April 29 - May 2 Question #3

One of the concepts that I liked in this section was the one about media agendas. I love this section because I think it is very important that we all know that the media often has agendas and they give us the news they want us to know.

"According to this view, media gatekeepers select the issues they feel are most worthy of coverage and give those issues wide attention" (304). I think that this kind of gatekeeping has been running rampant in our media lately. I think that every media outlet has to compete for their audience and so whoever has the most outrageous story often wins. The internet has become the source of news for many people. TV has to work a lot harder to compete. A good example of this is all the recent coverage of the swine flu.

The media has blown up the story way out of proportion. It's true that the flu is considered a pandemic, but it isn't even as bad of a sickness as the normal flu. So why are we all afraid of it? Because the media makes us feel like we should fear it. As viewers we need to make sure we filter what we take in to ensure that we get our facts straight. It's important that we understand that the media is typically manipulative and that if we want to get untouched information we need to go straight to the source of an issue.

April 29 - May 2 Question #2

I agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message. I think we determine how we receive a message based on what medium we're receiving it through. We expect different messages from different mediums and McLuhan goes into detail about what makes a TV message different then a radio message.

"According to McLuhan's theory, each medium has its own internal logic, and each affects how we experience the world" (307). McLuhan describes TV as a "cool medium" which means that because there are so many senses involved, we have to fill in the details on our own. He says that TV follows a mosaic logic because there is not always a clear and precise message layed out for us. TV does not follow a linear logic like radio messages. TV is a lot more complex and the producers assume that we will put the information together correctly and receive the message they intended for us.

I agree with Robert P. Snow that we are all very TV literate and we expect that newspapers, books, magazines etc. should keep us intrigued just like TV programs do. Our text says that we all "think in the language of TV" and I couldn't agree more.

April 29 - May 2 Question #1

I have never made a friendship that exists exclusively in cyberspace. I can't imagine calling anyone a friend without ever meeting them in person. I've talked to strangers online, like in this class for example. But I wouldn't consider anyone a friend until I actually met them.

I think cyberspace relationships and f2f relationships are drastically different even though sometimes they may feel one in the same. I have not formed cyberspace relationships because I don't think people are completely honest online. I think people tend to embellish about themselves and make themselves look a lot more accomplished and attractive then they actually are.

Our textbook says that "the fear that has most captured the public's attention is the fear that individuals who use computers will become isolated, abandoning face-to-face interaction in favor of life lived in cyberspace" (328). I have definitely fallen victim to trends like facebook and myspace (no yet a twitter freak though) and I have to say that it is very easy to get wrapped up in online communication. I have many friends that I only talk to online and that in itself is sad. I often feel like I need to ban myself from facebook in order to make sure I actually go out and hangout with these people. I think it's a socially dangerous thing and it's hard to find a happy medium and a health balance.

April 19-25 Question #3

One concept that I really like in this chapter was the one about interviewing skills. This section is very important for people who are trying to nab a job in their field of choice. Knowing how to communicate yourself successfully to future employers is an extremely important and valuable lesson.

Our text says, "Interviews are serious business. Talking off the cuff may be fine in everyday conversation, but it is not acceptable in a job interview. Preparation is a must" (234). I think many people go into interviews hoping that they can just wing it, and they may be able to do just that. But I think most interviewers know exactly how to read a person because they've probably interviewed dozens of people in the past.

This section of the chapter focuses primarily on the fact that you need to be very well organized and you need to know how to communicate clearly and efficiently in an interview. You need to be well informed about the job you are applying for and you need to have an impeccable resume and cover letter. You need to be prepared to answer any question that is thrown at you and you need to know what are the right questions for you to ask.

April 19-25 Question #2

I'm not sure if I agree with all of the etiquette rules in this chapter and I have definitely seen people not abiding by them and I too have not always followed these basic rules of etiquette.

The cell phone rules make perfect sense and I am completely happy to abide by them. But every situation calls for a different response to these rules. If I am in a fancy restaurant I will not answer my cell phone, but if I am in a taco bell at lunchtime, I have no problem with answering my phone and I don't care if other people do. With cell phone etiquette it all really depends on the situation and the time and place. I think call waiting is great, if you're on the phone with a potential employer than obviously you won't put them on hold to answer a call coming in from your friend. Once again, I think most people are capable of sound judgment and can determine when it would be rude to put someone on hold and when it would be perfectly fine.

