McLuhan Reading

I agree with you Sterling, I found that part of the criminal to be interesting, the non-comformist who is seen as "pathetic" simply because he does not adapt to technological advances. That made me view myself as a man who does not have an iphone, ipod, i-anything, did not get a laptop until this summer, carries a walkman, and did not get an N64 until the end of Gr.5. I remember kids laughing at me since I was the only one in my "clique" that did not have an N64 immediately. And that is seen in the article between the Europeans and Orientals, by which the Orientals are not seen as "civilized" as the Europeans, since they are not as technologically or literally superior as the "civilized" ones.

I also found the part about the media battling with each other for supremacy interesting. I have utter disgust at times for media and their tactics with the "if it bleeds it leads" theory, and I always think back to the Ted Kaczynski interview phenomenon where he agreed to give one interview to the highest media bidder. Out of this came ABC, CBS, and NBC excusing all of his acts, claiming he was a freedom fighter, a hero who had been misunderstood, who just needed an interview to tell the world his side of the story. I still have the letters the stations sent to him in jail (enclosed in my History of Terrorism book from last year)which were sad pleas by the networks to boost their ratings, and claim to be that one network who could have that all illusive one interview with the Unabomber.

But overall, I liked how they viewed the message as uniting the Frenchmen together in the Revolution, and Napoleon stating that three hostile newspapers are worse than a thousand bayonets. And there is truth to that, the media has power over alot of people who turn in everyday. And being on the wrong side of the media could potentially ruin someone's life..Look at Richard Jewell.

But the article leaves me wondering...did Shakespeare foresee television? What are his thoughts on 2012?