I am very excited to announce to my Woyano friends that my book Printing, Literacy, and Education in Eighteenth Century Ireland : Why the Irish Speak English (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2006) has won the Marshall McLuhan Award for Outstanding Book in the Field of Media Ecology for 2007.
I've actually known about this for about a month, but the award wasn't made public until this past weekend at the Eighth Annual Convention of the Media Ecology Association in Mexico City, where I was invited to present a paper based on my book.
This is, as you might be able to imagine, a thrill for me. McLuhan's Understanding Media was one of the first books on mass media -- probably the first book -- I ever read when I was discovering my fascination with mediated communication as a young college freshman in 1972. I never got to meet McLuhan, but his son -- and a media scholar in his own right -- Eric McLuhan was on hand at the award ceremony, and I got the opportunity to express to him what a humbling experience it was to win an award honoring his father.
I studied in NYU's Media Ecology program under one of McLuhan's proteges, Neil Postman, who died in 2003. Neil was not my mentor, I was not his protege. In fact, we didn't see eye to eye on a lot of things (He was not crazy about my writing -- he found it "florid" and verbose -- and he was right. I'm still working on it...), but he was a friend, and he encouraged me, and when I first presented my raw research for this book at a conference at Trinity College, Dublin in 1990, he paid me the ultimate compliment. "Peter," he said, "now you are a scholar." I wish he had been there on Friday evening.
My wife Mary Pat encouraged me to take this dusty old manuscript (I actually completed it in 1996, but life has a way of interfering with your plans) and get it published, and I am grateful to her for her support and her love.
But I really want to acknowledge, as I did Friday evening, the guidance, support, and wisdom of Prof. Christine Nystrom, formerly of NYU's Media Ecology program. In so many ways she was the inspiration for this book. When I really want to flatter myself, I tell myself that this would be the type of book Chris would write if she were writing a book about printing, literacy, and education in eighteenth century Ireland. Chris was and is a far better writer than I am -- and a far better thinker -- but I like to think that I learned something about the grace of language from Chris, and I hope that this is true.
The roll of recipients of the Marshall McLuhan Award include:
Note: Pictures and perhaps video to follow....
Dr. Fallon
38 Comments
why waste that amount of energy to type such hateful nastiness?
Dr. Fallon- congratulations! This is very awesome indeed!
what a fucking asshole
Im kind of curious why you have such mad hatred for a guy who is as sweet and kind as Dr. Fallon?
you dont like him because he doesnt always agree with the stuff you post - like the astronaut not swearing on the bible post you made.
and it upset you when he replied -- n others agreed with him
thats a pretty lame reason to be so nasty to him
*S*
he provided evidence and he isnt lying.
just because he disagrees with you on some of the things you've posted doesn't make him wrong! he is entitled to have his belief and his opinion. it is also ok if he posts evidence to support his beliefs.
he does not have to be unbiased about anything, i will never understand this notion that just because someone is a journalist that somehow this means they arent allowed an opinion? if he was writing something as straight news thats one thing, but he isnt.
what is wrong with you?
no doubt, i am an emotional human being
but i am also rational, clear-headed and can see what is going on in this case as it is pretty damn obvious
I'm sure when we get A.I. we will be able to eliminate the human contigent in writing- but then we will all be part of the matrix ;)
i looked up dr fallon on the web *S*
Get a clue. You are not going to gain support by tearing into people and belittling them. Don't you think if the content was "ripped off" the award counsel would have researched that prior to giving the award. Not to mention you are on dangerous grounds of a lawsuit. Should Doc decide to take legal action against your slander you could be in big trouble.
Not to mention that you are not listening (as it were) to the comments posted. Block Party did not say there was no difference between genders, but you chose to take it that way and continue your verbal assault on her. You have behaved as if you have no respect for anyone who does not agree with you or is not the same gender, or sexual preference as you. And the comment you made about homosexuals and females are completely out of line. Having an emotional response to things does not mean that we are incapable of logic, and implying that we are " either women, or metrosexuals (gay people) - to deny logic, is irrational, and will only destroy societies. " destroying societies is irrational in its self. Not to mention insulting and sexist. You take all these shots at other people and when you are called on them, redirect the content to support your next attack. Sounds suspiciously like "stonewalling" to me.
You think you are so much smarter than the rest of us. Might be true in some respects (such as you might have educational degrees that others lack), but that doesn't make you correct, smarter, or better than others. You have a lot to learn. Especially about people and respect. If you want to be taken seriously, you might put some thought into this. If not, you can keep acting like a self centered asshole. You are very good at that.
And no, I did not co-author the Doc's book. If I had I would have added a chapter about stuck up dick heads that couldn't find their asshole with both hands and a map just for you!
Monty Python Rocks!
Different people have different discussion techniques, the bully , like Arooka has his style ,( not to my liking) but that does not mean we need to be cowering victims.
Furthermore his comments lack fact and therefore credence , why be sucked in ?
Your rationality for 90% of the piece was accurate and applauadable, the ending seems out of character.
Thanks for your (mostly) kind words. It was a very exciting weekend, to say the least. I am happy to have been able to share a small piece of it with you.
