Final Gizmoz Post

There were moments in the Veletsianos et al article - such as: "The results of this analysis indicated that humans respond differently to humans than to computers" - where I was thinking: "Ummm, duh!" Think of the way we (and I mean me too) talk to computers, cars, refrigerators, radiators, [enter mechanical thing here], it usually isn't politically correct when we are angry.

I just imagine putting a Gizmoz avatar in front of a class with the computerized voice in front of my 9th graders - I can say positively that my students' assiduity would deplete and their commentary would be less than exemplary (especially if they were not under the guise of punishment).

I feel to some sad extent that our humanitarian empathy has lessened due to media saturation, over exposure and a general numbing of the senses. I do not - for a second - fear that all hope is lost. I have seen my students swell up at beautiful sights and I know that in their hearts they have not become stone. However, compare an old crime drama with a typical episode of CSI and you know exactly what I am talking about. Does that lessen our reaction when our neighbor or peer is injured? I guess I do not know.

I fear (hopefully irrationally) that Asimov's laws will one day reverse on us.



The fear - as this article points to quite clearly - is the seemingly inability for men (boys) to stray from innappropriate comments when they think no one is watching (either that or they don't care). I remember even as far back as 7th grade when we were all playing Oregon Trail "online" in the computer class together and one boy (Pat) was making innappropriate comments to our classmate (Christine) and I just couldn't believe it. The entire class could see it and Pat did not worry for one second about harrassing her. I can't quite remember if he was caught or punished, I really hope so. This incident (and the seeming billions that followed) directly prove the article's stance that the "Internet lowers human inhibition." I think that this is clearly seen in our blogs and chats where we take a more freeflowing approach to our text.

I think some of the ideas (using Google Earth for geography) are great and they should be used in a controlled environment in moderation. It is just so clearly obvious (to me) that you shouldn't simply give students access and license to do whatever they want. High school students (especially boys) are immature and - like the article says - exploring their sexuality. If you give them a free venue to act out - someone is going to act a fool.

I am familiar with the dialogue in the article - I am not sure where I read it before - but it nevertheless is disturbing. I can completely understand trying to joke with a computer - it was hilarious for me the first time I heard the text to speak function on the mac. But the level of vulgarity and the lengths to which the perversity rides is off putting and definitely reinforces my belief that such access needs to be monitored and used only in situations where it will result in progress.

Thursday • June 25 • Assignment Two

Assignment Two: What is wrong with this picture?

Rationale: Stereotypes are everywhere. They are our reference point for most of our discussions (even the ones we have in class) - the purpose of this assignment is to "get to the bottom" of stereotypes in the media focusing on one particular genre (ex. Teen Soaps, Sitcoms, Dramas, Comedies, etc.) and drawing out stereotypes and analyzing how that particular medium deals with, assists, creates, destroys or otherwise talks about stereotypes in all forms.

See those beautiful people up there (casts of 90210: past and present) - notice anything? The U.S. Census Bureau tells me that 36% of California is Latino and 12.4% is Asian but these pictures from popular TV shows tells me that there "might" be one African American hanging out in your group - maybe.

Your job is to look at a show (like 90210) and write down all stereotypes you see in the show (caution if you pick Family Guy, you will find a lot to write down!).

Questions to consider:

Who is creating these shows? Who is paying for them? Who watches them?

When are the shows on during the day? What channel?

What advertisements are on during commercials? Who is being marketed to?

Who is on the show? Who is not on the show? What is not being represented? What generalizations does the show make? About whom?

Why do you like/dislike the show? Does the show "help" or "hurt" our world in any way?

Write two to three pages of answers to these and any other questions you come up with in the process of viewing at least three episodes of the show.

Really stretch yourself and pick a show you would never watch.

HOMEWORK due for TR June 25:

The Internet is full of resources for teaching media (The Center for Teaching Media Literacy being one). It is in fact odd to search for ways to teach media using the very media you would presumably teach students how to navigate. The process is one that requires you to recheck what you know about the Internet and secondary sources and makes you question whether you are reading an "authority" or some two bit hack from Scranton, OH.

