Used by Your Uses

While I may be jumping the gun when it comes to social media, I think it plays an important part in how Uses and Gratification Theory affects us today. Within U&G, the theory states we, the audience and consumers of media, are not passive to the media we consume but instead curate our media intake to suit our needs and desires. These main needs are summarized as cognitive, affective, personal and social integrative, and tension free needs. Simply, these are a means at our disposal to arguably fulfill Maslow’s psychological and self-fulfillment needs. Wikipedia rabbit-holes or (real and informative) news can meet our cognitive needs. Music, art, books, etc. can be used towards our affective needs. Personal and social integration relate to how we view ourselves, self esteem and image, as well as how we view ourselves in relation to our peers. Media we consume to relax or unwind works towards our need for tension relief.

I think our uses of media today is different (read perverted) from how we used to consume media even as little as 10 years ago when viewed through the lens of Uses and Gratification Theory. Whereas before, our choice of media may have been comparatively limited, it still effectively worked to fulfill our main 5 needs defined by U&G theory. Now however, I think we have slipped back towards the Magic Bullet Theory, that the audience is passive. The Magic Bullet Theory now only acts behind a mask of U&G theory. Producers and distributors of media have learned how to hijack our media to deliver their message to us. Look at nearly any social media platform nowadays. These platforms are run by algorithms that decide for you what you’ll want to see in your feed.

As an example, look at all the back lash that Facebook and Instagram received some years back, and more recently tiktok, when it came to teen’s self image, beauty standards, and eating disorders. These feeds are supposed to help us relax and feel good about ourselves? Clearly they don’t. With one hand, they create a problem and with the other, offer what they claim is a solution. They show you people who look better than you, often via photoshop or plastic surgery, and these feeds ask why don’t you look as good as these people. Through this comparison between yourself and what you’re being shown, you’ll begin to pick out the differences and try to remedy this discrepancy. “Your” use of these platforms becomes the platforms use of you as it tells you here’s how you can do better and show it to everyone else.

Through this cyclic cycle, our media has co-opted the needs we seek to fulfill within Uses and Gratification theory to suit its own needs, turning us once again into pawns of the Magic Bullet Theory.

This week, we had the joy of watching “The Newsroom” by Andy Sorkin in class. This show is a way for Sorkin to express his views on media and news in the 21st century.

One thing I especially appreciate about this show is the opening of the first episode. The lead character, Will MacAvoy, played by Jeff Daniels, is asked by a student why America is the best country on Earth. MacAvoy, standing as a mouthpiece for Sorkin, goes on a rant about how America isn’t the best country on Earth and explains why. This is an extremely important thing to consider as many of our problems as a nation stem in part from American Exceptionalism. That America is the best because of, as Daniels co-actor said, freedom, freedom, and… freedom, is simply not true. We don’t freedom on the heels of our military boots. We don’t being freedom with ‘our’ capitalism. That so many descriptors get inseparably tied to America and it’s supposed greatness, creates this toxic world where horrible things are seen as, and perpetuated, by some idea of patriotism.

‘Patriotism’

The remainder of the show looks at the state of news media in 21st century America. Will MacAvoy comes back to his news hour after time off with a vengeance. He bemoans how ‘news’ is just a partisan, post-truth, entertainment spectacle under the guise of current events. This has led to a population, and electorate, who are uninformed and can’t have substantive debates.

Evolution of news in America.

Sorkin and Daniels bring an invigorating portrayal to the screen of what the news could be. By taking real world news stories from ~10 yrs ago and reframing them with how that news could have gone, the duo create a place for an escape from reality. The ability to step outside one’s experience and perspective and see the news through MacAvoy’s lens allows us to more easily reflect on ourselves and how we interact with the news media we take in.

As I’ve said before on this blog, as a culture, we need to reevaluate the media we produce and consume. We’re just finding channels and sources that support what we already believe and to see more of. Part of this is made up of things we enjoy and feel comfortable watching. Another part, and likely the more dire part, is consuming media that angers us, a term coined ‘angertainment’.

