Texting, traffic, and the world we live in

What kind of technological age do we live in? I'll tell ya.

Yesterday, I got the following text from my brother traveling from Lake Tahoe to Las Vegas:

Hey, get on the Internet and check out traffic on Nevada state road 28 around Lake Tahoe, we are stuck and not moving for 40 minutes.

I live three time zones away and here he was asking me to find out information that was probably within a mile of his location. What a country. I sat and thought about the implications of this. It strikes me strangely odd and strangely empowering. I didn't know what to think. I mean, is this what information culture has reduced (or "evolved" may be another word) us to?

(By the way, as a sidenote, I was relating this to a class this afternoon and they all had the same blank "So?" stare you probably have ... if you're still reading.)

Anyway, here's the kicker: I found out the holdup. A two-car wreck. I texted the info back to him and then he and I spent the next hour or so texting lines from The Big Lebowski to each other. Ain't technology grand?

But what really struck me is that I found the information from a place I didn't really expect. I starfted with all the biggies: Google maps, traffic.com, even the Weather Channel. But they didn't have squat. No, I found out about the wreck and traffic jam from the local newspaper, the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza.

So, here's to you, local newspapers. Even though many outside the industry say your demise in eminent, you are still vital and cover your area better than any other form of media. Now ... if you can only find a way to pay for it!

This is the point where I could launch into a whole diatribe about the power of local newspapers, but I think I'll just ponder this: if there were a television show that captured the flavor of local, small-town news, would it help? I mean, something beyond Bravo's Tabloid Wars, which I loved.

Maybe like an Andy Griffith-meets-Northern Exposure-meets-Woodward and Bernstein-meets-Doc Hollywood ... maybe I've just found my calling. Paul, warm up the camera! Let's work up a pilot.

Media Literacy Discussion

Part of today's class was to be focused on your reactions to the Marshall McLuhan quote, which was something like this:

All media are extensions of some human faculty- psychic or physical. The wheel is an extension of the foot; the book is an extension of the eye; clothing, an extension of the skin; electric circuitry, an extension of the central nervous system.

The basic question is: If you agree with that logic, what would you say the Internet is an extension of? Why?

Please summarize your answer by posting a comment below. Then, as more people leave comments, comment on two other postings. Lastly, react to others' comments on your original post. In other words, you should have at least five (5) comments: the original, two comments on other people's initial post, and reactions to what people said to you.

Please comment intelligently. A "good job" is not a comment. Be substantial.

Global Communication Discussion

Today in class, we were going to discuss the results of our unofficial content analysis of foreign media. Instead of doing that in person, we will do it virtually. Here are the rules:

Take a moment and write a paragraph (or two) of what you would have presented in class; this would include the media you studied, the time length you studied, and the results of your analysis. Also, try to offer some sort of conclusion that you can make when it comes to the media content in your country (this part could include some allusion to the content pertaining to your country in the text).

After you make your initial post, real all of the other posts. Then, comment on two (2) other posts. Your comments should be substantial and add to the virtual conversation we are maintaining. A "good job!" is not a sufficient. This may mean that you will have to visit this site more than once over the weekend.

Finally, after some time, make a few comments on the comments you received. Again, furthering this virtual conversation.

In all, you should have at least five (5) comments. Your initial comment, two comments on other analyses and two replies to other people's comments.

To kind of get the ball rolling, I came across this item on The Smoking Gun. There are a few things of interest dealing with this item, but two I would like you to consider. Looking at the front page, what do you think about the paper's placement of the Obama victory? Secondly, what do you think The Smoking Gun is implying by highlighting this story? Even though these two items may seem congruent, there are (or, at least could be) some differences that are noteworthy.

Have fun.

Rocky Horror & Cultural Currency

Went to the 4th annual Rocky Horror shindig at the Polk Theatre in Lakeland, Fla., last night. It's the third time I've went and, typically, it was, uhm, interesting. Let me start off by saying that I don't recommend everyone go; this event is not for everyone. So, I'm not advocating, I'm just saying that it's something I do.

