Module 2 Reflections
“Drew was later charged and found guilty of three misdemeanor computer crimes in federal court, but the conviction was later thrown out on appeal” (Sternheimer, 2014). What constitutes murder? I am no lawyer and of course have no legal background but what I have read in the chapter of slander through media and cyber bullying, I feel uneasy and distrustful in the legal system. For example, the story of a mother who used social media to imposter as a young male and gain the trust of a minor to emotionally torment and generate revenge for her daughters bullying. Is the act of telling someone to kill himself or herself by jumping off of a bridge any different than actually pushing the person off? Does the blame not have to land on the same person who holds causality of the effect? Although her intention at first may have been to protect her own child and to see what may have happened, it seems Drew had lost her control and ultimately lost her own self by slandering a child who would never deserve such disrespect from a grown woman.
Another example of a “would be crime” is the story of Clementi and Ravi, two different roommates with different beliefs. As one roommate held antigay beliefs, the other was openly homosexual. The closed-minded antigay roommate used media as a tool for bullying in which resulted in the death of Clementi. Media in pop culture has conveyed many homosexual members as very flamboyant and extravagant, a stereotype of that culture now widely believed. According to Cortés, (2000), “Such clues should never harden into assumptions that all individuals who belong to that group must think, feel, or behave a certain way. At that point generalizations have rigidified into stereotypes”. If the media had not conveyed such stereotypes for homosexual males in that way, the generalization made by the antigay roommate would have never existed or perhaps his antigay views may have never existed. Again the question comes to mind, what constitutes murder?
“Is popular culture turning us into a nation of shallow idiots?” (Sternheimer, 2014). According to people who frown upon popular culture believe so. Sternheimer states many critics tend to only focus on popular culture and not the unequal distribution of educational resources. But does the blame really fall on the broad shoulders of media relaying pop culture, as critics tend to argue? Or can the media of which information is conveyed be better expressed across the boards to better facilitate educational learning? Media can be an educational tool for the 21st century that no other children in the past of educational history have had access to. When people tend to think of media the most mainstream idea tends to involve tabloid magazines, “entertainment weekly” platforms and other popular culture, just as the critics tend to argue. What Sternheimer brings to counter argue is not in the expression to dismiss the existence of pop culture influence on youth, but the apparent misuse of a great platform for which education can be utilized. For example, a student at the age of 10 may be able to utilize media that pop culture is normally expressed through such as a vLog or videoblog. Would it be expected that the 10 year old child is from a public school in a low socioeconomic neighborhood of an urban city, or at a private, or even more affluent public school in a richer neighborhood? The latter would be the common assumption in my opinion as well as in Sternheimers argument of relying on educational disparities.
In “Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities and the Mass Media”, Larry Gross attempts to explain how many minority groups find themselves “out of the mainstream”. Minorities are constantly being misrepresented through the media, in particular homosexuals. Typically, media characterizations use popular stereotypes as a code which they know will be readily understood by the audience, thus further reinforcing the presumption of verisimilitude while remaining “officially” innocent of dealing with a sensitive subject (Gross, 2001). I found this statement to be very interesting because it is on point in describing what happens when minority groups receive attention in the media. They are presented to play every bias and stereotypical role that in reality does not represent them at all. Reflecting on my friend who happens to be a gay man and all the shows/movies I watch with gay characters in them (Modern Family, Mean Girls, Vampire’s Diaries, Dallas Buyers Club etc.) seem to have something in common, each character is CLEARLY “gay”. However, what makes someone gay? If I would have been asked this question growing up and being constantly exposed by this false representation of homosexuals that the media portrays, I would have stated a gay person to be; flamboyant, fashionable, high pitch tone of voice, dramatic, and over the top if referring to a gay man. If referring to a gay woman I would have said, boyish body, men’s haircut, tough, and non-attractive. Thankfully, I have educated myself, learned, and continue to learn about these false representations the media has on homosexuals. My friend who happens to be gay could not be more opposite of what the media defines a “gay man” to be. A question that arose through reading this article and reflecting on the media that is being aired today is, what made these stereotypes become acceptable to the public?
From the perspective of inverted visibility, then, “accountability” as a spotlight is perfectly controlled – steadily and brightly illuminating those things that serve the corporate-state in their visibility, diverting attention from those behind the spotlight whose hands are directing its beam” (Tollefson, 2008). This to me translates, when looking at a child/student who exhibits discipline and maturity we first notice these aspects in relation to the child/student (subject). According to the inverted invisibility theory, the diverted attention from the parent/teacher allows the subject rather than the ruler to be illuminated. This coincides with what Foucault calls disciplinary power.
Learning about all the new ways that exist when it comes to advertising children was frightening. Especially when reading about mobile advertising, “Mobile marketing also can involve content targeting children or teens based on their being inside of or in the vicinity of a retail location (Common Sense Media, 2014). I ask myself why have we taken it to such extremities? What is the outcome of having such type of advertisement? It seems to me from reading this article and learning about the 5 core concepts that number 4 seems to take part in this type of advertisement. Number 4 represents: Media have embedded values and points of view. I believe this type of advertisement has embedded a personalized value. By personalizing based on your location, companies are much more likely to show you something relevant. Companies are taking a sensible approach by finding out what you are interested in and then personalizing your message. This type of advertisement just gives me the creeps.
