The bloggiest blog that ever blogged a blog. . . (blog)

As a tribute to current events, I really wanted to choose the video at the following link instead, but I had a hard time tying the elements of the video to the five areas of analysis. I'd be surprised if you hadn't seen it already. It's a good one. (P.S. this intro doesn't count towards my 700 word limit!!)

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1501631/banned_vw_commercial/



Now, back to the point. Lets talk some shiny, new Nissan Armada.

Production Elements: Lighting - The difference between the dimly-lit and bright areas shows the intent of the creators.

The foremost beacon of light is the vehicle itself. Through the crystal-clear glass, the Armada draws the viewers eye immediately. It outshines the rest of the scene to ensure the product gets immediate exposure, regardless if the full concept of the ad escapes the reader or not. As long as the reader walks away thinking 'Nissan Armada', the ad has succeeded.
The lights within the emergency case completely encircle the vehicle from all sides, above, and even underneath. Vaguely reminiscent of the glowing tiles made famous by Michael Jackson's Billie Jean music video, the Armada sits atop of a pedestal of wonder. The all-consuming lights give the appearance the product is a valuable treasure on display for the world to bask in the sight of such a beauty. At the same time, the power of such an illuminated treasure must be dangerous to wield. That must be why this vehicle is reserved for emergencies, or adventures.
The second most notable mass of light is in the far distance. This lighting effect gives the impression that while we are in such a dark, desolate expanse, there exists a land of light. It is not within arms grasp, nor is it in walking distance. It is reachable, but you need the proper tools, such as an Armada, to cross the chasm. In fact, it is undeniable. Where we stand is a barren wasteland. There is no other alternative but to journey to the city of light. Enduring another night of nothingness cannot sustain you. You must adventure. You must break the glass.
The third notable lighting element is the person in the advertisement. The side facing the Armada is brightly lit. The intensity of the radiation is so great certain parts of his darkly-colored jacket appear white. Meanwhile, the rear side of the person is as dark as an eclipse. As it should be. The light contrast from a darkening sky compared to the flashlight of the Gods that is the Armada, should make all other nearby light sources minuscule in comparison.
In addition, whether it was designed for this purpose or not, the light on his face, combined with the fluff of his hair brings another image to mind. The power of the treasure; the life-saving device; the Armada, is so great the air about the case is charged with it's presence. For, truly this is a miracle of wonder.


Production Elements: Non-Verbal - I have found a variety of ways to interpret the representation of the person in the ad with regards to non-verbal gestures.

The first, and most likely intended effect of the character is for the reader of the advertisement to project himself into. He see's the brilliant car and the city of lights in the distance. He's inches away from the mallet to unleash his adventure. Soon, the reader will be in that Armada and on his way to fun and excitement. Tally Ho for another sale!
But, note that the character isn't standing with pride. His hands are thrust into his pockets as if to say "Gee. That would be fun". He's not reaching for the mallet, even though a single weakly swing would shatter that glass. Perhaps he's debating the need for adventure. Here is where the creators of the ad have gracefully given you an opportunity. In this fool's moment of hesitation, you can be the one to unlock the raw power of the Armada. After all, adventure doesn't wait around for dreamers.
At the risk of going over my limit, I must stop here.

I do like to listen to the radio, but I don't frequently find opportunities to enjoy it. Which, in turn, contributes to my liking of the radio. Of all the complaints I've heard of radio, the most frequent one is repetition. The same songs, advertisements, and announcers driveling the same drool day in and out. Usually, the radio plays as people spend time working or driving where such repetition becomes bothersome. Thankfully, I haven't driven my car in over a year, nor have I punched a time card for a much longer time. This has allowed me to elude the radio-burnout that so many others have experienced.

This leads me to enjoy a rather odd phenomena of radio novelty. If I were to listen to a CD and one of my favorite songs began playing, I wouldn't think much of it. At the very same time, if I were to flip on the radio and that same favorite song were to begin playing, a strange sensation overcomes me. Where the song on the CD was inconsequential, when played on the radio, it now has significance. This doesn't make very much sense to me, nor do I find this to be a common quality among my friends. I try to explain it by using the fact that I enjoy connecting with people on a musical level. Knowing that others are swinging to the same sounds as I am gives a feeling of camaraderie.

For a while, I was very interested in the competitive promotions put on by radio stations. A few years ago, a prize was so enticing, I had to elevate my level of participation. The game was a scavenger hunt. The DJ had hidden a rock with Q-98 written on it for the listeners to find. Each day, the announcer proclaimed he was giving clues to the location of the rock. A few times, I had unraveled the clue and went to the various locations described. Each time, I found another, horribly vague, clue. After a couple weeks of nonsensical pursuit, a viewer did find the rock. It turned out to be miles and miles outside of town, hidden along a railroad track with countless other identical rocks. Comparing the clues I had deciphered to the actual location revealed no connection whatsoever. The only clues that actually lead to the plunder were the very last ones. All preceding clues were designed to merely string along the attention of the gullible listeners. This became apparent when considering the announcement of a clue was never at a specific time, despite the critical time-keeping nature of radio itself. The announcement was always advertised to be within some hour-long window.

