Tweet Tweet Tweet and Away We Go!

Participatory Culture

I’m not really a gamer. I can’t for my life play RPG (I’m still not totally sure what that means exactly) games like Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft, or Zelda. Maybe because of my incapability, I don’t particularly like them. Or maybe it’s because my parents never spoiled me with those shiny expensive gaming consoles, and so my definition of fun didn’t revolve around gaming. I think that gaming is a rather solitary and lonely hobby; especially for kids who are an only-child, and whose obsession of gaming prevents them from socializing. Yes, it’s interactive and participatory, but only with the game console.

With social networking a huge success in the digital era, it really emphasizes our desire to be connected to everyone (I don’t know if gamers are too, but they probably are). You can find a huge list of popular social networking sites, and it grows longer everyday. Social networking sites allow users to chat with other users and publish comments, photos, videos and other personalized content for the each other to see. I’m sure I don’t need to list any examples.

The most popular social site of all time has got to be Facebook - your friends have an account, your entire family (yes, unfortunately for the young ones, the oldies are in too) has their own accounts, teachers are on it, and of course, I’m on it too. It is the very definition of social networking - there is not a single application on Facebook that is made for your eyes only. Every application on the site, even if it is a one player game, involves participation or the indirect inclusion of others. You may play Word Challenge (my one and only favourite game on Facebook) on your own, but you will be compared to your friends’ scores and indirectly interact with them when you try and beat their score. Boy, do my friends make me feel stupid. To make myself feel better, I keep playing and playing, trying to beat whoever is in front of me. What a great way to keep us on Facebook, eh?

Okay, so maybe I'm not a Twitter person either (sorry for the misleading intertextual reference in this post's title. It's actually a childhood hand game). Facebook is definitely a big part of my social participation. It connects me to almost all my friends, allowing me to keep in touch with ones that are too far to see. I can check up on and message faraway friends and have them reply at their convenience. It demolished the time difference barrier, which allowed me to connect with travel buddies that otherwise I would never be able to talk to. MSN is not popular in their countries, and time differences between Asia and North America only allowed my friends and I to talk on MSN only if one of us was staying up very, very late at night (which rarely happens)

Being a social shutterbug, I brought my first digital camera to school with me every single day (until it died a year later from excessive use) and took pictures of all my friends and everything that we did. What I loved about Facebook was the ability to upload infinite photo albums and could tag my friends faces in them. I hated taking pictures and not being able to show my friends, so the tagging and the many friends I had on Facebook gave me the chance to conveniently show all my photos. Getting comments on them were particularly enjoyable, and being able to get a broad readership from my friends was a great thing for me.

Many people believe that online networks like Facebook and gaming sites deter people from socializing face-to-face. It all really depends on the theory of media ecology - whether you have a balance between your online and physical world, because too much of it will indeed be bad. To me, Facebook is a way to keep in touch when I can’t see my friends, not a substitute for seeing them - just like how Theuth says that writing is a receipt for recollection, but not for memory (Playboy). 

Works Cited

Playboy. “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1969. 2 November 2009. Web.

Please, selling Violence & Sex is SO overrated

Decoding and Deconstructing Advertising


For this blog, I searched for interesting advertisements on Google as I was at a loss on what to analyze. After a few hours of searching, I found an advertisement for duncan quinn (a luxuriously high class clothier) that I would quite like to express my opinion on. 

First off, I’ll be blunt: to me, it’s revolting, dehumanizing and, in a way, insulting to women who have  the least bit of pride and decency. 

To begin, duncan quinn plays on our culture’s trend of male dominance over women. The actor is portrayed as having the idolized masculine strength to overpower and exploit things to his do his bidding. Note that I said things, as he is quite literally objectifying women, and once he is done with them, he can throw (or drag by the neck with his necktie) them away as if they are inanimate, useless objects that lack the ability to feel.

“Surely,” I thought, “this can’t be the only advertisement that duncan quinn has. There must be another ad by them that is less horrific...”

Nope. This one ad was the only image results of duncan quinn ads that had a woman in it. What was even better (no, not really) was the fact that almost every result on the first five pages turned out to be this ad. I was quite disappointed. I then decided to read up on Duncan Quinn’s company history on the official website. The About Duncan page revealed a shocking statement: “The year was 2003, and New York was still in the thrall of suits bearing a close resemblance to trash bags. The first duncan quinn store opened ... and was an immediate hit” (duncan quinn).

WOW, Egoistic much? 2003 was not too long ago, and the style of men’s suits have not changed radically, so it is a very deprecative, opinionated statement. Clearly the owner does not have much regard for anyone else but himself. Why am I not surprised then that this ad came from his company?

NY Magazine has also stated that it is “The most disturbing ad found in December 2008 fashion magazines” (Ivaskiv). 