I agree with our text about answering machine etiquette. I think, unless you're in high school, your recorded answering message should be succinct and professional. Imagine how a future employer would view you after having to leave a message if your recording was in joke form. I used to have a goofy recorded message when people called my phone, but that changed quickly when I started looking for a job.

I think the advice about conference calls was very useful because I have never participated in a conference call before and it's good to know how I should act in order to come off as professional and respectful.

I have definitely had to change my screen name once or twice just make sure it was appropriate and professional. My old screen name used to be fun and focused on my hobbies. But now, I have a simple screen name that is just my full name. It's easier for people to remember and it's also easier for people to know who wrote an email before they open it. There's no second guessing about who I am.

April 19-25 Question #1

Organizations are tied to the environment because they depend on what's around them for resources and energy. An organization can't survive on it's own, it would be literally impossible. Of course an organizations effect on an environment is not always positive. "An obvious example occurs when a manufacturing company depletes local resources" (214). I remember watching a documentary about the effects of a General Electric Plant in Mexico. It was cheaper for GE to set up shop down there, but it was completely destroying the environment and the lives of the people that lived nearby. It's also harmful when a large organization moves away from a specific environment. That move can be just as damaging. Organizations have a large impact on the environments they call home. It is their responsibility to make sure they work well in an environment and can adjust to changing conditions.

San Jose State is an organization that highly effects the environment around it. It's not just the effect of the buildings and the space, it's also the effects of the people that attend the school and where they fit in in the community. I think a college is ethically required to positively effect the community around it. I think SJSU has had a positive effect on the community because students have moved to the area to receive a good education and most of the time these students are responsible people who eventually become active participants in the community. I think most colleges are good for their environment. It's usually the fault of other organizations for bringing a good community down.

April 12-18 Question #3

One concept in chapter six that I found interesting was the one about mediated relationships. This section discusses the complexities of relationships that were formed online. I think internet relationships are a fairly recent phenomenon and I think we're still learning about the affects of these relationships on the people involved.

According to our text, "Clearly, communicating electronically has unique characteristics that make it quite different from communicating face to face" (169). It has been made clear, time and time again that not everyone online is who they actually are in real life. There are so many cases of fraudulent behavior that it's really hard to trust anyone. I think people who are involved in online relationships get so caught up in the perfection of it that they sometimes forget to think logically. Sometimes things are too perfect to be real. But sometimes people prefer to live that way.

"Another significant characterisitc of text-based electronic channels is visual anonymity. When we communicate over e-mail no one needs to know who we are" (169). Many would argue that looks don't matter and we shouldn't judge people based on their appearance, but in this case a person that says they are an attractive 25 year old woman may in actually be a 45 year old criminal. These are the characteristics that one should want to know before talking to anyone online.

April 12-18 Question #2

I think we all have unique and important filters we use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. I think our main goals in finding someone all center around what our needs are as individuals. If we find someone who can help us fulfill those needs then we try to initiate a relationship. If a person blatantly refuses to meet those needs then we would view them as unattractive.

Ducks theory describes four different things that couples do when they sense their relationship is dissolving. The theory makes perfect sense to me. In the first phase each individual starts having personal doubts and starts to feel like their needs aren't being met and that they might want to pursue other relationships. In the second phase the individuals get together to discuss their individual feelings. If they decide to end the relationship then they go through the third phase where they must open up to more people, the people in their social circles. In the fourth phase the individuals determine how that relationship affected their lives, both the good and the bad.

I think many couples go through these stages before they break-up. I've only been in one relationship and I'm still in it so I can't really say that I know how this process works. But I've seen plenty of friends go through it and it seems to happen in this exact way. I can definitely say that I have used preinteraction cues as a filter to decide if I want to meet someone. And in many of these cases I've found that I've reconsidered the person after interacting with them.

