A professor wearing a full tuxedo came up to us. "It's nice to just forget about the swine flu and everything else for one night as we celebrate these students' achievements."

I smiled. Was this guy serious? Did people actually worry about that stuff? Maybe he was just trying to make small talk, but I had to wonder. The awards banquet went on through the night, a few coughs were heard, but as I had suspected, it appeared the swine flu had not taken any victims.

I guess I wasn't exactly surprised when the professor brought up that subject. It was a hot item that everyone knew about, and I didn't quite take him as a Daily Show watcher. Whenever I meet someone, I try to examine their knowledge of certain aforementioned items as well as their sense of humor, in order to get an idea of where they get their news from. I tend to get my news from a variety of sources, mostly online, but I love to partake in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart every once in a while to get a satirical view of the rest of the media. When I hear someone joke about something such as the swine flu, I get the impression that they too might watch The Daily Show. Jon Stewart doesn't pretend to be unbiased; he never hides the fact that he is an uber-liberal Jewish man. Jon Stewart found his niche on the Comedy Central network, but the question remains: should Jon Stewart be taken more seriously? Should his show be given the same attention mainstream news outlets receive?

I have found the show to be quite the phenomenon in today's society; it has become more and more popular among young adults as they have become disheartened by mainstream news outlets. It is not meant to be taken as an actual news source; however, it sometimes seems to offer a more real and upfront approach to the news than mainstream outlets. Given Stewart's history of acting in "stoner" films, it is unlikely he'll ever be given total respect, but anyone who watches his criticisms of controversial politicians or mainstream news shows has to give him credit for what he does.

In the past weeks, "swine flu" has been all the rage in the media. Every new infected individual brings about more headlines while media types warn us to stay inside and cover our mouths when we cough. Even Vice President Joe Biden was aired on mainstream news stations, stating "If you're out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it's a different thing." After listening to his comments, I couldn't help myself from laughing out loud. I never liked the man, but this seemed beyond ridiculous. Was Biden honestly scared for his life and everyone else's, or was he just using scare tactics? If he was just using scare tactics, were they being used for the good of the public? Was that the morally-correct thing to do?

I personally had no interest in worrying about this flu scare. I had never gotten a flu shot in the past, and even while this one was said to be much different, I'd rather go about my normal routine. Rather than watch constant updates about new cases and more warnings about how to protect myself, I turned to The Daily Show for some comic relief. In his segment labeled Snoutbreak "09, Stewart poked fun at the numerous names being given to the strain and also showed the clip of Vice President Biden. It truly was a relief to see I wasn't the only one who found "Swine Flu" humorous. For weeks, the mainstream media had been attempting to scare the shit out of people over something that showed little sign of becoming an actual epidemic. It now appears that the mainstream media is accepting that it may not be as serious as they once expected.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Snoutbreak '09 - What to Call Swine Flu
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

In a May 4th video update on CNN, a reporter (who seems a little too energized for my comfort level) in Hong Kong discusses a small scare at a Hotel where a suspected case of the flu was contracted. Because of this, the entire hotel was quarantined in order to reduce the possiblity of its spread. However, days later, no one has shown signs of the virus but everyone is still being forced to stay in the building. It brings up the question as to whether we are all overreacting a little bit and if the mainstream has caused this hysteria.

In Rachel Smolkin's article, "What the Mainstream Media can Learn from Jon Stewart," she gets perspectives from many columnists and distinguished people who offer their take on The Daily Show. Phil Rosenthal, media columnist for The Chicago Tribune, discusses why he feels the show resonates so strongly with a lot of people."It's actually kind of a surefire way to appeal to people because if the news itself isn't entertaining, then the way it's covered, the breathless conventions of TV news, are always bankable. You can always find something amusing there." Rosenthal suggests that it is how Stewart can take the larger picture of how the news is being presented, or rather how it is being manipulated, which really appeals to people. Jon Stewart essentially acts as a fact-checker in many situations, taking clips of politicians or newscasters saying one thing and then contradicting themselves at another time. While this can be incredibly helpful in revealing manipulation, his medium of a comedy show acts as somewhat of a barrier to the effectiveness he could be achieving.

