Media Influence and SecondLife.com

Promotional Video of Second Life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3gHCupXSMs

Brief History and Growing Possibilities with Second Life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b72CvvMuD6Q

A powerful point that was made in the Baran and Dennis text was “Storytelling and music cease to be important for extended families. Instead nuclear families gather in front of an enthralling electric storyteller.” (pg 200) It has been said that historically we first passed down information and stories verbally from generation to generation. It was then when mass media outlets such as newspapers, radio and later television and Internet that this tradition of verbal exchange of information has ceased. Chapter eight of the Baran and Dennis textbook discusses the cultural interference that media has on our cultural development. SecondLife.com claims that it further links our connection to one another. What are your views on that based on both the reading and your own personal opinion towards this site? Can you see this site as a cultural enhancer or destroyer in today’s age?  

For those of you that do not know SecondLife.com is an online world where individuals customize themselves and the world around them. The two video links provided above are both informational sources that will give you more in detail the workings and uses of SecondLife.com. As mentioned in Chapter 11 in the Baran and Dennis text, SecondLife has been infiltrated by corporal businesses and has expanded its online world through product placement. By adding currency and interactive features for users, it is more parallel to the real world than one would think.  What are your first impressions when hearing of such a community? Do you see the trend of cultural dispense with the use of these types of games? Do you see SecondLife as the next “must need” social network account like Facebook and LinkedIn? Looking at this SecondLife world and the possibilities that it provides would you participate in this community? 

Have Advertisements Changed Us?

Throughout our daily lives, we are constantly susceptible to a countless number of advertisements. These advertisements can play a major role in the ways that we view ourselves and others, and can even have an impact over the different items that we decide to purchase.

In Chapter 8 of the Baran and Davis reading, it stated, “media might have the power to intrude into and alter how we make sense of ourselves and our social world. Media could alter how we view ourselves, our relationship to others, even the image that we have of our own body” (199). Do you think there are advertisements are so powerful that they can actually impact how we view ourselves? If there were no advertisements in our society, do you think that it is possible that we might have an entirely different outlook on ourselves and the world around us? Other than altering our views about ourselves and others, advertisements may also impact whether or not we decide to purchase certain products.

In Chapter 27 of the McQuail reading, it stated, “instead of being identified by what they produce, people are made to identify themselves with what they consume” (300). When you go out and purchase certain products, do you purchase them based on their quality or simply because of their brand name? For example, it is hard to go an entire day without seeing an advertisement for Budweiser or Bud Light. It is also hard to walk into an American bar and not see Budweiser or Bud Light on tap. Do you think that Bud Light is such a popular beer because it tastes better than most beers, or do you think that it is so popular because we constantly see their advertisements on TV, billboards, etc.?

This CNN article discusses the power that advertisements have over their consumers. What I found so interesting about this article was the way in which the author, Monita Rajpal, ended it. The article ended with Rajpal saying, “Bottom line though, advertising is part of our existence. The good news is that we’re the ones with the power to choose.” Do you think that this is true? Do we have a choice over whether or not we are influenced by advertisements, or have we gotten so engulfed in their messages that there is no turning back?

Disney vs. A Controversial Image

When doing the reading for this week, a lot of it focused on how the messages that we are receiving from the media aren’t always the intended message. Barthes in the McQuail reader poses three questions: “How does meaning get into the image? Where does it end? And if it ends, what is there beyond?” (290). I think these are really important questions, and when reading them it reminded me of an article I read surrounding the controversy of one of the latest Disney movies, “The Princess and the Frog.” Disney has had many movies that have had some controversies whether they be racial or historic inaccuracies, but this movie was getting a lot of attention because of some potentially racial issues--and ultimately the above three questions were what many people were questioning.
The controversy started with the fact that it took until recently for Disney to even have an African American princess. From there it escalated to the name choice and her occupation (which were initially Maddy and a maid to a white family), the setting of the story which was New Orleans, the fact that her prince wasn’t black, and that they spent the majority of the movie as frogs not people. Now whether you feel these things constitute as being racist or not, put your views aside and think about it from an audience perspective. Picture a young child who is the target audience for this type of movie, who may not have ever been exposed to a lot of cultures, or whose mind is still impressionable. “Media have become a primary means by which many of us experience or learn about many aspects of the world around us. Even when we don’t learn about these things directly from the media, we learn about them from other people who get their ideas of the world from the media.” (Baran and Davis, 200). From this, you have one option where these children might see some of the aspects of this film and deem them as how things really are. Granted, not every child is going to believe what they see, but is it any different than thinking you were going to marry you’re prince charming when you were that young? Do you think people are always able to clearly make these distinctions?
Disney adhered to some of these protests by its consumers and made some changes like to the name of the princess, which became Tiana, and her occupation which made her a chef. Do you think they did these things to just hush those protesting? Or do you think they did this because they maybe saw how this could offend members of their audience?
The movie obviously had more to it than what the controversy surround, it is a Disney movie after all. But some of the other messages get lost amongst the way certain symbols and images were portrayed in the film. Stuart Hall, in the McQuail reader, states that “The ‘Message-form’ is the necessary form of the appearance of the event in its passage from source to receiver” (304). In this case, clearly a message was sent. Do you think it was the right one? Do you think it’s important how messages dealing with issues such as race come across (even if unintentional) are received?
http://www.essence.com/entertainment/film/critics_dispute_princess_and_the_frog.php

