Are Games Taking Over Our Lives?

In a recent article on CNN, John Sutter was interviewed about why he thinks games will take over our lives. The article describes how games are showing up everywhere; from brushing your teeth to buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Games are all over the place, and they are just going to increase in number as time goes on. Sutter believes that we will eventually be so use to having games apart of our everyday lives that we may start thinking and seeing life as one big game. He argues that games are so popular because the user knows that they can be won. As the article says, “In real life, we have these problems, and the problems are hairy, and they're messy. You look at the problems that you face in your job or in your relationship or in your family, and it's like there's no clear winning, and there's no clear losing. Whereas, in a game, things are crisp and clear. The game presents you with challenges that can be met, and then it congratulates you on your successes at those challenges. It's a thing we don't get everyday in life.”

While reading this article I couldn’t help but think about the effects video games have on the players of the games. Studies such as Albert Bandora’s doll experiment prove that violence being shown in the media can cause the viewer to be violent as well. Likewise, desensitization can occur if a violent video game is played too many times. In the same way, if a game is played continuously it is possible that the player will have a hard time determining the game from real life, as the article supports. Games seem harmless but are they really? Media messages do matter and are central to our lives. Many play games for the fun of it and do not realize that being a part of the active audience allows the games to have influence over them. Are games dangerous? What do you think?

Bloggers Vs. Journalists

Leena Rao recently wrote an article for TechCrunch describing some statistics about the current blogging world. She writes that 52% of all bloggers consider themselves journalists. At first, this seems like a strange claim. After all, when I think of blogging, I still think of it mostly as the online-journal type of blogging, and not the serious, critical forms that are becoming more and more common. Just look at this blog! We're seriously critical about the media stories we're discussing; obviously the concept of a serious blog isn't foreign.

But as I was saying, it seems a strange claim, but under further examination it makes sense. Bloggers are journalists. And not just because they report on events--anyone can do that. But if you look more closely at how the serious blog functions, more and more simliarities appear, especially in the conventions and routines of the two media.

The authors of the text Media/Society define conventions as the routines found in any particular job that have been repeated so much so that they simply become the way things are done. Newspapers (the print kind) have many conventions, especially when it comes to the area of news gathering. More often than not, journalists will congregate in places where newsworthy events are most likey to happen--court houses, press conferences, or even specific places like the White House. There, they obtain the daily stories that can be found in newspapers. This sort of congregation towards regular news sources is the most typical of conventions in print newspapers, and it is reflected by blogging journalists.

Bloggers gravitate towards news sources as well for their stories, just a different kind than print journalists. They gravitate towards other blogs. According to Rao's article, 91% of bloggers and 68% of online journalists say they use other blogs as a primary source of news. Meaning, they find their stories at other, reliable blogs on the web, much like print journalists find their stories at the same places from day to day.

They have practically the same news-gathering conventions!

So, yes, if you ask me, bloggers are journalists. They gather news like print journalists, and they often report similar stories, just with their own spin on it. One of the only big differences that I can see is that journalists are paid, and bloggers are not. But, that's just me. What do you think? Are bloggers journlaists? Or, are bloggers simply people with nothing better to do, ranting without merit or credibility?

To Watch or Not to Watch, That is the Question...