A few summers ago I did some research on a Rocky Horror cast in St. Pete, Interchangeable Parts. They were/are easily the best live cast I've seen (including casts in Santa Monica, Calif., Raleigh, N.C., and Tampa). The whole phenomena just strikes me as interesting and I marvel at the planning and dedication of these folks. Here's a quick documentary, which, by the way has some bad language and a bit of copyrighted song on it:

For those who haven't seen it since the '70s, or have never seen it, the whole thing works on (at least) three different levels. There's the movie itself. Then, there is a cast, who acts out the movie in front of the movie. Lastly, there is the audience, which yells at the cast/movie at certain times. This form of interaction, when first taking it in, is mass confusion. It's hard to hear the movie because everyone is yelling, and sometimes you don't know whether to pay attention to the movie or cast or try to pick up the audience participation lines. And don't get me started on the time warp.

But, somehow, through the confusion, it works. It takes work, too. You begin to pick up a rhythm and pace, and you begin to pick up the slang. And, sometimes, by the end of it, you're glad it's over, but you kind of want to do it again.

At least that's how I felt. I told myself I was doing research (and I was), but I also found myself buying the movie and looking online at audience participation patterns. It became a badge of honor when I was able to say the audience participation lines at the right time. And though I never personally did it, I talked with people who added new lines ... and they spoke as if it was a highlight of their lives. It probably wasn't as high as graduating college or getting married or having a first baby (all of which the people at the show did), but it was still a highlight.

This sense of knowledge has a name. It's called cultural currency. People who have specialized knowledge, especially for popular culture, hold it. Generally, this knowledge isn't held in high esteem by the culture at large, but within the sub-group that those people are involved, it is highly regarded. It's a term that sociol researcher Pierre Bourdieu coined in the 1980s and it's been a backbone of fan and sub-culture research for over 20 years. Now you know. You're probably walking around with a mind full of cultural currency you aren't even using. Cultural currency is what keeps shows like Best Week Ever and The Soup and even The Daily Show in existence.

But, basically, it's just an academic term I like to use to make myself feel better about knowing when and what to yell at Brad and Janet.

My fantasy, my nightmare

For reasons that aren't relevant to this post, I am in the 11th week of my first fantasy sports experience. I've heard a lot of people talk about it, about how fun it is, how it makes sports come so much more "alive," that it re-creates the experience of playing — the nervousness, the anxiety, etc.

What a load.

Anyway, to get the experience I joined the fantasy league for Barclay's Premier League. Yes, English premier league soccer. Don't ask me why I thought I could do it, just go with it.

Well, as you can see by the picture, after 10 weeks, I am near the bottom, particularly for the month of October. To put this in a bit of perspective, there were about 1.4 million people who joined the first week (when I did), and about 200,000 more who have joined over the past 10 weeks. So, that means overall, I am about 150,000 from the BOTTOM of people who have been playing all 10 weeks. October, as you can see, has been a really fine month, with my 120 points 80,000 from dead last.

Dead last. Holey-Moley is right! My fantasy dream season has turned into a fantasy nightmare. Except without the whipped cream of my real nightmare fantasies (don't ask).

But no more. From this day forward, I plan to take a real interest in what I'm doing. To be honest, I chose my team on what little name recognition I could muster. The other nine players I chose just because their name sounded cool. That explains why I chose Kitson, from Stoke City. His 18 points over the past 10 weeks explains why I traded him.

So, to set the record straight, my fantasy is to struggle through a season in which the futility of my efforts is surpassed only by the futility of my understanding of the league, its team, its history, and its players.

(Note: This originally appeared in my other blog: 10 Minute Ramble, in case you're wondering.)

Pomepedia

So, my nephew’s band, The Pomegranates, has a entry in Wikipedia, the online user-generated encyclopedia of everything. (Here it is) I guess that means they’ve made it, on some level. It used to be that if you googled yourself and found yourself, you pretty much made it. Now, in this age of information, it’s probably Wikipedia.

