Final: "The Long Tail"

When mass media arrived on the scene, there were, and still are, several problems with it. Mass media reaches a large dis-aggregated audience that can give little feedback to what is distributed. There were large uniform effects (or Mass Effects) on the audience. The result was like-minded people clustering together to listen to the same music hits and watch the same summer blockbusters.

However, not everyone is as like-minded as it seems. Cantrill found that intervening variables like how educated someone is or their cultural values shape how the audience reacts to mass media. These intervening variables make us individuals that have different preferences when it comes to the media.

In "The Long Tail," Chris Anderson blames the fact that people have clustered together on inefficient distribution. He writes, "For too long we've been suffering the tyranny of lowest-common-denominator fare, subjected to brain-dead summer blockbusters and manufactured pop. Why? Economics. Many of our assumptions about popular taste are actually artifacts of poor response to inefficient distribution." He claims that due to poorly distributed media, audiences are only introduced to certain movies and music that will make big bucks. There is a limited selection to choose from, and therefore people cluster around the popular mass media.

The introduction of websites like Amazon.com might be changing this trend. Amazon.com and iTunes have an unlimited selection of media. I have been able to find music on iTunes that is not mainstream and dvds on Amazon.com like the Royal Shakespeare Company's version of Macbeth, which I couldn't find anywhere else. I love Amazon.com because I can find whatever I want and am not limited to what's on the shelves in a store. Electronic distribution used to be limited, but now it's expanding. iTunes used to have all the hits, and most people just downloaded those. Now I use iTunes to discover more indie and unknown bands, and also to download some classic films like On the Waterfront.

By looking at the buying and downloading trends on sites like these, it becomes obvious that people are digging through the endless lists of media to find items suitable for their specific tastes. People don't have to necessarily follow mainstream media, because they can find alternatives elsewhere. Netflix also is making money by offering more media. The business is aggregating "dispersed audiences," as Anderson says.

When consumers are pulled "down the tail" it is usually because of lower prices. Blockbuster has become more expensive so many people started to give their business to Netflix, which offers a different monthly rate for the amount of movies you can receive.

So it seems that sometimes offering the products that were deemed unprofitable, can actually be good for business and consumers that want something different.

Final: Electronically mediated relationships

When radio was established, people thought that it was going to unify the country. However, the basic programming was designed to attract housewives. The programs were there for women at home to listen to while doing their daily house chores. It became a medium for advertising as well, because it updated these housewives on new cleaning and house products that they could use to make their lives easier.

Mary Dyck was one of those housewives that listened to the radio daily. She was secluded for most of the day and therefore formed a strong parasocial relationship with the broadcasters, who became her "friends". These radio personalities became a very large part of her life to the extent that she felt like she really knew them. Parasocial relationships enhanced radio's commercialization because the radio personalities kept the housewives listening to the product ads.

The idea of having parasocial relationships has now been transferred from radio to the online medium. Sites like Facebook and Twitter have brought it to a whole other level. With Facebook, people can comment on each other's walls and see pictures of friends. This enhances the parasocial relationship because people can use the information they find on a person's account to form a bond with that person. The visuals only help in forming this relationship. Also, one can start to feel like they are beginning to have a parasocial relationship with their internet self, like I did during our media deprivation assignment.

Biz Stone of Twitter stated in New York Magazine that tweeting can bring about a new form of human communication. I agree with journalist Will Leitch that this may be a bit ambitious; however, I do think that it can enhance parasocial relationships. Users can go on to anyone's page (including celebrities and politicians) and get a sense of who they are without ever meeting or talking to them. Fans of John Mayer or Miley Cyrus can follow their tweets and have a cyber relationship with their favorite artists. However, celebrities do not answer back. This relationship is very one-sided.

Average people no longer have to look in the newspapers to find out what a candidate believes in or proposes to do if elected. Anyone can join Barack Obama's Facebook or Twitter page. Politicians used Facebook and Twitter to establish a relationship with potential voters. Obama especially used this technique and it helped spread his popularity amongst young people. Advertisers can even get celebrities to endorse products on their Twitter pages. Any celebrity could say, "Hey, I used Garnier Fructise shampoo this morning and my hair smells great!" Fans of that celebrity would then think that they should use the shampoo too because their favorite "friend" uses it. It also helps celebrities gain a larger audience and fan base because now anyone and everyone can be a "part" of their lives.

People also have parasocial relationships with TV characters. For instance, when the class examined The Simpsons, we saw that even though the characters are cartoons people can identify with them. They are not the perfect family. Bart is constantly in trouble, Lisa is a know-it-all, Homer is a bad father, and Marge is the housewife. With parasocial relationships it's all about identifying with someone else through electronic media.

Final: Technology transformed by users

The theory of technological determinism states that technology drives social change. For
example, Facebook drives people to be connected online. The criticism of Facebook is that it causes people to substitute their real life relationships with online ones. This was not the purpose of the social media network. The purpose was to allow people to stay connected no matter where they are. The users of this communication medium transformed the technology to fit their lives. Users needed a fast and easy way to communicate with friends, family, and business associates so they shaped Facebook's purpose.

