http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206093014.htm
I was looking through articles on the topic of violence and the media and I came across this and it reminded me of the "Is Google making us stupid?" article. Researchers at Columbia University have used MRI scans to look at people's brains while they watched clips of violent movies. Their data shows that a brain network associated with the suppression of unwarranted behaviors like aggression became noticeably less active. Also, when shown equally engaging clips of horror or dramatic movies did not yield the same brain network suppression.
This, to me, is extremely important because of the fact that whenever something is shown to literally re-wire our brains it must be carefully considered. Media and especially violent media is a norm in the everyday of our world, and if our brain is constantly processing this action as possibly warranted, how could we be surprised if the violence in our society increases? There is concept called "Cultivation Theory" that talks about how the more socialized we become through a medium such as television, the more we will begin to lose our understanding of the division between what is playing on the screen in front of us and what is actually going on next to us. It appears that this research tends to support that on a neurological basis as well.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Video Games Kill!
So in my researching--I found this attached article, and felt I needed to share it with the class. It is an article on the Top 10 Deaths "caused" by gaming.
I do not feel this strongly against gaming, but I found it interesting, so thought you guys would also:
Monday, February 23, 2009
Bang Bang! Pow pow! Cops and robbers!
Media violence among our children is something that is widely seen today. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, it is said that the typical American child will view more than 200,000 acts of violence in their lifetime on television. They will also view 16,000 murders on television before their 18th birthday.
Television programs display up to 812 violent acts hourly. Children's cartoons display up to 20 violent acts hourly. These acts of violence seem to escalate into a teen's life. AACAP states that 15% of music videos seen on MTV contain acts of violence.
Television is not the only medium that exhibits violent acts. The internet and video games have been known to as well. Does anyone remember the Columbine shootings in Colorado? It is said that the killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were fascinated with a violent video game.
Following the Columbine massacre, a free PC video game appeared online entitled "Super Columbine Massacre". The game is a roleplaying game in which the player roams through Columbine High School killing innocent bystanders and students.
What spawned to my mind when reading this article is, "How many kids have televisions in their room?" AACAP states that over half of all children have a television in their room. Therefore, parental supervision of what they watch is probabbly limited.
I agree with the article when it states ways we can help our kids veer from media violence. However, the number one way I think we can veer them is through parental involvement and parental monitoring.
Whatever happened to happy television? Cops and robbers used to be such an innocent game....
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Television programs display up to 812 violent acts hourly. Children's cartoons display up to 20 violent acts hourly. These acts of violence seem to escalate into a teen's life. AACAP states that 15% of music videos seen on MTV contain acts of violence.
Television is not the only medium that exhibits violent acts. The internet and video games have been known to as well. Does anyone remember the Columbine shootings in Colorado? It is said that the killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were fascinated with a violent video game.
Following the Columbine massacre, a free PC video game appeared online entitled "Super Columbine Massacre". The game is a roleplaying game in which the player roams through Columbine High School killing innocent bystanders and students.
What spawned to my mind when reading this article is, "How many kids have televisions in their room?" AACAP states that over half of all children have a television in their room. Therefore, parental supervision of what they watch is probabbly limited.
I agree with the article when it states ways we can help our kids veer from media violence. However, the number one way I think we can veer them is through parental involvement and parental monitoring.
Whatever happened to happy television? Cops and robbers used to be such an innocent game....
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Sunday, February 22, 2009
A Healthier America
A Healthier America . . . that seems to be every politician's goal. How do we obtain a healthier America? What are our primary health concerns? 1. Obesity 2. Cancer 3. Air quality etc, etc...
We've already established the "epidemic" of obseity and particularly childhood obesity, and we've already discussed how the term epidemic is misleading and is not an accurate term for what is more of a "trend." Obesity comes from unhealthy lifestyles, such as sedentary and nonactive lifestyles. Lack of movement and excercise is not good for the body. As Americans, we like things to be fast and easy and inexpensive. What kinds of foods are fast, easy, and inexpensive? Fast foods. Unhealthy foods. American marketing has tried to remedy this by adding fresh salads and fruit choices and just healthier options to many fast food menues. Has anyone been documenting of these new healthier options have been a success? The fasat food insdustry cannot be held solely responsible for the trend of obseity. We as human beings are responsible for giving our bodies what they need: water, healthy foods for fuel and energy, excercise, and rest. So, is it completely up to each individual whether he or she becomes obese?
What about illnesses due to poor air quality? The smoking trend has decreased dramatically over the last 40-50 years. The negative consequences of smoking are much more known today than they were 60 years ago. Most states have passed laws that prohibit smoking in public places. This will indeed improve air quality and it is intended to reduce second-hand smoke exposure. This is all relatively new, so it may be a few years before we can actually calculate how successful these no-smoking-in-public-places movements are.
We also know that a high amount of alcohol consumption can be the culprit of many diseases and illnesses. But, very few drinkers are willing to cut back their alcohol consumption. Why do we delight in behaviors that are damaging to our bodies? Because we each our responsible for the overall health of our body, is obtaining a "Healthier America" an achieveable goal?
We've already established the "epidemic" of obseity and particularly childhood obesity, and we've already discussed how the term epidemic is misleading and is not an accurate term for what is more of a "trend." Obesity comes from unhealthy lifestyles, such as sedentary and nonactive lifestyles. Lack of movement and excercise is not good for the body. As Americans, we like things to be fast and easy and inexpensive. What kinds of foods are fast, easy, and inexpensive? Fast foods. Unhealthy foods. American marketing has tried to remedy this by adding fresh salads and fruit choices and just healthier options to many fast food menues. Has anyone been documenting of these new healthier options have been a success? The fasat food insdustry cannot be held solely responsible for the trend of obseity. We as human beings are responsible for giving our bodies what they need: water, healthy foods for fuel and energy, excercise, and rest. So, is it completely up to each individual whether he or she becomes obese?
