The Role I Choose for the Future

The biggest thing I learned from this course is that discrimination, hatred, oppression, etc, exist largely from a lack of knowledge and experiences. When I leave this classroom, my role is going to be that of a student and a teacher.


There are many things I have never experienced and might not ever get to. I can, however, make the effort to learn about those things. Even if I can't understand certain people or situations that are different, I can be aware and accepting of them. That awareness will help me to be more open-minded and less judgmental.

In the same way, I hope to use my voice and my talents to educate others. I can use the media tools of the time to open up new worlds to others. I can help provide that knowledge and awareness, which will hopefully lead to more acceptance of differences.

As difficult as it was to nail down the definition of a sociological imagination, I realize that it's something I've always used and something I hope to continue to use. I want to apply that to every situation where I find myself judging someone else. What must their life be like? How did they grow up? Where did they grow up? Etc... We are all connected to the societies in which we were raised. Being aware that these upbringings are different, but okay, can lead to more understanding.

Lippman vs Dewey

“Knowledge must come not from the conscious but from the environment.”

Walter Lippman doesn’t think we have much control over our own thoughts. In Public Opinion, he proposes that we need an elite group of experts to make the big decisions for us. He thinks that the common person’s reason isn’t developed and cannot be acted on. His views on democracy are dark and do not offer much hope for the future.

Lippman is clearly a believer of agenda setting. He thinks that a higher power (like the media) decides what we think about. I do not believe in the agenda setting theory for many reasons. First of all, it’s ridiculous to think that one specific group of people can or should make decisions for the masses. It’s true that our government is a small group making decisions for the entire country, but not only do we elect them, but we have the power to tell them what we want. I am a firm believer in democracy and I feel that I have power to make a difference and to be heard. Secondly, I think that the internet and citizen journalism are proof that the people will be heard and can decide for themselves what’s important. We’re seeing an increase in citizen involvement in news and entertainment coverage. What would Walter Lippman say to this? I think he’d be at a loss for words, which is saying something for him.

I believe more in what John Dewey says. He’s more positive about democracy and public participation. Most of all, he focuses on communication. While Lippman implies that we should just sit back and let the elite discuss things and make decisions for us, Dewey believes that we should all participate in the discussion. He would probably believe more in the uses and gratification theory.

I definitely think like Dewey, but I believe it’s important to study Lippman as well. He has valuable points that challenge the way that I think. Studying his side helped me form my opinion on the subject and made me think about how I use my voice and how I can use it more.

"Reality is merely an illusion..." -Albert Einstein

When you watch TV, do you become totally immersed in the characters and lose yourself in the storyline? You may be experiencing a hyper-reality. Jean Baudrillard is a theorist who came up with hyper-reality. He defines it as “The simulation of something which never really existed.” So the question is: Does watching television create our reality, or is it just an outside source of entertainment?

To test this theory, I had to watch a full night of television. And honestly, it’s painful these days. There is only one single show that keeps me almost sitting still for an hour: America’s Next Top Model. I don’t think this makes a false reality for me because I don’t watch it thinking that those girls are representing everyone. If I wasn’t experiencing these situations on the show, I’d be experiencing them in a magazine or someplace else. No false reality here.

Next up was Sopranos. Okay, this one might construct a bit of a hyper-reality. I tend to have a stronger New Jersey accent afterwards and I tend to say I’m going to “whack” people. (DISCLAIMER: I would never actually do such a thing. It’s just a joke.) Even though I do hail from the fabulous Garden State, I’m not regularly exposed to mobsters (although my new neighbor is seriously shady). I do think that if you watch hours upon hours of The Sopranos, you might start to believe the sensationalized life of a mobster is real life. But then again…is it false?

Finally, I rounded out my night with some classic King of Queens. You can’t beat this show. It’s funny and sweet and, I think, quite real. The situations are obviously dramatized for effect, but most of them are very possible. I just realized that this is another show I love that’s based in New Jersey. I am consistently exposed to working class people and NYC commuters in real life. Again, no hyper-reality here!

