Final Post #5

Theme #3: Every form of technology that's gone digital has been transformed by its users/audience.

• Article: "The Trolls Among Us"

If people are HTML-savvy enough, they can hack and change anything on the internet. Now, though, almost anyone is able to alter media to fit their preferences. Blogs can be changed to look a certain way, and Facebook is constantly coming out with new applications made by users. Almost every large-scale social website gives the option to alter the colors and look of the page. YouTube videos can be made by anyone, and anyone can comment on them or respond back with more videos. Even Pandora radio is altered to fit our musical tastes. The article "The Trolls Among Us" tells of internet users everywhere that hack into websites and alter photos and videos all to get a rise out of other innocent internet users.

"Today the Internet is much more than esoteric discussion forums. It is a mass medium for defining who we are to ourselves and to others. Teenagers groom their MySpace profiles as intensely as their hair; escapists clock 50-hour weeks in virtual worlds, accumulating gold for their online avatars. Anyone seeking work or love can expect to be Googled. As our emotional investment in the Internet has grown, the stakes for trolling — for provoking strangers online — have risen."

It is interesting to look at why digital media is transformed by its audience and come up with the explanation that it is to define who we are. Why are blog colors changed? To show our personality through carefully selected HTML codes. Why are YouTube videos published? To show the world who we are and that we have talents worth sharing. It's unsettling that these so called "trolls" are able to alter sites and photos for a bad cause. Most of the time, internet users alter and transform websites just for innocent entertainment, but trolls are an example of how this altering can go wrong.

• Old Media: Radio

Now, I realize I have used the example of radio a lot, but I find it very interesting how the change happened. In FM radio's case, the roles of the audience modifying have been switched. When FM radio first emerged, DJs had the freedom to basically do whatever they wanted, and could therefore accept every request that came in. Listeners were essentially able to alter the radio stations to fit their preferences, to a certain extent. Now, listeners rarely have a chance to request anything. DJs are stuck to a certain playlist that they can't stray from even if they wanted to. Listeners have no say in how the radio station is run and what plays. It's interesting that as FM radio got more popular, the audience's ability to alter it lessened, but as new media emerge and become popular, audiences are able to alter almost everything about it, whether it be negatively or harmlessly.

• Theory: Winston

Winston's theory of evolving media is completely relevant here. But it's not only the creators of different forms of media that help it to evolve; users further the evolution of media by altering it and changing it into something different. Winston "describes the process whereby society and individuals incorporate media technologies into the fabric of daily life." As users make media more befitting of their personalities, they make it more personal and truly do integrate it into their daily lives. They have a sense of ownership of their form of the media. Audiences changing media can also be viewed as Winston's accelerators. Users make the media fit their preferences, and therefore better. Making the media better makes more people want to use it, accelerating its acceptance.

And some funny little cartoons about internet trolls:

Final Post #4

Theme 7: Privacy in the Age of Google

• Article: Writer Evan Ratliff Tried to Vanish: Here's What Happened

At the thought of how much information can be legally attained on someone, I panic. It's scary that people can learn so much about you, like how the hunters found out Evan's catsitter's name. It is completely useless information, but something pretty private. If they found out that, imagine all they could find. There is essentially no privacy in the world we live in. It's completely annoying and frustrating that, to disappear, I'd have to go through the trouble of diverting my IP address and avoid credit transactions. Granted, this was a contest to win money, so of course the search was more intense than if I decided to pack up and start a new life. However, it's just the fact that anyone can find out almost anything; and new forms of media only make it easier. Using Twitter and Facebook, people can join together and make public what are supposed to be private details. Hunting for private information isn't as hard as it seems; I'm not sure people even realize that they are doing it to themselves. Every time someone posts to Twitter, they are revealing something about themselves to the public. Every bit of information that goes onto Facebook is out there for the world to see. Of course, there are privacy settings, but honestly, they are quite easy to get around. From personal experience, I know this. I have some of my pictures on Facebook set to private because I don't need people snooping and knowing all that goes on in my life. (I know, you'd say, don't post them then. The ones I have private are the ones I cannot help being posted, by other people.) One person I have them set private from recently instant messaged me, "Oh how was your party the other night? It looked fun." I rarely talk to this person, and I had definitely not told them I was throwing a party with my friends. They are mutual friends on Facebook with one of mine, and because they could see my friend's pictures, they could see the very pictures I did not want them to see. It was harmless, but annoying. This is not illegal. That's the scariest part to all of this. How much legal information can people actually gain access to? According to the article, enough to stalk a person across the country and meet them outside of an obscure bookstore. Evan Ratliff accurately words my thoughts about the panic I have:

"It’s surreal, in those moments when I stop to think about it. Scores of people have studied my picture, stared into those empty eyes in the hopes of relieving me of thousands of dollars. They have stood for hours, trying to pick out my face in a crowd. They’ve come to know me like we’ve been friends for years. It’s weirdly thrilling, in a narcissistic kind of way, but also occasionally terrifying."

• Old Media: Print

I'm actually not quite sure what old media concept could be tied into this lack of privacy. It seems to me that we are straying away from any privacy media did have and creating new media to further the process. The only thing I could think of was the book "1984" and how it speculated about this type of thing. It's kind of ironic that, even though "1984" was a warning and terrifying to many people, we are moving more towards it than not. Of course, we aren't as restricted as the society in the book. However, we live in an age where anything can be found out about us, if someone really wants to. A simple search on Google can produce numerous results. Even Googling myself gives me my Facebook page, articles about my softball career in various newspapers, and the C.W. Post softball website. Nothing dangerous, but unsettling that information can be found so easily. "1984" warns of this, and it's interesting that we're voluntarily putting ourselves out there.

