Figaro Meets the Media

Blogging about Blogging

2008-11-28T11:29:00.000-08:00

How has blogging changed our lives since it has become popular? How are relationships that we have via online mediums different than face-to-face relationships?

Emily Gould’s article “Exposed” is a first hand account of how blogging directly affected the life of a young woman who essentially blogged for a living. Gould says that at first the readers of “Emily Magazine”, her blog, consisted of a relatively small group of friends. Gould said that, “Some of my blog’s readers were my friends in real life, and even the ones who weren’t acted like friends when they posted comments or sent me e-mail.”

Gould also talks about how blogging became such an integral part of her life that it drastically affected her face-to-face relationships. She was frustrated by her boyfriend, Henry, and that he did not like to be a ‘character’ on her blog. This tension eventually resulted in a breakup between the two.

So how much has blogging and an urge to ‘overshare’, as Gould puts it, affected us in our lives?

Certainly we have more freedom to write about things and exchange experiences than we did years ago. It is simply easier to get in touch with people, given the electronic media that we now have, and most people have begun to embrace the idea of being able to share more. At the same time, we don’t usually consider the differences between sharing online and sharing face-to-face. It’s much easier to be rude or mean when you don’t have to look someone in the eye, whether that is by directly insulting someone or by refusing to acknowledge what they want. Furthermore, you can get on and off whenever you want, probably without significant ramifications. Most of the time that will get you in trouble in face-to-face relationships.

Freedom comes with the corollary of responsibility. Here, it comes down to a clash in values. Traditionalists would be appalled that Gould essentially chose her online blogging friends over a boyfriend that she had face-to-face contact with all the time.

While the emotional effects of online relationships are quite real, even if they can be denounced as less than that, the differences in dynamics are important.

One of Gould’s readers left the following comments on one of her posts: “Emily, I don’t really know you and more than I know the people I see every morning walking the dogs,” the commenter said. “It’s more of an imagined familiarity born out of reading your words for a year. But that took guts, all the way around. And I’m in your corner, as much as a faceless, nameless commenter can be.”

That last phrase rings in my head. How much can a “faceless, nameless commenter” be in our corner? Sometimes it feels like they can help a great deal, if at least psychologically. Other times it feels like we are losing some of our stable moorings in true face-to-face relationship.

One of the problems with blogging is getting turned into a target, as Gould experienced. People can snipe at what we say more or less anonymously. In addition to it being a medium where it is easier for people to pile on negative comments, it can also be much harder to get away from your mistakes online.

The “sniper and target” dynamic is an example of how different online relationships are compared to typical face-to-face relationships. In a true face-to-face relationship, we would rarely, if ever, be “snipers and targets.” Instead, the relationship is give and take. Online relationships tend to be more take and less give, which could conceivably affect our responses to events in our face-to-face relationships. This happened in Gould’s case, where the dynamic of an online relationship bled over into her face-to-face relationships and caused her significant distress.

The Price of Abundant Choice

2008-11-18T23:05:00.001-08:00

There are a lot of choices everywhere we look these days. From the different restaurants I could choice to have a meal at, to the different flavors of toothpaste that I can buy, sometimes there’s so much out there that when I realize the range of choice it is quite surprising.

But is this range of choice a bad thing? Virginia Postrel, in her article “Consumer Vertigo”, argues that this choice is indeed a good thing. She says that the social critics who believe that our massive range of choice is bad for us are missing the point that this choice benefits the customer.

Instead, according to Postrel, critics such as Barry Schwartz focus on the overwhelming nature of choice in unfamiliar circumstances. Schwartz talks about trouble shopping at the Gap, which he says becomes “a complex decision in which I was forced to invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, anxiety, and dread.”

Postrel argues that with experience people learn to negotiate choices rather well. Furthermore, she notes how people often voluntarily limit their own choices: “We go back to our favorite restaurant and order the same dish because we know we’ll like it. We find a toothpaste that suits us and stick to it. We don’t always choose anew.”

Postrel also says that our choices out of this variety help to make us who we are, and that people want to find what works well for them.

