Photo Story: The Boy and Girl Who Liked to Climb Trees & Things

Reality Vs. Realism

       As a freshman in high school, I read Night by Elie Wiesel, which is a personal, firsthand account of the Holocaust. Personally, I'm not sure that I could have had the courage to recount my memories of something so horrific if I were Wiesel. He makes his experiences come to life through a style of writing that is poignant even in its simplicity and its bare facts of that dark time in his life and so many others'. The way he describes Auschwitz, the concentration camp, and the gas room and furnace, the way so many men, women, and children, even elderly people were led to their deaths, sometimes unknowingly, is so real. As I read of the open-pit furnaces where the Nazis were burning babies by the truckload, my heart cried, because when you try to think about this level of inhumanity and depravity, your mind simply cannot fathom such a thing. By the time I reached the end of the novel, I was so depressed yet moved, feeling so extremely blessed to have been born in this time and my particular circumstance of living. The raw, unbarred emotions of Wiesel's account was, in one word, heart-breaking. The unfathomable occurrences in the novel and his moving sense of analyzing the horrors around him make his experience "real" for me. Not only are the facts, for the most part (he probably had to change some names or places sometimes to protect some people), true and authentic, but Eliezer becomes a living person, not just someone you're reading about in a novel. Wiesel tells this story from his perspective, and I don't believe that anyone but someone who has experienced tragedy like this at this level could write in such a realistic, truthful, raw way. Wiesel conveyed his feelings, what he saw, what he experienced in extreme detail, and to say that the novel "tugged on my heartstrings" is quite an understatement. I experienced disgust and hate and fear at such an intense level, I was sort of breathless by the last page. I questioned humanity, our ability to love and fear, etc. and that is what hit home because I thought I understood the principles of humanity and society, but in truth, I never questioned it until then. It made me more observant and considerately more sensitive to my peers and the society I live in, and I don't regret gaining that sense of clarity. 

-Kelsey  

Media Ownership: Comcast

          When the world thinks of media conglomerates, prominent names such as Walt Disney and NBC Universal come to mind. Media conglomerates are companies that own “…large numbers of companies in various mass media such as television, radio, publishing, movies, and the Internet. [They] strive for policies that facilitate their control of the markets across the globe.” These companies, especially Walt Disney, have such a great influence on the U.S.’s mass media.

Because media directs individuals’ way of living, it's a powerful market to have a share in. Within these large companies, more and more shares of the mass media are being divvied up among the smaller individual organizations, a process called concentration on media ownership that is becoming increasingly common. Besides The Walt Disney Company, one of the most well-known media conglomerates is Comcast, the largest cable and Internet provider, as well as the fourth largest telephone service in the U.S.

            Comcast is growing rapidly, sticking its hand into many diverse shares of the media. Its headquarters are in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, offering cable, Internet, and digital phone services in 39 states as well as the District of Columbia. Its main subsidiary is NBC Universal of which Comcast owns 51% control. However, Comcast is beginning to expand, reaching out to numerous cable/programming networks such E! Entertainment, G4, The Golf Channel, and Style Network, as well as certain communication companies. Also, Comcast is involved in sports franchises and interactive media, as well as a few joint ventures in the media world. By presenting more exciting and interesting options in media, Comcast has travelled up the corporate ladder, making it one of the most well-known and used media conglomerates in the U.S.

            This concentration on media ownership is not the most intelligent strategy, for there are more negative aspects of this concentration than there are positive. The potential negative consequences are “commercially driven, ultra-powerful mass market media” that is predominantly loyal to its benefactors, rather than to public interest. Also, the public airwaves are controlled by a “minority [elite’s]” interests and perspectives. Lastly, that vigorous, market-centered “competition is absent, leading to slower innovation and increased prices”. Critics are worried mainly about these companies gradually becoming monopolies or oligopolies, and this is a potential consequence of the concentration on media ownership. Also, if only issues or interests that reflect those of the companies are shared, then what is not to say that the public would suffer from lack of knowledge that could affect them personally?

