Sticks, Stones, Words, and Weapons

By Jillian Jenée

Have you ever heard of a word that can be so powerful that when people hear it, they would react as if God or the devil himself tossed it in the air and hit it with a baseball bat straight towards them? Believe it or not, such words actually exist. They are referred to as “God Terms” or “Devil Terms” depending on what type or reaction (good or bad) they cause people to have.

According to persuasivelitigator.com, God terms are “words that have an inherent potency in identifying what you support.” Devil terms are the complete opposite.

Words such as freedom, health, safety, control, guarantee, truth, happy, discover, win can all be described as God terms. These are the kinds of words that often make people feel secure or like they are about to get ahead in life. They excite them in the best possible way. As soon as people hear them, they seem to stop whatever they are doing, whether changing their kid’s diaper, sitting on the commode, or cooking Sunday dinner.           

Communism, pedophile, dangerous, uncertain, scarce, change, terrorist are considered to be devil terms. They spark sort of an alert alarm off in a person brain the moment the word hits the air and people immediately start to panic.

Why is it that a single word can strike such strong reactions from a human being? And why as human beings do we let them? Most importantly, how do we overcome these words and stop them from controlling our lives?

Whoever said words will never hurt us obviously never saw this infamous attack ad from the 1988 presidential election. Behold how George H.W. Bush destroyed opponent Michael Dukakis in one fell swoop here, with just a few phrases, particularly "weekend passes." 

This kind of ad proves how words are sometimes mightier than weapons. What kind of language do you respond to most strongly? What are your God and Devil terms, the words to which your response reveals what kind of person you are? What is the most memorable "spin" you've seen put on certain phrases, like "weekend passes?"

TV: A Tall Tale

By Sam Watermeier

 
Painter Steven James explained art best. "Nature is larger than life, and that's the way art should be." Cultivation theory founder George Gerbner would argue that nature is larger than life because art made it seem that way.

According to the cultivation analysis, heavy television viewers (who watch more than four hours a day) are more likely to see the social world as a reflection of the one depicted on TV. But if the social world is like the one on TV, wouldn’t we see less people glued to their computers?

In this age of passive online communication, TV allows us to vicariously experience more upfront, honest expression. Take the HBO series “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” The hero Larry David says the kinds of things most of us only feel comfortable expressing anonymously on the internet. 

 

Impure thoughts are funny on TV because they're usually unexpressed in real life, David says. Therefore, the social world isn't what we see on TV, as Gerbner’s theory suggests about the way people perceive it. Rather, television provides an idealized version of it. Even reality TV is essentially a fantasy or an amplification of the everyday. Surely women don't bicker as viciously all the time as they do on "The Real Housewives."

David says he never worries about crossing the proverbial line because that's what viewers expect him to do, especially on HBO. It's his responsibility to express what they cannot, to be a vessel for their frustrations. The nature of TV is that it is a special dimension, giving its inhabitants a sense of power to do things others normally wouldn’t in real life.

It's troubling to step back from a show like "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and realize you and most others around you are not as open and honest as Larry David's character. As Pablo Picasso said, "Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth."

Apparently, David’s blunt honesty is bleeding over into more objective television as well. Even so-called "fair and balanced” news television is clearly becoming a myth, moving from a "just the facts, ma'am" approach to more theatrical and opinionated entertainment (e.g. "Morning Joe," "The O'Reilly Factor," etc.) There's a reason why people turn to the tube instead of other sources in the world outside of it — the reason being that television provides sensational spectacle. As soon as something is filtered through a camera, it loses a sense of raw reality and becomes something more exciting — a funhouse reflection of it.

Our world will never completely be like the one on TV, as Gerbner suggests, because the very nature of television is larger than life. When heavy watchers see it as a reflection of their world, they are idealizing, imagining a reality that is as big and exciting as the art of television.

