Totes blogging, at the mome.

In the blur of biased news shows, it is sometimes hard to figure out if you’re watching a so-called “fair and balanced” news program, or a comedy news show. For this blog, I examined the way the Daily Show and Mainstream News reported on the current “Tea Party Protests” going on around the country. These Tea Party Protests were mostly held on or around tax day, protesting that taxes are too high. The Daily Show and Mainstream reports were so different that it almost seemed as though they weren’t reporting on the same story. However, that not being the case, it is clear that both types of shows have different agendas when it came to reporting the event.

First of all, these two types of stations focus on very different aspects of the protests. The Daily Show mostly focuses on the inaccuracies of the protesters. Fox News mostly focuses on their “patriotism.” MSNBC spent a lot of time coyly poking fun at the protesters by calling them “tea baggers” and talking about them “tea bagging.” After seeing footage of the event on Fox News, it was clear that the protestors were doing a great job of pushing Fox’s anti-Obama Administration agenda; therefore, they were glorifying the protesters. Seeing it on MSNBC, it was clear that the protesters did not stand for the, let’s be honest, very liberal views of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, so they were making fun of them in a, in my opinion, hilarious way. However, on The Daily Show, though still from a liberal point of view, John Stewart would have footage of the Tea Parties and their protesters, but question each shot. For example, he had a video of many protesters (and, actually, a Fox News anchor) calling Obama a Fascist. He had footage of them using babies as props in their protest. Finally, a shot of a ridiculous looking woman dressed in a body suit to look as though she were Barack Obama in his underwear holding a mutilated Elmo. He went on to point out that these extreme accusations and radical displays of protesting were often things conservatives scorned liberals for in their protest. Also, he went one step further sending out a reporter into the field challenging these radical accusations in a funny, non-aggressive way.

Also, The Daily Show spends a lot of time describing MSNBC, CNN, And Fox News’ ironically different ways of reporting on the event, something Mainstream media (aside from the back-and fourth MSNBC/Fox News bickering) does not often do. John Stewart, in a funny and thought-provoking way, points out how backward the Mainstream News stations seem to be when reporting this event. Fox News, who they had footage of scorning protesters, were all of a sudden all for fighting “The Man,” a stance CNN more often than not takes. However, in the Tea Parties, CNN reporters are being combative and aggressive with the protesters telling them that their protest doesn’t really make much sense. Finally, humorously, John Stewart goes on to point out that, in the context of the Tea Parties, MSNBC has turned into the Daily Show because of their plethora of “scrotum jokes” about tea bagging. You do not get this type of social commentary on mainstream media news shows.

I when comparing the two types of news broadcasts, it’s important to note the benefits and limits of each. Shows like the Daily Show visibly has less loyalty and responsibility to certain political parties and corporations. Because of this, they are able to comment and say things that other mainstream news shows cant. Rachel Smolkin, in her article, “What the Mainstream Media Can Learn From Jon Stewart,” writes of Hub Brown’s reaction to certain parts of the Daily Show. ‘“There are days when I stand up and point to the TV and say, 'You're damn right!'” It’s not often one gets this type of reaction to mainstream news shows because they are more constrained in their commentary. However, something the Daily Show lacks is even remotely unbiased reporting.

On the other side of the story, mainstream media, since they are more serious about their reporting, obviously give a lot more factual information than the Daily Show does. However, mainstream media limits itself in the fact that many outlets manipulate these facts to support their way of thinking. Also, when mainstream media tries to make it more interesting by using things like citizen journalism, it often makes mainstream news less reliable. As Reyhan Harmanci discusses in his article, “CNN discovers the downside of ‘citizen journalism,” people often post fake news and it affects the credibility of the mainstream news, who are supposed to be extremely credible.

In a way, I do feel like this is an unfair comparison. People, generally, do not count of the Daily show to say informed on the issues of the day since it is a comedy show. The Daily Show does not HAVE TO be informative or factual or any of the sorts because it is a comedy show. However, they do decide on their own to be informative at times and can prove to be a refreshing, truthful voice in a sea of mainstream B.S. We expect mainstream news to be hard-hitting, factual, and extremely informative. We only EXPECT the Daily Show to be funny. In that way, they aren’t comparable. However, since the Daily Show often decides to be informative, that is just a plus.

