The New Media Senior Seminar has helped me to realize how significant and amazing new media really is. It consumes my life so much, that I take it for granted. In fact, it is my life.
I wake up in the morning with the sound of a song of my choice. It is an alarm that makes sure that I am up, while frustrating me to the point that I absolutely hate the song that I chose the night before. This very alarm comes from my cell phone. Wow! Not only, can I talk on my Motorola Krazer, but I can use it as an alarm clock that uses the sounds of my choice.
And, if that is not good enough, I can use my phone as a digital photo album. It actually has a camera built in it. I can take and view pictures any time I want to. Not only that, but I can send the pictures that I take to whomever I please via text messaging. Being digital and all, the photographs in the phone also have the capability to be sent to my computer. From my computer, I can view the pictures however I want to, e-mail them to whomever I want to, and even edit them the way I want to.
And yet, there is more. On my phone, I have a calendar, an organizer, a calculator, voice commands, and even a world clock. My phone has e-mail and voice mail. It has various wallpapers and screensavers. The video camera it has isn’t too bad either and the MP3 player is definitely a plus. By the way, the MP3 player has touch-sensitive buttons. Speaking of touch-sensitive buttons, I find it interesting how Nicholas Negroponte says that, “Personal computers almost never have your finger meet the display, which is quite startling when you consider that the human finger is a pointing device you don’t have to pick up, and we have ten of them” (Negroponte 131-132). He also says, “yet it hasn’t caught on” (Negroponte 132). Later on the same page he says that, “The real reason for not using fingers is that we haven’t yet found a good technology for sensing the near field of a finger when your finger is close to but not touching the display” (Negroponte 132). I personally feel that while that might be a more advanced way of computing, it just might not be that appealing to the user. Technology is rapidly growing but the last thing we should worry about is whether or not our personal computers have touch-sensitive screens, even though it may be useful for a source such as a cell phone.
With the exception of watching full-length television shows or movies, my digital source of communication known as the cell phone, is capable of many digital things to do or see. By the way, it will not be long before we can start watching full-length television shows or even movies on our cell phones.
It amazes me how far we as a society have come, when all of these capabilities can be emerged in a device that is no bigger than our hands, an extension of ourselves. With all this being said, is there a cost or negative consequence to the continuing advancements of our new media?
With all that amazes me about our new advancements of technology and media, I can not help but be slightly skeptical or even frightened of the possibilities and consequences thy may hold. Can these continuing advancements actually do more harm to us than good?
Ray Kurzweil’s, The Age of Spiritual Machines, explores the ongoing possibilities of new technology that will eventually change the way we live by drastic measures. Kurzweil evidentially feels strongly about the way our technology is heading. He begins with prophecies of different decades ranging from 2009 to 2099. Kurzweil even says that in 2029, “A $1,000 unit of computation has the computing capacity of approximately 1,000 human brains” (Kurzweil 220). What a scary thought that is. As if the world was not intimidating enough, I have to worry about a computer’s processing speed being 1,000 times faster than my own brain. Don’t get me wrong, the thought of a computer that fast is cool but with the capabilities of doing well with the technology, there are ways of doing bad. Who is to say that humans will even be able to tell the difference between a computer and another human? About 2029, Kurzweil says that, “Machines claim to be conscious and to have as wide an array of emotional and spiritual experiences as their human progenitors, and these claims are largely accepted” (Kurzweil 224). Now, I don’t know about anybody else, but I do not necessarily like the thought of an international enemy having access to this sort of fast computation, let alone an enemy within my own country. Just the thought of foreign enemies using this new media to their advantage freaks me out. Yes, technology has already spread and there are foreign enemies that share some of the same technological knowledge that we have, but imagine our enemies with computation up to the speed of 1,000 human brains. What will we do then? And if that is the case, how will one president be able to fix everything like everybody wants him or her to do? He or she just has one brain. Will we even need a president? If so, will our president have implants in his brain to make him smarter? Other countries would then catch up to the new advancements and what would we do then? And that is just 22 years away. That is still in my lifetime.