Postrel’s argument makes a lot of sense. After all, as consumers we are better off getting things exactly as we want them, right? If I prefer cargo pants over jeans but stores only have jeans, then the majority of people may not care, but I do. If staying away from the norm becomes a need—for instance if someone is allergic to a typical medication—then this makes more critical the argument that having different options can be vitally important.

Postrel sums the responsibility of having so many choices well when she says, “Liberty and responsibility really do go together, it’s not just a platitude. The more freedom we have to control our lives, the more responsibility we have for how they turn out.”

As such, we have to use our ability to choose from so many different things in a wise manner. Having so many good choices probably means that somewhere there as just as many less savory choices available. To use an extreme example, if I were to use money I’d set aside for textbooks to buy a video game instead, leaving me with no textbook for one of my classes, people would agree that I hadn’t handled my responsibility of being able to choose what I do with my money well. Admittedly, the above choice doesn’t refer to different varieties of the same thing, which Postrel tends to focus on, but it does show how I can misuse my freedom to choose things for myself.

Ultimately, these kinds of decisions are much more important than what variety of toothpaste, milk, or soda we buy. Why? It is because if we are forced into finding alternatives for our first choice of soda it makes very little functional difference in our lives. On the other hand, if I fail my class because I neglected to buy the textbook, it could conceivably affect my ability to graduate with a degree, which could drastically affect not only my pocketbook in the not so distant future, but also what line of work I am in, who I meet, and many other different things.

Boiled down, these things may affect my ability to support myself and help others.

Further, is it appropriate to treat decisions such as where I attend church and who my friends are with this kind of consumer mentality? It doesn’t seem so.

There are times when there are good decisions and bad decisions. This is rather different than shopping at the store, where few decisions have this kind of resonance (unless we refuse to acknowledge that we have a budget, a decision that most certainly could cause problems).

Another issue is whether we will be drastically affected if we have to return to fewer choices even in stores. Will we be able to cope effectively, or are we so enticed by the vast amount of variety that we will be annoyed and frustrated if it is no longer presented?

Responsibility is the key to the argument that abundant choice is good for us. If we are responsible, we are able to choose things that are more in line with what we appreciate and like, and when there is a particular decision that needs to be made we will make it. If we aren’t responsible, then having so many choices may be an avenue for us getting into trouble and treating the more important decisions wantonly.

Distracted

2008-11-18T23:01:00.000-08:00

“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on jet skies.”
This metaphor used by Nicholas Carr in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” strikes at the perceived difference in how we take in information now compared to how we took in information before we had the internet at our fingertips.

Carr suggests that how our minds work has been altered by the online media that is now available to us. Carr references Scott Karp, who blogs about online media, who says, “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?”

Carr and Karp make good points. But convenience is more prevalent than they give it credit for. Distractions are also a huge part of our society’s perceived loss of the ability to focus deeply. There is simply more around to be distracted by.

Ever had trouble concentrating in a class based on who sits next to you? I have. It’s harder to concentrate when someone you want to ask on a date or talk with about that incredible last second touchdown catch is sitting right there. Convenience can lead us to do think about things and do things we wouldn’t go out of our way for. I don’t think this in itself is quite the same as fundamentally thinking differently, though it might be on the path to thinking differently.

I’m even having more difficulty than usual writing this post because the circumstances around me have changed drastically in the past week. Distractions abound: it is harder to concentrate because there is more going on in my immediate vicinity. I’m not convinced that’s a change in how I think. Rather, the change in circumstance means that the old way of doing things doesn’t always work as well as it once did. My routine has been cut across.

If these types of distractions bother us, then the ones of the internet almost certain detract from our focus as well.

Wikipedia pages and other similar quick reference utilities only go so far towards research, especially considering that they are not particularly reliable compared to other sources. However, the convenient availability of facts helps encourage people to search out small gaps in their knowledge because it isn’t particularly hard to do so.

But does searching out those facts make the information come alive? Or do the distractions available to me on the internet counteract that, at least to a degree?

The internet has been said to be a “mile wide and an inch deep.” It has become very easy to use the internet to find out little snippets of fact, such as to fill out some bit of information in a reading that you don’t understand at first, but it can be an awkward tool to use when trying to deeply research something.

That said, Carr underestimates how distractions and changes in circumstance affect how we operate. The distractions on the internet are available just as easily as those snippets of fact. It’s similar to leaving the cookie jar open in a low place with a small child in the house. You might as well be asking for some cookies to be taken.