When cell phones were created they were meant to help people communicate, these days it seems like a necessity for every day life. Even though our dependency on cell phones is great for the industries such as AT&T and Verizon, cell phones at first were a luxury and have now developed into one of the most important technologies we use. The New York Times and onthemedia.org both publicized the fact that people all over the world are using their cell phones to get the cash value of air time. The "Dialing for Dollars" podcast even discussed how doctors in Kenya can text their patients when they have to take their medicine. This was not the original purpose of the cell phone, but people have shaped its use into something very productive and helpful. The cell phone is definitely a transformational technology.

Personally, I use my cell phone to fill up my time when I'm bored in the doctor's office or on the train. I usually look at all of my old text messages, which are usually just jokes between my friends and myself. It entertains me. Some people download games, music, and TV shows to their cell phones and this transforms the phone into something more than just a means of communication; it becomes a form of entertainment.

Radio is also a large medium that was changed by social circumstances. During the Vietnam War, young protestors needed a medium to voice their outrage and radio become that resource for them. The social climate of the times helped develop a freer form of radio broadcasts on FM. The need and want for radio stations that play personalized music even brought about the development of web radio sites like Pandora. Some people get tired of the same ten songs played over and over again on commercialized radio stations, so Pandora was really shaped by people's desire for something different that's more personal.

In terms of advertising, it seems like the more versatile a product or technology is, the more in demand it will be. Facebook can be used in several ways and now has over 350 million users. To put that in perspective, there approximately 308 million people in the United States. Also, it is very hard to find anyone who doesn't have a cell phone anymore. If people can transform technology to meet their needs, then the technology becomes beneficial for society and can be used by a broader range of people.

Final: Off-loading intelligence

It used to be easy to remember certain information like a telephone number or directions to a friend's house, but as technology becomes more prevalent in everyday life the more we seem to departmentalize our lives and information. The use of cell phones, emails, and Facebook have allowed us to store certain parts of our lives or information on technological devices. Now, is this something that will be beneficial for us, or are our brains going to be so dependent on technology that our thought process is going to completely change?

In the Atlantic Monthly article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Billout points out that he has noticed a change in his thinking. His mind starts to drift after reading a couple pages from a book, when before he was able to peruse voluminous novels with complete focus. Even though he admits that the internet is very beneficial because of the wide variety of information available, it seems to have consequences on our minds.

Billout wrote, "'As we are drained of our 'inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,' Foreman concluded, we risk turning into ‘pancake people’—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button."

This quote points out that if we keep off-loading information into devices, there won't be much of anything left in our brains. I definitely think that off-loading information might have a negative affect on us all, and I have noticed a change in the way I think as well, but I know plenty of people who use technology to off-load their memory and they definitely have not turned into 'pancake people.' My one friend Chris inputs all of his assignments, appointments, and class times in his cell phone's calender. For him, it is beneficial because it allows him to concentrate on the important things while the cell phone does the busy work. He sort of sees it as a Nanny that people can use to organize their busy lives.

This correlates with my theory of iExist. We are using technology and communication mediums to off-load and catalog certain parts of our lives. Our existence and sometimes well being becomes dependent on these devices and mediums. We start to have a presence not only on the web, but also in these technological tools. Society seems to be embedding certain parts of existence into technology.

Personally, I find that my cell phone and my gmail and Facebook accounts help me the most. I don't have to memorize my friends' numbers because I have it in the palm of my hand. My gmail calender sends me an email when something is due or I have an important event to go to (it came in handy with my finals schedule as well). I have to admit that it is very hard to remember all of my friends' birthdays, so Facebook really helps with that because it alerts me before hand; I can't miss a thing with Facebook. Although, this can at times be negative. For instance, my mom cannot remember my dad's cell phone number without looking it up in her cell. We can sometimes forget or push certain important information out of our minds because we can depend on other technologies to remember for us.

As far as audience goes, everyone can use these technologies. It can be extremely beneficial, especially for college students that work, go to five classes, and try to balance a social life in there too.There haven't really been any other communication mediums that allow people to do this in the past; this is something new. Newspapers, radio, and television would give information not store it for people's everyday use. However, this does remind me or the parasocial relationship and the Mass Effects theory. Our devices now store our memories and are a part of us so much that we have relationships with them, or we have a relationship with ourselves in a different format. The Mass Effects theory states that media will have uniform effects on society, and it's clear that off-loading our memories are causing us to think differently. It really depends on the extent that we off-load our memory to devices like cell phones and organizers. How we use these technologies and how we allow them to affect us, will determine the result on our thought processes.

Final: Privacy in the age of Google

On the "Privacy in the age of Google" podcast, they claim that people with a gmail account can see all of the information that Google has on them. They want us to be "comfortable" with Google having and protecting our information. However, information can always be compromised and Marissa Meyer from Google admits that there is no guarantee of complete privacy. Personal data can be linked to certain people even though it's supposed to be anonymous, but not everything can be anonymized with the vast amount of information out there on the web. People have to learn to control and personalize their privacy on whatever account and browser they use.

Information used to be found in newspapers. Radio news programs and televised news were also key tools for people to stay informed. However, now a large majority of people in the US are online and use the internet to find info. Web browsing (specifically Google) has become such a large part of our lives to the extent that it's a colloquialism in society. The terms "Googled" or "Google it" have infiltrated our every day speech.

