Don't let the ears fool you

The Walt Disney Company is the second largest media and entertainment corporation in the world. The company’s revenue was $34.3 billion in 2006.
Founded on October 16, 1923 by brothers, Walt and Roy Disney as a small animation studio, it has become one of the biggest Hollywood studios, and owner of eleven theme parks and several television networks, including the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), but this is just a fraction of all of what Disney owns.
My research consisted of looking at Disney’s ownership that would fall under the category of ‘other.’ So let’s see what we got…
Disney Cruise Line, Baby Einstein, which is a line of multimedia products and toys that specializes in interactive activities for children, ESPN Zone, which is a small chain of very large sports-theme restaurants that include arcades, TV studios, and radio studios, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, Broadway shows, and of course, Disney owns The Disney Store.
My group members further researched Disney’s ownership: newspapers, magazines, TV and cable stations, such as ESPN, Motion Pictures, Music labels, the Mighty Ducks hockey team, the California Angels baseball team, theme parks around the world, ABC TV stations, Network News, and ABC Radio.
Needless to say, I learned Disney owns A LOT. Naively enough I had no idea they owned ABC, which is huge. Knowing that Disney has an influence on my news and information outlets does make start to wonder. Each one of their stations, and each television show, has Disney in its best interest, which means I’m basing my information and knowledge off a biased point of view. Quite a scary thought I think, especially after learning about PR’s influence on the news. How are we ever to find information without a bias?
What Disney has done, is made itself self-sustainable. Say Disney puts out a film, they have the means to put it “on pay cable television and commercial network television, it can produce soundtracks based on the film, it can create spin- off television series, it can produce related amusement park rides, CD-ROMS, books, comics, and merchandise to be sold in Disney retail stores” (McChesney Robert 47).
After today’s lesson, I think awareness of media ownership is important for any individual looking for truth and accuracy. Disney has an overwhelming power and influence over the public, which society should know, realize, and question when needed. We know big corporations, like Disney, are protecting their own economic interests, after all it is ALL about money, but who’s protecting ours?

I knew I loved David Suzuki

I'm doing an Internet Reserch assignment on web credibility. The topic I've choosen to pick is on whether or not genetically modified foods are good for us. After reading about this in Toxic Sludge, I had an idea on what side I'd take, but needed to find the sites to back me up. We were given specific websites to include in our study, one of course being Monsanto's home page. Impressive? Very. I actually questioned how I was going to back my side, when they appear to be doing such good for the world: Reducing the use of pesticides, improving crop yields, to help deal with the huge population growth, and to fight pests and bugs contaminating our foods. After visitng a couple of "anit-Monsanto" websites I was quick to remember the facts that I had learned when reading Toxic Sludge. Genetically Modified foods are not well motivated, they are driven based on economics, money to the producers.


Prwatch.org is a website sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy. Its purpose is in the title of the site. It analyzes incidents and reveals where public relations have added their spin on certain issues. On October 25, 2005, the site's "spin of the day" was about Monsanto’s Anti-Politics Machine. The site outlined Monsanto’s pubic relation tactics of "spinning" their products and processes. The site provided a link to a PDF regarding Genetic Engineering in Agriculture and Corporate Engineering in Public Debate. This Journal uses Monsanto, the largest company of GM foods as an example, saying it exemplifies the (GM) industries strategies by: “the invocation of poor people as beneficiaries, characterization of opposition as technophobic or anti-progress, and portrayal of their products as environmentally beneficial in the absence of or despite the evidence.” It specifically claims, “Monsanto has engineered public opinion to reduce critical scrutiny of the risks of this rapidly evolving technology.”

Monsanto is one of the company's oulined in Toxic Sludge that has used PR to "reshape reality and manufacture consent (Stauber and Rampton 2). They have campaigned and used the media to make the masses believe they are only doing well for society as a whole. "With media becoming dependent on PR for more and more of it's content, public relations executives have become inordinately powerful" (Stauber and Rampton 3). Activities outlined in Toxic Sludge that Monsanto can mark off their list include: clever slogans, global campaigns including 'paid media' (advertising) and 'free media' (public relations)and crisis management: against the environmental revolution. They have us believing they are actually helping the environment! Their homepage not only shows Monsanto's practices and products as being accepted by a science magazine (which we learn in Toxic Sludge is a sure win for advertising to use the 'experts agree' phrase. 189) but they were actually given an award from this science magazine.


