Max Browning
April 8, 2015
Observation 10
I am entering into my third year on the Executive Board of Ball State University Dance Marathon. We raise money and awareness for Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis. The organization is completely student driven. This year, I am fortunate enough to serve as the president. Throughout the year, we rely on the support of people much more powerful than us for financial support along with time and location donations for our fundraising events. These companies are usually hesitant to donate to us. They see us as college students trying to change the world, but they do not think that a group of college students will be able to accomplish that. On the flip side, we see the impact we are making and the greater impact we can make if these businesses would treat us with some respect.
According to the Standpoint Theory, those without power in society are able to provide a more objective perspective than those with power. While the businesses are focused on their bottom line and how much profit they are bringing in each day, we are able to see how the business can impact our mission without losing anything. One of our fundraising practices is known as canning. We simply ask that the store either allow us to place a Riley bucket near their register or that they allow us to stand at their entrance for several hours and ask patrons for a monetary donation. Neither of these practices deter much from the companies mission, yet they often help us in achieving our own; however, the people with power cannot see this. Because they have the power, their standpoint on the requests do not allow them to think critically about how this could potentially benefit them in unforeseen ways. For example, I know that I, as a consumer, enjoy going to stores that are hosting fundraisers or accepting donations for a cause. I rarely donate, but I do enjoy seeing that the business is trying to give back to the community that supports is.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Genderlect
Max Browning
April 8, 2015
Observation 9
I was meeting with the Dance Marathon vice presidents this week to discuss plans for our upcoming (well, not upcoming by the time you read this...) retreat with the rest of the executive board. Two of the vice presidents are female and then myself and the other vice president are both males. Before this final discussion of the retreat, we asked the rest of the executive board what they wanted to gain from this retreat. They said that they wanted to get to know each other and do minimal work. During our discussion, one of the female vice presidents continued to bring up the idea that we should break off into our focus groups and work on goal settings; however, the other three of us reminded her that the rest of the executive board wanted more ice breakers. In the end, she backed down and our retreat is about 75 percent ice breakers with only the required business to attend to.
According to the theory of Genderlect, men and women communicate in drastically different ways. While men talk to report, women talk with rapport. Focusing on the differences between my male vice president and the female vice president who backed down, she asked a multitude of clarifying questions in regards to his suggestions; however, she never offered anything that conflicted with his points and when she did, she would add tag questions, you know? One thing that did somewhat contradict the Genderlect theory, however, was that she told a lot of stories to show her viewpoint, but the stories would have her as the focus. Genderlect suggests that women often tell stories with other people as the focus.
The theory also suggests that women prefer private talking to public talking. This makes me wonder how she would have backed up her opinions had it only been the two of us talking about the retreat rather than the four of us (technically there were also our graduate assistants, but they were preoccupied looking for information about another question we had).
April 8, 2015
Observation 9
I was meeting with the Dance Marathon vice presidents this week to discuss plans for our upcoming (well, not upcoming by the time you read this...) retreat with the rest of the executive board. Two of the vice presidents are female and then myself and the other vice president are both males. Before this final discussion of the retreat, we asked the rest of the executive board what they wanted to gain from this retreat. They said that they wanted to get to know each other and do minimal work. During our discussion, one of the female vice presidents continued to bring up the idea that we should break off into our focus groups and work on goal settings; however, the other three of us reminded her that the rest of the executive board wanted more ice breakers. In the end, she backed down and our retreat is about 75 percent ice breakers with only the required business to attend to.
According to the theory of Genderlect, men and women communicate in drastically different ways. While men talk to report, women talk with rapport. Focusing on the differences between my male vice president and the female vice president who backed down, she asked a multitude of clarifying questions in regards to his suggestions; however, she never offered anything that conflicted with his points and when she did, she would add tag questions, you know? One thing that did somewhat contradict the Genderlect theory, however, was that she told a lot of stories to show her viewpoint, but the stories would have her as the focus. Genderlect suggests that women often tell stories with other people as the focus.
The theory also suggests that women prefer private talking to public talking. This makes me wonder how she would have backed up her opinions had it only been the two of us talking about the retreat rather than the four of us (technically there were also our graduate assistants, but they were preoccupied looking for information about another question we had).
Agenda Setting
Max Browning
April 10, 2015
Observation 8
As I said in class when asked about where I receive most of my news updates, I am more or less not updated on anything in current events; therefore, these situations regarding media communication are extremely difficult for me to find. That being said, after googling for the Daily News website, the top story was about the International Justice Mission's Stand for Freedom. The article talked about how this student organization is standing for 24 hours in honor of the victims of sex trafficking worldwide. Stephanie Metzger, the organization's president, talked about the importance of the event and the awareness it creates for students on Ball State University's campus.
