Other personal contribution to the debate on the scope and boundaries of the media. I promise to quit as soon as possible to pretend to be a serious person, indeed, a person.
media to tell the world they were born and have come to change it, because the world when it was noticed to be in front of prying eye of the camera, so after the initial embarrassment, has become pretty and compliant.
And this is the greatest paradox of our everyday life we \u200b\u200bbounce through the interconnected liquid crystals: the media if they are malicious, give a fake because artificially corrupt, if they are (naively) virtuous give us a distorted picture because it is still different from what we could enjoy watching with our eyes, without intervening screens .
To simplify the notion I give myself an example, to complicate it a reflection scientificofilosofica.
The effect of media on such a large part of the "phenomena" of politics, news, sports, entertainment, costume, etc. is that of the camera lens when it is pointed at the face of your girl, after her initial reluctance to take in their hair and then, regardless the momentary state of the (volatile) mood, an expression atteggerà pleased, perhaps handing objective terms it considers best.
The world gives us the cathode ray tube, therefore, at best is a world that has just been combed, which boasts smiles or tears, which are only there to make a reality whose intimate reason is to be communicated (transmitted ) and view
before they "lived".
And now the pompous reflection.
The German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927 has laid down a principle universally known as the Uncertainty Principle (although this is in effect a theorem) that has not only revolutionized the world of physics but had an overwhelming effect on the consciousness of contemporary intellectuals disrupting the absolute faith that science had won in the century positivist and slamming the door behind him that was left ajar.
The enunciation of the principle in words very poor is this: "We can not simultaneously know the position and momentum of an electron." Beyond the scientific and scholarly disquisition of the complex differential equations that support this statement, what interests us in this context is not its meaning in the fledgling science of quantum nor the meaning given in the troubled world of the humanities (the degree certainty that we can achieve through science is not indefinite). What interests us is his first, erroneous interpretation, which at first the same Heisenberg was convinced and today (despite being publicly disowned) very popular, (my science teacher in high school he was firmly convinced ). This interpretation says, "We can not know the location of the electron at a given time because the act of measurement produces a disturbance on the motion of particles that leads to occupy a different position from that which the same operation would have occupied in the absence measurement. That is, the mere fact of observing the phenomenon changes the phenomenon itself. And then interpreting the first (green) Heisenberg we returned to the media, to say "watch the world media have caused an effect on it that changed him."
But thus far we have slid words, now caliamoci in the "reality" that surrounds us.
policy has changed with the Media:
has grown from a part of the spectacle and to customize other;
politicians are less rhetoric and more rhetoric, less charismatic and more stars, less philosophical and more sellers
the political message of the electorate was gradually simplified and limited, ultimately embodied in the slogan that embraces clichés and reject as dispersive concepts depth of the problems and faceting of reality.
The same electoral system is probably largely a child of television. We could go on much longer but we get out of politics. Sport also has adapted to television, football matches are played every day of the week and we were just a step to enter the time-out within 90 minutes in order to better manage inventory. The publicity surrounding the whole show from the bottom of the playing field in the calves of the players. This
going to consider only the first "reporting" of the media, not the appearance of entertainer. Obviously our lives daily has been remodeled in its rhythms and its time on television as a medium of entertainment, but I insist, this is not the subject of debate, but the value of the reporting medium.
At this point I could go on indefinitely giving examples to support my thesis and pointing his index finger against the demon, but this is not my goal, or at least, this is not its context, because my thought would be incomplete if not take note of the role of new media, those who are the grandchildren of television and of which they have inherited a few flaws and some pregio.Ma work is too ambitious for a simple blog, then throw the stone and hide the hand but the pond, the water being moved in concentric circles is you, then do not indignatevi if I have not revealed the name of the murderer and get through the questions: The Internet is changing the world? Internet fraud or perpetrerà ripararerà the damage done by television? I do not know the answer but you whisper a hint: it all depends on you. It depends on the realization that you have in using the tool.
0 comments:
Post a Comment