In class we discussed the concept of whether different online personalities of ourselves were either good or bad. It is my belief that playing a character that is not like ourselves in real life is unhealthy behavior, but a lot of good points were raised in class. Such as, creating or exploring different identities online could be a way to express oneself. I can understand why an individual would want to explore feelings that they are having online instead of in public, because when their online personalities are being conveyed in the real world is where the problems may arise. People may have insecuries that only their online commuity may undertsand. However, to me the idea of placing yourself in a different light online is still a little weird; I think that people should just be themselves no matter what anyone has to say because you will always find people who feel the same way that you do.
I honestly believe that online personas a more of a negative than a positive because if you were, for any reason, to meet the other people that you communicate with online in person they will feel mislead if you were not honest, which most people aren't. Going back to my main point, I think that it is wise to just be honest from the get-go, because all dirt rise to the surface anyways.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Prosocial messages inthe media
The articles that we read for class discussed the ideas of prosocial messages as opposed to violent messages and how they helped/hindered children's views of others as well as the world. The video game article discussed that violent video games cause aggression, anxiety, hostile expectation bias, etc. Contrastly, video games with prosocial messages caused the opposite effect on children. The point of prosocial messages in the media is to shape children into being helpful individuals. I completely agree with the concept of prosocial messages, but I'm still not necessarily sold on the idea that violence causes aggressive behavior; and I never really agreed with it. I know that there have been studies that have "proven" this, but I really think that it is the environment that children are placed in that may or may not cause aggressive and antisocial behavior.
I've studied George Gerbner's theory of cultivation, but I studied it from the violent behavior aspect of the theory. After taking a closer look, I understand why violent media may cause violent behavior, but I think that violent behavior is mainly caused by the environent that a child is placed in. It's up to the parents to step in and teach children right from wrong, but if parents, like many do, let television raise their children, then that's where the problems arise. If adults don't stay hands on with their children then of course children will cultivate their own ideas of what is right and wrong and these ideas are backed up by their peers whom have had the same upbringing.
I've studied George Gerbner's theory of cultivation, but I studied it from the violent behavior aspect of the theory. After taking a closer look, I understand why violent media may cause violent behavior, but I think that violent behavior is mainly caused by the environent that a child is placed in. It's up to the parents to step in and teach children right from wrong, but if parents, like many do, let television raise their children, then that's where the problems arise. If adults don't stay hands on with their children then of course children will cultivate their own ideas of what is right and wrong and these ideas are backed up by their peers whom have had the same upbringing.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Edutainment...Good or bad?
It's no secret that people in society get a lot of their facts and ideologies from the media, but the question is how much media, or for purposes of this blog, how much television is too much television?
It's my personal belief that there is no such thing as too much television. I honestly feel like if you had a strong upbringing, where your parents taught you right from wrong and monitored your media and television intake, then as a young adult you will more than likely be able to decipher between what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. I believe that television is a great source of education as well as socialization. We gain experiences through watching tv; experiences that we may not have been able to encounter in real life.
The term edutainment, I believe, speaks to the notion of learning by way of the media. Although, it is a little unorthodox to live vicariously through other individuals, we live in a society where a lot of societal norms are becoming more and more lenient. Society is co-constructed and because of this ideal, a lot of what we absorb and learn about societal norms is strongly coming from television. So going back to the original question of whether edutainment was good or bad? It is my belief that edutainment is one of the best ideas to date.
It's my personal belief that there is no such thing as too much television. I honestly feel like if you had a strong upbringing, where your parents taught you right from wrong and monitored your media and television intake, then as a young adult you will more than likely be able to decipher between what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. I believe that television is a great source of education as well as socialization. We gain experiences through watching tv; experiences that we may not have been able to encounter in real life.
