Short Blog # 9

Due to the advancement of technology, it is hard for the average person to sit down and focus on the TV only. There are so many other things that one can be doing while watching TV. For example, sitting on Facebook or texting while watching tv. However, there still are those who could sit in front of the TV all day, not bothering with anything else around them. This is why there are three categories of TV watchers, Zappers, Loyals, and Casuals according to Henry Jenkins in his essay, “ TV in the Net-age”. Jenkins explains that Zappers are people who constant flit across the dial, Loyals are people who do not watch a lot of TV, but have certain shows which they dedicate themselves too, and finally casuals are people who fall somewhere in between, watching a certain series for example from start to finish if they have nothing better to do (Jenkins, 263).  However Jenkins states, “no given viewer is exclusively a loyal, a casual, or a zapper; most watch television in different ways on different occasions” (Jenkins, 264). 

In the 1930s-40’s when Television was being introduced to America, it was cherished. If you had a TV you were watching a program from start to finish, not being distracted by any other technologies. Today we take for granted the invention of Television, due to the fact of all the other technological distractions around us.  It is common to see someone cooking, on the computer, texting, etc all while watching the TV. It is hard to focus on a particular television program if you are twitching to check your Facebook account. Personally I would generally consider myself to be a loyal, because I do not watch hours of TV, but I have certain shows that I dedicate myself too. Also, while watching these specific shows I do not text, talk on the phone, cook, sit on FB, or involve myself with any other technology. If I have to miss a certain show I watch, I will be sure to DVR the show or watch it online. I secretly am obsessed with the show, “The Secret Life of the American Teenager”, despite the fact that it is a mini soap for teens with horrible acting. I sometimes watch episodes online even though I’ve already seen them. I do not watch TV while multi-tasking, because I can never get anything done in a timely manner. However, my family is different then me. My mom is a night owl and I would consider her a Casual watcher because she will watch show after show and sometimes even dive into a series halfway through the season and watch until the end if it can keep her interest. My dad is a most definitely a Zapper, which I consider quite annoying. He constantly switches the TV channels; needless to say he is always watching TV by himself. Finally, my brother is probably a combo of all three. He can multi-task while watching TV (well if you consider playing World of Warcraft while watching TV multi-tasking). He dedicates himself to the show, Dexter, without being disturbed by any other technology. And sometimes, he can sit with my Dad while they Zap away, watching a show for 2 minutes and then to the next one!

While I do believe there is so much going on around us, that Television is often taken for granted, I do not believe it will ever fade away. The I-pad, Droid, I-phone, are examples of technology that allow you to watch TV wherever you are.  However, due to the technologies like DVR, which allows you to tape shows and fast-forward the commercials, this is hurting the advertisers. Advertisers have to re-think their strategies of Advertising through commercials. Some Advertisers are including their products in the actual shows. As discussed in class, a famous example of this would be Star Treck. Not only do advertisers have a lot to worry about with these new advancements, so does the TV world itself. Jenkins states, “viewers need constant gratification: if she’s not entertained for any stretch of time, she will flip the dial.” Our television impatience is horrible, and from originally have only four channels to chose from, we now have thousands to chose from. Producers must think of new and exciting ways to constantly keep one’s interest and to hopefully keep a viewer hooked so they do not switch the channel on the particular show. Jenkins mentioned how the famous show, American Idol, constantly is trying to keep viewers with different strategies. They do this with short acts, suspense, connection to constants, etc.

With all of the technology around us will we all turn into Zappers with almost everything we do in life? Is the technology benefiting our society or hurting us? Are we becoming too impatient, not having the ability to focus on anything for a short period of time? It will be interesting to see how society changes as the advancements keep on coming. With Jenkins essay, he allows us to see how our TV patterns have dramatically changed throughout the years. So much indeed, that there are three different kinds of TV watchers. TV producers and Advertisers constantly have to think of new techniques to keep the viewers attention.

