Staying Informed Has Never Been Easier

I'm very glad to be living in this digital age we are in. Even if there are a countless number of consequences that come along with the territory (as we've certainly learned from this class) there are just as many benefits to even out the playing field. I know this sounds pretty obvious, but media can make great strides in connecting people all over the world.

So, I'm sure all of you know, or at least have heard something, about the current protests going on in Venezuela. And most of you probably got it from some form of social media.

Imagine if this crisis were happening before Twitter, or Facebook, or any of the other social media outlets that are available now. It's so much easier to not only find out about global issues now, but to play a role in them as well. Maybe you heard about Venezuela's situation from a Twitter update; well, now you can retweet it and spread awareness. The country doesn't have to protest alone.

Social media provides a better way to understand global issues as well--especially for our generation of news readers. Like I said, I think the majority of the news we pay attention to, we receive over social media, and these social media sites have learned to cater to us by giving us news in ways that are easy to understand. Sometimes it's through lists, and sometimes pictures alone do the talking, but Buzzfeed always delivers news in a way that is relevant to our generation's preferences. If it's information about Venezuela's anti-government protests that you want, Buzzfeed's got it--in a simply laid out yet comprehensive form.

Keeping up with global issues has never been easier; social media sites understand how to reel in that demographic that prefers to read news in a different way, which hopefully makes our generation more culturally informed as a whole.

Comcast is Making Moves

In response to Bennett's post on the Comcast-Netflix deal, I think he's right that things are going to change--and probably very soon, too. In order to continue our class's tradition of being wary of new developments in media and media technologies, I'd like to comment that this deal seems like it has set up a very dangerous precedent. Comcast is now no longer only charging us a bill, but now Netflix as well; meaning it is getting revenue from both sources. Well, how is Netflix going to adapt to this new cost? Will it get put back on Netflix subscribers who will then have to pay more per month?

It's a question worth considering, I think. There might be unforeseen consequences to these kind of deals. And with Comcast becoming an even larger powerhouse, who's to say that prices won't keep going up when there's no competition? I think this deal marks a dangerous precedent, and I'm waiting with bated breath to find out what the future of the internet will look like.

Texting is a Cop-Out

I don't know about you guys, but it seems odd to me that the most-used form of mediated technology (texting) can be so distancing. 

If you think about it, we don't really use that form of communication for very meaningful or serious conversation much of the time, but it's something we use almost all of the time. It seems like there could be some serious consequences for our society because of this. If texting is one of the main forms of communication today, and it's not exactly a forum for meaningful conversation, then how can we make those deep connections with others?

Really, for something that we use all of the time, texting can be kind of a cop-out. I know we discussed it a little bit in class, and I think someone said they actually did this (so sorry if it offends), but one of the commonly understood lowest things to do is to break up with someone over text. It sends the message that they didn't even mean enough to you to earn at least a phone call. I would rather receive a hand-written break up letter than a text because even if it isn't face-to-face, the physical act of writing something down and taking the time to form the right words to say is much more intimate and meaningful than a measly text. 

It's just a little concerning to me to think that the form of communication we use so much in our everyday lives has the capacity to enable very superficial relationships.

The Dangers of Technology in the Classroom

Media technologies have changed the way we do a lot of things, and one of the most obvious to us college students--and potentially detrimental--is how they have changed our studying and learning patterns.

Barrett's post on how technology has changed the way she studies made me think about my psychology class last year. As the professor was introducing himself and going through his whole "first class of the year" speech, he warned us not to use technology while in his lecture because, apparently, it is literally impossible to multitask. While we may think we are listening to a lecture and absorbing the information while texting a friend or looking something up online, what's really happening is we are just switching back and forth very quickly between the two (or more) things that are holding our attention. He also mentioned that, like Barrett is discovering, physically writing down notes helps you retain more information than typing does.

