A Day Away from Media

So for all those who have not read Brian’s post or are interested in what my take is on our media experiment this is what I thought. As most of you know Brian and I decided to see what a 24 hour unmediated day would be like. Being the huge techno nerd that I am, I had huge doubts about this experiment and thought that it was doomed for failure from the get go. So on Tuesday we actually began our unmediated journey. My day began by me waking up at 11am, this was a feat all in itself because prior to my waking up I went to sleep at around 5am. Why did I go to bed at 5am you ask? The reason is because I could not go to sleep for the life of me. Since our experiment began at 12am and I usually go to sleep with the TV on I could not sleep. I tried to go to sleep at about 2am after a rousing game of billiards and “Skip Bo.” I sat in my bed and began to read, when I could read no longer I lay in bed trying to sleep. This began around 3:30am and the last time I remember checking the clock it was 5am. So right then and there the experiment was off to a bad start.

That morning after I showered and got dressed Brian and I began to clean the apartment. The cleaning expedition began at about 1pm and we cleaned from then until about 4pm. Our whole apartment is spotless. I have to say that the cleaning part actually wasn’t that bad, it was something that had to be done and because we had so much more time on our hands we did a thorough job of it. The most notable change was while we were cleaning how quite the place was. It was so quite that we could even hear the humming of the overhead lights and we had to turn them off in order to maintain our sanity. We tried to fill in the lack of noise by singing. That lasted for a good half hour or so and it also provided us with conversation. I have to say though that even while we were singing I began to sing the theme songs to some of our childhood cartoons, Duck Tales, Sesame Street, Pokemon, etc. Even in an unmediated environment media still played a role in our lives.

After we finished cleaning Brian and I went grocery shopping and made dinner for 9 people, once again the noticeable difference was the lack of background noise. Even at dinner we usually have music on just to fill in the silence between conversations but I felt that without the background noise the silence was more uncomfortable. For this reason I also felt more pressure to make conversation just so there wasn’t that awkward lull. I do have to say that after people finished eating we did sit and talk longer than usual. I’m not sure if the conversation was longer because of the lack of media or because we were all genuinely having fun but that was another difference that I noticed.

After dinner people left and it was just me and our other roommate. This was a huge pickle for me because this is where the experiment would really come into affect. I was now faced with the option of having one on one human bonding or the other option, sleep. Since it was only about 8pm sleep wasn’t a real option so me and the other roomie decided to go out and play billiards. We did this for a while and then we came back to the apartment, by this time it was about 10pm and I had made it to the home stretch. After an event filled day I had nothing to do, so I decided to read the book “The Neverending Story.” Our other roommate came in and she decided to read with me. I usually don’t read with other people and didn’t know how this was going to work, I wasn’t sure if there was going to be awkward silence or would we talk and not get any reading done. It was actually an enjoyable experience, she explained things that were going on in her book and I explained things that were going on in mine. Surprisingly two hours had gone by pretty fast but when it was over I was thankful. The reason I was thankful was because I was tired of looking for things to do that would occupy my time. I just wanted to relax and watch a movie. When midnight came around my other roommate and I had picked out a movie and committed to that for the rest of the night.

I don’t know what to really make from this experiment. I originally thought that I would see and talk to people longer than I would usually but that didn’t really happen. The thing that I noticed the most was the silence. I did talk to people more but it was to avoid the awkward silence, it wasn’t because I wanted a closer human experience but it was just to avoid awkwardness. Maybe media has made me uncomfortable around people in silence but I don’t see how being around people in silence could help me either. This experiment has led me to the conclusion that background noise provides topics for conversation which in turn leads people to learn more about one another. Without this medium of background noise there would just be silence and that doesn’t really help anyone.

-J.D. (BigBear)

The Experiment

We made it through the day without any breakdowns of any kind, not that we were expecting any. There was definitely a noticeable difference between life with and without media. I feel that a majority of the difference came with the unfamiliarity of living surrounded with media and not connecting to it. For example, JD and I were cleaning the room, but there was no music or television on. The background noise is something strange to go without. The buzzing sound of the lightbulb seemed even louder than usual in the quiet dorm room. I think the conversations were pretty average, but the lulls in the conversation were a lot more apparent.

I would say that the lack of technology introduced many inconveniences. Trying to find another person in the grocery store is made a lot simpler with the use of cell phones. It made me remember about the times when people used to get paged to the front of the store where their parents would be waiting for them. Now it is easy to just call a person. This is a good example of using technology, but there is nothing which might suggest whether connections have become better or worse because of this. I suppose that the use of phones would allow me to call home and ask if there is any milk left. Without phones, I would have to make sure what I need before going shopping. I guess there would suggest greater attention to the things around us, but to me it just seems bothersome. The primary use of technology is to make more life convenient. I would say that technology does allow people to get more done faster and more efficiently.

The activities I participated in over the course of the day were fairly similar to what I normally do. However, I think I felt a little less rushed while doing them, thinking that I had to burn time in the day. Without technology, I felt at a loss in trying to accomplish many of the “important” things I would have to do like answering emails. The fact that we only went through the experiment for one day was pretty interesting because I simply put off many of the “important” things for today when I could use my computer again. If I simply had no access to a computer for an extended period of time, I would have meet people in person to get answers to questions or use a phone if they were far away. Trying to do things that normally would require a computer seemed pointless to attempt as a computer would allow me to accomplish my tasks much faster. I can type 60 words a minute, but how many words can I write in a minute? Again, this brings up a problem of inconveniences.

As for the personal connections that I made, I believe things were rather similar. One thing that was special is that we cooked dinner for a friend who is graduating soon. One might say that it was because we had more time that we could do this for our friend and make a stronger connection with him. However, I think that this occasion just happened to fall on the day that we were going through with this experiment. The dinner party would have occurred whether or not technology was available. In fact, I think my friends used technology to help coordinate the gathering. About the personal connections, they seemed the same, no stronger or weaker than usual. In fact, I believe that making connections is simply a matter of whether a person wishes to go out and make a connection. Today, we did not have any limitations on our use of technology, but we took the time to speak with a shopkeeper for a few minutes. If we were to go by Pappano’s definition of connection, then we were able to make one despite having technology in our lives.

In some ways, technology may make us feel like our lives are busier than they have to be. We find that news is filled with unimportant facts, yet we feel the need to always know what is going on. However, there are major benefits to technology, and these positives definitely outweigh the negatives. I think that the main point is that technology does drive us to a life as a hermit, shunning all human contact. In fact, technology makes it easier to stay connected to those who we already have connections with.

In Closing

The end of January is approaching which means that our project is coming to an end pretty soon. So for this post, we wanted to bring together some of the ideas that we have brought up in the past month. I believe that most of our work can be summed up into what different people place importance on. In terms of defining our connections with other people, things need to change to incorporate digital means of connecting with other people. Along with the telephone, the internet has extended our reach in connecting with others. While maintaining this idea, I feel that we should not take for granted the conversations we do have with others, whether in person or online. In some ways, I have found myself agreeing about how the use of telephones has degraded to quick questions and check-ups. Personally, I have thought about how I use technology to communicate, and I believe that my telephone conversations rarely have much substance.

Technology has evolved so rapidly that it is often overwhelming when put in perspective. The number of people with computers at home has exploded since the 80’s. It is amazing to see where technology has brought us. But there is also danger in that people can exploit the advantages technology lends us. Advertising on the internet is the main source of income for any website. As technology has evolved to a necessity of life, media and advertising has also become unavoidable. Movies, books, news, games, TV shows are always on hand now. Can we control ourselves from overloading our brains with all this content? Also, with the birth of HDTV and technology constantly placing us one step closer to realism, will we be able to separate ourselves from the fantasy worlds on the screen? There are examples for both sides. The majority of people are on the side that uses technology with moderation. The few deaths caused by technology, which JD pointed out in his last post, are simply insane. The key for anything is moderation. While things like this do happen, people have a firm grasp on reality and understand that the media is created.

