By: Kari Duddeck
In the article Reality Television: Oxymoron by George F. Will he describes the workings of television and the ways that television has morphed over the years. According to George F. Will television is all about imitation. In order to make "good" television people create television shows off of other television shows and each time they put a spin on it to make it more and more interesting and shocking. George F. Will also argues that we are becoming more and more desensitized. Television shows are increasing the amount of violence, sexuality, and degradation and at the same time people aren't as easily shocked as the once were. We have become so desensitized that it is becoming harder and harder to take viewers by surprise so television producers just continue adding more and more violence, sexuality, and degrading material.
One of George F. Will's main points is the fact that television is all about imitation. One of the examples in the article was the television show Fear Factor. Fear Factor was created based on the MTV show Jackass. Fear Factor takes the basic concept of Jackass and adds different twists, not to mention money, to gain viewers and participants. Another great example of television imitation is the NFL versus the XFL. NBC recently created the XFL. The XFL took the main concept of the NFL and promised that viewers would see more violence and more cheerleaders' breasts. Another one of George F. Will's main points is that the shock factor is harder to achieve. The idea of imitation is what brings about the added shock factor. Because shows are imitated producers have to add more twists to make them different and prove to the television viewers that it is worth watching. In order to provide the needed shock factor television shows are adding more sexuality, violence, and degrading material. Because we have seen so much imitation and even more shock factor we are becoming desensitized and it is getting harder and harder to shock us. As an added twist more and more television shows are providing a monetary reward if participants follow through with the television shows stunts or answer their embarrassing and brutally honest questions.
In the article Watching TV Makes You Smarter by Steven Johnson, he argues that it takes more brain power to decode and think through some of the shows that are on today. George F. Will would argue that even if the television shows deal with more complicated concepts and it takes more brain power to pick up on the humor, those television shows are also contributing to our desensitized nature. George F. Will would argue that people can use their brains and think through shows without having to witness the extra sexual material or watch a scene from 24 where the secretary of defense authorizes the torture of his own son to uncover evidence of a terrorist plot.
In the article Thinking Outside the Idiot Box by Dana Stevens, Stevens argues that Steven Johnson's article was a weak argument. George F. Will would agree with the argument that Stevens makes. Stevens argues that the new complicated television shows don't necessarily make people use their brain and think outside the box. Television viewers start thinking about what is going to happen on the show next time. People don't watch certain television shows for the brain stimulation, they watch it for entertainment and because it is what is popular today.
Works Cited
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Stevens, Dana. "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box." The Say I Say. Como. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Will, George F. "Reality Television: Oxymoron." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Hidden Intellectualism
In the writing Hidden Intellectualism, Gerald Graff is focusing on how he feels that being street smart and being intellectual can benefit each other. Motivating young people in school can be done by the teachers being more creative in their lessons and focusing on the interests of the students. One of the examples Graff makes to back up his point is, he reflects on when he was younger and how his endless debates with his friends about sports and who is the toughest kid helped him in an intellectual way. These things in his youth helped him to understand how to make arguments and converse with others. Graff also brings up the points about students being able to see their interests "through intellectual eyes." This means that street smarts alone is not enough, but if a student can use their intellect to focus on a topic they are interested in this could help them in their studies. This also ties in with Graff's points about how if the student uses their interests for a topic, they are likely to approach the material in a reflective and analytical way.
In the writing Can You Hear Me Now? Sherry Turkle makes the connection between street smarts being similiar to emailing or texting. Graff may think this would be a good place for the teacher to incorporate the current interests of students into their learning. The students would benefit if part of their academics involved technology that they are currently interested in. This goes along with how Graff feels street smarts can benefit an intellectual goal.
Antonia Peacocke mentions how the show Family Guy "intentionally satirizes some aspects of American culture," in her writing Family Guy and Freud. Graff would identify with this as some street smart humor being used in a more intellectual way. The topic of the satire may not be the most intellectual thing but the way the jokes are delivered would be more intellectually based.
Over all Graff's points about the importance of streets smarts being important to intellectual goals would help a lot of people realize they have been acting like an intellectual maybe without even knowing it. His approach to learning could help many people look at their interests in new ways and ultimately help them with their educational goals as well.
In the writing Can You Hear Me Now? Sherry Turkle makes the connection between street smarts being similiar to emailing or texting. Graff may think this would be a good place for the teacher to incorporate the current interests of students into their learning. The students would benefit if part of their academics involved technology that they are currently interested in. This goes along with how Graff feels street smarts can benefit an intellectual goal.
