Sports Stars: Public Obsession with Athletes

       

         As I write this blog post, my radio is blasting ESPN's First Take in the background. The main topic of conversation: Whether or not Tim Tebow was brought to the Jets for football reasons. After the trade had been announced, the media in New York and all around the country immediately reported all the details; how the trade had gone through, that there was a brief problem payment-wise in the deal, how the Jaguars almost landed him, and ultimately how he was going to arrive as a backup quarterback in a private jet to have a press conference. (The video is just a debate over whether the Jets got Tebow just for publicity. It's ten minutes long).

      When I look at all this information, it really only means one thing to me: Tebow is a Jet. However, people look every five seconds for the latest headlines in the story; how Rex Ryan says he will use him, whether Mark Sanchez is OK with it, and all the other controversial things about this trade. In addition to this, Reebok, looking to take advantage of the Tebowmania in New York before their contract with the NFL expired, issued tons of Tebow Jet jerseys to be made before next week, when Nike will officially take over as the maker of NFL jerseys. Obviously Reebok and the media are looking to take advantage of the public's obsession over the man who has been deemed the most marketable athlete, with the only other people who are more marketable being Oprah, Adele, and Kate Middleton (ESPN First Take)(http://www.thepigskinreport.com/2012/03/tim-tebow-is-the-most-marketable-male-celebrity-in-the-world/). This caused a huge court hearing, where Reebok was forced to stop selling the jerseys, though in reality they were still under contract to do so.

         Another thing I would like to address is the idea that I kept hearing when Tebow was traded here: The New York sports fan is too sophisticated to fall for Tebowmania. Really? I'm pretty sure all of you remember a little thing called Linsanity, where NYC became captivated with a man named Jeremy Lin. Now, Jeremy Lin did have a great story, going from sleeping on couches to being the Knick's starting point guard; however, recently ESPN New York did a poll to find NYC's most beloved athlete. Among contenders such as David Wright, Victor Cruz, Derek Jeter, and Mariano Rivera, Jeremy Lin still stole the title in a landslide victory over Rivera in the final round (He got 70% of the vote)(http://espn.go.com/newyork/bracket/mostbeloved). 

         Now, I don't have anything against Lin. In fact, I'm quite the contrary because I feel that without him the Knicks would probably be in a much deeper hole and could possibly miss the playoffs. However, he only started playing here about a month ago and he is more beloved than people who have spent over a decade in NYC winning games and championships. Overall, the closest competition Lin had was in the first round against David Wright, and even that was a blow out with Lin getting 67% of the vote. In addition to this, many companies have begun to use Lin's name for products, most notably for news headlines, but also ice cream, marijuana, and my dry cleaners have even made a linsanity special. This has been such a big thing, people have tried to copyright the term linsanity, including a lawyer representing Lin himself.

         So what am I really trying to say? For the most part, everyone gets caught up in these obsessions with players, whether if it is because they are underdogs, like Lin, or just because they seem like nice guys and role models, like Tebow. However, when this admiration turns into obsession, people begin to forget about other athletes and people who have worked in the city longer and achieved much more. In addition to this, media outlets and other companies eat this stuff up, and exploit the obsession in order to get better ratings and more money. So please people, enjoy watching athletes responsibly and make sure you keep yourself from becoming obsessed with these people.

*I'm just including the video in case anyone is wondering what I am listening to. Fair warning though, it's about 20 minutes long.

The “Worshipping’’ of Celebrities:

In today’s day and age, especially considering the fact that we are more technologically advanced than ever before, it seems bizarre that more people know about the latest celebrity scandals rather than what is going on worldwide.  To me personally, this is a matter of deep concern because even though it has become easier and easier to inform the people, they information that they are receiving is not of dire importance and it is actually worse if they are selecting gossip over factual news. The reason of why this is becoming a more trending phenomenon is not exactly a concrete one but I think its fair to say that the populous is slowly giving in to the pop culture and therefore they begin to disregard, or not hold to the same value, the importance of keeping up with global events. In our class discussion, it came up that people in general tend to “worship” either the celebrity or the ideas that they embody. We looked at how people in general tend to always root for that particular famous individual who embodies the person’s desires that evidently seem out of their reach. An example of such a scenario would be a young athlete idolizing the leading or prominent athlete in that particular sport. Although I personally think that this may be a factor as to why we can say that people “worship” celebrities, I honestly think that people worship the whole idea, or concept, associated with celebrities. I think that it’s the hype, glamour, money, and lavish lifestyle that attract the lower and middle class. I think that these aspects are appealing because they’re things that are sought out. I think it’s always easier to look at what you don’t have and yearn for it in some way rather than to look at what you do have and be satisfied.

http://www.lionsroarnews.com/opinions/when-fascination-turns-into-fanaticism-the-cult-of-celebrity-1.2829238#.T3M6R1swA3s

As noted in the Southeastern Louisiana University newspaper, this notion of “worshipping” celebrities is not something new but rather something that has been going on ever since we, as a society, have become more and more able to facilitate the spreading of news. The article noted that nowadays, a paparazzi photograph of any celebrity doing a simple everyday task such as brushing their teeth or simply grocery shopping sells for thousands of dollars. Along with this, a question that was posed was; how do the lives of celebrities differ from ours that make them so much more susceptible to exploitation?  The article also correctly noted that this topic is not easy to address. We know that there is a million dollar industry that revolves around celebrity news BUT “just because it’s out there doesn’t mean we should consume it so readily.” It’s not wrong for our society to hold such a fondness for celebrities – we just need to be more aware that there are more important things in life. “We can’t forget about the troops we have at war or the political and natural disasters plaguing us and other countries just because someone famous had a wardrobe malfunction.”

