Theme #4

In every form of media today, we can see the way companies and networks are monetizing their different mediums to suit their chosen audience. These different mediums are becoming commercial based on what viewers they are trying to reach. In the radio aspect, depending on what type of audience they’re directing their music toward, the songs and styles are geared towards their interests. Take for an example, a pop culture station. This station would most likely play many upbeat numbers that are easy to dance to with only few slow songs by well-known artists. There would be break of talking between songs about celebrity gossip and contests for things like concert tickets or tuition. Constant news reports, weather updates, and traffic information would not be the main focus of this station.
This happens so that the backers of these stations can earn money. The only problem is that there is more than one pop culture or other genre focused station in each area. Sometimes when flipping through popular radio stations in my hometown, I would happen across more than one station playing the same song. This happened a couple times during the day because of how similar the basis of these stations is.
As we watched in the “Rock Jocks” video, the radio stations used to be completely free and uninhibited with what they were playing and what they were talking about. Drug tests used to be offered freely and sources of places to find the best concerts and weed were given out. The DJ’s were men and women of completely loose moral. They were up to date on the times of the 70’s, keeping their audience entertained and tuning in for more of the outrageous atmosphere that made these stations special and unique.
However, before long, these stations were taken over by backers and advertisers wanting to change the stations. They were now forced to use playlists, have a set description of material to talk about. There were no longer times when a complete CD could be played all the way through without interruption. The DJ’s had little control over what was to be played.
We see this now with TV networks, radio stations, and film. There are different trends and similarities between each of the same genre based stations. Nickelodeon and Disney are focused on the same audience so their shows and movies are very similar. The plots of episodes are repeated throughout each of the different “original series” that is circulated through each. Each Romantic Comedy film coming out these days is all the same with the same problems occurring between the couple. The movies have become predictable and a groundbreaking one has not been seen in many years.
Winston’s research can be related to this topic. His views on new media and technology are exactly why the stations are being monetized. In order to be accepted into society and therefore listened to or watched, the stations must give the people what they want to watch or hear. Without this, these stations will ultimately fail and cease to exist any longer. When a new series or station is added, it must go through the same process of being accepted into society as the already established stations had to before. Stations feed into the problems at the time often advertising solutions to many of the economic problems or running contests to increase listeners. The contests mostly focus on the hardships of the time and can be used by just about everyone in society.
Unfortunately, this monetizing effect makes the different media lack any true spark. There is no revolutionary song or film because no backer is willing to take a risk with that kind of money. It’s either a guaranteed success or it’s nothing at all. There is no willingness for individuality and the main thought is of money. It’s sad but true.

Theme 7

When creating a social networking site of your own, or entering personal credit card information to a website I’m buying something from, I always stop to wonder if my identity is truly safe. Can I trust these websites to keep the secrets I hold dear away from prying eyes? At this time, my truthful answer is no. I worry every time I enter some information about myself that it’s going to lead to the downfall of my whole identity, to random charges on my accounts. It’s a stupid fear but one with reasonable evidence to support.
In the article “Vanish” by Evan Ratliff, he tried to completely drop off the face of the earth while challenging his readers to try and find him. His experiment turned out to reveal many secrets of hackers, trackers, and other advanced people. This article was so interesting because of the logic described through every step of the tracking process. Bank account records, twitter pages, facebook, and all articles written were mercilessly sorted through for clues as to where this writer had taken off to. No one knew of his whereabouts or of his current identity. His entire personality was broken down into likes, dislikes and even allergies.
I found that while I was reading this article, I became increasingly paranoid that someone could easily break down all my interests and even sort through my bank account. I realized that because of increased technology, anyone with enough experience and brains can break into just about anything that we put on the web. Strangers across the nation knew about Ratliff’s allergy to anything with gluten.
With the old media, things like identity theft and matters of security was never really an issue. Things like radio and film had no means of theft of identity or other personal information. It was rather difficult to crack into anyone’s account since there was no unified record other than at the bank or through the owner’s receipts and bank statements.
This lack of privacy can loosely be related to Meyrowitz’s theory of “being there” without actually being there. The hacker can be in someone’s life without actually ever knowing the person. With a few simple clicks, anyone can just hack into someone’s personal accounts and view there information. This may be a stretch in saying but this theory somewhat applies. With the use of media, hackers can be in people’s lives without being there. There is really no security or privacy left for us to be sure of. We can no longer have a safe online life.
From personal experience, I was once in a chat room with a few of my friends, playing a careless trick on my close friend of mine. I pretended to be someone completely different to have my friend guess who I was. He managed to pinpoint exactly where I was talking from on my laptop and which part of the country I was in, just by talking to me. It was eerie and disturbing to realize.