I know I am riding the fence on these questions but I cannot tell the future, nor do I want to. My point is that with everything good, there can be bad, and we as a society may be smarter than for our own good.
Negroponte, Nicholas. Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
Kurzweil, Ray. The Age of Spiritual Machines. New York: Penguin, 1999.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
News Media and Criminal Justice
For more information, you can read my full research paper on the
fargasoncase.blogspot.com
In my research for my senior project, I have found that the media has a lot more impact and influence on people’s opinions, and in this instance, the criminal justice system. There are several instances in which the media portrayed events of the case differently than what Charles Fargason, the father of the murdered child, Taylor, and the ex-husband of Teresa, had said.
Among many media outlets that zeroed in on the Teresa Fargason case for news and entertainment purposes are 13WMAZ, Inside Edition, Court TV, and USA. I conducted a telephone interview with Charles Fargason, Teresa’s ex-husband and in my interview with him; he was profoundly upset with a news anchor from WMAZ, Mary Terese. He told me that she had double-crossed him because “she did not do her documentary like she said she was going to do” (Fargason). It was evident that he was upset as we continued “She wanted to talk to me about Taylor, except she had this lawyer that was on TV every night from the family” (Fargason). He said that “She was doing this little thing for about a week on TV and she’d say a little bit about the story” (Fargason). Interestingly enough, “What I said, she didn’t put on air” (Fargason). He then stated that, “She put on TV what she wanted to put on TV” (Fargason). Surprisingly, “That stuff about her sister that I told you about, she didn’t say none of that on TV” (Fargason).
The important details that she did not address to the public were the details of Teresa’s younger sister, Bobby Anne, saying that she thought Teresa was involved with Taylor’s murder. Teresa had two sisters. When the investigators finally approached Bobby Anne, her husband said that Bobby Anne had been waiting for them to question her. She told them that she believed Teresa was involved because Teresa asked her to wash Taylor’s sheets and pillowcase before the cops arrived that night. Bobby Anne did not do it, so the other sister did. This was a crucial piece of evidence that Charles wanted to share, but Mary Terese did not air that information: “The moment that stuff aired, she wouldn’t answer that phone no more” (Fargason) [and] “She knew she had double-crossed me” (Fargason).
As far as the sister’s statements go, when the trial was happening, the Georgia State Patrol and The Alabama State Patrol were searching for the sisters and their husbands so that they could appear in court. Meanwhile, Teresa was convicted of the crime. Charles said that one of the sister’s husbands called his work to ask for the pay that he had missed while he had been at court and his boss told him that he knew he did not go to court because law enforcement was searching for him and called looking for him. The boss asked where he had been. The husband said he was where the lawyers told him to go. Fargason says that they were hid out, and that was never brought up in court or by the media. The only thing that was brought up about this is that when the judge told Teresa’s lawyer, Frank Childs, that he better not find out that Childs “had anything to do with hiding them kids out” (Fargason ).
Inside Edition called Mr. Fargason and wanted an interview. He said, “No, what you want is to interview about Teresa being in prison” (Fargason). Inside Edition told Mr. Fargason that that was right. Mr. Fargason hung up on her. She called right back and said that she can just call all the TV stations in Macon and get filed footage of him. Mr. Fargason then called Liz Jarvis at WMAZ. Mr. Fargason said that she was good to him. He told her what was going on and asked for his number so she could call him right back. Five minutes later, she called Mr. Fargason back and told him that he had nothing to worry about. The news stations were not going to give out any information.