Carr states at the end of the article that “as we come to rely on computers to understand our meaning of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.” I disagree. Instead, things become so easy to access that our own human nature gets in the way of being focused.

Is information like gossip more popular these days? Or is this just people’s response to a topic they already find interesting becoming more available?

The internet itself is a distracting environment. We wouldn’t think about taking homework to the atmosphere of a rock concert, but now we often do our work while listening to our favorite music and chatting with our friends online. No wonder we are having more trouble concentrating!

After all, when we read a book, then we typically are focusing all our attention into delving into the book and its environment.

When we try read internet articles, we often have several other windows open at the same time, such as keeping one window on the sports scores and another one open for instant messaging while trying to read an article on a third page.

While it may be that something about how we think has changed--such as having a lack of patience--the majority of the change that Carr senses is primarily affected by convenience and an environment filled with distractions.

Values Battle! Style vs. Substance

2008-11-18T22:59:00.000-08:00

Has society come to think that image is everything?

Naomi Klein is a Canadian journalist and a well known critic of branding and other costs of globalization. Klein believes that branding has become about trying to associate brands with ideas. The idea is that people will buy products because of the ideas they associate with the product.

Klein’s perspective is similar to that of many classical media critics. C. Wright Mills, whose criticism is more politically geared, talks about the mass media becoming a set of media markets that caters to people’s interests rather than promoting public discourse on important issues. Stuart Ewen critiques the consumer culture and how the commodity system in rooted into our lives. Adorno and Horkheimer take the culture industry to task, saying that high culture is being replaced by mass culture.

Klein’s “No Logo” premise is less sweeping but more focused than the classical critics mentioned above. Klein focuses in on branding, using different angles to make her points against it.

Klein talks about how ideals have become important in advertising. “And they say, ‘The Gap is not a clothing company, it’s about unrestrained exuberance.’ And Tommy Hilfiger is about the spirit of rock ‘n’ roll, and Ikea, according to their brand manager who told me this in person, is about the idea of democracy.”

Klein has a problem with this for two reasons: she does not think values should be projected onto products and she is concerned about the conditions of the workers who make brand-name products.

Klein has some good points, and they raise progressively deeper questions in my mind.

The importance of image in today’s society brings up some very important questions. Is the quality, or substance, of something still important to us? Or have we become so preoccupied with image that we don’t care about quality and functionality?

The upcoming presidential election is an example of this. Political campaigns are run as much to pump up the image of one candidate and soil the image of the other as much as possible. Issues are discussed, such as during the debates, but it usually feels like they are only being given lip service. The McCain campaign tries to tell us Obama is “not ready to lead,” and the Obama campaign suggests to us that McCain is antiquated and not enough about change. Image is attacked more so than issues are discussed.

On a more personal level, why do we feel so pressed to buy new things even when the old versions work perfectly fine? For instance, do we associate what kind of car we drive with who we are? Does not caring about they year and make of my car—other than how the mileage and similar factors affect its performance—mean I have lost the thread? Is using image to help myself make decisions while buying a car appropriate? Klein and another classical critic, Sapir, would say that we are communicating our identity through the products that we purchase.

Arguments against style over substance run deep in our cultural roots. In the Bible (Matthew 23:27), Jesus talks about the Pharisees being like whitewashed tombs—they look good on the outside, but are decaying on the inside. This refers to the problem of style over substance on a very deep and personal level.

In addition, as Americans we support the ideas of freedom and democracy. When our government doesn’t act in a democratic manner, we get upset. Again, this is an argument against style over substance taken to a different arena: politics.

Image (style) has become more preeminent than substance (quality) in our society. Companies spend more and more money on advertising to us while cultivating an image. Has this truly become more effective than putting some of that money towards making a better product? If so, what does that say about us?

While this attitude of style over substance is at least annoying the corporate realm is at least quite annoying, I find it more concerning if it is applied too much into how we deal with politics or, even more importantly, how we treat other people. Do we just care about our friend’s image, or do we actually care about them as a person? My hope is that the latter is true.

Desensitized?