It used to be that google was a noun, too. But that’s another story.

Sure, one of the band’s members, or the band’s label, created the citation, but still, it’s there. For any high schooler to try and use in a research paper. But don’t even THINK about using it in college. No way. Wikipedia is the devil.

Maybe.

But it IS a good place to start if you’re looking into something. I would bet that deep down, most professors who openly deride Wikipedia have used it at one time or another. Just to get a sense of things. It’s a starting point. You wouldn’t use it as a prime source for research, but it could point you to some prime sources for research

If we could put it in a hierarchy, here’s how I see it:

1. Primary Sources – what you should use


2. Secondary Sources – what you can use to point you to primary sources


3. Wikipedia – what you can use to point you to secondary sources

In this day and age, we need to use as many tools as possible to make sense of the world. To not is to fall behind.

Anyway, here’s a video of the Poms. My nephew plays the bass. He's not that good of a dancer, but I'm proud of him.

Pomegranates on Lujo Records.

William H. Macy in a new light

Well, this afternoon I found myself on the couch flipping through the channels when the remote found Berry Gordy's "The Last Dragon" (1985). Wow. Talk about a film that was firmly in the moment of the 80s. The sad (though, not really) part is, I can remember paying about $3.50 to see this movie with my oldest brother in Durham, N.C. I remember thinking it was cheesy then, but a lovable kind of cheese. Kind of kitsch-y, but with a wink, you know, as if it was joking all along.

Anyway, I was sitting and during one of the scenes who else do I see but William H. Macy -- Jerry Lundegaard himself -- playing one of his first movie roles. He was the assistant/manager to Vanity. To be honest, he looked pretty much the same and sounded exactly the same.

I like William H. Macy. I liked him in Fargo. I liked him in Mystery Men. I liked him in The Cooler. I liked him in State and Main. I liked him in Happy, Texas. Magnolia. Face it, the man's been in a lot of movies. He's a great character actor. And yet I can't imagine him, now, in a movie like "The Last Dragon." I wonder if he looks back to that time in his life and gets an embarrassed grin. Hey, you gotta pay the bills, right?




Anyway, in case you missed it, I found the clip on youtube. He'll appear at about 3:15.

And so that's my surprising Saturday. Though I don't know which surprised me more: seeing William H. Macy in "The Last Dragon," or finding the clip online ...

Probably the former. Not so much the latter.

Media Literacy

Happy Friday, class. We're going virtual. So hold on to your hats.

Remember those great terms intertextuality and polysemy? Go ahead and pull out the Sandvoss reading ...

For intertextuality, consider page 23 to the top of page 24. Sandvoss states that the "text is constituted through a multiplicity of textual elements; it is by definition intertextual and formed between and across texts as defined by the point of production" (p. 23). Later he adds that "(i)ndividual texts ... are part of a wider web of textual occurrences and the meaning derived from them. These textual elements are read in the context of other texts" (p.23). We read all texts based on the context of the other texts we have consumed. We do this when we compare a new television show with one we have already seen, or comparing musical artists, or movies, or any medium.

For polysemy, consider pages 29-30. A key phrase comes at the end of the section: media texts are "polysemic to the degree that the endless multiplicity of meaning has collapsed into complete absence of intersubjective meaning" (p. 30). As we in the audience try to balance between the familiar and unfamiliar nature of the new texts, we are faced with this multiplicity; and yet we come to some sort of meaning: ours. It may not be everyone's but it is ours.

There are plenty of other "nuggets" in this "thick" article. I hope you take the time to reflect and consider some of them. We'll have a fuller discussion on Monday.

Your assignment.

What this episode of the television show Psych (go here if you want an explanation of the series). The show is rated TV-PG. The episode is embedded in this blog, but you can also find it on the Hulu.com page, if you think that would be faster. Remember, depending on your computer, there may be some jumps and stops and starts. In other words, be patient. Allow it to load. Bring a soothing cup of coffee or soda or water.

