PA10 – Steven Miller & Talia Lerol

Sherry Turkle, Can You Hear Me Now?

While Sherry Turkle makes many points in her Forbes article, her main thesis is that technology, specifically mobile communications technology, has denatured humanity. She posits that with our fast paced world of mobile communications technology we are neither truly ever alone nor truly with other people. We are losing ourselves and our sense of what is real. Turkle makes several lines of attack in this argument.

Firstly, Turkle points out that many people rely on technology to help manage their complex lives. The irony of this is that by increasing the efficiency by which we deal with our communications, we are capable of dealing with more, ultimately making our lives more complex, not less. In a world before smart phones and laptop computers, a person was unreachable outside of the office. Now we are always reachable, and expected to be so. This is destroying time for a person to focus, uninterrupted.

Next, Turkle turns to the development of the adolescent self, and the idea of being on your own. She points out that nearly all children nowadays have mobile phones, and are a call away from either their parents or a friend. While many parents see this as a feature, not a bug, Turkle wonders what is to come of a whole generation who has never been completely on their own. How independent can they be if they always have a fall back option?

Finally, Turkle argues that we are losing perspective on what is real, what is here and now. She recalls a student who felt like they were being “put on pause” by their friend when they took a phone call while the two walked down the street, talking. Why does the phone call take priority over the immediate and real-time conversation? Would you interrupt a phone call to start talking with a friend standing near by? No, but we do the reverse frequently.

Roz Chast’s New Yorker cartoon, immediately following Turkle in They Say, I Say reframes Romeo and Juliet as a series of instant messages. Chast seems to be making the point that, although stripped of the Shakespearean language, teenage relationships are eternal and will mold to new communication forms. To this, I believe, Turkle would argue that much is lost in an electronic courtship. Relieved of secrecy and intimacy, is Romeo and Juliet still a compelling tale?

We may be more connected than ever before, but are often more removed from other people’s humanity than ever before.

Dana Stevens "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box" is a direct response to Steven Johnson's essay " Watching TV makes you Smarter". Stevens said that she did not understand what his article was about. She did not really agree with anything besides that watching tv is okay-- you should'nt watch a lot of it but you should watch a decent amount of it.
Some things that Stevens seemed to talk a lot about was that Johnson metioned something the show 24 saying that it is "nutritional" but fails to mention that there was controversy over plot lines that had to do with torture and representation of Muslim terrorists in the show. But she does mention that the show did somehow get social issues into the show which can open viewers eyes about what is going on in the world. Another thing that Stevens mentioned was the TV-B-Gone, which is a remote that you can turn off TVs from 20-50 feet away, Stevens seems to think that this remote is a " fuction as a tool of social control". I thought that waws pretty interesting.
I think that Stevens would respond to obviously Johnsons (because her whole article was pretty much about not understanding his article) and Peacocke's article about Family Guy and Freud. I believe that she would agree with what Peacocke had to say because she said that Family Guy is somewhat interesting to a point that deals with social topics and issues that are currently happening which Stevens liked when it came to the show 24.

Paula Nechodom "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious"

Thesis: "Before I was such a devotee, however, I was adamantly opposed to the program for its particular brand of humor. It will come to no surprise that I was not alone in this view; many still denounce Family Guy as bigoted and crude."

Page 259: “In 2007, comedian Carol Burnett sued Fox for 6 million dollars, claiming that the show’s parody of the Charwomen, a character that she created for The Carol Burnett Show, not only violated copyright but also besmirched the character’s name in revenge for Burnett’s refusal to grant permission to use her theme song.” This quote proves that there are many people out there who think that Family Guy is a bad show.

Page 261: “Those who don’t often watch the program (Family Guy) could easily come to think that the cartoon takes pleasure in controversial humor just for its own sake. But those who pay more attention and think about the creator’s intensions can see that Family Guy intelligently satirizes some aspects of American culture.” I think that this is an important part of Peacocke’s writing; she feels that it is a common misconception that the creator’s of Family Guy are making all these jokes for their own humor. The show should be taken a little less seriously about the content of the show and people should dissect the content of the show to figure out the deeper meaning.

Page 262: “The more off-color jokes, though, those that give Family Guy a bad name, attract a different kind of viewer.” These are the viewer who are able to look deeper into what the creator’s are actually trying to point out, not to just poke jokes at different cultures or whoever is being targeted in the particular episode.

Respond to Douglas Ruskoff Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence

I believe that Peacocke would think that Ruskoff’s argument about The Simpsons applies to Family Guy as well. She would believe that there are many similarities between the two shows, but differ in a sense of how explicit the creator’s are about the point they are making. Family Guy relies on their viewers to analyze what they are watching, whereas The Simpsons simply point out the “media imagery around a particular social issue.”

Respond to Dana Stevens Thinking Outside the Idiot Box

I think that Peacocke would agree with Stevens in the fact that adult men and women should be able to decide on what and how much TV they should be allowed to watch. The fact the TV shows like Family Guy and The Simpsons are not made for child viewers, they are made for adult viewers and they should be able to make their own choices on what to watch.

Rushkoff - Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence

Question #1

Rushkoff does not explicitly state his thesis in the reading Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, but my interpretation is:

The Simpsons have long given us laughs and comical satires, but more than important they have given us insight into our own lived by portraying today’s family’s media connection by “deconstructing and reframing the images in our media to allow us to see them more objectively, or at least with more ironic distance” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 254).

Question #2

In the reading Rushkoff supports this thesis in several ways.

