With all of the information that is being presented and the easy access to it, people have to pick and choose what they will listen to for news. Unfortunately, many people choose to listen to what reaffirms their beliefs rather than unbiased news outlets. This led to a startling phenomenon of "reliable news media sources" being flooded with untrue news from the Internet. These rumors gain credibility when they are substansiated by other outlets, but the story remains untrue.
Elizabeth Kolbert's article "The Things That People Say" detailed an occurrence of this during Barack Obama's presidential campaign. "Birthers" insisted that President Obama was not a citizen of the United States because he didn't have a birth certificate. Even when evidence was presented that he was a citizen, people continued to ignore that news in favor of news that discredited him because they disagreed with his policies. The Internet did not help matters because anyone could find articles to support any theory that they had because the Internet news sources aren't held to that same journalistic standards as legitimate journalists.
Another example of this is the "death panels" that Sarah Palin alleged were going to be covered under Barack Obama's health care plan (noticing a theme here...?). Even after all of the news media have rescinded their initial reports about the fake story, some people still bring them up as a reason not to support the health care bill. In this current state of biased media it's not a question of truthfulness, it's a question of what verifies MY point?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Trust Me, It's Not Just Google That's Making Us Stupid
In this age of instant information at your fingertips, how crazy is it that we don't actually even take the time to read the information? It's not like we don't have the time. I mean, it arrives in an instant. We didn't wait four months or have to travel to get it. Why can't we just focus and take our time now that we have the means to do so?
This modern era is making us try to cram all of our activities into as little time as possible. The idea is, the less time we use, the more time we'll have. But for what? And while we're talking about information in the digital age, just the question that the title of the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" speaks to a large and widespread problem that we have today. Why are search engines so prominent in our everyday life? Who played that guy who died on Season Two of the Wire? Google it. Go to IMDB. Whatever you do, don't think. We will soon live in an age where everyone's knowledge is based off of what they see on the Internet.
But let's not make the Internet the sole scapegoat for a growing lack of brain power in society. Films do this to books. How many people have read "The Shawshank Redemption"? No, Morgan Freeman is not one of the characters. We take shortcuts and try to find the quickest way to receive information until it becomes a question of why we're even looking for the information in the first place. By the time we get it, we have already moved onto looking for the next bit, which is ridiculous because we received 100 million Google results in .02 seconds.
Did you read this post or did you skim it? I'll say this again, it's not just Google that's making us stupid : it's us too.
This modern era is making us try to cram all of our activities into as little time as possible. The idea is, the less time we use, the more time we'll have. But for what? And while we're talking about information in the digital age, just the question that the title of the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" speaks to a large and widespread problem that we have today. Why are search engines so prominent in our everyday life? Who played that guy who died on Season Two of the Wire? Google it. Go to IMDB. Whatever you do, don't think. We will soon live in an age where everyone's knowledge is based off of what they see on the Internet.
But let's not make the Internet the sole scapegoat for a growing lack of brain power in society. Films do this to books. How many people have read "The Shawshank Redemption"? No, Morgan Freeman is not one of the characters. We take shortcuts and try to find the quickest way to receive information until it becomes a question of why we're even looking for the information in the first place. By the time we get it, we have already moved onto looking for the next bit, which is ridiculous because we received 100 million Google results in .02 seconds.
Did you read this post or did you skim it? I'll say this again, it's not just Google that's making us stupid : it's us too.
Traveling So Far To Be In The Same Place Quicker
There's so much talk of the progress that has been made in technology over the last decade, but in reality the progress we have made technologically is only further enhancing previous technologies and making them more convenient.
The argument that technology is evolutionary and not revolutionary is becoming more and more apparent in modern times. We have not seen new media create any different content, we have only been able to access old content through a new medium. New media absorbs the old media's messages and regurgitates it back in a more user friendly manner.
Television has lost its cache because of DVR, Tivo and Hulu. Television requires a schedule to sit down and watch something. The new media has eliminated the time pressure associated with watching TV and has replaced it with convenient segments of shows that can be fit into any schedule, no matter how hectic.
Film is being replaced by Netflix and bit torrents that beat going to the movies in both speed and convenience. These mediums are almost instant, cheap and are simple to use. The issue of time is less prominent here than in television because for many people, going to the movies is a date or an outing. However, when it comes to buying DVDs, films are losing money from consumers who just decide to watch it on Netflix or download the torrent.
It's becoming a question of how to monetize these new mediums to insure that the corporations creating the product get paid. It's hard to charge for the Internet, especially with pirated versions of almost everything floating around, but something tells me they will find a way to do it.
The argument that technology is evolutionary and not revolutionary is becoming more and more apparent in modern times. We have not seen new media create any different content, we have only been able to access old content through a new medium. New media absorbs the old media's messages and regurgitates it back in a more user friendly manner.
