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. :)

YouTube POWER.

It seems that when all else fails (in getting a spot of attention in the limelight of the mass media that is,) it's time to try the internet. With the increasing accessibility of the computer these days, almost anyone can extend his or her reach into the possibilities that lie in "infinity and beyond!" - in the words of Buzz Lightyear, and radically change their whole life. Well if you haven't guessed it by now - despite the title of this post - the topic of interest this time is the rise of the YouTube stars.

Take Esmee Denters for example. A lovely girl with an incredible voice, it didn't take long for her to get attention amongst the YouTube  community. She posted videos of herself singing covers of popular hits like "What Goes Around Comes Around" by Justin Timberlake, "Unwritten" by Natasha Bedingfield and "Because of You" by Ne-yo, just to name a few. And poof! She got spotted by an artist manager by the name of Jonathan Berhane, introduced to Billy Mann and signed by none other than Justin Timberlake himself by early June, 2007 - as the first artist on his Tennman Records label. Then, she even got on Oprah to tell her tale of YouTube success. For those interested, her album's out in March this year. 

Here's a video of her singing if you're interested (this was prior to her getting signed).



Now, everyone wants to be the next Esmee Denters, having seen the power and reach of that tiny little box in their room.

So there's Justin Bie, a small boy with a big voice. In the words of one of the commentors in one of his videos, “For crying out loud, someone give the kid a record label already.” You’ll see, or rather hear, the justification for that statement here:



And it looks like he went the same way Esmee Denters did, if this video is anything to go by - Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel paid a visit.



There's also Alyssa Bernal, a girl with a striking resemblance to Vanessa Anne Hudgens; or you could look up Cathy Nguyen. I'm probably missing out some of the more known YouTube stars here (because I don't spend all my time on YouTube, contrary to popular belief, haha.)

Seeing this, no wonder the Powerful Effects Theory regarding the media, where the audience is considered to be a passive listener is mostly defunct. It seems more to me like the audience is leading the media in the way they would like to go now, wouldn't you agree? :)

Group Think.

Group think: according to Irving Jarvis, "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

Symptoms of this apparently include an illusion of invulnerability (where you feel like together, anything is possible), you have shared stereotypes (possibly those types of people you categorize together and collectively make fun of), illusion of unanimity... The list goes on.

In search of a relevant article, I came across this article by accident: click here :)
Written by a tattoo expert, Ashley M Ford. It's not a long read, do check it out before continuing on this post.

Personally, I've never heard of tattoo parties. Drinking parties, yes. This though, was really beyond my imagination at least. I've heard of a group of people going for a tattoo together, but hosting a tattoo party in your own home? Highly problematic I believe. For one, who’s to guarantee the safety of those getting tattoos?

I don’t have a problem with people with tattoos. In fact, I do have friends that have them. Rather, it’s the specific concept of tattoo parties that I question. What a person does with his or her body is a result of their individual decision, I believe, and it often says something about how they think and what they feel. With tattoo parties, however, I can just imagine the atmosphere and peer pressure that would probably be going on. Individual decision? Probably not so much. Especially not for those individuals who simply care more about other people’s opinions of them.

Though some may argue that peer pressure to get a tattoo can work outside of such an environment – a point which I would concede – I think the actual participation or simply, attendance of such an event would definitely be far more concentrated in terms of the whole vibe and for example, having a crowd egg someone on. Sure, some of us would have no problem saying “no” to getting a tattoo; but to be honest, haven’t you ever had a crazy moment where you had done something that you would not have usually done simply because your friends dared or pushed you to do? And for a moment, you might have felt on top of the world when you had “accomplished” it.

I think everyone probably has a certain level you would or would not cross when it comes to the whole idea of “group think”. From individual to individual though, it differs in flexibility. And it would probably depend on what you’re all set out to do as well. Then again, what’s acceptable to one person would possibly be the opposite to another.