The Agenda Setting theory has a mantra that the media does not tell us what to think, but what to think about and how to think about it. After reading this article in the Daily News, I could only think that sex trafficking is a major problem in the world today and that it needed to be stopped; however, the article is certainly framed to help tell the organization's mission. The theory states that there are three different aspects of framing: selection, exclusion and emphasis. The story selected to include the voices of long time members of International Justice Mission as well as a passerby who happened to sign the petition at the beckoning of a friend. The story excludes the voices of anyone against their standpoint or who views sex trafficking in a different way. Lastly, the article seems to emphasize how little awareness there is on Ball State University's campus in regards to sex trafficking - especially in relation to within Indiana.
I was surprised that the Daily News found this topic to be as salient as they did. It was placed above other, heavier BSU topics such as JJH's resignation or the Outstanding Senior Award. Part of me believes that the Daily News's current agenda is to get us to think about our University's study organizations who are doing great things and to think less about some drama going on with our administration.
Side note: Before I started working on this project again, I was actually at the Stand for Freedom. Here's a fun picture of me power-pointing and trying to act tough.
April 10, 2015
Observation 8
As I said in class when asked about where I receive most of my news updates, I am more or less not updated on anything in current events; therefore, these situations regarding media communication are extremely difficult for me to find. That being said, after googling for the Daily News website, the top story was about the International Justice Mission's Stand for Freedom. The article talked about how this student organization is standing for 24 hours in honor of the victims of sex trafficking worldwide. Stephanie Metzger, the organization's president, talked about the importance of the event and the awareness it creates for students on Ball State University's campus.
The Agenda Setting theory has a mantra that the media does not tell us what to think, but what to think about and how to think about it. After reading this article in the Daily News, I could only think that sex trafficking is a major problem in the world today and that it needed to be stopped; however, the article is certainly framed to help tell the organization's mission. The theory states that there are three different aspects of framing: selection, exclusion and emphasis. The story selected to include the voices of long time members of International Justice Mission as well as a passerby who happened to sign the petition at the beckoning of a friend. The story excludes the voices of anyone against their standpoint or who views sex trafficking in a different way. Lastly, the article seems to emphasize how little awareness there is on Ball State University's campus in regards to sex trafficking - especially in relation to within Indiana.
I was surprised that the Daily News found this topic to be as salient as they did. It was placed above other, heavier BSU topics such as JJH's resignation or the Outstanding Senior Award. Part of me believes that the Daily News's current agenda is to get us to think about our University's study organizations who are doing great things and to think less about some drama going on with our administration.
Side note: Before I started working on this project again, I was actually at the Stand for Freedom. Here's a fun picture of me power-pointing and trying to act tough.
Cultivation
Max Browning
April 8, 2015
Observation 7
When I am at home, I love to watch Investigation Discovery's shows about murder and other violent acts. My favorite shows are the ones that involve family and newlywed homicides - something about them is super interesting! On the flip side of my viewing habits, I have realized that I am less comfortable being alone in my house downstairs and constantly feel as though I am being watched (my house has a significant amount of windows). When the rest of my family goes to bed, I call for my dog to be in the room with me, I lock all of the doors and close all of the blinds. Something about watching these crime shows has made me fearful that it could happen to me.
This is exactly what the Cultivation Theory would predict occur. Because the media has shown me a constant stream of violent acts on the television, I am more fearful that they will happen to me. The cultivation theory is all about how violence in the media cultivates this fear in us; however, they do not make me more likely to commit violent acts, according to the theory. These shows have given me an inflated perception of how often homicides occur and how often other forms of violent crimes happen to everyday people.
One piece of the Cultivation Theory that I found to fit into my scenario is the inflated perception of police activity. After all of my Investigation Discovery binging, I truly do think that police are always out there looking for wrongdoers and trying to help out the good guys; however, I also have seen many shows where the good guys are the ones who are wrongly apprehended.
On the contrary, I under predicted the number of violent acts in Delaware County. I think this may have to do with the fact that I do not watch television when I am in Muncie and therefore I feel safer and less threatened when I am here.
April 8, 2015
Observation 7
When I am at home, I love to watch Investigation Discovery's shows about murder and other violent acts. My favorite shows are the ones that involve family and newlywed homicides - something about them is super interesting! On the flip side of my viewing habits, I have realized that I am less comfortable being alone in my house downstairs and constantly feel as though I am being watched (my house has a significant amount of windows). When the rest of my family goes to bed, I call for my dog to be in the room with me, I lock all of the doors and close all of the blinds. Something about watching these crime shows has made me fearful that it could happen to me.
