It seems a little surreal to be saying that this is my last blog for our class because this semester feels like it just flew by. Blog writing has been a creative outlet for me outside of class so to incorporate that intellectual flow in my schoolwork has made learning more enjoyable. I am also a big fan of media and have enjoyed discussing different genres and media outlets, especially in relation to how they affect our society.
The 1957 Film ’12 Angry Men’ was an interesting movie to watch as it was not only powerful and thought-invoking, but shone light on important issues of our judicial process within sentencing defendants. The movie focuses on 12 jurors called to serve on the trial of a Hispanic teenager accused of stabbing his father with a switchblade knife, sentenced to the death-chair if proven guilty. The odds seem stacked against the boy who already has a criminal record and grew up with limited education in tenement housing. The 12 all-male jurors are extremely similar, being of mostly white ethnicity, around middle age and of a middle-class background. The viewer witnesses the harsh pressures they are put under while deliberating, sitting around rectangular tables in sweaty cramped rooms after hearing sub-par evidence in the teen’s defense from his uninterested public-defendant- who didn’t want to take the job in the first place. This clearly disadvantaged minority boy’s life is on the line and this trial is unfair to say the least.
However there is hope. One influential, open-minded juror (Henry Fonda) provides reasonable evidence on the teenagers behalf, urging the other jurors to refrain in resolving the accused with such simple evidence, considering the situation more holistically. He see’s reasonable doubt in the defendant’s inadequate case to be heard and understood in ways that the other jurors are simply unable to resonate with- even if some believe to have been through similar struggles themselves. This film highlights the vast differences in personality types of these men, some angry and quick to judge, some indifferent and eager to just vote ‘guilty’ and go about their life. Others are refreshingly more thoughtful and inclined to help the oppressed. In many ways this courtroom is representative of the survival of the fittest mentality shown in many societies. Either you are liked and established or have too many roadblocks to prove yourself and succeed, especially in a construct built to tear you down.
As my last blog for Social Media and Society comes to an end I’d like to reflect on some concepts that we’ve used in deciphering common media messages and effects. Whenever I watch a movie from now on I don’t think I’ll use the initial rating as my point of reference for it being too much of anything- vulgar, scary or violent. I’ll look for hidden messages in television and movies alluding to our society and how different demographics are represented amongst plot-lines and characters. Additionally, I don’t think that I’ll discriminate against watching older movies in black and white or ones that didn’t make it to the theaters or have a lot of hype upon their releases. Overall I really enjoyed this class and reading everyones blogs. Thank you to everyone who took the time to read mine and comment on my ideas and respond to class questions.
This week we took a close look into the movies; Galaxy Quest and Jaws, two films that made history in their unconventional plot lines and twists. The film Galaxy Quest (1999) labeled as a Sci-fi/Comedy took audiences by storm with enhanced special-effects, realistic costumes and an unusual tone for sci-fi movies. This movie gained a massive fanbase and inspired fan conventions where people came together to dress up as their favorite characters and bond over their formed knowledge of the show. In San Diego there is an international non-profit comic-con held every single year. This event usually hosts around 167,000 attendees at the San Diego Convention Center, who come from all over to meet the creators of their favorite books and movies as well as interact with other fans. There are parties held at these conventions as well as discussions and the opportunity to dress up. In my home city of Chicago we have an annual comic-con as well and I know people go and have a lot of fun. I never knew much about it but from what we have talked about in class and I see from my film research, it seems like it could be really fun. This years’ conventions were cancelled in San Diego and other major cities because of the pandemic however, are scheduled to reopen on July 21, 2022 at the downtown San Diego location.
Australian actor Chris Hemsworth, US actress Tessa Thompson and Director Taika Waititi spoke about their roles in the Marvel movie during the 2019 San Diego convention.
The movie Jaws celebrated the 45 anniversary of it’s release this past summer. When Jaws came to theaters on June 20th, 1975 it became groundbreaking in the way that it was unlike any other movie. Jaws gained national attention for its thrilling components and unexpectedly intense, gory plot twists. This film notably launched Steven Spielberg’s career as a director and screenwriter, paving the way for his later award winning films such as E.T (1982), Jurassic Park (1993) and Schindler’s List (1993). Jaws also shaped many people’s perceptions of sharks, people didn’t see them like fish anymore, but deadly oceanic creatures that attacked humans.
