I love me, and I'll make you love me too.

Fake News: Discuss the implications of corporately-funded news/propaganda.

Corporately-funded news is complete bull poop. I mean, its excellent in the sense that it makes money, but complete bull in the sense that it's all bull. Corporately-funded news is always bias, and always manipulative, and it makes the reader see the way they see. And it's all because of money. In their eyes, the audience are beautiful, crisp, right-out-of-the-bank bills.

For example, say a certain political party owned a particular newspaper - they would obviously incorporate advertisements or articles to make other political parties look bad; helping them to raise in the polls.

Or, say a tobacco company owned a magazine - they would place cigarette advertisements in the specific spots for people to see.

In his book, "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs", Chuck Klosterman talks about how newspapers hire page designers to "direct the eyes of readers to the stories they need to see most" (Klosterman, 216). Corporately-funded news act in the same manner as these page designers - they direct the eyes of the readers to things that they need to see. This is a form of propaganda - it's not always truthful (in fact it's almost always factual), but it helps the corporation to increase profits.

"Truthfully, I'm not even sure the average consumer knows that people called "page designers" even exist, but these individuals dictate everything you read (and - more to the point - everything you don't). Intellectually, the newspaper industry is now controlled by guys like Mario Garcia, the consultant who redesigned The Wall Street Journal when it went to full color in April of 2002. In all likelihood, you have never heard the name Mario Garcia before today - yet he is the kind of man constructing your consciousness" (Klosterman, 215).

Klosterman hits this theory head on. These page designers, and men like Mario Garcia, tamper with the information they are giving you. If there is something that may show a view of the opposing side, it is immediately cut out, and if there is something that will make the corporation look amazing and brilliant, they make it the focal point of what you see and read.

It's all about money, and how they can make you spend it.

Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs. New York: Scribner, 2004. Print.

We live in a Utopia.

Theory/Praxis: Discuss a theory/concept and apply it to your own everyday media practices.

I remember my friend telling me about this amazing novel named Brave New World, which she had read in summer school. She kept saying that it was so amazing and that I should read it, although I really didn't give a hoot because I knew it was a science fiction novel, and I thought it would probably be really lame. It turned out that I had to read this novel in my English class, and I can honestly say, you should NOT judge a book by its cover (or by the interpretation a science-lover friend gives you). Aldous Huxley (author of the novel) did an amazing job at creating an imaginative utopian society - it was as if he knew what the future would hold (aside from the utopia). There are many theories in this novel that Huxley puts forth for the audience to discover.

The theory that sticks out to me is, "Soma (the drug which they consume) is the answer to happiness." I like this particular theory because I can relate it back to our society, both literally and metaphorically. Literally, people take drugs, whether they are prescribed or illegal, that help them to feel better. One specific drug that illustrates this is Prozac, a prescription drug that is used to help depressed people feel better about their lives, and basically suppress any suicidal thoughts that they may have - exactly what Soma is used for. Clearly John the savage didn't have any Soma or Prozac to make him feel better - it would have been nice to see him live.

Metaphorically, I see Soma as media. I don't mean that in the sense that we are all going to be so hooked on technology that we will practically be machines ourselves. I mean it in the sense that media makes us happy - it's our personal Soma. After a long hard day at work, some people like to relax in front of the television. Or, if they are like me, listen to iTunes on shuffle to relieve some stress.

If media is our personal Soma, all there is left to answer is "Can we live without it?" It's possible, as there are people around us that live in a media celibacy bubble (they would be the savages), but is it possible for us, the Ford followers, to find happiness without it? Are we going to end up like John, or like Lenina?

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998. Print.

"I can see you on the television!"

Mass Media: How do you understand the term "mass media?" Use examples and draw from key debates to articulate your own position.

Everyone pretty much knows the term "mass media" as the mediums of communication that reach to the mass of people. Mediums like television and radio that can reach to large amounts of people, nationwide or worldwide, fall under the term "mass media." So of course it's plausible to think of these mediums as extremely important inventions (much like the toilet, or electricity), but more importantly, how this invention has invented ways of bringing people from across the globe, together. As technology has improved, people have been able to learn and understand the world around them more. I believe that with the advancement in visual and vocal technology, the world has been given the chance to learn so much, so easily. With the click of a button, a person can see what the weather is like in Alaska, or by turning on the radio, a person can hear the speech of an important dictator.

The way I see it, the mass media is apart of semiotics; it's a signifier that has a signifier. To me it means knowledge, to someone else it means massenmedien.

One check for fat, two for wrinkled.

Decoding/ Deconstructing Advertising: Choose and analyze an advertisement.

After spending eighteen years, sixty-seven days, and twenty-two hours in a media filled environment, I have pinpointed a series of advertisements that puzzle me more than any other. The Dove company (most commonly known for their skin care products) has produced a number of advertisements that try to enlighten women to love themselves the way they are; including fat and wrinkly ones. Although the company tries to boost the self esteem of women, they sure do try to find best looking of the "not perfect" people for the job - all the women in their advertisements are very pretty.