For Wednesday, we are going to perform a little experiment. Basically, we are going to (try) and go a day without contact with media. I guess it is similar when one goes camping to get away from everything, but as part of a generation so closely attached to media (having television and computers growing up) it will be interesting to see if we can avoid subjecting ourselves to media and technology for a day. Basically, this means that we are not going to watch television, use computers, cell phones, or read the newspaper. We will be recording our activities over the course of the day. We decided that books will be allowed. We expect frustration entering this experiment and already find ourselves preparing for the impending experiment. Basically, we feel like we must get most of our emails done illustrating how much we rely on technology. While this may seem like cheating, I think the feeling of not being able to check email freely will be a major annoyance. So is there such a thing as “internet addiction” or “technology highs” (getting a good feeling when finding new content on the web)? Well, we are going to take it a step further so stay tuned for the results.

Final thought... kinda

So this will be our second to last post for the month. For those who don’t know Brian and I started writing this blog for a class that we were taking. This doesn’t mean that the blog will cease for all three of you who probably read it but it does mean that the blog will slow down for a little while. Since we are both full-time college students our work will begin to pick up once again but we will try to continue posting at least once a week.

The point of this blog was and is to find out how media affects our social lives as well as our economy. When we first started writing we used Laura Pappano’s book “The Connection Gap” to help put our ideas in perspective. Both Brian and I being the huge electronics consumers that we are, we did not agree entirely with what this author had to say. Pappano’s main belief as I understood it is that we as human beings have to cherish the small connections that we share with people. She says that even if we don’t recognize it, these small connections with strangers, this is what makes up the human experience. She argues that in our day in age of multi tasking that technology seeks to eradicate these loose connections that we have with people.

What I have tried to argue throughout all of my own post is that with all the new technology that we have to let go of this rigid understanding of what social connections are and start a new definition. I believe that we can still have meaningful connections with people in our technological society without sacrificing human connection. I don’t think people really value the connections that we have with the cashier at the local grocery store or the toll booth clerk. The time spent with those people is so miniscule that it pales in the time spent with more meaningful individuals for it to have an affect on us. Instead I believe that technology allows us to expedite our time so that we can spend more of it with our loved ones.

I do believe that along with technology also comes our fair share of problems, like any social shift there will be trials and errors before people get it right. We have to learn how not to immerse ourselves entirely in technology to the point where we cannot separate reality from technology. This seems to be the main issue faced in my previous post about deaths caused by videogames as well as Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. In these cases people used gaming as a substitute for real life experience. This is a danger to social connections because instead of trying to coincide with technology they are using technology as a real world experience. When one does this and does not live the real world experience it creates issues for that individual and they no longer know how to live or behave in the real world.

The question that remains is whether the scale of real world versus technology is balanced or not? Can we as people who have learned to survive in a technological society still survive without technology? Both Brian and I have discussed how we just use technology and media as an extension of ourselves and it is a tool to accomplish what would take us longer than usual under our own devices. We want to test this to see if this is actually the case. That is why starting tonight at midnight we will take ourselves off the grid and disconnect from the media for a period 24 hours. This may not seem a long time for most but for Brian and I this is an eternity.

Both Brian and I honestly don’t know what the outcome will be. We are not sure if we’ll be able to make it 24 hours with no TV, music, internet, or any kind of media (we are allowing books just for the sake of keeping our sanity). We are both in a strange predicament because we happen to also be in rural Maine so it is not like we can just go out to a Starbucks and spend the whole day there. To be honest, I am dreading this experiment. The way that I usually spend my day is by waking up, putting on some light jazz, and check my email. As of recently I have substituted the light jazz with episodes of South Park but it is pretty much the same thing. I even go to bed at night with the TV on just so I can fall asleep.

Before we even begin the experiment I had to spend all day and yesterday immersing myself in the media and getting work done just so I don’t fall behind and miss out while I’m involved in our experiment. What I predict will happen is that Brian and I will spend all day tomorrow getting chores done around our place as well as visiting friends and talking with them. I’ll probably also read a book that I’ve been neglecting to pass the time. All and all though I have to say that I will fail at this experiment. For those who know Maine, you know that if you don’t ski then there is nothing to do. Well, I don’t ski so I really don’t know how to spend my time here. It should be interesting to see whether Brian and I are affected at all by this experiment and to see if we establish more connections with our loved ones. We’ll be back again for our last post of the month to tell you all how it went.

Killer video games

We all know that it’s said that videogames kill, they cause us to kill others and act violently. We discussed this in the post about videogame violence, but what about violence done to ourselves because of videogames? If you’re not familiar with the story there was a man in South Korea who died from online gaming after playing for 50 hours with no breaks. Are people becoming so addicted to video games that they are literally dying from it?

The story of the 28 year-old Man dying in an internet café may seem a little extreme but as I looked more into this I found that there or more incidents of people collapsing from prolonged videogame playing. One tragic story that I ran across was of 21 year-old Shawn Woolley who shot himself minutes after playing Everquest, the same online game that the South Korean man had died from. Shawn Wolley’s story is a little different though, the article I read explains that Shawn Woolley had quit his job, isolated himself from his family, and on Thanksgiving morning of 2002 Shawn had shot himself to death.

I think videogame addiction is real, personally, I don’t play games that you have to invest hours and hours in. I love videogames and there are plenty of games that I have days of my life invested in. I think for Final Fantasy X I have at least 60 hours logged in for that one game. This pales in comparison to most gamers but to me that is two and a half days of my life that is gone. I do have to admit that I’ve never sat down for a 50 hour marathon of videogames but even though I know some have died from it, it does sound somewhat enticing.

The question remains then, do videogames kill? There is no straightforward answer to this question. Like any addiction is it the substance that kills? Or is it the people who abuse the substance that kill themselves? As I have said before I think people make their own decisions. Videogames might have an addicting quality to it but I would not compare it to the addictiveness of an opiate. If the people who play these games realize that they have spent at least 24 hours in one session playing a game maybe they should reevaluate what they are doing with their lives. Easier said then done I guess.

Elite Media and Mainstream Media

Today JD and I will be talking about mainstream media. Some NBC commercials have recently shown the NBC symbol followed by all the other companies under GE. It is interesting to think that NBC a part of this major conglomerate. Noam Chomsky also points out this fact, speaking of other major media outlets, stating “what are the elite media, the agenda-setting ones? The New York Times and CBS, for example. Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations. Furthermore, most of them are either linked to, or outright owned by, much bigger corporations, like General Electric, Westinghouse, and so on.” By elite media, Chomsky is speaking about the structure of media. That media is broken up into the mainstream and elite media. Essentially, he believes that the mainstream media is used to distract the masses while the elite media is able to carry out their own agendas.

A real interesting point in his article ties into an earlier post on advertising. That is messages are constantly being sent to us. Chomsky talks specifically about the New York Times and how they are not in the business of selling newspapers, but in fact selling an audience of people to advertisers and also to those who wish to get a set of particular ideas to the public (ideas which conform to the elite media’s desires). Furthermore, the people reading the New York Times are people in positions of power. The New York Times is one of the major news outlets and is the many people go by to find out what is happening in the world. By seeing what is happening in the world, I mean that it is what the elite media believes is important for us to know. Heath Ledger’s death has been headline news this week, and one has to wonder why that is. Most of the news about Britney Spears is similar, but I think Ledger’s death has brought on a lot of attention. I was browsing the NY Times webpage and found that this was a front page story for January 23^rd. Also, there were 1100+ comments for the story after less than 24 hours. There were so many comments that moderators had to stop allowing people to comment. However, an article called “The Path to Super Tuesday” had no comments even after 20+ hours of being online.

