From the Williams article, I learned about how technology should not be viewed as a cause and effect situation where culture and society is seen as a by product of technology. Williams is thus arguing against McLuhan’s idea. Instead, Williams believes that there is a complex interaction between needs and inventions where the latter was intended to fulfill society’s new needs. In other words, technology did not create a new society or new social conditions as McLuhan believed but rather, the changes in society, such as the transformation of industrial development, led to new needs and possibilities which ultimately led to the creation of new technological advancement. In a way, McLuhan’s and Williams’ argument is like the chicken and the egg dilemma.
Personally, the most useful idea that I took from the article lies in the very first paragraph of Williams’ article. He writes, “we have got so used to statements of this general kind, in our most ordinary discussions, that we can fail to realize their specific meaning.” After reading this, it made me think about all the metaphors, phrases, etc I use daily without even thinking about it. I’ve gotten so use to saying things like “ooh I love that dress” or “ooh I love it” that I’ve forgotten the implications behind the word, “love.” I hear the word such much in ordinary life that I fail to think twice before using it.
To tie this back to the class, I started to think about how I often go on to check my Facebook without even thinking about what I am doing. Therefore, it's not only our words but also our actions that we fail to analyze. It's just interesting to think about how when something becomes routine or "ordinary" we fail to look for the specific meanings behind it. Yes, I go on Facebook to check my friends' updates and to post comments etc but is that all I'm doing? Based on all the Facebook articles we've read, of course not! I'm not just uploading new pictures and posting check-ins, I am portraying my identity. I don't know if anyone else finds this interesting but it for sure tripped me out a bit! The article really made me think critically for a minute which is good since I'm often so busy that I fail to connect all the dots in my life.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Community Media
The first main idea I got from the article was about community media and how it belongs within the sphere of civil society since it is created by groups of people that have something to say or groups of people that share an interest. Additionally, community media involves self expression since it allows for both the individual and the community to represent themselves and their ideas. While these ideas may not be accepted by the people in power, community media still has a significant role in society in that it empowers people and has implications for democracy since it allows for the public to participate and put their ideas into the mix of concerns.
This brings me to the second main idea of the article which is about democracy. I think this quote summarizes it up the best: “Community media also shows us that not everyone thinks the same way we do. It brings to the surface opinions and activities that we may not agree with. We might not want to know the people who think differently from us, but if we are able to see their thoughts and opinions on a more regular - and personal - basis, we might be less surprised by the world. And the democratic process would at least appear to be working, even when it didn’t go our way.” In other words, community media allows all of us to engage in discussions with one another even if we all have different opinions. It is a democratic process since it allows for all voices to be expressed and heard, even if only one voice dominates in the end. I agree with the author of the article when they wrote that the issue of communication is probably the reason why voters feel so disconnected to the government. It’s not necessarily that they believe that their ideas should be adopted but they want to at least put their two cents in. Thus, a lot of times at town meetings, some people come to voice their opinions even though they know they will probably lose.
Finally, the article states that community media sometimes leads to "immensely useful, far reaching, and innovative things." An example of this that comes to mind is the situation in Egypt. Anyways, I want to end my blog with a quote from Margaret Mead which I think ties in perfectly with this reading: ""Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has."
This brings me to the second main idea of the article which is about democracy. I think this quote summarizes it up the best: “Community media also shows us that not everyone thinks the same way we do. It brings to the surface opinions and activities that we may not agree with. We might not want to know the people who think differently from us, but if we are able to see their thoughts and opinions on a more regular - and personal - basis, we might be less surprised by the world. And the democratic process would at least appear to be working, even when it didn’t go our way.” In other words, community media allows all of us to engage in discussions with one another even if we all have different opinions. It is a democratic process since it allows for all voices to be expressed and heard, even if only one voice dominates in the end. I agree with the author of the article when they wrote that the issue of communication is probably the reason why voters feel so disconnected to the government. It’s not necessarily that they believe that their ideas should be adopted but they want to at least put their two cents in. Thus, a lot of times at town meetings, some people come to voice their opinions even though they know they will probably lose.
Finally, the article states that community media sometimes leads to "immensely useful, far reaching, and innovative things." An example of this that comes to mind is the situation in Egypt. Anyways, I want to end my blog with a quote from Margaret Mead which I think ties in perfectly with this reading: ""Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has."
Monday, September 19, 2011
Through Uses and Gratification Theory
From the article by Urista et al., I learned about the uses and gratification perspective, which states that “people will choose media according to their expectations and their drive to attain a gratifying experience” (Urista et al 2008, pg 220). In other words, this perspective focuses on people as consumers of media and it examines what people do with media such as where they go and what they look at. Thus, this perspective gives people an active role since its goal is to determine how people use media to fulfill their wants and needs.
