#medialiterates

If you are looking for the best example of bad public relations, let me point you in the direction of United Airlines. This has to be one of the worst PR failures that a company has faced in history, not only because of the inhumanity of the situation but also because of how viral the situation became on the internet. Not only did someone get abused, dragged off of an airplane, and eventually hospitalized, but the company was somehow able to make it even worse for themselves afterward by not even apologizing for hurting someone. The whole situation was a PR disaster, and not something that United Airlines will be able to bounce back from soon. 

This was supposed to be an attempt at consumer relations, which is about maintaining a good relationship with a community or consumers (Media Culture: Mass Communication in a Digital Age). After the video of the man being beaten and dragged off the plane went viral, the public went crazy. The first time I saw it, I couldn’t believe what was happening-- what I was seeing. I was outraged that something like this could happen to a person. A lot of people were upset by this too. I saw boycott hashtags when I went on Twitter for weeks.  United Airlines needed to (and quite frankly, still need to) repair their relationship with their consumers and the communities that they serve. It’s going to take a lot more than apologies, and a whole lot of time to heal the wounds that United Airlines suffered from this incident. 

There are many things that United Airlines could have done better to save face in this situation. The first apology that was issued by the CEO should have addressed the attack on the man right away. The fact that the only thing that he apologized for was having to remove people from the airplane and “re-accommodate” passengers was the first big mistake once the higher-ups got involved. He did later address that the beating was brutal, but at that point it was too little, too late. Twitter was exploding with different hashtags calling on Twitter users to make fun of and boycott the company. Also in the first statement given by the CEO, he made claims that put the blame on the passenger-- the second big no-no. Because of what the viral video showed, no one would have cared even if the guy had started it, or if he was resisting violently. Shifting the blame on someone who everyone else saw as a victim could only turn the public more against them. 

I think that will take United Airlines a long time to bounce back into the good graces of the public eye. Even in the months that have past, I still see memes and other things on the internet that reference this incident. In some ways, they keep reigniting the flame themselves. In their most recent attempt to get redeem themselves, they offered to fly “Nugget Boy” (a young man named Cater Wilkerson, who made a deal with Wendy’s that said if his tweet got 18 million retweets that Wilkerson would get a years-worth of chicken nuggets free) anywhere they provided service to where there were Wendy’s. This only cause matters to get even more out of hand, as the Twitter population called them on their B.S., warning Wilkerson that it might be a trap, and turned United Airlines into the laughing stock of Twitter once again. Hopefully things will change for the company in the future, and they can be in our good graces, or at least seem alright, again. But for now, maybe they should take a much-needed vacation from the media spotlight and stop trying so hard, because trying to fix things has so far only made it worse. 

Video Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmG9U5Z0xhI&list=PLsPxc8YhqankER3TI7hx1IS45N-rCpzie&index=4&spfreload=5

When looking at images of U.S. culture and its history as from the 30’s to the 70’s, you might try and Google each decade and take note of what you might find, and later piece your findings into a collective and summarize the events. During your research the majority of the images that pop up capturing the era, the essence, and the culture of the different decades could all be attributed to one magazine: Life.

Life magazine is and was the pinnacle of capturing images of U.S. culture. With the many publications and images it produced some would call it the pioneer of magazines. Life’s direction was relied heavy on the photographers first and reporters second which led them to have U.S. culture’s most iconic photos from the 30’s to the 70s.

“Life’s pictures changed the world” with its extraordinarily photo journalism. The uniqueness of its style captured and celebrated American culture through photographs where other magazines did so with articles and stories. The “gods of photography that told Americas story through photographs”. During the world wars while stories traveled through radio, Life was there capturing the horrors and glories of the war. This was the turning point that solidified Life’s importance in American culture.

The concept of photographs being championed over articles are why Life rose to pinnacle heights and set them apart from the other magazines at the time. The bond created between the magazine and its readers during its height is unmeasured, maybe Time magazine being the only one in comparison. The voice of Life magazine was its photographers and they definitely brought to life the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words”.