A few positive characteristics of this are fewer. Though there is the prospect of the practice of healthy competition among companies as well as providing a way to keep the government in check, the concern of the critics center upon “when there is a concentration of ownership due to the risk of increased economic and political influence”, that that influence can be unpredictable and “unaccountable” in itself.

For Comcast, the possibilities of the programs/channels it owns could be biased, or something be omitted, that omission or opinion could be vital to any one individual, or could affect other people in a personal manner. Comcast chose to build upon itself, becoming this large conglomerate, but the trick is to be as subjective and truthful as possible, for it is this company’s responsibility to not abuse its corporate power. Imagine—if all the major conglomerates of the world began to abuse their power in the media and beyond, it would be pure chaos and lies. It is media companies’ responsibility to relay to the public what it needs to know without bias or omission, though to some extent, it occurs anyways.

Talking Media with A Parent

For this class's blog assignment, I interviewed 2 people. I asked them both a few questions concerning their opinions/views on media and the kids of this generation.


I. The first interviewee is my friend, Marty D., who has raised three kids, and has one grand-baby. Here is my first interview below.


Me: How do you feel about this generation and media? Do you think it is more helpful or harmful to kids? Why?
Marty: I call this generation of young folks the "box and bag generation". The reason is because they're moving too fast and don't have time for the simple basics in life. The simple things are not being passed on. The first big example is my son, Jordan. He will just grab a box of cereal and a plastic bowl for his supper because it's quick; and if there's a bag of chips, it's also something quick that he can and eat. Technology, I suppose, is more good than bad. There is so much that can be accomplished with technology today. If I have medical issues, the technology that's out there today can help me. Also, it seems like you can talk to anyone and everyone, and it's easier to keep up with family and friends rather than on a normal land line phone.  However, kids these days are moving so fast, that they don't have time to spend with the family, to enjoy the simpler things in life, or to appreciate those simpler things and other people.


Me: How has different media affected your family, your kids especially? Do you think that it has created a gap or brought you closer together?
Marty: I think that when you live a simple life, and are rich in the heart, you don't notice if you're materialistically poor or wealthy. My family and I used to sit together in the evenings at dinner and have discussions, but it slowly became, "Let's get done so I can go play Xbox". It has created a certain distance between us all, definitely between us, the parents, and our kids. All kids want to do now is walk around playing on their phone, playing some handheld video game, or something like that. We used to watch a movie together as a family and bond, but that relationship is sort of eroding because the kids are now focusing on other things during that time, paying less attention to the movie and being able to spend time with the family without distractions.


Me: What media products do you consider good or healthy for children? Which ones are you more concerned about, though?
Marty: I like the computer, because they can experience and open the world. However, things like Facebook, where they spill their whole lives out to the world and become vulnerable to online predators is really scary. Adults can become addicted just as much as kids, and it can be harmful even to a husband and wife's relationship. It can also open up your home as a world stage. So the computer can be as great as it is harmful. It's really just how you use it.


Me: How did you determine what your children could or could not watch on TV as well as how long?
Marty: Well, at the time when my kids were growing up, we did TV. We would watch TV together, and if my wife and I didn't think it was appropriate, then we just turned the channel or turned it off altogether. They did not have TV in their individual bedrooms.
The length of their being allowed to watch TV depended on school nights, really. On a school night, we would cut it off at about 10pm, but on the weekends, it was a little later. When they would eventually get TVs in their rooms, they continued to watch what they should and not to watch what they shouldn't. I suppose it was something that was instilled in them about good and bad things to be watching on TV. I never did censor or monitor TV channels, but they still knew well enough to not be watching inappropriate things.




II. My brother Robin has a son, Thomas, who is extremely involved with video games and technology in general.  Here is his interview.


