Frist Myspace then Facebook now Twitter, whats next?!

I’m sure at one point in time we’ve all had a social networking account, whether it was Myspace, Facebook, or Twitter. Although we hate to admit it, these networking sites have had a profound impact on our culture, and will continue for years to come. I myself remember having a Myspace account (even though it wasn’t that long ago), and would spend most of my free time beautifying my page and making sure I had a great profile picture up. Then once I hit the end of my senior year I realized that Myspace was being taken over by a bunch of middle schoolers, and for me that was a sign to move on. The months following my decision I had been absent from the social networking scene, but then once I entered my freshman year of college everyone seemed to be preoccupied with something else; the infamous Facebook . When meeting new people for the first time, the next question to be asked after stating their name and major would be whether or not I had a Facebook account. Feeling out of the loop, I finally decided to make an account and in September 2009 I became an official member of Facebook. Im not going to lie but even I have succumbed to the popular culture curse of being addicted to Facebook, checking it every day to see if I have any notifications, what events I’ve been invited to and to see what’s happening amongst my friends. Even though it may seem like I am dependent on Facebook for constant updates, I plan in the near future (very soon) to limit my checking to just once a week instead of everyday. If you think about whether you check your Facebook today or a week from today, the notification will still be there. The question then becomes whether or not social networking sites like Facebook are enhancing our social interactions or is it becoming a hindrance to our everyday lives?

When it comes to enhancing the community, it depends on what type of community you’re talking about. Community groups on Facebook like Glee, and Dance offers those who have similar interests to connect with one other. It was because of the dance community/group on Facebook that allowed me to connect with other choreographers in the DMV area, and when it came time to see a dance performance for my ballet class I knew right where to go to and who to ask. As stated in the Jenkins essay, “TV in the Net Age”, those who watch in groups pay attention to what’s happening on the television(267). This can correlate to dance communities because once you find someone or a group of people that share the same interest as you, then you’re apt to pay attention to what’s being posted and whose having the next show. Author Steven Johnson mentions a similar concept that deals with active engagement which I will discuss in more detail a bit later.


Recently privacy settings on Facebook have been the topic of discussion. Although you can set your page to private with just your friends being able to see what’s on your page, the Library of Congress is actually documenting everything that you post, scary huh? In terms of whether or not we should be concerned with privacy on such pages, I think that if we are aware of what we put up and it’s appropriate then privacy shouldn’t be an issue. On the other hand, if you post something that could possibly be controversial but wasn’t intentional then your privacy settings should be of concern. After all, you do create an account that allows you to post whatever you please under certain guidelines, even if that means you uploading an entire album dedicated to your partying life. As the say saying goes, there’s a time for work and a time for play, so why violate a person’s privacy on a social networking site just to see what they do in their spare time which may or may not reflect their work ethic? This is in reference to employers who do secret checkups on potential candidates on these social sites.It sheds light on the fact that we’ve been manipulated,(those who have social networking accounts) to think that what we put up is private when technically speaking it’s not , now isn’t that a surprise? As for whether or not it promotes openness, yes it does since you are able to post whatever you feel but once again its to a certain extent.

Social networking sites can have both positive and negative attributes.Although these sites can be entertaining with the amount of stimulus present,it can also be time consuming. In the years prior to social networking sites, Americans spent most of their time consuming television programming especially the “loyal” people, who Jenkins refers to as those who would watch a series of a show in its entirety even if that meant watching it on DVR. Even before television consumption there was more leisure reading being done by Americans. Fast forward to 2010,we are no longer spending more time reading or watching television, but instead we are watching another screen; the computer. What’s on that screen you may ask? Social networking sites. A couple years ago teens spent hours creating their pages on Myspace, even if that meant missing their favorite shows which happened to me. The same goes for Facebook ,but instead of spending time fixing up a page, members spend time messaging their friends, updating their statuses, and most of all browsing through other peoples pictures. As a matter of fact, last week I had logged onto Facebook with the intent of only being on for 15minites,but really was on for an hour..Man, how time flew by! I don’t think I’m the only one who suffers from this either, just take a visit to my Stat 121 class and 80% of those with laptops in front of them are either on Facebook or Twitter, browsing through someone’s pictures for the hour and fifteen minute duration of class.