I just finished watching yesterday's episode of The Daily Show while consuming an unnecessary amount of chicken quesadillas (we'll see if I can make it through this) - and I was intrigued by the segment correspondent Jason Jones is currently doing in Iran. He is there currently during their election upheaval - and is trying to create some comedy amidst the unrest. He did a version of Jay Leno's popular skit, "Jaywalking," only his is aptly titled "Jihad Walking." What follows in the skit is a display of at once America's profound ignorance towards world events and the "rest of the planet's" seemingly in-step with the comings and goings of the USA.

What I think is happening here has (a whole lot of) something to do with our media. The current headline of popular site Yahoo! is: "Depp leaves $4000.00 tip," over at CNN you can find up to the second information on "Jon & Kate" or South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's crazy affair. These sites mirror the hundreds or thousands of other sites bringing the USA its "news." The attention to scandal and celebrity non-stories is not an anomaly of this Wednesday night in June - rather it is an ongoing occurrence that has been permeating our news media for decades.

On some Iranian sites I looked at (like INN) there is much more of a focus on actual news and the issues facing the everyday lives of Iranians. Sure, they are in an upheaval - so there is no question as to why their news would focus on that. My question is: why are we not in an upheaval? (Possible) Answer: our media soaked minds have been made mushy.

Assignment One: Does Anybody Care?

Rationale: Recent statistics show American ignorance at an all-time high (I made that up, but I am sure I could find sources to prove it). The purpose of this lesson is to continue the ongoing critical discussion of the media as well as zoom in on some specifics about what we consume, why we consume it and what it does to our collective intelligence regarding real issues facing any nation besides the United States.

Part One: Pick three news websites that are actually supposed to cover the news (CNN, New York Times, Star Tribune, etc.) and every time you go onto the Internet this week, keep an Internet journal and write down the main headline of each of your three sites.

Part Two: Write one page about everything you know about Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq. Watch any film or documentary (Persepolis, The Hurt Locker, etc.) about one of these three countries and then write another page about what you know about either Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Part Three: Find an Iranian, Afghan or Iraqi native either online or in person and speak with them about their home country and ask them the following questions: What is [your country] like? What is it like growing up there? What do you love about it? What do you dislike about it? What is the view of Americans? How do you think Americans view your country and why? Be SUPER respectful and gracious and thank them for talking with you. ***This part of the assignment may seem unrealistic or perhaps uncouth, but what the hell, it sounds cool to me***

Part Four: Ask your parents what they think about Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and why. Write down their answers. Ask them where they learned about these three countries and what their experiences with these three countries and their citizens has been.

Part Five: Time to think metacognitively: you are going to look over these four things you did and you are going to ask yourself this: what factors are at play when it comes to my understanding of other regions of the world? With so much of our government's time and energy going into Iran, Iraq and Afghanastan - consider and write answers to the following questions: Where/how did I develop my knowledge or beliefs about Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan? What does the media tell me about these three nations? Why is it (or is it not) important to have a good understanding of these nations? Why should I care? Does the media care? Why or why not?

Part Six: Come up a cool set of visual aids either on a poster or power point presentation and develop a 7 to 10 minute presentation on either Iran, Iraq or Afghanastan. Go through what you learned about the nation in the process of these six assignments and how your thinking has either strengthened in one direction or changed altogether. Make sure to incorporate elements from all five of your previous assignment parts.

HOMEWORK due for Sunday June 21:

I love The Daily Show with Jon Stewart so dearly - I am always saddened when there is a week where it is absent. I thought "Indecision 2004" was a particular pinnacle in their show as it brought so much truth to the humor - and also came with real emotions after Bush somehow won again. I remember watching that election night with my Hamlin friends in MPLS and while our hearts were cracking in two as we watched the evil despot win - yet again - at least we had the safe net of humor to rely on - and I do really rely on it.