What happens when the news tell you to “Hide Ya Kids and Hide Ya Wife”

Posted on behalf of Kailyn Corrigan:

Now I’m not sure if you’ve “met” Antoine Dodson, the brother of an attempted rape victim who spoke on WAFF48, a news channel in Alabama, about the crisis and his thoughts on the matter. Or, if you’ve met Antoine Dodson, lead singer of Bed Intruder ranking at the top of the Billboard charts. If not, watch this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civOdWxd4Kc

This Youtube phenomena, is not a home video, or webcam shot. It was a very serious emergency that happened to Antoine on July 28th of 2010. Since then, Antoine has become an internet sensation, splits the profit of being a musical star, has Facebook fan pages, his own Youtube page, and now hosts events—all because of a news broadcast.

There now begins the argument of whether, the sensationalism of Antoine Dodson’s sister’s rape, is appropriate, demeaning or down-right hilarious. Despite all values and the importance of news, I have to represent the latter. Baron and Davis highlight the difficulty television has as a medium to educate its audience, especially in the case of television news. They say: "Information is frequently presented in ways that inhibit rather than facilitate learning. Part of the problem rests with audience members. Most of us view television as primarily an entertainment medium. We have developed many information-processing skills and strategies for watching television that serve us well in making sense of entertainment content but that interfere with effective interpretation and recall of news" (Baron and Davis 254).

Therefore, we’re not necessarily watching the news to continue learning as we did all day in school. We’re watching the news and television for entertainment, and so despite the seriousness of Antoine’s situation, our entertainment shifts from the depth of the issue to how unbelievable hilarious Antoine’s voice and verbatim is. A podcast shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civOdWxd4Kc further elaborates the argument of whether we are laughing at or with Antoine, and are we supposed to be laughing in the first place? I’m interested to know your first impressions of the video and Bed Intruder song, and if you feel it’s appropriate or a result of the television medium.

None the less, this was a small newscast at a small news station in Alabama. How did this moment get auto-tuned all the way to Billboard charts? I’d like to suggest the theory of fandom. Regardless of what Antoine Dodson fan’s interests and intentions may be, there are a lot of them. We discuss fandom in terms of The Beatles and Bieber, but a spot on the 6 o’clock news? Denis McQuail states: "The absence of stable identity and connection is seen as leaving the individual open to irrational appeals. With the refinement of advertising and public relations campaigns in the early twentieth century, along with the success of wartime propaganda and the dramatic rise in popularity of film and radio, fears of the immense and inescapable powers of propaganda techniques grew" (McQuail 346).

Is it a certain type of person that’s open to the “irrational appeal” of Antoine Dodson’s outburst? Or is Youtube enabling a new sort of fandom, that counts and displays every fan that’s watched the video? I personally feel that this is a new and unique situation, that defies the expectations and dependence public relations and advertising were given credit, in terms of fandom. Are there any other examples of fandom that started from an ordinary person on a newscast, or has Antoine developed into a musical star, like Justin Bieber, where this fandom is normal. I think it’s an interesting situation to discuss especially in terms of news and fandom (do those words belong in the same sentence?).

Fandom: Perception vs. Reality

In the McQuail reader, Joli Jensen discusses fandom as we generally perceive it: the image of “an obsessed loner, suffering from a disease of isolation,” or a “frenzied or hysterical member of the crowd … the screaming, weeping teen” (McQuail 344-345). Jensen points out that very seldom do we refer to fandom as a normal, everyday part of life, as most of us manage to be fans of something without feeling the urge to get hysterical over it. Our perception of fandom ultimately overestimates the fan, just as our perception of the media tends to overestimate its power.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/teen-television-show-dexter-inspired-kill/story?id=9252620

Though this article is from one year ago, it is simply an older example of a still-current issue. This article covers the story of a teenager from Indiana who felt “inspired” to kill his brother after watching the Showtime original series, Dexter. In the show, the character of Dexter is a “good guy” serial killer who often identifies his inability to feel emotions, referring to himself as “not human” and describing a need to kill that is comparable to an itch needing to be scratched. Of course, the show deals with the psychological traits of a serial killer even from childhood, citing behaviors like isolation, inability to feel, and the desire to kill small animals as early warning signs of a psychological derangement. Though the show is fictional, the psychological behaviors given to Dexter’s character are based on what psychologists believe to be the reality of a killer’s mind.

