Class Highlights

I wasn't sure if I did the last blog entry right so I'll just do this one also. I thought this was one of the most interesting classes I've taken. I've been at De Anza since September of last year, which would be 4 quarters, and this is one of the top three I've taken. It was just so interesting having all the Youtube videos integrated into the lecture and it really made it easier to understand. Most other classes consist of boring lectures where the professor either clicks a simplistic powerpoint or they write words on a chalkboard... Ahhhh... It would be great if all classes had a little more action like this class.

One thing I would have liked to see more of in the class was the discussion of false stories created by governments. For instance the coverage of the Kennedy Assassination was absolutely abysmal if we go back and look at the history. Basically the supposed shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, was convicted without a trial, and his accusations seemingly went to rest after he was killed. And the media doesn't question this? We were also given the explanation that Oswald took 3 shots from the sixth floor of a nearby building - using a position and gun which virtually eliminates any chance of hitting a moving target... All the while the media handed us the governments story at face value without so much as mentioning these obvious inconsistencies... Where is the media when it matters? This can also be said about 9/11, Vietnam, Abu Ghraib prison, and many other issues. Basically the media goes lock-step with whatever the government says, and this wasn't quite mentioned in the class.

My favorite section of the class was on television. Since television has so much leverage over the way we think I thought it was interesting seeing the ins and outs of how it works. I would have suggested talking about the psychological effects of television, which would have made it even more interesting. On the internet they talk about the long term effects in terms of losing social connection, damage to the eyes, easy suggestion, and increasing gullibility. I used to watch a lot of tv (not anymore) so that too.

Having the blog assignments was one of the pillars of the class that made it what it was. I went around other people's blogs and read them and it was really interesting comparing different peoples' views on the same thing. I am  bit of a write and I write in internet forums about every single day, so I am more perceptive to other peoples argumentation and how peoples views compare to mine. I even learned a bit that I didn't know about. For instance I saw the videos people posted for propaganda and it gave me insight into that and they noted details I would have otherwise missed. The blogs definitely gave us an outlet of figuring out who other people are, and it improved the discussions when you talk with consideration to what you read the night before. The fact that you learn about someone's personality while seeing what they write made it all the more interesting.

The presentations were interesting. I learned more in some more than others, but they were fun nonetheless. It kind of gives the students a chance to be the professor for a few minutes, and it also gives us a chance to see people out age stand up and talk... Since each of of gained a sort of specialty in the area where researched, this was interesting in that it had more depth than simple comments made during the regular lectures. I thought the presentation on censorship in Iran was the best. I have an interest in foreign places in general, particularly the Muslim and Arab world, so he gave some insight into that, plus in a context of a modern medium such as the internet.

I think there should be more classes on media studies. If they can have multiple art history classes, multiple law classes, language classes, or others for instance, then why not multiple classes about how the media works? Our lives are guided by the media and we spend so many hours a day using it, so shouldn't there be a set of classes that reflect its obvious importance? They should have an entire class on television it itself if you ask me. I took Journalism and wrote for the school paper briefly, so I guess that would be a de facto class on how the newspapers work at least.

But yeah, the class was the bomb! I might not have looked enthusiasic (me, Cameron) but I guess my interest doesn't come out through my body as well as with other people. I don't know. It must be the flourescent lights. I hated them. It would have been better if they lights were off the whole time and we just used the light coming through the window.

What did I learn in this class?

After learning all I've learned in this class I would say I'm happily augmented with a better sense of how the world works. I already considered myself to be decently literate with the media, but now I realize there was a lot more to know. For instance I came in with a cynical attitude of the media and how it manipulates our minds (I still kind of feel that way) and I wanted to learn to counteract all the propaganda, but with the class I think I have a better understanding of the different media outlets through a combination of their history, ethical issues, and laws surrounding ownership and everything.

When I watch tv or surf the internet I am more aware of how different things are not always working for the public good but rather can be there to make money or decieve the public. I think I learned the most about how public perceptions are changed by the media - more so than the media itself. I think this last gubernatorial election gave me a heads up to how well TV ads work and how a democracy can be exploited to use couch potatoes to get votes. I mean WOW... Meg Whitman got ANY votes considering she did nothing but say "I will fix education, lower taxes, and create jobs" in her ads? (who doesn't say those things?) It goes to show how important it is to know your news sources.

I already know about the First Amendment like the back of my hand, because I took a law class in high school and they talked about it. Plus I do a lot of reading in my free time and got to know about things like that well. I thought everyone would find it obvious that you can burn the American flag, since after all it's free speech... I guess not.

