Today in Media, Children and Family, we talked about the various phenomenons that have occurred in children’s television, and in the structure of the family over the years.

Every single time my professor said the word ‘phenomena’, this popped into my head.

I guess it’s a good thing, considering we were talking about children’s television.

On a more adult note, remember, if you did not go out and vote today (or any other day) in your state’s primary, you have no right to bitch.

Biggest Loser fans…don’t forget to check out the wonderfully funny recap here!

Technically I had today off…but did I really? In my current semester schedule, I’m only down at the University Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays, leaving me to my own devices and to work from home on Mondays and Fridays. I have a love/hate relationship with working from home. Today, despite the University being shut down, I did a bunch of work. Two lesson plans down, read several articles on the shift in media use (and read some very whiny scholars bitching about the ‘new media’ that simply ‘takes time and money away from old media’), an article on the US Census, and then one on the shift in traditional family values. That one was interesting, but I’m hesitant to bring up my true feelings on the article in class tomorrow. Let’s be honest – I’m in the Bible Belt, smack dab in the middle of Alabama – do I dare suggest that yes, the ‘traditional’ family has gone by the wayside, and maybe we’d all be a little bit better if we stopped trying to shove every ‘family’ into one cookie cutter model? Sure, we’re supposed to be academic and free thinking, but I think I can tick off at least 3 people that would stiffen their spines if I dared suggest that *gasp* gay couples that adopt children should fall under the family umbrella.

The rest of my day that was devoted to school work revolved around developing my literature review for a paper I’m doing on the television show “Ugly Betty”. One of these days I’m going to pick a topic that isn’t so new, so there’s actually going to be decent research to pull from. Being a trend setter is cool and all, but sometimes it’s rough to have to think that hard.

My boy and I headed on a hot date to Sam’s Club to buy a lot of chicken, pork and salmon to stock the freezer with, and paper towels and toilet paper to stock the linen closet with. Then to Publix for a few odds and ends, where one of the cashiers stopped us on our way to the registers to ask if my boy had ever worked there. He hadn’t, and she said he looked just like someone that used to work there. In his typical joking fashion, he remarked “How sad for him” and the girl asked why? He said “Because he had to look with me!” She missed this chance to remark on his good looks. She missed several more chances, so we dubbed her “The cashier that kills your self esteem” (or something similar. I think I just made that up and it sounds better). She was not doing her part to make shopping a pleasure.

Home for some spaghetti, and now back to work, searching for relevant literature on stereotypes in the media.

For something infinitely more funny and entertaining, go here to see my boy’s snarky commentary of the weekend’s snowfall. The reaction so far is this – if you are from the South, you will find it cute. If you are from the North, you’ll find it hysterical.

I think I’m in love. In love with my Media Sociology seminar.

“In a world of change, why are media institutions so narrow and careful, so enamored of the familiar? Why are media so prone to mimic and churn out pablum? Literatures show that the answers to these questions can be surprising. Probably the most common explanation for media behavior is that it’s driven by money…decision-making by media producers often deviates from goal-oriented rationality and may have little to do with optimizing performance. Decisions are shaped by cognitive laziness and the comfortable familiarity of the well-worn routine.”

In other words, many time researchers look at media from an effects perspective, but rarely from the decision making standpoint. That’s what this class is all about.

*Pause to listen to the chorus of angels singing*

So many times when I was working in television news, I wanted to bang my head against the wall at the incessant stupidity that seemed to abound in the news process.  To ask “What in the living hell are you thinking?” then would have surely meant being shown the door.  Now, I can ask that question, as well as several more along those lines and not get fired.  I’m encouraged to do so.  I can’t wait.  I am so excited for this class.

My other one went well.  It’s a theory class, which is always interesting to me, and seems to be a very easy class, with minimal assignments and the final exam taking place at a bar with the instructor promising to buy a couple of rounds.

I enjoyed the break, but it is good to be back.  This semester I won’t be back as much – I only have to make the drive to campus three times a week instead of the five I did last semester, so hooray for saving money on gas.

Tomorrow I get to meet my public speaking students.  That is, I get to meet the ones that actually decide to show up to class on the first day.  It’s a fairly worthless day – go over the syllabus and all my mean policies, like no cell phones and pick up your trash – you know, things that normal and responsible adults can do with no problem?  I’ll also have to remind them that I’m not their mom and they are responsible for themselves with the class, and I will not be chasing them down to hold their hand.

Gosh, I’m such a hard-ass.  “Bitch”, is what I believe was written on one of my former evaluations.  I don’t really care – I take the stance that if you are 18, 19, 20 years old, you are beyond the hand-holding need to get through a class.  The students that understand this generally like me.  The ones that want the world handed to them on a silver platter do not.

Pbbbt on them. 