To conclude, here's an example of something I'd expect to hear on the radio:

"You're in the middle of a 45 minute solid commercial-free rock-block that has been brought to you by the #1 station in Fargo-Moorehead, *short chime* KPBR 106.5 FM *short chime*, winner of the Raspberry Award for rocking out three years in a row."

In what universe is that NOT an advertisement in itself? I just spent the last 30 seconds hearing about your station for the purpose of gaining listeners advertising revenue. Just because it's the station's DJ that performs the interlude does not make it any less of an advertisement. A TRUE commercial-free solid-rock segment would not have interruptions, such as call-signs.

Harmful Media

There are many examples of harmful media. I will name four of the predominant ways
media can cause more harm than good.

The first of the misdoings is any occasion where information has been falsely relayed. For obvious
reasons, accuracy is necessary when dealing with
mass communication. While the image to the left
ended up being nothing more than a comical treat
for Truman, such an error could have been far more disastrous.

Image if an incorrect headline read something like "Tests Prove Local Water Safe to Drink". But, on the contrary, the water was very toxic. Our safety is contingent on the reliability of very important announcements like these.


The second major way media can bring harm is by inducing rage across a population.

This, as evidenced by the *crusaders* of Mr. Rodney King's honor, can have metropolis-wide consequences. The rage spurred by seeing a person with similar skin pigment tone being mercilessly beaten by police turned into the infamous L.A. riots. The public has a right to the information, but at what cost? If the identical situation were to occur again, would our hindsight convince us to refrain from publicizing the footage? Who can we trust to make the important decision from an unbiased point of view? Certainly not the police. They are very interested in upholding a positive public image, in addition to keeping fellow cops out of prison for turning a black man into hamburger. Who then? Certainly not the media. Sensationalism sells big, especially when it's true. While it's noble to envision the media as a cavalier entity fighting for the sanctity of our awareness, the undeniable truth is: it's a business. They wouldn't lift a finger for you if it didn't put a dollar in their pocket. What's the worst thing that happens from the repeated playing of a clip like this, in regards to the point of view of the news station? They get great ratings for showing such an amazing video, which, in turn, causing rioting. Even better for them! They'll have weeks of prime material now!

The third way media can harm society is by inducing panic. Watching the results the media's coverage of H1N1 on our culture is a humorous, scary, saddening, and confusing mix of emotions all at the same time.

I find the situation especially amusing since a lot of people believe this frightening, killer virus, seemingly only inches from wiping humans from the face of the planet, is stopped dead in its tracks when it comes to the ingenious combination of a Kleenex and a rubber band.

The fourth and final way media can harm society is through the undermining of critical information.

The drastic overexposure of the intricacies by which we inflict torture to our prisoners for information and fleeting feelings of empowerment has compromised the effectiveness of such methods. Now that every enemy combatant knows very well what they'll be up against, they will have trained for it. We already do this ourselves to prevent secret agents from revealing sensitive information if apprehended. By advertising every method we use, we negate many of the advantages gained by the methods.

These are but a few of the ways media can be harmful. I just felt these four were by and large most critical.

Blog #3

1) What about this class do you enjoy and/or find interesting?  What would you like
us to do more of?

    I've found Jeremy to be an excellent lecturer. In other classes, I've noticed
unpleasant trends of poorly-planned class agendas.  Time is usually wasted as the
speaking grinds to a halt at every transition to a new subject. Jeremy either has given
his lectures much more preparation or the nature of his profession has improved his
speaking ability above most other people.

  While the material we cover wouldn't normally be my choice of topics, the manner
in which it is presented increases my interest considerably.  The association of
specific concepts to a variety of examples, both current and historical, most
been excellent.

  I would like to see us reviewing more of the students' blog entries.  In particular
I'd love to hear a few remarks about my own blogs in class; however, I'm not certain
if my reasons are for additional feedback or just to stroke my ego.  Regardless, I
doubt the entries I've submitted thus far have warranted such attention.

2) What about this class do you not enjoy so much and/or would like to see
improvement on?

  So far, the class has been rather enjoyable.  The only exception was the recent
speaker about the portrayal of beauty is media.  I was less than pleased to have the
facts of the matter intermingled with the speaker's personal opinion. The fact was
that media's representation of beauty has changed over time.  Previously, beautiful
people were a much larger range of people that more closely resembled the average
body-type. Currently, the media's concept of beautiful is far more slender and
voluptuous than most people can ever hope to attain. Those are the facts. The opinion
of the speaker was that it is, for some absent reason, inherently wrong to make the
idea of the perfect body out of reach for the average person.  I was pleased to hear
the conclusion of the lecture being about the individual needing to recognize the
change in the definition of beauty, not the call for media as a whole to redefine
beauty once again.

3) Do you have any other suggestions, comments, or questions? 

  I would be very interested to get a better idea of what types of questions to
expect on the exams.  I've always had a knack for over-thinking many true/false
and multiple choice questions. Every time the question uses an absolute statement
such as 'always' or 'never', I can identity an exception to the rule.  Typically,
such exceptions are deemed as irrelevant and therefore incorrect.  I would like to
see a 'practice exam' to put these issues to rest. 

