"Always On" and my opinion...

In her final paragraph, Baron puts forth a lot of the suggested social concerns we should have about the impact of technology on our lives. Her last line states, "Such choices give us ultimate control over language in an online and mobile world." I completely agree with this statement and understand technology as a tool for life rather than a hindrance to living.

I never understood how much of a negative reputation technology had for some people until I read this book. For all these years I've felt in control of technology. I do admit to feeling naked when my cell phone isn't on my person or "dead to the world" if my battery has died but that is just because I value its use as a connection to others in my immediate world. Technology connects me to people. I feel that my networks have expanded and have maintained because of the advancements of technology. The phone only connects me, once I am connected I use good old fashioned human interaction skills to strengthen bonds and reaffirm relationships.

There was a sense of utter shock that the issue of talking to my parents so often in college could actually be called an "issue." Maybe in the old days coming home and telling stories brought people together but I feel keeping my family so update makes them even closer. They live with me, I have not left behind everything, and I am able to share what I want, when I want. There is still plenty to talk about once at home and there has never been a moment where we sat in awkward silence wishing I had held back the story of my first snow, or the phone call about the great paper I wrote, or my first football game. Being so far from home, I thank God for new technology because it aids my homesickness and allows me to stay informed when important things happen. I don't think anyone in my family misses the old days of waiting four months to talk and update ourselves on life. And I personally don't know that many people who send home regular updates regarding weekly happenings and accompanying photos via email.

Concerning facebook and its world domination, I understand that it forms meaningless connections with people (I'm not going to say friendships). I use it for entertainment, to pass time, and to stay in touch with people I don't see and probably won't be seeing for a very long time, if ever again. It has some function but is not primarily seen by the college majority as a serious friendship/dating place for all social interaction. It's really not that serious and it seems this book made it so much more serious than we take it, or at least how I take it.

We do control how much we want to be connected. Some people use Internet and cell phones because that's what they need and others don't because that's good for them as well. At the end of the day, we still interact with people as much as before and we use our technology to do so. We share YouTube videos, we compare cell phones, and we have a reason to ask for a number (so we can text them about meeting up sometime) and all this keeps us in control of technology. Who knows what the future has in store but I know that being connected isn't always a bad thing. Like she said, anything in life used in moderation is good for you. There are those who don't know how to control themselves that develop unhealthy lifestyles.

Project Topic>>>Emoticons and IM Status

Emoticons and IM Status: Fashionable, Functional or Just Fun?

With Instant Messaging, Myspace, and Facebook having features that encourage the use of emoticons and status, I am interested in finding out why most people use them. To be clear, the status is an area where one can leave their current whereabouts for condition for others to read. So, are they merely for fashion (i.e. is it cool to do it?), is it functional to really express your current state, or is it just for fun? I also am interested in finding out if there is a variance between genders in how often one changes their status or what kind of status one uses. This can also go for the use of emoticons between genders.

To include an enthrographic component I would study the status of my friends on facebook, myspace, and Insant messenger to see what they write and how functional/fun/fashionable they may be. I also might interview a few people and ask them about their use of emoticons and status on these various social networking devices. Texting may also be included in emoticon usage. When I say functional I mean that they are using it to seriously convey their current emotional or physical state. Fun would be including videos or random things like jokes. Fashionable might be anything that is used often, like cliché quotes or things that seem done along with a majority.

The status option and use of emoticons definitely fits into our class because it shows the expression of emotion and physical state in a disconnected way. This is one method of communicating personality with, what I feel is interaction, that is not physical. Why would people want other people to know what they were doing, thinking, or feeling? Is it our way of connecting further to others via online social networks?

Gender Issues and IM ---Naomi Baron
http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/4/397


Kinetic Typography-based Instant Messaging---Bodine and Pignol
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=765891.766067&type=series

Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks---Acquisti and Gross

http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf

Political Satire

With the elections right around the corner, political satire has become common in various media outlets including newspapers, magazines, and television shows like "Saturday Night Live". As we read about political and persuasive speech, I think that the recent popularity of such satire is very much political persuasive speech because it defends or makes fun of one side of the election. As we see on SNL skits about Sarah Palin, the intention is to make her look ridiculous to the United States. As a mode of persuasive speech we can infer that they are attempting to slander her character and persuade people that she really is unfit for the job. On the same note, these media outlets are really showing their political choices by not equally spoofing both parties but rather just one. This to me makes an more powerful persuasive statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdDqSvJ6aHc

The reading I found regarding politics and comedy looks closer into the life of Al Franken, a comedian turn politician, and the relationship of politics and comedy. This article dissects the effects of comedy on politics and questions the role each plays. Is it okay for politicians to be funny? Is there a line that must be drawn. Is comedy a type of persuasive speech? We can think about these things as we examine what the article has to say.

http://g.ggimg.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/itx/itx_2_1_0_119/images/Gale_logo_top.gif