Antonia Peacocke mentions how the show Family Guy "intentionally satirizes some aspects of American culture," in her writing Family Guy and Freud. Graff would identify with this as some street smart humor being used in a more intellectual way. The topic of the satire may not be the most intellectual thing but the way the jokes are delivered would be more intellectually based.
Over all Graff's points about the importance of streets smarts being important to intellectual goals would help a lot of people realize they have been acting like an intellectual maybe without even knowing it. His approach to learning could help many people look at their interests in new ways and ultimately help them with their educational goals as well.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Watching TV Makes You Smarter
Millions of people turn on their television every night and watch a few moments of reality TV. In doing so, they might not know it but they are bettering themselves on a personal level. Based on the ideas of Steven Johnson the average person could learn a thing or two form reality TV. In his article called, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” Johnson states that; "For decades, we've worked under the assumption that mass culture follows a path declining steadily toward lowest-common-denominator standards, presumably because the "masses" want dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the masses what they want. But as that 24 episode suggests, the exact opposite is happening: culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less."( 214). Johnson talks explicitly about what a scholar might call the “dumbing down of America”, which in his mind is completely false. Watching reality television in his mind makes a person more aware of the everyday occurrences that happen.
The major point first made in Johnsons article is based on his theory called, “The Sleeper Curve”. This theory is about how: “television alters the mental development of young people for the better” (215). Johnson talks about reality TV affecting younger generations in a positive light and helping with personal development. Another major topic discussed is how; “multiple threads in new television episodes are much more complex than old television shows.” In talking about this Johnson refers to the Mary Tyler More show being cookie cutter whereas reality TV today has real life issues. Through this kind of television our younger generation can be taught how to handle tough situations. The third major topic that is brought up in Johnson’s article is about how younger generations are given mindless television that they can not apply to their everyday life to watch and then expected to go out in the real world of high school and college and deal with tough, harsh situations. Through harder, more intense television our younger generations could have a bit better idea on how to handle these situations, while knowing the different outcomes that could occur. Quoting from his article Johnson says, “What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show’s violent or tawdry content, instead if wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind.”
In a statement made by Graff in “Hidden Intellectualism”; “What doesn’t occur to us, though, is that schools and colleges might be at fault for missing the opportunity to tap into such street smarts and channel them into good academic work. Nor do we consider one of the major reasons why school and colleges overlook the intellectual potential of street smarts with anti-intellectual concerns.” I think that Johnson would completely agree with Graff’s statement and would back it up with research of his own. He would agree that society can be formed into great people with street smarts and books smarts, followed by a dose of reality.
As Duglas Rushkoff suggests in Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, The Simpsons has a complex structure and, "Rather than drawing us into the hypnotic spell of the traditional story teller, the program [The Simpsons] invites us to make active and conscious comparisons of its own scenes with those of other, less transparent, media forms" (Rushkoff 248). What Rushkoff is saying here is that not all televisions shows are mindless entertainment, rather they can challenge our intellect by allowing us to find patterns of recognition. I agree that even shows like The Simpsons make us smarter because they depict political and social situations.
WORKS SITED
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Greff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Rushkoff, Douglas. "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverance." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
The major point first made in Johnsons article is based on his theory called, “The Sleeper Curve”. This theory is about how: “television alters the mental development of young people for the better” (215). Johnson talks about reality TV affecting younger generations in a positive light and helping with personal development. Another major topic discussed is how; “multiple threads in new television episodes are much more complex than old television shows.” In talking about this Johnson refers to the Mary Tyler More show being cookie cutter whereas reality TV today has real life issues. Through this kind of television our younger generation can be taught how to handle tough situations. The third major topic that is brought up in Johnson’s article is about how younger generations are given mindless television that they can not apply to their everyday life to watch and then expected to go out in the real world of high school and college and deal with tough, harsh situations. Through harder, more intense television our younger generations could have a bit better idea on how to handle these situations, while knowing the different outcomes that could occur. Quoting from his article Johnson says, “What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show’s violent or tawdry content, instead if wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind.”
In a statement made by Graff in “Hidden Intellectualism”; “What doesn’t occur to us, though, is that schools and colleges might be at fault for missing the opportunity to tap into such street smarts and channel them into good academic work. Nor do we consider one of the major reasons why school and colleges overlook the intellectual potential of street smarts with anti-intellectual concerns.” I think that Johnson would completely agree with Graff’s statement and would back it up with research of his own. He would agree that society can be formed into great people with street smarts and books smarts, followed by a dose of reality.