These days, most young people have a presence online. The idea that people catalog their lives on the internet is something that I like to call iExist, which will be discussed in some other blog posts. Since there is so much personal information that we upload onto our email accounts and many different corporations and hackers out there that want either our business or identities, it's hard to keep things private. It's so easy to find someone online.

For example, when I worked for a church updating their member information, I had to quickly double check and find some people's addresses and phone numbers. It was easy to type their names into Google and find their information on yellowpages.com. Recently, I needed to find a friend's address; instead of calling her or emailing her, I decided to get an instant answer and I googled her name. Several pages immediately came up including her Facebook page, and other websites linked to the school district she works for. I could instantly find out where she lives and works. This may have been convenient for me, but it's a little scary to actually experience how easy it is to find someone on Google. If someone exists online, you can find them.

Google can know our preferences by examining our web browsing and companies may want to use the information for advertising and evaluating demographics. We cannot assume that Google's privacy settings are going to protect us all. People need to be educated on how to protect themselves because in the age of Google, privacy does not exist.

Paranormal Activity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_UxLEqd074 - Here's the official trailer

I would first like to point out that if you haven't seen this movie and are planning to, then don't read this blog post because I will be discussing the story line and the ending. I don't want to ruin it for anyone.

I admit that although Paranormal Activity scared me to death, it was the best scary movie I've ever seen. Paranormal Activity was filmed as a fake documentary. The premise of the film was that this undergrad student Katie, who currently lives with her boyfriend Micah, has been followed by this demonic entity since she was a child. Strange occurrences took place when she was little like her house burned down and she would always see a dark shadow at the edge of her bed. The characters and the audience never see the demon because it's invisible, which is important to keep in mind when analyzing the film. In the beginning, weird things started to take place in Katie and Micah's house. They began to hear noises and footsteps at night, and objects in the house would be in random places. To investigate, Micah documented their experience with a camera and begins to antagonize this demonic figure. After a series of extremely disturbing events including Katie getting dragged out of bed by the demon and pulled across the hallway, the demon eventually gets what it wants, which is Katie. At the end she is possessed by the demon and kills Micah.

I think this movie affected me so much because of various reasons. To start, the film is very psychological. It's not gory, a part from the last scene, which I think makes it scarier because in the movie the danger being observed by the audience is really directed at the characters' (and the audience's) mental state. I also think that since the movie is set up as a documentary it adds a slight touch of reality and the audience can connect to that. The characters live normal lives in the film and it's disturbing for an audience to see that an average person's life can be invaded and ruined by this force that the audience and characters can't even see. That really brings about the terrifying question: How can we fight something that we can't see? I think this deeply relates to Parker's mention that horror films boom during war time. The United States is fighting terrorism and it's hard to stop things like suicide bombers. Threats to society seem to be all over the place and could even be hidden in plain sight. I think that is one aspect of the film that is truly horrific, because we can't fight or face what we can't see. It also touches on the idea of torture - not physical torture but mental torture. The fear of a collapsed economy and an enemy that we can't always point out really takes a tool on people's minds.

Another reason why this movie is so scary, is that it doesn't quite follow all of the cliches we see in horror flicks today. When watching a film in the genre, I can usually point out the archetypal characters and figure out what's going to happen within the first 15 minutes. With this movie, I couldn't. Even though it's structured like the Blair Witch Project because it's filmed as a documentary and the audience can't see the threat, it doesn't have some of the same aspects that would normally make an audience member feel disconnected from the film. There's no music during the entire movie and there are no credits at the end. The audience is left in a haunting silence to soak in what just happened. Movies like One Missed Call and Dead Silence were just terrible because they were formatted to fit the horror genre. I've seen all of that before and I even laugh at it sometimes, because eventually it just becomes so overplayed. I think we don't see that many films like Paranormal Activity, so it stands out.

However, the film is not without it's archetypal themes. One theme that is illustrated in the film is masculinity. During one scene Micah is holding a very long, sharp knife while defending his masculinity and claiming that he is going to fix everything. That's quite an obvious phallic symbol. Micah's masculine presence becomes a problem for the demon, who after possessing Katie, seeks to kill him. At the end, the camera is situated in their bedroom and the possessed Katie goes downstairs and starts to scream. Micah then runs downstairs, screams, and then there's silence. Although the audience doesn't see Micah's murder, they later see his body and it appears that he has been stabbed several times. The audience comes to assume that Micah was stabbed by a knife - a symbol that he used as an extension of his masculinity. It seems like this is the typical way for the director to kill or "castrate" Micah and prove that his masculinity is meaningless.

This movie honestly scared me because I did feel like I was watching a documentary. I had to keep telling myself that it wasn't real. The fact that this antagonist in the film was invisible made it even worse, because it was not something that could be defeated and there was no resolution at the end. Overall, the movie was very effective in completing its goal of freaking people out.

