skip to main |
skip to sidebar
* Pick one concept from the assigned reading, not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
I was so excited when I read the passage ‘dog bites man’ is not news, but ‘man bites dog’ is (Trenholm, 2008, p. 312). This was actually one of the most simple and true things I learned in my undergraduate in Journalism in Brazil. Nevertheless, as exciting as it is to imagine how fantastic would be to report that ‘a man bit a dog,’ this is not what we see in the news today. I am not sure if I feel this way due to my strong sense of criticism. I simply cannot label everything as 'interesting.' In my view, many journalists do not do a good job just because they tend to report the same 'old news' over and over again.
As a journalist, I understand that it is not merely about what the journalist wants to show. Actually, it is 95% about following the ideology of the television channel one works for. But it feels like some journalists lost their investigative gift along the way, and set the simple goal of reporting what other television channels are reporting. Again, I know that when it comes to keeping a job, specially having a family to raise, some journalists would not think twice between reporting that ‘a dog bit a man’ by 1000 times rather than the other way around, ‘a man finally bit a dog.’
Ibirapuera
* Do you agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message, i.e. that the format or logic of a medium is as important as its content and, in fact, determines what content will be broadcast through that channel? Evaluate his idea that television is a cool medium.
I absolutely agree with MacLuhan that the medium is the message, that the format of a given medium is as important as its content. The idea that television is a cool medium is true if its content matches the expectations of those who are watching it. Trenholm (2008) notes that “the idea that form is as important as content in affecting audience responses” (p. 308). As an illustration, the History Channel conveys its ideologies by showing content related to History. If all of a sudden the History Channel folks decided to show sports, this medium would loose its identity, and it would not appeal to History lovers anymore. If ESPN decided to show information related to babies, such as TLC does, ESPN would not be the perfect medium for sports’ lovers anymore. Although I do not have time to watch TV as much as I would like, I consider television a cool medium because of its ability to capture viewers’ attention, regardless of so many other things that might be going on at the same physical environment. The audio and visual characteristics of television indeed make television one of the most dynamic medium.
Ibirapuera
* Have you made friendships that exist exclusively in cyberspace? If so, how are they different from f2f relationships? If you have not formed cyber relationships, why not?
I would not name it as friendship, but I know someone solely through the cyberspace. I never met this one lady in person. She owns a translation website. Because I love translations, once in a while I visit her website. We actually almost met in person in one weekend she visited the Bay Area. But at the last minute she could not make it, and until today we have not met each other in person. In this particular case, this lady and I have a common professional interest. Trenholm (2008) mentions that “the Internet offers us news and information” (p. 326). Also, in addition to visiting her website, we also exchange emails to keep ourselves updated on the latest news about translation.
I would say that cyberspace friendship is different from face to face friendship mainly because of the lack of nonverbal. But nowadays, with the webcams, nonverbal expressions can not be hidden anymore. I love technology, but when it comes to friendship, maybe I am still old school, but I still prefer in-person friendship rather than cyberspace friendship.
Ibirapuera
* Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have no already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.
One of the concepts from the textbook that I found useful was “accommodate.” In Trenholm’s view, “in long term relationships, accommodation can often lead to unstated resentment” (2008, p. 165). I partially agree and partially disagree with this statement. On the one hand, I agree that after some time, excessive accommodation can easily lead one to feel frustrated, not part of the decisions, and with the uncomfortable feeling of being always on the one-down position. On the other hand, no accommodation at all can lead one party to feel unappreciated, resented, and with the feeling that his or her opinion is never important or necessary in the relationship.
Ultimately, I strongly believe that when it comes to inter-human interactions, it is fundamental to accommodate the other party’s opinion to a certain extent so that the relationship flows better. Whenever people feel their opinions have been refused consistently, they insist even harder to be heard. An example that just crossed my mind is the wife who wants to talk and the husband who wants to read his newspaper. These two individuals can only reach a certain level of mutual understanding if the wife gives some time for the husband to read at least some pages of his newspaper, and ideally, the husband should listen to what his wife has to share before necessarily finish reading the entire newspaper. To me, this would be an example of effective accommodation.
Ibirapuera
* Think about the filters you use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. What characteristics or behaviors lead you to judge others as unattractive? Does Duck’s theory make sense to you? Have you ever eliminated someone by using a sociological or pre-interaction cue only to reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cues?
I certainly used the filter cognitive cues to eliminate people from consideration as my potential romantic partners in the past. I was never necessarily looking for someone whose values and beliefs were exactly the same as mine. However, there had to be some compatibility of values and beliefs for me to consider a certain person as potential romantic partner. In my view, dishonest (e.g., cheating, lying, stealing) is the first signal of unattractiveness. Although I am not perfect, whenever I ever perceived dishonest from someone I was considering to become my potential romantic partner, it completely pushed me away from that person.
Duck’s theory makes sense to me in the sense that it explains, in a straightforward way, how each filter works and how people occupy a given role in other people’s lives, depending on what they do to deserve that certain role. Trenholm (2008) explains that “those who do not pass through the first filter remain strangers. Those who make it through the first but not the second become acquaintances, and so on, with those who make it to the end becoming intimates” (p. 158).
Looking back, I recall having eliminated people from my life using the pre-interaction cue (i.e., body type). Later on, life taught me that what really matters is not how one looks or dresses. Trenholm (2008) explains that “if we let initial filters keep us from getting to know people, we may be missing out on potentially rewarding relationships” (p. 160).
Ibirapuera
* Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?
In my view, the rigid complementarity would be the most difficult pattern to change because the dominant party is not willing to give up the one-up position, and the submissive party wants to be in the one-up position so badly. Hence, the parties have different goals in mind. Trenholm (2008) mentions that “learning how to share the one-up and one-down positions gives a couple the flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances” (p. 149). Unless they both acknowledge the importance of alternating the one-up and the one-down positions, they will continue experiencing the frustration of dealing with two opposite forces within their relationship.
I perceive the competitive symmetry as being the most damaging to a relationship. I see a relationship as an institution where both parties bring their best assets and their imperfections into their day-to-day – either voluntarily or involuntarily. There should be no such as thing as competition between two people who are, for instance, married. It takes way too much effort to be always defensive. This time would be better employed if, instead of competing for the one-up position, the parties alternated the one-up/one-down position as life circumstances require them to do so.
Finally, I see the rigid complementarity as being the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved. When two people are in a relationship, they inevitably need to alternate the one-up and the one-down positions in order to share the burden of the responsibilities, and to feel they can lean on each other. When one only takes the one-up position and refuses to take the one-down position, the other feels unappreciated and frustrated. Furthermore, it is always more complicated to come to an agreement when only one party is willing to change something that is not working.
Ibirapuera