Me: How do you feel about this generation and media? Do you think it is more helpful or harmful to kids? Why?
Robin: Media is more harmful, I believe. It affects people's health--they weigh more, are losing social skills such as face-to-face communication/interaction, and also decreases productivity through idle pursuit.


Me: How has different media affected your family, your kids especially? Do you think that it has created a gap or brought you closer together over the years?
Robin: This generation relies too heavily upon media to cover gaps in their education. They "Google" everything, for example. It has gone beyond the damage done by calculators to math skills. More time in the home is spent on trivial electronic browsing instead of bonding and personal relationship-building.
To some degree, yes, it has created a gap between my son and I. He would rather play video games than help me build a garden shed or walk downtown to have a coffee, or go to the park and talk.


Me: What media products do you consider good or healthy for children? Which ones are you more concerned about, though?
Robin: Smartphones provide a lifeline between generations when used at the proper times and in appropriate places, certainly not while driving. Video gaming via computer decreases productive output, affects health, and isolates people from each other. There is no personal, direct contact.


Me: How did you determine what your children could or could not watch as well as how long?
Robin: We restricted adult content, but little or no restriction on time. We wanted him to know how to use all types of electronic media. This could have a negative influence in causing depression and possible Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Too much neural stimulation and not enough down-time could upset his brain chemistry, I'm afraid.



-Kelsey

Reaction to "Digital Nation" Video

      Like everything else in our fast-paced, digital world, there are both positive and negative side effects of technology. It allows one to expand his or her knowledge tenfold; but at the same time, it can run our lives. In Frontline's video "Digital Nation", more of the negative side is displayed, showing kids becoming addicted to video games, losing the basic ability to interact at a healthy level, etc.
       I felt that so much reflection on the negative aspect of technology was focused upon, that the positive consequences were fairly lost. However, I believe that they were trying to make the point that balance is extremely important, as well as responsibility. Technology is power that people have to understand affects more than just one individual if used in a negative or harmful manner. 
       To some extent, I agree that we are losing a sense of common courtesy and respect toward others, but at the same time, we have become such a knowledgeable, more open community of people through technology. I hope we never lose the ability or desire to pick up a paperback or hardback book and read, because technology, I know for me, can never replace the satisfaction of sitting on a rainy day, reading. It's theraputic, in my opinion, and there's nothing quite like it. Straining to read a book on my iPod Touch is not my idea of fun. I am aware of my resources, iPod, Kindle, online, but I choose to read real, tangible books, just like I always have and always will.
        Technology is ever-present and ever-changing. I believe that we cannot stop the fast rate at which it is growing in society, but we CAN be aware of our resources and have that ability to use them responsibly. I sincerely hope that we do not lose the appreciation for art, literature, music, travel, and other simple joys in life. We must learn to find a healthy balance, plain and simple.




-Kelsey

Stereotyping: From the Other Side

**Stereotyping: a popular belief about specific types of individuals.

   When we see other people of different ethnic backgrounds and races, we tend to pass our own almost involuntary judgment on them. Our society has formed such a stereotypical view for each race and even gender. The evidence in the smaller details that we believe just "are". It's in our advertising, other forms of mass media, and everywhere in our day-to-day lives. We draw conclusions about other people by observing their clothes, material possessions, style, and their behavior. Sometimes, our judgments can be malicious even when that isn't our intention. We don't know everyone's story, but it's our instinct to size up the people around us, those who we are competing with for our scarce resources in this world. 

    Being on the opposite side of stereotyping, as an Asian-American, I don't let people's stereotyping me impede me from living. However, it does become annoying after a while of being asked, "Are you related to Jackie Chan? Are you a ninja? Do you know karate? You're Asian, so of course you're good at math." Firstly, no, I am not in any way related to Jackie Chan. He is Chinese, but he is from the deeper south, and we don't have the last name. That's like me asking a white person if he or she is related to Chuck Norris. That is obviously not so. Secondly, just because I am of Asian descent, it does not mean that I have hidden ninja skills, know karate or any other kind of martial art. Lastly, I absolutely am not good at math. In addition, I do not spend my entire existence with my nose crammed in a textbook. Sorry to let you down, guys. I do play the violin, but I am not amazing at it, so there goes your Asian stereotype out the window... It's really quite funny how Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, and other races have been perceived in the U.S. over the years. 