Parker was also right in saying that many successful horror movies are made with a miniscule budget, but eventually make a lot of money. Paranormal Activity was first released in the Screamfest Film Festival in 2007 and was made on a budget of $15,000. When the film was released this year in about 200 theaters, it made approximately $9.1 million. The film also surpassed the Blair Witch Project's box office record. IMDB also stated that Paramount Pictures has announced that there may be a sequel - so we'll see if the next film follows the same format or tries something new.

The future of news media

I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight, and he pointed out some Fox News video clip that was unbelievable to watch. Fox had a clip of a recent rally that opposed the Health Care Reform bill. Although there were only about 10,000 people there, according to the Washington Post, Fox put the number at somewhere between 20,000-45,000 people. The clip showed footage from two different rallies - the one against the health care bill and the 912 rally. The 912 rally had much more people there and Steward insinuated that they used the footage to make it seem like there were more people than the Washington Post reported. Is this a simple mistake or something that was done on purpose?

The television news programs seem to be getting more and more biased. This makes me question the future of news media in the country. Discerning fact from fiction is becoming extremely hard since every station seems to be pulling for some political party or another. I've found it hard to make an independent decision based purely on facts, because every form of news media seems to say something different.

Other forms of news media seem to be in trouble. Newspapers are going online in order to survive, because at this rate, print journalism isn't going to be as popular as it once was and the amount of newspapers are declining every month. Even news radio may be at risk. Stations like NPR could be in trouble. Many people seem to be going online to listen to the radio, since internet radio is getting more and more popular. People are using 'Radio Bookmarks' and iPhone users can even tune in with certain downloadable apps. The news media is changing a lot and it seems that journalistic ethics are changing as well.

Filtering Reality Article

The Filtering Reality article really surprised me. Augmenting reality seems a little scary. Facial recognition and blocking certain people that sponsor Sarah Palin or are anti-gay marriage seems extreme. Blocking reality with pop-ups and advertisements is not something I would want to do. The AR system just seeks to shield people from how the world really is, while forcing their virtual advertisements on people's phones. I agree with Cascio that this type of system will promote centrism. The world and communication are about sharing views and values, not blocking them. I personally don't want the physical world to be blocked out, I want to see it how it really is. I don't want to live in some virtual world that's going to feed me ads anyway. I want to see someone's shirt because someone's style expresses who they are; I don't want to see some pop-up ad placed over a person's unique piece of clothing. The idea that the "wrong" people can be blocked by this system is preposterous. Just because someone is a Republican or a Democrat doesn't make them the "wrong" person to be around. To be a united and tolerant society, blocking people out like they don't exist will only make things worse. Cascio had it right: "The harder answer, but ultimately the correct one, would be to strengthen our society’s ability to tolerate diverse viewpoints—to encourage not muddy centrism, but a basic ability to hear out, and to see, fellow citizens with a measure of respect."

Fallow's NY Times Article

I was re-reading Fallows' NY Times article and began to think about Starr and what technologies today have been used by politicians to shape media. Starr discussed how certain political choices have changed the media. I think to this day the media does respond to the social and political times, but I also think that politicians are now starting to be more friendly with certain mediums and want to benefit from them. The newspaper industry has of course been used by politicians in this country since the American Revolution. Mainstream media today includes a lot more than newspapers; it involves TV, Facebook, Twitter and the like. We've all seen commercials for politicians exploiting one political party and praising another. Remember those Hilary Clinton 3 am phone call ads and John Kerry's Vietnam War controversy? But these days politicians and the government use media in a different way. They know the media can hurt them, so they reach out to their audience through media instead of trying to restrict the media as the British government did. For example, Barack Obama mobilized his followers and gained popularity because of his outreach on Facebook and Twitter. Other politicians also have Twitter and Facebook pages, so people can follow what they're doing and feel more connected.

However, the media is still regulated by the government even though we have free speech. The FCC censors and regulates what we watch on TV and movies. With the internet though, there is a lot less regulation going on. Just like the telegraph, the telephone, and the radio, the internet is being run by big private companies like Google, Yahoo, and Facebook. There is pressure on the internet to give customers what they want, but this is just pure business unlike the TV companies that must give in to what the FCC wants. The internet allows anyone to say anything they like; it's a true outlet of freedom of speech. Perhaps this stemmed from the dislike of FCC regulations and censorship. On the internet we see a lot of different opinions that millions of people want to share, and I think that this might have come about from the changing political and social times. For instance, since the Afghanistan and Iraq War people have been trying to get their voices heard to either spread support or dislike of the war.

I also would like to point out that a little while after the Iraq War started, we did begin to see changes in the media. Some things that I noticed was that the news became more biased and shows and networks began to take sides. For example, CNN is more liberal and Fox News, well, is not. Even though there was not a very big anti-war movement in America, there were anti-war productions such as Fahrenheit 911, Jarhead, and Stoploss. The media seems to be showing war as the cruel and terrifying thing that it really is, instead of glorifying and supporting it like some parts of the media were during World War II. I think that Starr makes some very good points and shows proper examples of how politics have changed the media, and it has been interesting to look at the media today and how it has responded to political choices. Even when I watch The Daily Show or Colbert Report, they are responding to what's going on in the world. After reading Fallows' article however, I will make sure to pay more attention to how the media reacts to political decisions.

