn't have as good of a campaign strategy as Obama's. A lot of this that McCain did and talked about were not received very well by the public. This simply made it easier for the media to pick on McCain. I think the worst idea that McCain's campaign had was to have Sarah Palin as his running mate. I'm not saying she was unintelligent or would have been a bad Vice President, those ideas don't even matter. The problem with her was that she became an all too easy target for the media, and not in a good way. Any one has to admit that the idea of an extremely attractive young woman from Alaska being the Vice President of a very old man has some humor to it and is hard to take seriously. And with out looking any deeper into Governor Palin's actual political history that is all that people see. It also doesn't help when she would crack under pressure from the media, although i think most people would if they had to take the abuse she did.

What I am basically saying is that its not really the medias fault that they were so negative to McCain. Maybe they did take things a bit too far some times, but when you are running a political campaign you have to anticipate the medias reaction and plan your strategy around that.

It's all Just One Big Add

From my perspective it seems as though advertisement is a part of nearly all forms of media. Television seems to be nothing but advertisements half the time, and I'm not even talking about commercials. In all movies and shows there are blatant advertisements for everything from cars to coffee makers, even guns. Todays magazines are the same way, half of the pages are full advertisements for various companies and most of the actual articles are also promoting some type of product. On the internet its almost impossible to find a web page with out at least one advertisement link or banner. Even video games have promotions for cloths, food stores, and hair products. However it would seem as though most of society has accepted this, if not relies on it. I think its hard for any one to think of how they would know about most products with out seeing them in a commercial first. I don't think that there is anything wrong with most advertising, so long as it it not for overly obnoxious or for too long a period of time.

One thing I find very interesting is the cyclical nature of advertising in todays media. A company that is trying to sell a product might take out an add in a magazine. To do this it has to pay the magazine, obviously. The magazine relies on these funds from advertisers in order to keep making profit, but at the same time they also need to advertise their own product. So this magazine's marketing department might ask the producers of a new movie to have a scene where the main character is reading and issue of this magazine over a cup of coffee. Of course the movie producers will undoubtedly buy an advertising space in the magazine, or possibly even have the magazine write a favorable review of this movie. The review, of course, will totally unbiased.

The power of the media to mold our minds making us think that we should use or even need certain product is truly amazing. If you made someone pick between Ford or Dodge I bet they would give you an answer with very thought. I personally would pick a Ford, and to tell the truth, I don't really know why. It's probably because of an old Steve McQueen movie, where the hero drove a Mustang and the bad guy a Charger. I'm sure I'm not the only person that does these sorts of things when they see a product in the media. At times the media will even tell us that certain product will bring our biggest dream into reality, and at a very reasonable price. TAG body spray is an excellent example of this. In the commercials (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hc2vA_1NCcE) they show teenaged boys using the spray on themselves and shortly after being quite literally trampled by by girls. It is then assumed that the boy was attacked for sexual reasons, some times it's actually bluntly implied. In other words they are saying that if you, a teenaged high school boy, wear this body spray then hundreds of attractive girls with want to have sex with you. I have used this product myself and can tell you that my results were not the same as in the commercials. However to a teenaged boy I'm sure it is worth the $4.50 to buy a can and try it.

Jason Lears tells an excellent story about media advertising in which a simple store display of small hunting axes made a large number of business men buy up the axes. What would a business man in a city do with a hunting axe? probably nothing other than store it some where, never putting it to any use. However the idea of an outdoors-men is very appealing to most guys, especially those stuck inside of offices all day long. It feeds into a primal hunter/gatherer nature that many men have, to chop wood and make things with there hands. Although I'm sure that most men would actually want to buy a house that was already made for them instead of chopping down a small forrest and doing it themselves, it is an attractive motif to many people.

