Catholicism and iPhones!

Today I came across this article which describes the first application for the iPhone to receive an imprimatur!

For those of you who aren't Catholic:

Imprimatur is the Latin term for "let it be printed," which signifies the approval by a bishop of a religious work for publication. Authors are at liberty to obtain the imprimatur either from the bishop where they reside, or where the book is to be published, or where it is printed. Generally the imprimatur, along with the bishop's name and date of approval, is to be shown in the publication.

--Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

This new iPhone app, although it isn't the first of its kind, apparently includes "a step-by-step guide to the sacrament" as well as an examination of conscience.

I think the appearance of this new app is a sign of our changing times - both good and bad.

On the plus side, I'm positively delighted that the Church is keeping up with modern technology, and, in the spirit of Pope John Paul II, using modern technology as a means of evangelization.

However, I also think the emergence of this app also shows how technologically-centered people have become (as opposed to God-centered) that the Church has been forced to resort to creating iPhone applications just to tell people a simple message of repentance.

For the record, I've got The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis, The Holy Bible, and a plethora of Gregorian chant on my iPod. Now, I just wish someone would come out with a version of the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) for the iPod touch/iPhone!

Cheers!

Got Facebook?

Hey classmates! Recognize anything?

Gendercide in China

While I was in D.C. I had the opportunity to attend the Students for Life of America conference. What struck me was how committed the Pro-Life community is to using all types of media to promote the pro-life cause.

One such organization is All Girls Allowed, which works to raise money for women in China, in an effort to end the horrible "gendercide" that is occurring against women because of China's one-child policy.

Earlier this week, the president of China visited the United States--and was warmly welcomed.

But wait a minute--isn't there some kind of disconnect?

The Chinese government uses forced abortion as a method of population control (which results in approximately 35,000 abortions per day, many of which are determined by gender-selection technology. There are approximately 37 million more men in China than women because of China's one child policy and traditional preference to male children.

The government also heavily controls and restricts the religious and communication rights of its people (placing bans on common websites such as facebook).

How can our government even speak to the Chinese while they refuse to change their human rights policies? Millions of people in China are clearly suffering (women from forced abortions, unwanted children, men without marriageable women, rigorous religious oppression...and so on) and yet, the US appears to be ignoring all these facts in order to conduct profitable business.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems as though communism is no longer seen as a bad thing, but rather, it is seen as an economic booster.

March for Life and Media

This past weekend, I attended the National March for Life in Washington D.C.--along with 300,000 other dedicated pro-lifers.

But what does this have to do with media?

Nothing. In fact, that's the problem.

Year after year, the March for Life is growing larger and larger--but the mainstream media refuses to provide any accurate coverage of the event...or any coverage whatsoever.

Don't believe me? Google it. I did--in fact, Google didn't show ANY major news service reports, and I was forced to go into individual websites just to get some information about the march. Wikipedia was much more informative...for once...

This video by LiveAction demonstrates some of the frustration that pro-lifers have at the misinformation and downright ignorance that the media is showed in 2010:

What do you think?

Cheers!

~Laura

Google and Me

Google is the second most popular site that people visit on the internet (the first being facebook). With its search engine, Google has indexed a little less than 40% of the world wide web--and has become the most popular search engine for the web, which begs the question, are people narrowing their experience of the internet to Google?

I'll admit that "google" common websites--such as my email, college, facebook--rather than typing out the url. I also use Google to search for topics I am interested in, but know very little about. "Googling" a subject typically takes less time, especially if you aren't quite sure of the exact address of an informative website on the subject.

But by constantly turning to Google for searches, am I limiting myself to viewing the internet through "Google's eyes," and am subsequently handicapping myself by referring only to information that appeared as part of Google's result list (which ignores certain de-listed* websites and websites that seek to avoid indexing and high traffic)?

[*De-listed websites are not necessarily illegal websites, but merely sites that Google has de-listed because the authors attempted to manipulated Google's page ranking system.]

I am not here to ridicule Google's website (in fact, it is the first site I turn to for image searches, webmail, directions, and other random searches), however, I would like to pause and consider for a moment what sort of effect Google is having on internet culture.

