Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and every four years take place the most single watched event, the soccer World Cup. This year the event is being hosted by South Africa, with the participation of 32 national teams from around the world. Over the years, the sport has made few changes; however, on this World Cup there has been many obvious mistakes done by the referees at important matches that some people are urging FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, to introduce technology that would assist referees on controversial decision. Those who favor the introduction of technology argue that the game can be made better by allowing the introduction of RF geo-location sensor into the ball, so that referees have some assistance when determining out of bounds and goals. For example, on the recent World Cup 2010 match between England vs. Germany, Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda, disallowed a clear goal by the English striker Frank Lampard, when the ball hit the cross-bar, landed beyond the goal line and then rebounded into the playing ground again. As of result the English lost 4:1. Also, the same day there was another controversial referee call made by the referee Roberto Rosetti in the match Argentina vs. Mexico. In the minute 26th of a second-round game, Carlos Tevez from Argentina headed in a pass from Lionel Messi from close range. Though replays showed Tevez was clearly offside, referee Rosetti of Italy awarded the goal after consulting with his linesman as Mexican and Argentina players surrounded them, angrily gesturing.
People who disagree with the introduction of technology argue that with the introduction of technology the naturally fast-paced of the game will be killed. Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA argued few months back that “the game needs to be left the way it is, with all the human errors.” Blatter has also cited other reasons including: the game's universality, fans who love debating incidents, the cost and fear of extended use of technology, and interference with the flow of the game. All of these are reasonable, but not insurmountable.
The question is where is the fair-play?
Why FIFA so strongly refuse the use of technology? Perhaps there is something in the shadows and FIFA wants to keep control of the game? It is well known that soccer moves millions of dollars and there are many interest around the game. The incident with England and Mexico gives us a lot of room for speculation.
Yesterday June 28, 2010 after the match's were over and pressure amounted from around the world, Mr. Blatter didn’t have a choice, but to reconsider the use of technology. However, we need to remember that this new position on the use of technology comes from the same man that opposed the introduction of technology few months earlier. I will take Blatter's words more as a damage control, than a legitimate change of opinion. I hope that FIFA embraces technology to enhance the game that so many people loves so we can have a fair-play!
What do you think, should FIFA introduce technology into the game?
Culture Jam, a book written by Kalle Lasn, points the destructive effects of Global Capitalism, and how corporations have become so powerful that they influence every aspect of people’s way of life. The author suggests that culture is no longer created by people, but by corporations with hidden agendas to sell their products. He points out that people are manipulated in their core values and are constantly under siege from the media until they are “branded” - a US pandemic that is affecting countries around the world. The author also implies that our American style of consumption is not sustainable and is killing our planet. He invites the reader to join a cultural revolution against the “Corporate Cool Machine” in order to save our world ecologically, culturally and free ourselves, starting by “Jamming our Culture”.
According to Lasn, “America is no longer a country.” Corporations have become so powerful ever since the U.S. Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a “natural person” under the U.S. Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the bill of rights. Because corporations have enormous financial resources, they actually have more power than any private citizen to defend and exploit their rights and freedom more vigorously. They can lobby for legislations and regulations according to their interest and pay off governments when they abuse or break the law; they run the show. In fact, according to the author, nowadays, corporations’ control 42 percent of the world’s wealth, and 51 of the world’s hundred largest economies are corporations.
I agree with Lasn that corporations are running our lives. They have more resources and power to lobby for laws and regulation than any person that I know. For example, I never understood why the U.S is the only industrialized country in the world that allows the sale of assault weapons to its citizens. After all, guns make it easier to kill and injure people; therefore, reducing the prevalence of guns will reduce the prevalence of death and injury. The answer to that question has to do in great part due to the lobby done in government by the gun industry, and how this industry has successfully manipulated information related to the negative effects of guns in our society. For instance, the industry claims that guns have nothing to do with school massacres; however, since guns have become accessible to the population, there have been several school massacres.
Lasn also mentioned that “American culture is not longer created by the people”. He describes how people belong to a branded cult without even knowing it. People have been recruited by corporations into roles and behavior patterns not consciously chosen by them, and this has been programmed into people’s DNA since childhood. I also agree with the author on that point: people are recruited into “branded cults” by corporations. A good example of Lans’ point is the “Apple Cult”. People have been recruited and branded by Apple Inc. as “unique and creative”. According to the Lasn, “the most powerful narcotic in the world is the promise of belonging”. Apple knows this and they deliver it to its followers by producing products such as the Apple Ipad that make consumers feel “unique and creative”.