I believe I can see the difference between reality and hyper-reality. I should point out, though, that a show like The Sopranos does twist some people’s views of certain groups of people (here, Italian Americans in New Jersey). Perhaps other people find themselves in a hyper-reality when watching these shows. I feel that I think about the bigger picture enough to realize the difference.

I could see evidence for and against Meyrowitz’s view that television brings people closer together. With the Sopranos, it brings together those New Jersians who can laugh at the depictions. But it also breaks some apart because they get so angry over the stereotypes.

Lippman might say that these shows create pictures in our heads about these groups of people. I think that being aware of this makes me challenge those pictures.

Rate It!

This week we’re looking at Nielson ratings for our favorite shows. I had trouble finding the ratings for my actual favs, so I’m choosing a game show: Deal or No Deal. Howie Mandel’s beautiful baldness appears every Monday night at 8 on NBC.

For the week of March 19-25, Deal or No Deal tied 10th among the top 20 network primetime series. Here are the details:

Deal or No Deal is in a competitive time slot, but it fairs well. It’s up against the 4th rated show, Dancing with the Stars on ABC, which it hasn’t surpassed. The other shows in that time slot, like Fox’s Prison Break and CBS’s How I Met Your Mother, don’t offer all that much competition. I think it’s in a good time slot for the type of show that it is.

I don’t think it would work as well if it were moved to a later time slot on any day because a lot of the heavy weights, like Grey’s Anatomy, and the CSI’s are after 8pm. If it had to move to another night, Tuesday and Wednesday could be tricky because nothing wants to go against American Idol. Thursday nights have Ugly Betty, so that could be another tricky night. It could probably handle the competition on Friday nights, but Monday night is a much better TV game show night.

Basically, Deal or No Deal is in the best time slot for itself. It’s definitely a competitive show, especially for being a game show.

The Labyrinth

"Where everythings seems possible and nothing is what it seems..."

Before we visited Harry Potter at Hogwarts...before Frodo took us on a magical journey in Lord of the Rings...there was... The Labyrinth.

(Trailer for The Labyrinth)

This 1986 movie combines the skills of Jim Henson and George Lucas to create the tale of a fanciful world that could rival that of the popular fantasy films of today. The movie stars a young Jennifer Connolly who makes a wish that sends her baby brother into the hands of the Goblin King, played by David Bowie. To get him back, she must make her way through the labyrinth to the castle. Along the way she meets all sorts of creatures, some who help her and some who threaten her. She must use her mind and her heart to make it all the way through the maze to save her little brother.

There are many reasons that The Labyrinth is a must-see. The strongest part of the movie has to be the amazing puppetry and special effects, especially considering it was made in the 80s. There seems to be much more detail and care put into it than the computer animated graphics we’re used to today. Jim Henson really shows off his genius in this one. The characters are Muppets, but most of them are much scarier than what we’re used to from him. The movie was nominated for awards because of the amazing visual effects.

Another reason to see this film: David Bowie. If you think you’ve seen him at his best, think again! Woven into the movie, we have various musical interludes which contribute to a catchy soundtrack. His tight pants, heavy eye shadow, and platinum blonde fro/mullet hair will leave you wondering why 80’s fashions ever went out of style.

The Labyrinth keeps you glued to the screen. Every time Sarah takes a turn in the maze, she meets new, interesting creatures with different tasks and powers. Henson and Lucas thought of the most amazing characters that most people would never even dream of. At the end of the movie, you just want Sarah to continue to explore the labyrinth so we can meet more magical creatures. You will be completely immersed in the tale.

The Labyrinth is one of those movies that will take you away from reality. If you have any sense of humor, The Labyrinth will turn around any bad day. It’s a great escape from the computer generated images we’re used to today. It will remind you of a simpler time when movies were more tangible. It’s a little known treasure that you definitely should discover.

Crash is a Smash

“You think you know who you are? You have no idea.”

In the 2004 movie Crash, Officer John Ryan says this to his partner Officer Tom Hansen. Ryan knows Hansen accused him of being a racist. Hansen thinks he’s above racism—but he soon finds out that Ryan is in fact right. He doesn’t know himself like he thought he did.

