OTM - Automatic Attitudinal Response Assessment.

As I read through all of my On The Media posts, I realized that I probably had somewhat of an AAR (Automatic Attitudinal Response) to a majority of the subjects that I discussed. Some of my opinions changed, as I listened to the segments, and some of them didn't. For example...

OTM 1 was about Donald Trump. I remember thinking, oh great... what has he done this time? Donald Trump scares me a little bit, and that's a big deal coming from a girl who doesn't get scared by much. As I listened to the article, my opinion of this man did not change, in fact, it was probably validated a little bit. The only surprising part about the Donald Trump story, was that he brought the reporter back into the room after, and let him speak.

OTM 2 was the story of the Syrian boy, Aylan Kurdi. My AAR to this story was heartache... as the broadcast went on, the heartache only increased for this poor boy, and made a shift to sympathy for everyone involved in the migration crisis.

OTM 3 was about the 9/11 Memorial. I'm not going to lie... I think that when I first started listening to this, there was a voice in the back of my head that questioned if the 9/11 memorial was a capitalization scheme. All I could think about is the fact that someone is probably making money off of it... but as I listened on, I realized that it was so much more. I truly believe that the memorial will help bring closure to the families of the victims. I also feel that it's an important monument to help society remember the events that occurred that day.

OTM 4 was about Exxon's denial of Global Climate Change. Ironically enough, I think that my AAR to this segment, was that I didn't care, really. I say that this is ironic, because in my post I say that people care, and the people who don't care just really don't know much about it. I definitely had a change of heart as I listened to this segment.

OTM 5 was about Darkode. I actually am not sure that I had an AAR to this one... The only experience that I've really had with hackers, is when a friend's facebook or twitter account gets hacked, and spam's out tweets or status's, or tags me in dumb pictures. I've never clicked on one of them, and I've never been hacked. I was really neutral to this topic, I mean I know it's wrong, and it sucks, but upon hearing what the segment was about, I really didn't have any overwhelming thoughts.

OTM 6 was about the life experience's of the Justices. I was pretty neutral to this one as well... I do remember that this particular week, most of the segments were about the Justices, and my initial thought was, oh great... what have they done now? I'm still not sure...

OTM 7 was about Playboy, and I DEFINITELY had an AAR to this one. A super, super strong one... Playboy disgusts me, and the otm segment just validated that. I stand by what I said... my opinion of their announcement is that at least it's better than nothing.

As I re-assessed my writing, I realized that I do have Automatic Attitudinal Responses to certain issues, but I do think that I went in to researching each of these events with somewhat of an open mind. (Aside from the Playboy one.) I've also noticed that the discussions that we have in class have opened my mind more. My opinions on certain subjects have shifted, and I think that this is not only because of the critical thinking that I've been doing as I research these events, but the facts, and knowledge that I've been gaining about the subjects that we have discussed as a class.

This class, and my OTM research has helped me to realize that my opinions are changeable, and research, and discussion is what has helped make those changes. I've gained a greater understanding for the importance of individual research. I feel as though in the past, I've really just taken my dad's opinion as gospel, because I trust him, but I've realized that just because I value his opinion, and trust his knowledge, doesn't mean that I have to have the same opinions.

When we first started this assignment, I dreaded it a little bit. Listening to the News, and researching current events were one of my least favorite things to do, but the OTM assignment has helped me to realize that it's sort of necessary. It's really important to search the facts out yourself, so that you can better form an informed opinion.

On The Media: Playboy Covers Up

Physical: Playboy has decided to stop printing full frontal nude images starting in March of 2016. Playboy found, from re-vamping their website last year, that the website was viewed more, without the nude images.

Psychological: A quote from Harvey Cox, which was stated in the broadcast: "moralistic criticisms of playboy fail, because it's anti-moralism is one of the few places in which Playboy is right, thus any theological critique of Playboy that focuses on it's lewdness will misfire completely. Playboy, and it's less successful imitators are not sex magazines at all, they dilute, and dissipate authentic sexuality, by reducing it to an accessory, by keeping it at a safe distance. We must see in Playboy, the latest and slickest episode in man's continuing refusal to be fully human."

Hefner states in the interview, that the intrigue in Playboy is the fantasy. It's a motivation to dream, he says.

Temporal: Hugh Hefner's career in the industry began back in WWII, after seeing pin-up mags like Esquire. He wanted to see real women in magazines that looked like the Vargas girls. Playboy became a magazine for the "sophisticated" male society. Women, not only in Playboy, but in other sexual magazines as well, have been depicted clothed is less, and less clothing as the years have gone on.

Cultural: Though culturally, society says that pornography, and other things such as Playboy are unacceptable, they are still viewed, and purchased a whole lot.


I mean, if we're being completely honest here, Playboy disgusts me. It not only disgusts me that men look at magazines like Playboy, but it disgusts me that women let themselves be photographed for the magazines.

