Time is Money, Money is not Time

I think its interesting how things hardly ever go both ways; a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square, for example. It seems to be some sort of double standard. 

In the same circle, Time and Money go hand-in-hand but not side by side. Those with time make money (or have a better chance to make money) which is why single mothers, with mouths to feed and children to put to bed do not have as much Time to make money as she would if she did not have children, and therefore she has less Money. 

So if she had more time, hypothetically, she could have more money. Does that suggest then, that if she simply had more money, would she have more time? Not literally, for sure: we all have to abide by the 24/7 rule. Rich people don't get 25 hour days. But, like Stevie said before me, she wouldn't have to wait as much, because she could afford things like over night delivery or a car instead of the L. So here it seems to become clear(ish) that Time is more valuable than Money. 

Unfortunately, those with less money end up spending more time than those with out, so their valuable time is taken from them because they don't have money to obtain it fully. Waiting for goods to go on sale means that time is left in a space between those who can afford the non-sale items and those who must wait for the same things to go on sale. It is not the rich people's time that fills that gap either. So it seems, that because of the value of money, time is lost, and money not gained by those who have less money to start with. 

I've talked myself into a circle and I'm not sure this is any clearer... but its time for me to go to work... to make money...

"time is money"

In our society time is money, either people are working for their money or spending their money on goods to make their lives more lavish.  People value money and time and when you put the two together people work even harder.  Money has become what runs our society, people are willing to go the extra mile and put in more time to get more money also giving them the ability to take lavish vacations when they did take time off. Life itself is no longer taken advantage of, everything is done at such a fast pace so they can continue to get more money.  Why must we go so fast through our everyday lives? Why don't people take a moment and really appreciate everything around them? Has money become so important that is it all we think about? That everything about us is determined by the work we do and the money we made from putting in long endless hours in the office sacrificing things within our life? What happened to the days where people actually enjoyed the day, take a second to notice the flower they pass on the way into the office, sitting outside and taking sometime to reflect or just have a moment to breathe? I understand we need to work and earn money to be able to afford to live, but i just think as a society we need to take more time to relax and actually enjoy life and all that we are blessed with and all its beauty.

Time, Space, and Money: A simplified idea.

In the reading this weeks there was one sentence that stuck in my head and seems to ring true to everything that this chapter is trying to say. “Members of subordinated racial groups are literally made to wait for goods and services that are delivered to members of the dominant group.” I think that’s it. The whole idea of time, space and money. Time is money, and with that money, we can buy goods. But what about the people who don’t have enough money, they must wait for the goods to be delivered to them. Thus there is a space created in between the groups. Due to the money, of the dominant group, they wait less time for goods, and enlarges the space between the group under them. Short and sweet, I think that is what this chapter is about.

bling bling

Time can be construed to exist subjectively by culture, geographical location, and even on a case by case basis. In this chapter the authors spoke in great detail about what time means to different people in the world. By any given perspective, time and money can take on entirely different meanings, and the same goes for basically any other form of currency one can imagine. I have a friend who spent the majority of high school measuring the work hours he had put in and the money he would acquire or dream of acquiring by how many Zebra Cakes could be purchased with said amount. As ridiculous (and I fully agree that it is ridiculous) as it seemed, it was sometimes astounding how quickly he could translate any amount of money and or Zebra Cakes into one another. He had his own system of measurement memorized and ready to share at any time. To him, time was measured in money and then furthermore measured in what he could do with that money.
In this society, to most of the populous at least, time is most frequently measured in money. Like my buddy with the Zebra Cakes, people are constantly dividing their time into how much money can be made and how much money can be spent, and therein what items of luxury or necessity would be available to them. Therefore time can be indirectly translated to whatever material items that people in our society undoubtedly will use to define their self-worth, status, and even identity. This helps us to see the exact gravity of the phrase "time is money", being money is everything (to some).
All of this can be used to help understand the questions posed here. The reason why there is so much emphasis on workers rights, organized labor, and so on, can possibly stem from the fact that the amount of money one receives for a set number of hours of labor put in is proportional to everything desired in the American dream: comfort, security, luxury, self identity, and basically anything else one can attribute to the measurement of self and cultural worth.

Time's Relation to Money

Time and money has been presented to me in a very new light here. Orignially, I had thought that the relationship was purely work-centered. After reading this I now relaize that it goes far deeper than that. The more money one has, the more theoretical time they will have. The same is true for the inverse. Money allows people the luxury of time. As the book illuminated in the chart, the faster we can travel from place to place, the more time we will have (walking to Egypt will take longer than flying). Money is a tool that can be used to gain time. Likewise, if you are in desperate need of money, time will quickly leave you. Jobs will fill up your schedule as you work and work to get more money. Once you have money, you can leave one of your various jobs to free up time.

Money is Time?

Time is money if you know how to work with both time and money. The more time we spend at work should mean that we get more money. But some people can work over time and still get paid the same as if they worked a regular work-shift. "Time is money" is a slogan that should motivate people to work more to help themselves and the economy so that they brush some good karma on themselves that might help them in the long run. People sometimes don't understand that you have to work long hours to make money and live with a little extra money. But then there are the people out there that don't like work so they never go and expect the government to pay them to be lazy wasting time. This is not how the mighty America should be but what can you do.

You're a slave to money...then you die.

It is true that we have all heard the expression “time is money.” Nealon and Giroux help us get a deeper understanding on what this simple expression means. For many people in the world today, time is money. We have a certain day of the week when we receive our bills and weeks later we have to kiss away our precious earnings. For the most part, time seems to never be on our side. I remember this line from a song that basically sums up our lives and it goes like this, “You’re a slave to money than you die.” When we finish up our college days and enter into the last free days of our lives, we begin to accept this expression. Whether it is finishing up a film last minute or having to build a presentation with only hours to spare, it all comes down to time. Nealon and Giroux bring up an amazing point talking about how some people have time on their side and how others are struggling everyday to catch the train or bus to get to their locations, whether it be school or work. After reading this specific example, I begin to recall why my Friday mornings are hell. In order to make it to my 9:00 (a.m.) class I have to be awake by 5:30 am leave my house no later than 6:45. Even if I leave at 6:46 my day has already gone to hell. And of course the only reason why I force myself up at the crack of dawn is because I put down thousands of dollars for this class. In a way, my money has taken over.

This all relates to the business world and how every second is a dollar spent or earned. It is not just the business owners that fight over this, but also the employees. It is an ongoing battle between these two sides that will probably never end. And most of us have been through it whether we have to work on a holiday and automatically demand time in a half. Or we are stuck working overtime and demand extra pay for it. As an employee we demand to be paid the correct amount of money while we are clocked in. If not, basically it turns into an even larger battle between the owners and the employees. I’ve been through this many time at one of my jobs and spent many hours on the phone talking to payroll trying to have them fix my check. When I finally had everything straightened out I decided not to come in the next few days and ended up quitting.

