Talk about the push factor when it comes to the oscar picks. Not only does every entertainment show talk about them, they walk down a red carpet and advertise their movies for a 3 hour period one night, then they hit the after-oscar shows. Today they are on Oprah! You know you are going to make it once you are sitting in her yellow chair.
Seriously, could the television be any more biased right now in telling me what to watch? Probably not, that is the point though. Have a big party, give some people a gold man and pick a few favorites and call it the oscars… or smart, very smart advertising campaigns.
Karen Evans’ article talks about how virtual communities are increasing public, social and cultural interaction around the globe. These virtual communities are based on interests, not just territorial location as the traditional method of forming communities.
I have to ask… is it quantity or quality that we are looking for in our communities and personal relationships? Yes, millions of people can get connected based on their own personal interests, but are we really dedicated to these relationships? For me, absolutely not. Without the face-to-face, personalized interaction my relationships are of little importance. I feel less accountable to someone from a virtual community in comparison to someone I might bump into on the street.
What I am saying is that although you can have and maintain a vast amount of relationships with people from a virtual community, I don’t think these relationships are as deep or personalized as those with people you physically interact with.
If I get an email from someone (especially mass emails) I feel much less obligated to respond than when I have a message on my phone. I think the anonymity of the internet removes the accountability from a social relationship. Who cares… So what if you don’t write or email them back, you will never have to face them in person.
I also think that things like MSN, although they allow you to talk to an unlimited number of people at one time does limit the level of conversation you are having. From my personal experience, the conversations are short and superficial because I feel rushed to respond to my next beep.
Therefore, I would argue that virtual communities do not always promote more focused conversation, just because everyone likes Grey’s does not mean their virtual interaction is more meaningful than people who bump into each other and TALK in person. I think it is an important element of life, being able to interact with people face-to-face… They told us in pre-school; you have to learn how to play with others. Can you really learn to play in separate rooms via a keyboard?
Virtual communities make physical appearance irrelevant and allow “anyone with access to an internet-ready computer and a basic knowledge of how the internet works…” to be included in the community.
BUT WAIT…Anyone is a very specific group of people with income, education, computer access & knowledge and probably the ability to speak English (since the internet is primarily based on the English language). These “inclusive” virtual communities are actually quite exclusive.
Filed under: Mass Class, TV — mmmchocoloate @ 5:41 pm
Last class we watched “Merchants of Cool” and today I watched the end of The Simpsons, where Homer was trying to be cool. At the end Marge was asking the kids if she was cool and how to be cool. It is an interesting thought… Really what is cool? Is being cool having the “cool” clothes and lots of friends or is it also about the attitude you personify? In the class film they were “cool hunting” but said it was hard to catch because it was constantly changing. I disagree I think cool is about a person’s ability to be a leader.
I remember in high school. The “cool” jock guy, could do/wear anything and he was still cool — why because he had a posse of little followers. So I think the “cool” they were talking about in the movie was really more like “fad hunting”. They were simply trying to find the next fad that might catch on… What is cool is the person portraying the fad, not the clothes, piercing, bag or shoes.
Gray’s article, Hate, Dislike, Disgust, Distemper, and Distaste discusses what we hate/dislike and why we hate/dislike those things… It is an interesting thought. I can’t tell you how many times I have said, I hate yellow beans, I hate liver and I dislike cats… But you know what, I have never really thought about why I feel that way or what it really means…
Gray says he hates Celine Dion; I love her because she seems friendly, Canadian, has songs I like to sing to and seems like a genuinely nice “celebrity” type. But I hate Paris Hilton — never really thought about it, just that when she comes on the TV I change the channel.
Just as we were discussing in class, there are the people who love Paris and those who are proud of their disdain for her. It is an interesting dichotomy. Although the majority of talk is about what people do like, I think the pendulum is swinging and people are starting to talk about their “hate, dislike, disgust, distemper and distaste” of media. Is it enough to talk — or does it require action?
I think in order to be a real anti-fan you have to not only “talk the talk, but walk the walk.” I can say Paris perpetuates unattainable standards of weight and beauty, acts like an idiot and negatively influences young girls’ understanding of being a woman. I also never watched her television show, never listen to her music, change the channel when she comes on the TV and I don’t buy anything that has to do with her.
Problem is there are so so so many celebrity gals that do this? Why do I hate Paris more than Britney, Christina, Lohan and all the rest of them? Well, perhaps because she is the “it” girl to either love or hate in the media right now, and therefore, the easiest to consciously abstain from.
BUT is it really fair for me to hate Paris, when I know actually very little about her, since I change the channel and avoid talking or reading about her? It’s like hating liver but never actually tasting it. Yup, I hate liver and I have never even tried it. I hate Paris and I really don’t know a whole lot of anything about her.
