Written Analysis of Project

Introduction

The world is full of messages.  Some we choose to listen to, others we ignore.  But how is it that with a daily saturation, we become less and less likely to pay attention to most messages, and react on certain others?  This is where Media Literacy plays an important role in our day to day decision making process.  According to Potter (2005) message saturation has evolved into a problem of access to one of protection.  My presentation is a short briefing of the effects of mass media on our personal and social interests.

Media Reform

Journalist Bill Moyers, in his address to the National Conference on Media Reform, suggested that society needs to change the means of mass communication to "a media system that serves as effectively as it sells - one that holds all the institutions of society, itself included, accountable."

Neil Postman, makes note of the effects of television in his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death".  Postman (1985) argues that our use of other media is greatly influenced by television (p.78).  Television he claims, "arranges our communications environment for us in ways that no other medium has the power to do" (p.78).

To extend extend Postman's argument, we saw in the video Dreamworld's 3, the direct advertising of sex, violence, money, greed, male dominance, female subservience, and more. We were also exposed to how advertising of brand products seemingly sells us a different you in the Dove Self-Esteem videos.  How media sends "double speak" messages is clearly evident in the Dove "Onslaught" video in which the advertiser's message starts with a young girl looking innocently at the camera, then proceeds to stream you through advertising commercials that seem to exploit sexy, skinny beauty by showing a collage of the effects of dieting, sexy clothes, and body make-overs, and in the end, asks you to "talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does".

Media Literacy

Clearly there is a need for media literacy within our current social system.  Potter (2005) suggests that we end up in a "mindless acceptance" from exposure to the many media messages that infiltrate our lives.  Additionally, we do not spend the time nor the effort to pay attention to these messages as we should.  Thus, we do not invest any effort into analyzing or evaluating these messages for better information to "construct more accurate interpretations" of what information matches our personal or social interests (Potter, p.13). 

Postman, in his book "Technopoly", suggests that technopoly is a totalitarian technocracy (p.48).  In other words, the technical experts have redefined the meaning of religion, art, family, politics, history, truth, privacy, and intelligence by the new requirements established by technology and its birth of mass media.  He also suggests that technology has provided our society with convenience, comfort, speed, hygiene, and abundance so obvious and promising, that we need look no further for other sources of fulfillment, creativity, or purpose (p.54).

Marshall McLuhan (2001), in his book "The Medium is the Massage" backs this up by stating that electronic technology is "reshaping and restructuring" our patterns of social interdependence, and every aspect of our personal lives.  He goes on by stating that technology "is forcing us to reconsider and re-evaluate practically every thought, every action, and every institution formerly taken for granted" (p.8).

Conclusion

As Moyer suggests, we need a media system that serves effectively to a social democracy rather than sell for the purpose of capitalistic greed.  The media cannot, nor should not, have a monopoly over our society.  We should not allow this.  What media literacy does for our personal and social interests is to grant us more control over the decisions we make regarding those interests.  The best way to embrace media literacy is to understand the effects of mass media, and to take control over what information is the most meaningful to us to help us make the right decisions!

References

McLuhan, M. (2001). The Medium is the Massage. Corte Madera: Gingko

Postman, N. (2005). Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Vintage

Potter, J. (2005). Media Literacy. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Media Literacy Alert!

For my outreach project, I decided to create a short Powerpoint presentation on Media Literacy education for adults, and post it on my blog.  I would have liked to post this presentation on some reform website, but it costs money to join some of these sites.  Particularly the ones I wanted to join like freepress.net.  Maybe I wasn't paying much attention, but I didn't see exactly where it said we were suppose to launch this project and get feedback.  I was under the impression that we were just to create a project that we intended to introduce at some point.  My bad if I got it wrong!  In looking at the syllabus it says one thing, and the Module 4 said another so maybe I got confused.  

At any rate, here is my blog I created for the Computer Mediated Communications class, COML 509.  I invite you to read the other posts, as they might be entertaining.  I don't really like blogs, because I think they are for those who wish to complain more-so than to teach.  But here I am, hoping to make the grade for COML 516 by actually serving up some Media Literacy on a blog!  Go figure!

