A Dance With Dragons

The last full-length non-educational book that I read was A Dance With Dragons by George R.R. Martin. I certainly enjoyed it, as it was the 5th book of a series that I have been reading for about ten years now. It was a long wait, as the 4th book came out in 2006, so it felt good to get a chance to immerse myself in the author's world again. I chose the series a long time ago because the title of the first book A Game of Thrones grabbed my attention, and it was also published by Tor a company that I have come to trust as a company that purveys quality stories. The first book in the series is A Game of Thrones and while 10 years ago it was definitely a book that appealed to a niche crowd, the fantasy genre has become mainstream. At the time I was reading Dance in July, all five books of the series were in the Top 20 of the New York Times bestseller list.

This popularity was due to a large bump in awareness of the books due to HBO creating a series based on the books. I greatly enjoyed the HBO series, and admit I was surprised by enjoying it. I have grown used to studios buying the rights to a book and then completely changing the story. Game of Thrones however stayed true to the major plot points, and did a great job of capturing the spirit of the books. While I still enjoy the books more due to the sheer amount of detail that could never be portrayed in an hour long show, the series was definitely well done. Critics also agreed, as the show was nominated for multiple Emmy awards, and won a Best-Supporting actor award for Peter Dinklage.

57 Channels and Nothing On

While we have increased the number of television channels that we have to watch by fifty times what we had to watch twenty years ago, you would assume that we would have plenty of choices to choose from and control over what we get to watch. However that does not seem to be the case, as most of these television channels are owned by just a few mass media companies, and the few people at the top of those few companies decides what we are supposed to want to watch at any given time. One example that still gets me worked up if I think too much about it is the saga of MTV. When I was growing up, MTV was still Music Television, and it was music videos 24 hours a day. When I would get home from school and on the weekends, I'd either be actively watching waiting for my favorite videos, or at least have it on in the background. As I got older though, MTV begin introducing shows that would interrupt my music video pleasure. As I got older, the shows became more and more frequent, until soon there was nary a music video to be found. Then MTV ran an ad campaign claiming that the music videos were on MTV2, so switch over there if you wanted to still see videos. I happily did. However, MTV soon didn't have enough hours in the day for shows like Real World, Road Rules, and Teen idiot of the week, so they started putting the shows on MTV2. At that point I was done with MTV, and started watching VH1, since they still showed music videos. Soon however, Viacom (the owner of the MTV networks) decided to buy VH1, and it too became a festering cesspool of Super Sweet 16 and Celebrity Rehab shows. Now the last outpost is Vh1 Classic, but they show the same five videos over and over, and they are now also beginning to run 'reality' programming, since there just isn't enough room on all the MTV's anymore.

I guess that's more of a rant than a statement, but it boils down to the fact that despite having a dozen 'music video' stations now, they're all owned by the same company, and since the CEO of said company things reality television is what America wants, then he's going to put it on every channel he can. So instead of having more choice, I find that I have as much choice if it was still only MTV, and none of the other channels existed.

Also not sure exactly where Blue's Traveler fits in, but the video from 1994 gave a good indication of where television was heading, and the Hook still makes me come back...

 

Mean World Syndrome

    I think that George Gerbner was correct in his analysis of violence, and how it is portrayed through the media. While the news media and entertainment media would seem to indicate that we are living in an age of unprecedented violence, Gerbner believed that the level of violence portrayed by the media is actually quite a contrast to the world that most of us live in. While we would not want to deny that there are acts of heinous violence that are committed, the amount of imminent calamity that we all seem to face is on the exaggerated side. Why would there be this discrepancy? One possibility is that living in fear makes us easier to control, a simpler explanation however may be the simple concept that violence (or sex) sells. People don't want to watch 'normal' lives to escape, they want to be aroused, and the threat of violence is one way to do that.

    This clip from comedian Eddie Izzard seems to support that thought, as he compares British film to American movies. Again, I seem to find the clips that have adult language in them, so viewer beware.

    Spiral of silence seems to be more of a phenomenon that occurs due to not wanting to have a minority opinion. The reality may very well be that the opinion we have is not unpopular, or cast us as a social outcast, but since we don't want to risk that outsider status, instead we hold on to that silence. Unfortunately that can lead to a stagnant society, as new ideas that may be excellent do not gain any traction, since no one wants to be the one to 'rock the boat'. The idea of remaining comfortably anonymous reminds me of the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. Harrison Bergeron.

Comments on the Seven Truths of Mass Communication

The first truth that the media is an essential aspect of our lives I would have to agree with. Unless you are willing to literally live in a cave, isolated from civilization, there is no way to get through a day without being exposed to the media. Whether we tune it out consciously it a choice that we can make, but that would have to be an actual choice, as soon as you leave your dwelling you will be exposed to billboards, car maker logos, radio broadcasts, news, etc. before you even begin your day at work or school. That is before you even take into account any aspect of using media for entertainment by reading a book, magazine, watching television, or going to a movie.
I would also agree with the sixth truth, or principle, that activism and analysis are not always the same thing. One thing that always bothered me growing up was how I was being told that reading certain books, or playing certain games would immunize me to violence. I believe there is a clear distinction between fantasy violence presented in something such as a video game, and taking the huge psychological leap to being able to physically perform violence. I have played video games, or "murder simulators" as the activists call them, and despite all their studies that prove that I should be a high-strung time bomb ready to lay waste to my workplace or school, I tend to think I'm a pretty normal person. The times I have been confronted with violence, I have done what I consider to be the sane thing to do and gotten out of Dodge. This video clip from the show Penn & Teller: Bulls..t is from a piece they did on whether video games do blur the lines of reality for children on fantasy versus real violence. There is adult language in the clip, but if you skip ahead to the 2:25 mark for the conclusion you'll skip...some of it.