Sports: Influence on Society

        Although I wasn’t in school on Tuesday for the sports discussion, I found that this topic was quite interesting and more relevant than I expected it to be. The profound impact of sports on our society, culture, and generation is in actuality, quite massive. Sports have become a new plus point and recent ally in bringing great publicity for major religious affiliations (i.e. Tim Tebowà Christianity). Sports have also fueled the capitalistic economy with its outpour of merchandise and fan goods. Consumers are simply eating up the latest winning team’s or MVP’s merchandise (i.e. Giants winning superbowlà many jerseys/shirts sold at Models). On the other hand, however, bad reputations and scandals are brought to light from the sports world, and this has a negative effect on many. Sexual mishaps, inappropriate conduct, and other improper behaviors stain the outlook many have on coaches, players, and those involved with the industry. Despite negative backlash due to recent events circling college football, it still seems to rank supreme in terms of the top stories at colleges/universities. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/education/edlife/how-big-time-sports-ate-college-life.html?pagewanted=all

Great emphasis is placed upon sports at universities, such as football in Ohio State; it should be taken into account that the academic prospects of the athletes are suffering. This begs the question, are sports being emphasized to too much of a great extent? An extent that compromises the well being of athletes, students, and individuals? Just take this little fact into account, at Duke University about 500 students study abroad throughout the fall, but only 100 during the spring.  Why the sudden decrease in students choosing to study abroad in the spring? Money issues? Other factors? Maybe. Or it just might be that it’s the men’s annual basketball season and who wants to miss that? Ultimately, the impact that sports have on our lives range from a varied spectrum of beneficial to detrimental. 

The Boom and Bust Cycles of Child Stars

            In response to Tuesday’s discussion, the idea of fame before maturity was an interesting topic that came up. When people start to idolize celebrities, and even start to go so far as to worship them, they often fail to look at the big picture. They focus on that brief, open window of time when that celebrity is in the prime of his or her fame. However, the focus should be on when that fame exists. More often than not, we see the tragic cycle of child stars. The most fitting example is Michael Jackson. From the age where most children began elementary school, he was put into the public eye. His dreams were determined for him perhaps even before he was truly aware of what he wanted to do. His father, Joseph Jackson, was notorious for the severe level of stress and abuse he put upon his children to succeed in the entertainment industry. With emotional scars left behind and unwanted publicity, it is no wonder many child stars become disillusioned. Yet, once they become older and start to grow out of their childhood fame, they take it upon themselves to reject normalcy. They try to regain that fleeting moment of stardom. Of course, this does not apply to all childhood stars. Some like Leonardo DiCaprio have become very successful in their adult lives. However, these successful stars usually have something their counterparts do not. And that is usually a stable personal life. Having loving and supporting parents temper out the extremities of sudden fame, reducing the chances of them going rogue. This is something that we see time and time again. Despite all this, people still desire to become famous, without thinking about the consequences nor the bigger picture. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/movies/the-dardennes-and-philippe-falardeau-on-child-actors.html

Introduction to Sports: Impact of Sports on Personal Role Models and Beliefs

Jeremy Lin. Tim Tebow. Jerry Sandusky. Bernie Fine. What all four of these men have in common are that they have served as role models at one point in time. The world of sports gives people in power a great deal of influence over the public. They and their team’s every moves are documented by all sorts of media, beyond ESPN.