But what exactly does all of this have to do with the expression “time is money.” Well to a business every second counts. They want more money and they will do anything to get it. Same as the employee, we want to be paid for our services and we will do anything to get it.

"Time is Money" Response

The phrase “time is money” has never had a very profound meaning to me before the question of its true meaning was presented to me. I never really gave the true meaning out of this phrase any thought. However, now that I am being forced to think about this phrase's true meaning, I would say that it refers to one's time spent at work being given monetary compensation. The phrase it usually used in order to hurry someone or something; that the sooner something is done, the sooner one can return to work and get paid or receive some other form of compensation. This saying is also used by employers who see their employees slacking off and not working for the money they are making. This thought process gives way to a society that is rushed and also to employers whom demand hard, consistent work from their employees. This also correlates to the value of the goods produced by these workers in that the more time one spends making something, the more it will (or should) cost. However, owners of businesses will often pressure their employees to work harder and faster in order to produce a larger quantity of goods, which will in turn be sold for the profit of the company.
This phrase applies to everyday life as well, not only related to business. For example, the faster I can get this assignment done the sooner I can move on to my next assignment and the sooner I will be done with my homework which will allow me to go to my job (at which I am paid for the work I do). I am consistently checking the clock to see how much time I have until I need to get ready for work and how much effort I can put into my school assignments.

time is money?

time is in fact money.  how does time = money, exactly?  well, let's examine this.  when you go to work, you spend anywhere from let's say 3-12 hours at work on any given day.  if you work a full time position, it's fair to say that the average work day is about 8 hours.  so, you spend an average of 40 hours a week there.  so when you're walking back to the office on your lunch break (and you've got 5 min to get back), and one of those greenpeace people stops you on michigan avenue to talk about saving the earth, they are wasting your time, because you need to be getting back to the office and getting back to work.  how does this tie in with the "time is money" theory?  well, if some random person is trying to talk to you about saving the earth when you're running back to the office, they are hypothetically wasting your money too.  let's face it, your boss isn't going to pay you for coming back late from lunch because you were busy talking about saving the earth.  he/she is not going to punch you in because they know you were doing something good for the planet.  that's something you do on your own time.  

a "just in time" economy...that expression reminds me of working in an office and hearing my boss or co-workers say, "i need that...yesterday."  a popular expression today in the working world, it implies that they need that proposal, or that task done, now.  ...because time is money.  in the business world for example, people want to be the first one to get things done...because getting things done first means getting the deal, or the job, the gig, etc.  if you use your time wisely and get things done first (and do them well), other business owners are more likely to choose you for the job or project.  a "just in time" economy means putting everything into your work but getting it done as quickly as possible.  it means getting things done now.  

time is money in terms of the politics of the shop floor too.  the battle between labor and management is all about time.  from the elizabeth england era, when workers were forced to work 12-15 hour days to keep people out of trouble, to today, where most people work an 8 hour shift because of changes in human rights and labor laws.  today, the battle of time and money is still fought between workers and management...in terms of paid vacations, family leave, retirement, and of course "free time."  considering "speed ups and slowdowns," there is a major battle with this too.  when our work is busy, employers may want their employees to put in overtime in order to get the job done, get it done well, and get it done first or just in time.  worker compensation is another battle.  this is something employees have fought very hard for, and for good reason.  it is the responsible and right thing for the employer or business owner to do, to give compensation to an employee who has put her/himself in danger.  

organized labor unions give employees a new perspective about time and money.  they give employees the message that they do not have to work more than their contracted time.  they only work what time has been agreed upon, and the rest is the employee's free time.  that free time can be whatever the employee wants it to be, whether that be a second job, family time, a hobby, or school.  the health and safety of workers are some of the main concerns or demands of organized labor unions.  people want to know they can count on their employer to watch their back so to speak and take care of them, esprecially if their health or safety is at risk on the job.

the value of consumer goods in terms of time and money is something that has really come into play in the last 20 years or so.  people are always looking for and finding new ways to cook, shop, travel, and everything else in a fast amount of time.  for example, if i purchase a lean cuisine meal instead of making a meal from scratch, well that means i can take less time to cook and have more time to either study or go out with my friends...or i could even do both because i'm not spending my whole night cooking.  and if i drive somewhere instead of taking public transit, i can save time and have therefore have more time to party.  however, when you consider parking in chicago, it may just be worth it to take public transit...unless there is valet parking.  that is again, another time saver.  however, like with that example, many times, time savers will cost you more money.  it's all a balancing act.  you get to decide what works into your life as an individual.   

The Cost of Not Understanding the Question

Theoretically, the more time you put into something, the more money you should get out of it. This is not always the case, obviously, for many reasons. Some people have very specialized jobs that not many people can do, and they get paid more for less time. The concept that time is money has implications in every area of life, whether you are working or not. Time is the only currency that you can't get more of. You have a certain amount of it, realizing as I say this that time in and of itself is a human creation that doesn't actually exist, and then you die, and you are out of time. Money is a way of getting things for the amount of time you've put into something. Since you can't get your time refunded, we'll give you money to make up for it.

In factories, time is money in many ways. The faster you work, the less time you use per product, the more product you can create, sell, and subsequently earn more money. If you slow down, it can cost money, or at least profits, because there will be less product, so there will be less income, and the spending will not decrease proportionately.

The more intricate and time-consuming something is, the more expensive it is to consume, so the more time you have to put into something else to earn it. It's a great cycle, isn't it?

On the Idelogy of Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/opinion/21druckerman.html

An interesting OpEd on the Spitzers and our notions of adultery and infidelity. Enjoy.

On Ideology

I think some presumptions about college classrooms is that they are boring.  When you walk into a classroom there is nothing there except empty desks and chairs, and possibly an instructor waiting for you to walk in.  You (the student) might walk in thinking, "this is going to be so lame and boring."  However, when you give the class a chance you might see that it is actually interesting and fun and more beneficial to you than you had ever imagined.  Since the archetecture of this campus is basically an urban landscape/the city, i think it the presumption there is that college life is going to be great!  One might think, "I'm going to school in the city and I'm going to get to party at all the cool bars in Chicago!"  When in actuality, you are spending most of your time on campus and the library writing papers, reading assignments and working on projects.  You don't have as much time as you'd thought to spend at shows at the Riv.  

It appears as though a commonsense decision made to arrange the classroom is the fact that it looks plain for a reason.  The instructors and college president wants the students to learn in college, not daydream and look at pretty artwork on the walls.  The instructor wants me and other students minds to be stimulated by what she/he is saying.  Wallpaper and signs would only distract me, personally.  I've also noticed that the lobbies of the campus buildings are quite plain as well.  They are usually inhabiting old buildings, therefore there is some old archetecture but also there is a simple sophistication to the entrances of the buildings.  There is not too much going on as far as decoration to give the campus buildings a classy feel or a feel of a place you would want your son/daughter to go to college. 

