~Technology~ I don't Know How the World Was Without it...

We have always been a technology dependent society. The use of and reliance on tech is an exponential relationship. The second new tech is introduced into our culture / society, use of it becomes entirely dependent on the efficacy and benefits the new tech affords us. This dynamic renders many practices obsolete, finding us abandoning many aspects of our lives we originally relied on. We find ourselves never going back / relying on the old methods of things, and therefore this makes the relationship exponential. We keep adding, innovating, and creating new ways to go about things with existing tech that transforms into new tech. the cycle never stops. For example, online textbooks make actual pages obsolete. To extreme extents, innovations like virtual reality can make socializing and leaving the house, essentially obsolete as well. Online shopping has rendered stores less popular and minimized human interaction. Everything is digitalized, fast processed, and completely different depending on technology's trends.   

Growing up in a tech dependent generation, being tech savvy is entirely necessary, despite your personal preferences or not. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t escape using technology because everyone around me depends on it, which would make me fall behind the social, professional, and academic curve. That's how reliant our society is on technology, we must operate in this spectrum or else we are clueless to the way things work. With this being said, I think my relationship with technology is healthy. I only say this because my parents are much older than most of my peers'. I grew up needing to be adept in the "old ways" and new ways of my generation. I grew up reliant on tech but at the same time my parents would force me to commit to traditions familiar to them. For example, in school I hated math. I would want to just look up all the answers to problems from a math website. This was the easy way out, this was the tech way. However, my parents made me do the math without websites or even calculators. So, I was able to memorize times tables and now they're engrained into my mind, I don’t even have to look them up. It's the same thing with memorizing my family's phone numbers. I do not need a saved contact to call any member of my immediate family. For when tech fails us, or turns on us, we must know alternative ways. I would say I give tech an appropriate amount of time (to a certain extent). I edit a lot, so I do spend copious amounts of time in front of screen, relying on my software to create art and express myself. But when this is done, I'll read a book or do something physical to give my mind a break. Mainly, I think tech is valuable as a fast and easy resource, not necessarily a lifestyle. I think tech does take up too much of my life, but this is all I have ever known. I long for the day where I can go off the grid and live a simpler lifestyle, but this is unrealistic until my ducks are in a row (which won’t be for some time now). I just enjoy a quiet atmosphere with less noise and news. But I'll never fully abandon technology because the communication efficiency and the fact that I need to… NEED TO… watch movies all the time, makes it something I must keep in my life. However, we do need to know how to use it more responsibly and carefully as to not cloud our minds and lives with unimportance. We must take extra time to learn how tech impacts us, the gravity of its impact, and how to avoid the cons of tech like fake news, cyberbullying, and dangerous online dynamics. I still view it as necessary in this digital age, but everyone can benefit from unplugging for a bit, even if it's just for a couple days. As important as technological innovation is, human connection is still entirely necessary as that's how we gauge our understanding of empathy and relatability amongst what seemingly divides us.  

In the time of this pandemic however, it becomes hard to unplug as all we can do is sit home and comb through social media for some sort of entertainment now. BBC's article on "How will coronavirus change the way we live?" highlights this dependency on tech, media, and other forms of digital/online entertainment, socialization, education, and professionalism. As of now, half the world is digitalized, using tech innovations to maintain some semblance of normalcy in our lives. From Zoom for online classes and business meetings, to VR for boredom, this pandemic has rendered us entirely dependent on the technology that surrounds us. If anything, what I have learned about technology through this whole pandemic, is that most of it is not as reliable as we have originally thought it to be. From needing WIFI for it to work to the actual longevity / durability of software and algorithms, tech still has a long way to go before we consider it an absolute necessity or become entirely dependent on it. For now, I'll take tech in strides of moderation, still making efforts to be up to date on all unfolding innovations though. This is the double-bind of technology, we try not to lose ourselves in it but at the same time, seem to need it no matter what.   

