24 hr Media Deprivation

I attempted and achieved 24 straight hours of media deprivation. I did not watch television, use my laptop, cell/home phone, listen to the radio/ipod, or use any other types of modern electronic media devices, such as videogames, to entertain myself for one whole day. I was extremely apprehensive at first, as most students were after being assigned this task but I was able to overcome my “fear” and complete it. I chose to start the assignment on Friday, November 28 at 7 am.

I had swim practice at 8 am on Friday, so instead of usually being awoken by my cell phone alarm, I used an old clock. I also did not listen to any music to and from practice, but it was peaceful since I was still half asleep. Once I got back, I ate and took my usually 2-hour nap after practice. After being well rested, my ‘media deprivation’ really started. I didn’t realize how much I used my computer and TV until I was deprived from it. I naturally just go in my living room, get comfortable, and turn on the TV without any hesitation. But I soon realized that I couldn’t do this and stopped myself before I picked up the remote. Usually if nothing is on TV, I will log on my computer and just browse the internet or Facebook, but I, too, couldn’t do this either. Instead, I started some homework that did not require my laptop. I actually got more done than planned in a quicker amount of time but I still had about half left that needed my computer (papers, online assignments, this blog). I then started to briefly study for my final exams, which was a great jumpstart and I know I would not have done this if not given this assignment.

            Since I couldn’t do schoolwork all day, I decided to cook a cake. That ate some time up and after I caught up on a book I started this past summer. I rarely ever read during the school year, unless of course, I must for a class. It’s a bad habit, but I am so busy with school and swimming that I barely ever have time to just read a book of my choosing. So being able to do this was satisfying and relaxing. Later, my whole family actually went on a walk together. All four of us rarely EVER do this all together, maybe once a year. My mom suggested it the day before and I basically followed through with it because of this assignment. I had to convince everyone to go, especially my sister, but we eventually agreed and took a nice, mid afternoon walk around my neighborhood. The rest of the night my sister, mom, and I played Trivial Pursuit together by our fireplace and then we all had a nice, TV-free family dinner. I then continued to read until falling asleep. 

            The whole process was difficult but I prepared myself mentally and got through it better than planned. I first hid my cell phone because I knew I would be tempted to check my text messages after an hour into the project. I also realized how much my mind just naturally is use to pushing a button for entertainment. The TV remote and radio ON button has influenced me so much that my natural inclination when around them is to turn on, even when I don’t really crave watching TV or listening to music. I guess it is how society is today, when in a room with comfortable chairs and a TV, you turn it on; when driving in a car, you turn the radio on, no hesitation. I expected to be able to accomplish a whole day without any electronic media sources, but I thought it was going to be much harder to occupy myself when in fact, I found many things to be entertained by. The roughest part was not being able to use my cell phone since I constantly text my boyfriend all day. I think after the first couple hours I got use to not having my phone but by the end, I was feeling a major need to check it. It’s almost scary to me that I rely on my phone so much, for instance when I hear that I have received a text message, I NEED to read it. It’s almost a satisfaction when I do, because I know when I just let it sit there, all I think about is who just texted me and what did they say. Like Mr. Snyder said, usually it’s just a friend saying “what’s up” but my mind is thinking it could be some juicy information or something crazy that no one else knows.

            How I “needed” the satisfaction I got from reading a text message goes along with Walker’s theory that electronic media acts as a “physical nourishment” (2). One of her students joking asked if they were allowed to eat- comparing ipod and cell phones to food on a survival level. Since I have grown up in this period of time, I am used to all the electronics around me therefore I need them to “survive.” 

It’s funny to think how much the public relies on media technology, especially cell phones, ipods, and laptops. I see people using ipods while working out because pump up music inspires people and takes their mind off the pain. I also see many students walking to class with their ipod in to shorten the journey. I think we do need these technologies in some cases, like in emergencies- cell phones is a godsend. But then there is the flip side where people do not need to be on them driving or constantly 24/7. The Internet and news on TV is also a great, safe way for people to be informed about the weather, crime, government decisions, etc. It is extremely important for people to know about things happening in the world and our media technology has allowed us to do so.

Overall this experience was definitely eye opening and was a difficult task to accomplish. I think I realized that I depend on my phone and laptop way too much and maybe need to ‘deprive’ myself from it more often so I can focus more on schoolwork and other important things like family time.