Using a uses and gratifications framework, researchers conducted several focus groups in order to gauge more information about how SNS like Myspace and Facebook fulfill the needs and wants of college students. Five major themes of why the participants use SNS to fulfill their wants/needs emerged at the end of the study: (1) efficient communication, (2) convenient communication, (3) curiosity about others, (4) popularity, and (5) relationship formation and reinforcement. Thus, SNS was found to satisfy specific personal and interpersonal gratifications that the participants sought. Additionally, SNS serve as a powerful medium for participants because they are efficient, convenient, and allow participants the opportunity to seek approval and support of other people in their network.
I thought this article was very interesting since it gave me another perspective on how to analyze media. While McLuhan’s article focused more on how the medium of media influences people, this article focuses on how people use media and what they do to/with it. Reflecting on all the readings then, I see media and consumers engaged in a feedback loop where they both influence one another.
Using a uses and gratifications framework, researchers conducted several focus groups in order to gauge more information about how SNS like Myspace and Facebook fulfill the needs and wants of college students. Five major themes of why the participants use SNS to fulfill their wants/needs emerged at the end of the study: (1) efficient communication, (2) convenient communication, (3) curiosity about others, (4) popularity, and (5) relationship formation and reinforcement. Thus, SNS was found to satisfy specific personal and interpersonal gratifications that the participants sought. Additionally, SNS serve as a powerful medium for participants because they are efficient, convenient, and allow participants the opportunity to seek approval and support of other people in their network.
I thought this article was very interesting since it gave me another perspective on how to analyze media. While McLuhan’s article focused more on how the medium of media influences people, this article focuses on how people use media and what they do to/with it. Reflecting on all the readings then, I see media and consumers engaged in a feedback loop where they both influence one another.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Medium Is the Message
In McLuhan’s article, he states that the medium is the message and that any medium virtually serves as an extension of ourselves (McLuhan 203). He argues that any analysis of media that focuses primarily on just the content of the message is both incorrect and incomplete because it causes us to neglect analyzing the medium itself. Additionally, McLuhan uses the example of the electric light to further explain his argument that the medium is the message. He states that it is the medium itself that “shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action” (203). In other words, McLuhan is arguing that the medium influences our minds, thoughts, and bodies even though we don’t realize it. Therefore, McLuhan states that humans must also pay attention to the medium of the message if we are to truly understand how media or technology is influencing us both consciously and unconsciously.
Furthermore, I’m gonna go back to the concept of extensions. Some parts of McLuhan’s article were too philosophical for me but with the help of Google, I was able to grasp McLuhan’s idea of extension. McLuhan believed that every creation was an extension of ourselves. In a way then, the electric light is an extension of our eyes since it helps us to see when it is dark. While extensions/technology has contributed positively to our lives, McLuhan believes that we often forget to think about and realize the negative results of extensions (e.g. McLuhan states in his 1st paragraph about how automation led to the lost of jobs). In conclusion when analyzing media, we must not only examine the message itself and the medium, but we must also explore the cons of such mediums as well.
Using an example from my personal life, I will talk a little about Fbook. Almost 99% of the time when I read my friend's updates, I simply take it for what it is. If my friend posts about how hung over she/he is, I would conclude that he/she had a very fun time last night. But by analyzing only the literal meaning of the message though, I am in essence not realizing how Fbook itself and the computer is influencing not only my life, but her life as well (and everyone else who sees his/her message). In the end, I am failing to realize that the computer is serving as an extension of myself, specifically my mind and psyche, since I am putting my own thoughts and feelings on there for my friends to see.
Furthermore, I’m gonna go back to the concept of extensions. Some parts of McLuhan’s article were too philosophical for me but with the help of Google, I was able to grasp McLuhan’s idea of extension. McLuhan believed that every creation was an extension of ourselves. In a way then, the electric light is an extension of our eyes since it helps us to see when it is dark. While extensions/technology has contributed positively to our lives, McLuhan believes that we often forget to think about and realize the negative results of extensions (e.g. McLuhan states in his 1st paragraph about how automation led to the lost of jobs). In conclusion when analyzing media, we must not only examine the message itself and the medium, but we must also explore the cons of such mediums as well.