I still remember watching this movie for the first time and being thrown off by the boat scene, wondering when the shark would appear again out of nowhere.
The gratification theory helps us understand why we look to certain media outlets to fulfill specific needs. Did you wake up today feeling particularly scholarly? Maybe thats why you chose to open the News app before Facebook or Instagram. This theory presents users as the one’s being in control of their media wants and needs. For me personally, I like to go on Facebook when I want to check in with family and go on Instagram or TikTok when I feel more creative or inspired. I found this media contextualization for the gratification theory to be really interesting because we often times hear that our technology controls us not the other way around. We are so connected to our phones, televisions and computers that it can be easy to believe that we are just a byproduct of our time spent on these devices and feel out of control when using them.
Thinking about this takes me back to last semester in ‘Social Media and Society’ where we went about 15-20 minutes daily without looking at our phones. This brief disconnection was difficult at first and gave me, and a lot of others anxiety. I remember wondering if anyone was texting me or if I missing anything important that made it hard for me to focus on the task at hand- even if it was just walking from my dorm to class. It did however get easier and I believe that I regained some of that control over my screen time.
Are/were you apart of any Fandoms at any point in time? Did you lose interest if you are no longer apart of them?
The media is something watched excessively and under a microscope in this day and age. In our textbook, ‘Understanding Media’ chapter 14 raises the question of this being too invasive with the rise of tabloids and talk shows like TMZ. Pg. 572 states, “The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees Americans freedom of the press, which many would agree is important regardless in upholding democratic principles.” This allows for the public access and spread of information. “Freedom from government censorship allows the news media to keep citizens informed about the state of their society.” This freedom can become an issue when abused and can become dangerous. The case of Princess Diana being surrounded by Paparazzi before getting into the infamous car crash that killed her is a prime example of media crossing ethical boundaries to obtain information.
Director Aaron Sorkin’s American television series, ‘The Newsroom’ was shot to emulate the expectations, unrealistic pressures and relationships in a newsroom environment. While this was not my first time viewing this series, I was reminded of how well done the plot and the complexity of the characters were made.
In an interview with ‘The Hollywood Reporter’ Oscar-winning screenwriter Aaron Sorkin describes his inspiration for the series as bluntly fun and creative. “This is meant to be an idealistic, romantic, swashbuckling, sometimes comedic but very optimistic, upward-looking look at a group of people who are often looked at cynically.” Perhaps the most infamous scene is when Jeff Daniels played by Will McAvoy is asked why America is the greatest country in the world by a sorority girl expecting a cliché answer. As all eyes are on him he unexpectedly says “It’s not”, citing that we’re a free country but so are 180 others including Canada, Japan, The U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Austria. He provides countless reasons why we’re nothing special, being “7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178 in infant mortality rate, 3rd in median household income number 4 in labor force and number 4 in exports…” Breaking it down, we see a more human opinionated side to him that journalists so often hide in an effort for their work to appeal to a greater public. He finishes off his point by saying “We lead the world in only 3 categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries behind.” Aside from any journalistic endeavor, this shines light on so many important issues that are not talked about or swept under the rug. Talking about any number of these things in detail puts the glorified ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ valued country at risk for criticism, and takes away our dated motto of being ‘the greatest country in the world.’
Sorkin realizes the importance of transparency in television. “Ordinarily in popular culture our leaders are portrayed either as Machiavellian or dumb; I wanted to do something different and show a highly competent group of people. That’s the same juice that’s behind The Newsroom” (The Hollywood Reporter). In The Newsroom definitely projects a story of passionate driven journalists who believe in the power of the press. As a journalist myself, I appreciate how well-crafted the messages throughout the episodes are in favor of the work that goes on behind media outlets and how people’s characters feed into the work they produce- even if this is not explicitly shown. This is probably my favorite journalistic film behind ‘Spotlight’ which came out a little later in 2015.
The first known printed book is the ‘Diamond Sutra’ dating back to 868 AD, during the Tang dynasty in China. Soon after, scrolls were invented which were primarily used for texts, some being religious and scholarly. Invented by the Greeks and Romans, these increased in value during a time when scribal skills became more rare among people. These giant rolled manuscripts were made from the papyrus plant and were used by many religious groups, like Judaism with the Torah. It took an estimated 3,000 years for this long rolled document (read horizontally instead of vertically) to transition into a more modernized device with printed pages. Scrolls soon evolved into the codices by the ancient Romans during the first century, pages with print made from parchment paper and bound with wooden covers. These most emulate the novels we read today, featuring colors, pictures and documenting stories.
