Thursday, October 11, 2012

Back in the day...


When I was a teenager, before MySpace came about, instant messaging was the main form of communication I used to keep in contact with my friends. My cell phone was pre-paid (as were most of my friends’) so texting was out of the question and there were only so many people you could talk to on the phone. After MySpace became popular, I frequented that social networking website to communicate with my friends. The support I received was almost always positive because the people I was communicating with online were the same people I was communicating with offline.

I believe if our actions are examined online, it makes us more accountable for our actions. There have been plenty of incidents where adolescents create videos of themselves fighting, hazing, or harassing others. These videos become viral and often end up on national television news channels. Therefore, instead of school officials, your parents, and your fellow students examining your actions, the entire nation is.

Online social communities are available for almost niches. However, this means that whatever group you belong to, there is an opposite group available online as well. For instance, there are both pro-anorexia websites and anti-anorexia websites. As long as these groups can stay within themselves and don’t produce flame wars, the Internet can be a great place for diversity. 

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Reach Out and Touch Someone?

Ah, the web: a place we can all interact. Sort of. I find the concept of finding community online odd and mildly repulsive. But then again, I am a well-socialized introvert. I deal with people well in small doses. Therefore, from that perspective, one might assume I find communicating virtually appealing. But I don't. I have few very good friends, and then acquaintances and friends on various other levels. If a person is a friend, they are a friend--someone I WANT to spend time with. Even my acquaintances are folk worth "hanging out" with.

I came of age right before the internet exploded. Oh, sure: I did some chatting when that was the thing. But the reality is, I never felt like I really connected with those people. They couldn't see me and vice-verse. We could be bits and pieces of ourselves, and feel "safe" doing so. I remember when internet dating started and all the awkwardness I heard from others who participated in it (I declined to participate in that particular piece of culture...). It was like people knew they were about to be "truly exposed."

Sure, some people may find a sense of community--people who are into unique things or that have a small niche. For example, I remember watching a documentary on Primordial Dwarfism--a very small subset of dwarfism with a short lifespan and a lot of complications. I think a place like the internet is a godsend for these people. How else could they otherwise meet, find a sense of belonging and sympathy and understanding?

However, for the average person, I think it is too easy to hide away on the internet--to substitute virtual reality for living. I want to be outside experiencing life. The internet is, to me, just a tool to help me find those experiences (and sometimes things I need). I have an email and Facebook account--but, as you all know, my friends on Facebook are real people I know and interact with in real life on a semi-regular basis. It is a way to simply keep it touch with those I might otherwise have less contact with: internet as tool. When people use it as a lifeline, I have great concern.

Maybe I am becoming an "old fart," set in my ways: "Why, when I was your age, we didn't have any of that interwebs stuff..." Yet I see more and more people--even of my own age--who are constantly connected to the web. They use it for everything: dating, friendship, communication, school, entertainment, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. They seem to lack social skills and graces--only knowing netiquette--and sometimes not even that. Then again...


Monday, October 8, 2012

Blog Post for the Week of the 11th


After completing the readings for this week, and perhaps viewing the optional video from last week "The Web as Random Acts of Kindness", reflect upon the idea of the web as a place where where one might seek social support and allies, collaborate, and create.

Here are some questions you may wish to address:

Have you personally experienced negative or positive effects of online communities / social spaces?

 Thinking back to your adolescence, was there a group of people that you could connect with and find support from? Was it positive or negative support? If you came of age before the Internet, how do you think the existence of online social groups might have changed you? If you had access to online communities when you were an adolescent, did you engage with them?

Are we more or less accountable for our behavior if it is being examined online? Do all communities benefit equally by online social communities? Small town, big city, gay, straight, young, old, vampires, atheists, etc?

Jennifer

QUESTION!

NOTE: NOT A BLOG POST--A QUESTION...

Anyone else not able to get on Metro State's site today...at all?? Or is my computer being a P.O.S.? I have tried Firefox, I.E., and 2 other browsers. I can't get on the site. Period. It would be nice to be able to get the D2L content for this page...on a school day. 

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Big Bird Activism

I do not want this post to encourage a political debate over who was most successful last night, Romney or Obama.

However, I do want to use last nights debate to think about how the public mind is shaped through social media.

In the past, television news programs, newspapers, talk radio and such centered our discussions about how Presidential debates were viewed.  Political scientists, politicians, academics and journalists shaped how we understood the debates, and framed the information for the audience.

Last night, Twitter exploded with tweets over the various discussion topics between the hours of 8 and 11pm.  Tweets surged with comments about Big Bird as well as moderator Jim Lehrer.  Into today, Big Bird is still trending and various social media cites are providing an outlet for ongoing back and forth about Romney proposing pulling federal funding for PBS.




