alex-soc373

[alex-soc373]

Science Fiction and Society

Parker's and my final video.  Hope you guys enjoy!

[alex-soc373]

I think you make a good point that global media, as it stands, is more about global consumption than global production.  When you look at the list of top media companies, they are mostly American companies.  While the Internet has allowed for more peer-to-peer interaction and creativity, the old one-to-many form of mass media, with much of the power in the hands of very few, is still quite prevalent - and they're reaching a larger audience than ever before, due to globalization.

Global Media - Advertising and Film in India / Distrust in America / Looking Forward

  Chapter 10 of Media Society discusses the idea of Global Mediaand the implications of wider business, influence and audience afforded by digital technology. The “cultural imperialism” thesis is also discussed; it is the idea that “the West, especially the United States,” is a major producer of media content and that its powerful media conglomerates inundate other cultures with Western media, therefore shaping and influencing “the cultures of other nations [so] that they [that is, the Western media products] amount to a cultural form of domination” (332).

The cultural imperialism thesis represents the ever-present concern that powerful Western media producers are threatening unique culture and are slowly but surely homogenizing the world population. In a broad sense, many feel that “‘Globalization is… the death of human diversity’” (336).

In light of chapter 8’s discussion of active audiences, chapter 10 points out that the imperialism thesis is flawed in that it “generally assumes a passive audience” that can be easily shaped and altered by Western media. The book refutes this, stating that foreign audiences also have the power and ability to interpret media in numerous ways (336).

One great example of which I’m aware of U.S. influence on media in foreign countries is that of advertising media for Levi’s® in India. This topic was covered in a previous class I took at WSUV. One of India’s best-known male film stars was used to advertise product; a suggestive, sexualized image of him wearing Levi’s® jeans was put up on billboards in urbanized areas of the country. This fits the description of “the second prong” of corporate strategy given in the text – “accommodate local cultures within an existing media form” (338). Surely Levi’s® hoped to be met with acceptance and even enthusiasm through their use of a culturally significant celebrity. This advertising campaign was met with controversy from the older generations in India, as acceptance of this image and of jeans, especially on women!, was seen as a threat to the country’s culture. The markedly Western advertising style – and Western article of clothing – upset the older generations’ cultural habitus, but for many women, this “invasion” was welcomed, as it meant a change in the cultural rights of women and their attire. This shows a very active audience. It seems, though, that Western media and its influence are slowly “chipping away” at traditional Indian culture, and further proof of this can be seen in India’s Bollywood films. Although Bollywood retains its “Bombay” side, its “Hollywood” side is growing more pronounced. Many of India’s latest Bollywood films are boasting more special effects, sexualized characters, and Western “tropes” than they did in the past, showing that Western media is indeed influencing the culture.

It must be said that media is globally consumed more than it is globally produced. The fact of the digital divide remains, and the rest of the world has markedly less access to the internet than we do (342-3), resulting in a lack of representation on the web and a stifled ability to communicate freely. This issue is complex – it can’t be solved simply by providing other cultures with the tools, as shown by the “failed” $100 laptop scheme (344), although the trickle-down and decreasing costs of internet-enabled cell phone technology are allowing many more people to access the web. It will be interesting to see how – much less if – action is taken to resolve global access in the future. We’re not a “global village” yet, McLuhan!

While it is easy to adopt the alarmist view that only the elite and those with the most money will be the ones to dictate global media, independent companies, small businesses, and even artists are finding terrific new ways to promote their media and to be more “globally consumed.” Independent news sites are seeing an increase in visitors and popularity; further, the majority of Americans now distrust mainstream media! Here in the West, audiences are beginning to realize the money- and politic-driven nature of media conglomerates. In 2011, CBS News reported that a poll from Gallup “indicate[d] that six in ten Americans have little or no trust in mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly” (Madison, par 1). Interestingly, I found the link to this article on a Canadian independent news site, Global Research, which used the story to emphasize the importance and rising influence of independent media.

We, those privileged with digital tools and resources, have the ability – and arguably the responsibility – to produce both original local media and media in response to intercontinental events, and it seems that we’re doing a pretty good job of that. The book’s statement that “there is nothing inevitable about the march of technology or of the media” and that we may even have a role in directing the future of the media is important. Even our habits of media consumption have the power to shape what producers produce. So as we approach a “global village” – as media consumption and production becomes more global – it might be wise to give attention to globally produced media now and do what we can to give attention to underprivileged voices. As for unique culture? As the world grows more connected and communicates more frequently, without the limitations of time and space, culture will blend. Traditions may fade. Isolated communities develop unique cultures, but as the isolated cultures break out of isolation into a global community, ideas and opinions will be shared. The global culture will look very different than what we now know. To finish this post, a quote from the book – “Even in the years to come, regardless of the changes that occur, understanding the media will mean understanding… social relations in all their complexity” (347). The internet and electronic media have forever altered the world, in a very big way.