An ancient Roman scroll with colored graphics and writing.
The Coronavirus has impacted the already struggling book-business franchise even more. While seeing the big chain bookstores shut down, It’s especially saddening to see small independent book sellers go out of business.
Traditionally bookstores have served as a backbone for new authors to advertise their published works. Authors could get a leg up in advertisement through having their books being advertised in key sections like the ‘staff’s pick’ with their summaries advertised in attention-grabbing fonts and covers. Small independent book sellers were hot-spots for avid readers and book-consumers to confide in with regards to the best ‘just in’ books and their personal opinion on whether or not they were worth the read. Amazon introduced it’s Kindle in 2007, the most widely used device to buy and download books and (now) movies. Within the last decade, digital e-book purchases have sky-rocketed and the consumerism of paperback books have suffered immensely. As a result, many bookstores have permanently closed and have gone out of business, affecting personal author-relations and their own book-store goers. Many people grow nostalgic for exploring a bookstore and purchasing a book or perhaps even going inside to simply sit at a cafe inside to read or people watch.
Major Bookstore chains like Barnes and Nobles, Borders, Book World and Discount Chain, Atlantic Books have been unable to stay open amidst digital pressures.
Soon to follow, have been libraries which have dwindled immensely since the rise of e-book rentals, sold even more cheaply than regular e-books. Libraries are state-funded and proper funding often lacks when you factor in everything needed to keep a library running like book-cases, proper storage, archivists, librarians and updated computer appliances. As a result, libraries have suffered almost as greatly as bookstores have. Many libraries are built inside historic buildings and offer readers a special historic experience when going inside to check out a book. Like public libraries, university libraries have also experienced closings as even students are checking out books less and less, opting more for the study-experience or to login on a school computer. Alternatively these activities can be done in study spaces, cafes and lounges where the massive up-keep of books is unnecessary.
St. Paul’s James J. Hill Center permanently closed in July of 2019, it first opened in 1921 and remains one of Minnesota’s most historic buildings.
James J. Hill Library struggled for decades as a privately funded non-profit library, completely reliant upon the Minnesota Historical Society, private grants and public donations. They even changed their name from a ‘Library’ to a ‘Center’ in 2013 to advertise their public services going beyond books to attract more consumers. The Executive director Tamara Prato sorrowfully justified this closing in not having adequate funds to maintain their services to the public. “As a privately funded nonprofit, our ability to provide these services to the public for free is not sustainable,” said Prato, in her statement. “We continue to be challenged to develop a financial model that can deliver the original intent while being fiscally responsible for the ongoing operating costs of the organization and necessary capital investments in the historic structure.” This unfortunate trend in library closings has hit the United States (especially) by storm.
Being a author in this day and age is extremely difficult. According to the Taleist self-publishing survey from 2012, half of all self-published authors make $500.00 or less. Agents used to promote books are dwindling in numbers, causing a ripple effect in the amount of available editors and publishers. In addition, many writers can’t financially sustain themselves through solely writing, even with hopes of publishing their work and making money from their book sales. It is not uncommon for writers to take on multiple jobs for financial support, taking away from the time spent on the writing process. The tedious steps of writing, editing and finally publishing their book comes at a hefty price and sometimes isn’t worth it. Many writers will do these steps themselves to save money but then lack the additional support in the final stages, often times leaving them to feel alone and confused. Darcie Chan, author of The Mill River Recluse worked on her novel while being a full-time attorney. “I did it mostly in the evenings after work, on weekends, it took me about two and a half years to write.” Chan got an agent who made great efforts to sell to publishers however, as an unknown author nobody was willing to take the risk to take a chance on her novel. Chan took a break from trying but when she read about the increase of popularity in e-books and kindles, she decided to go ahead and self-publish. Chan wasn’t looking to get rich fast or sell a huge amounts right away but merely thought that the feedback she would get would be conducive to her writing. When she uploaded her book to the Kindle Store and to her surprise, sold about 100 copies within the first month. Flashback to around a year later, her book’s e-book success landed her on the New York Time’s best seller list.