     In today’s modern era, it’s easy to forget how much the past continues to influence our present day lives. In terms of music and culture, both derive from the past and also coincide to display their importance within the world today. After watching the film, RIP: A Remix Manifesto, I was immediately impacted by concept of copyrighting as it pertains to the relationship between past and present day music genres. Gaylor mentions the fact that “copyrighting is based on the war over ideas, where the battleground is the internet.” A new idea in general is coined by the term ‘remix’, but music’s form of remix is what has inspired me to take a deeper look into the ways in which the past influences the present. The director of the film, Brett Gaylor, mentions the copyRIGHT versus the copyLEFT, where both sides display their reasons for and against remixes altogether. In this case, the right side discovered a supermarket of intellectual property, where the founders demanded to be paid for copyright instances. On the other hand, the left side promotes the sharing of ideas and the protection of the public domain to ensure the exchange of these ideas. No matter which side of the spectrum you fall back on, it’s important to understand how culture has created these two conflicting sides.

     In chapter 4 of the textbook, I was intrigued by the Making, Selling, and Profiting from Music section, which elaborates on the conflict between business and artist concerns. Through these three large steps in the music process, it’s crazy to factor the impact of remixes into the initial creation of one single song. As a remix is a twist to an original song or even a short sound bite taken from it, one may easily convey their reasons against remixes altogether. On that note, reasons against may include the fact that a given original song’s publicity earned its credit, while a remix doesn’t. Reasons for remixes may say that its sampling is an instrument, where the construction of free societies must include the limited control of the past. Going off of the reasons for remixes, Gaylor states that “the past is always trying to control the future”, which is what contributes to a flawed representation of ideas. As the first federal copyright law was written under the U.S. constitution in 1790, its motive was designed to encourage people to create. Under the strict copyrighting acts of the twenty-first century, the term ‘create’ has evolved into a completely different meaning, where one cannot move forward within their production without constantly being afraid of the infringement on others.

     When considering today’s current events, culture within the music industry remains at the top of the peak. Given my reaction to the film, it’s amazing to think of how far music (of all genres) has come to symbolize our current societal movements. The essence of remixes today and their relationship with current events rely on the fact that culture is always building upon the past. With that being said, the textbook illustrates the Reformations in Popular Music, which goes on to reflect a changing industry of imitation based on the British Invasion of the 1950s. Through this invasion, England’s musical takeover in the U.S. was fueled by their overnight success, which was later said to be posed as a copyright upon Chuck Berry and Little Richard. Getting back to the modern day relation between music and current events, remixed songs continue to fuel the industry, despite their well-known copyrights. In my opinion, many instances of remixed music have led to more popularity than the original song itself, where music variation represents an alternative thought. As this variation continues to influence music forms from all around the globe, society can’t help but latch onto the transgression of norms, instantly allowing for a broadcasted current event.

     Reflecting back on the film, RIP: A Remix Manifesto, I was most intrigued by Lawrence Lessig’s reasoning and justification for acts of copywriting. Lessig, an American academic, attorney, and political activist, is interviewed by Brett Gaylor, and elicits the fact that there’s no way to kill copyright technology. While embracing this technology, Lessig compares the production of remixed music/film to writing an essay, where the individual would quote certain things from their culture to better tell their story. Within this essay process, the individual would then cite this quote, as it pertains to the support of their initial argument as a whole. Although Lawrence Lessig compares copyright acts in music and film to the written production of an essay, he breaks the news that it’s indeed a federal crime to copyright music and film because of their production processes. Looking back at Lessig’s wise words, I’m now more educated on the ways in which a copyright is initiated and enforced within different parts of the world. As I scroll through a plethora of remixed songs on my phone each day, I can honestly say that I’m now more aware of the continued music motives that fuel the maneuvers around the copyright industry today. In my perspective, remixed music entails more positives than negatives within society, as long as the credit is given to the original artist.

Works Cited

Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media & Culture:           Mass Communication in a Digital Age. 10th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.                     Martin’s, 2016. 130-141. Web.