      The following images are ones in which you would pass judgment based on what you immediately see.

Just from looking at this picture of this girl, I immediately notice her mixed race. Then, her appearance seems to be of a cleanly nature, so I can assume that she is not poor. Plus, the guys in suits behind her lead me to make the assumption that she is at a social function, which also supports my thought about her socioeconomic status. 

What do you see?

 I would immediately look at her clothing, noticing that she seems to have come from perhaps a middle class, well-to-do family that might live in the suburbs. She seems like she is pretty happy, like any other average, white teenage girl would be. She looks intelligent and bright-eyed. Her appearance is nice and neat, a good school-girl type of vibe. 

What do you see?

I can immediately assume that she is from the Middle East, but her eyes are peculiar, which perhaps tells of a mixed race. She is slightly dirty, so I am guessing that she works a lot, is from a poverty-stricken place. She looks like she's wanting something or just thinking hard. Some would perhaps ask why she has a nose piercing, wondering if it is a cultural norm. 

    However, so many Americans associate an entire people with the deeds of an individual that happens to be of the same race or ethnicity. For example: Almost everyone stereotyped and treated people from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East countries, etc. as terrorists after 9/11. We generalized, and that unfortunately brought out a darker side of our human nature. 

What do you see?

I know immediately that she is of either Hispanic, Pacific Islander, or maybe Indian descent. She is dressed scantily, so I assume that she is perhaps a "sex symbol", either a model, celebrity, etc. She has nice attire (however little), so I am guessing that she is pretty well off, nothing close to poverty. She looks like she parties a great deal and dances.

What do you see?

This man is obviously from an earlier period in history. He looks like a well-to-do guy. He seems like a very pensive person, very stolid. He is a Caucasian, heterosexual, young, HIV negative, typical male from what I see.

What do you see?

   The first image is of Lucia Micarelli. She is the violinist that plays for singer Josh Groban. She attended Julliard, and she is of Italian-Korean heritage.

   The second image is of Rachel Scott. She was only 17 years old when she was murdered in the Columbine shooting. She was very talented, driven, and a devout Christian. 

   The third image is of an Afghan girl. She is poor, and yes, this is her true eye color. 

   The fourth image is of Nicole Scherzinger. She is the lead singer of the pop group The Pussycat Dolls as well as a solo artist. She is very well-known, and she is of Hawaiian-American heritage. She dances and she sings, and she is well-to-do, economically and socially. 

    The last image is of Edgar Degas. He is the famous French artist that lived from 1834 to 1917. Some of his very recognizable work is of ballerinas. His family was moderately wealthy, upper middle class to upper class, probably. His work and reputation as an extremely diverse artist precedes (or technically, "succeeds") him. 

  All these images, like people all around us, are capable of being judged; however, one's assumptions may not always be correct, so always try to find the truth, the real story before seriously passing judgment.  

-Kelsey

Am I A Digital Native?

    According to the excerpt Born Digital by John Palfrey & Urs Gasser, I am a digital native, meaning that I was born after the year1980. I can't really remember a time when I did not have access to Internet, and I learned how to use the technology around me quickly and with ease. In a sense, you had to because you would get left behind if you didn't stay caught up. However, I am not like this fictitious personal assistant mentioned in the article. I enjoy writing letters still, every so often, because there is something more intimate about sitting down and hand-writing a letter to someone, versus typing something up. (As I type this up on my laptop...) It is particularly fun, personally, to write formal letters, because that is what many hiring companies look for in an employee, someone capable and able to comport oneself in an appropriate manner. I was appalled by some of my high school classmates' writing, which consisted of slang expressions such as: idk (I don't know), idts (I don't think so), lol (laugh out loud), haha, omg (Oh my God/gosh/goodness), jk (just kidding), lmao (laugh my a** off), etc. Was this seriously what America's literacy competency was dwindling down to? To me, it felt like this inability to write things out diminished the English language. It was not so much as personal, but it made me cringe, being a lover of intelligent, colorful, and well-utilized diction. Needless to say, I peer edited those students' writing harshly... (Oh, and I cannot stand when people type "U" instead of "you", or words in which they leave out vowels "jst lke ths". It's like, REALLY? Could you not expend the extra bit of effort it would have taken to type one or two more letters? Geez.)
There is even a website that comes up with new slang each day, interestingly enough.(Urban Dictionary)