As Susan Jacoby argues in her article, the “Dumbing of America”, there has been a sudden decline in book reading and I wouldn’t disagree with her either. Before social networking sites even existed, if I wasn’t doing homework or dancing I would be reading. Thanks to the busy college life I have now, the only reading I participate in are those required for classes or when it comes to using the web. Steven Johnson author of,"Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter", also said that reading for pleasure has declined, which in my opinion is probably due to the amount of access we have to social networking sites.However, Johnson does say that there are benefits to internet usage which ties in with the consumption of social networking sites which includes; being a source of knowledge, encouraging active participation and social interaction, as well as exposing us to new systems. Social networking sites encourages engagement in a sense where the member is glued to the screen for they are in control of what happens next whether that includes updating their status or going to someone else's page. Social interaction is evident of course since you are able to communicate with more than one person at a time, and the member is exposed to new systems of operation like as one exhibits when first becoming a member of such a site.

It is because of the advances in technology that there’s a demand to be in constant communication with people (I’m sure some of us realized this after failing to complete a 24hour media deprivation assignment.) This reflects the lack of book and television consumption in our society. Whatever the case may be, social networking sites will continue to be of public interest whether valued as positive or negative. And just like the death of Myspace, soon Facebook will become a figment of our memory as we continue to move to other forms of social networking. In due time, Twitter will become the new Facebook, like Facebook became the new Myspace. I guess it’s safe to say that we will always be in touch when connecting with friends and family, even if that means risking our privacy, meeting new people, and most importantly taking us away from other things that we used to be consumed by.


Referenced From:

Jacoby, By Susan. "The Dumbing Of America - Washingtonpost.com." Washington Post - Politics, National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - Washingtonpost.com. Web. 07 Dec. 2010. .

Jenkins, Henry, “TV in the Net-age”, Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, 6th edition. Boston. Pearson, 2010

Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York: Riverhead, 2005. Print.

Images From:

cll.emory.edu

ewbuw.org

True Life: I am a Multitasker

Hello, my name is Shanae Cole and I am a multitasker. I have come to the realization of this after I failed to complete a unitasker assignment in its entirety. Surviving for only five hours, I concluded that I am a busy body, needing to be in constant communication with people, and needing to do more than one thing at a single setting unless I am in the library. It is no surprise that we as a society are distracted by countless stimuli which explains why we feel the need to multitask in order to keep up with the days’ demands. The concept of multitasking includes both positive and negative aspects; positive in regards to getting more things done at once, negative because it poses as a distraction. In the case of A.J Jacobs, author of the “Unitasker”, he experienced the negative effects of multitasking after driving while listening to an Albert Einstein biography, which resulted in a car collision. Although I haven’t experienced the extreme aftermaths of multitasking, I do see why it is necessary. It’s like killing two birds with one stone and Jacobs personally feels that, “unless I’m doing two things at once, I feel like I’m wasting time,” (149). Despite being dependent on multitasking, I decided to participate in my own conducted experiment; unitasking, to see just how long I could survive and to see if it would change the way in which I went about doing things in the future.



My original plan was to begin the experiment once I left UMBC to head back to Pennsylvania for break, but because I hadn’t seen my family in three months it would be impossible not to have a conversation while the radio was playing, and while I ate cookies on our way home, so I decided to start the day following Thanksgiving. Friday November 26th at 1pm I began my unitasking experiment, only doing one thing at a time. I had only just woken up ten minutes prior to, after staying up late trying to make a dance routine. After brushing my teeth then washing my face, I went downstairs for breakfast to eat a bowl of cereal. Normally I read the box while watching the news, but today was different; today I was unitasking so I could only do one thing; sit there and eat. Just eating the bowl of cereal and doing nothing else was pretty boring, but what I did realize was how loud of a chewer I was. My next task was to do the dishes minus listening to my ipod; lame. At this point I had not said good afternoon to my grandmother, so being concerned she asked why wasn’t I talking as much, and what was my deal. At that point I stopped doing the dishes and said,” I don’t mean to alarm you, but I am doing a unitasker assignment and would appreciate it if I wasn’t bothered for the remainder of the day”. Confused, my grandmother respected my wishes and notified my younger sister as well.