This week in class, we discussed how digital media convergence sometimes can complicates the idea of a difference between “real life” and life on/through the internet. As an assignment, we viewed a video of a news segment from the PBS NewsHour that discussed some of those complications and how to deal with them. Additionally, we watched a video of scholar Sherry Turkle, who has studies social media/ internet communication and wrote a book called “Together, Alone.” Both of these videos were very insightful and they challenged the way I look at the technology I use in my own life.  

After watching the news segment from the PBS NewsHour with special correspondent Cat Wise and former google employee, Tristan Harris, I analyzed their commentaries on social media and digital convergence with “real life.” I agree with Harris’s statement that phones are constantly giving users ways to spend time more productively, entertaining, and more stimulating than reality. I find myself checking my emails or Facebook notifications every time I am waiting for the bus, walking to class, and sitting on my couch on commercial breaks. I know I check my phone often throughout the day but I never realized how much time that is all added up nor analyzed how it makes me feel. I resonate with Harris’s negative feelings that he experiences after being on his phone for long periods of time. I often compare my life to the life of others that I see displayed on social media and I become discouraged, my anxiety tends to go up, I feel overwhelmed and am more concerned to what/who I am missing out on. I feel like social media has benefited our lives tremendously which is why over a billion people own smart phones today, however, I think it’s time we as a society need to change how we maximize our time to improve our lives as a whole.

The second video we watched was with Sherry Turkle who studies how social media/internet communication. Turkle’s video was very interesting as it made me question what I expect from technology and what kind of connection I want to have with others. One statement that I agree with Turkle on is that technology not only changes what we do but also who we are. It isn’t uncommon to see two people who are sitting next to each other talking and texting someone else, families on their phones during meals, and students shopping or scrolling Facebook in class. I think Turkle is right that we as a society is setting ourselves up for disaster because we are quickly losing a grasp on how we relate to each other in face-to-face interactions. One element that I disagree with Turkle on is that people like to text rather than talk. I personally prefer talking as I feel like it is more work to text out what I want to say and for that reason I don’t always get everything out that I want to say in great detail.

I have started to wonder why we have shifted so drastically to using and relying on our phones so much and I think Turkle was right when she stated that our phones allow us to remove ourselves from wherever we are and go in different places where we want to be. Technology has made it possible for people to customize their lives. We are now able to edit, delete, retouch, and alter physical characteristics of our messages and even photos. Technology also is appealing in the sense it gives feelings of relief to areas we are more vulnerable including the fear of being alone and fear of intimacy. I can completely relate to this as I find myself reaching for my device the moment I am alone and experience feelings of anxiousness and panic like Turkle described in her video. However, I feel like this only makes me feel even more alone because instead of going up to someone to talk or asking friend to hang out, I continue to isolate myself and waste time surfing my social media accounts.

After watching these videos and reflecting on my own feelings about digital convergence in social media, I have come to the conclusion that there are both positives and negatives. I think technology has enhanced our lives in many ways including giving us immediate access to information, allowing us to talk and connect with family and friends faster, and they have changed the ways we spend our time to be more productive, entertaining, and stimulating. However, I feel like relying on technology has become a big problem for our society and the amount of time we spend using our devices has costed us. We are starting to move into what I believe is a wrong direction of not describing personal face-to-face connections and not living/enjoying the reality around us but instead the world we chose to see through our phones. I know it is impossible to turn away from our devices completely but I believe it is time to take action and be more aware of our relationships with them and each other. I am personally going to take Sherry Turkle’s advice and start making sacred spaces at work and home in hopes it will limit the amount of times I check my phone.

 Turkle, S. (2012, February). Retrieved February 06, 2017, from https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together/transcript?language=en

P. (2017, January 30). Retrieved February 05, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLsPxc8Yhqanlqm0a_WgVitTm1Gs7Q4yGm&v=MacJ4p0vITM

We know it and love it. The most frequent techniques used in advertising is testimonials of celebrities. It is probably the easiest and laziest way for any company to get people to buy or use their product. Throw in a celebrity. In the few leaked commercials that I watched, almost all of them had celebrity endorsements/testimonials. IT is a classic technique. Some of the best super bowl commercials, according to CBS, are framed around the testimonial of a celebrity like Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Joe Green. 

