Response to Monica's question #1

This is in response to Monica’s first question regarding women and their role in powerful positions and how that relates to Michelle Obama. As far as the comparison between Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama is concerned I do not think that they are equally comparable. Through each of them hold a degree in law does not make them candidates to be compared. I think they are severely different in several ways. Hilary Clinton has a much more dominating energy than Michelle Obama. Hilary comes in and claims her space, Michelle does not really do the same, she is a much more silent character in her energy. It think that Hilary is a little bit more brave than Michelle is, in the way that Hilary is not afraid to take risks whereas Michelle might be a little hesitant to confront confrontation. It is early in the Obama’s career, but Michelle has her first television interview on Friday and that will show us a window into what at the least the next four years will be like regarding the first lady. As far as watching their every move, it’s not just the media. Every American is watching what is going on in the white house, not only because this is a new president who promised great things for this country and everyone wants to see if he will do them. We are also in an economic downfall, with the country’s economy the way it is; people are waiting for the white house to act on that as well. So we are watching to make sure that everything goes well. Maybe not if they do something wrong but if they do, it will be magnified because of how much people are counting on them.
As far as race goes, I do not think that will have an impact on how Hilary and Michelle are compared. I do not think that the media will pay more attention to her because she is an African American. That will not be a deciding factor on how much the white house is watched and how much media coverage they both get. They are the President and the First Lady; they will be watched no matter the color of their skin. I do not think that their skin color puts any real weight into the dilemma, this may be me being naïve but I feel as if they would be watched regardless because of the economy and all of the promises that Barack made that America wants to see come true.

Questions for readings due March 10th

1.)“Many Critics are worried that home computers will drive Western culture inward, making us unable to interact with others on an interpersonal level.” (Larsen). This statement makes me think specifically about the ‘Western culture’. When I think of western culture I think of Europe and America for the most part. The well developed countries that have strong financial backing. But would this progression of home computers dive the western world together but then drive apart the western world from the rest of the globe?
2.)“The mass media are the most effective channels to persuade people. Mass Media persuade us to buy products, to vote, and to take up causes. Why is this? One reason may be that there is only limited feedback in mass message systems (you cannot question, applaud, or respond), so certain ploys work that will not work in open arenas.” (Larsen). I think that this statement is not necessarily true today. With so many things online and so many ways for one person to respond to any particular situation they see on TV or hear on the radio, they have plenty of ways to express how they feel about something in the mass media. So my question is, is this statement true? Are we becoming just drains in mass media and taking what we hear and see for face value and believing in it? Or are we using our mass media resources to say what we think and get our opinion out there?
3.)“Indeed the written word came to be thought of as more trustworthy and more ‘magical’ than the spoken word.’ (Larsen) Do we still think this today? Just because something is written down does not make them trustworthy. Take Wikipedia into consideration, that is a site that is sometimes trustworthy and sometimes not, it just depends on the person that put the content up. So then spoken word would be just the same as written as far as the information goes, it would just be coming from a different media source. Does this still apply today with all the technology advancements or was this just a concept for back in the day when they had to have someone record the information verbally and it just became better to write it down than have the information be skewed?

In respone to kelsey's first question

In response to Kelsey’s first question, I think that as a society we have become so involved with our phones via text messaging and email readily available to us. I personally find it so ridiculous that when I am having a conversation with someone that they have to check their phone at least once. We are all guilty of falling into this trap; I know I am for sure. We all have grown up in this world where the media is constantly at our finger tips one way or another.
In this way it has hindered our ability to have face to face social conversations. It is almost impossible to have to a five minute conversation without someone checking their phone. But I think that people are aware of this. Growing up in this culture we have the ability to recognize when we are using our cell phones too much and we can cut down. I know several people including myself that will just plain ignore texts and calls when having a conversation with someone. Even though it is hard, it shows so much more respect to that person, saying you are worth my time to talk to you. And I think that is something as a whole we could be more educated on.
But I also think that e-mail and text messages open a lot more doors for conversation. Just today I was sitting next to one of my friends and she was on the phone with her mother. The conversation was getting heated and my friends said mom, I’m going to email you with the information and we can talk that way. She said I love you and I will talk to you later and hung up the phone. This is a great way not to further the tension between her and mother and she could lay everything out on the table and not get too frustrated. It ended up being miscommunication and this was a great outlet. So in instances such as that I think that it furthers our social communication rather than hinder it.
In some ways trading our ‘ears’ for our ‘eyes’ might not be such a bad thing after all but I think that it opens doors for communication but may also close a few in the process, which is true of many things in life.

Questions for readings due March 3rd

1.) In Neil Postman's Amusing ourselves to death, he starts out by saying that 'Today, we must look to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, as a metaphor of our national character and aspiration[...]The result is that we are people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death.' My problem with this statement is that media is here and it just means that we have it use it wisely. I don't think that we are all destine to become so media consumed that we need be always entertained. I think that we have the ability to control it in some way and know that we do not always need to be entertained by a so media driven source. So my question is to you, are we to become just media sucking objects always looking to be entertained even through our news like John Stewart? If so, how can we stop it, if not, how can it be prevented?
2.) He also discusses the idea of our media as our metaphors. He says ' Our media is our metaphors. Our metaphors create the content of our culture.' I think that this is true in many ways, but not true in others. I think that the media can define our culture pretty well, it is in a way a record of everything our culture is going through. But can we depend on everything that is put on our media to speak for our society? Take things such as the movie 'snakes on a plane' does that media outlet speak to our generation. Bu then I think of movies such as 'Milk' and think this has spoken directly about our generation and the things that we think about. Do we as a society, have our media be our metaphors to the world and can it portray us the way that we truly are?
3.) In his second section he says that people today are basically portrayed by television and not by print. That our ideas, information, and epistemology are portrayed through these medias. I’m not going to disagree with this statement, and my theme for these questions is, is this all that defines us as a whole? Are we only what is seen on television? It can’t be, for me I see the media so bias and always choosing a side to portray the story on. So are we all that is seen on media and on print? Or is there more to our culture that is not recorded in this way but still exists and defines our culture?