Internet, Internet Everywhere!

In Steve Johnson’s writing about the internet, he states that it has been beneficial to us in that it has made us more participatory both cognitively and socially. I agree with him in this because with television, I usually would just watch is brainlessly and even fall asleep to certain shows; but when I use the internet, I am usually engaged the whole time because I constantly have to be clicking or scrolling through things to get to whatever I want to see. Also, I believe that is beneficial to me cognitively because it has challenged me to learn how to solve problems using technology. I am not a very tech-savvy person so using a new search engine or other tool the internet provides is always a challenge for me and often requires that I use a few problem solving skills in the process in order to figure out what I am doing wrong or what I need to perform to get my computer doing what I want it to. Also, with Facebook for example, I have been able to be more social. I never really used to keep

up as much with what’s going on in the lives of my friends or family from different states besides the occasional visit, and now Facebook has helped me to keep in touch better with them pretty much on a daily regimen. I am even able to keep contact easily with some of the friends I have in other countries. The bad side to this, though, is that now that I have the internet at my fingertips all the time (literally with my smart phone) I tend to become a little obsessed with always checking emails and social networking sites. I believe this to be bad for me because I’ll be so absorbed in finding out the latest news or seeing so-and-so’s vacation pictures, etc. that I’ll keep myself up late at night browsing. Also, I’ve gotten a little lazy with figuring things out on my own and have started googling absolutely everything when I’m not sure of something. Although it is very convenient, I feel like I might be taking too much advantage of having it…and I’m not too sure if that’s very good for me cognitively or socially.

Good News and Bad News

Today in class, after watching an episode of ABC News, the story that I though was more serious and well-researched was the one about the trained terrorists that snuck into the United States by pretending to be Iraqi refugees. This news is not only serious because of the danger behind the topic, but you can tell it was taken seriously by the news cast. In Klosterman's reading, he said that a lot of the time, the stories the news anchors tell is a matter of who calls them back first or who is willing to make a comment. If nothing is given, then they sort of just have to bull-shit their story and milk whatever they can out of whatever information they have to fill the time slot and still get some news out to the public. I do not believe that was the case with this story, though, because they had many clips showing different people commenting on the subject, which means they got a lot of different points of view. Also, a lot of the people who were interviewed were saying the same things, so this helped make what they were portraying to the public seem more likely to be true. On the other hand, a story that didn't seem as well-covered as this one is that of the 85 year old war veteran who was kidnapped when merely sight-seeing in Korea. The reason this story seems sort of "fluffy", as Klosterman would suggest, is because there wasn't a single interview shown by anyone who directly saw what happened, and just generally not very much information on the subject. One of the news anchor's said, "We all know one thing, he sure is the talk of his retirement home." Since this comment seems pretty irrelevant to anything the public would really be concerned about, it seemed as though the anchor was just trying to fill the time slot for this story by adding something...anything. I definitely will be looking more closely when I get my news for this kind of "fluff" and make sure it comes with a variety of perspectives and some type of notable attempt at bringing forth as much accurate information as possible.

What Defines the Millenial Generation

The Millennial generation, like any, has its good traits and its not-so-good traits. One big example of the not-so-good traits might be that, since technology is so prevalent in every aspect of our lives, we are somewhat technology obsessed. People our constantly posting pictures or commenting about their lives on social networking sites and the majority of these posts are things that other people really either have no business in knowing or don’t want to know. Such things are like: where you are at right at this moment, what you ate for dinner, that you are mad at someone, and so on and so forth.  Now days, people almost obsess over keeping up with their latest dramas or news on these social networking sites and can often lose touch with things in the real world that really matter. Although this example is very important and is seen happening to kids, teens, and adults just about everywhere, I don’t think it is what defines the Millennial Generation. I think a major event that would define the Millennial generation, which just so happens to be one which harbors a “good trait” would be the election of our first ever black president, Barack Obama. Although some people don’t necessarily agree that he is even a good president, I think his election was a defining moment for our generation because it shows the progression of acceptance of diversity in this country and how much we have grown in this sense. Now, not only are people more accepting to racial diversity, but diversity in sex (like at the work place), mental\physical abilities, and romantic partnership as well. This will be a general good for our future because hopefully it will help lead to equality and acceptance amongst all people in future generations, and help reduce a lot of the arguments and fighting that still occur amongst the minority of people who still haven’t caught on to the change.

I think the major point Klosterman is trying to make by saying that real people are starting to act like the archetypes they see on television is that people are becoming one dimensional by watching television shows like The Real World and expecting those characters to be one dimensional as well; that is: not having anything unique about them to set them apart from others and conforming to a norm. I think this is a very strong idea because it is true. Anyone who would actually believe that the people on this show didn’t have anything deeper to their personalities other than being the “struggling-to-be-accepted black guy” or the “gay guy who likes to talk about being gay,” etc, would be just as one dimensional as these characters are forced to be…and yet we still watch them. It almost demeans our intelligence to be entertained by such ridiculously simple means, especially when these patterns of character personalities are repeated season to season. Like drones, we watch and watch and don’t even question why there is always a drunk guy, a preppy girl, a nerd, a muscle man, and a misfit in many of the shows we watch, who never seem to embody any other character traits besides  what’s stereotypical of these archetypes. Are we not complex enough ourselves to be entertained with complexity? As we follow shows like The Real World and become obsessive fans of something just to be in the know of something popular, are we not conforming to an archetype as well?  