• Theory: Situationalism

Meyrowitz said that certain social situations dictate how we act, but new media have changed social situations. We can constantly access information and no longer have to physically be present somewhere to know what's going on. Because we're constantly in touch with friends, celebrities, and random people we never knew existed, social situations change, therefore changing our behavior. We can constantly be "in the know" about someone or something, and we can therefore be regarded as experts on certain topics. If you ask me, I don't want anyone to be able to be an expert on my private information, but just look at the Tiger Woods scandal. Numerous private details are leaking out, and we have no idea which are true, but we do know that something happened. A ton of people claim they know exactly what happened, and according to magazines, they are regarded as experts and sources. New media that broadcast personal details of private lives definitely change social behavior and roles.

Final Post #3

I apologize in advance if this blog isn't as well thought out as it could be. I just spent an hour and a half writing it, and it got deleted. So, on the verge of tears, I will attempt this again...

Theme #4: The trend in each emerging medium from utopian ideals to the focus on monetizing.

• Article: "How Tweet It Is"

The opening statements of this article are, "Sure, the Twitter guys still have no idea how to make money off their fabulous invention. But for now they are living in a dreamworld of infinite possibilities, maybe the last one on Earth." This is immediately indicative of the world we live in. The article, though talking about the merits of Twitter, seems to focus on how exactly the service will make money. There are a full four paragraphs speculating about how the monetizing will take place. From "brand verification" to the possibility of charging users a subscription fee, making money is on the way. However, the creators of Twitter don't seem as concerned as most other people do.

"When you ask Williams and Stone about revenue, they’ll—reflexively, defensively—remind you how young the company is, then they’ll point out that they have to worry about first making sure their product is flawless, then they’ll note that no one asked Google in 1998 how it was going to make money, then they’ll gripe that just because everyone else on the planet is terrified about money right now doesn’t mean they have to be."

It seems like they're only trying to make money off of the service because that's what everyone expects them to do. We live in a capitalist society that focuses only on making money. However, that usually turns something "pure" into an advertisement-laden annoyance. In fact, later in the article, the author talks about how, because of Twitter, pictures and posts about the Hudson River plane crash were up before any newspapers could cover it.

"Krums’s first instinct was to take a picture and load it to the web. There was nothing capitalistic or altruistic about it. Something amazing happened, and without thinking, he sent it out to the world. And let’s say he hadn’t. Let’s say he took this incredible photo [...] and decided to sell it, said he was hanging onto it for the highest bidder. He would have been vilified by bloggers and Twitterers alike. His is a culture of sharing information. This is the culture Twitter is counting on. Whatever your thoughts on its ability to exist outside the collapsing economy or its inability (so far) to put a price tag on its services, that’s a real thing."

This is the utopia that Twitter is now. There was no focus on money, just information sharing. However, the use of the phrase "so far" puts, again, an emphasis on monetizing. This obsession with monetizing Twitter has even made it's way into sarcastic cartoons, like this one I found online:

• Old Media: Radio

FM radio began as a utopian ideal, just as Twitter is today. It had the freedom to play whatever it wanted, and DJs only played advertisements for products they supported. The focus was less on money and more on having a good time listening to music and creating a community. Now, FM radio as we know it, has no freedom and is all about monetization. Old FM radio gained success, and corporations immediately saw a way to make money. They squeezed the life and essence out of old FM radio and changed it into a robotic advertisement, with ten of the same songs played in between. Old FM radio seems to be comparable to Twitter now, and if the focus on monetizing Twitter continues, it could fall in line with FM radio as we know it now - a bland, lifeless medium only focused on making money, taking all the purity from what it used to be.

• Theory: Capitalist Ideology

America is a capitalist society. Every form of media there is focuses on making money. If it does not make money, it's purpose has not been served. However, not every medium starts out that way. As I said before, FM radio started as a form of enjoyment, and now I can't turn on the radio without hearing DJs scream and rave about different products they swear by. The same could be predicted to happen with Twitter. Advertising is everywhere; we can never escape it because we are constantly being sold a lifestyle that is based on consuming. Because there is such a focus on this capitalist lifestyle, Twitter is likely to fall in line, even though it is now more on the utopian side of different media. Sometimes, the pure form of something should remain just that - pure. Trying to make money, though important, seems to drain the life out of things we enjoy, and this idea definitely applies to Twitter.

Final Post #2

Theme 1: The evolution of the idea of the media audience from mass to "the long tail" and the tendency to cluster with like-minded individuals.

• Article: "The Long Tail"
  

This article was a very, very interesting read. It's all about changing the market from selling hits to selling "misses." Rather than being worried about how much of a demand there is for something in one specific place, the internet has no physical space, and can therefore carry anything it wants and sell to whoever wants to buy.

As I read through the article, I realized how important recommendations are to me when I'm buying something; whether from a friend, Amazon, or Pandora, I always give those recommendations merit. I tend to have the same interests as my friends, especially in musical preference. Though there is always some variation, my friends and I always exchange songs and new artists we've come across. It's as if the web can do this for me; I am becoming "friends" with people across the country with similar interests as me, but I almost view the actual websites - Pandora or Amazon - as my friends for recommending new things to me. Recommendations and "clustering" are definitely effective ways to sell music, movies, books, video games, or anything, really. It's beneficial for the artists who would probably not have been known to certain consumers because they get new business. It's beneficial for consumers because they can find new products that fit their true tastes, and not just the tastes that have been set by mass marketing. It's even beneficial for the companies selling the products. They are still selling the hits, probably making a good profit off of that, but they are also able to sell more products to a large audience. It's very interesting that the internet has made this all possible. It's hard to think about finding new music to listen to without the recommendations of Pandora or find new books to read without Amazon!