Because children see this “branding” since early years, it is almost as natural and normal for them to continue being part of the cult. For example, children associate good feelings to products that they enjoyed during their childhood. If a child enjoyed a box of Kellogg’s cereal during his or her childhood, this child has already been branded and will consume this product whenever they want to bring those memories back. The author points out that people don’t feel that they belong to any cult, since no one is “forcing them to do anything” and they don’t feel “oppressive”. However, the author suggests that there are rules that, by consensus, all cult members speak: the corporate ideas people suck up from advertising. In other words, corporations use advertising as a way to manipulate consumer’s emotions and print their ideas on their minds until they are “branded” and become part of the cult.
“America coolness is a global pandemic” and “ecologically speaking, the world is already ‘full’ and further expansion will lead us into an ecological nightmare, a prolonged and possibly permanent age of despair”, according to the author. He describes how growth is unsustainable without the pursuit of ecological sustainability. In other words, a new economic model is needed. A model that doesn’t measure growth only by GDP, but also takes into account ecological damages in our planet, measures unpaid or volunteer work - a system that distinguish economic benefit for social gain from economic benefit for social loss. I also happen to share the author view on this point. We need a system that measures not only the "good", but also the “bad”. For example, how can we possible measure the ecological consequence of the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico with our current economic models?
Lasn asked the big question: “Is Economic Progress Killing the Planet? He dares world leaders to answer that question. After reading Culture Jam, I would have to answer that question with a profound “Yes”. We are killing our planet. We need to embrace Lasn’s message and “uncool consumption”, as well as take control of our ecological and economic well being by “Jamming our Culture”.
A woman drags her ex-boyfriend to court over an overdue adult movie rental and unpaid loan. A woman is heartbroken when her best friend betrays her with her husband. A smooth-talking ex-boyfriend claims that bail money was a gift. Welcome to the courtroom reality TV shows, where judges resolve “real-life” disputes between friends, neighbors, family members, roommates, and lovers on national television. Americans are hooked to television entertainment, especially to those so-called reality television programs in which ordinary people go unscripted and are put into “real”, unusual “legal” situations in order to entertain the viewers. What most people don’t know is that all of those courtroom reality shows, especially Judge Judy, Divorce Court and The People’s Court have negative effects on viewers and in the whole society in general.
Judge Judy, a reality show featuring former family court judge Judith Sheindlin, resolves noncriminal disputes over small claim cases. The setting takes place in a court house where Judge Judy questions the parties about dates, times, locations, and other facts central to the lawsuit. She sometimes disciplines participants for showing up in inappropriate clothing, and silences audience outbursts, even if they are in response to jokes she herself made.
Because people are paid to appear in the show, they allow themselves to be humiliated by Judge Judy. Questions about their employment history, marital and parental status, income, drug habits, sexual practice and orientation, incarceration record, and past and present dependency of public welfare are asked in front of millions of viewers. People better tell the truth because Judge Judy’s past experience as a family court judge has enable her to “see through the bull”, i.e., she can always tell if you’re lying. All see has to do is make an eye contact. For example, in a recent case, the plaintiff argued that her ex-husband didn’t pay child support for their daughter in the past couple years. The defender argued that he did pay the child support and it was current on all his payments. All it took for judge Judy to discover who was telling the truth was a phone call from her office to the California Department of Child Support Services. The husband was lying since he hasn’t paid child support for the past two years and a judgment was ruled in favor of the plaintiff, obviously after ruthlessly having humiliated and screamed at the man in front of national TV.
I believe that humiliating people by calling them stupid, dumb and uneducated in reality shows like Judge Judy is not in the best interest of our society. “Life According to TV”, an essay by Harry Waters, mentions that “No other medium reaches into every home or has a comparable, cradle-to-grave influence over what society learns about itself” (142). In other words, people learn to behave the way they see characters on TV like Judge Judy, ruthless and obnoxious. This is especially true for those shows that are broadcasted in prime time and can reach the biggest audiences, many of whom are children, who learn violent and aggressive behavior through those shows. “Reality programming promotes the worst aspects of human behavior,” said G. Brent Ludwing, Ph.D., Psychology Associates. "It is not surprising that people emulate what they see on TV. Psychologists have research going back to the 1960s that demonstrates these phenomena. Classic research covered in psychology classes is Albert Bandura's Bobo Doll study. Children were shown one of two short films and then observed in a playroom full of different types of toys. Children who viewed a film of a person acting aggressively were significantly more likely to play aggressively - especially by beating up a Bobo Doll, an inflatable clown - than children who had watched a film of a person acting non-aggressively. The Bobo Doll studies were conducted in a contrived, laboratory situation, but almost anyone who has spent time with children can attest to the studies' validity”.