What about illnesses due to poor air quality? The smoking trend has decreased dramatically over the last 40-50 years. The negative consequences of smoking are much more known today than they were 60 years ago. Most states have passed laws that prohibit smoking in public places. This will indeed improve air quality and it is intended to reduce second-hand smoke exposure. This is all relatively new, so it may be a few years before we can actually calculate how successful these no-smoking-in-public-places movements are.
We also know that a high amount of alcohol consumption can be the culprit of many diseases and illnesses. But, very few drinkers are willing to cut back their alcohol consumption. Why do we delight in behaviors that are damaging to our bodies? Because we each our responsible for the overall health of our body, is obtaining a "Healthier America" an achieveable goal?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Generation Extra Large
I recently turned in a paper for my sociology class on a social deviant. My topic was obesity. The best/most interesting source I had was a book cleverly titled Generation Extra Large: Rescuing our children from the epidemic of obesity.
Epidemic. I don't think obesity deserves to be labeled as an epidemic because I do not think obese children are as helpless as a victim of a legitimate epidemic such as the AIDS virus. But upon further review I found the term appropriate because while it is a bit melodramatic to view the chubby kid that cant quite fit down the slide at the playground as a victim of an epidemic, epidemic is a strong illustration that adresses just how wide-spread this sereious issue is.
The book made me realize my view on the obesity of children in our country had been a little harsh. To me, it seemed the obvious solution would be to eat a little less and go play outside like children in past generations. I was blaming the poor diet and lack of physical activity on media or the children themselves but there countless culprits in this crime against healthy living.
Children today have more obstacles on their path to good health than any previous generation. Today American kids are growing up in a country whose cash strapped public schools are: 1) profiting by vending cokes and junk food 2) cutting PE in a "misguided attempt" to save money 3) doing away with recess to supposedly raise test scores, but actually just raising chances of becoming a type 2 diabetic 4) serving greasy unhealthy food in cafeteria because it is easier and cheaper to prepare.
Every person in our society need to own and be responsible to help guide children down the straight and narrow to healthy lives because Ronald McDonald is not soley to blame for obesity. Children are growing up in a culture, that as a whole, enables obesity.
Epidemic. I don't think obesity deserves to be labeled as an epidemic because I do not think obese children are as helpless as a victim of a legitimate epidemic such as the AIDS virus. But upon further review I found the term appropriate because while it is a bit melodramatic to view the chubby kid that cant quite fit down the slide at the playground as a victim of an epidemic, epidemic is a strong illustration that adresses just how wide-spread this sereious issue is.
The book made me realize my view on the obesity of children in our country had been a little harsh. To me, it seemed the obvious solution would be to eat a little less and go play outside like children in past generations. I was blaming the poor diet and lack of physical activity on media or the children themselves but there countless culprits in this crime against healthy living.
Children today have more obstacles on their path to good health than any previous generation. Today American kids are growing up in a country whose cash strapped public schools are: 1) profiting by vending cokes and junk food 2) cutting PE in a "misguided attempt" to save money 3) doing away with recess to supposedly raise test scores, but actually just raising chances of becoming a type 2 diabetic 4) serving greasy unhealthy food in cafeteria because it is easier and cheaper to prepare.
Every person in our society need to own and be responsible to help guide children down the straight and narrow to healthy lives because Ronald McDonald is not soley to blame for obesity. Children are growing up in a culture, that as a whole, enables obesity.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Change and Liability
I got stuck on the subject of media and violence--I read article after article dealing with mainly violence and gaming; and each contradicted the prior contradiction. So I ponder--does violence in media cause a lamb-to-lion turn?
First on a side note, I feel that our society is continuously searching for a way to blame anything but ourselves for behavior. Change has always been blamed for the latest increased numbers in crime, sexual activity, drugs, or alcohol. I have been thinking back on history on change and how it is blamed. I cannot stop replaying the movie Footloose in my head and the issue of music and dancing. The invention of the car was criticized, I'm sure. Our society accepts change with cynicism--society must search for the bad. I don't think that is unhealthy, but then again...I am a member of society.
In reading numerous articles of gaming and violence in youth, it seems parents are searching for the right answer from studies that are biased to proof their "right" answer. It is frustrating that parents look for answers about their children in studies done on children they don't know. Or maybe it is frustrating that parents search for answers about their children in general.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Facebook Rage
The ever popular social site that originally targeted college students: Facebook. Everyone know what Facebook is, and what to do with it. Share your information, stay in touch, make friends. But who really sees all that information? What are the Facebook terms of use? I had no idea what the terms even were, to be completely frank. Apparently, however, Facebook changed its terms of use very recently, and the changes caused quite an uproar.
The entire situation begs the question, "Is my information safe?". There have been incidents where Facebook users found their pictures in ads without permission, and there have been incidents where people have used someone else's identity to steal. Are these isolated instances?
In order to try and save a little... Face... Facebook has gone back to its original terms of use as they try to sort out the mess they seem to have stumbled upon, and they have created a place for users to give their input on what the terms of use should include.
The entire situation begs the question, "Is my information safe?". There have been incidents where Facebook users found their pictures in ads without permission, and there have been incidents where people have used someone else's identity to steal. Are these isolated instances?
