My Life through Communication Media

This is the link to my slideshow draft. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I decided to do my project on the types of media I used to communicate through out the years, and also looking at the affects it had on me and on those around me. Thanks. LINK

Did video really kill the radio star?

In short, yes, video entertainment did make the home radio a thing of the past, but radio isn't dead its just been relocated. Thanks to the car the radio has been saved, we spend our alone time in the car and unless your driving Ford's model T you probably have a radio. We listen to music, news, sports even sex while we are in the car driving to wherever we want to go. This gave us that private space that we once had to just use your ears and brain to learn something we didn't know. While there are some stations that are probably bad for your brain, there are still stations like NPR that make sure the radio is still a respectable media outlet. Part of what made the radio pretty much just a car thing was the fact that people have so much technological stimulation outside of the car that we needed to keep our minds busy while driving. This stimulation is essential for people to have and I think a large reason there aren't more road rage related crimes.
Listening to the radio in the car can be a very spiritual experience, we are alone connecting with someone who is far away. It is good for people to understand that there is something very important about staying connected with the radio, we need to be able to know that we don't always need a monitor to be entertained. My fear with the younger generations who are growing up the the "Ipod era" is that they will not have this same connection and it will be forever lost. The radio is a large part of our cultural history but if we keep only using it for pop radio stations, we will loose what its true value is. The radio is a tool that can help our society in more ways than we can realize, it helps us stay informed gives us multiple points of view and relaxes our mind. Video didn't kill the radio, we are.

How the Government Ruined Invading People's Privacy

Recently there was a lot of outrage of the NSA. The NSA possibly abused its power and jeopardized the privacy of Americans by collecting information on American civilians through accessing phone calls, emails, and other cyber information. The information was being collected secretly for the United States in order to protect American well-being. When the story broke of Edward Snowden bringing laptops with access to this secret information to China, he viewed as both a traitor to America by some and as others a liberator for privacy reform in the modern world. This story sparked the debate of how far a country should (be able to) go to ensure its own safety and well-being. Can the privacy of that country’s citizens be jeopardized for its national security? This incident, while justifiable for some reasons, made me wonder if there was any privacy in the world, online or otherwise.

Apparently the NSA is tracking everything most everybody is doing. Beyond this though, search engines, social networks, and other online services are harvesting information on users in order to someway return a larger profit. Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other consumer services companies collect personal information on their users from information that is posted and stored on their servers, and by doing so, companies can keep product prices low while at the same time returning large profits. This is the same general business strategy of Google and it is the main reason why their Android and Chrome software is free for OEMs to license.

There was a large uproar immediately following the break of the NSA scandal, however, there are some other more important issues that should have been considered. In the modern world today, there is an unspoken agreement between companies and users that allows the user’s personal information to be sold and/or auctioned to advertisers. When signing up for new email or social networking accounts, the boxes to share personal information with the website is also preselected, making the user have to deselect this box to keep personal information private. The status quo for individual privacy has changed with the growth and development of social networks and online services. The government’s ability to combat threats to national security has also changed as new communication mediums have come and gone.

Most of the information the government received was obtained from large corporations that already mine information to sell advertisements. It seems like these sorts of acts were expected and understood when it comes to corporations in a vicious capitalist economy, but as soon as the government starts instigating similar practices, it is completely unethical and unjust. These corporations are invading the privacy of their users to protect and increase their own profits, success, and well-being. The NSA’s “Prism” program was intended to protect American national security and well-being. What I just can’t wrap my head around is how people can bash the NSA for invading the privacy of Americans and return to their Google accounts for email, calendars, and socializing, completely ignoring the fact that companies like this have been doing it to their user’s for much longer.

Matthew Johnson

My private life I share with 689 friends.

I find it tragically ironic how upset our society gets about discovering how public our private lives on the internet actually are. The tragedy for me takes place in the society itself, we eat, sleep and breath the lives of others. If you don't believe me look at the magazines that are sitting on the shelves of the checkout counter next time you are at a super market. Do you ever wonder where the magazines about cars or interior design are? Well, they are in the super market (believe it or not) they just didn't happen the make it to the best seller shelves so conveniently placed right next to where people have to sit and wait to check out. The reason the only magazines we see up front are the gossip tabloids aren't because they pay the supermarkets the most, it's because they are the most popular. And while this tragic realisation that we are the least privacy respecting society in the history of the world we still have the nerve to get furious about the fact that we can google ourselves and find facts. You could say that the celebrities in those magazines put themselves in the spotlight and therefore it is okay for us to look, but ultimately I think they have just done it on a larger scale. The undeniable truth behind why we have Social networking sites is to stay connected with people through chatting and uploading experiences we think people would enjoy seeing, this is obvious but isn't there a certain level of social elitism taking place. Why else does it need to be public information about how many 'likes' my profile picture gets? Which leads me to my point: people who have grown up with technology their entire life do not care about privacy as much as people who were introduced to the internet half way through it. Maybe this is because we weren't around for this golden age when everyones business was their own, but at the same time aren't the only people who are really scared of publicity are the people who have something to hide? My dad told me that there are only three things you should avoid bringing up in polite company which are: your political views, sex and how much money you have. While I don't want to go against what my Dad said (I will) I think he is completely wrong with the first two. If you were to turn on your T.V. you could change the channel five times and encounter sex and politics six times. What do you think FOX news is doing when they hire sexist correspondents in New York? Our society loves the idea of privacy but haven't you heard the expression "secrets are more fun if they are shared with everyone"? If you really want to be private move to an island, if not adapt and understand that the technologies we have created are for our societies benefit as long as we use them properly.