Using an example from my personal life, I will talk a little about Fbook. Almost 99% of the time when I read my friend's updates, I simply take it for what it is. If my friend posts about how hung over she/he is, I would conclude that he/she had a very fun time last night. But by analyzing only the literal meaning of the message though, I am in essence not realizing how Fbook itself and the computer is influencing not only my life, but her life as well (and everyone else who sees his/her message). In the end, I am failing to realize that the computer is serving as an extension of myself, specifically my mind and psyche, since I am putting my own thoughts and feelings on there for my friends to see.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Hypercasual: When the Web Gets a Little Too Friendly
I thought this article was a perfect fit for our class especially since we have been reading about projecting one’s identify and self online, specifically through social networking websites.
The article I chose is from Business Week and it describes the recent trend of companies trying to be cutesy, casual, and “ordinary.” Bobbie Johnson, the author, discusses how companies have lowered their standards when it comes to social media and have used an overly friendly voice which he refers to as hyper-casual. In other words, companies have noticed how online users are using blogger lexicon and have taken a more casual stance online, and the companies are thus trying to catch on to the trend and capitalize off of it. In the end, however, instead of sounding friendly, Johnson believes that the companies come off as flippant. One specific example he uses is how his friend in London noticed that her bank had a poll on the front page of its website, asking customers who their favorite A-Team character is. Although the bank was in essence trying to be more relatable to its customers and more friendly, the bank ended up coming off as unprofessional.
We have obviously learned and are still learning about how we project our personal and social identities online. In a way then, we are projecting our personalities online as well. Companies also use the media to project their identities. Do companies also use to media to project their personalities then? Is projecting an identity the same as projecting a personality? I do not know if I am asking the right questions but it's sure interesting to think about. After thinking about everything, I think the bank was unsuccessful in its attempts to sound friendly because of the voice it used. I think the bank had the right idea but they took the wrong approach. I guess individuals aren't the only ones that should worry about how they project themselves online! In a way, companies are just like people in that they forget that usually it's not what you say but how you say it and when the computer acts as a medium, I think it's easy to forget how important the delivery is!
What would you think if you logged onto view your online bank statement and you were asked who your favorite A-Team character is? Would it bother you or would you not even notice that the bank had hopped on the hyper casual train?
Here's the link in case anyone is interested in reading the article --> Hypercasual ... w00t!
The article I chose is from Business Week and it describes the recent trend of companies trying to be cutesy, casual, and “ordinary.” Bobbie Johnson, the author, discusses how companies have lowered their standards when it comes to social media and have used an overly friendly voice which he refers to as hyper-casual. In other words, companies have noticed how online users are using blogger lexicon and have taken a more casual stance online, and the companies are thus trying to catch on to the trend and capitalize off of it. In the end, however, instead of sounding friendly, Johnson believes that the companies come off as flippant. One specific example he uses is how his friend in London noticed that her bank had a poll on the front page of its website, asking customers who their favorite A-Team character is. Although the bank was in essence trying to be more relatable to its customers and more friendly, the bank ended up coming off as unprofessional.
We have obviously learned and are still learning about how we project our personal and social identities online. In a way then, we are projecting our personalities online as well. Companies also use the media to project their identities. Do companies also use to media to project their personalities then? Is projecting an identity the same as projecting a personality? I do not know if I am asking the right questions but it's sure interesting to think about. After thinking about everything, I think the bank was unsuccessful in its attempts to sound friendly because of the voice it used. I think the bank had the right idea but they took the wrong approach. I guess individuals aren't the only ones that should worry about how they project themselves online! In a way, companies are just like people in that they forget that usually it's not what you say but how you say it and when the computer acts as a medium, I think it's easy to forget how important the delivery is!
What would you think if you logged onto view your online bank statement and you were asked who your favorite A-Team character is? Would it bother you or would you not even notice that the bank had hopped on the hyper casual train?
Here's the link in case anyone is interested in reading the article --> Hypercasual ... w00t!
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Online Social Networking Behavior: Facebook
In Acar’s study, he explores the question of whether or not Online Social Network Services (OSNS) are different from real life social networks. He examines Facebook, an Online Social Network (OSN), in order to gain further knowledge about online social networking behavior. Specifically, he applies social network theory into Facebook.com usage and he addresses issues like self-esteem, body image, anxiety, extroversion, and gender (Acar 64).
Acar had a total of 6 hypotheses in his research, four of which were rejected and two of which were accepted after running several quantitative analyses. I will only mention the findings I thought were the most interesting. First, I learned that the size of an average online social network is larger than the size of a real life social network in a contemporary western society. While the former contains 217 members, the average number of members in a real life social network was only about 124.9. Additionally, I found out that online social networking size (OSN size) did not have a significant effect on a person’s anxiety level. The number of OSN memberships was also found to not have a significant effect on an individual’s anxiety level. Acar, however, did find a significant relationship between OSN size and extroversion. Specifically, people with higher levels of extroversion spent more time social networking and had more contacts in their online networks than introverts. Furthermore, from Acar’s study I learned that that females had more members in their online social networks and spent more time on the net for social networking than men. I actually found this finding to be the most interesting because I would have hypothesized that men spend more time than women online for social networking. For some reason I picture more men on the computer searching to make friends online (specifically female friends) than the other way around but I guess I'm wrong!