Article:https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-52356136

Let's Eat Some Disinfectants! How Media Impacts Pandemic Precautions 

With the pandemic still very prevalent and talked about, I have the misfortune of hearing about it literally 24/7. What's worse, is I have to hear our president of the United States suggest ingesting disinfectants as a way to combat the pandemic…. How is this not more concerning to people? Our president, the man supposed to be leading this country out of these troubling times, told us to eat some hand sanitizer essentially. Lysol and other companies had to come out with public statements clearing up the misconceptions, saying we should in fact not ingest disinfectants, despite Trump's very, very scholarly suggestion. There's even been spikes within the Poison Control Center's cases since this statement! Trump also pushed to have the economy and businesses open back up. And while I understand the economic severity this pandemic has put our infrastructure through, the well-being of the people should be prioritized over the profitability of our existing operations. The United States number of Covid-19 cases is the highest in the world, which puts our nation at more risk for a higher fatality rate. Hospitals are overwhelmed and people are still getting sick, the cases are not plateauing. How would returning to normal alleviate this at all? The answer is that it won't. What this implies to me is that our government is mighty okay with sacrificing its citizens in order to maintain the economy. Basically, people are going to get sick, and if you die… Well sucks for you, you still got to show up for your shift tomorrow anyway. 

Since Trump is the face of media during these times, media's impact results in the normalization of practicing these dangerous courses of actions that will only increase our numbers of cases and fatalities. People are glued to their TVs and news coverage. Having Trump dominate this presence is only leading citizens astray, thinking it's okay to not quarantine or take any precautions like basic sanitation / cleanliness. Now we have protests all over the country, people carrying guns and relating this quarantine / not working to slavery… dose the majority of the country historically know about what slavery was? This is a genuine inquiry, because I've been seeing many make assertions that this or that equates to slavery, when really I think it's ~white, upper-class privilege~ that somehow redefines the historical context and actuality of what slavery is (Just my side rant for this post). All said and done, this is yet another example of how media is too powerful for our own good. As a society, we are not culturally ready to use media effectively. Our country is a wreck right now and instead of using the media to calm people down, being transparent and honest with the public, we say it's fine enough to open your businesses and to eat some Purell. Wow, just wow.         

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/us/politics/trump-disinfectant-coronavirus.html 

Media Moguls and Monopolies!!! 

Ahhhh media and policy, my favorite thing. I value studying and analyzing media trends and dynamics; the importance of media relations is quite grand in our society. We live in a heavily mediated society, with the majority of the population relying on media sources and content for their news. Policy can be changed all it wants, however, without proper media coverage / awareness, important subjects and issues are swept under the rug, not emphasized enough, therefore allowing the masses to be uneducated or falsely led with information. The hypodermic needle theory reasons that anyone is susceptible to believing what they see in media, without question, or further challenging… if you're a passive audience. Which in America's case, the majority of us are passive media consumers. This means media outlets, industries, and institutions can heavily impart specific ideologies and opinions, shifting our society's values. Obviously, this can be very dangerous. I also probably talk about conglomerations and media use in so many other blog posts, it just goes to show you how frustrating the span of media influence can be. 

This brings me to this blog post's theme. Under policy, I saw "Media Consolidation". I immediately associated this with the word "conglomeration", and then "monopoly" which will bring me to the Sherman Anti-trust Act, really enforced by my boy, T. Roosevelt. Media conglomerations have always interested me. I'm a tad obsessed with the influence of media and representation within media, so obviously this sparks my interest. Media consolidation is used to characterize media institutions, or in other words, mass media ownership. How this happens is pretty self-explanatory. First, a monopoly is established within a given media industry, one company owns a plethora of other media businesses. Second, there is large-scale owners in a given industry; these owners buy up many companies and means for media production, like radio stations and newspapers. Lastly, concentration forms, then leading to a conglomeration (Encyclopedia Britannica). Disney is a great example for media conglomeration as it owns an expansive list of productions, studios, companies, labels, and more (anything from Vice to Marvel Studios). The problem with consolidation like this is how it impacts media consumption. With conglomerations, the variety of content, differing perspectives / opinions, and reliable cross-checking from sources becomes less varied and no longer diverse. Hypothetically, if a conglomeration wanted to only impart a certain ideal, maybe for instance a political platform, they could easily manipulate the majority of the population by imparting these messages all throughout their domain. Allowing every media consumer to constantly be exposed to the same kind of messaging, which in turn, changes their beliefs and sways them in favor of what that conglomeration intended. The messaging can be subtle and overt, but all still contributing to the subliminal shifting of ideological pedagogies. This conditioning proves very crucial to altering cultural beliefs / values (circling back to the hypodermic needles theory). Another dangerous aspect to this concept is the lack of representation this dynamic affords. Marginalized groups can be further outcasted, with fewer opportunities to voice their opinions, needs, and advocacy. There is less opportunity for these minorities to reach the greater population. This can perpetuate the cycle of privilege and hegemony which innately follows that. As a woman of color, this aspect frightens me, for I fear I may not get a chance to be represented PROPERLY within media industries. To put this in perspective. Say if Disney only hired white men to create, film, and produce their content (which isn't too far off from our current reality of how media industries operate:/), my job market then significantly dwindles as I won't be hired by any of the companies they reign over. Now, my perspective cannot be voiced. I'm not saying Disney actually does this, but theoretically, this is how it'd operate. Lastly, and pretty blatantly, these conglomerations completely deny market competition. Not only is this not very capitalistic, but also slows down social progress, innovation, and sharing of ideas, not to mention, impacts our economy with spikes in prices due to a smaller economic market this generates. Needless to say, conglomerations are dangerous and media consumers must be aware of this in order to protect themselves and our society.