Jenkins, Henry. TV in the Net-Age. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society (pp. 14-20). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Image retrieved from. http://www.gtvhub.com/tag/multitasking/

Extended Blog # 2

After looking through many different ads, I quickly realized that there is much more then what you see on the surface of the ad, many ads incorporate fallacies. According to Webster’s Dictionary, a fallacy is an error in reasoning or a flawed argument. Also, according to Dauna Howerton in her lesson plan from “readwritethink”, the ten most used fallacies are, ad hominem, appeal to emotions, false dilemma, appeal to the people, scare tactic, false cause, hasty generalization, red herring, and traditional wisdom. There were many ads that were very humorous once you realized there intended meaning. I chose a “vintage” ad to analyze. I noticed a trend in the “vintage” or older ads, a lot of the ads had sexist connotations behind them. Through the years, the meanings behind the ads have slightly changed, however one tool that is used often is sex appeal. In many of the ads from the old days to the current included type of sex appeal. Typically a lot of adds were displaying a product and saying if you buy this he or she will be attracted to you, especially alcohol and tobacco products.

The ad I chose is a makeup add for women, specifically a lipstick ad. The add is simple, but includes a lot of advertising text. It has a basic white plain background and a woman with red lips leaning towards a red lipstick with the brand name underneath. It reads, “Tangee (Brand) presents “Bright N’ Clear”. There is also smaller text on the side of the add stating, “Tangees new lipstick shade-Bright N’ Clear is the brightest, clearest, most dazzling red on record. It is exactly the color and lipstick America’s leading beauty authorities say smart women should wear. And- exciting miracle!-here is an incredible type lipstick that actually stays Bright N’ Clear for hours and hours. It will not dry your lips…will not go dull and lifeless even after blotting. So start your Bright N’ Clear future today!”  Above the lipstick in a different type of font, it reads, “The brightest jewel of all can be your lips.” The surface meaning is simply advertising a beautiful and long lasting lipstick shade.

The intended meaning goes a bit deeper then the surface meaning. First, many may take the ad as a sexual reference. The placement of the woman and the shape of the lipstick gives off a sexual connotation. I’m guessing, that the lipstick is supposed to make you feel sexy when getting intimate. Also, if you are getting intimate then your lipstick color will not fade since the ad claims it’s “long lasting”. I’m assuming that the ad is supposed to attract men as well, hoping they will buy this lipstick for their girlfriend or wife to increase intimacy possibly. Secondly, if you look at her facial expression, she looks peaceful yet self confident or sexy. Women may look at the ad and want to feel confident, sexy and peaceful. Also in a mischief and fancy looking font, the ad reads, “The brightest jewel of all can be your lips”, and surrounding the lipstick are red jewels. Looking deeper into this it implies that jewels are vibrant and bright, the ones in the ad are ruby red, the same color as the lipstick. I think it is implying that if you wear this red lipstick you will have bright and vibrant red lips that stand out more than a jewel. It also is supposed to attract the attention of men because usually women want jewels for holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, etc and the add is implying that this lipstick worn on a woman’s lips is the greatest jewel of all. The text in the add is all about being bright and standing out, so it is attracting those to buy the product so they can feel special.

The cultural or ideological meaning adds on to the intended meaning. Usually those who create ads want their product direct towards a certain race(s) or class of person. The ad I chose looks to be around the 70’s possibly, and colored models were just making their way to the advertisement/ modeling business. So not many colored models were used in the first place so it would be hard to analyze which type of race the product was being directed to. In the ad I chose, you could assume white since the woman is white in the ad. Also her appearance is important because it too reveals who the product is meant for. The girl on the ad has big fancy earrings and nice looking clothing, implying that she is at least middle class if not upper class. The product seems to be directed towards classy women with money. In the text it states, “It is exactly the color and lipstick America’s leading beauty authorities say smart women should wear”. The statement is bold and comes off offensive. It seems that only the best of the best should buy this product or if you do buy this product it means you’re smart. They chose to say key words such as highest, beauty, and authority in there sentence to catch the attention of the reader. I think it is insulting and sexist to say that women are smart if they where a certain lipstick, women are smart because of the knowledge and skills they can do.

Ads are completely manipulative and find certain ways to catch the readers’ interest. How much advertising is enough? Frith, in her essay, “Undressing the Ad: Reading culture in Advertising” states, “most people thing that there is too much advertising, that it makes us materialistic, that it perpetuates sterotypes, and that it plays on our fears of not being socially acceptable” (Frith, 1). Personally, I know that a lot of ads make me doubt myself, and I have convince myself I’m fine with how I look. The “perfect” girl on the ads make you have low self esteem, and if you buy the product then you are one step closer to being the “perfect” girl. It is easy to fall into the advertisers traps. Surprisingly, a lot of ads display false information, but just because it is on the ad people believe it. It occurs so often that when a good deal is presented one’s response is usually, “what’s the catch”. Not only do ads catch your interest and make a product seem like the best with the type of colors, words, and people used, they also have other meanings such as sexist, sexual, cultural, etc.