Walker, Danna L. "The Longest Day." washingtonpost.com. 5 Aug 2007. 30 Nov 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101720.html

Television vs. Print

The book and the television are two distinctively different ways of life, both portraying a “story,” whether true or not, but in two totally different ways. Many can and will argue that watching TV makes one dumber and reading makes you smarter. Other people will take the stance of television producing no harm to the public and reading is either just another hobby with no real intellectual booster or can even hurt one buy secluding themselves from the world. Neil Postman argues that the book is the correct way of life. He claims “reading teaches us to reason” (283) and that television hurts our thinking and disables us to achieve what we could by reading over watching TV. Camille Paglia, on the other hand, defends the television by saying it “is the culture” (238) and it has a great, drawing power over us.

Each of the authors has their valid arguments, but on the whole, Paglia won me over in the reading “Two Cultures- Television Versus Print.” The example she gives about the Catholic Church was really what sold me on her. I totally agree with her, I know my childhood memories were of images, not something profound that I read. I think it is easy to understand the Catholic Church in images, statues, and other visual ways because it has such depth to them. Yes the Bible and other words of Catholicism are still extremely important, but I think for a younger person to fully grasp a concept, seeing a visual is easier. Also, she stated how minor the Virgin Mary was in the Bible and how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were clearly dominate over any woman figure. But with images, Mary can be depicted anywhere and her small role in the Bible is a drastic difference from her more obvious visual. When I really think about it, I do realize how much of a difference Mary is portrayed in the Bible versus a visual of her. When I think of Catholicism, I think of God, Jesus, and Mary instantly. But when reading the Bible she is not one of those ‘characters’ that pop out so profoundly like the way my mind makes it in the visual sense. Paglia’s argument on this is very interesting and I totally see where she’s coming from in regards to it.

Paglia also points out the 15-year difference between herself and Postman, who is the older of the two. She explains how this generation gap makes a huge difference between their thinking because of the change in American culture during their times (287). They both view the mass media in different ways, making their argument on the television and print capturing. I agree with how she justifies how symbols used in television commercials and ads reinforce their deeper meaning. People will see an ad and a symbol used along with it, say for instance Martin Luther King Jr., and in their mind will rethink everything MLK Jr. stands for and what he has done for African Americans nationwide. It brings a sense of history to the product or whatever is being sold and, to me at least, reinforces what it means and makes more people aware of problems. I think symbols are great to be used in the media or in marketing because it ‘re-teaches’ a person about their history and the symbol becomes more meaningful and sometimes even more personal.

Paglia and Postman both give valid arguments as shown in “Two Cultures- Television Versus Print” and have insightful information regarding the influence of the television and print. Though I understand where Postman comes from and I agree with him on a couple theories, I feel Paglia shows the better defense of television, and being a post war baby, I stand by her notion of the television. Print and the TV are two extremely important events that have occurred in American history, making them to cause such argument over their impact on our culture.

 

 

Postman, Neil and Camille Paglia. "Two Cultures- Television Verses Print.” Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th  ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 283-295

An Historic Election 2008

This was my first election that I was able to vote and it was pretty exciting to know that I was able to be a direct part of this historic election. I chose to watch both media coverage of the election on FOX News and MSNBC. It was interesting listen to both the liberal side and conservative take on this election. I didn’t want to just stay on one channel and receive only one side of the story.            

            Watching FOX News, I found it different than MSNBC. I think each channel, even though one is clearly republican and one is democratic, should not be totally one sided and should give the news without too much biased. I don’t think the channels were too biased on the election but there was definitely some making it difficult to figure out what was the truth or what was just blatant opinion. I did like, however, when MSNBC interviewed a Republican Strategist and how FOX interviewed a Democratic Strategist, it helped give a mixture of both sides from each station.  I also noticed was how each news program represented the gradual results coming in. I enjoyed watching MSNBC because of how they  showed different maps of each state and overall how they had the TV screen set up, it was just easier for me to read and see who was winning what state and how close states were. I also saw a brief clip of the US map with the different states, either colored red or blue, on an actual ice rink, which I thought was pretty cool and never saw anything like that before.

            MSNBC continuously told what states voted which way during the 2000 and 2004 election. This made me understand it easier because I don’t know what states are republican or democratic, so comparing these 2008 results with previous elections was interesting and easier to understand why a state voted Obama or McCain.