Amazon and Google have marketed on e-books, PDF’s and even movies, cutting down the price and making resources readily available to almost anyone. Scott Turow, President of the Author’s Guild credits this easy accessibility with a simple solution: the power of big tech corporations and their grasp on the industry. “Google a number of years ago entered into an arrangement with seven major university libraries and scanned their entire collections- and proposed to make snippets of these books available to Google users.” Unlike Amazon, selling e-books for less than a third of their marketed prices, Google has made many texts free, at the cost of only a few clicks.
This blatant transition from the way in which people read traditionally to a new modernized method has been thought to negatively affect younger minds. The 2013 Tribeca award-winning film ‘Out of Print’ draws attention to this important issue presented by many parents and educators, worried that future generations will never know the feeling of ‘opening up a good book’, not merely just skimming for information or digitally highlighting passages they need to read for school by searching for the key words at the top of their screens. When a group of teenagers were interviewed about their perception of reading, one young boy said, “A book is something I’m being forced to read, so I spend my time thinking about how I’d rather be sleeping.” Many older-generations find these common perceptions among youth to be shocking and dis-heartening. Has digital reading taken away key aspects from the overall intellectual experience of reading a book? Children and teenagers alike are less likely to go to the bookstore or library simply because they see doing so as a chore or homework assignment but this takes away from the enjoyment of exploration and possibility. As an adult now, I am grateful that I experienced the joy of going to the bookstore and reading the book summaries on the backs of novels for pure curiosity and excitement. Hopefully, there will be efforts made to preserve this youthful curiosity and comfort of going to the bookstore or library for personal and not just education or parental-forced experience.
This mass-accessibility has angered some authors and publishers who feel as if the power of their book’s success is no longer up to the consumer but at the hands of massive tech companies. Many people feel as if books carry a special effect in their traditional paper form and offer a more immersive experience for the reader. Like Chan however, some authors enjoy the seemingly endless opportunities of being able to mass-market their work on their own and make more money than if they would’ve marketed their book to a traditional store with higher prices. Low prices target large groups of people who aren’t willing to spend more than a dollar or two on a book that could be marked as $20.00 in store. According to John Perry Barlow, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (referring to Google Books), “They’re making a privately owned copy of many many works that are already in the public domain.” Most people feel a sense of trust towards the main tech companies like Amazon and Google as they are trusted known and established. Users know that they aren’t downloading a virus or the wrong book for a the cheaper price but are just widening their browsing space to get the best possible deal.
At first glance, browsing Google Books could emulate ‘shopping’ except everything is free and available immediately to the Google User.
Violence on the screen is nothing new. It produces that shock factor in all kinds of major media outlets; television shows, movies, cartoons.. but does this all come at a cost?
The documentary ‘The Human Behavior Experiments’ explores how people can become swayed in decision making when presented with a strong figure of authority or difficult group dynamic. This film includes clips from the experiments done with Dr. Milgram who had participants conduct a series of electric-shock experiments on a controlled group of people to see how far they would follow his instruction. Milgram says that he conducted such an experiment to gain a better understanding of the Holocaust. In the film, 60% of the participants continued to administer electric shocks to the point of hearing what was perceived as a middle-age man on the other end of the wall screaming out in pain. This reminded me of watching ‘The Stanford Experiment’ where a group individuals was randomly selected to be prisoners and the prison guards and power was quickly abused. This feeds into the controversy today of people in positions of power take advantage of their status and use it to feed their own agenda. Most commonly, people believe that this occurs in law enforcement and government.
The other viewing for this week ‘The Mean World Syndrome’ delves deeply into how violence in the media impacts on the viewer. It was honestly difficult for me to watch some of the violent acts in this film because you almost feel a de-sensitization to these horrid acts of harm and murder by watching them being done over and over again. Scholar, George Gerbner explores specific links between violent acts in the media and how they shape our society’s culture. Topics presented in reality-T.V., movies and even local news outlets are often times presented in a way that make us feel insecure, threatened and question the safety of our environment. It was interesting watching this film as of recently with the election coming to a close and having lived through the coronavirus lockdown. The coronavirus pandemic has targeted fear and instability in so many people and some could say that it’s constant news coverage has caused people more stress that helped people in times of crisis. Even without hearing about complications people face, hospital-horror stories from healthy people who have faced complications from the virus and how we’re expected to utilize new tools in this ‘new normal’, people feel pushed from their pre-existing safe reality. Turning on the news only to see how the job market is crashing and graphics of how poorly the U.S. economy is doing in comparison to being the worst since the Great Depression is unsettling to most.