• Old Media: Advertising

This article really connects to the old way of advertising - before products could be essentially advertised by recommendations of other consumers. In general, advertising had to be executed perfectly. Advertisements are expensive, and they must be directed towards the right audience. If anything goes wrong in the advertisement, money is lost and it could be detrimental to the product. This is still done to an extent, but now, it is very easy to simply list a movie under a section titled, "If you liked ____, then you'll like _____" If it receives interest, great. If not, that's okay, because there are thousands of other recommendations for potential buyers. Also, in the new way of advertising through "clustering," there is a lot of contact and interaction between customers. It may not be completely obvious, but without the other buyers, we wouldn't have new products recommended to us. In the old way of advertising, consumers had no say in what was sold, and they had no way of recommending products on a mass scale. They had to like what they were told to like. With the Long Tail, we have more say in what products are sold, and we can like what we want to like.

• Theory: Winston
  

Winston's theory is not clearly seen in new media that participates in the long tail, but that's the point of his theory in general. I think of Amazon and Pandora as changing the way we shop and find new products, but according to Winston, these new media have only come about as a response to social changes. Maybe we wanted all this new freedom to find artists we like and "old" products no longer on shelves, and business minds saw this need. Or maybe these media were "disruptive technologies" and truly did change the way we think and consume.

Also, think of the work required to create these media that can truly embrace the long tail. They had to have been built up over time, especially sites like Pandora. In reading the article about Pandora, every single song is broken down and analyzed. That is a ridiculous feat. New media are not revolutions, but evolutions, and Winston's idea applies to the new media discussed in this post.

Final Post #1

Theme #5: The ideas that we begin to take on the qualities of the " intellectual technologies" we use, i.e. media shape out thought processes, and that we are increasingly off-loading our memory and other functions to various devices.

• Article 1: "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

First, I have to say that I immediately proved this article right. I saw that it was a bit lengthy and began to read, but quickly skipped to skimming the article for key points. The article was all about how articles and information online have made ease of access unbelievable. We no longer have to spend hours researching topics; type a few key words into a search engine, and a whole slew of information - factual or not - comes up. One paragraph seems to sum up the idea of the article completely:

"My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle."

This completely relates to the theme I chose. We are relying on a search engine to do our research for us. First of all, who knows what articles and websites certain search engines choose and why, and second, we have no control over those choices. We get what we get, and we often trust those sites as the last and final word on a topic. The way we access information is changing, but it is changing our minds along with it. For example, I am a curious person. When I see a movie, I like to go home and look up information about it. When I visit a new place, I like to research the history of the area. Even when I was introduced to red wine, I spent a lot of time on the internet researching the various types and brands. However, I never delve deeply into any of these topics. The first source I go to for information is Wikipedia. I know, I know. It is not a reliable source; however, it satisfies my need for information quickly, and that's exactly my point. Years ago, if I wanted information on topics, I'd have to read books and books until I found a source that gave me the information I wanted to know, but with the internet, I can easily access it. For all the ease it provides, my thought process is changing. I don't always have the patience to actually sit down with a scholarly source like my parents did. I don't always make connections between these scholarly sources I may be able to make if I actually did consult them more often. I know my mind is capable of it; we just live in an age where information is at our fingertips - literally, in the case of the iPhone. Even sites like Yahoo change our thinking - we don't have to search newspapers for news, but simply glance at Yahoo and pick and choose what article we're going to skim today. As the article states, our thinking has "taken on a 'staccato' quality," and it is because we have the ability to consult many short sources while skimming long ones for key points.

• Old Media: Radio

When I got to the part in the first article about "staccato thinking," it immediately reminded me of the change from 1960's radio to 1980's radio. Think about 1960's radio in comparison to the old style of researching: lengthy, information-rich, no solid format. 1980's radio reminds me of the new way of researching: quick, information-shallow, structured (in terms of the way search engines are set up as compared to the freedom of exploring different books). The so called "shock jocks" are like the search engines themselves. They produce various bits of information and news, but nothing they say is ever completely thorough. Our minds bounce from one sound effect to the next, one upbeat song to a caller complaining about her boyfriend, and even from one DJ to the next. We have no time to actually deeply contemplate things; our thinking is forced to take on a pinball-like quality, bouncing around from subject to subject. Old style radio was more relaxed, allowed people to listen to a whole album, and discussed topics worth discussing - most likely in detail. It is not just Google that is changing the way we think, but everything around us.

• Theory: MacLuhan's Medium Theory

MacLuhan's Medium Theory focuses on "the way the technology itself changes individuals and society." It is clear that this theory applies to the theme; in fact, the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" even talks about MacLuhan. The author states, "As the media theorist Marshall MacLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought." This is exactly right; we are shaped by our technologies. It is scary that our thought processes are so influenced by what's around them, but it is clear that it is true. Google has changed our thought processes, radio has changed our thought processes, and even internet news has changed our thought processes - just as MacLuhan theorized.