Television has lost its cache because of DVR, Tivo and Hulu. Television requires a schedule to sit down and watch something. The new media has eliminated the time pressure associated with watching TV and has replaced it with convenient segments of shows that can be fit into any schedule, no matter how hectic.
Film is being replaced by Netflix and bit torrents that beat going to the movies in both speed and convenience. These mediums are almost instant, cheap and are simple to use. The issue of time is less prominent here than in television because for many people, going to the movies is a date or an outing. However, when it comes to buying DVDs, films are losing money from consumers who just decide to watch it on Netflix or download the torrent.
It's becoming a question of how to monetize these new mediums to insure that the corporations creating the product get paid. It's hard to charge for the Internet, especially with pirated versions of almost everything floating around, but something tells me they will find a way to do it.
Privacy
Privacy. It no longer exists in this increasingly digitized world, right?
How many people have you told your social security number to? A few at Kumble Hall? Maybe your employer? Does your mom know? And this isn't a problem because they don't memorize this information to use against you, right? Right? Why are we known by numbers anyway? The big government database of people and their information is something we don't think about in our everyday lives. Number 000000000001 is a white male, 37 years old, in this tax bracket, with this number of children, divorced, no prior arrests and God knows what else information. All of this exists and has existed since Social Security has.
People were paranoid about all of this information being kept in a solitary space and some are still not comfortable with the idea, leading to all sorts of conspiracy theories involving the government spying on people. However, these conspiracy theorists don't take into account the all powerful, omniscient being that is the Internet.
Evan Ratliff's experiment on trying to disappear was very telling. He had to work really hard to drop off the grid, creating misinformation and not just electronically. He lied to everyone he met, changed his appearance and even stopped using his own car. The effort it required to stay unfound was too much for him. He had to use the help of people online and had to check what his hunters were theorizing to throw them off.
All of these precautions were to avoid being found but they weren't all digital precautions. There were precautions against other humans who could meet him and maybe blog about it, putting him back on the grid, against the world, traffic light cameras could get images of him or his car. Ratliff assumed a fake name and used cash transactions, but couldn't sustain his cover for as long as he had posited.
This article does bring up an important question about people's privacy. We assume it's there because it's not being violated, but in reality, if someone wanted to, they could most likely find out everything about us twice and then steal our identity. However, the notion of privacy still exists and some people are truly off the grid. People born into homelessness may not have been born in a hospital. There is no record of their existence, no social security number and I doubt they have Twitters. Do they exist? Of course they do. But according to the Internet, they don't. Perhaps they have the closest thing to privacy that one can hope for in this day and age.
The Extremes Of Online
The "online community" is a reflection of society today.
This sentence is a scary sentiment. Can it be that the vicious, falsified, hateful and ignorant legions that reside in our computer screen are really reflective of the ever increasingly "tolerant" society that we claim to be forming?
Matthias Schwartz's article, "The Trolls Among Us" takes a look at the truly heartless dregs of our online society and try to come to terms with why someone would do this. The anonymity of the internet creates a shield around these people, allowing them to assume perfectly normal everyday personas that are socially acceptable, while online they harass and inflame. In the article, two very different trolls share their reasons for doing what they do. One insists that people should know these things and that he can't be held responsible for someone's stupidity. The only way for them to learn is through bad experiences and he is more than happy to provide them. He felt no remorse for an epileptic being tricked into clicking something that gave her a seizure. The other insisted that he only wanted everyone off of the internet who didn't deserve to be there. I imagine the list of motivations goes on and on, but can't relate to actually wanting to hurt people, even in a setting with almost no repercussions.
On my own blog show, I deal with trolls in a different way than most. Most people get mad and kick them or ban them. That only attends to the problem in the moment. They can easily log onto their other account (trolls always have another account) and continue the abuse and now they know they've affected you, which means they win. I don't kick or ban. I allow the trolls to stay and I let them verbally abuse me, but it doesn't affect me. I continue my show and I charm and I humor and eventually they either leave or subscribe. It's funny how many former trolls have subscribed to my show and shower me with compliments now.
This brings me to the other extreme of the internet. Its vast capacity to promote community and good tidings between people is astounding. When someone creates a memorial page to a loved one, thousands of people spend minutes of their day offering condolances and prayers. Strangers for a single moment see the suffering of someone else and can still feel a human connection. The para-social connections we make online are important and can become another family. Several of the trolls that used to attack me now defend me on my show. There have been stories about the anonymous community on 4chan banding together and helping to catch child predators. The very same tactics used to harass and defame others is used to protect and help people. So I say take the bad with the good when it comes to online interaction because the extreme terribleness that the internet can proliferate can yield an extreme good.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Rock Jocks
1. What were some of the factors that contributed to the burst of growth in FM radio during the late 1960's?
In the late 1960's there was a mass movement for the "counter-culture" of America. AM radio was "mainstream" and manufactured to have mass appeal, so certain groups of listeners were falling through the cracks. The AM stations were too broad for the rebellious youth of the 1960's. With the growing drug culture and social unrest caused by moves towards equality, many of the youth of America were looking for a way to express themselves and looking for comradeship among their peers. FM radio started as a free expression forum for these disenfranchised outcasts, in which they could discuss what was important to them with very little to no regulations. This became a popular forum because of the special communities it created and the loyalty of their base.