Also, bring a notebook. "Read" the episode. Jot down impressions. Look for signs of intertextuality. What kinds of assumptions are the writers making about their audience? Do you think the writers were successful? What kinds of things spoke to you? Why do you think those spoke to you? In the comment section related to this blog entry, write a one- or two-sentence immediate reaction to the episode and/or to the other student comments. It is important to do this, as this is how I will take roll for today's (Friday, September 5, 2008) class (so be sure and include your name to your post).

Refer back to your readings (both the Media Literacy chapter, as well as the essay by Sandvoss discussed above). Begin to make connections between your impressions and the information you gleaned from the readings (isn't that one of the skills of media literacy?).

When you've watched the show enough, write your analysis/findings in 1-2 pages. Remember, you should have already taken Composition 2 for this class, so grammar, spelling, and syntax count. Here's a novel idea, use the Pages computer program in the Mac lab! It'll be great fun.

Be prepared to discuss your writing on Monday. In the meantime, have fun.

Oral Communication

Good morning Oral Communicators and welcome to your virtual class for Friday, September 5, 2008. There are two things we're going to do today, one of which will be considered homework. If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an e-mail at craigt@warner.edu. Since I am away from campus, I may not get back to you immediately, but be patient.

For the lecture section, I'd like to you to listen to this podcast episode for The Public Speaker.
Here is the mp3 file. If you'd like to read along, which I would suggest, the full text is here.

After you finish listening and processing the information, use the comment section for this blog to write a response to what you heard. Was it useful? How do you approach breathing? What are some of your concerns as you begin working on your first presentation. It is important to write in the comment section, because this is how I am taking roll for class. Also, when you write your comment, please include your name, so I'll know it's you.

That's the first part. Now the homework:

You are going to listen to a speech, the link to which you'll find below. After listening, I'd like you to identify the structure of the speech. Consider these questions: What was the statement of central idea of the speech? What were the main points? What devices did the speaker use to link the parts together? etc. Consult the reading assigned for Monday for help.

The speech is the 2006 keynote address at the 54th annual National Prayer Breakfast. The speaker is Bono, the lead singer of the band U2. Here is a link to an audio file of the speech. Here is a link to the full text of the speech. Feel free to use both.

As you pull the parts together, write up a 1-2 page report/analysis of your findings. Please, use proper English (you should have already taken Composition 2, so that shouldn't be a problem). Spelling and grammar count. Bring your analysis to class on Monday and be prepared to share your findings.

Other than that, have a great weekend. I'll miss you on Friday.

MrC.

It's Madness

I caught the first season of AMC’s buzz-worthy drama Mad Men on demand this summer. (On demand … what a concept. But that’s a different diatribe for another time.) Set in the early 1960s (one of the subplots is the Kennedy-Nixon presidential race), it supposedly captures a time when men were men, women knew their place, and smoking wasn’t really that bad for you. One of the things that makes the series stand out is its presentation of the time period – from the clothes*, to the hairstyles, to the language, to the treatment of race, gender, and sexuality. Since it is a “period piece” it captures a moment in time and seems to preserve it. But it also does something else. It makes this snapshot the reality for the whole.

I wasn’t around in the early 60s, so I don’t know how it was … but now I do because of this show. And that’s the danger. I’m sure the creators of Mad Men were meticulous in their research and strive to remain true to the time, but it is a copy of time … now the reality of it.

I had the same feeling with the movie JFK. Most of what people know about the assassination of President Kennedy comes from that movie – regardless of the relative truth of it. Regardless that many of the characters are composites of multiple “real” people, or are altogether fictitious. That movie is the truth to many people.

I kind of felt the same way with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Sure it remained true to scripture, but now this one man’s vision is THE vision of the cross.

That is the power of the media. Does it scare anyone else? Well, I’d better stop now. I’m sure something good is on TV …

* To see part of television’s power, check out this article from CNN, which notes that Mad Men may be partly responsible for a rise in men’s clothing sales. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/homestyle/08/12/fashion.gender.gap.ap/index.html)

Let the games begin