Archive for March, 2010

week 3


In this reading I was very impressed about media influences. They are many aspects that we know about their existance, but we have never pause to think how can these afect us. For example when I read about how media control us, and that many media schedules (such as T.V.and Radio) make their itinerarys in base to us. But also we make our day schedule based on our favourite programs.

Sometimes its very sad to think that our day is based on this, for example getting uo early so we can watck the news, or don’t make appointments in our favourite T.V show hour, or even stop seeing some friends because we have something very “important” to do. Something very simple but a very good example, its when I think when a parent punishes his or her children… whats the first thing most of the parents restrict? T.V.

Hartley and Scannell talk about similiar concepts, but they have the same main idea. How is media affecting our everyday life. And it’s a very strong concept, because now media has become very influencial in our daily life. I love media but also Im a little scared of what consequences this can bring in a not far away future.

We can see some consequences this days, but also some beneffits. If you have time you can see this videos…

As a Psychologist student I want to said that this is affecting all type of social bonds. Now this links between people are tearing appart, so its very important not to only see the beneffits of media, but also the consequences. Since what ime has media being controlling our time? Does media really control our routine? These are questions that only you can answer. So just think about them for a moment.

Mediation: Space – A step forward, or a step too close?

I feel that this week’s readings on mediation through space serve to support Scannel and Hartley’s theories on mediation through time, but also raise some significant points of their own. I particularly enjoyed the online reading by Hay, My Space? Firstly, however, I will discuss Moores’ The Doubling of Space.

I’m sure in all cases, Moores’ article prompts readers to recall certain situations in which they feel they are ‘doubling’ their presence through media; for example, watching a live rugby league match on television whilst discussing it over Facebook comments with friends; maybe videoconferencing for work; or using Skype for contacting family and friends overseas. I used to flatly believe that our ability  to transcend space through contemporary media was an exciting and convenient concept; however after reading Moores, I was alerted to several ideas that perhaps waver my opinions. For example, the permeability of new “situational geographies” and “virtual societies” and the ability to assume online characters and alter egos, as discussed on page 28:

“According to Turkle… ‘the obese can be slender, the beautiful plain…’ selves may now exist in ‘many roles’ and ‘many worlds’ at the ‘same time’.”

This passage reminded me about our study of Second Life players in last week’s lecture, and the way they assume new identities and ‘live’ their lives in virtual existences perhaps based on imagined fantasies of the player. I was reminded also of South Park episode Make Love Not Warcraft, in which the characters become consumed by an online existence that their own lives become neglected in subservience to their virtual selves. (I would attach a link, but my computers been really slow this week! I’m sure there are some clips on You Tube). To clarify my argument here, I’m suggesting that although a ‘plurality’ of space can be incredibly advantageous and convenient, there is a certain darkness or threat from such shifts in space that one must be wary of.

Another example of this ‘darkness’, before moving on to Hay’s article, is the ability for transcendence in space to enable transcendence in emotional contact; by identifying with the ‘intimacy’ portrayed by celebrities and media figures, we become vulnerable emotionally through our phemenological experiences with space. This is evident through the recounts of public response to Princess Diana’s broadcasted funeral service, from Moores’ article.

Finally, I found Hay’s My Space to be an interesting read, particularly his notions of our mediated lives as spaces in which our activities become like web ‘applications’; aligning the modern man with the machine. He noted how our social networking sites are essentially platforms on which we ‘manage’ an image to fit virtual contexts, which I find incredibly true, however much I might regret to admit it. Thus, an existence in virtual space cannot be representative of our existence in physical space, although scarily, soon that proposition may be reversed, as it seems virtual space only continues to dominate and infiltrate our day to day existence.

Week 4: Shaun Moore – “The Doubling of Place”

I too found this reading both more entertaining and easier to understand then the previous two readings. In this article Shaun Moore’s attacks the point of “the doubling place”, which to me emphasises the point that because of specific media we can almost quiet literally be at two places at once. This is enforced in the first paragraph of Moore’s article, where he states, “Broadcasting permits a live witnessing of remote happenings that can bring these happenings experimentally close or within range, thereby removing the farness”. In other words that media has clearly violated the “time/space” continuum.
Although the fact that we can watch “live” TV and find out at every second of the day what our friends are up to. Broadcasting media has allowed us to quiet literally paint a picture in our minds of another point in space at the exact time. Although it has many benefits, we must ask ourselves is it natural to be able to be at two places at once.
As stated previously, although this alteration of the time/space continuum has brought about many benefits such as being able to chat with friends, talk with family overseas and watch events live; it too has brought many consequences. A great example of a consequence of this “doubling of place” can be seen in Moore’s article where a girl who is having a “private” conversation with her boyfriend on the phone during a train ride home, is being listened to quiet intently by another passenger. Personally, I must admit that I too have listened to other people’s conversations on a train, but this just proves my point further. Through the invention of media which allows two people to interact together at the same point in time but at different places; privacy, confidentiality, and even other basic human emotions like closeness no longer exist.
To me the invention of broadcasting media that allows people to be in the same time/space continuum is an awesome thing. I was just trying to get across in this blog that to every benefit there is a consequence and i believe as humans, we won’t feel the full consequence of our actions until years to come
Hope that make sense,
Natasha Boustani xx

Week 4: “The Doubling of Place

I agree that this week’s articles were easier to read than those from past weeks.  In his article, “The Doubling of Place” Shaun Moores applies Paddy Scannell’s theory to a wider range of media. In his introduction Moores quotes Scannell as saying, “ ‘Public events now occur, simultaneously, in two different places: the place of the event itself and that in which it is watched and heard’ (Scannell 1996: 76)”  (21).  Moores seeks to apply this concept to newer media, specifically the internet and mobile phones. He acknowledges that Scannell advocates the “doubling of place” while Meyrowitz believes that culture is “relatively placeless” in our media society. Moores chooses to use his own term to describe this idea of the internet and other electronic media brining people together: “plurality” of place.

The examples Moores uses in this article reminded me a lot of my own experiences in media. I am from the United States and studying here in Australia for the semester. I have used both my phone and the internet to bridge the gap between myself and the people at home. These media are amazing in the fact that they effectively eliminate distance. I can have a conversation with a friend in the US via Skype that would be the same regardless of where in the world I am. With regard to place, I am clearly in Sydney, my friend is clearly in the US but we have also created a place where we both are together through the power of the internet. This is similar to the chat rooms Moores references in his article. The same goes for phones. When I call my parents they are always astounded by the fact that I “sound like I’m right next door” when I am, in fact, on the other side of the world. As was mentioned before, it is so strange to think of what life would have been like without phones or internet. I could communicate with my friends and family though letters but that would not create the same “plurality” of space because we would never create that shared space.


week4: let’s be in two places at one time.

where we read The Doubling of Place – Shaun Moores

Unlike the previous weeks readings, i am finding the readings to be a bit more easier to read.
I’m also starting to understand them a bit more than i did before.
In this week’s reading i found that Shaun Moores makes many references to other people such as Paddy Scannell, Lori Kendall…etc.
Here, Moores talks about “doubling of place” which- to me- conveys a sense that we can be in two or more places at one time. In the beginning he states that Scannell’s idea is that

“these media serve to ‘”double” reality’ is developed as an analysis of the distinctive character of public events”

I’m not too sure what this is meant to mean, however i am assuming that he is trying to tell us that with technology advancing these days, media can now take us to a whole different level. It’s like he’s telling us that because of these advance we can achieve the idea of being ‘in two places at one time’ for example being on the phone- you are physically where you are using your phone but also with the other person whom you are talking to.

This idea gets me thinking that, if we lived in a world without technology, what would it be like?
Imagine the idea of not having a phone, then you get lost what do you do? you can’t call a friend to come and get you. Imagine having no internet, a thing that allows you to be in completely different places at one time- which could be America, China or even France, how will you do your research for your next assessment?

He also implies that technology allows us to be able to multitask as seen in his statement:

Second, citing the frequent use of multiple ‘windows’ on the same computer screen, Turkle (1996a;14) proposes that selves may now exist in ‘many roles’ and ‘many worlds’ at the ‘same time’.

So if we can, why not be in two places at one time?


Week 3: Scannell and Hartley – Mediation

When I first started reading Scannell, the passage seemed very ordinary. The beginning lacked what many claim to be an interesting introduction, one that keeps the audience wanting to read more. As I continued through the passage, Scannell’s writing became a lot more intriguing. I began to agree with what he was writing.
Scannell’s argument is an interesting one, an argument that is never really thought about until you read a passage such as his. It raises the question…. Since when has media begun to tell time? In a common home or workplace, particularly the home, the routine around media has eliminated the need for a clock in the family home. Children and Parents now know that mum will come home from work at 6, cook dinner, eat at 7 and then gather around the television for “family time” in order to watch a particular show; a show which is routinely shown at the same time everyday day, week or fortnight.
The existence of “toddler’s truce” in the 1950’s is a prime example of how media can tell time. No longer did the parents need a clock to tell them it was bed time, instead when the TV went blank – it was time for the children to go to sleep.
Scannell’s article really makes you think about your life. It rhetorically asks the question, is our life a routine due to media? Why is it the “cancelation” or the “moving of a programme” affects us so much? Is it normal to get stressed and re-routine your life over a media program?
Unlike Scannell, Hartley’s article is quiet interesting from the beginning. The article overall however, posses the same message as Scannell’s article – that media, both written and watched – has made a routine out of modern life.
Hartley’s example of the “news at five” – where even the name portrays evidence of modern society media telling time – fits very nicely with Scannell’s message. Even the unsuccessful attempt of moving the show to a later time until 1999, is evidence of how the media plays such vital parts in our “time and space” spectrum.
Overall, although very different articles, I believe Hartley and Scannell are portraying the same overall message in slightly different ways. Although the exact message is hard to articulate, the concept is very easy to explain. Both articles were written to explain to the audience how much we, as a society, rely on media in our everyday lives. Not only as a basis for entertainment, but for a extremely strict routine. Media has become such an influence in our society, that no longer does “family time” involve going outdoors or sitting around a table playing board games, but circling around the family TV at a set time every night, to be entertained by a show which one can predict is going to come on.

Hope it makes sense 🙂

Natasha Boustani xx

Lecture Week 4

Well some of you know Im from Mexico, so I thought it would be interesting that some of you could learn a little bit about my country.
While I was reading the lecture I remembered that in mexican indigineous cultures its happening something very weired. As globalization is spreading around very quickly, all the media is invading people. For some of us its great, because we have a lot of facilities and its making our life much easier. But have they ask us if we want this. Well this is my point, in Mexico a lot of indigenous cultures take technology as an invasion and they don’t want to know anything about it, because they think this will end with their traditions. For example in Mexico they are some foundations that are dedicated to create campains with the purpose of collecting money for providing poor people with computers, goods and to learn english. But some of them the most cultural and tradicional refuse to this help. This could sound strange but I respect it because its good for them and for my country that some people still believe in their ancestors and in their culture.
So technology it’s not always helpful, some of them see it as destructive and invasive.

Another example I want to talk about is that media its making easier communication between people, now its easier to talk with someone that its in another part of the World, as we read in the text about skype, e-mail, mobiles, and so many others. But its also making relationships much colder and growing apart. Now we dont frequent people so often, we are concentrated in our computers so we don’t make new friends, and I could keep going on. So until what point is media affecting or helping us?
Yo can check out this page to read more about this.
I think we really have to be awared of what technology can make to us, so we can take advantage of it but also know where we have to stop. Some psychologists are afraid that all this can really affect people in the future, starting with kids and teens and then affecting all of us, to the point of generating depression or anxiety and this will cause new problems, leading us to new ways of therapy.