2. What strategies did these stations and their personnel use to establish a bond with their listeners? What role did music play in this?
The stations spoke about topics that were important to their listeners and allowed for audience participation. They had events that led to groups of people congregating and meeting each other. A community was formed and then the FM stations began to play new and interesting music. Experimental bands were given a chance by the counter culture who were open-minded and receptive to their radical ways of playing and writing music.
3. Describe the factors that led to changes in the way FM operated as the years passed.
FM became popular and could no longer sustain itself to reach the mass audience that it attracted. FM had to become merged with business. Corporations saw FM only as a way to profit and began to apply sound business tactics to what the DJs considered an art form. The corporations saw risks in what the DJs were doing even though these risks and innovations were what created the large audience in the first place. Regulations were put on what could and could not be said on the air and DJs were at the mercy of the station's owners. The content became bottled and soon there was a very clear and safe format for FM that was profitable.
4. In your view, can new developments like web radio and satellite radio bring back some of the qualities of these early FM rock stations?
Yes, because one of the best qualities about the internet is that it cannot be bought. Since no one can own all of it, there is no fear of a monopoly forming and there will always be unregulated content that pertains to some other culture than the mainstream media. These new media radio stations incorporate all of the ideals of free expression that FM set forth with the added benefit of being able to create a global community.
In the late 1960's there was a mass movement for the "counter-culture" of America. AM radio was "mainstream" and manufactured to have mass appeal, so certain groups of listeners were falling through the cracks. The AM stations were too broad for the rebellious youth of the 1960's. With the growing drug culture and social unrest caused by moves towards equality, many of the youth of America were looking for a way to express themselves and looking for comradeship among their peers. FM radio started as a free expression forum for these disenfranchised outcasts, in which they could discuss what was important to them with very little to no regulations. This became a popular forum because of the special communities it created and the loyalty of their base.
2. What strategies did these stations and their personnel use to establish a bond with their listeners? What role did music play in this?
The stations spoke about topics that were important to their listeners and allowed for audience participation. They had events that led to groups of people congregating and meeting each other. A community was formed and then the FM stations began to play new and interesting music. Experimental bands were given a chance by the counter culture who were open-minded and receptive to their radical ways of playing and writing music.
3. Describe the factors that led to changes in the way FM operated as the years passed.
FM became popular and could no longer sustain itself to reach the mass audience that it attracted. FM had to become merged with business. Corporations saw FM only as a way to profit and began to apply sound business tactics to what the DJs considered an art form. The corporations saw risks in what the DJs were doing even though these risks and innovations were what created the large audience in the first place. Regulations were put on what could and could not be said on the air and DJs were at the mercy of the station's owners. The content became bottled and soon there was a very clear and safe format for FM that was profitable.
4. In your view, can new developments like web radio and satellite radio bring back some of the qualities of these early FM rock stations?
Yes, because one of the best qualities about the internet is that it cannot be bought. Since no one can own all of it, there is no fear of a monopoly forming and there will always be unregulated content that pertains to some other culture than the mainstream media. These new media radio stations incorporate all of the ideals of free expression that FM set forth with the added benefit of being able to create a global community.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
My Most Memorable Slasher
I am a connoisseur of horror movies and especially of the ever popular "slasher" genre. I have seen cheesy slashers, funny slashers, gratuitous slashers and everything in between. After a while, they begin to follow the same format and become predictable and eventually lose their power to induce fear in me. These days, I view slashers in a clinical sense, dissecting the onscreen dissections with a removed attitude. The characters are so two-dimensional that their deaths are nothing more than the vehicle that drives the story forward. The killers are almost one-dimensional, giving us these soulless killing machines that may or may not have a snappy one-liner before they dispatch another "good guy". To truly be memorable, a slasher must be innovative and break this tried and true mold. There must be a human element added to the characters to make it so that the limit is reached. My desensitized heart strings must be revitalized and tugged to their breaking points. My blood should boil and my hair should stand on end. And at the end of such a film, I should be left wanting to close my curtains and sleep with my sister that night. The last slasher I saw to give me a semblance of those feelings was Michael Haneke's 2007 movie, "Funny Games". The movie made me uncomfortable. I didn't enjoy watching it. I wanted to turn it off. And I remember it to this day even though I only watched it once. "Funny Games" spent its time making you grow to enjoy a small family's quirks and habits, only to bring two sadistic killers in to ruin it. There was no final girl and there were no rules. No one was safe. And when I turned it off, I didn't feel safe. This is what horror is supposed to do. It should pull you in and force you to confront the things that scare you the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