[alex-soc373]

I mentioned this interview in my last blog post, but for some reason Tumblr wouldn't let me link it, so I'm reblogging it for the  class to see.  There's more here, too:

http://www.sparksummit.com/2012/08/20/get-it-girls-emma-scarlett-anne-talk-back/

Reporter: I have a question to Robert and to Scarlett. Firstly to Robert, throughout Iron Man 1 and 2, Tony Stark started off as a very egotistical character but learns how to fight as a team. And so how did you approach this role, bearing in mind that kind of maturity as a human being when it comes to the Tony Stark character, and did you learn anything throughout the three movies that you made?

And to Scarlett, to get into shape for Black Widow did you have anything special to do in terms of the diet, like did you have to eat any specific food, or that sort of thing?

Scarlett: How come you get the really interesting existential question, and I get the like, “rabbit food” question?

The respect given to you if you’re a man in the entertainment business, and the respect given to you if you’re a woman in the entertainment business: all perfectly summed up in one idiotically thought out line of questioning.

[alex-soc373]

A Continuation on the Discussion of Women in Media

This isn't officially one of my blog posts, I just wanted to say something I couldn't put into words during our last class session.

The question was "Is the amount and type of female representation in media a problem, and how so?"   Women are not the major figures in any section of news, although they are more prominent in the Entertainment section.  They are also more likely to be shown in a negative or sexualized light.  A few people brought up Miley Cyrus, and the fact that her actions were her own decision - no one forced her.

That's true, but she also didn't make the decision in a vacuum.  American culture values fame and money very highly (and fame is seen as an effective way to make money).  We are taught from a young age that being famous is desirable and glamorous, there's an enormous amount of peer pressure involved.  I can only imagine that someone like Miley Cyrus, who was famous from a young age, would have been indoctrinated even more than most.

So, we're taught that being famous is a good thing.  And what makes people, specifically women, famous?  What are little girls taught famous women look like and do?  Well, the vast majority of women's representation in media is for "entertainment value," rather than for political, educational, or other kinds of achievement.  (They're outnumbered even in the entertainment section, but at least they are somewhat more prominent there than elsewhere.)  Women are typically represented by the media as wearing skimpy clothing, acting in a ridiculous or exaggerated manner (remember that Bridal Plasty show?), or with a focus on sexual topics (wardrobe malfunctions, asking an actress not how she got into character, but how she fit in her costume, etc.).

As a result of the above, there is definitely pressure for women and girls, especially, I would say, those already in the entertainment industry, to act like Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Madonna, etc.  Yes, those famous women made their own choices, but they were influenced by what came before, what media they were exposed to growing up.  And the media attention they get, coupled with the lack of female representations in other areas, will influence the next generation of young girls.

Also, I would hope this goes without saying, but women are definitely doing other news-worthy things that don't get nearly the media attention they deserve.  Here are just a few examples I knew of off the top of my head, without even doing a Google search:

A girl in Mexico shown to have enormous potential as a mathematician.  Her whole class is doing remarkably well, thanks to their teacher's use of an unconventional teaching style:

http://thinkmexican.tumblr.com/post/64432570414/paloma-noyola-the-face-of-mexico-unleashed-potential

A girl in Great Lakes is about to get her Bachelor's Degree at age 14:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130715/news/707159928/

An teenaged girl won $50,000 for her invention of a device that could recharge batteries in seconds:

http://www.techfever.net/2013/05/teenage-girl-invents-supercapacitors-for-super-fast-battery-charging/

And I'm sure a little Googling would reveal many, many more.

Also, I believed someone said that men are portrayed in an unrealistic manner, too?  I'm just going to leave this link here:

http://www.themarysue.com/shortpacked-false-equivalence/

[alex-soc373]

It can be really surprising sometimes, how different people's interpretations of something can be.  I once had a very confusing conversation with my mom about the folk song "Scarborough Fair".  We realized halfway through that the reason we were so confused was that I thought the song was about a girl who was trying to dissuade an unwanted suitor, whereas she thought it was about a woman whose husband had died in a war.  (In fact, we were both mistaken, as the version we heard was sung by a woman, and the song was originally intended for a male singer.)  Everyone brings their own background, experiences, personality, and beliefs to the table when we're interpreting media; we can't help it.

