With the invention of the internet came an infinite number of possibilities for just about any media outlet. The internet also permitted the restructuring of itself in order to better meet people's needs and encourage participation. The article that I feel describes this the best would be "The Long Tail" by Chris Anderson. Within the first page and a half of the article, Anderson discusses how the internet helped to encourage buyers to buy a book that had nearly been forgotten just because it was of the same genre of a new, popular book. Because of software created specifically by internet users, these types of associations are possible, and even something as traditional as bookselling has been transformed by its audience to work, simply, better.
This topic relates to many different "old media." Lets use the book first. When books first came out, they required people to read them to absorb the information. Once the digital age hit, people could go online or onto their ipod, see the words to the book, and also listen to a narration. This would never have been possible if it were not for the digital age, and the only reason this change was able to come about in the first place was because the users demanded it. Radio will be the next medium that I explain, and this medium is fairly easy to understand. To explain radio, I will use the rapidly growing example of Pandora. Pandora takes the idea of radio and is actually BASED upon the users contributing to it and helping to transform the medium in their own image. For example, I transformed the generic Pandora stations into very complex radio stations with a very specific music styling. This would never have been possible would it not have been for the digital age. The last example that I will use is the example of television and film. With the digital age came the creation of YouTube, the online video giant. This website, like Pandora, was based upon its users. Users could now use their video-editing software to put together videos, and then use the digitally based YouTube to share them with the world. This absolutely changed the way we as people looked at video and opened up a huge number of new horizons.
As far as traditional theory goes, McLuhan's theory of Technological Determinism and the theory of "hot" and "cold" mediums also applies. According to the theory of Technological Determinism, technology determines the social change. In this case, the digital technology led to a change that permitted and encouraged the participation in these newly created digital mediums. The "hot" and "cold" medium theories apply when looking at the transformation of the media themselves. Prior to the digital age, it would be fair to say that most media were considered "cold" such as film and television, as they did not permit much participation by their audiences. However, with the introduction of digital media, each of these mediums has been changed to be "hot" mediums, as they encourage and even rely on participation to prosper, grow, and succeed.
Media Affected: Newspaper - Online Newspaper Video/TV - Youtube Video Games - Modding Radio - Pandora Journals - Blogs/Facebook
This blog post will be devoted to discussing the idea of privacy in "the age of Google" First, before going into detail about anything, I feel that I should define the term "privacy". According to Wikipedia, privacy is "the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively". The article that I feel addresses this theme the best is the cloud computing article. Within this article, Carr specifically addresses the safety of general information online and he makes two good points. The first point is that if we want privacy we wouldn't put all of our personal information online. This is a good point, as many of us put all of our information on Facebook and just believe that it will be magically guarded from people whose mission is to do harm. As the interview mentions, we want better results and we know that by putting our information online, we will get it. The second point is that
Privacy has always been an issue throughout history. With every new medium comes new issues in privacy. A good example of one of the first mediums that privacy could be violated with would be the book. Many people keep diaries and would those diaries be read by the wrong people, the information could be used in a malicious way. The same could be for television and audio. Using audio, people were able to record sound clips and in many cases, this sound clips, if listened to by the wrong people could violate privacy. I remember one particular instance in which one of my fellow students in the seventh grade brought an audio recorder to class and recorded the lecture. During the lecture, however, my teacher yelled at a student and when he found out that he was being recorded he absolutely flipped and started ranting about his privacy. The same thing can happen with recorded video. Videos can have sensitive information on them and in the wrong hands, a person's privacy can be violated. I guess that what I'm trying to get at is that with every medium there has been the issue of privacy. The only difference is that now, it is easier to access than in the past. There is no longer any need for the physical book, audio recording, or video anymore. Almost every aspect of a person's life is laid out online for everyone to see.