The term edutainment, I believe, speaks to the notion of learning by way of the media. Although, it is a little unorthodox to live vicariously through other individuals, we live in a society where a lot of societal norms are becoming more and more lenient. Society is co-constructed and because of this ideal, a lot of what we absorb and learn about societal norms is strongly coming from television. So going back to the original question of whether edutainment was good or bad? It is my belief that edutainment is one of the best ideas to date.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
"Sexual Content on Prime-Time Television"
This study focused on sexual content on prim-time television over 3 decades, basically whether or not sexual behaviors during prime-time either decreased or increased over this time frame. Although this study was extremely valid, the notion on sex during prime-time television is something that I have grown use to. Nothing about this article really surprised me except for the tables which depicted the clear decrease of sexuality during prime-time, I didn't notice. But as a frequent television viewer, I guess I have noticed that big stations (i.e FOX, ABC, NBC, etc.) aren't as explicit as cable networks, such as Showtime or HBO. I cannot relate to individuals who are uncomfortable with sexual behaviors during prime-time television, but I can empathize with them. Some people are offended by such things like that on television during that time, for example parents of young/teenage children.
But the question arises of, doesn't sex sell? This ideology that sex on television entices more people to watch is something that has been adopted in modern culture. Sex brings a sense of drama on television and without it watching isn't as exciting. I mean look at most of the reality shows that are on nowadays, even shows that are not focused around relationships or finding love, some how sexual behaviors still come into play. The implication that there has been a decrease of sexual content on prime-time television in the past 3 decades to me is a stretch. I still see it! But this study shows that in deed there has been a decrease and I guess it is for the best for the overall sanctity of modern families. All and all I agree with the article and what the study was trying to achieve. I believe that over sexualizing prime-time television could potentially cause young adults to become sexually active at a younger age and also increase the chances of teen pregnancy, so for that, the decrease is for the best.
But the question arises of, doesn't sex sell? This ideology that sex on television entices more people to watch is something that has been adopted in modern culture. Sex brings a sense of drama on television and without it watching isn't as exciting. I mean look at most of the reality shows that are on nowadays, even shows that are not focused around relationships or finding love, some how sexual behaviors still come into play. The implication that there has been a decrease of sexual content on prime-time television in the past 3 decades to me is a stretch. I still see it! But this study shows that in deed there has been a decrease and I guess it is for the best for the overall sanctity of modern families. All and all I agree with the article and what the study was trying to achieve. I believe that over sexualizing prime-time television could potentially cause young adults to become sexually active at a younger age and also increase the chances of teen pregnancy, so for that, the decrease is for the best.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
"Consuming Trash: Representations of Poor Whites in U.S Popular Culture"
Why does Portman-Lacer, the author of this article, elude to the fact that dropping the "poor" from "white trash" somehow make it, for lack of a better phrase, more characterizable?
The author states that the original phrase for Caucasians in the United States who are at the poverty level and may or may not be considered immoral, is "poor white trash." But as the years past the "poor" has been dropped because, they state that it "emphasizes the perceived lack of social worth of white trash." What?! The term "white trash" has an extremely negative connotation attached to it, but dropping the "poor" from the beginning of it somehow replenishes the social worth of people who may be regarded as "white trash??" However, I suppose I agree with the claim that adding the words "poor" and "white" together in an effort to describe a category of people is somewhat oxymoronic, because in American society those two words are perceived to be opposites due to the undoubted advantage whites have over other races. But to be honest this article was a little lost on me. Going back to the question at hand, it is my personal opinion that both "coined terms" are without a doubt negative and dropping the "poor" does nothing, but further agitate other races into believing that whites even have the upper-hand when it comes to namecalling. That's all for now, until next time. ~StayPretty
The author states that the original phrase for Caucasians in the United States who are at the poverty level and may or may not be considered immoral, is "poor white trash." But as the years past the "poor" has been dropped because, they state that it "emphasizes the perceived lack of social worth of white trash." What?! The term "white trash" has an extremely negative connotation attached to it, but dropping the "poor" from the beginning of it somehow replenishes the social worth of people who may be regarded as "white trash??" However, I suppose I agree with the claim that adding the words "poor" and "white" together in an effort to describe a category of people is somewhat oxymoronic, because in American society those two words are perceived to be opposites due to the undoubted advantage whites have over other races. But to be honest this article was a little lost on me. Going back to the question at hand, it is my personal opinion that both "coined terms" are without a doubt negative and dropping the "poor" does nothing, but further agitate other races into believing that whites even have the upper-hand when it comes to namecalling. That's all for now, until next time. ~StayPretty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)