The third task of the day was homework, I figured with the minimal distractions why shouldn’t I be able to get it done? The only problem was the deprivation from my ipod which accompanies me while I do my homework assignments. Two hours into my homework all was still good in terms of unitasking, and I was able to focus more and thought that the information marinated better without the assistance of music. However, one thing that I did notice was that it took me longer to read a chapter without music being present. Taking a break from homework I thought it would be opportune time to engage in meditation, since Jacobs said that it helped during his experiment stating that, “meditation is all about sitting…it helps us slow down and see the amazingness of the universe”,(159). I couldn’t have agreed more. We currently live in a time where everything is fast pace, and where we feel the need to constantly be doing something, when in reality the most precious times are when you’re in a relaxed state. Jacob said it best, “sometimes you have to focus on the trees not the forest”, (165). Meditating allowed me to engage in cathartic thinking, which prompted me to begin living life with value, embracing even the smallest things while living stress free.


The last half hour before I crashed, I decided to work on a routine for an upcoming performance. Although I was able to finish a good portion of it, I was missing a key component: music. My weakness began to kick in, making it hard for me to control my urge for music to be played, so what did I do? I ran downstairs, took my yellow iPod off the charger and began to groove. Ahhh, how I missed it during the five hours of deprivation.


Based on my experiment, I realized that I can only last a limited amount of time when doing one thing; this is thanks to the countless need to be doing more than one thing at a time. From this, I plan to take what I learned into consideration especially the mediation part. After my experiment, I went downstairs and ate leftover thanksgiving food, while holding conversations with my family members about how I missed out on Black Friday deals. One thing I did not do while I ate, was text when my grand mom was talking to me. As indicated in the article, multitasking is a hindrance to memory and learning, and that conversations suffer because of this. On Thanksgiving Day, I recalled texting as a family member was trying to speak to me, and I only partially picked up what she was saying; this was where the miss-communication came in. It was because of this that I am now going to be respectful when it comes to conversing with someone instead of texting since it poses as a distraction,. Nonetheless, the experiment was life changing, for it has suggested some positive alterations that should be made in my life. Thanks to Jacob being a bad example, I along with others are able to learn from his mistakes, leading to a better lifestyle for ourselves.



Referenced From:

AJ Jacobs, "The Unitasker" from The Guinea Pig Diaries: My Life as an Experiment. Simon & Schuster, 2009.

Image from: My Sony Cyber Shot

Staying In Tune with the Tube!

In the Cole family household it is very rare that everyone will agree to watch one show that pleases all of our interests. With my younger sister being a “zapper”, flipping through channels constantly until she finds a music oriented show, and my grandmother being a “loyalist”, always complaining about her DVR being full which hinders her from watching “Army Wives”, it seems like there is never a clear consensus. At least for my twin and I who are “casuals”, we can agree on a show like “So You Think You Can Dance”, while dancing simultaneously during the shows duration. Looking from the outside in, one would think that my household consisted of barbaric animals who couldn’t agree on one thing without an argument being imposed considering our different television preferences. But ladies and gentlemen, contrary to popular beliefs, this is considered normal.

According to Philip Swan, author of “TV.Com: How Television is Shaping our Future”, “today’s viewer needs constant gratification: if she’s not entertained or intrigued for any stretch of time she will flip the dial,” (Jenkins 264). I can agree with this statement single handily considering the fact that I prefer shows that include comedy, dance, superheroes, or fashion and if a show doesn’t include these factors then my interest is limited. The same applies to my grandmother, who at most would watch five minutes of a dance show simply to satisfy my twin and I’s request to tune in for the latest dance craze.

When it comes to television consumption in groups, I tend to only watch award shows with friends because it’s a live broadcast, and I find it entertaining to see others reactions when watching the same program. Not to mention it sparks conversation even though majority of it may be gossip about someone’s performance or outfit. Nonetheless it’s a great opportunity for social interaction and as Debra Jones puts it, “It's not who you’re talking about its who you’re talking with that matters,” (Jenkins 268). I can’t help but t mention how my grandmother is the queen of television gossip especially in regards to the “View”, which I am exposed to through her constant phone conversations with her girlfriends about the latest on celebrities, and what Whoopi Goldberg was wearing today. As for other television programming, I watch dance related shows with my twin since we share the same passion, and leave the comedy programs like Kevin Harts, “Seriously Funny” for family time despite its derogatory language.

Recently however, I haven’t been watching that much television since I am in college which comes with demands that are important like homework, dance, and work. If I do find time to watch television, which is very rare, I watch the episodes that I missed on “Hulu” since nine times out of ten the show I wanted to watch isn’t airing on that particular day in which I have no work. I wouldn’t say that I use the internet as a constant supplement to television but it is convenient when I do miss a show. As for my cell phone, I only use it for texting and calling purposes just as I did when I was at home, so it really doesn’t have much of an influence on my television habits. Since the turkey season is fastly approaching which is complimented by a brief break from school, I am sure that I will be consuming more television than I am now!