This is exactly what the Cultivation Theory would predict occur. Because the media has shown me a constant stream of violent acts on the television, I am more fearful that they will happen to me. The cultivation theory is all about how violence in the media cultivates this fear in us; however, they do not make me more likely to commit violent acts, according to the theory. These shows have given me an inflated perception of how often homicides occur and how often other forms of violent crimes happen to everyday people.
One piece of the Cultivation Theory that I found to fit into my scenario is the inflated perception of police activity. After all of my Investigation Discovery binging, I truly do think that police are always out there looking for wrongdoers and trying to help out the good guys; however, I also have seen many shows where the good guys are the ones who are wrongly apprehended.
On the contrary, I under predicted the number of violent acts in Delaware County. I think this may have to do with the fact that I do not watch television when I am in Muncie and therefore I feel safer and less threatened when I am here.
Cultural Studies
Max Browning
April 10, 2015
Observation 6
Last fall during the Ebola scare that swept across the nation, I kept up decently well with the media outlets and how they were in regards to everything. Media outlets were keeping everyone informed about where the virus had been confirmed along with any potential cases that were popping up. Additionally, they were working to ensure that all citizens knew the proper protection from the Ebola virus along with how it could spread and what it would do. On the contrary, my Facebook feed was full of non-creditable sources that seemed to be only spreading fear to everyone. My friends enjoyed sharing the articles about how catastrophic Ebola is in Africa and how long it would take to spread to Muncie, Indiana.
According to the Cultural Studies theory, media outlets serve as a filter through which media is disseminated. This helps to protect the status quo. For example, because so many news sources shared information regarding how it can spread between people, Americans were fearful of the Ebola virus and its potential to become an epidemic across the nation. Journalists would talk about the expert opinions on the subject and all of the harm the virus could do to our country, yet they never reached out to any experts with opinions that differed from the norm. Every expert seemed to agree that the Ebola virus was going to spread across the country and kill us all; therefore, that is what everyone seemed to believe. It seems to me that someone, somewhere wanted the American people to think that this Ebola virus was going to be detrimental to the nation. With how relatively little damage the virus actually did, I find it extremely difficult to believe that every single expert predicted the catastrophic nature of the virus wrong, but not only wrong, but completely opposite.
April 10, 2015
Observation 6
Last fall during the Ebola scare that swept across the nation, I kept up decently well with the media outlets and how they were in regards to everything. Media outlets were keeping everyone informed about where the virus had been confirmed along with any potential cases that were popping up. Additionally, they were working to ensure that all citizens knew the proper protection from the Ebola virus along with how it could spread and what it would do. On the contrary, my Facebook feed was full of non-creditable sources that seemed to be only spreading fear to everyone. My friends enjoyed sharing the articles about how catastrophic Ebola is in Africa and how long it would take to spread to Muncie, Indiana.
According to the Cultural Studies theory, media outlets serve as a filter through which media is disseminated. This helps to protect the status quo. For example, because so many news sources shared information regarding how it can spread between people, Americans were fearful of the Ebola virus and its potential to become an epidemic across the nation. Journalists would talk about the expert opinions on the subject and all of the harm the virus could do to our country, yet they never reached out to any experts with opinions that differed from the norm. Every expert seemed to agree that the Ebola virus was going to spread across the country and kill us all; therefore, that is what everyone seemed to believe. It seems to me that someone, somewhere wanted the American people to think that this Ebola virus was going to be detrimental to the nation. With how relatively little damage the virus actually did, I find it extremely difficult to believe that every single expert predicted the catastrophic nature of the virus wrong, but not only wrong, but completely opposite.
Semiotics
Max Browning
April 8, 2015
Observation 5
Recently Miracle Network Dance Marathon underwent a major rebranding. You can watch this one minute video to gain a better insight into the rebrand that I will be talking about.
The Miracle Network Dance Marathon team decided that it was time to unify the international Dance Marathon network under a single symbol. To do this, they took the traditional Children's Miracle Network Hospitals balloon and simply flipped the top and bottom pieces of the balloon to create a flame. This flame is now the logo for over 250 University dance marathons throughout the United States and Canada.
The CMN Hospitals balloon is one of the most recognizable charitable logos nationwide. On the surface, it signifies that the item it is on is a part of Children's Miracle Network Hospitals - it is simply a logo; however, the second degree meaning is much deeper. The logo stands as a symbol that it takes children going through difficult times and it allows them to soar to new levels. The balloon is a sign that Children's Miracle Network Hospitals is the channel through which a sick child is able to defy all odds.
