Speech vs. Writing.

In society people relay messages from one person to another and that is the way in which we communicate. Whether it is through writing or speech (even sign and body language) both are the only ways to transfer information from one person to another. Throughout the ages speech has always been around and has generally stayed the same. However, writing has developed and become easier throughout many different varieties and forms. In earlier prehistoric times the notched stick was a form of communication in which societies communicated and kept outside information that they couldn’t remember from their brains. Now-a-days instead of people using a notched stick, technology has made it so we can use computers or pens and paper. Therefore, from the computer and the cell phone to the pencil and paper writing has become the dominant form of communication for our society.

Without the creation of the alphabet writing would never have become a form of communication. Johanna Drucker writes about the alphabet, how it came about and its purpose. “The basic principle of alphabetic writing is to represent a single sound of a spoken language by a single letter.” She then goes on to say, “In addition to serving as the means to record speech or ideas of writing, the letters of the alphabet also constitute a set of visual symbols.” (Drucker, 46). Her main point is that the creation of the alphabet made it easier for our society to remember words and speech.

Although, speech may seem to be the more dominate, easier, or better way to communicate writing allows individuals a chance to get their point across in their own timely fashion. They can take time and pick their choice of words before transferring the information to whom ever they are writing/talking to. For example, when text messaging or writing an email anyone can put their thoughts down and think about what they want to say and how they want it to come across. But, if they were to not have time to think about what they wanted to say or word it the way they wanted to, then the message or information might come out wrong. Also once someone speaks, it is harder for him/her to take back what he or she said rather than writing it down and making sure their message got interpreted the way in which they wanted it to.

Writing is defiantly less confrontational for the exact reason that I could write down what I wanted to say instead of blurting something out that maybe at the time I might have felt, but in the long run, not have meant. For example, I got in an argument with my sister on the phone and instead of hanging up and letting myself cool off, I said what was on my mind. I didn’t really mean anything that I said and if I would have given myself some time and written down what I wanted to say or sent her an email I wouldn’t have upset her as much as I did. (I said some rude and mean things.) Writing has permanence and that is why it has the upper hand in communication and in our society. That is what Walter Ong is trying to portray in his essay, “Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media”. “Sound exists only when it is going out of existence. It is not simply perishable but essentially evanescent, and it is sensed as evanescent. When I pronounce the word “permanence,” by the time I get to the –nence,” the “perma-“ is gone, and has to be gone. There is no way to stop sound and have sound.” (Ong, 67). Ong’s point is that when people want to remember something important they will write down what has been said. This is why in classes for example, the majority of students take notes and write down their teachers lecture in order for them to go back, remember, and understand what was being taught. Personally I am a very visual learner and I can sit and listen to what my teachers have to say, but I also need notes to understand exactly what he/she was trying to teach.

In Howard Gardner’s essay “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading” he states that, “Computers, they maintain, are destroying literacy.” What he is trying to demonstrate is that, with the invention of computers and the Internet, literacy and writing in a few years are going to be completely diminished in the American society. He thinks that because of the Internet, people do not know how to read and write since we do everything on the computer. I disagree with him because I think that with the invention of computers and the Internet writing and literacy for Americans has only gotten better. Now instead of writing a letter we can type an email or send an instant message. Also I think that even though people might not be reading books or going to the library for research we are still reading things online and doing our research with a much faster and easier tool. Later on in the article he goes on to say that, “In the past 150 years, each new medium of communication -- telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, the digital computer, the World Wide Web -- has introduced its own peculiar mix of written, spoken and graphic languages and evoked a chaotic chorus of criticism and celebration.” So, really he is saying that throughout all of these inventions new ways to communicate have been created and used by society. Therefore, I do not understand why the Internet and computers are such awful tools for communication.

Although I think that speech is a strong from of communication and I use it a lot, I think that overall writing has and will always dominate our society. Speech and talking can get the job done, but without writing and literature, communication will never succeed in society.

The Daily Show vs. Local News

Snoutbreak 09. Jon Stewart’s way of introducing the discussion of swine flu during his show on April 27, 2009. And he continues his segment by showing clips from several news outlets and how, in each one, they “don’t want to freak anybody out”, but are constantly showing maps of infected areas and saying that the swine flu could eventually lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people throughout the world. Now, while it is good to be presented with the hard facts, which the news outlets are doing, and it is also helpful to know what signs to look for and in what areas of the country cases of the swine have been reported, it is also, to a point, being blown out of proportion by these news outlets. As Stewart says on his show, the only reason that we are freaking out is because of the news. Obviously, on the surface, news outlets like ABC News or Fox News are going to be given more credibility then something being shown on Comedy Central. But should it? Is there any reason someone watching The Daily Show should not believe what is being told because they haven’t heard it on Fox News? No, absolutely not. The thing that makes Stewart’s show, and
Stewart himself, so popular is the fact that he can report the news, the real news, while adding a comedic effect to it.
Obviously, the mainstream news is not bad news or wrong news, but it certainly does not give its viewers the entire truth. But just because of its seriousness and location (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.) it is just given credibility; the validity of the news is assumed. This idea helps The Daily Show. As Rachel Smolkin cites in her article from the show’s main web site, "One anchor, five correspondents, zero credibility. If you're tired of the stodginess of the evening newscasts, if you can't bear to sit through the spinmeisters and shills on the 24-hour cable news networks, don't miss The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a nightly half-hour series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy." This ‘mission statement’ is a direct ploy at the mainstream news and its attempts to evade the hard truth. Regardless of how controversial or intimidating something may be to report on, it should still be done so accurately, and Stewart and his correspondents have no problem questioning anyone. Simply by showing recaps or old footage of senators putting their foot in their mouth, seeing the President say something in June and the complete opposite in July, or something as blown out of proportion as the swine flu, The Daily Show reports accurately and honestly, even with the humor and comedy included. I think that because the premise of the show is a satirical one, more ‘truth’ is presented. The last thing that cable news outlets want is reporter or journalist speaking up too much about a certain important person or important topic because there could be ramifications that too much information was presented or that the information reported isn’t true, although that is a bit rare. However, because The Daily Show is a show on Comedy Central, if something like that were to occur, it would just be overlooked as being funny or Stewart just trying to get a laugh at someone’s expense before being seen as true, but to normal viewers of The Daily Show, who are used to the antics and reporting styles of the anchor and his correspondents, they would know they are receiving true material. Continuing on, speaking about the validity and credibility of the show, initially, there will be none by a new viewer. The Daily Show is something that must be viewed consistently because the viewer needs to grasp the concept of how the news is presented. A first time viewer or someone not included in the youthful generation (at which the show is aimed) would see the show as a stereotypical attempt at getting a laugh at any expense. But not until they watch the show on a steady basis do they realize that ‘any expense’ translates into ‘regardless of the situation, we will give you the news with as much truth as we can’. It isn’t trying to make people look bad. They just aren’t scared to talk about the people who make themselves look bad.