Automatic Attitudinal Response

Today, I'd like to talk about cultural conditioning, particularly mine. A few weeks ago I really did some self-evaluation of my passing judgement on others. It was triggered by such a trivial thing, I was in Australia at McDonalds with my husband. We were sitting outside enjoying our frozen Cokes and a nice humid breeze. We were getting ready to leave when a young man asked if he could clear anything away from us, I looked up and found myself looking at a young man who looked very much like my husband (white, clean cut and very kind.) Then I directed my attention to the inside of the restaurant and there was a pretty blonde girl changing the garbage bags. I felt sad, really sad, as in talking-my-husbands-ear-off-wanting-to-cry-for-them sad. After a few minutes of me being oversensitive, he and I came to the conclusion that I have become SO conditioned to seeing immigrants working these entry-level grunt-work jobs, that I no longer feel sorry for them. That being said, I feel bad because I understand how hard they work for such little pay, yet I always turn around and think "Hey, at least they have a job?"  Seeing these individuals working not only made me realize how much I turn a blind eye to people here at home but also, how easily that could be me in that situation.

I have taken some time to read through my previous posts. Throughout every post there is a common theme that I seem to preach: through media engagement or disengagement we are reinforcing our own ideas or our own ethnocentrism. We have a great access to information and new ideas, however, our automatic attitudinal response is our biggest barrier. We are constantly using the media as only a mirror to compare our own culture and ideals to others, only to look but not necessarily to change.

I am now working to practice what I preach, if you look back to my post for Racism 2.0 my stance was "integration integration integration!" because inherently I didn't think that racism still existed. However, scroll up to the top paragraph of this post and you will see not only does it exist within my culture, but I am an active participant. My only hope is that I will have more opportunities to be aware of my hidden presumption. It is through truly recognizing them, not just comparing them, that I can change.

On the media: What's Really going on between Apple and the FBI.

This week I listened to the segment Apple vs. The FBI. A very timely post seeing as we recently spoke about security in class. To me, this is not a question of security, nor is it about abiding to a court order. This issue is about the government setting a precedent, and thanks to an open letter from Apple, a public who isn't really buying it. 

According to the FBI they are wanting to unlock Farook's phone so they can see his contacts to prevent further acts of terrorism. On the surface that sounds like a just cause and initially most of us agree that Apple should comply. As of right now, users set their passwords and when they die their passwords die with them. However, there is something left behind, metadata. Loads and loads of metadata. The FBI has already seen it, it appears there is no contact with anyone overseas. Still, the FBI demands Apple to write a code that doesn't exist. This code would allow the government to shoot an infinite amount of password guesses until the phone unlocks itself. Even though this is a special request this new code could be used on any iPhone once it's written. 

 Here are the problems if Apple chooses to comply:

1. Apple is writing a code that doesn't exist, an unnecessary code. The FBI has already accessed the metadata from this particular phone. The NSA has access to petabytes of transmitted data, so much data we can't begin to comprehend. Yet the FBI still presses this code being written even through the information is already accessible. 

2. If Apple were to write this code it would be applicable to all iPhones, not just terrorists. It runs the risk of being leaked and soon anyone who understands basic coding could have information to anyone's information. The nation runs the risk of facing a huge privacy breech of its citizens

3. Apple itself believes that this request is a slippery slope. This is a privacy breech that could lead to access to health records, financial records, microphones etc. without the users knowledge. 

4. Anyone who understand basic law knows this case will be cited, this court order to will be cited. If Apple chooses to write this code it will then be used as a precedent for future cases. This is a problem because it can affect future cases on a much larger scale. 

I clearly believe Apple needs to hold their grounds on this issue. Their behavior and willingness or unwillingness to comply will set an example for years to come. 

Well Informed: Democracy 2.0

Social media has the great power to inform or misinform. Is it changing our democracy? Perhaps. For the better? Not exactly.

I remember attending my Digital Revolution class during the Arab Spring, I remember us discussing with such excitement how social media was changing democracy. At last we could broadcast the thoughts of the common man to the masses. It was a really exciting time to feel like a revolution was being organized through social media. Yet, here we are a few years later and we still haven't seen much REAL change. If anything through social media engagement or disengagement we are only reinforcing our own political ideals without much discourse or deliberation.  This isn't real change.

Let me explain, I think in times past people were more engaged, they listened to the debates, they sat and debated themselves in real time and came to their own conclusions and opinions. You couldn't ignore someone sitting across the table from you. You didn't have the choice to not respond or stoop to emotional arguments. You certainly couldn't sit and correct grammar to add "validity" to your own argument.  Now, with the growth of social media people rarely want to discuss politics with people whose opinions differ from their own. Most people either avoid these conversations or disengaged when they meet an idea different from their own.  It also seems we are much less likely to post political views when they think their viewers opinions will be much different than theirs. For instance, I don't speak out about police brutality because I'm friends with many wives of officers. I wouldn't want to offend them or get into a heated argument over the matter so I hold my opinions silently.

