Kellygeeslin's Weblog

Thanks Dr. Chalfa!

kellygeeslin — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:57:46 +0000

Thank you Dr. Chalfa I have learned many new and interesting concepts about media, economics and advertising, and culture in your class! I am also proud that I survived the blogging for the year, something I never imagined myself doing. I have learned a little more about technology and am a little more comfortable now with trying to use it – though I still think computers don’t like me! I am going to try to stay informed about media and technology-use though. Thanks again!

God bless you always! Hope you have a great summer!

Always,

Kelly Geeslin

On Jenkins

kellygeeslin — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:52:20 +0000

Jenkins wraps up the end of his book discussing a variety of issues including, media literacy and the Harry Potter Wars, the new relationship between politics and popular culture, and the politics of participation. The Harry Potter books brought about huge controversy once they were released (as was also noted in an article I wrote for The Cluster, Mercer’s newspaper on top student books- I encourage anyone to check it out.) This controversy is what Jenkins is referring to as “the Harry Potter Wars.” The Harry Potter books brought up not only issues of it the stories were moral or not but also if a writer should and could write such things and what venues they could appear in. Jenkins highlights how people participating in if this literature could appear in schools for example demonstrates the occurrence of big companies and media groups going in one direction with the media and grassroots groups going in another sometimes. Jenkins writes, “Indeed, we have suggested that this interplay – and tension – between the top-down force of corporate convergence and the bottom-up force of grass-roots convergence that is driving many of the changes we are observing in the media landscape.” In chapter ten Jenkin discusses the way popular culture is affecting politics more and politics is using and affecting popular culture more. Jenkins gives the example of a candidate using newer media to his advantage. Jenkins writes, “Working for an obscure insurgent candidate whom few pundits gave any real chance, Trippi sought to harness this emerging grassroots power.” He also discusses how the participation of the public is affecting these matters more and more. He discusses this idea in depth in his concluding chapter on the politics of participation. Jenkins writes about the importance and dynamics of this relationship. Jenkins talks about reader-moderated news content and really how the people are influencing what appears in the media. It is a struggle back and forth though. He gives this example: “Even before the network reached the air, Current’s promise to ‘democratize television’ became a focal point for debates about the politics of participation.” Jenkins concludes, “Convergence culture is the way of the future, but it is taking shape now. Consumers will be more powerful within the convergence culture –but only if they recognize and use that power as both consumers and citizens, as full participants in our culture.”

On Berger and Media Artists and Mass Culture

kellygeeslin — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:16:57 +0000

Berger discusses the different media artists in chapter 9 and a plethora of concepts that go along with what they do. Berger writes, “For our purposes, an artist is not only someone who paints or sculpts or plays a musical instrument, but anyone involved in the creation or performance of any kind of text – especially mass-mediated texts.” There are many types of artist. There are actors, actresses, directors, editors, camera operators, musicians, and writers. The actors and actresses (which by the way most of the acting community apparently decided that the generic actor applied to all performers) are classified as performance artists. The other two classifications Berger discusses are production artists and creative artists. Directors, editors, camera operators, and musicians are classified as production artists. Writers are classified as creative artists. Chapter ten discusses the effects of mass culture and if it is a positive or negative thing. There are obvious cons of the homogenization that some argue occurs. However, some argue that there is still creativity and enjoyment within the culture and that it is good that there is a sort of melting pot in our society. Some even argue that this phenomenon does not even occur, but that there is still stark division and individuality in our society.

More on Savage Nation

kellygeeslin — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:58:48 +0000

So perhaps as you said in class, we tuned in on some tame nights; however, I do wonder about the extent of the criticism he has received. Certainly, Fred Savage says some things that are out of line and is labeled an extremist of the far right. I am a little surprised at the absolute shock of some by what he says. People act like he says things that no one else says. He is more blunt, out-spoken, and even rude than the main stream radio I suppose, but I have heard people say a lot of the things he says in every-day life. When people are just talking with friends about politics for example, they feel that they do not have to be politically correct. Even with others, you often hear people say if they are a Republican, “Wow, those liberals are idiots” or if they are Democratic, “Wow, those Republicans are morons.” They might really just be expressing the frustration and total illogic they see in the ideology of that party, though it could still be taken offensively. People say even absolutely horrible things that trash other people like calling them sluts and hoars, language that should never be applied to anyone. So, it is a good point that he says things that are out of line, but it seems ironic that certain people are surprised at the things he says and not the things other individuals or themselves say. This is why I was shocked at the class’s shock (those who were shocked). I have heard things just as radical earlier in the year in class and there was not this same shock. It is also true that there is a difference between saying something to friends versus on the radio. People on the radio have to be careful not to cross the lines of defaming people and such. I have no idea how some individuals get away with radical statements more than others. Honestly, I have only heard Fred Savage sporadically on the radio and I usually wasn’t paying that much attention, so I can’t be too opinionated. Still, either way, both on the radio and in other situations, people should try to be moral and non-offensive; although, I do not think people should have to bend over backwards with things like calling a stage person a “best girl” instead of a traditional term “best boy” when it applied to both sexes in the first place and little detailed things. Still, Fred Savage is far from even grappling over political correctness.