Theme #5

It amazes me how I can no longer drive in a car for more than 30 minutes without needing guidance as to where I’m going. I no longer know the names of streets or highways, and I cannot remember things unless I email myself a reminder. This wasn’t how it used to be for me. I could remember things off the top of my head in seconds. The only reason I would use a computer or GPS is to look up out of state trips or work on my summer math and English programs. I never used to rely on the Internet so heavily and as a result had somewhat of a photographic memory. I could see the page of a textbook in my head and reread it line for line. Now the pages are blurry and it’s harder for me to focus on remembering things I have read without having notes or some form of search engine for help.
The way we use technology has drastically affected how we think and how developed our minds are. I notice as I look around my classrooms now that people are constantly either texting on their cell phones or looking around the room while the teacher lectures. It’s hard to concentrate on one solitary subject for more than an hour. This was never how it used to be. I could sit for hours upon hours doing homework and not being distracted at all but once I was given the freedom of laptop, that all changed. I was spending more time on social networking sites, email, watching videos on youtube, and searching on Google or youtube. Before I had my own computer, all these sites were a complete mystery to me. I’d never been introduced to Google or to yahoo until I was allowed to explore for myself. Now instead of being able to study for a few hours and be confident about an exam, it takes me days to get done what a few uninterrupted hours could do. I get distracted easily and am lured by the internet to explore its hidden depths.
This happened to me much the same way it happened to Nicholas Carr in his article “Is Google making us stupid?” He would read for hours upon end never being deterred from his original mission and now he can no longer focus for more than a few pages. He began rapidly researched for quotes and information for his articles through Google. Carr would watch video upon video through the various sharing sites and get sidetracked by the numerous links posted to the websites. This trend is not merely a coincidence but something that is affecting our society. Now instead of asking someone to look something up in their textbook, a professor will simply say, “Can someone Google that for me?” the textbook can be right in front of them yet we are trusting our knowledge to an extremely common search engine. Extra Credit is being given in various classes of mine to find out certain facts about different compounds. What the professors fail to realize, is that with a few clicks of my mouse, I can have the answers to all their questions within a few minutes, instead of hours like it used to be.
Even in my quantitative analysis class (which is all math) a girl was able to Google how to do her calculations for one of ours labs, even though the professor had gone into great deal about how to perform them. So to answer Carr’s question, Yes, I think Google is making us more stupid by the day. We no longer rely on our memory or bother to learn when the answer is simply at our fingertips. It’s a disturbing concept but wasn’t that the reason these engines were created in the first place? Aren’t they merely doing their job?
As MacLuhan stated, media can shape our thought processes. They provide the content but in the end, it’s the way we think about things and the way we behave that matters most. In this case, we’re being shaped to rely heavily on the use of the internet, GPS systems, personal PDA’s, etc. I, and many others like me, can no longer focus for more than a few minutes nor can I remember things from a few days ago. It’s a sad truth but can be fixed. With the elimination of Google as my main source of research and disconnecting from many of media outlets, I may be able to regain some of my former intelligence. I may be able to break this hold that the internet and other outlets like it has over me.