Winston

Yesterday, I was explaining our midterm to my family and told them about the man in Dunkin Donuts. My aunt proceeded to tell me that when they were my age, they got along just fine without cell phones and that I probably would've been more inclined to have a conversation with a stranger sitting by me, instead of texting a friend. My parents and my aunt and uncle all agreed cell phones and Facebook have revolutionized how we communicate with each other and that they've caused the art of conversation to die. Now, there may be some truth to this. I've talked to many teachers that have found that kids are typing "ur" instead of "your" in their papers, so maybe it is affecting students' grammar. While we were talking about this, I began to think about Winston. Cell phones and Facebook aren't revolutionary technologies; they're evolutionary. The cell phone was modified from the telephone and Facebook stemmed from the internet, AOL instant messaging, and Myspace. They are evolutionary products that came from inventions that have value in society. So, I don't completely agree with my family because these technologies are just helping us evolve. Yes, my generation communicates a bit differently than theirs, but we still know how to have a conversation with someone face-to-face.

Cell phones, in particular, have become social necessities. People need to get in touch with others very quickly from all over the world because our society has been globalized. Social circumstances have changed and cell phones have stemmed from those changes and many scientific advances. Cell phones and Facebook are user friendly and fun; they are accelerators and have become important in every day life. At the Honors Conference, the speaker for The Outdoor Classroom, asked us to take out our cell phones. At first, I thought she was going to ask us to turn them off, but she didn't. We were actually asked to do a survey by texting our answers to a certain number. Our answers automatically appeared on the projection screen that was attached to the speaker's computer. I thought this was pretty cool and a very evolutionary way to learn. I think that technology today is helping us evolve the way in which we communicate and hasn't revolutionized or destroyed the way we talk to one another.

Being Everywhere at Once

Last night, I went to see Paranormal Activity with two friends that teach at my old high school. My one friend had done an England exchange program in high school and said that for a long time she lost touch with the girl she had stayed with. They used to be good friends and she felt sad that they were no longer in touch. Recently though, her British pal found her on Facebook and they were able to catch up. She said that she absolutely love Facebook because there is no other technology or media that one can use to find and connect with people. The two of them are now able to be in each other's lives, even though they're in two different countries.

Facebook has really changed the social and physical places that Meyrowitz discusses. He writes, "When we communicate through telephone, radio, television, or computer, where we are physically no longer determines where and who we are socially." This is extremely true of Facebook. I can talk to people all over the world and have a social life, while sitting on my couch. Physical place doesn't matter that much in this case and socially I can be whoever I want. Something that I find interesting with social and physical place is that online we can be everywhere. Our "identity" can be right on the screen at one of our friend's houses. Our lives are basically accessible from any place that has wifi. For instance, a guy I graduated from high school with joined the army and was deployed to Iraq. Facebook was the fastest and easiest way he had to connect with his friends and family who were halfway across the world. He also used it to upload pictures and videos of himself and other soldiers doing patrols; he even posted several videos of him with other soldiers in a convoy going through the streets of Iraq. Even though none of us were there with him, we saw some of the things he was seeing and going through. I think this is a pretty powerful connection. It is so different seeing war through a soldier's eyes than seeing it on the news. Although he was in the Middle East, he was still able to have a social life outside of his physical place. Our experiences are no longer limited to where we are physically, because online we're everywhere.

Distracted

Yesterday at the Honors Conference, Hailey and I attended the "Environment of the Performing Arts" lecture. At first I didn't think that the performing arts would come to be connected with our media midterm, but I was very wrong. The first speaker, a 25-year-old woman, explained to us that our generation is not the biggest audience for performances. Most of those attending traditional shows as the Tilles Center are older. She connected this information to the fact that our generation is so used to media and technology being every where. We've become so distracted by all of the different technologies and information that are thrown at us every day, that it has become hard for us to sit down and stay focused on one thing. She told us that we're exposed to about 1,200 advertisements a day. While I know that we see advertisements all the time, I was surprised at the number. The media is really thrown into our faces wherever we go. Advertisers put entertaining reminders of their products and shows in newspapers, on internet sites, buses, radio stations, taxis, posters, movies, and of course television. No wonder a large portion of my generation doesn't want to sit down and focus on art.

I personally love the arts, but I have found myself to be impatient and distracted at times. Sometimes on a stage we don't see big neon signs, celebrities, and the bells and whistles that advertisers use to wow us. To a certain extent, I think we've gotten used to seeing information packaged in a fast and flashy way. This problem is not just affecting the arts; it's also affecting education. Many teachers these days are using technology in the classroom to get their students' attention. I was talking to an Italian teacher I know, and she was telling me how in the past couple of years, she has noticed that her students are becoming increasingly distracted. Whether or not the media and advertisers are the only causes of a distracted generation, I cannot say; however, it does seem to be a factor.

Another speaker discussed how years ago, it seemed that radio and television were going to be the death of theatre. Why go out to see a play when you can either see a show on TV or hear one on the radio? Radio and television were really accelerating technologies that took off and the arts community thought it was going to take a hit. One of the speakers even connected this to her every day life. She explained that she sometimes works from home and at times, there really isn't a need to leave. She has the internet, TV, and her cell phone. What more does she really need? Why should someone go see a show or an art exhibit when there are several forms of entertainment at the tips of your fingers? How do we adapt art to fit our new lifestyle? How should we react to this explosion of media and the problem of distraction? These are some interesting questions that our society needs to consider.