The Exorcist: My Most Memorable Experience

When I was in 4th or 5th grade, I watched the 1973 The Exorcist with my best friend. No one but us was home, and we turned the lights off to create a scary mood. It worked. After watching the movie, with plenty of screams throughout, I couldn't even ride my bike home. I couldn't lie in my bed without fear that it would start shaking. I was scared to look at stairs, thinking of vomiting blood. I couldn't even eat my favorite split pea soup because that's what the vomit in one of the scenes reminded me of. (Even trying to find a clip of the movie now is making me nauseous and cover my eyes.) This movie put the fear into my ten-year-old mind that I'd be possessed by a demon. I had grown up in a semi-religious home; we weren’t avid churchgoers but I always attended Vacation Bible School and believed in Christianity. Because of this “lukewarm religion,” I think the movie affected me even more. I believed enough in God to hope that this evil thing could not happen to me, but I didn’t have a regular pastor to tell me if the movie was inaccurate to the teachings of the Bible. My non-believing friend was, although scared at the time we watched the movie, safe from all the worrying my mind did for the next few months.

As far as Parker’s article goes, I believe it’s irrelevant to my experience. The article talks about remakes and times of popularity. Though the film was made in 1973 and could be considered a response to the Vietnam War, I didn’t view it when it came out, and it hadn’t gained any more popularity at the time I did view it. In addition, I had no desire to see the sequels to the film. Also, I believe that this film is on a different level than slasher films. It’s more psychological and spiritual than a psycho with a knife; The Exorcist plays on your religious beliefs and fears of an invader in your body. The shots in this movie that set the tone are not necessarily the barren streets as Parker describes in Halloween; the scenes that disturbed me the most were when the girl’s body was distorted. My choice to watch The Exorcist wasn’t based on the conflict of the time of even that “everyone was watching it” at that time period. Relevance could be found in the article when Parker talked about torture. The girl in the exorcist was very much tortured, and that stuck with me, hoping that I would never be tortured in any similar way. Also, the fact that the demon didn’t necessarily die, but was only expelled from the girl’s body, makes it possible to make many sequels. These factors seem to hold true for many horror movies, just not my experience of this particular one.

I also cannot think of a connection to Clover's ideas on why teens are attracted to this type of movie. The monster isn't necessarily a man, and the heroine isn't a sexy, voluptuous young woman. Teens cannot identify with either character, but I suppose boyfriends could "protect" girlfriends, although this would never work for me! I refuse to ever watch this movie again!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-4f_NMUxcY

I apologize that it isn't embedded into the post, but for some reason this particular video has embedding disabled, and this is the scene that really stuck with me.

Final Post

I've been reading the book, "In Cold Blood" for class, and I came across a line I found very interesting:

"Or we'd go to the Cree-Mee - that's a drive-in - and sit in the car, order a Coke, listen to the radio. The radio was always playing; we didn't have anything to say ourselves."

I immediately noticed that it said the radio was always playing. It's interesting to think about how media is so prevalent in our lives, whether we realize it or not. Often times, the TV is on for background noise, and we take in more than we know. People walk the halls with their iPods on all the time. Movies are an every weekend occurrence for many teenagers. MTV shows are quoted by college kids everywhere; whether or not they're making fun of the shows doesn't matter if the shows made that big of an impact on their memories. Facebook and Myspace broadcast an abundance of personal information to who-knows-where.

Because it is so much a part of our lives, it's a perfect way for capitalism to take hold. One corporation can own several stations on both TV and radio, and products are consistently placed throughout movies and television shows (supposedly casually). We cannot escape advertisements because we cannot escape media.

Whether we like it or not, media has become integrated into our lives, and there's no way to get rid of it (unless you follow Christopher McCandless from Into the Wild and disconnect yourself from the world completely :P)

P.S. I'm in class until after noon tomorrow, so I have to post all these now for the sake of my assignment being on time!

Flyers and Their Effectiveness

Recently, my softball team has been collaborating with the Island Harvest organization to help families out for the holidays. Today, I went to the Island Harvest Nassau location and gathered event materials for this Saturday, where I met a nice old man. We got to talking about my team, and he said, "You should have no problem getting people to accept and read those flyers; your team is full of a bunch of cute little ladies!" That got me thinking, is that how messages are passed to the masses? If my team wasn't a bunch of "cute little ladies," could we be as effective in distributing the organization's message to the shoppers at different grocery stores?

Then, this lead me to think about the Social Cognitive Theory. If certain celebrities and well known faces claim to be active in this organization or a supporter of that fund, will we, as the audience, truly imitate and become involved in what they're promoting? Obviously, that's the aim of the organizations: hiring celebrities to get their fans to buy in. I wonder how effective this is, which leads me to think about the main reason we got involved with Island Harvest. As I've previously mentioned, my friends and I are fans of "Biggest Loser." On one episode, the contestants got to work with an organization called Feeding America, and I subsequently searched for a similar organization on Long Island for us to participate in. So, I guess the Social Cognitive Theory is accurate. I saw people I have parasocial relationships with doing something, and I quickly found out how I could do the same thing. Wow, I only realized that as I was writing this blog. I suppose I'm more in line with these theories than I had originally thought. And, as someone who is now somewhat conscious of these theories, I have to wonder how affected those people are who have never heard of these theories.

Reaction to "Cellphones, Texts and Lovers"

The article, "Cellphones, Texts and Lovers" was a very interesting read, and not at all surprising in today's era. Many people I know use texting to make plans, have deep conversations, and talk about homework assignments; why should pursuing love interests be any different? Personally, I prefer the "old-fashioned" way of dating - that is, actually dating. However, for people whose interest are, well, different, texting is the perfect way to get what they need...