In order to try and save a little... Face... Facebook has gone back to its original terms of use as they try to sort out the mess they seem to have stumbled upon, and they have created a place for users to give their input on what the terms of use should include.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
twitpic's cause problems everywhere
"Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende was not amused when he found out that foreign minister Maxime Verhagen posted a twitpic a week before directly from the cabinet meeting in the Trêvesroom.
[by way of Nu.nl/internet]
Balkenende said he “appreciated the minister of foreign affairs interest in trying out new media from many places in the world, but made it clear that “he is opposed to the politician’s act of sharing photos from the Trêvesroom.”
Later that day when he returned in his office at the foreign affairs department Verhagen twittered like a naughty boy: “but here i can ……”, posting this picture of his office.
I laughed out loud when I read this... I just couldn't help but think of an official being scolded like a 12 year old girl for putting pictures up on his twitter account that irritated someone. How interesting it is to see such a generation gap so exposed, on the one side you have a younger official who sees nothing wrong with displaying all of his life on the Internet and on the other you have a official who is completely unaware that this would even be considered permissible. How the times have and still are changing. I wonder what would happen if someone from our government posted picture from a meeting on twitter...
[by way of Nu.nl/internet]
Balkenende said he “appreciated the minister of foreign affairs interest in trying out new media from many places in the world, but made it clear that “he is opposed to the politician’s act of sharing photos from the Trêvesroom.”
Later that day when he returned in his office at the foreign affairs department Verhagen twittered like a naughty boy: “but here i can ……”, posting this picture of his office.
I laughed out loud when I read this... I just couldn't help but think of an official being scolded like a 12 year old girl for putting pictures up on his twitter account that irritated someone. How interesting it is to see such a generation gap so exposed, on the one side you have a younger official who sees nothing wrong with displaying all of his life on the Internet and on the other you have a official who is completely unaware that this would even be considered permissible. How the times have and still are changing. I wonder what would happen if someone from our government posted picture from a meeting on twitter...
Monday, February 16, 2009
Cyberbullying
http://www.ncpc.org/cyberbullying?gclid=CKu-0uC64ZgCFQHHGgodIGfYdQ
I was watching an episode of 30 rock on Hulu last night and an interesting commercial came up about cyberbullying. Through an emotional video it makes the basic assertion that just because it is online does not mean that the effects of cyberbullying are not real. And, in fact, the national crime prevention community is now doing all that they can to help curb this growing problem.
To me there is really only one thing that seems consistent throughout the differing commercials that are warning today's youth of the perils the Internet can end one up in, and that is that the Internet and all the things involved in the Internet exist in the real world as well. To clarify, it means that whatever things you claim, post, or otherwise make apparent through the Internet somehow are able, and usually are, completely valid in the world that exists once you log off the Internet. The things you do and say online are in effect the same as the things you do and say in the real world. However, this does not seem to be translating to younger people. They send pictures, post pictures, say things, harass people, and invent entire identities online that they feel are somehow protected or unconnected to their "offline life."
This seems to be a dangerous path that kids today are following because they don't acknowledge or give concern to their actions online and thus are confused by consequences that arise from them. The Internet is not a violence catalyst in the most broad sense, however it is an insidious catalyst that is allowing for less then nice people to exact chaos on the rest of the world. It will be important for, I think, regulation to exist in order to quell the current confrontations that seem to be only growing.
I was watching an episode of 30 rock on Hulu last night and an interesting commercial came up about cyberbullying. Through an emotional video it makes the basic assertion that just because it is online does not mean that the effects of cyberbullying are not real. And, in fact, the national crime prevention community is now doing all that they can to help curb this growing problem.
To me there is really only one thing that seems consistent throughout the differing commercials that are warning today's youth of the perils the Internet can end one up in, and that is that the Internet and all the things involved in the Internet exist in the real world as well. To clarify, it means that whatever things you claim, post, or otherwise make apparent through the Internet somehow are able, and usually are, completely valid in the world that exists once you log off the Internet. The things you do and say online are in effect the same as the things you do and say in the real world. However, this does not seem to be translating to younger people. They send pictures, post pictures, say things, harass people, and invent entire identities online that they feel are somehow protected or unconnected to their "offline life."
This seems to be a dangerous path that kids today are following because they don't acknowledge or give concern to their actions online and thus are confused by consequences that arise from them. The Internet is not a violence catalyst in the most broad sense, however it is an insidious catalyst that is allowing for less then nice people to exact chaos on the rest of the world. It will be important for, I think, regulation to exist in order to quell the current confrontations that seem to be only growing.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Health TV Addiction
What is it about medical dramas that lures people to them? According to the article by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Americans are viewing close to eight hours of television a day. Eight hours?! The article also includes that teenagers are spending as much time viewing televison as they are online. From previous class readings and discussions, we know that's quite a bit.
In the last few years, medical dramas have taken over primetime television: House, Grey's Anatomy, Chicago Hope, Strong Medicine, and the ever-popular ER.
As asked above, what is it about these shows that makes us watch them religiously, then go out and purchase each season on DVD so we can watch them again? The Kaiser Family Foundation article says that we are becoming less and less tolerant of commercial breaks that interrupt our shows. It's true. Is it the drama and the suspense of the unfolding story that keeps us tuned in for so long? Is it the theme of urgency in these shows that satisfies us and fulfils some sort of need? Is it the opportunity to see some of our favorite stars be heroes and the opportunity to see them in action that gets us?