Every webpage I found in my searches have given very negative comments regarding this advertisement. With this being said, why would duncan quinn even make an ad that is so offensive to so many people? The meaning of the ad is obvious, but the decoding of it by the audience is of an oppositional view, because who do not agree with this misogynistic ad (Chandler, Daniel). This obviously would not do well for business.

In the twenty-first century, women, for the most part, are now seen and treated as equals of men. Yet in these fashion magazines, we are still seeing the exploitation of women’s sexuality and objectification, to be manipulated by men as they please.

However, let’s not get overboard with the emotions and really analyze this ad. This advertisement shows that sex sells, a ridiculously dominant element in thousands of ads. The model is very seductive in her translucent bra and panties, lying bare and open as if she’s only there for you to look at and devour. Her face is hardly seen, making her a faceless person that you cannot sympathize with. Her lack of facial appearance also gives a generality, stating that this is what all women should be and are like. The ad also shows that if you wear Duncan Quinn’s (minimum) $4000 custom suits, you will be able to get desirable women, and you can even do whatever you want with them, killing included (duncan quinn). 

Better yet, you won’t feel any shame, because you’re wearing a possibly $15,000-or-up suit (if it's custom tailored with textural fabric that only your suit and your suit only will have!) that gives you unimaginable power to do as you please. I mean, look at the guy in the ad! He still looks fresh and having a great time in this dire situation. He’s leading by example, holding her like a dog on a leash. The poor girl is suffering from male hegemony.

Great, now I’m worried about when I grow older and have to attend these high class, fancy, business parties. I see no advantage of putting violence in their ad.

Once again, I have to stress Innis’ theory. He believes that too much exposure to a certain medium will have harmful effects (Postman). This duncan ad is not the only one that displays such dehumanizing acts, as our media constantly promotes violent films and stories. 

A good example of the negative impact of such violent displays is Ted Bundy, the serial killer. He became obsessed with violent pornography, stating that the consumption of it helped shape and mold his horrifically violent behaviour(Cline).

Bundy believed that “sexualized violence” led boys “down the road to being Ted Bundys” (Cline). This ad is clearly violent, with many sexual connotations and denotations. Is this not a form of violent pornography then? Why are we letting it run loose in our media mainstreams, where children can see it?

Like I said before, our society is sadly desensitized and dehumanized. Please help rehumanize our culture so this world is a better place for all of us to live in. No one wants to be like the girl in this ad, or suffer the pain or heartache caused by murderers like Ted Bundy simply because of his exposure to violent pornography.

Works Cited

Chandler, Daniel. “Encoding/Decoding.” Semiotics for Beginners. 3, April 2005. 15 November 2009. Web.

Cline, Victor. “Sex Offenders’ Use of Pornography.” Pornography’s Effect on Adults and Children. New York. Morality Media. Print.

duncan quinn. “About duncan.” duncan quinn. 2008. 15 November 2009. Web.

Justin Ivaskiv. “Sexy violence.” Media Dissemination. 14, July 2009. Web. 15 November 2009.

Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” 2000. 15 November 2009. Web.

If Only I had More Time!

Activist Project

There are many activist organizations with ambitious projects out there, but I am not really active in any. There have been several organizations that I volunteered in for special occasions, but unfortunately I never found the time to give them my continuous support.

          Just because I don’t donate my time constantly doesn’t mean I don’t support the goals they strive to achieve. I was taught by my parents ever since I was born to be thankful and never waste food (thus my chubbiness, as I would still clear the plate despite being full). When my family began to realize the messy state our world was in, they taught me to respect and cherish nature and all things natural.

It is natural then, for me to be attracted towards groups like the David Suzuki Foundation and Second Harvest. Second Harvest is an organization that collects unsold food from businesses at the end of every day, and brings these still-delicious foods to charities and organizations that need these donations to feed the people they are helping. I believe this is an excellent project that benefits all parts of the socioeconomic chain: those who need the donations are supported, food is not wasted, and businesses build a good image when they support these organizations. They are not taking extra resources out of the earth to supply these donations, but are simply using what is already made and may be wasted if not picked up by Second Harvest. This truly eco-friendly system shows that Second Harvest does not focus only on bettering one aspect of society, but really believes in providing a better economic, social, and living environment for all as a whole.

          The David Suzuki Foundation is also a group that I support very much. Although I have not contributed to this foundation, I support every part of their goal of maintaining a world that is sustainable, diverse, safe, and beautiful for generations to come. They do not only focus only on creating awareness and saving endangered animals, but also accept that to improve, the entire environment must improve together in all aspects. Therefore the Foundation also promotes environmentally friendly solutions, and educates on the harms of current practices that are destroying our world. The preservation of beautiful animals is also an integral part of our survival, and the Foundation funds many expeditions to document and save these creatures that you and I rarely get to know.

