How cool would it be if God were on Twitter! I know I would follow him. People would be able to find out all of the new and exciting things going on up in Heaven. I don’t know about you, but I would love to get tweets from God, or even the Pope; and soon, I might just be able to do that… sort of.
According to an article I found on usatoday.com that the theme this year for World Communications Day is, “New Media at the Service of the World.” The purpose of this is to acknowledge technology in the service of evangelism. So basically, the Pope wants more priests and other members of the church to use the internet, such as twittering, to spread the word of the Lord. The article says, “Step right up priests -- as long as you don't forget that Christ, not just showing off your video technical prowess, is the point.” But that leads to this question. Can using the internet really help members of the church spread the word of the Lord? That’s debatable.
Right now most Americans only go to church one day a week, if that. However, these same people probably use the internet every day, either on an actual computer, a cell phone, or any other device. Everything today is starting to convert to the internet. As Croteau and Hoynes say in their book Media Society, “the Internet has become a ‘virtual mall,’ with corporations trying new ways to sell us all sorts of products,” (p. 13). The Pope is suggesting the use of this “new” media to spread the message of Christianity. So, if this can be compared to all the other mediums that have transferred to the internet, does this mean that he is conforming to pop culture? If these other forms are trying to sell their messages and ideologies, does that mean that religion is something that can be sold? Think about it, everyday you’d receive an inspirational message on Twitter or Facebook from a priest, bishop, or even the Pope. People all over the world could read these messages and by doing so they could be influenced to accept the Holy Spirit into their lives.
Why should we even care that priests might start using the internet to spread the word of the Lord? There are two main reasons. The first is that this is a perfect example of how EVERYTHING is moving toward the internet and technology, even God and religion. The second is that people should be aware that the church is making efforts to connect with a more modern perspective, hoping that they may be able to reach out to an even greater audience. I personally think that nothing on the internet can ever replace Sunday mass, but as I said before, Americans are on the internet basically every day and the church wants God to be in people’s lives every day.
David Smith
p.s. here is the link to the article http://content.usatoday.com/topics/post/Religion+and+beliefs/Leaders,+Experts/Pope+Benedict+XVI/16744.blog/1
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Do teens have "sexting" on the mind?
(Well, in their phones...)
There was an article posted on Washingtonpost.com recently about “sexting” and teens. It caught my eye because I hard heard about the “phenomenon” for the first time only recently. However, the article’s title said, “Sexting hasn’t reached most young teens, polls find”. Now, if you don’t know what “sexting” is, the article briefly explains that it is the act of sending or receiving nude or provocative photos/videos via cell phones. The article goes on to clarify that about 15% of adolescents under 18 have received such photos and videos on their cell phones. Donna St. George mentions some adults who have still expressed concern. Although the group involved is the minority, parents and others believe that this behavior can be risky and is important to address it. These pictures and other forms of media can be forwarded to large groups of people. There have been some big consequences, with some cases even leading to legal action.
This article was of interest to me because, although the article didn’t mention it, some television shows have recently referred to this phenomenon. For instance, on one episode of the show Glee, two characters provide there own definition for the term:
Santana – “Oh wake up! While you two were baby sitting, Puck and I were SEXTING”
Quinn – “Sexting?”
Santana – “Sexy texting. Seriously what era are you from? While Puck and you are playing house, Puck and I were trading super hot texts…”
In this situation the exchange was just between two individuals, so it would seem less related to Mass Media. However, in many situations the picture may be sent to one individual, but that person could end up forwarding the provocative shot to a large group of others. This can become an instance of Mass Media, blackmail, and extreme embarrassment.
In addition to this, the article (as a source of media itself) implies a couple things. First, the article’s title implies that the statistic, 15% of adolescents, is a small amount. It is true that it is not the majority; however, I believe the title is misleading because 15 percent could actually be considered a large number. Also, I think it’s important to consider the ideological message that the television show is sending. In the book Media Society, ideology is defined as beliefs that guide judgments on what is acceptable and not. In the television scene, Santana makes “sexting” sound like a cultural norm that everyone is participating in. This could be called “normalization”, which is when the media repeatedly exhibits certain behaviors or lifestyles. This causes them to be highlighted as normal and acceptable, while other types of people aren’t represented.
While the show Glee portrays “sexting” as very popular and normal, the article suggests that not many actual teenagers are involved in the issue in real life. So, this is something to consider…What do our television shows and other aspects of media say about us? How much of the media, or television, represent of reality?
What do you think?
Cristi
p.s. here is the link to the article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121502321.html?wprss=rss_technology/washtech
There was an article posted on Washingtonpost.com recently about “sexting” and teens. It caught my eye because I hard heard about the “phenomenon” for the first time only recently. However, the article’s title said, “Sexting hasn’t reached most young teens, polls find”. Now, if you don’t know what “sexting” is, the article briefly explains that it is the act of sending or receiving nude or provocative photos/videos via cell phones. The article goes on to clarify that about 15% of adolescents under 18 have received such photos and videos on their cell phones. Donna St. George mentions some adults who have still expressed concern. Although the group involved is the minority, parents and others believe that this behavior can be risky and is important to address it. These pictures and other forms of media can be forwarded to large groups of people. There have been some big consequences, with some cases even leading to legal action.