Jeremy Lin and Linsanity took New York City along with the rest of the nation by storm when the former Harvard guard and NBA journeyman turned into the star point guard for the New York Knicks. His story was documented by many publications, expressing a sort of rags-to-riches, defying all odds story that intrigued more than basketball fans, Asian Americans, and Christians but also every underdog listening. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/sports/basketball/jeremy-lin-has-burst-from-nba-novelty-act-to-knicks-star.html?sq=jeremy%20lin&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=5&adxnnlx=1328995385-SyqaubwAYOytTJRKXAa2WA What Lin has done plenty of in NY has sold jerseys, drive Time Warner Cable to broadcast MSG, and brought many Asian Americans and Christians together to watch Linsanity. Despite the firing of Knicks head coach Mike D’Antoni and the lessening role of Lin in the Knicks system his value continues to thrive. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2012/03/25/jeremy-lins-brand-thriving-with-knicks-new-coach/
Tim Tebow and Tebowmania has long been in brew. Since his days at Florida University, leading their football team to a national championship as a freshmen and then becoming the first sophomore to win the highest honor in college sports, the Heisman trophy, Tebow has become an increasingly house-hold name. Once he was drafted in the first round, beyond all expectations, of the NFL draft the devout Catholic prepared to be a starting quarterback in the league. After much struggle, Tebow lead an improbable winning streak and won a playoff game for the Denver Broncos this year. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/bruni-tim-tebows-gospel-of-optimism.html?scp=40&sq=tebow&st=cse http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/sports/football/in-tebow-debate-a-clash-of-faith-and-football.html?scp=39&sq=tebow&st=cse Trends and sayings like “Tebowing” http://espn.go.com/blog/high-school/new-york/post/_/id/600/students-suspended-for-tebowing and “Tebow time” blew up the Twitter world. Tebow’s switch to the New York Jets this past week has brought Tebowsanity to New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/sports/football/the-tebow-party-moves-its-big-tent-east.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=the%20tebow%20party&st=cse
Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant coach of the Penn State football team, a team that programs nationwide modeled for its way to breed a “family” has been accused on several counts of sexual abuse. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/penn-state-scandal-timeline-jerry-sandusky_n_1084204.html?ref=jerry-sandusky http://espn.go.com/ncf/topics/_/page/penn-state-scandal Alongside one of the greatest football coaches of all time, Joe Paterno, who past shortly after the end of this year’s football season and the break of the scandal, Sandusky took down a once revered program. He also unfortunately took with him the reputation of Joe Pa. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/sports/ncaafootball/joe-paterno-leaves-a-complicated-legacy.html?ref=joepaterno
Bernie Fine, similarly to Sandusky chipped away at Syraucse’s reputation as the former assistant basketball coach at one of the top programs in the country was also accused of sexual abuse. http://espn.go.com/new-york/story/_/id/7288286/bernie-fine-fired-syracuse-orange-amid-molestation-allegations Although his case is not as firm in belief of all the allegations as the Penn State man’s is, Fine’s situation certainly is not a clean one. He too hurt the reputation of a great coach, Jim Boeheim although it seems it has not dented his armor nearly as much as it has with Joe Pa. This case followed the outbreak of the Sandusky case, possibly diminishing some of the shock that came from the first scandal.

All four of these sports figures have played an intricate role in both the sports sphere along with the general public. Lin and Tebow both bring new followers to sports with the thrill they provide viewers with their will to win and the reason they got there. Everyone (Americans) likes a winner, and everyone (Americans) loves a winner who is an underdog. Linsanity won over the hearts of NBA viewers and Tebow Mania changed Mountain West Time to Tebow Time. When walking into Sports Authority today I walked into a store filled with green Tebow jerseys, just days after his trade to New York and months away from the NFL season, and blue and orange Lin jerseys celebrating his success. These two athletes, despite not being the most gifted ones on their respective teams certainly are doing one thing, selling. Underdogs seem to sell in this capitalist society. In contrast to these two superstars, Sandusky and Fine, assistants to great programs brought down not only their own reputation but their respective university's reputation. Programs like that of the family oriented Penn State and the always successful Syracuse are ones not only students and alumni look up to but also children in pursuit of their own goals. There are many traits associated with a sports star or sports team and these traits can drive or hurt people’s day’s, outlooks and morals, along with the economies need for business.

Celebrity Worship via Social Media

Social media makes our celebrities a lot more accessible - no longer do we have to wait for news reports or for pictures by mail. We can access these tweets, Facebook statuses, pictures, etc. directly on the internet. Celebrities are closer to us than ever - their sly endorsements, their riotous comments, and their blunders (all aimed at making them look human) are on display. This is a marketing ploy. While arguably some things are genuinely posted out of joy, the vast majority are aimed towards projecting an image towards the public that will make the people feel more charitable towards the celebrity.

In every society, there is a celebrity or at least someone to observe in wonder. Part of the reason we observe in such awe is the desire to vicariously live their lives. They seem much more fascinating than we are and yet, we all live and breathe the same air. This disconnects us from the reality of our more grim surroundings and connects us to the gaudy designs of the various red carpets in celebrity award ceremonies. Sometimes, a distraction is necessary. However, the closer celebrities are to us, the more we worship them for being human or being kind or brave, instead of connecting to our own worlds and noticing all of the little deeds performed everyday that are not captured by the media.

Not only does the extreme visage of celebrities in social media corrupt our sense of reality, it corrupts our own self esteem through exposure. We are exposed to what is meant to be "perfection" constantly. During the teenage years, this can be particularly crippling. The admiration of a lifestyle that is out of reach may cement our own senses of inadequacy or loneliness. In one study, a group of college students was asked about their self esteem. Then, they were asked to write an essay about their favorite celebrity. When asked again about their self esteem, their results on the self esteem questionnaire became significantly higher because they had been emulating the celebrities and their glow and achievement, rather than any true self esteem gain.

Celebrities' Impact on Everyday People

Just a few years ago, being able to talk to a celebrity was nearly impossible unless of course, you hunted him down at every filming location and award ceremony or you saw him across the street. But nowadays, even the most shy person can hold a conversation with their favorite actors with a click of a button.

I for one was that person, so I do feel that social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter can be a good form of communication. I talk to a few famous Broadway actors and actresses that recognize me when I visit them. Since I did not have to speak to them face to face, it made it much easier to talk to these people without becoming speechless or overwhelmed. Even if they do not respond to my tweets or my wall posts all the time, I know that I am probably 1 out of hundreds who is trying to express my gratitude and appreciation. Just a “like” on a post I wrote or a “Happy Birthday” on my wall can make me feel somewhat important.

