Participatory Culture : Me, Myself, and

Outside of the marketing world lies a culture where people themselves contribute to it instead of playing the role of a mere consumer. One such participatory culture that is sweeping the globe that I have become an integral participant in is none other than the Facebook network.

At point value Facebook looks to be a simple networking site that provides the ability to share pictures and personal information with others at your own discretion. Although Facebook is used by man as simply a way to creep into people’s lives, the network provides so much more opportunity for productive participation.

From what I’ve seen, Facebook can be a very useful participatory mechanism. Everything on facebook involves participation of the people involved. It is a collection of people who network with each other through their personal page, and who participate in a number of groups and networks, all at the discretion of the individual.

To set up a profile, you are given a blank slate in which to complete a promotion of yourself. Everything from pictures, to quizzes and filling out the basic and personal information, packages a person’s personality and sells it to its audience. Facebook gives the freedom to post notes on personal opinions which can bring about debates, it facilitates the sharing of organizations and events that can be created by any individual and opinion for the public to use. Most importantly it is an expense free way to do so.

At any moment I could log onto my facebook account and choose to share a video feed of my favourite artist, start a group for the awareness of poverty in my community, and post an album of my latest photography work. No matter what I decide to do I can be sure of one thing, I am partaking in a participatory culture in which I am met with various avenues to circulate my ideas and broadcast myself.

The Ecology of the Media: The Impact of the Telephone

Let’s say hypothetically it’s a Friday night and you decide to chat up your new love interest, however your version of chat up might very well be different than one a decade back. You text him,“Hey! Whats up?” to which he replies “Not much..” or something along those lines. Such instantaneous messaging has become second nature to teenagers of western culture, that it is frequently forgotten how new of a development it really is. In order to appreciate the phone, we must take a glance back into the past, and I mean further back than those bulky cell phones we now like to deny we or our parents once owned and deemed as ‘cool’.

Back in March 10, 1876 Alexander Bell was patented for his invention of the telephone. The telephone succeeded the telegraph as the first invention that elapsed the time needed to communicate. Before their invention, people would need to resort to using postal services to deliver and receive messages to people abroad. Their source of news and information would come from a community announcer, newspaper, or simply from word of mouth. This however, was not sufficient to communicate across greater distances. The telephone provided easy communication without the land barrier, or lengthy delivery time that resulted from the physical delivery of mail. People could now pick up a telephone and instantly be able to talk to someone a few communities away, which ultimately resulted in the heightened ability to spread ideas and knowledge abroad. Bell collaborated with two other men, Gardiner Hubbard and Thomas Sander’s to create the Bell Telephone Company. From this initial company, a franchise was born that continues to boom to this day.

However, we have since come a long way from the first transmitted phone call, “Mr. Watson --come here-- I want to see you.”(Alfred). Since the initial products from the bell telephone company came out, society has seen a large shift in trend when it comes to the use of technology and its role within society, a shift that can be observed throughout a lifespan. This has led to the technology of the cable-telephone becoming obsolete with the rise in popularity of the personal cellular device. What makes the cell phone in higher demand than the traditional telephone is its convenience in both its size and non-restrictive range of telephone service. With cell phones now including an increasing number of functions, it is making other utilities less in demand.
As media guru Marshall McLuhan would point out, the phone has become an extension of our own body, the ear. According to McLuhan, technological innovations are extensions of human abilities and senses that alter the sensory balance. It could be said that the telephone gave a sensory balance of the ear to the eye that had been dominating since the invention of the phonetic alphabet (Playboy). However with the continuous advancement in the cellular field more and more of these bodily extensions are controlled by the “phone”.

It seems to be as if we are moving towards a single object that contains all information, the ultimate piece of technology. I admit I am already finding it difficult to distinguish between technologies as devices such as the iPod touch include features of virtual games, camera, wireless internet, mp3 player etc. The phone has changed from being an amplification of the ear to the amplification of the eye. With such a change in purpose it almost seems unethical to call it a cell phone anymore.

Work Cited

Alfred, Randy. "March 10, 1876: 'Mr. Watson, Come Here ... '." (2008): .

Playboy. "The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan." Playboy Magagzine (1969): .

Mapping who owns what:

Disney's Vast Kingdom

Chances are if you say the name Disney, you are likely to see recognition in other’s faces as they smile and think about cartoons and Hannah Montanna. What many Mickey Mouse loving fans don’t realize is that those are only a fraction of what the company either owns or holds shares in. In fact, Disney is among the top global media giants, coming to a close second behind Time Warner in sales (McChesney). Disney has ownership in fields of film, broadcast television, cable television, radio, music, publishing, magazines, parks and resorts, and retail; i.e. ESPN, A&E, US Weekly, Walt Disney and Hollywood Records, or ABC network and radio to name a few.

