I found this article a bit controversial especially as it personally relates to my own religious beliefs. I found myself going back and forth trying to come up with an opinion about how I truly feel and I could not come up with a clear answer... I'll explain--
I grew up going to church every Sunday and Wednesday as my Dad was a Deacon at our Bible Baptist Church in Neville Island. I dreaded going at times, but looking back, I wouldn't do it any different. In the future, I want my children to go to church the way my parents made me. Sure, at the time it may seem awful and never-ending, but the lessons are well worth the time spent in Sunday school, etc. I'm clearly no saint, and my decisions in high school and college will reflect that statement, but no matter what decision I make, the morals I learned at a young age creep up on me and sway my choices. It is always in the back of my mind, "WWJD" and/or what would my parents think about my choices.
I do not think putting on a show necessarily translates into knowledge about something. I was exposed to religion at a young age because someone reached out to my parents when they were younger. I think the spectacle of bending iron and breaking through handcuffs makes people curious, but not curious about religion. To me, making people buy tickets to be exposed to the gospel is just not sitting right with me. We are all children of God and it is important to me to still live with religious values and I think it is just a matter of spreading the word to others.
Monday, April 11, 2011
"Response to Sedaris"
This article was very interesting to read for me--I liked how it followed the boy's "plague of tics" from 3rd grade all the way to college. I was able to connect to him in some ways for the way I interpreted his "tics" was a form of OCD, something I have but in a more mild sense. When I was little, I had a more severe case of OCD and it seemed to come and go, mainly when my Dad would leave town He is a pilot and when he would go on trips, I felt I needed to repeatedly do things in numbers in order to feel safe. For example, I had to lock every door in our house more than 5 times each after opening and closing the door multiple times. Much like the boy in the story, I thought these acts were normal because if I didn't' do them, it would just stick in my mind and I felt like something bad was bound to happen. In school, I was much less obvious about my OCD, I just needed my notes to be mistake free and handwritten to perfection like a computer had typed them. If not, I did not think I would be able to learn anything and had to re-write them until it was perfect.
When it comes to walking, I still have a little OCD about it--why? I could not tell you, it is probably out of habit. When I read the first part of the article talking about how the boy knew the exact count of steps in his walk home from school and if he lost track, he turned around and started over again. Again, in a much milder case, I could still somehow connect to him, understanding the way you just keep thinking about something over and over again until what you're doing "feels right" with you. For me, if I step on a sidewalk crack with my right foot, the next crack I have to step on with my left foot and I will do a stutter step or a little hop to make sure I step on it.
One thing that I found a bit disheartening in the article was the lack of attention the boy's parents gave to his struggles. Teacher after teacher had something to say about the boy's habits, yet his mother did not really do anything except mimic his behaviors for a laugh. His dad on the other hand, used threats to try and get him to stop his habits. I think when a case of OCD is that bad, there is something much deeper going on with that person that what you see on the surface. My mother always questioned the behaviors she saw and I played it off like nothing was wrong but she knew something was wrong and wanted to help. I felt bad for the boy as he struggled for a long time with these habits taking over his life.
I wish the article had a little more closure to explain more about what happened to the boy in college. I want to know how his habits either died down or got worse, instead the article just ended. Overall, it was interesting to read and connect to the different behaviors that come with what I believe is OCD.
When it comes to walking, I still have a little OCD about it--why? I could not tell you, it is probably out of habit. When I read the first part of the article talking about how the boy knew the exact count of steps in his walk home from school and if he lost track, he turned around and started over again. Again, in a much milder case, I could still somehow connect to him, understanding the way you just keep thinking about something over and over again until what you're doing "feels right" with you. For me, if I step on a sidewalk crack with my right foot, the next crack I have to step on with my left foot and I will do a stutter step or a little hop to make sure I step on it.