When you're reading this blog, or any other blog for that matter, I know what you must be thinking. You must be thinking about how blogging and online news has the potential to wholly replace newspapers. That blogs are intended to get the news out, to let people vent, to share music, or to pretty much share anything. You're thinking about how they are convenient, free, and interesting. But, on the other hand, they're extremely subjective and you feel bad for all those men and women loosing their jobs at the newspaper. And then you go on reading the latest post on PerezHilton.com.
Marshall McLuhan was interested in the fact that we "tend to focus on the obvious" (Federman, "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?") when it comes to technologies. We may think about what the technology will replace and what are it's advantages and disadvantages, but we don't look very far into the "ground." Ground consists of the less obvious aspects of life that we do not notice when thinking about how technologies influence life. However, since we do not look deep enough into the footprint new technologies leave on our society, these technologies have "unanticipated consequences." Unfortunately, we are content in our shallow observations and happy with just paying attention to what we believe is the message of the program we are watching.
When McLuhan stated, "The medium is the message," he meant that the medium, which is any extension of ourselves, creates a change in the pattern of society, which is the message. The message is not simply what is in the content of a show or how one uses the technology, as one may think. McLuhan asks us to look past that shallow definition of message. However, these changes in out society are slow processes that we do not always notice until we look back on the introduction of the medium. However, McLuhan states that it is important to notice these consequences so that we can anticipate the change.
Knowing this, McLuhan’s theory is absolutely related to technological determinism. Although, McLuhan’s ideas both support and reject the idea of Technological Determinism, The technology, or the medium, determines the shape of society into the deepest facets of social, religious, cultural, and political life. It slowly changes societies norms, values, and thoughts. McLuhan writes in “Understanding Radio,” “That Hitler came into political existence at all is directly owing to radio.” Essentially, McLuhan is saying that Hilter’s political career was determined by radio. In this aspect, his ideas do support technological determinism.
On the other hand, McLuhan explains that, because society is always demanding more from technology, we, the consumers of media, also become the producers. It is a never-ending cycle because we will always want more and more and more from our technologies. Therefore, we will produce more and more and more. As the technology moves society forward, society moves technology forward.
It takes no stretch of the imagination to accept that many people are very confused about this statement, “the medium is the message.” Because of this, Mark Federman wrote, “What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message” to help make this statement more clear. He explains what McLuhan meant when he said that medium is any extension of us. Federman explains that a hammer is a medium because it is an extension of our arm. And a wheel as a medium is an extension of our legs. Medium is anything that will create a message, or a change. Furthermore, anything we create or invent, any ideas we have, and ideals we hold all create change, therefore, are all McLuhan media.
Though sometimes a little difficult to understand because of the completely different perspective he uses, McLuhan’s writings engross the reader in a deep conversation about a technology. In his essay, “Understanding Radio,” McLuhan is not satisfied with staying on the surface of the subject, explaining its advantages and disadvantages. He comprehensively explains the impact it had on multiple components of society. He speaks of radio’s intimacy and “its power to turn the psyche and society into a single echo chamber.” He writes of how, though still being private, it tribalizes the world by making it smaller and creating bonds by those listening. Though his thoughts are sometimes seemingly disjointed, they do prove that the introduction of technologies create changes in many more areas of the world than we, due to our "human indifference to social effects of these radical forces," often notice.

I walked into this media deprivation assignment already slightly media deprived. I had taken my MacBook to the folks at the Mac Store to be fixed. What they said would take two days ended up being a long, painful 9-day process (And it was only done on that 9th day because I went in and raised hell). But even with that small taste, I would find myself walking back to my room in Patapsco and sitting at my computer desk bewildered. No Facebook? No myUMBC? What is this computer desk for without a computer lying upon it? So many questions.