I have to admit that at first, when I was researching the evidence of the case, I believed that I could prove Teresa’s innocence and prove that it was the media that influenced the public on her guilt. What I realized later in my research was that the media did indeed have an influence but it was not what I expected. They had an influence on me believing that Teresa was innocent in the way that I saw they portrayed the case. I recently read an interesting quote by Sara Sun Beale that can relate to this topic and it says, “The news media are not mirrors, simply reflecting events in society. Rather, media content is shaped by economic and marketing considerations that frequently override traditional journalistic criteria for newsworthiness” (Beale).
It has been nearly 17 years after the murder and the media was still influencing opinions and they were mine. I am glad this happened though, because it just proves my point that the media does have a strong influence on our opinions and decisions, and to finish with a quote from a guy that knows about media, Marshall McLuhan says that “All media work us over completely” (McLuhan). He then says that “They are so persuasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered” (McLuhan).
Beale, Sara Sun, "The News Media’s Influence on Criminal Justice Policy: How Market-Driven News Promotes Punitiveness" . William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 48, pp. 397-418, 2006 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=964647
Fargason, Charles. Telephone interview. 12 Mar. 2007.
McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium is the Massage. New York: Random House, 1967.
fargasoncase.blogspot.com
In my research for my senior project, I have found that the media has a lot more impact and influence on people’s opinions, and in this instance, the criminal justice system. There are several instances in which the media portrayed events of the case differently than what Charles Fargason, the father of the murdered child, Taylor, and the ex-husband of Teresa, had said.
Among many media outlets that zeroed in on the Teresa Fargason case for news and entertainment purposes are 13WMAZ, Inside Edition, Court TV, and USA. I conducted a telephone interview with Charles Fargason, Teresa’s ex-husband and in my interview with him; he was profoundly upset with a news anchor from WMAZ, Mary Terese. He told me that she had double-crossed him because “she did not do her documentary like she said she was going to do” (Fargason). It was evident that he was upset as we continued “She wanted to talk to me about Taylor, except she had this lawyer that was on TV every night from the family” (Fargason). He said that “She was doing this little thing for about a week on TV and she’d say a little bit about the story” (Fargason). Interestingly enough, “What I said, she didn’t put on air” (Fargason). He then stated that, “She put on TV what she wanted to put on TV” (Fargason). Surprisingly, “That stuff about her sister that I told you about, she didn’t say none of that on TV” (Fargason).
The important details that she did not address to the public were the details of Teresa’s younger sister, Bobby Anne, saying that she thought Teresa was involved with Taylor’s murder. Teresa had two sisters. When the investigators finally approached Bobby Anne, her husband said that Bobby Anne had been waiting for them to question her. She told them that she believed Teresa was involved because Teresa asked her to wash Taylor’s sheets and pillowcase before the cops arrived that night. Bobby Anne did not do it, so the other sister did. This was a crucial piece of evidence that Charles wanted to share, but Mary Terese did not air that information: “The moment that stuff aired, she wouldn’t answer that phone no more” (Fargason) [and] “She knew she had double-crossed me” (Fargason).
As far as the sister’s statements go, when the trial was happening, the Georgia State Patrol and The Alabama State Patrol were searching for the sisters and their husbands so that they could appear in court. Meanwhile, Teresa was convicted of the crime. Charles said that one of the sister’s husbands called his work to ask for the pay that he had missed while he had been at court and his boss told him that he knew he did not go to court because law enforcement was searching for him and called looking for him. The boss asked where he had been. The husband said he was where the lawyers told him to go. Fargason says that they were hid out, and that was never brought up in court or by the media. The only thing that was brought up about this is that when the judge told Teresa’s lawyer, Frank Childs, that he better not find out that Childs “had anything to do with hiding them kids out” (Fargason ).
Inside Edition called Mr. Fargason and wanted an interview. He said, “No, what you want is to interview about Teresa being in prison” (Fargason). Inside Edition told Mr. Fargason that that was right. Mr. Fargason hung up on her. She called right back and said that she can just call all the TV stations in Macon and get filed footage of him. Mr. Fargason then called Liz Jarvis at WMAZ. Mr. Fargason said that she was good to him. He told her what was going on and asked for his number so she could call him right back. Five minutes later, she called Mr. Fargason back and told him that he had nothing to worry about. The news stations were not going to give out any information.