Advertising needs to have laws and regulations. Too much advertising can do some damage to our society. For example, in Ruskin and Schor’s essay, “Every Nook and Cranny” they stated, “Because the phenomenon of commercialism has become so ubiquitous, it is not surprising that its effects are as well. Perhaps the most alarming has been the epidemic of market-related diseases afflicting people in the U.S” (Ruskin & Juliet, 413). There shouldn’t be ads that promote bad behavior or products that could be life threatening. Too many young children and teenagers get into habits involing tabacco and alcohol. There should be more ads that are about being a good person, rather then selling a product of some sort.

Ad : http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2010/06/10/vintage-ads-thinking/#slide=8

Frith, Katherine. “Undressing the Ad: Reading Culture in Advertising”. Web. 4 Nov. 2010. http://blackboard.umbc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_55365_1%26url%3D

Ruskin, Gary. Schor, Juliet. “Every Nook and Cranny: The Dangerous Spread of commercialized culture”. Web.4.Nov.2010. http://blackboard.umbc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_55365_1%26url%3D

Short Blog # 5 and # 6

From drugs, DUIs, theft, and debt, the list of celebrities who have committed crimes is outrageously long and sadly growing. There are numerous crimes committed that do not receive the proper punishment and justice they deserve. There especially seems to be a double standard with celebrities and the law. The media does not help with celebrity justice, but promotes it for higher ratings. CNN, ABC, and Fox news seem to cover celebrities who turn to the bad side quite often. It is rare that the news or comedy shows presents “happy” news. No one ever mentions if a celebrity does a good deed. Comedy shows such as the Colbert Report and the Daily Show also cover celebrities. The news shows usually have facts and truth to them. The comedy shows make jokes about the celebrities, and rarely state all the facts, just brief descriptions. However, through the sarcasm the comedy shows still have some truth about celebrities that the news shows would never say because it would be unprofessional. At the end of the day, the news is supposed to state the facts, while the comedy shows entertain.

The average Joe can be convicted of a crime having to do with dog fights and people will disgusted with him, while football player, Michael Vick can be convicted of the same type of crime, and all people will be concerned about is the next game he will be able to play in. Jon Stewart made jokes, but at the same time made completely valid points with how corrupt the law, NFL, and the media are when it comes to celebrities. On the Daily Show he showed a clip of NFL announcers saying, “were looking at Michael Vick not showing up in the NFL again until 2010…Jon replied yelling,” MY GOD …that’s almost 28 dog years from now”(The Daily Show). Because of the media, people seem to be devastated that their fantasy football teams will be missing Michael Vick. People should be more concerned about the innocent dogs that were cruelly killed. Jon made the point that people to need to wake up and realize that it is a big deal that Michael Vick committed an inhumane crime. This is a serious flaw in the legal system.  The media is another major factor that encourages this flaw to be ok. It’s exciting to turn on the TV and hear of the latest celebrity in trouble with the law, but if that celebrity were to go behind bars, what story would the media have to tell?  The media can’t go behind the bars, there’s no more suspense whether or not the celebrity will receive a certain punishment. Schudson mentioned, “ another major development in self-advertising was larger and darker headlines” (p.114). It seems that the media is just playing a big game with no rules, and whoever can get the most ratings wins.