In the leaked ads of this year’s game, some of the celebrities include Brett Favre, Melissa Mccarthy, Jon Lovitz, Jason Statham, Gal Gadot and the Patriots’ quarterback himself, Tom Brady. I wouldn’t classify these commercials as testimonials but more like celebrity appearances. Unlike into the older commercials with Jordan, Bird and Green, in most of these commercials, the celebrity isn’t actually using the product or service. They are there for eye candy or comedy.

Brett Favre is featured in the commercial for Buffalo Wilds Wings but you never see him eating them, talking about them, or even inside a restaurant. Did Favre know he was in a Buffalo Wild Wings commercial because I know I didn’t until the end of the commercial! The same goes for Melissa McCarthy in her Kia ad. It consists of her running away from something while screaming. Yup. That is it. We never see what she is running from and she never says anything about it either. In the commercial for Intel, Tom Brady is literally going about his “normal” daily routine, like waking up, making breakfast and brushing his teeth, while a voice over talks about the product and demonstrates it in slow motion on Brady. This could have been made with any other actor and yet they had to have Brady. Jason Statham and Gal Gadot get into a massive fight sequence during the commercial for Wix.com. The chef in the background is the one actually using the product, not Statham or Gadot. Again, it is not until the end of the ad until we see what the product actually is. Can this actually be called celebrity testimony?

Celebrities are used more to get the attention of the viewer in order for them to associate the product or service with that certain celebrity, even if the celebrity isn’t out right saying that they use or like the product. And yet, we still buy it! Our culture is so obsessed with fame and celebrities that it doesn’t matter what the content or the product featured in the commercial, if there is a celebrity in it, game over.

Digital convergence, the technological merging of content in different mass media (Campbell 53), has made the life of media exponentially more convenient for virtually anyone that has access to a computer, smartphone, or tablet. Whether you want to watch the show you missed last night, read your favorite newspaper, research a quick fact, or listen to your favorite radio station, you can do it all in one convenient location and with the press of a few buttons. With the invention of smartphones, the possibilities of exploring various forms of media all in one location are endless. You no longer need to sit around at home waiting for your show to air, or carry around that bulky book with you, because no matter which form of media you need to get a hold of, you can usually store it in one convenient location: technology. Undoubtedly, digital convergence has made our lifestyle convenient and instantly gratifying, we no longer have to wait for the next episode because we can binge watch on Netflix, and we no longer have to wait until school tomorrow to ask our teacher about a homework assignment because we can just shoot them a quick email. To the vast majority of people, young and old, digital convergence is the best thing since sliced bread. However, to some of the older generations, digital convergence is what’s “ruining” self-esteem and communication.

In Carrie Brownstein’s satirical video about social media “The Realest Real,” (https://www.wired.com/2016/09/carrie-brownstein-social-media-satire-film/ ) some of the dangers of digital convergence are made transparent, one of them being lowered self-esteem due to constant connection to social media. The video depicts a young girl, Abby, being most literally “followed” by her social media followers. One of the most poignant moments is when Abby is guided back to the office of the Minister of Public Private Relations and is most literally followed by a group of people. Confused, Abby observes how one of the individuals has turned away and started walking in the other direction, a concept social media users know as “unfollowing.” The secretary leading Abby to the back office explains how the followers are “fickle like that. You’ll never know what you did wrong so don’t even worry about it” (Brownstein). Unfortunately, this can be the reality of social media. People quantify their self-worth based on how many friends, followers, and subscribers they can maintain on their various social media forums. It is for this reason that a person posts a photo and checks vigilantly to see who and how many people will click “like” as a way to validate their attractiveness or their level of being considered interesting. When a person decides to unfollow or unsubscribe, the owner of the account can perceive that as a reflection of their personal value, that they are not attractive or interesting enough. As the guide mentions, because a person never knows why they are being unfollowed, it generates a lot of spiraling questions causing a person to think of all the qualities that could possibly be wrong with them. This is where the self-esteem issues come into play. As we see in the video, after learning she has lost a follower, Abby immediately starts to question whether her face is presentable enough for her followers because she does not want to lose any more than she already has.

