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. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is a case of which came first? The chicken or the egg? Adverts impact society the way society impacts adverts. After all, adverts are designed to appeal to the masses. Naturally, the masses are inclined to respond to these adverts.
ReplyDeleteSo, it really does not matter whether it is computer mediated communication in terms of its effects, though definitely computer mediated communication has a widespread audience.
Nonetheless, adverts can have a powerful effect on society, though I personally believe there is no conclusive reason as to why certain advertisements do better than others. I believe it is a simple case of chance.
In the context of anti-drug campaigns like the glue sniffing one, I think the reactions you have described can be summed up as cynicism. I agree, the acting is fake, because the reality is worse than the what is being shown on the tv.
In the case of Bo Burnham, I think that the main pull factor of his video was its entertainmant factor. This leads me to doubt the effectiveness of such forms of communication as the propogation of it would not have been so drastic if it was portrayed in the "tvmobile" way.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it plays down the seriousness of the message when the purpose of it is to drive home the point that taking drugs has serious consequences.
I think within the context anti-drug campaigns, such forms of communication are marginally impactful.They may educate but they do not necessarily deter.
Alright, so you're all in agreement that the video depicts a satirical portrayal of anti-drugs. Anyone question why? At face value you can say he's just screwing with people, perhaps for the sake of ratings, but - and here's the interesting question - are people going to remember this more, or that government-produced abomination?
ReplyDeleteThe irony of the seriousness depicted in that same government video, is that the consequences tend to be a governmental construct, more than a social one - that is, they have established the consequences, and seeing they are ineffective as a deterrent, they now try...another tack.
So why are they doing this? Suppressing drugs, I mean. If you're adequately indoctrinated, you'll probably recite at this point the dangers of substance abuse, the potential for death, the impact on your family...
...did you know, in much of South America, pretty much everyone chews coca leaves, for a purpose comparable to your morning coffee? And that's the raw material that's used for cocaine. It's government control that creates the social problems that they then associate with the drugs themselves. The ban of cannabis in the United States in the '30s was because a) they couldn't figure out how to tax it, and b) the hemp industry, being more sustainable, was putting pressure on the loggers.
Tobacco kills more people than cannabis ever did (if cannabis ever did). There's indications that it results in collateral damage, it's a hereditary disease (considering that it's often "taught" by one generation to another), and, though you may disagree, is dramatically more conducive to addictive behaviours than psychotropic substances.
So why's it legal? Tax.
Why not LSD? magic mushrooms? For, however absurd it may sound, the same reason there's no welfare, there's no homeless people, there's ridiculous criteria for permanent resident status, and citizens are compelled to term-deposit a proportion of their earnings to fund their own pensions.
There's always an ulterior motive. Think on that a little.
cool vid. definately not like the bad ones shown on tv. haha. although it comes acoss as a little too light hearted, so may not be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jon. Differences is seen in the laws of various countries. Eg in Singapore, fly argaric mushroom is a class 1 drugs while in holland, its just a wild mushroom.It just depends on how one perceive.
ReplyDelete