The online journal I read also mentions how Monsanto tried, but failed to suppress Rachel Carson’s, Silent Spring. This book, which is known to start the Environmental Revolution, was published in 1962, and outlined the harmful effects of DDT. The document reveals Monsanto was fined 1.5 million dollars by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in January 2005 for violating the Foreign Corruption Act. The company bribed Indonesian officials to remove the requirement for environmental risk assessment for their Bt cotton.

There is obviously "a new censorship in this country, based on nothing but dollars and cents" (Stauber and Rampton 7)

Rampton and Stauber inform us of all the PR firms and lobbyists working for them, which I have to say are doing a darn good job. Go to Monsanto's home page and try and not be persuaded into believing that this company is not the solution to many of today's problems. Despite all the good things they claim they are doing, that doesn't "change the fact that the company's most profitable products include dangerous pesticides, artificial food additives, and risky bioengineered products" (Stauber and Rampton 72).

I came across a link of David Suzuki describing our consumption of genetically modified foods as a massive experiment. He exlains that only in thousands of years from now will we be able to provide the data, to conclude if there are any dangers in eating GM foods. He says, "Health authorities cannot possibly asses all combinations of genetically modified foods over a large enough population, over a long enough period of time."

I haven't heard from Suzuki in what feels like years. I remember thinking he was unbelievably boring, but that was probably because he wasn't a Backstreet Boy. I've grown much respect for Suzuki, not just as a scientist, but as a person. He has strong opinions and beliefs that are worth hearing, and considering. It's comforting to know he has no motive to sell a product, or portray an image. He soley wants to educate the public based on his beliefs of science, life and love. Although he may not look super cool...I can't remember the last time I was in awe over someone speaking (other than last weeks Mass Communication class of course!)

Here's the link to David Suzuki's interview with CBC regarding genetically modified foods. It's very informative! He dumbs down the science of it to help us understand the concept of what happens during the process of genetic modification.

Stauber, John, and Sheldon Rampton. Toxic Sludge is Good For You. Maine: Center for Media and Democracy, 1995
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-75-1597-11008/science_technology/genetically_modified_food/

Someone a Little More Real

Coming to the conclusion that the media, as a powerful tool has caused much of the breakdown, and confusion of today's society, lead me to the search of positive outcomes of media events. John Lennon's participation in the peace movement, his words of wisdom through music, and his dedication to make a differnce have both overwhelmed and touched me, and left me thankful for his courage.

John Lennon, “ The politically most active rock star of his generation... was shot dead outside his own home by a killer who was merely a tool, a human gun used and controlled by others to destroy a uniquely powerful radical figure who was likely to prove a rallying point for mass opposition to the policies soon to be implemented... by the new United States government headed by Richard Nixon.”
Lennon brought millions to join in the promotion of peace and the protest of government policies. He traveled the world promoting peace through his music and promotional “bed-ins” where he and his wife Yoko would stay in bed for weeks at a time, letting their hair grow, until peace came. Opposing war, Lennon's political activism can be seen in songs such as, “Give Peace a Chance," "Power to the People,""Working Class Hero."and “War is Over if you Want it.”


Imporatnt lyrics to note:
"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and classless and free. But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see"

In an interview published in Rolling Stone , Lennon states that “The people who are in control and in power, and the class system and the whole bullshit bourgeois scene is exactly the same except that there are a lot of middle-class kids with long hair walking around in trendy clothes... The same bastards are in control, the same people are runnin' everything... They're doing exactly the same things, selling arms to South Africa, killing blacks on the street, people are living in fucking poverty with rats crawling all over them. It's the same. It just makes you puke."

