FINAL POST

Final Essay

As society progresses, new channels of communication are constantly being created. What began with oral communication as the only medium has flourished into a society with several different channels that differ in effectiveness. Marshall McLuhan’s concept that the medium is the message has highly influenced the ideas contained in Adler and Rodman, which discuss one of the most important elements of the linear model of communication. Adler and Rodman state that one of the most important elements of communication is the channel, or method by which the message is conveyed (14). Evidently, Marshall McLuhan would undoubtedly agree; however, this is highly different than the idea put forth by Norman Fairclough, who places emphasis on language, and the message itself, rather than the medium, through which it is communicated. Furthermore, Fairclough also discusses the idea that language is what exerts power over people. This view clashes with the ideas presented in Adler and Rodman, as well as with McLuhan, who would disagree with this notion. All of these concepts are interconnected through discussion of the medium and the message and differ in the belief of whether or not the medium truly is the message.
Adler and Rodman state that the channel chosen can make a big difference in the effect of the message (14). For instance, a letter which is typewritten has a different effect than if it were to be handwritten`` (Adler and Rodman 14). ``Likewise, ending a relationship by leaving a message on an answering machine would make a very different statement than delivering the bad news in person`` (Adler and Rodman, p.14). It is evident that McLuhan would agree with the ideas discussed because of his belief that the medium is the message. Adler and Rodman state that e-mail and instant messaging convey the lowest amount of information (15), and it is obvious that McLuhan would concur with this idea because he believes that ``it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action`` (McLuhan 235). This means that it is not content itself which is important, or truly expresses the idea being put forward. It is the way which the content is being presented that is truly important, and influences the message. The medium chosen could potentially change the entire message. Adler and Rodman would agree that it is not the content that is important but the channel selected, because of the influence that it has over the actual content being sent. Since Fairclough puts emphasis on the content of the language being communicated, rather than the way in which it is communicated, his idea differs immensely.
Fairclough’s ``Critical Language Study`` differs from this idea completely, because its main focus is in language, rather than the medium through which the language is presented. It is no surprise that his analysis of the message would emphasis the role of language rather than the channel through which the content is presented, because of his career as a linguist. He states that one of his purposes in his research is “to help correct a widespread underestimation of the significance of language in the production, maintenance, and change of social relations of power`` (Fairclough 97). It is evident that Adler and Rodman`s idea of the channel is highly influenced by McLuhan, however, Fairclough’s analysis is completely different. He states that “It is not just that language has become perhaps the primary medium of social control and power, through that is noteworthy enough; language has grown dramatically in terms of the uses it is required to serve, in terms of the range of language varieties, and in terms of the complexity of the language capacities that are expected of the modern citizen`` (Fairclough 98). Through this, he is stating that social control is determined, not only by the language itself, but how it is used and what is said. Although this is an interesting idea, my analysis would conclude that McLuhan would believe this to be untrue because of the idea that the content of the language can be changed through the channel that it is presented. For example, it is unlikely that one has not witnessed a highly emotive advertisement, concerning a missing child. This medium, according to McLuhan is effective and could cause people to act due more so the medium chosen to convey the message. A TV advertisement is a more effective means of conveying a message because it allows the message to be more personal. The same message could be sent out in an email, which according to Adler and Rodman, has the lowest amount of information conveyed (15). The exact same language could be used, but this would not have the same influence over people to act because the medium is different. Email lacks authenticity and is impersonal. Confrontation with a person on TV or even a person is much more personal and sends the message that the content is important, therefore, through this example, it is clear that the medium does control the message. This is not the only instance through which the medium presides over the language being used.
The second, important difference discussed in the readings involves power and leadership. In Understanding Human Communication, Adler and Rodman state that a handwritten or typed message is an effective medium for detailed messages, and it is justified to conclude that McLuhan would agree (15). He states that Napoleon understood the effectiveness of the means of communication, and therefore stats that “three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets” (McLuhan 238). This is to say that a newspaper, or more abstractly, print, is a medium which can reach a large audience, versus bayonets in a war, which do not involve nearly as many citizens. The information in newspapers is more widely dispersed and can become more readily available. Since a multitude of individuals have access to this information, therefore, will read it, this sends the idea the medium is an important channel of communication, and therefore, makes the audience curious to read the message. This can have a great influence in the power or influence that an individual has over a society. An example of this is seen through Martin Luther’s 95 theses, posted on the church doors in Wittenberg. These ideas, dispersed throughout Germany served as a catalyst for the Protestant Reformation and made Luther a leader during this time. This is a reflection of the effectiveness of print as a medium to exert power over a group. This directly clashes with Normal Fairclough because of his belief that contributes to the domination of some people by others (Fairclough 98).
One cannot deny the importance of the role of language in exercising power over other people. This is demonstrated through speakers like Hitler, and Stalin. Fairclough would argue that since they were effective communicators, their choice of language influenced their power and persuaded others to become followers; however, it is my belief that McLuhan would argue that it is not the language which exerts power over people, but the medium through which the information is conveyed that is important. He states that “this fact merely underlines the point that the medium is the message, because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action`` (McLuhan 235).”This is to say that it is the medium influences the level of leadership which one can have over others. In a study done, an apparently legitimate speaker was to make a speech that would be judged by an audience of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers (Adler and Rodman 91). Questionnaires filled out by the audience proved that the audience believed the speech to be clear and stimulating, when in reality, the speaker was a fraud. (Adler and Rodman 93). One can conclude that that the medium through which the message was sent had a great influence on the audience`s belief because the same message would have a different outcome, proving the speaker to be untrustworthy, and would not have the same influence, if presented through a different medium. For instance, if a highly, effective speaker were to email a speech out to an audience, rather than present it, it would not have the same influence. Therefore, in considering McLuhan`s idea that the medium can control human action, it is not the language through which the leader is using to address his audience that gets their attention, but simply the fact alone, that he or she has the ability to communicate with them through that, particular medium which makes it effective.
In the end, the idea that the medium is the message is an extremely important one in the study of communication. Since language is arbitrary, one can utilize the channel through which that language is being conveyed, to understand the content of the message, or even extract more information from the content itself. The ideas of Adler, Rodman, and McLuhan differ fundamentally than that of Normal Fairclough, who states that language is important in conveying messages, as well as in attempting to dominate society through manipulating people for a strategic purpose (110). Through the evidence provided, it is clear that the content of a message is not necessarily important. The channel through which it is provided is the clearest message, therefore, the next time one plans on sending an important message, it is imperative to consider the channel through which it is being sent. “Many people would be disposed to say that it was not the machine, but what one did with the machine, that was its meaning or message`` (McLuhan 235).



Works Cited
Adler, Ronald B., George Rodman, and Alexandre Sevigny. Understanding Human Communication. Don Mills: Oxford UP, 1946. 1-561.c
Fairclough, Norman. "Introduction: Critical Language Study." Introduction to Communication.
Comp. Alexandre Sevigny. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Company, 2005. 97-242+.
McLuhan, Marshall. "Introduction: Critical Language Study." Introduction to Communication.
Comp. Alexandre Sevigny. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Company, 2005. 97-242+.

All Good Things Must Come to an End.

As my last entry, I'm kind of ashamed at picking Perez Hilton over the other two articles, which actually have some substance, but really, who can say no to entertainment news? It's actually rather unfortunate how obsessed we are with gossip and scandal about people who should mean nothing to our lives, but it’s impossible to deny how much interest we have in theirs.

First of all, I'd like to make a note about the whole layout of Perez's blog site. Obviously, everyone has heard about Perez Hilton; however, what is going on with his blog site? With all the hype, you would think that he would make it a little more professional, and more nicely laid out, but it's something that looks like it came out of a grade 9, multimedia class. It's pretty unprofessional and the random adds don't make it any less distracting, but I figure when your primary goal is to simply hate on people, why worry about minor details?

Let's get to the content. Overall, I personally think Perez Hilton is absolutely hilarious. He may be borderline offensive, but he simply tells it like it is, which is what I appreciate about his ranting. I can understand why people might find him offensive, but I think it's simply because they're so worried about what's "politically correct," and so used to beating around the bush that they've forgotten how to stomach things that are real. He says what's on everyone’s mind, without fear of people disliking him or criticizing him, and that's a lesson we all need to learn.

It's impossible to comment on every, single entry on Perez's blog-blogging about a blog-ha- so I decided there were three that sparked the most interest

(1) Britney Spears

Britney Spears seems like a regular target for Perez, but that's only because she makes it so easy. I can't say it came as a shock though. It's human nature to want to bring down people in high places from their pedestals, but I can honestly say that it makes me sad. After the whole Justin Timberlake break up, it all went down from there. A quickie marriage in Vegas-alright, not a big deal, but marrying a loser like Kevin Feder;ine? Please. Rule #1 in the marriage rulebook is NEVER marry someone that's on your payroll. BIG mistake. Mistake number 2: having his childREN; no, not one, but two of his kids. Everything else is simply a minor detail-like shaving her head, almost dropping her babies several times, the bizarre performance at the VMA's. Individually, all of these minor details aren't necessarily career threatening, but together, they're all just a weird blend of things that just make her seem crazy. I have always been a fan of Britney Spears-I was one of the first that bought the Baby! One More Time album, and had the posters, etc., and it saddens me to see where she is now, but she simply brought it upon herself. I can only guess how hard life can be with paparazzi and people wondering what you're doing, and where you are all the time, but it's times like those where you just need to buck up, and be a little bit stronger. You can't let those things break you down, your kids will see what happened to you twenty years from now and imagine what they'll say. All of this could have been avoided, but it seems like she just egged it on. Publicity? or she's just gone plain crazy? It's hard to tell, but the moral of the story kids? Don't cheat on Justin Timberlake.

(2) Lourdes

Now this is easily the most offensive thing in Perez's website, but no one can deny that they were thinking it:

VS

People have mixed feelings about this one. I read all the comments and half the time, people were writing about how offensive this is, and how Perez has gone too far, and the other half was commenting on how Perez is right, and wondering what Madonna is doing. I sit in the middle. Yes, Madonna's daughter Lourdes is just a child, and Perez shouldn't really be taking hits at someone so young and vulnerable, but an we please be realistic here? We are a society that's obsessed with appearance, and if she's going to grow up in a society like that, Madonna should make sure her daughter is prepared for that. Let's face it, kids are cruel. They aren't going to see her on the playground and think "yeah, she's too young, a few more years." They are going to torment the poor child and it's just going to embarrass her. Trust me-I'm a victim myself. My mother waited far too long, and when I look back on it now, I think about how ridiculous the whole thing was, but at the time, kids found anything and everything to use against you. It shouldn't be made into such a big deal, but Madonna, please do your poor daughter a favour.

(3) Kanye

Of all the things I could have chosen, I chose Kanye West crying for his mother during his Paris show. Why? Because it's probably the only youtube video I've ever seen that could send chills up my spine. As a big fan of Kanye West, I have a lot of respect for him for even being able to continue his tour with his mother passing away. And it only made me angry to see comments on Perez's website that called him a coward or a pansy for two reasons. One, because I adore Kanye West-he's one of the few rappers in the world that actually has something intelligent to say, and not only that, but he makes kick-ass music, and two, because NO ONE is a coward for crying over the loss of their mother. I don't care who you are; male, female, famous or not, the loss of a mother is probably the most difficult thing in the world to endure. I have a really close bond with my mom, and I know that when she passes, I'm not sure what I'll do for myself. I respected the fans on Paris for being so supportive and friendly over the whole situation and I'm just glad the Perez added this video and had enough respect not to say anything about it, because that just would have been going too far beyond the line.

R.I.P Donda West

With all of that being said, as my final blog entry, I feel as though its necessary to finish this off with a cheesy cliché.

All good things must come to an end and this is ours.

Goodbye blog.

Say No to Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is one of those debates similar to abortion, and religion. Everyone who is for or against is extremely hard headed, and it just ends up getting people angry and nowhere. Well, that's how all of my debates have gone anyway. Stephane Dion pulling out the capital punishment card was a pretty genius political move for that specific reason-because so many people feel strongly about it. If a government was planning on bringing it back, it could change thousands of votes in about a second. It's similar to abortion in that it's a really touchy subject; however, it differs because legalizing abortion would mean that people would get a choice, to abort or not, but restoring the death penalty would revoke the choice, and the ability to have ones life back again, if life imprisonment was the case. It would simply mean life or death. And I'm not sure people are ready for that.

The death penalty is a debate I've had with everyone, and it truly hasn't gotten anywhere. There are obviously arguments for and against that we've all heard. Some of them include:

For
-"an eye for an eye" policy
-deters criminals

Against
-killing an innocent man
-the idea of rehabilitating

These are pretty general, and essentially the main arguments, all of which are legitimate, however, as someone who has seen about several thousand presentations on both positions of capital punishment, and written several papers on the pros and cons, I would have to say that I’m most definitely against, and I don’t know how many people that aren’t, therefore, if the majority of people are against it, wouldn’t it be a genius political move to try and prove that an opposition party is rallying for it? Absolutely.

There are just ultimately more cons than pros in this argument. “Revenge” and “justice” just don’t necessarily seem like valid reasons to potentially take an innocent persons life, and although people who have lost loved ones to homicide would indefinitely disagree with me, the rational thing to do would be to imprison those people who do wrong. There have been too many cases of innocent people being imprisoned for dozens of years, only to be found innocent. Is that really fair? How would you feel if you were in prison for practically your whole life for something you didn’t do? I know I wouldn’t be a happy camper. Furthermore, prisons, especially in the state and Canada are worse than death sometimes. They’re grungy and dirty and besides- being locked in a square cell with nothing to do? Some of us would rather die than have to live like that.

It’s not even the prisoners that suffer when capital punishment is brought into play. It’s the families and the people who knew the criminals. I know that as a society, we tend to shut out murders and rapists, but sometimes it’s a serious, psychological problem, and even so, we may tend to look at them like animals, but they have families and friends still, and people that care about them, therefore, why let them off while making their families suffer? Does that sound like justice? I didn’t think so either.

I haven’t exactly been following politics all that much, so I’m not even certain of Dion’s claim is valid, or it’s just a cheap shot at the Conservatives, but I do know two things.

Stephane Dion is a genius. And if the Conservatives are really planning on legalizing the death penalty again, we can safely expect them not to be re-elected any time soon.

CCA 4

CCA#4

One night, your wife asks, “Do I look fat in this?” You are not about to tell her that you think it is extremely unflattering. You reply, “No, you look wonderful.” Everyone, including the people gawking, knows you are lying, but you merely do not have the heart to tell her the truth. She does not notice the stares, and you have a lovely evening together. Is it ever right to lie? In circumstances like this, when truths are not malicious, and one can avoid complicating a social relationship, deception is sometimes an essential part of the order of the social world (Adler 241). This is an important concept to apply to everyday life, and one which I practice regularly.

Recently my mother, in a frantic rage, asked if I knew where her hair dryer was. I had lent it to my cousin, but I knew that if I told her, being caught up in her rage, she would have been malicious. I told her I did not know where it went, and waited until the next morning, when she was calm and well-rested, to tell her the truth. She told me that it was fine, and I knew I made the best decision. This may seem deceitful, but white lies, to spare unnecessary tension in relationships, should be justified. Obviously, there are several circumstances in which a lie is not defensible and one should understand that this line should never be crossed.

Conversely, I could have never told my mother where her hair dryer went. If my cousin returned it and informed her that I lent it out, the consequences could have been worse than if I had told the truth. This could have resulted in complicating our relationship, and her not trusting me; therefore, it is important to consider when it is right to lie and when it is not.

In the end, one should understand that sometimes dishonesty is necessary, but that there is a line which should not be crossed. Keeping this in mind, the next time you open your mouth to tell the truth, really ask yourself, should I be telling the truth right now or is it right to lie?

CCA 3

CCA#3

To Gustav Lebon, the term crowd is much more complex than “a group of people.” In “General Characteristics of Crowds,” he prescribes a number of criteria for a group of people to be considered a crowd. One of the conclusions he comes to, is that a crowd is as easily heroic as criminal (Lebon 121). There are several examples of both heroic and criminal crowds in society’s history.

Firstly, Betty Williams, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient became an activist against the political turmoil in Ireland. She created a petition for peace, and organized marches of several thousand people. The first march was disrupted by protestors, yet, despite this, without fear, the second was still organized. This crowd congregated for a specific cause, and it brought awareness to the idea of peace and the consequences of war, which was essentially the goal that Williams was trying to achieve. This is a clear example of a heroic crowd but, a positive outcome is not always the case (Lebon 121).

Conversely, there are crowds which gather for a noble cause, yet easily turn criminal. An example of this is inspired by the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, which served as a catalyst for many protests that turned violent. It was not long before this crowd, which gathered to show their dismay of the cartoons, turned violent and caused many deaths. This is a demonstration of how easily a crowd can have moral intentions, but turn criminal in the end.
These are only two of the many contrasting examples of the outcome of a crowd in our society. It is important to consider that the crowd can easily go either way, and you must remember, that the next time you agree to be part of a crowd, be sure to be prepared for what you have signed up for.

There's a Reason it's Called "Gossip GIRL."

TEEN STAR ZAC EFRON REPORTS FAVORITE CARTOON AS "ROCCO'S MODERN LIFE!"

...No wonder all celebrity headlines star women. Would you pay $3+ to read about Zac Efron's cartoon suggestions? Didn't think so...and neither would I.

As a big magazine consumer myself, I know what sold me and what didn't. Human nature forces us to be interested in scandal, and see or read about people during times of distress, whether that be for the sole purpose of amusement or to be able to say "I'm glad that's not me." As harsh as that sounds, it's only true. There are the rare occasions where celebrities have babies or get married, and people like to read about that in celebration, but do they sell half as well as magazines starring gossip and scandal? It's very doubtful.

So why is the world so infatuated with women in distress and not men?
When was the last time you looked at an article about a womanizing man or a man doing drugs and thought "I HAVE TO HAVE THAT?"
If you're a female reading this, you probably just said "rarely." And if you're a male reading this, then you probably just said "never, but that doesn't normally happen with magazines featuring women either," which is exactly the point. It's the main point in this whole "why aren't men the targets of gossip?" debacle.

How many men buy magazines about gossip or whose doing what drug or what rehab centre so and so is in? Furthermore, how many males even buy magazines period? I'm sure there are those rare cases of the males trying to bulk up and are obsessed with the "quick tips to bulk up" in Muscle and Fitness or let's face it-porn, but truly, what's the ratio between females and males buying magazines? I'd have to say it must be a huge gap. Not only because females are just more likely to want to be socially inclined to the entertainment world, but also because it’s no secret that women tend to pamper themselves more than their male counterparts-and that means buying unnecessary, useless things. I know there are not many women that can say they don’t enjoy a nice bubble bath, with candles and a Cosmo. Women love luxury and a magazine is not the most practical purchase in the world.

This is obviously a double standard in the media. And I am most definitely all for women’s power, and equality amongst the sexes, but this is one of those double standards, in my opinion, that is acceptable. If the tabloids were smart, which it seems as though they are, they would continue to do what they’re doing. The magazine industry is a billion dollar industry, and I am certain that if they started to broaden their scope and create more of a 50/50 standpoint on entertainment news, their sales would most definitely go down.

The bottom line is that women love gossip. They love hearing about women that seem more glamorous than them, and that their husbands and boyfriends fantasizes about, in misery. There's even a new show out called "Gossip Girl," which evidently targets them. Females also love magazines about gorgeous men, and how hot they are, but there are only so man hot men in the world, and there are also only so many times a magazine can print in issue like that and expect to sell it. And as for males, the most they’ll do is read is skim the magazine on the coffee table while their wives or girlfriends are taking forever go to get ready. So why not continue to print magazines that contain exactly the kinds things your target audience likes to read?

In Attack of Herouxville

"In Defence of Herouxville"' sheds the small town in Quebec in a different light. The article praises it for essentially its foot down against allowing such a strong sense of multiculturalism. It goes on to ask the question “how far should we go to accommodate immigrants?” And finally, it basically states that the citizens of Herouxville are smarter than the rest of us.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. It is old news that Quebec has always thought of itself as being independent from the rest of Canada. The 1995 referendum in is evidence of this, but how can one agree that Herouxville- one of the most intolerant cities in arguably all of the world justified or smarter than the rest of us? Canada is a country known for its tolerance and allowing people to come in with open arms. Herouxville just shoots that notion to hell.

Canada has never truly had an identity. Before it became independent from Britain in 1867, it was simply known as a colony of the UK, and after that, it still didn’t establish an identity at all.t all. After its campaign to promote immigration in the early 1900’s is when Canada began to start to have an identity defined by multiculturalism. It is known as the mosaic, thus, how can an educated person ask how far we should go to accommodate immigrants when the foundation of its identity is built upon immigrants? This is the only way we differentiate ourselves from the the melting pot-the Americans-by not forcing citizens to assimilate to one prototype. Canada is a country which was developed upon by immigrants, people from other countries, and yet, author Johnathan Kay can still call Herouxville moral? Blasphemy

The 14 page submission has absolutely absurd requests. And continues to call Quebec a separate entity. It is not, and the citizens of Quebec need a sincere reality check. Quebec has always been an nonconformist though. It’s already pretty intolerant of English. It should be obvious that going to Quebec only knowing English is probably a bad idea, but Quebec, for the most part hates everyone-Anglophones, Francophones from Paris and Herouxville is evidence that it dislikes everyone else.

Now I’m not saying that Canada, or any province or city within Canada should bend over backwards to meet the needs of their citizens. There are certain boundaries which need to be created and certain lines that needn’t be crossed. For instance, Canada has two official languages, one of which is necessary for survival in Canada, and ESl and FSL programs cater to that. Furthermore, when it comes to safety versus religions or different cultures, safety is always the priority, like the case of the student with the Kirpan, but not being able to wear a Hajab, or for speaking French to be mandatory, etc, it is truly unreasonable to expect. To ask those things from citizens is absolutely ridiculous and to promote a “follow our rules or hit the road” policy is even more absurd.

What’s even more interesting is the the authour of the article was born in Montreal and graduated from Mcgill. I doubt this is any coincidence. I think it all just comes down to the fact that as harsh as it is to generalize; most people from Quebec are snobby, “think we’re better than everyone” separatists, and are just starting to become a burden on the rest of Canada if they’re going to enforce rules like those of Herouxville and expect people to follow them. In the end they need to realize that they aren’t a separate country, or even a separate state. They are a part of Canada, and need to act in accordance of this fact.

...Down with Herouxville? Down with Quebec?