From the morning news to every teeny-boppers heart throb, Disney has the world in its grasp. So what does this mean? Whether it be Disney or any other large major media company, there is a right to be concerned. By allowing such corporations to expand their ownership in sales, we are also allowing them to expand their influence over our media. In a democratic society, what freedom of choice do we really have when our different sources can all be traced back to a handful of corporations? By segmenting power to a few, we lose that freedom of the ability to choose for ourself. Just think about how easy it is to coy people into loving a new Disney film when the toy companies, the radio station and the news all have shares in the corporation!

The last thing we need is a dictator rule of the media, even if it is run under the name of Disney.

Work Cited

McChesney, Robert. "The Global Media Giants We are the World." EXTRA! (1997): n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2009. .

Decoding/Deconstructing Advertising

Whatever modesty was left in the commercial world, it is not far-fetched to suggest it be thrown on the endangered species list. In a world connected through the mass media by television, radio and internet, the competition for businesses is on. There is no longer the local burger diner as an only option for food, there is rather Wendys, McDonalds, Burger King, Harveys, Dennys- and these are only a fraction of the big chains. Substitute a burger for shoes, clothing, toys, you name it, you can see there might be a problem. What I’m trying to say is that when there are so many options for the average consumer, there is a growth in competition between corporations and private business for their attention. The only way to mark their prominence and generate a satisfiable income is through the tool of commercialism. One way to stand out that has been gaining momentum is the lack of subtlety in advertising. The shock factor seems to be a big hit. Take this one for example:



Nothing subtle about it at all! Sex is a common marketing tool, but really does such innuendo need to be used for a big fast-food franchise to earn a couple of bucks? Burger King, which also advertises themselves as a family-oriented restaurant with kids menus, and sport the icon of a friendly and caricatured King, released this particular advertisement to promote a sandwich product. Though this ad in particular was only publicized in Singapore before flooding out into the World Wide Web, the implications are great. Sexual innuendo rules this advertisement. If the woman with the bright red sex doll lips parted for the sub sandwich leaking ‘mayonnaise’ isn’t explicit enough, it is accompanied by a banner reading “IT’LL BLOW YOUR MIND AWAY”. Wait there’s more; the sandwich wears the name the Super Seven Incher, which according to the description can “Fill your desire for something long, juicy ...”Doesn’t leave much for the imagination now, does it? Even though there is a lack of a certain male appendage to make the advertisement the equivalent to pornography, the metonym is clear as the sandwich is clearly implying the presence of the penis. As advertisements go, this one seems to one that could cause trouble with its portrayal of oral sex to promote a product, an act that could be seen as misogynistic.

Although there is no doubt that the advertisement is a good attention grabber with its in-your-face sexuality, after seeing this do people really think “Yum there’s a tasty burger?” If the only reaction is amusement, arousal, or simply a mother wanting to shelter her children from corruption in a home schooled environment, then the advertisement is a dud. However, if the product is consumed at the same rate as the advertisement is the centre of the gossip, then the tactic might have some credit to it.

The question that then arises is whether or not the shock factor is allowed to be used so fervently in advertising? One thing to keep in mind is the likelihood that if advertising continues on this explicit trend, then corporations will need to out shock the other in order to remain recognized. In this sense it’s scary to think what we will see next, perhaps Ronald McDonald gone dominatrix? There quite possible could be many more mind blowing advertisements to come.

Understanding the Mass Media

Mass media simply put is exactly what it looks like, media that communicates to the masses. Mass media includes the likes of the television, radio, newspaper and internet which all act as a medium to deliver information to a large scope of people. However, this vague description is only the denotation of the term, and in order to truly appreciate and understand the mass media, the term must be evaluated further than its mere description.

In order to understand the implication of media as communication that reaches the masses, it is important to accompany the description of the mass media with further interpretation. The connotation of the mass media does just that. So what then is the interpretation of the mass media? What I can derive from the mass media is that communication to the masses allows for the transfer of information across distances not possible without the technology of today. I see a community that has stretched its limits to the many corners of the earth through mass media such as the internet, allowing people for the first time to feel a sense of community with the rest of the world. Mass media communicates to the mass population of people, but it is ultimately up to the people to interpret the information they receive and what impact it will have on their lives. In saying this, the mass media is the facilitator for information to reach the masses. This important in itself, but it’s what the masses will do with this information they now all possess, that is truly profound. Mass media is a tool with the power to facilitate change and global growth; and at the same time can promote hatred and tension.

See now, you would not grasp the importance of the mass media had I left you with a simple, “Mass media can be defined as media that communicates to the masses”, would you?