i started writing my last post about a week ago when i was emotionally grasping for my own understanding of our final lecture, and to find my truth in the material.
wow.
it took me three days to be able to post it because i needed so much soak-time to put it out there into cyberspace for the whole world to read. it was a hard lesson to work through - so many of my pre-conceived notions had to be unwound, and a freedom opened up at the end for me that helped me to really realize what these issues are all about - each of us individually. feminism, in particular, means nothing to me when it's not personal. when i have not delved into it deeply and taken from it what i can assimilate into my own life while still remaining consistent with who i am. i'm sure that's a life-lesson that i will struggle with for many years, but it was so valuable to be able to take nuggets of truth and realize that i can make them part of who i am!
this evening, i'm sitting in the peace of hood river, oregon with my husband on the first day of our vacation. i'm relaxed, feeling sentimental and peaceful, and i'm back to emotionally connecting with the material that we covered in Comm 365.
this has been one of the most influential courses of my life...i didn't think that it would be possible to completely break down my ideas about everything (!), and then start to re-form them into something that is becoming uniquely Karen Walker.
my thought at the beginning of the course was that this blog was something that i needed to complete for credit. it quickly became an opportunity to reflect in ways that i have not experienced in learning environments before. i've never been much of a journaller (although i really wish i was!), but this structured opportunity to evaluate what i am experiencing in my media interactions has been illuminating and valuable!
so, i am going to keep writing in it! i might not be very consistent. but i'm going to bookmark this one, and when i have something valuable to put out there about what i am learning and observing about the world of media and culture, i'll add it!
it's hard to be the same oblivious person that i was 10 weeks ago. i watch tv shows differently, read news media coverage differently, and think differently about issues such as the psychology of media and culture, liberal and conservative ideologies, and the effects of media on life.
i have a co-worker who makes technical changes to systems that impact me, and sometimes those changes are really, really great! when they are, i tell him that he changed my life. he thinks it's funny because it's a bit of an exaggeration (sometimes, although sometimes it's completely true!). at the risk of sounding like a broken record in all contexts of my life, i offer...
"this assignment has completely changed my life!"
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
what do you say when your whole world is turned upside down?
feminism.
i can no longer take a somewhat hands-off approach to it. i can no longer self-righteously think that i don't need feminism because i'm happy in being the woman that i am. i can no longer pretend that it doesn't matter.
jaigris, you're right. if feminism is simply about equality between men and women, why wouldn't everyone WANT to be a feminist? i had to pause the podcast when that point was made. i needed it to sink in, and to think about what that means to me.
i have always seen feminists as hard, angry women who are out to make their mark, and to "get what they deserve." i don't want to be a ball-buster, or think that just because i'm a woman, i have all kinds of entitlement headed my way. i don't want to try to have it all, just because i can. whatever i do, i want it to be because i'm completely sold out to it - building my career, or potentially building a family.
fair or not, i think that there has to be a compromise. and jaigris, you said it. i want to be a feminist because i believe in equality between women and men. i believe that women and men are equal in their value as human beings. do i think that should mean that a company should have X number of female executives just to "look" the part of an equal opportunity employer? no. i think that those positions should be earned, based on merit, not sex.
i work in an organization that has one female vice-president. she happens to be the wife of the CEO, which could potentially look nepotist, but the fact is that she is extremely talented, competent, and well-spoken. i applaud her for her role, and i think it is well deserved. the rest of the executive are men. and to be honest, there's not a one of them that should be replaced. they are all exceptional, talented, and visionary men, who i admire greatly. when those characteristics are what define a person in the workplace, gender matters little - it could be a man, could be a woman. what really matters is performance. one day, i have no doubt that an exceptional, talented, and visionary woman will step into one of those roles. i hope that it's because of those qualities, not because she happens to be a woman. i hope that it's me!
i still clearly have a lot of work to do to deprogram myself of my previous views about feminists. what i want so much is to experience life as a feminist who is not seen as hard and angry, but as a true advocate for equality and freedom of gender expression.
what a life!
p.s. i chose this "girlie" website template because i love it, and for no other reason!
i can no longer take a somewhat hands-off approach to it. i can no longer self-righteously think that i don't need feminism because i'm happy in being the woman that i am. i can no longer pretend that it doesn't matter.
jaigris, you're right. if feminism is simply about equality between men and women, why wouldn't everyone WANT to be a feminist? i had to pause the podcast when that point was made. i needed it to sink in, and to think about what that means to me.
