Posted on behalf of Bill Young:
John Tomlinson’s idea of media and cultural imperialism can be seen through the recent adoption of television into Bhutan. Tomlinson argues that media imperialism and cultural imperialism are often taken as the same thing, when in reality it is the culture that dictates how the people will use and view the media that they receive. In an article from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3812275.stm), it would appear that Bhutan’s recent adaptation of TV has changed their culture that was relatively unaffected by Western media until 1999. It states that violence and crime have risen since the introduction of TV, as well as a dilution of Bhutan’s culture due to the globalized culture represented on TV. Is it really TV causing these changes or is it the culture of Bhutan that led the people to act this way? Do we look at issues such as children imitating wrestling moves differently in America than in a developing country because of the differences in culture?One of Ferguson’s 7 myths about globalization is that there is a worldwide shared consumption of similar products and media, which is known as global cultural homogeneity. While this model does not exactly fit what occurs in the world, the argument of regional or national culture is also not without fault. The arguments about wrestling causing violence in Bhutan mirror what was occurring in the US about 10 years ago. I believe that there is a global culture, but that it does not necessarily appear globally in a simultaneous manner. We laugh when we see people from developing countries wearing fashion styles that were popular in the US years ago, but to them it is the current fad. The same thing occurs with music as well; with music that was popular in the 80’s and 90’s gaining popularity internationally years later. Can a global culture exist even when it is separated by a decade? Can it still be called a global culture if that is the case?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Obama's New World Order
Posted on behalf of Alysse Rossner:
Last week President Obama attended the international G-20 summit. Not only was he a representative of the United States, but he also became a representative of the Western world and even Americanization. On Friday, April 3 TIME Magazine online published an article titled, “Barack Obama’s New World Order” (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1889512,00.html). In this article, writer Michael Scherer reflects on the positive impact that Obama’s presidency has made on the international stage.
Upon reading this article, two things struck me: 1) Obama is “branding” the U.S. and 2) he truly is impressing leaders and foreign press around the world. Scherer feels that the United States’ “international branding campaign” led by Obama is effective. According to Baron and Davis, political economists may even say it is important that he is actively working for social change (213). Why is this so important?
As the most powerful country in the world and the most economically influential, America’s “cultural imperialism” was being addressed by Obama at the summit. According to Tomlinson, cultural imperialism ranges from “a pattern of inherited colonial attitudes and practices” to “the practices and effects of an ongoing system of economic relations within global capitalism” (Tomlinson, 223). In order to address this cultural imperialism during these economic times, “Obama has made clear that the U.S. is but one actor in a global community” and he has replaced “American economic supremacy” with a call for an increase in the growth of developing countries (Scherer). Is Obama imposing another form of cultural imperialism or is he truly asking to be a part of a team effort?
Obama’s perspective is taking on a ritual perspective role. The ritual perspective requires grand-scale interaction and the realization of “mass communication as the representation of shared belief where reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed” (Baron, 216). In other words, Obama’s words on behalf of the U.S. imply more than a “new frontier,” but a global change in the perspective of America. Scherer recounts when the foreign press applauded as he left the stage after Obama took questions from the British, Indian, and Chinese reporters. An event and reaction like this reminds us that due to the media, we “get a somewhat distorted picture” about what life is like in other parts of the world and even in our own” (Rosengren, 232).
On the other hand there are parts of the world without access or a lack of access to the media that cannot contribute to the “global village” or the social organization as electronic media that ties the entire world into one a great social, political, and cultural system (Baron, 220). The cultural elites still prevail making it even more important for Obama to spread his message.
Is Obama succeeding at changing how the world perceives America? Baron and Davis feel that the “ideal form of media will evolve naturally, no matter what we try to do” (Baron, 221). Do you think Obama and his administration have more control than the media when shaping these new perceptions? It is the foreign press that is impressed by him, or the countries they represent? Whatever the reasons, he has made it clear that he is looking for collaboration to build a collective vision and that is even impressive for Americans.
Last week President Obama attended the international G-20 summit. Not only was he a representative of the United States, but he also became a representative of the Western world and even Americanization. On Friday, April 3 TIME Magazine online published an article titled, “Barack Obama’s New World Order” (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1889512,00.html). In this article, writer Michael Scherer reflects on the positive impact that Obama’s presidency has made on the international stage.
Upon reading this article, two things struck me: 1) Obama is “branding” the U.S. and 2) he truly is impressing leaders and foreign press around the world. Scherer feels that the United States’ “international branding campaign” led by Obama is effective. According to Baron and Davis, political economists may even say it is important that he is actively working for social change (213). Why is this so important?
As the most powerful country in the world and the most economically influential, America’s “cultural imperialism” was being addressed by Obama at the summit. According to Tomlinson, cultural imperialism ranges from “a pattern of inherited colonial attitudes and practices” to “the practices and effects of an ongoing system of economic relations within global capitalism” (Tomlinson, 223). In order to address this cultural imperialism during these economic times, “Obama has made clear that the U.S. is but one actor in a global community” and he has replaced “American economic supremacy” with a call for an increase in the growth of developing countries (Scherer). Is Obama imposing another form of cultural imperialism or is he truly asking to be a part of a team effort?
Obama’s perspective is taking on a ritual perspective role. The ritual perspective requires grand-scale interaction and the realization of “mass communication as the representation of shared belief where reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed” (Baron, 216). In other words, Obama’s words on behalf of the U.S. imply more than a “new frontier,” but a global change in the perspective of America. Scherer recounts when the foreign press applauded as he left the stage after Obama took questions from the British, Indian, and Chinese reporters. An event and reaction like this reminds us that due to the media, we “get a somewhat distorted picture” about what life is like in other parts of the world and even in our own” (Rosengren, 232).
On the other hand there are parts of the world without access or a lack of access to the media that cannot contribute to the “global village” or the social organization as electronic media that ties the entire world into one a great social, political, and cultural system (Baron, 220). The cultural elites still prevail making it even more important for Obama to spread his message.