I'm questioning, because I don't know. These are not rhetorical questions. I struggle with this myself. Shortly before Thanksgiving break of my sophomore year at Lipscomb, my roommates and I would have Grey's Anatomy marathons. It was an addiction. We watched every episode of a season until we ran out of episodes to watch, at which point we all went out and bought the next season. Just a few months ago, as I was studying for finals at the beginning of December, a House marathon was going on in the lobby. I was tempted to leave my studying to go watch.
These shows depict real situations. The bomb in the body on Grey's Anatomy may not be too realistic, but most every other health situation that puzzles and challenges physicians in these shows is. With as much health content as the media is producing, and as America is watching, you'd think we'd be a healthier nation. But, we're not. Perhaps the burst of medical dramas onto the scene is the media's way of conveying subliminal messages to direct our attention towards our own health and the health of our children.
So, is the increased amount of television viewing, and the viewing of medical dramas particularly a bad thing? Or is it bringing on positive effects?
In the last few years, medical dramas have taken over primetime television: House, Grey's Anatomy, Chicago Hope, Strong Medicine, and the ever-popular ER.
As asked above, what is it about these shows that makes us watch them religiously, then go out and purchase each season on DVD so we can watch them again? The Kaiser Family Foundation article says that we are becoming less and less tolerant of commercial breaks that interrupt our shows. It's true. Is it the drama and the suspense of the unfolding story that keeps us tuned in for so long? Is it the theme of urgency in these shows that satisfies us and fulfils some sort of need? Is it the opportunity to see some of our favorite stars be heroes and the opportunity to see them in action that gets us?
I'm questioning, because I don't know. These are not rhetorical questions. I struggle with this myself. Shortly before Thanksgiving break of my sophomore year at Lipscomb, my roommates and I would have Grey's Anatomy marathons. It was an addiction. We watched every episode of a season until we ran out of episodes to watch, at which point we all went out and bought the next season. Just a few months ago, as I was studying for finals at the beginning of December, a House marathon was going on in the lobby. I was tempted to leave my studying to go watch.
These shows depict real situations. The bomb in the body on Grey's Anatomy may not be too realistic, but most every other health situation that puzzles and challenges physicians in these shows is. With as much health content as the media is producing, and as America is watching, you'd think we'd be a healthier nation. But, we're not. Perhaps the burst of medical dramas onto the scene is the media's way of conveying subliminal messages to direct our attention towards our own health and the health of our children.
So, is the increased amount of television viewing, and the viewing of medical dramas particularly a bad thing? Or is it bringing on positive effects?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Is television our "doctor"?
Keiser Family Foundation
After reading through this study, an interesting question spawned to me. "Are we replacing our doctor with the media, particularly television?"
The #1 type of television show watched today are health related shows. These can be from dramas to documentaries. Keiser says that 65% of these shows focus on symptoms, 59% focus on treatment and 50% focus on diagnosis. They also discuss issues from unusual illness, to heart disease, to pregnancy.
In television nearly 61% of all storylines communicated some sort of educational content. This can be beneficial and non-beneficial to the viewer.
The health storyline can educate the viewer on a number of issues, but it can also veer them in the wrong direction.
It is apparent to me that by viewing these programs frequently, viewers become desensitized to the healthcare community and let the television become its own 'doctor'. Will health-related television shows soon put a disclaimer on tv saying, "We are not liable for your health, etc etc etc etc"?
These shows can also give viewers the wrong idea of the outcomes. Keiser says that the majority of outcomes in illnesses on health-related shows is death. What kind of message does this send to the public? That anyone is going to die of a simple illness? That no chance for life is given?
These shows can also desensitize and give a viewer a "skewed view" as to how hospitals and health clinics operate.
But these shows do not only have negative outcomes, some can be very informative. ABC's "The Doctors" is a talk-show with medical professionals (including former "The Bachelor" himself, Dr. Travis Stork) deliver topics each day about different health issues. The show is effective because it has real live doctors with college degrees that actually know what they are talking about.
But as far as other shows go, America, meet Dr. Television.
After reading through this study, an interesting question spawned to me. "Are we replacing our doctor with the media, particularly television?"
The #1 type of television show watched today are health related shows. These can be from dramas to documentaries. Keiser says that 65% of these shows focus on symptoms, 59% focus on treatment and 50% focus on diagnosis. They also discuss issues from unusual illness, to heart disease, to pregnancy.
In television nearly 61% of all storylines communicated some sort of educational content. This can be beneficial and non-beneficial to the viewer.
The health storyline can educate the viewer on a number of issues, but it can also veer them in the wrong direction.
It is apparent to me that by viewing these programs frequently, viewers become desensitized to the healthcare community and let the television become its own 'doctor'. Will health-related television shows soon put a disclaimer on tv saying, "We are not liable for your health, etc etc etc etc"?
These shows can also give viewers the wrong idea of the outcomes. Keiser says that the majority of outcomes in illnesses on health-related shows is death. What kind of message does this send to the public? That anyone is going to die of a simple illness? That no chance for life is given?
These shows can also desensitize and give a viewer a "skewed view" as to how hospitals and health clinics operate.
But these shows do not only have negative outcomes, some can be very informative. ABC's "The Doctors" is a talk-show with medical professionals (including former "The Bachelor" himself, Dr. Travis Stork) deliver topics each day about different health issues. The show is effective because it has real live doctors with college degrees that actually know what they are talking about.
But as far as other shows go, America, meet Dr. Television.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Real Matrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK1Cb9qj3qQ
Thank you Kevin Bacon!!