Media types argue back and forth as to whether Jon Stewart's show can really be taken as news. Whether or not his show truly fits the definition of news is not important to me. He has brought an iron fist to reporting and become symbolic of a new generation of people that are fed up with mainstream news media and appreciate the satirical view of our messed up world.

Pontifications of a Kindergartener

I was lucky. The others, not so much. Spending mornings with Bert and Ernie, Big Bird, and Cookie Monster had left many lost in their own world, unable to place a hand on reality. I hadn't known at first what it was that was turning my friends and peers into mindless drones, but before long I had it figured out. My parents wouldn't take my findings seriously though. Not even my teachers, surely the smartest people I knew, would listen.

I told them, "THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE!"

They laughed. Told me I was cute. Told me to go play ball. I was furious.

"Don't you see?! It is not the content but rather that which is subtle, that which subconsciously alters the way we perform. That is what will have the greatest impact years from now. Don't you see?!"

Judging by their wandering eyes and rather disturbing disinterest in my pontification, I diagnosed them as lost causes, too far gone to even be helped. I realized if I were to save the world, I would have to do some research to get to the root of it all.

While I was not quite a master of reading yet, I sounded out words and eventually made it through several essays which further proved my point. I wasn't alone. Men by the names of Marshall McLuhan and Mark Federman described the phenomenon exactly as I had suspected. The people were clueless to what was happening, but every day they were being altered through the mediums in which they interacted with the world. The phenomenon was nothing new, only the mediums and the effects the mediums had upon society. Federman eloquently described what McLuhan meant by the term "medium" in his essay, "What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message?"

Classically, he suggests that a hammer extends our arm and that the wheel extends our legs and feet. Each enables us to do more than our bodies could do on their own. Similarly, the medium of language extends our thoughts from within our mind out to others. (Federman)

I took note to make this clearer to the drones next time and I delved further into Federman as he interpreted McLuhan.

McLuhan tells us that a "message" is, "the change of scale or pace or pattern" that a new invention or innovation "introduces into human affairs." (McLuhan 8) Note that it is not the content or use of the innovation, but the change in inter-personal dynamics that the innovation brings with it. Thus, the message of theatrical production is not the musical or the play being produced, but perhaps the change in tourism that the production may encourage. In the case of a specific theatrical production, its message may be a change in attitude or action on the part of the audience that results from the medium of the play itself, which is quite distinct from the medium of theatrical production in general. (Federman)

I scribbled furiously in my neatest cursive, trying to place my thoughts into comprehendible sentences even my teachers might understand:

A hammer is a medium through which people extend their arms, allowing them to drive nails. The message of this medium is now that people can build better houses, the living standard may increase and society will grow. The television show, Sesame Street, is a medium through which children extend their brains, allowing them to learn while also being entertained. The message of this medium is that children may become accustomed to the rapidly changing segments and their long-term focus will suffer as a result. Messages from mediums can better society, worsen society, or possibly both, but it is often not obvious until long after the medium has taken a foothold in society.

So that much was clear. I had developed a means to explain why my friends and peers were losing interest in the spelling of 3-letter words, but what came next? Could a new medium disrupt society even more? Might we all revert to wearing diapers? With technology rapidly changing, who knew what to expect? I needed to learn more, so I returned to the research.

“Technological Determinism” populated multitudes of texts as I searched more, so I gave the term a look. The concept suggested technology actually determines the development of our culture and society, rather than changes in society determining the development of new technology. It went hand-in-hand with McLuhan’s comments on mediums and messages. I scribbled more:

Technology is an ever-changing phenomenon. With each new invention, society adapts as the inventions are integrated into our lives. For example, prior to the invention of the telephone, communication across long distances was a much slower and arduous process. Society embraced the telephone as writing letters to communicate across distances became inane. More deep-rooted societal effects eventually became visible such as poorer face-to-face communication.

