Games

Steven Johnson’s essay “Games” is an excerpt from his book “Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter” (2005). He discusses the controversy of books versus video games and examines arguments for both sides. Dr. Spock mentions one argument for video games (p.196): “The best that can be said of them is that they may help promote eye-hand coordination in children.” It is also said, that video games can also make the player aggressive and rowdy. According to Dr. Spock, those games are always very time-consuming in the end (p.196-197). A study in 2004 showed, that reading for fun declined recently among Americans (p.197). Additionally, the writer Andrew Solomon found out, that people who read are most likely the ones who go to museum exhibits and concerts, and attend voluntary work. The reason for that is the more energetic and active drive that readers have (p.197). Johnson admits, that Solomon’s arguments about reading are very strong, but he still says that the comparison of books to video games makes the videogames seem really flawed. Johnson experiments with the following thought: What would people think about books if video games were invented before them? After he thinks his through, he goes back and mentions the pros of reading (p.198): “the complexity of argument and storytelling offered by the book form; the stretching of the imagination triggered by reading (…); the shared experience you get when everyone is reading the same story.” Johnson also wants parents to encourage their children to read, without necessarily keeping them away from other media (p.199). Then he goes on with the rewards of reading. It is basically the mental work that characterizes reading. Furthermore readers have to use their imagination in order to put to make content vivid. According to Johnson (p.199), skills like input, concentration, mindfulness and understanding sense and structure of a book will always be required in an educational system or a job. Finally the author expresses his concern about video games: Underestimating the sharpness of video games could be dangerous (p.201).

I think that video games are the most time consuming medium besides watching TV. This especially concerns young people. Kids get entirely consumed by the games, so they don’t realize how much time goes by. Some people argue that the social aspect of video games is still there, but as much as kids play with other kids, they don´t learn how to be social in real situations.

Johnson, S. (2011). Games. S. Cohen (Ed) 50 Essays. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins

Social Media in Politics

Kindelan, K. (2011). Social Media in Politics: Positive or Polarizing? Retrieved from http://socialtimes.com/social-media-in-politics-positive-or-polarizing_b42439

The topic of Kindelan’s article is the role of social media in the US midterm elections in 2010.  She questions the advantage of social networks for voters and the functionality of social networks for our democratic system. Many voters now prefer going online in order to get information about their candidates. This doesn´t necessarily mean that they visit their candidates website, but they visit blog websites or social networks to discuss and exchange information. According to Kindelan, the Internet has an unexpected influence on the elections. A study by the Pew Research Center says, that more than one-third of the responding persons elected their candidate because of the information they found on the Internet. Kindelan also argues that this development could make it easier for extreme political ideas to spread out. She says, that we have to keep in mind, that not everything on the Internet is necessarily true. She collected her information from a study by the Pew Research Center and she interviewed the report’s author and senior research specialist at Pew Internet Aaron Smith. This article again questions the reliability of the Internet. Especially in politics it’s easy to find wrong information from the Internet, so we should read blogs carefully and double-check the content before we make our choice based on Internet sources.

Julian Assange about Wikileaks

Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, was probably the most controversial person after his disclosure of politically relevant material. The affected governments were confused about the fact that they couldn't stop him. He used the anonymity of the Internet to protect the privacy of the whistleblowers. But the question is: Isn't it his right as a journalist to report about things that happened? It surely takes a lot of courage to attract the anger of politicians the way he did. Don't we have a freedom of press nowadays? I guess journalists have the right to inform the public about intrigues and political lies, don't they? All these question are placed on a boundary between what's right, what's wrong, and what's ethical.

The End of Mass Media

Coming full circle; the end of mass media. (2011, Jul 09). The Economist, 400(8741), 16-n/a. http://proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/docview/875716960?accountid=14473


The author examines the similarities between the present change in media and former media structures like the pre-industrial era or the Roman time. He or she explains, that the end of mass media is near because we are going back to a more informal and socially emphasized media structure. Back in the days of the Roman Empire, people distributed news among each other through certain social networks or simply by chatting. After inventions like the steam press, the distribution of news among a large number of citizens became easier, but the social aspect of exchanging gossip and ideas among people declined. So basically the author says that today’s social media is comparable to those ancient systems. The Internet literally displays the forum of the Roman time, where people could exchange news in a social way. But besides that, the most significant change today occurs in journalism: Conventional people like you and me can now distribute information easily to a large group of people.The author quoted people like Craig Newmark, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, Jay Rosen and Arianna Huffington.