On Copyright Laws and the Criminalization of Society

kellygeeslin — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:00:56 +0000

I am going to go ahead and give a disclaimer that I am one of the least technologically-oriented people in general and certainly within our mass media class. However, I can observe fairly well things about people. It is not good to have a society where laws are ignored every day and where it is socially acceptable to do certain illegal things. This criminalization of society has a degrading effect on the morals of people. It gives people the mind set of “if everyone else is doing it, it’s okay.” It doesn’t matter if it is wrong to them, just if they can get away with it. Currently, the copyright laws are set up so that the average person breaks them about every day. Most people (at least from our class) disagree with the way the laws are set up, feling they are too stringent, or simply just don’t care. While it is important for people to actually care about what the law says for both moral and practical purposes in society, there can be a point where laws are themselves wrong or impractical to follow. I am not going to side on what is naturally right or wrong about copy right laws. It seems a very odd idea for me to imagine God saying one way or the other on the matter. One thing God does emphasize is to try to cooperate and be at peace with authoritites and to try to make such a relationship as healthy as possible. Simply ignoring authority does not do that. On can certainly try to change laws or cooperate with them but ignoring or simply defying them is not a positive way to go. Also, laws can become impractical. I know that I did not know that it is essentially illegal for me to bring a movie to class and show it to everyone. Maybe I should read up on such things more, but laws should strive to be practical. I am not saying that the current ones are not, simply that at a certain point, they might not be. There appear practical ways to have access to information and music that are perfectly legal such as Itunes so I am told. The point is that there needs to be a positive relationship between the law and people because otherwise that just hurts both. Society needs laws and morals set in place. There needs to be active participation on the part of people in this process. I can say that simply defying the law and standards has a negative impact on both individuals and society as a whole.

On chapter 4

kellygeeslin — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:33:12 +0000

Star Wars is the ultimate example of a movie that started out as a modest film that turned into much more. Sat Wars became so popular that fans wanted the “Star Wars experience” to go on; therefore, they found ways that it could. Fans created new versions of Star Wars, made Star Wars conventions, and made Star Wars games and so on. Jenkins defines this participation as follows: The forms of audience engagement that are shaped by cultural and social protocols rather than by the technology itself. The people, the society, decided that the experience should go on and created this engagement with the movie. Star Wars is not the only movie that has become more than just a movie, but really its own world. There are Harry Potter fanatics that have expanded the world of Harry Potter across multiple media in many ways. The Lord of the Rings is another example. There are even people who go to the trouble to learn the languages of the dwarves, elves, and other mythical creatures. Some individuals even decide to only speak those languages(people who clearly need to learn to connect with reality better.) All of these groups show that the audiences can create these worlds that they are a part of and that they drive. Jenkins defines this participatory culture as culture in which fans and other consumers are invited to actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content. Many fans have certainly done this. Most of the clips from You Tube and the like online are probably imitating such popular movies in some way. Many expand on the stories such as what Dr. Chalfa told us of with certain series and some just make fun of them as did some of the clips we watched in class did. It is undeniable this participatory culture is out there and thrives. What it does vs. what is should do with this power is another matter.

Violence and the Media

kellygeeslin — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:54:50 +0000

One quote I found particularly interesting in the clip we watched about violence and the media on videogames was, “When they (kids) are playing, they are also assimulating values and norms into them.” The norms and values in a lot of videogames today are absolutely atrocious. This shows if nothing else that there is a dsensitization to violence that at least is not healthy to have in ones mind and consciousness, and it is something certainly problematic when produced in actions. One commmentator said that most videogames stimulate intensity and violence. Now, there are videogames that can be perfectly innocent, even productive things. I’ve played videogames that are plutonic such as this one where it was essentially fitting shapes together as fast as possible in the est way, something definitely working with spacial skills. There are games that can encourage creativity and constructiveness in the player rather than destructiveness. Similarly, there is a computer game I played before that was a sort of interactive solve-the-mystery-of-who-done-it, incorperated with ideas of everything from sort of ideas on building things to literature, etc. Most videogames seem not to follow this pattern however and really have a damaging affect on the psyche of the players. No, it does not amake them go out and shoot up a high school, but it does have major negative effects and could certainly contribute to such an act. One kid even said in the video, “What other foal would you have than to hurt someone, other than racing?” Can you beleive that?! That sort of ideology leads to bad places!