The World Wide Web of Lies

 
By Jillian Jenée

 

Sitting on your couch waiting for the guy you met online to pick you up for your first date, you gaze romantically at his profile picture. You “ooh” and “ahh” over his big smile and perfectly straight, white teeth as well as his gorgeous blonde hair, and big, baby blue eyes. You blush as you scroll down and see a muscular torso, tall stature, and huge bulge in his Hanes underwear. You close your eyes and drift off into a dream of what your lives will be like in ten years when you’re married with kids.

Suddenly, the doorbell rings. You jump up from the couch and without a thought, open the door and there he stands — a five-foot-tall, sixty-year-old man with two strands of grey hair laying flat atop his head, his dentures hanging partly out of his mouth and the skin on his face drooping far under his chin. He hands you a bouquet of red roses and says, “You look even better in person.”                 

He pulls out a flip phone from the front of his fanny pack and shows you the naked picture you thought you sent to the hottie last night. “This is you, isn’t it?” Old Man River asks with a huge smile.

Thinking that this has to be a cruel joke one of your girlfriends is playing on you as an April Fools’ prank, you look around outside for that tall, handsome, blonde hottie, but no one else is there. It’s just you and Old Man River.
                                       
This is not a mere hypothetical scenario. “Catfish,” the MTV reality show about online relationships, reveals these kinds of situations every week. (And as we all probably know by now, Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te’o recently fell victim to a fake-girlfriend hoax.)                                                                                                  
The freedom and anonymity of the internet makes us all susceptible to scammers.

          

I cannot even count how many times I’ve talked to guys online only to find that they are completely different from the people they claim to be. These perverts change their names, steal pictures from random people on Facebook, and lie about their lives. Some of them even go as far as to offer you money for sex.

           

Online communication can be highly dangerous because sometimes, no matter what people tell you, there is no way of knowing if it’s true. You may find yourself sharing an intimate connection and starting a close relationship with one impostor after another. Social media can cast a spell and evoke trust in people you’ve never physically met. Before you know it, you may find yourself submitting to your cyber-date’s request for R-rated pictures of yourself. This lack of inhibition online lends credibility to the saying “out of sight, out of mind.”

As “Catfish” shows, many cyber daters aren’t who they appear to be, lying about their job, hometown, age, and even their gender and ethnicity. 
                                                                                        
But don’t let that completely discourage you from engaging in online communication. If you use it well, it can be quite beneficial. Talking to friends, teachers, and distant relatives when face-to-face communication is unavailable is completely safe and helps keep those relationships alive. Many websites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. also have privacy policies that you can set up to fit your needs, so that only the people you want to see your profiles, tweets, and statuses can see them. Being social online can also be a great way of networking and making new friends.                                  

Just make sure you are careful about the information you send out to people and be wary that the Internet is accessible to anyone. Once you put something out there, you can’t take it back. As a character in the film “The Social Network” says, “The Internet isn’t written in pencil, it’s written in ink.”
                     
Be sure to listen to Media Matters this Saturday, 11 a.m., on WCRD, as the organization will talk about the implications of such online communication and if social media outlets can ever produce true reflections of their users.

Meet Media Matters

Hi, my name is Sam, and I’m a media addict.

Like many college students, I’ve long dreamt of being able to honestly refer to YouTube-surfing as research. Media Matters made that dream a reality. The day I found myself with the club’s president Rick Belbutoski, listening to “Tipsy” and studying other media depictions of drinking, I felt right at home.

The great philosopher Confucius said, “Find a job you love and you’ll never work a day in your life.” Media Matters provides that kind of job — one that never feels like a chore and aims to offer fun, enriching opportunities unlike any you’ve had before, namely giving you the freedom to explore what you want.

These days, most of us are explorers of media. From Facebook to “The Real Housewives of New Jersey,” media consumes us. Media Matters allows me to shed my consumption guilt and put my media addiction to good use.