            Every channel I put on, whether MSNBC, FOX, a local channel, etc, the election and results were up. Once Obama won Ohio, many of the stations basically said he won the election- I think the media gets ahead of its self sometimes by saying things like this. Yes, winning Ohio and Pennsylvania was huge for the Obama campaign, but too many stations were calling the election before it was close to over.

            After hearing that Obama won the election I put on every channel to see each reaction. Some were filled with balloons and pure excitement while others showed rooms clearing out since their candidate did not win. It was an exciting election to watch, in my opinion. I have never watched so much of the media coverage and I overall enjoyed it. But I don’t think one can watch too much of it, I know I got bored after a while when no results were coming in but I felt the need to keep watching because maybe any second something big would happen. I think the whole hype and it almost acting like a game with the different electoral votes acting as “points” draws a lot of the American public being drawn to watch it even when though don’t really want to.

            I was switching through the channels and came across a show, Privileged, with something that caught my eye.  This show is about two bratty rich girls, nothing to do with the election, but the characters on the show all had “I Voted” stickers. It was patriotic to me that they did this and I think it brings more people, especially the younger public who watches this show, to realize that voting is so important and everyone who is able should. 

Blog #3

The mass media plays a major role in regards to the formation of a consumer society. The media has such an enormous influence on society, making whatever they want to be the trend one day and absolutely absurd the next. “Dream Worlds of Consumption” along with “Advertising and the Ideas of Mass Society” correspond to the issues and debates surrounding the “developing rhetoric of ‘mass man’ ” These readings in addition to the magazine advertisement, explained later on, show how the media promises us things but how can we accept these promises from something that isn’t even constant or real?

“Dream of Worlds of Consumption” touches upon the expositions and ever changing culture into a “fantasy.” The view of structures changed drastically from showing a person how it was built and engineered to entertaining them. Science and technology were no longer focal points, instead, lavish decorations and random arrangements were the center of everyone’s attention. The French Exposition explained in the book (170-1) demonstrated how this site and other expositions introduced to the common man the “wonders” of technology and the growing consumer culture of industrial nations (170).

These expositions represent the consumer revolution evolving. Merchandising started to become more appealing to the people because the aim had changed. The consumer was starting to be deceived more because fantasy was being used often, and with fantasy, not everything is true. Many critics, such as Maurice Talmeyr, argue that all advertising was false and people were being exposed to flat out and subtle lies and not even knowing it. People are satisfied by basic needs like food but it is hard for people to satisfy their imagination, and that’s where merchandising comes in. Consumer goods, department stores, art museums such as the Louvre opened a whole new door for people wanting to be entertained. More and more things continued to cost more money and prices were now set, customers could not bargain their way down to a lower price. But the public was still fascinated by all these new ways of life, allowing the merchandising business to thrive (171-3). Electricity was finally invented and used in countless ways such as lighting up the streets of Paris or as marquees. Furthermore the automobile attracted everyone, every sex and color, making it one of the biggest items according to the media from the merchandizing companies (174-5).

The reading “Advertising and the ideas of Mass Society” also talks about the mass media and advertising to the consumer. Just changing the littlest thing can make a product more pleasing to the eye, causing mass amounts of people wanting it. The book gives the example of a hardware store worker leaving his hunter axes in the front window because he cannot move them. By doing this, crowds of people came during midday and bought the hunter’s axes (Lears197). These axes made men feel like men, they were appealing and being in the front window, anyone and everyone who walked by could see them without having to step into the store. Subtle changes, like this one, were what made people notice, making them want it.

In order to know what the public likes, people were asked what drew them to an advertisement. Illustrations are what sell, people don’t like just black type “yelling” at them (197). Childish images or ads with emotional appeal are also what sell to the consumer. People like to look at an ad and understand it almost and feel a connection with it. Having creativity, or not copying from another ad campaign, is hard to do but if achieved, the public will answer with applause and an open wallet. Enthusiasm, exaggeration, and being on the verge on lying are what will convince people to buy the product. If someone believes that this product will give him or her the ability to do something they cannot do, they will want it. It’s all about trust; the consuming trusting the advertisement that what is being shown is true (200-1). The “mass man” allowed advertisers to practically think of the public as a whole and an ad should and will be appealing to all people. The advertising men and women have the upper hand on society and can and will make the trends, almost forcing people what to like or dislike.