So, if media conglomerations are essentially monopolies to a certain extent, can't we make this illegal? Yeah, no. The Sherman Anti-trust Act is used to break up control over a particular market as to evenly distribute its power/influence, ensuring a capitalistic state, free marketplace of ideas, and even economic distribution. Although the actual definition of this Act states it is legislation that will "curb concentrations of power that interfere with trade and reduce economic competition" (Encyclopedia Britannica), media finds exemption from this. In the past, with the supreme Court's ruling in Associated Press v. United States and the Turner Broadcasting System v. the FCC, the court feared that monitoring these monopolies with "the application of antitrust laws to the media constituted an unjustified intervention of the government into the dissemination of ideas that could threaten freedom of the press" (Schultz). Basically, the government is afraid of violating the first amendment and having the country be in uproar about it (deregulation advocates, etc.). So currently, the government applies "special rules" in context dependent cases of media conglomerates. Basically, when all said is done, the government is really not doing much to stop the expansion of these media institutions, which certainly can account for some of the circulating and pervasive ideologies we see in our society today. Essentially what I'm saying is, even though we may not be able to stop the current projection of media consolidation and conglomeration, we can at least be wiser media consumers (NOT passive audiences), recognizing when lack of representation / diversity of opinion, circulating ideology, and market-based competition is at risk due to how and WHO controls our media. We must take those extra steps to inform ourselves, cross-check information constantly with differing sources (not under the same company… do the research to know who owns what and when they have taken it), and challenge big name corporations for what they do (by not supporting institutions under their domains). Yeah, I'm looking at you Disney… better watch out, we're onto you. 

Pictured above: Some major media conglomerates / what they own or have stakes in. 

Sources: 

Schultz, David. “Media Exemption to Antitrust Laws.” Media Exemption to Antitrust Laws, 

www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1128/media-exemption-to-antitrust-laws.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Sherman Antitrust Act.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 27 Feb. 2020, www.britannica.com/event/Sherman-Antitrust-Act.

No New News 

Lack of privacy from government surveillance is a huge issue. However, growing up in a such a technological heavy society, I was always aware that nothing of my information was private. Especially when the Edward Snowden debacle broke out, exposure of telephone companies, social media sites, and more were all monitoring and selling our private information for the federal government to collect. This news is nothing new. It’s no coincidence that you'll mention something and then see it pop up in an ad somewhere shortly after. At this point, people online make jokes about this lack of privacy. What truly sucks are that countries all over the world do the same thing, all on differing degrees of severity. At the end of the day, it's abuses of power nonetheless and it's upsetting to know that our government goes behind our back… but then again, America has been hypocritical and corrupt from the time the colonies established themselves, so I can't say I'm shocked (thus is the condition of humanity… corrupt and contradictory). 

So, what can we do? Well, hardly anything but cover our asses in the sense that we must be aware of the content we post and share, be aware of the mechanisms implemented to track and monitor us and also think of ways we can get around this surveillance and privacy schism. I'm not saying go off the grid from main stream society and live totally tech free, so the government can no longer collect your information or track your whereabouts. What I am saying is to be aware of how you and your actions might be perceived by the government and the consequences that can arise from that. I'm also saying one might consider taking simple precautions to get around some of the monitoring the government does to us. For example, taking public transportation or using aliases, burner phones and minimizing your online footprint, can all put a conscious at more ease. I know it's unsettling to process that fact that big brother is always watching and how innately wrong and ethically unnerving it is; the principle behind it is still horrific if you're a guilty party or not and it's scary to face this reality about the world. However, what can you do other than raise awareness and advocacy, hoping one day it'll change. Other than that, there's not much that can be done at this point. Take Snowden for example, he divulges all this information, makes great strides in exposing a conspiracy, a true muckraker, and then what?... We forget about him as time typically allows that to happen and we continue on in our lives, posting, sharing, and relying on technology and our government to afford us the pleasures and privileges they offer. Basically, what I'm saying is, the situation looks too bleak because we are all in too deep. Oh well. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/15/encryption-lose-privacy-us-uk-australia-facebook