This overdramatic representation of social media is not far from the truth. Hundreds upon thousands of youth, adults, and everyone in between calculate the extent to which people find them attractive, funny, smart, entertaining or popular simply based on how many likes, retweets, comments, and shares they get on their posts. Social media users jump at the site of a notification, checking to see if it was someone who liked their post. This mindset and lifestyle can be really damaging to a person’s self-esteem, especially young adults who are struggling to realize their identity and find out where they belong in the world. Adolescents, more often than not, fall prey to the fame chasing aspects of social media, wondering if they have gained their peer’s approval.

In another video, (https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together?language=en ) Sherry Turkle takes the total “mom” position of the argument on whether or not we spend too much time on our devices. Due to media convergence, anyone and everyone can check their email, surf the web, and all of those other useful functions that I’ve mentioned above. Sherry, like many other adults, claim that having all of this power at our fingertips is dangerous because people are becoming accustomed to hiding behind their screens and avoid face-to-face communication at all costs. Is this really true? In my humble opinion, to a certain extent, people like Sherry have a point. When children learn at a young age how to communicate via media only, they miss out on some crucial conversational and communicational skills. However, what I have an issue with is how many members of the baby boom generation like to point fingers and complain that the millennial generation is always on their phone. To a certain extent, millennials are on their devices more often than older generations, but did Sherry consider why this might be? Students in today’s age are required to utilize technology to complete school work. Whether it’s filming a music video for a class, creating a PowerPoint Presentation, asking a classmate a question about the assignment via Facebook, or writing an email to a teacher, students in today’s society need to be connected to a device. This, admittedly, does not excuse our overuse of texting, social media viewing, Netflix watching, and etcetera, but are members of the millennial generation the only ones guilty of too much screen time? Right in Sherry’s TED talk she cites and explains that adults are checking their email and scrolling through social media during business meetings and presentations! Adults, too, are guilty of letting technology take over their life! Too often teenagers get the bad reputation for being glued to their devices, but in reality, I’ve seen many personal instances where the forty-somethings are glued to their phones while the twenty-somethings are engaged in what’s going on around them.

As I briefly mentioned above, Sherry does have a point. Digital convergence has allowed and/or caused anyone with a device to be glued to it, therefore minimizing the amount of face-to-face interactions we have with each other on a daily basis. But does that mean the human race is going to forget how to have a formal interview or be unaware of how to talk to grandma about what they’re learning in school? Doubtfully. We learn all of these behaviors by human interaction, watching mom and dad, learning in school, and many other pathways of learning.

It seems as though there are so many critics out there claiming that communication is being flushed down the toilet with the constant availability of technology, but what has anyone done to counteract this problem? Scientists are always quick to point the finger that technology is ruining our conversational skills as a society, but what steps are being taken to ensure that future generations still know how to have a conversation that involves making eye contact? If critics focused less on what’s going wrong and focused more of their energy on strategies to overcome this challenge, the world would be less concerned about “teenagers being glued to their devices” and more confident that the young people of today will be able to lead us into a brighter future of communication strategies.  

Sherry says that we’re afraid to be alone and we have this intense need to make connections, but without the presence of technology, and more specifically digitally converged technology, wouldn’t we still have those same fears and desires? Think back 50 years ago, before the invention of the cell phone, social media, Netflix, and online reading sources. No matter what year it is, man has the desire to have a companion. It’s why we find spouses, make friends, or even adopt pets. Every person is afraid of being alone with or without technology. What does a person who is afraid of being alone do? They go out and make connections. When a person is lonely, bored, in need of some human interaction, they call up their friend or go visit their neighbor. You certainly don’t need an iPhone to do any of those things. While many may believe that media can be damaging to the way we communicate (and I wouldn’t entirely disagree with them), I wonder if people consider the same scenario from a different perspective as I have.

References:

Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media & culture: 

                 mass  communication in a digital age. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 

                 2015. Print.

Wired. Conde Nast, 13 Sept. 2016. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

Turkle, Sherry. "Connected, but alone?" TED. February 2012. Lecture.