On The American Idol Chapter of Jenkins

kellygeeslin — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:43:19 +0000

While the media has a huge impact on the mind set of individuals, individuals collectively also can control what the media does to a great extent. Advertisers do not just say that this is how we are going to have a commercial because this is the way we like it, and we are going to have it affect the public in this way.” No, advertisers study their audiences and what drives and motivates that audience. Advertisers look at affective economics which is “a new discourse in marketing brand research that emphasizes the emotional investments consumers invest in a specific brand.” Affective economics is part of what makes shows such as American Idol so popular. Advertisers have to think about what the audience likes and how to appeal to them. In a way, what the audience wants, the audience gets. The only thing is that advertisers are going to try to use the findings on audiences to their advantage; therefore, it might not be exactly what is best for viewers or even what they would have chosen knowing the whole story. Jenkins writes, “Marketers seek to shape brand reputations, not through an individual transaction but through the sum of total interactions with the consumer – an ongoing process that increasingly occurs across a range of different media “touch points.” The advertisers have to figure out how to impress a range of audiences from the loyalist viewers to the channel surfers. There is a lot of psychology involved actually. So the makeup of the audiences affects how the advertisers sell their products in order to get the audience to buy them. Advertisers can then affect the audiences.

Group 4′s List of 4 Important Topics and 3 Questions

kellygeeslin — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:54:34 +0000

A few classes ago, we got into groups and decided within each group what the four most important topics in the chapter were and then were instructed to come up with two or three questions to bring to class. Group four decided that number one important topic was affective economics since it seemed to encompass most of what the chapter was saying. The second most important topic was a combination of product placement and advertisers impressing consumers which can both be tagged as influencing the consumer. The third most important topic we decided was a combination of brand communities and the section on online gossip which could be categorized as the online communitys influence. Finally, the fourth important topic was on the individual consumer and emotional capital. One flaw in our list though was that we were thinking of affective economics with “affective” meaning “working well” or “efficient,” not as meaning “affective” as in emotionally-related like in psychology. Our point was that strong collective ideas have greater influence than the individual’s own ideas since the overall ideas can more easily influence the individual’s own ideas. Also, it is important to have an understanding of how this process of affecting others works. My first question then is, “What would you call that idea that my group was thinking of as efficiency in influecing others and that process? My second question is how do brand communities work? My final question is sort of general. How does the Internet work? Like isn’t everything on there created by an individual or a group of individuals that have some sort of rules about how it operates? Therefore is the Internet truly a public realm?

Video of Frontline

kellygeeslin — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:20:55 +0000

The three main points that were discussed in this clip were on weapons of mass destruction or WMD’s, Watergate, and the protection of anonymous sources. Throughout the clip, the issue of WMD’s and the Bush administration was emphasized and compared to the Watergate scandal. The process of gathering information to report can be complex, especially when trying to keep some fo the information confidential. There is a balance between community awareness and keeping security in balance. The report gave some good points but also appeared politically slanted at times. One good point is that John Ashcroft was appointed by President Bush and then had to investigate the very man who hired him until someone else was given that charge. This can be a flaw since one might not want to report negatively on someone who has benefited them. It comes down to how honest the person is. This practice is not excluded to the Bush administration though or to administrations for that matter. It exists as part of government policy itself to a degree and can be seen in the private sector too. Many industries have their own terms when it comes to how their inspections are done and also have their own doctors that handle accident claims within the company itself. Sometimes the government says, “who better to inspect something than someone within the thing that knows howw it works?” The problem is when people are not honest and put their or the companies personal profit over that of the good of the inspection. Watergate is a paticular example of corruption occuring within the government and how the systems in place were not perfect or even as strong as people thought they were. Journalists reflects this idea. Anonymous sources make room for both protection and corruption. Journalists tend to hold that it is the reader’s “right to know.” Protecting sources can facilitate this, such as witht he Watergate situation and “Deep Throat.” On the other hand, anonymous sources may not be held responsible for what they say and dishonesty can creep in from time to time.