Accidental Racist

The song “Accidental Racist” by Brad Paisley and L.L Cool J was made to be a big deal, first of all, because this song fused two completely different music genres together. According to Chuck Klosterman’s reading, country music is supposed to sort of be stories about the average Joe and simple, everyday life, while Staples’ argument about hip hop states that it is mostly about murder, misogyny and materialism. Clearly these two genres appear as though they wouldn’t mix well, but then again, not all country songs and hip-hop songs are always about these kinds of things.  This means that Klosterman and Staples’ ideas about the two could be considered stereotypical. “Accidental Racist” breaks through the stereotypes of both genres by creating something that is very different and unexpected, but even so, the song is still controversial because the lyrics themselves bring cultural stereotypes into play.

In the song, Brad Paisley describes himself as looking the part of the typical southern cowboy: wearing a white cowboy hat and a confederate flag t-shirt, while L.L Cool J describes himself as wearing a gold chain.  Both these statements are stereotypes of the typical southerner and the typical person of hip-hop culture because not every person categorized in either cultural group dresses the way these two men do. Another reason this song is such a big deal is people reacted very negatively to the fact that it brought up the issue of slavery very bluntly. Some people were angered by the fact that this may have re-opened an argument that was already long forgotten, and some people were just the opposite. L.L Cool Jay states in one of his lines, “If you can forgive my gold chains, I can forget my iron chains.” Some were angered by this statement because they thought it was radical to agree to forget about something so important to our history in exchange for not being judged by the way one dresses. Personally, I thought the song had good intentions within its message, and people shouldn’t be offended by this attempt at guiding two different cultures to better understand each other. As a song, though, I thought “Accidental Racist” sounded bad and the two genres did not fit very well together the way it was created.

"Intertextuality"

After learning about "intertextuality" from the "Bootleg Culture" reading, I realized that there is a ton of it out there, and I can't always say that I know exactly who wrote what, made what, or said what first! For example, just the other day, I heard this new song on the radio called "Dark Horse" by Katie Perry and Juicy J...or so I think. When trying to look the song up to add to my "Spotify" playlist for enjoyment purposes, it came up with a list of many versions of this song by different artists. I had no clue, and still have no clue, which one was even the original and who came up with it in the first place. Although the other versions were just as cool as Katie Perry's, it was sort of unsettling to me not knowing which one was really even "Dark Horse" the authentic.

This kind of "intertextuality" shows up everywhere in life. One popular example I can think of is with kids t.v shows vs. products made from them. For example, SpongeBob is a very popular t.v show, and not only is it that, but its characters come in snacks, plush toys, clothing, books, board games, video games, etc. and you never really know if the original creator of SpongeBob and the television series had anything to do with the designing or creating of any of them. This goes the same for other similar children's shows such as Mickey Mouse Clubhouse or Dora The Explorer. Some of the items sparked from these shows may not even be made by a Disney or Nickelodeon corporation, or even have to credit the person who originally thought of the characters or show ideas. There are so many items out there like this now that some people may not ever know, or even care where ideas originally came from, so long as they still get what their asking for.

 

Looking back at this first semester so far, I feel that what I have learned most, when it comes to popular culture, is how big of an influence the media really has on our lives. For example: the media can influence our relationships, what products we choose to buy, and more importantly how we feel about ourselves individually and as a culture. When it comes to relationships, Chuck Klosterman’s “This is Emo,” did a good job explaining how the media influences our relationship expectations. He explains that romantic movies (like the notebook) or even Disney movies often give us these unrealistic ideas of what romantic relationships are supposed to be like: with firework worthy kisses, surprises at every corner, and a happily ever after. In real life, we are affected by this because we learn to expect these ridiculous things from our partners that in reality just don’t happen every day. Therefore, we get disappointed and chase to obtain something that may not even exist outside of these movies.  After reading the Decoding Victoria’s Secret reading, I realized that sometimes products themselves aren’t even advertised. When it comes to woman’s underwear, a sense of sexiness and attractiveness to men is sold more prevalently than the actual undergarments. This shows how influential advertisers can be on our product choices as they play with our emotions and insecurities. Lastly, the media is very influential in the way we look at ourselves and our expectations of ourselves as a culture. For example, The Dove Study created a video showing a very attractive female model and what goes on before the model would be shown to the public. After extensive editing of an already beautiful woman, she then artificially embodied the stereotypical features of what the industry finds attractive. When people see models that all appear to look a certain way, they become self-conscious and believe that this is the way they and people of our culture are supposed to look like as well. I never realized how influential the media can be on our daily lives, but after being sort of put into check by these readings and videos, I noticed that I myself fall victim to this influence as well.