Lennon created “Bagism,” which can be understood by the equation:"Love + Peace = Bagism." The physical act of putting yourself in a bag, which he and Yoko demonstrated, teaches you to “slow down the rhythm of the world, to make it peaceful.” Lennon says we’re all in our own bags and we “… come out and look at each other every now and then, but we don’t communicate. If people did interviews for jobs in a bag they wouldn’t get turned away because they were black or green or long hair, you know, it’s total communication.”

Acting as a propagandist, Lennon describes selling peace like a product: “…like people sell soap or soft drinks, you know, and the only way to get people aware that peace is possible, and it isn’t just inevitable to have violence, not just war - all forms of violence. People just accept it and think ‘oh they did it, or Harold Wilson (British prime minister at the time) did it, or Nixon (US President) did it, they’re always scapegoating people. And it isn’t Nixon’s fault, we’re all responsible for everything that goes on, you know, we’re all responsible for Biafra and Hitler and everything. So we’re just saying SELL PEACE, anybody interested in peace just stick it in the window, it’s simple but it lets somebody else know that you want peace too, because you feel alone if you’re the only one thinking ‘wouldn’t it be nice if there was peace and nobody was getting killed', so advertise yourself that you’re for peace if you believe in it.”

Works Cited

http://www.john-lennon.com/whokilledjohnlennon.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob07.html

It Counts for Something

When I finally came up with a thesis for my semiotic analysis, I decided to change it. I think it's too vague and would require quite a few examples, which would each require research, which would make this essay quite long, and frankly, probably boring. I did however spend quite a bit of time developing my thoughts, so I just thought I'd put them out there. My drive for this paper came from my broken heart, when coming to the conclusion that all the media are based on lies.
My thesis was:
The media is a self-serving industry that has unrightfully led us into a constant struggle of dissatisfaction acting as both the cure and the cause for the downfalls of today’s societies.
or:
One could fight that everything we see is fake, however, I believe proving this point would turn into a philosophy paper. I’m going to prove that the media has lied, put spins, used images, sound and language to sway our beliefs, leading us to do things that are not in our best interest.

So there it is. The base of a paper that I may write at some point in my life, but not now.

To Dove, or Not to Dove: That is the Question.

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The search and agony of finding a new example,
Or to take the one Lipton provided,
And be greateful for the gift I was given?

It was like Lipton was speaking directly to me when he made the comment in class about choosing our paper topics. I knew picking women represented in advertising as sex objects that are unrealistically thin was an easy direction to take for the assignment. I felt caught; guilty; but he gave me a little more perspective of where to go with the assignment. He brought up the Dove campaigns, which embarrassingly enough, I knew nothing about. (Justification: I’ve been living on a cruise ship for the past 4 years!) Thanks to You Tube I was able to watch a couple of their controversial commercials, and am definitely left with something to think about.

Although Lipton might have scared us all by explaining the relevance of this paper, he lightened the stress factor by explaining there is no wrong topic, and encouraged us to choose a topic that’s important to us; you know, really make it our own. I have difficulty defining my values. I believe they are constantly evolving, paralleling your life experiences. A little while back when reading one of Anthony Robbins’s books, I almost felt like I was being bullied having to write down a clear-cut list of my values. I do believe your values are important to establish, but right now, I prefer to think about what excites me, and what/who I want to have in my life. Being happy, well off, finding love, developing my passions, and creating new ones, having great relationships with friends and family are all important to me. My boyfriend first hand will know that lying, and people who lie, really nerve me. I have no tolerance for fibs, little lies, big lies, even exaggerators; any fabrication of truth does not sit well with me.

I’m pretty sure one prominent message I’ve learned throughout our mass communication class is that everything is a lie. It started with learning about language as a written alphabet. Images of things cannot represent what it really is. Giving a face to feeling is a lie. “There is no such thing as love,” Lipton says. Images fool us. Advertisements offer us unrealistic promises. News, is not trustworthy as it often has had some sort of spin put on it. You can never be quite sure the information on the Internet is credible. Growing from the thought of propaganda, the Public Relations industry has boomed, and works invisibly to sway our opinions and thoughts. Has my mom been right all along telling me that she is the only person I can trust? But how can I trust her, when she’s living in a world of universal demented thought, which leaves me to the question, “Can I trust my own self?”