Political Blog #2: McCain vs Obama

After watching the first presidential debate this past Friday I had my own idea of who "won". I think that it was a very close debate, both sides made good arguments and, as well, both candidates made statements that i found immature and overly repetitive. However, when I watched the debate live, I was watching it with my room mate, who has an extreme bias skewed the same direction as myself. My room mate and I started discussing comments each candidate said while the debate was still going on, and because of this I felt I missed important points. So I took the time to watch the debate again, alone, and with no outside influence. The result of this was about the same as the first time. In my opinion I believe senator Obama won. There are many reasons I came to this conclusion and I'm sure that many people disagree with me and even find my reasoning naïve and simple, but so be it. Something major that both candidates did constantly that I found to be misleading was answering a question by criticizing the other candidate's viewpoint. This always led to the candidate that was attacked pointing out how the attackers translation of their policies and views was completely wrong. It made it seem like both people were saying the same thing in the end. However, I was surprised to hear senator Obama speak very clearly on a few topics. When he was asked about sending troops to Afghanistan he very clearly said that we should send more troops there and possibly to Pakistan as well if they are unable to act accordingly. This is something I agree with and have felt since our involvement in Iraq and I'm glad Obama was able to speak plainly about it. A few times, however, senator Obama was fairly childish. Making many comparisons to McCain and president Bush, he pointed out times where the Arizona senator backed the president on issues. Obama made it obvious that he feel that having McCain in office will be the same as having Bush back in office, something that I don't think any intelligent person can actually believe. Although I found Obama attacking McCain, simply because he is affiliated with with the same party as Bush, to be very low. With no real surprise, however, Senator McCain did something even worse and with much more frequency. It seemed every possible time he could, McCain would tell a story about going to a country or talking with a general or president directly, where Obama had not. it was obvious, and even plainly said at times, that McCain was pointing out Obama's inexperience. It seems like most of this presidential race has been the two sides arguing the same two points, that McCain is a republican and all republicans are like bush, and that Obama doesn't have enough experience. I personally don't think either statement is true, and either way, I'm very tired of hearing it, and hearing it during a debate seemed very inappropriate. Although, because of the repetition of McCain's comments on Obama's inexperience, I feel that Obama won, simply because he didn't find as many ways possible to say the same over beatten point. After watching the debate and making my own conclusions on it I looked at a few websites too see what other people thought and who won the debate. Most sites, including the political blog I'm following (http://www.bipolarnation.com/2008/09/29/the-first-mccain-obama-debate/), felt that it was a tie. I can understand this viewpoint since I feel that it was very close with both sides having their own pros and cons. I did also see a few sites that actually referenced polls conducted by CNN and The USA Today, in which concluded that Obama was the winner (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3104504/Barack-Obama-won-first-presidential-debate-over-John-McCain-say-polls.html and http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/27/Poll_Obama_won_presidential_debate/UPI-20721222512164/). However, it does seem like the opinion of most news sites, which did'nt take polls, is that there was a tie.

Blog #2: The Language of a World

Throughout the history of civilization people have found many forms of media. At first it was mainly used as a simple way of identification and book keeping for things like proof of property (Crowley, 38). One of the biggest breakthroughs media and subsequently communication was the alphabet and written language. With written language people were able to write down ideas, information, and news it allowed for these things to then travel from one place to another, and for anyone to learn from them. Information which formerly needed to be passed down from teacher to student through speech over many decades would no doubt lose some substance after the ninth or tenth iteration, however written words would never change so information could be preserved in whole for centuries.

Although for all of the benefits to society that we could come up with, there are just as many negatives. Before the alphabet came about most written communication was in the form of hieroglyphs which were hard to write and took up much space, the alphabet solved this problem although it made many of its own problems. Hieroglyphs were easy to read, if you wanted to say "bird" you simply drew an outline of a bird, but the alphabet had to be taught and learned. Learning to read a write would mean that you were able to learn anything that had been written. This was also looked at as negative by some. Socrates believed that writing was a type of crutch for people to use instead of using their minds to remember information and also for people to simply read and memories facts without having a full understanding of the concepts, basically appearing smart (Crowley, 36). Socrates idea is interesting because I feel like many college classes work that way, you are expected to memorize information from a text, but not required to think critically about it or understand its origins.