So here is what I am thinking… The majority of things I really dislike I tend to avoid and surround myself with only the things “I love”. So technically my “hate” for things in the media is really an uneducated guess about something I have very little experience with and thus, very little right to dislike…
Is anti-fandom in the discourse or the anti-fan action? What is true dislike of television programs or celebrity performers? Is it enough to say you hate ______ or do you have to do something to prove yourself as an anti-fan?
Fans hang posters, watch the shows and buy the stuff… Anti-fans abstain from the purchases and change the radio station or find another channel.
I think that a lot of a person is described by what they like, but really as Gray said, people often define themselves by both, what they like and what they dislike… I think we need to take another look at anti-fandom to really understand media consumption. But you have to look at what the anti-fandom or hate is really based on… facts or emotions that are based on very few facts or experiences???
Here is a clip of Celine’s Song “I Hate You Then I Love You” — Thought the title of the song and the artist was sort of ironic!
So I went to Alpha Dog last night with the one and only JT. It was actually much better than I had expected. The story is inspired by true events which makes it even more interesting. It is a movie about drugs and the consequences.
FYI – It was definitely passive reception at the theatre. For the first time I just sort of looked around the theatre at people just staring at a screen and stuffing their face with popcorn. It was an interesting social dynamic. I have never gone to the movies by myself and last night there were no singles. Really though, why not? Movie going is like the most “un-social” activity, if you are talking to someone, everyone else in the theatre is shooshing you. Anyone gone to the movies alone? I have been so socialized by the media that you go to the movies with someone else… and I bet few people go check out a flick as a single.
Television has become so generic. There is such a fad process to TV. For example, it was the sitcoms (Seinfeld, Friends), those ended and then it was reality shows (survivor, big brother…), now all you see on TV are game shows. Seriously I probably watched 10 different shows over Christmas holidays in which a contest was playing a game of luck to win 1 million dollars… I think the “TV bosses” are all just one person. They get an idea, North America tunes in and they just make the same show but change the characters or prize at the end of the show. Talk about copyright issues.
The text mentioned “borrowed ideas” come on; every game show on TV right now is based on one idea. It caught on, spread to other channels, we get sick of it and “the boss” thinks of something else to entertain us with for awhile. And everyone copies it. That is one fine line between copied and borrowed ideas.
You know what never fails — Hollywood. I am more interested in watching ET to see what Brangelina said about Jen Aniston then reading the 400 page book for my history class. Come on! Why do I care? Well when my girlfriend calls or a bunch of us go out for drinks, guess were the conversation does not lead to — my history book. I need something to contribute to the conversation, so I watch ET. Nobody talks politics as much as they talk celebrities anymore.
This clip is 100 seconds of Brangelina… The fact that this is out there and so many people (I am not excluding myself) know about it and waste their time is really depressing.
Izzie finally deposited the $8.7 Million, that was getting a little bit annoying!!
Did anyone else cry last night? I was sobbing. George’s dad is gone, I couldn’t believe it! Well I guess I knew it was coming but it was awful. I definitely needed the kleenex last night.
People… 9:00 p.m. tonight for those of you with peasant vision (you really only need a few channels of American programming and commercials — why pay for more channels when peasant vision gives you Grey’s anyway???)
From the article, “The Bias of Communications & Monopolies of Power” I began to think about the monopolies that exist and the potential consequences. There are monopolies of knowledge regarding mass communication everywhere around us, in our communities, education, country and world.
There is an extreme global monopoly of information and access to that information among various countries. North America is one of the leaders in this monopoly; whereas, developing countries such as Africa have been controlled by “the powerful nations”. Therefore, those that hold the power can control access to information and exploit the less powerful for their own personal gain. This is true on an individual and global basis. I think monopolies of power and specifically, of information are inevitable and dangerous. Those without power will be left in the dust in this age of technological advancements.
The article mentions Foucault, who argues that power must be constantly reasserted in order to maintain it; thus, it is process. I think this is an interesting perspective on power that holds true throughout history. The powerful are constantly acting to maintain their power and therefore, controlling the less powerful by any means necessary. We have seen the fight for power through exploitation, slavery, war and so much more.
Another interesting concept is the changing mediums of technology in our society. Over time, a new medium seems to gain a monopoly over media. The article describes this process from newspapers –> radio –> television –> internet… What’s next?
One thing is for sure, the mediums of mass communication require less personal communication between people. As the media monopoly grows our society is becoming less social, we don’t have to go see someone or even phone them to have a conversation anymore. All we have to do is type up a quick message and click send (and you can send this to as many people as you want at the same time!) – I ask you could anything be less impersonal than a mass email?
