Top 10
I think the Persuasive Techniques are so important – having learned them and how they are used, I now see them everywhere. Identifying the techniques is a valuable skill for students to have.
Toxic Sludge is Good for You. This film’s exposure of how the PR industry is used in the media was really eye-opening, especially the part about the VNRs – interesting information for my Public Issues students to consider.
Consuming Kids – great film – I want to learn more about the Nag Factor. I think my students will appreciate seeing parts of this.
Basic Brain Functions – priceless! It helps so much to understand in very simple terms how our brain(s) process information and images – it really makes understanding some of the manipulative techniques used in media easier to see.
Project Censored – I have always read the Seven Days issue with these stories and wondered where they came from – now I know and can use this in my classroom.
Democracy Now! What a great and compelling film – perfect for me to use in class as we discuss the current conflicts in the Middle East and how the media reports.
How do we decide what we believe? I look forward to using this activity in my classroom. I think it will be a great activity for students.
Follow the Money activity: Who Owns My Media Faves? This activity will help students to see directly the corporate ownership of our media and thus contemplate the impacts of it on our democracy.
Untold Stories activity. I think this one is great for helping students to see media messages from alternative points of view.
Feed – I am hoping to find a way to incorporate parts of Feed into my M.E. unit that I teach. What a great book for the times that we live in.
I am still thinking about:
Ways to incorporate more meia literacy into other areas of my curriculum (Media in a Time of War to talk about pros/cons of embedded journalim, for example).
If I can find a way to use portions of Feed in my Public Issues class as part of my media education unit.How excited I am to teach the unit(s) that I developed for this class!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Response to Cohen and Hodgkinson articles
Wow. Tom Hodgkinson's article was quite enlightening and sobering. Part of me knows that data is being collected on me with everything that I do, pretty much in life, but learning about the different relationships of the players behind Facebook puts it into a new light. Two quotes in particular really stood out for me in the article. The first was "Far from connecting us, Facebook actually isolates us at our workstations." I think there is some definite truth to this. It's funny - I have a Facebook account and I've friended people that I always thought about keeping in touch with, but never had the means to: friends in Austria and China, and old high school friends. Funny thing is that since we initially reconnected on Facebook, we have posted next to nothing to each other. I guess I find it pretty impersonal to just post messages like that. Plus I have a lot more important things to do like being a teacher and parent.
The second quote that struck me was, "Facebook appeals to a kind of vanity and self-importance in us, too." This is certainly true and as was mentioned in the Twitter articles, the narcissism is very prevalent in these online "tools." It is noteworthy that so many people (myself included - although I really try to limit the information that I put on the Web) have been willing to give up so much of their privacy, really in the name of being entertained. It's a little scary the amount of data about us that is accessible to the government and big corporations.
Students love Facebook. Regarding educational use, I think we must talk with them about the implications of putting themselves out there on the web, and the possible consequences of what they post and the data about themselves when they give their information away for free.
Cohen's article made me feel a little more friendly toward Twitter - it was nice to hear the positive things that she had to say. I might give Twitter a little more of a chance, but I think I'm going to be cautious with Facebook.
The second quote that struck me was, "Facebook appeals to a kind of vanity and self-importance in us, too." This is certainly true and as was mentioned in the Twitter articles, the narcissism is very prevalent in these online "tools." It is noteworthy that so many people (myself included - although I really try to limit the information that I put on the Web) have been willing to give up so much of their privacy, really in the name of being entertained. It's a little scary the amount of data about us that is accessible to the government and big corporations.
Students love Facebook. Regarding educational use, I think we must talk with them about the implications of putting themselves out there on the web, and the possible consequences of what they post and the data about themselves when they give their information away for free.
Cohen's article made me feel a little more friendly toward Twitter - it was nice to hear the positive things that she had to say. I might give Twitter a little more of a chance, but I think I'm going to be cautious with Facebook.
Response to Twitter Articles
I can see some pros and cons of Twitter - I think it's potential as a effective tool for discourse amongst a large and diverse group of people is huge. The obvious problems is geting through all of the irrelevant "junk" information that people post about themselves. I began using Twitter, but like my Facebook updates, I enjoyed it initially, but after a while, posting personal updates became meaningless to me. Like the subject in Thompson's article, "who cares what I am doing, every hour of the day...Even I don't care." But many people have found a use for and a love for Twitter, so more power to them. I believe that Postman would have a hard time with Twitter as it just adds to the clutter of information that needs to be sorted through to find meaningful dialogue. And in his mind, information gluts lead to "the problem of diminished social and political potency." (p. 69). Twitter is certain to add to the problem of information glut. Will it be worth it in the long run to put up with the glut in the pursuit of meaningful discourse? I think the answer for me personally is yet to be determined.
I do think it's great that the users of Twitter are the ones who came up with so many of the Twitter enhancements and apps. For people to be improving an online tool, and then sharing that with others seems pretty cool to me.
I also think about the political consequences of tools like these - the use of Twitter to organize protests in China, and to get news out of Iran, a country with a state-run media. These events demonstrate that governments who want to control the access of information within their borders are going to have to figure out how to deal with these tools.
I do think it's great that the users of Twitter are the ones who came up with so many of the Twitter enhancements and apps. For people to be improving an online tool, and then sharing that with others seems pretty cool to me.