It is also nice to know that most of these celebrities are normal and face similar problems. Being able to read their status and tweets makes them more relatable and seem more down to earth. For example, the famous Idina Menzel from Wicked and Glee recently tweeted that her 2-year old son likes to dance around to the songs on the radio. I would assume that most mothers with 2-year olds would agree with this statement or has seen their child do this. I just think that being able to see a little into a star’s life makes them more like a normal human being and not superficial.

The Internet Lawyer

The Internet is a new and exciting entity. As recently as 1991 Mr. Bonamo was having picture parties after European trips due to a lack of a medium to share the photos from the trip. Now we have more than one medium to share photos. We have the luxury of Facebook, Twitter, or, of you want videos, YouTube. There is one major problem with many of these websites, they track your browsing history. One could argue against such an invasion of privacy, but my argument would be that you gave up your right to that privacy when you hit the "I agree" button on the contract presented to you when you sign up for an account or ever once in a while when changes are made. When you hit the agreement button on the computer it is almost identical to signing a contract, you have agreed to their terms in order to gain access or create an account to their sight. Does anyone ever read these contracts? I don't know, but that doesn't change that you signed the contract. When buying a house you don't read all the paperwork necessary to purchase the house - you have a real estate lawyer. Maybe it is time for people to take their own personal security into their own hands and hire an internet lawyer before hitting that owe so enticing "I agree" button. The responsibility to take care of privacy falls to the consumer, not the company providing a free service. Internet law is a growing type of law which will continue to grow as the Internet continues to grow. There is talk of Internet wills where people assign the use of emails, and social networking accounts just like they would assign their jewelry. It might be time to take that next step and have lawyers read Internet contractual agreements before signing up for that new email account just like you would before buying the home of your dreams.

Updating our laws to adapt to new technology

            On Tuesday, we brought up many topics but the one that stayed the most with me was one that may or may not have a definite answer. It is very arguable and since it has no "precedent" of this caliber, it cannot be expected to follow a construct but rather must result in trial and (hopefully less) error so that our society does not continue in the dark concerning the internet laws. Our legal system has to come up with the right terms and clauses to properly define something that may actually be undefinable. legislators have to keep in mind the First Amendment and all that entails and the danger of the behaviors being practiced right now. The fact is, the longer no legislation is passed, the more people may die and if there is no court case to base reasoning off of, there seems to be no grounds for an arrest or prosecution. A New York Times article puts it as "prosecutors are often left to shoehorn this new wave of behavior into laws created long before there was an internet" http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/30/cyberbullying-and-a-students-suicide/what-isnt-known-about-suicides (What isn't known about suicides)
             This is no small feat and the difficulty continues to mount as it is very hard to try to define bullying and determine what pushes a person over the edge or not because in our law system, every individual even the victim acts of their own free will. The author of the same article goes on to argue that bullying is something that is a part of growing up, not that it condones it in anyway, but that it needs to be recognized as such and consider this factor that it is "classic antisocial behavior". Some schools have already begun to add "curricular lessons on responsible use of the Internet" to teach not only that bullies aren't cool but that someone's life could be hurt, just as seriously if not more than by physical bullying. Another debater notes that bullying has been around over the years and the students/victims do not care what it is classified as, they only care that the "campus misconduct is monitored and prevented" http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/30/cyberbullying-and-a-students-suicide/campus-bullying-as-a-human-rights-issue (A Human Rights Issue).
               However, this proves harder than ever as another debater claims that "technology offers a powerful shield of anonymity" which means that the perpetrators can not have to face the consequences of their actions if they are not traced. There are countless possibilities that maybe considered when debating the rights and wrongs of this topic. There doesn't seem to be a definite correct answer either. Everything is relative since all cases will be different, however, if our legal system can manage to come up with some brilliantly drafted law, then I would be part of the congratulatory crowd on their best achievement. 


I would recommend that everyone read this article and following debate concerning this topic and try to come up with their own point of view on the changes that need to be made in today's culture and the culture of tomorrow. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/30/cyberbullying-and-a-students-suicide/what-isnt-known-about-suicides

Tweets To Let? Celebrities Now Endorsing.

                Today we speculated upon the claim that celebrities may be getting paid by social networking companies like Facebook for posting up private pictures that can only be accessed through Facebook. Stemming off from this, I want to expand upon the economic and social aspects of celebrities being paid by the media to advertise certain products. I wondered if other sites like Twitter paid celebrities to tweet about certain issues or people because I’ve seen stars like John Mayer and Rick Ross hashtag random brands and companies. They in fact do.

                In an article I read by CBS, there is a whole internet market on celebrity tweets that endorse ads and companies upon request. Some are more expensive than others, based on popularity. In one example given in the article, a tweet from Khloe Kardashian costs about $8,000 as opposed to rapper Ray J, whose tweets are worth about $2,300. Either way, smaller companies can take this to their advantage because they don’t have to pay as much and have greater chances of building up a consumer base. Other benefits of this tactic include the fact that celebrity tweets cost less than putting up full length ads online and they are guaranteed to reach the selected celebrities’ entire fan base (the people that follow them). For example, CampusLIVE, a company that gears towards connecting college students, paid Lindsay Lohan to tweet about their website. Even though Lohan was going through a lot of legal troubles at the time, thousands of people clicked on to the website, and the company didn’t even have to ask Lohan to tweet about them again because they already tapped into her fan base. The simple fact that hash tags are quick and sufficient in redirecting to the source also contributes to the growth of this marketing technique.