I missed yesterday.  Well, technically, I did write and post a blog post…but it was over on my teaching website, and not here. Maybe I should give an excuse like my students do.

“But there was like, football this weekend!  And I had to like, go to the store.  And like, you just don’t understand the time pressure that I have on me.  Can I have some extra credit?”

There.  I feel better.  Sunday was pretty much a lazy day, so it’s not like I really had anything exciting to post.

Moving into the start of a new week.  The realization is really starting to hit that time is  running out of this semester.  A week from today my boy and I will fly home to my parents to spend the week of Thanksgiving.  A break!!  Hooray!!  I’ll miss 2 days of classes, but I’m not terribly broken up about it.  After we return…2 more weeks of classes.  Our classes end December 7th, and while I do have one paper due on the 14th, I don’t think I have to drive down there to hand it in.  So 3 more weeks of class, 2 more weeks of driving…my wallet is going to thank me for a bit, with how much gas prices have gone up.

I’m in the home stretch!

I’ve been trying to figure out what I want my area of concentration to be.  You know, what do I want to primarily study and make a name of myself for?  One of my friends posted a story about her co-worker taking sexy pictures of herself in the work bathroom today – and then gave us the link to the MySpace page where these pictures were posted.  After I stopped choking on my laughter, the idea hit me.  I like the idea of studying new media, but today I thought about the possibility of studying new media effects, and more specifically, what is it about the internet and new media that makes people drop all sorts of inhibitions and behave in a totally different manner?  I’m not talking so much about posting on a blog (although some are…interesting)…but what makes you post naked pictures of yourself?  What makes you assume a different personality/lifestyle online?  You could be the meekest person in your group, but the most outspoken advocate online.  Why?  So I’ll have to explore those ideas further.  Hopefully they’ll have a shelf life of more than a couple years.

7 more days till I go home.

25 more days until I make it through my first semester as a Ph.D. student.

I can do this.

Ethics in journalism. Some might say that’s an oxymoron.

I went to a lecture this morning given by a visiting professor from Indiana University. His talk was entitled: “Boots and Hands: Photojournalism and Democratic Public Culture”. His talk focused on how photojournalists have moved their photos from the traditional static shots of people to the different, the unusual and the shocking. He called photojournalism a vital public art for a democratic public culture because it helps us to see and be seen as citizens. He showed various photographs of political figures waving, flashing peace signs, the thumbs up and even wearing combat boots with their suits. He showed pictures of just feet and hands (hence, the boots and hands part) and pictures of missing feet and hands. A picture of a protester showing bloodied hands to Condaleeza Rice. It was a very interesting presentation.

Until he got to the point of ethics. He described a story of a photojournalist that went to a battle site, took a few shots, decided he didn’t like the scene, so he imported cannons into the scene and then shot the photographs as a depiction of a battle scene.

Unethical? The professor says no. I say yes.

In picking photographs to put in news stories, editors sit down at a computer screen and look through thousands of images. It makes sense that what stands out is that which is different and unique. I get that. What I don’t get is how people think adding or subtracting to the image is ok.

He asked the audience if there were any photojournalists. I like to call myself a photographer and I did used to shoot and edit video for television, so I like to think I have some basic knowledge of photojournalism. I raised my hand. Of course I was the only one. He proceeded to ask my thoughts on the battlefield photo. I said in that situation, I would consider it unethical. Why?

It’s a lie.

I said that adding or subtracting images to a photograph to make a new reality was, in my humble opinion, a lie. It’s a distortion of the reality, a misrepresentation of the truth.

He asked me then, what about when you manipulate the shutter or the light? Is that not the same thing? He thought it was.

(This is where I got clever. Or tried to. After all, our rock star comm guy was sitting right next to me, so I figured if I was going to look like an idiot, I might as well go all out.)

My feelings that I shared were this:

“If I had my camera today, I could shoot a couple shots of you. I could move you into the different lights of the room. If I wanted you to be more in shadow, or even overexposed, then I could use my camera to, as you say, manipulate the shutter speed and the light exposure. But it’s not necessarily ‘manipulation’ to me. I’m using what’s available in that environment, without adding or subtracting anything to it. I’m ‘tricking’ the camera into thinking that the lighting of the room is different to get what I want. I can do it with sunsets or nature scenes that I might want more shadowed to turn them into black and white. The difference comes in when I take that picture of you – what am I going to do with it in photoshop? Am I going to play around with what already exists in the environment, namely the lighting or cropping out excess noise? In that instance, I don’t think there is a line crossed. But if I decide, hey, let’s get rid of your glasses. Let’s really add some gray to your hair because I think it will make you look more distinguished. Let’s add a handkerchief to your breast pocket. Let’s make your suit jacket red. And for an added bonus, I’ll add a pen over your left ear. Now I’ve added things to that environment that aren’t there. I’ve created a reality around you that doesn’t exist. That is unethical. That, to me, is the same as taking the picture of the firefighters on 9/11 and changing them from all white men to one white, one African American and one Latino. While it’s a nice idea to celebrate the diversity of our country, to do that, you are lying. You are creating a reality that doesn’t exist.”