2008-11-18T22:57:00.000-08:00

Are we flooded with stimuli in contemporary American society to the point that we have become numb to it all? Are we given so many choices and so much to process that we can’t handle it at a certain point?

The above sentiment is the argument that Thomas de Zengotita makes in his article “The Numbing of the American Mind.” Zengotita refers specifically to the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to make his point. He argues that while we sometimes are taken by surprise and have “real” moments, for the most part our minds are anesthetized. He says that after 9/11, we did indeed have a few months where we were snapped out of our stupor, but after several months we slipped back into our previous state. “The holidays came and went,” Zengotita says, “and—if you were not personally stricken by the terror of September—chances are you got over it. You moved on.”

However, Zengotita sees something that is truly ingrained in our society, rather than something that only manifests itself through large events.

“September 11 had to accommodate the fact that our lives are now largely constituted by effects,” Zengotita says.

Zengotita talks about how even nature isn’t “real” to us anymore. “You won’t see wolves, you’ll see ‘wolves,’” Zengotita says. “And you will get restless really fast if that ‘wolf’ doesn’t do anything.” Zengotita argues that nature shows and other such programs have given us a type of media processed image of many things.

Zengotita has a point in many respects. When we tune into news shows, events are typically broken down into bite-sized clips of the most interesting or controversial parts so that we can assimilate many different things in the requisite time frame. Our culture is so interested in obtaining information quickly that we often take the ‘fast food’ version of news.

I do propose, however, that Zengotita’s argument about things not being “real” breaks down when applied to things we have a passion for. We care enough about the things we have a passion for to look deeper than just what the media throws at us and investigate more thoroughly, combining with our own experiences to have not be numb to what is happening.

Zengotita references a Freidrich Nietzche quote in his argument: “…the massive influx of impressions is so great: surprising, barbaric, and violent things press so overpoweringly—‘balled up into hideous clumps’—in the youthful soul; that it can save itself only by taking recourse in premeditated stupidity.”

But is too much influx overwhelming us on all fronts? Is the media really anesthetizing our views on so many levels? In smaller things, especially those things that we care about, I think not. The musician appreciates the different layers of harmony in an arrangement of music. The interior decorator is not overwhelmed by the many different shades and hues that a room could be. The football player understands that even though the quarterback and running backs tend to get the praise in the media that the offensive line is just as important.

I also think that Zengotita misses the mark when he laments about how we move on from things. Moving on is a very important process after something traumatic happens. While we should not forget the people we care about or traumatic events, letting them paralyze us to the point of being able to do nothing is just as unhealthy. As one of my classmates pointed out about this topic, people adapt to new situations. On the whole, Zengotita’s complaints about moving on seem unfounded.

While Zengotita makes many good points, many of his points are not as encompassing as he seems to argue they are. While we do get a lot of information, we do not seem to be numbed about things we truly know and care about. And while we may move too hastily through much of our lives, moving on after tragic and traumatic events is not a sign of weakness. Instead, it is how we gather ourselves and live through the aftermath, even when it is not ideal.

Media Free Day

2008-11-06T23:45:00.000-08:00

A media free day in today’s society of constantly flowing information via the internet and other media is an interesting and somewhat difficult undertaking. The assignment we had was to keep the day as normal as possible in many respects while not having contact with electronic media for a 24-hour period. (Note: This was not ironclad: use of cell phones was permitted as long as they were used as land lines--meaning no use of text messages or other extra features (though use of the phone in general was kept to a minimum), while use of a word processor was also permitted.) This presented many challenges, because in an ordinary day I utilize different types of media, from television to internet to music, on a regular basis.

A couple of things made the media free day a particular burden for me. First, I still live at home with my parents (college dorms are expensive), which meant that either I needed some cooperation from them, or I would have to leave the house for much of the time that they would be there during the 24-hour period.

Here is a basic chronology of how I spent the 24-hour media free period: I started the media free session at about 4:00 on Tuesday during our Newsgathering class. While we did use computers for some of the remainder of the class, we only used the word processor function, which was allowed according to the guidelines that we had laid out as a class. This part of the media free day was not difficult, as I was occupied with my schoolwork.