Now, the Youth Marketing Team of CMN Hospitals has rebranded this balloon (signifying the network of hospitals) and turned it into a flame for the Miracle Network Dance Marathons. This new signifier signifies, on the surface, the light of hope given to all children and families being treated at CMN Hospitals, but it means more. Connotatively, this flame signifies an eternal light that shines within all of us to change the world and shed light on the path of someone else. Together, this flame is a sign that everyone in at a Miracle Network Dance Marathon is working to change the world for the children who are currently fighting, who have won their fight and who are forever dancing in our hearts.
April 8, 2015
Observation 5
Recently Miracle Network Dance Marathon underwent a major rebranding. You can watch this one minute video to gain a better insight into the rebrand that I will be talking about.
The Miracle Network Dance Marathon team decided that it was time to unify the international Dance Marathon network under a single symbol. To do this, they took the traditional Children's Miracle Network Hospitals balloon and simply flipped the top and bottom pieces of the balloon to create a flame. This flame is now the logo for over 250 University dance marathons throughout the United States and Canada.
The CMN Hospitals balloon is one of the most recognizable charitable logos nationwide. On the surface, it signifies that the item it is on is a part of Children's Miracle Network Hospitals - it is simply a logo; however, the second degree meaning is much deeper. The logo stands as a symbol that it takes children going through difficult times and it allows them to soar to new levels. The balloon is a sign that Children's Miracle Network Hospitals is the channel through which a sick child is able to defy all odds.
Now, the Youth Marketing Team of CMN Hospitals has rebranded this balloon (signifying the network of hospitals) and turned it into a flame for the Miracle Network Dance Marathons. This new signifier signifies, on the surface, the light of hope given to all children and families being treated at CMN Hospitals, but it means more. Connotatively, this flame signifies an eternal light that shines within all of us to change the world and shed light on the path of someone else. Together, this flame is a sign that everyone in at a Miracle Network Dance Marathon is working to change the world for the children who are currently fighting, who have won their fight and who are forever dancing in our hearts.
Narrative
Max Browning
April 10, 2015
Observation 4
Last summer, I was the lead presenter at the National Dance Marathon Leadership Conference. I was asked to speak about the importance of telling stories when trying to break any misconceptions pertaining to a Dance Marathon event. During this speech, I chose to show how I break misconceptions by telling the conference about why I have decided to be involved with Dance Marathon. I explained to everyone at the conference that their greatest recruitment and retention tool was the stories they had to tell to their campus about the impact their marathon is making on their local hospital and about the impact the marathon is making on their daily lives.
My goal in this speech was to create a paradigm shift in the listeners by making them recreate their view of the world. The Narrative theory states that humans are not motivated by arguments, but rather good reasoning; therefore, it makes sense that we tell stories to explain our reasoning instead of arguments to show merit. During my speech, I presented some basic science associated with story telling; however, what sticked with the audience and persuaded their judgements on my topics the story that I told the story.
When I crafted my story, I had to make sure that it had both coherency (the story seemed probable to occur) and fidelity (it seemed to be true). Even though I only picked bits and pieces of the story to talk about, I had to make sure that each piece of the story connected to the previous one and did not leave out any necessary details to transition from one section to the next. According to the theory, "the world is a set of stories from which we choose to recreate our lives." When I retold my story, I was choosing the important parts of the story that I wanted to define that part of my life.
April 10, 2015
Observation 4
Last summer, I was the lead presenter at the National Dance Marathon Leadership Conference. I was asked to speak about the importance of telling stories when trying to break any misconceptions pertaining to a Dance Marathon event. During this speech, I chose to show how I break misconceptions by telling the conference about why I have decided to be involved with Dance Marathon. I explained to everyone at the conference that their greatest recruitment and retention tool was the stories they had to tell to their campus about the impact their marathon is making on their local hospital and about the impact the marathon is making on their daily lives.
My goal in this speech was to create a paradigm shift in the listeners by making them recreate their view of the world. The Narrative theory states that humans are not motivated by arguments, but rather good reasoning; therefore, it makes sense that we tell stories to explain our reasoning instead of arguments to show merit. During my speech, I presented some basic science associated with story telling; however, what sticked with the audience and persuaded their judgements on my topics the story that I told the story.
When I crafted my story, I had to make sure that it had both coherency (the story seemed probable to occur) and fidelity (it seemed to be true). Even though I only picked bits and pieces of the story to talk about, I had to make sure that each piece of the story connected to the previous one and did not leave out any necessary details to transition from one section to the next. According to the theory, "the world is a set of stories from which we choose to recreate our lives." When I retold my story, I was choosing the important parts of the story that I wanted to define that part of my life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)