Reflective Essay 3

What lessons have I learned over the past two weeks? Well for one thing, Ong and Plato seem to be both on the same page, and yet not. I agree with Ong that writing does alter the consciousness. I experience that myself when posting or writing reflective essays. Plato argues that writing destroys memory, and that writing “pretends to establish outside the mind what can be only in the mind”. But isn’t what is in your mind, why you write? In this exact moment of me typing this reflective essay, I am putting my thoughts down in ink. It may not be writing per se’, but it is aligned with transferring information from thought to a medium which can capture these thoughts, and allow others to read them without my being present.

Squarciafico insisted that “the abundance of books makes men less studious,” because books are but brief accounts of a particular subject matter. This would mean that man has a brain that is more comprehensive, and not capable of forgetting. I would differentiate the book from memory in that once a book is written, truthful or not, it can be recited word for word in the time it takes to read the book. Memory is not as keen in this respect.

Another dynamic of “textuality” is that “By separating the knower from the known, writing makes possible increasingly articulate introspectivity, opening the psyche as never before not only to the external objective world quite distinct from itself but also to the interior self against whom the objective world is set.” Why would this be any different than remembering? I think that anybody who does not know, or only knows a little about a subject, is capable of even more introspectivity through animated verbalization than writing it down. The mere fact that we can articulate our thought is reason enough for me to agree that there is no compounding difference between writing and orality.

Clearly, in order to write in a way that expresses, it takes a more conscious effort in thought and imagination, probably more-so than when just speaking. Speaking (orality) has a more fluent dynamic than writing. With the proper use of words and with the proper use of punctuations though, one could almost create the same speech on paper. A great example of this is Martin Luther Kings “Freedom Speech”. Although I had heard the speech many times, when I read it over and over, it takes on a new meaning, is more emphatic, and is better understood.

On technology, I understand Thamus’ argument that how it is used is not what makes technology good or bad, but the system that technology creates. In relating this to orality and writing, Thamus is concerned that writing might overcome orality. In respect to communication, you can define “system” as a set of principles in which we communicate. Thamus views orality as the basic way of communicating. He is worried that writing will take the place of oral cultures, thus possibly eradicating natural sound and thought. Thamus sees this as possibly being immoral, a nemesis to oral cultures.

Postman agrees that some cultures see technology as being a good thing benefiting everyone, naïve to the fact that certain technology is only affordable by a few of these cultures. Postman also sees that not all cultures will be receptive to technology due to ethical reasons. His biggest argument is how writing and computers will affect learning and social responsibility. His belief is that computers will isolate individuals from others because it is a tool of self proclaimed prodigy. Why communicate with others when you have all the information you want at your fingertips? Computers according to Postman, promote egocentrism, competition, and personal autonomy. It will release individuals of social responsibility.

Bacon was quoted as saying “The goal of science is the “endowment of human life with new inventions and riches”. I believe this to be partially true. Working in the aerospace industry and more importantly the Space Shuttle Program, I can say for a fact that one of the main purposes for the International Space Station is Life Science projects. These projects are focused entirely on the advantages of science in space for the humanity. So I agree with Bacon to some extent. It would make more sense if Bacon were to reword this phrase by saying “technology is geared toward new inventions for the purpose of riches and the endowment of human life”. Technology fits his thinking rather than science.

On Gitlin: One thing that resonates with me is his idea on nomadicity. Technology has become so advanced that while Postman believes that it will raise egocentrism, he neglects the thought that the “cost of always being connected” leads to Gitlins paradox on technonomadicity, that while we have the freedom of access at will, this freedom becomes freely accessible to other people as well. So while Postman might think that computers lead to private learning and individual problem-solving, he needs to know that everybody who is connected has the same capability. So is it really private learning and individual problem-solving, or a virtual open classroom that gives the freedom to learn what you want to learn?

And one last thought. As far as Frederick Taylor and technopoly is concerned. Postman cites Taylor as being the first to view technopoly in the form of “society is best served when human beings are placed at the disposal of their techniques and technology that human beings are, in a sense, worth less than their machinery.” My argument on this is that humans developed machines to replace the human effort involved in work (output). Now, it may be that some believe that machines are to replace human beings all together. But I would put the value of humans before machines because it was humans that developed machines to begin with. So I would rephrase this to say that “society is best served when techniques and technology are placed at the disposal of human beings.”