When applying this idea that our attention is being diverted from the real issues at hand, there are many examples of this, and how this theory rings true. Celebrity news, sports, even technology are all topics which can be done without. Yet people are so drawn to these topics. I subscribe to the BBC news feed, which basically shows the stories of each day. There are a surprisingly large number of sports related items on a regular basis. Chomsky often uses football as an example as a way for the elite media to get rid of those who might get in the way (not a direct quote). We have questioned the importance of celebrities already, but it seems that the elite media is attaining success in distracting the masses with reality TV, sports, and celebrities.

Cars and Women

In a previous post Brian and I discussed this idea of product placement and how advertisements can be somewhat invasive. With this aside we would like to discuss the images we do see and how we perceive them. As much as I would like to think that advertisements don’t have an effect on me I can’t ignore the evidence and I can see that they do. Companies know that these advertisements in one way or another affect the people who are seeing them. Are companies being careful with how they portray people who are seen in these ads? In a class that Brian and I had taken together we were asked this very question. We were shown how in most advertisements the white women were always shown as smiling and happy, not only is she smiling but she was also the center shot. I believe the ad was for the store Fifth Avenue, but that was the gist of it, white women, in the center, smiling and happy. For those of you who are reading don’t worry I’m not going to turn this into a “black versus white” topic but I do want to point out some of the claims and if I personally believe them to hold any truth.

In this class that Brian and I took one of our assignments was to look through magazine ads and see if we found any trend. Some of the trends that I did find were interesting. For example I found that a lot of ads that were geared toward men use sexy women to sell the ads. I’m sure that this comes to no surprise to most but I think this is relevant. One ad in particular that I showed was this ad to the left. As we can see the product is “The Car MD,” we can see that the main focus isn’t even the product but is the sexy women with no pants on. The Car MD is actually at the bottom of the ad, so the first thing that a person will look at is the woman and then the product. Are men so gullible? Are the ad companies trying to deceive us by taking advantage of our weakness for the opposite sex? I think that they are. Even when I was looking through magazines this ad automatically popped out to me and probably would have under normal circumstances. This is just one of the many ads that depict women as objects of desire as a means to sell another product.

People aren’t dumb either. We all know that this is what the companies are trying to do but we allow this to happen. Why do we allow this to happen? I think the reason is that we, like myself, would like to think that we make up our own minds and that ads have no bearing on us. While for the most part I think that is true I also think something else is happening. We see these images of women in ads and it does have an affect on us if we want to accept it or not. For the women who see this they might hold such images as an ideal for what constitutes what “sexy” is. After all if this woman can be in an ad then she must be beautiful right? For the men who look at this ad I think that this particular ad sends two messages to us. The first message being that like cars women are something to be “had.” It’s almost like they are trying to sell us a three step process, the first step is buy a mustang, second step is get the Car MD, and finally the women will come to you.

The other message that an ad of this nature sends to men is that it somewhat mocks women in a professional position. I wonder how many men after seeing this ad hold all female doctors to this standard. The point that I am trying to make is that whether we want it to or not these images hold some weight in the real world. The images we see we do bring them with us and use them in the real world. Whether or not the images make us buy the product is another story but we do interpret the pictures even if it is on a subconscious level. In turn it is up to the companies to be responsible for the content that they put out there.

Gender and Advertising

For today, we will continue to look at gender, specifically in advertising. I believe that part of this conversation came up while we were discussing our last topic on gender. Talking about the protagonists of certain titles, I wondered why some games have female protagonists when games are generally marketed towards male gamers. The same thing goes for ads for Axe. Oftentimes there is not even a male in the advertisement. The message being delivered to the viewer is clearly sexual in nature. What is even more interesting is the message of beauty delivered through media. As Berger points out in “Media & Society”, “these models perpetrate the notion that women should define themselves as sex objects to be gazed at and lusted after by men and not as active, forceful individuals” [179]. With this quote, I would go on by saying that men are equally sexualized in this manner in many advertising campaigns. I saw an Abercrombie bag the other day which may serve to illustrate this point. One side of the bag had a female and the other side had a male model. Both of the models were wearing very little, which did not make sense for a clothing store, but that is beside the point. Here we have an example of both males and females being sexualized in order to sell a product. In what ways are the male and female models different? Both are desirable, screaming sexuality. However, women’s sexuality does seem more common in advertisements, selling cars, make-up, and even food. One important observation is that men are usually coupled with women (showing that a product will attract women) in advertisements, while the opposite occurs much less frequently. While advertisements have definitely become increasingly sexual in nature, it is hard to say whether women are used as objects more often than men in selling products.

Beyond creating false images of women and sexuality, advertisements depict women as being weaker where “women were more likely to appear frustrated than men, were recipients of help and advice (typically from men), and were not physically active” [Gilly 76]. These claims are based on research done in the 70’s and 80’s. Roles in society have changed with males and females becoming more equal, however, there still seems to be some discrepancy between what is shown on screen and what happens in real life. Mary Gilly goes on to quote from another study that “women and men in society today clearly are far different from their portrayed images in advertising. As sex roles continue to change and expand at a faster rate than advertisers’ response, the image of sexes in advertising is not keeping pace with the change. In fact, the image reflects the status quo of a time gone by” [77]. This then brings up the question that is change is occurring despite advertisements reflecting a different society from the past, do advertisements really have an effect on society and the ideas of sex roles? Are advertisements slowing down the process of gender equality? There is a definite possibility that advertisements are hindering progress. Ads use women to sell things that are thought to be “female products” that aren’t really gender specific. For example, every ad for any type of cleaning product usually includes a woman using the product in the house, taking a deep breath and smelling how fresh everything is. This ad tells a lot about expectations within a culture. Here, we find that women are put in the role of the housewife (for lack of a better term, but this term itself underlines the fact). Males are rarely put in this position, usually put in power tool commercials. The products which these commercials are advertising are believed to have some truth in them. I would assume that people would believe the effectiveness of a cleaning product more from a woman than a man. While the ad may not insinuate that the female should be the one cleaning, it works with our preconceived belief of the housewife role.

Where are the females in video games? I’m not just talking about females in video games but females in the whole industry. Of course the industry has female characters in mass abundance but most of them aren’t the type of heroine that I would want a daughter of mine to idolize. For those who are not sure of exactly what I’m talking about, I turn your attention to a little game called Dead or Alive. For those who are familiar with the game we know that though it is a decent fighting game people don’t play it for this reason. I think I’m not alone when I say that DOA invented the jiggling breasts that so many basement nerds covet.

Once again Brian and I had one of our many discussions for this weeks post. I believe he decided to discuss females in the industry while I wanted to discuss more about videogames. In our discussion we discussed the idea of men being sexualized in games as well as women. I have to say that it is somewhat daunting to me that it is not discussed at as much length that men can be sexualized as much as women. I am not trying to take away from the struggle that women face at all but I just want to make clear that it is not a struggle that women face alone. While I believe that women are highly sexualized and objectified I make the claim that men are too and it should not be ignored. What provoked this discussion was our favorite Heroin Laura Croft from Tomb Raider. I was going to write in my first paragraph of this post that I would not want a daughter of mine to idolize a character like Laura Croft. I was going to make this claim because what first popped into my mind was the fact that Laura Croft likes to run around in the jungle with abnormally large breast and abnormally short shorts. Then I thought to myself would I mind my son looking up to the male equivalent who I believe is Indiana Jones? I have to say that honestly I would love it if my son decided to be an awesome archeologist who went on wild adventures and always got the girl in the end. So why can I not want the same thing for my daughter? What is the difference between Indiana Jones and Lauara Croft? I don’t really think there is a difference. Indiana Jones is played by a sexual icon, Harrison Ford, he is also brilliant, and even though he doesn’t use guns it does not take away from his badassness. Laura Croft is the same as Indiana Jones, she is a sexual icon, very brilliant, daring in her adventures but unlike Indy, Laura Croft decides to use the twin pistol method.