The reason texting for romance could be such a phenomenon is that there's no real fear in rejection. Sure, when you see that text that says, "No thanks, not tonight," your cheeks may burn for a few seconds. But really, the person who just rejected you isn't there in person; they can't see your face as you ask for their company, and you don't have to look into their eyes as you wait for a response. No, texting is as simple as typing, pressing send, and occupying yourself with other activities (that could be anything) until the next text comes. It makes everything impersonal, and people find safety in that. It's interesting how texting has changed people socially. Even I rarely call people anymore if I think my questions could be answered sufficiently through text messaging. I can do homework and text, watch my favorite TV show and text - basically multitask. With phone conversations, all your attention has to be focused on one thing. Not to say that's a bad thing. We have lost this sense of focus, where phone conversations are the only thing of importance in that 5 minutes. That's what I mean when I say texting has changed us socially. We can do virtually anything and keep up a conversation, just making our lives even more rushed. Romance and texting doesn't quite seem to mix, though; the article doesn't really talk about romance, but more about lust. Romance should be saved for personal, intimate courtings, while lust can remain in the impersonal text messages the article mentions.

Traffic in Maryland

So, I’m sitting in traffic on my way back from Maryland – no, I’m not driving – and we are sitting in the car at a dead stop. Because of this, two forms of media have made themselves apparent to me.

First, without the radio, we wouldn’t be able to find out why there is such a huge traffic jam and how long it’s estimated to take. With the amount of information given, very limited, I’d say this is a “cool medium,” according to MacLuhan. I am given some information, but I cannot see the accident, as I would be able to on news channels on TV. I know a little about what’s going on, but I’m left guessing and filling in blanks with mental images of the accident, hoping no one is severely hurt and that we will soon be going at least 5 miles an hour. (According to the GPS, we have gone .1 miles in the last 15 minutes.)

The second medium I have become more aware of is my GPS system. I’d have to say it is, in fact, a medium, because it is a means of information; not only does it give directions, but it can find essentially any place you’d want to go, as well as predicting traffic problems. I think that GPS devices have created social change, the definition of technological determinism. It’s a sad fact, but I do pay less attention to road names and landmarks because I have a GPS; it tells me exactly when to turn, so it isn’t necessary for me to do any work. I’ve noticed this in many people. Conversations I’ve had go something like this:

“Do you know how to get there?” No? Oh, okay, well you turn on Johnson and –“
“No, it’s okay, I have my GPS.”

Human knowledge of directions is irrelevant anymore. My family just recently moved to Maryland from Florida in September, and my dad has to travel about 30 minutes to work. Though he has been attending his new job for about 2 months, he still uses his GPS to get there and back; he’s become reliant on the GPS because there’s no reason to know the route. This is definitely a social change. Because I use my GPS so often, I have come to need it even around school. People are less aware of their surroundings. As my dad says, “GPS devices have made people stupid.” The GPS itself has changed society.

Here's a picture of my friend Tom, the cause of my direction-ignorance:

Halloween Costumes

I've been thinking, could Halloween costumes be a form of parasocial relationships? Not the pumpkin and ghost sort, but the costumes I tend to see college students wearing. Last weekend, I was out and saw a girl dressed like Lady Gaga. I also saw characters from "Superbad" and "The Hangover." These people claimed to love them, and for that night, they actually became them.

So, is it a form of a parasocial relationship? Perhaps it's more idolization, but without mass media, we wouldn't know who these people were to "befriend" and eventually idolize them. Without the MTV music awards, the girl I saw wouldn't know what Lady Gaga wore, and we wouldn't know that it was what she was referring to. Without the movies, we wouldn't understand that a curly haired wig and a Tide container constituted as a costume - and find it hilarious. In fact, I saw many people comment on these costumes with high fives and handshakes; people tried to befriend them just because they were dressed as stars they have parasocial relationships with.

Even my group of friends dressed as people we have parasocial relationships with. We dressed as contestants on "Biggest Loser" and commented on who got what color. When my friend realized she was purple, she immediately said, "Ugh. I'm Tracy. I hate her." I don't think my friend even knows a Tracy. She was referring to the contestant, and she spoke of her as she had known her all her life.

It's actually very interesting to view Halloween as a statement of our parasocial relationships. It's probably one of the easiest time to recognize them, and if you pay attention, you can tell exactly who has a parasocial relationship with who.

Product Placement in "Biggest Loser"

I'm a huge fan of the show "Biggest Loser," and I watch every Tuesday. The past two Tuesdays, I've noticed very UN-subtle product placement. In one episode, a contestant is talking about the difficulty of the workouts while drinking water. However, instead of showing her face while she's talking, the shot is a close up of a Brita faucet filter. I laughed at the sight; the shot was not brief, but it took up the whole screen during the majority of her dialogue. The next week, one of the trainers was talking to another contestant about how to curb cravings. Apparently, the way to do so is to chew Extra brand gum; the way they were presenting it, no other flavored gum would even come close to working.

As I'm sitting in my living room (I got to go home this weekend!) and watching TV while doing this assignment, a commercial came on for the new movie "Blindside." It's about a football player, but the first thing that drew my eye was that we was wearing the athletic apparel Under Armour. It's not at all difficult to find these examples of product placement.

It's amazing how TV shows and movies find ways to advertise as part of the story. This is very obviously part of the capitalist theory, and I think that, though inevitable, we as consumers should be aware of this to make our own decisions on what WE want to buy.

This isn't the exact scene I was talking about, but it's another very similar (and from another season!)