"Why the Irish Speak English" actually took me about fifteen years from beginning of research to publication, and I can assure you that it is my work. It is not plagiarized. LOL. In fact, from 1990 -- when I first wrote my review of existing literature -- until today, no one has studies this particular question. Perhaps no one is interested!!! LOL. But I was.
I have been working on my second book, "The Metaphysics of Media," for about ten years, and I might just finish it up this fall (that's the plan, anyway). I can assure you I have not plagiarized this one either. LOL.
One final note: Media Ecology does, in fact, seek to analyze things like propaganda, as well as advertising, public relations, mass communication ethics, etc. When someone analyzes a phenomenon like propaganda, breaking it down into its constituent principles, there is always a danger that someone will use that analysis to further their own manipulative goals. That is one of the dangers of science: we can't guarantee that knowledge will be used for good.
But I can (again) assure you that the goal of the field of Media Ecology is individual empowerment -- when we understand something like propaganda, we can act against it.
Again, thanks to (nearly) all of you.
Peace, and
Down with walls, stone or otherwise,
Peace
http://wa.essortment.com/englishirishhi_rfde.htm
http://www.estudiosirland...yCarolinaAmadorMoreno.pdf
Now it maybe possible that he did as he says and wrote the book without consulting with any others, but if he did this, within the book it would likely start off a logical form of thinking - but end in stonewalling and monty python jokes.
As for disagreeing with something because it is controversial, I have not considered this. Though, I often ask for proof of some sorts, when attempting to obtain logical discusion.
Moosetracks - I did not question people's ethics.. I asked if they had ethics. The conversation turned to the role of journalism, and in the case of journalism(you may not know this - but they are supposed to be unbiased - report facts, not opinion). If you want to write opinions, verses facts, this is the difference between journalism and opinion. Now if you do not believe this to be true, it is either you never took journalism in university, or have no ethics.
As for your claim of slander, you should look up big words in dictionary before you use them. You may find it a major point to make, but unless you use words in a correct context they have no meaning.
"It has been proven that a woman's brain is based on emotion, rather than logic. so perhaps you are either women, or metrosexuals (gay people) - to deny logic, is irrational, and will only destroy societies." It may be a shock to you, but modern science studies the brains of women and men work differently.
"Men like to perform tasks in a logical, linear, sequential manner...Women integrate their emotions into their thinking"
http://www.coopyrite.net/...en-have-different-brains/
If you take the aspect that the person responding to you is giving you an answer which is without logic, it is logical to assume they are women or possibly feminine men (refered as metrosexuals, gay, etc). Is it sexist? Not according to modern science. Perhaps you should of learned of feminism more - Learn about Emily Murphy's struggle to give you the rights you enjoy today. This is not as you would say "stonewalling" but a logical sequence of thought. Should give it a try some day.
As for thinking I am smarter, I do not think I am smarter than anyone. And what is the point of even thinking that? Everyone has skills of different kinds, and all these should be rejoiced. All I ask is that you think with logic.. now of course for some (based on modern science) this is not possible, but I ask to give it a try. Especially to Dr.Fallon who as a man, should be capable of it.
As Babylon states "You pitched so eloquently and accurately , only to misfire at the end." (even though you were not accurate in most of your comments, it was a fiery beginning, only to end in emotional outpouring, typical for your gender).
As Dr. Fallon States "That is one of the dangers of science: we can't guarantee that knowledge will be used for good" - find examples in history when propaganda served a useful purpose. Also find examples to prove your statements, it is not irrational to ask for proof, though it is irrational to get stonewalling and monty pythoned for asking for this proof.
"when we understand something like propaganda, we can act against it."
The difference is I do standup against it, you follow it.
not a popular path(as shown here), but if I don't do it.. will you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance
Rupert Sheldrake took this idea from "ether theory", which einstien and previous civilizations believed in. Though Sheldrake's experiments with mind-machine interactions are intresting, though not overly functional. But intresting arguement JV, more clever than most on this topic.
I think Wiki is a fine resource, but you have to acknowledge its shortcomings (as in all open-source applications). It is great for getting a quick, fairly reliable (this is one of the areas you have to be careful about), and generally objective (again, one of the dangers) description/explanation of events, people, etc.
One of the main dangers of Wiki, though, is that some people (generally younger people) have the utmost confidence in it, and believe that merely by looking things up on Wiki, or Google, or whatever, one has somehow done "research."
I see this with students all the time. So it is not Wiki I'm criticizing, it is the attitude that "all answers can be found on Wiki."
You seem to think that clicking on Wiki equals "research." It doesn't.
And Babylon, thank you for the constructive feedback. I was thinking about not adding the last bit, but decided to. It was something that Arooka had said in one of the other strings that I felt I wanted to address. I realize it did not make sense for everyone else, but he should have picked up on it. And yes it was rather nasty. I agree, I could have made the same point in a better fashion. I chose not to. I will think about that and make future choices with your feedback in mind. Thanks again for being direct with me, and honest. I value that.
I recommend not wasting any more time and/or energy on the crap.
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)