As for whether or not television consumption has changed the Net-age or vice versa, I personally believe that it has had a slight effect on myself but for shows like “American Idol, and “Americas Best Dance Crew”, it has had an impact. As a series progresses, audience members begin to have favorite contestants or groups, so they are bound to rush to the internet to find out more information about them. I was guilty of doing this when it came to one of the seasons on ABDC, where I decided to look up “Boogie Bots”, only to find out that members of the crew attended UMBC!!! Internet influence can have both positive and negative effects, an example of a negative effect would be finding out that one of the contestants on a show used to be a stripper prior to competing which would spark up controversy. Cellular devices also contributes to television consumption with some shows having viewers use their cell phones to cast their votes in order to keep a certain person or group on the show.

So what assumption can we make from this? It’s a clear one: television consumption with the aid of internet and cell phones will be common formulas for the future success of television programming.

Reference From:
Jenkins, Henry, “TV in the Net-age”, Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, 6th edition. Boston. Pearson, 2010

Image From: http://ldsmediatalk.com/2009/04/01/video-watching-live-tv-still-king/

The Medium of the Message

Is the message the medium, or is the medium the message, that is the question. According to McLunhan, the medium is the message in which we as a society tend to derive personal experiences and social consequences from that medium. An example of a medium would be a lightning bolt, where the message would be light, while another scenario can be the radio which is the medium thus creating XM radio and Pandora sites representing the message. In Mark Federmans article, ”What is the Medium of the Message”, he references much of McLunhan’s ideas, including his claim that we tend to “focus on the obvious, how it works and what we can expect from it, while not realizing its unanticipated consequences that may reflect our societies conditions and culture.” Basically what McLunhan wanted us to realize is how society and culture can influence our interactions, thus creating change from the medium to the newly created message.

McLunhan can be considered as a technological determinist, one who believes that technology influences the way we are, and quite frankly I don’t blame him. An example of this can be related to broadcasting and radio. Newscasters from broadcast stations present the public with information, whether it’s weather, sports or local news. The medium in this case would be the newscasters, and the message would be the perceptions of the public when it comes to the topics being discussed. (Media influence) When it comes to radio, which is the medium, the introductions and creations of new stations became the center of attention. You didn’t have to hear just your local station which was, according to the “Radio in the Television Age” essay by Peter Fronatale, the radio programming that worked best. Instead there were jazz stations for jazz listeners, classical stations, r&b stations, sports stations, and many more, depending on your particular interest. This new aspect eventually branched off into even more categories, with the aim to better connect with the public. Not only that, but given the distinct language of spoken English that radio personalities and disc jockeys have, articulation and all, the desire to speak “that particular way” became more widely accepted, and anything outside of that realm was considered not normal. This idea along with the branching off of stations signifies the messages developed from the medium.

What comes from this “McLunhan Equation” is an advantage: early warning signs. Looking beyond the obvious allows you to make predictions about what’s yet to come, and by knowing this you become well prepared for the change. “Anticipation gives us the power to deflect and control force”, as referenced in Feermans article. This statement in itself holds true, from the birth of the CD player for example, one could almost make the assumption that running while holding a CD player in your hand wasn’t going to last for long; which allowed for the introduction to mp3 players. Let’s face it with all of the new “mediums”, today, I am sure it won’t be long until we have finally created the message, thanks to the fast developing technological world we live in.
Referenced From:


Federman, Mark. "What Is the Medium of the Message." July 2009. Web. .

Fornatle, Peter,Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: a Reader. “Radio in the Television”, Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2009. Print.

So You Think You Can...Dance?

While flipping through one of my magazine subscriptions five years ago, I happened to come across an advertisement that read, “So You Think You Can Dance.” Being a dancer, I replied to the advertisement by saying, ”yes, I do think I can dance”, but just by that one advertisement I realized that I had a lot more work to do in order to be the “ideal” dancer. In the magazine, there were a series of ads promoting the show, and of course I was super excited to watch the season premier. In the mean time however, I decided to work on my image a bit, so that once I was old enough to try out for the show I would have exactly what they were looking for, a fit and toned dancer.