Facebook for Information

Today, while taking a break from homework and browsing Facebook, I came across a post by my aunt asking, "So are there any reasons I shouldn't have my kids get the H1N1 shot?" Many people commented giving their input, as did I. I thought nothing of it until I realized that my aunt simply had to post a question and gain numerous responses within an hour; how awesome is that? My aunt got input from those she cares about, and it was much easier than having to take the time to call individual people or even schedule an appointment with a doctor (though the expertise could be beneficial). She was able to access different opinions and information very quickly, something she couldn't have done so easily just a few years ago.

This reminds me of Meyrowitz and his thoughts on the Situation Theory. We are able to change our situations without physically moving. My aunt changed her position from one of curiosity to one of knowledge (whether the knowledge is inaccurate is irrelevant) by simply typing and posting. In a way, her post changed many roles. I went from niece to medical advisor, just as she went from aunt to "patient." And we only became adviors through being able to access information through websites, videos, and the news; it's a continuous cycle of accessing information. I've never realized how media can change behavior or equalize roles before I really thought about it; generally, nieces would go to their aunts for advice, and aunts go to their doctors for medical advice. With just one post on Facebook, these roles were changed.


P.S. Here are the kids (my cousins) in question! I absolutely adore them :)

Blastoff and Winston

Recently, a friend bombarded me (and presumably his entire contact list) with texts and Facebook messages about a new site called Blastoff. He claimed it would be "revolutionary," though he didn't explain what it was about at all. At first, I didn't feel like signing up for the site because 1. I had no idea what it's purpose was, and 2. For what else do I really need to remember a username and password? However, one night, boredom got the best of me, and I decided to see what this "Blastoff" thing was all about. Here's the premise, from the Blastoff Network website:

And the written description accompanying the YouTube video:

Blastoff is you launch pad into cyberspace. It is a customizable home web page with your favorite news and sports feeds as well as video and music on demand. You have your own Blastoff mall that allows you to shop and get cash back at over 300 online merchants. When you invite someone to join your Blastoff Network and they shop in the Blastoff Network Mall, you get paid! Imagine getting paid every time your friends buy music on i-tunes, books from Barnes and Noble or airline tickets from Travelocity. The more people you invite, the more money you make so share the love and cash in!

When I signed up, I was still very confused. The homepage can be customized to have easy access to all your favorite websites and information; for example, on my homepage I chose to add blurbs from Yahoo! news, fitness magazines, and sports information. Apparently, you can shop on it and receive cash back, though I didn't explore that aspect. It actually looks like it has a lot of features that you'd probably have to become more familiar with to take advantage of; I only messed around with it for a night.

Anyway, I remembered this occurrence and thought of Winston and his "communications revolution." My friend is definitely an early adopter - he promotes it shamelessly and swears by it. I'm not sure what I'm considered, because I don't know how popular this site actually is yet, and I haven't really committed myself to anything.

The true question is: is this site actually a revolution, or is it an evolution? Have enough people started using it to deem it successful? I'm not sure it's truly revolutionary. Long ago, my mom started using a website called Fat Wallet that sends you a certain percentage of cash back when you buy through the websites on their list. It seems that Blastoff simply took this idea and added it to a page where you can easily access anything you'd want to access on the internet. Thinking upon it, I don't think that it is revolutionary, but only evolutionary. I can click on Facebook, or I can access it through Blastoff. The same is true for ESPN scores. And online games, as well as YouTube, Fox news, or anything you could think of, really.

I've also been thinking about what could possibly be "accelerators" and "suppressors of radical potential." I'm not quite sure was the accelerators are going to be, but I can see the iPhone being a hindrance. The iPhone basically does all the same things, as far as combining all your interests in a single, easily accessible device. In addition, the factor of portability is in favor of the iPhone.

I thought this was very interesting, actually being able to see the beginning of a possible new medium. Who knows? Maybe this will become huge, and everyone will think it came out of nowhere, not realizing the hours of inventing (as Winston said) and promoting (as I witnessed).

Pandora Critique

Pandora is the next big thing on the music scene. Forget shuffling through radio stations to find songs you haven't heard hundreds of times in the last two days. Gone are the days that you have to be bored with the music on your iPod. And looking for new artists? Pandora is the music site for you. Type in a favorite song or artist, and Pandora presents a whole slew of like songs that you will possibly like. A complex process of finding songs or artists similar to the ones you choose is used. Not only do the people at Pandora scientifically choose these songs (and according to Rob Walker's piece in the NY Times, they take apart songs in ways we've never even heard of), but users' choices as a whole are taken into consideration; if one user likes both Jack Johnson and Dispatch, then Dispatch may be presented to a user who chooses Jack Johnson as their starting artist. What happens if you don't like the song selected? Simply click the "dislike" button, and Pandora searches for a new song to please you.

This is a great step up from the FM radio we all know and love (or hate?) today. Personally, my musical tastes are not played on the radio, and why should I have to subject myself to the repetitiveness of it all? Pandora is a great solution. It's also a great method for finding new artists; half the artists I now consider my favorites were discovered using Pandora. Now, some people may argue, "Great! I can listen to my favorite music while I'm sitting in front of my computer. Now, how about something I'll actually use? I only really listen to music in my car." Pandora works with the iPhone to solve this problem. The Pandora app for the iPhone is free (an effective means of both selling the iPhone and increasing the popularity of Pandora), and by hooking the phone up to your car, new music is right at your fingertips for those long drives. Pandora greatly extends your musical library; you can listen to new music you'll most likely enjoy for free! It also has an option to bookmark the song, check for information on the song or artist, and see why the song was chosen for you.