On Women in the Technology Industry

Gender is a very interesting topic especially in the technology industry. In a male dominated industry, it is very interesting how women enter the industry or even respond to technology online. “Given that the Internet began as a masculine technoculture, it has traditionally seemed unfriendly – or directly intimidating – to women… Nola Alloway’s (1995) research indicates that ‘even three-year-old boys in pre-school insist that the computers are the boys’ territory, and the girls are verbally and physically driven away” [Green 184]. First, I will give an example of how women in the technology industry are perceived.

From the various tech websites that I frequent, the claims are that technology seems unfriendly to women are only validated. Here is one from Kotaku. The first 5 comments give a general idea of how a woman in the technology (and possible worst, the gaming) industry is perceived. While I was growing up, it was not uncommon to be playing an online game and for all the guys say “you are a girl?” or “it’s a girl!”. I myself was found myself rather surprised that a girl would be playing a rather technical game. After all, it has been shown that women tend to gravitate towards puzzle type games. Trying a search on Google for “games girls”, JD and I found the top results were “cooking games, adventure games, dress up games, makeover games, skill games, fashion games”. Anyone notice a pattern here? On the other hand, we have other women in the gaming industry who talk about how there has been change over time. Within the industry, Elspeth Tory (a project manager for Ubisoft) says that men in the industry are much more accepting of women. However, it is the public eye which makes being a woman in the industry more difficult.

JD and I talked about what fuels these misconceptions about women in the technology industry. What we agreed on is that to change the idea that women are not as capable as men in developing new technology, there must be a gradual change. The role of Jade Raymond, Elspeth Tory, and other women in the industry is a double-edged sword, but at the same time places them in a unique position. For Jade Raymond, constantly in the public eye of gamers, she is often sexualized by the predominantly male audience, but at the same time, her game has grabbed the attention of many gamers. In many ways, this serves as a test for all women in the industry because this is probably the first time a woman has been placed in the role of director of a video game (which no one would classify as a “girlie-game”). Elspeth Tory (interviewed here) describes growing acceptance of women in the gaming industry, but there is a difference between what peers within the industry think and what the general public thinks. Discussing this with JD, we found some statistics about women in the gaming industry. There are actually very few in the production process. I would take from Green’s quote that women are losing interest at an early age because of the fact that boys tend to believe computers are their territory. I believe that some of the problem lies in the characters in the games. As a child, I would play as Mario trying to save Princess Peach. I am put in the role of a male, to which a girl probably will not relate to as well. Until people can begin to accept women in the gaming industry, women will continue to shy away from video games. It is going to take women in high positions to begin to show that women can be gamers too. The change for women in the industry is coming though. The technology-dependent culture which we live is fairly young, starting to flourish in the late 70’s/early 80’s. Green claims that “with so many more people – including women and children – involved in the Internet, the hi-tech/leading edge area of computer use from Internet access and use per se to Web design and security” [188]. The technoculture started as male-dominated, but it looks as though change is possible in the near future.

Oh, that? I just like to enjoy a cool refreshing glass of product placement

Admittedly I have to say that I was a little reluctant to write about this current post. For today Brian and I have decided to discuss Advertisement and product placement in the media. Personally we feel that though this is an important subject to discuss but it is also a subject that we are all familiar with. We all know that advertisement is everywhere and that it is meant to invoke in us a feeling of wanting to buy whatever product they are trying to sell us. We were trying to com up with some new way to discuss this topic without it sounding like the same argument that we’ve heard before. To tell the truth, there is no way to agree that advertisement is harmful to society without sounding repetitive, so I have decided to argue for advertisement. I’m not just arguing this for the sake of having a new stance or trying to invoke discussion but a part of me has no problem with advertising, the other part of me only has a problem with advertising when I can’t ignore it. So here I go….

As a consumer of products I like to know what new products are out and how they have improved on some of the current products that I use. This is what I call an informed consumer, if they didn’t advertise, for instance, MacDonald’s having an all white meat chicken nugget I probably would have never tasted another one of those gross, purple, meatish-looking things again. Seeing however that they did at least make an attempt to put “meat” in their nuggets it made me happy and even led me to try one, they’re still not good though but almost. I’m a firm believer (as you may have been able to tell from other post) that people should be allowed to put whatever content they want out their and have people make up their minds about it.

I do disagree with advertising when it infringes on two things; the first being when I can’t chose to look away from it or ignore it. In these cases there is no choice for me to make I have to accept it. A large part of this argument comes from those stupid advertisements that they put in a half hour before a movie starts in the movie theater. I’m forced to sit there and watch the same advertisement over and over again and even those dumb trivia questions they put up seem to be the same ones for the past three years. I have no choice in this situation, I am forced to watch these advertisements and I can’t turn the channel or press mute to ignore them. Luckily they do serve a purpose and that is for me and whoever I’m with at the time to mock the advertisement which helps to pass the time while we wait. The other problem that I have with advertisement is when it annoys me or I’m not expecting an advertisement. What I mean by this mostly pertains to the internet. The internet has been better about it but every now and then I get an annoying popup about something that has no relation to me. What I mean by not expecting an advertisement is do you ever get an email or a Myspace message that is very personal and even uses your name? Then when you open that email it is an advertisement for “Great stock tips” or for a porn site. This enrages me to know extent! I once got an email and in the subject it said something along the lines of “Hey JD! It’s me Sarah and I want to show you the pictures we took in Florida.” Having just gone to Florida and having a friend there named Sarah I opened it and it was just an onslaught of ads. It left me feeling deceived and duped.

Advertisements should not hide the fact that they are advertisements; I don’t have a problem when I know it is an ad that I am looking at. However, I do have a problem when those advertisements try to deceive me and try to play it off as if they were something else. Interestingly enough, Brian and I are reading a book by Arthur Asa Berger called “Media and society: a critical perspective” and the way that this author describes it, the advertising companies are the ones having a hard time coming up with ways to captivate us. He says:

“Some are dealing with this problem by increasing the use of product placement in shows, that is, paying to have their products used in films and television programs, which is a kind of ‘stealth’ approach to advertising. But product placement alone cannot solve the problems new technologies pose to the advertising industry and the companies for which advertising agencies work.” (Berger: p.60)

You really never notice product placement that much so I don’t really have a problem with it but as of recently I’ve been noticing more and more advertisements everywhere. The new advertisement scheme seems to be products in videogames. I was playing a demo of “Burnout Paradise” and you spend a large portion of the game breaking through billboards. These billboards happen to be for stores like Circuit City and other real life products. Maybe it’s for the sake of realness or maybe it’s all a ploy to get us to buy their products. In any case I don’t think that product placement and advertisements will stop but as long as they give us a choice in whether we look at them or not advertisements are ok with me.

Would you like some content with your ads?

Today we are going to discuss advertisements. The internet is a new medium which advertisers can use to reach a whole new audience. Privacy has become a concern of people on the internet. Many companies look to collect information on potential customers such that they can target them will better ads. However, how far are companies allowed to go in collecting information? Many people are worried about their personal information being distributed to advertisers or other companies. Recently, Facebook was admonished for a new feature called Beacon. This feature didn’t really affect me personally, but I have heard a lot about it. Beacon lets a person’s Facebook friends know about some of their online purchases. While many people are in an outrage about these things, it is the primary source of income for many of these internet companies. Most of the money that Google makes is from advertising system, AdSense. Many of the websites I frequent are actually supported by advertisements. While speaking with JD, he told me that he generally feels that he is not affected by advertisements on websites. I am unsure of the fact that advertisements have a negligible impact on one’s life when millions are spent and made on advertisements. While one might not click on these advertisements often, they definitely have an impact on the viewer.