As far as theories go, there really isn't a theory that describes this theme perfectly. However, I do believe that the theory of Social Space by Meyrowitz can apply in a particular context. This theory argues that the medium determines how people react in certain social situations. In the case of privacy, I can argue that the medium determines how people react as well. When there were less advanced mediums, the physical place often had an effect on how people reacted to the distribution of their sensitive information. The example of that could be the one of my teacher flipping out. His privacy was being violated right before his eyes and he was able to react to it. However, in this "age of google", it is harder and harder to detect when our privacy is being violated. Because of the elimination of physical privacy barriers, in this age, it is especially important that we safeguard our information.
The internet most definitely is a compilation of many different types of old media that were absorbed, adapted, and changed. For example, in the cloud computing podcast, the host, Brooke Gladstone, brings up a great example of one type of old media that was absorbed. She provides the example of video and how it has been adapted to be downloadable online. Not so long ago, video was something physical that could be held and played in only video-playing devices and after its absorption by the net, it has become something that is widely shared and distributed with ease. Another article, "The Rise and Fall of Media", touches upon the subject of the digitalizing of the newspaper. This has also been something that the net has adapted, and now online newspapers are developing a very large amount of regular users. The major change in the adaptation of newspaper is that the user is able to choose the news that they read and filter out stories that they will not read.
As far as old media go, most types of old media have been adapted in some form or another to be compatible with the internet. Books have evolved into the e-book and some libraries are even offering people the chance to read books online. The C.W. Post library, for example, allows students and members the ability to read certain titles online from any computer. Radio is another medium that was absorbed by the internet. The creation of Pandora and other online radio websites now permit users to use their computers to listen to the radio and also to alter the content itself. This ability to control content was an idea that originated with the internet. Even television, a more recent medium, was absorbed into the internet giant. Websites like Hulu allow television show streaming and permit users to access their favorite shows at the click of a button. My opinion of all this is that the internet is a gateway to every other medium and that it is extremely convenient. Rather than having to rely on a television, radio, or book for content, I can simply rely on the internet.
The theory that most closely fits this theme would be Marshall McLuhan's theory that the content of each new medium is the old medium. In the case of the internet, this is most definitely true. Most features that the internet offers are taken from other mediums, and the content does not change. Whether it be internet radio, internet television viewing, or internet e-books, the same information is present, but it has been adapted to be compatible with the internet. The other theory I can use to describe this new trend is Winston's theory regarding the accelerators and brakes of new media. In the case of the internet, there were many accelerators such as easy of access, low cost and high availability, and high popularity and demand. The brakes for the internet are much fewer and less severe and have not halted the internets growth and adaptation of more mediums that much or even at all.
This theme is exemplified perfectly by the "Is Google Making us Stupid" article by Nicholas Carr. In the article, Carr argues that these search engines and the instantaneous availability of information has changed the way that we as humans think. Instead of having to read intensely to understand something, we can just quickly reference the internet and get a simplified version of whatever we were looking for. Personally, I find that this is a very useful quality, but at the same time, we as people are becoming much stupider than we should be. As we discussed in class, many people are not even capable of reading the New York Times, which is only at an eighth grade reading level. This pitiful fact can be attributed to the fact that we have instant access to any information at pretty much any time we need it through our phones, computers, PDA's, and more recently, our on-board car computers. These devices generally provide short snippets of information which give people general understandings and decrease the necessity for people to have to "deep read" to get information.
Media has greatly influenced the way that people have done thing throughout the years. For instance, the creation of the book changed the way in which data was recorded and it eliminated the need for people to remember large amounts of information and pass it on through word of mouth. It also created a need for people to be able to read. Therefore, the invention of the book as a medium allowed humans to "offload" information from their mind to the written page. This has been the case with just about every type of medium and the only difference throughout the years has been the medium itself. Perhaps the best example of this could be taken from the Simpson's episode that we watched in class. After the students get a new "tech savvy" teacher, he basically tells them that studying is a thing of the past because anybody can just search for the answers on their phones and blackberries. This cartoon was absolutely right and brought the issue to light, jokingly of course.