The magazine ad I chose is for Paul Mitchell hair salons and products. The ad is himself, Paul Mitchell, his wife, son, and dog all laying in a wheat field looking so ‘family like.” The quote on the bottom, which is very small, says:

Be Kind. Create change and build a better future. Join the Paul Mitchell System family of hairdressers worldwide to fight hunger and poverty, safeguard our planet’s water, and give hope to children in need.

I think this ad is quite deceiving and almost humorous at first. I am not laughing at this company for supporting all these causes, but how they portray it. You barely notice the bottom quote, and at first glance I thought: using his Paul Mitchell products will give me a happy, perfect family? There is nothing about hair at all, other than the hair on their heads, which is nicely groomed. It really does not say anything about them having the best hair styling products; it just appears that Paul Mitchell will make happy families. It is promising this, because there is nothing else in the ad to look into.

            Regarding the bottom quote, it shows that Paul Mitchell supports the fight against hunger and poverty as well as helping children and cleaning our waters. I think with the whole “going green trend,” this will appeal to the people who are really for these causes and maybe they will buy his products over other ones that do not state such things, or maybe not. It will help his name to have this at the bottom, but it really is not noticeable so people just scanning through magazines will most likely skip over this caption. This just shows that having a typical model with wavy hair holding a Paul Mitchell product is not good enough, consumers like to see realness (his family being pictured, not actor or models), happiness and up to date ads- decades ago people were not caring about poverty and the environment as much as they are today, so merchandisers need to advertise with themes that go with the now, not the past.

 

 

Williams, Rosalynd. "Dream Worlds of Communications.” Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th  ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 169-175.

Lears, Jackson. "Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society.” Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th  ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 197-201.

Presidential Debate 08

After watching the 1st 2008 Presidential debate, I really was not 100% sure on who won. Neither McCain nor Obama was the clear winner, making it really difficult to determine whom the better candidate is. The BiPolar post by Dan Kenitz on this debate concluded, too, that neither candidate clearly won. The only slip he really points out was when McCain mentioned his fallen U.S. soldier bracelet and Obama interrupts saying he had one also but had to look down at it for the soldier’s name. I re-watched this part of the debate and saw Obama hesitate, stutter, and look at the bracelet for the name. I think this kind of shows he really doesn’t care what had had around his wrist and to me he made it not important or meaningful to himself that he was wearing it.

I agree with this post because it wasn’t really an amazing debate and nothing special happened. This blog had a relatively short reaction to the debate, not really much to respond to. He says how it really did not catch much attention because it did almost get cancelled, which I agree. Finally, all in all, “people generally think that their candidate won” (Kenitz), so conservatives will say McCain won and liberals will say Obama won; no matter what comes out of their mouths.

Both candidates were asked about taxes. To me, it’s really a tricky situation that has made our economy sink so low these past years. Taxing the rich more, as Obama stands by, and letting the poor and middle class off a little is great for people trying to get back into “the game.” But I wonder, I know not everyone is able to make enough money to be well off and health circumstances definitely can hurt, but then I know there are those people who just are lazy. People who won’t get job at all, not even minimum wage ones for whatever reason. I think there needs to be a program that encourages more people to work because then we wouldn’t be having this problem, or it wouldn’t be as big. Immigrants, illegal or legal, come to this country for work and they work hard and do all the “dirty work” (i.e. lawn care, construction, cleaning). These jobs have an infinite work force, they will never be full so I think the people who complain about having no where to work need to step aside their pride and take these jobs. Any job is better then no job.  In regards to McCain’s plan, he would like to keep taxes the same for the rich and have the middle and lower class pay less. This plan would be wonderful but I’m really not sure how it would actually happen and benefit the economy. I do not think the rich, which defined by Obama is $250,000/yr, should be taxed more. I think these people work very hard, and I know there are those exception cases, but people should not be penalized for working high-level jobs that they earned (for the most cases) everyday and getting paid well for it. There are so many stories of men and women who grew up with literally nothing and then they become millionaires, some even billionaires, so I really do not think just because one grew up poor means they have to live the rest of their life that way. Also, people making just $250,000 are not really rich in comparison to people making millions, so I think the income should be much higher if Obama carries this plan out.