I returned home for spring break, alas, still without my beloved MacBook. Two days into the break, I decided it would be a great day to be media deprived. I went to sleep Monday night without watching television, in contrast to how I usually go to bed watching the unrelenting re-runs of Hardball, Countdown, and Rachel Maddow’s show. Good thing I caught them earlier so I could sleep soundly.

I woke up on the early side to the buzzer sound on my alarm clock. It was not as a relaxing wake-up as the usual specially chosen iPod song, but it did the job. It was rough getting ready in the morning, doing my hair and makeup, and getting dressed, without watching the news. I like to catch it to catch up on important things that are supposed to happen during the day, like press conferences or signing legislation. I had never gotten ready in the morning so fast before! However, it was not to my advantage, because I couldn’t think of anything to do with all my extra time. Then I remembered I did not have to be print media deprived, so I yelled down to my father to please turn off the television, then trotted on downstairs. I asked him to recommend some newspaper articles before he left for work, and I sat down and read while I ate my cereal. It was kind of hard reading that early in the morning. I constantly found my mind wandering and feeling sleepier and sleepier. What I would have given for some optical stimulation from the television to wake me up a little…

Rather easily, I convinced my mother to join me on my one hour fifteen minute music-less drive to Columbia Mall to pick up my computer. The time flew by talking to my mom, as we usually do in a car anyway. The only difference I could tell was I was fidgeting less with my iPod, therefore, driving safer. When we arrived at the mall, I found myself constantly having to leave stores to get away from the music (I was trying to have the most authentic media deprivation as possible). However, the only store not playing music was the pet store, and I had to stay with my mom since there would be no way to find her in the mall without a phone, so I had to enter the other stores. It just goes to show that it is just about impossible to be indoors in a commercial area and get away from media.

Meanwhile, I was getting fidgety knowing that I had an iPod Touch in my pocket, that the mall has Wi-fi, and I have a Facebook application with which, by a click of a single button, I could be checking my notifications. And I thought having my phone off would make it less of a temptation. Wrong. I wanted to know if anyone was texting me. And this temptation wasn’t happening every hour. It was about every 10 minutes (or I think… I use my cell phone as a watch.). The biggest slap in the face, however, was walking into the Mac Store to get my computer. All the rows of computers and iPhones and iPods were calling my name. Surprisingly, I was strong enough to resist. I got my MacBook and got out of that store as fast as I could.

My mom and I got home around 7pm. I had about 4 hours left. And I had no idea what to do with myself.

To avoid the anxiety I started to feel, I had to think fast… A BOARD GAME! Scrabble took up a good hour and a half, but all anyone wanted to do was sit down in the living room and find a good show to watch. I felt almost as if I was being ostracized for not watching television. I couldn’t be with my family because of the assignment. As I sat in my room alone, I realized that, as Howard Gardner puts it in his piece “The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading,” “periods of lonely silence or privacy,” absolutely do, “seem toxic.” So toxic, in fact, that I gave up and decided to just sleep. So, I took out an old book I’d been meaning to finish, laid in bed, and eventually dosed off to sleep.

Going into this assignment, I knew I would feel anxious and lost, but knowing still did not prepare me for the task. Even though I had almost my whole day planned out so that not having technologies wouldn’t bother me, it still did! Why does every second of my day have to be filled with some filler of television noise or music for me to feel like my day is full? When I had only 2 more hours left to go, I gave up and went to sleep. And you better believe that I woke up a few hours later and checked my phone and Facebook.

As Danna Walker describes in her article, “The Longest Day,” that some of her students felt guilty of being so addicted to technologies, I did, too. Even though it is part of my culture, and it’s not entirely my fault, per say, I do feel as though I may be missing out on the world by sitting in front of a computer. Maybe if I deprive myself more often, I could make more plans to do things with friends and family to distract myself from technology. I could get out and see more things. I could read more books. I could have more conversations. I could meet new people, not just an arbitrary name on Facebook in the UMBC network.

But it is just too damn comfy sitting in this computer chair.