I think that these common areas and classrooms should be plain and simple.  Students are here to learn, so the students' focus needs to be on the subject at hand.  If there is artwork, or decorative wallpaper on the walls, or signs...this will only distract the students when they should only be focused on their work while they are here.  The plain simple feel also gives the campus buildings a sort of uniform feeling.  Of course every building is different, yet somehow you sort of know a Columbia College building when you see one.  The logos on the buildings help too.  This also gives the buildings a uniform feel.  

Space of Ideology

I think some of the presuspositions have been that college kids are only at school to learn and to take no experience from thier present situation, thats why lecture halls house 200 hundred students or more, there is no such thing as personal space or time for babying, because out in the "real world" you get neither of those. But ecause Ideology is the common knowledge of the masses who gets to decide common knowledge? It is a paradoxical situation that seems to be born mostly out of generalizations. However we take these things with out question and make them truth, making it hard to tease out the ideologies, because they have been used so many times in our lives that create them in to being natural. It seems disturbing that things that we call natural and common sense have no real grounding and we dont know why they are the way they are. No amount of questioning would turn it the other way, with somethings. So more than anything it seems like people are trying not to figure out how they are, but would rather let the chips fall and see where they settle in.

Page 92 Question 1

Well most of the classrooms i have been in have been very empty rooms. There is no decorations at all. There is no inviting feeling in the rooms, it actually makes me nervous and a little bit uncomfortable to be in the room. The "common sense" of the room is that we can not have fun. We are in college now, time to get serious. We cant have visual aids, like posters, pictures, or quotes up because it might distract us from our teacher lecturing. I personally think it would be better if we could have some visual stimulation and to have a warm environment. I wouldnt be so nervous and skeptical about going to class than. I think that the classes are also very long. About 2 hrs and 50 minutes. They cram so much information in one session that by the time i get back home ive forgotten everything i just learned and have to look over notes. They layout of this school is very confusing. We dont have a centralized campus and all of our buildings are very spaced out. Seems like Columbia is trying to keep us from socalizing and focusing us on our school work. When i first started, and still to this day i feel like it is hard to meet people because we dont have a place to go and socalize with fellow students.

Presentation of History or HIstory of the Present?

Question 2

We can accept as true, that history only has meaning here and now if we adapt what happened in the past to some relevancy in the present. So does that mean, that if a historical event has no prevalence here today, that it has no meaning? No, because the prevalence of a historical event is different from person to person. So now we can accept that all history, whether relevant to me or to you has relevance probably to someone, and there for is prevalent. 

So the present determines prevalence of history. That is kind of a sad thing, and hard concept, for me to fully wrap my head around. If I do not find relevance in the bible, it does not mean that the events within its pages have not found their way into my life. My mother's up bringing and life has been shaped by her mother's views about the church and religion. therefore, even though my mother and I do not identify necessarily with the teachings and beliefs of my grandmother, it effects our lives, especially on Easter Sunday. So then the prevalence of history in someone's life doesn't completely mean that that history is meaningless for them. 

Also, i think historical significance comes from a persons ability to identify with a history, and as was stated in TT, history is a broad overview, no matter how specific it gets, because it is not all encompassing, because it can't be. So if someone can not identify with a historical generalization, then i think it is his or her responsibility to form a new generalization around their personal history, if they can, and in that situation, history becomes present. 

Architecture

The campus of Columbia College collectively would have to be labeled as eclectic or thrifty. There's all these buildings that were all built at different times for different purposes, somehow functioning together as one whole unit. Ideologically this can be seen as resourceful (buying the buildings in the area and converting them to suit a common need) or as cheap/greedy (buying the buildings in the area and converting them to suit a common need, instead of building a new campus, renovating the buildings, etc.)
Only a few of the buildings seem to work for their intended purposes. The ACC building probably has the only sufficient elevator to student to class ratio out of all of them.
Common sense fights with ideologies. Common sense tells us that there should be more elevators in the 624 building, but this would counter the said 'thrifty' ideology that dominates Columbia.

There's always to sides to a story

First and Foremost, in our American society, we are taught year after year in history class that there's a (good)side and a (bad) side, end of story. Secondly we are brainwashed from kindergarden through twelve grade, to believe that America( throughout history) were always the (good guys). Historians deliberately left out key information in history books, so America can be veiwed as the( good guys). What about all the countries that fought wars against America? What about their side of the story? or How did they see things fit? These are all important questions that seemingly is left out. For example The Iraqi people are veiwed to American citizens as evil and malicious people. Why? Because America is at war with Iraq, and America are the (good guys). But why do Iraqi people hate us? Maybe because we invaded their country, bombed thier homes, killed innocent people, mocked their religion and gave them a new democracy. But when it's all said and done, none of this will be in the history books. Ironically, this will be the history that history leaves out.

Blog 6 (Ideology of Classroom/Campus)

When I think about the "natural" presuppositions in our Cultural Studies classroom, the first thing that comes to mind is the neutrality of the room. There are no pictures on the wall, no school logos, no unique equipment, no fancy chairs/tables, no aesthetic lighting. It seems there's nothing to influence the students before the teacher starts her lesson. However, the absence of overt influences in the room speak to ideologies that foster a "blank slate" environment for the teacher to fill with whatever subject is being taught at that moment. The room immediately tells me, based on what I've been taught in our culture, that I'm there to learn serious information in a professional, adult setting (we are no longer at desks like in high school, but sit around tables that are set up in a horse shoe shape). 

Another "common sense" aspect of the room set-up I unconsciously recognize is the placement of the professor's chair. A bigger and seemingly better chair, placed at the opening of the horse shoe in front of the dry-erase board, is automatically assumed to be the teacher's. No one thinks for a second to sit there as they file into the room. Also, the size the room in comparison to the number of students that fill it, adds to the silent ideology of the class by telling us that it is cramped with students because so many want to go to Columbia. I am one among many who wants to be blessed with the richness of education that the school as to offer and should be thankful there is a place for me in the class. 

In terms of presuppositions of Columbia's architecture I think that the fact that many of the buildings on campus are very old, rehabbed structures gives the students a sense of tradition, wisdom and longevity. We unconsciously assume that Columbia as been around for many, many years, teaching wise lessons that have withstood the test of time. And the fact that the campus is spread out in the urban jungle of Chicago, gives it a sense of hipness and excitement. A College whose simultaneously seems like the wise sage and the hip youth exploring the limits of intellect, while keeping up with the changing times.      

 

As we go through our everyday lives we take for granted the things we do and the place we go, and forget all the work that was put into these things.  After reading the question i started thinking about our campus and all the different building that Columbia uses. The buildings have this great architecture inside and out and are placed in perfect locations.  Even the way that they are set up inside has this artsy urban feel to it.  But what i tend to forget is that Columbia chose to create this image to go along with the image they portray of being an individualistic urban art school, like no other school.  It is common sense after realizing this to re-examine the set up of Columbia and understand how Columbia uses different aspects to create the image they had in mind.  And to understand it wasn't just done, it took time, planning, changing, and group effort to create the final image.  

