Questions; week of March 1st readings.

1) Marshall McLuhan speaks of the states of high and low definition in categorizing the types of media. High definition, or a hot medium, is the “state of being well filled with data” and low definition, cool media, implies a provision of very little information where much participation and feedback is expected of the receiver of any message. Do you agree with McLuhan that certain media are more characteristic or appropriate to a certain culture as he suggests the radio is of oral tribal societies in Africa for example? Do you think that such cultures/societies will change over time with the evolution or introduction of new media? Will the oral tribal societies McLuhan speaks of become consumers of more low definition states of media? The American society seems to certainly evolve in conjunction with the media. Culture and media are now interconnected. What does this mean for the future of the society? What role do you think the Internet will play in the progression of our generations? Is it a medium of high or low definition?

2) Are you offended by the proposition “we [Americans] are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death” Neil Postman makes, or suddenly grasping the (possible) reality of the statement? Apparently, the City of Las Vegas is a metaphor for the national character and aspiration of the United States as it is a symbol for entertainment. Why is this the case? Is this image perpetrated on purpose? How has this affected the country’s image and is it relevant elsewhere? Postman makes it rather clear that he believes people are the creator of the media and the controllers of its destiny. “The news of the day is a figment of our technological imagination.” So are all media. However, as he mentions in a later chapter, television has become a myth, we take it as something completely natural and quotidian and are no longer amazed by its novelty and capacity. Has the audience become more passive or will the Internet continue to revive the audience and inspire curiosity and ongoing participation? Postman further claims “we are getting sillier by the minute,” that “our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense.” This must be our own fault. Are we ok with being silly? With the continual growth and highly visible impact of social networking and need for the input of individual opinions online, are we becoming sillier or will we try to shift towards a more serious tone again?

3) In the chapter The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments, Anthony Blair presents the concept of visual argument and discusses its complexity and truth-value. We are very visual, and at the same time heavily reliant on verbal communication as well. It seems as though we can hardly dissociate the two as one always helps us to effectively assert what we are communicating through the other. We live in the era of YouTube and careful selection of Facebook/MySpace profile pictures. However, merely pictures never satisfy us and we must add related information or a caption. Blair speaks of the immediacy visuals provide, but how about the immediacy verbal interaction provides? Images require interpretation, but when you have a text attached, any question or inquiry we may have can be instantly attended to. Do you believe we can argue visually? Can you think of an instance when you were convinced of something through use of visuals only?