Since the development of film and television media, there has been much debate over the influence that the violence in these programs has on aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Out of these debates have arisen controversies not only about the validity of negative effects theories, but also how governments and/or media companies should handle the violence that is portrayed. Operating on the generally accepted assumption that media do have some sort of impact on violent behavior at least for some people, several solutions have been proposed. One of these recent solutions is introduced by the company ClearPlay, and it allows viewers to skip over any scenes in a movie that have content they do not want to watch. An article in the BBC brings up this system in relation to its release in the UK that will occur in a few months. According to the article, though the British Video Association is not opposed to the system at all, there has been some controversy over its release in the US. Those who oppose the ClearPlay system are afraid that its implementation will be a "violation of copyright laws." In a court case, a judge ruled that there was no violation because "no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture was created." The general director of ClearPlay stated: "ClearPlay has an innovative system for enabling parents to shield their children from what they consider to be inappropriate content in the home...It may also allow them to watch age restricted video with younger children whose content is generally suitable to view but again there may be moments of stronger content."
Part of the reason that it is so difficult to determine how much influence violent media has on behavior is because there are so many individual factors to account for. Even if correlations between violent media and aggressive behavior are found, we still have to consider other influences that come in to play; i.e. family life, individual personality, life experiences etc... (Strasburger, Wilson, and Jordan). In addition, questions of causality remain. Does viewing violent media cause violent behavior and attitudes, or do violent behavior and attitudes encourage the viewing of more violent media (Strasburger, Wilson, and Jordan)? With these questions in mind, and an overall less than definitive account of the effects of media violence, it seems as though some sort of censorship and control should be implemented. This is especially important in regards to children and young adults, largely due to the fact that many studies have shown that, though other factors are still involved, violent media have the most impact on this age group of developing minds (Strasburger, Wilson, and Jordan).
Knowing this, do you think that the ClearPlay system is an efficient and reliable way for parents to regulate what their children are watching? Though it could have many other uses, it seems as though statements by ClearPlay executives infer that this is one of their main objectives. I am unsure of its overall effectiveness, but quite honestly it seems as though a better solution would be for parents to simply not let their children watch programs with content that they do not think is suitable. Why do we feel the need to, as the BBC article quotes from a member of the company, "make some tools available for individual viewers?" He goes on, "today they can only choose on or off. With ClearPlay they can make vastly more choices." Why do we need to be able to eliminate the parts of a movie or show that we think are inappropriate, simply so that we can have more choices? Maybe I am naive, but doesn't it just make more sense to watch something else instead? The issue here is not even whether or not the violence should be present in the first place, it is whether or not you should choose to watch it. If you patch out the material you do not want to see, you are not even watching the story that the film maker originally wanted to show you. If the content of that story is inappropriate for you or those you are responsible for, then watch something else. What do you think?

The Local News Bully

In a recent post I found on Freepress.com, a ruling in a U.S. court was discussed as it brings severe and dangerous implications into the world of local Media. A "stay" was lifted on a rule created in 2007 by Kevin Martin (Former FCC Chairmen) which in essence was created to allow Media companies to have cross-ownership within the same media industry. Now that the "stay" has been lifted big name companies can get their hands on various local news formats.

You may ask how in the world may apply to us, the individual. Well, it absolutely does as now local media sources are up for grabs. Local journalism is one of several ways that the public can receive close to what they desire from the news and media but by allowing big media to get its hands on local journalism it may woefully afflict its independence. Cross-ownership has been regulated by the FCC to prevent these specific implications from occurring. In specific this will allow news broadcasting stations to absorb local newspapers.

Those who have ever watched Fox News or MSNBC are well aware of how political bias is a constant in the news that is being reported. I believe that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the thirds circuit has made a horrible decision towards protecting the freedoms of the public it is supposed to be protecting. I am not saying that immediate repercussions will incur but eventually this could prove to be a detrimental move in preserving local journalism and individual creativity.

Any thoughts?

Public Online Info. Act

In a recent article found through freepress, it was revealed that Congress if going to be pushing forward a Public Online Information Act. This act would require that all information that is deemed public within the Executive Branch and its agencies must be posted on the Internet within the next three years. The information would have to be searchable and accessible to anyone with an Internet service in America. The point of the act is to move all information, "out of the metal file cabinets and into the sunlight of the Internet". Currently most public federal records can be found in paper form or on federal computers but those facilities are usually only open from 9a.m. until 5p.m. which makes access by the public nation-wide difficult if not impossible. Of course there would be exceptions for agencies with information that could "reveal sensitive material".

The point of creating this Bill is to simply keep our Nation accountable as a government made for the people by the people. I personally believe that this is a big step in making Americans more confident in the own government by using such a powerful mass media form as the Internet. In an age where public information is available to the entire populace through a web browser, the American government needs to join the party and let its citizens in. A government that is transparent with its people is an excellent and sometimes difficult step that could hold great effects in the long run.

The approval of a Bill such as the Public Online Information Act could and will effect the American public directly. Students hundreds of miles away from Washington D.C. could have access to information for reports. Americans can have a growing confidence in their relationship with their own Nation. Various other positive outcomes could arise from approving such a Bill. It is extremely encouraging to finally see the American government not only working to regulate mass media such as the Internet. Creating a Bill that utilizes Mass Media in such a positive and creative way incurs many implications about the public's relationship with Mass Media. Possibly not only a greater trust in our government but in the media that provides us with information.

Any thoughts?

Network Neutrality and the Future of the Internet

The importance of network neutrality was presented in a recent article submitted on the Benton Foundation website. Since the creation of the internet, American companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Youtube, and others primarily make up the majority of the web. As the internet expands and develops, the “suffers” now are faced with choices. Should we allow for new companies to come in and alter the Internet or should we try to uphold what we currently have and the freedom it represents. Do we allow “entrepreneurial entry” or do we “impose new fees.” The write of the article argues that the FCC should ensure that principles of openness and fairness remain in the marketplace. Network neutrality is extremely important and we should make sure the internet remains a place in which competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity exist.

The FCC’s, Federal Communications Commission, main job is to make sure the Mass Media is serving the public interest. The public interest is usually defined as regulation of decency, children’s educational programming, multiplicity/diversity of voices, media ownership, and localism. As Kevin Maness’s manifesto says, “Media content should be as diverse as possible to reflect as many different tastes and perspectives as possible.” Therefore, the FCC has the role of making sure the Internet is a place in which many opinions and diversities are available. This can be shown in the variety of websites accessible to users, and the diversity of owners of those websites. In the past the FCC has mainly controlled the Internet by means of prohibiting certain obscenity, but in the future they may have to put more control on the ownership and structure of the Internet.

What if we had to pay for Facebook, or even worse for the Internet in general? What if we were charged to create this blog, or to upload our videos to Youtube? Would you pay to keep in touch with friends on Twitter or to search something on Google? The future of the Internet might just look something like the above scenarios. Do you think there should be more regulation when it comes to the Internet so this does not happen? What on your thoughts?

History in the Making

Where do you go for your news? A recent article in the New York Times outlines the fact that, even though the availability of online news sources continues to increase, most people still only use a small number of these sites. According to the article, 35 percent of those who read their news online have a favorite site, and 21 percent use a “single Internet news source.” In addition, 57 percent of those people use two to five online news sources in their news reading routines. The article states that “just 7 percent of people said they would be willing to pay for access to any news site. And even among the people who are most loyal to a single site, only 19 percent said they would pay, rather than seek free news somewhere else.” This, however, does not upset news companies all that much because they believe that even if only 5 to 10 percent of their online readers paid it would still be profitable for them. One last statistic that the article presents is that, of the thousands of online news outlets, 199 of them get 80 percent of “the United States traffic.”

Though there are many issues that could be brought up based on this article, I would like to focus on the last statistic mentioned above. The fact that so many news outlets are available, and that so few (I know, 199 is a lot, but compared to the thousands that are available and the number of people that likely access them, it loses its impact a little) are regularly accessed raises an intriguing idea. These 199 sites that are accessed by 80 percent of online news readers are creating history. The promoters and assemblers (Molotch and Lester pg. 122) of these news stories are creating the events that will determine what we perceive to be “public time.”

I focus on this idea because it is fascinating to me that there is so much power in journalism and media production. It is odd to think of the fact that, if these 199 newspapers does not report an event, it is highly unlikely that anywhere near the majority of people will ever know that it occurred. Journalists, in a sense, create history. Hopefully, the most important events get reported, and that is, I think, the objective of news companies. However, it is interesting to consider the influence they have, not only over what is actually reported, but also over the messages we receive about the events being reported. The individuals that assemble news, even though most strive for objectivity, still portray a sense of bias in the messages they give. Keep that in mind while you read and watch. How does it influence you?