This article was of interest to me because, although the article didn’t mention it, some television shows have recently referred to this phenomenon. For instance, on one episode of the show Glee, two characters provide there own definition for the term:
Santana – “Oh wake up! While you two were baby sitting, Puck and I were SEXTING”
Quinn – “Sexting?”
Santana – “Sexy texting. Seriously what era are you from? While Puck and you are playing house, Puck and I were trading super hot texts…”
In this situation the exchange was just between two individuals, so it would seem less related to Mass Media. However, in many situations the picture may be sent to one individual, but that person could end up forwarding the provocative shot to a large group of others. This can become an instance of Mass Media, blackmail, and extreme embarrassment.
In addition to this, the article (as a source of media itself) implies a couple things. First, the article’s title implies that the statistic, 15% of adolescents, is a small amount. It is true that it is not the majority; however, I believe the title is misleading because 15 percent could actually be considered a large number. Also, I think it’s important to consider the ideological message that the television show is sending. In the book Media Society, ideology is defined as beliefs that guide judgments on what is acceptable and not. In the television scene, Santana makes “sexting” sound like a cultural norm that everyone is participating in. This could be called “normalization”, which is when the media repeatedly exhibits certain behaviors or lifestyles. This causes them to be highlighted as normal and acceptable, while other types of people aren’t represented.
While the show Glee portrays “sexting” as very popular and normal, the article suggests that not many actual teenagers are involved in the issue in real life. So, this is something to consider…What do our television shows and other aspects of media say about us? How much of the media, or television, represent of reality?
What do you think?
Cristi
p.s. here is the link to the article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121502321.html?wprss=rss_technology/washtech
A Valiant Knight named Google
Google is a shining example of how a major corporation should be. They are willing to take a moral stance against the Chinese government by no longer continuing to abide by their censorship rules; thus forgoing major profits by pulling out of the world’s most profitable internet market. This story is in contrast to their other business decisions such as selling their stocks at $2.75 billion dollars according to CNNmoney.com. The company is taking a risky gamble and it gets me thinking: how many other companies would be willing to pull out of China for business?
Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, has taken a stand against the Chinese government which could cost the company billions of dollars. China is the most densely populated country in the world making it a great place to market an idea; therefore, if Google pulls out, they will lose billions of dollars. If Google leaves China, then maybe another competitor such as the BIDU, China’s search engine, will take the money that Google is forgoing. Clearly, Google is not worried about making a profit and they do have ethical morals that are more important than money.
Redmondmag.com article about the attack on Google’s data system that was later identified as China and her terrible obsession of oppressing the censoring what their people are allowed to search on the internet. After these events, Schmidt declared “we discovered in the course of that, a perhaps related perhaps unrelated monitoring of human rights activists, which we disclosed, the spirit that people would be aware that this may be occurring. For those reasons and other reason, [we made] a secession for Google to no longer be willing to apply the censorship rules in China.” Though Google is pulling out of China, Schmidt said that Google would like to stay in China abiding to their laws but Google will be making changes within a short period of time. Schmidt has progressive ideas for the company with Chrome OS browser along with their new phone the Nexus One. Eric Schmidt proclaims that, "We have quite a healthy enterprise business that's going to grow quite rapidly over the next few years as people move from the older legacy PC-centric, traditional operating system model, to the new Web-based application model, and the trend there is everyone is moving there and we are going to be one of the leaders there.”
So what? Why does this story matter? I find this story fascinating because most people view big money-making companies as “evil” and here is probably one of the biggest companies saying that they will lose billions of dollars because of their belief in human rights. Google is a paragon of how a big corporation should be. I find it incredible that Google will take this HUGE economic hit because of their moral stance. As mentioned above, Google’s stocks are worth A LOT of money but not to worry; Google did just come out with Chrome (which is AWESOME) and now their new Nexus One which is sure to be a hit! I believe that Google be okay though they lose most of their business with China because people will think, “Wow, Google is willing to stand for what they believe is right and not do as much business with China” and as a result, Google will gain more supporters. Now, is Google doing this on purpose just so they can be the valiant knight who is holding fast to human rights and is willing to go through whatever endeavors to succeed? – or, is the BIDU controlling most of the market so Google does not see the need to stay? I am a skeptic so these kinds of thoughts always rush through my head. However, Google’s ideology seems to be pure in that they are truly doing this because they feel as if censoring the searches in China is wrong. Props to Google!
Sarah Struble (aka P.Y.T.)
http://redmondmag.com/articles/2010/01/22/google-ceo-defends-stance-on-china.aspx
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/22/technology/Google_founders_stock_sale/
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Honesty is the best policy, right?
Hi, and welcome!
So, I created this blog with three other college classmates and I've got to be honest by saying that it began as part of an assignment, but I'm actually really looking forward to it! Blogging is such an amazing way to share information both public and personal with people all over the world. We will be exploring what is currently going on with media and its advance, etc, but maybe other things as well. So, now I want to end by asking you to be honest too...
Why did you choose to start blogging or why do you like to read blogs?
So, I created this blog with three other college classmates and I've got to be honest by saying that it began as part of an assignment, but I'm actually really looking forward to it! Blogging is such an amazing way to share information both public and personal with people all over the world. We will be exploring what is currently going on with media and its advance, etc, but maybe other things as well. So, now I want to end by asking you to be honest too...
Why did you choose to start blogging or why do you like to read blogs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)