Alternative Media vs. Mainstream Media

This past week we have been discussing how video games, mainstream media, and alternative media have affected how we as Americans see war specifically the war on terrorism. Each of these things have seemed to militarize our civil space as Roger Stahl (2006) outlines in his article. Stahl’s (2006) is an interesting read and challenges one’s thinking, but in this blog post I am going to concentrate on John Jordan’s article. Jordan (2007) offered a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding online War new websites during the early stages of the 2003 War in Iraq. As I was reading the article, I was brought back to a few main concepts we have discussed in class before. Jordan (2007) criticized mainstream media for their treatment of alternative media. Alternative media is media that does not have the corporate backing like mainstream media does. It gives a voice to those who are not apart of the ruling ideas of the society. Before we specifically discussed alternative media in relation to social media. Social media can be used for alternative media, but it is also used for much more than that. Jordan showed how the mainstream media discredited the source of these alternative media sites instead of working to discredit the facts and stories. The mainstream media is threatened by these alternative media sites because their jobs are threatened. It makes it seem like it is all about money for the mainstream media which reminded me of the ideas presented in Rich Media, Poor Democracy. This video discussed conglomerates which are the large corporations having control over many smaller corporations under different names . This provides them with an opportunity for cross promotion which is the promotion of the same ideas and the same products in each corporation the larger corporation owns. This is no different for reporting the news on war. These corporations want to have the edge and get their news story out before their competitors. They can use cross promotion to do this. With these points discussed, it makes one consider the news they are receiving. Jordan’s (2007) article sure made me consider how I receive my news. Do profits drive mainstream media sources to be less credible? Are those who use the alternative media sources credible? Do I need a combination of both types of media to see a fuller picture of the news?

What about you: How do you get your news? Do you believe it to be a credible source for news? Why or why not? Are we getting “real” news? How do we get “real” news?

The Gladwell vs. Stone debated continued

I have had trouble taking a side on this debate about Twitter. I have had a Twitter account for a couple of years now and absolutely love it. I opened my account for the main purpose of career building and developing. I plan to work in communications and event planning in the non profit world so I follow other non-profits and those in the communication field. Through the years of having my account, there have been times when I have used it for a form of activism, and I like to think and hope that what I tweet does at least in a small way make the world a little better place. With this hope, I side more with Stone but I also see the point Gladwell is trying to make.

The point of Gladwell’s article is that all the activism that has happened up to this point has been a high-risk and includes strong ties to the movement and the other people involved in the movement. Gladwell goes back to the civil-rights movement again and again to prove his points. Gladwell claims that a crucial fact about those involved with the civil-rights movement was their relationship with each other. Gladwell argues that social media like Twitter are built on weak ties. These weak ties can be a great sources for new ideas and information but not on starting activism according to Gladwell. Gladwell argues that the only way to get someone who does not really know you to do something on your behalf is by not asking too much of them.

In Biz Stone’s response to Gladwell, he points that in Gladwell’s own book he teaches how Paul Revers and this weak-tie phenomenon contributed to the success of The American Revolution. As Stone points out, Paul Revers had a broad network (all of your followers), a fast horse (speed of technology), and a catchy phrase less than 140 characters (tweet). Stone brings in several current examples of has Twitter has been used for activism and been successful. Stone ends his article with this argument “Rudimentary communication among individuals in real time allows many to move together as one - suddenly uniting everyone in a common goal. Lowering the barrier to activism doesn’t weaken humanity, it brings us together and it makes us stronger.”

As Aroll’s post said, Webster defines activism as a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal; the use of direct, often confrontational action, in opposition to or in support of a cause. At first when I read that definition I thought it gave more support to Gladwell’s arguments, but the more I think about it I find myself thinking it supports both points of view. Both points of view are taking an action to achieve a political or social goal. Gladwell and Stone are just going about that action in different ways.

Each point of view has good points and ideas we as consumers need to contemplate. As I resolve this issue for myself, I am not completely taking either side. I think there is a time and place for both types of activism. Some issues may be resolved with the weak-tie method Twitter presents while there are other issues which may require more strong-ties to accomplish the goal. With using what is best for the issue which could be a combination of both views, those political or social goals will be achieved.