It’s this brutal honesty that we look for but also want to shy away from. Personally, I’ve never associated the general news as something happy or something to watch to make me feel better. I did however, think it was really interesting to see how watching something so religiously could have an impact on a person’s current reality. I feel like this form of entertainment could almost be worse to people’s psyche’s than watching violent television or movies as we have more control as the viewer in deciding how gory or violent what we watch is.
There have been scientific links between people who view violence and commit it personally. This is because watching it almost normalizes it in their mind and gives them the idea that committing such acts is normal like they saw in the video game they were playing or horror movie they were watching. It’s scary to see how children nowadays spend so much time in-front of a screen playing with a video game device (especially if the games in which they are playing are violent) because they probably have difficulty bouncing back into reality from spending so much time in an alternate one. This is even worse if the video game incorporates using guns and weapons and involves acts of destruction.
My questions for the class are: Do you believe that there should stricter regulations in what we generally put on television?
Do you believe that slander and sensationalism has gotten the best of the modern media?
As someone that’s been going to the movies/streaming them on Netflix for what seems like forever- I never really understood the method in which they were rated. From first glance and a practicality standpoint, it seemed as if excessive nudity and profanity made a movie rated ‘R’ while some swearing and more minor viewer discretion caused for it to be rated PG-13 and so on. After viewing ‘This Film is Not Yet Rated’, a documentary highlighting the ways in which the Motion Picture Association of America uses its rating system to classify movie ratings, I was very surprised. Movies are given highly subjective ratings in a largely un-regulated organization leaving plenty of room for bias, personal opinion and prejudice to play a factor. This 18+ documentary incorporates both parts graphic and humor to fully outline the different aspects incorporated into designating movie ratings. For example, the distinction between a movie being rated R and NC-17 with viewings of sex and violence. The ratings board is shown through a critical lens and shows little sympathy to it’s obvious room for error.
One of the issues pointed out was how the ‘F’ word could only be spoken once in a film with a PG-13 rating. If it’s said twice, the it’s automatically given an ‘R’ rating. How shocking is that?
I found it interesting to read some of this film’s top reviews to see what other people thought of this very intense ‘in-your-face’ documentary and found that most people enjoyed the humor and outlined lack of sense in the grading. This movie is not for kids and some adults mentioned that that it was a little too vulgar for them and should in fact be rated ‘R’. There were a few people who rated it very low and thought the cast was just rude and unprofessional. Too much so to really prove any viable points or justify their view of this ‘unjust’ system. The 2006 documentary did really well, earning 7.5/10 stars on IDMB and winning a series of awards like the Austin Film Critics Award for Best Documentary.
After viewing this film, many will think twice before going by the mere rating of it. I don’t think ever see this announcement the same after going to my next movie.
Looking back at movies I’ve seen in theatre’s I can recall really questioning why a certain movie was rated the way it was. I remember one time going to see ‘Baby Driver’ when it first came out with my friend and forgetting my ID. We were both 16 and waited in line for what seemed like forever. I was never asked to show identification at a movie theatre before and when we finally got to the register, I was really surprised that the teller even asked me for it. It seemed like such a ‘teen movie’ but it was apparently, rated ‘R’. We left and ended up just getting frozen yoghurt that night, and laughing about it. Then, I went back to see it a few weeks later with my mom and just remember thinking ‘this is rated R?’ I saw no real reason except for maybe speeding and some swearing. Researching the given reasons now, it was given an ‘R’ rating by the MPAA for ‘violence and language throughout’. This alludes to there being ‘motor violence’, gun and weapon activity and the portrayal of blood. Needless to say, I never forgot to bring my I.D. to the movie theatre again.
This is an article on 10 movies you’d never guess would be rated ‘R’. I was shocked at some of the mentions including ‘The Breakfast Club’ and historical drama, ‘The King’s Speech’.
Has anyone been turned away from seeing a movie (while under 18) for not having an I.D. or not being with an adult? If so, do you think this was unnecessary?
The invention of motion pictures have captivated audiences all over the world with their unique way of telling a story; through moving pictures. The article Structure of New Hollywood explains the little known history behind original film production, distribution and exhibition. As photography entered society during the 19th century, a group of inventors found a way to display a toy with the capability of showing a series of pictures in a rapid progression. This created the illusion of a moving storybook with a rapid succession of events you could just watch instead of having to read or analyze for context. This tool was called a zoetrope and became wildly popular by society. This inspired a scientist to try using the zoetrope to portray the illusion of a horse galloping which won prizes and was even showcased at Stanford for it’s heightened quality during this early period when film was still being adapted.