Fast forward five years later and here I am today, attending school in Maryland and pursing my dream as a hip hop dancer; being on a dance competition team, networking with incredible dancers minoring in dance to become a well rounded and being offered a chance to be a backup dancer for an up and coming artist. Oh, and might I add too, the addition of a fit body, toner than what it was five years ago, because who really is going to want a non-fit dancer…or so the advertisement implied.


No matter where you go, advertisements are always around us, but the question remains as to what is really being advertised to the public. Are there underlying factors that come with certain advertisements, or is there a hidden meaning behind the surface layer? As Ruskin and Schor explain in their article,”Every Nook and Cranny”, “advertising manipulates symbols and create meaning.” So let’s take a look at the “So You Think You Can Dance” promotional ads, to see what was really being advertised.



This ad obviously displays the name of the show, the network in which it’s being aired on which is “Fox”, and when it will be airing. It also shows a female in motion who is wearing shorts, a bra top, high top socks, and chucks for shoes. That is just the surface of the advertisement, now it’s time to deconstruct, because as stated in Friths “Undressing the AD: Reading Culture in Advertising” article, advertisements reflect our society, and this advertisement in particular is showing a hip hop dancer ,which is currently considered as form mainstream dancing. The assumption that the female is a hip hop dancer is based on the fact that she was probably dancing when the photo was taken since water is being splashed, and her attire and body language is typical for a hip hop dancer. Before the 2004 movie,”You Got Served”, hip hop dancing was seen on the outside of what was considered as real dancing, since ballet was normally seen as the ideal style of dance when referring to a dancer. After the movie premiered however, hip hop dancing became mainstream, thanks to the popularity and excitement that came from the high energy performances featured in the movie. Nowadays, many movies like Step Up 2 are being created that focus on hip hop dancing, as well as television shows like MTV’s “Americas Best Dance Crew”, and Hulu’s “League of Extraordinary Dancers”. When it comes to other forms of dance, there isn’t much “hype” found in the mainstream realm of things but there are shows like “Dancing with the Stars” that have survived even without the presence of hip hop dance. Of course the show SYTYCD doesn’t focus just on hip hop dancing, it covers a myriad of different types of dance but for advertisement purposes they wanted to include a dance style that was hip. Consider this, would viewers really tune in if there was a ballerina in a tutu on the front of this promotional ad? Maybe, but the ratings wouldn’t be as high.

The second underlying meaning in this ad is the promotions of both Converse and Adidas. Dancers in general occasionally sport high top socks, and chucks, name brand or not. But what two better companies would be the ideal places to get these two elements from than the Adidas Company who are famous for their stripped bottoms and Converse Companies whose sneakers are notably considered as hip and affordable? I myself wear high top socks from Adidas and Converse chucks when I dance.


The last message that is being portrayed in this advertisement is body image. Earlier I mentioned that I wanted to work on being a better dancer not just technique wise, but body wise as well. “It’s more honest to think of culture as a process that makes you desire things”, says Puckett author of the article,” How Much Did You Pay for Your Identity”. This statement holds true for most people including myself, since I desired to have a toned body after seeing the dance advertisement. The dancer in the advertisement is wearing minimal clothing and is clearly toned. Dancers’ especially professional ones who do hip hop, contemporary, or modern dance tend to wear less or fitted clothing to show body form and alignment, so one can see the emphasis in movements. In reality, a dancer wouldn’t show off his/her body if it weren’t toned and the likelihood of having a heavyset dancer showing their midriff in a competition is slim to none, with some exceptions being participants on the show, ”Dance Your Ass Off”, and the male dance crew “Heavy Impact”, who was featured on the show, “Americas Best Dance Crew”. Frith suggests that our culture values what is socially accepted, which is featured in advertisements, and one thing that is praised in this ad is having the ideal thin and toned body. In terms of my situation, I personally decided to tone up not because I was fat or anything, but for endurance purposes so that I can be able to dance for ten minutes straight. I also toned up so that I could have the freedom to bare my midsection without being insecure about my body.


So, as I was flipping through my magazine subscription yesterday evening I happened to come across an advertisement for “So You Think You Can Dance “and its upcoming season. Instead of saying, “yes, I think I can dance”, I said “this is just a promotion of a show airing on “Fox” that includes mainstream hip hop dancing that feature slim dancers because their culturally accepted.” So yes, I do think I know how to analyze advertisements.


Resources:
Frith, Katherine. "Undressing the Ad: Reading Culture in Advertising." Questia - The Online Library of Books and Journals. 1997. Web. 07 Nov. 2010. .