As far as traditional theories go, Marshall McLuhan's theory that mediums shape the content and the message definitely applies. Also, the argument that the content of a new medium is the old medium also applies. Allow me to explain: As I mentioned before, each new medium that has come out has permitted us to offload information to an easily accessible place. However, the type of information that each medium permits us to offload does not actually change. With each new medium, we are offloading the same information, we're just doing it in a different way. Let me compare the book to the internet. Books allowed us to store our information, so that we could reference it at any time without having to have it memorized. The same can be said for the internet and search engines. The only difference is the method. In the case of the book, the information is printed or written within the book and is only accessible with the book in the person's possession. The internet, on the other hand, allows access to the information from any device or place with internet access. Therefore, although different media have been invented, each has only recorded the same information as the previous, but in a different way.
Although most mediums were created as a ways to relay information better, they almost always stray from this path down the path of commercialism. Most new media are manipulated to make money in our day and age. The worst part is that as humans in our current time period, we do not even realize that this is happening. In layman's terms, my argument here is that there most definitely was a change in media from the intended use of communication to the new use of making money and that that change is no longer noticeable by the average consumer. This is demonstrated in one of the arguments of Nicholas Carr in the "Is Google Making Us Stupid" article. In the article, Carr refers to the fact that media changes the way that we as humans think. Our thought processes become altered to include the medium in them. In this respect, I believe that the constant bombardment of advertising through media has in essence made humans immune to the point that they do not even realize that they are being sold something.
Each time a new medium has been created, the first use was not advertising. Lets take radio as an example. When radio was first created, it's purpose was to entertain. However, as time went on and the popularity of radio grew, large corporations began to purchase these radio stations and use them to advertise and ultimately create a profit. What started out as a innocent utopian idea evolved slowly but surely into a capitalizing monster. The exact same situation occurred with television and with television, it was even worse. Once television became popular, advertising moved in just as it did with radio. However, instead of limiting advertising to commercials between programs, television took it to the next level. Product placement in regular programming became standard and before long, people didn't even realize that they were being sold to while they were enjoying themselves. The perfect example of this would be "The Price is Right" show that we touched on in class. The show was basically devoted to teaching people about different products and how to buy them. This ties into the argument of Carr in the Google article that over time, media shapes the way we think. In this case, it eliminated our ability to sense when we are advertised to.
As far as traditional media theories go, the Economic or Capitalist Ideology theories explain this phenomenon perfectly. These theories basically argue that media is driven by the capability to make a profit. In essence, how media work and what they present is based solely on monetizing. This is a pretty straightforward theory and it's also pretty short. It's just a pity that these great advances in technology are all based upon advertising and making a profit. It's hard to go anywhere nowadays without seeing an advertisement for something, and the worst part is that we do not even notice it anymore. It's just too bad...but it's a part of life.
I'm not sure whether or not you all know this, but I am not a big fan of horror movies. I watched a bunch of scary movies as a younger child with my father and I couldn't sleep for some reason. Every time I would close my eyes, I would see the movie, wake up sweaty, fall back asleep, and wake up again and again in my own sweat. The ordeal would be over when the morning sun finally rose.
For the sake of this project, I am going to talk about 2 of my most memorable experiences with films in the horror family. This is going to sound weird, but both of these movies are referenced within the Clover reading that we were assigned. The two movies that I will be discussing are "Alien" and "Psycho".
I will begin with "Psycho" because it is a very classic movie and I remember the circumstances behind me watching it much better than "Alien". First of all, when I watched this movie, I was about 8 or 9. My father said that we should watch the movie, and my brother and I agreed because it sounded like a good idea. We watched the movie in the evening in my father's basement apartment in Ronkonkoma. My brother and I were both in our pajamas and we were laying on the fold-out couch in the living room. My father was sitting in his armchair (like always), and he began the movie.
For those of you who have not seen "Psycho", the movie basically begins with a distressed employee stealing money and fleeing town. She drives a while, spends a night in the car, draws attention from a police officer, and decides eventually to stay at the Bates Motel. While there, everything is fine, and the girl (Marion), decides to take a shower. While in the shower, a female figure, presumed to be Mrs. Bates, the mother of the hotel clerk, comes into the shower and stabs Marion to death. Norman, the hotel clerk, later comes in and is horrified when he finds the bloody mess. He then dumps her body in her car and dumps the car into a nearby lake.