After reading the article, I think it would be interesting to investigate why online social networks are larger than real life ones. Acar mentions several reasons in his conclusion at the end of the article but these are of course only proposed factors that he thinks has influenced the size of online social networks.
Acar had a total of 6 hypotheses in his research, four of which were rejected and two of which were accepted after running several quantitative analyses. I will only mention the findings I thought were the most interesting. First, I learned that the size of an average online social network is larger than the size of a real life social network in a contemporary western society. While the former contains 217 members, the average number of members in a real life social network was only about 124.9. Additionally, I found out that online social networking size (OSN size) did not have a significant effect on a person’s anxiety level. The number of OSN memberships was also found to not have a significant effect on an individual’s anxiety level. Acar, however, did find a significant relationship between OSN size and extroversion. Specifically, people with higher levels of extroversion spent more time social networking and had more contacts in their online networks than introverts. Furthermore, from Acar’s study I learned that that females had more members in their online social networks and spent more time on the net for social networking than men. I actually found this finding to be the most interesting because I would have hypothesized that men spend more time than women online for social networking. For some reason I picture more men on the computer searching to make friends online (specifically female friends) than the other way around but I guess I'm wrong!
After reading the article, I think it would be interesting to investigate why online social networks are larger than real life ones. Acar mentions several reasons in his conclusion at the end of the article but these are of course only proposed factors that he thinks has influenced the size of online social networks.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Hacked NBC Twitter
I searched around the different Media websites and when I clicked on the CNN - Tech site, immediately this article caught my eye, “Hacked NBC Twitter Feed Falsely Reports NYC Attack.”
Apparently some hackers got into NBC News’ Twitter account and posted three tweets saying that a plane was high jacked and that Ground Zero was attacked again.
I was so disgusted when I read this article especially since I just recently watched a special on NBC about the children of the men and women who were lost on 9/11. I really hope these hackers are criminally prosecuted. Don’t get me wrong! I’m all for freedom of speech but the actions of these hackers is as irresponsible as shouting fire in a crowded theatre!
Hmm ... I guess I often forget that the internet has a bad side to it. Does anyone in the class watch the show “Criminal Minds?” After reading this article from CNN, it reminded me of a quote that one of the characters said during the show: “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn’t understand … The largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.”
Apparently some hackers got into NBC News’ Twitter account and posted three tweets saying that a plane was high jacked and that Ground Zero was attacked again.
I was so disgusted when I read this article especially since I just recently watched a special on NBC about the children of the men and women who were lost on 9/11. I really hope these hackers are criminally prosecuted. Don’t get me wrong! I’m all for freedom of speech but the actions of these hackers is as irresponsible as shouting fire in a crowded theatre!
Hmm ... I guess I often forget that the internet has a bad side to it. Does anyone in the class watch the show “Criminal Minds?” After reading this article from CNN, it reminded me of a quote that one of the characters said during the show: “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn’t understand … The largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.”
Man-Computer Symbiosis
So, I read the first two pages of the article and thought to myself, "What the heck is this guy on?” Then I went back and noticed that it was written in 1960! Haha I should have known it wasn’t a recent publication though since the title is "Man-Computer Symbiosis" and not "Human-Computer Symbiosis!" :p
Anyway, what I learned from the article was the concept of how Licklider believed that humans and computers could engage in a symbiotic relationship with each other. I actually have never thought of it that way before so it was an interesting concept for me, and I would definitely classify my own relationship with my computer as a symbiotic relationship. I think a majority of people today would do the same since so many of us rely on our computers for our day-to-day activities. (Oh btw, even though I would classify my relationship with my computer as symbiotic, I don’t think I would use that term. For some reason, using that technical term scares me since it reminds me of the movie, “I, Robot!” LOL)
Finally, what is the most interesting to me about the article is how ahead of his time Licklider was since this article was written decades ago. Licklider envisioned a relationship where computers would be able to greatly contribute to such things as the formulative parts of technical problems (Licklider 1960, 3). Today, computers have done just that and so much more. Hmm, I wonder how Licklider would react if he saw the relationship humans have with their computers today! I suspect he would a little bit shocked but would probably point at his colleagues who laughed at him and thought he was crazy and say, “I told you so!” hahaha
Anyway, what I learned from the article was the concept of how Licklider believed that humans and computers could engage in a symbiotic relationship with each other. I actually have never thought of it that way before so it was an interesting concept for me, and I would definitely classify my own relationship with my computer as a symbiotic relationship. I think a majority of people today would do the same since so many of us rely on our computers for our day-to-day activities. (Oh btw, even though I would classify my relationship with my computer as symbiotic, I don’t think I would use that term. For some reason, using that technical term scares me since it reminds me of the movie, “I, Robot!” LOL)
Finally, what is the most interesting to me about the article is how ahead of his time Licklider was since this article was written decades ago. Licklider envisioned a relationship where computers would be able to greatly contribute to such things as the formulative parts of technical problems (Licklider 1960, 3). Today, computers have done just that and so much more. Hmm, I wonder how Licklider would react if he saw the relationship humans have with their computers today! I suspect he would a little bit shocked but would probably point at his colleagues who laughed at him and thought he was crazy and say, “I told you so!” hahaha
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Quality of Online Social Relationships
2). Respond to the article, Quality of Online Social Relationships. Please highlight 2 or 3 main ideas from the article and discuss them. While discussing the main ideas, try to relate one or two of these ideas back to personal experience.