I believe it's important for not only fans, but also for the general population to be aware of these "tweets". They aren't necessarily true- your idol may not even like those brand of sneakers or they might have not ever even used a certain website. It's all for profit and pinpointing consumers to buy a product or support a certain cause.

Article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57319886-10391698/celebrities-paid-thousands-for-endorsement-tweets/

A Technological Revolution: For Better or For Worse?

            It is actually quite amazing to know that just in these last two decades, technology and the role that it plays in our everyday lives, has made so much progress. In our current times, we tend to take it for granted and simply consider all of this to be part of our lives – but to think that just twenty years ago, no smart phones existed. No laptops were around. And the internet, well it wasn’t exactly what it is today. As you read this, you are most likely arriving at the conclusion that this progress that we have made has been for the better. I mean, what would our lives be without all of this? Well, yes, we have to concede that all this has brought some positive contributions to society as a whole. Now you can easily get in touch with someone on the other side of the world. You can easily access thousands of sites when you’re in need of information. You no longer even need to leave your house as you can practically shop for everything online and have it come straight to your home. BUT, when we delve further into just how much technology has affected us, we can arrive at some startling realizations.  Let’s use Facebook as an example.

            In today’s day and age, it is safe to say that a LARGE portion of the population has a Facebook. When one is initially presented with this network, it appears like a great thing to have. Through Facebook, users have the privilege of keeping in touch with all of their friends as they are able to share anything ranging from photos, ideas, and comments to videos and even information on all sorts of events – and this is all free of charge. Just from this information, I personally always thought that there had to be some type of disadvantage. As our class discussion progressed today, many things emerged that, to an extent, really make you consider whether or not the privilege of having a Facebook is actually worth it. For one, I found the fact that Facebook, in essence, owns anything that you decide to share through this medium, quite startling. This is an issue because it raises the question of just who really is in control here; you, the actual person deciding to disclose selected information or Facebook, the company providing you the means to do so? Personally, I feel that all ownership should be belong with the user as without him or her, there would be nothing there in the first place but it is also fair to say that Facebook deserves some ownership as without it, the person wouldn’t be able to share all this. This particular aspect of controversy can go back and forth. But, what really made me uncomfortable was knowing that, besides the fact that Facebook is now claiming ownership of all your information (disclosed using Facebook), Facebook is now allowed to store ALL that you disclose for an indefinite amount of time. To me personally, this poses a lot of questions and a lot of concerns. Why does Facebook basically have the right to have an archive of who you are online? What does Facebook do or plan on doing with this information? Why was the previous policy changed (where Facebook would only be allowed to keep your information for sixty days? Why can’t we delete our accounts (you can only deactivate it)?

             I think that often, we get too engulfed in recent phenomena and fail to thoroughly analyze just what we are getting ourselves into. For the most part, it is not until something drastic happens that we come to the conclusion that something is wrong and that something must be done. With regards to the control and ownership of media, particularly over the internet, I feel that some type of laws and regulations should be imposed so that both people and large companies have a reason to behave accordingly. With technology constantly making leaps, if we fail to regulate all aspects of it, then we risk not only harming ourselves but everything in general. Take the Britannica Encyclopedia as an example. Recently, this renowned company announced that it would no longer print/publish as the competition online was simply becoming more and more hard to keep up with. With this source slowly vanishing into history, we risk losing historical credibility and even history itself as now, anyone can set up an internet site and share what they think to be true. This is appalling as with Britannica, you had a consensus by educated personnel of what was accurate/correct to be published and it went through many eyes before it was actually put in your hands. As many sectors of our society are slowly disappearing due to advances and technology, I think it’s fair to say that things need to be regulated more and more – for it now, we risk harming ourselves in the long run.

Violation by Ignorance

           Over the course of the last decade, society has launched a full-blown revolution in terms of the media and refined technology it uses. Although many may find that Facebook, Twitter, etc. are a blessing for mass communication, many are also coming to realize the apparent violations and restrictions, which are being embedded into the fine print of the companies (responsible for our transfer of information) terms of agreement policies. I personally think it is an outrage that Facebook has data ownership over its users and owns all photos uploaded. Facebook has also instilled a new feature, entitled Timeline, which utilizes a time-structured frame on the profile of users to note the changes in the life of an individual (through pictures, wall posts, old statuses) from their first opening of a Facebook account. I think the fact that Facebook basically has an online biography of all its users is kind of creepy. I mean the thought of an entire archive of my embarrassing pictures, private conversations, and more online, is not a pleasing thought. 
                 I do understand that when I opened a Facebook account that I agreed to a terms of agreement, which entails that I agree to Facebook’s policies in return for a free service. However, in all honesty, how many of us actually read Facebook’s terms of agreement? Some of the writing is written so finely that a lawyer may be needed to decipher the minuscule details. Now how many of us are actually willing to consult a lawyer for the mere fact of opening a cyber social account? I’m pretty sure the answer is very few of us are willing to do what I’ve proposed. This is where I believe that the social media companies are in fact trying to hinder the rights of its users by providing an alluring service, but in a conniving way. They must be aware that not everyone is willing to read every little thing in the terms of agreement for the web site, but they will still sign up for access to it. At that point, they utilize their knowledge of the human lack of interest and put in whatever bogus, unfair, and odd policies into the terms of agreement (which will be of use to them in one way or another). Ultimately, I am not denying that we have brought some of these unfair policies upon ourselves, but that does not justify the social media’s exploitation of our rights. 