The issue of targeting the consumer is very interesting, and it is amazing how some companies are able to do it with such accuracy. At other times, it seems rather random, yet remains effective in sending its message to the buyer of the image. In fact, a random ad is what brought this topic up for JD and I. We were watching the January 16^th episode of Late Night with Conan O’Brien which had a skit where Conan O’Brien rode a zip line through the audience (which seems to be a direct effect of the writers’ strike). Conan was looking for ridiculous ways to ride through the audience and as he donned his rocket shoes and helmet, he jokingly slapped a huge Oscar Mayer sticker on his chest. The skit was hilarious, but I imagine that a number of people only understood the act as a simple joke. However, there is amazing advertising (from Oscar Mayer's perspective) happening at the same time.

There is an interesting point in Rivers’ book, The Mass Media and Modern Society, where he claims that magazines, newspapers, etc. are not an end themselves, but rather a means to an end for the viewer to see advertisements (165). This is an interesting point, and especially today since the internet allows people to know when new products are being released. The counterpoint to this point is also offered that “it is doubtful that any writer… ever weighs the possible effect of his work on the advertiser’s ability to sell another Chevrolet or another case of Pepsi” (165). I would agree with this to an extent, but especially in the technology industry, the release of new products frequently draw attention. The most recent example is Apple and its national convention, MacWorld. The announcement of a new notebook and other products were big news on many top tech blogs (TechCrunch, Engadget, etc.). In this example, we see that there is little separation between news and advertisement. While it is news that Apple has a new product, it has also sparked a number of pre-orders for the yet to be released MacBook Air. Even in this blog, the past post on e-book readers felt like an advertisement for the Kindle rather than getting the point across. At the time of writing that, I did feel as though I talked a bit too much about the Kindle’s capabilities, but felt it was necessary to introduce the product which many are still unfamiliar with. But I would agree with the point that many magazines are mediums for advertisements using Glamour or Cosmopolitan as an example. I recently looked at one and could not distinguish the content from the advertisements at some points. For sections showing off the latest styles, there are descriptions of the clothes the model is wearing. I do not want to single out fashion magazines so I’ll bring up one more example. There is an ad in Car and Driver that takes up 6 full pages and appears in the every issue (at least for the past 3-4 issues). Although I never read any of the 6 pages, I know that the ad is for some type of floor mats for cars. I feel that I know this because I was forced to at least glance at the advertisement. Perhaps the next time I see a messy floor in my car I might consider buying floor mats, and that ad is one place I might look. So in creating this reaction, the ad achieves its goal showing that whether or not we fully take in the content of an ad, there is still a strong impact on the viewer. Also, with information more readily available to the public, there is a sense that some news actually turns out to be more like an advertisement, making the public aware of the latest, greatest gadget.

On Video Game Violence

The subject of media violence has been a long debated subject. Many people hold the belief that media violence spurs violent behavior especially in children. In light of a recent article, I will be writing on this topic with a specific focus on video games. The article believes that video games will give rise to a new generation which will be better at problem solving and visually adept than the current generation. However, the topic of violence is never brought up in the article either.

Video games are something I have held as a hobby probably since I was able to hold a controller. My sister who was 8 years older than me had an Atari and a Nintendo soon followed. Naturally, I played my fair share of video games as a child. When thinking about whether or not video games and media violence has made me prone to more violent behavior, I would argue that it hasn’t. However, there have been some examples, especially in the past 5 years which would prove otherwise. And although I have been (what some might say) an avid gamer for the vast majority of my lifetime, I still find it difficult to maintain a position on video game violence. My initial reaction is to look inward, saying that in terms of violent behavior, video games have not influenced me. At the same time, I thought that if I were to raise a young (say, 5 year old) child, I would not allow them to play a violent video game. This is because children are susceptible to the content in media. Video games, and I suppose I could include cartoon violence, are in the realm of fantasy. People that commit crimes and say they based their crime on some movie or game is simply making a scapegoat of media. These people most likely have other problems in their lives. Video games may have played some role, but I would regard their impact as minor. The bullying which takes place in school shootings, or perhaps family situations in suicide cases are disregarded when someone says “I copied what I saw in Grand Theft Auto”. All of a sudden the games are to blame and not the classmates for their incessant teasing or the parents who were never home. What is worse is somehow we try not to blame the kid himself, but to find other people to blame. The one who pulled the trigger is not wrong, but the guy developing the media is. People who carry out crimes because of video game violence probably have something wrong with themselves.

The problem with video game violence is children being exposed to it when they are not ready to make decisions on the content being presented to them. That is, when playing a video game, a player should be able to realize the difference between the game and real life. In “Media & Society”, Arthur Asa Berger presents research which shows that “Media violence is especially damaging to young children (under the age of eight)… Violent images in television and in movies may seem real to young children, and they can be traumatized by viewing these images” (162). Children may be under the impression that shooting someone in a game is like shooting someone in real life, or that there is no consequence to one’s actions. For years now, I have heard that parents should monitor their children’s behavior and the content they are receiving from media. However, problems continue to arise with parents constantly busy with work, it is difficult to monitor what a child is doing.

I just read through an article from


GameSetWatch

from June ’07. It made me think about the progression of video games and the portrayal of violence in the past 10 years. The years when South Park raised huge controversy and Mortal Kombat’s blood sparked outrage among parents of young children playing the game. The Mortal Kombat outrage made the developers change the blood to “sweat”, and include a button code to change the sweat into blood again. The Super Nintendo version was shipped with red blood and it was a strange pleasure to play with blood instead of the watered down Sega Genesis version. In general, the progression of violence in video games is probably just business for some of these development companies. The coverage of video games with excessive violence seem to attract more people to ultimately buy the game. I believe that was the success of Mortal Kombat, and continues to be the reason for success for a lot of games (i.e. Manhunt 2 which has been banned from a number of countries for its excessive violence or Grand Theft Auto another game which has brought on heavy controversy). Having excessive violence has become a marketing ploy. After all, some news coverage is better than no news coverage.

and my response to JD and America's Army coming soon...

ok, so while video games and becoming more realistic, I think that America's Army is going too far in this. A look at their website should show that they are pushing the reality of it. As the 18-24 demographic represents a large majority of gamers (surprisingly to some), America’s Army is a great for hitting the target audience. In fact, the game is rated “T for teens”, meaning 13 and up according to the ESRB (the association which rates the content in video games). The age rating means that people at as young as 13 may be exposed to this Army simulation. For people at this age, there still may be some misperceptions about the Army. I don't think that people will join the game solely because they are good or like the game. It is foolish to think that people will join the Army based on this, but this is the angle the Army marketing is working apparently. The game is not going to be like reality no matter how hard they try. However, they are going ahead and presenting it like it is real. While it may not succeed in its purpose, the sheer idea of having it used as a recruitment tool is what makes me the most annoyed.

Although it's 2 days later, I can't help but to add this story I stumbled upon on Kotaku. Bascially, someone who had gone through medical training in America's Army (and had no other previous medical training) was able to help 2 people at the scene of a highway accident. Wow, video games can teach us things too!

A Little Violence Never Hurt Anyone... Right?

Oh videogames how I love you so. For this post Brian and I decided to discuss the somewhat taboo subject of videogame violence. This is not a new subject to most; I think we know that as Americans we are somehow prone to videogame violence and that somehow this spell of videogame violence leads us to act out horrible crimes. This is what has been drilled into our heads since videogames have been videogames but is this true? I don’t know if I actually buy into this claim. I know it is what we are meant to believe but I think that there is more to it than just videogames. People use videogames as a scapegoat for what is really causing violence amongst youth. If you’re waiting for an answer to what the cause is for youth violence the answer is there is no one answer. People who commit unspeakable acts of violence have done so because of many reasons not just one. I don’t think there has ever been a case where their was a straight A student who went to church every Sunday and had loving parents wake up one morning and play Grand Theft Auto and suddenly the next day they murder three people. It just doesn’t happen like that.