In Cummings et al. article, “The Quality of Online Social Relationships,” researchers examined the quality of offline, as well as online social interaction & relationships. In the 1st study presented by the researchers, bankers were asked to evaluate the value of certain communication sessions. The findings from this study showed that bankers believed that communication by email was less useful for creating/maintaining working relationships than face-to-face contact and phone conversations.
Based on personal experience, I did not find the findings from this study to be all that surprising. While using emails for work related matters are convenient, when it comes to service economies (e.g. banks, hair salons, etc), I believe personal interactions are extremely crucial and it’s often impossible to create and maintain personal, intimate interactions via email. I mean, if I had $70,000 in the bank and I had important questions regarding the money, I definitely wouldn’t email some random person at the bank! Plus, chances are that I would receive a faster answer by going to the bank and speaking with a representative myself versus sending an email (and waiting hours or even days for a response) or calling the bank (and being put on hold and transferred a billion times)!
Another main idea from the article is that the “frequency of communication predicted psychological closeness for offline relationships, but not for online ones” (Cummings et al. 2000, pg 12). I didn’t find this to be shocking either since I usually only email people I do not really want to see in person or talk to on the phone hahaha :p
In Cummings et al. article, “The Quality of Online Social Relationships,” researchers examined the quality of offline, as well as online social interaction & relationships. In the 1st study presented by the researchers, bankers were asked to evaluate the value of certain communication sessions. The findings from this study showed that bankers believed that communication by email was less useful for creating/maintaining working relationships than face-to-face contact and phone conversations.
Based on personal experience, I did not find the findings from this study to be all that surprising. While using emails for work related matters are convenient, when it comes to service economies (e.g. banks, hair salons, etc), I believe personal interactions are extremely crucial and it’s often impossible to create and maintain personal, intimate interactions via email. I mean, if I had $70,000 in the bank and I had important questions regarding the money, I definitely wouldn’t email some random person at the bank! Plus, chances are that I would receive a faster answer by going to the bank and speaking with a representative myself versus sending an email (and waiting hours or even days for a response) or calling the bank (and being put on hold and transferred a billion times)!
Another main idea from the article is that the “frequency of communication predicted psychological closeness for offline relationships, but not for online ones” (Cummings et al. 2000, pg 12). I didn’t find this to be shocking either since I usually only email people I do not really want to see in person or talk to on the phone hahaha :p
Monday, September 5, 2011
Introductory Post
Hello everyone =)
I'm from the Los Angeles area. I graduated from UCLA with a B.A. in Anthropology and I'm currently an Applied Anthro grad student at SJSU. I do not have much communication experience as I've only taken 1 communication course during my undergraduate years. However, I am very excited to be enrolled in this course since I'm hoping it will help strengthen my master's project. Furthermore, something interesting about me is that this past summer I interned at Homeboy Industries and I will be conducting my master's project there this fall. If you haven't heard of the organization, check them out!
I'm from the Los Angeles area. I graduated from UCLA with a B.A. in Anthropology and I'm currently an Applied Anthro grad student at SJSU. I do not have much communication experience as I've only taken 1 communication course during my undergraduate years. However, I am very excited to be enrolled in this course since I'm hoping it will help strengthen my master's project. Furthermore, something interesting about me is that this past summer I interned at Homeboy Industries and I will be conducting my master's project there this fall. If you haven't heard of the organization, check them out!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)