Where do we draw the line between media and reality?

McLuhan: It’s All Going According to Marshall’s Plan

                When it comes to the media, there is no avoiding it. The media has become a part of everyday life making it hard to remember the days in which the media did not play such a large role in relaying information. “The media explosion”—as predicted by Marshall McLuhan, a professor of literature—has taken away from reality. It has created an imaginary world in which we live in. This further suggests that if people do not separate themselves from the media, they will lose all possible aspects of reality. Marshall McLuhan—a “pop prophet and media visionary”—predicted the current media explosion in our world. He stated that this explosion “is not an isolated blast, but one in a series of detonations that will probably last through and beyond our lifetimes”. Although many people refuted his statements about the negative influence of the media, many of his “theories” seem to fit the second media generation. This media generation refers to that of video games and discs, cable and Qube—a cable system playing a pivotal role in the development of American cable. These developments have given Americans the ability to enter into another world; a world that some turn into reality.

                Marshall McLuhan developed a concept known as ‘perceptual numbing’ which is referred to as a “stubborn insensitivity to all but the most extreme experiences in life”. He used this concept to help explain how individuals dwell in the media environment. This dwelling and numbness is created by the ‘depth experience of media’. These depth experiences take individuals in and make them feel as if they are in another world. It gets to the inner most part of the individual and allows them to imagine that they are actually inside whatever they may be watching or playing. The depth experience of the media causes an individual to get lost within a video game, or in a show, and develop possible emotions towards the characters. Due to this, a blur between both reality of the world and entertainment occurs. As denoted by McLuhan, ‘The medium is the message,” simply meaning, the media content doesn’t matter. What really matters was the depth experience provided by the media content—how “cool” the medium was.  According to McLuhan, TV supplied the ultimate depth experience because it required the individual to help create the image. From this, the image becomes part of the individual—“an extension of man”. With the simple click of a button an individual can be caught up within electronic media, developing a reality separate from that of true reality.

                It was believed by McLuhan that the media explosion could have taken one of two routes of exposure. The explosion could have either benefited us—creating a utopian society—or provided extreme disadvantages. It is quite obvious that the media explosion has not provided the utopian society that McLuhan believed it once could have. McLuhan believed that the depth experience provided by the electronic media may have been able to reunite individuals, bringing all senses into play. However, this seems to be the complete opposite of what actually occurred. It may have brought individuals together in the “playing” world; however, it has torn them apart in reality of the world. The electronic media has provided individuals an outlet to create a world of their own. It does not allow us to “experience one another openly and completely”. This depth provided by the media has furthered the concept of perceptual numbing. With this numbing, individuals become less and less affected by information provided by the media and electronic media. It seems as if extravagant steps must take place in order to get the majority attention of the population in today’s world. However, the media has realized this trend, developing special effects and graphics that will help to attract individuals who appear to be “numb”. All of this information makes one question, when is this cycle ever going to stop? When are people going to realize that electronic media is separate from reality?

                Swiss novelist Mac Frisch states, ‘Technology is the knack for organizing the world so we don’t have to experience it”. I think this statement helps to exemplify how much technology has altered the current world. No longer do people need to face the troubles of reality, they can escape through some sort of electronic media, or only pay attention to the information provided by the particular technology. It seems as if individual thought is fading, and technology and the media are taking over. We no longer have “first-hand experiences” because of the media. The world of communications has become that of second nature to human beings—causing the creation of “unreality”. Development of cameras and camcorders has also created this sense of “unreality”. These developments in technology and electronic media have transferred the ability to fantasize and imagine with our brains to electronic machines. These machines are taking over and causing an “atrophy” of our human capacity to think on our own. The medium is there to take one away from their conscious mind and enter into an alternate world.

                Media literacy—a reflecting technique—is something that should be developed in order to keep individuals reality separate from that of electronic media. It will allow individuals to disengage themselves as for media to no longer be considered “an extension of man”. There are many ways that this can occur and seems quite crucial for the younger population. Children should constantly be reminded that the shows they are viewing on TV are not real life. The characters are actors, the plots are made up and the special effects are just provided to grab ones attention. Also, they should be notified of the difference between entertainment and advertisement. Providing children with this concept will allow them to abstain from creating a reality separate of that of true reality. If children are not supplied with this information they may easily be taken in by the media. It is important to also recognize adults. Adults are not free from the manipulation of the media. They can also utilize these reflecting techniques by imposing critical reflections upon commercial TV. In doing so, they are allowed to formulate their own opinions—those not provided by the media. These techniques are important to prevent the loss of “first-hand experiences”. If the media takes over too much, reality will be twisted into a completely incomprehensible concept.