Google, through its indexing and other facets of search capabilities, largely seems to own the internet. It owns Youtube.com, the popular video site, as well as Blogger (the program I am using right now).

Right now, it might make sense for one single company to index the entire internet--but I think that sometime in the future, perhaps if Google ever starts charging for its services, we will wish that we had created a more competitive search engine system.

To answer my own question, yes, I do think that right now people are too dependent on Google as their "sole source" of information.

It's perfectly ok to "Google" information every once in a while--but I guess my closing question is: whatever happened to encyclopedias--even online encyclopedias?

Cheers!

Media Convergence and ipods

For Christmas, I got an ipod touch. Before that, all I had was a simple mp3 player/recording device. I really didn't know too much about ipods, except that some people could access the internet with them in addition to playing music. Was I in for a shock!

My new ipod touch literally does everything but clean the sink! I can read books on it, listen to music, record memos or lectures, access the internet and send emails. It has a game application, a calendar, a timer, weather updates, a calculator...and the list goes on and on!

As I was reading the class text, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide by Henry Jenkins, it struck me how much and how fast the media world is changing.

Now, not only are media ideas converging, but hardware as well. The ipod touch is a perfect example. Jenkins explains that no longer can you simply buy a phone that only has one function (or, in this case, an ipod that has only one function)--the phone (or ipod) must be programed to perform many functions.

In this case, the delivery technologies have changed in the way people consume media--the ipod is now not just used for music, but also for reading, accessing internet, and getting news updates. However, even though the "delivery technology" has changed, the medium has not changed.

According to Jenkins, mediums (such as music) never die--the delivery technologies are the things that die and/or change over time.

In class this morning, someone posed the thought that there have been some mediums that have died--for instance: oral storytelling--and that now, people go to the theatre or see a movie to have the same experience.

I disagree. Oral storytelling, theatre, and film are merely different types of "delivery technologies." The true content of oral storytelling, theatre, and film--a story, tale, history--hasn't really changed.

Jenkins is right when he says that the medium will never die--but the modes of delivery will as modern technology progresses.

But what do you think? Is Jenkins wrong? Are there some mediums that will die out?

Cheers!

Networking and Participatory Journalism in Blogging

In 2006-07, Rebecca Blood conducted a series of interviews with other bloggers, asking them why they blog.

What struck me about the interview with Trine-Maria Kristensen was how much she saw blogging as a way to socially connect with other people, while at the same time engaging in an intelligent dialog about current events and technology. For her, blogging has become an integral part of the personal side of the internet.

While I understand Kristensen's love of blogging for personal opinions on current events, I still cannot see any part of the internet as being truly personal. Blogger profiles, just like any other internet profiles, are constructed to show only what the user wishes to show about himself/herself. There is no way that internet profiles can be truly genuine--which therefore, in my opinion, renders them to be very impersonal.

However, I do agree with her that blogging is carving a new path for journalists in cyberspace. Not only can journalists express their opinions in printed forums, they can also engage in the current dialogue on events through blogging--'participatory journalism' as Kristensen calls it.

But engaging in conversation on current issues by no means makes the internet 'personal.' I think that what Kristensen likes about blogging is not how people can seemingly connect with each other on a personal level--but rather, the intense and lively discussion that stems from the blogging community. Personal opinions can be expressed on the internet. Anyone can keep a blog because there are no qualifications that exclude certain people--as in the realm of printed media, where opinions can only be expressed by journalists or people of influence and wealth.

The internet opens new channels of communication--and lets people who would not have otherwise met, discuss current issues as they are unfolding.

While there are many blessings associated with the internet--so many ways to meet new people and ways to share media with other people--I still wonder if the internet is helping to downgrade traditional forms of personal communication.

When was the last time you took time to send a letter to someone rather than an email? When did you last personally invite someone to an event (with a printed invitation) rather then just sending them a facebook invite?

Is the change for the better? Good question.

Cheers!

My First Post!!

Greetings Cyberspace!

Welcome to my new blog! I shall be blogging on media and whatever comes up in SPC 260.

Cheers!

~Laura