Guest Post: Patrick

If you were a gambler by nature, where would you say most Americans get their political and current events information? America is the haven for media outlets. Americans constantly have access to many different types of media such as: newspaper, radio, TV, magazines, internet, and pamphlets, to just name a few. Steven Chaffee, chairman of the Department of Communications at Stanford focused his studies primarily on the role of politics in mass communication and Stacey Franks wrote How Americans Get Political Information: Print Versus Broadcast News. In their research, they question the effectiveness of broadcast news to thoroughly inform the viewer in current events and politics. They argued, “Print media is consulted more often than television by people who are actively seeking information.” This statistic implies that individuals who really want to know the truth and want to get to the bottom of what’s going on and already have a good basis of information are reading their political and current events information via print media. While, “Television reaches groups that tend to lack political information, such as young people, immigrants, and less interested citizens” (Chaffee 48). This means that those who are just mildly interested are turning to the television as their main source of information. 

 I would argue we see this casual turn to the television to learn about politics, because everything is so much easier if you’re watching it on television. A commentator can tell you what you need to know and you don’t have to read it, which we can all agree would take more effort. So it comes down to how bad you want to stay informed to decide where you get your information.

Am I Beautiful Yet

This is a link to a project a former student did this spring. It doesn't necessarily have much to do with media change, but it's an interesting example of making an argument through various visual elements.
Am I Beautiful Yet?

Guest Post: Emily

Have you ever played an aggressive video and then felt a little aggressive afterwards? According to some researchers, this is normal. Violent and aggressive video games tend to make a person more aggressive and more reckless. Some people even go as far as to take dangerous risks that do not lead to useful results. These are the games that people will automatically relate to shootings or aggressive behaviors in school though these video games are not the only reason for this. The way the person is treated can lead to aggressiveness also. Video games are more of just a scapegoat for this. Henry Jenkins talks about this when he has to give a testimony for the Columbine shootings. He talks about how people will relate violent video games to aggressive behavior automatically because they do not understand the game; they just know the game encourages the player to kill people and be aggressive to other players. Taking the time to learn about the different violent video games will show that these games do not just encourage violent behavior but also help the player develop skills like problem solving and rational choice; some video games rely on your choice to determine what the rest of the video game will be like.

 Link to Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington: http://stuff.mit.edu/people/cshiley/Content/NotMine/jenkins.html 

Guest Post: Ryan

future of media
In my procrastination of final studying, I stumbled upon this image from futureofmediaevents.com. When I look at this map, it alarms me for a few reasons. Firstly, I had always dreamed of working at a newspaper when I grew up. I currently work at The Oklahoma Daily and I get a rush when I see my name in print once or twice a week. Now, I just hope that there will be print by the time I start my professional career.

In this course we have discussed how media have changed throughout centuries. In the first unit we discussed Plato and his critique of writing. While Plato was critical of writing, I don’t think that many people have been very critical of new media as a whole. New media have been embraced so quickly and thoroughly that we are completely abandoning the way we previously conducted ourselves. I am as guilty, if not more than, anyone. I used to rush outside to get my local paper each morning. Now, I sluggishly move to my laptop and check my RSS feed.

The main thing that alarms me when I look at this map is the speed at which new media have been taking over. Writing took centuries to catch on. Some people today still can’t read or write. New media, however, have only taken a few decades to make their mark. If newspapers will be gone by around 2040, what else may we lose in such a short time?

Guest post: Todd and Alex

Here is a link to a 16 minute short film my brother and I did about changes in technology. It is about a salesman in the 1960's who is trying to sell a product to a town whose inability to accept change makes him question his machine's audience. As a side note, this film won best film at the OU CAC Film Festival this year. Enjoy!

http://vimeo.com/16327087

[note: if the link doesn't work, go directly to vimeo.com and put "Innovative, Greenlee" in the search box.]

Guest Post: Connor

As everyone has been finishing up their research essays, I started wondering whether being able to research using the internet has changed the way we do it. Certainly it’s more convenient to simply go to the database and find some articles than the old days when you would have to actually go and find the book or journal you needed. When people like Carr criticize the internet for making us less intellectually rigorous, maybe they’re right, but surely we can see around us the benefits that are also provided. In writing my paper, I wound up including information from sources as varied as government researchers and German universities; would this even be possible without the internet to allow us to share this abundance of information and knowledge?

Of course, the problem here is that for the most part we don’t use it that way. Sure, when you need to write a paper for class you go on and find great swathes of knowledge surpassing anything in the past; when you use the internet for fun you end up on Facebook or something similar. I may be wrong about this, but it seems like the internet is a kind of dichotomy: when we use it seriously, it is maybe even more useful than traditional media – when we use it for leisure, it is far worse. I just feel that we get more out of reading for leisure than we do from surfing the web; what do you think?

Guest Post: Nina

I came across an article on the humor website Cracked.com entitled “7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making You Miserable.”

http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html

This is intended to be a humorous article and has some offensive language, but I think it touches upon a lot of the ideas we discuss in class. The author basically cites 7 ways technology is making people unhappy compared to those 50 years ago. One of his major reasons for society’s unhappiness that I thought was interesting was the fact that we don’t encounter enough annoyance in our lives. The media has made it possible for a person to tune out all the frustrations he or she encounters daily. For one, the Internet allows almost everything to be done online, in the comfort and solitude of your own home. No longer do you need to wait in long lines and deal with a disgruntled employee at Walmart. You can even buy a CD and have it directly uploaded to your computer without having to sit through traffic at a bunch of red lights on your way to a music store.

He also points out that because of cell phones and iPod’s, we can avoid all the discomfort and inconvenience of small talk or even boredom. I know every time I have to walk around on campus I have my headphones in to make the time pass faster and more enjoyably, and when I’m waiting at the doctor’s office or something, I always try to find a friend to text or a level of Angry Birds to beat.

This author argues that building up a tolerance for annoyances makes you a happier person because you don’t get irritated as easily and you can let little things go. In the article he claims that, as a whole, people 50 years ago were generally happier with their lives and had more close friends. I wonder if he’s right, and that filtering out the annoyances in our lives just makes us less able to handle the irritating situations that we can’t avoid.