Angertainment feeds on our impulses and gives them right back to us in a cyclical cycle that keeps us glued to our screens and reinforces our biases.

The Stanford Prison Government

First off, fun fact: I grew up across the street from Stanford, a pretty cool place to hang and shoot the shit.

Anyways, one of the many things Stanford is famous for, and this one having a much darker tone than nearly anything else, was the Stanford Prison Experiment. This was an experiment performed in August 1971 by Dr. Philip Zimbardo. It was performed to examine the effects of authority and powerlessness in a prison environment. 24 male individuals were selected and randomly broken into two groups of prisoners and guards. In the position of power given to the guards and their animosity provided to them by matching uniforms and mirrored sunglasses, the guards quickly became abusive to the prisoners. While the experiment was supposed to go for a 2-week period, it was stopped after only 6 days. While the original study was meant to examine power dynamics within the prison system, I think it illustrates a dark part of human psychology when we are given power over other people.

In American politics, we have, at least on paper, a representative democracy. In this system, the public, again, at least on paper, votes to elect leaders who will represent their interests in government. Really, officials are elected who will represent the person who donates the most money and essentially buys themselves a voice in government. Anyways, once these elected officials reach office, they are now in a position of power to exert their will over other people. Does this sound familiar??

Most, if not all people, assume in a position of power, they would work towards the betterment of their situation and their peer’s. What the Stanford Prison Experiment shows us is people will very quickly let their power go to their heads. With this power, people will more highly value themselves and de-value others. I think this is what happens in government. When politicians gain power, after working to secure it from threats, they will act in their own interests. Simply look at all the times when politicians could have agreed that some action would benefit the entire nation but be expensive to them. Every time this decision has come up, politicians will sacrifice the greater good for their own comfort. The effects of their actions are simply shifted to the general populace and they experience no negative effects.

Definitely not an example of a topic where politicians have moved to protect their own interests at the expense of the general population.

You know, it’s really amazing to me how many things we, as a species, have fucked up. Time and time again, we’ve chosen a path that takes us from neutral to bad, and then willfully bad to worse. When I first registered, I expected this class to be a look at modern media and how our consumption of it affects us as individuals and a society, but in a barest sense. Basically to do with the bull shit news on TV and the rise and fall of Facebook. But really, its been more of a look at how our psychology as stupid lizard brained monkeys has caused us to make horrible decisions. This class has done a great job at teaching the mechanisms and names for the processes. Time and time again, we screw up whatever good thing we had going.

“Did you see the news?” “Which version?”

People talk about the news, what they saw, what they heard over the radio, or read on their phones. I really couldn’t give much of a shit except for news in the broadest or largest terms. Yeah, Queen Liz kickin’ the ole bucket is a big deal and I’ll perk my ears for it. But what Rachael Maddow says on MSNBC at 9 or Tucker Carlson on Fox at 8 is not news.

Imagine hearing a story about some guy from your friend, who head it from his cousin, who read it in a text that had a grainy picture of someone’s bad drawing of a tablet with writing. That’s about how accurate the news is. Or more specifically, how the ‘other side’s’ news is, at least to you. We live in a world now where ‘news’ is parroting back spin-takes of an event that reinforces our world beliefs. Often this is described under the term ‘echo chamber’. Look at the right and all they’ll say is how the Dems are socialists who won’t get anything done. On the left, they’re going on about how the GOP are being obstructionist fascists. Both of these opinions describing the same debate that may have happened on The Hill earlier that day. Each side also insisting the other side has twisted views, completely out of touch with reality and common sense.

We live in an environment where beliefs dictate reality. More than just in the sense of implicit bias or personal background affecting our outlook on the world. This is something much greater and with far more severe consequences. This is a world of ‘Us and Them’, dehumanizing the other side.

What I’m speaking of is the era we currently live in, the Post-Truth Era. To summarize this neatly, Oxford Language defines post-truth as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. This has been co-opted by modern media through television, radio, ads, and even (read especially) the social media platforms most of us use everyday. Now, we are presented with a world view that not we not only agree with, but one that pushes us further into those beliefs. Not uncommonly, to the point of radical extremism.

