There are two parts to a reading response entry: the summary and the close reading.  Below is an example of just the close reading.  Don’t forget the summary in your entry!

 

“Then, there are those little screens, our computer screens, hooked up to the Internet.  Just fifteen years ago they were thought to be a potential new electronic frontier for democracy.  But today very clearly they are one more mirror of a commercialized, privatized society where everything is for sale.  The Internet which our children use is now a steady stream of advertising, mass marketing, a virtual mall, a place where the violence, the values – for better or worse – of these same universal corporations reappear in video games and sales messages” (Barber 2).

 

I am initially attracted to this passage because it marks the end of Barber’s rhetorical move involving screens.  Moving from movie screens to TV screens to “our computer screens,” Barber connects his argument about the amount of passive viewing we do in our daily lives (2).  In this way, Barber argues that we have become passive consumers of a media that is all around us.  His mention of the Internet as “one more mirror” continues and expands on this rhetorical thread (2).  In other words, these all-encompassing screens also function as mirrors to reflect our own passivity.  Although not obvious in this passage, I also feel that there is a note of sci-fi hysteria here – ‘can they see us through the screens?’ 

 

It seems, then, that Barber is making a powerful point about our media exposure.  He strengthens his argument by pointing out the difference between the Internet today and “fifteen years ago” when it was a “potential new electronic frontier for democracy” (2).  While we may have seen the Internet as a method for more equal access to information among all people, Barber claims that the Internet today is “a virtual mall” (2).  I can see his point; surfing the Internet involves navigating through pop-up ads and interwoven commercials.  Thus, our expectations don’t always match reality and it may be worthwhile to revisit and interrogate our expectations of media. 

 

However, as I reach the end of this passage, I do have some questions about Barber’s ideas.  He references “the violence, the values” of “universal corporations” in the final sentence of this passage (2).  I wish that he had provided some examples to clarify his point here.  Is he referring only to Internet ads as before or is he collapsing the advertising with the actual product (i.e. video games)?  I also feel that there is still a strong educational component to the Internet that may be downplayed in this argument.  I also can’t escape the feeling that Barber’s argument in this passage could be characterized as a luxury complaint.  What about the people and students in numerous schools who do not even have access to the Internet?  Before stemming the flow of advertising on the Internet, should we be more concerned with equal access to the Internet itself?