Fashioning That First Impression

Above is a video of the backstage processes that take place just before the final catwalk that exhibits the designer's pride and joy for that season - after the clothes are ready of course. Basically, the work done on the models, the touch-ups, hair styles, how the clothes are all put together, et cetera. Just for that moment of reckoning, where the audience will view the clothing - and the decision of the fashion editors, movie stars and fashion icons will be made based on the what they see: inspiring or boring?

It just goes to show how vital society prizes first impressions to be. Often, much of what we notice about a person when we meet them for the first time tends to have a hold on our perception of them for a while, especially if our contact with them is infrequent. Fashion, perhaps, can be said to be the result of human being's desire to be physically striking/ remembered, especially in a more complimentary light. Why else do women search for the "perfect outfit" and a "good cut" that "compliments and enhances" them? They desire to be remembered in a good light.

To fashion something is to make something into a required form. In the context of society and physical appearance, this would usually refer to the adherence to popular clothing trends. Some would consider this to be part of a process where the individual in society is increasingly defined by the standards of society and what it demands, rather than by the choice of the individual himself/ herself, leading to the loss of personal identity. Yet, perhaps it can be argued as well that while admittedly, there may be some who pay no mind to their external appearance who stand as exceptions, many who so-called fashion themselves in a certain manner do so to identify themselves with a certain group with similar interests. For example, the cute “kawaii” Japanese girls with lots of ribbons and prints with cartoons, or the “emo” (emotional) youths that characteristically adopt styles such as skinny jeans and lots of eyeliner (though even within this particular group, there are many other ways of associating oneself with them by dressing). Simply by how one dresses, some aspects of their character and interests can be deduced. At times though, these first impressions are hardly justified and highly probable to change over time.

In my own experiences, I’ve met people who are so vastly different from how they appear at first glance that it’s almost amusing. Over time, their physical appearance – though from time to time still throwing me off balance, especially when they opt for a drastic change and I have not seen them for awhile – is discounted more and more, in place of who they actually are and the type of people they become to me.

What about you? Does the first impression of someone (especially by appearance) hold true for you throughout the entire course of interaction with them? Or how do you think the first impression one has of a person affect their behavior afterward?

Non-verbal Communication

When travelling from one place to another, or simply waiting around alone where I am meeting friends, I tend to unconsciously lapse into people-watching. Free and highly entertaining.

Awkward teenage couples holding hands (in their secondary school uniform, no less), the look in a mother's eyes as her toddler son runs on ahead of her - mixed with love, gentleness and sometimes, a tinge of worry...

Even when in a group, people-watching comes right in; where we study people together - for instance, conversations such as "Take a guess, are they a couple or siblings?" - or even, "Sugar Daddy or real daddy?" All in the name of good fun.

Yet, haven't you ever experienced those moments, where your guess of a certain relationship between two people comes out horribly off the mark? Embarassing, and even more so if you'd made your thoughts known to the friends around you. Personally, I find non-verbal communication highly subjective.

Everyone's character and upbringing is different. For example, what may be personal space to one may be casual distance to another. Some greet each other with a hug, some with just a slight nod and smile. To each his own, yes?

Then there are some individuals people label with the words- " NO EQ". The one who rubs everyone the wrong way without even knowing it. Perhaps because of how he/she was brought up, or not enough interaction with people in general, or perhaps, simply too dense to sense anything wrong with the whole atmosphere between people - and most often, caused by the inability to correctly interpret the non-verbal language of those around them. Most of them take everything literally, and can't see into the actions and behavior of others. The non-verbal is nonexistent.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like in that person's shoes. By no means am I a saint, for I get irritated with some just as much as the next person, nor am I saying we "should treat them better, they can't help it" - because I would probably find that difficult myself. Furthermore, with such individuals, the people around find them annoying to varying degrees. Is that a cause of personal idiosyncrasies (eg. "I can't stand people who jump into the conversation without knowing what it's all about.") or a perspective developed over experience of what defines socially acceptable behavior in interaction between people?

At times though, I do question myself. Would I be as dense to the social "air" if I'd been the one to cause the tension? Or, why I might find someone more tiresome to be around than others.