Midterm: completely attached

Last week, while waiting for my mom at Dunkin Donuts, I had an eye-opening experience. I sat down at a table and immediately took out my cell phone to check the time and to text some friends while I was alone (mostly because I had nothing else to do but wait). An old man came up to me, tapped me on the shoulder, pointed to my cell and said, "What would you do without that thing? You'd probably be lost!" To be a good sport I laughed and agreed. This made me look at cell phones through his eyes. His generation probably views mine as being technology obsessed and dependent on the technological luxuries we can afford. I suppose we seem a bit spoiled, but to a certain extent cell phones have become a necessity in several ways. People use their cells for professional, social, and emergency purposes. Personally, I've used it in all three ways, so my cell phone has really become an important tool in my daily life.

This reminded me of McLuhan's idea that technology or media becomes an extension of ourselves. He stated that human beings now wear "its brain outside its skull and its nerves outside its hide" in the form of media, which extends our senses. I have very much come to feel that my cell phone is a part of me. It's just another mode in which I can communicate with people and gather information. McLuhan seemed to think that technology creates the social and media environment, and I think that the cell phone has made these two environments portable. Even though I was technically alone in Dunkin Donuts, I didn't feel lonely because I had my friends in the palm of my hand. Everyone was one text or dial away. It's obvious that these days people have the need to constantly be connected, and the older gentleman that spoke to me doesn't feel that impulse because cell phones weren't around when he was my age. Therefore, he never cultivated the social need for it.

I honestly freak out if I don't have my cell phone. I get paranoid because if something bad happens, I won't have a way to get help. For instance, over the summer my car kept on dying. It died on me several times in the middle of a busy street and I was lucky enough to have my cell, otherwise I would've been in a lot of trouble. Also, if I didn't have my cell, I think I would feel very left out and lonely. The man was right; I would be lost without it.

Critical Analysis: Pandora

I'll admit that before this assignment,

I had never heard of Pandora before. I would just mindlessly listen to z100 or any other radio station just to fill up my time. But now, I'm convinced that Pandora is the better solution. I created an account and entered a couple of musicians like Johnny Flynn, The Black Keys, and Iron & W

ine. Not only did Pandora play great songs from those artists, but the

site also played songs from different bands that I've never heard of. I actually liked almost all of the musicians that Pandora played, such as R.L. Burnside. To me, this is so much better than listening to the same ten

songs on z100 all day. I get to listen

to what I want and explore new music. I think Pandora really puts power back into the listene

rs hands because we have the choice to like or dislike something. There's a system that dictates what to play, but I still have the option to skip something I don't like and move on to something else.

Many radio stations today seem to play the

same singles all the time. I've

bounced between three radio stations that were all playing the same Lady Gaga song before and I'm honestly tired of it. With Pandora, that doesn't happen because the site has a large va

riety of artists. Also, there aren't as many commercials on Pandora. I can listen to about 5 or 6 songs and I only have to suffer through 30 seconds of one com

mercial, instead of listening to several minutes of advertising.

The NY Times article about Pandora's Music Genome Project was very interesting. It has definitely helped me understand how Pandora is calculating my musical tastes. It's a lot more scientific than looking at the top selling albums of the day and playing singles from those albums. It's also a lot more personalized and I've really come to appreciate that. Pandora uses real musicologists to break down the songs in order to determine what the listener prefers. For example, I didn't even put one of my favorite artists (Ben Harper) on the list, and Pandora played him. I thought it was interesting how the president of CBS Interactive Music Group said, “Music is an inherently social experience." He said this because it's all about how we share music and how we tell stories. On Pandora, the site shares music with me and in turn I can share it with other people and connect with fans of the bands that I like. Maybe Pandora is more than an internet radio site. It seems to be taking radio in a completely new direction of personalization and social connection.

Facebook is vengeful!!!

Okay, I've been trying to get onto my Facebook account for the past couple of hours. It keeps telling me that my account is temporarily unavailable due to site maintenance. I have succeeded logging on a couple of times, but every time I was on fbook it was slow, said I had no posts on my wall, and no friends. Is this my punishment? . . . I think I've deeply angered Facebook by denying it for five days.

Analysis

The past five days without Facebook have been very interesting. This time has made me realize how much Facebook affects my life and how I connect with people. I was used to this constant connection with my friends, since I was basically staring at their lives on the screen. It was strange to feel outside of the social "society" online. It made me a little anxious.I felt like I couldn't share what was going on in my life as easily or as fast as I would have been able to on Facebook. It would be too time consuming to call people to let them know what I was up to, and to find out how they are (isn't that terrible?). We are all so busy that we're using Facebook to fit our need for fast and global communication. Facebook does present the technology to communicate differently, but it seems that we have really shaped the social networking site into something a lot more important than keeping in touch with old friends.

The site lets us communicate with people all over the world in a quick and convenient manner. Members can join groups, become a fan of something, and can organize events on Facebook. We can not only communicate with each other, we can also relate to one another. We can see how we are all similar and unique.