What struck me most about the media and how it operates is how so few people own everything. For instance the textbook said just five corporations own 80% of the media in the US. Does that not shock anyone? Essentially five corporate CEOs can dictate all the information we're fed. If they were to conspire to concoct fake stories and run them through all their media outlets, be it a fake invasion of Iran, I'm sure LOTS of people would fall for it. Corporate consolidation is a huge issue in itself - and worse, the more consolidated it gets, the harder it is to get out. It becomes almost impossible to create a television news channel, mainstream newspaper, or record label in such an inpenetrable atmosphere, which has bad implications. If there is one statistic everyone should know about the media, it would be that.

Media Ethics/Media Law

Numerous law and ethics cases involving the media have happened in 2009 and 2010 (I assume we can talk about 2010 also) are worth noting. Six of them go as follows:

• Censorship - July 2010 - Google ended a standoff with China over censorship that ended with Google accepting Chinese users being redirected to the Google page of Hong Kong.
• Libel - January 2009 - A New York model, Liskula Shanks, sued Google in an attempt to find who was responsible for libelous statements said about her on the internet.
• Intrusion - May 2009 - Farah Fawcett speaks out about the media intruding on her life regarding her coming out about her cancer diagnosis.
• Copyright - November 2010 - The German company SAP was sued by Oracle over a copyright case where SAP was argued to have used Oracle's copyrighted software, costing SAP as much as $4 billion.
• FCC - April 2010 - The FCC loses a case to Comcast, where it was decided that the FCC doesn't have the authority to require equal treatment of broadbast users over internet trafficking.
• Misappropriation - July 2010 - Misappropriation lawsuit against the New York restaurant empire of Mario Batali and Joseph Bastianich.

Propaganda and Advertising/PR

This ad for Barack Obama's presidential campaign back in 2008 is an obvious piece of propaganda. All the candidates used propaganda in one way or another, but this is the most famous example. Numerous propaganda techniques can be drawn from this.

The slogan "hope" (as well as "change", "yes we can", among others) has been repeated over and over again, which fits it nicely into the category of "ad nauseum". Ad nauseum involves repetition to instill a sense of validity.

With the slogan of hope, we can also say this hints at the "black and white" technique in that it implies other candidates don't offer hope. It's silently saying "With Obama we can find hope, but with the other candidates we can't." Black and white involves a false dilemma, making one choice appear obvious over the other and thus should be taken.

The technique of "flag waving" can be seen with the red-white-blue color scheme. Obama is the patriotic candidate of course, as opposed to the other ones. At least that's what they want us to believe. It doesn't involve a flag but it's implied by the national colors, as "flag waving" incites a sense of validity by using pariotic symbols. This also involves the "black and white" fallacy because it implies that if you're not for Obama then you're not patriotic.

Hope is also being used as a virtue word. "Virtue words" are words that tie into a culture's value system and are used to paint a positive picture of something. This fallacy is very close to "glittering generalities", which involve emotionally appealing words that have no concrete argument - also in use here.

Another propaganda technique that doesn't appear in the Wikipedia page is "cult of personality", which can be seen with the glorification of Obama's face. The red, white, and blue design with Obama giving us a stern and determined look, combined with the proliferation of this picture, can be compared with what dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have done. Not to sound cynical but it's true.

Internet

I searched "social networking sites" and counted 184 sites (you wrote "social working sites" on the yellow sheet and I assume you meant "networking"). Of these I've heard of Classmates, Crunchyroll, Facebook, Flickr, Friendster, Last.fm, LinkedIn, MySpace, Xanga, and Yelp, Inc. I've never heard of deviantART.com and apparently it's a site where users can upload artwork, much like a Youtube video, where others can write comments below it. Instead of videos you post pictures - most of which were done by computer animation, and a slideshow is available to page through a batch of someone's pictures. It looks like an interesting site that I might thinking about browsing through myself.

Personally I used to use MySpace, but those days are over. I have a Flickr profile but I never use it, though I use the website to search for pictures. I stopped using myspace because I got bored of it and saw the narcissistic nature of it all, and in fact I haven't logged into my profile in about three years. I don't have a Facebook page and never intend to. I'm conscious of the fact these sites can be used to quickly categorize people. For instance if I were to apply for a job, I know the employer would punch my name in, read my page, and make a virdict on what they saw. Most people don't read the entire page and I know people just throw someone into a category by either their pictures or their their numbers, such as their age, height, income, etc. I think people should get to know each other through more genuine means.