I appreciated the insight of the Kothe piece and agree that The Daily Show "informs its viewers of important current events while also criticizing the pathetic state of most mainstream news sources." I think that her inclusion of the many voices and opinions surrounding The Daily Show brought much more merit to her piece and also made for a more interesting read. I do not, however, agree with McKain that The Daily Show forces "other" news media to add more entertainment to its broadcast to enhance viewership - the 24/7 news channels and shows do what they have to do to get viewers - it is not about the news - they are a product and they are trying to sell it. Thus The Daily Show serves a purpose as Kothe states: "Whether mainstream news already incorporates entertainment in order to draw in more viewers or is more false than fake news itself, its parody is an event that is to be taken seriously." Kothe ultimately says that "TDS should be understood as encouraging us to view official news more critically and thus compelling official news to become more credible and engage in what Mindich calls solid journalism," which I completely agree with.

Assignment #1

Watch either a local news broadcast, a national news broadcast, read "Section A" of a local or national newspaper, read the news online at a reputable news source (check with me if you have questions or need direction to a reputable source) and take notes on what stands out most to you and what the main stories are.

Next, watch either The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report (from the same day as the other "real" news source) and write down all connections. Connections include: same stories covered, the same names mentioned, the same ideas brought up, even the same advertisements.

Write thoughtful - complete sentence - answers to the following questions: 1) Which "news" source did you enjoy more? Why? 2) Which news did you feel was more relevant to your life? Why? 3) What were the similarities and the differences you found in the two news sources? 4) Did one news source make you feel like you were "learning more" than the other? Which one and why? 5) Based on this activity, what news might you be more likely to seek out in the future and why?

Assignment #2

Think about your favorite type of parody book, song, tv show or movie. Read, look or listen to it again. Think about why it is successful and what it is about that book, song, show or movie that makes it funny. Are there hints of truth in it? Why do you laugh?

Now you are going to take a stab at writing your own short story, song, tv show or movie in a news format. (If you are unfamiliar with Weekend Update, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me! - seek one out and watch/listen to it immediately!) For this assignement you are going to write about your friends or family (or both). You are going to try and think of an entire day's worth of material and write a condensed news broadcast. Think about a fun or memorable day you had and then pick out the "top news stories" from that day. Incorporate humor as best you can (pointing out particular aspects about your friends and family - things that you find funny). While you will not be insulting anyone, you can find space to tease. For example: in my family we tease my dad all the time for being so anal about different things. So one of my news headlines could be: Area Father Freaks Out About Leaving The Refridgerator Open For Too Long - or something along those lines (look to The Onion for more examples).

Your finished product should be three to four full pages - double spaced - MLA style.

I think my rationale for these two assignments is implicit within them. In order for one to analyze things critically - it is helpful to try your own hand. In the first assignment (and I think something like that could be modified endlessly) - the student has to actually go through the process of lending an ear to the news, "real" or "fake," and respond to it. In this way, they become an active participant.

In the second assignment, the student can try their hand at comedy and also at developing the news. Hopefully they can see how difficult (or easy) the process is and also see what it takes to parody something and try and make it funny. From these two "stepping stone" like assignments - you could then lead your class further into a critical study of the news and the "fake" news.

News Analysis Lesson

As a begging, borrowing and stealing teacher, I would do something very similar to this assignment for my own students. I would like to get students to think critically about the news and by that I would like to first inform them of critical perspectives and lenses. Perhaps this would be a perfect time to have introduced the feminist lens, the Marxist lens or a radical lens (socialist, democratic, etc.). After you have gone over these lenses you could then watch a broadcast as a class and have them write as they view and even pause to give them time to write their thoughts.

I would ask the students to think critically about the news and how it is being delivered. Who is giving the news? Who is not giving the news? What are the top stories? What stories (might you know about) are they choosing to not cover? Who is represented? Who is left out? What do they focus on? What is their vocabulary? How do anchors react to different stories? Why do you think that is? The whole focus of this would be for students to understand how the news is constructed and what audience the broadcasters are aiming for. It would also be intriguing to watch news casts on different channels (MTV, BET, CBS, NBC) and look into how they differ and why we think that is.