                

The Ins and Outs of Advertisements

All the News that Fits

                In today’s world it seems as if the news has become a source of entertainment rather than an informative TV program. An individual can no longer watch the news and know that all the information they are receiving is 100% accurate. Sometimes, the individual does not even know if they are getting all the information they should be. The thought of “Am I informed as possible?” may constantly lure in individuals minds, and if it does not, it should be taken into consideration.  As Donna Woolfolk Cross states in her article All the News that Fits, “the very name ‘television news show’ reveals its main purpose: to entertain, not to inform.” Rather than the news remaining a serious matter, it has turned into a source of entertainment, promoting the current status quo. Rather than keeping individuals informed, it has turned into an area concerned with the appearance of anchormen/women and distracting viewers from the true meanings of what is going on around the world. The original purpose of the news—to inform—has been lost, leaving individuals with less information than ever.

                In All the News that Fits, Cross states that “the news shows promote the messenger above the message”—the network has become more concerned with who the person is delivering the message rather than the actual deliverance of the message. This idea seems to reflect our current society. Today, people are mostly judged upon what they look like and what they wear. People have forgotten about the old saying, “It’s what’s on the inside that counts” and have only guided their attention towards what they look like on the outside. News programs have helped to further this idea—looks are more important than the quality of the individual/information—by hiring those individuals that are considered to be “better looking.” It is very rare that an individual will turn on a news show and see an anchorman/women, weatherman/women, or sports reporter that would be considered “unattractive.” This idea is proven when WABC-TV in New York hired an anchorwoman whose only previous experience was as a California Fashion Model. Statements such as “After that, the news could be emitted from women only if they were unwrinkled. It also helped to be blond and to have a name like Portia or Melanie,” prove how important appearance has become. News programs have become too concerned with the appearance of the individual reporting the news than the quality of the news being reported. In this sense, Americans seem to have lost their individual freedoms to obtain as much information as possible.

                Many distractions have been added into news programs to make reported matters less serious than they actually are. The anchormen/women downplay the reported information by making it seem as if everything will be okay. Elements such as music have been added to make the news seem “cheerful”—downplaying the seriousness of reported stories. Aforementioned distraction—appearance of the reporter—speaks for itself. Another distraction, Happy News has also been utilized to decrease anxiety of the individuals watching those stories that may cause them to feel this way. Happy news is considered to be the cheerful interplay between broadcasters in between news stories. Happy news provides entertainment for those individuals watching the news program but causes a loss of quality in translation of information. With this addition of Happy News the individual may forget about the story they previously listened to, which is exactly what the news reporter wants. Donna Woolfolk states, “The Philosophy behind Happy News is to keep the viewer from being too upset by the news reports he is hearing,” proving how much reporters downplay the seriousness of a story. Happy News just provides another distraction to the viewer. It tries to end the news segment on a happy note, giving the idea to viewers that nothing is wrong and everything is going to be okay—which sometimes isn’t always true.

                Although we may have access to more information than ever in today’s society, it seems as we are less informed than our country has ever been. We have access to all this information, but still do not have the knowledge we should.  Cross states, “Seven out of ten people now get their information about the world exclusively from TV. Yet one recent study revealed that these people can no longer give even one reason to justify their choice of a particular political candidate or policy,” leading one to question, why? Why can we not formulate a reason? Why, with all this information, are we still unable to create justifications? This could be contributed to the fact that we are being denied information that does not fit the news “entertainment standards.” If the story doesn’t have the wiggle, and doesn’t fit the way that the news reporters want it to, then it does not get any attention. If the reporter cannot create a visual, entertainment appeal, then the story is ignored. As stated, “Stories about banks robbing people cannot be made as ‘entertaining’ as shots of people robbing banks.” This proves that although one story may be more serious, if it doesn’t meet the entertainment standard, then it is “lost in translation.” This reveals the idea of how under informed this country actually is. It seems to me as if there is so much information out there that we are not getting and that could be helpful to us. So much thought goes into reporting the story and making it entertaining—with the use of a tease, attention-grabber, hook/incitement, then finally the story with some sort of dramatic conflict, and a snapper closer—that if the story does not fit all these aspects, it is forgotten about. To me, this storytelling use is not news at all. It is just a distracter, a way to calm us and forget about the big picture.

