Response to the Class Media Fast

I didn’t do the fast. But I think my observations about how the fast was brought up and how some carried it out could add to this discussion.

The call to fast

I heard about the call for a media fast obliquely—it was mentioned by some people in my Google+ feed, and it wasn’t until class that I realized this was something initiated by a class member and that he wanted all to participate. Even after trying to find it, I never read the original post.

I think this mirrors how information is disseminated on the Internet: someone posts something, and then people who think it’s interesting take it up, and people enter the conversation at all points. This means that a lot can go on that some people will never hear about. That stands to reason, but this illustrated it for me—I’m in the same class as this person, and look at Google+ nearly every day, yet I missed (and would have completely missed) his call to action. Who you know, and who you follow, matters.

How I responded to the call for a media fast

After I heard about the media fast in class, I wasn’t that interested in doing it. It came as a request from an equal, and that gave me to option to not participate. And it turns out that I didn’t.

The idea of elective participation is also integral to the Internet—people participate in things they want to do. This elective participation naturally leads to specialized groups forming, and people finding and conversing with people with an interest similar to theirs.

It also highlights the de-centralized nature of Internet interaction: in a traditional college class, assignments are handed down from a central authority (professor) and students do it. The model is simple, and reinforced with the grading system—the return for completing the assignments in the way the professor expects is a grade that, added with other grades for classes outlined by the central authority of the college, becomes a diploma.

What I’ve noticed in others’ reports of their media fasts

Defensiveness—Some people seemed defensive about their media use. This seems to indicate that there is social bias against it.

Relief—When some came to the conclusion that they couldn’t live without media, there seemed to be a note of relief. Maybe because they found legitimate reasons to use media, and are able to refute the social bias that made them feel defensive to begin with.

Definition of media—there were differing definitions of what “media” is. Technically, almost anything can fall under “media,” but the most common definition included the Internet and electronics. I wonder why those are put under such scrutiny and general social disdain. Is it because these things are new?

My takeaways

I came away from the media fast weekend wanting to monitor and reform my interactions with media. I also realized I need to define what kind of media I think is most necessary to limit (phones? Any computer work, or just the Internet?), and if there are some I want to use more (physical books, playing instruments in person).

How much do I value being the first person to know that something has happened?

Do I need to check email as many times as I do a day?

What other sources of entertainment can I actively pursue (physically active and actively making it happen) instead of passively consuming information off the Internet?