As Duglas Rushkoff suggests in Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, The Simpsons has a complex structure and, "Rather than drawing us into the hypnotic spell of the traditional story teller, the program [The Simpsons] invites us to make active and conscious comparisons of its own scenes with those of other, less transparent, media forms" (Rushkoff 248). What Rushkoff is saying here is that not all televisions shows are mindless entertainment, rather they can challenge our intellect by allowing us to find patterns of recognition. I agree that even shows like The Simpsons make us smarter because they depict political and social situations.
WORKS SITED
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Greff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Rushkoff, Douglas. "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverance." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Me Against the Media
Every waking moment of our lives are concentrated with consumerism. I wake in the morning and turn on the television to catch the news report before work. In between the reports are fascinating and stimulating commercials. Commercials that tell me what to drink, what to eat, and what to buy. Many of these commercials are specifically generated to catch the eye of me, the consumerist. Generation Y, adults in range of 18-34 years old, the offspring of the "baby boomers," is the primary audience of advertising agencies. To paraphrase Gladen, " the legions of the so-called 'Age of Acquisition' who have few established brand loyalties and lots of pocket change." This audience is seen to be the major threshold of consumerism. Generation Y is the part of society that splurges on Starbucks coffee, purchases the Nike product to stay healthy, and the Sean John and Baby Phat to keep us looking hip. We as Generation Y are knowing in the political fields of appropriation of our loyalty. Our generation is mostly disaffected with the political scene, we know that isolation from this begins with our iPods, Avatars, and PlayStations. Rather we haven't been taught that consumerism as something that extends beyond the own enjoyable trip to the mall. (Gladen p. 289) Many people are opposed to this active appeal of the Generation Y, these media activists have three strategies to bring down the house of consumerism. The first is to find a way to appeal to the young people on their level as an individual. The second is to find the examples in popular culture, to show us that we are manipulated to believe we need these things. The third strategy is simply to have the youngsters speak with their parents about their personal experiences as they were growing up. As Johnson exemplifies, this consumerism is not about what we buy, but how we buy it. He believes that television is actually making us smarter. Television is making me smarter. So when I watch a episode of 24 on Fox, I am becoming smarter merely because I can follow multiple story lines. So if this show is making me smarter; does that mean I will buy product more intelligently. I think not, the shows we watch many of us believe are for their entertainment value and nothing more. This entertainment value is what keeps us from watching the Home Shopping Network and being an avid consumer who must buy, buy, buy. On the other hand, Will states that, "Ours is a stage besotted with graphic entertainments." He is referring that our society cannot stand up to the intellectual crowd because of our inability to connect with books and academia. We can no longer keep up with the academic world because we are constantly being bombarded with "graphic entertainment." This graphic entertainment is what supports the consumerism we are immersed in. Many of us Generation Y have grown up with many cartoons that told us what to buy merely because they re the newest hottest toy; such as My Little Pony and G.I. Joe. The television we watch everyday informs us of the material objects that can make us happy, if we only choose to accept the advertisements and buy. Just look the other way when Starbucks or Nike is advertising and remember that you are being manipulated to think these items are more special.
Johnson, Steven. "Watching TV Makes You Smarter" They Say I Say: With Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Rockler-Gladen, Naomi. "Me Against the Media: From the Trenches of a Media Lit Class". They Say I Say: With Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Will, George F. “Reality Television:Oxymoron” They Say I Say with Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
"Thinking Outside The Idiot Box" by Dana Stevens
Watching TV doesn't make you smarter, and who is to decide which shows are considered worthy of watching or not. This is proven when stating that people are smarter from being able to follow more complex narratives, it doesn't follow that they are more educated than before. It is perhaps making them think more about future episodes and in turn also disengaging the viewer from the social inequalities and violence that the show may possess. People should watch TV shows based on what they like, for entertainment purposes, and not for the notion that they are doing it to "enhance" themselves. Because of the variety of interests and influence among individuals, there is no one able to declare that certain shows are really bad for everyone to view.