 Thinking about common sense slightly puzzles me, so much of the things we do in our everyday lives is common sense, for example locking your door when you leave, turning off the lights when you go to bed, to wear a jacket when it is cold out.  But all of these actions are done without thinking, they become natural actions.  In a sense common sense takes up the largest part of our everyday actions creating and shaping us into the people we are today. 

Ideolologies I See

I think that commonsense is everywhere in the world. If these common senses were not taken into consideration then I think a lot of the world would be in chaos. It is common sense to drive on the right side of the road in America, if it wasn't then there would probably be thousands of deaths everyday. But not all the people in America are idiots so there are not nearly as many deaths as there would be without commonsense. It is commonsense to nowadays to thank a person after they did something hospitable to you. If people do not think this is commonsense, then these people are not humans. Many commonsense activities involve ideas that are known to almost everyone that is why it is called commonsense and that is why commonsense ideas are almost everywhere we look from the roads, to the structure of classrooms, and the ways teachers teach.

The Ideaology of Columbia College

The Columbia College ideology: Create Change. All right, do you want four quarters or ten dimes?

This weekend I worked the Columbia College Open House. I’ve worked it three times before and have gone to it twice. So a grand total of six times, hearing the exact same spiel, watching the excitement in all the new student’s eyes, and the disbelief that a school as cool as this really exists. Maybe just maybe they can do what they love and be successful…

It sounds corny but we’ve all been there. The question is why do we buy into this promising future Columbia ideology, because after a year and a half here Columbia can be a frustrating place with it’s almost total lack of organization and effective communication with it’s students. For example, did you know we have a sports program? A baseball, two soccer teams, fencing, and a cross-country team that went to compete in Rome last year. It’s all true, but who would know it?

The thing that draws the new students here, and make it’s current students feel special is their ideology of an art school. I’m going to compare Columbia with Roosevelt. Let’s start by looking at the actual buildings. You walk into a Columbia building, there’s an art gallery to your left, the third floor is painted bright turquoise, and there’s weird furniture. You walk into a Roosevelt building. The paint is conservative, the furniture is leather, and to your left there is an overflowing bulletin board of happenings around campus. The differences make us feel that since our school building is a little more radical in interior design that we are more creative than the mainstream, but no matter how you look at it a couch is a couth even if it’s made of yellow plastic or leather. Actually the leather one would probably be more comfortable. But I digress.

At the Columbia house, they do exactly what the book says. They lure students in with vague ideologies but when the students get here, they don’t address students problems (like the Health Center, what a joke that thing is). However, since the ultimate ideology is that if you get an education you will be successful Columbia tells students that they can “author the creative future of the country” students go to this school with the hopes of fulfilling their dreams to the fullest. Now I’m not saying that Columbia’s a terrible place. I have learned a lot of things here, but the only way to achieve anything is to work really hard. It seems humorous though that students seem to forget that once they get here.

(Pg 92, Q 1)

History of Civilizations

If, like Nealon and Giroux say, history is written with an emphasis on the narrative, then the topic of Athens and Sparta creates a simplistic version of conflicts between states. It's much easier to understand two states fighting when one is seen as reckless and "bad" while the other is structured and "good." Athens and Sparta are prime examples of this ideology; assuming that all is black and white. It implies that society, upbrining and class standings influence events and the actions of a culture.

Like the chapter says, we can learn from history and grow from it. I'm not sure that our teachers choose to spend time on it as much as the books choose to cover the topic. Historians seem to believe that knowledge of this topic is beneficial. Perhaps this theory helps us to recognize violations against human rights and a group of people. One of the most important topics covered in this chapter addressed genocide and the importance of refusing to ignore it, not matter how terrible it may be.

Comparing Athens and Sparta to Star Trek simplified the topic even more finely. By comparing the presumably uncomprehensible past to a part of pop culture, it becomes accessible for a much wider audience. I have a very small amount of knowledge regarding Star Trek and the characters on the show, but through hearing the plot of the show from my dad, I can understand the situation between Athens and Sparta.

The "Clash of the Civilizations" theory reminds me a lot of the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians. As outsiders viewing a conflict, we often believe the myth "They've always hated each other;" however, as I've heard the book repeat over and over, the world is getting smaller and smaller. Events that take place on the other side of the world effect us more than we know.

It seems as though traditional history is continuously simplified. Maybe historians underestimate their audience and assume that we will not understand complex, unique situations. Depending on which country, book, school you are examining, it could seem that a specific history is forgotten. History usually leaves out countries and states where no significant conflict has occured.

That Damn Dirty Harry

I was a bit confused by the way the assignment was laid out in the syllabus, so I went with Question 2 from page 92.

The over-arching theme at the heart of Dirty Harry is one of revenge, and getting justice when it would be otherwise impossible. The ideology at play is one of two wrongs making a right, really. You have to accept that, in the face of his partner having died, everything Dirty Harry does is called for, including the collateral damage, which is considerable.
The film is set in San Francisco in 1970 because it represented a total end of free love and the hippie movement of the time. Here was a city that was at the center of a huge movement based almost solely on ideological ideals, and Dirty Harry was the antithesis of that. I enjoyed this part of the question, because I never thought about the choice of city before. It makes the movie that much better.

We always need a bad guy

pg. 106, question 1:

In our history, there has never been a situation where there isn't a good guy and a bad guy. Even in our present society, everything is based on the scale of good and evil. These ideas and discriminations are sometimes personal, but in history they are, more often than not, conjured by our societies viewpoint. Our historians decide how we view our history, and there's a big emphasis on "our." The differences between Athens and Sparta is that which we, as an American society, have no authority in constructing that history. Our historians took away what we decided to be important, who we decided was the good guy, and how to retell their history. The interpretation of this history is similar to everything in our current society, easily comparable with international affairs, because we hear "the other side" even less often than affairs within the US. An excellent current example is the issue of Kosovo's independence. The first, and biggest, issue is that Americans virtually have no idea what is going on in Kosovo right now. The small percentage that does know, knows a miniscule amount of information that has been gathered from either picking up a newspaper or hearing about it on the 5 o'clock news. I do, however, still have a little faith in our American culture, that a group of people are adequately educated on this topic. Nonetheless, our second problem is that the group of individuals who are familiar with this problem are only educated by corporate America and are not being shown the different sides and points of views. When our future history books are written, Kosovo's independence will be what is examined by America, rather than the views of the Serbs or Albanians. We have grown up with the ideology that independence is the right thing- no one questions that notion. That is where our problem lies. The group of American's that is aware of problems maintain this viewpoint, pro independence, but they generally don't take into account the repercussions of the things they have accepted to be "right." With Kosovo's independence, the Serb's safety is dramatically threatened and, currently, it seems as thought Kosovo's independence is causing more problems that positive solutions. On the other hand, anyone could argue that the Serbian's safety is less important, because they're radical and setting the US embassy up in flames. I'm sure that I've gone way too far off topic, I seem to be good at this, but being Serbian has made me extremely passionate about this topic. If I wasn't Serbian, I know that I wouldn't have such an opinion either way, in fact, I would probably be for Kosovo's independence. But my personal tie to this topic is the reason that I am able to (relatively) look at this subject as objectively as I can. Does this mean that our historians have to also hold personal ties to events in history in order to document them as "accurately" as possible? I don't know. But I do know that my continuous education of cultural studies and our social problems has made me much more pessimistic about my goal to save the world.