I have to admit that at first, when I was researching the evidence of the case, I believed that I could prove Teresa’s innocence and prove that it was the media that influenced the public on her guilt. What I realized later in my research was that the media did indeed have an influence but it was not what I expected. They had an influence on me believing that Teresa was innocent in the way that I saw they portrayed the case. I recently read an interesting quote by Sara Sun Beale that can relate to this topic and it says, “The news media are not mirrors, simply reflecting events in society. Rather, media content is shaped by economic and marketing considerations that frequently override traditional journalistic criteria for newsworthiness” (Beale).
It has been nearly 17 years after the murder and the media was still influencing opinions and they were mine. I am glad this happened though, because it just proves my point that the media does have a strong influence on our opinions and decisions, and to finish with a quote from a guy that knows about media, Marshall McLuhan says that “All media work us over completely” (McLuhan). He then says that “They are so persuasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered” (McLuhan).
Beale, Sara Sun, "The News Media’s Influence on Criminal Justice Policy: How Market-Driven News Promotes Punitiveness" . William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 48, pp. 397-418, 2006 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=964647
Fargason, Charles. Telephone interview. 12 Mar. 2007.
McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium is the Massage. New York: Random House, 1967.
News Media and Criminal Justice Blog/Research
For more information on this case, you can read my full research paper at FargasonCase.Blogspot.com
In my research for my senior project, I have found that the media has a lot more impact and influence on people’s opinions, and in this instance, the criminal justice system. There are several instances in which the media portrayed events of the case differently than what Charles Fargason, the father of the murdered child, Taylor, and the ex-husband of Teresa, had said.
Among many media outlets that zeroed in on the Teresa Fargason case for news and entertainment purposes are 13WMAZ, Inside Edition, Court TV, and USA. I conducted a telephone interview with Charles Fargason, Teresa’s ex-husband and in my interview with him; he was profoundly upset with a news anchor from WMAZ, Mary Terese. He told me that she had double-crossed him because “she did not do her documentary like she said she was going to do” (Fargason). It was evident that he was upset as we continued “She wanted to talk to me about Taylor, except she had this lawyer that was on TV every night from the family” (Fargason). He said that “She was doing this little thing for about a week on TV and she’d say a little bit about the story” (Fargason). Interestingly enough, “What I said, she didn’t put on air” (Fargason). He then stated that, “She put on TV what she wanted to put on TV” (Fargason). Surprisingly, “That stuff about her sister that I told you about, she didn’t say none of that on TV” (Fargason).
The important details that she did not address to the public were the details of Teresa’s younger sister, Bobby Anne, saying that she thought Teresa was involved with Taylor’s murder. Teresa had two sisters. When the investigators finally approached Bobby Anne, her husband said that Bobby Anne had been waiting for them to question her. She told them that she believed Teresa was involved because Teresa asked her to wash Taylor’s sheets and pillowcase before the cops arrived that night. Bobby Anne did not do it, so the other sister did. This was a crucial piece of evidence that Charles wanted to share, but Mary Terese did not air that information: “The moment that stuff aired, she wouldn’t answer that phone no more” (Fargason) [and] “She knew she had double-crossed me” (Fargason).
As far as the sister’s statements go, when the trial was happening, the Georgia State Patrol and The Alabama State Patrol were searching for the sisters and their husbands so that they could appear in court. Meanwhile, Teresa was convicted of the crime. Charles said that one of the sister’s husbands called his work to ask for the pay that he had missed while he had been at court and his boss told him that he knew he did not go to court because law enforcement was searching for him and called looking for him. The boss asked where he had been. The husband said he was where the lawyers told him to go. Fargason says that they were hid out, and that was never brought up in court or by the media. The only thing that was brought up about this is that when the judge told Teresa’s lawyer, Frank Childs, that he better not find out that Childs “had anything to do with hiding them kids out” (Fargason ).