Is Obama succeeding at changing how the world perceives America? Baron and Davis feel that the “ideal form of media will evolve naturally, no matter what we try to do” (Baron, 221). Do you think Obama and his administration have more control than the media when shaping these new perceptions? It is the foreign press that is impressed by him, or the countries they represent? Whatever the reasons, he has made it clear that he is looking for collaboration to build a collective vision and that is even impressive for Americans.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Reality TV and The Image of Women
This week’s readings discuss issues of females in the media especially their positive or negatives stereotypes, images and connotations. The van Zoonen reading states that “It seems indisputable that many aspects of women’s lives and experiences are not properly reflected by the media. Many more women work than the media suggests, very few women resemble the ‘femme fatales’ of movies and TV series, and women’s desires extend far beyond the hearth and home of traditional women’s magazines. The feminist calls for more realistic images of women and definitions of femininity may therefore seem entirely legitimate. In fact, they are problematic” (pg 48). Do you agree with van Zoonen? Do you think that the portrayal of women in media is accurate?
To break down the subject even more, I would like to examine current reality TV and the roles of women in that genre today. Since the popularity of reality TV has grown over the past few years clearly many women are depicted. With shows ranging from “Dancing With the Stars” to “The Desperate Housewives of Orange County/New York City” to even “A Shot of Love with Tila Tequila”, do you think that women in these shows are portrayed positively or negatively? Do you think reality TV has helped or hurt women?
Consider the characters of many of these shows. You can look at the strong females such as Stephanie Izard, the winner from “Top Chef”, or Parvati Shallow, one of the many “Survivor” female winners. But then look at characters such as Gretchen from the “Desperate Housewives of O.C” and how the season’s biggest drama focused around the debate of whether she was money hungry, or truly in love, with her fiancé. What about the recent public “dumping” of Melissa Rycroft by bachelor Jason Mesnick? Check out this article by Erin Carlson of the Associated Press recapping the major reunion show events as well as the public opinion of the situation.
http://www.reflector.com/mixer/mixer-entertainment/the-bachelor-dumps-fiancee-melissa-for-runner-up-472175.html
How do you think situations such as these that are publicly shown and exploited mediate the image of women in today’s society? And do you think seeing Melissa turn around and become a competitor on “Dancing with the Stars” has any impact on how she has represented herself as a women in society?
Robinson wrote that “The gender politics represented in Aguilera’s music video then are not irrelevant or inconsequential; rather they contribute to the larger discourse of cultural hegemony” (p 46). Through her writing and this quote we can clearly see that Robinson sees that gender and the debate around their image is unfairly portrayed through today’s music. Do you think the same applies for reality television?
To break down the subject even more, I would like to examine current reality TV and the roles of women in that genre today. Since the popularity of reality TV has grown over the past few years clearly many women are depicted. With shows ranging from “Dancing With the Stars” to “The Desperate Housewives of Orange County/New York City” to even “A Shot of Love with Tila Tequila”, do you think that women in these shows are portrayed positively or negatively? Do you think reality TV has helped or hurt women?
Consider the characters of many of these shows. You can look at the strong females such as Stephanie Izard, the winner from “Top Chef”, or Parvati Shallow, one of the many “Survivor” female winners. But then look at characters such as Gretchen from the “Desperate Housewives of O.C” and how the season’s biggest drama focused around the debate of whether she was money hungry, or truly in love, with her fiancé. What about the recent public “dumping” of Melissa Rycroft by bachelor Jason Mesnick? Check out this article by Erin Carlson of the Associated Press recapping the major reunion show events as well as the public opinion of the situation.
http://www.reflector.com/mixer/mixer-entertainment/the-bachelor-dumps-fiancee-melissa-for-runner-up-472175.html
How do you think situations such as these that are publicly shown and exploited mediate the image of women in today’s society? And do you think seeing Melissa turn around and become a competitor on “Dancing with the Stars” has any impact on how she has represented herself as a women in society?
Robinson wrote that “The gender politics represented in Aguilera’s music video then are not irrelevant or inconsequential; rather they contribute to the larger discourse of cultural hegemony” (p 46). Through her writing and this quote we can clearly see that Robinson sees that gender and the debate around their image is unfairly portrayed through today’s music. Do you think the same applies for reality television?
Women: The Weaker Sex
Women have changed a lot in society through the years. They have become more independent, seen as professionals, and stronger. Yet, why are women still subjected to misrepresentation in the media? Yes, there are depictions of women being strong and self-sufficient but do you think the other images of women are overpowering those of successful women? Muriel Cantor criticizes “that public broadcasting in
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/opinion/stories/2009/03/27/redblue_rihanna.html
Friday, March 27, 2009
Steroid Media and the Workplace
Posted on behalf of Tony Majersky:
Gender plays a large role in all aspects of media. Through movies, television, music and more we are shown and almost taught the roles that men and women should play their part in daily life. One place this stands out the most is in sports. Baseball is a great example of this and is brought out more and more every day, especially now that we are in the steroid era. We have seen that steroids make you bigger, stronger, faster and will heal you from injury faster than anything else. In a Sports Illustrated article titled "Steroids in America: The Real DopeCulture of enhancement extends far beyond sports" and located here http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids1/index.html Jack McCallum starts out by writing "Athletes who take performance-improving drugs make all the headlines. But the culture of personal physical enhancement has pushed the use of steroids and HGH everywhere -- from Hollywood to the music industry to your next-door neighbor who doesn't want to grow old. Don't blame only the jocks. We are a juiced nation." (McCallum pg. 1) Not only do men take these steroids, but women do too for anti-aging effects and that one third of rappers take steroids like HGH to look huge because thats what people want to see. Consumers want to see rappers that are built with lean strong muscle and no body fat. They do not want to see an overweight rapper or a skin and bones rapper. Do you want to see rapper like that, what about action heros in movies or tv? why or why not? is the same for women though? guys especially, do you want to see a built woman with 8 pack abs and lean cut shoulders or is a sexy look better for film and tv? why or why not? Are these looks reasonable and real to you and others?