I REALLY liked the Dove Pro Age commercial. It had a touching message. Instead of focusing on “anti aging” which has a negative underlining tone, this ad describes itself as “pro age.” It was quite refreshing to see average looking people in the commercial. It was refused airtime, or it was taken off, because of the nudity, which I think is ridiculous. Out of all the crap on television this would have to be the least harmful thing. If anything, this should be considered art. All the posing is natural, yet still covers everything that should be covered. I personally enjoyed this commercial and am wondering how it got turned down. Maybe the move towards a more real look at the beauty industry scared the powers above. Of course people would prefer to see reality, but is reality really entertaining? More importantly, is reality going to sell the product? Showing bigger women on tv means it will soon be acceptable. That coincides with a huge money making industry, based on women wanting to loose weight.

Now I’m left to decide if I use this example in my very important paper. Lipton suggested it. Ideally I would have liked find my own example. On one hand, knowing that he suggested it shows it’s a good example, and would hopefully lead to a “good” paper. On the other hand, I know he’s seen the commercial and obviously has his own thoughts. Will I even come close to as thorough of analysis of Dove’s Pro-Age commercial as Lipton has? Oh the pressure. Lipton stresses to write our papers without him in mind, so that’s what I’ll do. Not that I am one of those people he talked about that would pick a topic to specifically please him. I can’t really see how, or why anyone would do that. Of course he’s marking your paper, your critical thinking, not if you believe in gay marriage or not.

Triumph of the Will

Our document of choice, Triumph of the Will was released in 1935 and became one of the better-known examples of propaganda in film history. The film shows excerpts from speeches of the Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler in Nuremberg, Germany. Footage of the masses, living off his every word reveals the theme of the film, Germany returning as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation. At this point the documentary reminded us of a scene in Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs; Man working as a unit, singing, happily functioning as tools for a means to an end. The right-facing swastika, the Nazi symbol, worn on the German’s sleeves can be compared to the poisonous apple in Snow White, both disguising their ability to kill.



Controversy of the film is based on the use of spectacular filmmaking promoting a system that, to many, is seen as evil. In Germany, this movie is classified as National Socialist propaganda and cannot be shown under post-war denazification laws, unless it is used in an educational context.
The German producer Leni Riefenstah claims that she was naïve about the Nazis when she made it and had no knowledge of Hitler's genocidal policies. Although in the film Julius Streicher announces "A people that does not protect its racial purity will perish." Defending herself against the charge that she was a Nazi propagandist, Riefenstah said that Triumph focuses on images over ideas, and should therefore be viewed as a total work of art. In 1964, she stated:
"If you see this film again today you ascertain that it doesn't contain a single reconstructed scene. Everything in it is true. And it contains no tendentious commentary at all. It is history. A pure historical film…It reflects the truth that was then in 1934, history. It is therefore a documentary. Not a propaganda film.”

Leni Riefenstah, acting as Hitler’s PR agent has proven herself to be successful manipulating public opinion while remaining invisible.

Wikipedia stated that Film critic Roy Frumkes has called Triumph "the antithesis of an objective work" and suggested that because "the film was altered by practically every in-the-camera and laboratory special effect then known" the film can be labeled anything except a documentary. Roger Ebert has observed that, "the very absence of anti-Semitism in Triumph of the Will looks like a calculation; excluding the central motif of almost all of Hitler's public speeches must have been a deliberate decision to make the film more efficient as propaganda.”

The film portrayed Hitler as a Supreme being, from the opening where he descends from the clouds, to his drive through Nuremberg where even a cat stops what it is doing to watch him, to the many scenes of Hitler standing on a podium addressing hundreds of thousands of followers complying in unison. Stating, “The Party is Hitler – and Hitler is Germany just as Germany is Hitler!” Relates to Aristotle’s law. If Hitler is Germany, and God is Germany, than that makes Hitler God. The thought of this is quite sickening considering the amount of people Hitler had killed and the disturbing ideologies he possessed.