Interpretive activity and active audiences have been around longer than the Internet. Perhaps even back in ancient Egypt, Cleopatra could have thought, “I don’t like this Sphinx. Maybe it would look better with its nose cut off.” As an individual, she could have thought of various reasons why she...

[alex-soc373]

I hope you're right that Facebook can be a force for good in this way, but I fear it may be just the opposite.  It seems like for every voice coming to the girls' defense, there are at least three more calling her terrible names or saying it was her own fault.  The anonymity of the internet cuts both ways, and I'm not at all sure it comes out in favor of the victim.

There's a sort of mob mentality that can happen anywhere, but perhaps especially on the internet.  I think for a lot of people, it's easy to forget that there's a real human being on the other side of the screen.

Social change is not something that comes easily to a society, especially a society that is so wrapped up in itself and so called ‘traditional values’ that a change from the norm is considered social suicide and will always have the return of someone reverting to either exile or actual suicide. In these modern times living with a perpetual rape culture that seems to demonize the victim in what seems like every case. It feels that there is no way for the society to change but Facebook and Twitter may be helping this trend disappear. In recent years, rape cases get dismissed by local and national news only to gain momentum on Social Media outlets and only after getting a couple million ‘likes’ or ‘re-tweets’ do the news channels decide that the story is worth the time, if only to explain that the movement is gaining momentum on Facebook. It makes me question the motives of the news companies but that is a different point than I am trying to make in general. I wonder why it takes so many people for it to be taken seriously.

[alex-soc373]

I like the creative uses that spring up for social media that the site's creators may not have considered when they started making the site.  I know a lot of businesses are very eager to build their online presence, especially on social networking sites.  And the kind of good customer service you described is one of the benefits of that!

The thing about celebrity interaction on Twitter is also interesting.  I like to joke about "that time Tom Hiddleston helped me with my homework," because it's technically true.  I needed to listen to some instrumental music that I was unfamiliar with as part of an art assignment, and I knew that a certain favorite actor of mine tended to post links to music he likes on his Twitter account, and a lot of it was instrumental songs I'd never heard before.  I actually discovered a few new favorite songs of my own in the process!

Social media is really connecting people in ways we probably never could have guessed just a few decades ago.

Week 9--Social Media Blog

Social media has changed the interactions between people in our culture.  This has become apparent through all our discussions in our Sociology 373 class.  Normally when I think of social media, I only focus on social networking, specifically Facebook and Twitter.  After reading the articles for this week I realize there is a lot more to it than these sites.  Not only are there a huge number of other networking sites, but also a huge number of other genres considered social media. 

I am familiar with a few of these genres, but never categorized them into social media.  I view social media as a two way interaction, but now I see that anything on the internet is consider part of social media.  For example, blogs.  I enjoy reading blogs, and there are a few that I check into regularly.  However, I am never contributing to these blogs, just reading them because I find them informative and interesting. 

As far as social networking, Friendster is a very interesting and new subject case for me.   I did not know it existed and only visited the site after reading the class assignments.  I was surprised to learn that it was originally set-up with the primary use of a dating site.  I also did not know that it was popular at the same time as MySpace and competed with it for popularity.

While I never used Friendster or MySpace, in 2009 I did eventually cave in to peer pressure and sign up for Facebook.  It seems impossible to stay connected without Facebook now that I have been using it.  Society has become so dependent on this site that it is intriguing to think that this site only became public in 2006.  Granted, it has been seven years, but to consider how integrated it has become, seven years does not seem like a long period of time.  It is even more mind-blowing to consider that this social networking site is not just popular in the United States.  This is a worldwide phenomena and I am able to stay in contact with friends in Ireland and New Zealand using Facebook.

My secret addiction is Twitter.  Not only do I use it to communicate with friends, but also to stay up-to-date with institutions, world events, news, and information.  I follow non-profit organizations like UNICEF and UN Women.  I also get updates from Huffington Post and CNN, which are helpful as my daily news sources.  The most surprising Twitter use for me has been interacting with businesses.  I am able to send questions or complaints to companies and almost always get immediate responses.  For example, when Virgin America canceled my flight, I sent a tweet to them and within minutes I was changed to a new flight that left earlier and was more convenient to my schedule.  It was amazing! It was so much easier than waiting on hold or sitting in the terminal, and took very little effort on my part to get the problem solved.

