Alan

= = **Media and Society**


 * Interesting Facts:**
 * The media are called media because they are in the middle of the chain of communication.
 * The media can "help us explore and develop our understanding of sex and violence."
 * Intuits greeted Nelson Mandela in Canada because they had seen him go out of prison in South Africa in the television.
 * The author dedicates his professional life to the study of media partially because he grew up with it.

Sophia:
 * Questions about the chapter:**
 * Is free thought something that we can actually see on T.V., which is the most popular medium today? What about people being afraid of expressing themselves because of the lack of anonimity?
 * Is profit still the main motive for the Internet as a medium?
 * Can we say that media can also take away freedom of thought from people because of it's influence in culture?

Hi Alan! :)

Regarding your third question 'Can we say that media can also take away freedom of thought from people because of it's influence in culture?'. I think that this question does not have a definite answer. It is very subjective and depends on a person's character, previous principles, and I think even age, experience and education (like we have here!) makes a lot of difference. There are some people in the world who are very self-opinionated and will not be swayed easily by what is shown in media. In fact, we even have people who act as critiques and cause a backlash to certain things that are shown in the media. However, in general terms, I think that there is a bigger majority of people, especially youngsters who are not from educated backgrounds that CAN be/or will be more prone to taking in and believing things they see or hear without much thought. And I think that what media does more than take away freedom of thought, is take away freedom of individuality. Many people don't realize it, but a lot of youngsters subconsciously want to emulate a movie star (the way she/he talks, dresses, acts) and think that real life is akin to what is potrayed in many drama series on the television. I feel that with so much information, persuasion and messages from different types media and so many genres, I feel like none of us can be TRULY original because we are always made up of little bits of the environment around us.

Alaa: Hi Alan:) I think the questions you are asking are really interesting and I would like to attempt answers.  These are personal opinion and there is no right or wrong answers but I really like the train of thoughts and questions asked :):)
 * 1) I think when people realize the amount of audience they can reach and effect they have on them it actually affects their thoughts but it is still freedom of thoughts I guess. the most popular medium I would say is the internet. There is anonymity to a great extent and on this I have to state that I believe that if there is something you want to say you should either have the courage to say under your name and endure the consequences or don't say it because anonymity can be really dangerous
 * 2) in some ways the answer is yes because alan you are forgetting that some people make a living out of websites what did fb founders gain from creating fb or google, they have a profit or they wouldn't exist. People tend to forget that these are controlled websites
 * 3) YesNO because in some ways we have a choice, we can control our conscience what we can't control is our subconscious which is inevitably affected that's why I say yesno

Halfdan:

1) Concerning free thought on television, I would say that it varies - A LOT. Many factors are important here. The most important seems to be the political situation of a given country. Where I come from, free thought is something that can be seen on television. A problem could be how hard it is in many places to gain access to the media. Also I don't think that lack of anonymity is a problem, or at least, I would say that the media being so effective has more value than decreased anonymity. People still have more anonymous options when wanting to express their thoughts. People choose their medium after their purpose. Some want everyone to know and others just a small group. The internet is a medium that allows for its users to express themselves anonymously, though most people probably would want to know who says what.

2) Firstly, the original motive of the internet was not profit but practical reasons. But as everything else, the continuous development of a technology usually depends on some kind of economic motives. Primarily the development is fueled by these economic motives, but also pure interest sparks it, I'm sure. Secondly, it is important to remember that the internet is not "one", but is made up of many independent people, companies, servers or whatever. This means that different people or groups of people have different motives. Peoples' need for information, entertainment and connection to the surrounding world is really what makes the internet, and this is just another way to gain a profit.

3) I am sure that, as Sophia also says, media can create some kind of broader conformity, which is not necessarily ideal. But also the media

Jennifer: For the first question, I think we actually can see a certain amount of it on TV, eg public forums. We can't say that we're seeing as much as we hope, but then again when you reflect back onto the past and see the progress of change, we are seeing lots of change. We can see people standing up in protests, accepting interviews by journalists and voicing out on forums. However, there are still lots of people who prefer anonymity and they tend to opt for the print media or the Internet. But I guess the most important point is that they can get their thoughts out somehow as well, and we also have different programmes on TV keeping track of opinions on the Net, such as in the news, we can sometimes see journalists referring to posts on the Internet when commenting on the public's opinion. I think the Internet is more of a free media, firstly as it can't be monitored. A good example would be what we are doing right now. We can freely create and post our own opinions, yet we don't exactly receive monetary profits. Certain newspaper websites post news for people free of charge as well. However as Halfdan said, economic principles are slowly taking over our lives and we now see that certain sources of information can only be accessed after a fee is paid. But for now, the majority of our sources are still free of charge, and hopefully will stay that way. The media definitely influences our thoughts in some way, but i think that it does come down to the people's personality themselves. Some people may be very impressionable, while some may need more persuasion.

