Marshall McLuhan argues that the medium in which a message is transmitted, is more important than the message itself.
Well, he argues that the medium has the power to change the way we live and experience the world. Could that be true?
He says that the media is an extension of our senses, bodies and minds. I do see quite a few truths in what he's saying. How many of you can relate to probably National Geographic or Animal planet on tv? After seeing a cheetah chase down a zebra and kill it, think. Do you think you would be able to see something like that in real life? Imagine if there was no TV, or internet for that matter. Would you ever see sights like that? Our bodies and minds are "transported" into different countries, with different people, to experience things never at all possible without say, television. Senses wise, think cooking progammes. Somehow or rather, you feel hungry. The food doesn't even exist! Okay, so maybe it does. But it could be continents away!
Compare this: Imagine advertising for a fashion item, say, perfume. Now, we put this ad into a fashion magazine, full colour, full page. Compare that to the same ad, full colour, printed on paper and given to people at the MRT. Yes, both may be print. But one method, namely the one in the magazine, would have better results.
I had the assumption that the more technologically advanced the media medium, the better results you were going to get. Apparently I was wrong. Now, consider the opposite: A housing agent pays for a 30 second slot on TV to advertise for a newly opening condo's launch. Take that same money and print 40,000 brochures which are inserted into mailboxes all around. Which one would have better results? I would have to say brochures. I realised that it was not how advanced the medium was that made this statement true. I realised that it was the selection of the optimal medium that would make this statement true. Using the right medium, to relay the right message to the right people = the right results. Isn't that what advertising is all about?
Sometimes, without the media medium of television, we would not have the chance to experience many sights and sounds of the world. Even then, televesion reports so much important news that changes our lives. Without the media, we would not even known the disaster of 9/11 that rocked the world. The way we live today, the precautions and the alertness of our society would not have been triggered at all.
Media determinism. The power of the right medium. Important? You decide.
Now now children, we all have heard about gay pride and what not. Before I post anything, I need to put a disclaimer. I have many gay (homosexual) friends and some of whom I am very, very good friends with. We have nothing going on between us but as a friend to them and them to me, we are great friends and we appreciate one another as that. Now, the hard bit.
Everyone remembers the BIG hoo haa about the legalisation of gay sex in Singapore. MP Siew Kum Hong decides to appeal against this decision which was highly supported by voices from the gay and lesbian community. A heated debate started and ended in the Parliament with the decision to uphold section 377 of the penal code.
Section 377 reads: "Outrages on decency. 377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years." Reference
So, then. Unfair to gays who want to get intimate? You might say so. Singapore doesn't give a crap about gays? You might say so. Singapore is opressing the gays? You might say so. Is this a norm? Is this viewed as "normal" by Singaporeans? Can you say so?
There is still a significant number of Singaporeans that view gay sex as "an act of gross indecency". My personal opinion is the same. However, I do respect gays and their decisions and their private life remains their own. Is it normal? Many people sure don't think so. Asian culture does not view gay sex as a norm. Singaporean culture does not view gay sex as a norm. Singapore society does not view gay sex as a norm. While it is slightly unfair and a fallacy in some sense to have the penal code as such. Our PM, Mr Lee Hsien Loong highlighted recognition of the fact that homosexuals do contribute to the country, Section 377A would not be actively enforced. Homosexuals would be left to lead their private lives without harassment.
So in some sense, gays can just get on with their lives, and not tempt fate (and the law) by trying some stunt in the middle of Botanical gardens.
Gay sex is a norm probably for western culture. Freedom of choice is a value that America preaches. However, in Singapore and asian culture, such a value is also accepted. BUT with conditions. After all, the breakdown of societal norms could have devastating effects for stability in the country. The gradual evolution of societal norms is another thing altogether.
Unfair for gays? Maybe yes. But is gay sex alright with Singaporeans as a societal norm? No. Hence 377A is still retained.
The beautiful Marie Digby. For those that don't know her, her name's pronounced "Marr-ree-eh". The power of the internet shows itself right here in her life. Despite being an amazing talent, Marie had problems going up on stage to compete and sing. Youtube came along and she just recorded herself singing and playing the guitar. She did a cover of Rihanna's hit song "Umbrella" and it grossed a total of (currently) 7.2 MILLION views! That's like every man and woman in Singapore giving birth and everyone with their new child watches the video!
For the happy ending, Marie was somewhat recently signed on a record company. What happened was that someone sat up and took notice of this girl who had talent but no record label. Now then, who needs American Idol now?
But seriously, if we do consider it, the power of the internet as the new media is quite something indeed. Take for example your internet as a HUGE network of websites. Now these websites are some sort of a TV channel where people visit and engage in these sites. Let's take YouTube as one of those "TV channels". Now, just because the stats add up and over 7 million people have viewed this angel of a lady, people have moved in to sign her up on a contract. Marie has "advertised" herself on this channel of YouTube and true enough, got her big break.
Think of the recent possibilities on the internet: Buying and selling items that we would not have normally have access to. T-shirts, apparrel from overseas. Music, CDs are available on the net. Worldwide commnunication! Before MSN Messenger came along, I was reduced to occasional monthly calls overseas to my cousins in England to catch up with them. Cost a bomb too! Now, with this application and the internet, I can easily talk to them a few times a week! FREE! (in theory)
A small little girl asked her mother this question: "Mummy, why are we here on earth?" Her mum answered "We are on this earth to help others." The little girl thought about that statement for a while and then said "Then Mummy, what are the others here for?"
I used to think about that for a period of time and thought to myself. How nice if we were to have a script for everything? Just like a computer! I could just download a script that someone has written, run it, and everything comes out fine and dandy. Imagine then, a script for getting together with someone. Every thing would be so easy! Well, that's for computer to computer. Unfortunately, boys and girls, we're dealing with human to human relations here. It gets much more complicated than that. Computers do not have emotions, PMSes, character traits. Computers do not have excessive armpit hair or scratch their no-show areas in public. Humans, on the other hand, do. Which is why we see the make and break of human relations sometimes. It's just like how a girl might be unable to tolerate a guy's public display of scratching personal, private cracks and crevaces. Or how a guy might be unable to tolerate the- "Honey, am I fat?" "No baby you look great!" "YOU LIAR!" - syndrome.
Make and break relationships. Sigh. But things do have exceptions. There are stages to making a relationship. The feeling one another out period. (character wise. Not physical wise. Feeling one another up physically constitues mutual molest.) The trying out period, the getting together period and all that. Exceptions being the cliched happy ending - growing old and dying together. Or even reconsiliation.
Just an example. FRIENDS. That long, successful comedy that lasted 10 seasons. Everyone should remember Chandler, Joey, Ross, Rachel, Monica and Phoebe! Well, if you don't, basically, these 6 people were best of friends! Monica and Ross were brother and sister. Joey and Chandler are roommates. So is Rachel and Monica. eventually, Monica and Chandler got married. So did Ross and Rachel. However, when Ross and Rachel were together as boy-girlfriend, Ross made a mistake and slept with someone else. They broke up eventually in this really really emotional scene:
I remembered watching this scene and was very sad when it happened. (All loyal followers of Friends would.) However, this video would totally sum up what I've been trying to say.
If you do follow "Friends", you would remember that Ross and Rachel's relationship with one another was a very traumatic one, with many breakups and getting together again. Eventually they got married (for the second time) and lived happily every after. It's a frustrating, long, dramatic relationship that should I choose to illustrate every event, I would be at my computer until I turn 40.
The 10 seasons of friends. Love, hate, relationships won and lost, made and broken.