Back to baseball, the Trujillo reading states that "Media critics and scholars of gender ideology have at least described five features of hegemonic masculinity in American culture: 1. physical force and control 2. occupational achievement 3. familial patriarchy 4. frontiersmanship 5. and heterosexuality." (Trujillo pg. 2) With this he describes men of having the role of the dominant person, having a better job, head of the household, an outdoors strong man, and a straight man. With this he talks about Nolan Ryan and how he is an example of these things. He is called a "Force" or "power" pitcher from Texas and was categorized like a mythological god at the height of his career. His outside life from off the baseball mound is categorized by the five factors given of being straight and dominant, from the country and having a good home life with a lot of money. Do you think things would have been the same or as easy for Nolan Ryan if he was gay? Also, there are very few women baseball players in the world, so they are stuck with softball which is more recognized as a female sport, but yet older men also play it. Does this mean to say that young women are only on par with men when they are in their 40's and 50's? Why do you think baseball hasn't invited women to play and why do you think that our "National Past Time" is a strongly male dominated sport? I
f we look at gender more in the background of a baseball game, off of the field,who owns/manages/controls the teams? There have been very few women in offices and high position until fairly recently, but before that it was out of place for a woman in the work place to have a high paying job with people under her she could order around. This is even seen as one of the five categories above, occupational achievement. Van Zoonen brings a situation like this up on page 56 of B&D saying "She or he is participating in a profoundly social process, in the sense that social relations are reflected definitions of reality as well as definitions of reality influencing social relations." (B&D pg. 56) This is thinking about the social acceptance of a female in what is generally a males role. Do you think that this idea is still true today in many areas of society and the work place? Can you think of any big business with a female CEO or do mostly men come to mind?
Gender plays a large role in all aspects of media. Through movies, television, music and more we are shown and almost taught the roles that men and women should play their part in daily life. One place this stands out the most is in sports. Baseball is a great example of this and is brought out more and more every day, especially now that we are in the steroid era. We have seen that steroids make you bigger, stronger, faster and will heal you from injury faster than anything else. In a Sports Illustrated article titled "Steroids in America: The Real DopeCulture of enhancement extends far beyond sports" and located here http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids1/index.html Jack McCallum starts out by writing "Athletes who take performance-improving drugs make all the headlines. But the culture of personal physical enhancement has pushed the use of steroids and HGH everywhere -- from Hollywood to the music industry to your next-door neighbor who doesn't want to grow old. Don't blame only the jocks. We are a juiced nation." (McCallum pg. 1) Not only do men take these steroids, but women do too for anti-aging effects and that one third of rappers take steroids like HGH to look huge because thats what people want to see. Consumers want to see rappers that are built with lean strong muscle and no body fat. They do not want to see an overweight rapper or a skin and bones rapper. Do you want to see rapper like that, what about action heros in movies or tv? why or why not? is the same for women though? guys especially, do you want to see a built woman with 8 pack abs and lean cut shoulders or is a sexy look better for film and tv? why or why not? Are these looks reasonable and real to you and others?
Back to baseball, the Trujillo reading states that "Media critics and scholars of gender ideology have at least described five features of hegemonic masculinity in American culture: 1. physical force and control 2. occupational achievement 3. familial patriarchy 4. frontiersmanship 5. and heterosexuality." (Trujillo pg. 2) With this he describes men of having the role of the dominant person, having a better job, head of the household, an outdoors strong man, and a straight man. With this he talks about Nolan Ryan and how he is an example of these things. He is called a "Force" or "power" pitcher from Texas and was categorized like a mythological god at the height of his career. His outside life from off the baseball mound is categorized by the five factors given of being straight and dominant, from the country and having a good home life with a lot of money. Do you think things would have been the same or as easy for Nolan Ryan if he was gay? Also, there are very few women baseball players in the world, so they are stuck with softball which is more recognized as a female sport, but yet older men also play it. Does this mean to say that young women are only on par with men when they are in their 40's and 50's? Why do you think baseball hasn't invited women to play and why do you think that our "National Past Time" is a strongly male dominated sport? I
f we look at gender more in the background of a baseball game, off of the field,who owns/manages/controls the teams? There have been very few women in offices and high position until fairly recently, but before that it was out of place for a woman in the work place to have a high paying job with people under her she could order around. This is even seen as one of the five categories above, occupational achievement. Van Zoonen brings a situation like this up on page 56 of B&D saying "She or he is participating in a profoundly social process, in the sense that social relations are reflected definitions of reality as well as definitions of reality influencing social relations." (B&D pg. 56) This is thinking about the social acceptance of a female in what is generally a males role. Do you think that this idea is still true today in many areas of society and the work place? Can you think of any big business with a female CEO or do mostly men come to mind?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Chapter 8 “The Emergence if Critical and Cultural Theories of Mass Communication” of the Baran and David text discusses the impact of new forms of mass communication on society. The text discusses several communications theories about the way media catalyzes changes in social life. Advancements in communications and media affect social practices and the way we interact with one another. From the telegraph to the Internet each advancement in technology leads to changes in the ways we interact with one another from one generation to the next. “The new perspectives argued that media might have the power to intrude into and alter how we make sense of ourselves our relationship to others”(Baran and Davis 199).
Media makes a huge impact on social institutions and culture. Today’s youth consumed by media, they are often referred to as Generation M (for media). “Increasingly, children and young adults live in a mediated world where face-to-face communication with others is supplemented by and interwoven with a broad range of mediated communication, from instant and text messaging to email to television to movies to interactive video games” (Baran and Davis 200) The abundance of different ways to communicated at all times has allowed people to stay in contact with anyone and everyone. “Today some critics argue that newer media technologies such as iPods, the Internet, and video enabled cell phones are ‘personal media’ that are inherently biased toward individualism” (Baran and Davis 201) Generation M holds a great deal of power in the media industry. As the consumers technologies are constantly improved and reinvented. The internet is one of the most powerful sources of communication threw instant messages, video chats, email, message boards, blogs, and networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook, people can communicated instantly from anywhere in many different ways. Generation M has made websites such as Facebook a huge phenomenon. In the past five years it has evolved and grown.
“Facebook’s redesign: Time to listen to users?” by Jonathan Skillings discusses the recent redesign of Facebook and the negative reactions from its large number of site users. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10201694-2.html “Hopeful, positive comments from Facebook users have been awfully hard to come by in recent days since the powerhouse social networking site pushed out a redesign that seems inspired, at least in part, by the up and coming Twitter service.”(Skillings) The article discusses how Facebook users have been protesting the new Facebook design. While Facebook is looking to consumers advice on how to make the site better is they only listed to users there would be no innovation. Do you think Facebook should listen to its users more? Do this would lead to a lack of innovation? Do you think Facebook is an example of a form of media that has effected our culture?