The Fallout: New Zealand Style

So I decided I would check out an article from a New Zealand newspaper to apply Fairclough's elements of media studies. Relative to the United States, I discovered that New Zealand is also going through an election season and the topic of the recent wallstreet woes is of great importance. I chose this article because it writes about a topic we Americans face in the newspapers daily, not to mention read about everywhere on the internet. I don't think many Americans realize how much it is influencing the rest of the world, and that is exactly why I wanted to read about their perspective.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4719479a28479.html

This article definitely is written as a form of information for the public sphere (of New Zealand I guess, to be more specific). When analyzing the representation I noticed that the article included lots of talk about the two parties and their political actions on this situation in relation to the election and subsequently the people of New Zealand. This included lots of talk about tax cuts (the main point of the article), the fall of the dollar, and the many other negative consequences that New Zealand is suffering. What I noticed was excluded was the fallout itself, who is affected and how, and maybe their opinion of what caused it. These things are usually mentioned in the American reports of anything mentioning Wall street and stocks these days.

I'm not sure if I'm using presupposition accurately but I find that this article assumes that the economy is done for and it scared me. I think its the way the author suggests the downfall of their entire economy and offers up solutions or situations that seem so final and pessimistic. The vocabulary used adds to this effect by painting such a dark mood. Using words like "grim", "knife", "carnage", "stunned", "diving", "bare", "crisis", and "one light on the horizon".

The event in this article is the definitely the fallout and the resulting tax cut solutions while the action in this event surrounds the government and the political parties. The author nominalizes both the National and Labour parties and in many instances provides active duties for them such as "National reins in tax cuts" or " National has taken a knife...". There are many other examples within the article.

Through the article the author tends to use more formulation style writing when mentioning specific people's opinions. Rather than quote them, he always does a he says/she says style of reporting opinion that shows he is not directly quoting and probably choosing how and what he wants them to say to accommodate the article's purpose. If you see toward the end he mentions a Mr. Key and a Miss Clark but offers no direct quotes.

I also wanted to note that I found it incredibly interesting that they only mention the United States once and that is when they mentioned the price of oil in terms of the US dollar. I didn't realize how hard other countries were taking hits in regards to this financial crisis.

Media and Politics: Fairclough

I like how this reading begins with the goals of the book. I was immediately drawn in with thier examples of how the proper analysis of media reveals great things about how we are persuaded to think cerains ways. The reference to 'foregrounding' and 'backgrounding' allowed me to see certain media situations from a different perspective. Word choice, imaging, and setting all set the tone for what the media wants you to believe and how they would like you to follow the story they are writing.


I enjoyed these tips that help one analyze media:



1. How is the world represented?

2. What identities are set up for those involved in the programme or story?

3. What relationships are set up between those involved?



The last section on critical media literacy also suggests more criteria to look at when analyzing media text. It is great that Fairclough suggests that students learn these kind of questions to use when making their own opinions about what they will be influenced by in the media. I really wish I was taught this when I was younger because so often I believed what documentaries said or what news reports covered and never questioned the biased nature. I was naive in that I never questioned the information I was given, ever and now I look back and see that I could have been skeptical all this time. Could this be a cultural thing? Maybe. Maybe I just wasn't raised to question things I might have believed I had no right questioning. Is this how people today think? Possibly.

Random But VERY Interesting Poem I Found...

So this is a very random post but I read it and enjoyed it very much. This is for your reading pleasure!

Pronunciation Poem

I take it you already know
of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you,
on hiccough, thorough, laugh and through.
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps,
to learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word,
that looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead -- it's said like bed not bead --
and for goodness' sake don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat
(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt)
A moth is not the moth in mother,
nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there,
nor dear and fear for bear and pear.
And then there's dose and rose and lose --
just look them up -- and goose and choose,
and cork and work and card and ward,
and font and front and word and sword,
and do and go and thwart and cart --
come, come I've hardly made a start.
A dreadful language? Man alive.
I'd mastered it when I was five.

The Veep Debates

So I did watch the VP debates and would have written in my blog sooner but I was on some pain meds at the time and passed out soon after. I enjoyed both sides of the debate and noticed that it was very important to find the right words to say. Word choice seemed to be the theme of the night because everyone was all too cautious of the fact that people(media pundits) were ready to pick at every little thing they said. The next morning it was obvious that the media was looking even closer at what Sarah Palin had to say, especially because they expected her to do worse and expected her to "eat her words" more often than she did.

In my own opinion, there was a lot going on beyond the debate itself that distracted from the importance of the issues. There were too many references beyond the two candidates and some situations that seemed a little unrealistic to be debated at that time.

I feel that the media is too biased to be making the claims that they do. I like to keep my political opinions to myself because everyone seems to be an extremist in their views and tend to get too involved in trying to convince you of how wrong you are. So, in that case I'm not going to state who I liked better. I think both of them spoke really well and represented their parties to the best of their abilities. It was an amazing thing to see public speaking at its best especially when two people are capable of keeping thier composure during such a highly publicized event.