Once instance where I got in trouble or was helped out by a social networking site... I can't really think of one but I remember using MySpace years ago and my older sister noticed me and got excited and said "You have a MySpace Page?!". From then on she added me and sent comments, which made me feel a little uncomfortable because I was posting information that I wouldn't normally disclose in real life, and I knew she was probably reading all of it.

Television

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw_7CJ5ozaM&feature=related

• Length: 3:44
• Description: This video describes the psychological effects of watching television.
• Chapter 9: Television
• Question: What is the name of the mental state induced by television, characterized by high reception and easy suggestion?
• Answer: Alpha Level

Movies

I don't watch very many movies and the only one released in 2009 I can remember is Up. I thought it was a decent movie but I didn't love it, as I'm not a big movie person. I thought the music was well done and was implemented into the story really well (it one the Academy Award for music). The scenery was great to look at, and it was interesting because it was the only Pixar movie so far to be set in the wilderness.

My all-time favorite movie is 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was released in 1968. It's my favorite because the pace is perfect for me, combined with the amazing way classical music is combined with objects floating in space. The story is unpredictable and cerebral, and you can watch the movie multiple times and interpret it differently each time. It has limited dialogue and instead relies more on visuals and sound to convey the plot and characters, which truly sets it apart from any other movie. I first watched in on the internet, where on veoh.com they had a 45-minute chunk of the movie. Then I went out and bought it on Blu-ray and watched it on my big-screen tv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8TABIFAN4o

Magazines

The magazine I propose will be called "Random Pictures". The idea behind it is a magazine aimed at presenting interesting pictures from around the world, whether it be of people, places, or both. It has no specific subject other than compiling scenes from around the world from all realms of society. It is different from existing magazines because it isn't aimed at any specific demographic or psychographic, and it has a univeral appeal that you don't always find with more esoteric magazines.

The only psychographic this magazine will be aimed at is anyone with an interest in world cultures, places, architecture, natural beauty, philosophy, or anything in between. Since everyone likes looking at pictures (unless you're blind) there are basically no limits to the appeal of the magazine.

Other magazines serving this psychographic (this magazine isn't aimed at a particular demographic) might include National Geographic, Budget Travel, Architectural Digest, Popular Photography, among others. It puts many different psychographics under the same roof.

The magazine will have no problem finding advertisers. It could attract camera companies such as Canon, online book sellers like bookcrossing.com, possibly Rosetta Stone, car companies like Ford, travel websites, such as Travelocity, or anything else that relates to those areas of interest.

Five articles that might kick off the premier issue could include "Random City: Cupertino", "Shanghai - 20 pictures", "3 Random people", "Picture of the Day pg. 35", and "5 amazing places you've never heard of". The layout of the articles will stay relatively consistent throughout each issue since the pictures will be changing each issue, which would not be a problem because of the surprise and unpredictability of the pictures. Opening the magazine would be a surprise, much like opening Christmas presents.

The cover of the premier issue would show a picture of a building in Shanghai (since the city has such amazing architecture), which would be any of it's prominent ones. The cover won't be composed of just one picture but would have a centerpiece picture flanked by pictures of the same building from more obscure angles and/or locations amidst the building. The names of articles will be reserved from the lower part of the cover and be listed in a bullet point fashion, but maybe with different sized and styles of font in different colors to make it a little more interesting. I feel that the traditional style of covers with words all over the place is somewhat unoriginal. The text "Random Pictures" will be in very stylish letters, in hopes of attracting younger and older readers alike, unlike National Geographic which has a more scholarly, older-person look.

Books

I've done loads of reading in the past year and here are a few of the biggest books that have influenced me.

The one that influenced me most is a book called "The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy" by David Icke. It's not very well known in the United States, but the author, David Icke, is famous in the UK. In short the book explains in depth how the world is really run. He explains the truth behind the banking system, elections, government systems, and many other things, and how they all tie into a secretive group that works to install a global dictatorship. Sound ridiculous? I can understand, but I encourage people to read the book before criticizing.

http://www.amazon.com/David-Icke-Guide-Global-Conspiracy/dp/0953881083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286569577&sr=1-1

The second book that influenced me most is called "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--and More Miserable Than Ever Before" by Jean Twenge. In short it's about today's generation, or in other words everyone born from 1971 onward, and how this generation behaves and will inherit the world of tomorrow. It covers the psychology of the generation, the habbits, the interests, etc. and the author's central claim is that this generation is the most spoiled and selfish in the history of the world. She calls it "generation me" because the main aspect of this generation is it's narcissism. A very thought provoking book.

http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-Entitled--/dp/0743276981/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286569640&sr=1-1

The third book is called "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen. It's about how the school system typically distorts history to suit the special interests of the people who run the school system, as well as the authors of school textbooks. It puts emphasis on American history and how nothing is written about the wrongdoing of this country, the neglect of minorities, and other things. I haven't looked at history tought in school the same again.