Like musicians using MySpace to connect to fans, Twitter also allows ordinary people to connect with celebrities and business elites.  Danah Boyd talks about the symbiotic relationship MySpace created with Fans and musicians, and states that it is one of the reasons MySpace was successful (Boyd, p. 3). It’s also one of the traits that has given Twitter staying power.  A little blue check mark is given to movie stars and businesses to show that they are verified and legit.  However, unlike Twitter, MySpace had a very limited audience. It became popular with musicians, but did not reach as many people or genres as Twitter. The site has also transformed according to users wants by making it easier to find and respond to celebrities, friends and informational news feeds. Their simple framework and 140 character maximum make communicating quick and easy for everyday individuals to use.

The following links are old informational videos, meant to teach people about the new social media available.  I thought it was interesting to see how things were explained when Facebook and Twitter first became available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a_KF7TYKVc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddO9idmax0o

Works cited:

Boyd, Danah. 2009. “Social Media is Here to Stay…Now What?” Microsoft Research Tech Fest, Redmond, Washington, February 26.

[alex-soc373]

I like how you mentioned the fact that social media helped you interact with people you otherwise would have been too shy to talk to.  I think that's been true for a lot of people - the anonymity of the web can be helpful in this way (though it can also, of course, be used for trolling and other malicious acts).

I also think it's really interesting how different groups use social media.  Of course, there will always be outliers:  I'm one of the "Facebook generation," but I only have an account because my aunt wouldn't stop bugging me about it.  My aunt on the other hand, is, well, a little older than the stereotypical Facebook user, but it seems like she's constantly on the site.  Sometimes people can surprise you. I've even hear it said that if you see someone on Twitter using chat-speak and excessive abbreviations, they're probably a politician trying to appeal to the "younger generation", whereas someone with correct spelling and punctuation is more likely an actual teen or twenty-something!

I don't know if Facebook, itself, is here to stay, but I think social media, as a concept, will last as long as the human race does.  We are inherently social creatures - of course we're going to express that in any way possible!

Blog 9!

Response to “Social Media is here to stay…. Now What?”

 http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/MSRTechFest2009.html

I remember back in junior high school when I was first introduced to Myspace. I thought it was lame, a waste of time. Until I found out that all the girls I was too shy to talk to in person had profiles, so I got involved. I figured out how to create my own Myspace webpage, and I used that as an advantage to show people my own uniqueness.

I never realized it until now, when I used Myspace I was constantly rendering Html for my Myspace page. I was constantly adding videos and images, background images, hyperlinks, text fonts and colors, and at the time I really had no idea what I was doing. If only I would have kept at it with using html, who know where’d id be now. Now that the Myspace era is over, I’m surprised Facebook hasn’t given people the opportunity to render html. If so, I’m sure Facebook would probably turn into a different social website entirely.

Anyways, ill get to one of the main points in this article. I can thoroughly relate to this topic because I started getting friend requests on Facebook from my parents, aunts and uncles, older people from work, and so on. At first I denied them all. I was young (18-21) and I didn’t want my parents to see any pictures that I was tagged in, or any thing I posted/ what my friends posted on my wall. Even when it came to coworkers, unless they were in my age range, I didn’t want them to see my online personal life. Accepting their friend requests gave me the thought of being interrogated. So I thought to myself, well what the hell are they doing on Facebook anyways?

“As many of you know, youth played a central role in the rise of some social media. Now, many adults have jumped in, but what they are doing there is often very different than what young people are doing” (Danah Boyd). After years in denial of interrogation, I finally caved in and accepted my mom’s friend request. After hers I started adding the rest. Was I interrogated? No. And ill tell you why. They barely check their Facebook! Maybe once or twice a week tops. They don’t use it like the younger generation. We, the youth use Facebook to keep are selves currently updated with all of our friends daily. We want to be informed of what everyone else is doing at all times. My parents generation never had this addicting habit as a teenager, and I have to say I am jealous. They don’t feel the need to look at everyone’s status’s everyday. They use it for the same reason as us. To stay connected with friends, family, acquaintances, coworkers, etc, but they only use it to a certain extent compared to us younger kids, unless its business.

It is stated in the article that social media websites may end up being a “fad” of the 21st century, and I would truthfully disagree. Yes, some social websites may come and go, but Facebook, ultimately will live forever. As this generation grows older, we may find ourselves less interested in using Facebook, but the younger generation will pick it up in junior high school, and so on. I would be very interested in going into the future (50 years) with the Facebook friends I have now, and see who is still posting. I can’t imagine being 80 and posting on my wall “is anyone there?” and some actually answers. Although, by that time I hope to have a large family and lineage, so of course someone would answer. 

