Responses for Questions in Week 10: Monica Reyes's Blog

In response to Monica Reyes’s third question, I have to admit that I had similar experiences with the fifth communication invention. Once I entered into my senior year of high school, I had a cell phone and was an active member of Myspace and Facebook. Soon these objects of social networking radically changed the way in which I went about my daily routines, and even the way I engaged with other people; I only resorted to face-to-face contact with people if it was entirely necessary. What do I think are the benefits and/or losses that we will have encountered with the introduction of “The interactive electronic world?” A few things come to mind, including a greater loss of the spoken word as a medium for expression. In this process, certain aspects of the spoken word which are gleaned from only aurally—including tone—are completely lost for the receiver of the message. I have had many experiences in which what I say in a text or e-mail is completely misinterpreted, and I often have to resort to calling the person just to make sure they understand what I am trying to get across. At least on an everyday basis, I also feel as if there is less spontaneity to one’s schedule because of the ability to arrange our day according to when and what other people respond to us through text or e-mail. While this invention has made life somewhat easier and more efficient, in a way it is depriving us of a sort of natural cycle that courses through the day. In regards to being able to preserve photos better, I think that it is certainly a benefit—especially for certain people who depend on others to record certain events/occurrences for them—but there is certainly a loss of novelty that goes with possessing a one-of-a-kind photo. In a way, originality and even individuality loses its merit. Of course, there are many benefits of this new invention including making the world and people of different cultures more accessible to any individual who has access to a computer. Ultimately, it leads to the creation of more inclusive, more effective methods of communication across a wide range of influences/disciplines. It is hard to say whether or not the benefits will outweigh the cons in the future for this new communication invention. While people of our generation are constantly touting how much it represents the progression of the individual and of mankind as a whole, I have to wonder if it is in fact doing the opposite. With social networking and these new lines of communication, it is just as easy to help someone as it is to hinder or criticize them (often anonymously), and many of the individuals who are being praised or respected in our world are because of odd talents or skills that in fact represent an overall decrease of human aptitude. Also, the new method of communication seems to emphasize the social well-being of the person over their personal well-being, and I feel like many people’s voices and individuality are being sacrificed in order to, for example, see how many friends on Facebook they can gather. The benefit for this type of communication, then, seems to occur only on one level of the single person.

Response to Kim's Questions: Week 9

It is difficult for me to ultimately decide whether or not television is superior to print-based sources. When you watch television, you are more likely to allow the reception of sounds and images to pass through you without second-thought or true reflection. Oftentimes with television, the sights/sounds that you experience are not necessarily what you desire or would like to process, and therefore you are simply watching certain shows with no secondary degree of participation. You are ultimately becoming desensitized to certain images or sounds that constantly perpetuated on the screen and TV in general. Print-based information is different from television in that it is completely under the person's agency or choice to read what interests him/her. The only unnecessary information that the reader is forced to consider or at least observe is simply the headlines to help direct him/her to the sections which will grab their attention and maintain it. With TV it is quite opposite, especially during advertisements, when the viewer is subjected to something he/she does not to see and are simply put off by the programming. The viewer then has the choice to switch the channel, thereby rendering TV inferior for allowing the viewer to question what he is watching. Print-based information requires a certain level of focus that TV does not necessarily call for; when you are processing print-based information, it usually regards something that you are interested in, and therefore it will lead you to distinguishing the author's stance, forming a opinion of your own regarding the topic at hand, delving into the word's themselves and wondering what the diction is telling you about the piece, and ultimately questioning the arguments.
I believe that the reason we do not engage in TV as that we majorly approach it with the mindset that its purpose is purely for entertainment. Aside from news or such channels as the history channel when the audience is viewing the program for the sole purpose of learning more about the world aroundhim/her, the majority of TV programs are simply meant to evoke emotion in the viewer, not necessarily to provide them knowledge. TV is most often background noise/scenes. While I do believe that people approach print-based sources with a passive attitude, especially if the specific source is a daily habit, these sources exist primarily for delivering information to the reader. Yes, magazines such as People or the National Enquirer are meant to entertain, but the reader finds him/herself questioning the validity of the sources, whereas the fictional TV world is not meant for this purpose. If anything, this questioning of truthfuless is what makes its requirements higher than that of viewing TV.