As a long time user of Pandora, I am disappointed in the recent addition of commercials. However, the commercials are a far cry from the radio's commercials; Pandora's last about thirty seconds between every five songs, while the radio's commercials last a few minutes between only a few songs. Though Pandora lacks the community feel of the radio, In a broad sense, we can connect with others who influence the music that is chosen for us while still feeling we have our own, personal radio station. Overall, Pandora deserves one of its own signature thumbs up.

And...

I didn't cheat!

Conclusion

So, the experiment is over, and I don't feel too differently. I've come to realize, Facebook has never been a huge part of my life at all; it's just a time-filler. I could probably live without Facebook for the rest of my life and not miss it too much. I've also come to realize how big a presence it has in our society. Everywhere, I've heard talks of Facebook, and though some people like to say it is "sad" or we are "insecure," I don't believe it is so. Parents, teachers, college students, and teenagers alike use Facebook. There's a point to where it can become obsessive, but I'd never call the general usage of Facebook "sad." It's easy to keep in touch with people, and you can view pictures, videos and people's interests with just a click. This is similar to what we talked about in class that mass amounts of people can see something without having to physically be there; I can see my friends' vacation photos without having to flip through the album in their living room, and I can watch my sister pitch in a softball game if I'm not able to attend.

It's safe to say that my life hasn't changed without Facebook. I've gotten the same amount of homework done, studied just as much, and kept in touch with people just as much. I guess it doesn't really effect me as much as I had originally thought.

I apologize for any comments that may have been taken rudely, but I don't like arrogance and generally thought down upon. I feel the need to defend myself and others from being called "insecure." Also, I'm not hiding behind a keyboard, and I'd very much enjoy discussing this in class tomorrow.

As for a song to describe my reflection upon Facebook, I can't really think of any, so I'll leave you with a song that I simply enjoy. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usR7mMHUhlY

Day 4

I haven't had the urge to check Facebook, and I don't necessarily miss it; I just want to have something to look at when I'm bored. TV doesn't interest me much, and I just finished the book I've been reading. So, Facebook suffices for a few minutes here and there (okay so maybe more than a few). Tomorrow morning I will be able to check it! And yet, I don't feel as if I need tomorrow morning to come...

In a Place Like This...

...I could forget Facebook forever.


Two hours from Tucson, AZ (Not quite sure of the exact location; I was delirious from road-tripping across the country.)



Hills outside Walnut Creek, CA



Pier 39, San Francisco, CA



San Francisco, CA


I am truly a west coast girl at heart; I grew up in Arizona with frequent visits to California, and I'm in love with all things mountainous. This rain makes me want to be back right now!

Designing

So, instead of spending my time on Facebook, I've been designing a shirt for C.W. Post's SAAC (Student Athletic Advisory Committee). Creating is always so much more fun than just observing.

Last Night/I've Been Thinking...

Last night was the easiest night to not go on Facebook! I was sitting in my room, studying for a test I didn't want to, and dreading the pages of other reading I still had to do. (Normally, I don't dread homework this much, I swear!) Anyway, at that moment, my friend burst into my door with an excited voice, "Do you want to go on an adventure?!" Now, how could I turn that down? We (about 7 of us) put on our warmest clothes and explored parts of C.W. Post that should probably only be explored during the day (it got pretty creepy). We ran around trails, sprinted across the streets of campus like we were actually doing something bad, and acted secretive just for the sake of fun. We ended our night with ice cream, and after that, I was shot. It was the most fun I've had since I've been back at school, and it had nothing to do with a computer.

So, I've been thinking; for what do we TRULY use Facebook? Do we use it to get in touch with people to actually see them? Or do we use it as a substitution for seeing them? Why do we even change our profile pictures? We pick the best ones, and we're hoping that our friends will comment about how beautiful, silly, funny, or cool we are. We're always hoping to have a new comment or "like." I've even heard a conversation about wall posts between friends (this conversation is all in fun, so imagine it with a sarcastic, friendly tone):

Michael: Ashley, I need to talk to you about your wall posts!
Ashley: Yes?
Michael: When I comment on your wall, you need to comment back on MINE! Not just comment on the post that's already on your wall. I need to look popular too.

It was a funny conversation, and though Michael was joking, some part of him still wants those comments on HIS wall. Facebook is just another place that humans look for acceptance. If this is bad, I'm not sure, but I think I'd rather have days like last night, exploring what's around me and laughing with friends in REAL LIFE than staring at a computer screen.

Distractions

Homework and shopping have taken up most of my weekend, and tomorrow I'll most likely be at Stony Brook all day for a softball tournament. So, I haven't really been tempted to check Facebook at all. Sometimes it's difficult though. If I'm in a friend's room and they're looking at Facebook, I try to look away so I can get the full effect of this project. It's hard not to look at pictures that all your friends are gathering to see! This social network medium is not only unifying through the internet; it can physically bring people closer to watch videos or look at pictures together. It gives people something to talk about, even if it's just harmless gossip.

So far, this hasn't been that hard. Maybe because I know (or hope) I'll have a high number in that little red box in the right hand corner of my screen when I finally log on again. It's kind of like Christmas, trying to keep yourself away from the presents so you'll be happier on Christmas morning. Ahh, 2 days...

Day 2

This is what I do on the computer when I have no Facebook...