The comedy shows may not always be stating proven facts, but they usually are bold enough to say the unspoken truth that the majority of the public is thinking. John Stewart made jokes about Michael Vick and the dog fighting, but in between the jokes was truth. Jon Stewart on the daily show stated, “let the dogs see how fast and as elusive as he says he is” (The Daily Show). Being on a comedy show he can say things that the media purposely ignores, while the news. Jon was implying that Michael Vick was inhumane and lets see what happens when the roles are reversed and the dogs get to attack him. He may be a great football player, but no one is impressed. News stations seem to just state “facts” that get them the highest ratings, they chose what to show to keep the publics interest. CNN reported that Michael Vick was close to completing his sentence and how he is teaming up with a human society to prove he is changed. At the end of the CNN clip, the reported mentions, “many people say one of Vick’s challenges in the coming months will need to convince NFL commissioner to lift the suspension and reinstate him into the league” (CNN). While those facts may be true, the media chose to say the good things Vick is doing, getting sympathy votes from the public. At the end of the clip, they made it seem like poor Vick, please let him back into the NFL, he is changed. If Jon Stewart used that clip on his show, he would make fun of the fact that they said one of Vick’s coming challenges is about getting back into the NFL. The NFL should be the least of his worries if he is a “changed” man. Smolkin also agrees that the Daily Show is the only show that stands up for what’s true. She stated, “The Daily Show' is hypocrisy, exposing hypocrisy. And nobody else has the guts to do it," Brown says. "They really know how to crystallize an issue on all sides, see the silliness everywhere”(Smolkin). Even though he is there to entertain, there is always some truth to his “jokes”.

The media, fans, lawyers need to be stopped from preventing anymore unfair bias when a celebrity is convicted. Not only is this not a fair system, but also what kind of examples do we want to set for the public? Celebrities who do good deeds should be the top story’s, not celebrities who commit crimes.  It is sad that the comedy shows tell more of the truth then the News when it comes to Celebrities. The media seems to be a flawed system, no matter the topic, the media decides what to show or say, making almost everything bias. I’m not sure I will base my information from what the media says, whether it’s a news station or comedy show, it seems to be lacking the full truth.

Schudson, Michael. The New Journalism. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history, technology, culture, society (pp. 111-118). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Smolkin, Rachel.”What the Mainstream Media Can Learn From John Stewart”. American

Journalism Review (2007). Web. 20 Oct.2010. http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4329

“Human Society Will Work With Vick”. 19 May 2009. Youtube. Accessed 20 October 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFcAYgC-7bc&feature=related>

“Dog Fighting.” Thedailyshow.com, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. <

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-18-2007/dog-fighting>

“Vicks Rub.” Thedailyshow.com, n.d. Web.20 Oct. 2010 <http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-21-2007/vick-s-rub>

Short Blog # 4 (makeup blog)

The printing press has expanded our society’s knowledge and advanced our technology.  The printing press has had major impacts directly and indirectly on historical, social, cultural, and political aspects of our society. The printing press allowed mass production, which consequently spread prints of all kinds around the world to differently types of people. This allowed for us to communicate to each other all around the world, sharing our knowledge and enhancing our society.

As the printing press developed and moved to printer’s workshops, as Eisenstein mentions, “ it revolutionized all forms of learning…particularly important for historical scholarship” (p.78).  The printing press allowed people to spread works of literature, art, poetry, stories, etc.  The printing press spread other’s knowledge, which in return created new ideas and advancements. For example, if I were to see someone else’s picture, it could spark new ideas in my head, and I would advance that drawing into something even better. All of these ideas that the printing press spread created the way our civilization socializes today. Many people such as Harvey Graff, argue that the Printing Press can be viewed as, “an educational reform movement…involved factors far beyond the religious and theological…economic, political, cultural, and social issues” (p.86). No longer did only the rich have access to prints of any sorts, with the printing press all economic classes had access to prints.  For example, simple technologies such as posters were spread through out the villages. The invention of the printing press ultimately educated more of the world then just the wealthy. It increased the world’s overall well-being. The amount of people who could read may not have had a large increase, but people’s communication level definitely increased.

The I-pad and the Kindle have become the “new books” of our future. Many argue that we rely on these technologies and that they are decreasing our knowledge. Personally, I think that technology like I-pad and Kindle increase our technology, giving us easier access to valuable information. I do not think that the book will ever disappear, especially the Bible. For example, I-pods have become the new technology since the millennium, but CD’s are still created and used today. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of preference, and with the many personalities of the world, I believe the book, I-pad, and the Kindle, are here to stay. The I-pad does not only contain books, but so many apps that could be viewed as educational. For example, educational math games, maps, etc. I-pads and Kindles are also becoming socially trendy, which will encourage young people to read. Sites accessed through the I-pad such as Facebook may be viewed as non-sense, but in my opinion you are still practicing communication, writing, and reading skills. I do not personally own any technology that contains books on it, but if I could I would chose to. It would be more convenient to have a Kindle for example, It would save me space instead of having books all over the place. It would also save me time, books would be easy for me to access. Just because I would have the technology, wouldn’t mean that I would get rid of the books I did have, or that I would refuse to read a book, it’s about preference for me personally.  Technology increases the spread of educational prints, Pham and Sarno state, “digital tools are making it possible for independent authors to publish and promote their books, causing an outpouring of written work on every topic imaginable”(pg1). Technology allows a huge increase of works to be shared around the world.