Inside Edition called Mr. Fargason and wanted an interview. He said, “No, what you want is to interview about Teresa being in prison” (Fargason). Inside Edition told Mr. Fargason that that was right. Mr. Fargason hung up on her. She called right back and said that she can just call all the TV stations in Macon and get filed footage of him. Mr. Fargason then called Liz Jarvis at WMAZ. Mr. Fargason said that she was good to him. He told her what was going on and asked for his number so she could call him right back. Five minutes later, she called Mr. Fargason back and told him that he had nothing to worry about. The news stations were not going to give out any information.
I have to admit that at first, when I was researching the evidence of the case, I believed that I could prove Teresa’s innocence and prove that it was the media that influenced the public on her guilt. What I realized later in my research was that the media did indeed have an influence but it was not what I expected. They had an influence on me believing that Teresa was innocent in the way that I saw they portrayed the case. I recently read an interesting quote by Sara Sun Beale that can relate to this topic and it says, “The news media are not mirrors, simply reflecting events in society. Rather, media content is shaped by economic and marketing considerations that frequently override traditional journalistic criteria for newsworthiness” (Beale).
It has been nearly 17 years after the murder and the media was still influencing opinions and they were mine. I am glad this happened though, because it just proves my point that the media does have a strong influence on our opinions and decisions, and to finish with a quote from a guy that knows about media, Marshall McLuhan says that “All media work us over completely” (McLuhan). He then says that “They are so persuasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered” (McLuhan).
Beale, Sara Sun, "The News Media’s Influence on Criminal Justice Policy: How Market-Driven News Promotes Punitiveness" . William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 48, pp. 397-418, 2006 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=964647
Fargason, Charles. Telephone interview. 12 Mar. 2007.
McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium is the Massage. New York: Random House, 1967.
In my research for my senior project, I have found that the media has a lot more impact and influence on people’s opinions, and in this instance, the criminal justice system. There are several instances in which the media portrayed events of the case differently than what Charles Fargason, the father of the murdered child, Taylor, and the ex-husband of Teresa, had said.
Among many media outlets that zeroed in on the Teresa Fargason case for news and entertainment purposes are 13WMAZ, Inside Edition, Court TV, and USA. I conducted a telephone interview with Charles Fargason, Teresa’s ex-husband and in my interview with him; he was profoundly upset with a news anchor from WMAZ, Mary Terese. He told me that she had double-crossed him because “she did not do her documentary like she said she was going to do” (Fargason). It was evident that he was upset as we continued “She wanted to talk to me about Taylor, except she had this lawyer that was on TV every night from the family” (Fargason). He said that “She was doing this little thing for about a week on TV and she’d say a little bit about the story” (Fargason). Interestingly enough, “What I said, she didn’t put on air” (Fargason). He then stated that, “She put on TV what she wanted to put on TV” (Fargason). Surprisingly, “That stuff about her sister that I told you about, she didn’t say none of that on TV” (Fargason).
The important details that she did not address to the public were the details of Teresa’s younger sister, Bobby Anne, saying that she thought Teresa was involved with Taylor’s murder. Teresa had two sisters. When the investigators finally approached Bobby Anne, her husband said that Bobby Anne had been waiting for them to question her. She told them that she believed Teresa was involved because Teresa asked her to wash Taylor’s sheets and pillowcase before the cops arrived that night. Bobby Anne did not do it, so the other sister did. This was a crucial piece of evidence that Charles wanted to share, but Mary Terese did not air that information: “The moment that stuff aired, she wouldn’t answer that phone no more” (Fargason) [and] “She knew she had double-crossed me” (Fargason).