What are your thoughts and perhaps, experiences with such individuals? Or do you find the red and green lights of non-verbal communication sometimes all fall under the category of amber as well? Do tell. :)

Silenced...?

credits to source: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=30043

RUSSIA: 20 January 2009

Horrifying double murder of lawyer and journalist in central Moscow underlines climate of impunity
читать на русском

Reporters Without Borders today reacted with horror to the double murder in central Moscow of lawyer Stanislav Markelov, specialising in murders committed in Chechnya, and journalist on the bi-weekly Novaya Gazeta who was with him, Anastasia Baburova, shot dead as they left a press conference given by the lawyer.

Markelov had at the 19 January press conference condemned the early release of Yuri Bodanov, a Russian former colonel who was sentenced in 2003 to ten years in prison for the murder of an 18-year-old Chechen, Elza Kungayeva, whose family Markelov was representing.

As they left the press conference at 2pm, a masked man wearing a chapka (Russian fur hat) shot Markelov. The young journalist was shot in the head as she tried to prevent the killer from escaping and died a few hours later from her injuries without regaining consciousness.

Stanislas Markelov had recently received death threats. The prosecutor general Yuri Chayka said he was taking control of the investigation.

“We offer our condolences to the families of Anastasia Baburova and Stanislav Markelov” the worldwide press freedom organisation said. “Their deaths are a tragedy, resulting from the persistent hold of violence on Russian society but also the impunity that reigns in cases of murders of journalists and human rights activists.”

“We salute the courage of Markelov, who had defended many journalists including Anna Politkovskaya, who was murdered in October 2006, and Mikhaïl Beketov, brutally assaulted last November. Russia has lost a tenacious lawyer who did his utmost to defend the interests of families of victims of atrocities in Russian Caucasia”.

“Our thoughts are with the family and colleagues of Anastasia Baburova, who made the choice to become a journalist and deal with sensitive issues, particularly ultra-nationalism. She was a brave young woman, which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that she was fatally injured while trying to stop the gunman” the organisation added.

“The authorities must quickly hunt down, identify and try those responsible for this double murder. Murders of journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders in Russia can only be stopped by breaking the cycle of impunity.” it concluded.

The trial of the four suspects in the murder of Novaya Gazeta journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who tirelessly exposed crimes committed in Chechnya, resumed the same day in Mosocw. Neither those who ordered her killed nor the suspected gunman are among those in the dock.

Ceremonies in memory of Stanislav Markelov and Anastassia Baburova were held in Moscow and Chechnya.



(the above had been posted here for the convenience of readers, with no disrespect to its original writer. this blog is purely for academic purposes.)



Pretty shocking news that we don't get on this side of the world usually. But with a headline like that, it sure catches the attention – and it had caught mine really fast. Looking through the article, the part of me that's focused on completing my assignment on this blog seems to simply scream our "LOGOS" and "PATHOS" (which for the layman, it's simply to appeal to reason and to appeal to emotion - of the audience, that is). Yet another part of me - the audience self is already reading on, interested to find out the cause of the horror reflected in the title.

Perhaps it is fine example of effective communication, where the message of the injustice and audacity of the act - the murder of two individuals who were standing on the side of justice and truth - springs loud and clear off the board of sound explanation of what had occurred, injected with statements made by no less than the worldwide press freedom organization. Sadly, a stand for the two individuals made too late - for their silencing had already occurred.

Yet their voices, while no longer audible in sound, may now be louder than ever in their silencing – as it now is held in the hands of those who would not see their work end with the loss of their lives – as these reporters have done, through their reporting of the incident. Many tend to over-generalize people by their occupation, like how journalists tend to be associated with adjectives like nosy and lawyers with words like unscrupulous. This report, however, would urge one to re-evaluate the truth or rather, untruth in such an all-encompassing view of a collective group of people – with the presentation of two individuals who had taken a solid stand in their pursuit of justice which they had prized above their very lives. Change in perspective, anyone?

With that in mind, are there those whom you hold in a certain view – whether good or bad – simply by their occupation or social position? And having read this, would you rethink that opinion you have? Whether yes or no, do tell.