A most notable example is the recent 2020 election. I don’t mean the insurrection at the Capitol to over turn the results of the presidential electoral count. I mean the months of alleged voter fraud, investigations, and extreme electioneering and voter coercion. The GOP created something out of nothing. Constantly saying, shouting, over and over about voter fraud created something of a scale that needed investigating. By saying it repeatedly, non stop, flooding people’s media, the GOP made it real. I’m reminded of a quote, I can’t remember where from though. “Tell a lie, tell it big, tell it often”. The GOP seems to have had this on page 1 of their playbook. Granted, they were also in complete lockstep with Trump, who was leading this charge, during his entire time in the spot light. However, this practice is older than Trump and the GOP cannot be simply said to have been blindly following him.

This is now a time where anyone can flat out, tell a bald-faced lie and have it accepted as truth by those who follow the individual telling it. Some politician or news anchor could go on right now and say the sky is orange. People who subscribe to this person would immediately accept it as true and view anyone who didn’t, as being completely out of touch and ‘radical whatever’ of what they find most offensive.

Unfortunately, I see no end to this trend, due to Post-Truth’s inherent ability to radicalize, this trend will only continue on and get worse. We have already witnessed the death of civil discourse in any significant context. Now what follows is not some sort of ‘its in your power’ or ‘be the change’ spiel. This is the grim reality of our worsening world. It is up to us to cut through the shit of modern media, creating our false realities. It will run rampant unchecked. This cannot go on. If we care, we have to separate ourselves from the narratives being fed to us and to pull our fellow’s heads out of their asses. If we even can. Maybe we’re past a point of no return without some radical upheaval that is great enough, likely violent enough, to make both sides moot.

The MPAA is Rated R for Excessive Bullshit

Wow. Really just wow. The amount of shit these people can spew to protect themselves is incredible. In particular, I am amazed by two of their practices. First, is their viewing board to determine a film’s rating. Second, their appeals process is such a joke. The MPAA specifically has people who are not experts but are ‘normal people’. Additionally, these people ideally have kids in a certain age range and serve for only a certain duration. I think its absolute crap to have ‘normal people’ who really take an unusually strong offense to specific things. They refuse to have experts since they wouldn’t reflect the views of their idea of the average person. Even then, I could easily see if they did have experts, they would be cherry-picked for how they believe specific content would be detrimental to children. Essentially sham scientists. These individuals who serve on the rating board also serve well past their stated term limits. This gives them plenty of time to get friendly and cozy with people in the MPAA and others who interact with it. People such as their appeals board.

The evolution of stupid over 100 years

Their appeals board is one of the worst examples of nepotism I think I have ever seen. An anonymous group of appeals members show up in a blacked out van and are assigned numbers to which they are referred to for the appeal’s process. The defendant gets no knowledge of who they are, and also, no chance to actually defend themselves or seemingly to speak. I can understand why the MPAA wanted to keep the appeal member’s identities secret. These people are films buyers for that represent huge regions in the film business. I mean, talk about a conflict of interest! Really, just feed the director to 12 lions in an arena, while handcuffed and gagged. You might even have a better chance!

It really can not be anymore glaringly obvious how biased and stacked the MPAA is to only let through the movies that the industry representatives want to have shown. It’s all just done under the guise of protecting families.

Gotta hide this graphic nudity

Going off of a tangent now, but all this reminds me of another example of just blatant, self serving interest, and this one is even part of the government! The Liquor Authority, at least in New York State. Follows a very similar model. Agents can come through at time they like and bust you for anything they choose. Then they decide the penalties. For any, and I mean ANY, infraction, they can charge up to $10,000 and revoke your license. Don’t like that? Well fortunately, there is an appeal process, go to the very same Liquor Authority that fined you in the first place! There, you will represent yourself against a representative of the Liquor Authority to an arbitrator who is from the Liquor Authority. And if you don’t like their rules at the end of the day, they’d probably tell you to not sell alcohol. The Liquor Authority has no external checks or oversight so anything they do, only has to be approved by themselves.