As far as the sister’s statements go, when the trial was happening, the Georgia State Patrol and The Alabama State Patrol were searching for the sisters and their husbands so that they could appear in court. Meanwhile, Teresa was convicted of the crime. Charles said that one of the sister’s husbands called his work to ask for the pay that he had missed while he had been at court and his boss told him that he knew he did not go to court because law enforcement was searching for him and called looking for him. The boss asked where he had been. The husband said he was where the lawyers told him to go. Fargason says that they were hid out, and that was never brought up in court or by the media. The only thing that was brought up about this is that when the judge told Teresa’s lawyer, Frank Childs, that he better not find out that Childs “had anything to do with hiding them kids out” (Fargason ).
Inside Edition called Mr. Fargason and wanted an interview. He said, “No, what you want is to interview about Teresa being in prison” (Fargason). Inside Edition told Mr. Fargason that that was right. Mr. Fargason hung up on her. She called right back and said that she can just call all the TV stations in Macon and get filed footage of him. Mr. Fargason then called Liz Jarvis at WMAZ. Mr. Fargason said that she was good to him. He told her what was going on and asked for his number so she could call him right back. Five minutes later, she called Mr. Fargason back and told him that he had nothing to worry about. The news stations were not going to give out any information.
I have to admit that at first, when I was researching the evidence of the case, I believed that I could prove Teresa’s innocence and prove that it was the media that influenced the public on her guilt. What I realized later in my research was that the media did indeed have an influence but it was not what I expected. They had an influence on me believing that Teresa was innocent in the way that I saw they portrayed the case. I recently read an interesting quote by Sara Sun Beale that can relate to this topic and it says, “The news media are not mirrors, simply reflecting events in society. Rather, media content is shaped by economic and marketing considerations that frequently override traditional journalistic criteria for newsworthiness” (Beale).
It has been nearly 17 years after the murder and the media was still influencing opinions and they were mine. I am glad this happened though, because it just proves my point that the media does have a strong influence on our opinions and decisions, and to finish with a quote from a guy that knows about media, Marshall McLuhan says that “All media work us over completely” (McLuhan). He then says that “They are so persuasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered” (McLuhan).
Beale, Sara Sun, "The News Media’s Influence on Criminal Justice Policy: How Market-Driven News Promotes Punitiveness" . William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 48, pp. 397-418, 2006 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=964647
Fargason, Charles. Telephone interview. 12 Mar. 2007.
McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium is the Massage. New York: Random House, 1967.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Murray and Digital Storytelling
My computer is a medium just as a novel is a medium. The only difference is that my computer is a digital medium that has the potential to speak to a reader in many more ways than that of a novel. “For my experience in humanities computing has convinced me that some kinds of knowledge can be better represented in digital formats than they have been in print”. (Murray 6) However, there are advantages of narratives in print as well. For instance, most avid novel readers love the fact that they can read a story and imagine what they want to imagine without the author necessarily telling them what to imagine. Yes, the author in a way always attempts to paint pictures for the readers through words, but with a book of print, the reader can imagine what the whale looks like or what Huckleberry Finn looks like without somebody telling him or her EXACTLY what to visualize. But like what Janet H. Murray was saying in her successful medium of print, “Hamlet on the Holodeck”, is that “some kinds of knowledge can be better represented in digital formats”. (6)
Although Digital storytelling will never replace printed storytelling, it will continuously develop into a much desired way of creating and viewing stories. For many people in this era of new media and technological advancement, it has become a way of life with most young people not even realizing the drastic change. “All of them are drawn to the medium because they want to write stories that cannot be told in other ways”. (9) Just imagine watching a digital story. It is a whole different experience than reading most other novels that are in print. It can encompass music, pictures, voice-over, filmed footage, and yes, even text. This is not necessarily saying that it is any better than the older novels; rather it is showing that there is a whole new level of experiencing narratives. As Murray would say,”The computer looks more each day like the movie camera of the 1890s: truly revolutionary invention humankind is just on the verge of putting to use as a spellbinding storyteller”. (2) Eventually nobody will even be discussing this new medium because the older will pass on and the younger will get older. This new media will eventually be old and only by studying history, will someone be able to realize the advancements we are blessed with.