Social Media, I forget the world wasn't always like this 

Social Media is utterly complex and dynamic. Here's one phenomenon that tears lives apart at the time brings people together, that both disgusts and intrigues us, informational yet arbitrary and stupid. Social media is such a conflicting presence. It's absolutely evil but ingenious and all too transformative / powerful to abandon it now. It is truly remarkable. However, it's the people and corporations -- our societal and cultural values as a whole-- that harnesses these contradictory capabilities, creating the dichotomy we see within the realm of social media today. Users and makers, consumers and corporations, are the controllers; we the consumers, and them the corporations, rely on supply and demand. If we demand, markets listen, society shifts. So while we may be technically in control, we still lack all self-control in this situation. We indulge in platforms and propaganda, adhering to the rules set before us… look like this, buy that, be this, do that… it's all so demanding and pressuring. Some say to have a big online presence, some say don’t, some say that business like that stuff, some say business hate it, no one's to trust and everything is uncertain. Social media certainly doesn't help to clear things up for us. Yet, we are ever so reliant on it. In fact, we've capitalized and utilized it for transformation, revolution, opportunity, entrepreneurship, anything imaginable between stupid and spectacular. So despite its evils, and there are many (privacy, censorship, false news, misinformation, dangerous online groups, etc.) we can't turn our backs on social media, we can only reinvent and push it through phases of transformation and adaptation. 

Personally, I maintain an active online presence. I was born in the era of cell phones and Instagram, it's second nature to me. I use social media primarily to easily access / connect to various resources and information pertaining to my interests (mainly career and academic wise) as to stay up to date with all things revolving in my world. I'll never be the last to know. These accounts are always kept private. I try to keep my personal content at surface level. I don’t post anything private or personal. I'll repost a lot of material (things I think are neat and unique) but I'll never divulge anything past that (except for the occasional advocating rant… just in case anyone is actually reading). I'm aware of outward perception and I never want quick glances and judgements to be anything other than typical and ~wholesome~ in other words. It took me a while to fully develop my online presence and know how I want to act and be perceived as. It took a good amount of trial and error to figure out not only my online identity, but my content curation and activeness in general. Now, I'm satisfied with how I use and consume social media, never finding it hard to go on content binges or unplugging for a few months depending. Needless to say, I can put down the phone if need be. Before this however, as a younger person growing up in such a social media heavy era, I messed up and made stupid mistakes (thankfully none that were life-altering). But more importantly, I saw others make even worse mistakes, which in turn, prompted me to be aware of all the dangers + powers associated with such an all encompassing phenomenon. I started conscious practice on my awareness of social media use and its impact. It must have been interesting enough to make me want to pursue a career in media and popular culture, so I can thank it in part for that.   

The bottom line is, teaching kids and adults, literally anyone in general, any semblance of media literacy and precautions, is truly beneficial. There's a need for more open discussion on the impact of social media and how polarizing it can be; this starts with the individual responsibility of consumers / users and accountability, then amendment, from corporations who exploit these consumers. All said and done, social media is useful if you want it to be and damaging when you allow it to be. We all need to think of our impact to society and our relationship with companies, conducting our lives from there. And remember, don't ever advertise if you have something to lose; the less anyone knows about you, the better, because only a few people actually deserve to know you… and that goes for everyone really (in my opinion at least).     

Innovations... the Impact of Netflix  

Netflix. New shifts in TV consumption created the birth of streaming platforms. This creative disruption has its roots in changing consumer habits. The influx of interest in transmedia storytelling and a heavy emphasis on prolonged narrative structures, made binge-watching a commonplace trend in media. Netflix, drawing influences from archival movie features, such as on-demand, fused with production originals and series fostering the binge-worthy appetite, inevitably became widely successful. All these factors made Netflix extremely alluring to consumers as now all their watching habits could be brought together under one, easily accessible platform. Even by offering a base of five accounts, Netflix successfully marketed their affordability too. 