I think the build up and chance the debate may not have happened was bigger than the actual outcome of the debate. Neither candidate really did not say anything mind blowing. Before the debate took place, commercials such as “Doom for the Debate” advertised making it such a hype whether it would be postponed or not. It shows that the US was focusing on more important things that are detrimental to us right now and need to be addressed and fixed ASAP. On CNN, there was a graph at the bottom of the TV screen which basically showed what party (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) approved of the points made by each candidate and who did not approve. There were also “analyst scorecards” on the sides of the screen, which showed the positive or negative reactions from six CNN experts.  (I found this blog that explained what the graphs and scorecard meant, I only read about the facts of the “grading” of the debate, not personal views on this particular blog). 

Kenitz, Dan. The First McCain-Obama Debate. 29 Sept   2008. http://www.bipolarnation.com/2008/09/29/the-first-mccain-obama-debate/

Pallasch, Abdon M. Tax Plan Face Off: Obama vs. McCain. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article

Scoring the Debate Live on CNN. 29 Sept 2008. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/scoring-the-debate-live-on-cnn-420/

Writing Wins

The following essays, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading” along with “The Dumbing of America” give arguments about how the growing technology and media are putting a major dent into the world of reading books and writing poetically per se. Society has drastically changed from the time of using feathered ink pens and scrolls but it doesn’t necessarily mean that our culture has become ‘dumber’ because of our increase in technology. For instance, insanely educated and just natural intelligent people must make up these technologies such as the Internet and Ipod. Dumb people are definitely not just coming up with these ideas and magically somehow making it a real thing. The argument of people becoming more ignorant of the classics, claimed in “The Dumbing of America,” because of our growing technology is acceptable since I know I do barely read a book a year of my own choice just for pleasure. But I also argue that people today are much busier than people decades and hundreds of years ago. People now have sports, for example, and practice to attain to which takes up a lot of time versus when people had more free time to do more for themselves and relax with a nice classic novel.

            In today’s society I believe writing is superior to speech and has a much bigger impact on us. Today, people can voice their opinion with just the click of a button. Blogs, Facebook, and My Space are probably the biggest, free of charge ways for people to show thousands even millions of what they agree or disagree on. With speech, not everyone can be on TV or the radio to voice their stand. Anyone can be important and influence another with writing but with speech, usually one must be of importance or their job to actually talk and have more than a room full of people listen. The Origins of Writing in Communication in History claims “writing is among the greatest invention in human history, perhaps the greatest invention, since it made history possible” (Robinson 36). I definitely agree with this claim because without it, how could anyone record our past? Without recording our past, we would only know the stories passed down by word of mouth, making it become half untrue because word does not always travel the same from person to person. Robinson also acknowledges the beginning of writing started with accounting (38). Imagine having all those numbers and not being able to record them? It would be impossible to know the money coming in and out of the company making business very hard to succeed. Everybody uses writing everyday for the most part.

            Relating back to the two Internet articles, the fear of young people losing the ability to read and write is ridiculous to me. Using the Internet and blogs, etc is just a different type of reading and writing versus reading the writings of Jane Austin. We are living in an ever-changing world, making it almost impossible to stop technology from growing enabling us to using savvy technological devices and returning back to the “olden days” forms of communications. People are still writing and I think writing more than ever since we know have the capabilities to publish our works to the world. Writing is not lacking, it is just changing and expanding to different levels because of our ever-growing technological craving. I think people are finding more people with their same views and learning from people who are completely in contrast of them because of our advancements. And with these abilities to read about other people and their thoughts, I think we learn even more than we were able to years and years ago. We are just more interested in different things now then history shows but it is not a bad thing, it just shows how our culture values different things then the past cultures did.

            The alphabet is an incredible invention to society. It has allowed us to write and understand each other using the same format. Johanna Drucker explains how the letters in the alphabet has been used for centuries in regards to written documents (47). The alphabet is a pretty amazing invention, just 26 letters has enabled us to make thousands of words and be able to communicate to each other through written documents and technological developments. Without the alphabet, the English language would not be the same or maybe not even exist making history extremely different. Writing has really made history, literally, and without it who knows what we would be learning and how much of it would actually be the spoken truth.

           

Gardner, Howard. "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading." Washington Post. 17 Feb. 2008: B01. 16 Sept. 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html .

