A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

A Sample Of Contribution Card

iPod = iZolacja?

cyberrodent.com

Article Brabazon of Tara made me rehash the steak, which is the fear of social consequences of so-called. new media. For conservative journalists and scholars iPod has become sort of a whipping boy, the symbol of the widely despised iPod culture: culture of consumption, "iPodyfikacji" all walks of life and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , expresses those concerns as follows:

technology has given each of us to his own universe in which there is no possibility spotkania nieznajomego, usłyszenia utworu, którego sami byśmy nie wybrali, czy opinii, która mogłaby skłonić nas do zmiany zdania. Nastąpiła atomizacja poprzez małe białe pudełka i telefony komórkowe.

To, czego boi się Sullivan, Christine Rosen opisała jako egocasting : zjawisko spersonalizowanej konsumpcji na żądanie, niezrównanej kontroli nad przyswajanym przekazem. W skrajnej formie egocasting przypomina błąd konfirmacji: poszukiwanie tylko tych treści, które potwierdzają nasz punkt widzenia. Skutki są do przewidzenia: ograniczone wystawienie na obce treści, consequently, intolerance for other opinions, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (because if everyone listens to their favorite music and reads only the messages on the sites from which a political profile is correct, it is difficult to talk about participation in the same culture).

criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that using an iPod or internet we lose contact with "real world":

Locked into their party, they were not thinking about how to lose hours of his daily life ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago, I was on a trip and realized I had left my iPod. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythm of the other, the sound of an airplane, taxi driver reviews (...) I felt a little more "connected" and aware. Try it. Somewhere out there is the real world, which has its own soundtrack ( Sullivan).

Actually, you can talk about the personalization of the public sphere, making up for the omnipresent MP3 players. One button allows you to "turn off" around the world (or at least his voice as) or give it a completely different character (who does not know the feeling when a favorite music gray way to work is an exciting plan for the video.) Listening to music, go through the public spaces while maintaining the comfort of being in their own bubble. Enclosed is not invisible wall interact.

not hard to guess what the message comes from the purely speculative (because as far as I know no one except Michael Bull is not yet carried out a study on iPod users) articles: iPod is antisocial technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to the atomization social. That is nothing new. Those same charges appeared previously in relation to the internet or even walkman. Besides, if this happens again, we often begin a conversation with a stranger on the bus? Probably not. The bus situation of physical proximity in the absence of psychological closeness probably reaching for the iPod as the deliverance from inconvenient silence screams of children. And the fact that we listen to only what you want? Is this not a protection against bombarding us from every ideological chaff advertising?

------------------------------------------------ ------

Tara Brabazon's article made me rehash the good old discussion about the social consequences of the so-called new media. For conservative journalists and academics the iPod has become sort of a whipping boy symbolizing the widely despised iPod culture: consummerism, iPodification of all activities and isolation. Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan , voices those concerns as follows:

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones.

What Sullivan fears, Christine Rosen calles egocasting: personalized on-demand consumption of content in which receivers excercises an unparalleled degree of control over what they consumes. In its extreme, egocasting shares some similarities with confirmation bias, a tendency to search for new information that confirm one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. The consequences are fair enough: limited exposure to unwanted content which in turn leads to intolerance towards different ideas, fetishization of taste and lack of common cultural reference point (when everyone consumes highly personalized content, then it's hard to talk about a common ground or shared culture).

Those who criticize the culture of new media often point to the fact that by using an iPod or the internet we lose contact with „the real world”:

Locked into their party shuffle, they were not thinking about how hours of their lives were being lost each day. ( Brabazon )

Not so long ago I was on a trip and realised I had left my iPod behind. Panic. But then something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver (...) And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware. Try it. There’s a world out there. And it has a soundtrack all its own. ( Sullivan )

Indeed, the personalization of the public sphere by the omnipresent mp3 players is a fact. One button allows us to „shut off” the world around us (or at least its audio dimension) or change our perception of it (when a favorite song transforms the gray wold around us into a music video set). iPod people create their own “bubble” inside which they pass through the public spaces at the same time maintaining their own personal space. Invisible walls that they build around themselves protect them from engaging in unwanted interactions.

It's easy to guess what message Sullivan and the likes want to send. They view iPod as an anti-social technology that prevents people from engaging in the public sphere and leads to atomization. In other worlds, nothing new. It's all been said before about, say, the internet or Sony Walkman. And besides, how often do we engage in a conversation with a total stranger that just happens to be on the same bus? Not too often, I think. In a situation of psychological distance in physical closeness (like on a bus) we'd much rather grab our iPod in order to shut off the inconvenient silence pierced by children's screams. And the fact that we listen to personalized music? Doesn't that help us avoid being bombarded by all those media messages constantly targeting us from around?

How Do I Pull Bills Out Of Collection

Michael Scott



Michael Scott of the U.S. version of TV series The Office it's really a masterwork of character! A satire on the hypocrisy of corporate America and its struggle to rid politically incorrect attitudes of corporate life. Struggle which is indeed just a game of appearances and somewhat doomed to failure.

Michael Scott is so typical white Christian, a member of the dominant class in American society, and this self-made man: despite the lack of education, he managed to climb on his own after successive levels until the managerial chair. He lacks the qualifications and obedience, to again and again shows off the ignorance and dyletanctwem, but you can not deny him of good intentions. If you want to be perceived as a modern manager, is trying to establish informal relationships with employees and implement a well-appreciated "novelties" such as tolerance, diversity management and the principle of inclusion. But how hard he tried to adjust to corporate guidelines cents, his prejudices are so deeply embedded in the identity that will always find a way to get out into the light, for example in the form of a seemingly innocent comment or abusive sexist joke.