My mind keeps wandering back to an episode of The Fresh Prince off Bel-Air, where Hilary (Will Smith's cousin) is asked to be photographed for an edition of Playboy, spotlighting local weather girls. Her father (uncle Phil) is adamant that she should not be in the magazine (even though he definitely had a subscription to it). In the end, Hilary ended up sneaking to the Playboy mansion, and being photographed for the magazine. When the print came out, Uncle Phil hesitantly opened it up, and was relieved to see his daughter's bits and pieces covered up by graphics. But before the mag had been shot and printed, Uncle Phil found out that Hilary went down to the Playboy mansion shortly after she had left, and he ran down there to try and stop her. While he was at the mansion, Phil ran into Hugh Hefner, and Phil tried to explain to him that he did not want his daughter in this magazine. Hefner responded by saying, "Mr. Banks, don't worry, the images will be tasteful."

TASTEFUL?

You know what's tasteful? Put some flipping clothing on... that's tasteful. Nothing about Playboy is tasteful.

My attitude toward the no-more-nudes announcement is that it's better than nothing, I guess.

Now, in relation to Social Media, I definitely think that the development of technology has helped in the spread of Pornography, like just about everything else. People have devices in their hand that can be used to access Pornography at any time of the day, and in just about any place. 

Climate Change 1.0

Discussion: Discussion about climate change, on the internet, like any other topic, seems to get really confusing. I literally just typed "climate change" into google... and these are the search topics that came up.

Climate Change Facts
Climate Change Definition
Climate Change Hoax
Climate Change 2015
and a few others... 

Sort of all over the place, but through these "most searched" terms, we can see that people are at least trying to educate themselves.

But basically, what I have deduced from my research on this topic is that people care about climate change. Some people care that it's happening, and want to reverse it, some people care that it hurts them financially, and the people who don't care probably would care if they put in the effort to learn a little bit more about it, because it effects us more than we think. It seems to me, that climate change has become more of a political agenda, rather than a cause.

I want to relate back to my On The Media post about Exxon's climate change controversy. Like I said in this post, I wonder if the leaders of Exxon factor in the fact that their future posterity are going to have to live with the consequences of their actions today. I'm sure that Exxon is not the only one. In fact, I know they aren't. Take Volkswagen, and the deceit that has been coming out of that company lately. They literally proved that they do not care about the environment, and outlets like social media helped to spread that like wildfire.

Position: I think it's great that society has tools like the internet, and opinions stated on social media to help educate them on important topics such as climate change. But like I've said multiple other times, relating to various of research, I think it's important to be careful what you believe. Big corporations who have a financial agenda, or uneducated people can say whatever they want, and if you don't get the actual facts from PRIMARY sources, such as credible scientists (I saw that NASA has a page up about climate change) it's easy to form an opinion that you otherwise wouldn't have formed if you were accurately educated.

I think that social media has been a great help in spreading awareness about climate change, and I think that this is one of the most important roles that the internet plays today. It gives people the option to care. It gives people an easy outlet to go to, to find out what's going on in the world, and then it gives them the opportunity to do what they want with that information.

On The Media: Life Experience of the Justices

Physical: They talk about how Justices are portrayed in films, and other fictitious media outlets. The media often makes legal issues seem extremely dramatic. Elements are added into these forms of media to make the world of the supreme court, and other legal segments extremely interesting, and involved. The fact that, in these shows and movies, we see the intimate lives of the characters, creates the understanding that maybe it would be important to understand the views, and lifestyle choices of the Justices.

Psychological: Media depictions of the Justices help us to understand the shut-off, and seemingly secretive world of the Supreme Court. Supreme court Justices have a huge impact on what goes on in our society, so their views, beliefs, and actions should matter to us as citizens of the country.

Temporal: As time progresses, more and more questions arise about the government, and this is another form of that. People are beginning to understand that it is important to consider life experience, along with views and beliefs when appointing Justices to the Court.

Cultural: The legal world isn’t one that society necessarily identifies as interesting. There are several court room related television shows that are extremely popular. We place an extreme importance on life experience, so it makes sense that we would care about understanding not only the legal knowledge that the Justices have, but also the life experience that they have obtained.

I think that it is important for us to understand that Judges are human. Their lives, and their views and beliefs have the ability to change on the daily, just like ours do. It’s also important for them to understand the responsibility that they have to the country to make fair judgments. To be really honest, I’ve not thought about this topic before, but I agree that it’s important to understand, and consider the life experience that any person who enters the political/legal world has before they are appointed. Life experience is what we take our views and beliefs from.

Religion 3.0

Discussion:
Social media is used by both leaders, and members of many different denominations. People make the argument that social media has become a way to contact, and fellowship outsiders of any particular religion. Various forms of social media have also been utilized to inform the public about certain religious beliefs. Social media has also become a place where hatred of opposing beliefs is expressed. I recently read an article about a Jewish Group who was trying to identify the authors of some anti-semetic messages that were sent via twitter. Like any opinion or belief based topic, both positive and negative messages about religion's are displayed on social media. Churches have the opportunity to create apps to help their members connect with each other, and stay up to date on current church topics. They also post documents, and sometimes even daily messages for members to read.