I think it's much easier now to get lost in technology when you should be focusing; if you're typing notes on your laptop, that Facebook tab starts to look a lot more appealing. Everything's so much easier to access--and you look like you're still doing work while you're online shopping--unless of course you're the person sitting behind someone on their computer, in which case you end up getting caught up in whatever website the person in front of you is surfing. It doesn't just change our own attention habits, it affects others' as well! I can't tell you how many times someone in the row in front of me has gotten on some random website, and then I'm suddenly focused on what dresses they are planning on buying or this random person they decided to Facebook stalk. It's all about self-control, people, but sometimes we just don't have it. Technology is an enabler!

Can New Media Technologies Really Change Politics?

I wanted to pose a question to the class. 

In one of my classes, we've been discussing popular culture and the idea that much of the discourse surrounding our new media technologies is centered around how democratizing and empowering they can be for "the people". So my question to the class is; do you really think this is true? Do social media sites and other new media technologies hold a significant amount of political relevance?

To me, it seems a little idealistic. I'm not sure that these technologies really allow a more democratized, participatory culture or create conditions for democracy. Take memes, for example. There are plenty of Obama memes out there that bash his policies and political beliefs. Sure, they get a point across--and maybe even one that is shared by many--but do they hold enough relevance to make a real difference?

Maybe I'm being cynical or don't know enough to make a valid argument. Do I need to be enlightened? 

What About Ken?

So, in light of all the discussion about the recent Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover, I'd like to bring up another point of view.

Maggie gives a valid argument about the frustrating and seemingly impossible standards that women are held to, and how Barbie dolls only perpetuate this culture that makes women feel--from a very young age--that they must look and be like this perfect version of a human. But what about Ken?

Sure, women are pressured by all kinds of media that send the message that they need to be skinny, pretty and flawless, but I think that men get the same kind of pressure. It may not seem as obvious, but I think that's because more women speak out about the unfair standards they are held to than men do.

So, again, what about Ken? It's not like you see any Ken dolls suffering from an unhealthy physique, or a receding hairline, or maybe even a hairy back if you wanna go that far. And look at He-Man. If that doll is the image of masculinity, then I don't know a single masculine guy. That is just a ridiculous and impossible standard to uphold.  

What I'm trying to say is that I think we should take into account that women are not the only gender to be held under such scrutiny in society to be perfect.

It makes me wonder; if girls become self-conscious and develop eating disorders from flipping through magazines portraying what this "ideal" woman should look like, then what must men think when they see the same ads featuring the "ideal" man? It's not fair for anyone, really.

Passive Participants

I have a sort of shameless plug to post here, but really it's about the question of whether or not social media can actually make a difference. I sort of argued this point with my post about internet trolling, but it seems like it just continues to be relevant.

So, here's the deal. One of my friends is going to be a camp counselor this summer with me at Camp Kesem. For those of you that don't know what this is, it's a week long program for children ages 6-16 who have a family member with cancer. I was a counselor last year, and it was one of the greatest and most eye-opening experiences of my life. We make the camp free for the kids because they have to deal with so much at home, so it's up to the counselors to raise $500--which is the cost to send one child to camp. (PS here comes the plug) If this sounds like a cause you'd like to donate to, here is the link to my page:

https://campkesem.givebig.org/c/CK13/a/campkesem-nc-duke-unc-chapel/p/adquattlebaum

Last year, I didn't make any effort over social media to raise funds; I just e-mailed family and friends, and was able to raise enough money that way. This year, however, my friend took a different route and decided to post her appeal for donations on Facebook.

The other day, she came up to me and said that she got at least 50 likes on her Kesem fundraising status, and yet no donations. It made me think of those satirical pictures that show little kids starving and a bunch of people's thumbs ups surrounding them, as if "liking" things on Facebook actually makes a difference. Now, this isn't meant to guilt anyone into donating to my page, I just wanted to bring up the issue. It seems to me that Facebook sets up more of a passive relationship than an active one. It becomes very easy to be detached from a situation when you can scroll down a little more and that piece of information is out of your mind just like that. It's easier to simply "like" a cause than invest your time or money in it. Just some food for thought.