Facebook has become a large part of my identity. When I look at my profile, I see my friends, family members, classmates - most of the people who have contributed to who I am today. I get to share ideas and creative works with friends, and in turn, my friends share their knowledge with me.

Facebook has also affected how I view the world. I can experience, relate t0, and communicate with different cultures through Facebook. I don't feel isolated from the rest of the world, because the global community is connected through the internet.

I think that this experiment was definitely worth it, and I'm proud to admit that I did not cheat. I haven't been connected to Facebook in any way since Thursday morning. Honestly, I learned how dependent and attached I am to Facebook. This experiment has taught me that there needs to be a balance between real life and virtual life. Connecting with people is very important, but sometimes we get too obsessed.

No Pressure

Only 4 more hours to go, but I'm honestly not feeling very tempted to go on it at the moment. I think this is a very good thing since I have to study for two quizzes and a midterm. It's kind of nice not to have that pressure to know what's going on with my friends every 5 minutes. Before, I was a little anxious without it, but there are more important things to do than being on fbook. Now I don't feel as nervous not knowing the latest updates on people's statuses, because I have more time to focus on my own life instead of spending every moment focussing on theirs.

Coming to an end

Even though it's the last day of the experiment, I don't feel a HUGE need to go onto Facebook right now. I think the past couple of days have conditioned me to be without it, and at the moment I don't feel completely attached to it (like I used to). I've definitely learned that life goes on without it. I still feel disconnected without fbook, but maybe being away from the site every now and then isn't a bad thing. Many people are on it constantly (I used to be one of them) and I've seen that it can start to be habitual. There needs to be a balance. Sometimes we have to take a break from technology, otherwise we seem to get addicted to it.

Starting to miss it :(

So, I found out that facebook isn't the only way that I procrastinate lol. I still haven't done half of the things I listed in my last post (but it's still pretty early . . . I'll get it done). Anyway, I'm doing okay without facebook. I am starting to miss connecting with my friends and sharing my experiences with them. Even though this little experiment isn't over yet, I can say that I've realized how much fbook has an affect on my life. Being without it so far has been a very interesting experience, but I am looking forward to logging back on.

No Facebook = Efficiency

So on this miserable, rainy day, I decided to get my homework done. I usually need a break every once in a while, and during that time I would always go on Facebook. Then, while I was on fbook, I would always get distracted and my half-hour break would turn into two hours of useless web searching and going through hundreds of my friends' photos.

Since I can't go on fbook today, I feel like I'm going to get a lot more done. I've already re-read some stories and essays for my midterm this week, and I am completing my Educational Psychology reading. Not to mention, with all of this extra time I will be able to start my research papers, get my work for Tuesday done, have some family time, and finally finish the baby blanket I've been working on for four months.

I feel very efficient today. Fbook is just another tool used for procrastination sometimes. Maybe this experiment will teach me to have some discipline.

Who Are You Online?

Could you "delete" yourself?

I was talking to my friend about my experience without Facebook, and she said that I was "brave" for doing it, because she never could. She then told me that she could never delete her myspace or fbook page because it's part of her life.

I understand why she could never delete it and I'm contemplating if I would ever delete mine. Our personal page has become part of our identity. When we look at the screen we see ourselves, our friends, and our entire lives. Deleting my fbook would be like deleting part of myself.

I always thought that parasocial relationships were interesting, but now with fbook I feel like I'm having a different relationship with myself. There's who I am in reality and then there's who I am (or perceived to be) on fbook. When I look at my page, I'm looking straight at the online version of myself. I can step back and objectively or subjectively view who this person (me) is. It's weird that my life has been uploaded onto the internet and to a certain extent, I don't feel like it's just mine anymore. My life is open to everyone that knows me, and yes while people would really have to talk/hang out with me in order to really get to know me, I feel like fbook gives an overview of who I am and that people will use it to decide who I am, instead of coming to me.

On fbook, people may try to determine who I am by looking at how many friends I have, my pictures, my so called favorites, and what my friends post. It's uncomfortable to think that I actually have to go on fbook to monitor my "life" online and to control this perceived "reality" of who I am.

Some Privacy Please

Tonight I called my best friend to see what's going on with her, instead of looking at facebook. Unfortunately, I got her voice mail, but I've realized how much I miss having a phone conversation with someone and actually hearing that person's voice. Yes, fbook is quick and easy, but it's not very intimate especially when everyone else can read and comment on just about everything.

I actually had a problem with a friend who would comment on most of the posts my friends had left me. It was intrusive, especially since that comment was for me and no one else would understand the context of what was written. Words can be so easily misinterpreted on fbook. Not that his has caused a huge problem for me, but I know people who have dealt with fbook arguments. Phone conversations are much more private and what's said during those conversations is between me and the other person. That's our time and no one else's.

My Global Day of Inaction

Yesterday, I received an email from the One Organization (which I'm a part of) stating that it was the Global Day of Action to stand up against extreme poverty. The email proceeded to say that us members, can put "I’m Standing Up against poverty today with one. Please post this as your status and join me." as their facebook and twitter statuses.