The one thing I learned this week is that in order for an orality culture to exist, there should be repetitiveness in speech, the speech should be constructed in a way that allows people of a certain domain to understand it, and that there must be no knowledge of writing.

It is probably more noticeable to see repetitiveness in writing, and there is for sure, rules that govern writing in general; the proper use of commas, punctuation, the correct use of verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and so on. These to me are less noticeable in orality than written text.

In comparing Ong’s theories about orality, and watching “Manufacturing Consent” and “Outfoxed”, there is clearly a relation between Ong’s theories, and the use of them in the two movies. For one, Chomsky makes repetitive nuances to the media being a form of control over the masses in order to direct or redirect what information should be disseminated to the public for means of supporting government decision-making, or distraction of decisions that are made by the government. According to Chomsky, the media chooses what stories to disseminate to the public. It is the effective use of mnemonics and formulas to create rhythmic discourse, as well as distraction.

In the movie “Outfoxed”, Greenwald points to specific behaviors by FOX News that support Chomsky, and contradict FOX’s “fair and balanced” journalism. The repetitive sayings like “people are saying”, by news reporters appears to be a scheme to win the public over. After watching the movie, I was appalled by what was revealed to me through the uncanny journalistic behavior by FOX News correspondents.

Distraction or covert styles of journalism that capture the public’s attention are well thought out by FOX. I was attracted though by the genius of how FOX News is broadcast, and by the intellect that goes into their broadcasting, which apparently does win over the masses. News is business, and in order to make a profit, you have to “outfox” your competition.
In reflecting on Ong’s “verbomotor” cultures, he states that these cultures rely more on the effective use of words and human interaction, and less on visual inputs. In watching “Outfoxed”, I noticed that Greenwald points to both the effective use of words and visual cues in FOX’s broadcasting style. The American Flag as a backdrop to most stories, the use of the words “fair and balanced” as their credo.

My lessons learned for this week are 1) orality, while in all appearance seems to be simple is very complex. There are a number of elements that need to be considered in a culture that relies on oral communication. Words, sentence construct, sound, thought and expression, make for a complex dialogue. I do not agree with Ong that words are not signs. Text to me is symbols, and I believe symbols ARE signs, 2) orality, if effectively used, could be a good method in reporting the news. While my perspective of FOX News has been tarnished by watching the movie “Outfoxed”, I believe if they were to use orality in a more positive manner (based on my perception of “Outfoxed”) they could be a much more objective, fair and balanced, media.

Final Comment

Thurlow quotes Kling (1996) as stating "a technological system can be both cause and effect; it can shape or be shaped by society". I agree with this statement. Not only can the system shape or be shaped, it is society that ultimately defines what technology should be introduced.

Asocial vs. Antisocial

The poor quality of communication on the internet is not the result of technological restraints (asociality), I believe it is because those using the internet are not inclined to be ethical due to the freedom of speech allowed by the internet. In contrast, off-line communication should not be negatively affected (antisociality) by CMC because it is not CMC. You can't, nor should mix the two processes of communication. I agree with Thurlow (2004) on his assumptions that asociality could be "cold and unfriendly" but strictly due to the fact that there is no human element of relationship. I also agree that his assumptions about antisociality does affect F2F interaction because CMC is after all, a medium in which to communicate. CMC and F2F are relational to some extent. But they are two distinct forms of communication and should be treated as such.

Technological Determinism

The one thing I can say about CMC is that it continues to evolve. Of the four core assumptions about TD, technological imperative fits the closest. CMC was and is inevitable, it is in progression, and you can't reverse it. Even if you could stop it, it would have a tremendous impact on how the world communicates. Mostly by putting us on hold. I believe in the positions on social constructivism, and social realism. I believe they go hand in and. The constructivist would argue that while technologies are not a necessity for social interaction, in the culture of business it would be imperative. As for the realist, since technology is ever evolving, it is because we DO understand the relationships between technology, culture, and social interaction. I would then say that the social realist is more align with the concept of technological imperative.