One thing that I found a bit disheartening in the article was the lack of attention the boy's parents gave to his struggles. Teacher after teacher had something to say about the boy's habits, yet his mother did not really do anything except mimic his behaviors for a laugh. His dad on the other hand, used threats to try and get him to stop his habits. I think when a case of OCD is that bad, there is something much deeper going on with that person that what you see on the surface. My mother always questioned the behaviors she saw and I played it off like nothing was wrong but she knew something was wrong and wanted to help. I felt bad for the boy as he struggled for a long time with these habits taking over his life.
I wish the article had a little more closure to explain more about what happened to the boy in college. I want to know how his habits either died down or got worse, instead the article just ended. Overall, it was interesting to read and connect to the different behaviors that come with what I believe is OCD.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Response to "Ha ha," he said. "Ha ha."
I found this article extremely interesting because I am actually learning about laugh tracks in my COMM 351-Advanced Video Production Class. We have been watching parts of the sitcom "Friends" in our class and stopping to discuss the insert points of the laugh tracks. The author of the article brings up many interesting points as he discusses his opinions about laugh tracks. One thing I found interesting was how he feels laugh tracks are put into a sitcom to cover poor writing. When he discussed specific examples, I found myself more apt to agree with his opinion. It made sense when I compared two shows I have watched: "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia", and "Friends." I really enjoy "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and I always thought it was because of the interaction among the characters, but now I feel it could be because of the lack of laugh tracks.
Agreeing with the author, I think that the lack of laugh track allows the viewer to come up with their own opinions as to whether something is actually funny or if it has a deeper meaning or both. When an audience is essentially "told" that they should be laughing through the use of a laugh track, it almost makes you feel something you are not actually feeling. I personally have not watched the sitcom "Friends" prior to our discussion of laugh tracks in my COMM 351 class. I did not find many of the situations funny in the way the laugh track made it seem it should be. Rather, I found many of the situations the cast experienced to over the top or almost obnoxious to the point where I wanted to stop watching. It seems as though the writers of "Friends" write in pauses after jokes just to edit in a laugh track in order to portray humor across to the viewers.
I think the "mystery" that comes with the lack of a laugh track enhances the overall production for it allows audiences to pay more attention to the delivery of jokes and the entire scenario in order to take in the whole story.
Another part of the article I found interesting was when the author talked about his stay in Germany and the different worlds of humor between the two countries. He said that none of the television shows in Germany have laugh tracks and therefore come across as smarter and less predictable. He then went on to talk about the fact that when Germans laugh, they actually think something is funny whereas Americans feel they must laugh out of politeness or out of obligation. He characterizes American's laughs in three ways: A real laugh, a fake laugh, and a "filler" laugh. I can see how all three laughs are present in American culture and I personally have used each in my life. It is true that Americans tend to have a "nervous" laugh in some situations, or laugh to make someone feel better for telling a joke in a social setting even if it is not funny.
Below I put in two examples of sitcoms, the two previously mentioned: "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and "Friend's ." In the first example from "Friend's," it is clear a laugh track has been added and to me, this is an apparent stretched attempt at humor. Rather than just showing a funny scenario, they add a laugh track to almost guide the audience through the scene. The next example is from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and it contrasts from "Friend's" because there is not a laugh track which to me, is more funny. I think by really paying attention to what the characters are saying and how they are interacting, it always for more comedic to see how the situation unfolds on your own rather than being hinted to laugh. I invite you to watch these two clips and see which you think is more funny!
"Friends" Clip
"It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" Clip
Agreeing with the author, I think that the lack of laugh track allows the viewer to come up with their own opinions as to whether something is actually funny or if it has a deeper meaning or both. When an audience is essentially "told" that they should be laughing through the use of a laugh track, it almost makes you feel something you are not actually feeling. I personally have not watched the sitcom "Friends" prior to our discussion of laugh tracks in my COMM 351 class. I did not find many of the situations funny in the way the laugh track made it seem it should be. Rather, I found many of the situations the cast experienced to over the top or almost obnoxious to the point where I wanted to stop watching. It seems as though the writers of "Friends" write in pauses after jokes just to edit in a laugh track in order to portray humor across to the viewers.