I saw this post on Howard Rheingold's website "smartmobs." Basically it is a movie that is premiering in the US on the 15th of February about the new field of study called "Network Theory." It is based loosely on the 6 degrees of separation maxim that has been used for some time in popular culture, but network theory takes it to a whole new level. The core concept is that to understand anything we must understand the networks that those things are involved in, and following we can thus understand the path we are heading on by watching the interaction of the networks that exist.
The whole concept behind this theory and experiment is mind boggling. To say that because we have connected ourselves so thoroughly we can now see how we interact on an individual level at any given time in any given way terrifies me. They have compared this theory and the possibilities that seem to be possible through it with Newton's theories of gravity. The idea that we are going to revolutionize the way we understand our world through applications such as facebook and myspace, even though these are probably the least of them, seems far-fetched. The youtube video promoting this documentary, as intriguing as it is, sounds a little to similar to the tone that was used in "The Secret," which was a complete scam in my opinion. However, because the implications of this theory are so much more vast than that of previous unified theory proposals I considered it's progress something worth following.
Thank you Kevin Bacon!!
I saw this post on Howard Rheingold's website "smartmobs." Basically it is a movie that is premiering in the US on the 15th of February about the new field of study called "Network Theory." It is based loosely on the 6 degrees of separation maxim that has been used for some time in popular culture, but network theory takes it to a whole new level. The core concept is that to understand anything we must understand the networks that those things are involved in, and following we can thus understand the path we are heading on by watching the interaction of the networks that exist.
The whole concept behind this theory and experiment is mind boggling. To say that because we have connected ourselves so thoroughly we can now see how we interact on an individual level at any given time in any given way terrifies me. They have compared this theory and the possibilities that seem to be possible through it with Newton's theories of gravity. The idea that we are going to revolutionize the way we understand our world through applications such as facebook and myspace, even though these are probably the least of them, seems far-fetched. The youtube video promoting this documentary, as intriguing as it is, sounds a little to similar to the tone that was used in "The Secret," which was a complete scam in my opinion. However, because the implications of this theory are so much more vast than that of previous unified theory proposals I considered it's progress something worth following.
The #1 Threat against today's Children
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june01/obesekids_05-01.html#
It is not the Internet, television, video games, or even that creepy man that hangs out by the jungle gym. It is obesity, and the majority of American children are and will continue to fight this disease. The percentage of children considered obese in elementary school has doubled from 1986 and 85% of those children will be considered obese for the rest of their lives. The major contributing factor to obesity is the inversely proportional relationship between caloric intake and physical activity. The more you eat the more activities you should be engaging in to burn off the excess calories that only serve to slow your body down, these activities however, do NOT include: obsessive web surfing, social network stalking, online gaming (even if it is an "active" game), watching sports on television, visiting ESPN.com, or drafting any one of a number of fantasy leagues.
This is where I believe the problem is rooted, in today's youths understanding of what exactly qualifies as a physical activity. There are so many simulations available that allow one to engage only their brain and right index finger while giving one the satisfaction of being a part of something that is representative of what one might be doing if they were to actually to go "unplug" from media.
I have started to notice commercials that feature Shrek and the donkey urging kids to go outside and play, be healthy, physically active, but the best part is that they offer a website in order to provide ideas. First off this is not going to encourage someone to go outside and be creative. Secondly, and more important, is that this seems similar to handing a drug addict an endless supply of their favorite substance letting them do just a tiny bit and then telling them to put it down and go play outside for an hour. I would be willing to bet not one of them would see the light of day and in an hour they would be still sitting in the exact same spot, their eyes concentrated on that which satisfies them the most, their drugs.
It may be a little far fetched to use the above comparison, but I disagree. Alcoholism is considered a disease, and following addiction is treated as such in the majority of programs available for the many different forms that addiction has taken. Why then would obesity, as a disease and also in some cases a food addiction, be any less dangerous and insidious?
It is not the Internet, television, video games, or even that creepy man that hangs out by the jungle gym. It is obesity, and the majority of American children are and will continue to fight this disease. The percentage of children considered obese in elementary school has doubled from 1986 and 85% of those children will be considered obese for the rest of their lives. The major contributing factor to obesity is the inversely proportional relationship between caloric intake and physical activity. The more you eat the more activities you should be engaging in to burn off the excess calories that only serve to slow your body down, these activities however, do NOT include: obsessive web surfing, social network stalking, online gaming (even if it is an "active" game), watching sports on television, visiting ESPN.com, or drafting any one of a number of fantasy leagues.
This is where I believe the problem is rooted, in today's youths understanding of what exactly qualifies as a physical activity. There are so many simulations available that allow one to engage only their brain and right index finger while giving one the satisfaction of being a part of something that is representative of what one might be doing if they were to actually to go "unplug" from media.
I have started to notice commercials that feature Shrek and the donkey urging kids to go outside and play, be healthy, physically active, but the best part is that they offer a website in order to provide ideas. First off this is not going to encourage someone to go outside and be creative. Secondly, and more important, is that this seems similar to handing a drug addict an endless supply of their favorite substance letting them do just a tiny bit and then telling them to put it down and go play outside for an hour. I would be willing to bet not one of them would see the light of day and in an hour they would be still sitting in the exact same spot, their eyes concentrated on that which satisfies them the most, their drugs.
It may be a little far fetched to use the above comparison, but I disagree. Alcoholism is considered a disease, and following addiction is treated as such in the majority of programs available for the many different forms that addiction has taken. Why then would obesity, as a disease and also in some cases a food addiction, be any less dangerous and insidious?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Better Googling
Sree.net has an interesting section about its uses of google. With all our talk about google making us stupid, I found this website very intriguing.
