So I wrote this for my Media Literacy class based on material we had to read (Media Literacy by W. James Potter, if anyone knows the subject):

Automaticity; a synonym being automated, defined as machine-done. Our brains could constitute as bio-machines of sorts, being the central station in which all of our body's tasks are originated. It's where all of the decisions we make are calculated by our own will, regardless of what anyone or anything says otherwise.

Potter's claim that the media attacks us through our 'filter', the barrier we put up to block anything not of interest, is something that I just don't agree with. The barrier is put up for a reason- because we are not interested in that item or story, not
because the media says that we are not interested. Your choices are yours alone. For example, I feel it is necessary to remove myself from the plane of popular music. I have never heard the Soulja Boy song in it's entirety. I didn't know who Hannah Montana was until a few months ago. I have no idea what's on MTV anymore (I do know it's not music), and I don't particularly care either. I make my music choices based on standards that I have created over the years of my own musical enjoyment.

If anything, I believe that the 'filter' in a blessing more than a curse. If we didn't have this control over what we absorb or don't, we would be slaves to what corporate America wants us to believe, and also to mass conformity, which is another entirely debatable issue in itself. In the end, your choices are your own, and if you are caught up in what people are trying to sell you, there's nobody to blame but yourself.

As far as the second chapter and the issue of information vs. knowledge is concerned, I'm going to throw in a very controversial topic: stem cell research. I'm sure everyone know the debate in one form or another; possibly finding cures to diseases versus tampering with unborn fetuses. Nevertheless, this is the perfect topic to equate with this issue. People's own moral judgements come into play with this debate; taking life before it's had a chance to live, the needs of the few versus the needs of many, what have you. But these opinions and judgements are what make information such as pro-life arguments, that may not necessarily be backed up by facts and scientific evidence, but still touch those with strong moral backgrounds on that subject.

"The medium is the message". What can be said about this? What I take away from it is that the way you are putting out your information is equally as important as the message you are trying to get across. For example, would you trust The New York Times over some random person on the internet posting a blog about the political landscape. Sure the guy might have done his research and offered an unbiased analysis of the contenders and what they represent, but the name 'New York Times' carries so much weight because it's an established paper that has been in print for years. They could even be bearing the flag for a certain contender (read: Hilary Clinton), and people would still eat it up because it's the New York Times. Blogging has had such an impact on our media landscape because it's, for the most part, free of any type of marketing and/or political bias. It's simply people posting what they want to post, whether it be an opinion or genuine unbiased information.
------------

"A" material right there.

Permalink | Comments [0] | Digg This Article | Tweet