So maybe in the future, keep an eye out for these kinds of situations. If you get tangled, the best thing I could tell you to do is figure out how to beat them with their own rules.

The Silver Screen Made of Solid Gold

I usually say, possibly pretentiously, there’s a difference between films and movies. Movies, are what Marvel makes. 90-120+ minute visual stories on the big screen. Time and time again, Marvel produces another hit movie, most of the time, I mean, they can’t all be winners. Marvel has gotten so good at what they do, they’re a far cry from the ‘dream factories’ of old. Marvel has a carefully crafted formula and they stick to it because it sells movies. And don’t get me wrong, I look forward to the next Marvel movie just as much as anyone. On the other hand, there are films. These are usually of the same duration and the same setting. What’s different though is how they move us. Films stand out from their celluloid contemporaries by speaking to us on a deeper level than putting on a good show. Look at King Kong, The Godfather, Citizen Kane, 12 Angry Men, The Searchers. These films are the films we remember. And hey, maybe I’m just ragging on the superhero genre. But compare Chris Nolan’s 2008 The Dark Knight next to a majority of the MCU entries. Save for a couple exceptions (ahem, Josh Brolin, looking at you), The Dark Knight is miles ahead of these movies.

Closing scene from The Searchers (1956)

Now I of course wasn’t alive during the Golden Age of Hollywood, so I can’t say what it was like when these films came out. Maybe these classic films stand out because they’ve withstood the test of time, but next to what’s being produced today, I think these consistently are of a higher caliber than what’s hitting the box office today. Why are these films classics? I guess you could ask what separates bad movies from good, or good from great. But I think it goes further than this. I’ve seen great and amazing movies that aren’t films in my mind. And conversely, technically bad films that have stuck with me, The Room comes to mind as an example even though it is a more recent film.

The Room (2003) theatrical poster

What do you think? Is there a differentiation between movies and films? If so, what? What are some stand out films to you and why?

iAdvertise

The ad that sticks with me the most over the years easily is the iPod silhouette campaign that Apple launched in 2000. These ads were elegant, simple, and everywhere. They were made up of a bold colored background, a dancing silhouette in black, an iPod with earbuds, and the product name, iPod, with the Apple logo. By silhouetting the figure, it opened these up to invite the viewer into seeing themselves using the product. It also made clear these weren’t cumbersome devices, they were light and unobtrusive enough to be danced with. These ads went along with a commercial featuring Jet’s “Are You Gonna Be My Girl”, released in 2003. Something I’ve also just noticed, in every image of this ad or video that I’ve seen, the iPod is being held rather than secured to a belt or in a pocket like a Walkman. This implies that Apple made a highly ergonomic device, maybe one you even want to hold.

There was a specific one that particularly stuck with me. Driving down 101-N through South SF to the city civic center, there was a billboard off the left side of the freeway on a hill. Strategically, there used to be a lot of traffic there so you could sit there and it’d be the only ad you’d see for 15-20 mins on a bad day as you’re creeping along. I think I would’ve been around 4-7 when this was up. Over the years, the add changed but it remained home to an Apple ad in some form or another.

Later in life, I got a job in Berkeley. Living in Palo Alto at the time, I would take 101-N to get to work. The first few times I made my commute, I realized the billboard was still there however the ad was different. It’d been a while since the last time I’d been through on the curve and I remembered it as the ‘Apple spot’ in my mind. A few months after, it became an Apple ad again and going through the curve felt like it got something back it’d been missing. It’s a really strange nostalgia that this ad tapped into. In the original ad campaign, they were so ubiquitous that they became a part of my childhood. But the ads themselves didn’t create any sort of specific relationship with me. Then later to see an Apple ad in the same spot, seeing that and being reminded of the old ad there stuck with me for most of the day.

The billboard that was previously home to the silhouette ad can be seen just slightly up and left of center, about the same height of the 101 road symbol.

