Media Experiment 6

In the box-office and critical successful film Avatar, directed by James Cameron, the characters embark on a journey, but only a mental one as they plug into a machine that connects their minds to an avatar where they can roam on a different planet in an alien body. While this film is definitely fiction, it is not too far from reality as nowadays more and more people are living their lives through virtual worlds. Additionally, lead character Jake Sully notably acts different when his body is present versus when it is mediated.

Sam Worthington in 'Avatar'

The first technology that I examined was my relationship with friends on the social networking site Facebook versus my relationships with friends when my body is present. I came to realize that for me personally, I spend the majority of my time on Facebook complimenting others. There is a “like” button but not a dislike button available so we are constantly liking each other’s pictures and statuses letting one another know that we approve of what we are seeing or reading. When commenting a picture, the majority of the time I am giving the other user a compliment about the way they look. In comparison, in person I find myself to be much more critical. If someone says something that I don’t approve of I will always let him or her know and if they ask how they look I sometimes am honest with them even if the truth is not what they are looking for. I think the biggest reason for this is because Facebook is such a public website, nothing is private and you wouldn’t want others to see you being cruel to another user. Also, like McLuhan discusses how we are more in touch with one another because of this media but we are less physically in touch. I think that is important because I can tell someone in person that I do not like the shirt they are wearing but make sure the tone of my voice is non-threatening so they are not so easily offended. In the virtual world, there is no real tone or intonation so it is difficult to give any kind of constructive criticism without the person immediately being offended which is probably why I am essentially a nicer person on Facebook.

Snapshot of my Facebook profile

The next technology that I examined was electronic mail, or e-mail. I realized that my communication through e-mail is much more professional than when my body is actually present. Even when I am e-mailing my own mother I find myself to use proper formatting, punctuation, and spelling in my messages. This is probably due to me constantly using e-mail as a source of communication with potential and current employers, and professors, so it this has impacted my communication with all individuals on e-mail. Whereas in person even when talking to an employer of mine I am much more informal and casual because I do not want to sound too stoic and professional in a conversation. I feel that e-mail is a good tool to communicate quickly and effectively but it is by no means a true representation of their character because I am so much different in person.

Snapshot of my Electronic E-mail

Going back to the film Avatar, lead character Jake Sully experiences something somewhat similar as his personality in the virtual world strays far from when his body is actually present, although the worlds do eventually collide. Even more noticeable are the advantages that Jake Sully gets from this virtual world because of his inability to walk in the real world. Mirzeoff says it best when he discusses that these virtual worlds can be particularly liberating for those with a disability. So while some may believe that these virtual worlds are no place for individuals to be living, someone like Jake Sully will wholeheartedly disagree because of the advantage it gave him physically.

This experiment has helped me realize something very important. Where is authenticity? This is a question that many authors have posed in readings and we have discussed this in class numerous times. While it can easily be argued that based on my experiments there is clearly no authenticity in the media, I would actually argue the opposite by using Goffman’s arguments from past discussions on the “presentation of self.” I believe that even though my communication in e-mails and Facebook may not seem like my actual personality, when combined with my physical personality they all make up a part of who I really am. I say this because I agree with Goffman that life is a stage and everything we do, when the body is present or when it is not, is a performance and all of it is authentic and part of our personalities

Media Experiment 5

In the last year, many teen suicides related to homosexual bullying have been covered heavily on news outlets. Now more than ever there seems to be an overwhelming sympathy and awareness of just how prevalent homosexuals have become in our society. It even seems like now almost every television show out there has at least one gay character. Some find these characters to be pigeonholed into certain stereotypes/tropes and therefore not a realistic representation of the LGBT community as a whole but I quite frankly disagree. Just like the famous saying, ‘there is no such thing as bad press,’ I believe just having the presence of a gay character in a television show is a success considering it was so taboo not too many years ago.

In the article “Popular Culture and Queer Representation” it states that, “situation comedies – however realistic they might be – do not claim, like dramas, to be offering us “real life.” That lack of seriousness may allow these programs to play with themes under cover of humor where those themes be too volatile or even too didactic for another sort of audience” (Raymond, 101). This brings up a great point because there are numerous comedies out there with prominent gay characters that deal with it a comical manner therefore it never makes the audience too uncomfortable. Shows like ‘Will & Grace’ and the recent ‘Modern Family’ have leading and supporting gay characters but because the subject matter never delves too deep into the true emotions of being gay it is more accepted by viewers.