Better Googling
Sree lists at least 30 sections pertaining to different areas of use for Google, and different "tricks" you can use on google.
These tricks range from searching for a phone number on Google to using Google by texting from your cell phone.
My favorite section of google is "google earth", a program Google offers for free installation where you can zoom in on different parts of the world via satellite image. Google earth almost seems like a governmental spycam! :)
Sree is a journalist, who is is an unauthorized endorser of Google. I got the opportunity to see him speak at the SPJ National Conference in Atlanta this fall. His main goal is to help educate the public further on using google.
As I sat here and searched through these 30+ different sites pertaining to "google tricks", I thought to myself. What happened to a plain old search engine? I find the new stuff more practical, but sometimes more difficult to use.
Is difficulty levels in even the simplest search engine going to rise in the next couple of years? When I put this into consideration, I think of other forms of technology as well. It's almost mind boggling to me to think of how much technology has improved in the past 2 decades.
The internet went from nothing, to now-- where researchers wonder if the world wide web will run out of space soon. (That's a whole other story).
As far as sree.net goes, it is a website I highly reccomend .... I like to call it "Google for Dummies". :)
Better Googling
Sree lists at least 30 sections pertaining to different areas of use for Google, and different "tricks" you can use on google.
These tricks range from searching for a phone number on Google to using Google by texting from your cell phone.
My favorite section of google is "google earth", a program Google offers for free installation where you can zoom in on different parts of the world via satellite image. Google earth almost seems like a governmental spycam! :)
Sree is a journalist, who is is an unauthorized endorser of Google. I got the opportunity to see him speak at the SPJ National Conference in Atlanta this fall. His main goal is to help educate the public further on using google.
As I sat here and searched through these 30+ different sites pertaining to "google tricks", I thought to myself. What happened to a plain old search engine? I find the new stuff more practical, but sometimes more difficult to use.
Is difficulty levels in even the simplest search engine going to rise in the next couple of years? When I put this into consideration, I think of other forms of technology as well. It's almost mind boggling to me to think of how much technology has improved in the past 2 decades.
The internet went from nothing, to now-- where researchers wonder if the world wide web will run out of space soon. (That's a whole other story).
As far as sree.net goes, it is a website I highly reccomend .... I like to call it "Google for Dummies". :)
Illussion of Choice
Corporate Media in American Society (part 1/2)
Corporate Media in American Society (part 2/2)
These videos were about how big corporations essentially get to choose what we think, through the news and media. At one point they mention that they want a vegged out population, with just an illusion of choice. Which they get if you think about it, many Americans spend a large portion of their time in front of the TV or watching a video. They listen to what they say, and that is often how they form their opinions, just from that one source. I will admit that that is what I do; most of the time I will just look to one source and not do any research. The video also said that the media is often called the 4th branch of government, and that they just want you distracted; which they do very easily by offering many channels with mindless time fillers on them.
All the decisions are made by a few big players because everything in the corporate world is owned by them. They help lead all the smaller companies in making their decisions by laying out the frame work for everyone else to follow. They do this by the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, emphasis, framing of issues, filtering of information, and bounding of debate. They went on to say that campaign finance is called legal bribery and that money equals speech. This is true, if you have money you can say whatever you want, and make sure that a lot of people hear it. There are so many unheard good ideas out there that we may never get to hear because the people who have them do not have the resources to make them know. The media has control of our society and we just let it happen.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Maybe it's true.
One of the top questions of the decade: Do violent video games make people act more violently? According to associate professor Padilla-Walker, of the School of Family Life at Bingham Young University in Provo, Utah, they just might! Professor Laura M. Padilla-Walker and some of her academic collegues conducted an observation of 500 female and 313 male undergraduate students in order to see what sort of behavior they might exibit after a typical twelve-month period rife with internet and video game usage. The article covering this event makes me reconsider the things my parents have been saying for years, but I am also curious about various other unmentioned factors that may have been involved in the real study. How well does the sample population observed represent the undergraduate demographic as a whole? Does location play any factor into the behavior of the students observed?
Also, what percentage upholds Professor Padilla-Walker's statement, that ""This does not mean that every person who plays video games has low self-worth, or that playing video games will lead to drug use"? I wonder if such a percentage has ever been measured. I also wonder what such a study indicates for the future.
Also, what percentage upholds Professor Padilla-Walker's statement, that ""This does not mean that every person who plays video games has low self-worth, or that playing video games will lead to drug use"? I wonder if such a percentage has ever been measured. I also wonder what such a study indicates for the future.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
What was that website?...Oh, yeah, Google.
I find the phenomenon link between google and memorization fascinating, and also daunting. I understand that sometimes memorizing a specific fact--like the exact date that Germany invaded Poland in WWII--Sept. 1, 1939, may be useless unless one stumbles into "The Cash Cab." But where is that line of importance in memorization?
I cannot help but imagine our world spinning into a land of sputtering, fact-less people with internet-access on hand to aide in facts that may come up in any type of intelligent conversation. Without memory of direction, history, and so on we would zombie around until a GPS system or the internet malfunctions and we are shaken from our trance to remember...remembering--whoa, what a concept. Yes, I know this is outlandish. But it makes me think is memory like a sport, in that if we don't practice, we lose our ability?
I worked and still volunteer for an Alzheimer's non-profit organization, and several studies have shown that keeping your brain moving--puzzles, daily conversations, reading, decrease in television consumption, and exercise, can possibly help prevent the on-come of Alzheimer's Disease. So does letting a brain become stagnant teach it to stay dormant?