Apple later went on to retap this theme when they introduced the AirPods. These are wireless ear pieces that take their form from the evolution of the wired EarPods that preceded them. The video ads that accompanied again showed people dancing. However, this time, no other device is shown. This tells me, I could connect these to my iPod, MacBook, iPhone, or likely any other bluetooth enabled device even if it’s outside of the Apple ecosystem. Apple once spoke to how their Macs could network across to any other device so it seems Apple would be a fool to not continue that trend with the AirPods.

To Boldly Go

I gotta say, I don’t watch much TV. Movies, sure, but not so much TV. The notable exception is Star Trek. First aired in 1966, the show went on for 3 seasons before being cancelled by NBC. This series went on to later be known as Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS). After nearly being cancelled after its second season, a huge outpouring of support from fans kept the show going. Originally, the show was going to be moved to Monday prime time but this slot was already claimed by another show. Star Trek subsequently got moved to Friday, 10pm, the death zone for shows. With a smaller budget, new producer, and green writers, the show’s quality and ratings tanked until it was cancelled at the conclusion of the third season.

This would have been it for Star Trek until the short lived Star Trek: The Animated Series (TAS). This was followed by plans for Star Trek: Phase II which would debut on and alongside Paramount Television Service, which would be the fourth TV network in America at the time. After poor advertising revenue, the first season of Phase II was put on hold and the 2 hour pilot episode was reworked into Star Trek: The Motion Picture. This film revitalized the Star Trek franchise, eventually coming to a whopping 12 TV series, 13 films, and several more of each in upcoming projects, all spanning over 50 years of production.

My first encounter with Star Trek was seeing Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams reboot when it premiered in theaters. This was followed later by reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG), starring Patrick Stewart as Jean Luc Picard, on BBC America. This was sometime around middle or high school for me. After seeing some episodes of it, I started making a point of watching it. This went on hold until sometime during my freshman year at Alfred when I began watching it again on Netflix. After finishing TNG, I went through and watched TOS and continued through the remaining series up to that date.

It’s difficult to say how Star Trek will change with the times. So far, the shift from TV to streaming has simply been a matter of delivery rather than a change in the media. Paramount has launched a streaming platform, Paramount+, which features nearly all of the Star Trek collection. New episodes from ongoing series are still broadcast over the air via CBS as well. The new shows being produced are still serials that follow the old TV model. The largest shift to my eye has been the production aesthetic and increased visibility of inclusivity. To its credit, Star Trek has always been leading the charge of diversity and inclusivity. These trends merely reflect those of the majority of the viewing public that make up Star Trek’s audience.

What is a show you think has helped define a genre? Any shows that are personal favorites or standouts?

All the World’s Knowledge

From watching “Out of Print”, I was quite interested by the teenagers who were interviewed about their internet, phone, and book usage. These kids remarked often how quickly they would skim information that was provided to them by Google and Facebook. If they wanted to find some information about something, they’d just look it up then and there. For school research projects, one kid even stated he would just look up answers to questions or look up the Sparknotes for a book. I wouldn’t be surprised if they wouldn’t know how to utilize a library if they were taken to one.

I find for my own usage, I like using the internet to get a survey level of knowledge on a topic. From there I’ll often start looking for books or more in depth collections to continue. The internet provides me with an incredible breadth of knowledge but lacks when it comes to depth. The internet has been most useful for finding and searching collections. I’ll often explore the Scholes and Rakow libraries to see if they have useful information and resources. I find it’s worth the time and effort to get together a list of reading and drive to the Rakow Library in Corning. When I’m there, I can pull the books I need from the open stacks or ask a librarian there to pull something from the secure stacks. With this resource, I can look at books going back centuries. One book I looked at was a 1660’s translation of a 1600’s book. Another time, I got to look at Frederik Carter’s personal, hand written note book. These are resources that simply cannot be found anywhere else. 

I don’t think books will ever truly become obsolete. One book is as powerful as an entire 10 pages of google search results in my opinion. Most of the books I have are on glass topics. Even just one of my books, I wouldn’t trade it for the entire internet. This is simply because most of my books hold knowledge that isn’t on the internet. 

How do you guys research topics of interest? Is it mostly online or do you find text and hard copies a better resource?