Position:
I've heard the argument before that people should keep their religious views off of the internet, because of the controversy that it starts, but I feel like who we are online is becoming a representation of who we are in real life, and if religious views are a part of that, I say, talk about them. No matter your opinion, or belief, social media is a great way to connect with people from around the world, and have educated (and sometimes non-educated) discussions about religion. In my own religion, I have seen facebook used as a tool to reach out to people, and fellowship them. I hold a position in my religion, and I use instagram, facebook, and twitter to communicate with the people that I go to church with. We have even used Facebook to put faces with the names on our roll, so that we know who they are when they walk in. I also follow various leaders from my church on social media websites, and I love reading their uplifting messages throughout the day. I think that utilizing social media to stay connected with other people who share your beliefs is a really great use of social media.

OTM Replacement: Darkode

Physical: Hackers are getting into private computers and holding owner’s files for ransom. They hack into the computer, capture the data, and lock the owner out of the data. Until the owner pays the ransom to retrieve their data back, the files will be locked. Sometimes, there is even a timeline in which the owner has to pay the ransom, or the files will be lost forever.

And then there’s Darkode… which hackers use to communicate, and trade information.

Psychological: I would imagine that this would have the similar, if not the same psychological effect on someone, as physical theft would be. They’re devastated that their files, or family photos, and other data have been stolen. I can imagine, that especially for the older generation, it would be quite confusing to figure out.

Dan speaks about how he became intrigued with malware and viruses. I would imagine that his story is quite similar to that of other hackers. You start with a computer enthusiast with a curiosity, and they find a way to make money off of it.

Temporal: With the progression of technology, people have started to store information, sometimes sensitive information in a technological form. Like a burglar can break into your home and steal your items, hackers can break into your computer and steal your files.

Daniel Placek was one of the creators of Darkode, and speaks about his involvement. He started his hacking career by playing video games in his parents basement. He meets a guy on an online game who is into malware, and viruses on computers.

Cultural: This is theft, and at least in our culture, theft is illegal. This is a really confusing, and somewhat hard type of theft to track, because it’s so indirect. People use the internet to enact their thievery, and although we can track IP addresses, and things like that, it’s hard to identify the thief.

As they are talking to Dan, they speak about the progression of hacking, and how it started out as spam, and then the hackers realized that they could use these programs to do other things to people’s computers.

This is so wrong, and so sad. Like I said earlier, this IS theft! And theft is wrong. I constantly see my friend’s Facebook and Twitter accounts hacked into. I don’t know that it’s really had any ill effects on them, other than having to create a new account, but it sucks, nonetheless. This is the number one reason why I back all of my information up on an external hard drive. I don’t know what I would do if I lost a client’s photos, or even lost the ability to work on them for a while. That would be absolutely devastating. I hope that with time, we will create a safer system for navigating the technological world, and there will be an easier way to identify these thieves. I thought that the section about Darkode was really interesting to hear, especially the part about the progression of computer hacking.

Privacy 2.0

Discussion:
From what I understand, after the September 11 attacks in 2001, the government instituted a set of actions in which they called "The Program." which started out as a way to monitor phone calls, and other various forms of communication for potential terrorist action. The original plan for the program involved a set of parameters that would protect U.S. Citizens. It sounds like eventually somewhere along the way, or perhaps even for the entirety of "the program" the parameters that would protect citizens were bypassed. Some people in various government agencies found out about what was going on, and questioned it's legality.

 Position:
In watching the "United States of Secrets" documentaries... I feel as though the majority of what I heard was a constant back and forth of  "This is Legal." "This isn't Legal." "Wait, is this legal?" Although I watched these documentaries, and have a small amount of background knowledge about this subject, the amount of knowledge I have is just that. Small. Nevertheless, here's my opinion, based on what I know...

In class, the question was asked, Can we have both safety/protection and privacy at the same time? I would argue that we can't. I sort of have the viewpoint of the fact that I don't have anything to hide, so I don't really care if my phone calls are monitored, and my e-mails are read. I do, however, think that it can go too far. I also think that a problem arises when our phone calls and e-mail information is stored, and not taken care of, making it subject to theft, or hacking by outside parties. I've often thought, well, if the government would have just let us know that they were reading through and listening to our information, rather than keeping it a secret, maybe people wouldn't have a big of a problem with it. But then I wonder... if people knew they were being listened to they probably wouldn't use those forms of communication to plan terrorist attacks. I do think that this infringes on our first and fourth amendment rights, but I also think that maybe we place too much emphasis on the law. I can't help but think about the saying from Pirates of the Carribean, "The code is more of a guideline." Either way, if you consider this it's a sticky subject... As far as the President using his wartime authority to authorize "the program" I think that sounds sort of sketchy... I think that more people should have approved and talked about it.

I guess, bottom line, my opinion is that while I don't necessarily think that it was wrong or right that the government was watching us, I do think that there should have been more honesty about it. This is where people like Edward Snowden come in. I'm not sure that I've formed a complete opinion of Snowden and what he did, and the way in which he did it, but it sure has helped spark conversation and somewhat of an understanding of what's going on in our government right now.