[alex-soc373]

I think it's very interesting that digital technology has this effect on us.  I Program or be Programmed, by Douglas Rushkoff, he points out that computers are naturally "asynchronous," meaning "without time."  The computer is in a state of stasis if it's not receiving input.  When a friend calls you, you have to pick up and talk to them at that time, but if they email you, you can wait until later if you want.  In theory, computers should give us the option of sitting back and thinking, rather than making us rush even more.

I guess it might have to do with the sheer volume of information available: it's simply impossible to keep up to date with all the information constantly flooding the web, but our brains, accustomed to a smaller world, try to anyway.  It's true, we could wait and think, but then we feel like we're missing things.

I also like that you pointed out that the important thing is not giving up the internet entirely, but rather knowing when digital tools like computers and smart phones are helpful, and when analog tools like pencil and paper are actually more productive.  I strongly believe that it doesn't have to be one or the other, that the two skill sets can coexist.

Media Technology and the affects on the brain

I’m going to talk about Media Tech…after I watch this video on YouTube. Where was I? Technology is…I’ll get back to this right after I check my Facebook. Maybe someone sent me a message. I’ll get back to this after I dance to caramelldansen.

Media technology has come a long way from book to radio to film with traditional mass media. But there’s a whole new dimension with the new mass media of the Internet. The Internet is a world of viral videos, picking up people like tornadoes, constant connections, and the 010001101010101 that makes up everything.

The issue is that people nowadays are getting too much constant stimulation from funny cat videos, are interrupted by instant messaging even when there is a life human right in front of them, and the Internet makes it tempting to multi-task because just about everything is available. Someone might have a thought to look up a word or phrase on Google and then get lost in their screen for half an hour, clicking into a dozen new windows and procrastinating on their essay that’s due tomorrow.

           It’s as if they were curious about this sign in the woods that said, “Don’t go this way.” The other one said, “This way home,” but they ignored that one. It’s similar to the choice of “Don’t click on this” and “Finish your essay.” The difference is that it’s only a click away.

 In the article, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, Nicholas Carr talks about how people’s minds have been changing from using the Internet and that it makes it more difficult to focus on reading a block of text. His concentration would drift, and before, he used to be an avid reader.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/ -Here is a link to the article

When online, someone’s tendency is to scan or look for pictures. Often times, people need more stimulation to be interested, not only in reading, but watching things too. If something doesn’t grab someone’s attention, they can easily move on and click on the next thing. Even if something is interesting to the person, they may save it for later, but never get to it.

People aren’t any less capable than others of the past, without the new mass media, but it’s that the human brain is working differently. In a study that Dr. Gary Small did, he found that more areas in the brain were lit up when online. This was because people had to make more decisions and were thinking about more things. There is less activity while reading a book, but it also allows the brain to focus and have time to think more deeply.

 http://www.pbs.org/lifepart2/exclusives/dr-gary-small-what-happens-brains-online -Here is a short video with Dr. Gary Small

This new media technology isn’t a bad thing, but there needs to be a balance between connectivity and solitude. The technology is there and it’s an amazing advancement of interaction. But a being should also have the privilege to take a break from it; to slow down time enough to hear the clock tick like a heartbeat.

One of the first changes in writing was hypertext. People could click on links and decide where they wanted to go in the story. This was the first time readers were really able to interact with text. Overall, the Internet is great for being able to interact with people and share stories. Unfortunately, there are flaws with it the moment one turns their computer on, like feeling the need to check emails the instant they pop up.

Sometimes one can be more productive by printing out a paper and reading it or writing a paper in pencil first, before typing it in Microsoft word. A person doesn’t have to be always disconnected, but sometimes it’s nice to have a moment to think and not be too busy to think.

[alex-soc373]

A video I thought the class might find amusing.

[alex-soc373]

Above is the first video uploaded to the Vlogbrothers You-Tube account.  It outlines the basics of the Brotherhood 2.0 project, which is a good example of how the Internet differs from previous forms of media.

Some forms of media, such as handwritten letters, telephone calls, or emails, are one-to-one forms of communication.  Two people are talking to each other, and they typically know who the person is, and they both play a roughly equal part in the conversation.

Other forms of media, such as radio, television, and published books, are one-to-many.  One person (or a specific group of people) produces the book or show, and it is broadcast to a much larger audience, who is typically anonymous and has no direct way of responding to the media presented.