With an ever shifting context away from face-to-face interaction, we also begin to lack common courtesy. Since social media is pretty much done solitary I think we have lost a lot of our civility. Its no wonder people don't want to discuss politics when arguments can quickly become personal attacks and full of fallacious arguments. I know I'm often guilty of choosing silence over disagreement. I understand this behavior is dangerous, but I'm not quite sure how to change it.

On the Media II: Zika Virus

This week, It seems we really only had one choice of topics and that was the Zika virus. I listened to a few of the excerpts highlighting some of the different viewpoints of the Zika Virus. Apparently, this virus has made huge waves in the media and is reminiscent of the panic surrounding the Ebola virus in late 2014 and early 2015. My remaining question: is this virus worthy of panic or is the media sensationalizing it to get higher ratings? After some listening and further research, I think the latter is true.

Apparently the Zika virus, isn't even new. It was first discovered 70 or so years ago. It is only now getting attention now that there is a "treat "on American soil. So far there has been one confirmed case in Boston, and in the winter in a cold climate like Boston the likelihood of it spreading is so slim. Why is the media up in arms about it? Because it now fits into our context. Now that there is a threat of it spreading here, people suddenly care. The exact same thing happened with the Ebola virus, West Africa got no media coverage and no attention was given until the virus hit home. Once there was a single confirmed case in Atlanta the media swarmed, going as far as to live-stream the ambulance ride from a news helicopter. Once things become relatable, the media jumps and the public suddenly cares.

OTM began this week's podcast with a series of actual news reports about the Zika virus. As an uninformed observer, you would think the world is on the verge of an absolute meltdown just from listening to these sound bites. The first guest was Jonathan Katz, who wrote an article depicting his contraction of the disease while in Hati titled "Reporting Zika When You Have Zika." I found his perspective really interesting because he expressed similar feelings on the sensationalizing of diseases (as well natural disasters.) He had the interesting perspective of listening to these types of news reports while actually suffering from Zika. He made it clear that the news made it sound much worse than it was. And should maybe start diverting its attention to much more severe mosquito-carried diseases.

On one hand I do believe it's a vital part of our human nature to prepare things that are are seemingly out of control. However, while everyone prepares only a few are really ever affected and those who prepared are left feeling embarrassed, feeling a little boy-who-cried-wolf. Maybe that is why I haven't seen much about this on my social media feeds, maybe my peers are growing weary of this over sensationalizing. I know I felt the panic with the Ebloa virus. I traveled internationally during the outbreaks and had to fill out extensive paperwork to be allowed to exit the plane. I remember when my flight landed our plane had to be quarantined while men in face masks filled our plane with what I would describe as a bug bomb. It was really unsettling, yet shortly after we never heard anything else about the virus. I will not be likely to send myself through this psychological turmoil over the Zika virus, no thank you.

All in all, I  believe the media is over sensationalizing a disease that probably won't affect many of us. Yet, I am still grateful that other nations are getting some much-needed attention. I wish Americans could care BEFORE the outbreak or before they felt personally affected. It is hard to ask people to understand something that is out of their context and doesn't resonate with them.

Learning 2.0 Homeschooling: Not Just for Hippies and Religious People Anymore

I have been thinking about different institutions of education for a while now, and why some are valued more than others. This topic is especially relevant to my family because in the past few years my high-school-age sister has switched from public school, to charter school, to private school and now online school. She never really enjoyed the dynamics of school and had a lot of trouble making friends with her peers. Now she loves online high school and is accelerating academically. I think learning from home really took the pressure off of her, she doesn't feel isolated or judged by her peers. She now can be honest and ask her teachers or parents meaningful questions without feeling embarrassed. This switch was the best option for our family, but there are a lot of options out there.

This has lead me to think are some forms of education better than others? Why did my fiance's parents pay $6,000 a year for his private education yet mine was essentially free? Is he better educated than me? What about homeschooled children do they have any hope of exceeded academically and socially when they are taught by one single person? While researching this topic, I found a podcast by "Stuff You Should Know" Click HERE if you would like to give it a listen. I highly recommend it.

Compulsory education has an interesting history in the United States. Through 1852-1918, the states slowly began mandating attendance by law --Mississipi was the last to require this in 1918. This made homeschooling illegal even as recent as the 70's. Free and public education meant free babysitting for some people, with the added bonus of creating indoctrinated unquestioning little drones. Eventually, a grass roots group decided to lobby to make homeschooling legal in the states. They attempted to take it to the supreme court to create a federal law all around protecting families who chose to homeschool. They failed on a federal level, however, each state now has its own homeschooling laws.

Parents choose homeschooling for different reasons. Most states require you to fill out paperwork with the intent to pull your child out of school. In these forms, researchers have found 30% of parents say it is because of the environment of the school, 30% say it is for religious or moral reasons, and 16% say they are dissatisfied with their students education.

