To supplement the discussion from last Thursday, here's the Senate Judiciary Committee's report on Children, Violence, and the Media. Also, the Congressional Public Health Summit, which I mentioned in class, issued this Joint Statement in 2000.
In addition--while considering Postman's depiction of the typographic mind--consider this notion. How's your threshold of boredom doing?
20 comments:
not sure which post to put this under..so here goes nothing.
You're teaching us right now not to rely on electric media, not so much that it's bad, but that we as a society are always using it.
If that's true... why have everything online? The only way to get to a syllabus or to find out what's going on in class is to come online and read a blog. My internet is down a lot so this is quite difficult for me, unless I want to spend time in the library everyday checking to see if anything is new.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this kind of go against what we're talking about in class?
As Lao Tsu wisely said, "All truth rests in paradox."
so why do it? why rely on the electric media to provide us with stuff about the class?
I happen to believe that electric media have tremendous potential. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with them. This blog allows for the continuation of discussions (like this one) and expands the horizons of discourse.
The critique of electric media that I endorse is the one which impugns the media for the diminution of literacy. I see literacy as a prerequisite for civilized discourse, and I am not much interested in discussions with people who haven't widely read. For example, I have had "conversations" about religion with people who haven't read the Bible. What is the point?
you don't need to read the bible to have a discussion about religion. thats ridiculous!
I can only assume that Dr. Sewall is refering to those individuals who choose to speak or write strong views regarding a specific religion whether it be Christianity, Muslim, Wica, etc. without having real knowledge and understanding of the belief system.
Talking to individuals who claim to know something about a specific religion but actually don't is ridiculous.
Oops. I mean Wicca. And Islam, not Muslim. Blah! It's late.
so your telling me that you have read every part of the bible and understand everything...that is ridiculous. i havent read one word of the bible and i am a very educated young woman about my religion.
I didn't read anywhere that schgrl said she's read the entire Bible and understands what is in it, so I'm not quite sure where you got that idea.
I agree with schgrl in that Prof. Sewall believes there is no point in discussing a religion with someone who has not read the core text. Sure, you can know the basics, but it makes actual theological discussions complicated. How can you refer to what's in the Bible when you haven't even read it? Do you say, "Oh I just know it's in there somewhere?" I admit, I haven't read the Bible...then again, I don't assume I know everything there is to know either.
However, I digress...the original subject of discussion is not about how important it is to read the Bible. Rather than staying focused on the original topic, you are taking Professor Sewall's side comment and turning it into an entirely different issue. This happens quite a bit in class with some people, and it's fairly irritating.
I will probably comment further on the original post soon. However I think this post is long-winded enough for now.
Well, Anonymous, I fully agree that you can be a very educated young woman about your religion and still not have read a single word of the Bible, so long as your religion is, say, Buddhism. I really think that, to count yourself educated, you should go to the thing itself rather than relying completely on what people have told you about the thing.
Doesn't anyone want to discuss media violence?
I know we discussed movie and video game violence, but what about music?? As a metalhead, my music gets brought up whenver a violent act occurs. Judas Priest and Ozzy get blamed for suicides, while Marilyn Manson and Rammstein got the finger pointed at them for Columbine.
Sure, media can have violent images, which in turn may cause more aggressive tendencies. However, you can't really blame media for the violence itself. It's like the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." The gun doesn't force a person to pull the trigger, and neither does the media.
Marilyn Manson commented about the V.Tech shootings in an interview with Revolver magazine:
"I mean, what's the cutoff age for intelligence and responsibility? The kid was in college. If you're old enough to get a driver's license, you have to take credit for your actions. You can't blame someone else."
I think this statement is applicable to any discussion of media's effects on violent behavior.
I agree with adam.. I recently went to go see Manson in concert.. but does that mean that I'm a bad person for it or that I'm going to go shoot up the school?
I sure hope not!
By the way.... the time on the blog is wrong, it is currently 4:48 pm not 2:48
We all obviously know that these new technologies have changed us in the past century. Technologies such as the internet, cell phone, television, and i pod have changed us no doubt. They changed us in good ways and bad ways. So then brings the question.... What do we do about it ?
maybe all we can do is be continuously maintain awareness of how we are reacting to our influences on the level of body and spirit. We need to keep a balance in our lives between electronic influence and organic influence.
Violence exists everywhere, but there is different level of violence that exists in different parts of the world. It is also valid, that TV and video games do enhance the violent actions both verbally and physically, just as the psychological study: Bashing Bo bo 0proved it. As a conclusion, I do not believe that there could be done many other things about violence, except for not allowing our children to watch movies, cartoons, or soaps with violent content (both on TV and movie theaters, or DVD). If someone who should do something about it it should be the FCC! I personally, do not want to see this much violence in movies and on TV!
I am not sure where to put this comment but I was wondering what exactly you expect for the Media Abstinence paper? I have been journaling my encounters with the media throughout the week but I am not exactly sure how you want us to go about this paper? And is it due next time we meet for class, March 4th?
Why post the blame of Violence in America on the media we use, whether it be music, television, or video games. If parenets would should teach their children to have prop[er values and morales, it could go from there. The post about Marilyn Manson, and "taking responsiblity for your own actions" is the truth. If we can't take responsiblity for the our own actions and can only continue to blame the media and society, then we are far worse off them we may wish to believe.
Post a Comment