(Our rock star nodded, with one of those slightly impressed and pleased faces. That’s about all I cared about at this point.)

This professor and I seem to disagree on what’s ethical along the lines of picture taking. He seems to think pictures should be a view of reality – and if you have to add things that aren’t there to make that reality, then that’s ok…because it’s art. I’m fully aware of what you can do to a photograph by changing the angle, changing the lighting and cropping. I’m aware that two people could shoot the same scene and produce two completely different photos. That’s art.

Purposefully adding to create a false reality? That’s a lie. Plain and simple.

Last night we had an interesting argument in class. We argued about technology and its place in the classroom.

In our ProSeminar class, we are exposed weekly to different professors that make up the four departments of our college. Last night we were introduced to and listened to one from the branch we call SLIS (School of Library and Information Sciences). She talked to us about her research interests and a very large research grant she is involved in with Florida State University that studies the impact of technology and interaction with it in the classroom.

The discussion veered off topic a little when we started to discuss students with laptops in the classroom – and while they might be able to type furiously and surf the web while still being able to repeat back exactly what the professor just said – are they really getting an education? Is the cognitive processing there for the material to sink in for them to actually learn it? One classmate of mine and I very strongly argued that no, it is not. While students may ‘learn’ differently today, because they are a generation that can watch TV, talk on the cellphone and send IM’s all at the same time, this multi-tasking hurts their ability to learn the material you are trying to teach them.

One of our classmates (who ironically, spends all his time during our class sessions surfing the internet and watching YouTube videos sans sound) provided some humor because he took the argument that in order to teach the college kids of today, you have to relate the material to things that matter to them. In his media law class, for example, he threw out a lecture on the Lindbergh kidnapping and instead focused the discussion on Kanye West. No one disagrees with this point – anyone can learn the material better if they can directly relate to it. He told us that with the emergence of technology and computers in the classroom we would all need to start watching BET and MTV to keep up. Ok, one, I’m not going to start watching BET to be a better teacher, and two, that wasn’t the argument at all.

Many of us think that it comes down to a respect issue. If you can establish a precedence on day one of the class that you will not tolerate an abuse of technology, then you will be better off – or so we think. Right now I teach an editing class and we are getting to the point of having to consistently use the computers to create newspaper layouts and the like. I love having the computer in the classroom for things like that, because (in my humble opinion) it’s tons more interesting to the students to actually DO the work then listen to a lecture on it. But doing the assigned work means not allowing them to be on Facebook or any other websites. The professor/lecturer took the attitude last night that we should let the students do what they wanted on the computers in the classroom because they are such different learners. They should be allowed to run amook on the internet and update their Facebook and MySpace and instant message during class. I did not agree.

The fact that I’ll teach a class of 200+ next semester has me leery. My biggest threat in that class won’t be the fact that there are over 200 kids – it will be keeping them off their cellphones. I know they all think they are wonderful and important, but guess what? You can actually not look at your cellphone for 50 minutes. It won’t kill you. I’m trying to think now of the rules I’ll have to set (and enforce) from day one – like if I see you text messaging while I’m talking, you’ll be asked to leave the room. I won’t allow laptops, because there won’t be a reason to have them. And I refuse to believe that we should allow students to act at their will during a class session. Again – it’s 50 minutes. Facebook won’t end because you can’t be on it, your friends won’t die because you can’t talk to them for 50 minutes. Get over yourself.

I know it’s not realistic to hold the attention of 200+, unless I get naked and turn cartwheels. But that’s not going to happen, nor am I going in with the expectation that I’ll have 200+ students hanging on my every word.

We continued the debate after leaving class on if this ADD generation is really learning anything by being ADD? I mean, I can go home tonight, research a paper while talking to someone on IM with the TV on in the background – but I know that when it comes time to me to have to absorb the material and put a decent paper together, the IM and TV both go off so my attention gets focused on one thing. I really strongly feel that abusing technology in the classroom – and by abuse I mean text messaging, playing games, surfing the internet on your laptop or not doing an in class assignment because you’re busy on Facebook – is yes, creating a different generation of student. Largely, a rude generation. I would NEVER pull out my cellphone and text message while a professor was talking. If I was supposed to be doing an assignment I wouldn’t surf the web while the teacher was standing right there.

It’s rude, it’s disrespectful, and no amount of MTV or BET is going to convince me otherwise. It will also be a very interesting trend to watch grow and develop.