Drugs in the Media
Posted on behalf of Marlaina Luciano:
Chapter 27 of McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory explains that “advertisements are one of the most important cultural factors molding and reflecting our life today. They are ubiquitous and inevitable part of everyone’s lives: even if you do not read a newspaper or watch television, the images posted over our urban surroundings are inescapable” (299). McQuail also explains that the signification of advertising is intentional by saying, “in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional; the signifieds of the advertising message are formed a priori by certain attributes of the product and these signifieds have to be transmitted clearly as possible” (290). Advertisements have made a huge impact on each and every one of our lives whether we realize it or not. It is happening every day because we are constantly being surrounded by advertisements even if we do not read newspapers or magazines, or watch television.
I will be connecting ideology, hegemony, and semiotics to the effect of drugs that are being used in the media. Because drugs are constantly being placed in the media everywhere we look, is that making it more socially acceptable for people to be doing drugs more? Can you think of any media outlet that is constantly showing drug usage by celebrities? There are plenty to choose from. Many celebrity gossip websites are constantly making jokes about celebrities who use drugs. For example, Perez Hilton often makes remarks about Lindsay Lohan being too skinny from the fact that she has been doing too much cocaine. The reason why he is on her case is because she has been in and out of rehab before. In the article, http://perezhilton.com/2007-09-27-lohan-stole-my-coke, he talks about how Jackass star Steve-O claims that Lindsay Lohan is a “drug thief” and has stolen his coke before. This may be hard for some to believe but they are many teenagers that look up to Lindsay Lohan as a role model. What kind of effect is this having on those teenagers if Perez Hilton is often writing about Lindsay Lohan and her drug addiction? Is it making them want to experiment new things too?
In the article, http://dragon.soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/jmmys%20world.htm, the article discusses a controversial article that was printed in the Washington Post. The reason why it was so controversial was because it talked about an eight year old boy named Jimmy who was a third generation heroin addict. It talked about his home life and what he planned on doing when he grew up. Unfortunately, his home life was not a very good one and it was described as there being drug addicts “casually” buying heroin from his family every day. Jimmy talked about his future drug dealing career which was of concern for many after reading this article.
After this story was printed, the controversy sparked and many people called and wrote letters to the Washington Post and to local officials claiming that something needed to be done in order to find Jimmy. Many people were worried for his well-being, especially because of his young age.
I chose to look at this story also because it was different in the sense that drugs may have had the opposite effect on the reader’s of this media outlet. The people who were reading this outlet were much more concerned about the child’s well-being and took action on trying to find him.
Do you think that all of the media outlets that are covering drugs are having a negative effect on it’s readers or not?
Chapter 27 of McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory explains that “advertisements are one of the most important cultural factors molding and reflecting our life today. They are ubiquitous and inevitable part of everyone’s lives: even if you do not read a newspaper or watch television, the images posted over our urban surroundings are inescapable” (299). McQuail also explains that the signification of advertising is intentional by saying, “in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional; the signifieds of the advertising message are formed a priori by certain attributes of the product and these signifieds have to be transmitted clearly as possible” (290). Advertisements have made a huge impact on each and every one of our lives whether we realize it or not. It is happening every day because we are constantly being surrounded by advertisements even if we do not read newspapers or magazines, or watch television.
I will be connecting ideology, hegemony, and semiotics to the effect of drugs that are being used in the media. Because drugs are constantly being placed in the media everywhere we look, is that making it more socially acceptable for people to be doing drugs more? Can you think of any media outlet that is constantly showing drug usage by celebrities? There are plenty to choose from. Many celebrity gossip websites are constantly making jokes about celebrities who use drugs. For example, Perez Hilton often makes remarks about Lindsay Lohan being too skinny from the fact that she has been doing too much cocaine. The reason why he is on her case is because she has been in and out of rehab before. In the article, http://perezhilton.com/2007-09-27-lohan-stole-my-coke, he talks about how Jackass star Steve-O claims that Lindsay Lohan is a “drug thief” and has stolen his coke before. This may be hard for some to believe but they are many teenagers that look up to Lindsay Lohan as a role model. What kind of effect is this having on those teenagers if Perez Hilton is often writing about Lindsay Lohan and her drug addiction? Is it making them want to experiment new things too?
In the article, http://dragon.soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/jmmys%20world.htm, the article discusses a controversial article that was printed in the Washington Post. The reason why it was so controversial was because it talked about an eight year old boy named Jimmy who was a third generation heroin addict. It talked about his home life and what he planned on doing when he grew up. Unfortunately, his home life was not a very good one and it was described as there being drug addicts “casually” buying heroin from his family every day. Jimmy talked about his future drug dealing career which was of concern for many after reading this article.
After this story was printed, the controversy sparked and many people called and wrote letters to the Washington Post and to local officials claiming that something needed to be done in order to find Jimmy. Many people were worried for his well-being, especially because of his young age.
I chose to look at this story also because it was different in the sense that drugs may have had the opposite effect on the reader’s of this media outlet. The people who were reading this outlet were much more concerned about the child’s well-being and took action on trying to find him.
Do you think that all of the media outlets that are covering drugs are having a negative effect on it’s readers or not?
Semiotics and Alcohol
In Chapter 8, Baran and Davis write, “Media affect society because they affect how culture is created, learned, shaped, and applied” (Baran & Davis 199). In this quote, Baran and Davis argue that media directly shape a culture’s values and beliefs, and therefore, the messages we get from the media cause us to behave and think in certain ways.
In consuming media, we are consuming an infinite number of symbols. People who study semiotics, which is the study of symbols, try to figure out how people interpret symbols and how their interpretations affect both individuals’ lives and a culture as a whole. Therefore, my blog is going to focus on how alcohol is symbolized in the media, the messages linked to this symbolization, and if these messages affect our culture.
We all know that alcohol use is extremely common in college campuses across the country. In an article from USA Today from March 11, 2009, author Mary Beth Marklain writes, “Nearly half of college freshmen who drink alcohol spend more time drinking each week than they do studying, suggests a survey involving more than 30,000 first-year students on 76 campuses who took an online alcohol education course last fall” (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-03-11-college-drinking_N.htm). This finding indicates that drinking is obviously an important part of college life and culture.