Puckett, Scott. "Punkrockacademy.com - Articles How Much Did You Pay For Your Identity?: The Big Business Of Selling Individuality To Kids." Punkrockacademy.com - Critical Thinking about Music That Matters. 26 Mar. 2008. Web. 07 Nov. 2010. .

Ruskin, Gary. "Every Nook and Cranny: The Dangerous Spread of Commercialized Culture." Common Dreams | News & Views. 25 Mar. 2005. Web. 07 Nov. 2010. .

Image from:
http://www.entertainmentwallpaper.com/images/desktops/movie/tv_so_you_think_you_can_dance28.jpg

Structuralism in Superhero Movies

Superheroes are among the most prominent figures in American society, despite them being just fictional characters. Children and adults both admire, become fascinated, and even obsess over these characters (including myself), partly because they possess extraordinary superhuman strengths, fight crime, and have the goal to protect and better humanity. It is not a surprise then, that due to the popularity of comic books, movies based off of them soon came about. One should note however, that all superhero movies follow a certain structure, patterns that are seen in almost all of these movies. This can also include both myths (social concepts and attitudes determined by history) and binary oppositions, (arguments between two oppositions against each other).

Superhero movies wouldn’t be complete without some type of conflict, whether by a person, a situation, or an environmental factor. In most cases the binary opposition for these types of movies includes a hero vs. a villain, almost like good vs. evil. This structure is evident in almost all superhero movies otherwise it wouldn’t have a strong enough plot without the addition of a villain. According to Will Wright’s essay, “The Structure of Myth & The Structure of the Western Film”, a myth contains structure so that they can be understood correctly. A myth to this binary opposition could be that there is just one hero and just one villain in superhero movies, and this would be wrong. Yes, there are some movies that have just one hero vs. one villain, such as 2002’s,”Spiderman”, which had the hero, Spiderman, and the villain, the Green Goblin. Other movies may have more heroes than villains, or vice versa, like “Fantastic Four”, which has four superheroes against one villain, Victor Doom. An example of the opposite is found in “Spiderman 3”, which has Spiderman the hero vs. Venom, Sandman, and New Goblin, the villains. (Towards the end of the movie ,the New Goblin represents the good side with Spiderman).Sometimes the ratio of heroes and villains can be balanced, like in the movie, “ Batman Forever”, which has Batman and Robin vs. the Joker and Two face.

When it comes to the characteristics of being a superhero in these movies, myths are common , often referring to one being characterized as possessing superhuman strengths and having the ability to fly .To have superhuman strengths is one thing, but the way in which each superhero defines those strengths can vary incredibly. For one, not all superheroes include the characteristic of flying. In “Superman Returns”, Clark Kent otherwise known as “Superman” has the capabilities to fly, as well as the Marvel superhero, Ironman who flies by releasing fire through the palms of his suit in both “Ironman” and “Ironman 2”. Spiderman can somewhat fly, but with the help of his webs, and the same goes for Batman, who uses special gadgets and his infamous bat mobile to get around. How these heroes get their powers also contains a myriad of explanations; the characters from “Fantastic Four”, took a flight into space using a device that Reed Richards created, which ends up breaking down and exposes the members in the rocket to cosmic radiation. This results in them gaining their amazing super abilities; Susan (Invisible girl) is able to become invisible, Johnny (The human torch) can fly and become a flame; Reed ( Mr. Fantastic) can stretch incredibly, and Ben ( The Thing) has great strength and durability. Bruce Banner from the movie, “The Incredible Hulk”, gains his strengths after supervising an experiment of a gamma bomb. He doesn’t gain specific superhero powers that are “positive” per say, but does include the ability to transform into the Hulk once his adrenalin is rushed, in which he becomes aggravated.

Another myth when it comes to superhero movies is that they all wear spandex. Although this statement is true for movies like; “X Men”, “Batman”, “Superman”, “Supergirl”, “Captain America”, “ Kick Ass” and the “Fantastic Four”, the only outlier to this myth is the movie ”Ironman”, with its main character sporting steel instead of spandex.

With all the superhero movies in the world, and for those to come, it is quite evident that the basis of these movies will always include the hero vs. villain. Not only that, but they will also include different ways in which they gain their superhuman strengths, how they fight their villains, and will still have the same sole purpose in the end: to save the day and protect humanity.

Referenced From:
Storey, John, and John Storey. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: a Reader. “The Structure of Myth & The Structure of the Western Film”, Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2009. Print.