The toughest time of the media free session was Tuesday night. I had just started the 24-hour period at 4:00 p.m., so I knew that much of Wednesday would be encapsulated into the media free session as well. This stressed me out quite a bit, as many of the things I do to help me wind down or even to get in the mood for doing homework are media related, such as looking through sports news on the internet. As a result, I ended up doing what I often do when something is really stressing me out and media doesn’t help: I took a nap. Even so, I ran into some parental interference when I woke up later that evening and one of my parents decided to turn on the television for awhile despite that I had asked them not to. I utilized various evasive tactics, but I basically had to resort to humming to myself in another room since the house is small enough that it is easy to hear the TV through most of the house. I didn’t really do anything of note for the whole evening except do my dead level best to not hear anything for the TV. Looking back, I do regret that I didn't use some of this time on Tuesday night in a different manner, such as studying the Bible, reading, doing schoolwork, or something else along those lines.

Wednesday was actually quite enjoyable for the most part. I went to class in the morning and then thought about how to spend the remaining time until 4:00 PM in a media free fashion. After catching up on some reading for one of my classes, I decided to go play golf at the par 3 course at LaFortune Park. Playing golf is one of my favorite activities, but between devoting time to schoolwork and economic concerns I had not played a round of golf in quite a while. This was also the other time I had a run-in with an electronic medium: the radio was on in the pro shop when I bought my green fee. I went about my business in the pro shop as quickly as possible and tried to tune out the radio. I didn’t start out the golf round itself very well: I was 5-over par after 4 holes. I found a bit of a groove in the middle of the round: I managed to make par on 6 of my next 8 holes, putting me at 7-over par through 12. I fell into a bit of a tailspin at the end of the round: I hit some solid shots, but two of them cost me dearly by going too far. Overall, I had quite a bit of fun, and I was happy that I was able to play a round of golf for the first time in quite a while. I was not happy with my performance—it was a far cry from when I used to play competitively—but I took some positive things about my game out of the round, particularly since I was playing a very practice intensive sport (or game, if you prefer) on virtually no practice! I also went by my old elementary school on the way home and talked to my 4th grade math and science teacher. It was nice to catch up with how things were going at my old school.

There were many things I took out of this media free experience. First, I think it is important to realize that one reason we rely on media so much is that we want to stay informed about the things that are happening in the world around us. Furthermore, many other people expect us to have access to the internet, TV, and other such media forms these days. For instance, many school assignments are posted, worked on, and completed on the internet. Employers and family members rely on e-mail and cell phones to reach us. As such, we are essentially expected to be tuned in at least somewhat so that people around us can contact us if they really need to.

I also think that people are, for the most part, creatures of habit. Because of this, once people establish something as part of their daily routine, it can be difficult to get out of it sometimes. I think that the media are such a ubiquitous part of our daily lives that it is simply a shock to be without it for very long. Furthermore, the media help us to keep up with all kinds of events and happenings that are important to us, which makes us even more reluctant to just get away from it all.

I think that part of the reason that print media are not as popular as other as other forms of media is the time factor. To a degree, print media takes more time to focus into and get out of than internet or television media. Because businesses and people in general are so obsessed with time, we tend to utilize the forms of media that saves us time.

An intelligent friend of mine who spent significant time in Ecuador and Mexico once told me before our church youth group went to Mexico City that “American culture values time over relationship, while Mexican culture values relationship over time.” In this respect I wonder if we are focusing on the wrong things. Relationships are vitally important to everyone I know, but American culture does indeed seem to have an undertone that wasting time is just bad. After all, many kids feel like they want a job and extracurricular activities in addition to their responsibilities at school. I wonder why teenagers in our society rush into these responsibilities: perhaps it is possible that filling up their time with what our society considers worthwhile activities is one reason.

I was actually a little surprised about how well I was able to adapt to the media free session once I was a little ways into it. I think the first couple of hours were the hardest because I knew I was in the situation for a decent amount of time. By late Wednesday morning, I think the realization that I only had several hours left helped to fuel my ability to find different things to do and to actually enjoy myself a bit. It’s always easier to think and enjoy yourself when the pressure isn’t on, and I think that had a lot to do with my mental state through much of the media free day. Not having a whole lot of homework also helped.