The Control and Ownership of Media

          For this past week we have been talking about the place that social media has in our lives. We've covered most of the aspects of this topic, such as the growth of these media outlets, the good and bad potential in them, and the right to take information that a person has on his computer of on social media and use it in court. The topic I was interested in expands on the third topic listed, as I was hoping to talk about concentration of media ownership, the control over what we see and don't see through media, and internet censorship/ piracy concerns.

          The best way to start this will probably be to just expand on the last topic we talked about. There has always been a question about how far is too far when it comes to being able to take the information that someone puts online and their internet histories? As we have seen in cases like the Dharun Ravi case, these things can be very influential in public opinion and can even sway jurors into choosing whether someone is innocent or guilty. Now, I personally am biased on this situation since i believe that if there is a reason to suspect that someone did something wrong, then you should be allowed to look into that person's internet history. I personally see it as the same thing as a search warrant for a house. I feel that having your internet history looked at isn't an automatic guilty verdict, but just another way to see if someone may be guilty. We have seen that internet history doesn't always lead to a guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony case. However, I will leave the rest of this for class debate. Here is an article that goes along with this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/nyregion/jurors-say-digital-evidence-convinced-them-of-dharun-ravis-guilt.html (Digital Evidence's Importance in the Dharun Ravi case)

          This leads to a bigger topic that I want to focus on, which is who really owns the things that we post on the internet. Now about a month ago, Facebook changed their terms of service and tried to make it seem as though it was trying to make it clear to us what they controlled of our pages and such on Facebook (https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130). Zuckerberg also stated in that post that Facebook was only trying to be helpful and efficient for us. However, if he really wants to do this, why doesn't he put the terms in language that we can understand in the first place? But more importantly, how is it more helpful and efficient for us to try and delete our Facebook accounts, only to allow Facebook to keep the information we stored on it forever? (http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html). Now, to play devil's advocate here, these terms are subject to your privacy settings, so you can stop Facebook from having total control of your information. To expand the topic even further, YouTube has a policy of allowing owners of videos to keep ownership of them. That seems all nice and dandy; however, YouTube keeps the right to "Non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual license to freely sub-license, re-distribute, re-publish, monetize, and whatever they may want to do with your video,"(http://www.reelseo.com/youtube-copyright-ownership/#ixzz1pR3otf91). Just for fun, you can add that Twitter maintains that you have complete intellectual ownership of your tweets and twitter pictures (http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/social_network/220000033). 

          The next topic is really just another extension of the previous topic: The ability to keep ownership of your ideas. Except this time, we are looking at it in the realms of celebrities and Hollywood. Recently, most of you know that there will bills in congress looking to make copyright infringement: SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA  (If you don't really know about these bills, a basic overview can be seen here http://www.iste.org/connect/iste-connects/blog-detail/12-02-03/SOPA_PIPA_and_now_ACTA_What_do_all_these_anti-piracy_acts_mean_for_schools.aspx under the What are SOPA and PIPA?  title). Now, these acts were to protect the works of Hollywood artists from being pirated and put on the internet for free usage. However, there was a huge concern because it was so general, that all someone had to do was accuse a website of having one pirated thing on it, and that website would basically be killed off. Now, again, being devil's advocate, there are a lot of websites that pirate material, allowing people too use the works of artists without paying them. So clearly something needs to be done about this. Yet is there really a good solution to this?

         The next topic I want to address the issue of media being gatekeepers of information and how political ideology can affect our access to information as well. For instance, in a flashback to the past, you guys can remember that interview with Newt Gingrich's Ex-Wife that aired right before the South Carolina primary. Now ABC had held onto this interview for a while before airing it, causing people to suspect that ABC wanted to make the interview air at the most  harmful time for Gingrich's campaign (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/rush-limbaugh-abc-newt-gingrich-wife_n_1216552.html). In another blast to the past, we can see that there isn't much media coverage on the revolution in Syria or the EU's embargo on Iranian Oil. These are two examples I found of media control over what we see and I was just hoping to hear some of your thoughts on this topic. Another example includes a chart that came out a few months ago on how presidents have raised the deficit in relation to Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bogus-chart-on-obama-and-the-debt-gets-a-new-lease-on-life/2011/09/28/gIQAx40Y6K_blog.html).\

          If you guys have any other examples you would want to talk about, you can comment and I will try to include them in the conversation in class.

         

Conclusion to Social Media Phenomena

It seems that a seemingly simple topic took on a life of it’s own, as we discussed the benefits, disadvantages, infringement of rights, and overwhelming popularity involving the social media. The class highlighted the benefits of social media by applauding the cultural diffusion, ability for vital information to be spread rapidly, marketing strategy, and more. However, it seems that listing the disadvantages of social media came with much more ease, than did listing the benefits of social media. Instant gratification of information turned into a negative effect when we began to realize that we were too reliant upon the web to deliver us what’s going on in the world, rather than using books, newspapers, or other printed texts to guide us. We also discussed the video involving Joseph Kony (that went viral within a matter of days) and highlighted the false validity and potential harm of social media information.