i have always seen feminists as hard, angry women who are out to make their mark, and to "get what they deserve." i don't want to be a ball-buster, or think that just because i'm a woman, i have all kinds of entitlement headed my way. i don't want to try to have it all, just because i can. whatever i do, i want it to be because i'm completely sold out to it - building my career, or potentially building a family.
fair or not, i think that there has to be a compromise. and jaigris, you said it. i want to be a feminist because i believe in equality between women and men. i believe that women and men are equal in their value as human beings. do i think that should mean that a company should have X number of female executives just to "look" the part of an equal opportunity employer? no. i think that those positions should be earned, based on merit, not sex.
i work in an organization that has one female vice-president. she happens to be the wife of the CEO, which could potentially look nepotist, but the fact is that she is extremely talented, competent, and well-spoken. i applaud her for her role, and i think it is well deserved. the rest of the executive are men. and to be honest, there's not a one of them that should be replaced. they are all exceptional, talented, and visionary men, who i admire greatly. when those characteristics are what define a person in the workplace, gender matters little - it could be a man, could be a woman. what really matters is performance. one day, i have no doubt that an exceptional, talented, and visionary woman will step into one of those roles. i hope that it's because of those qualities, not because she happens to be a woman. i hope that it's me!
i still clearly have a lot of work to do to deprogram myself of my previous views about feminists. what i want so much is to experience life as a feminist who is not seen as hard and angry, but as a true advocate for equality and freedom of gender expression.
what a life!
p.s. i chose this "girlie" website template because i love it, and for no other reason!
Monday, June 14, 2010
cyber war...might not kill but does it do as much damage?
i guess the digital isolation didn't last long after my last post, less than an hour to be exact.
that was when blaine turned the channel to a 60 minutes episode airing about network hackers and cyber war.
i have to admit, my interest was lacking and my skepticism was in overdrive, but i watched. and, to my surprise i learned some interesting, albeit terrifying, things about what hackers can do (and have done) to computer systems that basically control our continent.
learning about digital media takes on a completely different form when i think about hackers in this way. it's not just about them hacking my blog and taking my ideas, which is bad enough. it's not even just about them hacking my bank or a government website and stealing my identity, which is also chillingly scary.
it's about the ability to shut down the entire functional ability of a society with a few keystrokes. and that's something that i had not really ever considered. pandora's box? this could very much prove to be the case.
i have two questions that i'm putting out there. clearly there are much smarter people making the decisions than i am, so i don't want to appear to be a self-proclaimed expert...but i'm curious:
1. no one ever provided proof that the hackers were foreign, so why was it not clarified that these hackers have been proven not to be Americans (or Canadians, for that matter)? i don't necessarily doubt that they were foreign attacks, but found the evidence lacking, and the assumption not substantiated. it seemed like an easy jab to throw at the enemies of the west (i think russia and china in particular were mentioned)...
2. if there is a fear that a hacker could inadvertently detonate a nuclear weapon, then a) why don't we get rid of the wretched things altogether? (i know, i know...far too simplistic!) and b) can't you just unplug that computer from any kind of network??? i don't understand why a machine that has the capacity to wipe out humanity is networked, period. remotely detonatable, perhaps. networked, no.
it's almost like the way that communist states have been unable to replicate marxist utopia...digital media, while appearing to be utopic as well, have much more power to control and define our lives than i even realized.
that was when blaine turned the channel to a 60 minutes episode airing about network hackers and cyber war.
i have to admit, my interest was lacking and my skepticism was in overdrive, but i watched. and, to my surprise i learned some interesting, albeit terrifying, things about what hackers can do (and have done) to computer systems that basically control our continent.
learning about digital media takes on a completely different form when i think about hackers in this way. it's not just about them hacking my blog and taking my ideas, which is bad enough. it's not even just about them hacking my bank or a government website and stealing my identity, which is also chillingly scary.
it's about the ability to shut down the entire functional ability of a society with a few keystrokes. and that's something that i had not really ever considered. pandora's box? this could very much prove to be the case.
i have two questions that i'm putting out there. clearly there are much smarter people making the decisions than i am, so i don't want to appear to be a self-proclaimed expert...but i'm curious:
1. no one ever provided proof that the hackers were foreign, so why was it not clarified that these hackers have been proven not to be Americans (or Canadians, for that matter)? i don't necessarily doubt that they were foreign attacks, but found the evidence lacking, and the assumption not substantiated. it seemed like an easy jab to throw at the enemies of the west (i think russia and china in particular were mentioned)...