The best part of this whole enterprise is not just studying media, but the feeling that we are making it. It’s not every day that you get to enjoy and contribute to a field you love. Butterflies still flutter in my stomach when I go on the radio show or sit down to write a blog. Working in the media is an exciting, daunting task — it's like holding a giant mirror up to society and telling the world what you see. I can’t think of anything else I’d rather do. And thanks to Media Matters, I’ve never been happier as a media addict. — Sam Watermeier

What is Media Matters? A Word from Our President

When I first learned about Media Matters, it wasn’t the organization that it is today. I went to the TCOM Super Party last fall and found it there. Though at the time it wasn’t as active a group, I immediately believed in the idea behind it. That wonderfully alliterative name — Media Matters — jumped out as a relevant idea.     

By the end of the fall 2012 semester we had broadcast four radio shows. I had recruited Joey Parrish, Bethany Wesley, and Sam Watermeier to join me in figuring out what this organization was going to become. Last week we celebrated show lucky number 13, a newly renovated Facebook page, and a blog that has grown right along with our organization’s identity.

We have sought to create a niche in tackling one issue related to media or pop culture every week, but this week we reflect in a behind the scenes look at what we are, why it’s so important to us, and where we’re headed in the future.

The “10 cent tour” of what we do is study a different subject related to media every week and share our thoughts through commentary both on our radio show and the blog, but the “10 cent tour” barely scratches the surface.

The radio show requires an average of four to seven hours every week to produce. The blog demands multiple drafts, meeting time, and revision before it’s finally posted. In regards to the commentary we produce we aim for excellence.

Though it sounds like a lot of work, the process is almost always delightful. I couldn’t ask for a better group of people to work with. We have gotten to know each other as more than just associates; we are friends, investing in each other’s lives, picking each other up when we’re down, and cheering each other on every step of the way. — Rick Belbutoski

Photos by Tracy Attaway

The Forbidden Allure of Alcohol

By Sam Watermeier

“In this country, when you say ‘don’t’ to a kid, it really means ‘do.’” So said Lionel Richie in a comment that’s just as relevant today as when he said it in an episode of “Politically Incorrect” fifteen years ago.

Richie was speaking about the forbidden allure of alcohol, the way the mystery surrounding it only draws kids closer to it.

In America, drinking is a rite of passage. It’s encouraged as a way of transitioning into adulthood. Hell, here at Ball State, one of my professors even suggested sipping a little Scotch to calm our nerves while writing our term papers.

Throughout my three years in college, I’ve noticed a largely playful attitude about drinking; parents and professors often smirk when the subject is broached.

Drinking is fun and socially accepted, but it’s also unhealthy and dangerous. However, unlike tobacco, alcohol hasn't lost its allure. Characters in TV shows and movies are still seen knocking back drinks, but it’s rare to see them lighting up. There is even talk of taking smoking out of PG-13 movies to prevent teenage tobacco use.

St. Patrick’s Day is coming up — a day synonymous with drinking. (It's practically as much of a requirement as wearing green.) This is further evidence that our culture tightly embraces the notion that being sober excludes someone from fun. No one seems to realize that drunkenness is really an artificial kind of fun. Alcohol is a social performance enhancer, often referred to as "liquid courage." (It helped Denzel Washington miraculously crash-land a plane in "Flight!")

The seductive quality of alcohol perpetuated by the media is seemingly impossible to subvert. Even in a film like "Flight," which exposes the dangers of alcohol, the consumer at the center of it exudes a sexy-cool allure. (Just look at that handsome devil.)

As long as the media associates alcohol with this image, its dangers will never be fully acknowledged.

We don't have to make the same associations as the media though. Be conscious of the dangers of drinking. And please drink responsibly.   

The Illusion of Intimacy

 

By Sam Watermeier 

The Internet claims to connect people. In that regard, it succeeds, but only in a superficial sense. The sense of intimacy that comes with the connection is an illusion, a simulation. That artificial nature becomes painfully clear when you turn to cyberspace for someone to be more than a friend.

“People want to go back to the day where you're sitting at a coffee shop, make eye contact and there is this mysterious moment where you don't know each other,” said dating coach and author Adam LaDolce in a recent CNN article.