Blog Post 6

Pg. 92 Question 1 

This question is quite the unexpected one. The reason being is I for one can attest to the fact there a number of things that are looked over on an everyday basis which we do take for granted. As for the building we have class in, it would make sense that there are 4 elevators because our class is on the 13th floor, without them people would come to class late, be sweaty, and out of breath. Also this class meets once a week so it makes sense that we meet for three hours, because any less time we would be unable to cover all the material that is required. Now this "common sense" idea works well when looking at anything in your environment because without it a lot of things could not have been created or work as well as they do. So some things other than material or structural are effected by this ideal. Just like the common golden rule treat others as you wish to be treated. It basically just makes sense why wouldn't you want to be treated fairly and kindly. Overall this whole idea of common sense makes the majority of things in life make sense, so much so that we over look them everyday. Some times people need to stop look back and realize these things and use it as a process for tackle new problems and fine solutions. 

Ideology in the Classroom

p. 92, Question 2
This idea of ideology being present in the physical space that we live our day to day lives in is very interesting and thought provoking. It's interesting specifically because I have never thought about these things before. What presumptions are made when designing these spaces, and how are they taken granted for and made invisible by the users of these spaces? As I think about classrooms and how they may be designed, the first “commonsense” assumption that comes to my mind is the idea that the teacher stands in front of the class. Most classrooms are set up with a blackboard on one wall that is presumedly at the front of the classroom. While teachers and students are free to move the desks about the room in any fashion they like, the placement of this blackboard puts some constraint on the manner in which they may do so. Most buildings have bathrooms on each floor, assuming that the students and teachers will be there long enough for these facilities to be used. Some classrooms are set up with a large desk or podium that are specifically for use of the teacher. Again, we are brought back to the commonsense idea of the teacher leading the class; that the teacher needs more work space and tools in order to interact with the class. Most rooms are large enough for the students' desks can be set up in a circle, allowing for open discussion, taking some of the attention away from the teacher as a focal point. Overall, however, the classroom is set up for a teacher to lead his/her class and be in a position where most of the attention is on her/him.

Ideology

Ideologies that I see around the campus would be just the preconceptions of certain things. Most people that don't attend Columbia have their own views about the school and the people. Even students have views about the curriculum, and the dorms. Commonsense decisions made as part of the classroom would be for example the school's faculty and offices. These offices and faculty basically keep the school in order and makes things easier. If there were no offices and faculty, then the school would have no order and no structure. These offices keep things together and in order. If we tease out these presuppositions then we are just imaging what things would be like if these ordinary tasks and ideologies are not there. Common sense of space is how we view the world and how we operate in a manner which we think is normal. It takes a lot of adjusting to something new and out of the ordinary.

History - Question 2

History is written and rewritten. What ways does this make history more complex, conflicted, and open ended?

First of all, to Nealon and Giroux's conclusion that history is not neutral. Of course it isnt'! How long did it seriously take them to figure that out? History is always subjective, and thats why it can be "rewritten." A PERFECT example is that club Ahmadinejad belongs to that believes the Holocaust never happened. Think about that. This is an event in history that is proven by photographs, eyewitness accounts, and the miles of documentation created by the Germans WHILE they were committing genocide. And yet, there are people who just say that the Jews made the whole thing up to gather enough sympathy to get their own country. Fucking baffling. But, it serves as a perfect example to how "conflicted" and "open ended" history can truly be. Also, it serves as a wonderful counter-point to the "history goes to the victor" premise. Another prime example that I'm really shocked isn't in this book is the issues that caused the Civil War. The Theory Toolbox sure loved talking about Gettysburg, but damn did they miss an interesting topic. In the North, we all know that slavery was the main issue of the Civil War. We won, so shouldn't we have full rights to the history? Well, we don't. Many schools in the South really lean the roots of the Civil War towards the state's rights issue, and actually try to avoid talking about slavery. Granted, they still have to address it, but there is a huge difference in saying "slavery started the war" and saying "state's rights started the war, and slaves were kinda involved." So here we have people who LOST the war and are still able to provide their own slant on the events! The point I'm making is the problem with history is there is no way to stop people from putting their own spin on it, and in some cases they attempt to completely change it. The facts can only tell so much of the story, and even worse, the facts can be ignored.

If You Don't Like The Past, Then Just Change It.

After reading this section it was as though my eyes slowly began to open up. Who really does decide what should and shouldn’t be considered history? According to Griel Marcus, the Sex Pistol’s were an important mark in history. Being a musician, this would certainly be to no surprise, because the Sex Pistol’s changed the music industry. Stating facts like this one really make history an open ended topic. If this were the case and history really went by what anyone wanted it to go by; would history classes still exist? I believe Nealon and Giroux make a good point by stating that history is like a narrative story. It has a point of view and the author has the ability to put down what he thought was significant. The only way we can understand what has happened in the past is by looking over what the author has written. And whose is to say that the author is including every important detail in his writing.

Many of these writings are written by individuals who have an educated background. This idea takes us back to the beginning of the semester stating that academia are the ones who run our lives. They choose what is right and wrong. What is history and what is just useless information. However, when it comes down to it this is a good thing. Imagine a world in which history was written by anyone. Would the history written be factual? With academia deciding what is history and what is not helps us to decide what we should learn and stay focused on. This information we should not only learn but we should learn from it and see why it is considered history from academia’s perspective. There is only so much information we can obtain and with history having margins, we are able to keep all of the information from getting to complex and open-ended.

American Media

Finding the correct role of media in a democratic culture is a tricky thing to pin down. Democracy, in theory, means that everyones opinion goes into the pot, and the most prominent opinion will be what the country agrees to act upon. The operative word is opinion. No one is right about anything, ever. Everyone has opinions that they believe to be right, though. Where do these opinions come from? Why the media of course.

The major corporations of America control the media.

We are brought back to my earlier post of Problem, Solution, Reaction. People are told what is going on, they're told how to feel about it, then they go to 'vote' on these topics. Voting which is rigged for good measure.

Corporate influence is a threat to America if the corporation wants it to be.

A non-corrupt government would be the optimum media distributing/regulating system, but lets not fool ourselves with childish dreams! The internet is the best form of media available to us. Everyone has access to it, everyone has the ability to put information up.