This propaganda used to bring Hitler into power caused the Frankfurt school to propose the “Effects” model, which we learned about in the article by Phillip J Hanes. The model “envisioned the media as a hypodermic syringe, and the contents of the media were injected into the thoughts of the audience, who accepted attitudes, opinions and beliefs expressed by the medium without question.” If this was the case, than each who watched and participated in Hitler’s propaganda, believed that Hitler was indeed the god in which to follow.

Overall I think this was a learning experience for all, and overlapping ideas that we’ve covered in class justified our choice of documentary. It reinforces the power of the media and the effects of propaganda.

Looking at Hanes and my Random Theory of Men

To me, what is most important about the article by Philip J Hanes is the limitations and inaccuracies of focusing on audiences and their interpretations of media.

Learning the “science” of media is of great significance when looking at our society and the way it is today, however, only assumptions can be made when studying this “science.” This is something I think we must come to terms with as the variables involved with this study only allow for ambiguity.

I do believe that no one will interpret the media in the same way, regardless of similar demographics, because each individual is unique and can therefore not be pin-holed into a certain category. This thought somewhat contradicts a previous theory I have made over the past couple of years that insists people are actually all the same. I justified this theory when analyzing men. Working on cruise ships the last four years with men from all over the world of different ages, classes, and cultures, has opened my eyes to many things, one being a congruency of ALL men. A man’s obsession for sex, and the extremities they will go to get it has really left me in awe. I’m not a bitter woman. I have just come to the conclusion that all men are the same… dogs! I have somehow come to terms with this, and have learned not to hold a man’s nature against him. I mean, what are my other options? Of course lesbianism is one, but not for me ( not that there’s anything wrong with that).
I want to believe in the possibility of enlightenment, but what I have been exposed to has seen nothing of the latter. I’m not sure if this theory applies to women, which would make us a whole other species, which is something I want to look further into. My conclusion: Men and woman are different and that’s just how it is.

Now that I’ve made my thoughts of man clear, I think it’s safe to go back to my thoughts of the article. The most accurate model in measuring individual responses to media involving encoding and decoding was made by Stuart Hall. I say it was most accurate because out of all the previous models, his emphasizes a combination of the producer and the audience when forming meanings. The text, which will always have a preferred meaning by the producer “is encoded by the codes and conventions of the particular medium to hide the text and interpret the message” (4). The audience’s socio/economic frameworks as well as their previous knowledge of the medium affect their interpretation of the text. I also agree with Hall’s “dominant audience view which acknowledges the presence of a strong preferred meaning, but also saw texts as polysemic-they have a number of possible meanings, and that it is up to the audience to analyse and interpret the text” (5).

Professor Lipton’s analysis of the Gap commercial with Missy and Madonna, or shall we say, Madonna and Missy, perfectly demonstrates the objective of this model. Lipton chose to argue that the commercial displayed Madonna “on top” reinforcing media’s use of racial stereotypes. The commercial, encoded by the producers, using various signs, revealed to Lipton a dominance of Madonna in the commercial. Madonna opening the clip, with a close shot, turning to the left, walking past a white board with the word “top” on the ground, clearly displays the producer’s intention. However, there was someone in the class who saw Missy playing the dominant role based on the distribution of lyrics and portrayed Missy as the lead. The encode/decode model is therefore accurate in placing power in the audience when constructing meaning, but still leaves too many variables to make this study an exact science. Media existing as part of our culture and the complexities of focusing on audience responses are the reasons this study cannot fairly represent truths.

Audience in Media Studies. April 2000. The Media and Communications Studies Site. 7 Oct. 2007

Not Just made for Walking: Image Curration Reflection

Forest Gump said you can tell a lot about someone by their shoes. I agree with Mr. Gump. For a start you can tell if they can afford to buy a pair. But on a deeper level, you have to agree that when someone decides to put on a pair of shoes, they are making a statement. The statement could very well be that they don’t care about what they where on their feet. On the other hand, some people take pride in their shoe selection, and let others know that, as they parade them around the town.