If I wanted to save my peers, I would need to understand how the Cookie Monster got on to TV in the first place. Did the invention of television cause society to demand a furry creature that loved cookies and taught us to spell? With a little more research, I figured I may just dispel the mystery. I picked through Marshall McLuhan’s, “Understanding Radio,” and deciphered his discussion on what he referred to as “hot” and “cool” mediums. Radio, he offered, was a “hot” medium. It extends one single sense in “high-definition” which in turn means low audience participation. TV, on the other hand, was what he called a “cool” medium because it is high in participation by the audience. As people desire different aspects from each different medium, individuals may view the same material differently when it is presented across different mediums.

If McLuhan was right about this, it explained exactly what I needed to know. Across the “cool” medium of television, my naïve counterparts grasped at the opportunity to participate with the television and became hopelessly addicted. I was proud of what I had concluded, but I still needed get my message across. That was another day though; there were still five minutes left of recess.

Matt is... going 24 hours without his cell phone. Please write a letter if you need to contact him.

I awoke to my phone vibrating with the influx of texts and emails it usually gets in the morning. Shit! I had forgotten about my phone automatically turning on at 9:15 in the morning. I resisted the terribly strong urge to look and held down the red power button. It would be a long day.

Thursday morning was one I rather would not have gotten up for. Sleep deprived, slightly hung over, and feeling the beginnings of a cold, I twisted my body to the side and grabbed the half empty handle of Seagram’s Seven from under my bed. I might need this today. I put it back and slept off and on until about 12 when I forced myself to get up. I had made plans to pick up my girlfriend exactly at 2 when we would spend the day enjoying the beautiful outdoors. Today was cloudy, rainy, and dull though. It was more of a sit around and watch TV day. Yes, it would be a long day.

After showering and grabbing a quick bite, I hopped in my truck and didn’t enjoy any music on my 45 minute ride to my girlfriend’s house. I don’t remember the last time I had done such a thing. It just seemed natural to have some music playing.

This was only the second time I had been to her father’s house but I felt I had a good enough idea of how to get there that I’d be able to make it without using the Google Maps application I so conveniently have on my phone. Fortunately, my one wrong turn allowed me to arrive exactly at 2 instead of about 5 minutes earlier. I got out of my car and knocked on her door. Weird.

After hiking for about a minute and a half on a trail in Patapsco Valley State Park, we decided it was a bad day for hiking and turned around to go to my car. We drove to the city. We drove to Towson. We ate. We pondered what to do next. I really wanted to call someone. However, I found myself rather entertained for about an hour when we went to my favorite thrift store, Value Village.

I would have happily spent a longer time there had my girlfriend not been showing boredom, but it was time to do something else. We drove more. We drove to Michael’s. Not some guy named Michael, but that arts and crafts store. I’m tempted to leave this part out for the reader’s sake. I will. It was terribly unexciting, so we decided to return to nature.

There is a place I regularly go in the summer with my friends that we refer to as the Cliffs. It is located somewhere in the Loch Raven Reservoir and requires a little hike past a police shooting range, but is completely worth it. It isn’t technically legal, so the trail is often covered up, but I knew I’d be able to find my way. I was wrong about that, but there were over seven hours left without cell phones and TV, so we continued to hike in random directions, determined to find our way. About twenty minutes later, we saw water. It was beautiful.

Within ten minutes we arrived at the cliffs and took in the view. The sun set below the trees and I grabbed my whiskey to celebrate how far I had made it. We ate peach pie. Peach pie and whiskey. As the last light was fading, we took off. Surprisingly, it was much easier to find the way to my car with no light.

We arrived at my house around 9 something and played Scrabble. My girlfriend, used to playing Scrabble on Facebook, demanded she be able to use the dictionary to aid her. I felt this was cheating, but allowed it anyway. The night grew later as my score nearly tripled hers. It always feels good to win, but I was tired of Scrabble and hiking and lameness.

The clock struck 12. Oh wondrous technology! I turned on the TV and it soothed my jangled nerves. I didn’t even watch it but it was wonderful.

I blasted music as I drove 80 mph down 695 at 2 in the morning to her house. I got a cigar on the way back and listened to London Calling in its entirety. I was just glad it was over.

Looking back on the whole day, it really wasn’t so bad. The one thing I missed the most was music. I severely missed my cell phone, but it allowed me to spend a whole day uninterrupted with my girlfriend.

