Week Eight: 'Can I PLEASE Have a Prozac Chaser with My News?'

NEWS: (9M total)

(local)
1. Flooding in Red River Valley (1M)
2. Shooting in Lakeville (1M)
3. Fire in Minneapolis (1M)
(national)
4. Shooting in North Carolina (2M)
5. General Motors CEO Steps Down (1M)
6. NorthWest merges with Delta (3M)

WEATHER: (5M)

SPORTS: (6M)

ENTERTAINMENT/CONSUMER/HEALTH: (6M)

ADS: (9M)

I usually do not watch newscasts, so I was pretty intrigued by the ten o'clock Kare 11 News. First, I was surprised at the short amount of time each news story was given. It made me wonder: is it sufficient to know about the 'news', or is it effective to know the whole story? When I asked myself to summarize the stories I had heard in local news, my renditions mirrored exactly what the newscasters had presented. I knew of the 'news', but could not reiterate the whole story. In general, this newscast gave a very sweeping overview of current events.

Secondly, the majority of these stories were VERY depressing. In the first seven minutes, eleven people had been killed, five people hospitalized, and an entire community threatened. It certainly was not uplifting! In fact, the most uplifting story on the entire newscast (including the horrible weather report), was the national broomball championships visiting Richfield this weekend. I watched twenty eight minutes of commercials and horrific news to catch two minutes of an uplifting, promising event in our world.

These two observations made me wonder- Was this newcast depressing because I didn't have all the facts in the story, or would fully understanding each story have made this experience horrific? Are these newcasts purposefully empty to save us from impending depression, or does the emptiness encourage these feelings?

One thing is certain- I will continue to get my news from NYT in neat emails each morning!

Week Seven: X Box Live Chat

I've decided to alter this post slightly, in an effort to make it applicable for my student teaching experiences. As many of you know already, I will be teaching a unit on censorship to three preps of Junior English students. When deciding which social network to explore, I thought of this recent censorship case:

A woman used the term 'gay' in her X Box Live gamertag to describe herself as a lesbian. Microsoft kicked her out of Live and suspended her account, but not before she was harassed by other gamers. This woman is now upset that Xbox does not permit sexual orientation, but will allow other sexually charged language (even though they contend they don't). Is this a case of censorship on the part of Microsoft and Xbox?

In evaluating censorship, my students have been given certain criteria to examine. One of these criteria involves the role of audience. This case study of censorship is a great example of audience expectations, relationships, and 'modes of address'. I have included comments from X Box Live Chat Rooms (using gamertags as identities) regarding this case; these comments are used to highlight the impact of a clear 'space of difference' between audience members.

First, the members of this chat room seem to have very different expectations between audience members. The majority of Live's users see the social purpose of this site to be a gaming network, void of personal connections:


"I have no problems with people's personal sexual preference. But leave that information in the bio and not in the gamertag. We all need to remember that there are people whom don't agree with the alternative sexual preference and find it offensive. If someone whom has an alternative preference does not want to be suspended then they should also respect that side by not placing that information in the gamertag. I have friends and family members whom have an alternative preference and they also agree that the gamertag should not be used to express that preference." (Ubiman, 2009)

Others are concerned about the type of audience members that may be using this site, creating a 'mode of address' between younger and older members of this chat site:


"Personally, I don't see why one should advertise their sexuality on XBL or any other gaming service, especially where there are younger members playing too. Not saying homosexuality or any sexuality should be hidden from young people forever, but rather that Xbox Live and Playstation Home are not the proper places for children to learn about homosexuals and how to respect their sexuality (if Little Johnny hears people calling a gay person fags on XBL, he's probably going to think it's ok to do so in other social situations,etc.)." (Travante, 2009)

Finally, many appear to be genuinely concerned about the presence of gay/lesbian members, voicing their personal attitudes regarding sexuality through this chat room:


"This whole thing is a joke, Microsoft have made it clear that they dont allow anyone to advertise their sexual preference, there is no need in this day and age because i really dont think anyone cares whos gay and whos not so why do they feel they need to advertise the fact they are gay? If they dont want people to treat them any different why do they act like they are?" (Beasty54, 2009)

"So it's for their own protection? Great idea!! And furthermore, we should ban them [homosexuals] from wearing "fruity clothing" in public! PEOPLE MIGHT FIND OUT ABOUT THE GAYS!!" (Frieko, 2009)

Ultimately, this chat log depicts a clear 'space of difference' regarding the expectations of this chat site, the profiles of accepted members, and general attitudes of the chatters. While Microsoft still maintains Live as a gaming social network, this purpose has apparently missed a vast number of chatters. This social network experienced definitively failing 'modes of address' that have generated this case study of censorship.

