322 Final Project

Check out my video

Not Just a Game

The documentary “Not Just a Game” has brought up points that I had never considered.  “This critique of U.S. sports culture shows how 20th-century sports has consistently reflected the hegemonic political discourse of the day, specifically, elite narratives about nationalism, war, gender, race, homosexuality and capitalism.”  

We've been told again and again that sports and politics don't mix, that games are just games and athletes should just 'shut up and play.' But according to the film, this concept is wrong. In 'Not Just a Game', It argues that far from providing mere entertainment, American sports have long been at the center of some of the major political debates and struggles of our time.  This documentary is an alternative history of political struggle in the United States as seen through the games its people have played.  

When it was first brought up in the film that sports and politics ARE in fact mixed, I was not only skeptical, I was a little confused.  I’ve never been the biggest sports fan, but I do watch the Colts so it’s not like I’ve never seen a football game.  I appreciate the entertainment of a good football game, but I had not considered that there was something more going on.  After watching the documentary the fact that sports and politics are so tightly intertwined is something I will probably never be able to ignore again. 

It was so interesting to see the comedian use all of those war terms to describe football, but as well as being interesting, it was pretty concerning to me.  In the film they interviewed a football player who described the game as “going to war” I can’t help but feel that this takes away the realness of actual war and places way to high of an importance on the game of football.  Which might not be something that I would want to say to a lot of people, but when it comes down to it (in my mind at least) football is a game, and war is something that it shouldn’t be compared to.  

I am glad that we are watching this film in class.  It definitely is opening my eyes to numerous topics that I had never thought of.  One of my favorite parts of taking 322 is the fact that even though I have not agreed with every article that we have read, pretty much every article has opened my eyes to a subject or way of thinking that I had never heard of before that class. 

Wii Shall Overcome

Video games have a lot of influence in today’s society.  According to the article “Wii Shall Overcome,” “McGonigal estimates that humans have spent nearly 6 million cumulative years playing World of Warcraft.” When I first read this I had to stop for a minute and let that sink in.  As the article goes on to say, that’s about the same amount of time that’s elapsed since our ancestors first walked the earth on two legs.  This is a very staggering realization.  McGonigals argument is that because we play video games so much, we should embrace it.  “McGonigal’s fantasy is to create a 1,000 year long game played by every person on the planet, “achieving a new scale of cooperation, coordination, and cocreation.”  McGonigal believes that video games encourage collaboration and confidence; she believes that it gives people the types of skills necessary to solve complex problems. 

I agree with her basic argument.  The fact is video games are incredibly popular and are only becoming more so as people gain greater access to the internet so, if we have something that is so dominant in our everyday lives then why shouldn’t we use it for the greater social good.  It’s the basic argument of “Why not fish where the fish are?”   

Though I agree with this argument, I have a hard time believing that this idea will ever be reality.  There have been no games up until this point that have been remotely close to the game that McGonigal suggests.  The games that have come out that have been socially relevant have lacked fun.  “Nobody will devote their days to playing world-changing games until they can vie with their less virtuous competitors.”

Though it is possible for a game to come out that incorporates fun and social relevance, I still have a hard time believing that this is in the future for us as a society.  Though the concept really appeals to me, the idea of being able to spend an average of 10,000 hours playing video games and stopping climate change isn’t something I think a lot of people would be against.  But is it really possible? Maybe it is, Id even go so far as to say probably.  The problem I see is that people go to games to escape reality, not solve it.  “The beauty of games is that you don’t feel overwhelmed by your virtual defeats, because you know you can eventually advance, and mastering the skills to do it takes only hours or days.  In reality, you get just one life, and by the time you’ve figured everything out, it’s game over.” 

Media Framing

The article Media Framing of Matthew Shepard really opened my eyes to how media framing can determine public perception.  Media framing is the process by which an issue is portrayed in the news media.  Media frames provide boundaries around a news story and determine what is and is not newsworthy or notable.  The goal of the article was to help better understand how media frames and helps the public negotiate tragic events such as the murder of Matthew Shepard, as well as how this framing shaped public opinions. 

The article argued that the way the media framed the tragedy absolved the general population from feeling any guilt.  It allowed the prejudice and hate to continue and it prevented any real political change from happening.    

  

Before this lecture I had never thought of media framing as a tool in negotiating through tragic events.  It is a very interesting concept to me, and not one that I would have thought about if I had not read this article and attended lecture.  In the article it defines the different frames that the media can give to an event and goes on to explain that the murder of Matthew Shepard was reported on through the lens of a tragic frame.  The reporting was done in such a way that no one needed to reflect on social or political change because Henderson and Mickinney were exceptions rather than the rule; they were portrayed as evil and not at all like the “normal” American.  I think that the authors of the article bring up a good point.  If the media had framed Matthew Shepards death in a different way perhaps more change and acceptance would have come from it.  By showing Henderson and Mickinney as evil it showed the public that, once they were punished, order was restored. 

