Matt’s Musings

As I was reading through this week’s articles, I was finding it difficult to relate. I really know nothing about gaming and find the fascination a little confusing. I happen to be married to a 30 year old man that would still be thrilled at the prospect of a Saturday morning with the PS3. I may find this a little strange, but I’ve gotten used to it. OK, I finally get it… gaming isn’t just for kids anymore! Mainly, I just think it is a serious waste of time, but I can’t say much there since so is all the crappy TV I watch. Maybe after tonight’s class I’ll have more to say about the issue.

One thing that did catch my attention was Jakobsson and Taylor’s article and their discussion on the social bonding that occurred while playing the game Everquest. Now, I have no idea what this game is, but I do know about the ways boys can bond over a good video game. Whenever my friends and I really want to get together, we send all our husbands down to the basement and even though they have next to nothing in common, they’ll enjoy each other’s company for hours. I’ve also witnessed my husband not only playing games against, but actually talking to strangers across the continent on this headset thingy he bought. As I was thinking about it, I actually thought this phenomenon was closely related to the research I’ve been doing on on-line fantasy sports leagues for the paper. In these settings, men act out their gender by creating and maintaining fantasy sports teams. While doing so, their seemingly virtual interactions have real consequences for their lives and relationships. According to Thomas theorem, these “unreal” interactions become real in their consequences. With this in mind, I think the virtual interactions of both gaming and on-line leagues result in real relationships and interactions. I guess I’ll have to look past the strange format and gain a little respect for he value of the interactions and bonding that are occuring.

Last night, Paul mentioned that we’d be talking about pornography next week as it has become a prevalent, mainstream media. As I was flipping through the channels this morning, I found a somewhat disturbing example of this. As I was channel flipping, I realized that Ron Jeremy was a guest on MTVLive. Now, the fact that I know who Ron Jeremy is proves Paul’s point that porn is mainstream. I don’t think porn stars were household names 20 years ago. Anyway, it isn’t Ron Jeremy himself that disturbed me (although that may have been enough… YUCK!) but the fact that he was on this show that is clearly geared to teens. We all know that kids even younger than the targeted audience make up the majority of the viewers. It is aired right after school for srying out loud. My grade 6 and 7 students all watch this show and see the discussions as a cultural reference. They learn what is acceptable and unacceptable from shows like this (God help them!). I just have to say I was shockd that he was on the show openly discussing his career and the 4000 women he has slept with, all of which was greeted with cheers by the very young audience. The segment concluded with a contest called Swappy Seconds where two couples from the audience swapped partners and then made out with this person they’d never met for a full minute while Jeremy judged their performance. The entire thing was so disturbing! It was like some kind of training ground for porn stars. I was struck by the casual nature of the discussion and the comfort level with the subject matter so I’m wondering…

Am I an old-fashioned prude or is this disturbing to anyone else? Is the suject of porn just hunkydory and open to anyone or has porn gone a little too mainstream?

 Maybe some more light will be shed on the subject this week in class, but at this point, I’m certainly not comfortable with the messages of shows such as the one I just witnessed.

I feel like I have become acutely aware of the true messages ingrained in advertisements, especially towards women. As I was reading Abby’s article on advertising and women, I was thinking about a segment I saw on Rachael Ray.. I know… annoyingly perky, but I find her somewhat entertaining. She was showing a study done with kindergarten girls where they were shown two graphics. Each portrayed a woman, but one was fat and the other was thin. Other than that, they were exactly the same. The interviewer asked questions such as who would be more fun, who would be smarter, who would be cooler, who they would rather be friends with, etc. Each and every time, the little girls chose the skinny girl. I know that doesn’t all come from advertising, but I think a lot of it does. Is selling a product really worth this? I was most shocked when the interviewer asked each girl if she would rather be fat or dumb. Each girl thought about it carefully and then settled on being dumb. Even at 5 years old, they knew that society values beauty over brains in women. The problem is that advertisers would not employ these methods if they didn’t work. At some level, we’re buying into it and reinforcing it… scary thought!