The impact of written language on society was also very great, especially for kings and nobles. Letters and posters could be sent to all corners of a state to inform its people who its owner was and what rules its residence must abide. Writing allowed for areas to be controlled that were much greater than before, a kings word could spread much further than he could see or speak and his words would live on even after his death (Crowley, 37). This same idea has always been available to untruthful people in the form of propaganda. This can be seen during World War II in many countries but especially Germany, where Hitler would spread the word or victory, even when defeat was obvious. Even 400 years ago propaganda was being spread by Hammurabi of Babylon who called himself "mighty King, King of Babylon, King of the whole country of Amurru, King of Sumer and Akkad, King of the Four Quarters of the World" (Crowley, 37).

To me Written language had been extremely important and has evolved to be a part of nearly all aspects of society. Some people, like Susan Jacoby, will complain that reading is much less a part of our lives today than it was many years ago. I however see language everywhere I look. When watching television I am reading hundreds of words that are shown on the screen. Even playing video games, which many people feel is the furthest thing from a literary activity, I am reading thousands of lines of text which could rival most novels on book store shelves. Language is everywhere, and I think it is obvious to see how important it is to society.

Works Cited:
Crowley, David. Heyer, Paul. Communication in history-Technology, Culture, Society. Pearson Education, Inc. 2007

Gardner, Howard. “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” WashintongPost.com. The Washington Post Company. 17 Feb. 2008. Web. 21 Sept. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html

Jacoby, Susan. “The Dumbing of America.” WashingtonPost.com. The Washington Post Company. 17 Feb. 2008. Web. 20 Sept. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

Socialism of a Democrat

The media controls many things in the lives of most Americans. If every news station were to cover the same story, saying the same thing, then most of America would believe what the news said even if it was actually a total lie. As far as political campaigns go, the news and other media seem to control just about everything, especially during a presidential election. It’s hard for me to think of how I would be able to get information about the candidates if it weren't for TV, newspapers, and internet articles and I'm sure it would be the same for most people. However, because nearly everyone relies of media to give them the information about the candidates, it also means that the media is given exceptional amounts of power. One could even say that it is really the media that decides who the next president will be.

While reading though some of the articles on the political blog site Bipolar Nation, I came across a post titled “Masking His Socialism,” which quite bluntly claimed that presidential candidate Barack Obama is in fact a socialist. I thought that it was a ridiculous idea, at first, but the article did have many good points. Socialism is defined as “any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy,” which is basically a step between capitalism and communism. Of course anything having to do with communism is automatically labeled as evil by the American people, this was obvious in the way that the article was written. The entire tone of the article seemed to say that Obama being a socialist would be the downfall of America if he were to be elected. This was especially evident with the way the article compared Obama getting elected with Fidel Castro being elected. Not that I feel having some one like Castro would be a good thing for our country, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that Obama is just like Castro because he is a socialist. I think it’s hard for anyone to see a man like Obama becoming a fascist dictator, especially when he wants less money being spent on the military and more money being spent on schools and health care. The article actually uses the idea of spending more money on school as a negative by saying, “I mean, for crying out loud, he wants to recruit an ‘army of teachers.’ I’d prefer an army of soldiers,” which also makes mention to the fact that the author does have an affinity towards having a military-based country. A few lines later he quotes from another article saying, “And when the young leader said, ‘I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,’ everyone yelled, ‘Viva Fidel!’ But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away,” which sounds like a reference to the way Castro militarized his country, which the author just criticized Obama for wanting the opposite.

I try to take the media with a grain of salt when it come to political issues and I feel that this blog is a good example of why. Too many media figures have agendas and seem to care very little about supplying the country with the truth.

Kenitz, Dan. "Masking His Socialism." BipolarNation.com. 09 Sep 2008. 14 Sep 2008.

"Socialism" The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.