April 12-18th Question #1

Out of all of the role relations I think the complementary pattern would be the most difficult to change. "One partner takes the one-up position and the other takes the one-down position" (148). When people get stuck in a pattern of one person being dominant and one person being submissive I think it would be very hard to reverse that, especially if it had been occurring for a long period of time. Imagine a child one day becoming the dominant character and a parent being the submissive. It would be practically impossible for a child to even know how to be in the one-up position. In some relationships, like a parent-child one, this role pattern is not a bad thing. That is probably why it stays that way. In spousal relationships, this pattern might not work so well and would be easier to change if the participants are willing.

In my opinion, the most relationally damaging pattern is the rigid complementarity. "When the submissive partner begins to resent always giving in or when the dominant partner begins to tire of being in charge, dissatisfaction can result" (148). I had some friends who were in a relationship who fit this pattern perfectly. The girl was the dominant one and used to deciding everything for the couple, while the guy was the submissive and was familiar with letting his girlfriend have her way. It wasn't until recently when this pattern proved fatal to their relationship. She got tired of having to "wear the pants" in the relationship and he got fed up with always letting her have her way. It may have worked okay in the beginning, but it's not a way to live forever.

I think all of the patterns can be damaging to someone's self-esteem. People need to learn to share the power in the the relationship in order to be successful. I'm sure we all know, any kind of extreme can be harmful, and that is especially true in relationships.

March 29th - April 4th Question #3

One concept from chapter 12 that I really liked was the one about culture and goals. This section talks about how our culture defines our goal making decisions. In our culture many kids aspire to go to college. That is a common cultural goal in our American culture. In other cultures, school might not be a priority but making a lot of money might be the ultimate goal. It really depends on what is most acceptable.

I think we feel pressure in our culture to make certain goals for ourselves. According to our text, our culture follows the effort-optimism standard which is the belief that one will be rewarded for hard-work. Interestingly, this characteristic makes a lot of people feel over worked and burned out. Sometimes people become workaholics in order to achieve their goals. Other countries may not take work so seriously because they think that no matter what happens, God has the ultimate rule over their lives and it really doesn't matter how hard they work for something. Cultural goals can sometimes be a good thing but sometimes they can break people down. I think it's best to avoid letting our culture decide the goals we want to make.

March 29th - April 4th Question #2

I would have to say that I agree with the rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises. I think that they all make perfect sense and most people would agree with them. I think as humans we are all naturally rational and capable of making logical decisions about numerous issues. The institutions that are based on this belief are the court system, free enterprise, and democracy. I think most people are capable of being rational but many are not. These people are not widely accepted by our culture because they do not fit into the norm.

The perfectibility premise "is based on the old puritan idea that humans are born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control" (pg. 353). I agree with this statement but I also know it has some major religious connotations. I believe that people can work their way to goodness, but I don't know if perfection is possible. I believe that we are all sinners and no matter how hard we work we are bound to slip up, and that is why I think so many people believe in forgiveness and a renewal of the heart. Religious or not, I think many people follow this basic belief.

The mutability premise says that people are shaped by the world around them and because of this assumption, the institution of education is so important to our society. By helping to better someones environmental, physical and psychological circumstances you can drastically change someones life, which essentially helps better the rest of the culture.

March 29th - April 4th Question #1

I definitely agree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict that we are "creatures of our culture." I think that everything we know and believe and the ways in which we act are all shaped by the culture we were brought up in. I don't necessarily think that it is a negative thing, but I do believe it can become negative if we don't acknowledge it. It's fairly obvious what culture someone is from upon meeting them. That's just how our world works, we are a product of our specific cultures. Within a culture, there are many different people, but most fit the mold of what there culture represents.

Sometimes our culture limits us in ways that are not always apparent to us. "Cultures are group understandings rather than individual ones, and belonging to a culture means acting according to group norms" (pg. 344). Sometimes if you do not act according to those norms you will no longer be accepted within that culture. For example, in our culture it is a norm for girls to walk around in shorts and tank tops in the summer time. However, in other cultures this is completely inappropriate and if a woman was caught doing that she would no longer be accepted in the group. This is a case of culture interfering with personal freedoms. I think there are many aspects of our own culture that other cultures could learn from, and vice versa. We all have differences but for the most part we are very similar. It's important that we accept other cultures and try to learn from them in order to change ourselves for the better.