The article also made me think of the Dove ad campaign on “real beauty”. I really enjoy those ads and the company has some really great educational material on their website that I’ve used with middle school aged girls. I have wondered a couple time, however, if this is really as altruistic as it sounds. Am I being fooled? Is this just as shallow and meaningless as other advertising? Are they simply giving us what they think we want, just like all the other advertisers out there? What do you think…

For a while now I have been aware that the people around me seem to be aware of music acts and albums that I have never heard of. They talk excitedly about these bands and it seems like everyone but me can relate. When did this happen? It used to be that we all listened to the radio and if you knew the bands on the radio, then you knew popular music. This is certainly no longer the case and I’ve wondered where everyone gets their information from. The Pitchfork article shed some light on it for me. I find it fascinating that a small, single website can generate so much interest and success for a band. I like music, but I’m not a fanatic. I’m too lazy to download music onto an iPod when I can just turn on a radio without any effort (I know… that’s blasphemous to any real music fan). Obviously then, I can’t really imagine seeking out independent music reviewers online, which then explains why I’m way out of the cool-new-music-loop! I thought it was interesting that the article refers to the website as taste-makers. When we discussed taste in class, I picked up on the idea that taste is a differentiating mechanism, separating those who have and those who don’t, like a sort of cultural capital. You have to have been raised and trained in a certain taste to appreciate it. Websites such as this, and the internet in general, seem to be taking this power back. A new class of people are defining good taste. As the article states, you no longer have to have a degree to have credibility when reviewing music. You don’t have to have the high class connections and the high class education to get the high class magazine or radio job. Instead, you can start up your own small website and prove your taste through your work alone. Despite this power shift, I think there is still a unique group with a unique monopoly on the definition of good taste. I have a hard time relating to websites such as the one in the article because I have not been exposed to that type of culture. Although the power has shifted, it seems to me that there is still a small group with the power, knowledge and experience to define good taste, leaving the rest of us outside the bubble.

Just another comment on the article, I’m wondering what Noam Chomsky would say about this movement online. The video we watched was too old to really talk about the internet, but this idea that the public is taking control of defining taste would have interesting implications for his theory. If big corporations and government are not in control of websites such as this, are they still able to manufacture consent on-line? Is there more questioning and critical thinking with the opportunity to freely discuses on-line? Are corporations and government increasingly moving into the online domain to take back their power? I’d love to see an updated version of the video with his thoughts on the internet.

I am constantly aware of the significant impact attitude and perspective have on experience. I often see people around me abrasively berating sales clerks, flipping other drivers off in their cars or raging at the unfair treatment of some professor. The feeling I have towards these people is the same feeling I had toward Russel Smith’s article. I feel sorry for them, sort of sad, or maybe pity. I’m not exactly sure what it is but I think it must be miserable to constantly endure these kinds of experiences. Does anything ever make them really happy or excited? As far as I’m concerned, this condescending, pessimistic attitude only cheats them out of many simple pleasures. My experience in a crowded movie theater this week only emphasized this belief.

I attended the Saturday night showing of “Music and Lyrics” with a friend this week. An ultra-light chick flick was exactly the kind of movie experience I was in the mood for and the simple plot allowed me to observe the activity around me without too much distraction. We left early as an attempt to arrive early enough to watch people come in, but found ourselves entangled in ample line-ups at multiple junctures. With my massive vat of trans-fats tucked happily under my arm, I finally made it into the theater as the opening credits began to roll. I do agree with Russel that the forced advertisements are a tad annoying being that you paid to be there, so I was perfectly happy to have missed them. Late arrival inevitably means poor seat placement, se we settled into the very edge seats of the theater. Immediately we realized that the row behind us was filled with 50-something women who were out to have a good time. As the movie began, they proceeded to comment on every preview that had been shown and every movie they’d been to recently before launching into a critical commentary on Hugh Grant’s aging face. They found themselves hilarious, laughing every few seconds so loudly you couldn’t hear the dialogue. I also quickly realized that the couple in front of us brought a little boy that couldn’t have been older than a year and a half. He sat very quietly between them, every so often getting up or checking in with his mom to make sure she still knew he was there. At one point we even played a little peek-a-boo over the seat as he was starting to get bored. Hey, even I was a little bored so he must have been dying! An hour into the movie he started to shout out and his father abruptly scolded him and carried him out, returning only a few minutes later. I tried to listen for the munching sounds so overwhelming in Russel’s description, but couldn’t really hear them. (It is possible they were drowned by my own munching, yes I am officially one of the slobs at the trough.) There are certainly noises in the theater, people whispering, laughing, and crumpling packaging. Sometimes they are enough to jar you from the fantasy world of the film, especially in one so uninspiring as this one. This was especially the case since the theater was full, with the exception of the mandatory buffer seats between strangers, of course.