The article below explores different aspects of memorization and how it may affect our world:
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
PBS Frontline "Agents of Cool"(2001)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5109415725027567998
In high school I had to watch this video in class while we reading Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death (Dr. Prill has alluded to the book a few times this semester) because it focuses in part on the powerful influence public discourse and media can hold, in this case, the media's ability to cater to and market to (and ultimately manipulate) teenagers.
I realize that the video, like the previous sentence, seems too long. But I strongly encourage everyone who sees this post to watch as much of the video as your 21st century American attention span can tolerate because PBS did a good job of making a video that is so very pertinent to what we are studying and discussing in class.
The video reveals how entertainment and marketing media in America pursues teenagers because of their spending power (parents meet all of their basic needs so what little income or allowance kids have is spent on luxuries for themselves), their susceptability (we are all influenced by media everyday but persuading a kid is like shooting a fish in a barrel for someone making a commercial advertising a toy or something geared towards kids) but most importantly teenagers' value for "cool" and the price they are willing to pay to obtain it.
We as a society are constantly bombarded by advertisements. Just a couple hours before I began this post I walked right into an advertising effort. I was making a normal trek to Sub Connection wondering if today would be the day that Sodexho finally killed me with food poisoning... Then the second that i set foot in the student center a Nashville Predators' cheerleader (I use "cheerleader" because I don't know that hockey teams have cheerleaders but it sounded better than team hooker) shoves a flyer in my face. It informs me that I can not only buy a ticket for "only" twenty bucks but that I can buy a soda for half price. Although the soda is half price (so only 2.5 what it should cost instead of the usual 5 times cost) but I discover I can only be thirsty the first 15 minutes of the game because the offer is only good through the first period.
I hate advertising and I hate how thoroughly it pervades my everyday life. I especially hate advertising when it dresses skanky and gives me a flyer I'm going throw away, or worse, wad-up, throw at a trash can, and leave for someone else to pick up and throw away.
In high school I had to watch this video in class while we reading Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death (Dr. Prill has alluded to the book a few times this semester) because it focuses in part on the powerful influence public discourse and media can hold, in this case, the media's ability to cater to and market to (and ultimately manipulate) teenagers.
I realize that the video, like the previous sentence, seems too long. But I strongly encourage everyone who sees this post to watch as much of the video as your 21st century American attention span can tolerate because PBS did a good job of making a video that is so very pertinent to what we are studying and discussing in class.
The video reveals how entertainment and marketing media in America pursues teenagers because of their spending power (parents meet all of their basic needs so what little income or allowance kids have is spent on luxuries for themselves), their susceptability (we are all influenced by media everyday but persuading a kid is like shooting a fish in a barrel for someone making a commercial advertising a toy or something geared towards kids) but most importantly teenagers' value for "cool" and the price they are willing to pay to obtain it.
We as a society are constantly bombarded by advertisements. Just a couple hours before I began this post I walked right into an advertising effort. I was making a normal trek to Sub Connection wondering if today would be the day that Sodexho finally killed me with food poisoning... Then the second that i set foot in the student center a Nashville Predators' cheerleader (I use "cheerleader" because I don't know that hockey teams have cheerleaders but it sounded better than team hooker) shoves a flyer in my face. It informs me that I can not only buy a ticket for "only" twenty bucks but that I can buy a soda for half price. Although the soda is half price (so only 2.5 what it should cost instead of the usual 5 times cost) but I discover I can only be thirsty the first 15 minutes of the game because the offer is only good through the first period.
I hate advertising and I hate how thoroughly it pervades my everyday life. I especially hate advertising when it dresses skanky and gives me a flyer I'm going throw away, or worse, wad-up, throw at a trash can, and leave for someone else to pick up and throw away.
CBS: Health effects of media exposure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnD3KKdv_P4
This video, posted by CBS, is from a segment done on the various health effects an increased exposure to media may have on children. Some of the effects the doctors mention are:
1. Obesity
2. Tobacco Use
3. Sexual Behavior
4. Drug Use
5. Alcohol Use
6. Low Academic Achievement
7. ADHD
It seems to me that it may be a bit extreme to claim that media alone can produce all of these things in children, however, it does seem feasible that prolonged exposure to different media could increase the likelihood of encountering these issues in children or teens.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Super Bowl thoughts...
I'd just like to say that I find it humerous and equally funny that most Americans tune in on Super Bowl Sunday to view the commercials. I don't think there is any other time in television-viewing history when people eagerly anticipate commercials!
What is it about them? Is it because the advertising is so much more entertaining and comedic that we can't bear to miss it? I was at a Super Bowl Party this past Sunday, and all who were there didn't want to talk and converse during the game, but they didn't want to do it during the commercials either. Many women (and men) who could not care less about football anticipate the Super Bowl just to view the commercials. Commercials! These are those annoying things that we fast forward through, and change the channel when our program is interrupted by them.\
I enjoy Super Bowl commericals particularly because I'm a marketing student and I'm interested to see the types of marketing ploys these companies use from year-to-year. When a company hits a home run with a successful Super Bowl commercial, I like to see how they're going to top themselves the next year.
I just might be the only one in America intrigued by the "phenomenon" of Super Bowl commercials, and this particular media outlet. I like to analyze the messages they send. It's meant to be more than just another form of entertainment . . .