As a consumer of the news media, I trust that the media will make mistakes, but I largely assume that they are presenting me with reality or “the way it is.”  I understand that as humans we will never be fully objective and therefore the journalist that writes the articles that I read will be putting their opinions (knowingly or not) into their work.  This is something that I am fairly comfortable with.  Things start to get less comfortable for me when I read articles about how the media reported on the death of Matthew Shepard.  The idea that the framing of this death influenced public opinion and “reproduced a discursive system of prejudice that attributed to Shepard’s death” is concerning.  

I am not really sure what my opinions are about this subject, I wrote a blog about it in an attempt to get a better idea. Instead, all that I have come up with is the importance of getting your information from multiple sources.  When a tragic event happens, or any event for that matter it is incredibly important to get your information from as many different sources as possible.  Media framing happens, news stores are published based upon hype, popularity, and scandal and that is not going to change.  The best shot that we have to be informed citizens (in my opinion) is to keep watching and reading only with a critical mind and a variety of sources.  

Princess Culture

After today’s lecture I have a different opinion on princess culture.  I knew (to a degree) what princess culture was before the assigned readings for today, but I did not know the consequences of this culture.  I was unaware of how it came to be, or as the article “When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink” addressed, that color specific clothing was socially constructed.  

If you shop for anything from young girls clothing to toys, you will see products saying “I’m daddy’s little princess,” and “I’m in charge.” Girls who are given these products and continually treated like a “princess” from a young age are at risk of becoming narcissistic. Peggy Orienstein’s book “Cinderella Ate My Daughter” discusses princess culture and its negative implications.  “It’s a $4 billion dollar industry aimed at little girls, telling them not just to play princess, but to be a princess everyday all the time.”  

This is obviously a concerning issues, but while reading the articles I couldn’t help but think that there are worse things than to live in a society such as ours where we have the opportunity to think highly of ourselves, have nice things, and even pretend we are princesses from time to time.  It wasn’t until I went to lecture and later did some more reading from Orensteins book that I opinion changed on princess culture. 

While I still think that it is a blessing that we live in a society with as many opportunities and freedoms as we are offered in America, I now see the dangers of this capitalistic society as well. 

Princesses are known for beauty, submissiveness, and consumerism.  The messages these princesses send are that being nice, and being pretty are the most important things in being a girl, rather than messages of intelligence, assertiveness, or strength.  Princess culture promotes over indulgence, self-centeredness, and entitlement.  Even worse, all of these products are pushed on girls at a young age.  The products teach them that it is important to focus on appearance.  When girls get overly focused on appearance we see things like distorted body images, eating disorders, depression, and low self-esteem.  

Reading these articles and listening to lecture today has really opened my eyes to what princess culture is.  I’m not sure how to prevent this culture from taking hold of my younger sisters and other young relatives and I am well aware that this culture is not something that is going to go away.  However, I know that knowledge is power and with this knowledge I can better try to teach the young girls in my life that I know that they are not in fact princesses, though they do have potential to achieve their goals through education and hard work…not by meeting a prince. 

Social Media & Activism

Today I started reviewing each of the readings in preparation for the upcoming test.  When I first read the article “Small Change” a week or two ago I strongly agreed with Malcolm Gladwell’s argument.  I am not the biggest user of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter and Pinterest.  While I have each of these sites I am not an active user nor would I consider myself to be addicted to any of them.  For this reason I originally agreed with Gladwells assessment of these social media sites as only having weak ties. I saw social media as not being able to lead to effective activism such as the example within the article of the four college students in North Carolina.  However, after attending lecture and also reading Biz Stone’s article on Twitter and Activism I would say that my opinion has changed quite a bit. 

I still believe that for the most part when it comes to Facebook people will like pretty much any cause even if it’s as silly as “If you're against Mondays like this picture!” However, I now see that there are more legitimate causes such as breast cancer awareness and other sites that raise money and spread the word in a way that without social networking sites would be impossible.   I do see now that these social networking sites can be used as a tool for real change too.  It was important for me to realize that the world has changed a lot since the times of the civil rights movement, so while that is what I saw as “real” activism it is not something that will be seen again in today’s world. 

 While there will still be sit ins, rally’s and riots, there will likely never again be a movement without some form of social media being used.  Strong or weak ties, the use of social media is a tool to get the word out about injustices and a way for people to share thoughts and opinions that they never would have been able to before.  To quote Biz Stones article, “Rudimentary communication among individuals in real time allows many to move together as one—suddenly uniting everyone in a common goal.  Lowering the barrier to activism doesn’t weaken humanity, it brings us together and it makes us stronger.”