When Brian and I discussed this he was up in flames over the game America’s Army. This game which is created by the US Army markets the game as “taking you deeper into the ranks, with the most realistic training, and unparalleled missions.” Though I’m sure he goes into more depth in his post, Brian was not too happy with the fact that the Army is targeting a young audience and claiming that this videogame experience is like the real thing. But isn’t it the trend for videogames to become more and more like real life? Aren’t videogames always striving for better graphics in order to become more lifelike? Isn’t the reason that games like The Sims are popular because they resemble real life situations? I think the answer to all these questions is yes and for that reason I can’t be angry at the Army for trying to market a game as a real life experience and simulating real life combat scenarios.

Further along in our conversation Brian brought up the point that the point of America’s Army is a recruitment tool and people might find the lifelike simulation enjoyable and they end up doing joining the Army because they liked the game so much. This is a logical assumption and makes sense but like the reasons for why people commit violence it goes beyond videogames. I don’t think that the same straight A student who goes to church every Sunday with loving parents is also going to join the army next day because he played a game that he really likes and that game happens to be America’s Army. There are more factors in why people behave the way they do; you have to take into account socioeconomics, location, culture, a whole variety of reasons why people behave their own ways. I do however believe that every now and then there are people who are impressionable and do things because they see it in movies or in videogames, These people are a creation of the environment they grew up in and for one reason or another their environment has made these people susceptible to whatever they find appealing. In the case of these people I feel no remorse for them, if one of these types of people play America’s Army and then decide to join the army then I don’t feel bad for them at all, they deserve to be where they are. I don’t go and blame videogames though because if it wasn’t videogames that led them to make a dumb decision then it would have been something else, that something else could have been because they saw it in a movie or because some girl they really like thought it would be cool.

I myself play videogames, listen to hardcore rap, grew up in the South Bronx and I love violent movies. I think I would be the perfect poster child for media gone wrong but I don’t go around killing people or performing some act that I saw in a videogame, why? Because I’m not dumb, I know the difference between what is real and what isn’t. The reason I know what is real and what is not is because I had parents who loved me and paid some attention to me every now and then and when I did do something wrong they would make sure I never do it again.

I think that we should not censor the content that is put out there; we should regulate it and let people know that it’s not content that most people with good morals would like but after that we should leave it up to the people to make their own decisions. If people decide to make bad decisions based on the content that they are viewing then that is the person’s decision and theirs alone.

On Pop Culture

JD and I have been talking about popular culture in America. The topic has raised a number of questions about popular culture, such as, if the influential power of the mass media given to the creators or is it imposed onto the public? Also, what purpose does popular culture serve?

What is an interesting cultural conversation is whether or not current popular culture represents a dilution of American culture. In “Communication, Technology, and Society”, Green describes a “‘fall from grace’ whereby mass culture replaced an indigenous folk or organic culture created by ‘the people’ from their own experiences and artistic resources” [155]. While I have not put particular thought on this subject in the past, I would say that popular culture generates and molds our personal experiences. The use of the term “personal” is rather loose because our personal experiences become standardized by profit making firms. They are all experiences which we can share, and where we most likely project similar feeling towards. Therefore, they become a way to connect with almost anyone. I rarely talk about pop culture when I’m at home because I can talk about what is happening in the lives of my family. But when with people I do not know, pop culture and sports is something I can turn to.

I believe that part of the creation of popular culture is making the public feel as if it is important. New outlets are constantly giving the public news of Britney Spears and other celebrities. Why do people feel that the life of Britney Spears has any impact on their lives? After speaking to JD, I feel that understanding popular culture is a part of integrating oneself into society. I recently spoke to a friend of mine who has been working in a primary school. During break sessions, she said that the teachers often spend the time talking about celebrity news or television show plot lines. Immediately, I felt that knowing about these things is a part of making an easy connection with someone. That people do not wish to impart information on themselves, and as a result, resort to speaking about irrelevant material. However, it is interesting how such media is created to make itself attractive to a wide audience.

Shows like American Idol are interesting as there is a voting system which incorporates the massive audience (a 2005 season reportedly totaling 360 million votes according to Telescope). This keeps people feeling that they are a part of the activities and able to discuss their feelings on the topic with others. In terms of the focus everybody seems to have on celebrities’ lives, it is the magazines and television programs which perpetuate the importance of these topics. Green also brings up a point originally made by Radway in 1984 where she finds that “it seems clear that we must rethink our notion that all mass culture consumption perpetuates isolation and anomie between people with similar interests” [156]. However, in today’s society it seems that popular culture is what holds people together and gives the masses a common interest. I believe Radway’s point is still valid in that those who do not participate in popular culture become isolated. Not only do people become isolated, but those who are producing the content in pop culture are inviting the masses to join. There are several examples of this, starting with game shows to voting for your favorite singer on American Idol.

Are We Eating or Feeding Pop Culture?

The implication is that ‘mass culture’ and ‘mass media’ – in appealing to the masses and turning a profit for media proprietors and their advertisers – compromised culture’s quality and value.(Green: p.155)

The above quote is from Lelia Green’s book Communication, Technology and Society. In her chapter titled “Constructing Popular Culture” Green discusses the old versus new meanings for what constitutes popular culture. For example, what had determined popular culture was what the elite classes found culturally worthy such as the ballet. However, in our modern day we would like to believe that what determines popular culture is the sheer number of people who make it popular. This is what I want to talk about in this post. In America is it the people who determine what is popular or is it the entertainment companies that make us believe what is popular? This posts sounds a little conspiratorial but I have to believe that it is not the sheer number of people who care what happens to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton, I have more faith in humankind than that.

At first when Brian and I discussed the issue of pop culture we tried to think of how pop culture affects our lives if it even does. We sat around forever thinking of ways that it affects us. Brian brought up the fact that Jessica Alba is pregnant and he somehow felt that it affected him personally. We came to the conclusion that the reason this affected him/us is because this heart throb who is now impregnated by some other guy ruins our fantasy of her but still it is not something we wish to be televised on the news because it does not affect us that much. We then proceeded to ask one of our female friends why pop culture was important to them. She replied that when she reads magazines about pop culture she reads them for the mere fact that it is mindless entertainment. Our friend went on further by saying that at her job at a local school the teachers during their break time constantly talk about pop culture and what is going on in primetime television. For me this struck as odd. For some reason when I think of pop culture the first thing I imagine as an audience member for pop culture is a white, teeny bopper, somewhere between the age of 15 to 18. However this is not the case in this instance, these are grown up professionals discussing what was going on in A Shot of Love with Tila Tequila.

The conclusion that I have come to of why grown people would sit around and talk about pop culture is that either they feel their lives are not interesting enough to talk about or they maintain a professional relationship and instead of crossing the threshold into their own personal live they maintain their relationship by avoiding personal things and instead discuss others. If this is the case then I would like to think that it is people who are determining what is popular in our culture. Unfortunately a lot of the content that is discussed is what is being presented to the masses and not what is controlled by the masses. What I mean by this is that though the teachers on break are discussing pop culture they did not make it pop culture. Instead what is happening is that they see and hear the content and then discuss it, they are in fact the medium.

