This article was hard for me to get through and I felt lost a couple times, so about halfway through I decided to use the notes written by professor Perez.
Reading through the Wikipedia summary made things a little more clear, especially the explanation that the light bulb has a social effect. “A light bulb enables people to create spaces during nighttime that would otherwise be enveloped in darkness,” which means although the light bulb itself has no actual content, we rely on its use for many things. McLuhan relates this concept to a newscast about crime and how it is less about the content and more about how the public attitude changes toward crime. Another point I took from the wiki summary is that the content of what is being presented, distracts people from what is really going on. “This means that people tend to focus on the obvious, which is the content, to provide us valuable information, but in the process, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time.” This is a really interesting point, and I relate it to watching the news, and all the drama and fluff that is thrown into the newscast. This distracts the people from the real problem that it is normal to watch a newscast about a crime while eating dinner with the family at the kitchen table; and that we have become numb to horrifying stories. There is always another message behind the message being presented.
Hello Mary Lou!
ReplyDeleteI love the phrase "we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time." This phrase describes the effects that communication media have on society. For instance, let us look at the history of American television and examine the role of profanity and nudity within this communication medium. Compared to the 1960's, the words sh@t and b&tch are commonplace in today's television culture. Why? Simply put, words of profanity were introduced slowly into America's television culture as the years turned into decades. These slow and subtle introductions were mostly unnoticed by the American people; thus, American's were able to assimilate these new social norms easily into their ideologies. Furthermore, the Jonas Brothers came out with a music video for the song "Poor Unfortunate Souls" in 2007. In the video, they take over a country club's pool and jump into it while wearing full body swimsuits. Conversely, one year later, Camp Rock aired on Disney Channel. Unlike the conservative "Poor Unfortunate Souls" video, this movie said, "No way!" to the idea of featuring full body swimsuits. Instead, one scene depicts Joe Jonas as a "smoking hot bachelor" as he climbs out of a lake onto a pier shirtless. Did Disney cave in and accept the societal belief that "sex sells" or did it adjust its image to keep up with the changing times? Maybe both? When looking at this example, it is clear that Joe Jonas's shirtless scene did not go unnoticed. However, no one seemed to mind that Disney supported it. In today's society, parents do not seem to mind that their children are exposed to "shirtless" scenes. It is so fascinating to think that at one point in American history, parents across America would not have accepted a shirtless Joe Jonas with open arms. I apologize for making you listen to my JoBros talk. :P I figured that I might as well say something unique. Overall, these two examples of profanity and "nudity" in America's television culture illustrate the idea that societal norms change gradually and, at times, go unnoticed by the average person.
Jay from the Bay