When thinking about arguing the superiority of speech or writing in today’s society, it is important to think about in what ways and for what reasons do we use each of these forms of communication? What do we write in emails, text messages and Facebook comments? What is not socially acceptable to message about, but is socially acceptable to say face to face? When do we message, and when do we talk? Basically, one must consider in what sense are they superior? When thinking about these questions, I began to get the impression that it is impossible to label neither speech nor writing as the absolute superior mean of communication. Though, with the emergence of email, texting, and online social networking sites, it is apparent that writing is superior in the sense of frequent use. However, one could also argue that, because of its depth and sense of intimacy and transparency, speech is superior in a substantive sense.
When considering how many Americans rather text a quick message or type up an email to respond to friends, family, or business acquaintances than call them, it does not take any stretch of the imagination to understand the ways in which writing has taken over speech in frequency. First off, there is a factor of convenience in sending quick, written, digital messages that is appealing to a great majority of society today. Time is especially precious in society today, and it seems that communicating by writing helps us preserve our time (Until we waste it lurking on Facebook). Also, writing is also popularized by the fact that it allows us to keep in touch with more people in difference places than speech ever made necessary before. Like Howard Gardner explains in the End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading, “young people seem to have a compulsion to stay in touch with one another all the time,” and we can stay in touch with multiple friends at one time through medias like Facebook, MySpace, Instant Messenger, and text messages. I believe this is another reason why writing is so widely used and is so popular in today’s society. Finally, I feel as though the frequency of use of writing could be attributed to its deliberateness enabled by secondary orality. There is a certain amount of comfort we get from knowing that there is a backspace key on a keyboard and an eraser on a pencil. Most people write with more confidence than speak with confidence, and you’re going to do what you’re comfortable with.
In past societies, however, written messages were not as expedient. Fifty years ago, you would not have written a letter to your neighbor about making plans for the weekend like you might write an email to them today. You would walk down the street and talk to them. Speech was what was convenient, efficient, and fast in the past. And however taken-for-granted speech may be in today’s society, it is apparent that speech is superior in a substantive sense.
Generally, when we take the time to meet one another or call and have a chat, conversations go more in-depth. There are more opportunities for questions, comments, and spontaneous thoughts. Though it takes more attention to diligently listen to another person during a conversation than to read an email on your own time, I feel as though more comes out of a face-to-face conversation than a meaningless Facebook comment. Also, in addition to depth, speech is certainly the only socially acceptable way of communicating certain important ideas. For instance, you would not ask someone to marry you over an email. You would not tell a family member about a death in the family over a text message and you should not tell someone you love them for the first time in an Instant Message. That would be absurd and disrespectful, so it is obvious that speech is superior in this sense. Speech is extensively more personal; therefore, it holds more substance and feeling. Finally, we can certainly learn more about someone through their speech than through their writing. You can easily hide behind a computer keyboard and have whatever persona you would like. Unless you are a fabulous actor or a convincing liar, it is a lot easier to lie about yourself in writing than to someone’s face. When you speak, you lay everything out for everyone to see. This is why, for instance, you would not see a presidential debate done over Instant Messenger. Americans expect to see their presidential nominees duke it out on the air, face to face, in order to get the best feel of their personalities and views by listening to the confidence, hesitance, and frustration in their voices. It’s true, as Susan Jacoby explains in The Dumbing of America, that we cannot learn much, if anything, from a 7.8 second soundbite from a presidential nominee. However, as good as she may sound on paper, it is hard to dispute the fact that we learned a lot about Ms. Sarah Palin from her Katie Couric interview by listening to the way she spoke and her hesitance during certain questions. Certainly, if she was able to check with John McCain on certain questions and “bring ‘em to ya” via email, she would have sounded much more intelligent. However, thanks to the telling nature of speech, we were able to learn a lot.
To me, there is no clear-cut winner in the race for superiority between speech and writing. Writing is clearly more convenient and more often looked to in order to get the word out in a fast and efficient manner. On the other hand, speech is distinctly more superior in a substantive sense, for it lets us reach further into conversations, express important issues, and gives us a more transparent look at one another. Both speech and writing have their pros and cons, and they have both contributed a lot and have been detrimental in certain ways, too. Regardless, it is hard to imagine life without either of these forms of communication.