Technology will continue to advance, enhancing our communication skills. The printing press has been the direct cause of technology, which has impacted our society in every aspect. Just as Eisenstein states in her essay, “ Neither political, constitutional, ecclesiastical, and economic events, nor sociological, philosophical, and literary movements…can be taken into account without the influence of the printing press upon them” (p.79). The printing press has educated our population and allowed us to have advancements such as the Kindle and I-pad that only further advance our society.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth .Aspects of the Printing Revolution. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Graff, Harvey. Early Modern Literacies. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth .Aspects of the Printing Revolution. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pham, Alex, and David Sarno. "The Future of Reading." Physorg. N.p., 21 July 2010. Web. 17 Oct.2010.<http://www.physorg.com/news198955146.html>.

Extended Blog # 1

Is technology improving or destroying our world? Many argue that we are losing the fundamentals of our culture with the advancement of technology. However, I beg to differ, I think technology has made us smarter. The only flaw I see with our advanced world is that we rely on it. For example, we would be in a panic if computers crashed. With the invention of papyrus, we have the ability to write down important and non-important information, nevertheless recording information on our culture. Not only can you record while writing, you also practice your speech skills. I firmly believe that how you speak reflects on how you write. In other words, if you speak well then you write well. Without one of the first advancements in technology, the papyrus, we would still be living in a primary oral world. With writing and computers, we can communicate around the world. We can share our cultures with others while we learn their culture as well, better connecting us.

Personally, I’m not sure I would read or that others would read, even if the Internet didn’t exist. There are so many options to occupy ourselves, with or without technology, who is to say we would spend our spare time reading? Also, does reading a gossip book make us smarter? Do fictional books increase our intelligence? Sure, Twilight can educate me on fictional vampires, but where in the novel does it increase my knowledge of real life facts. However, Gardner brings attention to the fact that, “Works of fiction -- the writings of Jane Austen, Leo Tolstoy, Toni Morrison, William Faulkner -- allow us to inhabit fascinating worlds we couldn't have envisioned” (Gardner, p.1). I do agree that works of fiction, allow us to imagine, helping us in the creativity department, but I do not think that not reading books of any kind makes our society illiterate. The ability to simply “Google” can increase one’s intelligence, it is much more convenient to look up information quickly, rather then trying to find time to search through books at a local library. Gardner states, “the advantages of Amazon's hand-held electronic Kindle reading device trumps a suitcase full of dog-eared paperbacks” (Gardner, p.1). Technology such as the Kindle, allows people to have multiple books on a device, making it easy to carry around a thousand books on one device. Sites such as Google, Bing, etc make it easy to look up information that could be contained in millions of books. Ong mentions, “in a primary oral culture, the expression, “to look up something is an empty phrase” (Ong, p.50). In our secondary orality culture, we can save time when using the Internet. We can “look up” information of all kinds expanding our intelligence. Technology does not seem like an evil, but a faster way of broadening our intelligence.

Writing did not make us “dumb”, but yet made us individuals. We have the ability to express who we are through modern technology, rather than acting as robots strictly memorizing information. Jacoby mentions that fewer and fewer people read books in today’s world, making us ignorant and dumb. She states, “The proportion of 17-year-olds who read nothing (unless required to do so for school) more than doubled between 1984 and 2004. This time period, of course, encompasses the rise of personal computers, Web surfing and video games”(Jacoby, p.1). However she does not mention the positives of modern technology and how the rise of personal computers allows us to retrieve information from the Internet versus books. For example, even through Facebook I find important links about current events, local news, school events, history, etc where I learn information. Without modern technology, I would not know nearly as much as I do today. Modern technology and social networking sites such as Facebook allow others to share their knowledge that can be of great importance. Every day, I check Facebook and I practice my grammar skills through what I type on the Internet.