Jacoby, Susan. "The Dumbing of America." Washington Post 17 Feb. 2008: B01. 16 Sept. 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

Drucker, Johanna. "The Alphabet" 2003. Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 46-55.

Robinson, Andrew. "The Origins of Writing" 2003. Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 360-45.

Political Blog Numero Uno

A topic that I would like to discuss in regards to the presidential election would probably be one of the most controversial, abortion. I really do not know where I stand exactly on it, that’s why I would like to talk about it. I am Catholic and went to Catholic school my whole life up until college. For me, I feel like a swing back on both sides of this controversy just because there are so many situations that could happen, altering my choice. My Pro-Life side pulls me one way because of my upbringing. I do see abortion as a bad choice when it comes to a woman just not wanting to have a baby. If she is mid 20s-30s, healthy, and nothing really wrong with her and she just doesn’t want to have a child, then I see abortion as not the right choice. There are so many ways to prevent pregnancy and women should use those resources if they do not want children, or else they are just ending a helpless life. It would be really hard for me, at least, to have an abortion done just because I feel like I would have ended the life of a person that had no control over their destiny. On the other hand, my Pro-Choice side comes out. Say for instance, a teenage girl was raped and became pregnant. I, as an athlete, could not have the baby, it would ruin my whole swimming career and the fact that it was a rapist’s baby would make it unethical to have the child. It really is a tricky situation and both sides have their pros and cons. Also, the debate of when life begins is so mind boggling to me because whose to say when life begins exactly. To say whether it’s at conception or later on, it just seems so technical that I understand why it’s such a controversial topic. In the end, I really do not see abortion as a real benefit to society but I also think people should be more responsible and maybe the fall back of an abortion would never have to be considered. 

The blog post I will respond to basically is extremely conservative and demeans Obama. I agree with this post somewhat but not to the major extent of the author. After reading about Obama being purely Pro-Choice and legalizing all forms of abortion including “partial-birth abortion,” seems almost inhumane to me. Like I explained above, I agree with Pro-Choice in some cases but allowing partial-birth abortions to happen really do not make any sense at all to me. Maybe I just do not know all the knowledge behind it but I do not understand why anyone would have this done so late into her pregnancy, it seems a bit cruel. I do not see Pro-Choicers as “murderous weirdos” as said in the blog, since I too am Pro-Choice sometimes but I just wonder when the line will be drawn in regards to abortion. Whether life has started or not, or which trimester it is, all greatly factor into this controversy making it trickier since different people have different definitions of each. This author definitely has a too conservative view and I think people like him need to broaden their views or at least try to understand the other’s side without completely shooting them down. On this topic I see myself as a moderate conservative since I realize this author is too conservative and almost narrow-minded but I do not agree totally with Obama’s side.  

First Blog

Hey everyone, my name is Rebecca Godwin. I was born in Baltimore, where I attended an all girls private high school, Notre Dame Prep, and swam as well as played lacrosse. I am currently a sophomore at UMBC and am on the Swimming and Diving Team as a distance swimmer. My major is INDS where I will make my own major of Sports or Media Marketing. I am really interested in different sports team, specifically the NFL. I would love to work as a Marketer for an NFL team. The media really affects how sports are portrayed in everyday life. One can just turn on the TV and see any tennis match, football, soccer or basketball game from any part of the country or even world. The media has hyped up sports so much that Saturdays during the fall on mainstream channels are dedicated to college football games, Sundays are ruled by NFL games, and when basketball starts, it’s all that plays when any game, big or small, is on. Other than sports, the media will cover any political, celebrity, or breaking news story. I try to watch the political broadcasts, both parties, on TV everyday because I know I am not that passionate about politics but I feel by doing this I will become more educated and be able to vote with more knowledge about the candidates’ beliefs. On the lighter side, I will watch the meaningless gossip shows about Hollywood and celebrities around the world just to watch some lighter TV. The media, as I talked about above, has many sides and branches out in countless directions. From politics to the latest actress, the media will cover it and will blow the story up out of proportion. I believe the media will dwell on the littlest facts, add mostly rumors, and make it the latest story when in fact nothing late breaking has happened at all. The media has a huge influence over our lives just because there’s TV, internet, magazines, newspapers, the list goes on with how the media communicates to us and how we are just prone to listening or reading it without even realizing we are. 

I will be following the BipolarNation blog.