                So after all this information and analysis the number one question I want to ask is, how informed are we as a country? Are we getting all the information necessary to broaden our horizons of knowledge? The news has become so concerned with miniature stories such as helping a pet foundation, adopting a dog, local house fires, and other small news stories that they have lost the big picture. We are not being given information on big stories that are important and will influence the future of our country. Those stories are being downplayed to ease the nerves of the audience and make them less likely to change the channel. It seems as if we have lost the informative aspect of the news and it has just turned into another entertainment source. 

Virgin Vinyl, Real Counterfeit Diamonds, and Genuine Imitation Leather: With these Worlds I Can Sell You Anything

                Imagine this scenario: you’re sitting in front of the TV, have not eaten all day, and suddenly a commercial comes on for McDonald’s making their hamburgers looking better than ever. You immediately being to crave McDonald’s so you get into your car and are on your way. You get to McDonald’s order a #5 and are finally satisfied. Well, that advertisement got exactly what they wanted out of you. Advertisements have become a major source of income for Television networks. As the years continue on television advertising becomes more expensive and television networks make more and more money off them. As William Lutz states, “Of all the media used by advertisers, television remains the most important, the most dominant, the most influential, and the most expensive” proving how influential TV advertisements have become in today’s society.”

                Over a life span, an individual will be exposed to millions of advertisements. All of these advertisements have one thing in common—get the customer to buy the product. No matter how alike two products may be, the supplier and advertiser will say/do anything to get the product sold. The use of deceptive words and cliff hangers about the product make the individual more likely to buy the product. Much time and effort is put into advertisements of particular products with their major concern being that of making money. The advertiser seeks to get you in a trance that takes you so much into the product that you could not imagine not having the product. They lure you in with bright appearances and catchy words giving you a sense of what it could feel like if you had the product. Advertising has become a large source of information, proven by eight-twelve year olds who were able to identify more brands of beer rather than presidents of the United States. To me, this seems like a problem, especially the fact that it is beer they more know about than presidents. So much information about new products is obtained through these advertisements and we fail to realize how deceptive these advertisements are being. 64% of teenagers have reported getting information on new products from the Television and 36% of teenagers report buying the product after seeing the advertisement. Once again, the advertisers achieved their goal—get the viewer to buy the product.

                Although many people may claim that they are not influenced by advertisements it is quite obvious that a majority of people around the world are. Truth is, if we were not many businesses would probably no longer be running. Advertisers use strategies to attract a customer to their product. Viewers may not realize it, but most of the time advertisers are relaying a message that doesn’t even have a meaning behind it. Advertisers make use of “Weasel Words” in order to act as if they are making a particular claim about a product when in reality they are making no claim at all. Weasel Words are heard in almost every advertisement consisting of those words such as “help,” “virtually,” “new and improved,” “acts,” “works,” “like” and many others.  With every single one of these words, the advertiser uses some sort of deception. When the advertiser states a product is “new and improved” the audience is lured into the product thinking it is better than the previous version  However, the only thing that happened to make it “new” was that it underwent a material functional change. But how do you know what this change is, and how do you know if it was a good change? This is pure deceit. Also, “improved” doesn’t mean the product was necessarily made better; all it means is that a change was made to make it different from before. Advertisers use these two words to make individuals think the product is going to be better now since it is “new and improved” when it fact, there is no proof that is actually is. The use of these weasel words gets the individual to think about a product in the way the advertiser wants them too.

“Help” is the number one weasel word used in advertisements. The advertiser strategically places the “claim” of the product after using the word help in hopes that the individual will forget they said “help” instead of stop/eliminate and focus only on the so called claim. Until now I did not realize how often the word help was used in advertisements. And now that I know of this weasel word I have realized how much it is used to get a “claim” across. Not until now did I notice the use of help in medicine commercials. Rarely does a commercial promoting medicine use the word stop or eliminate the sickness but always “helps” the sickness. Individuals forget the meaning of “help” when watching advertisements, and this is exactly what the advertiser wants. Having an idea of this weasel word helps to reveal what the ad is truly saying—nothing at all. In fact, advertisements constantly use unfinished words or incomplete statements leaving the individual with no information at all, which is something we as an audience fail to realize. Countless times in car commercials the announcer will state “5 times faster” or “5 times better quality.” But 5 times faster then what? 5 times better quality then what? This leads to the idea that we are left uninformed about particular products for a particular reason—so that we will buy it.

               

                Advertisers use so many tricks and words to advertise a particular product. The use of these tricks and words leads one to imagine that much information we are given is just a lie. The fact that advertisers can do such things and deceive millions of people in order to sell a product is quite baffling. This leads me to question, how much of this information we are given on a product is true? It seems to me that all trust in media advertisements is slowly diminishing.