It is certainly true that the more Judge Judy screams and mistreats litigants the higher the ratings go, according to Nielsen ratings, a standard audience measurement system. The behavior and acts that are allowed in her courtroom reality television show would possibly not be appropriate in a “real courtroom”. The more “straight-talking” she appears to perform, which often translates in being as mean as possible to unlikable litigants, the better ratings she receives. Judge Judy is arguably one of the toughest judges of reality TV. Consequently, she is also the one with the highest ratings and the most famous reputation, and the biggest salary.
TV marketers and producers know that we love “reality courtroom entertainment” and they deliver it to us. Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn stated in their book “Understanding Reality TV”, that “As we embark upon a new century of broadcasting, it is clear that no genre form of type of programming has been as actively marked by producers, or more enthusiastically embraced by viewers, than reality-base TV” (1-28). In other words, because people enjoy watching “reality” programming, producers go the extra mile to bring those to us, even if they dehumanize and humiliate participants and produce negative influence on viewers as Judge Judy does.
The genre of court shows can be traced back to 1980 when the first Reality TV courtroom program, People’s Court, appeared. Back then, People’s Court was headed by Judge Joseph Wapner, and is now presided by Judge Marilyn Milian. Judge Milian’s question litigants with questions related to small claim cases and other factors central to the lawsuit. People’s Court litigants are paid for their appearance in the show. The losing party does not actually need to pay the judgment. In the ending credits of the show, there is a message that reads, “Both the plaintiff and the defender have been paid from a fund for their appearance in the show.” Critics of the show, including myself, argue that because people are paid to bring their cases into the show, litigants may bring frivolous cases, which they believe the program encourages people to do - ''lawsuits over the thickness of a slice of pizza, or a cold cheeseburger at your local In-and-Out can be presided, for heaven's sake,'' said Thomas I. Friedman, a Superior Court arbitrator and a temporary judge in Los Angeles, who has presided over night court for the last nine years and has seen an increase in the number of small-claims courts in other jurisdictions that did not have them. He goes on to explain that on ''The People's Court,'' even losers win. In real court, he mentioned, losers get nothing and winners may not be able to collect. Furthermore, Friedman argues that “reality courtroom show”, gives people the wrong impression of the law. “People walk into my court thinking it will be like what they saw on TV, and it’s not,” he said. “They’ve even cited Judge Milian’s decisions in cases similar to their own”.
It is not a surprising that the United States has earned the nickname as the most “litigious society” out there, in part due to shows like People’s Court that encourages and incentive people to file lawsuit involving everything from hot spilled coffee to neighbor’s dispute, since it rewards monetarily the plaintiff and defender. In fact, according to a study done by the Economic Journal, Americans spend more on civil litigation than any other industrialized country and twice as much on litigation as on new automobiles.
Divorce Court a reality court TV show about cases involving divorcing couples arbitrated by Judge Lynn Toler, presents the privatize space of the TV courtrooms as the most “efficient” way to resolve most cases involving betrayal, infidelity, and trust related issues. Both sides present their arguments for the divorce, and the judge rules. Judge Lynn’s decision includes finding in favor of one of the litigants, petitioner or responder, and resolving issues such as alimony, and assets division. The judge decisions are legally binding and in some cases the judge may withhold a decision to give the couple a time to consider reconciliation.
The courtroom genre of reality TV exemplifies what James Hay describes in his book “Reality Television” as a cultural apparatus for “neoliberal forms of governance” (231-248). In other words, let the free market, TV Networks, take control of our judicial system and have the government outsource its governmental function to them. Let us have Judge Lynn Toler do “distance government” to deal with our divorces and issues of alimony and child visitation by doing a privatized approach to conflict management, while at the same time entertaining us. This seems almost as a win-win situation. However, critics of this way of TV “neoliberal form of governance”, including myself, argue that this approach is dangerous since undermine real people who is caught in a drama of ordinary life events such as divorces and use them as a raw material for entertainment and amusement of TV viewers. For example, in Divorce Court, litigants tend to come mainly from “oppressed groups (woman, people of color, and the working classes)”, according to Laurie Ouellete on her essay “Take Responsibility for Your Self” (244), and they are lectured about their “wrong” judgments and choices on life.
Moreover, because neoliberal principles are associated with global free trade and the deregulation of industry, a decline in welfare assistance and social service, shows like Divorce Court are used to deliver encoded messages to its viewers to “take responsibility” for their actions. Lessons are often directed at litigants who receive public assistance and are cast as deviants. Woman are often routinely asked to disclose their past or present reliance on government support, and those who admit to receive benefits are subsequently marked as irresponsible and lazy individuals who “choose” not to work for a living. Welfare recipients are also constructed as morally unsound citizens who cheat taxpayers, as was the case in an episode where Judge Lynn demanded to know whether a married woman with three children by the same father wanted a divorce merely to qualify for welfare benefits.