So how does this relate to Roger Everett's Diffusion of Innovations Theory. The theory explains how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread. In order for a innovation to penetrate the social atmosphere of our culture and consumer trends, four main elements are needed: the innovation, communication channels, time (obviously), and a social system (innately). Pertaining to the success of Netflix, the innovation itself was popular given its varying features (movie base, series, and originals, renting options, and profile creations). Next, a communication channel. This was easy, as the internet serves as a massive communication channel. App creation contributed greatly to this as well. Accessing Netflix through your browser and compatible forms on an app, surpasses device complications as every phone, computer, or tablet can access the platform with simple internet connection. Its maneuverability with syncing profiles to TVs was also crucial in establishing Netflix's successful roots. Following channels, time is needed to allow the innovation to reach all parts of the nation, and in Netflix's case, the world. Netflix was originally created in 1997. Being 2020, and us aware of how heavily we rely on the platform and just how many of us hold accounts (typically everyone you know…) Netflix has afforded itself with enough time to allow the innovation to be popularized and internally reinvented to appease audiences' growing concerns and wishes for the product's adaptability. Lastly, a social system… the influence of TV and film was already heavily ingrained in our culture and society as our dependency on technology exponentially took off. The film industry and TV was always constantly adapted to fit modern media consumption habits. This was because media is typically the main source that masses derive their information and entertainment from. It surpasses geographical, monetary, and social concerns as information is easily accessible from the comforts and confines of your home, room, or any other place you chose to access media from. Netflix utilized this dependency to create a widely successful innovation, that today, generates mass profit and funds a plethora of projects worldwide. 

Netflix was methodical in its consumer relatability. Many became early adopters of this innovation because it combined a variety of popular consumer habits together in one neat package… again offering a preliminary five profiles (this makes it family friendly and seemingly more affordable). Early adopters hopped on the trend quick and paved the way for later consumers who were finally convinced that streaming platforms were the new way of things. People began to realize that paying for channels on cable could easily be replaced with a monthly amount that offered more variety in content and viewership. This was Netflix's goal.

Now, the downside… Netflix, like Disney, are ever growing platforms that consume many productions, fund projects, and buy up other platforms. This can be dangerous as media conglomerations begin to form. This is reminiscent of industry monopolies; the mass control of all aspects of an industry under one corporation. There is a reason why our government put bans on monopolies (Yeah Rockefeller had a huge one on oil). Monopolies will generate mass profits and take away all competition which directly goes against America's capitalistic values. Regarding media, conglomerations are dangerous in the sense that they can impose ideological beliefs easier into our society and culture by producing media content all with the same messaging and commentary on something. In other words, these conglomerations have the power to sway how our culture thinks based on the media it produces, being that it controls all those channels and platforms of production. This is something us as heavy media consumers must always be aware of… know the social implications!  

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Netflix-Inc 

Talking About ~Speech Theories~ 

I find the Self-Fulfillment Theory of the Eight 

Values of Free Speech very important. We are all aware that freedom of speech is a means of expression. However, this theory dives deeper into this concept and emphasizes the aspect of human dignity and autonomy. The theory justifies that, "the protection of freedom of speech for reasons that are not connected directly to the collective search for truth or the processes of self-government, or for any other conceptualization of the common good" (Smolla). In other words, speech is protected not because of a collective good, but rather because of the value it has to the individual. The right to speak your mind, precisely just because it is your mind and to a certain extent the capacity to think, share, create, and imagine, is something we need to culturally emphasize in our society. I find this especially intriguing considering this aspect of speech or rather, the cognitive function to be self-reflective and maintain conscious thought, is truly what separates us from animals. Our ability to be meta-cognitive, consciously aware of our thinking, and our understanding of free-will is what puts the human race in superiority despite our biological weaknesses that most animals have over us. Speech is simply just the mechanism in which we may express and articulate this free-will, meta-cognition, and consciousness in general. For this reason, words and linguistics are extremely powerful tools (at times weapons) to utilize in not only self-advocacy but in identity and agency. Speech is the common mean (despite language barriers) in which we may connect and voice ourselves. This theory specifically highlights this dynamic and emphasizes the importance of it in regard to our "central capacity to reason and wonder" (Smolla). 