Murray, Janet. Hamlet on the Holodeck. 4th. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001.
Although Digital storytelling will never replace printed storytelling, it will continuously develop into a much desired way of creating and viewing stories. For many people in this era of new media and technological advancement, it has become a way of life with most young people not even realizing the drastic change. “All of them are drawn to the medium because they want to write stories that cannot be told in other ways”. (9) Just imagine watching a digital story. It is a whole different experience than reading most other novels that are in print. It can encompass music, pictures, voice-over, filmed footage, and yes, even text. This is not necessarily saying that it is any better than the older novels; rather it is showing that there is a whole new level of experiencing narratives. As Murray would say,”The computer looks more each day like the movie camera of the 1890s: truly revolutionary invention humankind is just on the verge of putting to use as a spellbinding storyteller”. (2) Eventually nobody will even be discussing this new medium because the older will pass on and the younger will get older. This new media will eventually be old and only by studying history, will someone be able to realize the advancements we are blessed with.
Murray, Janet. Hamlet on the Holodeck. 4th. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Research 2: Chapter four of "O'Gormans E-Crit"
“What does this have to do with intelligence” (O’Gorman 72)? This question which is asked by O’Gorman in chapter four of E-Crit, refers to the retro game, Police Trainer. This is a game in which “the player takes aim at the targets using a frighteningly realistic handgun attached to the machine by a cable” (72). “The galleries are organized into such categories as ‘Speed’, ‘Marksmanship’, and ‘Intelligence’" (72). People typically get the impression that video games, television, and pretty much anything that has to do with entertainment media, does not expand our cognitive skills. O’Gorman looks into the concept of cognition developed by digital media and also by the typical scholarly ways of gaining knowledge or intelligence.
O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.
O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.
This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time and they can be used further by exercising the brain.
Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says to me, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear.
Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, but they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.
O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.
O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.
O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.
This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time and they can be used further by exercising the brain.
Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says to me, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear.
Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, but they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.
O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.
Research 2: Chapter four of O'Gormans E-Crit
“What does this have to do with intelligence” (O’Gorman 72)? This question which is asked by O’Gorman in chapter four of E-Crit, refers to the retro game, Police Trainer. This is a game in which “the player takes aim at the targets using a frighteningly realistic handgun attached to the machine by a cable” (72). “The galleries are organized into such categories as ‘Speed’, ‘Marksmanship’, and ‘Intelligence’” (72). People typically get the impression that video games, television, and pretty much anything that has to do with entertainment media, does not expand our cognitive skills. O’Gorman looks into the concept of cognition developed by digital media and also by the typical scholarly ways of gaining knowledge or intelligence.
O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.
O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.
This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time that could be used further by exercising the brain.Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear. Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, buy they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.
O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.
O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.
O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.
This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time that could be used further by exercising the brain.Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear. Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, buy they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.
O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.
Research 2: Chapter four of O'Gormans E-Crit
“What does this have to do with intelligence” (O’Gorman 72)? This question which is asked by O’Gorman in chapter four of E-Crit, refers to the retro game, Police Trainer. This is a game in which “the player takes aim at the targets using a frighteningly realistic handgun attached to the machine by a cable” (72). “The galleries are organized into such categories as ‘Speed’, ‘Marksmanship’, and ‘Intelligence’” (72). People typically get the impression that video games, television, and pretty much anything that has to do with entertainment media, does not expand our cognitive skills. O’Gorman looks into the concept of cognition developed by digital media and also by the typical scholarly ways of gaining knowledge or intelligence.
O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.
O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.
This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time that could be used further by exercising the brain.Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear. Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, buy they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.
O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.
O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.
O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.
This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time that could be used further by exercising the brain.Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear. Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, buy they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.
O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)