Office talk.

And here goes, the last post for this blog for communications class. If you've been a commenter here, thanks!

Office gossip: the life and bane of many individuals. Those who’ve worked for some time in an organization will know what I’m talking about. Class this week brought informal communication in organizations up and mentioned that the informal grapevine often has more credible information than the formal sources; as it avoids the censorship that companies tend to employ in the mail one receives. The justification for this was the consideration that though still considered as gossip, office gossip tends to be kept to the original story more than other social circles – especially if it’s about your boss.

Personally, I feel that would be true to some extent. After all, many of us would certainly have heard of cases where someone, for example, knew of his or her retrenchment before the occurrence itself through the grapevine. Also, it is highly likely that any wrong information passed on by you can lead to your own head being on the chopping board in the office. Which is something that most of us (if not all) would try to avoid, yes?

However, I am of the opinion that the higher credibility of informal information compared to the formal networks may not be necessarily true. It would depend highly on the individual from whom the information is coming from, for one thing. Naturally, if the person from whom the gossip is coming from is known to be highly exaggerated, it would hardly be regarded in the same light as information from a person whose credibility is known to be recognized.

Furthermore, the lesson this week brought gossip up as a possible avenue from which an employer can tap into by swaying influential individuals within a particular social group to, for example, sway a certain amount of support for his decision in his direction. He probably does so by ignoring the mainstream, formalized tool of communication and disclosing information on a personal basis. Effective? Probably, or just maybe? Once again, I believe that the character of the employer and employee concerned would play a bigger role in the effectiveness of that tactic than just the general view expressed in class that it had a very very high possibility of working.

Gossip in any context is known more for the damage it causes than anything else. However, that aside, what view do you have on the credibility of office gossip? Or is gossip simply gossip, no more and no less? :)

Spinning the social world in a whirl by the computer twirl.

Hello there! once again, I'm back again to blog on the chapter covered this week during communications 101 class.

We all know that the presence of the computer in our lives has definitely made huge changes in the way we live our lives over the past decade or so. Sure, the mass media definitely still has a distinct presence in our lives, but computer mediated communication has led to new ways of thinking, new reactions towards the mass media effect in our lives.

Take all those anti-drug abuse adverts for example. Whether it is in print ads in newspapers and magazines or the advertisement that interferes with your episode of Gossip Girl, they're present and have been present for years - almost everywhere. The advertisements are expected to raise your awareness towards the issue, and basically dissuade you from being one of those who abuse drugs. An example of this that some of us encounter almost daily would be on TV Mobile, where a video of a girl who sniffs glue and ends up in jail is played every so often. It ends with something like her sister (whom i mistook for her mother at first) visiting her and remaining silent with "that look on her face" which you're suppose to infer from viewing the video directly and make up your mind not to sniff glue, because it hurts those around you as well (in this case, family).

I would like to ask, however, how many of us actually receive that message the way it intends us to? At least, in my experience, I believe that many of us simply view the video for what it is and analyse it in spite of its content - usually along the lines of "the acting is so fake", "the voices sound so weird and unnatural" or "hahaha! so dramatic". Most of the time, we already have some awareness concerning the issues being broadcast over and over to regulate our society and now, the computer has led to the rise of more interesting forms of responses towards the social mediation. Computer mediated communication has infiltrated the community.

Internet forums, videos made in response or even something like blogging - can affect the views and opinions of those in the your internet circle. Take for instance, this public service announcement from Bo Burnham.



Basically, he brings in all the usual stuff that appear in anti-drug videos in his parody response to them. The wholesome image of the main character in the video (in this case, basketball, giving tuition to kids) and the consistent reminder (though in this case, twisted form) of not doing drugs. Also, the tone of voice that supposedly appeals earnestly to the cause - "don't do drugs". Throw in a bit of eighteen-year-old humor and a play on words ("step on a crack,break your mothers back. turn around and smoke the crack,break your mothers heart "), you've got the response of Bo Burnham and probably, many others on the internet. The effect of his video is evident though: over 968,000 views.

Of course, you're free to disagree as well. Just click on the comment button and express your displeasure at his undermining a very important social issue in society on YouTube.

What do you think of computer mediated communication on society? Whether in the context of anti-drug campaigns or otherwise. :)