Since then movies have given people the freedom to experience events through the feelings of being there and experiencing the emotions of as if they really were in that present moment. Audiences are able to relive moments of immense joy, heartbreak, romance, adrenaline and so much more through watching a movie being played on a screen. Since movie theaters have advanced in technology, screens have gotten bigger and 3D has become a desirable form of viewing by simply wearing a special pair of glasses.
The original movie production companies started out as 5 major competitors. Nobody really knew what to expect from these early films as directors and motion picture companies were still figuring out what would attract the public. These succeeded onto classic-novel adaptations, recruiting attractive men and women to become actors that people would want to watch and then making the plot simplistic and easy for anyone to follow. Movies in the 20th century have evolved so much and movie plots are more complex (drawing interest) from the viewer. Movies are not a ‘one size fits all’ concept and are made with different visions and target different audiences. More types of people are also represented as actors and directors have had the ability to form characters into being more open-ended to create uniquely. Some things about the Industry have changed while some have stayed the same however this is all still evolving as time goes on.
Question for the class: What is your all time favorite movie and why?
Social media seems like it has turned into such a part of life. What do you do when you wake up? Go on Facebook or Instagram? Check Twitter? It seems like during quarantine some of us may be spending more time on social media ‘interacting’ with people than in real life. During class on Wednesday, many people expressed that they were relieved to have social media as an outlet at the beginning of the pandemic as it offered entertainment, a stable way to connect with people and a sense of security. Last semester I was taking Social Media and Society when mid-semester, the pandemic took over and classes went online. Prior to this, every month we needed to record our social media usage and provide a brief explanation about why we might’ve spent more time on a certain app. After our class transitioned to Zoom however, we stopped and our professor didn’t really think it was fair to track anymore. Some people did express their usage in class claiming that their time doubled or tripled but nobody was really surprised by this. It was almost to be expected with most social and outdoor activities off-limits. Now I’m back in college and all of my classes are on Zoom except one that meets twice a week for an hour. The clubs that I’m apart of meet on Zoom as well as other college-associated events. Now I’m noticing that it’s just a force of habit to go on to Instagram or Facebook during breaks with limited time between Zoom classes.
A few years ago Facebook partnered with Instagram and became joint. I find this interesting as the Facebook logo is now under the Instagram login. Both outlets seem like a served for different purposes. Instagram for sharing pictures and Facebook for connecting with family members and sharing life updates and news articles. I never had a Twitter, although I have posted on the Fiat’s covering an event a few times. My perception is that Twitter can become a place of political arguments and animosity for opposing viewpoints which doesn’t really interest me. It’s so hard to even attempt to change a person’s opinion and then to start a feud with someone that could rile up their follows and be taken a million different ways sounds exhausting and kind of pointless. I do respect people who engage in polite discourse but can’t picture myself ever doing so. It’s nice to share what you believe but then it’s like your doing it with the intention to let others know which can come off as deceptive.
Mark Zuckerberg was a 19 year old college student at Harvard when he started Facebook in 2004. With a long-time interest in computer programming, his intent was to create a platform to connect students and allow people to find shared interests. Zuckerberg has been taken to court many times in regards to privacy issues, a hot topic dominating many media sharing platforms. It also has been in question if Facebook had any connection to the 2016 election as ads supporting Trump seemed to populate everyones feed. Personally, I don’t know what to believe as the counter-claims were simply that the election was trending at the time (why wouldn’t it be) and that campaign ads were simply popping up on people’s browsers on the app. I think it will be interesting to see if something similar happens this time around as the debates are supposed to be held on Zoom and everything is going to be digital. The documentary, ‘Mark Zuckerberg: Inside Facebook’ delves deep into it’s start and everyone involved in helping to launch it, incorporating his friends at the time who claimed to be discredited for their work given less share-hold. I find Zuckerberg’s story really interesting and admire his entrepreneurial skills that he developed from his interests at such a young age. I am a sophomore in college right now, the equivalent to when he launched Facebook and it just makes me realize that we are all capable of so much with the right tools and resources.
