Racial Sensitivity in the Times

There was a story recently in the New York Times that talked about the best Christmas gifts for colored people. This story was published for a month before the author of this article came under fire for what she wrote. The African-American author was writing for a particular audience in her article. The criticism stated that the article was "offensive" and "out of touch."

For a world that celebrates diversity I don't see why this article would cause such an uproar. There are certain products geared towards certain races. That doesn't mean the companies are racist. They are just capitalizing on the wants and styles of that race. We don't have a problem that Sean Jean and Fubu have ads that show black people wearing there clothes most of the time. It is the same with Abercrombie and Fitch for white people. To point out that there are gifts that might be more appropriate for a certain race than others isn't racist. Do we really have to watch that closely what we say to not affend every culture, race, religion, and other sensitivities? That would be censorship. It is necessary to watch what we say but sometimes society gets ridiculous with these rules. When it comes to race there will always be a discrepancy between people.

Editors are supposed to choose which stories to publish and this story did pass. There was a reason why this story was published. It might have been to possibly extend its reader diversity or offer more diversity in the paper itself but that really isn't the point here. The editors thought it was appropriate for its audience but you can't make everyone happy. At the end of the day there is plenty more to be worried about in the news than a story about Christmas gifts. We have made plenty of advancements in the equality of everyone which is why a section for black people shouldn't be over analyzed as "offensive." Worrying about stuff like this takes our attention of the big issues right now which are government spending and the welfare of our nation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1028

Cosmo Magazine

I found this article on Cosmopolitan Magazine and thought it was interesting. I have read Cosmo before, but have never realized just how big of an impact it has made. I have used tricks to make my hair grow longer, different make up methods, and analyzed different types of boys all from the very persuasive pages of this magazine.

In this article it talks about just how much of an impact this magazine has on its audience. Targeted at young women and teenagers, the pages are filled with tips to look sexy and different tips to help the relationship with your man. All girls want to feel sexy, so they take the tips and trades of this influential magazine and incorporate the way they tell you to dress and act into their everyday life. It may not be drastic, but there is still change occurring from this influence. Another main point Cosmo focuses on is attracting boys. Well for the normal girl, this is interesting, because of course they want to attract guys. Certain acts and flirting techniques are discussed and sometimes put into action by the readers to lure in that cute boy.

This magazine shows that not only media through the TV can have such a great impact on the young population, but what they read, see, and act upon can also influence them in big ways.

Check out this article: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2063249/cosmopolitan_magazine_and_gender_stereotypes.html?cat=69

Second Life

I had a class this semester where we used the program Second Life to attend two different classes. This program allowed us to attend class from the comfort of our own rooms in our pajamas. We were still able to see the power points, and actually hear our professor's lecture. Second Life also allowed us to raise our hands and ask questions during the lecture by using a chat bar similar to instant messaging. He also took attendance in these classes. After having these classes I decided to look into it.

Some distance learning courses can be taken solely through second life. Through the Second Life experience, some teachers believe the students will have a sense of community and interaction, creating a virtual college campus. The use of Second Life is becoming more and more popular, and more colleges are creating virtual campuses through this program.

Some other uses for Second Life have been for students to learn other languages. They can attend a class on a certain language, then interact with different people using this particular language such as English or Spanish.

I can't help but think that more and more classes will be held in Second Life, and soon a whole schedule of classes could be held on the virtual Texas A&M campus.

Check out these links: www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/11/13/second.life.../index.html

http://secondlifegrid.net/slfe/education-use-virtual-world

Relationships Through the Book

The media is popping out new things here and there, changing how we communicate with one another and how we live out basic daily duties. Facebook is a fairly new technology that has society connecting many of its routines and fundamentals. It also has a major way on how we interact together and how we form relationships. Compared to past forms of social media, Facebook allows you to connect with people from all around the world; those from your past and random acquaintances. It affects our social, work and romantic relationships. My presentation discussed examples in all these categories. While it has down falls, the expanding number of members shows the benefits are worth the risks.
Facebook has become some popular mainly due to the fact that is accesiable and convenient. It is also less taxing than direct communication. It allows being members to consume new content and stay in touch with new content being shared. It is very audience generated, allowing you to post and create whatever you would like for your page.
While Facebook is helpful in maintaining friendships, it also is a misrepresentation of our social network in that they most people only stay in contact with a small group of friends. So while Facebook keeps us connected to people from all over the world, in reality we only communicate with those we are already tightly connected to. But the point of this is that while not all friends are close, it does explain why things spread so quickly on Facebook. And while most people that you call your “friends” in reality they are most likely people you met randomly through out sometime in your like. So while your friendships with other members of Facebook might not be “personal,” they are “social” and keep you connected with one another. This can be important when dealing with the work field, because we can think of these friends as “alliances” that can lead to new opportunities. A quick introduction could lead to a friendship that could last years if one was willing to place time through communicating with them on Facebook. Businesses also use Facebook to survey members and develop new marketing patterns to gain more consumers’ attention. The last type of relationship that can be interpreted with in Facebook, is the romantic one. Most people have heard the saying, “It’s not official till it’s on Facebook” and with the video I showed, it proved that Facebook is important when developing a new romance. Studies have also show that Facebook can lead to more jealousy toward romantic partners, which in turns leads to even more time on Facebook. People are exposed to more information of their partners when involved on Facebook, leading to trust problems and other troubles.
Facebook has offered plenty of new advances in the way we interact with the world. It opens up all new doors and continues to change the way we network and communicate. I asked what students what they think Facebook will be like in two years and many of them expressed that they believe it will continue to grow and become more advanced, allowing for more business applications to be used. Some voiced that they do not believe that it will be extremely prominent in the business work-field and that email will be the main source of via communication. But the easiness and accessabiility of Facebook will obviously lead to many new advances in New Media and how relationships with others are form.