Our cognitive functions are truly remarkable. Sadly enough, many do not realize the gravity of this miraculous feature humanity possesses and how transformative its utilization can be. The mind has the ability to reason, emphasize, innovate, and create the seemingly impossible. Through thought, different forms of expression arise. From math to studio art and even film, all these forms of expression find their roots within free thought and the ability to use that thought to create new original concepts, ideas, and compositions. If we were to categorize this phenomenon, we could justify it as freedom in general. Freedom to be able to explore your mind, whether its mathematically rooted, scientifically intrigued, or creatively driven, is this innate human right. The "right to think is the beginning of freedom…" this is why "speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought’’ (Smolla). C. Edwin Baker was the main name driving this theory of Self-Fulfillment, for he was well aware of not only its moral impact, but its importance in outward perception and expression. As stated before, speech is protected for no grander reason other than because of its value to the individual, its innate aspect of the expression of the mind simply because it's one's mind. Truly, our minds are to be prioritized as they hold the key to all solutions of this world. It is only a matter of how we utilize our thoughts to arrive at those solutions.

Unfortunately, there are those who use their mind, and to a further extent their speech, to cause harm and create negativity. However, the risk of evil and wrong-doing can never out justify the good that conversely follows. The bad may be necessary in order to find the good. And if free speech was not protected for this reason, then half the remedies, transformations, and miracles we have found and were able to express due to amazing minds, would be lost amongst us; that would truly be the worst injustice we could ever impose on ourselves.  

References:

Smolla, Rodney A.“ Self-Fulfillment Theory of Free Speech.” Civil Liberties and Civil Rights in the United States, uscivilliberties.org/themes/4465-self-fulfillment-theory-of-free-speech.html.   

First Amendment Theorists, media.okstate.edu/faculty/jsenat/jb3163/theorists.html. 

The Power of the Printing Press 

The Printing Press, a simple machine that applies pressure to an inked surface on a print medium, revolutionized how we share, spread, and create our communication. This invention made the mass production of texts possible and therefore, the speed in which we gain information exponentially increased. Before the printing press, hand copying works or block printing (originated by the Chinese monks) was the method used to produce literature, pamphlets, or other texts. These methods, although innovative for their time and classic, took more resources and further human intervention to be able to do. The Printing Press minimized these factors of time and human error. 

The presentations in class stated that the Gutenberg Bible was the first work produced from the Printing Press. Johannes Gutenberg was the man who made the Printing Press in Germany during the 15th century. Because of him, the rapid sharing of knowledge all throughout Europe kickstarted the way we produce and consume information today. There are even still some original Gutenberg Bibles left in circulation. Not only did Gutenberg heighten the speed of modern day communication with his invention, but also helped to reduce mass illiterate rates as more people had access to different works of text now. Before, only the elite classes or people who could afford to buy texts had access to printed information. Now, with the introduction of the Printing Press, mass production in which aided supply and demand, made these resources possible to a variety of demographics outside the upper-elite. Illiterate groups of people now had entry into this realm of a socioeconomic based intellectual hierarchy.

Such a simple invention managed to completely revolutionize the world in multiple ways. Since the creation of the Printing Press, we have used its technological impact as a foundation for our modern communications. Without such an innovative advancement, the way we share and spread our ideas could have been vastly different than how we are familiar with it today. So, instead of celebrating medial accomplishments, such as Christopher Columbus's unoriginal discovery of the Americas, we should be revering heroes such as Gutenberg for their extremely impactful contributions to modern society… just a thought and suggestion.          

https://www.livescience.com/43639-who-invented-the-printing-press.html 

Pigeons...the underrated transformer of the world  

In the rich history of the Evolution of Communication Technology, many notable inventions can be studied. From the printing press to mores code, humanity has found newer and more innovative ways to spread, share, connect, and transfer information from one place to another. If we trace the evolution of technology back to its origins of hieroglyphics and cruciform alphabets, one "invention" worth acknowledging, that is still used to this day, would be that of the Carrier Pigeon. This useful and dynamic bird has been used for communication purposes since the beginning of time. The earliest record of the Carrier Pigeon's use is around 776 BC. Many ancient civilizations and world conquerors such as the Greeks, Romans, and the Mongolians used Carrier Pigeons as a pivotal role in the establishment of their empire and culture. If anything, Carrier Pigeons are reminders to humanity of just how strong we can create and form bonds with other species on this earth.