The Internet is different, in that it allows for many-to-many communication.  Through forums, blogs, and social networking sites, the Internet allows people to interact with their peers on a very large scale.

In the Brotherhood 2.0 project, two brothers, Hank and John Green, who lived in different cities, decided that for a year, they wouldn’t use text to communicate with each other.  Instead, they would communicate through videos, taking turns sending a video every weekday.  This could have been a one-to-one communication, if they’d used email or some other means to send the videos, but instead they posted their vlogs to Youtube, where anyone could watch them.

On the surface, this may seem like a one-to-many communication: the brothers post the videos, and unknown, anonymous viewers watch them.  However, that’s not the way it turned out.  Through comments, video responses, and eventually a forum, a virtual community arose around the Vlogbrothers.  This community has a name, the Nerdfighters, and their own catchphrase and in-jokes (there’s a reason why the forum is called “My Pants”).  They participate in “secret projects” together, such as the happy dance compilation video and the Project for Awesome, which raises awareness and money for various charities.

Virtual communities like the Nerdfighters are interesting, because they aren’t connected geographically.  In fact, this ability for distance communication is why the brothers came up with the project in the first place – they lived in different cities and weren’t able to see each other face-to-face very frequently.  The Nerdfighter community is spread out all over the world, and although there have been jokes of building “Nerdfighteria Island,” that geographical distance actually has some advantages.  For example, there was an ongoing Nerdfighter scavenger hunt, in which clues were hidden all over the world, and Nerdfighters from different countries worked together to find the clues, then bring them back to the forum in virtual space to solve the puzzles that would tell them where the next one was hidden.

In the final video of the Brotherhood 2.0 project, the brothers say “it’s been about more than us all along.”

They are still posting videos, although not every day, and they are allowed to communicate through text now.  Although the videos still begin as though they were one-to-one communication, with either “Good morning, Hank,” or “Good morning, John,” they are also speaking to the Nerdfighter community, the channel’s 1.5 million subscribers, the people who participate in the secret projects, the people who respond to their videos and create their own videos.

It's thanks to the Internet, and the many-to-many communication it allows, that the Nerdfighter community, and those like it, were able to develop.

[alex-soc373]

A video game designer talks about how a game helped her beat depression and improved her life, and how it can help other people, too.  I thought the class might be interested.

[alex-soc373]

(Warning, this turned into a huge ramble.  Sorry!  I just have a lot of thoughts about unusual sources of learning.)

I would say that some aspects of games require unlikable tasks in order to accomplish goals - for example, I don't think many gamers actually enjoy level grinding.  (For those less familiar with gaming culture, "level grinding" refers to beating many, many easily defeated opponents, quite possibly hundreds of them, in order to level up the player character.  It is a highly repetitive and dull process, but gamers do it because of the future benefit.)

As far as "thinking outside the box," while it's true that the computer's limitations do make that difficult, some games certainly give it a good try, like Portal and Portal 2, or Scriblenauts (an adorable game that lets you use almost anything you can think of - from an armadillo to Santa's sleigh - to solve a puzzle).  And if you step away from video games specifically, Dungeons & Dragons and other tabletop games have huge potential for creativity and group problem solving - both skills crucial to many jobs.

It's true that most games don't require physical effort, but then again, our society is at a point where neither do many jobs.

I know I benefited from playing Neopets as a child.  I learned a lot about saving my money, and not jumping for deals that sound good without doing my research first.Taking it all too literally would have been bad (having a bunch of paint brushes, sadly, does not make one rich in the real world) but I think most kids are clever enough to figure that out.  Neopets is also where I started learning how to code websites - a skill that lead me to the degree program I'm in today.

Many gamers mod the games they play, or otherwise learn how to code though video games, and that ability is only going to become more valuable in the modern world.  And some people really do make money off the games they play, by selling special items to other players or exchanging in-game currency for real money.  Some even make enough to live off of.

I would argue that video games are, at worst, a recreational activity like any other, and at best, a real opportunity to learn and expand one's abilities.  Of course it would be detrimental to spend all of one's time playing video games and not getting an education, a job, etc., but the same would be true of spending all one's time watching television, or even reading.

Throughout the news and other media, there seems to be much emphasis on what is wrong with video games, what problems it is bringing to society, or what problems it reflects in our society. However, the flipside of this argument is interesting because video games do, in fact, have their fair…

[alex-soc373]

Parker's and my video about the representation of various minority groups in video games, and how game mods, indie games, and customizable characters can aid in fighting the pattern of under-representation.