This podcast pointed out some interesting bits about learning through classical education --the education that you and I probably received. There are three main components that public schools still use. 1. Grammar school age, which focuses on memorization and facts. 2. Middle school age, which focuses on critical thinking 3. High school age, which focuses on rhetoric. To me, these approaches seem very streamline, cut and dry. I have especially strong opinions when it comes to memorization, I have little memory of what I memorized in elementary school. I do remember how I learned to make friends, the stories my teachers would read us, and the tactile and creative learning that took place. These I feel are much more lasting and beneficial for a young child.

There are several other approaches that I learned about that can help cater education to children. Among these, my favorite tactic was called narration. You basically tell the child everything you can teach them about a subject...say whales. Once you, the educator, feel like you have explained everything to him you then ask him to teach you everything he knows about whales. I feel like this is ridiculously applicable to real life. In real conversations, whether they be social or job-related you can't look at your notes. You don't pull out your book report and cite your sources. Instead, you tell people what you know and understand and they tell you what they know and understand. This is one of the few ways we open up a dialog and is the basis of communication.

I could go into greater depth comparing the different approaches to eduaction. All in all, it is hard to say which approach is better, I think the best thing a parent can do for their child's education is to be honest about it. Ask real questions with real explicit answers. Is this working for my child? Do I have the time, energy and resources to change it? Does my child want to change? By opening up this dialog we can choose the education best suited for each child. Thankfully to the few who have fought for homeschooling, private school vouchers, and charter schools, parents now have viable and legal options.

Facebook Campaign Revisited: DSU Films

As I have discussed before, I am in the midst of launching a broad social media campaign for DSU Films. Many people are still unaware of the Film Department's existence, we are using the influential nature of the social media to change that.

While meeting with Phil Tuckett, we decided we wanted to reach both future students as well as future clients. DSU Films has been fortunate to generate enough paid productions to finance their equipment. It is through these paid clients that the department is able to purchase the "latest and greatest," which then better prepares students to enter the job market. Students not only graduate with a resume, they are also very familiar with equipment used on real sets.

Ideal Followers:

Jared: 30-somthing project manager from California. He has been delegated to create a promo for dirt bikes. He has chosen to show off these bikes in the gorgeous red rocks of Southern Utah. He knows little of the area and is looking for an all inclusive production crew. Ideally, someone he could rely on to direct the commercial, shoot and edit it. He finds out about DSU Films from social media, he is directed to the landing page and fills out at enquiry form. Someone contacts him to do a follow-up and he chooses DSU Films to produce his commercial.

Josh: a first-year student at Dixie, he knows he wants to go into something media related but isn't quite sure. He finds DSU Films through social media and likes a lot of the student's behind the scenes photos. He clicks on the hashtag #dsufilms and is immediately connected to current students as well as successful Alumni. Josh then decides he wants to be a part of the film department and takes the initiative to declare his major and enroll in the classes.

Abby: 22-year-old student at Dixie. She hated her generals and was really turned off by school, she had no desire to finish. While on facebook, she saw some of her friends liked some DSU Films photos. In the pictures, students were pushing each other around on a dolly and laughing. Abby realized that this picture was actually taken during a class. She couldn't believe it, up until now all of her classes had been a total snooze-fests and now this class actually seems fun. Abby signed up for the intro class and discovered her love of filmmaking, she continued to work hard pursuing her degree in the Film Emphasis.

In a nut-shell, this campaign will help draw more attention to the film program and hopefully generate more enrollments as well as more paying clients. I believe through some consistency we can make more people aware that the Film Department is alive and well.

Racism 2.0: Should the Oscars Have a Token Nomination?

In search of this week's topic, I first turned to social media. The following clip has been circulating my feed for a few days and I thought it summed up some of my feelings about the recent Oscars controversy.

I'd like to pose the question... are the Oscars about race or eligibility? If it's about the former, then it would seem all past nominees and recipients who are minorities would be offended for being considered. If this were the case, then how would someone ever know if their accomplishments were based on merit or the color of their skin.

I believe the biggest mistake the academy made in regard to this controversy was responding to it so quickly. By promising more women and minority nominees, they gave validity to an otherwise fallacious argument. Voting based on gender or race does a great disservice to the nominees.

This video also raises the question that perhaps there are not enough roles for those of color or for women in Hollywood. I defintely believe this to be true. While writing an outline for a script with some friends we switched the gender of our lead character to female, so now a woman was meant to be playing a role initially imagined as a man. This made for an interesting concept and we had a lot more fun creating a non-traditional character.Or really just a character we didn't default to. Perhaps its not te fault of the Acedemy but of the creators themselves. Maybe they are defaulting to certain characters and creating them on repeat without any reach as to what they could be.

Either way it will be interesting to see some of the changes that happen over the next few years. I am interested to see if we move closer to integration or further into segregation.