The reasoning for the pigeon's indisputable popularity in sharing information is because, similar to that of horses, pigeons have unique homing abilities. The urge to return to the place that it once came from and the reliability of the animal's flight patterns innately, makes this animal extremely valuable and useful in human correspondence. Especially between two locations not easily reached by foot or any other conventional communication method such as boat or wagon, pigeons become a relatively economically sound, easy, and reliable method to effectively deliver a message. The Mongolians especially relied on not just pigeons, but hawks and falcons too, to not only share information from their mountain posts down to the vast plains of the land, but for hunting and chasing as well. These special birds were gradually recognized more and more as an important asset to subtle communication when war time would come. Too dangerous to send an actual messenger out for relaying important details from one battalion to another, carrier pigeons were used exponentially more. The minimization of risk in losing just a pigeon made them very appealing and in 1917, The United States of America, invested heavily in this mode of communication during World War I. The subtle, non-suspicious nature of a simple pigeon flying in the sky, made crucial messages easier to deliver without fear of human intervention successfully. So successfully, that the United States and many other countries like Great Britain and France, invested in carrier pigeon programs with breeding, training, and more. Pigeons were again used all throughout World War II having the program finally discontinued in the late 50's as the cusp of technology roared on.

Today, Carrier Pigeons are still used for minor things such as delivering blood to remote locations in France or for spotting shipwrecks from helicopters -- due to their 360-degree visual plane abilities -- in the U.S. Occasionally, these innocently talented animals are used by drug rings to mule products around as distribution. Whatever the use may be, there is one undeniable thing. This form of communication, whether 'outdated' in modern society's terms or not, is reliable, easy, and consistent in nature; allowing for these animals and their abilities to maintain relevancy across decades of human technological advancement.      

• https://www.pigeoncontrolresourcecentre.org/html/the-pigeon-in-history.html
• https://vassallohistory.wordpress.com/carrier-pigeons/

What Do Our Laws Stand For...

Through our class' discussion on the Progressive Era, I started thinking about the 1st amendment in new ways. More specifically, I was interested in concepts such as Expressive Action, Incitement, and other maneuvers that bend the limitations, power, and reach of an amendment or law. These little loopholes or legislative add-ons are the ways in which law-makers in cases use their power and manipulation of the law to better pertain to their case of argument. We saw this especially with the curving of the 14th Amendment to help the railroad corporation in the Santa Clara Railroad case where a "person" under the 14th Amendment can be applied to a corporation. 

A recent case I was reading about in the news regarded the settlement between the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the University of North Carolina. The case revolved around the Silent Sam monument, a confederate soldier, and its being removed from the campus. After protesters came and stormed the site, brining down and removing the monument on the grounds that it symbolized hate and white-centric ideology, the school and the SCV came to a settlement of 2.5 million dollars. However, protesters and students challenged the settlement deal which reopened the debate. The judge dealing with the case asserted that the Sons of Confederate Veterans had no right initially to bring the lawsuit about. A group of the school's students rallied together, partnering with the Lawyer's Committee For Civil Rights Under Law to intervene in the dealings. The sentiment seemed to be the restoration of normalcy on the campus as well as to "protect public safety of the university community". Evidently, the student body was angered by the symbolism the monument stood for and used their democratic voice to bring at least a sliver of justice to the case. Many were unsatisfied by the settlement amount, which prompted the Judge to void the initial agreement.

I agree with the students and question why there was a settlement to begin with. If a physical monument represents old ideologies, there is no point in keeping it up. If anything, this is implicative of the still racial animosity between demographics. For in a different context, this would be synonymous to Germany still giving tribute to Hitler or any other Nazi symbolism through a monument, which would just be absurd. I like how different committees used their agency and ability to reject a ruling. However, quite unlike the 14th Amendment debacle and the many ways to manipulate and take advantage of our legislative assertions, this case demonstrates a more justified challenging of the law.     

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/482827-judge-voids-uncs-silent-sam-monument-agreement   