We Fall Under "Lists"

What I found interesting about the whole story was that, the countryman was seeking what was behind the law -- he waited practically his whole life asking questions. There were gatekeepers and more gatekeepers, each getting stronger and they wouldn't let him in. The countryman was the only man to come up to the gatekeepers and ask questions about the law. To me he is a rebel, was the only man to ask questions. Seems like most people just obey the law and don't quite ask why is the law the way it is. That's something that's in the American culture, you must obey the law. No questions ask, and that's that. To be honest, we as human beings need to question things or else there wouldn't be any change at all. Everyone would be walking zombies, doing what they are meant to do without any questioning. The countryman still obeys the law, by not going in through the gate. The gatekeeper actually threatens the countryman, he says, "You can enter, but I must tell you -- I'm powerful." Still as a good man (very patience), he still waits until he gets permission from the gatekeepers to enter.

After reading this whole chapter, about subject and self (before reading I didn't have no knowledge at all about "subject" nor "self")-- it made me think about it for a while and well, even though I really didn't like this chapter, it made some sense. We all are just "subjects", I'm a boy, your a teacher, shes a singer, he's a guitarist, we are young adults, they are Latinos, and it goes on and on (making a list). Our names fall under those "lists" -- group of people are mothers, some are musicians, others are photographers, etc...

Most of the young ones in this world are just "subjects", almost everyone in today's world are "subjects". When you're small you have to follow the rules in class, and obey what your parents tell you what to do. That is the definition of being a child, no knowledge and most of the time we are like toy soldiers, being controlled by our parents, boss, government, the president, and the police -- until we become in our teens. that's when you want to do whatever you want and start asking questions. Ask questions, we need change.

The Media Sucks

I hate the media, because of the stranglehold it has on our society and our culture. The role media plays in our democracy is one of sheer crap. All they ( the media) do is fear monger and inform us about all of the horrible things that are going on in the world. While we go to school and or work all day everyday it's incredibly nice to come home, crack open a drink and allow the overwhelmingly pessimistic news networks to make my life feel even more hopeless than it already is. A disturbing trend that has taken course in the media is the slow death of actual journalism. Journalists steal leads and stories from other sources, thus creating a lot of redundancy throughout the internet, television and radio. Every channel is the same crap. Fox News brings us the lovely "Fair and Balanced" perspectives from gung-ho conservatives who feel that their inability to compromise or be tolerant of others needs to be shared with all the world over a loud speaker built into their own voice boxes. CNN wants us all to think that everything is a lost cause, and that we're all doomed to be destroyed. CNBC is all about money, but at least they don't pretend like they aren't. At least I can still watch the Daily Show and laugh about our government's problems, but not become depressed about it.

All in all, the media has immense bias, and hardly anything these days can be absorbed pure information. It's all dummied down and dialed up with emotion from the so- called "journalists" that it's hard to know how to interpret all the information out there. Everyone believes their personal view needs to be inserted into the discussion of facts and fiction, which creates a lot of rooms for error and hostility. Oh, but need not worry, friends! We still have the New York Times- why would they ever print something without all the facts?

Blog 5 (trapped by media)

The question, "What is media's role in a democracy?" is relative to what culture your speaking about and you is answering. So, I'll answer from the point of view of a "middle class" American citizen in a capitalistic democracy. I think media is a part of popular culture. It shapes how we see ourselves and others and sets up scales of what's acceptable to whatever group you what to interpellate yourself with: the playa, the jock, the entrepreneur, the indie rocker. And I tend to agree with the Marx's view that popular culture is controlled, if not produced, by the bourgeois class in order to zombify the proletariats out of revolting. And with all the descriptions of US corporations merging into 5 or 6 huge, god-like companies in the last chapter of the Theory Toolbox, my view is furthered strengthen. 

Media's bottom line, be it a news channel or the home-shopping network is profit. Above and beyond money to operate, they want money enough to compete in our socially darwinistic economy where the more money you have, the more power you have to leverage in a democracy seemingly more respectful to the wealthier voice. Money somehow implies intelligence and authority and corporations try to shape every last detail of their image so that the consumer will feel like they themselves are becoming more intelligent and powerful by using a companie's product. And if all media is also this capitalistic, competing beast out for our loyalty and all "news" about our the decisions we make as a democracy are drawn from media, then media conglomerates are indeed a threat to a properly working democracy. 

The checks and balance of competition in the market place is threatened by the merging of huge corporations, yet many of the new products they produce (or buy out once they become popular), such as YouTube, should give us a little hope. They're still affecting us in subversive ways through advertisements on the site, but the nature of free video posting to anyone is revolutionary in concept and could be seen as hope of "the people" winning ultimate control over the media we're all so "inbed" with.   

Question deux

Mass media does not play a role in democracy. Democracy does not play a role in mass media. Rather, these two work together under the watchful eye of our oh-so-wonderful government. As a democratic society, we as citizens are entitled to our rights, our freedoms. When we elect a president, they should be elected on the stance that they will do well in that job position. Granted, we want a president who is amicable and well-rounded. But where do we get off thinking that their personal business should be our business? So what if Bill fooled around with Monica? It has no relevancy to the job of president, unless it somehow interferes. So instead of covering our attacks in Kosovo, our media dug as deep as they could into a private matter.
Now to the issue of corporate influence, how could there NOT be an issue???? I am bewildered to hear when people don't care that everything in our economy is run by 5 corporations, that even work together to maintain their control and status. There are always exceptions to the rules, but there are still things that you will never see on tv, never see in a magazine, never read in a newspaper. Is that for our own good? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. I think the fact that we live in a democratic society that is run by 5 corporations is the most troubling paradox. I'll bitch all day about corporate America, but I don't have a definite solution. I think as a society we're so far beyond that point of equal democracy that we are stuck in a rut without a place to move forward to. We've just fucked ourselves to a point of no return. But seriously, how can I saw who should regulate media's usage? Obviously not corporations, obviously not our government- and especially the one we have now. It can't be regulated by a 3rd party because it is still RUN by the corporations, who really are run by the government.

Media's Role In Democracy

Instinctively, I would answer that mass media in democracy exists to inform the public and educate. Yet, I feel that in many ways I'm wrong. American mass media prides itself on it's "objective" reporting and profiling of world events. However, most news programs are filled with biased opinions and limited amounts of coverage. How often are we forced to turn to BBC online or on public broadcasting stations? Nightly news programs lack extensive international reporting. Unfortunately entertainment reigns supreme with broadcast programs and because of this, we're left watching stories that have been heavily sifted through.

The first amendment establishes the freedom of speech and a free press, yet a journalist or publication's reputation can be seriously damaged if they publish a story that defames the occupation in Iraq, they are met with scorn. Although the amendments were instated to create and uphold democracy, little by little, I think they are altered to diminish the democratic state.