I also thought it was interesting that I initially was a bit frustrated at not having the addition flexibility and options that the electronic media provide. In particular, I felt that some of the ways I try to relax and relieve stress had been somewhat compromised during the first part of the experiment. However, as the 24-hour period went on, I gradually grew more comfortable with the means that were prescribed for the day and was able to actually enjoy myself somewhat. I think that getting used to things like electronic media can make it harder to go without them even if we were doing perfectly fine before because, as I have previously mentioned, humans are typically creatures of habit. We don’t just want enough to sustain ourselves! We want the most and the best, or at least we do a good job of acting liking it.

While electronic media play an important part in our lives in today’s world, I think it is important to realize that the values that it is only a transmission vehicle for the things that most people really value. Many people still value relationships, family time, and religion as some of the most important things in their life. While the electronic media can enhance these things by giving granted them further reach—for example, it is easier to communicate with the people you care about—the electronic media does not replace them. Instead, it provides some new ways to go about maintaining the things that we count as most important.

Overall, a 24-hour media free experience is actually quite interesting, though I must admit that it can be frustrating to not utilize what has become relatively standard means of communication for middle class Americans. While I have gone much longer periods without electronic media (church camp during high school comes to mind), it was interesting that I was more annoyed with a change in routine while in a more strenuous environment. In fact, the ironic thing is that as the media free day went on, I kept on thinking of new things to do that don’t involve electronic media. While I certainly haven’t spent enough time on those things now since I completed the media free day, I am not nearly as annoyed by the prospect of not having access to electronic media for a long period of time. I feel like I learned how to try to relax without electronic media assistance even in a highly charged, stressful environment—a challenge, given my relatively high strung nature about school and work related things. Even so, while I was annoyed with the idea at the outset for several reasons (i.e. convenience, flexibility, the comforting notion of being able to work on whatever schoolwork I needed to even if it required electronic elements), I found that I ultimately managed to have an engaging experience.

Media Autobiography

2008-11-06T23:34:00.000-08:00

There are many forms of media that have been influential to me throughout my childhood and also now as a young adult. Books are one form of media that I have always enjoyed. Since my mother is a librarian, I was exposed to many different books and developed a love of reading while I was quite young. I particularly enjoyed mystery books, such as the Encyclopedia Brown series and the "Clue" books that were based on the board game, and I still have quite a fondness for the genre. Until a few years ago I found books more reliable than the internet for research on school projects, particularly as I was accustomed to navigating my way through books. My internet connection was also quite slow back in those days, which surely played a factor in my annoyance with that form of media.

The internet is a form of media that I have grown much more comfortable with over the past few years. This form of media is interesting in that it is possible to simply type in a topic or question and receive instant information. This is one thing that gives the internet its appeal, and it is nice to be able to find specific information so quickly. I used to be somewhat flummoxed by search engines, but over time I have learned how to use them effectively. I also recently started using Facebook, and I have been able to keep in touch with many old friends that I would not be able to regularly contact otherwise. E-mail is another use of the internet that I have come to rely on. While this is standard for the times we live in, I also often find it annoying. Taking a short vacation typically has the nasty side effect of leaving me to navigate through 100+ new e-mail messages when I return, something that is tedious and annoying. Even so, e-mail is another important form of communication for me. I also have written a couple of small articles designed to help kids play chess that are posted on a website.

While I enjoy and appreciate music, my taste in it is quite offbeat. I rarely listen to the radio or to any kind of mainstream music. Instead I tend to listen to soundtracks.

Television is also one of my favorite forms of media. There are several shows I like to watch, and my dad and I often enjoying watching certain shows together. Recently we have enjoyed watching "Monk", "Psych", and "24", but I also enjoy keeping up with sports via television. ESPN is constantly on at my house. I also find that keeping the TV on in the background means helps me to keep up with current events, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

Video games are another form of media that I am quite fond of. The unique property of video games is that one typically receives a much more interactive experience than with many other types of media, which can be quite appealing. I typically enjoy strategy and sports games, most notably the Fire Emblem series, the Madden series, and other similar games.

I appreciate media that helps me to relax, as I am often rather uptight, especially during the school year. Of course, overload on any type of media is undesirable, and I, like anyone else, have occasionally overloaded on one type of media or another. However, when properly utilized these different types of media help me to learn more about different things, communicate with others, or relax.