Week Six- The 'Foreign Native'?

This spring, I will be teaching a censorship course to Junior students at a local high school. In preparation for this course, I chose case studies of censorship in our modern society. One of these case studies involves the use of Native American names for professional sports teams. Examples include "Braves", "Indians", and "Fighting Sioux". Three years ago, many teams rebelled against the use of these Native terms, refusing to play teams referencing this ethnic group. The media jumped on board, adding extra pressure for team owners and managers. Ultimately, a great many teams at the high school and collegiate levels changed names, but the professional sports world was fairly unaffected by this phenomenon. This case study is an excellent example of the blurred lines of censorship. However, taken a step further, these situations highlight the assumptions and expectations underlying many of these Native American references. Overall, it wasn't the name that was upsetting; the connotations linked to this group of people is what frustrated many individuals.



These connotations have been changing over the years. Originally, Indians were linked to 'savages', 'violence', and 'alcoholism'. News casts would frequently run public service stories detailing the amount of alcohol consumption by this ethnic group. Additionally, the thoughts of 'violence' were renewed when Drew Shadeen, a young college student, was kidnapped, raped and killed by a member of the Native American community. This event heightened the level of fear and resentment towards Indians. In the last few years, Native Americans have taken on a new role in the media- 'healer'. Many sitcoms portray Indian characters as 'spiritual', 'dedicated', and 'healers'. Popular shows like 'Sex in the City', 'Will and Grace', and even 'Family Guy' have shown main characters seeking spiritual guidance from Native American individuals.

While these new portrayals are certainly more positive, the underlying assumption remains the same- Native Americans are an entity, a uniquely ethnic group with a degree of novelty attached to their foreignness. Beach refers to these ethnic groups as 'the others' (50). Labeling 'Native' people as 'others' is tremendously ironic given the historical implications of Indian populations and white settlements' use of reservations (anthropology). In many other disciplines (sociology and psychology), the lack of power associated with being 'the other' serves the purpose of the authority group; in our society this authority group is 'white'.

Comparing the media representation of 'foreign' with the sociological representation of 'the other', we see one strong parallel. Both disciplines acknowledge Native Americans as being outside the traditional culture of power. However, the contrasts between these two perceptions in the disciplines is staggering. Media outlets highlighting the 'novelty' of Native Americans usually overlook the power structure associated with these connotations. In general, media outlets show the 'how' (Native Americans as foreign, novel groups) and sociology offers the 'why' (to further the white authority ethnicity).

Week Five: Response to Articles

While reading the agent articles for this week, I couldn't help but wonder how long, as a teacher, I will be in demand? For those of us who have read “Feed”, the hologram teacher seemed to be a crazy, techno-future idea. After reading these articles, the idea of a teacher hologram is becoming more reality than fantasy! This leads me to wonder: What can I do that these agents can't? Many of us have discussed the 'humanity' of these avatars. If criticizing them is 'abuse' (as the study contends), then what level of humanity have we assigned to these creations? And if they're human, then are these avatars equals in the classroom? Ultimately, the important question for me, as a teacher, is this-

Is a student's agent equally as human as the student themselves?

This question becomes increasingly important when we consider the concept of responsibility. In software programs like “Second Life”, students are able to create an agent, formulate a social network, and produce action in this virtual world. When a student is controlling an agent, is the student still responsible for the actions of this avatar? Or are these actions merely the responses of a technologically enhanced entity, separate of the student and void of any responsibility?

This responsibility question can be extended to many forms of writing. In general, students find digital writing to be more accessible for many reasons, including but not limited to the ease of which humans can communicate without direct, immediate repercussions. Think about our chat room for this course. If we were meeting in person, many factors would influence our responses and interactions; non-verbals, environment, and spacial relations are some of these communication tools. In digital writing (or WebVista chats), these factors are eliminated. All that's left is the writing on the screen. Now extend this a step further. A “Second Life” chat among avatars that we have created (but not mirrored after ourselves) would certainly have even less communication factors. We could longer worry about words- it's the avatars saying them, not us! In this sense, we've eliminated all factors of non-verbals, environment, spacial relations, and now common filters on language and expression; what we are left with is a non-filtered avatar, susceptible to 'abuse' but willing to dish it out at the same time.

I appreciate the use of agents in the classroom, and can see many creative uses for these software programs. However, I become concerned about the level of humanity we place on these avatars, while simultaneously eliminating the levels of responsibility attached to their creators. If avatars are an extension of the student (whether in mind, attitude, or mere creation), then shouldn't the responsibilities placed on the student be extended to the avatar?