Isn’t it possible, then, that this teen was already experiencing those symptoms and therefore felt comforted by the ideas behind Dexter? While articles would, of course, suggest crazed fandom as a viable explanation for this teen’s decision to murder his younger brother, certain social theories (along with our personal experience) would suggest that the media simply does not have the power to do this on its own.

As we discussed last week both in class and in our previous blog entries, people can generally tell you why they use the media they use. Based on the uses and gratifications theory, we can readily assume that this teen was using Dexter as a tool for self-identification and companionship, as I doubt that he ever spoke to anyone about his desire to kill. We can also infer from the McQuail’s reader that the teen’s fandom was used for “psychological compensation,” also referred to as “an attmpt to make up for all that modern life lacks” (McQuail 347).

But of course, the information-processing theory holds water as well, and is very relevant in a case like this. It is scientific fact that humans only perceive a fraction of the things going on around them, and therefore only perceive a fraction of the media. But even then, however, the media we perceive may not have an actual effect on our behavior, for we simply don’t have the means of slowing the media down, reviewing it, and truly studying its meaning when we are viewing it in real time (Baran and Davis 251).

As someone who has been watching Dexter since its very first episode in 2006, I can say that I have watched each season multiple times without ever feeling the urge to kill anyone. Of course, this isn’t the only example of “crazed fandom” that we find. Leonardo DiCaprio issued a restraining order against a crazy fan claiming to be carrying his baby, a Twilight fan killed a man and drank his blood, and we’ll forever see girls crying at Justin Timberlake concerts. Though we tend to talk about these fans as people from afar, have any of you ever found yourself exerting this kind of excessive fan behavior? What do you think you get out of it? And lastly, whatever it is you’re a fan of, is it that thing in particular that makes you lose your mind, or are you a fan of something for some greater reason?

The "Twilight" Phenomenon and Excessive Fandom

When I first thought about what I would try to find about fandom for this week, a couple things popped into my mind. First, I thought about the Harry Potter series and how big it has gotten. When you go see a new movie, half the people are dressed up as characters. Then, I thought about Avatar, because we were discussing in class how many people wish it was real, and it makes them depressed to know it’s not. Then I remembered something that was more recent than Harry Potter or even Avatar, which is the Twilight phenomenon.

I feel like this series took off so fast, and became something more than just a book or just a movie. This turned into a true phenomenon that swept the globe, and I started to wonder why this happened. Personally, I find the series too fluffy, and I enjoy Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse series (what True Blood is based off of) way more than Twilight because it offers more to the reader: romance, violence, mystery, and science fiction. Why, then, did the Twilight series take off in whirlwind more so than True Blood? When I started the reading for this week, I began to get an idea of why this was. Chapter 29 of the McQuail’s Reader is centered on this notion of the “ideal romance.” Much of what was described can be linked directly to Twilight, as well as what I have heard others say they like about the series. Often the reader/viewer is female, and has gone through some event in her life that she can relate back to the series in some way. This drives the need to keep watching/reading to see where the heroine in the book ends up, which is usually in love at the end, and they begin to want to live vicariously through the character and their dramatized, but ultimately successful, love story. McQuail’s Reader goes as far to say “…the romance functions always as a utopian wish-fulfillment fantasy through which women try to imagine themselves as they often are not in day-to-day existence, that is, as happy and content (319).”

This was also discussed in chapter 32 of McQuail, which tries to explain the phenomenon of fandom. What stuck out to me was the idea that fandom was actually a “…psychological compensation, an attempt to make up for all that modern life lacks (347).” This not only plays into the idea that women are putting themselves into the romance because they have suffered heartache or are having romance trouble in their own lives, but also what was mentioned before about the movie Avatar, and that excessive fans of it wish that all of that actually existed. I then went on to read about romance novel research in Mass Communication Theory, and it was interesting to see what they had found out. In traditional romance novels, there is the patriarchal element that shows society as male-dominated, where they are strong and heroic, and it is accepted as the natural order of things. What was surprising about the research was that the women participating preferred male characters who fulfilled this traditional role but also had feminine traits, such as gentleness. Does this remind you of anything? Edward Cullen in the Twilight series is a vampire, and it is often mentioned how dangerous he is and how much damage he could do physically. However, this being a love story, he is head over heels for Bella and it is said it takes a lot of strength to be as gentle as he is. He has that strong heroic quality but when he is with Bella he is as thoughtful and gentle as can be, and that’s what I think fans love so much.