This clearly shows the sad truth (which she wrote Carol Lee Bacchi, among others) that policies aimed only at eliminating discriminatory attitudes is practically pointless. It should rather focus on the real source of these behaviors, and thus the system of power relations (as in the company and at home), which indirectly supports these behaviors and produces. Michael Scott after getting a reprimand for discrimination against women can and will bite the next time the language, but opinions about women and their place will not change. Just that, look around around after his office, and finds confirmation of his views: see because inefficient (because I tired of full-time work at home), excluded from informal relationships women in typically female positions such as receptionists.


----------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------


Michael Scott from The Office is a truly terrific character and one of my favorite lately. His character was as conveived s satire of the hypocrisy of corporate America and its Struggles To Eliminate its deeply sexist and racist Attitudes, but only for the sake of Appearances (Which makes the struggle a rather losing battle).

Michael Scott is a typical white Christian/WASP and a self-made man also! He worked hard to make up for the lack of college degree and managed to climb up the corporational ladder and become manager of the branch. He surely lacks proper education and respect from the staff, often shows off his ignorance and lack of competence, but one can see that his intentions are good. He's also longing to be perceived as a modern manager who keeps up with time and its 'inventions' such as tolerance, diversity and inclusion principle. But however hard he tries to put into praxis all the guidelines from the corporate headquarters, his prejudice is so deeply engrained that it always finds a way to come out, be it through a sexist comment or a disgraceful joke

This clearly confirms the sad truth (see e.g. Carol Lee Bacchi) that policies aimed merely at eliminating discriminating attitudes of individuals (e.g. employers) are foredoomed to failure. What should be done is to focus on the very source of those attitudes, that is, the system of power relations (both in the workplace and at home) which indirectly creates and sustains those discriminating actions. If Michael Scott gets given a reprimand for discriminating women in the workplace, he might think twice before making a sexist comment in the future, but he won't change his mind about women and their role. One look around the office is enough for him to once again support his views on females and their traits. For all he will see is women who are uneffective (tired of working full-time at home), Excluded from informal social relations and working on typicaly female positions, dry as That of a receptionist.

How Do I Pull Bills Out Of Collection

Michael Scott



Michael Scott of the U.S. version of TV series The Office it's really a masterwork of character! A satire on the hypocrisy of corporate America and its struggle to rid politically incorrect attitudes of corporate life. Struggle which is indeed just a game of appearances and somewhat doomed to failure.

Michael Scott is so typical white Christian, a member of the dominant class in American society, and this self-made man: despite the lack of education, he managed to climb on his own after successive levels until the managerial chair. He lacks the qualifications and obedience, to again and again shows off the ignorance and dyletanctwem, but you can not deny him of good intentions. If you want to be perceived as a modern manager, is trying to establish informal relationships with employees and implement a well-appreciated "novelties" such as tolerance, diversity management and the principle of inclusion. But how hard he tried to adjust to corporate guidelines cents, his prejudices are so deeply embedded in the identity that will always find a way to get out into the light, for example in the form of a seemingly innocent comment or abusive sexist joke.

This clearly shows the sad truth (which she wrote Carol Lee Bacchi, among others) that policies aimed only at eliminating discriminatory attitudes is practically pointless. It should rather focus on the real source of these behaviors, and thus the system of power relations (as in the company and at home), which indirectly supports these behaviors and produces. Michael Scott after getting a reprimand for discrimination against women can and will bite the next time the language, but opinions about women and their place will not change. Just that, look around around after his office, and finds confirmation of his views: see because inefficient (because I tired of full-time work at home), excluded from informal relationships women in typically female positions such as receptionists.


----------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------


Michael Scott from The Office is a truly terrific character and one of my favorite lately. His character was as conveived s satire of the hypocrisy of corporate America and its Struggles To Eliminate its deeply sexist and racist Attitudes, but only for the sake of Appearances (Which makes the struggle a rather losing battle).

Michael Scott is a typical white Christian/WASP and a self-made man also! He worked hard to make up for the lack of college degree and managed to climb up the corporational ladder and become manager of the branch. He surely lacks proper education and respect from the staff, often shows off his ignorance and lack of competence, but one can see that his intentions are good. He's also longing to be perceived as a modern manager who keeps up with time and its 'inventions' such as tolerance, diversity and inclusion principle. But however hard he tries to put into praxis all the guidelines from the corporate headquarters, his prejudice is so deeply engrained that it always finds a way to come out, be it through a sexist comment or a disgraceful joke

This clearly confirms the sad truth (see e.g. Carol Lee Bacchi) that policies aimed merely at eliminating discriminating attitudes of individuals (e.g. employers) are foredoomed to failure. What should be done is to focus on the very source of those attitudes, that is, the system of power relations (both in the workplace and at home) which indirectly creates and sustains those discriminating actions. If Michael Scott gets given a reprimand for discriminating women in the workplace, he might think twice before making a sexist comment in the future, but he won't change his mind about women and their role. One look around the office is enough for him to once again support his views on females and their traits. For all he will see is women who are uneffective (tired of working full-time at home), Excluded from informal social relations and working on typicaly female positions, dry as That of a receptionist.