Is Too Much Freedom A Good Thing ?

With all the advancements in technology nowadays it is almost remarkable how much we can do. When it comes to the internet there is almost nothing that is impossible or out of reach. For instance, if I had a research paper on the most obscure subject, with the use of the internet I could pull up pages and pages of information on the subject within a matter of seconds. However, the question still remains...is too much freedom a good thing? As we discussed in class, the space available on the internet is endless, unlike the radio where there is a limited amount of space. In this sense the internet is hard to regulate, there really is no way to determine what gets posted and who reads what. Just to prove my point, I typed in Google "how to commit suicide" and within seconds Wikipedia provided over ten commonly used methods. So I guess there really is no way to monitor the internet, but parents should probably monitor what their children are exposed to.
There is a huge problem today with people abusing the internet. Perverted men and women log into chat rooms pretending to be a young girl or boy in hopes of making sexual advancements with a minor. Not only is this disturbing, but also almost impossible to regulate. I mean they do a little undercover work trying to set up sexual offenders, but the percentage they actually catch is probably miniscule compared to the actual amount out there. Of course this is only one example of many of how people abuse the internet. The government is struggling with this same issue of regulating the internet as more people transition from using the telephone to communicate to the internet. A New York Times article states, "Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone." All in all it will be interesting to see what changes, if any, are made in regards to the internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html

Changing Times

It is quite remarkable to think about how much things have changed over the past few generations with continuous advancements in technology. I was talking with my dad about something interesting I could write about for this blog and he brought up how our generation is the first generation where people are going to be in constant communication throughout their entire lives. After college my friends from high school may move across the world from me, but through social medias such as facebook, e-mail, video chatting, etc we will be able to easily communicate globally. It will be as though we are constantly present in each other’s lives, no matter how many miles may be between us, due to easily accessible picture and video sharing. He brought up the example of an airport waiting area. When you look around at the people waiting to board the same airplane as you, almost everyone is consumed in their own personal medium, whether it is their blackberry, laptop or iPod. No one simply strikes up a conversation with the man or woman sitting next to them like they might have in the old days. Even though advancements in technology have provided constant communication, the downside is the lack of verbal communication. You may be in constant communication with your group of friends, but no one ventures out of their group to strike up a conversation with a stranger possibly sitting next to them in the airport or standing behind them in line.

Although it is unfortunate that people communicate verbally less and less, it is truly remarkable to think about how much things have changed. My grandfather was on a destroyer in World War II and he always said that they would eagerly wait months and months to receive mail and it was always the most exciting day on the ship. I can't imagine sending a handwritten letter to a friend or loved one and then having to wait months to receive a response when I am used to sending a text or bbm and getting a reply in a matter of seconds. Just as we learned the first day of class, we have become so dependent on our social medias that they have literally become an extension of man.

Do Video Games Make Teens Violent ?

Last Thursday we spent the majority of the class debating over whether or not violence in the media has an effect on the audience. In other words, is there a correlation between violence in the media and violence committed in reality? I personally think there is definitely some sort of correlation. Of course I do not think that anyone who watches a violent movie is going to go commit a murder the next day, but continuous exposure to violence, especially at such a young age, could be problematic for certain already unstable individuals. The main issue I have with violence in the media, is exposure of violence to young children. My train of thought is that at such a young age the brain is not fully developed and cannot distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, what is fantasy and what is reality. In class we looked at the tragic murder of young James Bulger, who was killed by two ten year old boys. How is it possible that two ten year old boys could be capable of doing such a horrible thing? I personally do not think it was a coincidence that the murder occurred the same year as the release of a very violent movie (cannot remember the name). Of course these two boys were already very disturbed, but I'm convinced that exposure to such violence at such a young age definitely played a part.

I read an article about a study that was conducted in 2006 by researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine, who looked at the effects violent video games had on the brain through brain scanning technology. The results concluded that children who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention. All in all does this mean that after playing call of duty you are going to go on a shooting spree ? No, but I do think parents of young children should consider monitoring what their children are exposed to until they are mature enough to handle the content for what it is and nothing more.

Summer of the Shark ?

2001 was named the "Summer of the Shark." The media's fixation with sharks started in early July following the Fourth of July weekend shark attack on eight year old Jessie Arbogast and continued until the September 11th terrorist attacks shifted the media's attention away from the beaches to a more important issue. The interesting thing about this whole media hype was that the summer of 2001 statistically showed no increase in the number of attacks per year. In actuality the number of attacks in 2001 decreased from 85 attacks in 2000 to 76 attacks in 2001. In addition the number of fatal attacks decreased as well from 12 deaths in 2000 to only 5 deaths in 2001. The question then is why did the media choose the summer of 2001 to create a shark attack hysteria when the facts behind the stories didn't add up?
Ever since the release of JAWS, sharks have been given a bad reputation and unfortunately have suffered greatly. After the release of JAWS and the media's "Summer of the Shark" - the number of sharks hunted and killed increase greatly due to the media's false portrayal of them. Sharks are not man hunters and shark attacks are generally caused when a shark mistakes a human for a seal or some other sort of pray. The media however has the ability to create mass hysteria, such as reading from class "The Invasion from Mars." The article states, "The event encapsulates the popularly held view of the widespread intrusive and persuasive power of the modern media to cause and trigger mass outbreaks of usually negative social consequence and psychological effect." In the case of the "Summer of the Shark" the media created stories about shark attacks to be the third most important story in terms of news minutes when in fact the summer of 2001 was nothing out of the ordinary.

Streotypes in Television

Last week we talked a lot about the role of stereotypes in the media through the articles we read in class. Based on our discussion I decided that I wanted to blog about the role of stereotypes in television specifically and in order to do so I decided to focus on one of my favorite television shows, the Office. The Office is a documentary-style look into the humorous modern American office life. The main character and boss at the featured office, Michael Scott, views himself as the office funnyman and a fountain of wisdom for his employees, but in reality the majority of his actions are highly inappropriate and his employees only put up with him because he pays their checks.

The articles we read in class touched upon a handful of different stereotypes seen in media today and in the Office Michael Scott is continuously finding himself making stereotypical comments and judgments about his employees. I decided to focus on his relationship with three characters in particular; Pam, Oscar and Stanley. Pam is the receptionist at the office and Michael often refers to her as the “office hottie,” which in itself is very stereotypical to have an attractive female receptionist. Oscar on the other hand is gay and once he comes out about his sexuality Michael continuously makes stereotypical judgments about him. For example, there is a party planning committee in the office that is made up of three female employees and once Michael learns that Oscar is gay he automatically thinks he needs to join the party planning committee, when in reality Oscar has no interest or talent in planning parties. Lastly, there is Stanley who is the only black employee in the office. Michael is continuously making typical stereotypes about Stanley, such as the example I posted below, when Michael is drafting his basketball team he picks Stanley first just because he assumes because he is black he must be a good athlete, even though we later see Stanley is a horrible basketball player.

These are just a few of the many examples of the role that stereotypes play in the Office and even though by laughing at these jokes in a sense we are giving into stereotypes, I think that because the character Michael Scott is so oblivious to how inappropriate everything he does and says is makes it humorous.