In the media, alcohol is glorified. People shown in alcohol commercials are depicted as popular, outgoing, and sociable. Advertisements for alcohol picture people who are attractive and glamorous (for example, this advertisement for Skyy Vodka - http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2009/01/skyy21.jpg). These outgoing, sociable, attractive, and glamorous people are symbols we learn to associate with alcohol. Therefore, the message linked to these symbols is that if you drink, you can be like these people too. In article by Judith Williamson in McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory called “Meaning and Ideology” Williamson writes, “…diamonds may be marketed by likening them to eternal love, creating a symbolism where the mineral means something not in its own terms, as a rock, but in human terms, as a sign. Thus a diamond comes to ‘mean’ love and endurance for us” (McQuail 300). Diamonds are advertised in such a way that we link them to love and endurance, while alcohol is advertised in a way that links drinking to making a person more popular and more attractive. However, is that really the case? MTV’s annual broadcast of spring break in Cancun shows plenty of young people drinking heavily, yet fails to show any of the consequences resulting from their partying. In portraying alcohol so positively, the media often ignores showing its negative effects. What do you think? Do you think increasing levels of alcohol use and alcoholism in college students is a direct effect of the symbols and message linked to alcohol in the media? If alcohol was not so glorified in the media do you think it would be as big of a problem on college campuses as it is today? Or do the media not really play any role in determining college students’ drinking habits?
In consuming media, we are consuming an infinite number of symbols. People who study semiotics, which is the study of symbols, try to figure out how people interpret symbols and how their interpretations affect both individuals’ lives and a culture as a whole. Therefore, my blog is going to focus on how alcohol is symbolized in the media, the messages linked to this symbolization, and if these messages affect our culture.
We all know that alcohol use is extremely common in college campuses across the country. In an article from USA Today from March 11, 2009, author Mary Beth Marklain writes, “Nearly half of college freshmen who drink alcohol spend more time drinking each week than they do studying, suggests a survey involving more than 30,000 first-year students on 76 campuses who took an online alcohol education course last fall” (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-03-11-college-drinking_N.htm). This finding indicates that drinking is obviously an important part of college life and culture.
In the media, alcohol is glorified. People shown in alcohol commercials are depicted as popular, outgoing, and sociable. Advertisements for alcohol picture people who are attractive and glamorous (for example, this advertisement for Skyy Vodka - http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2009/01/skyy21.jpg). These outgoing, sociable, attractive, and glamorous people are symbols we learn to associate with alcohol. Therefore, the message linked to these symbols is that if you drink, you can be like these people too. In article by Judith Williamson in McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory called “Meaning and Ideology” Williamson writes, “…diamonds may be marketed by likening them to eternal love, creating a symbolism where the mineral means something not in its own terms, as a rock, but in human terms, as a sign. Thus a diamond comes to ‘mean’ love and endurance for us” (McQuail 300). Diamonds are advertised in such a way that we link them to love and endurance, while alcohol is advertised in a way that links drinking to making a person more popular and more attractive. However, is that really the case? MTV’s annual broadcast of spring break in Cancun shows plenty of young people drinking heavily, yet fails to show any of the consequences resulting from their partying. In portraying alcohol so positively, the media often ignores showing its negative effects. What do you think? Do you think increasing levels of alcohol use and alcoholism in college students is a direct effect of the symbols and message linked to alcohol in the media? If alcohol was not so glorified in the media do you think it would be as big of a problem on college campuses as it is today? Or do the media not really play any role in determining college students’ drinking habits?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Twilight and Levels of Fandom in Society
Chapter 32 of McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory explains that “what is assumed to be true of fans – that they are potentially deviant, as loners or as members of a mob – can be connected with deeper, and more diffuse, assumptions of modern life” (346). McQuail also states that there are two types of fans, those being the “obsessed individual and hysterical crowd” (343). Fandom has most certainly had a presence in the lives of all of us at some point. Whether we are surrounded by it or we take part in it, we have witnessed and are effected by its existence. I will be connecting the spectrum of fandom to the current topic of the movie Twilight. There are people who have become obsessed with the movie, dressing and acting as characters and convincing themselves they are on a personal level with them, and there are those who simply find entertainment and pleasure in going to the see the movie and watching the plot and the characters in it, often after having read the books as well. These are examples of fandom on completely different levels; some may define them as a stable and an unstable level on the spectrum of fandom as a whole. Do you feel that fandom can take place on levels which can be determined differently by theorists, or is all fandom a negative psychological result of obsession?
I know many girls who joke about being the girlfriend of Robert Pattinson or discuss how lucky Kristin Stewart was to play Bella, Pattinson’s love interest in the movie. However, there are certain people who have taken fandom to new levels by convincing themselves that they are in love with the vampire from the movie, which means that they are also convinced that Robert Pattinson is actually the character he plays. Stemming from this is an obsession with the actor. He explained in interviews following the release of Twilight that he had a stalker while filming in Spain, and that he finally just went out to dinner with her because she was relentless in her attempts. In the article, http://www.leaderpost.com/Entertainment/Mickey+would+take+gorilla+over+Courtney/1296644/story.html, he talks about obsessive fans, and he has often said that they become obsessed with the idea of his characters more than Robert himself. Do you think these fans are unstable, or have they been informed by the media in a way that drives them to become this obsessed?
These are two completely different levels of fandom, one being obsession and one being common interest. Chapter 9 of Baran & Davis states that “once people are aware and informed, or at least have formed strong images or impressions, they can be moved toward either a conscious decision or an unconscious prioritization or positioning” (261). In this article from People.com, http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20260882,00.html , Kristen Stewart, the actress who plays Bella, discusses her constantly rumored relationship with Robert Pattinson, claiming that nothing has “stopped the rumors of an off-screen fling.” Do you believe that these fans and/or writers are prioritizing and making up lies, or that they have been positioned to make a conscious decision to believe that the actor and actress are dating? Are studies of fandom over-analyzed, or is there a more psychological explanation for it?
I know many girls who joke about being the girlfriend of Robert Pattinson or discuss how lucky Kristin Stewart was to play Bella, Pattinson’s love interest in the movie. However, there are certain people who have taken fandom to new levels by convincing themselves that they are in love with the vampire from the movie, which means that they are also convinced that Robert Pattinson is actually the character he plays. Stemming from this is an obsession with the actor. He explained in interviews following the release of Twilight that he had a stalker while filming in Spain, and that he finally just went out to dinner with her because she was relentless in her attempts. In the article, http://www.leaderpost.com/Entertainment/Mickey+would+take+gorilla+over+Courtney/1296644/story.html, he talks about obsessive fans, and he has often said that they become obsessed with the idea of his characters more than Robert himself. Do you think these fans are unstable, or have they been informed by the media in a way that drives them to become this obsessed?