After more filling details and another killing, two other characters decide to investigate and stay in the motel. While there, they find evidence of Marion and the male (Sam) decides to confront Norman alone. When confronting him, Norman knocks him out with a golf club. In the meantime, Lila (the other character) decides to sneak into the house while Norman is distracted. She hides in the cellar and discovers, completely by accident, the mummified body of Norman's mother. At this point, Norman rushes in dressed like his mother and is suppressed by Sam, who was no longer unconscious.
At the end of the film, the viewer realizes that it was Norman who was both himself and his mother. He had a dual personality which included both himself and his mother and he was permitting her to live even though she was dead.
Now, I reacted to one part of this film in particular. The part that really scared the crap out of me was when Lila turned around the armchair with the mummified body and saw the dead mother. I don't know why, but this part absolutely shocked me at the same time as scaring me. That night, when I went to sleep, all I could picture was that dead face and that mummified body just staring at me from the armchair. The fact that there was stabbing and killing didn't bother me in the slightest. It was the fact that there was the mummified mother that really bothered me. This is the part that I can't explain, but this movie really left an imprint in my brain and after that, I didn't watch any horror movies for a LONG time!
As far as Psycho goes, I would say that I agree with the Clover piece. Psycho really did set the stage for slasher films of the future. The fact that Norman used a knife to murder Marion in the shower, and the fact that there was a lot of blood in the movie really changed the way that those types of movies were made. Also, Clover's arguments that the killer usually has sexual issues would prove true because the killer (Norman) was both a man and a woman. He didn't have a sexual identity and whenever he did develop feelings for a woman, as he did with Marion, his other personality (his mother) ordered him to kill her. In essence, he was incapable of having sexual relations with women because of his alter-ego.
The aspects of the Clover piece describing the "Final Girl" don't necessarily apply, unless you count the part of the movie where Lila is about to be stabbed by Norman in the end. However, I don't think that this concept applies because of the fact that she is saved by Sam. While the "Final Girl" might not necessarily apply, the idea of a terrible place is definitely present. Whether it be the dirty motel bathroom where Marion is murdered, or the creepy basement where the mummified mother is discovered, this movie is full of places that would make your skin crawl.
The second movie that I would like to discuss is the movie "Alien". I don't really remember much about this movie, but I do remember several ways in which I reacted to it. I am not going to go into the plot, but I will make some references.
Watching this movie was, again, my father's idea, and my brother and I watched it in the same place that we watched Psycho. This movie was quite different than movies I had watched before. It was much more gory than other movies and had a lot of death. In fact, every single character died except Ripley.
I reacted to this movie quite negatively I'm afraid. First of all, the thought of an alien attacking me wasn't very pleasant and my dreams didn't seem to think so either. Secondly, I was afraid that if I sat down at my table and ate, I would have an alien burst out of my stomach. I was deathly afraid of this and the night I watched "Alien" I couldn't even eat my steak because it reminded me of the alien. I look back on these moments now and laugh, but back then my fears were legit.
This film, unlike Psycho, applies the "Final Girl" principle of the Clover piece. Ripley, one of the only females in the movie, is the last to survive, and as the Clover reading suggests, she is a very masculine character. She is not a true female and she fits the description of the "final girl" described in the reading. She also has a great struggle with the alien before she finally is able to eject him from the ship using a forklift.
The other part of this movie that applies to the Clover reading was the way in which the characters of the film were killed. As suggested in the reading, each of the male characters were killed quite quickly and in most of the camera shots, the creature was not even showed, but instead a muffled scream was heard. However, Ripley's ending battle with the creature was very intense and it was really the focus of the movie. The ejection of the alien of the end was a victory for the "final girl".
On Wednesdays I have class in the morning until 12:30...I didn't trust myself to publish all of these posts and fix all of the pictures and stuff so I posted a few hours early. Sorry again, but I don't think it should be that much of a problem. I just don't want to miss the deadline!