Imagine a sleek, sexy, three-inch stiletto heel. Now think of the person who would be wearing that shoe. What about a pair of pumas or platforms? Construction boots or Converse? Flip flops or thigh-high boots? This proves my point. You can visualize the type of person that would be wearing these shoes. We judge people by what they wear on their feet, and rightfully so. We make a decision when we get dressed in the morning. Be it conscious, or not, what we choose to wear on our feet represents a part of who we are, acting as extensions of ourselves.

Our Image Curration is a series of different types of shoes, which really stand for something more than face value, when they are on someone's feet. We have put this together to make you realize the type of shoe someone wears reflects who their personality and who they are.

What was your last test score?

“Tests function as predictors of your future success.” For some reason I want to fight this comment made by Professor Lipton. I guess it’s because I want to justify that I will be successful no matter what mark I get on a (stupid) test. I know this was not at all an emphasis on today’s lesson, but it has struck a nerve with me, and I’d like to map out my thoughts.

Language and Success is obviously subjective, but to make matters easy, lets say getting a good job is equivalent to success. To get hired you’re going to first have an interview, which requires the ability to sell yourself; personality comes into play; the ability to look someone in the eye and express yourself with confidence. Although language is definitely important in expressing your thoughts, delivery is the key. I believe Marshall McLuhan’s statement, “the medium is the message,” relates to this thought. I think the ability to excite someone while engaging in conversation is a skill that is important in determining your success.

One could also fight that knowing you’ll be successful is the most important aspect in determining success but not everyone agrees with “The Secret” and I’m not about to preach it’s teachings. I just want to put some faith into those of us who posses a special quality that may not be noticed from a test score.

What do You do to Help Save the Environment?

Apparently I’ve become a very passionate individual about Environmental issues. Up until a few months when I watched Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, I didn’t realize the trouble our earth was in, nor did I feel that I had any part to play in the saving of our planet. Learning about the hazardous affects of Global Warming, lead to the enthusiasm I have today for conserving energy and encouraging others to do the same. I think it’s important to re-enforce that everyone’s help is needed in this matter. Many use the excuse that their individual actions are irrelevant in comparison to the size of the world. This mentality has to change, which is why I chose my activist project on Environmental Awareness.

I took the initiative to announce before class my idea for the activist project. Since everything was outlined I thought more people would have come talk to me after class, but only a few did, and it worked out for the best. Day one of research was quite challenging involving a lot of phone calls, which involved a lot of waiting, and a lot of rejection. I had made numerous calls to stores selling environmentally friendly products asking if they could donate, or at least lend us some products for our display. Luckily TAPS was very helpful in providing us with their water efficient products and informative literature. Home Depot, Enbridge, and the request of a Toyota Dealer to put a Prius on display outside the school all rejected our plea.

Who better to ask about environmental awareness than a Green Party representative? I thought this was a good idea since the election is coming up and no one really knows where the Green Party stands, which is an issue that frustrates me. Why are only 3 parties seen in the Media? Shouldn’t all parties have a fair chance in the election? I don’t know the exact details of the Green Party’s platform, but when Lipton said that by voting for them we would be spoiling our vote, I, someone who has never been into politics was actually offended, and felt my heart for a split second. I guess it is a little bit of a joke, considering the Green Party candidate in our riding, who is 19, committed to coming to the GH campus never showed up. However, I still disagree with Lipton. The fact that the Green Party is said to have %10 of the votes, which is a huge increase, says a lot in itself. Everyone has to start someone, which leads into the last point I wanted to bring up. Being able to vote for a party as well as a candidate would increase the chances of giving smaller parties a seat in the house. I think this is important in making well- rounded decisions, although I do agree that we don’t need any more politicians; they’re already costing us too much!