Perceived response to Reality Television: Oxymoron by George F. Will:
Watching television should be about what you like to watch, and not what is going to make you smarter or dumber. In “Reality Television: Oxymoron” People have the choice to pick what they watch based on what they want to watch. The only time people don’t get the choice what they want to watch if it is for class to teach something. People don’t have to watch something based on the educational factor in the show. Some shows like Fear Factor exist for entertainment only, or sports are there for people to watch. Even though you know you might see a fight during the game. Watching these shows will not necessarily make you smarter or dumber.
Perceived response to Family Guy and Freud by Antonio Peacocke: Peacocke intends to credit the show Family Guy with an agenda to make good humor out of our inherently human ability to find humor with letting our "animalistic and aggressive impulses surface from the unconscious" (266). The notion that we could be looking to analyze how we see the writer's humor may be accurate. However, this also coincides with the problem that believing tv producers want to make us behave a certain way is really not a likely concern of broadcasting executives. The argument Peacocke gives may convince viewers to look at the show in a new light, instead of seeing just the crude attempt for humor many people will see.
Works Cited:
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
Peacocke, Antonia. "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relation to the unconscious." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Will, George F. “Reality Television:Oxymoron” They Say I Say with Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Perceived response to Reality Television: Oxymoron by George F. Will:
Watching television should be about what you like to watch, and not what is going to make you smarter or dumber. In “Reality Television: Oxymoron” People have the choice to pick what they watch based on what they want to watch. The only time people don’t get the choice what they want to watch if it is for class to teach something. People don’t have to watch something based on the educational factor in the show. Some shows like Fear Factor exist for entertainment only, or sports are there for people to watch. Even though you know you might see a fight during the game. Watching these shows will not necessarily make you smarter or dumber.
Perceived response to Family Guy and Freud by Antonio Peacocke: Peacocke intends to credit the show Family Guy with an agenda to make good humor out of our inherently human ability to find humor with letting our "animalistic and aggressive impulses surface from the unconscious" (266). The notion that we could be looking to analyze how we see the writer's humor may be accurate. However, this also coincides with the problem that believing tv producers want to make us behave a certain way is really not a likely concern of broadcasting executives. The argument Peacocke gives may convince viewers to look at the show in a new light, instead of seeing just the crude attempt for humor many people will see.
Works Cited:
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
Peacocke, Antonia. "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relation to the unconscious." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Will, George F. “Reality Television:Oxymoron” They Say I Say with Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence
In "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence", Douglas Rushkoff takes a look at how a show like The Simpsons is more than what it seems. It would appear that Rushkoff has followed along the same lines with his title. Rushkoff does not believe that Bart Simpson is simply irreverent, rather, "Bart embodies youth culture's ironic distance from media its willingness to disassemble and resplice even the most sacred cultural and ideological constructs" (Rushkoff 245). In other words, Bart is disrespectful, but it isn't without reason-he's the voice of a very prominent culture. Rushkoff explains this by saying that Bart can easily be written to take a current event in society and change it or point out its flaws (Rushkoff 245), which often engages the audience and satisfies a growing societal trend towards being skeptical. Furthermore, the writers of The Simpsons often use the show to demonstrate the various biases we are bombarded with on a daily basis. This approach is especially evident in the episode in which Bart creates Timmy O'Toole. In short the episode is about the age-old warning tale of "crying wolf"; however the spin in the story is that the media is criticized for not taking interest when the story is actually true (Rushkoff 251). The arena of advertising is also another common target for the show. In an episode mimicking the Super bowl it becomes clear that companies, especially the beer companies capitalize on the event (Rushkoff 249). Rushkoff believes that as The Simpsons sends out messages showing how people can be manipulated that they will become more aware that; they will be able to watch something or see an advertisement and really look at it critically- questioning its intentions and the quality of the information. The Simpsons is a great example of how some Television shows are diverting from the typical path of hypnotizing their viewers and are instead embracing dialogue that helps society become more cynical of television today.
If Rushkoff read Antonio Peacocke's article, "Family Guy and Freud", he would agree with her that Family Guy does try to show the flaws in the media and society but he would disagree that they go about it in the same way. He would say that The Simpsons is more sophisticated and subtle in pointing out taboos in society. Family Guy may attempt to convey the same ideas, but it does so in a more blatant and, often times, more vulgar way. Family Guy is a much more aggressive show that can sometimes send the wrong message. Often, the show has run into problems crossing the line. Rushkoff would also argue that The Simpsons is a far more layered format that enables it to be viewed and enjoyed by people of all ages on many different levels.