Privately Speaking

The idea of privacy is kind of an abstract idea because the only time privacy is controlled I

would imagine is in your mind during private thought. Everything else outside of your mind has the potential of being exposed on multiple levels. For example a conversation with a friend is vulnerable to being exposed to others then you and your friend, let’s imagine this conversation takes place in a coffee shop, while you might think that you are having a private conversation, left out there for all to hear while they are invited to or not. This conversation could take place on the telephone and still wouldn’t really be private because of a few possible things that could interfere, one is possible ear droppers on either side of the conversation, and also some believe that the government is hearing our “private” telephone conversations, other aspects might be one of those involved in the conversation could possibly carry on the conversation or aspects of the conversation with others. So what does this all mean? In my opinion I believe that privacy and the ideas of what is private is changing, some information is no longer private because of the internet and how accessible it is. Information like your contact information is almost always accessible if you search for it by name, also I believe that if you search hard enough you can also find out where someone works and what they look like. So what does this mean? To me this means that, anything that we associate with on a face level is not private, anything that we voice whether vocally or electronically is not private, and anything that we release outside of our internal thoughts is not private. I saw a video called "Do young people care about privacy?" it is about a group of engineers who are creating an App to keep track of your private information, however, I can’t help to think of what would happen if their systems get hacked? I think that it is important to understand that we are being followed in a way; every step we take online is traced every item we view or entertain buying will continue to hunt us until we either give in or move on to something else. So What? I think that it is time to accept what kind of environment we live in and learn how to best protect ourselves against the wrong use of our information rather than pretend that we can actually control our information from the internet…IMPOSSIBLE! What counts is the integrity of our information and what it is used for. As of right now we have some options with what we choose to participate in on the internet, and whom we wish to participate with. This is important because we need to control our environments in order to hold any control of our information. Facebook is not evil and neither is advertising tactics to trace your moves and continue to intrude your cyber space, it is expected that all aspects of our lives will evolve and expand just as the internet expands, this is not news. Why should we expect any less, if it is possible wouldn’t you do it? Wouldn’t you use all your resources in hopes of increasing the results of your business? I would. I don’t get mad at the advertisements in my inbox, I don’t get mad knowing that somebody could find my address by conducting a research, I think we feel most exposed when our personal space is invaded in our presence, if all of a sudden we are made aware of how vulnerable we are when a stranger reaches out to us, we instinctually feel threatened. Imagine this,if a stranger walks onto your driveway while you are not home, now how different would you feel if you were home?

The Power of a Hat: When Team Loyalty Goes too Far

On the Fourth of July San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was photographed wearing a Miami Dolphins hat at a party. A twitter account registered under the name of @DolFanBandits tweeted a photo of Kaepernick wearing the hat, and what should have been a mildly amusing incident became a big deal on the internet. Thousands of twitter users responded with hatred and anger to Kaepernick demanding that he apologize for wearing the hat of an opponent. Kaepernick once again caused cyber commotion when he took to Instagram to respond to his fashion critics, posting a picture of his face with the Dolphins hat and the caption: "This the hat y'all mad at? I'm goin wear what I want regardless of what you think, all you need to worry about is the fact that I grind for my teammates and the 49ers! I plan on doin this until they won't let me in the building! #ridiculous #y'allmustbebored." (Frank, 2013)

This entire incident is pointless, as Kaepernick indicated. During a relatively quiet NFL offseason, the media is attempting to create conflict by finding any possible controversy to report on. While it was not a wise decision by Kaepernick from a public relations standpoint it was at the end of the day simply a fashion statement, unless it was all intentional to gain publicity. Although there is an online Global Village, social media users should not take advantage of their limited interaction with players over sites like Twitter to criticize and harass Kaepernick for wearing a Dolphins hat. Kaepernick is still the quarterback of the future for the San Francisco 49ers, and he still is responsible for bringing the 49ers to their first Super Bowl appearance in over ten years.

Colin Kaepernick wasn’t trying to indicate that he would rather play for the Miami Dolphins, he is simply wearing a hat that he thinks looks cool. As stupid as it may seem, that is the only reason he decided to wear the hat of an AFC opponent. However, in this new internet age, even meaningless stories such as this are blown out of proportion, and Colin Kaepernick ends up getting ridiculed for something that happened when his privacy was being invaded anyway. This is an example of how the media takes advantage of its vast resources to stir conflict even when there is none there, simply to increase sales and revenue.