Paul Haggis’ Best Picture winner, Crash, is an intense movie that follows a group of colorful characters through a turbulent 36 hour period. The movie has several different storylines that Haggis weaves together perfectly. Each of these story lines teaches us something about racism.

We meet Rick and Jean Cabot (played by Bredan Fraiser and Sandra Bullock), the LA District Attorney and his wife. While Rick tries to base his campaign as being as “non-racist” as possible, Jean lives a lonely life, unsure of who she can really trust.

There’s Officer Ryan and Officer Hansen (Matt Dillon and Ryan Phillippe), who both struggle with their racist beliefs. Hansen is new to the LAPD and thinks he has his ideals in check. Ryan, though, quickly teaches him that he does not know himself yet.

We meet Farhad (Shaun Toub) who deals with stereotypes against his middle eastern background everyday. He is ironically full of stereotypical beliefs himself, which eventually lead to take tragic action against an innocent father and husband.

All of these characters and many more are strikingly different on the outside, but deeply similar on the inside. They all deal with issues of racism and lonliness, stereotypes and hate. No one knows who they can trust, but they are all connected in random day to day business which forces them to cross each others paths—or crash into each other.

If Walter Lippman were to watch this movie, he would have a lot to say about the issues of stereotypes. His description of stereotypes in his text Public Opinion says “they are an ordered, more or less consistent picture of the world, to which our habits, our tastes, our capacities, our comforts and our hopes have adjusted themselves.” They are a sort of defense that keeps our lives going. For example, in the movie we see Sandra Bullock’s character held at gunpoint by two African Americans. Afterwards, she regrets not having followed her instincts because the stereotype she knew of African Americans made her afraid of the two who eventually stole her car. She and other characters use the stereotypes and the pictures in their heads as a defense mechanism to not have to deal with the world as it is.

This award winning movie is a must-see for everyone. It brings up topics that are often never spoken about, such as racism in law enforcement and our own uncomfortable feelings with people who are different from us. It forces conversation and discussion on topics that are often taboo. Paul Haggis has created a masterful piece that deserves all the awards and attention it received. It definitely deserves a ten out of ten stars.

Philo vs RCA

It sounds like the storyline from a movie.

The hard working, slightly awkward, all American boy discovers something great and hopes to spread it to the world.

Then along comes the evil Russian who steals his idea and claims it as his own.

Unfortunately, the ending isn’t as happy as one might like.

Philo T. Farnsworth is the hard working American in this storyline and Vladimir Zworykin is the evil Russian. These days, few people know that Philo T. Farnsworth is the creator of the television. Why? Because big business won.

There are similar themes between the Farnsworth story and situations we’re learning about in this cluster. Philo is the subordinate group with no power. Even though he had the knowledge, he did not have the money which, in this situation meant power. RCA dominated him because it was a powerful corporation.

We could also see Philo as the minority group and RCA as the majority. Philo did not have enough pull as a single person, while RCA had many members and lots of influence. Philo was not strong enough as a single person to own the design of the television. RCA, however, was.

More specifically, let’s compare the Philo storyline to The Bluest Eye. Philo would represent the African American characters. No matter how hard they tried, they were always at the mercy of the white majority. They were just as capable, but didn’t have the status to pull themselves out from the bottom. It’s a classic case of little guy/big guy. And the big guy won.

Review of The Bluest Eye

What is beauty? What is race? Who has power? Who gets to decide?

These are a few of the issues tackeled in Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye. Set in Lorain, OH in the 1940s, the story follows the tragic life of the Breedlove's, a black family struggling to survive in a white-ruled society. Pecola Breedlove is obsessed with having blue eyes so she can be pretty like the other girls. Along the way, though, she discovers that happiness cannot come from eye color.

Toni Morrison does an excellent job portraying the pressures that society places on minorities. Pecola is not only ridiculed at school for being who she is (a black child), but she's unloved at home as well. Her mother plays into the thought of white supremacy by showing more love towards her boss's white daughter than towards her own flesh and blood. Her father is abusive and ruins her life.