What kind of information citizens "need" access to depends solely upon the person answering. I'm sure certain lobbyists and corporations would argue that the public does not "need" to know certain information regarding fast food and the effects it has on your health. At the same time, we have a right to this information. Who's to say we don't deserve to know? By withholding and controlling information, the government and corporations are seriously threatening democracy.

Perhaps it's the anarchist in me, but to me, an ideal society would allow its citizens to regulate the media. Almost immediately after typing this, I'm laughing at myself because I fear this would cause nothing but destruction of the press. After all, Wikipedia does pretty well, as do blogs, which is a form of citizen journalism. Why not? While blogs allow a broad range of topics covered, they often lack thorough fact checking and balanced opinions.

Liberal Media Culture?

To call liberal media liberal we have to first ask 'What is it to be liberal'? A liberal, to most people is someone that is very open to new ideas and is free. I think people run the news business because if someone didn't then there would millions of newspapers all with their own opinions and chaos would probably ensue onto the whole world. People can be liberal sometimes to get the support of a lot of people and be accepted in a group but then do many conservative like favor tradition and gradually change whereas they would make a lot of change. But some conservatives can be very liberal by not sticking to traditions and trying to change everything about the world. So when the media is owned by liberals, that doesn't mean everything we watch or read is liberal. A lot of the newspapers we read can be liberal but we never know. The world always brings something magnificent to us all the time so we should just wait and see what will happen next.

Vantage Point

(Blog post 5 ~ Question 3 )

This weekend I went out and saw the movie Vantage Point with a good friend of mine and when I came home to work on my blog I couldn’t help but connect the two together because Vantage Point is exactly what the book is talking about.

First I’ll sum up a little bit of Vantage Point. It’s a high octane action movie about different people’s views, vantage points, of the shooting of the president in Spain. You get to see the story in the eyes of a FBI guard, a tourist, the terrorist organization and someone completely unrelated to the whole event. I don’t know why his view was important but it was just thrown in there for some reason. About 1/3 of the movie is a car chase and there are explosions covered from every angle possible. Sound interesting? Hate to disappoint you, but it was a snooze fest. In fact, the guy behind me actually fell asleep and was snoring quite loudly through the majority of the movie. Is this really “what the people want?” I don’t think so at all. But, like the book said, it’s a lot easier to make this sort of movie and release it globally. You don’t need a translation for an explosion or are car chase, but in today’s world that isn’t engaging enough.

Even though I had to sit through that boring movie, I’m glad that I was there in that theater reacting with the rest of the audience to what we were watching. I think that in other theaters people were having the same reactions and soon I hope that it will start reflecting in box office sales. We, as an audience and a people, are looking for more than just an explosion or car chase or gun fight in films now days. The audience is craving story and substance and characterization and if a movie, TV show or story doesn’t have it then it is going to fail. It’s good to know that our society is more intelligent than that.

media-march4

I think the media in movies for the most part give the people what they want. A lot of times certain types of movies will come out back to back and this usually generates money. It seems like most action films come out during the summer in my opinion. They most likely gain most of the money during this time. I think our culture in general enjoys action films with violence and big explosions. I don't know the statistics but it seems that action films made the most money in the past. The past couple of years though, comedy has really generated more revenue and more audience. Both types of films will make money, so I think you just have to balance them out. Action movies sell merchandise and other things to entice the audience, but some comedies do the same thing. The film industry puts a lot of time and hard work into the craft, so they want to make the best out of what they created. If they have to advertise and sell merchandise, I think that is a good thing, because more people will be intrigued about the particular movie. When it comes down to it, I believe the film industry and the media do give the people what they want. The industry just uses merchandise products and advertisement to reach to a broader audience. Both type of films want to generate the most money, so buy selling products, more people become attracted to what the film is all about.  

Mass Media in Democracy

Media serves the purpose of bringing politics to the average voter. With such a large country as the U.S., I think the quantity of media matters more than the quality of it. With more information out there, one way or another the truth will find its way to the 340 million or so legal residents. Now a lot of other people have mentioned that a few corporations controlling ALL media bothers them, because then the information they can view is selected for them without their knowledge. I agree this isn't the greatest interpretation of "freedom of the press," but come on. Is the media lying to us more than any other politician? Did Fox News lie about WMDs in Iraq, or did the government? Mass media DOES serve a purpose in democracy because it gives free access to any and all information available. But that doesn't mean the information is handed out for free. Democracy doesn't rely on the press, it relies on the PEOPLE to get off their asses and DO something. So don't be so quick to judge the corporations so harshly. Yeah they have an agenda, yeah they may be crooked, and yeah they might hide certain information. But that information is still out there. So if a citizen watches something on Fox or MSNBC and says "whether or not I believe what was just said, I feel no need to pursue this any further," THEY are the ones failing democracy, not the media. So I reiterate...don't blame Fox, blame the guy too lazy to find information from numerous sources before he votes.

blog for march 4

2:
Mass media could play a direct role on democracy in our country. Because corporations that run and fund this country have a huge advantage in advertising using mass media. In all honesty it is a very simple concept. The corporations that have the most money to fund are able to afford the most prime time to place advertisement and in turn they will get the most influence on the population because of the number of viewers they get tuning into their ad. Citizens need access to all kinds of information through the mass media including health care information, product display, and updates on pop culture keeping up with the latest trends available on the retail market of the day. Corporate influence could have an affect on democracy because we as citizens do know that money can be powerful and we really have no control over what is advertised to us. We usually don't care to find out who has the control of advertising anyway so sure corporations may be able to buy their way to success using mass media. organization in the media world should be controlled by someone with a non bias opinion on a product who is advertising for the true better of the state and not influenced by the power of large corporations. However, that is not the world we live in unfortunately.
Alex Barrera

Blog Post 5

Question #3

The media today is pretty much a bunch of companies owned by a few corporations. I do think this is both a bad and good thing. The reason I feel this way is because Hollywood as much as we like to believe isn't behind the scenes producing things due to certain companies or CEOs who are telling these production companies to put out whatever movie they think will sell to a certain demographic, the sad truth is that they are. These movies are all created for certain niches in the population and even though independent movies exist, the only reason they are independent is because the company that produced it is just a smaller owned company of the major corporation. So it sucks for the lack of a better word, but there is not much the people can do as a whole to change it. However the good thing about the whole industry is we (as in the public) get what we want. There is not a single group of people who don't seem to like movies. So in a sense can we be mad that everything filters down the way it does? Is it bad that they use apple computers in the big hollywood blockbuster, so the public wants apples too? I really think its bad because it makes it tougher on the little guy, but thats why the film industry is so unique because people can get in on chance, and timing, or never make it all. But now I am just rambling because I am indeed a film major, I don't believe there its a multiple sided question, which can't be changed. 

Matt Griffin

Media Control?