News Analysis

KARE-11 News

5:00 PM Broadcast

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

Story	Time (all times approximated)
Preview at 4:55PM Anchors mention that they will talk about the tornados that touched down in Austin today, mention Father’s Day.	30 Seconds
Constant Scrolling Banner around the screen: T=Storm Warning Morrison County until 5:30pm	Constant
Teaser: A pilot dies midflight but first…	2 Seconds
Top Story: But first tornado story: images of tornado wreckage and snippets of people talking – overhead shots, weather shots, two lead anchors cut to another anchor (Scott Seroka) who interviews patrons of Austin, MN. Families and puppies and more wreckage. One guy seems to be the focus of the story – him and his dog. Cut to Sven Sundgaard to continue talking about weather	3 Minute for tornado story 1 Minute for additional weather
National News Story: Pilot dies midflight flying from Brussels to NJ – shots of passengers who were on board	1 minute
Local News: Lowry bridge implosion – shots of the bridge and the neighboring areas	1 minute
Local News: Governors new budget bill and side story with another anchor – interview with Hamline law professor – shots of Pawlenty , police, schools – talk about rebate program – talk about donations to political candidates	1 minute
Teaser: Heading to commercial: mention employment and again Father’s Day	20 seconds
Commercials	2-3 Minutes
Local Report: The Dwelling Place Shelter story, abused women who need help can head to this shelter – shots of the shelter, pamphlets, women, police cars (Trisha Volpe is anchor), follow up facts on story	2 Minutes
Kare 11 Self=promotion: Touch times – “Hero Central,” a new incentive launched by Kare 11	30 seconds
Teaser: Talk about a tree farm in WI, weather & Father’s day, cut to commercial again Commercials	20 seconds
Weather: back to Sven Sundgaard talking about why we are having the weather we are having. Sven looks quite sweaty. He walks outside and talks about the weather while they show a distant shot of a lake – why we have a weather “warning” – forecast for the next few days – this weather report takes the whole segment which is interesting	3-4 Minutes!
Teaser Project that took 34 years to complete, Christmas trees	20 seconds
Commercials	2 minutes
Wisconsin Story: Family tree farm giving away tons of money in trees – husband and wife work together (they are retired school teachers) – their land has grown in value – heartwarming story – the couple is shows mowing their fields, we get a picture of their family – there land undergoes a legality to maintain its conserved space (Boyd Huppert is the anchor)	2 minutes
National Report: Father’s day gifts – which are best	20 seconds
Kare 11 Advertisement: mentioning their 10PM broadcast – mention their ending story and preview the National News (with Brian Williams)	30 seconds
Commercials	2 minutes
Fluff Story: toothpick maker, made a model city out of toothpicks, wow	1 minute
Final Weather Shout Out – hail, etc.	20 seconds

Analysis: Tonight’s newscast, like so many, was such a fast paced flow of information; it is a wonder at the end. Do I feel more informed? Did I just learn anything? Clearly I am biased against this type of broadcast (I love my nytimes.com thank you very much!) but it was at least, entertaining.

The “show” began with what I assume they assumed was on everyone’s minds: the weather, especially the severe thunderstorm warnings. That went immediately to natural disasters that happened in Austin, which included many, many pictures of wrecked areas. I thought it was interesting how they “humanized” the story by focusing on one particular man and his dog and how they were affected. By choosing just one of the victims, it brought the story closer to home.

They then went into the pilot who died mid-flight, which is very interesting, but apparently kind of saved that story for Brian Williams, who kicked off his national news show with that very story at 5:30PM.

They quickly mentioned blowing up the Lowry Hill Bridge and then dipped right into Pawlenty’s budget. It was as though they assumed viewers knew the details of these two stories and they merely wanted to remind Minnesotans what was going on.

The teasers before the commercials are always funny: “Coming ahead, a couple that forgoes hundreds of thousands of dollars…” = of course you want to stick around and meet them!