What is it about them? Is it because the advertising is so much more entertaining and comedic that we can't bear to miss it? I was at a Super Bowl Party this past Sunday, and all who were there didn't want to talk and converse during the game, but they didn't want to do it during the commercials either. Many women (and men) who could not care less about football anticipate the Super Bowl just to view the commercials. Commercials! These are those annoying things that we fast forward through, and change the channel when our program is interrupted by them.\
I enjoy Super Bowl commericals particularly because I'm a marketing student and I'm interested to see the types of marketing ploys these companies use from year-to-year. When a company hits a home run with a successful Super Bowl commercial, I like to see how they're going to top themselves the next year.
I just might be the only one in America intrigued by the "phenomenon" of Super Bowl commercials, and this particular media outlet. I like to analyze the messages they send. It's meant to be more than just another form of entertainment . . .
Monday, February 2, 2009
NBC rejects Superbowl pro-life ad
We all saw the numerous funny commercials during the Superbowl, but there is one commercial that NBC rejected.
Imagine spot
The video begins with showing a fetus at conception and explains how that baby would be abandoned by his father and taken care of his mother. The ad ends with "That Baby would be the first African American President" and a picture of President Obama is shown.
Why would NBC reject a commercial like this? Is this another example of the biased media? Are they too afraid the advertisement goes against President Obama's beliefs about abortion?
It almost seems to me that censorship is widespread in the media, and is emerging even more through advertisements. Where should the line be drawn in the censoring of advertisements? What is too much truth? How does the media decide what advertisementsand shows are worthy of censorship?
If the media is worried about offending individuals, then my personal opinion is that many advertisements offend Americans today. The media is full of offensive material. Who cares if you get your feelings hurt?
Imagine spot
The video begins with showing a fetus at conception and explains how that baby would be abandoned by his father and taken care of his mother. The ad ends with "That Baby would be the first African American President" and a picture of President Obama is shown.
Why would NBC reject a commercial like this? Is this another example of the biased media? Are they too afraid the advertisement goes against President Obama's beliefs about abortion?
It almost seems to me that censorship is widespread in the media, and is emerging even more through advertisements. Where should the line be drawn in the censoring of advertisements? What is too much truth? How does the media decide what advertisementsand shows are worthy of censorship?
If the media is worried about offending individuals, then my personal opinion is that many advertisements offend Americans today. The media is full of offensive material. Who cares if you get your feelings hurt?
Sexual politics?
The Presidential race has been over for months now, and our new president has been sworn in for over a week. During the presidential primaries, "Obama girl" emerged. Many were appalled, some found it humorous.
Obama girl
Of course, sex in our media is seen daily, but where do we draw the line? The President is supposed to be one of the most distinguished men in the United States of America. Does having a half-naked girl dance around and sing about how she's crushing on Obama, a married man designate something that is ethical?
By converging sex and politics in the media, we are not only making the Presidency out to be a joke, but we are sending a message to other countries we as Americans do not take our political system seriously.
Of course, the video was not endorsed nor created by the Obama campaign, but the question is, is it okay for sex to sell politics? Was it okay for the Obama campaign to keep this video running?
Where will we draw the line? Will our media be nothing but sex one day? The normalization of sex in the media seems to be overturning America today.
Obama girl
Of course, sex in our media is seen daily, but where do we draw the line? The President is supposed to be one of the most distinguished men in the United States of America. Does having a half-naked girl dance around and sing about how she's crushing on Obama, a married man designate something that is ethical?
By converging sex and politics in the media, we are not only making the Presidency out to be a joke, but we are sending a message to other countries we as Americans do not take our political system seriously.
Of course, the video was not endorsed nor created by the Obama campaign, but the question is, is it okay for sex to sell politics? Was it okay for the Obama campaign to keep this video running?
Where will we draw the line? Will our media be nothing but sex one day? The normalization of sex in the media seems to be overturning America today.
Sinful Technology
As Dr. Prill would call it, "sexting" has become a widespread fad in the lives of young people. This NBC station did a special on it. See the link below to access the video.
Cell phone sex
The arguement I'd like to make is has technology gone bad? In other words, has it gone "sinful"? Teens seem to be taking advantage of techonology and its 'sexual advances' it includes. This instance of child pornography is something that public officials need to tackle.
Not only is "sexting" something that can potentially hurt an individual, it is an action that can emotionally abuse a person. Most teens make decisions out of impulse, and sexting certainly seems to be the case.
I recently heard Bill O'Reilly do a talking point on a young girl who was filing a lawsuit because her naked picture she had sent to a male friend had been sent to the public by him. Mr. O'Reilly made an interesting assumption. Once that photo is sent through a cellular device, is it public? Who sees it as its being sent? He went on to make clear that once the female hit send, she lost all rights of privacy.
What can be done to insure that child pornography does not leak through our cell phone system in America? Are we being watched in everything we do? Where do our rights of privacy end? Do they end when we click send, as Mr. O'Reilly says?
Cell phone sex
The arguement I'd like to make is has technology gone bad? In other words, has it gone "sinful"? Teens seem to be taking advantage of techonology and its 'sexual advances' it includes. This instance of child pornography is something that public officials need to tackle.
Not only is "sexting" something that can potentially hurt an individual, it is an action that can emotionally abuse a person. Most teens make decisions out of impulse, and sexting certainly seems to be the case.
I recently heard Bill O'Reilly do a talking point on a young girl who was filing a lawsuit because her naked picture she had sent to a male friend had been sent to the public by him. Mr. O'Reilly made an interesting assumption. Once that photo is sent through a cellular device, is it public? Who sees it as its being sent? He went on to make clear that once the female hit send, she lost all rights of privacy.
What can be done to insure that child pornography does not leak through our cell phone system in America? Are we being watched in everything we do? Where do our rights of privacy end? Do they end when we click send, as Mr. O'Reilly says?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)