[alex-soc373]

Interesting!  I hadn't known that - I'll definitely see if I can track down that unaired pilot.  I think it's interesting, though, that one of the things they had to do to get the show accepted was to remove the nerd girl.

Thanks for the extra info!

As explored in the book Media/Society, representations of race and gender in the media both affect and are affected by the ideology of the society.  I have chosen to focus specifically on geek culture, and the portrayal of women related to it.  In general, the media portrays geeks as being disproportionately male, and I think this has had negative consequences for geek culture as a whole, and especially for women who are part of that culture.

Take, for example, the TV show Big Bang Theory.  The show focuses on four men, all geeks, and a girl named Penny who moved in across the hall from two of them.  Penny is decidedly not a geek, and much of the show’s plot is derived from the culture clash between Penny and the guys.  For the first two seasons, Penny was the only female main character.  In season three, two new female characters were introduced, named Bernadette and Amy.  However, both were introduced first as love interests, and although both are scientists, neither is interested in science fiction and comic books, like the guys are.

So why the unbalanced representation of geek culture?  According to the book Media/Society, this could be interpreted in various ways.  Are the writers and producers mostly male?  A glance at the cast and crew list on IMDb reveals that yes, they are: all five directors are men, and there are 18 male writers, as opposed to 5 women.  Additionally, all three of the writers credited with over 100 episodes are male, and only one woman has been credited with more than 10 episodes of the show.  This is probably a factor in the uneven representation of the show, but it could also be more complicated.  There is also the perspective that content reflects audience preference.  It could be that the directors have decided that their target audience wants to see geek culture as largely or exclusively male, and have portrayed it in such a way to attract that audience.  Finding out whether this is true would require researching the audience, surveying them and getting their opinions.

I’m sure some would argue that geek culture is portrayed as primarily male because it really is that way, and media is only reflecting the reality.  There’s a problem with that, however: the gender ratio in real life is a lot more even than you might expect.  For example, San Diego Comic-Con is a huge comic book convention, with attendance reaching above 100,000 people.  It is a hugely significant event in geek culture – and I found two separate sources stating that 40% of the attendees were women.  According to the Entertainment Software Association, 45% of gamers are female.

So women are a part of geek culture – a pretty significant part, if those numbers are to be believed!  Unfortunately, women face a lot of ridicule from within geek culture, often being questioned to “prove” their knowledge of a comic, game, or movie they’re a fan of, or being met with disbelief and elitism.  The issue was particularly brought to life when comic book artist Tony Harris wrote a Facebook post accusing women at comic conventions of being “fake geek girls.”  He said that they weren’t “true fans,” and were only attending cons and dressing up as characters in order to draw the attention and take advantage of the male attendees.  For a critique and dramatic reading of the post, click here.

I worry that the inaccurate gender ratio portrayed in shows like the Big Bang Theory may be partially responsible for the negativity female geeks face.  The more media shows a picture of geek culture that is almost exclusively male, the more people accept that picture as “common sense.”  As explained in Media/Society, this hegemony can lead to the idea going unquestioned, as most people just accept it as normal and move on.  However, the book also states that this isn’t permanent, and as more people question the supposed “common sense,” it becomes less stable.  My hope is that the outcry over Tony Harris’s post will help move society in that direction, so that in the future geek women can have equal representation in media, and can attend a convention without fear of being called “fake” of having their “geek cred” called into question.

[alex-soc373]

As explored in the book Media/Society, representations of race and gender in the media both affect and are affected by the ideology of the society.  I have chosen to focus specifically on geek culture, and the portrayal of women related to it.  In general, the media portrays geeks as being disproportionately male, and I think this has had negative consequences for geek culture as a whole, and especially for women who are part of that culture.

Take, for example, the TV show Big Bang Theory.  The show focuses on four men, all geeks, and a girl named Penny who moved in across the hall from two of them.  Penny is decidedly not a geek, and much of the show’s plot is derived from the culture clash between Penny and the guys.  For the first two seasons, Penny was the only female main character.  In season three, two new female characters were introduced, named Bernadette and Amy.  However, both were introduced first as love interests, and although both are scientists, neither is interested in science fiction and comic books, like the guys are.

So why the unbalanced representation of geek culture?  According to the book Media/Society, this could be interpreted in various ways.  Are the writers and producers mostly male?  A glance at the cast and crew list on IMDb reveals that yes, they are: all five directors are men, and there are 18 male writers, as opposed to 5 women.  Additionally, all three of the writers credited with over 100 episodes are male, and only one woman has been credited with more than 10 episodes of the show.  This is probably a factor in the uneven representation of the show, but it could also be more complicated.  There is also the perspective that content reflects audience preference.  It could be that the directors have decided that their target audience wants to see geek culture as largely or exclusively male, and have portrayed it in such a way to attract that audience.  Finding out whether this is true would require researching the audience, surveying them and getting their opinions.