Sticking with the “green” them, I thought serving green tea would be appropriate, which went over well. I thank my brother, who manages a Starbucks (Pape and the Danforth!) for donating us with the tea and cantina. Instead of preaching, I thought it was a good idea to ask the students and staff at GH what they do to help the environment. Some realized they were not doing enough, and others were pleasantly surprised with how much they actually do and the positive effects they have on the environment. We posted their response on a sticker, which we hoped they would wear all day, promoting environmental awareness.
We had Inconvenient Truth playing on television, which I think is a movie everyone should watch. Also, having facts on display regarding the results of conserving really stunned people, which was a great feeling.

Since I have never done anything like this before, it really was a learning process. I learned that to get what you want you have to ask. Although, not everyone followed through, they might have, under different circumstances, and that’s exciting. Knowing that we made a good number of people think about how they can contribute to help our environment, really gives me a tingling sensation. I couldn’t be happier with the way things turned out. We had a lot of positive feedback, which was very much appreciated.

Being able to feel good about doing something as well as check it off, as an assignment is a bonus, almost like getting paid for charity! I’d like to thank my group for their collaborative effort, and supportive nature. Any more active assignments (please)?

Let's re-think that thought.

I view myself as an individual thinker, someone who does not follow crowds. I’m conscious of my opinions, and how they are subject to change, but only under my consent. I’m aware of media’s potential to manipulate, but would never agree to say they have made me the person I am today; that is, until I started this Mass Communication class.
Consumer’s trust in the media is dangerous. In a 1994 interview with Playboy, Marshall McLuhan describes media as extensions of man. “Whenever we watch a TV screen or read a book, we are absorbing these extensions of ourselves…we can’t escape this perpetual embrace of our daily technology unless we escape the technology itself and flee to a hermit’s cave.” I’m not suggesting that we all become hermits, but I think it’s necessary to achieve a global awareness of media’s role in shaping our thoughts, perceptions and points of view.


The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan." 1994. Playboy Magazine. 7 Sept. 2007

This Juice is Making me Thirsty

Last class Professor Lipton used the word “juicy” when describing the information he was giving us. I’m not sure why he questioned the likeness of the word, but I thought it was both accurate and effective for what he was describing. Wanting to stimulate our minds with “juicy” information, along with his “new” teaching methods is admirable. He questioned the results of being an entertaining educator. I would say that most students prefer being involved in a lesson as opposed to being lectured at, and using different media does keep our attention and adds variety.

Postman clearly states that the image/photograph has brought us into a world of seeing, not reading, which has lead to a culture overwhelmed by irrelevance, incoherence, and impotence (Postman 76). It is also important to note that he describes the television not only as entertaining, but that “it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience” (Postman 87). Is subject matter being presented as entertaining really a sin? Is the move toward an entertaining public discourse really corrupting society? Rather than aiding in this evolution, should we take stand and stick to our old ways of conducting politics, religion, business and education?

Postman explains the telegraph making “relevance irrelevant.” In relation to the news, we are given an abundance of information, which cannot lead to any meaningful action (Postman 67). So, because we cannot attend to every piece of information we receive, is it better to not know what is happening on the other side of the world? Or that people are dying everyday and our environment is depleting? Living in ignorance seems like the easy way out to me. We must be aware of the issues involved in our world in order to become enlightened and create a cure.


Televising mass, and religious aspects, is another controversial topic. The decline in church and the rise of the mall as a social institution is important to note. One would think by making religion available to everyone on television positive outcomes would occur, however, I don’t think this is the case. The sacredness of worship, the process of forgiveness, the feeling of belonging, and most importantly the body of Christ is missing when watching mass on television. I feel movies and pictures portraying God, also have a negative impact on religion. Giving Him a face takes away from his greatness. Since God is a supreme being there is no way we can comprehend his perfection.


I agree that soley relying on new media to educate is not appropriate and would lead to the destruction of our society, but by talking about media, and analyzing them, we are using them not as the message, but as the lesson. We know the shift from typography to the television has changed the public discourse and each medium being as a language provides a new orientation of thought. I appreciate that Postman has outlined his concerns and I do believe they are all valid, however, our situation cannot be reversed. We must learn to adapt while staying true to ourselves, and realize that change, even in every aspect of our lives, doesn’t have to be negative.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin, 1986.