Social media has made this sometimes anxiety-inducing way of meeting someone all too easy to avoid. It hypnotizes us all with an illusion of intimacy and communication, leading even typically extroverted people to hide behind their computer screens, thinking that an online conversation is the same as a face to face one. At the end of the day, Facebook and sites like it are, as body language expert Blake Eastman said, “groups of people that are highly connected online but socially isolated.”

“We feel that we don’t need to look people in the eyes to communicate anymore — a keystroke has replaced that look,” Eastman said. “But at the end of the day, we’re designed for human contact, not a computer screen.”

Face-to-face communication isn’t as easy as online contact, and that’s why it should feel more rewarding. Doesn’t the completion of a challenge feel more satisfying than that of a simple task? As writers Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris explain in Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me), “When people go through a great deal of pain, discomfort, effort, or embarrassment to get something, they will be happier with that ‘something’ than if it came to them easily.” That doesn’t seem to be the case now. These days, God forbid we experience some emotion when we talk to people. God forbid our palms get sweaty. God forbid our voices shake. We hide online to avoid those situations.

While online communication can certainly serve as a confidence booster or a catalyst for face-to-face contact, it should not function as a substitute. It's not a bad place to initiate a relationship, but dependence on it leads down a lonely road, especially when you realize that online chatting is essentially the equivalent of a long distance relationship. 

My advice? Don’t stay online to find a special someone. Sure, Match.com and sites like it have produced a few success stories. But look what happened to Manti Teo or the star of “Catfish.” Plus, online communication is not the real deal. It’s a simulation of it, nothing more. Use it sparingly. Look someone in the eye and strike up a conversation. Get off the Internet right…now.

Famed and Flawed

By Sam Watermeier

Why would someone release a tape of an actor getting angry on a film set? Or wait outside the grocery store to snap a shot of a model without makeup?

People do this to give us what we all desire and thus what sells — the notion that celebrities are flawed, just like the rest of us. However, we often contradict that desire by looking down upon them rather than saluting them when they show raw humanity.

There are very few cases in which a celebrity’s publicized blemishes worked to his or her advantage. When actor Mel Gibson’s angry phone calls to his ex-girlfriend were released in 2011, his demons added weight to his performance in “The Beaver,” in which he played a man suffering from similar inner turmoil. And when Hollywood badboy Mickey Rourke became a respectable actor again with “The Wrestler,” his off-screen comeback story brought attraction to the film’s similar tale of restoration and redemption.

The recent revelation of Lance Armstrong’s wrongdoings was less beneficial. When the former professional cyclist confessed to the ultimate confessor — Oprah Winfrey — the world wagged its finger at him for doping.

“I’m a flawed character,” Armstrong admitted to Oprah. The fact that he used the word “character” instead of “person” is telling. It suggests that Armstrong exists in a separate reality, that he is a two-dimensional figure in the media rather than a flesh-and-blood human in the world outside it.

Unlike the case with Gibson and Rourke, the exposure of Armstrong’s flawed humanity seemed to strip him of public worship. When his private actions were projected onto the public screen, his iconic veneer began to crack.

It’s time to straighten out our expectations of celebrities. Do they not qualify as celebrities if they display behavior on our level? Do we want them to be humans or gods?

We seem to want to relate to them yet we shake our heads in disgrace when they slip up or blow a gasket. Just listen to Christian Bale’s freak-out tape again. He doesn’t say anything that a “normal” person wouldn’t say in a fit of anger. All in all, it’s a pretty normal, relatable display of frustration yet the media and its consumers treated it like a shameful spectacle.

Perhaps the perceived crime of a spectacle like this is that it breaks the illusion all celebrities are expected to create — the illusion that they are not mere mortals but larger than life. Is there room for less iconic portraits of them amidst the media’s sensationalist spectacles?

My hope is that someday we will learn that being half human makes you stronger than a god. And to answer your question, yes, that is a quote from “Wrath of the Titans.”