I’m sure some would argue that geek culture is portrayed as primarily male because it really is that way, and media is only reflecting the reality.  There’s a problem with that, however: the gender ratio in real life is a lot more even than you might expect.  For example, San Diego Comic-Con is a huge comic book convention, with attendance reaching above 100,000 people.  It is a hugely significant event in geek culture – and I found two separate sources stating that 40% of the attendees were women.  According to the Entertainment Software Association, 45% of gamers are female.

So women are a part of geek culture – a pretty significant part, if those numbers are to be believed!  Unfortunately, women face a lot of ridicule from within geek culture, often being questioned to “prove” their knowledge of a comic, game, or movie they’re a fan of, or being met with disbelief and elitism.  The issue was particularly brought to life when comic book artist Tony Harris wrote a Facebook post accusing women at comic conventions of being “fake geek girls.”  He said that they weren’t “true fans,” and were only attending cons and dressing up as characters in order to draw the attention and take advantage of the male attendees.  For a critique and dramatic reading of the post, click here.

I worry that the inaccurate gender ratio portrayed in shows like the Big Bang Theory may be partially responsible for the negativity female geeks face.  The more media shows a picture of geek culture that is almost exclusively male, the more people accept that picture as “common sense.”  As explained in Media/Society, this hegemony can lead to the idea going unquestioned, as most people just accept it as normal and move on.  However, the book also states that this isn’t permanent, and as more people question the supposed “common sense,” it becomes less stable.  My hope is that the outcry over Tony Harris’s post will help move society in that direction, so that in the future geek women can have equal representation in media, and can attend a convention without fear of being called “fake” of having their “geek cred” called into question.

[alex-soc373]

I think it's a really good point that we often don't know where news stories are coming from.  Most of those who grew up with the internet know to check sources for information found on the web, know that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, etc., but many people tend to take what they see on the news a little bit for granted.  In reality, it's always important to check the source, and to consider who benefits from having the information presented in a particular way, regardless of where you heard the information.

Political Influence on Media

Governments and media have had a troubled relationship since the inception of ‘news’ and even worse after the advent of mass media. Sometimes it goes well, and sometimes things go horribly wrong. In this article from the New York Times written by David Barstow and Robin Stein, readers get an in-depth coverage of mass media being exploited by the government under the Bush administration.

Karen Ryan, fake reporter.

Although the reference is somewhat dated if it happened once it could happen again, and it would behoove us to learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration. For instance, as the name of the article suggests, the Bush administration gave popular news stations segments of video that invariably displayed the government in a positive light. Karen Ryan was billed as a reporter, while really being on the payroll of the government, and because of the deception it allowed her to distribute their messages from an implied, non-biased source. In at least two cases this supposedly happened without the authorities in control of the stations’ knowledge, such as with the station KGTV (an ABC affiliate in San Diego) where the director, Mike Stutz, opposed government videos citing that “it amounts to propaganda, doesn’t it?” (Barstow 5). Still his station played “at least 1 segment by Karen Ryan, 5 others featuring her work on behalf of corporations, and 19 produced by corporations and other outside organizations” (Barstow 5) Viewers were not told of the origins of the videos. Without that context, it could easily have come across as a local piece. Despite the Department of Health and Human Services placing blame on the news stations for not attributing the segments, the Government Accountability Office has determined differently, pronouncing that “federal agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports ‘that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials’” (Barstow 1).

While Karen Ryan is clearly a duplicitous example, something similar but more ambiguous is the case of the Army and Air Force Hometown News Service. This unit of 40 reporters “send local stations news segments highlighting the accomplishments of military members” supposedly separate from political agendas, but also are scrupulous to avoid military titles (Barstow 8). For the most part even, they might follow through with this mission statement. However, even that is tainted by the follow up of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. This unit released a video shortly after which covered the training of the prison guards at Fort Leonard Wood - where many of the implicated guards were trained – highlighting that the school emphasizes to “treat others as [the guards] would want to be treated” (Barstow 8). Even if the video is innocent, its release so close to the scandal makes it impossible to think that there wasn’t some kind of connection.

  Works Cited:

Barstow, David and Robin Stein. “Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News.” The New York Times.  13 March 2005. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/ politics/13covert.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0>