I think the "mystery" that comes with the lack of a laugh track enhances the overall production for it allows audiences to pay more attention to the delivery of jokes and the entire scenario in order to take in the whole story.
Another part of the article I found interesting was when the author talked about his stay in Germany and the different worlds of humor between the two countries. He said that none of the television shows in Germany have laugh tracks and therefore come across as smarter and less predictable. He then went on to talk about the fact that when Germans laugh, they actually think something is funny whereas Americans feel they must laugh out of politeness or out of obligation. He characterizes American's laughs in three ways: A real laugh, a fake laugh, and a "filler" laugh. I can see how all three laughs are present in American culture and I personally have used each in my life. It is true that Americans tend to have a "nervous" laugh in some situations, or laugh to make someone feel better for telling a joke in a social setting even if it is not funny.
Below I put in two examples of sitcoms, the two previously mentioned: "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and "Friend's ." In the first example from "Friend's," it is clear a laugh track has been added and to me, this is an apparent stretched attempt at humor. Rather than just showing a funny scenario, they add a laugh track to almost guide the audience through the scene. The next example is from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and it contrasts from "Friend's" because there is not a laugh track which to me, is more funny. I think by really paying attention to what the characters are saying and how they are interacting, it always for more comedic to see how the situation unfolds on your own rather than being hinted to laugh. I invite you to watch these two clips and see which you think is more funny!
"Friends" Clip
"It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" Clip
Monday, February 14, 2011
Introduction to Research Topic (s)
I looked into many different options to research but the topic (s) I found myself most interesting were in my field of Communications Media. One topic I am leaning towards is the subject of women sports broadcasters and their perception in the eyes of the viewing audience. When I "grow up" I want to be a sports broadcaster and so I find this topic very relevant and personally interesting. I have my own views about women in sports broadcasting and I am interested to see how others feel. I know I personally dislike the stereotype that women get their jobs in sports because they are pretty and I want to break that perception and get a job because of my sports knowledge and nothing else. To me, this perception seems fairly common among people, but I want to research whether or not this is the case. I developed some exploratory questions and I would love to get feedback on other questions you have when it comes to the topic of audience's perception of women sports broadcasters so that I may further research ideas I may not have thought of.
- Has the number of female sports broadcasters increased or decreased in recent years?
- What sports do most females cover? What is the most common?
- Is the salary for both men and women sports broadcasters equal? If not, what is the difference in pay
- How does the viewing audience feel about women sports broadcasters?
- What are some of the opinions?
- Are there numbers showing the approval ratings of male versus female sports broadcasters?
- Are there women interested in sports broadcasting but are shied away by stereotypical views?
Like I said before, these are only a few of the questions I want to look in to in order to get a better sense of the main point I would like to research. And again, please feel free to give your input on my potential topic or even take the time to let me know how you personally feel about women sports broadcasters so I can possibly use your opinions in my paper.
Thanks!
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
First Annotation
Lamberski, Richard J. "Were Do College Students Get Their News." Laurel Highlands Communications Conference (2010): 82-91.
The author of this article used an original study to look at how collegeg students get their news to analyze what effects this information can have on the media outlets used today. It contained a summary analysis of the quantative information found in regards to the study. I found it beneficial to read this article for the interview assignment as it was written by the professor I interviewed. It really exemplified the discussion we had about how research is apparent in Communications Media. The information presented in this article is useful to me becasue as a Communications Media student, one of the main things we focus on is media outlets such as newspapers, television, radio, and the internet. By understanding the analysis of this information through reading the above article, I am able to better understand where most students get their news from and to realize which is the most effective media outlet.