It´s really interesting how this article outlines, that social media is nothing new. Many people proscribe new technologies only because they are new, but if we keep the social exchange aspect in mind, it can turn out to be a real advantage for us. We can always be sure to have enough information from several sources, so we can discuss them within a social network, either online or in real terms.

Classmate's Blog

I like Jarett's post called "Facebook Locks Up Criminals" because it shows how everyone can easily get information about certain people. Social Networks are definitely a great opportunity to fight crime but on the other hand our privacy gets vulnerable. Will the police use social networks for their own benefit in the future? Would this strategy be ethical? Those are interesting questions! When we talked about the Arab Spring in class, I think we had a source that said that some revolutionists were arrested through Facebook. As Jarett says, “what started out as a social media website to stay in contact with friends, and groups is now being used as a secret weapon by local business to catch criminals.” This could indeed be the start of an evolution of Facebook.

Television: The Plug-In Drug

Marie Winn’s essay "Television: The Plug-In Drug" explains how family life has changed since TVs were installed in basically every home. At first, when television was included into family’s homes, people believed that it would have a positive influence because everyone is coming together and snuggling in front of the TV. Unfortunately the idea of TV as a social activity can´t be applied to the 21^st century. Most homes have more than one TV, so it happens that every family member is watching a different show at a different time. Winn mentions (p.439), that TV does not only affect the child itself, but also other circumstances like “the home, the peer group, the school, the church and culture generally” (p.439). A significant aspect that TV changed is the quality of life: families lose their individuality, which was expressed through common activities like games. Also eating habits are affected. Parents are using television to maintain their private dinner, while the kids are following their daily TV schedule. Winn explains (p.441), that not the TV program is important, but the watching itself. Modern parents think that television is the only way to control kids over a certain amount of time. Maybe it is a great way but it’s also the easiest. Parents should be willing to make compromises when it comes to personal life. Family rituals are also a crucial factor to keep the individuality of a family. Those rituals concern “mealtime, bedtime, illness and holidays” (p. 442). Furthermore Winn points out (p. 443), that television affects the way kids communicate with real people. Since watching TV doesn’t require any eye contact or response, kids seem passive during conversations with real persons. Besides rituals, many families lose the ability to solve conflicts. Television helps to avoid conversations, but only temporarily. Winn explains: “The nature of the family social life during a program could be described as ‘parallel’ rather than interactive (…) (p. 445).” At the end of this essay she also mentions (p. 445), that television is not the only factor for changes in family life, but it is definitely one that we can control.

When people talk about Social Change they often don’t consider television as an important factor. The Internet seems to be much more threatening, but we often don’t realize how TV manipulates children. Food commercials, for example, give kids a wrong perception of what meals are made of. Of course the advertisers are trying to make it sound healthy and natural, but they don’t mention the artificial and chemical ingredients. This wrong perception will be persistent if parents don’t teach their children how to eat right.

Winn, M. (2011). Television: The Plug-In Drug. S. Cohen (Ed) 50 Essays. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's

Kid Kustomers

Schlosser, E. (2011). Kid kustomers. S. Cohen (Ed) 50 Essays. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's

Link: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=1LpHV1B4YbRzGijHz-n6ernIfZteRIPxNDyPkOnYdwaQ&sort=name&layout=list&pid=0BxO7MLwhDXi7MWZjZTEzY2MtZDI2Ni00MGQ0LWFjNDAtYTYwMmJlNzVkOTIz&cindex=6

The topic of Schlosser’s essay is how the advertising industry uses kids as a target for their commercials. He explains that kids are not mature enough to understand that not every commercial is true. Advertisers benefit from that and show children what they want to see in order to want the product. Of course kids are sometimes too young to purchase the product by themselves, so they use nagging to get what they want. Even though the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) tried to ban television commercials, changes haven’t been made in order to protect our kids. According to the author, (Schlosser, 2011, p. 357) “outside of school, the typical American child spends more time watching TV than doing any other activity except sleeping.” Eric Schlosser collected his information from a book called “Kids As Customers” (1992) by James U. McNeal. Furthermore Schlosser quotes a marketer, a sociologist, the head of the Federal Trade Commission and finally former US president Ronald Reagan.
I think this essay serves as a wake-up-call for parents. Since kids can’t protect themselves from misleading advertising, parents should use the opportunity to encourage them to do other activities than watching TV.