The Way of the Hybrid

Watching the Penn and Teller video in which random people were convinced, without lying, to sign a petition banning water, assured me that the majority of people today are incapable of processing complex thought when spoken to. Imagery rules in today’s society. Most people do not visualize problems as well when heard as opposed to when they are read or viewed. Don’t get me wrong, I do not think that written communication is actually superior to spoken communication. I find it ridiculous to claim that one is better than the other. Different situations always allow one to be more effective than the other. We often hear what we want to hear and take in little of what we don’t already comprehend. This creates a situation where peoples’ insecurities force them to be easily influenced. Oftentimes, this is exactly the goal of the speaker: to influence a person or group of people and persuade them to do something. If comprehension is the goal, I feel that written communication is the more effective method. In this era of fast information however, it is the merging of oration with visual aides that reigns superior.

In the Penn and Teller video, a woman walks around a rally where people are gathered to raise awareness of environmental issues. One by one, she asks people to sign a petition banning “dihydrogen monoxide,” a substance that can be found in food, pesticides, etc. and one by one, the people sign it. It is rather hilarious to watch, but could you honestly say you wouldn’t do the same thing?

The situation is a trick. It forces people to act without thinking. Our natural reaction is to sign the petition because we want to please those we think of as like-minded people. The question is: would such a petition receive a similar response if it were, say, hosted on a website devoted to improving the environment? Without actually testing it, it is impossible to know.

Documentaries have increased in popularity as people have lost interest in non-fiction literature. This is in part due to the fact that most people want the most relevant information in as quick a way as possible. Reading has essentially become work to the majority of people instead of entertainment. As we live in an era where information is always at our fingertips, it is not surprising that we shove away anything less convenient to us.

I see documentaries as an effective way of communication. We are compelled to watch them because it is convenient, and the combination of visuals with guiding narration makes them easy to follow.

We learn a surprising amount when we want to. The same way we get addicted to a TV show or a good book, we can also get addicted to a subject we’re passionate about. Once we have developed that passion, spending time learning about it becomes enjoyable and easy. I can only assume that earlier generations read more because it was the primary method of communication.

Written communication is still prevalent in today’s society. It is just changing dramatically in the wake of cell phone texting and blogs. These new forms of communication have turned what many considered a fine art into something much simpler. Popular journalism is transforming from delivering facts to sharing opinions. More specifically, people are choosing what to read based on the contingent they most closely identify with. Recent articles in the Washington Post give conflicting views as to the effect this is having on us. One, The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading, by Howard Gardner, suggests that presentation of knowledge always changes, pessimists of this change will always exist, and we must accept the change as evolution of society.

A master of written Greek, Plato feared that written language would undermine human memory capacities (much in the same way that we now worry about similar side effects of "Googling"). But libraries made the world's knowledge available to anyone who could read. The 15th-century printing press disturbed those who wanted to protect and interpret the word of God, but the availability of Bibles in the vernacular allowed laypeople to take control of their spiritual lives and, if historians are correct, encouraged entrepreneurship in commerce and innovation in science. (Gardner)

Another article, The Dumbing of America, by Susan Jacoby, suggests the regression of society due to the decline in reading of books and proper literature. Raised by a writer and founding editor of her own literary magazine, I can’t help but at least see Jacoby’s point. I regularly edit papers that my friends write and spend surprising amounts of time fixing simple spelling and grammatical errors. We all make mistakes, but I feel it is somewhat pathetic given my friends are all college students and writing is an important aspect of success in the real world. Jacoby points to video as the main reason for the dumbing of our society.

Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.

First and foremost among the vectors of the new anti-intellectualism is video. The decline of book, newspaper and magazine reading is by now an old story. The drop-off is most pronounced among the young, but it continues to accelerate and afflict Americans of all ages and education levels. (Jacoby)

I hesitate to classify video simply as spoken communication for the simple reason that video incorporates visual aides as well. In today’s society, websites such as Youtube have become a hub for information sharing in the form of video. Video allows explanation that could never be done by simply talking or writing about something. Just this past summer, I took up an interest in playing the drums. Instructional videos on Youtube helped me quickly learn techniques and exercises that could have only been explained easier with the help of an actual instructor.