Muy Blanco

As another year passes, another Oscar Ceremony shall too. In past years, criticism of racial inclusiveness and better diversity throughout the awards has always been a hot debate. This year, the 2020 Oscars, is of no exception. The inspiration behind this specific blog post topic started with my seeing of the nominees for Best Supporting Actress. As a media production and popular cultural studies major, I try to understand how issues of representation unfold and what that means to our society. Immediately, I saw not one person of color amongst the nominees… This is troubling knowing that the films released and qualified for the award ceremony, had some amazing representation of intersectionality within them  (films like Parasite, Harriet, Dolemite is My Name, The Farewell, etc.) however, this aspect did not equate to the many nominations across all categories this year. Especially for Best Actor in a leading role / Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress / Supporting Actress, the diversity is almost nonexistent. The sole person of color nominated out of these four categories is Cynthia Erivo for her role as Harriet Tubman in the 2019 release, Harriet. And it's not just a racial issue (although it is still very much one). A lot of female representation for Best Director is also lacking. The absence of inclusiveness is blatant this year, sparking some much deserved criticism. Cynthia Erivo spoke out, saying it has been "bittersweet" to catch this nomination as the only person of color up there. Erivo also made the powerful statement that she wanted to "serve as an example of how we need to judge these films". 

The Oscar Committee itself has made statements in the past that they were taking measurements to be more inclusive, conveying more diverse representation amongst nominations and categories. However, they seem to have missed the follow through on those assertions… once again. Sentiments of inequality runs high fresh after the BAFTA (British Academy Film and Television Arts) Awards, where Joaquin Phoenix made some criticism about systemic and institutional racism throughout the industry, in his acceptance speech. He not only called for everyone in the room to do better, but making a point to say he is of no exception either. Erivo expressed concern on how this lack of diversity and intersectionality even happens within the industry.

To me, the answer is as simple as it starts in the writing room. From pre-production and casting, to even technical production, sets become extremely exclusive. Not only are most producers, writers, and grips / camera operators are men, they also tend to be white as well. This dynamic seeps into content and form, which only contributes to the ideology of "white and male" as the accepted norm, emanating through media, defining our societal expectations and cultural trends. The origins of this issue starts with the conception of a production and pervades all throughout until the very release of the film or work. From the hiring of departments to the cast and editing suite, sets need to be more inclusive and have stronger representation throughout the entirety of the process. The way to possibly amend this issue, is ensuring that the sets and teams industry professional operate within has this aspect of diversity within them. Individuals themselves must advocate and argue for equal representation within their departments, setting these ethical standards to help alleviate this pressing problem in the film industry. Until active acknowledgement and execution of this concept is practiced in full, the Oscars and film industry in general, will remain as devoid of varying representation as it does now.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51371360                

Weinstein's Woes 

In relation to my class' Supreme Court talk and the varying branches of government, an event that immediately pooped into my mind, was that of Harvey Weinstein's current Supreme Court trials. This case involving his alleged and accused sexual harassment and rape charges has been in circulation since as early as 2017. This especially interests me being that I plan to be involved in the film production business myself. The women accusing Weinstein of multiple acts of sexual harassment and assault stated that Weinstein, before suggesting sexual acts, then proceeding to follow through on said acts (without consent) stated that he said "…this is how the industry works." 

The proceedings in the Supreme Court have been going on for some time now, and issues of statute of limitations, credibility in accusations, recollection of events, and what actually defines "sexual assault", has all been debated or is currently being discussed in these trials. Weinstein has plead not guilty to many of the rape charges. Despite what actually happened or not, if he is guilty or not, if these women obtain justice or not, this raises a bigger question within the industry itself. This male dominated profession, operating primarily on the perpetuation of the male gaze through not only technical production, but also seeping into actual content, continues to maintain hegemonic ideology all throughout media and film. Women are finding it difficult to find proper and accurate representation within film, and equal opportunity of jobs within film as well. People like Weinstein, who hold these oppressive ideologies about 'women's place' in regard to that of a man's, is what continues to ruin this industry in varying ways that I cannot sadly get into due to time and space on this blog. This ideology pressures women to submit their bodies for professional and career advancement, completely negating any form of talent, character, or merit. 

Weinstein listed three other prominent Hollywood names who had allegedly "got to where they are" because of this dynamic as Ms. Dunning, the latest to testify against Weinstein, recalls. This is an atrocious and unfortunate crime that has gone on too long within this industry specifically. Just imagine the many more industries that unfortunately follow in these footsteps but go unaddressed. Men like Weinstein have conditioned women to think that all they have to them is their bodies in which are directly for men to use for the sole purpose of creating a career; justifying this monstrosity of a concept as simply just “how the industry works." Equal representation and proper justice for these victims have a long way to go before we as a society can claim any progress in rectifying this industry’s virtue. Hopefully our judicial system will prove its worthiness in delivering retribution in one of the first of many steps in reinventing cultural ideologies in our society.       

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-trial-tarale-wulff.html