**No Logo Response**
No Logo is actually a phrase that describes the idea of opposing the concept of multinational corporations and globalization. The video is mostly an informative insight of corporations globally. It explains the "spirit" of anti-corporate resistance. Although the video is mostly informative, I think the main goal of the entire documentary is to make other people aware of the problem and possibly encourage them to act supporting it. The analogies and adjectives the video uses do not portray a "positive" image of corporations and branding. For example, when she is talking about Tommy Hilfgher and how it acquired the rock star role in the market, she says they "don't need those rockstars anymore because you are a rockstar." in my opinion, this is like saying they take their identity out of them. That they just use them. I think this is the kind of language she uses that gives the audience some kind of opposition to corporations right away. The video talks about the disadvantages of globalization, brandings and corporations. It talks about the problem of externalities and low wages to make products cheaper. She also talks about brands selling a lifestyle, which can control people.

I think it is mostly aimed to students and people who are critical thinkers and want to make a change. The fact that video can be found in so many places online, including Youtube, makes it perfect for viral advertising. I can imagine that peer to peer is the main form of advertising the documentary, like I got it! It is interesting how the video is made though, it has a lot of examples with graphical representations. I think that helps spreading the video to younger audiences who are still being educated. It makes it easier to grab our attention. I think young, studying, consumer, adults are the focus group of this documentary.

**Response to class discussion**
It is hard for me to give an opinion on how religious protests should be carried out correctly, since I am not religious myself. From an atheistic point of view, I can say that this is one of the many disadvantages of religion: these differences had led to religious wars in the past, and religious differences still cause social problems. We all have to accept each other's differences in beliefs. How can we do that, though? It is hard to say. I can say that advertising religion, though, might help other people understand it better... or to just oppose to it more strongly. I think religion gives people a reason to oppose to each other.

In Guatemala, I would often see rivalries between protestant Christians and catholic Christians. I can imagine a much greater rivalry can exist between Muslims and Christians in countries where both religions are practised by a large portion of the population. It is very painful for me to see it, and think that it all happens because behind these two groups there is an institution that dictates how they should think and act. I understand, however, that the extremist believers are the ones who are problematic in the situation.

All of these horrendous acts are just an example of the lack of clear communication between individuals. Giving as an example the protests against Muslims that were happening in the US, in the video we saw, I am very sure that this would not happen if both sides actually sat and talked about it patiently and with comprehension. It is sad to know that even when we are supposed to be a modern civilisation, correct communication still does not happen. A good way of preventing this incidents is trying to get both sides in a social activity, together, like studying as we do here at UWC. I think that if the government wanted to promote religious understanding a good strategy could be to make workshops where people with different beliefs can work together for something that will be beneficial to everyone. For example, neighbourhood improvement by painting walls or putting signs on the roads.

Alaa: Alan your reflection is truly impressive, your words are so logical and simple that it pains me to see what reality has done to this simplicity, what media has done to this "religious spirit", I think you just summarized our class discussion and put a clear conclusion "extremist believers are the ones who are problematic". But in response to religion disadvantage I would just like to say that there is advantage as well because religion remains a symbol of goodness in some cultures, it is a force to unite people, just as creating nations is, I want you to think what could be the advantage of religion and I thank you for giving some solutions to avoid religious conflicts:)

Sophia: Alan, really interesting issues you brought up. I must say, you're not the first person I know who has brought up the question on how religion has been the reason of many disputes and conflicts (an on-going one now being the Palestine-Israel conflict). I must say however, that as far as I know, it isn't religion which is the problem here. It is the institutions behind the religion who use religion as a tool to propagate their hidden agendas such as political or economical gain. The Quran, or the Bible for instance can be interpreted in so many different forms and there are parties who take advantage of that and interpret these religious verses in accordance to their desires and needs. Because religion is something which is still regarded sacred in non-liberal places, it's then easy to manipulate people so long as you have someone who can speak well, twist well, and persuade well (this is where media comes in and plays its role best).Through all the readings I've done on this wiki page, what truly saddens me is the fact that I feel, as human beings, we will always find a reason to create conflict. If it's not religion, then it will be race. If not race, then skin colour. If not skin colour, then..etc. It is going to be quite a difficult task to set things straight after previous and on going years of discrimination towards respective religions. Another problem is the chain effect that occurs when one religion is hurt. Hurt creates a lot of negative sentiments mainly anger, the feeling of injustice and discomfort in life. The easiest way to go about this discomfort and to get 'closure' for most people is to take revenge, which is obviously wrong and counter-productive. I think that the best way to go about this for this moment, is to educate the younger generation. It is difficult to change the mind-set of the older generation, especially those who have been victims of certain tragedies. So, education like what we have in UWC is very fit.

I do have to let out something which I've been pondering on for a few weeks now. We're so blessed and lucky to be here at UWC, because most of us are chosen based on stringent and specific prior abilities/talents/knowledge. Somehow though, I think that UWC education should be provided not only to students who are already quite educated. It should be broadened up to youth who actually really need it; those kids who are being brainwashed, kids who are being discriminated, the discriminators, the ones who weren't so lucky as to have parents who didn't judge and the internet to help them gain knowledge. I don't know..I guess governments should put education as a priority in their nations and spread out these tools of education to everyone and not just to a selected group. Halfdan: I think you, Sophia, are very right about that last part! It is the problem with UWC. It seems more like a way for well-educated kids to become even better educated. Most students are already very open towards rest of the world and very liberal in their opinions. The diversity is not necessarily as high as people sometimes make it sound like.