It is the merging of various types of communication which reign superior in today’s society. Written communication remains an effective way to share information with a literate audience, spoken communication dominates in the world of persuasion, but visuals improve comprehension no matter the level of intelligence of an audience.

Cellphonedectomy

I hadn’t thought about turning my cell phone off. It was the one day of the year I thought I could ask to have off work without any problems. However, on August 22, 2006, after waking up at noon and heading to my friend’s house, I received a call from my boss.

“Hello, Matt?” “This is Anthony from Graul’s. I need you to come in today.”

“…I asked off over a month ago. Today is my birthday”

“Joe was in an accident and George isn’t picking up his phone. Plenty of other people work on their birthdays. You can come in at five.”

Shit! Why did I pick up my phone?

“Uhhh… I kind of already made plans.”

“Oh yeah, where are you?!”

“I…” Click.

Well, my boss never really liked me. He just wasn’t that nice of a guy. After that I’m pretty sure his feelings about me exceeded dislike. I only wish I had some other employers to use as references. However, the point of this story exceeds my contempt for my old job. While I often feel like I’m missing some important organ without my cell phone, I can’t help but realize the negative reality associated with the constant connection to everyone who has my number or can find it.

Gradually, the more I think about it, the more I become disgusted with my personal attachment to my cell phone and my descent away from face-to-face interactions. What a sad state mankind must be in when the majority of informal interactions take place in the form of poorly-spelled text messages. While I can’t blame anyone but myself for how I interact with others, modern technology simply fuels this desire to say things quick and be done.

Lately I’ve been watching some old black and white movies. A man is desperately in love, separated from his lover by some terrible inconvenience. He pours his heart out on a piece of paper and sends it. She reads it and the desires wells up inside her. Reunited, they are like one, and the look in each other’s eyes is one of pure love. Granted, it is a story wrought to invoke feelings of longing, etc., but it is a story of generations past that simply would not happen in our society of cell phones and email. It seems like something is lost when we’re always just a cell phone’s call away from our closest acquaintances.

If I remembered to do so this past Christmas, the last letter I sent was likely a thank you note. Every winter I tell myself I’ll be better at doing so, but laziness and forgetfulness often overwhelm the desire to be a better person. There is something more unique and personal about a hand-written letter that communication such as email simply can’t provide.

Two summers ago I spent a few weeks in Germany with a girl I knew and her family. Before I had even thought about sending a letter thanking the family for their wonderful hospitality, I received one in the mail. My friend’s mother, who spoke decent, but limited English, wrote a long letter in perfect English thanking me for being such a wonderful presence in her house. I was awestruck by this notion. This was the same woman who asked no questions when allowing me to stay at her house, cooked amazing meals for me every day, and drove hours back and forth from the airport. I still keep the letter she sent to remember the amazing experience.

After receiving that letter, I made sure to immediately write one with an almost exorbitant amount of praise. I know that if I were to just write an email in response to her letter, she would likely feel I did not appreciate her hospitality. Maybe this is a good thing that letters are still regarded so highly; we must overcome our acquired laziness.

A trend I have noticed lately is the increase in the amount of blogs. In an article entitled “Culture Clash: Journalism and the Communal Ethos of the Blogosphere,” the history of these web logs is examined and talks of how they gained in popularity. I found it funny reading this article as two of my current classes require me to write blogs, yet I had never created one before. It appears that blogging is completely revolutionizing the world of news. However, I have mixed feelings about this revolution. I think it is great that nearly anyone can share their opinion with the rest of the world, but I do worry for the people who write articles for newspapers. Print publication is in serious turmoil and this could be terrible news for writers and readers of these publications.

Me!

Hey everyone,

My name's Matt and this is the introductory post to my blog for Media & Communication Studies 222. I'm practically always connected to the internet, whether I'm in my dorm or at work. Most of my news I get electronically, usually from the Baltimore Sun website. I like going to Digg.com to get weird, and sometimes quite interesting news. However, I try to take a lot of the news I see with a grain of salt. I can't stand Fox news. I understand the media as something necessary, yet something that can have too much influence on the population. It often seems that in elections the media ultimately decides for the public, and I'm not okay with that.