Facebook and Twitter allow citizens to engage in real time and render judgements about the success of each candidate.

Twitter scored Romney the debate's clear winner according to Peoplebrowsr, a Web analytics firm. The group found 47,141 tweets mentioning Romney and "win or winner" compared to just 29,677 mentioning Obama and "win or winner."

Consider the changing dynamic that realtime allows, it takes away our ability reflect and analyze.  Bloggers blog, Tweeters Tweet, as they watch the drama unfold.  It makes you wonder how it affects our ability to think critically.

Social media as a tool of information exchange about important issues is valuable.  However, 'speaking without thinking' is not always a good thing.  This is especially true when the discussion at hand is so important and the care with which we have it should be equally so.


Third Places


Why did Oldenburg start his book The Great Good Place by depressing his readers? I grew up in South St. Paul (SSP) and I’m not quite sure if is considered an “automobile suburb,” since there was no explicit definition. However, there is a strong sense of community in SSP. In fact, SSP is almost exactly opposite of the suburb Oldenburg was describing in his first chapter. The majority of the city is filled with small family operated businesses that have been around forever (although over the years more have been closing). There are city-wide parties, booyas, and fundraisers. It is not uncommon to meet someone, you think, for the first time, only to figure out you knew each other ten years before. I often joke that my alley is the inspiration for King of the Hill because you’ll often find the neighbors out there drinking beer or watching the game in someone’s garage. SSP is filled with third places. How much of this suburban isolation is because of geographic location and how much is self-inflicted social seclusion?

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

You Can't Unsee It: Propaganda and Popular Culture

Remember Knight Rider?

Well, one of the lesser tentacles of NBC/Universal--G4--picked up the rebroadcast rights and began airing it very late at night this week.

The reason I mention it is that, as it began its run in 1982 and was one of the many TV productions by Glen A. Larson (this, if you remember, for NBC), and as such featured a now-common-knowledge aspect of Hollywood: a very cosy relationship with the military.

The United States military, since World War II, have had a very good relationship with Hollywood and the media establishment. This is an outgrowth of the World War I efforts to create and shape pro-Allied propaganda, which would take Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman forward into co-creating the disciplines of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations as we know them today. (Bernays lays out the hows and whys in his Propaganda.)

The reason for why the U.S. military--and, by extension, the U.S. government--maintains this relationship is because it wants to actively control how others (That would be we, the people, American and otherwise.) see them and respond as they want of us. In other words, they want to actively control what our perception of their identity is; it's the same phenomenon as the girls making YouTube videos of themselves writ large, with fancy effects and ridiculous resources to consume doing so.

The second episode of Knight Rider used a very old formula for military relations after Vietnam, when the military needed rehabilitation from the image it fell into due to that war. The Damsel in Distress, despite being an Army officer, is just as helpless in the face of violence as her civilian counterparts; Michael Knight has to do his namesake's job and rescue her. The villain and his henchmen are shown to be rogue operatives, and not at all displaying the norms of the Army.

This is, in effect, a virtual scapegoating: the Army is good, but afflicted with bad influences, so once all of these rotten people are thrown out the Army will only do good thereafter. It's the same old Evil Vizier/Good King narrative that's been used for millenia to whitewash troublesome institutions and rehabilitate their image for the public. Because this is now a 30-year-old TV episode, you can easily see the propaganda for what it is. (Believe it or not, The A-Team was used for very similar ends.)

You won't unsee this anymore, now that you know it's there and you can detect it. That's one of the reasons for why both NCIS shows are on the air: it excuses the institutions by making virtual scapegoats out of politically-acceptable targets, manifested in characters that conform to one or more targets on the Establishment's policy hit list. The long-running Law & Order franchise may be winding down, as it's reduced to Special Victims Unit, but cop shows like those excuse the police as the pro-military/intelligence shows excuse those institutions.

This is the United States government, collaborating with Hollywood, projecting unreal illusions about themselves that they want us to accept and internalize, thus making it part of our own identities. It's no different in form and theory than the marketing of cars or food- we're told to identify with a brand, and make our identity incorporate it, regardless of the reality of the thing sold to us. Hell, they've been at it so long that some folks are trying to program our responses to possible events- this is called Predictive Programming.

But what is different are the consequences: when the government sells us on wars we don't need against people that don't threaten us, being sold on Brand USA results in millions of people getting killed and millions more turning against us because of what the government does in our name. Keep that in mind the next time that Jerry Bruckheimer puts out another Transformers film.