He begins with America’s encounters with television media claiming that “the television became America’s unquestioned window to the world: (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 242). This generation of media was much more captivating to viewers mostly due to the strategies used by television programmers to program the viewers, not the television. As technology advanced, the new generations of television viewers were able to program the television to their liking with the use of a remote (known as screenagers) rather than the previous generation. It became more difficult for television to target their viewers.

The newer generation of viewers would prove as a challenge for television media and the only way they can relate to screenagers was to create a narrative that resembled the modern day family. Thus, the comical satire The Simpsons was formed with each family member representing a different part of the media audience. Bart, the most mischievous, represented the new wave of television audience, which was hard to please and not easily attracted by media influence. Homer represented the vulnerable audience of the earlier generations believing everything the media presents. Lisa represents the intellectual audience, “but feels completely alienated by the media around her” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 249).

With multiple different views compiled into one television family, The Simpsons go on to recreate the media we see in an amusing way to objectify our life events (global, local, media, personal).

Question 3

Rushkoff would respond to Goldwasser’s What’s the Matter with Kids Today in agreeing with her standpoint. Both of these writers seem to have the similar views on today’s society and its media influence. Rushkoff views television media as enticing, but his review of The Simpsons does not condemn media hypocrisy, but accepts and receives it as today’s advancing families and their increasing awareness in utilizing different resources to find validity in media messages. Similarly, Goldwasser defends the use of media, specifically internet, among the youth as an acceptable form of voluntary reading. Today’s society is based so much on technology and electronic devices that banning this from learning has become inefficient.

Rushkoff would partially agree with anything that Steven stated in Thinking Outside the Idiot Box. Steven claims that “the medium [television] seems neither like a brain-liquefying poison nor a salutary tonic” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 234). Rushkoff, would argue that media does contain evidence of knowledgeable literature in the most unexpected scenarios. For example, The Simpsons often reenact real-life events, processes, such as political, and courthouse processes. Today’s media has increasingly become more active in involving classical literature and relevant facts in their programming and not every channel contains fictional reality-based recreations. There are also informational and learning channels such as the History and Discover channels.

Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say, I Say: With Readings. New York W.W.W. Norton & Company,, 2009. Print.

Jordan Hoffman's Thinking Outside the Idiot Box

The thesis of Dana Steven's Thinking Outside the Idiot Box is that you should not watch a lot of television but you also should watch television. One point that Dana brings up is the part about the TV-B-Gone remote, a remote that can turn a television off from 20-50 feet away. There is a part where it is mentioned that if a person has this tool, he or she should turn every television off that they see. However, one person is quoted in saying that they would not turn the television off in an airport showing a nature show, even though they would shut any television off in a bar showing a football game. Near the end of the story, Dana also mentions that grown men and women should be able to decide their own "dosages" of television.

Also during Dana's story, she mentions Steven Johnson's story about how watching television makes you smarter. She explains that no matter how many times she read the article, she could not understand how watching so much television could actually make you smarter.

If Dana were to react to Antonia Peacocke's Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, she would say that Family Guy is a good stimulant. Dana says that you should not live your life around television but that you should watch some television. Family Guy uses jokes and anecdotes that might only appear in the news. If a person did not watch the news, they would not know the joke being told.

THE SIMPSOMS

In the writing Bart Simpson's : Prince of Irreverence by Douglas Rushkoff. Rushkoff makes a proposition or thesis statement about the Simpson's saying that " What began as entertaining interstitial material for an alternative network variety show has revealed itself, in the twenty-first century , as nothing short of a media revolution.
Rushkoff makes various points of views. One is that when he says the Simpson's take place in a small town name after the fictional location of an earlier television show " Father knows best". Just as in the earlier show the Simpson's is a family that has a open mind about each others lifestyles , and even after conflict the family always come together at the end.
He describes Bart as being ironic just paragraphs earlier, before he goes into an episode where Bart plays a prank on the media. Although the story has some truth to it , the writer voices his self-conscious comments on the media. Sort of like destructing history for the entertainment of his audience.
Rushkoff might respond defensively to the writing by George F. Will , Reality Television : oxymoron. the show is not made with fictional characters for one and that audience that it draws in usually participated or have tried things they see on reality television before. will uses the words of Fred Allen saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of television" . The blame should not fall on the show because the opening credits , says clearly that the stunts being performed are done by professionals so do not try this at home.
Rushkoff might agree with Goldwasser adding that the older generation has not yet stop watching the older forms of media which seems to be more informed than ever before. CNN is one of the most watched stations and with the younger generation on their Ipods , and computers that the older generation is the majority of the viewers.

Shane and Chad

Thesis – While teens are spending much less time in hard copy, literary works, they are spending a great deal of time reading and writing online.

Supporting Ideas –

1. (page 238) “it’s just a medium.” Many older people don’t see the Internet as a valid medium for studying history or writing.

2. (page 238) “…this is also why it’s dangerous…We’re afraid.” People that haven’t learned to be computer literate are intimidated by their children knowing about something as powerful as the Internet, when the parents know little about it.

3. (page 239) “…16.7 hrs a week reading and writing online. Yet the NEA does not count this as voluntary reading.” Kids today are reading and writing online just for fun, they just aren’t doing it in the book and paper formats.

Counterpoint –

1. In response to Rushkoff, I believe that Goldwasser would say that Facebook is much closer to being a literacy program than the Simpsons. With many literate quotes and constant peer reviews, Facebook teaches a great deal of literate skills. (i.e. clever and humorous statuses and posts.)

2. In response to Johnson, it seems likely that Golwasser would agree with his claim that TV can prove a beneficial engagement, because TV programs are developing to stimulate the minds of its audience. People are now required to makes sense of multiple plot developments and recall issues from shows as far back as a series’ beginning.