On drama television series there is less of a display of homosexuality. For instance, on the widely popular Fox television show ‘The O.C.’ leadcharacter Marissa Cooper (portrayed by Mischa Barton) began having feelings for another girl Alex (portrayed by Olivia Wilde) in the middle of the second season. Unfortunately, this relationship was ended after a few short episodes and the character Alex who had been around for a long time before that left the show along with this storyline. It soon was revealed that the head creator of the show Josh Schwartz intended for Alex to become a main character so the show could develop her bi-sexuality but the network (Fox) said no to this and made him write her character off in fear of having a lead character apart of the LGBT community. For me personally this was a serious disappointment for many reasons. The O.C. had an extremely large homosexual fan base and yet other than the short fling between Alex and Marissa there was never really a storyline dedicated to this. Additionally, Alex was one of the few characters on television to represent the bi-sexual community, which we discussed in class is due to bi-sexual characters having too much fluidity for many audiences.

Mischa Barton and Olivia Wilde in 'The OC'

Another important factor to homosexual representation in the media is the specific depictions of LGBT people. As evidenced in the Raymond article, “those rare depictions of glbt people tended both to dichotomize anyone glbt as victim or villain and to reinforce demeaning stereotypes and caricatures: gay men as effeminate and lesbians as unattractive man-haters” (Raymond, 101). This was reinforced with the screening of ‘The Celluloid Closet’ in class discussion. Specifically in many earlier films there was the gay trope of the ‘sissy’ character who was extremely effeminate and never really had much development except for being comic relief for the audience. Similarly, in many films homosexual men are either portrayed as being a victim of gay-bashing or AIDS (Philadelphia), or being villains. Take for instance the very trendy show ‘Glee.’ One of the main characters Kurt (portrayed by Chris Colfer) finds himself a victim of gay bullying this season by the school villain Karofsky. However, it is later revealed that Karofsky himself is a homosexual when he kisses Kurt in the locker room. Therefore, in one episode alone ‘Glee’ managed to show homosexuals as a victim and a villain.

Chris Colfer in 'Glee'

Overall, after reading “Popular Culture and Queer Representation” as well as the screening of ‘The Celluloid Closet’ I have definitely started to look more closely at the media and notice the structured representations of homosexuality. This has definitely had a strong impact on my own life as well because of the limited representations that we get. I have come across many individuals who truly believe AIDS is still a gay disease and that heterosexuals are not at that high of a risk. Clearly this is false and while I don’t entirely blame the media for this cliché I do find it to be a strong correlation. Additionally, I think a lot of people view homosexuals as being two things, either being an effeminate bitchy funny man or being a homophobic villain. This is very obviously in relation to the representations made by the media. While I still love any homosexual presence on a television or film nowadays, because like I said there is no such thing as bad press, I have begun to wish there would be a more rounded depiction of the LGBT community, and hopefully in the future we will.

Media Experiment 4

Rodney King’s videotaped beating in March of 1991 was an extremely controversial topic of that year, and still talked about today. In the reading “Televisual Politics: Negotiating Race in the L.A. Rebellion” King is heavily focus on throughout. In the readings it describes an event that was known as the L.A. Rebellion where riots broke out by mostly black individuals in uproar over the less-than-harsh court ruling in King’s attack. Unfortunately, these riots would increase the negative reflection of black individuals solely because of what the article calls, ‘white male information control.’There are two specific roles that black people are represented as in the media according to this article, the first one is explained on page 328 when it states that, “The L.A. rebellion provided drama’s essential fuel: dangerous antagonists (the people of color coming at “us” from out there) and innocent victims (the white, disoriented characters and audience at home)” (Caldwell, 328). So essentially, black people are being represented as the “other.” This has become a crucial part of media history as even in the last decade you can spot instances of blacks being portrayed as an antagonizing “other.” For instance, following the devastating Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans that left so many people helpless without proper shelter, clothing, or food, there still was ‘white man’s information control’ in the coverage of it. Take for instance these two photographs:

Both appear to be very similar, but the captions are strikingly different. The first image’s caption reads: Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery. The second caption reads: A young man walks through chest deep floodwater after looting a grocery store in New Orleans. Possibly at a first glance you wouldn’t pick up on this but these images harnessed a lot of controversy over its usage of certain words. The non-black couple are helpless residents who fought through the terrible climate and found food in order to survive. The second image doesn’t describe the black individual as a resident of the area, just a man, and he has looted instead of just finding it. While many immediately were outraged and attacked The Associated Press for this, I have a different opinion on the matter. I actually believe that whoever captioned these photos did not intentionally portray the black man as a thief but instead because of the media that we have been raised in (specifically during events like the L.A. rebellion riots), many of us have a pre-disposed notion that the black man is an antagonistic “other.” Therefore, it is hard to really put blame for this on one specific person as this goes back much further.

Earlier, I mentioned that were two specific roles for black people in the media. The first was an “antagonizing other” and the second is explained on page 331, “television slotted people of color into a very different, but much more spectacular, role. Rodney King emerged as the latest in Hollywood’s long line of tragic, suffering, and sacrificial victims of color (Caldwell 331). This made me think of two very specific media examples. The first is the film we watched in class ‘Bamboozled’ and the scene I am referring to is near the climax when Savion Glover’s Mantan is being videotaped and broadcasted on television as he is kidnapped, beaten, and eventually murdered. Another example I thought of was the similarly satirical ‘Scream 2’, which pokes fun at horror films (particularly sequels) even though it happens to be a horror sequel itself. The scene that I am referring to is the opening when a black couple, Maureen Evans and Phil Stevens (portrayed by Jada Pinket and Omar Epps respectively) go to a pre-screening of a horror film. While walking into the theatre, Maureen complains to Phil about the genre choice because the horror industry reflects a poor representation of the black community with few leading characters ever being black and any black characters almost always die first. Because the ‘Scream’ films are known for poking fun at these clichés, Maureen and Phil are killed first in this very opening scene. Later, another black character Joel explains, “Brothers don’t last long in situations like this!” and although Joel is a cliché in that he is comic relief, ‘Scream’ turns this on its toes in end when Joel surprisingly survives the murder spree to live another day. Unfortunately, the Scream series is known specifically for taking clichés and breaking them so this is actually more proof that in films, specifically violent ones, the black characters usually die first and will almost never make it to the end.

Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett in 'Scream 2'

Overall, both the reading “Televisual Politics: Negotiation Race in the L.A. Rebellion” as well as the screening of Spike Lee’s ‘Bamboozled’ I have definitely started to look more closely at the media and notice the structured representations. In the past black individuals used to only be provided as buffoons and comic relief, and while this is still true in certain media examples, the more recent staples for black characters are either the ‘antagonistic other’ like the man in the Hurricane Katrina image or the rioters in the L.A. Rebellion, or the ‘brutalized victim’ like the opening victims of ‘Scream 2’ or Rodney King himself.

Media Experiment 3: The Social Network(s)

For my third media experiment I was assigned to compare the relationships I have with film and television. While I definitely cannot speak for all I can confidently say that for me, television is a much more social environment and apart of my weekly routine whereas film is so much more of an escape for me.

Currently in my apartment I do not have a television in my bedroom but instead the living room where my roommates and I all watch together. There we can talk about the program we are watching or we can even discuss something unrelated, there really are no rules when watching television and I sometimes even find it to be awkward if you watch television with someone and sit in complete silence, it almost requires commentary. Additionally, I never really find television as an escape but instead just tuning in each week to catch up with the characters of each show. Because television is episodic and returns each week, I definitely have more of a familial relationship with it, I know these characters and I'm invested in them and that's why I tune in each week., Similar to Peter Gibian’s question, “What does loyalty to a station or obsession mean?” (Newspeak Meets Newstalk, 140). There is definitely a nostalgic feeling with television shows because of my loyalty. For example, I have been watching the television show Gossip Girl since the start and unfortunately I find that in it’s fourth season I continue to watch each week not because I enjoy it (the quality of the show has definitely gone down) but because I have a loyalty to it. So to answer Gibian's question, I believe a loyalty to a station means that the biggest challenge a television show has is getting its viewers to feel a sense of loyalty to their show, that way even if the writing and storylines become weak the ratings will stay consistent.