These are two completely different levels of fandom, one being obsession and one being common interest. Chapter 9 of Baran & Davis states that “once people are aware and informed, or at least have formed strong images or impressions, they can be moved toward either a conscious decision or an unconscious prioritization or positioning” (261). In this article from People.com, http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20260882,00.html , Kristen Stewart, the actress who plays Bella, discusses her constantly rumored relationship with Robert Pattinson, claiming that nothing has “stopped the rumors of an off-screen fling.” Do you believe that these fans and/or writers are prioritizing and making up lies, or that they have been positioned to make a conscious decision to believe that the actor and actress are dating? Are studies of fandom over-analyzed, or is there a more psychological explanation for it?
Mood Management Theory and Fandom
I wanted to focus this week’s discussion moreso on the possible link between the piece on fandom in McQuails Reader and the mood management theory described in Baran and Davis. Mood management theory states, “A predominant motivation for using entertainment media is to moderate or control our moods” (Baran & Davis 256). It’s basically saying that depending upon our mood we seek out the appropriate media to either downplay or reinforce that mood. This may explain why something like horror movies maybe suitable to one crowd but not for others. More importantly, “Mood management theory implies that media can help us cope with problems in our lives” (Baran & Davis 258).
Now, if we take a look at the fandom piece in McQuail’s reader he describes a couple of different types of fans and how each type reacts in different situational cues. One type of fan, the obsessed fan, can be compared to the media, young and old as described in this article:
http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/celebrity/becksmith.jsp?p=bsf_fansgotoofar
In this article it breaks down the population into the levels of fandom and how serious each category is. According to one study about one percent of the population displays some kind of pathological behavior and might go to extreme lengths such as hurting other people or themselves because they feel they have some kind of special relationship with a particular celebrity. Do you believe these people truly, “live in some world different from our own” (McQuail 349)? Can there be any arguments in favor of these people to try and logically explain their behavior? Do you know anybody that might go to these lengths to be closer to a public figure or might surgically change their appearances to look more like someone else?
Moving along with this idea of a celebrity playing a significant role in some fans’ lives McQuail offers further explanation, “In a media addicted age, celebrities function as role models for fans who engage in ‘artificial social relations’ with them” (McQuail 344). These people truly think that they’re relationship (or lack thereof) with these public figures is a reality and that they hold a special place in their lives. With this level of commitment and stern allegiance sometimes comes death and violence as shown in this article and clip about an obsessive fan of Paula Abdul who killed herself:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=6241069
There’s no denying that there are obsessive or even hysterical fans out there but where can the distinction be made between those who are screaming their lungs out to those who use violence? How can we tell the difference in a crowd of young teenage girls between those who are fans of the Jonas Brothers’ music to those who might cross the boarder into the inappropriate? Can they be found early on or is it impossible to tell until it’s too late?
Going back to the link between mood management and fandom do you believe a fans’ mood can influence their behavior not only towards the person they’re obsessing over but also towards those around them such as family and friends?
Now, if we take a look at the fandom piece in McQuail’s reader he describes a couple of different types of fans and how each type reacts in different situational cues. One type of fan, the obsessed fan, can be compared to the media, young and old as described in this article:
http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/celebrity/becksmith.jsp?p=bsf_fansgotoofar
In this article it breaks down the population into the levels of fandom and how serious each category is. According to one study about one percent of the population displays some kind of pathological behavior and might go to extreme lengths such as hurting other people or themselves because they feel they have some kind of special relationship with a particular celebrity. Do you believe these people truly, “live in some world different from our own” (McQuail 349)? Can there be any arguments in favor of these people to try and logically explain their behavior? Do you know anybody that might go to these lengths to be closer to a public figure or might surgically change their appearances to look more like someone else?
Moving along with this idea of a celebrity playing a significant role in some fans’ lives McQuail offers further explanation, “In a media addicted age, celebrities function as role models for fans who engage in ‘artificial social relations’ with them” (McQuail 344). These people truly think that they’re relationship (or lack thereof) with these public figures is a reality and that they hold a special place in their lives. With this level of commitment and stern allegiance sometimes comes death and violence as shown in this article and clip about an obsessive fan of Paula Abdul who killed herself:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=6241069
There’s no denying that there are obsessive or even hysterical fans out there but where can the distinction be made between those who are screaming their lungs out to those who use violence? How can we tell the difference in a crowd of young teenage girls between those who are fans of the Jonas Brothers’ music to those who might cross the boarder into the inappropriate? Can they be found early on or is it impossible to tell until it’s too late?
Going back to the link between mood management and fandom do you believe a fans’ mood can influence their behavior not only towards the person they’re obsessing over but also towards those around them such as family and friends?
Harry Potter= Craze Fan?
This week we step away from the use and gratification theory and change our focus on the aspects of fandom. The McQuail readers mention there are two types of fan which are the “obsessed individual and hysterical crowd” (343). According to McQuail’s reader a person being a fan is consider to “suffer from psychological inadequacy, and are particularly vulnerable to media influence and crowd contagion” (349). I believe that fandom has been in every person life in one aspect are another. We as audience participator have all enjoy and been fans of a favorite TV show, movies, and celebrity. But does that make us an obsessed individual?
In the rise of moderate-effect theories Dolf Zillmann is credited with development of the contemporary entertainment theory. According to Baran &Davis entertainment theory is a way, “to understand what entertaining media content does to us—often without our awareness” (249). Most entertainment theorist believes that we as an audience members are not aware of the content that we assume. Entertainment theorists assume that we as audience members assume that “were just doing what feels good… its only entertainment” (249). An aspect of entertainment theory is the mood management theory which I believe relates to fandom. Mood management theory argues that individuals seek out media content that they expect to improve there mood. Millions of people do not become craze fans of movies like Twilight, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings for just enjoyment. I think it involves enjoyment plus has a positive effect on the individual’s mood. Why do you think Twilight, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings have such a huge fan base?