This post is in response to Gladwellian vs. Stone on February 13 by Aroll.

Life in the "Dark Ages"

Over Christmas break, I moved back home to save money my last semester of college. I haven’t lived at home since the summer after my sophomore year, and I knew it would be a slight adjustment in some areas and quite adjustment in others to move back. One area that has been quite adjustment is going back to not having cable or internet at the house. All throughout my college years, I have had cable and internet in the dorms, anywhere on campus, and at my apartment. Because of that, I had let pop culture take a larger part of my life than ever before. With wireless internet, I could be on any of my favorite sites at any given time. And with cable, I could watch all the shows and sports I enjoy.

There are times when I feel like I have been cut off from the real world. I now do not keep up with any television shows, and I just can’t surf the web whenever I want. I have noticed that since I have moved back to living in the “Dark Ages” pop culture is taking a much smaller role in my life. And because of that my time and on campus is much more focused. When I do have the chance to use the internet on campus, I spend less time social networking or checking random websites because I know my time is limited and I need to use it for communication and research. When I am at home, I am more focused because I do not have the internet or television shows to distract me any more. Instead, I get my reading and homework done and have more time to spend with my family playing games or doing hobbies I enjoy like reading or scrapbooking.

I am not against pop culture by any means. I love sports and being able to watch them or being able to get on the internet when I feel like it. But I am starting to realize the place pop culture needs to have in my life and that is a much smaller part. How much of your life are you devoting to pop culture? Are you satisfied with how you spend your time?

Thoughts from "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"

The other night I was watching episodes of this Whose Line Is It Anyway? It is a show that puts stand-up comedy in a game show environment. It is hosted by Drew Carey . Each episode he has comedians participate in short-form improvisation games. Drew has four comedians on each episode and these comedians have to create characters, scenes, and/or songs on the spot. I have always been impressed how quickly the comedians come up with the scenes and how closely they are able to mimic the real pop culture.

In the particular episode that caused me to think about my communication and pop culture class, Wayne Brady, one of the show’s main comedians, was challenged to sing a show to a man from the audience like Britney Spears would sing. He imitated her dance moves, her pop style of singing, and even how she has trouble with her microphone. This particular skit caused me to think about how much these comedians have to know about our pop culture. They have to come up with their material on the spot. Drew Carey reads them the setting or scene and right away they start. Now, these skits they perform are only funny to the audience if we know what they are referring to and if they are able to mimic it closely. The show in and of itself is pop culture, but the comedians on it also have to have a broad base of knowledge of both current and past pop culture.

What are your thoughts? What are other areas where there is a need to have lots knowledge of the pop culture to be a part of the pop culture?

Is addiction the right word?

Our class discussion on Thursday revolved around pop culture addictions what we each are addicted to and how do these addictions shape our lives. We used this article as the basis for our discussion. We also defined addiction as physical and psychological dependence on psychoactive substances. Psychological dependence was defined as you feel emotionally connected to a substance, you allow the substance to get in the way of important things, you plan your schedule around your need for substance, you spend a lot of time talking about the substance. This discussion brought up several questions and thoughts, and I have been pondering over it for the last several days. How do these addictions shape our lives? What role do these addictions play in our society? What would be culture be like without these addictions? Are all relationships with pop culture harmful to the individual?

During the discussion, I was feeling slightly guilty for participating and enjoying some pop culture. Yes, I would agree there are people who take pop culture to the extreme and are addicted to it. But in general, I think addiction might not be the right word to use. In our society, the word addiction has such a negative connotation to it and is viewed as a problem that needs to be fixed. If I do not participate in consuming at least some of our society’s pop culture, it can cause a feel of being an outcast or being a part of an outgroup. I feel like the relationship I have with pop culture is not a problem that needs to be fixed. Pop culture provides me with entertainment and enjoyment and neutral topics to discuss with others. One of my biggest pop culture “addictions” is football especially college football and The Ohio State Buckeyes. Some may see this as a problem that needs to be fixed. My friends and I enjoy watching football together. In my life, it is building community. Maybe addiction isn’t always the right word to be used in association with large amounts of consumption for pop culture. Could obsession, consumption, or devotion be better words to use for this connection to pop culture?