I found an article in the LA Times that was shocking but not very surprising. A 31 year old woman became so infatuated with the Twilight series that it almost destroyed her marriage. She not only became obsessed with the story, re-reading chapters all the time, but with the relationships of the actors themselves. I think that it makes the fandom worse when the real life actors are seemingly acting out the story of their characters as it makes it harder for people to separate reality and fantasy. This woman would stay up all night chatting about the book, the movies, and the juicy gossip surrounding all of it with other die-hard fans. This practically took over her life, and her husband started to not only be concerned of what it was doing to her mentally, but also that he was about to be forgotten completely. What made her realize what she was doing to her life was when her husband finally said he felt she loved Twilight more than him. She realized she was destroying her real life relationship with someone who truly loved her, she might be a fan of the serious but she did not need to live vicariously through it. Others are not so lucky and are stuck in the whirlwind fixation. What are your thoughts on the fandom portrayed in the article? When do you think fandom becomes a serious issue? Is excessive fandom always a problem, or are there beneficial social aspects?

Article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/27/entertainment/la-ca-twilight-addiction-20100627

Could the Expectation of reward/Effort required model cause immoral actions?

Could the Expectation of reward/Effort required model cause immoral actions?

In chapter 9 of the Baran & Davis reading, it discusses the idea of why an individual may choose one mass media medium over another when seeking items such as new, entertainment, etc. In this specific section (p. 232) it brings forth the idea that “people weigh the level of reward (gratification) they expect from a given medium or message against how much effort they must make to secure that reward” when making this very decision.

Overall, I greatly agree with this idea. Personally, I prefer using the internet to find my news. This way, I don’t have to find the news channels (different channel numbers in Denver), I don’t have to bother with watching commercials, or hearing the news I’m not interested in so that I can hear the stories that follow, and most of all, I don’t have to limit my news intake location to the couch in our living room. With my computer, I am able to go directly to the sites, click on whatever story I find interesting, learn more about an topic with just the click of a button, and I can do it from any location I wish (internet capable of course). For most, I feel this is the case. It’s obvious, we do what’s easiest. However, could this idea of doing what’s easiest in order to gain the highest reward cause us, as media junkies, to face immoralities? Maybe not when it comes to finding today’s news, but how about when it comes to getting new music?

The issue of music piracy and file sharing is one of great concern amongst not only the music business but also national governments worldwide. File sharing and music piracy is ILLEGAL, does that stop you from doing it?

In this article from The Tennessean.com the problem of file sharing is discussed. It talks about the damages it has done to not only the music industry but also our economy as a whole, and the future steps that are planned to be taken by the federal government as well as the big name corporations.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101003/BUSINESS01/10030328/2047/news01

A clip taken from the article says, “An analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation estimates that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, including lost jobs, earnings and tax revenues.” That means that by downloading music illegally, we are adding to a $12.5 billion loss directed towards the country that provides our home and our safety. Yet, I know so many who take part in actions such as these, and don’t have any sort of issue when it comes to downloading music illegally. Could it be because pirating and file sharing requires the least effort while rewarding you with 100% of what you want? I think so. It’s just so damn easy!

Another idea that struck me as interesting after doing this week’s readings, was the fact that I now see the act of watching TV as completely social, even if you’re doing it alone!

One of the topics discussed in both the Baran & Davis reading and the McQuail reading that made me most uncomfortable was the idea that people (child or adult) watch TV for social security. In the Baran and Davis reading, the idea of watching TV to provide “an endless stream of chatter to fill up spaces in our lives and create a sense of being involved with other people” is brought up (B&D 241). To me, this means that many people like to watch TV as a pseudo-social event during a time of loneliness. Similarly, discussed in the McQuail reader, is the idea that kids like to watch TV “because they are able to get inside people and events and to be a sort of friend with some of the people on the screen (McQuail 359). I’m not really sure why, but this just really rubbed me the wrong way. Now I feel like every time I find myself watching TV by myself, a huge wave of loneliness is going to come over me causing me to find immediate contact with another human being. But hey, maybe this is a good thing, because I know one thing’s for certain, It will get me up off that couch in a jiffy!