Overall, it was a pretty typical movie-going experience. Many of the events that bothered Russel so much occurred. People chatted about meaningless topics, we waited in long lines, paid high prices, and were generally distracted by the crowd in the packed theater… if that’s the way you want to see it. Actually, I find the shared movie experience really enjoyable. The packed, butter scented room with no windows seems to me like a retreat from the real world. There is something fun about laughing together with a room full of people. I’ll never forget attending “40 Year Old Virgin” in this same theater and the entire crowd howling at the same parts and telling stories to their neighbors. It was an experience simply unparalleled in a living room alone. Sure the little guy in front of me could have been distracting, but I found him entertaining. Besides, I was beyond impressed that he could sit there for so long. The women behind us actually provided more laughs than the movie, my friend and I exchanging glances and giggling with every bizarre comment they made. I hope I’m so vivacious at that age. Before you think I’m some kind of Polyanna, that isn’t the case. I did think it was appalling that the parents in front of me brought such a young child to a late movie, and was even more disturbed when they were upset that he started to get restless. The lines are annoying and the prices are WAY too high. There are things I don’t love about going to the movies, but it isn’t disgust at the human condition being displayed around me. I think Russel doesn’t actually have an issue with the movies, but rather with people in general and maybe with himself. He must feel this way everywhere he goes. In the malls he must see frantic, greedy people rushing from one materialistic conquest to another, stopping only to gorge themselves on over-processed food court fare. In coffee shops, he must listen to shallow, meaningless banter between over-indulged dimwits with too much time on their hands. I experienced the same things in that theater as Russel did and came out feeling like I’d had a fun evening. It is his loss that he didn’t feel that way. Life is to short to see the bad in everything. Russel’s article is not a commentary on movie-going, it is a commentary on himself and a pessimistic view of the world in general.

All week I have ben watching the Anna Nicole CRAZINESS. It struck me to write about it when I went home for lunch last week and coverage was all over every channel. I found it surprising for a few reasons. For starters, it wasn’t even an hour since she had died! I couldn’t believe how fast it got out, and couldn’t help but wonder if some of her family and friends were finding out through the sensationalized TV coverage along with the rest of the country. Second, I couldn’t believe how many channels were putting off commercials and doing full time coverage of the press conferences. How much was there really to say? I mean, CNN for God’s sake was giving 100% air time to this woman, who lets be honest, is known for being a stripping gold-digger. I also found it interesting because Anna Nicole is a perfect example of someone who was made famous by the media. For the life of me, I can’t think of any talent she is famous for, other than acting in absurd ways at public events and marrying a very old man. Believe me, I am not knocking Anna Nicole, I just think her life and death are an interesting commentary on the media. She was made famous by her ability to draw media attention and her death reveals the depth of our obsession with celebrity culture and scandal, so much so that it overrides any “real” news in the world. I think the entire thing is incredibly sad, and am somewhat horrified at the invasion of the media into the personal lives and pain of her family and friends, although they seem to invite cameras in??? So who is really to blame for this absurdity? Is it really the media’s fault for focusing so heavily on events such as these, or is it people like Anna Nicole who constantly invite the media into their lives to personally capitalize, or is it people like me who watch the coverage that are creating the problem? I’m guessing it is a vicious cycle, with each element feeding the other, resulting in a somewhat ridiculous scenario.