My questions for the class are:
Do you view social media as a time-sucker or valuable time to connect with family and friends?
Do you think there could be another majorly used app on the way in the next few years?
The internet has been around ever since I can remember, having always been a staple at home and school. I remember playing complex games (with other people), doing homework and sending emails on the computer when I was very young. To me and many millennials with shared experiences the internet we are completely oblivious to when and how it was ever created. During the Coronavirus pandemic it seems as if we can all thank the internet for giving us the ability to continue going to school and our jobs in a virtual format. Also in simpler times, the ability to catch up with friends in family over video services and social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. As a semi-recent high school graduate living in a different part of the country from my home (and having friends attending universities all over the U.S.), I have come to really appreciate the internet in making it so much easier in maintain these friendships and pursue my degree (mostly) online. I am also applying for (virtual-internships), these are not cancelled because of platforms such as zoom which is great- still allowing me to work towards my career goals in a safe environment isolated from the fear of contracting the virus.
The internet’s development was a process that spanned over 40 years. In the Video “Who Invented the Internet? And Why?” this was made possible by a group of intelligent scientists with the intention of making a useful platform but had no idea would turn into such a major contribution to the day to day life of people all over the world. These scientists ranged from The U.S., Britain, Switzerland and France.
A popular yet incorrect theory about why the internet was created is that an American security team invented the internet to have an ongoing communication method that could survive a cold war.
The internet came into fruition during the late 1960’s with the help of MIT’s J.C.R Licklider’s and his idea of an ‘intergalactic network. Computer scientists worked on a concept known as “packet switching” which was the transmission of electric data. This method was able to increase the pace on busy networks by splitting up the data being processed and then re-assembling it on the other end. On August 6th, 1991 the web (part of the world wide web) became available to the public thanks to its founder, Timothy Berner’s Lee. His first website was created in Cern, France in August of 1991.
This updated version of the internet contributed to the creation of ARPANET which was a newer method requiring the use of packet switching, giving communication access to a multitude of computers sharing a single network.
Once the internet ‘basics’ were established, people found new and interesting ways to use the internet involving other people and creating communities. Internet message boards became extremely popular during the 1980’s and are still widely used today. Telephone companies saw the array of possibility in using digital communication and different web browsers were discovered and used. Believe it or not, email was ALSO one of these things that only become popular of use during this period which I personally found to be unbelievable. It’s hard to picture what life was like before the internet and everything that came along with it.
My question for the class is; Do you think humanity would find an alternative way to function if the internet shut down (temporarily or permanently)?
Do you think this would change the way we live for the better or worse?
This week we watched the documentary Funny Ladies, which dove into the original female comedians and how they were expected to ‘be funny’ and gain public appreciation. They mostly did this by acting silly and playing down their looks. Iconic comedians such as Lucille Ball, Mary Tyler Moore and Carol Burnett took down stereotypes of needing to look and act a certain way to gain respect as female television comedians. The show, I Love Lucy Lucile Ball starred her as well as her real-life husband, Desi Arnaz who both captured viewers with their comedic take on married life. It was such a hit that it won 5 Emmys during its 6 year span on television. Carol Burnett hosted her own variety show on CBS, The Carol Burnett Show which televised talented guests who did stand-up, sang and re-enacted popular television scenes. She was most known for being humorous and witty, drawing in audience members of all kinds.
Betty White described early comedians as simply “just funny-silly as hell.”
The Mary Tyler Moore show came on later and took an even more progressive approach to comedy from a female perspective. The show’s protagonist, Tyler-Moore supported herself and never really ‘settled down’. She was just funny on her own- as well as hardworking, ambitious and talented at her job as an evening news producer. This targeted female audiences with a strong relatable component as well, breaking gender roles.
We also viewed the episode Hush from the series, Buffy The Vampire Slayer which I found to the plot of to be rather interesting (as well as a little eerie). In the episode, everyone wakes up to find their voices gone- stolen by zombie like creatures. The students need to get creative with their means of communication and even do this with strategically leaving around $10 bills for each other to find. The episode had a lot of screaming, zombies and hidden messages. Overall, I thought it was a really interesting take on an ‘apocalyptic’ plot line.
My question(s) for the class are- How do you think the Coronavirus Pandemic will affect current film and T.V. shows? (If it all). Will a deadly plague be (a little more normalized) and not as scary in the context of a horror film?
Mass Media and American Life 