There is one aspect of their advertising that really baffles me; Dove's intended audience is women of all ages, but in most of their advertisements, the models are half naked... or worse, naked with rolls and wrinkles exposed. If they were trying to attract middle-aged, single, lonely men, I would understand their advertisements better. But why do women have to look at other naked women on big billboards? The answer is simple; as a reflection of themselves.

In his novel, "Ways of Seeing," John Berger states, "A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself... From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually" (Berger, 46). In this chapter, Berger writes about women and their appearances in photos and paintings, ultimately concluding that these paintings and photos of women were specifically made for men. No one ever likes to look at themselves nude, but Dove is making women face their nudeness head on. Using Berger's essay as a reference, women are watching themselves in the images of these Dove models. They have no idea who they are, or what they are like, but these women are connected in ways that go as far back as the Renaissance.

With these advertisements, Dove is recreating the "men act and women appear" era, where women must survey themselves as a man would survey them (Berger, 47). Dove doesn't really care about raising the self-esteem of women, they are just trying to get women to use their products to try and be more beautiful. "Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at... The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly an object of vision: a sight" (Berger, 47).

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1972. Print.

Computers, computers, computers.

The Ecology of Media: Identify a specific technology and discuss its cultural impact. Consider the implications between its purpose and its function.

I was sitting in front of my computer for a good 10 minutes, just trying to think of a technology that has a great cultural impact. I didn't want to choose television or computer technology, because I knew that everyone would be doing the exact same thing. But I came to the conclusion that I haven't had enough coffee this morning, and my brain was still functioning the same way it does while I'm asleep... so I just chose computers.

As everyone knows, Macs are probably the sexiest computers out there (especially with their new sleek aluminum look), and they are also the most efficient, reliable, and outstanding computers known to man (also women, children, aliens, and Steven Harper [ he can use Apple software, such as Garageband, to start a Beatles tribute band]). Although, I have had discussions (arguments rather) with friends on how PCs are better than Macs. Now, knowing that PCs are absolute horrible pieces of you-know-what (knowledge bestowed upon me by my older brother), I get really flustered when people (such as my friend Mora) say, "PC's are better than Macs." Now, I know for a fact that the only reason for saying this is because he's cheap, and PCs are obviously less expensive. But, looking back on this, I begin to think about why I (and many others) would get so defensive about his quote, and why people would actually spend $3000 for a 17" Macbook Pro; it all comes down to cultural impact.

You can really start to understand how much of a cultural impact computers have on everyone, just by looking around you in your auditorium at school (unless you are being educated in an Amish school, which probably means you shouldn't be reading this right now). You can do an experiment, such as counting how many times a day you need to use a computer, (either for Facebook, Photoshop, Microsoft word, whatever) to see just how much of a cultural impact computer technology has on you.

Computer technology has progressed so much, that people can't even handwrite a term paper anymore; it must be typed, double spaced, MLA format. People now-a-days (excluding our grandparents and war veterans) wouldn't know how to use a type writer, and if they figured it out, they would never be able to complete a paragraph of writing, because there is no "backspace/delete" button.

You'll know that computer technology has a huge cultural impact when you begin to see people posting on Facebook and Twitter from their cell phones.

Oh wait... That's already happening.

Blogging about blogging

Academic Blogging: Reflect on the process of setting up a blog and/or discuss your role as a public figure contributing to the public sphere.

This hasn't been the first time I've set up a blog. The first time was probably about two years ago, when I probably thought that blogging would be "cool." I guess blogging was way too cool for me, because I never posted once, and I basically forgot that I had an account until two weeks ago, when I was automatically signed on to my old, lame account.

It's funny though, because the time that I thought blogging was cool, was the same time that I was pissed at everyone and everything (a major stepping stone in every teenagers life), which is much like road rage to some people. I thought it would be cool (past tense), but now I see the real meaning behind blogging. Please don't take this personally, but it's just a tool for helping unrecognized, pissed off, lonely writers to feel like people care about them, their writing, and what they think. But it's just a bunch of other unrecognized, pissed off, lonely writers who are commenting back.

Sure it can be fun at times, but who are we kidding? It’s not like Arnold Schwarzenegger is, hypothetically, going to search the internet and stumble upon one of my blogs on "The Cultural Impact of Advertising" (in which I develop a theory that states advertising will ultimately lead to suicide), causing him to critically think about they way he's governing his always-sunny California.

I don't mean to be rude to those who's lives revolve around blogging (and take great offense to my opinion), but it's how I see blogging. But I do understand that a person can progress from blogging (such as Perez Hilton has), and I don't underestimate every persons writing (it's most likely very well written); but personally, I don't feel as if I am contributing much to this "public sphere." Most of the students in my Mass Communications class at the University of Guelph-Humber (including me), would not be writing blogs.

It's not very important to me (aside from the fact that it's worth 50% of my final grade), but I understand that it may be the world to someone else.