2. if there is a fear that a hacker could inadvertently detonate a nuclear weapon, then a) why don't we get rid of the wretched things altogether? (i know, i know...far too simplistic!) and b) can't you just unplug that computer from any kind of network??? i don't understand why a machine that has the capacity to wipe out humanity is networked, period. remotely detonatable, perhaps. networked, no.
it's almost like the way that communist states have been unable to replicate marxist utopia...digital media, while appearing to be utopic as well, have much more power to control and define our lives than i even realized.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
digital social isolation...a strange phenomenon for me!
this week, i lacked a media experience that was a revelation to me. i kept searching and nothing stood out.
and i realized. it was probably because i am feeling slightly isolated from media lately. the sites i normally read online didn't have the same appeal, and facebook, while still a love of mine, had a slightly boring tinge this week.
so i conducted a bit of an analysis of this on myself.
why do i feel this way? am i one of those statistics that i have fought against - namely that my relationships are suffering because of a lack of personal contact?
i thought about my interactions and realized a few key things:
1. i am thinking much more critically about "news" - namely what is reported and the context in which the story is being told. hearing about kate gosselin's life or the newest escapades of the kardashian sisters is interesting from a purely entertainment perspective, but i question every story's truth, and find myself wondering more often what they think about the story, and whether it is accurate.
2. i am far more interested in hearing about news from people with whom i have recently had a personal encounter. thus, most of my facebook friends' updates don't have the same interest as they did last week.
3. i was not committed to keeping in touch with people via digital means this week. i normally text my dad on an almost daily basis, and somehow "forgot" to do it. my best friend and i skype weekly, and that also got missed. emails i received or sent went without reply. it was a strange week in digital communications for me.
4. with the weather being nice, and almost being done class, i have a real push to be outside and disconnected from media. i'm sure this will only last until the next rain!
until then...
and i realized. it was probably because i am feeling slightly isolated from media lately. the sites i normally read online didn't have the same appeal, and facebook, while still a love of mine, had a slightly boring tinge this week.
so i conducted a bit of an analysis of this on myself.
why do i feel this way? am i one of those statistics that i have fought against - namely that my relationships are suffering because of a lack of personal contact?
i thought about my interactions and realized a few key things:
1. i am thinking much more critically about "news" - namely what is reported and the context in which the story is being told. hearing about kate gosselin's life or the newest escapades of the kardashian sisters is interesting from a purely entertainment perspective, but i question every story's truth, and find myself wondering more often what they think about the story, and whether it is accurate.
2. i am far more interested in hearing about news from people with whom i have recently had a personal encounter. thus, most of my facebook friends' updates don't have the same interest as they did last week.
3. i was not committed to keeping in touch with people via digital means this week. i normally text my dad on an almost daily basis, and somehow "forgot" to do it. my best friend and i skype weekly, and that also got missed. emails i received or sent went without reply. it was a strange week in digital communications for me.
4. with the weather being nice, and almost being done class, i have a real push to be outside and disconnected from media. i'm sure this will only last until the next rain!
until then...
Friday, June 4, 2010
a weekend of CNN propaganda
i almost went crazy last weekend because of CNN. not because it's CNN, nor because the story that they were covering didn't need to be shared with the world. it did.
i almost went crazy because they kept saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over...ad infinitum!
and, i watched it...partly out of curiosity, partly out of a sick hypnosis, and partly because i wanted to watch it with new eyes - those that are starting to understand media and culture.
the news story was the oil spill.
i concluded a few things about this experience (some of them very tongue-in-cheek):
1. repetition has a powerful effect. the live video feed that was displayed constantly on every screen, showed a constant stream of dark oil pouring out of the rig, and made the enormity of the disaster that much more visible and disturbing.
2. using "experts" that have little to contribute other than their opinion has become the norm in reporting, just like Noam Chomsky said. i had never really paid notice to this phenomenon before, but after watching a "presidential historian" deferred to for his commentary on environmental disaster, all i could think about was how deeply they were committed to telling "their" story. i never did really understand the connection between the expert and the context, but that's the point - it doesn't matter. he was someone to fill the seat and talk.