After reading each reality TV show, I realized that TV has a much larger influence over our lives than I have previously thought. Because TV Network corporations find journalism, documentaries and other “substantial” information formats unprofitable, reality TV programming, especially courtroom shows, will continue growing. As a matter of fact, Judge Judy recently topped Oprah in the battle of daytime shows, according to Nielsen ratings. Presently, it is almost impossible to watch TV without any reality show on it. As a result, networks are polluting our minds with distorted pictures of reality and encoded messages, leaving behind an ever bigger effect than that of regular television.
Reality TV : the work of being watched / Mark Andrejevic. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, c2004.
Understanding reality television / edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London ; New York : Routledge, 2004.
Reality TV : remaking television culture / edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York : New York University Press, c2004.
Common Culture/Michael Petracca and Madeleine Sorapure Life According to TV by Harry Waters,
The New York Times – The Law ‘The People’s Court’: The Case For and Against It by Margo Slader
While driving to Foothill College to attend my English class, a friend called me at my cell phone to ask me about our plans for the weekend. I hesitated to answer the call since I was busy driving; however, I really needed to talk to my friend to work out the details of our weekend trip to Napa. While on the phone with my friend, I received a second call. This time it was from my boss. I knew that I needed to answer that call, since we were doing a major software release, and problems at work needed my attention. I told my friend that my boss was on the other line, and I had to call him back in a few minutes. While answering my boss’ call, a text message from my wife arrived asking me if I was going to make it home for dinner. All these tasks happened within a period of one minute. Suddenly, I encounter myself distracted and confused in a world of technological advancements that have changed my way of life.
Technological advancements have shaped our culture in many different ways. We no longer feel the need to distinguish between work and fun. We can toggle between them as often as needed and make them look seamless. This way of life is now possible thanks to new advancement in mobile technology that allows us to be flexible. We can use our cell phone to conduct business, at the same time that we talk to our friends and family. We can be informed about the latest Down Jones movements in real time. Stock and financial transactions can be accomplished from our own cell phone. Business deals can be done at the same time as the Sharks scores are being delivery directly to our finger tips. All this toggling has allowed us to “blurry” the line between work and fun. At a moment notice we can be working, or not.
New technologies have allowed us to be more flexible in how we conduct business and personal life. However, flip-flapping between work and fun is affecting people’s focus and attention to detail. Robert Samuel stated on his essay, “Breaking Down Borders,” that “new technological devices absorb people to the point that they forget what they are supposed be doing.” In other words, what might seem seamlessly between work and fun is not as flawlessly as previously suggested. For instance, last year, one of the worst train accidents occurred in LA while the train operator was using his cell phone on duty. The California commuter train ran a red light and slammed into a freight train killing 25 people and 130 others were injured. This could have been prevented if the train operator concentrated on his job instead of “inter-mixing” work and fun.
In the essay, “The Judgment of Thamus”, Neil Postman makes the argument that “every technology is both a burden and a blessing.” I agree with the statement that Postman makes. People tend to only appreciate the “ups” of technology, but never the “downs” of it. For instance, the Internet is one of the most innovative advancements in technology of our current civilization. The internet has allowed us to connect with the world in ways that were unthinkable before. We can instantly email a friend around the world and read major news information. We can establish friendships in social sites and join MUD’s (Multiple-User Domains).
However, we never question ourselves the “down” side of technology. According to Kalle Lans of Culture Jam, “there lies a world where most human beings are simply incapable of experiencing the emotions that life ought to evoke.” He is suggesting that we sometimes spend more time on the interactive cyberspace “connecting” with other people, than in our own real lives with family and friends. He argues that as of result, we are incapable of experiencing the emotions that life can provide for us.
Although we are connected thanks to the Internet, the question is, are we really connected? For example, Facebook is a social site that allows friends to connect with each other and share personal information. At first, this social-connection can seem great because it allows users to connect with lost friends from high school or college. However, there are many down sides to Facebook. I often tell my own Facebook friends that I don’t need to call them anymore because, thanks to status updates feature, I know everything about their life. As of result, I have lost the human touch of many of my relationships. I no longer go out for coffee or interact physically and emotionally with them. My interaction skills are not as sharp as before Facebook’s existence.
Neil Postman mentioned in his essay “The Judgment of Thamus” that “one significant change generates total change”. He argues that when a “new technology is introduced into a culture, it is important that we think critically about it, if we are going to live with it”. Without any doubt advancements in technology have changed our way of life. However, as Postman suggests, we need to weight in the good and bad and truly address how technology alter our behavior as a society.
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and every four years take place the most single watched event, the soccer World Cup. This year the event is being hosted by South Africa, with the participation of 32 national teams from around the world. Over the years, the sport has made few changes; however, on this World Cup there has been many obvious mistakes done by the referees at important matches that some people are urging FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, to introduce technology that would assist referees on controversial decision.