I also think about the political consequences of tools like these - the use of Twitter to organize protests in China, and to get news out of Iran, a country with a state-run media. These events demonstrate that governments who want to control the access of information within their borders are going to have to figure out how to deal with these tools.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Response to Cascio, Carr and Postman
I began by reading the Get Smarter article since I had previously read the Google article by Nicholas Carr, thinking it would be helpful to read the new article and then review what I had already read to get the best perspective. As I worked through the Get Smart article, I felt myself getting a little angry and maybe a little defensive. I think the first thing that bothered me about the article was the tone of the author. I felt that he was kind of speaking down to the audience – perhaps that’s just me. I much preferred Carr’s approach with fully disclosing that he might not be right and we had perfect reason to question his arguments.
All that aside, I found the Cascio article to be somewhat disturbing in its view of the future. Apparently Cascio anticipates this reaction as he remarks, “ looking a generation ahead might seem surreal and dizzying. But remember: people living in, say 2030 will have lived every moment from now until then…” I can see how the scenario he describes become easier to accept when looked at it over the course of 20 or so years – we have seen incredibly significant changes in the last 20 years and it all seems kind of normal on a day to day basis. Yet I cannot buy into some of the basic premises of his philosophy. For example, his idea that Twitter can eventually learn what messages we pay attention to, and eventually be able to recognize our own “ambiguous desires” is too much like the world of Feed for me and something I simply don’t desire. I also do not agree with his ideas about using pharmaceuticals to increase our mental capacities, similar to steroid use among athletes. “From the perspective of those who find that they’re much more productive using this form of enhancement, it’s no more cheating than getting a faster computer, or a better education.” I just don’t agree with this – call me old fashioned, if you like.
Despite my objections to parts of the article, I do agree with some of what Cascio says. I do believe that the increased use of technology does improve certain functions of our brains and that fluidity in thinking may be more important for the future than the idea that “accumulated information alone is a hallmark of intelligence.” But like Carr, I do think the technology is certain affecting our capabilities for deep reading. I certainly feel differently about how I read since becoming tuned into technology. I have to laugh at myself – I recently began a subscription to the Economist and when I looked at an issue that had just come in, I remarked to my husband how I really like how they have short snippets of major news events at the beginning of the magazine so I can get a sense of what is going on in the world without having to read all the lengthy article. Carr is at least somewhat critical of this format that the NY Times adopted recently.
I am glad that Carr point out that there is a fear of a loss of intelligence with each new groundbreaking tool that comes out (and perhaps his concerns are simply part of this backlash): Socrates with the fear of how the written word would lessen people’s need to carry as much information in their memories, for example. However, I do feel that as technology becomes more permeated throughout our society, we lose some of our sense of meaningful relationship and interactions, both human-to-human and human to nature.
Regarding Postman, I got the sense from Chapters 3 and 4 that Postman would feel uncomfortable with the direction that the technology could take us in if we just become plugged in mindless shells of people walking around. However, if we can improve our cognitive functioning, as Cascio envisions, how exciting that could be for public discourse.
All that aside, I found the Cascio article to be somewhat disturbing in its view of the future. Apparently Cascio anticipates this reaction as he remarks, “ looking a generation ahead might seem surreal and dizzying. But remember: people living in, say 2030 will have lived every moment from now until then…” I can see how the scenario he describes become easier to accept when looked at it over the course of 20 or so years – we have seen incredibly significant changes in the last 20 years and it all seems kind of normal on a day to day basis. Yet I cannot buy into some of the basic premises of his philosophy. For example, his idea that Twitter can eventually learn what messages we pay attention to, and eventually be able to recognize our own “ambiguous desires” is too much like the world of Feed for me and something I simply don’t desire. I also do not agree with his ideas about using pharmaceuticals to increase our mental capacities, similar to steroid use among athletes. “From the perspective of those who find that they’re much more productive using this form of enhancement, it’s no more cheating than getting a faster computer, or a better education.” I just don’t agree with this – call me old fashioned, if you like.
Despite my objections to parts of the article, I do agree with some of what Cascio says. I do believe that the increased use of technology does improve certain functions of our brains and that fluidity in thinking may be more important for the future than the idea that “accumulated information alone is a hallmark of intelligence.” But like Carr, I do think the technology is certain affecting our capabilities for deep reading. I certainly feel differently about how I read since becoming tuned into technology. I have to laugh at myself – I recently began a subscription to the Economist and when I looked at an issue that had just come in, I remarked to my husband how I really like how they have short snippets of major news events at the beginning of the magazine so I can get a sense of what is going on in the world without having to read all the lengthy article. Carr is at least somewhat critical of this format that the NY Times adopted recently.
I am glad that Carr point out that there is a fear of a loss of intelligence with each new groundbreaking tool that comes out (and perhaps his concerns are simply part of this backlash): Socrates with the fear of how the written word would lessen people’s need to carry as much information in their memories, for example. However, I do feel that as technology becomes more permeated throughout our society, we lose some of our sense of meaningful relationship and interactions, both human-to-human and human to nature.
Regarding Postman, I got the sense from Chapters 3 and 4 that Postman would feel uncomfortable with the direction that the technology could take us in if we just become plugged in mindless shells of people walking around. However, if we can improve our cognitive functioning, as Cascio envisions, how exciting that could be for public discourse.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Response to Wesch Videos
What I get from these videos is that technology is taking us to completely new places in how we communicate, learn, educate and think. We, as people who work near or in education need to find ways to use the technology to reach the digital natives and to be able to teach them how to use the technology responsibly as citizens. The technology opens up so many doors for learning, and yet so many doors for brainless and perhaps insidious activities. It is an exciting, but at the same time, scary cusp that we stand on with regard to technology and the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