          Both organizations use many different types of media to their advantage to create awareness and promote action in bringing in better changes. They get their messages out and supporters in by sending regular newsletters in the mail or email as well as advertisements in television or radio. The large, celebrity-filled, television-documented charity events are also places where they get their donations from to support their cause.

          The David Suzuki Foundation also funds countless television programs for a large range of audiences, as well as academic and business papers for more serious endeavors such as research for companies planning on creating green housing.

          These two groups have my upmost support, as they truly support improvement in all aspects of our communities. Without media attention, these groups may have perished a long time ago because of the little coverage and support they would otherwise receive. In the near future I would like to dedicate some time in helping these groups carry out their missions in making our world a better place. After all, they are trying rehumanize the world too!  =)

Works Cited

David Suzuki Foundation. “About Us.” David Suzuki Foundation.2009. 9 November 2009.

Second Harvest. “About Us.” Second Harvest. 2009. 9 November 2009.

Mom was right? What?

Theory/Praxis

The theory of media ecology, as talked about in Neil Postman’s work, The Humanism of Media Ecology, focuses on whether a medium is beneficial to the society or not. One theory that Postman discussed within his speech was that I found to be particularly relevant when describing media phenomenons and even daily life. Innis believed that too much exposure to a particular medium that emphasized, for example time and space would lead the masses into becoming obsessed with military domination and invasion (Postman). 

I too believe that too much of a medium is not good, as there are many examples available in our society to prove such a theory correct. Even the common-sense saying, “Too much of a good thing is not good” has been implanted in our brains since... God knows when. 

I did not realize it much before, but ever since I read Postman’s article and wrote my Mass Communications essay on the mobile culture, I began to see how obsessed our society is with our media. I began to see the obsessiveness, and then I began to see the negative side-effects that were the consequences of such an obsession. From the research I did for my essay, I began to see that we all started to suffer from physical and mental stress caused by the overuse of cellphones (Mak). I have always been warned of it by my parents, but I never really saw it to such an extent until now. 

To much reading or laptop use will probably result in weakened eyes (that will require glasses) and joint pains in the wrists and fingers. Too much television may result in obesity due to lack of movement (Mak). Too much time spent playing or texting others on our personal portable devices may end up actually isolating us instead of pulling us together (Mak). 

Even on a non-media aspect, Innis’ theory is unshaken - common sense and experience tells us that too much sugar gives you a bad stomachache, and too much water will give you water poisoning (trust me, I tried drinking more water all at once, since everyone said it was healthy. It didn’t turn out so good). 

So now, instead of just brushing off my parents’ concerns of having been on the computer or telephone for too long, I reluctantly listen, because I know they are right. I have learned to take things in slowly bit by bit. After all, the cravings of goodness come only because it is not in excess. Everything seems more fun when you haven’t been doing it for the past ten hours. Besides, variety is what makes life so much more interesting!  =)

Works Cited

Mak, Vivian. “The Mobility Culture.” October 2009. 12 November 2009. Print.

Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” 2000. 12 November 2009. Web.

'Cuz All I Want for Christmas, is YOU~ (yes, just YOU)

Buy Nothing Day!




       The “Go Green!” bandwagon’s building momentum and with the economic crash, many have realized that their excessive consumption of goods have had a negative effect on the environment and society. Buy Nothing Day, in its 17th year now, happens on November 28th. This money-free day was created to spread global awareness of our over-consumption. 

The society of the twenty-first century has become overwhelmingly obsessed with consumerism. Everywhere you look, advertisements, salespeople, logos, slogans, even the price discounts are telling us to “BUY MORE! BUY MORE!” It’s the never ending hunger of the monster, Consumerism, provoked by Capitalism.

Don’t believe it? I see it happening all around me. I can’t even see a single, four by four inch patch of floor (or desk) in my friend’s room, and another friend claimed he got lost in her closet (it isn’t that big either). That right there, my virtual friends, is solid, living proof of over-consumption. She doesn’t need 3 calendars, nor the stuffed animals that take up an entire bed and a half. It sounds like I’m exaggerating, but this is no joke.

Ask yourselves this question before you buy something next time: “Is this something I really want, need, and will use for years?”

“Do I already have something similar to this product?” If you do, and it serves much the same function, why are you wasting money buying a duplicate?

If you really want to spend money, please donate to a worthy cause. There are always people (and animals) out there who are less fortunate than you and me. Some people just need a little push to get them on the right tracks. I’m sure they would appreciate it, and Mother Nature too.

I support Buy Nothing Day completely, as I am an environmentally conscious individual and not a fan of shopping. The only real problem with this event is that stores will have significantly less profit, and to them I say, “DEAL WITH IT.” Most companies make enough money to be able to afford a day of less revenue. Oh, and they might get annoyed with AdBuster’s prankishly fun ideas in support of BND!