Fits Articles

Tide Commercial

This commercial fits the idea of use of Weasel words discussed in William Lutz’s passage. This commercial utilizes two different weasel words. It highlights the words “New & Improved” by having them written within the commercial and also stating them. The commercial also uses “helps” another very common weasel word.

Dayquil Commercial

This Dayquil commercial also reflects William Lutz’s discussion of the use of Weasel Words in advertisements. Dayquil uses the statement “help get back your energy” and also the word “relieve” many times. These two words—help and relieve—insinuate that the medicine will relieve symptoms but not necessarily get rid of them. It is also noticed that help is used in areas where it can easily be missed and seems as if it is stated faster than the rest of the commericial.

Strongly affected by

Yaz Birth Control

Before 

After FDA Involvement

These two Yaz commercials highlight the Yaz birth control pill before and after FDA involvement due to so many problems that were occurring with this pill. This commercial strongly affected me because being a woman it is essential to know—if you choose to—what pill you are putting into your body. The fact that a commercial had to be re-made to address problems with this pill highlights the idea that not enough information was given to begin with. This ultimately affected me in a positive way for it gave me the knowledge that I cannot only pay attention to commercials for a particular birth control medication and that further research on it may be needed.

Can’t believe they’re on TV commericials

Sleepy's Commercial: Sealy Afterglow

I think this commercial ultimately speaks for itself. I never thought Sleepy’s would advertise a Sealy’s mattress in a way such as this. The fact that this is promoting “just a little lovin’, early in the day” to attract viewers to a mattress, and is aired on TV shocks me. The “Sealy Afterglow” title of this commercial reveals the sexual connotation of this commercial and I’m amazed it is actually on TV.

Axe Wash Your Balls Commercial

Once again, this commercial speaks for itself. A play on the word “balls” is used to attract viewer’s attention and make men think that this axe shower gel and detailer will make them irresistible. The use of this outrageous sexual connotation seems to be what would draw the audience into this commercial. However, I am surprised it was even aired on TV. 

Freedom of Speech Becoming Not So Free: The Conflict of Net Neutrality

 

Have you ever gone onto the internet and wondered, what if this information I’m looking for was not so easily obtained? What if I was charged money for access to this information? What if the internet just wasn’t this simple? Well, if you have, you can thank Network Neutrality for the ease of internet research. Network Neutrality is a concept that encompasses the idea of a free and open internet. As a CRS Report for Congress entitled “Net Neutrality: Background and Issues” states, “There is no single definition for net neutrality,” however, they define it as “The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory treatment.” This concept seeks to eliminate internet discrimination. It holds the idea that internet services should treat all sources of data the same, no matter what they may be. According to www.freepress.net, “Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.” This concept of Net Neutrality allows us—the general public—to obtain information needed in a seemingly free and non-complex way—as www.freepress.net states, “without any interference of the network provider.”  An open internet, free to all, has existed since the internet began, but not written into law—posing potential problems that may arise with net neutrality and unwanted changes.

The concept of Network Neutrality is one that has been long part of our countries history. However, this concept is recently being brought to the public’s attention.  As www.cybertelecom.org states, opponents of network neutrality seem to argue that there is no history of net neutrality, while those who support net neutrality argue within the development of the communication system there does exist a history of net neutrality. Proponents argue that Net Neutrality is the “evolution of a long communications policy debate.” Eli Noam, a Professor of Economics and Finance at the Columbia Business School states that this history is created through a three part cycle—wildcatting, backlash and control and loosening of control. The history leading to the emergence of Net Neutrality can be dated back to 200 years ago with the development of the postal service. The postal service was developed in hopes to create a communications service free from the monitoring of the British Military. To do so, Congress asked current President Benjamin Franklin to create a postal service where messages could be sent with full privacy on its journey to its destination. This trend towards Net Neutrality was noticed again, 50 years later, when the importance of telegraph messages being “transmitted securely, in the order received, accurately, and without discrimination.” This lead to telegraph carriers becoming “Common Carriers”—which still exist today—defined as “carriers of goods, people, and information”—who have played, and still do, a large role in the development of Net Neutrality. Another part of this evolution of Net Neutrality was the FCCs announcement in 1966 that stated telecommunications carriers should be opened to computer networks. A further timeline of the years 2003-2005—provided by www.cybertelecom.org  and shown below– represents the final communication policy debates leading to the emergence of Network Neutrality.
         2003: FCC rolled back UNE rules, making local telecommunications competition difficult
         2004: The FCC ruled that new fiber installs did not have to be unbundled to permit competition
         2005: The Supreme Court ended the long open access debate - affirming the FCC's ruling that Internet-over-cable service providers were not telecom carriers and did not have to be open their physical networks to permit competition in higher level services and applications
         2005: The FCC ruled that Internet-over-DSL service providers were not telecom carriers and did not have to open their networks
This timeline and aforementioned information helps provide an insight into the development of Net Neutrality.