It is my belief that a person is in fact smart and capable of making their own decisions but as people, as a mass, we are dumb and instead feed off of what ever is given to us. The corporations know this and they are in fact the ones that decide what we want to know and feed the content to us. They then leave it up to the people to spread their content amongst one another. For this reason I would say that alone and by yourself you don’t care if Britney Spears is on the news or not but when left to make idle conversation with others you use those stories as ammo to start conversation.

eBooks

For this weeks last post we decided to llok at eBooks and eBook readers. I think that by now we understand Laura Pappano’s view on items such as these and we can all assume that she would not agree with such a product like this. She would probably say that with electronic readers we would be missing out on the use of actual print as well as missing out on the experience of traveling to the library etc… I have to say that if this is the argument for eBooks then it is a pretty poor argument. To me the benefits of such an item far outway that of the social cost. The space that such a little gadget as this would save alone is worth the cost. I mean imagine being able to fit a whole library on this reader. Or imagine going to the library and instead of going all the way to the third floor, to the west wing, and trying to find a book using the Dewey Decimal System you could simply scroll and find the book you’re looking for. I mean no slight to you Dewey or your decimal system but I would prefer the scroll and find method.

I think a large part of what Pappano doesn’t get is that the reason she is able to even speak or write about these ideas that she is having is because she feels that the small things have been taken away. I have to say the only time one appreciates the small things are when those things are absent or taken away. But under normal circumstances people don’t even appreciate the small things when they are present. The point that I am making is that unless we can somehow make people appreciate what it is to go the library and go to the third floor, west wing, and fourth book on the third shelf then nobody is going to really care if that task is eliminated. It might just be me but I ask you when the last was that you stopped and said to yourself “Geez, I really appreciate going to the library and spending 15 minutes looking for a book.” I could be wrong and there may be those type of people in the world and I would say to those people that you should read “The Connection Gap” because that book was made for you.

To get back to eBooks I don’t see any social impacts positive or negative to the product. I’m not going to go as far as my friend Brian went by saying that books would become obsolete. I think maybe there might be a time when books become vintage kind of like Vinyl Records but even then that would just be a small majority of the world. We have to remember that the majority of the world’s population don’t have computers let alone afford a $400 piece of electronic equipment like this. I guess that I just have doubt in this particular type of media. I think that it has great potential but I just don’t see it becoming the new “book,” I guess time will tell.

On E-book Readers

After speaking with some of my peers on the topic of my last post, the value of books became a focus of many conversations. I couldn’t help but to bring up Amazon’s new gadget, the Kindle. The Kindle is an e-book reader which essentially lets one download books onto a small tablet, which can hold up to 200 books. The technology is amazing, described as “electronic paper” the Kindle is much different from an ordinary screen. From what I understand, small beads are magnetized to rise to the surface of the screen. This way, real paper is simulated, and typical eye strain one might get from viewing a screen is reduced. People may criticize the electronic restraints of the battery life, but the Kindle only turns on to activate a new page. Enough of the technical details as they can be found on the Amazon site or the many tech news sites which covered the Kindle when it was released (selling out in a matter of hours). In November, there was a great article on the Kindle from Newsweek which states that the Kindle will essentially change the way people read books.

Many critics may believe that the Kindle will destroy literature. With the ability to hold hundreds of books on a single device, it may be possible to render libraries obsolete. The capacity of a library and bookstores are limited, but an infinite amount of books can be held in electronic form. In searching for research material while at home, I found it very difficult. Local libraries and even Barnes and Noble did not have appropriate research material. Rare books will not longer be hard to find, and people will be able to buy new books at the touch of a button with instant gratification. Making libraries obsolete is one possible result of this revolutionary technology, but I believe the Kindle looks to revive the literary scene. Much like Youtube is dependent on user-generated content, the Kindle has a similar system called Digital Text Platform. A quick look at Amazon's website shows that anyone can publish their own material and put it on the Kindle marketplace. The author can attach any price they wish (a minimum of 99 cents). By being able to post one’s own material without having to find a publisher, there is potential to spark a phenomenon of new writers where the entire world is their potential audience. The reason the Internet has not accomplished this is because it is rather difficult to read an entire book on a computer screen. There are also portability issues. E-book readers solve all these problems, but there is a major roadblock to sparking this new revolution in writing. The problem is that Amazon absorbs 65% of the revenue made from the book. I am not sure if this is the case for writers published by other publishing houses.

Pappano brings up an important point on screens which can be related to e-book readers. She quotes a child development expert David Elkind. He believes that “very young children haven’t developed the ability to understand that a picture on a computer screen is a symbol for something else in the real world” (67). By reading books on a screen, a disconnect is created between the reader and the author. Instead of feeling that the author has a set of ideas and beliefs, we take the ideas in as fact or not crediting the author for his beliefs. Also, in the time we take to read a book, we create a physical connection with the book – the weight of the book and the feel of the pages.

Another major setback of current e-book readers is cost. A Sony brand e-book reader costs $300. While the Kindle did sell out in the first day, e-book readers have relatively high price points because the consumer must also purchase books to read. Therefore, the cost of the reader is for the technology alone. There are good deals on books for the Kindle, most likely a result of the reduced cost of shipping, storing books, etc. for Amazon. I can imagine that with a cheaper product, this technology can catch on very quickly. Seeing the capabilities of e-book readers, it is possible that everybody will have an e-book reader. As computers have become a necessity in everyday life, computers have been made more accessible. As people begin to adopt e-book technology, we will also see greater accessibility to such technology.

On Multi-tasking

Multitasking has become a key word in the sale of many consumer goods. There are Bluetooth headsets that allow us to talk on the phone while driving and smart phones which serve as our daily organizers while including a camera and web browser. Time has been commoditized such that we must manage our time more efficiently. Products which allow us more time for work or relaxing thus find great success in the marketplace. As our cell phones and computers become more advanced, the extravagance of these items has come into question. As JD mentioned, CES is taking place this week in Las Vegas, and there have been reports on new gadgets are coming out by the minute. There have been some very good examples of unnecessary items, which roll up the most unusual functions into one neat little device. One ridiculous example can be found over at Engadget here. In the Starry Night bed, we have the epitome of today’s world, which feels that everything must be combined into a single unit to make it more effective, more efficient. I feel that the Starry Night bed is far beyond anything an ordinary person would ever need. However, in terms of products like the iPhone, there are real productive uses that come out of it.

JD and I had a fairly heated debate on this topic just now and I have to disagree with many of his thoughts on multitasking. There are clear productivity gains from having an organizer, e-mail client, web browsing, and phone all encompassed by a singular device. In some ways, I feel that the iPhone is a poor example as it is often regarded as a chic device, almost like a toy. People would do not need the iPhone buy one as a status symbol. Here, I would concede the fact that most people believe that they are busier than they really are. However, in terms of people with tight schedules (such as businessmen or perhaps even with a college student), there are meetings to make and activities to attend. To have the capability to check email and then put that into a scheduler in one device would be rather convenient (especially as a guy who does not want to carry multiple things in my pockets). While I do not particularly need a $500 iPhone to carry out these functions, I would have to say that having an electronic scheduler, phone, and email in one device would increase productivity. Pappano speaks about electronic planners saying that “A day is no longer a stretch of time between waking up and going to bed; it is a series of spaces into which data may be entered and linked to specific times” (pp 64). However, I do not see how screens have driven people to plan their days to the last minute. Before electronic schedulers, there were date books. Simply because technology has made organization more efficient does not mean technology has resulted in this behavior. The fact that people feel that they must check off their tasks for the day most likely derives from the fact that in America, we believe that hard work will lead to success. Therefore, we feel like we must do more in a day in order to have really accomplished something. Much like seeing a completed project, seeing a list of daily tasks all checked off may give people the idea that something was done in the course of the day.