There are many topics tackled throughout the story. One of the idea of beauty--what is it and how does one get it? Pecola sees beauty as blue-eyed white girls. Her friend Claudia gets angry that this is what she's expected to like and envisions beauty in a black baby. She eventually learns that beauty does not equal happiness or contentment.

Another idea is that of self-hatred. The little black girls and boys grow up with a self-hatred already growing inside them. From the beginning of their life, they're taught through the actions of those around them that they are inferior, dirty, ugly, and bad. Even while some try to fight this, they inevitably seem to gain this self-hatred, almost as a necessary part of growing up.

This book is difficult to get through, but very interesting once you look at its message. It is not a pick-me-up story, but it is eye-opening. It is an important read because it tells in a real, raw way the struggle of a minority in our country. The messages can be spread to people of any skin color. Issues with beauty and self-hatred don't discriminate.

What is a Documentary?

A documentary is one of those things that changes with time. What might have started out before the 1900s as short moving pictures by Auguste and Louis Lumeire, has evolved and expanded to include box office hits like Farenheit 9/11. Documentaries differ in the length, technology used, and other technical elements. However, I do think there’s a simple, yet broad, definition for a documentary.

I found the definition of “documentary” in the root of the word, “document.” The definition of “document” is to support with evidence or decisive information. Therefore, a documentary portrays evidence and information to tell a non-fiction story.

This definition is almost too simple, though, so what else can be added to it? One of the first descriptions of what makes a documentary came from John Grierson when he labeled it as “the creative treatment of actuality.” The word “actuality” implies to me that it observes real life as it’s happening. It’s not scripted or staged or purposely manipulated. It requires the documentarian to act as a fly on the wall, trying not to influence or change the subject, but to simply observe. It doesn’t even have to be video. American Radio Works has documentaries that are just audio and still fit into the documentary catagory.

So how should we determine what a documentary in our class should be like? This is my suggestion for documentary guidelines:

1. There must be a subject (which does not have to be human—it can be an animal, a place, a thing, etc.) If you want it to be a good documentary, there should be some sort of conflict or adverse situation that the subject goes through.
2. The documentary must observe the subject as it is. It should not be scripted or manipulated.
3. It should include facts and evidence on the subject. (This doesn’t necessarily mean statistics and numbers. Facts can simply be truthful statements about the subject.)
4. It should be put together in a creative, logical way that is pleasing to the intended audience.

Our class already knows there are some great documentary examples at Current TV. You can find other examples at Channel 4, a not-for-profit channel in the UK. Their "fourdocs" are four minute documentaries that anyone can submit for the world to see (now they're even moving to 59 second "microdocs!")

Documentaries cannot be strictly defined. Their definition depends on who you are, who your audience is, and what your purpose is. Anyone can make a documentary.

Episode Review: 30 Days--Immigration

How do you make a life-long committed Minuteman love a group of illegal immigrants? If you believe the Immigration episode of 30 Days, just stick him in a one-bedroom apartment with a family of seven illegal immigrants. The second season of 30 Days begins with an episode that attempts to tackle the debate of illegal immigration, but comes off as a one-sided, emotional tear-jerker.

Frank George is a Minuteman who patrols the US border of Mexico. When he was seven he came to the US legally. The Gonzalez family emigrated from Mexico—illegally. The family of seven lives in a cramped one-bedroom apartment, barely surviving off meager wages and random jobs. These opposite worlds collide when Frank George moves in with the Gonzalez family for 30 days. He lives the life of an illegal immigrant and learns their day-to-day struggles. The family has to deal with his strong opinions against illegal immigration.

The purpose of the episode is to show the struggle between illegal immigrants and our government. The movie started portraying both sides well, but as the episode went on, it seemed as though we were being pushed towards siding with the immigrants. There is clear agenda-setting in this episode. It tugs at the heart strings and spends more time looking into the lives of the immigrants. We see the close, modest Gonzalez family scraping by everyday, yet never complaining about their situation. We watch Frank go to Mexico to see how pitiful life is in the poverty-stricken country. The scenes leave you wondering how anyone could possibly want these people to return to such conditions.

