This was a great article, very entertaining and I loved being able to reminisce on all of the old half time shows! The critic of this article, Brian Moylan, had a very straight forward opinion on each show ranked. He took the approach of tearing down each show in a negative light rather than criticizing as a constructive tool. In my opinion, Maylan did not represent bridge building in the correct way. Bridge building requires an understanding between creator and consumer and as Diane Kristine Wild reaffirms in the book, “dismissing public taste does nothing to assist the bridge-building process.”

Other than this slight wrong turn Maylan did suggest new directions for the performers in the half time shows. Although, the suggestions were presented in a negative light by Maylan comparing performers to other performances that were “better” than there’s. He would say things like, “Diana gets in, waves to the crowd, and then flies off, sitting on the edge of the helicopter. Try to top that, Gaga.” Proposing that Diana Ross was better than Lady Gaga and she would not be able to top her. Suggesting new directions, through intimidation, is not the best way to go about criticism.

System cognisant change is represented in this article when the critic suggests that certain artists should not work together. There were a few comments when he suggested that one artist didn’t fit with the other and so on. Which is where a proxy or watchdog would come in. It seemed to me that the critic was trying to provide a “watchdog” effect on what viewers warning them that the content was bad. Which is not good criticism, tearing down work rather than finding ways to build it up.

In the end, the entertainment factor of this article was the best part about it. The video portions were incredible and I found myself wanting to know more and more about the opinions the critic had. He used very elaborate terms and funny comparisons that made me want to keep reading. This was not a critic that followed the “rules” of criticism by any means, although it did have the entertainment factor.

By logging my media use during a 24 hour period I observed that I spent about 10 hours a day using media. I used about five hours using social media apps and the other five hours watching television. Considering my days are usually routine this means I spend a total of 70 hours a week using media. I feel like this is not too bad for social media usage in today’s date. By making this chart I noticed I tend to spend a lot less time on social media than I did a few months ago. This is because I’ve made a conscious effort to use my phone less since November.

Although I have decreased my media usage in the past few months, I did still spend a total of 10 hours using media. I did not do any sharing on my social media apps during this 24 hour period, I just browsed. The only sharing I did on my phone was responding to text messages and phone calls. Socializing is what I did most while using my phone because all of the apps I used which were, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, and Twitter are made for virtual socializing. My communication and interaction happened mostly on my phone while I was texting my friends. But it also happened while I was on Facebook Instagram and Snapchat answering DM’s and Snapchats from friends and family.

My preliminary interpretations based on my observations of this data was that I was going to have significantly more social media usage than I did. This is because I feel like I spend more time on my phone than I actually do. I also was not expecting to log watching five hours of television, I thought it would have been less. Overall, I am not disappointed in my chart results and I think I am using social media in a healthier way now than I would have a few months ago. I think tracking what I use my social media for was also good to consider because it shows why we use the apps in the first place. Which is to be able to socialize whenever, wherever we are.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton