The above article, ‘Globalization and the Media Industry’ by Robert Chrisman, discusses mainly the negative effects of globalisation of the media.

A few things are highlighted in the article. Firstly, that globalisation of media causes the “degeneration of cognitive and moral spheres of the individual” due to its subjectivity. This steers the audience into thinking in a particular way; discouraging independent views and opinions. To this, the author has a counter-argument, which is to encourage more creative media types and products to be released into the industry. As such, he raised interesting examples like “radio dramas and musicals”. I’ve never really thought that having variety in the media would actually help us to have different opinions, probably because I admit that I’ve become accustomed to the way things are presented to me, and I’ve accepted those constructs of societies and situations that the media has formed.

A negative effect of the media that the author feels strongly about is that media encourages violence. He links it to world events, where violence had been used to solve problems instead of resolving them in a civilised manner. Again, I had never thought that the media could have such a great, negative impact on us, till I see now, that it is true to some extent. 

Another point put across by the author is that a contributor to this “degeneration” is the computer. He argues that while the computer is supposed to be a tool for “universal interaction”, it is actually rather “private”. At this, I casted my disagreement. I didn’t agree with the author that the computer is “private”, as almost all information is available on the web. Then again, what’s available on the web is what people choose to reveal, so there are limitations. Though I’m sure that there are sites by minority groups. The author also brings in the issue about the ability to even own a computer, and have access to the Internet, and that governments are getting more wary of what goes online.

I’ve shared some of my views on the need to even talk about the globalisation of the media. What are your views? Do you think that this is a topic that needs to be discussed? Why?

This cartoon, “Chowder”, is shown on the cable television channel, Cartoon Network.

It’s disturbing to know that children nowadays are watching cartoons such as this.

One episode was about the main character, Chowder, ‘making’ “purple nurples”. That is ridiculous! Purple nurple refers to the act of twisting someone’s nipples till they are bruised. Firstly, that isn’t something that should be taught to children. Secondly, ‘consuming’ them is an entirely different dimension altogether.

Children, stereotypically, should succumb to the Powerful effects theory, whereby they take in everything that they see on television, without thinking about it. Going by this theory, children will most probably take back the wrong idea that the notion of purple nurples is acceptable. Taking into consideration that they might not have a clue to that term, they might just start using it without realising that it isn’t a pleasant term.

Of course, as children nowadays are getting more and more intelligent, for the better or for worse, they might fall under the Moderate effects model. In this case, though the mass media presents a certain idea, children are able to discern and choose whether or not to accept it. However, there is a high possibility for mischievious children to start using the term despite knowing that it is not good based on moral teachings.

There are many other episodes that have content that is ‘disgusting’ or ‘gross’, which is why I find this cartoon disturbing. Take for instance, the part where Chowder’s response to his master to the word, “gut”, was to literally lift up his top and his “gut” started talking. Children are likely to watch and learn, as discussed above, and it would be horrible if children started acting in this rude and unsightly manner!   

I’m sure that this cartoon is not the only one that presents negative or disturbing content. Children spend a great amount of time in front of the tube. In the United States, children spend an average of 3 to 4 hours watching TV per day(aacap.org). Thus the mass media, specifically television programmes, is highly influential on children. In my opinion, such content should not be broadcasted, as it does more harm than good to children.

This group of friends was formed in our first semester in UB. It started off with ‘classmates’ in ESL 407, which was a module that had only about 20 students. Most of us are Psychology majors, but PSY 101 also exposed us to friends from the Sociology and Communications courses. As we had two lessons per module per week, we had ample time for interaction, hence strengthening the bond among us through communication, realization of common interests, and understanding of one another’s situations.

Our entire group comprises of around 38 people. That is quite a big group. However, according to the definition of a group that we’ve learnt, the optimum size of a group is 5 to 7 people!

When a group gets too big, there is “the tendency to divide into subunits” (“Thinking through Communication” by Sarah Trenholm, 5^th edition). And true enough, when I look closely at this group of ours, there are subgroups. This is not necessarily a bad thing. At least, every member is included in the subgroups.

Within a subgroup, I can testify for interdependence. I believe that this is an invaluable quality that a group can have, as it means that one member affects the rest of the members and vice versa. In other words, without any one person in the group, the group will be incomplete. I think this goes hand in hand with satisfying members’ interpersonal needs, specifically the need for inclusion. In our group, I feel a sense of belonging when other members acknowledge me for who I am and vice versa. I also find myself a little out of place without some of the other members around.

Last but not least, I’ll give some examples of group socialization. In a bid to satisfy my own needs to exercise, I got together a few friends to play badminton once a week. Hoping that this activity would meet the needs of the rest of the group, I also ask them if they would like to join in the game. During the holidays last semester, some friends in the group organized a barbecue. They extended the invitation to the whole group as well. There’re of course birthday celebrations as well! All these ‘programmes’ are attempts by the individuals and the group to influence each other to best meet their needs (Definition of ‘Group Socialization’ from “Thinking through Communication” by Sarah Trenholm, 5^th edition).

The first concept of contention is proximity. It is said that the more opportunities one has with another increases the chances of relational formation. I understand and can see the logic as to why proximity can cause a relationship to form and develop. However, it might not always be the case. For example, if the other party is not what one is looking for, how awkward would things turn out? I strongly believe that proximity does not determine our destiny.

The second area of contention is with regard to Stage 3 of Knapp’s model of relational development: Intensifying.

Personally I disapprove of physical contact before a specifically, romantic relationship is established. Why? I would regard it as a violation of private space. If not involved in such a relationship, a person is an individual unit. Hence I believe that a casual distance (1.5 – 4 feet, according to Edward T. Hall’s zones of personal space, that is differentiated by relational status) should be kept.

However, I agree with the concept regarding self-disclosure in relationship maintenance.

I didn’t know that there were ’Rules for Disclosing’ prior to the lesson. 

“Disclosures may create unwanted intimacy.” (“Thinking Through Communication” by Sarah Trenholm, 5th edition, pg.161) This is quite true. Depending on who the other party is, we disclose selectively, in order to avoid misunderstandings. 

Also, it is said that there should be a right time and place for disclosure. ”Disclosures should not be bolts from the blue.” (“Thinking Through Communication” by Sarah Trenholm, 5th edition, pg.161) Well, nowadays, youngsters are so random (slang) that they disclose to others, especially to friends, whenever they want to. It doesn’t seem like the recipients are unable to react to the sudden outburst. Then again, the communication might actually not be effective. From what I’ve observed, responses are usually just laughs, be it genuine or not, or if any at all, they are just as random as the content being disclosed.

What do you say?

*IMHO – in my humble opinion

Music videos are good sources from which we can identify nonverbal codes. They are like muted movies.

Let me walk you through the nonverbal codes that are present in this video…

The video starts off with a scene at the construction site. As the man in the checked shirt hands out the paper to the other man in construction wear, we can identify oculesics. The man in the checked shirt seems to cast a “puppy look” – pitiful, hopeful, almost in desperation. Perhaps it’s the sun that’s causing him to squint, but it is a possible interpretation. I deduce from this scene that the man in the checked shirt is applying for a job in the construction field. The man in construction wear is probably the boss.

The boss gives a nonverbal negative reply with a simple shaking of his head. This is an example of an emblem, a form of kinesics, as everyone understands the shaking of the head to mean, “No” or being in disagreement.

After the rejection, the man in the checked shirt throws his bag into his lorry. The act of throwing is an example of affect display, another form of kinesics. It shows the man’s frustration.

Then we move on to the scene at the cafe. We can see the look on the customer’s face when the drink is accidentally spilled onto her.  Her eyes tell us that she is evidently upset and angry (oculesics), and her hand also comes up to illustrate her displeasure.

Afterwhich, probably the cafe’s manager, as he’s clad in a white shirt and tie (associating specific personality with physical appearance), uses big hand gestures to reprimand the waitress and dismiss her. This is a form of affect display, as he displays his anger.

Once out of the cafe, the waitress/woman removes and throws her apron to the floor, showing her anger as well. This is again affect display.

On the other end, the man in the checked shirt raises his hand to greet the owner of the red car (member of band). The owner of the red car then raises his hand as well, an emblem, to acknowledge the greeting.

The next scene is taken in the house of the man in the checked shirt and the women who used to work at the cafe. The woman displays proxemics as she tries to get close to the man. I deduce that they are partners (conveys relational status).

Then the man uses hand gestures to illustrate his point, then suddenly raises both hands to signal woman to stop when she was getting too close.

They quarrel for a while. The woman points at the man’s chest (haptics), then after a while uses hand movement to signal a stop to the quarrel. Then the woman puts hand on face – kinesics (adaptor) – showing disappointment, as a reaction to the tension of the moment, possibly in herself and the situation.