But what about the other side of the debate? All we hear from Frank George is repetitive argument that “it’s just the law” and that illegal immigration will “bring bout the disillusion of this country.” But why? What’s happened in the U.S. so far that proves this? What is happening to American citizens who are just as poor as these immigrants, though completely legal? The show failed to go into this crucial side of the debate.

The episode does have some redeeming qualities. It does not abuse stereotypes. We see throughout the episode that Frank George is more than just a Minuteman with a mission. His background as an immigrant himself lends him an interesting point of view to the situation. He is able to connect with the Gonzalez family, especially to the daughter, Armida. Frank and Armida have many civilized debates over the topic and by the end of the episode, Frank is close to tears when having to say goodbye to Armida. He is much more sensitive than one might expect.

The show also de-bunks the illegal immigrant stereotype. Most people expect a dirty, uneducated family with no future, but there is so much more going on with the Gonzalez family. We see how hard-working the dad, Rigorberto, is when Frank goes with him on a job. We see the mother, Patty, as just that—a mother who will do anything to make her family happy, even if that includes taking so much time to collect and recycle cans just for a measly five dollars. Most striking of all is Armida, the golf-playing, well educated high school student with high hopes on a college career.

It is Frank’s seemingly quick change of heart that makes this episode so questionable. The man who has had such strong, deep feelings towards immigration for almost his entire life begins to go soft after less than thirty days? This seems to be the working of great story-writing instead of reality. Frank does seem to open up his mind on the topic a bit. As Walter Lippman said in his piece Public Opinion, “A great deal of confusion arises when people decline to classify themselves as we have classified them.” What he finds with this family is not at all what he expects. But when the episode is over, we read that he continues to work with the Minutemen. So while the episode dramatizes a story about a changed man, the reality is that he seems to have just opened his mind a bit.

My final thought on the show is this: It failed to cover the controversy completely, but it at least succeeded in bringing the topic to a new audience. It took the immigration topic out of strictly news and politics by giving it a face. It was not merely about a Minuteman and illegal immigrants. It was Frank George and his own personal struggle within himself. It was the Gonzalez family and their warm hearts and earnest desire to stay together as a family. The episode is good for entertainment, but not much more.

The History of my Obsession

My favorite medium is my cell phone, so to investigate the company behind it, I had to look into Verizon Communications, Inc.

Verizon Communications Inc. is the result of many different mergers. It’s a great example of how synergy of similar companies can create one major, powerful company. (Synergy, as we learned in Ralph Hanson’s “Mass Communications: Living in a Media World,” is when multiple items combine their strengths to be better than they were individually.) Verizon is the result of a major merger between in 2000 between the Bell Atlantic Corp. and the GTE Corp. (which are both companies with their own history of mergers and synergy.)

Verizon customers span a broad spectrum, from individuals, to small businesses, to huge corporations, to the government. It is also much more than just a phone company—it also does internet and television. Verizon deals mostly with media services—getting you the connections you need to get the contact you want. While it might not control what you look at on the internet, it can control how quickly, how easily, how often. It might not create the television programming, but it controls which channels you can choose from. It's also continuing to change the face of these television, cell phone, and internet, by merging them together into one device. Through synergy and concentration of ownership, Verizon has gained the power to make these changes and improvements.

Stereotypes

Stereotypes are generalizations, judgements, or assumptions of certain social groups based on their similarities with each other and their differences from the majority or group the in “power.” They are not whole explanations of what the world really is, but they represent the pictures in our heads of what we can handle believing the world is.

As Walter Lippman said in Chapter 7 of “Public Opinion”, stereotypes “are an ordered, more or less consistent picture of the world, to which our habits, our tastes, our capacities, our comforts and our hopes have adjusted themselves.” Lippman is saying that we adapt to these “pictures” and become so comfortable with them that we’re often blind to any other way. We feel as though we belong to our stereotypical groups, and this provides comfort. It keeps us from having to think too hard or understand different people. In a more positive way, it's helpful because without such generalizations, we would have no organized, systematic way of learning what others are like.

Media & the Pictures in My Head

I’m not exactly sure how to answer this week’s blog question, but I’m going to just take a stab at it.

I think everyone’s reality is limited because even if we do a lot of traveling and learning about other people, we can really only understand so much. For me at the moment, my reality consists of college life and home life. I can explore other realities, though, via the internet, movies, and TV. But most of the things I see through the media will never really be my reality.

People are always complaining about media gatekeepers, that our news and information is too filtered by a minority. I agree that this is a problem, but is there a solution? Without gatekeepers, we would be absolutely inundated with information. How could we possibly make sense of it all?

My solution is pretty simple: Be aware of the fact that there are gatekeepers, there are people filtering our information through their own points of view, there is information that we might not get because someone doesn’t want it getting out. If you’re aware that all this is happening, you can take everything at face value for what it is—just part of the story. It’s really each individual’s responsibility to use a variety of media outlets for their information and to never assume that one message is the be-all-end-all, final say on the topic. (All of that can correspond to stereotypes as well. If you use stereotypes knowing that they’re not perfect judgments that describe every person or thing within the group, then you’ll be open to the possibility that it is really just a generalization).

Life with no cell phone...

My favorite media is my cell phone and if I didn't have it in my life, I would be a very sad person.

The biggest reason that I like my cell phone is how connected it allows me to be. No matter where I am I can just type in a few numbers and I'll be talking to someone across the country in no time. It's most useful for when I'm away from people I love and like to keep in contact with, like family and friends. Without my cell phone, I would probably lose contact with a lot of people, and that wouldn't be cool.

I could probably replace my cell phone with email or IM, but that's just not practical or portable enough yet.

Media Checklist

1.) How often do you use the telephone? Who do you call most often?
I rarely ever use the telephone, but I am absolutely addicted to my cell phone. I use calls and texts every single day. I usually call my sister, my friends, or my parents.

2.) When's the last time you listened to a speech or public speaker where you were physically in the audience (not required for class)? What was it and why?
I think the last public speech I was physically in the audience for was a couple months ago when I got to see Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams speak about the Huntley-Brinkley Report. It was pretty cool.

3.)How often do you IM? Name two people on your buddy list or people you frequently chat with.
I don't IM as much as I used to because I don't like sitting at a computer. I would rather use text messaging or something like that.

4.) How often do you use email?
I use email a lot, especially during school.

5.) When's the last time you paid for music to listen to? What was it? CD? iTunes? Concert?
I think I bout some music off iTunes a few months ago, but I also got some CDs for my birthday.

6.) What's the most recent thing you've watched on TV? Why?
The Today Show because I like having that on in the morning.

7.) When's the last time you recorded a movie or television program? What was it?
I rarely record tv shows anymore, but I think the last time I did it was an episode of Heros, so it had to have been in the last few months.

8.) Name the most recent movie you watched for fun at a theater? DVD?
I saw Alpha Dog in the theater before I came to school and we just watched In Her Shoes on DVD.

9.) Name the type of radio station you last listened to & why?
I listen to Titan Radio of course! But really, whenever I'm in the car or at home, I listen to the generic, popular, hit music stations of the area.

10.) Name the most recent book you read for YOU (not a class)? Why?
I read Jane Austen's Northenger Abbey because I just love Jane Austen books.

11.) When was the last time you read a newspaper? Name it? Why were you reading it?
I read a newspaper just the other day in the TUB. It was a USA Today because I haven't signed up to get the New York Times yet.

12.) Same question as #5, but apply it to a magazine.
I get a subscription to Vogue and InStyle, but I also bought Elle a few months ago.

13.) When's the last time you wrote a letter and sent it?
I wrote a letter and sent it just a week ago. I'm old school and still like to send letters.

14.) Name a website you frequent or have bookmarked on your browser? When's the last time you visited? Why?
I go to tvnewser.com because it's got all these fun newsy things on it. I haven't visited it in awhile because I have no internet in my room, which is a sad existence.

15.) Do you have a "MySpace" or "Facebook" or blog? Why?
I have all three. I like the first two because it's a way to keep in touch with people, communicate, and, let's face it, stalk your friends. And who doesn't like to do that. And I have a blog because it's required--and in all reality, my other blog is actually quite useful to give information to my capstone class and to organize stuff I'm trying to do for my future.