I was kind of shocked how they flipped from an abuse story right into their self-promoted “Hero Central” – it was like they were trying to wash that ugly “abuse” taste out of our mouths.

The final minutes were a way to ease us out of their broadcast – weather, the family tree farm, Father’s Day gifts (they talked about this story longer than the actual story) and a man who spent 34 years building a toothpick palace – wow.

I feel an unsettling calm, hmmm…the overall effect is: all this stuff happened or is going on, but don’t worry, you can still build toothpick palaces in your house if you want to! Ain’t America Grand?

June 14th Post - Media Representations

First, as a straight man, I would like to (go out on a limb and) state how disappointed I usually am with the portrayal of gay men in popular media. Why is it, that more often than not, they come off as being immature and sex-crazed? It is almost as if the only way programmers feel comfortable adding gay characters to their shows is by devising ways in which said characters can act our our popular base gay stereotypes in real time. Most gay bashers will point to their disagreement with the act of gay sex, therefor TV creators create gay characters that are in an endless pursuit of sex - almost so we (ignorant populace) can say: "Ha! I knew it! Soulless, sex-crazed, hell-bound, gays!"

Thank you for allowing the rant.

Recently, just to cap this rant off, I have been very pleased with the characters on ABC's Brothers and Sisters where Kevin Walker and his husband portray a loving and thoughtful couple, much like any other in this world. So - BRAVO - to ABC for not playing into easy stereotypes. [Runner Up Kudos to Grey's Anatomy for all the strong, intelligent African American surgeons]


It is very, very interesting that as I think through what I want to write about - I am having trouble sorting through all the new shows I frequently watch and try to pick out specific phenomena as so many shows are now trying to play against type, add a lot of "gray" characters and so on.

I will go ahead and talk about something that comes to mind, something that I am extremely uncomfortable with - and TV is probably the culprit - and that is: BIRTH.

Has birthing ever been portrayed realistically anywhere? Doubtful. I mean, besides the painful, painful, painful video you had to watch in High School (please tell me I am not the only one who had to watch that video), birthing on TV (and for the sake of TV) takes all of 15 seconds. I wonder what the millions of mothers around the world think when they see a birth like this for the millionth time:



Oh boy, look at Jennifer Aniston - somehow still drop dead gorgeous - as she experiences an entire MINUTE & 30 seconds of birthing pain! Somehow, since it is a 22 minute sitcom, it still feels more "real" and even "longer" than other births on TV.

[Full Disclosure: I am a HUGE fan of Mad About You - to the point where my wife thinks I have a problem] We turn to TV for escape. We do not want to see a real 32 hour labor that turns the lady into a pulpy mess and the man into a fraught, nervous sad-sack who cannot tie his own shoes (okay, maybe we do want to see the man part). So naturally, when it came time for the lovely Helen Hunt to give birth, the moment the baby is placed in her arms, it appears as if her and her husband just finished shooting a Vidal Sassoon shampoo commercial - instead of the "actual" picture (I'm thinking of my mother holding me, appearing as if she had just, well, given birth):



The point is this: I am ruined for life. When I actually have to stay by my wife's side while she is in intense pain for hours on end - I am going to faint. I cannot handle "womanly" pain on any level. I am a complete wussy. I seriously need the 20 second TV birth and I blame all the movies and shows that have given me ample reason to believe that 20 second births exist.

In all seriousness, there is some horrid misinformation out there about pregnancy, birth and all that goes with it. Just look at a shiny cover of People or US Weekly with a beaming Bristol Palin or Jamie Lynn Spears and their progeny to understand that we do not "have this pregnancy thing down" as a culture quite yet.




Just to leave on a positive note - in researching this topic, I came across an old episode of Roseanne and was blown away by how opposite it was to my point (made above). Becky has a baby and there is little chance the baby will live - which is what the episode realistically and painstakingly depicts. Well done Roseanne - a show unlike any other on today. (For the rest of the episode, just look it up on You Tube).