        Yes, though I am one of the digital native generation, I do see the flaws of the digital world we live in, just as Mark Prensky's Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants presents. We are so involved and enveloped in the technology that continues to grow with the coming generations, that we are losing some part of us that used to be an essential element in our society in the past--the ability to function without our technology. This is so very true, because while even I enjoyed going outside and climbing trees and the like during my childhood, kids these days do not even have to move from their couches to find sources of entertainment. Also, cell phones (text messaging) and online social networks (Facebook, MySpace {Who uses MySpace anymore?}) have made kids more inaccessible to their parents, and more bold online. It is easier to say something you would never have the confidence nor the guts to say to someone in person on the Internet. It's a fact. However, texting and social networking has made these kids more susceptible to the negative influences of media such as pornography or vulgarity in society that no 7 or 10-year-old should ever have to see, even by accident.

     Interpreting emotions is one drawback to texting technologies, despite the easy accessibility and capabilities.While in person, one can discern what another individual is feeling usually from his or her facial expression and/or hand gestures. However, in reading text messages, it is much more difficult. Is this person being sarcastic or serious? That is one reason that even though I text, I still like calling people much more, rather than texting. It is easier to interact more thoroughly with others when you can actually hear their tone. Also, if you have a lot to say, it is easier to call; it spares you the future possibility of developing carpal tunnel. (Not fun...) Plus, I find the "auto-correct"/predictor settings on phones annoying.

      I would say that I am a "native speaker" of the digital world, but there are still many technologies that I don't understand, and personally, I am not sure that I want to. In my opinion, one technology leads to another, and so on. I am perfectly content with what I have because I have all I need. I don't need a computer to spell for me, nor do I need an automated search engine to tell me everything such as the iPhone 4S's "Siri". I find it a bit creepy. I don't really want to have a limited conversation with my phone. Seriously? That's what real people are for. Yes, it is intriguing, but is that really necessary??
      Unlike Henry Jenkins in his article Reconsidering Digital Immigrants, I do not really find fault or issue with being called a "Digital Native". The name applies. However, I do agree with his thoughts on separating the world into digital natives and digital immigrants--we should not. Though technologically, people can be on a different level, that should not cease the sharing that should naturally occur between adults and their children. When we lose communication and sharing that should be existent regardless the expanse of technology, then we might as well stop talking. I do not believe that assimilation into the digital age for digital immigrants should occur, at least not full assimilation, because that difference allows for the possibility of being able to direct kids (digital natives) into a not complete immersion into the technology that surrounds them. Like I said in my previous post, too much of anything can only hurt people.
      Yes, I am a digital native, though I am not the most extreme. I do, however, question the flaws and connotations, both negative and positive, that come with that title. Personally, I enjoy my technology, but I still am a bit "old-fashioned" for my generation (reading actual books instead of "e-books", making organic music, writing letters, writing in cursive, etc. How sad that this is now considered to be out dated or old...). These things have helped me keep my head above the water in the sea of technology that surrounds me, and I feel lucky that I got to experience and to possess this mindset. Otherwise, I think I might be drowning in this fast-paced technology/media-based industry.


-Kelsey

P.S.- 中國新年快樂! (Happy Chinese New Years, everyone!)