3. the more sensational the better. cover-ups make for great news stories for entire weekends. and if there appears to be misconduct, it must have been misconduct. it's important to keep harping on that. it's never good to believe the best about people or companies, and it's always safe to assume that they will act in the worst interests of the public whenever they can. i think it was appalling that, even after an explanatory report about why workers cleaning the beach stopped after President Obama left, CNN reporters continued to throw suspicion on it and keep assuming that BP was bringing workers into the area to make it look good for the president. i guess it's just too difficult to accept that they may very well have been there since early in the morning and were trying to escape the hot Louisiana sun in hazardous materials suits.
4. if you sling mud on reputations, and the rest of society feels the same, it must be okay. when BP was ever given an opportunity to speak, or when their representatives' speeches were broadcast, there was an undertone of disdain, suspicion, and skepticism from the reporters or anchors. even if all of America hates BP right now, it doesn't mean that it's appropriate to present them as villains. the last time that i checked, they're the ones who could face bankruptcy over this, and i doubt that they intended for this situation to happen. it was an accident. a horribly devastating accident, but an accident all the same.
5. in the end, who cares if we're taking people away from getting the problem solved, if we can get them to talk about the myriad of issues that will satisfy the public's sense of entitlement? what are we entitled to anyways? as a cnn viewer, i don't think that i necessarily have a right to information. i have a curiosity, and a desire for that information. CNN has a duty and a motivation to provide me with that information. but do i need it? definitely not. in fact, i'd prefer to be provided with it once the full story is available, particularly on controversial or inflammatory topics.
i am disturbed by the ecological calamity that has been brought on the Gulf of Mexico. i'm saddened by the unimaginable damage that has been caused. i'm deeply sorry for the losses that so many will incur, including the lives of the animals in the gulf.
but unfortunately, i'm even more disturbed by the audacity of a news outlet to report stories with little perspective or context, commentary for the purpose of inciting emotional responses, and a one-sided approach.
i almost went crazy because they kept saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over...ad infinitum!
and, i watched it...partly out of curiosity, partly out of a sick hypnosis, and partly because i wanted to watch it with new eyes - those that are starting to understand media and culture.
the news story was the oil spill.
i concluded a few things about this experience (some of them very tongue-in-cheek):
1. repetition has a powerful effect. the live video feed that was displayed constantly on every screen, showed a constant stream of dark oil pouring out of the rig, and made the enormity of the disaster that much more visible and disturbing.
2. using "experts" that have little to contribute other than their opinion has become the norm in reporting, just like Noam Chomsky said. i had never really paid notice to this phenomenon before, but after watching a "presidential historian" deferred to for his commentary on environmental disaster, all i could think about was how deeply they were committed to telling "their" story. i never did really understand the connection between the expert and the context, but that's the point - it doesn't matter. he was someone to fill the seat and talk.
3. the more sensational the better. cover-ups make for great news stories for entire weekends. and if there appears to be misconduct, it must have been misconduct. it's important to keep harping on that. it's never good to believe the best about people or companies, and it's always safe to assume that they will act in the worst interests of the public whenever they can. i think it was appalling that, even after an explanatory report about why workers cleaning the beach stopped after President Obama left, CNN reporters continued to throw suspicion on it and keep assuming that BP was bringing workers into the area to make it look good for the president. i guess it's just too difficult to accept that they may very well have been there since early in the morning and were trying to escape the hot Louisiana sun in hazardous materials suits.
4. if you sling mud on reputations, and the rest of society feels the same, it must be okay. when BP was ever given an opportunity to speak, or when their representatives' speeches were broadcast, there was an undertone of disdain, suspicion, and skepticism from the reporters or anchors. even if all of America hates BP right now, it doesn't mean that it's appropriate to present them as villains. the last time that i checked, they're the ones who could face bankruptcy over this, and i doubt that they intended for this situation to happen. it was an accident. a horribly devastating accident, but an accident all the same.
5. in the end, who cares if we're taking people away from getting the problem solved, if we can get them to talk about the myriad of issues that will satisfy the public's sense of entitlement? what are we entitled to anyways? as a cnn viewer, i don't think that i necessarily have a right to information. i have a curiosity, and a desire for that information. CNN has a duty and a motivation to provide me with that information. but do i need it? definitely not. in fact, i'd prefer to be provided with it once the full story is available, particularly on controversial or inflammatory topics.
i am disturbed by the ecological calamity that has been brought on the Gulf of Mexico. i'm saddened by the unimaginable damage that has been caused. i'm deeply sorry for the losses that so many will incur, including the lives of the animals in the gulf.
but unfortunately, i'm even more disturbed by the audacity of a news outlet to report stories with little perspective or context, commentary for the purpose of inciting emotional responses, and a one-sided approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)