       In addition, we spoke about the fairly recent Rutgers case involving the student Tyler Clementi who committed suicide; the case involved the usage information complied from the web history of the potential offender (by the police) to be used as evidence during the proceedings in trial. Inevitably, the discussion took a heated turn, when privacy and the breach of rights became involved. Some believed that the government has the authority to keep and check stored information (in regards to crimes or similar harmful acts of that nature), while others thought that the government would be violating the personal boundaries of the cyber world (unless under extreme circumstances with substantial evidence to permit viewing of the web history). Infringement on privacy rights seems to be a tradeoff that we may have to comply with, considering we can find information at the click of a button, make friends with a simple request, tweet our ideas to our followers at ease, etc. The social media just makes it that much easier to convey ideas, messages, and news to the world, as opposed to commercially advertising or spreading information via mouth, and it’s not only fast, but it’s free!

Social Media: Cultural Diffusion at What Cost?

            The world has become a much smaller place due to the interconnecting webs cast by social media. Ever since the birth of the internet, the olden days where newspapers reigned supreme have long been pushed back. It appears that American news no longer seems interesting. As seen by the Kony video, international issues have become the norm; local news no longer take precedent. This amalgamation of information between countries has come with both benefits and drawbacks. One of the most obvious benefits is the distribution of information. The knowledge of the world is literally at our fingertips and can be accessed with a single click. However, this is making material texts relics of the past. The need for books is disappearing. They are becoming replaced with things like Kindles and such. And unlike published materials that go through editing to ensure accuracy of information, the internet has no such quality control. As a result, we do not know if the information we are reading has any validity whatsoever, especially with the recent suggestion to allow websites to use any endings they desire. If it comes to pass, this will destroy the long held viewpoint that websites ending in .gov or .org are more reliable in terms of being informational sources. Omar mentioned one very important aspect of social media. He described it as being something akin to the game telephone. One person says one thing and says it to another. By the very end, the original message has been lost. Another interesting point brought up during Tuesday's discussion was the deterioration of culture. Similarly to the countries of the ancient world that were conquered and mixed together by their overlords, the internet has conquered and mixed us together as well. As Nazifa mentioned in her post, K-pop has started to cross over into the western world. However, at what cost to both the U.S. and Korea? In order for K-pop to be successful, I believe it has to take on a western flavor in order to interest American listeners. This means K-pop has to lose what little of its culture it has left. Over the past decade, its music has taken on American aspects as it has encompassed several genres such as hip-hop and r&b. And yet, that has still not been enough to break through the barrier of the western world. Is this an indicator of the rest of the world? That we are still destined to become similar but not homogenous? 

Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest

Everything is at our fingertips. With the push of a button, I could obtain the mass of the sun or learn about the fall of the League of Nations. It hardly takes any thought; it just takes a question. It doesn't even take much physical prowess to be able to look up a query. Prod a button. Scroll down on a mouse. Click. By all means, this should make the generations after the Internet Revolution more aware. And yet, our state exams are getting easier, education quality is going down the drain...why?

As exposure to Internet goes on, we are losing an ability to focus (we can't have too many social media accounts, of course not), we are losing an ability to think for ourselves, we are losing an ability to understand common courtesy and privacy, and above all, we are changing the way we think to more closely comply with technology. We don't own technology; technology owns us. Your computer has a perfect memory; you are gradually losing your ability. Your computer thinks but you can't come up with the answer yourself through reasoning. Your computer has all sorts of complicated passwords but the need to go on Facebook - an extremely impersonal site - to check on your friends and their activities is mind-boggling.

It sounds like the solution is to turn off Internet and swagger out into the world, alone and without your pal of forever but that won't help much because traditional media is quickly adapting itself to fit into a world of instant messaging, 3-4 paragraph blogs (according to a study, even those are skimmed), and movies on demand. The New York Times, for instance, has begun using the second and third page of each edition to an overview for "time-harried" readers. Perhaps we would have more time for such things if we got off the Internet. As time is going on, the e-books are increasing in popularity and Barnes and Noble, once reviled by the editing world, is now standing as a shield for traditional works, editors, and publishing agents.

When books were first produced, many were afraid that books would produce intellectual laziness - as is the case here. However, books sometimes come in large tomes, books don't shoot information at us at gunfire pace, and most importantly, books aren't capable of doing everything for us. When you go online, you are only seeing what you want to see. If you go on Google, Google shows you what they think you want, based on their assessment of your use of their services. On Twitter, you follow what you want to see on your feed. Why seek information that might derail your carefully orchestrated 140 character ideas?

Of course, the dominant view on the Internet is that of the dominant culture - white Caucasians. Is it really right that they're the primary things we see? Beauty on magazine covers, for instance, is dominated by a white perception of beauty.  K-pop is essentially the bubblegum pop of the American music scene over ten years ago and it's gradually becoming more similar to American music of today, except with less people and less music genres.

If so, what are we learning from the Internet?