If Rushkoff were to read Dana Stevens' article "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box", he would agree that watching television shows probably doesn't make you smarter; however they may make you more aware. Such shows may not make you more intelligent in the sense of common knowledge but they give you some tools to think beyond what you are watching to see the message that the writers are trying to send. He would also agree that there are many shows out there that do nothing to benefit the viewer except entertain them in a hypnotic fashion. He would say that shows like The Simpsons are still created for pleasure but they can also yield more than just time to relax.
Works Cited
Peacocke, Antonio. “Family Guy and Freud” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
"What's the Matter with Kids Today?" (Amy Goldwasser)
By: Jazmin & Kayla
Within the reading “What’s the Matter with Kids Today,” by Amy Goldwasser she comes across the topic of computers, cell phones/text messaging, iPods, and instant messaging and how they affect young teenagers. Her main point is that even though computers and electronics can be used for good things such as learning about history, they are more likely used to lead teenagers in abusing them by being obsessed with online chat and becoming more into a second self. We also feel that Goldwasser thinks highly of the doors the internet has opened to teenagers. She says “We need to start trusting our kids to communicate as they will online…”(239) and “Once we stop regarding the internet as a villain, stop presenting it as the enemy of history and literature and worldly knowledge, then our teenagers have the potential to become the next great voices of America.” (240)
Four major points supporting the thesis
1. “We’re talking about 33 million Americans who are fluent in texting, e-mailing, blogging, IM’ing, and constantly amending their profile on social network site” (PG. 237).
2. Teens now enjoy reading and writing more than before because it is less familiar to them and something different then being on a computer.
3. “Had a parent introduced 20 minutes of researching the Holocaust to one month of their teen’s internet life, or a teacher assigned The Diary of Anne Frank (arguably a 13-year-old girl’s blog)-if we worked with, rather than against, the way this generation voluntarily takes in information-we might not be able to pick up the phone and expose tragic pockets of ignorance” (PG. 239).
4. “The average teen chooses to spend an average of 16.7 hours a week reading and writing online” (239).
We believe that Amy Goldwasser would have to agree with Sherry Turkle in the reading “Can You Hear Me Now?” This reading goes on about how we are all connected through cell phones and blackberries and how no one thinks that connecting through physical appearance is good anymore. Sherry’s idea goes directly off of Amy in how we are all connected through technology and have become a second self. Along with Steven Johnson, author of “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” in how Johnson explains that many new televisions shows are actually “enhancing our cognitive faculties, not dumbing them down.” (215) I think that both authors believe that technology such as the internet and television has promoted a new learning style in teenagers and young adults.
Within the reading “What’s the Matter with Kids Today,” by Amy Goldwasser she comes across the topic of computers, cell phones/text messaging, iPods, and instant messaging and how they affect young teenagers. Her main point is that even though computers and electronics can be used for good things such as learning about history, they are more likely used to lead teenagers in abusing them by being obsessed with online chat and becoming more into a second self. We also feel that Goldwasser thinks highly of the doors the internet has opened to teenagers. She says “We need to start trusting our kids to communicate as they will online…”(239) and “Once we stop regarding the internet as a villain, stop presenting it as the enemy of history and literature and worldly knowledge, then our teenagers have the potential to become the next great voices of America.” (240)
Four major points supporting the thesis
1. “We’re talking about 33 million Americans who are fluent in texting, e-mailing, blogging, IM’ing, and constantly amending their profile on social network site” (PG. 237).
2. Teens now enjoy reading and writing more than before because it is less familiar to them and something different then being on a computer.
3. “Had a parent introduced 20 minutes of researching the Holocaust to one month of their teen’s internet life, or a teacher assigned The Diary of Anne Frank (arguably a 13-year-old girl’s blog)-if we worked with, rather than against, the way this generation voluntarily takes in information-we might not be able to pick up the phone and expose tragic pockets of ignorance” (PG. 239).
4. “The average teen chooses to spend an average of 16.7 hours a week reading and writing online” (239).
We believe that Amy Goldwasser would have to agree with Sherry Turkle in the reading “Can You Hear Me Now?” This reading goes on about how we are all connected through cell phones and blackberries and how no one thinks that connecting through physical appearance is good anymore. Sherry’s idea goes directly off of Amy in how we are all connected through technology and have become a second self. Along with Steven Johnson, author of “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” in how Johnson explains that many new televisions shows are actually “enhancing our cognitive faculties, not dumbing them down.” (215) I think that both authors believe that technology such as the internet and television has promoted a new learning style in teenagers and young adults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)