So! Remember to come out on November 28th for some free fun! (Without the shopping bags, you’ll definitely have the hands to.) 

Works Cited

AdBusters Media Foundation. "Buy Nothing Day." AdBusters. 6, October 2009.

Who Needs Megaphone when there's Television?

Mass Media

Mass media is part of the twenty-first century bandwagon which starts mainstream trends. The term medium defines a form of communication; mass media means a way of communication to vast populations. Mediums such as television, radio, internet, print, and mobile phones are examples that communicate to the masses. 

The term mass media on a prima facie understanding simply means: communicating to a large group of audience. In my understanding of mass media, it is a process which ideas are created and manifested in a form of medium. This medium is then passed on and decoded by the audience to be information which they perceive. This process is done but not limited to mediums that may range from radio to internet to book and prints. What is difficult to get across in mass media is the accuracy of interpretation of the message, because the way an individual interprets an idea is often heterogenous compared others within that same mass. 

McLuhan’s “medium is the message” regarding mass media’s effects proves to be quite true (Playboy). For example, at the beginning of the year for Mass Communications class, I designed my autobiography to be a double sided billboard which passed a generic but overlooked health message. Explaining it simply by word of mouth would not have been enough, and some audience members may not fully understand my poster as a whole. However, with the billboard, I was able to produce a solid visual for each of my concepts. With the flip motion, I can present the first concept as a single identity that everyone can quickly understand without having to interpret the relationship between it and the hidden second concept. When that first concept is fully understood, I can then flip the image to the second image to explain my second concept. With both concepts solidly understood, the audience will put two and two together and understand the whole theme of my poster. With my visual medium, I can effectively and accurately relay my thoughts to a much bigger audience, rather than just the few who understand the verbal explanation.

     Simply put, a medium is the bridge in which invisible thoughts and ideas are able to cross from one mind to another (McCloud, p. 195). Without media (and ESP), we would never have been able to communicate from mind to mind. 

Works Cited

Playboy. “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1969. 

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. New York. HarperCollins. 1994

What's Really Behind that Perfect Mask?

Fake News

News generally means recent and relevant information. Journalists receive, research, then broadcast these pieces of information to the public through various sources such as radio, television, online or printed newspapers, etc. Journalists, however, are not the only ones able to broadcast news. Public relations practitioners can also broadcast news. The difference is PR has an agenda of using the news to sell a product, or to create a better public image for a corporation. In other words, information brought by PR is corporately-funded and primarily suited to their clients’ needs. Journalism’s primary goal on the other hand, is to serve the public’s best interests and right to know; even if there are harmful effects to their employers (Turney).

Most corporations that fund news are not sincerely doing it as a public service. More often than not, their “news” relates to a product they are selling, or to give themselves a better reputation. They simply want viewers to agree with their “news” and therefore will:

1. Buy [more] of their product, or 
2. Trust that company

In my opinion, this is propaganda, not news. Propaganda looks and sounds like regular, unbiased news for the average citizen’s well-being, but there is always a hidden agenda of self-glorification and/or profit when corporations are involved. (We are in a capitalistic economy after all, where man goes to great lengths to increase profit.) These corporately-funded news are only meant to convey a certain idea or view, and thus aren’t news at all, but simply an opinion on a current issue (in which they try to make us agree with them). Some can see through the propaganda, but most cannot (which is why such hypes work, with the desired results). Unfortunately, most corporations can “disprove” (bribing, more corporately-funded news, or whatever else is up their greasy sleeves) those who try to show the public what is really news.

Thankfully, we have alternative ways to express the truth: the internet, where the average Joe or justice-serving organization can get his voice heard and the news spread without all the excessive, mind-warping sugarcoating (think of it this way: too much sugar = bad stomach ache). Be careful though when going through such sites, as some are just as fake and believable as non-virtual scams.

     To help put this into a better perspective, I found an article from the website of the International Food Safety Network. Although this site is no longer being updated (a new, up-to-date one is now available to access), this particular article in this site gave me good insights on how exactly corporations’ fundings are negatively affecting research that should and could have been beneficial ecologically, economically and socially.  The body of the article does not directly tell us what is bad, but the implication is quite clear. Since the research and corporate practices take many years to complete, the age of this article makes no difference in explaining the results of such practices. I hope this article helps you further understand this much debated topic of fake news.

IFSN: CORPORATE FUNDED RESEARCH NEGATIVE AT UNIVERSITIES

Works Cited

Turney, Michael. “Ethics Codes for PR.” Practicing Public Relations. 21, November 2006. <http://www.nku.edu/~turney/prclass/ethics.html> 7, October 2009.