Image from:http://www.collider.com/2009/11/25/justice-league-crisis-on-two-earths-trailer/

Getting informed is not just a mainstream thing, its a comedy thing too

The introduction to television journalism has enabled the public to be informed in a unique way; by allowing them to use both their visual and auditory senses. According to Mitchell Stephens, author of the essay, “Television Transforms the News”, journalists in the United States had a, “moderating influence from corporate owners and government regulators”. This prompted television news to become fascinating to the public. This fascination of television news comes from the organization of it all, with information coming from main television anchors, weather persons and sportscasters. People began to enjoy news that was “personally delivered to them by familiar human presence” (Stephens 250). Today there is not just one type of news, there’s two; mainstream and comedic forms. There are both benefits and limitations to mainstream news and comedic news but as far as “truthfulness” goes, I believe that Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”, does a better job at conquering this. Not only does he give you truthful coverage, but also validity when it comes to news representation compared to mainstream television.

Recently in the news, the rescue of the 33 Chilean Miners has been the topic of discussion. While watching CNN’s coverage on the rescue, they informed the public on: how they were rescued and what occurred during those 69 days trapped underground; what physical and health problems they would now have to face; and what lies for the miners ahead. They explained how on August 5th, the miners were caved in and were living off of fish and water during their time underground. CNN interviewed one of the miners who said that they didn’t turn on each other, and used a democratic approach when making decisions while holding onto their faith. Following their rescue, a media blitz soon evolved, with offers of movie deals surfacing and suggestions on what the miners would be in for when it came to their so called “second honeymoons’. They shown a clip of the President of Chile speaking in front of the media and was praised for taking control of the situation, carrying out a successfully executed operation.

Comedy Central’s coverage of the Chilean Miners rescue on “The Daily Show” gave a brief overview of the incident. Jon Stewart pointed out what the mainstream news failed to showcase, which included how they were not enduring harsh living conditions that prevented them from detachment of the world. Instead they had a television underground that allowed them to watch soccer games. Not only that, but they did have some nourishment even though it was scarce, but not to the point where they would die from not eating. (Your body can go 40 days without food before it breaks down.) As far as what lied ahead for the miners once they got home, Stewart wasn’t hesitant in saying that the men were going to get, “laid”. In terms of the movie deals offered to the miners, the show pointed out how the miners requested books on how to deal with fame, and how they were well enough to jump around with full blown euphoria despite being trapped for 69 days.

Both television news forms did inform the public on the heroic story of the trapped Chilean Miners, but to a certain extent. CNN’s coverage was very informative and included thick description on the events that occurred during and following the rescue of the miners. This allowed viewers to see the whole picture. Jon Stewarts coverage was not as informative and only focused on the post rescue of the miners, after briefly sharing their heroic rescue. When it came to how the news was presented overall, CNN didn’t have much flexibility to state what they really thought went on with the miners or what would happen afterwards. This is based on the fact that newscasters just burrow facts, which makes them limited to say things outside of realm. “The Daily Show” as commented by Venise Wagner from Rachel Smolkin’s article, “What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart”, gives a “balance in showing you what’s really going on”. A prime example of this would be Jon Stewart showing a clip of the miners watching soccer on television, to say that they were not living as badly as we thought. Some critics say that “The Daily Show” lacks accuracy since they just get a “whiff of the news and then work with what they have”, whereas mainstream media tells you more accurate information without commentary. Mainstream television takes a more serious approach on presenting the news, which can be beneficial and negative at the same time. It is not bad to focus on the seriousness of certain situations but who wants to listen to depressing stories every day? Stewarts show adds humor to current events, making the news more enjoyable rather than depressing.

When it comes to truthfulness however, “The Daily Show” does do a better job at achieving this, one thing that mainstream television doesn’t. Jon Stewart is bold, and is this is the reason why viewers find him credible and substantive according to an IUP study. If his show didn’t achieve this, than he wouldn’t have been honored with Television Critics Association Award, for Outstanding Achievement in news and information. The times in which we live in are depressing enough so why reiterate this through the media when you can get informed the same thing but adding humor to it? They say humor is the medicine so why not watch a news show that does just that?


Referenced from:

"What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart." American Journalsim Review. Ed. Rachel Smolkin. June-July 2007. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. .

Stephans Mitchell,"Television Transforms the News" Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, 6th edition. Boston. Pearson, 2010.