I’ve often thought about the overwhelming influence of American media in Canada. I watch a lot of TV, way more than I care to admit. Of all the programs I watch, I hardly ever watch anything Canadian. I usually watch Canadian news and sometimes Corner Gas, but not much else. In fact, I probably watch more British TV since I have a somewhat strange fondness for Coronation Street (I can’t help it! I just love the way they talk). I think this is true for most Canadians, there simply isn’t a significant amount of quality Canadian programming available. Even Canadian networks make only small attempts to create original Canadian material, airing mostly American shows created by American networks. There is no denying that the economic power of the US, means that most Canadian shows look a little low rent in comparison. Take the infamous Idol shows for example, you would be able to pick out the Canadian version in an instant, paling in comparison to the polished, big budget American Idol. Even the talent isn’t quite the same… come on, you know its true! So who cares? Why do we need our own shows when we have such easy access to the entertainment of our neighbors to the south? I don’t really know, but I know that media and entertainment are a large part of culture, and if we do not have our own, does it become difficult to have our own culture? I really do believe that Canadians have a unique culture and identity of our own, but I have also noticed that we often define ourselves in relation to the Americans. We are nicer then them, we don’t share their politics, we’re not as greedy, etc. How do we define ourselves independently of them? I don’t believe I’ve ever heard an American define themselves in relation to a Canadian? I think that our culture and identity is deeply influenced by the infiltration of American media. One place I do see a unique difference, however, is in the media itself. Have you ever watched an American news program and then a Canadian one? The tone is significantly different. American programs tend to be sensationalist, editorialized and filled with things to be afraid of. There is always something to watch out for and protect yourself against. Canadian news seems to be more neutral, objective (relatively speaking) and positive. I know our news is far from perfect, but it doesn’t seem to be intentionally created to foster fear and blatantly promote particular points of view the way American news is. It is interesting that although American media is so prevalent and influential, it is through our own media that we manage to express our unique identity and perspective. Watch some Fox news and see what you think… Is this happening to this extent in Canada?

All right, this week is finally the week I will write a real blog! I have carved out the time to give the assignment the attention it deserves, a task I have found impossible utill now. Sorry

 I was very interested by the Karen Evans article this week For some time now, I have been fascinated by the interactions and communities that form in virtual spaces. Largely because I feel no connection to them whatsoever. It is not that I haven’t tried, but there is simply no lure or interest for me. Therefor, I am fascinated by the seemingly deep, personal, and meaningful connections that are made online. This article may have shed some light on it for me, but reading it also allowed me to reflect on my resistance to the trend.

Evans suggests that…

“the internet is heralded as a space where physical barriers can be overcome and where it is possible to reach out to others without divisions of space, culture, race or gender intervening. In cyberspace it is assumed a person will be judged by their ideas alone, revealing only that which they wish to share with others and without fear of being rejected if they do not conform to ‘the ideal’. On the internet, we are often reminded, people can even adopt alternative personas and become whoever they wish to be.”

Hmmm… I understand the appeal of interacting in a space where people can not see who you are, believe me, I do! I wonder, however, if this is truly freeing or if it creates greater opporunity for rejection, exclusion, cruelty, and the like. Evans exlpains that the internet is a limitless space where individuals control the spread and flow of information uninhibited by censors, corporations, etc. communites are “self-selected”, they do not depend on random encounters with strangers, but people are able to seek out those with commonalities. Finally, she points out that “virtual communities grant their members greater freedom because their users are not tied to physical locations”. The argumentt made by the various writers seems to be that the internet is a freeing space, seperated from the judgements and divisions of our physical spaces. My question (for myself) now is: Why is my experience so opposite?

I will draw on my expereince in this particluar community of sorts. I have enjoyed greatly reading other people’s blogs because we all have so much more to say than you would ever know sitting together in a lecture hall. Last week, however, I was sitting behind two girls as they surfed the blogs and ultimately “bashed” a particular entry during break. One proceeded to post a comment calling the author “foolish”, among other things. Now, disagreement is one thing, but the individual was well aware she had crossed aline, expressing her concern that the blogs author would find out who she was and steal her laptop or vandalize her car. The girls laughed and I listened, all the while knowing that it was my post they were discussing. My point here is not that they disagreed with me, but rather that she clearly communicated in a manner that she would not have used face to face. The censoring effects of face to face interaction can be a healthy thing. There are reasons why we don’t say things to each other, and working with children, the lack of social hindrances actually concerns me greatly. I know that girl would never have turned around and made those comments to my face. She had no problem, however, posting them to my blog becasue she thought I didn’t know who she was. The post doesn’t bother me, I just find that the expereince sheds some light on why I am reluctant to enter into such communities.