Theme #3

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

With today’s advances in technology, we can alter almost anything that becomes available to us digitally. We visit sites such as youtube or Google and can find all these videos or photos that have been changed and altered to fit the creators style. On youtube, there are hundreds of fan video that are edited to be one main stream of “best kisses” or “favorite moments from Gilmore Girls” without actually changing the original episodes of the shows they were taken from. Since the episode were put online, they can be changed into whatever the creator chooses. Photos can be drawn on and changed to show something that never happened. Two movies can be edited and formatted to make the viewer believe they are one.
However, film, radio, and television before becoming digitalized were not able to be changed in any way. You could watch the episode of your favorite show, the movie in a theater, or listen to your favorite Christmas song without being able to change any parts of them. The only way to truly catalogue something in the old days was to write in a diary, as Mary Dyck did, and remember the wonderful parts of the things you were fortunate enough to view. This has been changed due to the world becoming more advanced in forms of technology and being capable of putting just about anything onto the internet.
This is what Meyrowitz was talking about when he says that technology allows us to have access to situations we normally wouldn’t be in. On youtube, you can find anything from any period in time from the latest movies in the theaters to JFK’s assassination video. Through facebook, we have access to people’s profiles and information on celebrities. Without the Internet, we wouldn’t be able to access any of these things without going to great lengths of trouble and research. We’d have to make a trip to the theater or look up files in history archives. It’s inconvenient and the Internet allows us to be able to access things easily from our home computer.

This video below is just an example of the many videos littering youtube with varied and altered movies.

Theme 2

Electronically mediated relationships from Mary Dyck to twitter followers.

Today’s biggest socializing network sites are Twitter and Facebook. These two sites allow for individuals to keep in touch with those they have known throughout their lives and even those they’ve never met. In a roundabout way, they allow normal people to become stalkers without the hassle of leaving their house and physically stalking someone. Through these sites, we can see into other people’s lives and know where they are, what they’re doing, and what’s on their minds.

As Meyrowitz states, an audience tends to form parasocial relationships with those they are viewing. An example would be Oprah. Oprah is viewed by millions of people and the openness she displays on her show allows for her audience to feel a deep connection with the image she gives off. People begin talking about her as if they had personally sat down and had a cup of coffee with her. She is no longer Ms. Winfrey but rather Oprah and in some cases, O. They believe since she has empathy for her guests and talks about common problems, this makes her reach out to all her viewers as a real person they know. However, this is not the case. Oprah does not know her fans personal lives, nor do they know hers. Her audience places her on an unrealistic pedestal and perceives themselves to have a direct relationship with her. Such has been the case throughout history.

Mary Dyck, as we read about earlier in the semester, wrote in her diary about the soap operas she would listen to on her radio before things like Internet and television came around. Each day, Dyck would listen to her shows on the radio and record her favorite moments in her diary. What makes this story interesting is the fact that she recorded the events as if the characters were close personal friends. She wrote, “Well this was Harvey’s last chance, to take his sweet Precious Betty to dinner. He said its farewell Betty dear, bursting into tears, he said Congratulations to you and Bob and best wishes for your future happiness.” There is no introduction of what soap opera she’s talking about or even a recap over the story line. These lines are stated as if Betty and Bob lived next door.

The parasocial relationship that Dyck deals with is of the imaginary form. Dyck’s characters from her diary are those from a fictional soap opera. She’s creating relationships with people who do not really exist. This is the type of relationship that was formed in those days. There was no television to allow people to see whom they were idolizing. This parasocial relationship could be deemed dangerous because of its fanciful ideals. This kind of relationship calls for normal sane people to believe that the characters they hear of are real.

This differs greatly from the parasocial relationships we form today through use of Twitter and Facebook. Twitter for us today is a type of run on blog as Will Leitch discusses in his article “How Tweet it is.” Twitter allows for an individual to write down their thoughts and feelings at different moments in time without having to write a complete and expansive blog entry. Twitter works by creating a steady stream of “tweets” so a person can update where they are or what they’re doing as soon as it happens. It also allows for someone to “follow” others, including friends, celebrities, or random strangers living in the same area.

What could possibly be the appeal of a site like this? It’s a way to keep in touch, without actually having to be in touch with the person. You can look into other’s lives, know who they’re with, what they’re doing, where they are in the world without having to call them or search for such information. It’s presented to you in an organized and convenient way.