Whether it’s typing, texting, or writing on a daily basis, we are improving our speech and writing skills rather then only having the ability to speak. Technology helps us practice our communication skills. Writing or typing also improves our memory skill, allowing us to share effectively through technology, orally, or on paper. Technology is not perfect, it can have its faults. Technology such as computers can be bad for the human eyes. Those of us who use slang through text messaging and social net working sites can decrease our grammar skills. Video games can serve to be bad influences on children. However, overall technology has improved our writing and speech skills, improving our world. The emphasis on reading is exaggerated. While reading helps improves our grammar, speaking, and writing skills, it does not make us less or more smart. Our modern day technology such as the kindle, Internet, cell-phone, social networking site, etc provides us easy and fast access to important information. In today society, we have numerous ways to learn and “new inventible ways of speaking about human life, therefore of thinking about it” (Havelock, p.41).We are constantly learning even though we may not realize it, we do not have to pick up a book to be considered as smart intellectuals. In our world today, almost everyone knows basic history and local knowledge. Back in the day of only oral communication, only a few people knew history, stories, etc spending their whole day memorizing and repeating their knowledge. Because of the advancement of writing, almost everyone in our modern society can have a life full of activity while still knowing history, current events, etc. Writing has made our world what it is today. It has benefited us in every aspect.

Gardner, H. (2008, February 17). The end of literacy? don't stop reading. The Washington Post.

Havelock, E. (2003). The Greek Legacy. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society (pp. 38-43). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Jacoby, S. (2008, February 17). The dumbing of America. The Washington Post.

Ong, W. (2003). Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society (pp. 49-55). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Blog # 3

Secondary Orality

People take for granted modern communication. It is hard to believe that some cultures have used strictly oral communication. Personally, I don’t know how I could remember anything. In today’s society, in the U.S., one can easily communicate. One can communicate through twitter, facebook, email, texting, cell phones, writing, etc. I think that the modern communication we have today is what Ong meant by secondary orality. Secondary orality is used daily and keeps the U.S. economy running smoothly. Ong states, “it is essentially a more deliberate and self-conscious orality, based permanently on the use of writing and print, which are essentially for the manufacture and operation of the equipment and for its use as well” (p54). It would be very hard for companies to have huge operations with only using primary orality.

 There are obvious advancements with secondary orality, but there are qualities that preliterate societies have that literate societies do not. For example, preliterate societies have to remember huge chunks of information only by remembering. One must have patience and creativity to find formulas and rhymes to help remember information. In literate societies, having patience and creativity is rare to come upon. People are not appreciative of how easy they have it in literate societies, making the illiterate societies more humble and connected. Instead of connecting and having personal conversations, we now just update an impersonal and unimportant facebook status to the world. Also, going back to Lincoln-Douglas debates, “primary orality made itself felt in the additive, redundant, carefully balanced, highly agonistic style, and the intense interplay between speaker and audience” (p55). Ong goes on to state that our “presidential debates on television today are completely out of this older oral world” (p55). In simpler terms, I think Ong is saying how things such as presidential debates have completely different ways of functioning in secondary orality then back in the older oral world. In today’s world, candidates have more advantages with technology to communicate and have a tighter control on the public. The work ethic and hard commitment it took to run to compete in presidential debates back then is qualities that current politicians should have to prove themselves in our modern world, but somehow got lost along the way. One cannot deny that there are many qualities that illiterate societies possess that might be beneficial to our society today. However, ultimately we are better off and have made enormous advancements in every aspect in today’s literate world. Our face-to-face communication skills may need some work in today’s world, but secondary orality is the reason we have literate societies. With literate societies, we communicate all around the world, and can even find books on how to communicate all around the world. Having a literate society allows us more time to accomplish things on a day-to-day basis, instead of having to constantly practice information so it is not lost. While technology may save time in our daily lives, it has also given the opportunity for people to be lazy. Having a literate society gave people the ability to express their individuality around the world through poetry and art. Information can easily be learned and accessed through the ever-great “Google”. Simple things people forget about such as the ability to write make a huge difference. For instance, walking down your street, you may see a sign and caution tape that warns you from walking in a dangerous spot. This is all due to the fact that construction workers have the ability to use written communication to communicate proper safety. There are so many simple and complex aspects that benefit our world due to secondary orality.

Ong,Walter. Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society (pp. 14-20). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.