To get to the point, I find the lack of social conventions and controls concerning rather than freeing or safe. True, individuals control the spread of information, is that so great? If this were a blog I was particularily passionate about or a topic I found sensitive, I really wouldn’t want free and unmoderated ability to reply. I guess I came to the same conclusion as Evans when she said “many of the claims made as to their superior character are overstated. They seem to hold out the promise of safe and inclusive communication but in reality, many of the problems which plague physical community are present in their virtual counterparts”. We are people, we exlude people, say things we shouldn’t, judge on the basis of irrelevant criteria, etc. All I’m saying is that we do these things in an anonymous environment as well. Although we may not judge on skin color, we still judge quickly, and post as hastily as we speak. I really think that the same problems we have in physical spaces will become a part of the virtual spaces we share, possibly even exagerated by anonymity and the lack of social controls.

So, right now I’m sitting here, finishing some homework and half watching American Idol. As I was watching, I was thinking about the messages the show is sending out while we’re all being entertained by the massive failure of strangers. I know a lot has been made this week about the show being too cruel this season. I’m a little confused by this because I don’t see this season as different than any other. I’m really curious about why people are concerned all of the sudden. Personally, I’m more concerned about the message of these early audition shows, the more I actually think about the message they are sending. I spend three days a week in classroom delviering programs on bullying. All day long I tell kids to be kind to one another, not to capitalize on a position of power and abuse people who are weker than them. We are funded to go into classrooms and teach kids not to be cruel to people who are vulnerable. Now I’m sitting here wondering, how do I compete with American Idol? Is Simon Cowell not the best image of a bully you have ever seen? He is clearly in a position of authority, he is not in the least bit vulnerable to the contestants on the show. From his powerful position, he does not choose to be mature and diplomatic, but rather, to be cruel. So, as a society that teaches our kids that bullying is a tragedy and will not be tolerated, do we react to this message by condemming it? Of course not, we celebrate this thinly veiled bully as a cultural icon. In fact there are many examples in the media where manipulation, pushiness and getting what you want at any cost are more than tolerated, they are celebrated. Hell, I’m confused! How can we expect our children to navigate the mixed messages we send them?

I’m looking forward to this class because the content is current and relevant… but I have to admit that I am tech resistant. The only reason I know the meaning of the word BLOG is becasue I taught my students internet safety. I’ve certainly never done anything like this before and have to admit I’m a little wary. I don’t even check my email once a week… posting every week seems like something from an alternate universe to me. I finally got rid of the ball and chain that was my cell phone and I don’t miss it a bit. When I’m out I’m spending time with people, and I don’t want to be interrupted. When did we all get so impatient? I see no reason why I can’t return a message when I get home. When it comes to email and chatting and whatnot, I guess I would rather people just give me a call! I don’t want to split my attention between people and I really dislike the way tone is difficult to read in emails. I think misunderstandings are inevitable, or at least that is my expereince. I’m not against technology, I just value personal connection and I think it can get in the way of that. People have explained to me that it is easier to be personal online, but sometimes I wonder if that is a true connection or somehow manufactured? Maybe someone can shed some light on it for me…

The one place I am tech savy is in my classroom. I make my students use discussion boards and power points and read online articles and create qebquests. In that context I find the internet a powerful and convenient tool. I do spend significant time, however, teaching my students how to protect themselves and look critically at the information to determine of it is reliable. I think those are valuable skills for dealing with any kind of media, especially with the overload of information and influence we’re faced with on a daily basis.

 That brings me to my interest in the course. I think media is more powerful than many people give it credit for. It seems cliche to blame the media for things, but I beleive it truly is powerful. It isn’t the media itself, however, its the passive consumption of media that concerns me. I wonder if people truly question what they see. I know my husband complains all the time that I have “sensitized” him to his favorite old movies and games and he can no longer enjoy them. Now he sees the messages they’re communicating and can no longer enjoy them. I guess I ruined all his fun! I work with junior high kids and I definitely see attitudes in them that they’ve picked up from the media. These kids are targets of constant messages and they don’t possss the skills to filter through them all. I see boys obsessed with violence and regarding girls as objects. I see girls buying into unhealthy beauty and sexual ideals disturbingly young. Having said that, I am optimistic that media can be used for powerfully positive purposes and that even young kids can be taught the skills to critically consider the messages that come across.

Well, that is my “first impression” rant. I’m interested to see how my thoughts on the media change over the next few months.

  Look! I know how to make a smiley face!