Works Cited

Frank, S. (2013, July 6). Colin Kaepernick defends wearing Miami Dolphins hat, which he didn’t need to do. Retrieved from Yahoo! Sports: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/colin-kaepernick-defends-wearing-dolphins-hat-shouldn-t-144651555.html

 Matthew T. Johnson

Sometimes I feel like an old man at the age of twenty!

Recently, I have noticed the increasing pressure to join new social networking sites from my friends, I found the social transition into Facebook pretty overwhelming at times; witnessing my social village literally take form before my eyes was little overwhelming. But now, with the new websites coming in by the truck loads I don't know what to do with myself.
Instagram? Wait aren't there already pictures on Facebook? Why do I need a cite specifically focused on pictures?  Ultimately the only difference is that you can put filters on the pictures to give them a different feel? 'But Will, don't you like the idea of being a photographer?' No, I don't care if sepia makes people look more tan or sunsets more majestic. 'Will, girls really like Instagram'.
....Ok I might give it a try.
When trying to figure out if social networking cites are hot or cold media, I came to the conclusion that it can be both. Lets look at Vine for an example, Vine is a social media cite that is focused around sending short video clips that compile one large video that you send out to your friends. In the right hands vine can be a hot media meaning that you can use a lot of involvement and make creative stop motion movies that are very creative and involve a considerable amount of imagination, but in the wrong hands it can be very cold. When you what a video that has four clips, all of which are impossible to even tell what is going on it takes the involvement way down and makes it a type of media that i really want no part in.
I just hope that with all this new technology that is coming in I dont get left behind, but if I do just prepare to receive letters from me that are written in ink and delivered by pigeons.

Expectations within the Global Community

McLuhan talks about the gap between generations and the new forms of communication throughout his articles. I personally agree with the idea that technology is further deepening the gap between the generations for a few reasons, I think the rate at which technology changes plays a big role in this gap. For example it takes somebody who is highly adaptable and is able to adapt at a fast rate to be able to keep up with the new technological advancements, on the other hand it takes a highly focused and willing older person to just manage to stay afloat. The rate of change is so rapid that it tends to bring a new meaning to “survival of the fittest” nature’s course in this perspective is those who can adapt to new advancements at a rate faster than the life of the technology itself, before we used to use our cellphones until they died or stops working and that was less than 10 years ago, now we change phones because their capabilities become obsolete within a few month, thus leading to our own capabilities as being obsolete, unless we are willing to put in the time to advance alongside technology. The global community is no different if you cannot keep up with the advancements of the global community then you are not a part of this community which further drives the gap between those who can and those who cannot. Communicating in the global community has made my life much easier especially when my brother was stationed in Afghanistan, just some years ago when he was in Germany we only heard from him once or twice a month leaving us with no expectation of communication of any kind. But when he went to Afghanistan we were able to see him via Skype almost everyday or whenever we wanted to leaving us with expectations and a reliance on technology to validate the well being of my brother.

Media influence on the generation gap

Hey guys! So lately it seems I have been walking into countless examples of how the media affects our culture today and what this means for the younger generations. One circumstance happened last week while I was babysitting two girls; the older one is 14 years old, and the younger one is 10.

            First off, I would like to note -- since when do 14 year olds dress the way they do??? She was dressed in more-up-to-date fashion than I was, and in a very adult way… (Embarrassing for me… but I swear, I’m over it...). Anyway, she had her fashion down… the multiple, dangly bracelets, the cool white, jean shorts, the belt, she had the layering element down, and she had on these “summery hues,” if you will… an array of whites, oranges, and shades of red. Meanwhile, I was wearing a yoga top from Lulu Lemon with some shorts, and I was flattered when she complimented my top and mentioned she would want one because it looks comfortable. But before I could get too jazzed about it, she added, ‘does it come in any other colors? Green is so last year’.

            Oh, great.

What I am trying to get at with this example is what McLuhan suggested about the increasing differences between generations; how ‘space binding media’ influences an overwhelming pace of change by allowing ideas to be shared from distant parts of the world. By allowing such a flow of ideas, “updates” to many topics such as food, music, and fashion are rapidly produced and available to everyone who is connected. Now I know that this girl is not exactly a full generation below me, but you can see how already, the increased usage of media is affecting the lifestyles, ideas, and thinking of younger kids. McLuhan further suggests, that specifically, “space binding media creates a bigger gap between ‘today’ and yesterday’.” I never dressed that way, or so flawlessly, when I was little, and maybe I was out of fashion(?), but I seriously think that the bombardment of media and new technology, like ipads, and smart phones, is influencing our culture’s way of thinking, and their evaluation of people and situations that they encounter in life.