Tuesday, July 29, 2008
earthquake
I was in the middle of doing my homework and next thing you know my house begins to shake and literally swing side to side, I was in shock so my mind did not receive the fact that this was an earthquake the first few seconds. I then ran to the t.v. and immediately switched to ABC 7 for information and that's when I realized that we defenitley rely on the media for information and other types of communication. I did not run to my nearest book for information because that would be silly and is a primitive form of communication when it comes to being the quickest which is a point Postman makes in his book. Just like communicating with smoke signals, the printed word will not do for situations like these because by the time word is out on paper the earthquake or whatever other disaster has done its damage. As we advance in technology more and more will public discourse also advance making things faster and easier for our convenience when in an emergency, but what are the differences when it is not about helping the public keep safe? Can anyone help me on that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Marco, my dear,
Postman would agree: the genie is out of the bottle. There's no going back to a world before television or the internet. When the quake hit, I did the same thing -- flipped on the news to see what the richter scale reading was going to be. BTW, that felt stronger than 5.8 to me! I was pregnant with my daughter in the Northridge quake...I remember what a big shaker feels like...ANYWAY, back to Postman...please don't come away from reading Amusing Ourselves to Death thinking Postman is hoping to go back to the good ol' days prior to TV. He mocks that idea in one of the final chapters. It's not going to happen. All he's saying is that if we live in this world (and we do), we had better understand how it shapes us. We better be conscious consumers of media. We had better be literate, skeptical, discerning and alert.
"Breaking news" used to mean newsprint. Now it means television and online news.
But when you were watching the news about the earthquake, didn't it strike you about how immediately it became redundant and boring? They have the air time; camera is rolling. They've said everything they know, but they are waiting for more news to come in from Cal Tech and other reputable reporting agencies. So they fill the air time with the newscaster reading his email live, "here's a viewer from Pasadena who said his spider plant fell off the shelf," "Oh. Here's a caller who felt the quake in Manhattan Beach: what were you doing when the earthquake hit?" OH, I'm just praying that one day, a caller will say something truly weird in that live TV moment: "Well, Bob, I was peeking through my neighbor's curtain and watching him clip his toenails when I suddenly felt the ground move beneath my feet. For a moment, I was confused, because I had never experienced such a strong reaction while watching him groom himself before, but then I realized it was an earthquake, so I ran home."
I agree that we greatly rely on television for information. I agree that television doesn't help much with protecting us from a natural disaster that has already occured. I remember a few months ago the news was warning us about a one in twenty percent chance that a huge earthquake might happen. And although the media sends out a majority of completely useless information, some information about a tornado or hurricane coming towards us could be of some use. The information can only be protective if we respond and put ourselves in a safe situation. When we see or hear information we should analyze it. We should absorb info in an open but also questionable way. To me the news did become very boring. Also one network channel said the earthquake was 5.8 another one said 5.6 and in the end they all said 5.4 so i was confused on the actual magnitude. But all the information they were giving didn't seem to matter to me because the earthquake already happening and i only cared if another earthquake might come.
I agree that the information we get from the news actually has nothing to do with us. I first got this idea when I read Postman's book. It's like all the reality TV shows we watch. They are not real, we have nothing in common with those people on TV. For example, my favorite TV program is "Gossipgirl". I'm addicted to it. I could spend all day watching it but I really don't learn anything from it beacause I watch it for fun.
About the earthquake. I came to America about 2 years ago from Nigeria. We don't have earthquakes there so that was the first time I ever witnessed one. I was at school when it happened. I didn't really know what was going on because I thought someone was shaking a desk. Everybody got all excited and light headed. I know Earthquakes are dangerous but I think they're hilarious, I was laughing the whole time.
The occurrence of the earthquake made me realize how much I rely on electronics. Once it was over I grabbed my cell phone to call my parents, and then I turned on the television. I didn't really think when I did this. It just seemed natural to do what I did.
As Ms. Fletcher pointed out, I did notice that what was being said on the news became redundant and even pointless. The reason why I was watching the news was to learn about the strength of the earthquake and the harm (if any) it had caused. But soon the reporters were talking on the phone to other reporters that were not there about what they were doing at the time and what they thought was happening. Does the public really want to hear that after an earthquake? Usually we want to hear the facts. I particularly remember one of the reporters on the phone was talking about how she was shopping at a hardware store with her husband, and she even stated what they were buying. And almost everyone that called or emailed the station was talking about how their cell phones were not working or how their land phones are ringing but they can not answer. That just proves how reliant we are on technology, especially phones and television.
I think any advances that are made for the public in an emergency situation will be beneficial, but maybe I am just being naive. If information travels faster in an emergency, it can only help. I also think that along with advances in technology in general, advances in technology in emergencies will come along as well.
Post a Comment