Zooming in on proxemics (the study of space in communications)…

Have you ever had the experience whereby someone spoke too close to you, and you felt uncomfortable?  There are two possible scenarios. You will either react by adjusting the distance and moving backwards, or adjust your own definition of intimate distance and remain where you are. What do you say?

The link below features an article on The Wall Street Journal Asia, dated 4 September 2009, entitled, “Why Gen-Y Johnny Can’t Read Nonverbal Cues” by professor of English at Emory University, Mr. Mark Bauerlein.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574348493483201758.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.114903:b27392018

The article above talks about youngsters nowadays not understanding non-verbal cues like body language when communicating, due to the fact that we spend too much time communicating online and via cellphone messaging.

It is indeed true that youngsters spend a great deal of time communicating with one another online. However, I disagree with the view that we cannot understand non-verbal cues during face-to-face communication (which is the crux of the article)!

Mr. Bauerlein refers to the late anthropologist Edward T. Hall, who said that even U.S. diplomats could lack the supposedly acquired interpretation of non-verbal cues, leading to miscommunication.

I personally do not think that Generation-Y in my society is that inadequate in interpreting non-verbal cues. Those who still attend educational institutions meet their coursemates almost everyday in the week, and those who have already entered the workforce meet with their colleagues everyday! Of course, there are exceptions, depending on one’s line of work. However, generally, we meet with our peers daily and communication is bound to take place!

Then again, Hall does mention that such miscommunication happens more so in “cross-cultural circumstances”. With regard to this, I agree, because different cultures do apparently have different interpretation of non-verbal cues!

Another point that Mr. Bauerlein brought up, is that during conversations, youngsters’ seemingly irresistible urge to log in to Facebook or reply to a text message are taken as non-verbal cues that mean that they cannot be bothered. I agree. Then the author adds,

“The next time (the older generation) shouldn’t think, “What a rude kid.” Instead, they should show a little compassion and, perhaps, seize on a teachable moment. “Ah,” they might think instead, “another texter who doesn’t realize that he is communicating, right now, with every glance and movement — and that we’re reading him all too well.”

Well, that works as well. However, I strongly believe that there is a good number of youngsters who do communicate and relate to people well. In addition, the government is now encouraging public speaking lessons to be part of the school curriculum (The Straits Times, 19 September 2009), so, as youngsters are being taught effective verbal communication, I’m sure that they’ll unravel the ‘mystery’ of non-verbal cues in due time!

Just heard this forum on the radio 938Live, regarding sending local students/youths overseas for exchange programmes and attachments, and the concern is – that youngsters don’t know how to read body language!

Why does the society view us as such? What do you say?

Judge Cheryl Cole commented after the performance, “I don’t know why…I had a preconceived idea, but I didn’t expect it to be that good.”

Where did this “preconceived idea” come from?

19-year-old student Stacey Soloman walked onto the stage, with her high shorts showing off her long, slim legs, and a wide smile across her face, which showed her distinctive big teeth.

We hear the judges’ (and our own) perception of her from the time Stacey started talking. When she gave her name, the crowd reacted a little, probably to the way she spoke.

Judge Simon Cowell and the audience must have also had a certain perception of where Stacey is from, probably based on her personality, as they reacted as though it was not possible that Stacey was from Dagenham when she said so.

We get these perceptions from the way Stacey speaks; her accent and her responses to questions, where she comes across as rather ditzy. She seemed to be a happy-go-lucky kind of personality because she never stopped smiling.

We might have even labelled her as a ‘bimbo’ because she seemed to be that of a prototype, based on the above qualities. Hence, we would have also, to some extent, thought the same way as Judge Cheryl Cole did, and not expect Stacey to be able to sing well.

Then when Stacey actually started singing, there was a change in the way she carried herself. She was very serious, sang in a very mature voice, and she sang well! Apparently, all the judges were surprised! This is proof that they indeed had inaccurate perceptions of Stacey’s ability to sing initially. 

We all know the famous saying, ‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’. However, we often do. We perceive someone’s personality or even ability from his or her appearance first. Sometimes we are right, perhaps when people dress according to social norms. For example, when a hip-hop dancer dresses in a big shirt and baggy pants. However, there are times where we are wrong about the way people are, hence we cannot apply the same general stereotype to everyone.

Also, I believe that most of you did not know that Stacey is a single mother, right? Well, she is.

You just had a MISperception!