On the other hand, film is much different for me. When I was younger going to the movies was definitely a social event with friends or family but as I have grown and come to respect film much more I have chosen to go to the movies alone and I truly find this to be an escape. When the lights are down and you are completely alone you can become completely absorbed into the film and there is no room for commentary except in your own head. Even afterwards the walk home by myself I am still replaying the film in my head and my real life doesn't come back to me until I am surrounded by other people again. Even when going with friends or family to the theatre now it is not a social event because unlike a television in your living room, there are rules in a theatre. There is no talking or using a cell phone, or at the very least kept to a minimum. Also, there is less of a familiarity with film because for the most part I do not know the characters before going in, with the exception of a sequel or remake, but even those can have original characters. This definitely supports McLuhan's theory that film is a hot medium because there is such low participation involved.

Additionally, because I am not heading to the theatres to catch up with familiar characters I am going because I am genuinely interested or curious in the story that is going to be told. You are paying specifically for this entertainment whereas with television you pay a monthly bill for all of it. Because I am paying this specific amount (usually 13 dollars in New York City) there is much more appreciation for what you are watching. You do not want to leave during the show to run to the bathroom or grab snacks because unlike television there is no DVR or Tivo, you cannot pause and rewind a great moment so there is much more authenticity when watching films. Similar to Benjamin Walter’s quote, “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (Illuminations, 220). Sure you can repeat viewings but that costs more money and you have to sit through the entire film again if you are just looking to see one scene again, therefore there is a very genuine and original feeling I get when watching a film in the theatre because I won't be able to have this moment again.

Here is a clip that demonstrates the strong and diverse characters a show has created to keep a loyal fanbase even if the quality of the overall show has drastically decreased: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qS-Jqc0KUA&feature=related

Media Experiment 2: The Sound of Music

Typically, it would not be shocking to be walking on the streets of New York City surrounded by hundreds of people listening to their iPods or listening to the radio in their cars as they drive by. Similarly, in the early mornings when riding the subway you most likely will spot many passengers reading the newspaper. For my second media experiment I was assigned to compare and contrast my relationship with two forms of media, clearly I have chosen the radio/iPod and newspapers.

I decided to conduct the experiment on Tuesday because I spend the day at my internship. I started the day by listening to the radio in my shower before leaving for work and then proceeded to listen to my iPod while traveling to and from work. I then decided to read the newspaper during any free time I had during the day at work, which ended up being a lot on this particular day. The first distinction between the two for me was that I felt like wherever I was I had access to the radio/iPod. Whether I am in the shower, walking to the subway, or riding in the subway. Additionally, I feel that when I am listening to Z100 in the morning hosted by Ryan Seacrest all the way out in Los Angeles, I am connected to those listening in LA, or any other area in the world with a radio. This of course made me recall Peter Gibson’s Understanding Media when he said, “ It certainly contracts the world to village size” (306). I completely agree with Gibson because I have a close friend who lives in Los Angeles and even though we are geographically so far apart I don't always feel the distance because of the media, particularly the radio because we both listen to the same stations so we are always receiving the same information.

Contrarily, I did not have the same relationship with the newspaper. I did not have access to the newspaper when I was in the shower, it was not delivered directly to my door so I couldn't read it in my apartment, I also could not read it on the subway (I always seem to get carsick if I read while in motion). Additionally, while the newspaper is technically found everywhere, it is not the same newspaper everywhere. My local news is not the same as LA’s local news, or anywhere else besides New York. Although this is an extremely large distinction between the two, after thinking about it I realized the radio and the newspaper do have a lot of similarities you would not necessarily think about it right away. Both have the amazing ability to brainwash me. When I am listening to the radio I automatically will take it to be fact instead of just an opinion, something that Jean Franco admits is not always true, “At a moment when political decisions are increasingly being reserved for the experts, the talk show remains one area in which it is legitimate and good to have opinions even when you know nothing at all about whatever it is you’re talking about” (Hello, You’re On the Air, 154). I definitely agree that there is a sort of "danger" with talk shows on the radio because it is acceptable to have a strong opinion even if you are not familiar with the topic you are discussing. This is dangerous in my eyes because I believe what I hear as fact most of the time. Similarly, if I read something in the newspaper, I automatically take this as fact without a question, even more so than the radio because a newspaper requires multiple editor approvals. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, most newspapers require citations, so it is more of a reason for me to trust them. Unfortunately, libel is not unheard of and I have been a victim to believing falsities many times. Lastly, the newspaper and radio are also similar in that both are intimate and private. When I was listening to my iPod on the subway it was inside my head mixed in with my own personal thoughts, no one else on the subway provided their interpretation to my music and I was closed off in my own world, and the same can be said when I read the newspaper at my internship, although it was a bit more difficult to tune distractions out while reading.