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0743296281/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286569658&sr=1-1

Media Impact

A decent idea for a research project would be to see if playing more violent videogames corresponds with a higher rate of supporting a war (i.e. Iraq or Afghanistan). I predict that this will be true, and it ties in to the cultivation theory, saying that the media distorts peoples' perceptions of the world, in this case making players think the world is full of enemies that need to be fought. A method of testing this would be to ask how frequently M-rated games are played, and see if the same group has a higher chance of supporting a war than the casual or non-gamer. Since the textbook illustrates cases where people who watch violent TV hacw greater feeling of being mugged, I wondered if the same would apply to videogames. Since videogames frequently involve shooting guns in military settings, I thought maybe this would engender sympathy with real-world military policy.

Media Autobiography

My media experiences go something like this. Currently I get most of my news over the internet, or through the only televised news outlet I watch or pay much attention to called Russia Today. I stay away from Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and the local news typically because I've noticed the superficiality of it. Fox News illustrates this perfectly. I might look over the newspaper sitting on the dinner table each morning and browse over the cover stories and I might read what looks interesting, but other than that I don't really read the newspaper, although I read De Anza's La Voz every week. I love the opinions section most, as it provides sort of an intellectual forum for college-age students, which is interesting.

Typically I stick to the main stories to meet my "quota" of what I need to know in terms of what's going on in the world. As long as I'm familiar with the key issues I'm fine.

I'm an avid reader and I love reading nonfiction. I don't really read any fiction - basically just reading it if it is needed for school. I just can't get a grip on stories and have trouble keeping track of characters, dialogue, and whatnot and I find it confusing. Nonfiction, however, actually teaches you things that can be applied to daily life. Fiction seems to be reserved for entertainment, while nonfiction combines entertainment with productive information. I also like watching documentaries. Some of my favorites are "Loose Change", "The Corporation", or anything dealing with government conspiracy or controversy. I also like reading about secret societies, art, architecture, unexplained phenomena, foreign countries, foreign languages, or anything foreign.

I subscribe to three magazines: Nintendo Power, Popular Science, and Xbox Magazine, through I don't read any of them much anymore as I've lost interest in them and have been more interested in books. I think magazines have withered into yellow journalism and lack the accuracy of books. I think they're too mired in flashy pictures and the articles are more about what is grabs your attention, rather than what's real. Popular Science for instance always has covers showing military technology and "green" this and that and I find it annoying. Magazines seem to lack much philosophical basis.

I'm not a huge movie person but I love psychological sorts of movies, most notably ones by Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange). I think most movies are junk and are merely there to make money. Documentaries spark my interest more on average.

I don't watch tv very much, but I used to be obsessed. The only few channels I watch are PBS, Discovery, and History. I don't watch any dramas or comedies at all but I used to watch Family Guy, Simpsons, and South Park all the time. TV is a similar case to movies - mostly flash and less substance.

I listed to the radio on the way to school but don't really listen to it aside from that. I like the classical channel, classic rock, jazz, and there's this talk radio channel called KPFA 94.1 that I listen to. Some of the guests on these things are just amazingly ignorant about the issues they talk about. For instance they'll talk about banking and guests know nothing about the illegal nature of the Federal Reserve. Or they'll talk about global warming with no word about alternative viewpoints.

I use the internet the most of all the media. I watch a lot of Youtube videos, and read a lot of articles on independent journalism sites. There's this one I like called vigilantcitizen.com where corporate symbolism is explained (look it up). I frequent the sites davidicke.com and I like watching videos about government cover-ups, my favorite being 9/11 and the Kennedy Assassination. Videos with Alex Jones are good too.

Growing up I had little interest in the media and just spent my time playing videogames, watching tv, and whatnot, but now I find it more interesting. Particularly learning about propaganda techniques and the way the media is run and how information is created, etc.

I don't really care about working in the media, as my big interest is art (my major) -  specifically architecture and painting. I don't really see a future working in the media because I think it's just mired in corporate greed, mis or disinformation, and everything else. Since alternative sources get little light, it seems like a precarious area to get into.