Lack of Print Can Cause A Narrowing of POVs The rate at which we process information in the 21 century’s world of social media is expedient. The spe

The rate at which we process information in the 21 century’s world of social media is expedient. The speed at which we desire this information is even greater. The want to know facts at your fingertips while underground or in the woods, lacking any 4G service is a modern day problem. This issue of how to access a site like Wikipedia with a couple of clicks to educate yourself on something like the history of Native Americans while being in a “dead” spot seems problematic, but there are ways around it. A simple and easy way would be to open up your “N” edition of Encyclopedia Britannica to find out about these people. This may still be possible and may still be possible in the near future but it seems that due to the social media’s acceleration of the spread of ideas, encyclopedias will not only become irrelevant with the use of the free, online encyclopedia Wikipedia but also outdated due to the new status of a topic.
In the New York Times column “Media Decoder” the article “After 244 Years, Encyclopedia Britannica Stops the Presses” by Julie Bosman

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?hp

she writes that this once standard for an aspiring middle class American family in the 1960s will now become a relic of the past. An outdated way of keeping history. A way that seems to be surpassed by online forms in availability, quantity, and even quality some may argue.
Bosman writes in her post, “It’s a rite of passage in this new era,” Jorge Cauz, the president of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., a company based in Chicago, said in an interview. “Some people will feel sad about it and nostalgic about it. But we have a better tool now. The Web site is continuously updated, it’s much more expansive and it has multimedia.”
A sad truth of this to those who value the physical aspect of books. Social media forums like Twitter and Facebook are creating their own history. Facebook now has a timeline that they are implementing into everyone’s profile, documenting the history of one’s account. In addition, the Twitter world is bound to start some kind of formal organization of hashtagged moments and trends. When Twitter does do so, they will be forming their own, short hand version of the history of pop culture and current events. With public blogging everyone can become the scorekeeper of current events, displaying multiple sides to every argument, providing a faction filled documentation of history.
Yes, this has its own merit. A new display of history. Maybe one day students will learn about the American History on their iTables, a table that will act as an oversized, educational iPad with all the textbook material in its memory. In these digital pages of the historic election in 2008 of President Obama there will not only be text, not only will there by a map of the electoral college, but also a chart of a streamlined-encyclopedia-style condensed overview of tweets and Facebook posts from the day, reflecting the public’s wide opinion. Learning will certainly involve new material and only a data base that is digital will be able to accommodate that.
But we must ask ourselves, in a time where social media is causing strong cultural diffusion, accelerated exchanging of knowledge, and making events out of events, what will happen when we need to know the facts in a time where internet service is not working. Can we possibly operate if a country at war with us finds a way to bring to a halt our internet services? At times like these it seems in order to access information we will have to reach into our slumping bookshelf and blow off our newest copy of the Britannica, the 2010 one. “The last print version is the 32-volume 2010 edition, which weighs 129 pounds and includes new entries on global warming and the Human Genome Project,” reads Bosman’s article. Will a new entry on global warming even be relevant to us at this hypothetical time? Probably not. Will we have to use this outdated information because this is all we have? Yes. Is it unfortunate that Encyclopedia Britannica is going to leave this world of print to join the rest? Hopefully we will not have to face a day that outdated print is all we have and internet sources are unaccessible. Touching on Google’s eery communistic ways, for capitalist gains, what will happen if they decide to limit information so that what is on the internet is only what they want you to see, and then buy? Again, another eery question, something that must be addressed when print is leaving the modern world, to an internet world where more points of view are supposedly represented, at least for now they seem to be.

Expanding Upon the Potential Dangers and Benefits of Google Search

                Usually when our friends ask us about something and we don’t know the answer, we tell them to Google it. Over the past decade, Google has risen to the point where it now encompasses much of peoples’ private information, but has correspondingly revolutionized the web. Many are against Google’s changes to their internet experience because they don’t want their search results to be “personalized”. Others support these changes because they allow for faster and precise search results. One New York Times blogger appreciates Google’s personalized results because he searched for restaurants in Boston for an upcoming trip and discovered such restaurants that his friends had blogged about. These results furthered into critics’ responses of the restaurants and what others like him and his friends had recommended. If he hadn’t googled it, he wouldn’t have known about where his friends have been unless it came up in conversation. Read more: http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/how-useful-is-googles-personalized-search/

                Google also recently changed its private policy last month, and many are against these changes. Instead of profiling users independently on particular sites and products, Google will now combine its user’s interests under a single profile- similar to a Tumblr dashboard. It’s also easier to sign in to many accounts that Google is affiliated with- like Blogger or Youtube. Instead of having to go through the process of creating a new account, you can now sign in through Gmail (similar to what Facebook has done). Although this new policy includes economic benefits such as faster, pinpointed searches and even more targeted audiences, it takes away from the individual’s privacy. Google has responded to the opposition saying that they are not collecting any more information as they were before and that these changes are meant to benefit the users by providing them with “cool features and services”. Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/29/tech/web/protect-privacy-google/index.html?iref=allsearch

                Google also says that for those that want to keep their privacy can simply log off and search, or even change their browser settings and cookies to prevent information from being recorded. I feel that this is extraneously tedious. In order to keep your searches and whereabouts on the net as private as possible, you would have to refrain from other Google products. For example, you would have to go “Off Record” when chatting with a friend on Gmail. Another example is clearing your browser history on Google Chrome and Youtube. A simpler way might be to go on “Incognito” on Google Chrome so that none of the cookies that record your information work, but even browsing Incognito has its flaws. From personal experience, if you close a window in which you were logged into Facebook or Tumblr, you would have to resign in. None of the extensions work either, unless you manually go to your settings and enable them.

So is the cost worth it? That depends on the person and what they value more.