I want to pay particular attention to the fandom of the Harry Potter series. The Harry Potter series has an international fan base all around the world. The fandom works through the use of many different forms of media such as, web sites, fan fiction, podcasts, role playing, and fan art .In the CBS News article “Rowling Sues Potter Fan Site”. Here the website http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/entertainment/main3439774.shtml
Harry Potter creator is suing a fan Steve Vander Ark for trying to sell a book version of his popular website called “Harry Potter Lexicon”. Here is the link to the fan website http://www.hp-lexicon.org/index-2.html. The unauthorized Harry Potter guide was going to be an A-to-Z encyclopedia describing the people, magic spells, places and things of characters, and imaginary games featured in the Harry Potter novels, companion books and films. Much of the material in the unauthorized Lexicon guide book is available online. Did an enthusiastic fan of Harry Potter go too far? Was the fan trying to cash on the worldwide success of the Harry Potter franchise? Do you think Steve Vander Ark has the aspect of McQuail’s reader two types of fan which are the “obsessed individual and hysterical crowd”? Do you think that fans of popular shows and movie are obsessed individual (i.e. Grey’s Anatomy, American Idol, and Gossip Girl)? Do you think all fans according to McQuail’s reader “suffer from psychological inadequacy, and are particularly vulnerable to media influence”? Do believe that individuals can be a fan of media without being obsessed? What is your take on fandom?
In the rise of moderate-effect theories Dolf Zillmann is credited with development of the contemporary entertainment theory. According to Baran &Davis entertainment theory is a way, “to understand what entertaining media content does to us—often without our awareness” (249). Most entertainment theorist believes that we as an audience members are not aware of the content that we assume. Entertainment theorists assume that we as audience members assume that “were just doing what feels good… its only entertainment” (249). An aspect of entertainment theory is the mood management theory which I believe relates to fandom. Mood management theory argues that individuals seek out media content that they expect to improve there mood. Millions of people do not become craze fans of movies like Twilight, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings for just enjoyment. I think it involves enjoyment plus has a positive effect on the individual’s mood. Why do you think Twilight, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings have such a huge fan base?
I want to pay particular attention to the fandom of the Harry Potter series. The Harry Potter series has an international fan base all around the world. The fandom works through the use of many different forms of media such as, web sites, fan fiction, podcasts, role playing, and fan art .In the CBS News article “Rowling Sues Potter Fan Site”. Here the website http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/entertainment/main3439774.shtml
Harry Potter creator is suing a fan Steve Vander Ark for trying to sell a book version of his popular website called “Harry Potter Lexicon”. Here is the link to the fan website http://www.hp-lexicon.org/index-2.html. The unauthorized Harry Potter guide was going to be an A-to-Z encyclopedia describing the people, magic spells, places and things of characters, and imaginary games featured in the Harry Potter novels, companion books and films. Much of the material in the unauthorized Lexicon guide book is available online. Did an enthusiastic fan of Harry Potter go too far? Was the fan trying to cash on the worldwide success of the Harry Potter franchise? Do you think Steve Vander Ark has the aspect of McQuail’s reader two types of fan which are the “obsessed individual and hysterical crowd”? Do you think that fans of popular shows and movie are obsessed individual (i.e. Grey’s Anatomy, American Idol, and Gossip Girl)? Do you think all fans according to McQuail’s reader “suffer from psychological inadequacy, and are particularly vulnerable to media influence”? Do believe that individuals can be a fan of media without being obsessed? What is your take on fandom?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Audience and Media Use
What are we seeking from media, and are we getting what we want? (Baron and Davis 228).
Stepping away from the effects the media has on us, this week focused more on the uses and gratifications approach, which Baron and Davis defined as an “approach to media study focusing on the uses to which people put media and the gratifications they seek from those users” (232). We all “use” the media for different purposes, and I think by now, we all know what medium to turn to to get exactly what we want.
An important aspect of the uses and gratifications model was illustrated by Katz, Blumer, and Gurevitch in “Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual.” They brought up the point of how “the audience is conceived as active, that is, an important part of mass media use is assumed to be goal directed” (164). All audience members choose what medium to turn to at any given time, and “use” it they way they would like. Personally, if I want to hear about Obama’s latest stimulus plan, I turn to CNN.com. If I want to find out what’s going on locally in Connecticut, I would turn to a local news channel. If I want entertainment, I turn to PerezHilton.com or E News.
On the subject or celebrity gossip and Perez Hilton, why are we so interested in the life of the rich and famous? What are trying to get or accomplish from reading gossip like this? Don’t we all have enough going on in our own lives to actually care about a celebrity weight gain, or new hair cut? This article by Paul Steinberg seems to answer some of those questions, but what do you think?
http://ezinearticles.com/?Celebrity-Gossip-and-Why-We-Love-It&id=1772012
I thought it was interesting to think about though, when Baron and Davis discussed the problems that can arise from this, and the confusion of media uses and functions that occur. Every media source serves a different purpose for every individual. Our authors state though, that “they might not necessarily be the purposes they serve for the people who consume the media, and these functions can be different from the intended uses of audience members” (235). When I read this, I immediately thought of crime shows, such as Law and Order or CSI. A use or gratification from watching these shows may be to see drama, or see bad guys in action. It’s odd and scary to think about, but I would propose that most people who watch these types of shows a lot, can cover up their own crime scene, or even know how to shoot a gun. These shows inadvertently teach us things like this, even though we are watching them to be entertained. Or, perhaps people are watching crime shows or horror movies to let out their own type of aggression, without actually performing any illegal acts. What do you think of this? Agree/disagree? Is this where uses and gratifications of media gets blurred with media effects?
Stepping away from the effects the media has on us, this week focused more on the uses and gratifications approach, which Baron and Davis defined as an “approach to media study focusing on the uses to which people put media and the gratifications they seek from those users” (232). We all “use” the media for different purposes, and I think by now, we all know what medium to turn to to get exactly what we want.
An important aspect of the uses and gratifications model was illustrated by Katz, Blumer, and Gurevitch in “Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual.” They brought up the point of how “the audience is conceived as active, that is, an important part of mass media use is assumed to be goal directed” (164). All audience members choose what medium to turn to at any given time, and “use” it they way they would like. Personally, if I want to hear about Obama’s latest stimulus plan, I turn to CNN.com. If I want to find out what’s going on locally in Connecticut, I would turn to a local news channel. If I want entertainment, I turn to PerezHilton.com or E News.