Just kidding, but there is some truth. I find myself not really accessing the computer as much unless it's for homework. But, if I'm really bored, I always have Stumble! on Firefox. (For those who don't know what I'm talking about and are facing computer boredom, try downloading the StumbleUpon button for Firefox. It leads you to the most random and eccentric websites in the world; it's great.)

On another note, I've been noticing Facebook everywhere. I'm physically sick in a million ways right now (softball is taking its toll on my body) and last night, I curled up in my bed to rest and watch Horton Hears a Who. It's such a cute movie, and I was surprised at one scene to see a Whoville secretary talking on the phone about how she had "10,000 friends already!" The movie then cut to her computer screen, and it was a Myspace/Facebook like page. The secretary then said, "Of course that looks like me! Ten years ago!" I had to laugh because a.) I feel as if the world is tempting me in all ways, and b.) it's so true that anyone can be anyone on social networking sites. These so-called "friends" are not friends so much as people you have or will never meet, yet you know so much about them. Kind of creepy, if you think about it.

Also, at breakfast this morning, my friends asked me if I've seen my sister's statuses. My sister is four years younger (a junior in high school) and lives back at home with my parents. All my friends said they were basically reliving their high school years through my sister's Facebook. It's funny that we feel we can do that. I can look at my friends' pages and feel as if I were truly at a party or get-together. Most of the time, it makes me realize how much I miss them, but a small part of me feels satisfied that at least I can see the pictures, to know what was going on.

Anyway, the point of this entry is to say another morning has gone by, and I haven't cracked. I hope everyone else can say the same!

Conclusion to Day 1

Though the night is not officially over, I'd have to say the temptation of logging onto Facebook ends now. I have a ton of homework to do, and I really am going to get it done tonight. However, I have a few thoughts about the first day without my medium of choice.

(OH MY GOODNESS. I just heard someone in the hall scream, "Guys! Look at this picture I'm tagged in!" I was never aware of this Facebook invasion before this assignment.)

Anyway, I've realized that my reliance on Facebook is not actually because I need to be accessing information 24/7. I actually find pleasure in disconnecting myself with the world, not answering phone calls, and curling up with a good book. My mom even gets frustrated with me because I never have any "good gossip" about my friends. I've never been the prying type; if someone wants to confide in me any facts about their lives, I'll listen, but I'm generally a shy person. My addiction to Facebook is more out of habit, procrastination, and ease (as I've said before, it's on my Favorites; I never even have to type the URL in.) In fact, when I visited my boyfriend over the summer, I felt no need to go on my computer or even charge my phone, because for that week, we were hanging out. If something proves more important, I can do without most of my communication technology. Could this be true of many people who think they truly need something? That if the ease of accessing different media was taken away, we wouldn't necessarily miss it? (Accessing Facebook with just a click, for example. It takes much more thought for me to type in the URL, as I realize what I'm doing; in turn, it makes it much easier to refrain from visiting the site at all) Facebook is great for keeping in touch, but sometimes I need some good "me" time, and this weekend is the perfect weekend for it. Now off to complete that homework I was talking about...

Boredom Sets In

Even though this has nothing to do with the lack of Facebook, it still makes me laugh. I guess you don't really realize how pointless some things can seem from an outsider's point of view. This is not to say I'll give Facebook up forever, but I just may be able to resist the temptation of visiting the site when I have pages and pages of homework. Maybe.

Edit: I'm currently talking to my boyfriend about nothing in particular, and his exact words were, "Did you see what Mike commented on your photo?" FACEBOOK IS EVERYWHERE!!! I had to remind him, yet again, that I would not be able to check this comment until Tuesday morning. I think the suspense of what the comment could be, what photo it could be about, and why it was so important that my boyfriend brought it up is killing me a little inside. In trying to make me a better person, as he always does, my boyfriend said that I must learn patience and I'll see what the comment is on Tuesday. This is beginning to prove more difficult than I first expected.

Day 1

This morning, I got up for breakfast and, as usual, headed straight for my computer. Unconsciously, my cursor was lead to the Facebook bookmark on my Favorites. It was only then that I realized how Facebook has become a part of my life - and not just mine, but everyone that I know. I wasn't so much upset that I couldn't check it as I was in awe that I mindlessly do so often. What is so important that I have to check for updates so many times throughout the day? Granted, all of my extended family live in another state (where I only get the chance to visit once a year, if that) and sadly, Facebook pictures are the only way I get to witness my cousins growing up. But still, I'm pretty sure my cousins look the same now as they did last night in the pictures I looked at...

So far, I haven't been upset about not using Facebook, but maybe that's because I'm sick and only rolled out of bed to complete this assignment. As the day progresses, we'll see how I do with the lack of social networking!

P.S.

Tonight I will be Facebook overloading. Hopefully I don't go blind from staring at the computer screen for hours. (It's not only because I'll miss it - I swear. I have to get in touch with someone whose phone number I don't have!) I'll be removing Facebook from my tabs on Firefox AND the apps on my iPhone. How lame do I sound right now?

Welcome

Welcome to my blog! I'm not big on journaling, but I'll have to try to document my few days resisting Facebook. It's the easiest way for me to keep in touch with my friends, so maybe this experiment will actually force me to become a better phone person! (It's a running joke between my friends that I won't answer the phone, but I'll reply with text messages.) Facebook also provides me with hours of procrastination while reading hundreds of pages of homework a week. (NOT an exaggeration - I am taking a horror literature class that makes me want to pull my hair out.) Who knows, maybe I'll get my work done in half the time and get to bed at a decent hour! Hopefully I survive. Join me in my adventure!