Overall, this experiment proved to be very eye opening to me because I assumed I would spend the entire time describing the differences between the radio and newspaper when in fact both have many more similarities than I imagined. While radio is not bound to geography and newspapers are, both offer intimacy as well as possessing the power to manipulate and control the user.

Media Experiment 1: (NO) Texts From Last Night

On a typical Saturday night in a New York City bar, it would be seemingly impossible to not spot numerous individuals on their cell phones. Some may be looking down texting, others may be having verbal communication on the phone attempting to converse over the loud music, while others may just hold it in their hand at their side for comfort. For my first media experiment I was assigned to abstain from as much technology as possible for a designated amount of time. While I had planned to lock myself in my bedroom for a couple of hours on Sunday with no access to the media, Saturday night unintentionally became my designated time for the experiment.

The night started off normal as I went out with three close friends to a bar on the lower east side, however things took a turn for the worse when I suddenly realized I had left my cell phone at home in its charger. After the initial panic had left me I decided to tough it up and spend the night without my cell phone intact. While I am not someone who is constantly obsessed with my cell phone at home or in class, when it comes to social situations my cell phone is my lifeline, my comfort. This immediately made me recall Marshall McLuhan’s quote from The Medium is the Massage, “Electric circuitry has overthrown the regime of ‘time’ and space’…Nothing can be further from the spirit of the new technology than ‘a place for everything and everything in its place.’ You can’t go home again” (16). In class we discussed how home is ever changing. Because of the connectedness of these technologies home is all of these digitized places. Well, on this Saturday night without my cell phone, or any other form of media with me (laptops don’t really work in a bar), I truly felt like I had no connection to home or the outside world.

This should not be confused with my social abilities, because I find myself to be very outgoing, especially in social situations like a bar. However, my generation has evolved in such a way that we almost do not know how to be social without the comfort of our technology by our side. At the bar I quickly felt trapped for many reasons. For one, I could not leave a friend’s side at any moment in time. Typically, the moment one of us is separated from the group we text each other asking ‘where you at?’ Something that seems completely irrational because you are all in one location and can simply just look for each other, but it is something that my generation has become accustomed to. Additionally, I also felt extremely limited to just my three friends. Although I love my close friends to death, it is very common to be texting your other friends who are not out with you on that particular night. This was obviously not a possibility for me on this night and I was confined to communication with just my friends who were physically present. Furthermore, it is also a very common habit of mine to hold my phone by my side during an uncomfortable or awkward moment. Generally when I am waiting on line for the restroom or standing at the bar waiting for a drink. Even if I have no reason to be on my phone at that instant, I pull it out and browse through it to overcome this awkward or sometimes boring moment. This is something that I did not fully realize that I did until I was waiting for a long amount of time at the bar and went to grab my phone from my pocket for no particular reason except for the fact that I was bored. Finally, on page 12 of McLuhan's book he discusses that private is no longer possible and an image of a fingerprint is visible. In class we discussed how McLuhan is implying that our usage of media leaves a fingerprint of traceability and I wholeheartedly agree after my personal experience. That was the only upside to this experiment because for once I got to experience what it was like to be untraceable in the world. No one knew where I was except for those I was with and it was a surreal feeling to have this privacy.

Although this experiment was definitely a great parallel to Marshal McLuhan’s message (or should I say massage?) and also a great social learning experience for me, it is definitely something I would not want to test out again in the future. It may be a sign of weakness on my part, but it’s how my generation has evolved and I plan to continue down my path of embracing the comforting “massage” media has offered me.

Here is a clip that definitely conveys McLuhan's theory that as long as we are attached to the media there is no privacy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfnw2qpFO38