In terms of multitasking creating a connection gap, I can understand that in some cases we do separate ourselves in favor of browsing the internet alone. I agree with JD that people sometimes interact with their digital media rather than other people, but people must do so at the proper time. When traveling on a plane, people multitask by pulling out a laptop to work on. However, I would also present the idea that screens are once again taking the blame for things which have already been in place for years to avoid human contact. Strictly speaking on the topic of human contact, I would bring up the case of books as a creating a connection gap (I understand that books may give a more enriching experience than watching a television show). We often bring books or magazines onto planes, a little kiosk selling books and magazines right in the terminal area. Alternatively, we could try to interact with the person we are sitting next to, even if they are a stranger. However, we choose the alternative of isolating ourselves whether through books or film, even when in close proximity of others. We can blame the fact that on most planes today, each seat has their own personal screen. Once we become bored of speaking to the person next to us, we can simply plug in headphones and block the other person out. Without technology I would personally go to sleep.

All in all, multitasking enabled us to manage time better. Better productivity leads to more free time to spend with those close to us, strengthening our connections. Perhaps working in a space which could be used to interact with others will detract from the amount of connections a person would otherwise make. However, the benefit of extra time can be put into going a cooking class or some other social atmosphere.

Multitasking

Hello again all,

For those of you who know, this week has been the week of CES (Consumer Electronics Show). This is an opportunity for companies to show off their newest gadgets to the press and public. The prevailing theme this year seems to be high definition and portable media devices. The focus is trying to bring consumers products that basically do everything. During the Sony press conference at CES, Sony unveiled the Sony EricssonW760. This phone/video player/videogame/mp3 player can do everything, it even goes as far as having tilt control, so when you’re playing your racing game on your phone you just turn the dandy little thing to its side and steer it like a steering wheel.

Products such as these interest me to no extent; I love gadgets that can do everything because it eliminates the need to carry around multiple gadgets that can only do some of the stuff. So for this post we’ll be looking at the need for multitasking and how that affects society. The medium that I’ll be looking at specifically is the iPhone. This coveted consumer good has the capacity to eliminate the need to carry around any other media that one might need

Nowadays in our busy lives people are working longer hours, traveling greater distances, and just trying to manage time so they can do all they need to do. For this reason we have gadgets like the iPhone. With products such as these the idea is to save us time as well as conveniently be able to locate everything we need. Laura Pappano recognizes this in “The Connection Gap” and says:

“In the electronic world, screens are not objective tools but personal accessories that amplify and fill in when human capabilities fall short. Screen technology expands our memory, polishes our look, extends our reach, and even gives us the illusion of having more time.”(Pappano: p.64)

This is the practical use for the iPhone, the other side of it is the bragging rights that come along with it. The truth of the matter is that the average person who is not a traveling businessmen might not need all of the software that comes with this but just to be able to say that you can, for example, convert money at the touch of a button is reason enough to buy this product.

Our favorite author Laura Pappano, brings up this issue again in her book “The Connection Gap.” In her chapter titled Screens Pappano discusses the disconnect from society that screens have on us. An example that she gives is of a woman who was dying of liver cancer and was unfortunately bed ridden. Since she was immobile she spent a lot of time in chat rooms with people who have the same affliction as her when she said that she was “dying from liver cancer” people would say to her instead “you are living with liver cancer.” The point Pappano was trying to make is that people were not actually listening to what this woman had to say and were instead spouting cliché lines in a feeble attempt to make her feel better. This is the lack of connection that Pappano is talking about.

Now that we have products like the iPhone that does everything are we less connected with one another? After much thought and debate with Brian I have to say that my answer would have to be yes. I don’t have a problem with multitasking, in fact I think that it necessary. As a person who has dual monitors on their computer I like the fact that I can write my blog and watch the Sony Press Conference at CES (that is actually what I’m doing right now for those who are wondering). At the same time I feel I am at the proper venue to multitask. I’m not neglecting my friends and family because I would have had to write my blog anyway and so I can spend more time with my friends I won’t have to sit isolated from them watching CES another time. I am basically killing two birds with one stone.

The problem arises when you are not in the proper venue. I will agree with Pappano that if you are listening to music while web browsing and organizing your day outside and around others then you are in fact missing out on the human connection. Making media portable distracts us and in our attempt to stay connected with others we are in fact missing out on connections that could be established.

The Connection Gap

For our first post Brian and I have decided to look at the Avatar phenomena as well as the MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game for those who are not familiar) craze. Games such as the infamous “World of Warcraft” and “Second Life” which have a fan base of in the millions. We incorporated our reading of Laura Pappano’s book “The Connection Gap.” In this book Pappano discusses how in our modern society of technology and multitasking, we as human being have neglected our connections with one another. Pappano mostly refers to the small connections or what she calls the “junk” of our daily lives. Because we have things such as online shopping and automated tolls that we no longer have small conversations with the toll both clerks or the person at the register at the local grocery store. What Brian and I wondered was if this so called “junk” is important or necessary in our daily lives? Also, are these MMORPG’s severing the connections that we have with people or are they establishing connections with people who you would have otherwise never met?

First I would like to discuss Warcaft in relation to Pappano’s book. As a person who has never played WoW (mostly for fear of it taking over my life) I have played games of the like. I understand the enjoyment of immersing yourself in a virtual world and meeting up with people to accomplish a common goal. I don’t really see the problem with this. Beside the lack of actual physical human contact it is the same idea as a book club or possibly more closely related an AA meeting. You are a group of people with a common interest discussing and engaging in a hobby that you have created for yourself. People like Pappano would have a problem with this because they would see this as isolating oneself and neglecting real friends. This is what she calls “The Connection Gap,” Pappano defines it as:

“As a society, we face a collective loneliness, an empty feeling that comes not from a lack of all human interaction, but from the loss of meaningful interaction, the failure to be part of something real, or to have faith in institutions that might bring us together. That is what I call the Connection Gap.”(p.8).

I would argue that games and other media related products do “bring us together” and are in fact “meaningful.” The problem in this is that people are trying to universalize what is “meaningful.” If you are a person who places high value on your interactions with the toll booth clerk that is fine, me personally, I would rather avoid awkward small talk with someone, as well as the headache of slow drivers and go through the EZ Pass lane. I would rather not have small talk with a person that I’ll never have any kind of relationship with and focus more on relationships that I share a commonality with. If one can find that commonality in an MMORPG then that’s good it should matter what the medium is as long as you establish that connection.

On the other hand we have products such as Second Life. For those who are not familiar with Second Life it is basically a virtual world where you create a character and you interact with other characters in the virtual world. I do have a problem with Second Life. Second Life takes away the commonality that one would share with someone in an MMORPG. When you go into this virtual world there is no goal, quest, or adventure that you can partake in. Instead this is attempting to serve as an alternate world, a virtual reality. This concept is dumb to me, all this allows for is for people who are otherwise shy and not outgoing to be whatever their inner self may be without the fear of ridicule. If you are going to play this game then you might as well go out into the world with a mask or paper bag over you head and say whatever you want to people because it is the equivalent of Second Life. What my point is there is no objective and no common interest. When you play games such as Warcraft you know that you are going into this world with people who want to play and accomplish missions to gain levels. You meet people and you establish a relationship (or guild, same thing) with people who you deem worthy enough to fight alongside you. Second Life, however, does not have that uniting quality. When you enter this world you are by yourself and you have to talk to people and sort through them to find commonality. If you are going to do this you might as well go out into the real world but some people find it easier to hide behind the screen so it serves that purpose.

I disagree with Laura Pappano and her definition of “The Connection Gap” I would say that if you place meaning on your interaction with people (even if they are in Second Life) then that should suffice. People can’t downplay the value that others place in media. We have to learn how to work with our media and let go of old definitions of interaction. Don’t get me wrong, I place a high value on physical interaction with people, in fact some of my fondest memories are with real people. I also have bonded and grew closer to some of my best friends because they like to play MMORPG too and we bond over our dorkiness together. This doesn’t make our relationship any less meaningful it is just another tool for establishing connections.