Now, I know that this is not a huge form of action, but this is a way of informing other people that there is a lot of poverty and we need to do something about it. One is an organization that allows its members to pressure government leaders to act and aid global poverty. It's a way of mobilizing like-minded people and it shows that we're trying to make some sort of impact (and these days, the web is a great place to go for that).

I was upset that I couldn't join in with other members to inform people about One. I felt like I wasn't part of the team and couldn't play my small role in this virtual "protest."

Taking a Break

I actually got to sleep in this morning, which was very nice, and after I woke up I checked all my emails and this blog. Even though I am going through my morning routine, I thought that it was nice to not be worrying about answering a whole bunch of people's comments on fbook. I had time to myself (and time to be lazy), instead of rushing to get in touch with everyone. I actually enjoyed feeling a bit separated from my friends this morning, because I got to relax. But, we'll see how long this feeling lasts.

How I feel about media deprivation:

Look Everyone! . . . Oh wait, nevermind

Today I babysat my friend Ange's 11-year-old daughter and we decided to bake a giant cake that's shaped like a cupcake. Although our attempt to do this was a complete failure (because the cake just fell apart and we smothered icing all over it, making the cake one big, sugary blob, otherwise known as a heart attack on a plate), we had a ton of fun. We took so many pictures to remember this experience. I was naturally thinking, "I can't wait to post these on Facebook, so Ange and my friends can see what a mess we made!" But then I remembered that I can't until Tuesday. I hate feeling like I can't share with everyone.

I'm so used to being able to post pictures and my status updates. Fbook is somewhat like a global therapy group where people can share what's on their mind (although, I'm not saying that everyone should. Some people should probably keep certain things to themselves). Even though I am blogging, which is helping me communicate my experience without fbook, I'm not reaching the rest of my friends and a global society at the moment. I can't contact all of my friends who I work with on a creative level, be it as a writer, a musician, or an editor. I find myself feeling somewhat suppressed, and as a poet and a journalist, I do not like it.

Who's to blame: Technology versus Modern Society

I've realized that I don't even have numbers and emails for many of the people I'm friends with on Facebook. Fbook is the only thing I have to contact them, because, well just about everyone has one now and that's the only application we need to be connected. I do text my friends, but fbook is much faster when trying to find out what's going on with everyone. It's strange to think about how I now view picking up the phone and actually speaking to someone as being inconvenient, as opposed to just going on fbook and quickly telling them something.

My friends do the same exact thing. We're all in college and have research papers, art projects, science labs, and a ton of reading to complete. None of us have the time to get into an hour long conversation, so we use fbook to say what we need to say quickly. So, is fbook really changing how we communicate, or are we changing the technology to fit our needs?

Changing the routine

Every morning when I wake up, I go straight to my computer to check all of my emails, and of course facebook, then I go and eat breakfast. I can't start my day without this routine. After I checked my email today, I really had to fight my urge to log on to fbook. It felt so strange not to go through all of the status updates on my homepage. I felt like I was missing something.

Fbook has become part of my routine (which I can be very OCD about). It's hard to change my habits, especially one like fbook because it has become a part of my life and my connection with so many people. This has got me wondering how anyone can get off of their social networking site after it becomes such an integral part of their behavior.

The Facebook Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSnXE2791yg

So to make up for the time I would normally spend on fbook, I've been youtubbing. I subsequently found this video. Enjoy the Facebook Song!

Missing Out

Okay, it's been almost 24 hours and I'm already struggling with Facebook withdrawal. I tried to make myself feel a little better by thinking that I can connect with people using my blog . . . but then I realized I have no direct way to tell ALL of my friends that I even have a blog now. Then I figured that I could use my phone, but it would be way too time consuming to tell everyone. So at the moment, I am completely without any knowledge of my friends' lives and what they're up to, and they have no clue what's going on with me.

I have to admit, that I'm feeling a bit anxious. I'm the kind of person that needs to know what's going on at all times, and fbook was always the quickest and easiest way to get information. Now I feel like their might be something going on in one of my friends' lives, and I'm completely missing out. I know it's only been a day, but I already feel like an outsider because I can't relate to or comment on my friends' experiences. I know I'm going to have a lot of catching up to do when this little experiment is over.

Facebook Status: Cassie DeMario has vanished from the face of the earth

Yesterday, I updated my fbook status to let everyone know that I was giving it up for a couple of days so people wouldn't think that I was ignoring their comments while doing this experiment. I think it's a little weird that we all think someone might be being rude or that something is wrong if another person doesn't comment back immediately. People do have lives outside of fbook and we don't always have the time to check our pages every five minutes. However, not having a virtual presence can be construed as not having a social life at all. Today it seems that if you're not online, you don't exist.

DAY 1: OFF TO A GOOD START

From Thursday to Monday, I will be giving up Facebook for my class' Media Deprivation project because I am truly addicted to it, and I think it will be an interesting experience without it. So far, I feel a little weird without my morning Facebook fix of the day, but I'm not itching to log on and check the status of my friends' lives. . . . yet. It's strange not being in touch with friends and family members constantly. Not being able to see my friends' faces who are far away at college will definitely be hard. But for now, I am officially disconnected.