The author of this article used an original study to look at how collegeg students get their news to analyze what effects this information can have on the media outlets used today. It contained a summary analysis of the quantative information found in regards to the study. I found it beneficial to read this article for the interview assignment as it was written by the professor I interviewed. It really exemplified the discussion we had about how research is apparent in Communications Media. The information presented in this article is useful to me becasue as a Communications Media student, one of the main things we focus on is media outlets such as newspapers, television, radio, and the internet. By understanding the analysis of this information through reading the above article, I am able to better understand where most students get their news from and to realize which is the most effective media outlet.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Response to Matt Richtel's Essay
I found the article "Attached to Technology and Paying a Price" very interested especially as the use of technology in our world increases by the day. From smart phones to iPads and laptops, kindles and blue tooth's, GPS systems and 3D TV's, the list of modern technology could go on for quite some time. The argument presented in this article is that all this use of technology is having a negative effect on people and follows one particular San Francisco, Kord Campbell man. There has been research showing heavy multitaskers are having more trouble focusing as they do not shut out irrelevant information and therefore experience more stress. I can see how this is true as I am someone who has trouble setting out other information to simply focus on one thing. For example, as I sit here to type my response, I have the TV on in the background watching "The Office," (great show), and I have my phone next to me on the couch and about three tabs open on my computer. This is a lot going on for me as I am not really a technological person by any means, but even so, I still have a lot of distractions. Some of the numbers presented in the article relating to how much TV people watch a day and how many websites they look at stuck me as outrageous thinking of how much time is spent with technology. This overload has definitely lead to increased focusing issues among all ages whether it be focusing on a school assignment, report for work, or one's loved ones as in the Kord CAmpbell case.
Until reading this article, I only thought of the negative effects of technology simply effecting focus on work related things, but I now see how it can effect family life too. As much as Mrs. Campbell seems to be fine with her husband's constant use of technology, I can sense she is not. It was almost sad to me when the Campbell's little daughter spoke of how her Dad spends more time with his phone and computer rather than with her. To think that a father's time is spent paying more attention to his technology than to the real-life experiences he could have with his daughter. I know this is a different read into the article but I have a feeling this is not the only family that experiences an parent who is obsessed with technology and work and I do think this article shows many different angles into the price that is paid with the increased prevalence of technology in society today.
I think that there are both pros and cons when it comes to technology but Richtel's article describes more of the negatives and he makes very good points to go along with his view. Overall, technology can be beneficial but should not be the only thing people focus on. I think it is important for people to work on unplugging their technology or turning it off in order to focus on the simpler things in life and to work on focusing on one thing at a time so as not to get "system overload" in our own heads.
Until reading this article, I only thought of the negative effects of technology simply effecting focus on work related things, but I now see how it can effect family life too. As much as Mrs. Campbell seems to be fine with her husband's constant use of technology, I can sense she is not. It was almost sad to me when the Campbell's little daughter spoke of how her Dad spends more time with his phone and computer rather than with her. To think that a father's time is spent paying more attention to his technology than to the real-life experiences he could have with his daughter. I know this is a different read into the article but I have a feeling this is not the only family that experiences an parent who is obsessed with technology and work and I do think this article shows many different angles into the price that is paid with the increased prevalence of technology in society today.
I think that there are both pros and cons when it comes to technology but Richtel's article describes more of the negatives and he makes very good points to go along with his view. Overall, technology can be beneficial but should not be the only thing people focus on. I think it is important for people to work on unplugging their technology or turning it off in order to focus on the simpler things in life and to work on focusing on one thing at a time so as not to get "system overload" in our own heads.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Introduction
Hey it's Adrienne here, starting my first blog ever! I am a Communication's Media student at IUP and despite the prevelant technology use in my field, I am actually the furthest thing from a technical person. I do not enjoy technology in the lightest as I find it somewhat confusing and as an impatient person, waiting for computers to do what I want is frustrating. With that being said, I know how much technology means in our world today, so I am trying to get better at using it and this is just the start!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)