Facebook has a similar system to Twitter known as they Live News Feed. Facebookers update their status to let their friends know why they aren’t on facebook or what they’re doing at that point at time. Facebook also provides more personal information and things like writing on walls, common interest groups, fan pages, etc. Facebook suggests friends to you based on your interests, other people you’re friends with, and whatever networks you belong to. For example: I belong to the Long Island University network on my facebook page. Many of my friend suggestions are people who also attend LIU and have some of my friends in common with me. Generally, I do not flat out send a friend request but I do look into their pages and see if I may have known them from around campus. Being able to do this allows me to form my own parasocial relationship with the people I can search. The pages I scope out have no idea that I am learning about their lives and finding out the type of person they are.

This type of relationship is vastly different from the ones formed between Mary Dyck and her soap opera characters. This relationship is based on a real living person. I could easily walk through campus one day and see a person I had only looked up on the internet the night before and know things such as where they’re from, how many friends they have, what their Halloween costume was and their relationship status. This type of relationship is just as serious as Mary Dyck’s imaginary relationship. These relationships usually can lead to stalking and obsession from those who view into the lives of others. Celebrities have Twitters and facebooks to show their fans how “down to earth and real” they are. However, this can create major problems for them. Having their fans “know” them from what they read about them on the Internet can cause major issues. The Internet is not the way to get to know someone. Yes, you can read into someone’s life. You can see the superficial things about them, but does that mean we truly KNOW a person? Of course not.

In some people’s minds, knowing everything on someone’s Twitter and Facebook enables them to know the person as an individual. We start to talk about friends we haven’t seen in person in years as if they were over visiting just yesterday. We get emotionally attached to the people they are attached to and feel their pain or sorrow from their loss. We sympathize with them when we really have no justification behind it. We think that because we read their status updates everyday that we are a part of them. It’s dangerous and completely untrue.

We can clearly see the division between old media ways and current media. Relationships formed back then were between a viewer and a voice they heard through the radio ( Mary Dyck). They became attached to characters whose lives they followed everyday at a specific time. Relationships today are more directly based on real people (most commonly celebrities) and living individuals. We read about the lives of others and peek into their worlds causing us to believe we know the person they truly are. Both of these relationships are unhealthy but unavoidable with the access given to each person through the Internet and back then the radio. When nothing else is available to occupy our time, we turn to ways of entertainment such as radio and Internet. This boredom causes us to waste our time looking through other people’s lives. The methods of forming these relationships may have changed but the type of bond we form is still the same.

ATTENTION CLASSMATES!

Dear Classmates,

If you would like to read my post on my horror/ slasher film experience it is underneath all of my midterm blogs. So if you choose to look at older posts, it should be the first or second one to come up, considering I posted it before my midterm was posted.

Always,
Katie =)

Hilmnes and Starr theory

Just recently the government has been moving towards making a law against Texting while driving. This will join the law that prohibits talking on a cell phone while driving. However, someone may only be charged with this offense if they have been pulled over for some other violation. I remember thinking that this is a very good law because of how many car accidents are caused because of cell phones. I know that in my hometown, many of my high school friends have gotten into car accidents recently because of their use of their phone.

I feel this resembles the Starr theory because the cell phone has brought about political changes because of the circumstances at that time. The cell phone is very popular for communicating with someone without being by their side. It links us to people all across the nation and can be very helpful if used properly. Some of us tend to have our best thoughts or remember something while driving in the car. This can lead to phone calls to loved ones or to work associates. Cell phones can come in handy as it does for my mother's job. She is in a business where she must be on call almost 24 hours out of the day for her elderly patients and their relatives as well as her other cases. Having a phone with her is essential. Most of the time, her calls come in when she is driving from one patient's house to the other. Needless to say, she has gotten many traffic tickets for talking on the cell phone. She has also begun to use texting as a shortcut for phone calls. She views texting as convenient because she can relay a message with just a few short words instead of a lengthy phone call.

I feel that the cell phone has brought about the political change of the law banning talking on the cell phone while driving. If we didn't have the cell phone in the first place, there would be no reason for this law. The political change was brought about because many accidents were being caused by those who were talking on their cell phones or texting. This creates the circumstances of the time that needed the political change because the death toll was rising for the number of car accidents caused by cell phones. These new laws are also giving rise to bluetooth devices and other non-hand held devices.

I just thought that was interesting. I was reading over the theories and this one kind of stuck because of what's going on with the new laws and bills regarding the use of cell phones.