In short, I'm really not sure what level of understanding is the goal of this course.
From that, I'm not certain what depth of studying will be required.



 

Print, Media, and Oral Cultures

The Issue: "Many scholars believe that we have moved
 from living in a “print culture” to living in an
electronic media culture that is in many ways more
similar to an oral culture. They argue that people
now get their most important information from the
'conversations' of radio and TV."

Before we analyze that, lets back up a little bit here.
 At first, humans were certainly an oral culture before
 writing was developed.  After writing, the next great
 mediums were radio, then television, and most recently
 computers.

How long after the inception of writing did it take for
 our culture to move from mostly orally-spread knowledge
 to mostly print-based?  My assertion is this has never
 happened.  In that respect, the issue at hand is a moot
 point.  We still gain the majority of our information
through interpersonal contact, even in this day and age.

From birth to adolescence, it can be easily agreed that
 the vast majority of learning is from oral methods,
as from a parent.  Here the child gets to see and hear
the person speaking, forming a specific technique for
learning.

Have you ever heard the expression "The most important
lessons in life, are learned before the 2nd grade"?
Consider that statement.  What does a 2nd grader know?
He knows how to walk, talk, and play nice with others. 
He'll have a simple understanding of arithmetic,
spelling, games, currency, biology, anatomy, geography
and maybe even some history.  He'll know a little
about *a lot* of stuff, all of which were learned
through oral, person-to-person, methods.

Imagine if the child were forced to learn these
things mostly through print sources. It just wouldn't
happen.  We need our oral culture to allow the use of
print media to even exist. In that respect, we are
still dominantly an oral culture.  These childhood
lessons are the foundation for which our wisdom is built.

~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~

Now, when comparing TV, computer, and radio to print
media, what are the two most striking differences? 
In print, you cannot hear the narrator, nor can you
use your sense of vision to interpret the information
 in anywhere near the capacity that electronic media
grants.  This means your initial passive learning
tactic, watching and listening, does not help when
learning through print.

Here is where electronics enter the picture.  They
allow your childhood mechanic for learning to kick
in again.  The brain is easily fooled by the sight
and sounds on the screen, thinking it is once again
 learning in the original oral-culture fashion.  And,
 for all intents and purposes, the electronic media
 culture is just a way to allow our oral culture to
circumvent the limitations of distance and time. We
can bring a person across the globe to us instantly.
 We can bring a dead speaker back to life for a
private talk.

In conclusion, I feel we've moved from a completely
 oral culture. . . to a culture of largely oral with
 some print. . . to a culture of largely oral and
pseudo-oral (electronic) and some print.  For as
long as oral is necessary from birth for humans,
we'll always use oral methods more than any other.

Preferred vs. Oppositional Reading

Star Wars - Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith

IMDB entry - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/

The Video - http://www.megavideo.com/?v=F9INTT5A


Like all good science-fiction prequels released in the Spring of '05, The Revenge of the Sith can be seen from at least two different viewpoints (ignoring negotiated reading). First and foremost, the intentions of the creator to influence your feelings in a particular direction is the preferred reading. In contrast to that, an oppositional reading may instead be used by the consumer of media. Here, the reader decidedly does not agree with the intentions of the media artifact.

For this piece of cinema, the preferred reading is very well known. Hell. It was formulated by the FIVE other Star Wars movies. Throughout the video, our hero, Anakin Skywalker, faces challenges that can be easily related to our own society. The connection drawn between these fictional struggles and the consumer's own life aims to reinforce this preferred reading.

For example, the primary conflict between the Jedi Council and the (soon to be) Intergalactic Empire is akin to the fight for democracy across the expanse of our inhabited universe, Earth. With the long-lasting (and likely deserved) paranoia regarding socialism and communism, Americans are prone to decide in favor of the rebel alliance. I'm sure many of us already see our own Battle for Democracy being just as glorious of a pursuit as intergalactic freedom.

The preferred reading is very apparent, as shown above; however, the oppositional reading for such a clear-cut story is not totally absent. With the nation fearing terrorism so fervently, it must not be forgotten that the heroes in (original) Star Wars are still rebels. Do you think they got the rebellion this far by staging peaceful demonstrations? I don't recall seeing any democracy proponents holding hands to block the death star from destroying Alderan. They must have used guerrilla warfare to make their gains. Any assault would have been instantly crushed under the might of the empire.

Now, remove the preconceptions of good and evil. What remains?

1. We have a ruling body doing all that it can to remain sovereign. Sometimes, the government ignores the human rights of those who would seek to endanger it. In our current culture, we call these people enemy combatants and torture them in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

2. We have a small group of terrorists pushing their own political agenda by any means necessary, including the mass-murder of entire starships of (likely-drafted) soldiers. Today, we call these terrorist groups names like Al-Qaeda or The Islamic Jihad Union.

From the preferred and oppositional readings, we have the conflict of interest. Which is more necessary: total peace or total freedom? Most viewers will agree with George Lucas that freedom is the most important. That is, until the next rebellion uprises, claiming that the current system is corrupt. . .

Test

Test