The role of the media in democracy... a hard question to answer, and a very relevant one considering the magnitude of the upcoming presidential election. The concept of the media being controlled by a few select corporations is a very hard one for me to wrap my brain around. I find it quite frightening indeed that these greedy companies would control what I see on television, hear on the radio, and read in newspapers. Again, this concept is almost so hard for me to come to terms with that my brain really won't let me believe it. However, for the sake of answering this question in a timely and orderly fashion, I will force my brain to agree with the book.
Citizens depend on the media to stay active and involved in their democracy. We need to know most of the decisions that our representatives are making; at the very least, the ones that effect us directly. Also, with the quickly approaching election, we depend on the media to give us information about the candidates so that we can choose the one that most accurately meets our criteria for a good leader. Corporate influence could easily become a threat to democracy. If these few corporations are controlling what information the people are receiving about their representatives and candidates, we are not able to make decisions based on the entire truth. I think there is enough competition to ensure at least some range of views and opinions, but not necessarily a wide one. I think the media should be largely unregulated. Of course, there is a need for the F.D.A. and some censorship. Overall, I think our country is doing a pretty good job of regulating the media when it needs to be regulated, and letting it run free the rest of the time.

From Your Fearless Leader

PLEASE label which question you are answering. It is a huge help to know what you are taking on before I respond to your argument.

Does anything blow up in it??? NO... Then I don't want to see it.

I believe people’s taste and giving the people what they want both apply to this situation. However, I believe it falls more onto giving the people what they want. As stated in The Theory Toolbox, action films cost less and sell more products in their films. When is the last time you saw a building blow up? Or an extreme car chase that has two cars completely colliding and blowing up with both characters in the vehicles survive. People rarely get the chance to see these types of situations.

It is no wonder why many production companies tend to lead toward action films, because many people don’t have to have a background knowledge of things blowing up. Whereas in a comedy you have to have a certain background on the joke that has just been implied. You need to have an understanding on how the culture "operates." An example of understanding these different ways of life is in the film Blazing Saddles (1974) when Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little dress up in Klu Klux Klan outfits and try to sign up to help catch a black sheriff. This is very comical to the American people because we know that Cleavon Little is a black man trying to portray a Klu Klux Klan member, even though he is the sheriff everybody is looking for. However, someone in Europe or Japan might not understand this comical moment.

Film Productions are also a great way to show off your product. Director Michael Bay (of Transformers and Bad Boys) uses very appealing and expensive cars in his films. This is his trademark and his way of making money to produce his films. However many comedies’ use this types of method to poke fun at some corporations. Austin Powers: Goldmember pokes fun at Starbuck’s stating how it has made Dr. Evil a multimillionaire. Movies help sell the products and the products help make the movie. So whether it is to say that the production studios are just giving us what we want and saying whether we are just a violent society is hard to define at this particular moment. But one thing is for sure and that is that people like to watch things blow up. It gives us excitement and the opportunity to escape from reality.

democracy now? Or between 6 and 9 pm?

The role of mass media in A democracy should be to convey knowledge and news. That's not to say that the role of mass media in society can be to entertain, sell things and hopefully also convey news and knowledge. But if a political system were to assign a role for media, it should really only be for enlightenment. However, obviously our government doesn't share my sentiment. All though citizens really only need the news (and who's to say they technically "need" that, even), our country's mass media is chalked full of cheap entertainment, sales pitches, and basically mind control. Did you know that watching television slows your brain waves?
I suppose corporate influence would be a bit of a threat to democracy, as it doesn't even really follow the basic principles of democracy. Everyone is not given a voice in the corporate influence over mass media, the fat cats with the most money have voices though-big loud voices with flashy commercials. I think how our media works would appeal more to capitalism than democracy, as TV, like most anything else, is a business in a free market. I don't really believe a wide range of views are available in our media. We are made to feel as if there are, but with censorship comes a limit to that range. I use television as an example, because it is pretty well understood on a mass level. We can watch televangelists, right wing news-nazis, yoga, cooking shows, you name it-as long as it's PC in our culture. Where's the satanist church broadcast? How come fox doesn't have a news show on the other end of the political spectrum? Why aren't there near-commies on a major news channel giving their point of view? Besides PBS, the history channel, and a handful of others, we watch TV and learn not much more than our culture and our capitalism. How American is that?
I suppose if media has to be privatized like it is, then it should technically be run by the producers of any given media, and not by corporations and politicians. However, it seems as though money makes the world go round, who knew. I don't really know what a good solution to that catch-22 would be. Though I will rack my brain until class Tuesday, promise!

is the media really biased?

Question #1

How could this happen that all of the news anchors are liberal "hippies?"  This raises a very good point, and I personally have been approached with this theory.  It is true that many journalists are in fact Democrats.  I think that conservatives view the news as being very liberal because there are often featured stories about gay rights, civil rights abuses, anti war demonstrations, women's rights, environmental issues, etc.  These are seen as being liberal causes or concerns.  Though this may be true, there are still many people who think that the news programs are not liberal enough.  I personally believe that a lot of what really happens in other parts of the world or even in our own backyard is not published in the news.  There are newsworthy things going on all the time that do not get press.  So does the news industry have a liberal bias?  I think they cover some liberal topics or issues, but at the same time, there is a lot about business on the news as well.  There are conservative issues on the news.  Maybe those issues aren't presented in a way that the conservatives agree with.  So perhaps the media does have a liberal bias...but being a liberal, I'm ok with that.  I think that maybe this point of view is aimed at mainstream America.  I think there are a lot more people who want to hear about issues like civil rights, women's right's, or environmental issues.  Or, maybe there's just some evil plan for them to get everyone in the country to think like them.  That to me is quite a funny thought to entertain.  I think the big CEO's do have control over who they hire and how they are running the industry. 

Question #2

The role of the mass media in a democracy is to give people information so that they can make informed decisions.  People need access to information about the presidential candidates, so they know who believes in what causes, who is going to work hard for their country and lead the country in the right direction.  People need this information so they know who they want to vote for.  Also, people need to be informed about what's going on in their neighborhood so they know they are safe.  They need to be informed about the traffic, so they know how long it will take to get to work.  They need to know what the weather will be like, so they know how to dress in the morning.  I think that corporate influence could possibly be a threat to democracy.  If you are being influenced by corporations, who's to say you are really making your own decisions?  I think that market competition makes things more confusing.  For example, how do you know if one candidate isn't a total liar and is going to lead the country down an even darker road than Bush has?  I think it's hard to say who should regulate the media's usage.  Maybe the people should regulate it.  I'm not quite sure how we would go about doing that, but it might make things more fair.  

Question #3

I don't think it's either of these.  I think that corporations hyper commercialize movies by producing t-shirts, action figures, coffee mugs, etc, and the people buy into it.  Literally.  If there weren't a Luke Skywalker action figure, I highly doubt that people would be walking around saying, "Wow, I bet my kid would really like it if they had a Luke Skywalker action figure!"  I also doubt that little kids would be saying that.  However, if these items are commercialized, the public will start to think, "Wow, that's awesome!  I've gotta have that!"  It's all about consumerism and capitalizing on that.