Comcast Buys NBC

I found this article at Wired.com that was recently posted, Comcast Buys NBC, Clouding Online TV’s Future. This merger raises an interesting point. In this class, we have discussed the idea of "Who Controls the Network?" In this merger of these two very large and influential companies in the media business, we are seeing the integration of a company that creates content and one that gives access to content. By combining these two companies, both net neutrality (by a company that already has had its hand slapped by the FCC for its dubious throttling practices) and free speech are threatened. If this deal goes through, it may be argued that Comcast/NBC will control the network. In the article, it describes a scenario where tv shows posted online created by NBC might only be accessible through a Comcast connection. This is only one of many possible dire outcomes of such a substantial merging of a content provider and service provider.

Facebook as a New Media Frontier

This past Tuesday, I presented my Case Study about New Media. I primarily focused on the different aspects of Facebook and how it is slowly becoming a frontier for New Media. With the many attractive features that this social networking site has available to its account holders, it is no wonder how Facebook is becoming a phenomenon across the entire globe. However, with the growing features of Facebook comes a price that many consumers are not fully aware of. Users must take caution in what they put up on their personal web pages as well as be wary of any applications they decide to add.

During my presentation, I explained what we consider to be “New” Media in the eyes of the consumers. I explained that New Media has six different categories that it can belong to, including: Digital, Interactivity, Audience Generated, Asynchronous Communication, Narrowcasting, and Multimedia forms. Upon closer examination of each of these categories, it is easy to see how the world of Facebook is quickly expanding into the realm of New Media. Facebook can be considered part of practically all of these categories. So, when presented with the question, “What is “new” about “New Media”, we can see that Facebook is the unification of all six categories. The world of Facebook is entirely digital, as it is only accessible through a computer. It is interactive, seeing as how many of the applications that the users are allowed to add are various mini-games that they can play during their spare time. It is also almost completely audience generated, seeing as how each user has their own unique personal web page. Users can choose to view the website at any time they please, making it a good example of Asynchronous communication. Facebook also has narrowed their advertisements to specifically cater to each unique user, thus making it a viable example of narrowcasting. Finally, Facebook provides links to other sorts of websites through their advertisements that pertain to whatever each unique user is interested, a trait that multimedia forms is known for. When I asked the class how Facebook could expand in terms of New Media, I suggested that it could also integrate parts of “old” media, such as television and music. Creating an application wouldn’t be very hard to include television websites such as Hulu as well as music websites such as Last.fm.

With the addition of these two media outlets, Facebook could potentially become the milestone of the past 10 years in media mediums. Not only would it include every single aspect of “New Media”, but it could also incorporate the aspects of “Old Media” in order to revolutionize the way the modern world works. Facebook is truly changing the way everyone lives their lives, creating virtual relationships and virtual friendships.

On Thursday, I presented a case study on standardization in mobile technology in the United States and Europe/Asia. In the United States, the FCC decided not to set a mobile technology standard, instead deciding to allow for competition, industry, and the free market to decide its own standard. They believed that the competition would drive innovation in the field. Instead, three incompatible technologies emerged that has prevented the United States from progressing as quickly as other countries. In Europe/Asia, they adopted a single standard. Using this one standard has allowed them to update their systems more efficiently, quickly, and cheaply than the United States.

In my case study, I examined the question: what social and economic forces influence communication infrastructure? I would argue that various cultural influences in the countries in question resulted in their current mobile technology infrastructure. In the United States, there is a fear of big government and over-regulation/interference, tradition of isolationism, ultimate belief in the free market’s superiority, and an individualistic culture. These views may have lead the United States to decide against a standard. In Europe/Asia, there is a tradition of compromise, standardization, and corroboration across countries. For example, they have worked together on public transportation, transportation across borders, standardization of the Euro, etc. Also, many of these countries have in the past (and, in some cases, present) had collectivistic cultures or governments. These views and past collaborations may have allowed for such standardization across so many countries.

During discussion, I asked whether government setting a standard or letting the free market determine its own standards was better. Several students seemed to think that setting a standard sounded like it would allow for quicker innovation. I would have to agree. Looking at Europe as an example, it seems to have allowed them to update quickly enough to be several years ahead of us in mobile technology. Also, I asked whether quick and compatible innovation/upgrading or the preservation of the free market and business with less regulation in mobile industries was more important. One opinion expressed was that the preservation of the free market was more important in this instance than the compatible technologies. I can understand this point of view, because the government getting too involved in industry can definitely lead to mishaps. However, I believe that in the instance of fundamental communication infrastructure, standardization is a necessary evil. In some ways, by choosing a standard, we are giving up some possibilities that other standards could have offered. However, this opportunity cost seems less than the cost of not setting a standard which leads to slow innovation/upgrading, incompatibilities, and increased set up/upgrading costs.