The idea of Net Neutrality has become a common issue throughout the United States since 2005. With Net Neutrality being something that was always part of the internet, the idea for change of this concept has caused quite the uproar. In 2005, the FCC created a policy statement consisting of four different principles (CRS Report for Congress):
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful internet content of their choice
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice (subjects to the need of law enforcement)
3.  Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
4.  Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers

These four principles seek to maintain and uphold Net Neutrality. However, many companies did not agree with this policy and were actually found violating this. In 2008, the FCC stated that Comcast Corporations violated the policy by “selectively” blocking peer-to-peer connections in order to maintain traffic. As the FCC stated it, “unduly interfered with Internet users’ right to access the lawful Internet content and to use the applications of their choice,” and this right here is what is causing the conflict with Net Neutrality. Big cable and telephone companies are now looking to charge money for access to internet website, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. This means that no longer will the ease of maintaining information on the internet exist and no longer will any of it be free. Another stress to be added to American lives.  The internet is a place where one can easily maintain information on anything possible, for that to be stripped from us, would be stripping our legal freedom to access information. Due to this issue, a Non-Profit Organization—Save the Internet—was created in 2008. This coalition—coordinated by the Free Pres—is composed of hundreds of groups—from different political standings—that seek to maintain free and open internet. With this attempted change in Net Neutrality, various questions arise. Questions such as, what could happen if net neutrality is lost, how much will this access cost, and how can we protect net neutrality seem to be constantly surrounding this issue. As www.freepress.net states, if net neutrality was lost “Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporations.” Also stated, “…without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV.” Consumers will no longer be able to choose what they want at the ease of the button, but rather look through a guide, determine what information they want, and then most likely pay for that information. And who knows how much this access will cost.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality? Well, that’s an easy question. The larger telephone and cable companies which already make much money are those that want to rid of Net Neutrality. Companies such as, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable seek to become “internet Gatekeepers.” Not only do they want to control access to the websites, but also how slow or how fast, or if at all, the page loads. As stated by www.freepress.net these larger companies want to “…tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.” It all comes down to money—the more the client is willing to pay, the better the speed and access to that internet site will be. These large cable providers are willing to pay millions of dollars to get rid of Net Neutrality leading to the concern of no longer having simple internet access. Although there may be these large cable and telephone providers shoveling out money and fighting for the rid of Net Neutrality, there are still many individuals and larger companies fighting against this. Many people are in support of Net Neutrality, coming forth and voicing their opinion on this situation. Individuals and companies have taken a stand for keeping Net Neutrality—one of these individuals being current President Barack Obama—who states that he will “not take a back seat to no one” in his support for Net Neutrality. Companies such as Amazon.com, EBay, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo are supports of Net Neutrality. Also, individuals such as “Internet pioneer” Vint Cerf, Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC commissioner Michael Corps hope that stronger protection will be brought for Net Neutrality. Papers have also been found in support and seeking to protect the internet such as, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chornicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St.Petersburg Times, and Christian Science Monitor. With all these people in support of Net Neutrality, it leaves hope for citizens of the United States that rely on this free and open internet.

In my personal opinion, I believe that Net Neutrality is essential for the United States to remain functional and prevent any riots that could occur with changes. Although there may not be a law protecting Net Neutrality, isn’t it our own natural right to have access to the free internet? As citizens of the United States we are guaranteed freedom of speech and given rights. I think that it should be an assumed right to have access to the internet without worry about being charged service fees. It is a way in which people maintain everyday information. It is a way for us to broaden our spectrum of information. A way for us to know what is going on in the world. I think to myself, how I would have done this assignment without such ease of the internet. The truth is, I probably would have given up and refused to pay any service fees. Net Neutrality in my opinion is a common right, and a law should be made in order to protect it. Free internet should be considered a freedom, and should not be stripped from US citizens. Linked below are sources that help to stress the importance of keeping Net Neutrality around, and what it could mean for us if we do not. 

           Two Million for Internet Freedom Video

           NPR Segment: Network Neutrality Matters to Movie and Music Fans

           Now Hear This: Net Neutrality is Critical Video