On the subject or celebrity gossip and Perez Hilton, why are we so interested in the life of the rich and famous? What are trying to get or accomplish from reading gossip like this? Don’t we all have enough going on in our own lives to actually care about a celebrity weight gain, or new hair cut? This article by Paul Steinberg seems to answer some of those questions, but what do you think?
http://ezinearticles.com/?Celebrity-Gossip-and-Why-We-Love-It&id=1772012
I thought it was interesting to think about though, when Baron and Davis discussed the problems that can arise from this, and the confusion of media uses and functions that occur. Every media source serves a different purpose for every individual. Our authors state though, that “they might not necessarily be the purposes they serve for the people who consume the media, and these functions can be different from the intended uses of audience members” (235). When I read this, I immediately thought of crime shows, such as Law and Order or CSI. A use or gratification from watching these shows may be to see drama, or see bad guys in action. It’s odd and scary to think about, but I would propose that most people who watch these types of shows a lot, can cover up their own crime scene, or even know how to shoot a gun. These shows inadvertently teach us things like this, even though we are watching them to be entertained. Or, perhaps people are watching crime shows or horror movies to let out their own type of aggression, without actually performing any illegal acts. What do you think of this? Agree/disagree? Is this where uses and gratifications of media gets blurred with media effects?
Uses & Gratifications
While most of us agree that people are not always completely passive consumers of media and are at least partially active in some areas of media consumption, a whole different perspective is offered by the concept of uses and gratifications. I am sure everyone can think of instances when they are more passively receiving media messages, like when the TV is on in the background while you’re doing work, and instances when they are more actively seeking something from the media, such as hunting down an entertainment story on the internet to see if the gossip you heard is true. This distinction raises questions about what dictates someone’s level of active consumption (simultaneous activities, level of interest, etc.) as well as what this level of participation means for the message the viewer takes away. As the textbook says, “We each construct our own meaning of content, and that meaning ultimately influences what we think and do” (Baran & Davis 241). Therefore, in order to understand the greater concept of influence, it is important to understand the meaning someone is looking for when consuming media.
The theory of uses and gratifications is related to movies in an online college newspaper:
http://www.thebakerorange.com/features/movies_provide_escape%252C_attachment-1.1575689
As the professor cited in the article states, one reason people see movies is to be distracted, as McQuail’s non-social/ escapist function points out. If this function includes “in addition to flight from reality, such factors as relaxation, passing time, identification and contact with people on the screen,” then the function can be applied to children as well (McQuail 362). Another one of the functions mentioned in the article is the “social function” and the potential of media to “provide topics of conversation” (McQuail 359). The article highlights the fact that a movie like Slumdog Millionaire, that won eight Oscars and has gotten tons of public attention would likely be a topic of discussion in a social setting, another pressing reason to see the movie yourself. Finally, the article draws attention to the fact that people use movies to relate to the characters, or so that “one can identify with and obtain an almost real contact with people on television” (McQuail 359).
I feel like it is human nature to, for example, watch a movie and attempt to relate it to their own life. I know that I saw He’s Just Not That Into You and pretty much related every character and situation in the movie to my life in some way. Has anyone had a similar experience? Does this mean that it’s true that “people actively impose meaning on content and construct new meaning that serves their purposes better than any meaning that might have been intended by the message producer or distributor” (Baran & Davis 239)? Do you see any truth in these arguments that people look to specific media outlets, film for example, to fulfill something within themselves?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Media’s Effect on Audiences
Posted on behalf of Lisa Barry:
The media seems to have a profound effect on audiences as we have seen through our discussions of framing and agenda-setting. What we haven’t discussed is how an audience "uses" media. Society believes that we are less informed if we are watching Entertainment Tonight rather than our nightly news, but is that true? Can audiences just be more aware of certain aspects of the news (such as entertainment) rather than “hard” news and still be considered knowledgeable?
On this topic, Baran and Davis state, “Many of us might argue that most current-day news media transmit “infotainment” that actually serves a negative function in that it produces ill-educated citizens or citizens who actually become less involved in the political process…”(236). I believe that a great counterexample to this argument would be such shows as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
MSNBC wrote a great piece on this debate concerning The Daily Show and FOX News. Bill O’Reilly stated that only “stoned slackers” watch Stewart and this is a disservice to our country because these “slackers” are eligible to vote, and can inevitably cause great harm. However, it turns out that Stewart's audience is statistically of higher education, a possibly great rebuttal from Stewart and Comedy Central. https://mail.quinnipiac.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=525a49c154624e5ca34a0bd939ffd9b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f6117542%2f
Do you agree with O’Reilly in his argument that news-comedy shows are not showing the facts of news stories, and ultimately making their audience unaware and less educated? I do not watch Jon Stewart personally, and have only seen clips of his show but I believe that even if he is putting a comedic spin on world news, isn’t his audience at least getting a general idea of what is going on because he is poking fun at it?
Television seems to be an escape from reality for most people as McQuail states, “Television can thus from time to time, but not particularly often, meet a need for escapism and a need to get away from the people around” (360). Do we watch entertainment shows to get away from our day to day routines, and do shows such as The Daily Show helps us in this endeavor because our nightly news is just too depressing?
The media seems to have a profound effect on audiences as we have seen through our discussions of framing and agenda-setting. What we haven’t discussed is how an audience "uses" media. Society believes that we are less informed if we are watching Entertainment Tonight rather than our nightly news, but is that true? Can audiences just be more aware of certain aspects of the news (such as entertainment) rather than “hard” news and still be considered knowledgeable?
On this topic, Baran and Davis state, “Many of us might argue that most current-day news media transmit “infotainment” that actually serves a negative function in that it produces ill-educated citizens or citizens who actually become less involved in the political process…”(236). I believe that a great counterexample to this argument would be such shows as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
MSNBC wrote a great piece on this debate concerning The Daily Show and FOX News. Bill O’Reilly stated that only “stoned slackers” watch Stewart and this is a disservice to our country because these “slackers” are eligible to vote, and can inevitably cause great harm. However, it turns out that Stewart's audience is statistically of higher education, a possibly great rebuttal from Stewart and Comedy Central. https://mail.quinnipiac.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=525a49c154624e5ca34a0bd939ffd9b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f6117542%2f
Do you agree with O’Reilly in his argument that news-comedy shows are not showing the facts of news stories, and ultimately making their audience unaware and less educated? I do not watch Jon Stewart personally, and have only seen clips of his show but I believe that even if he is putting a comedic spin on world news, isn’t his audience at least getting a general idea of what is going on because he is poking fun at it?
Television seems to be an escape from reality for most people as McQuail states, “Television can thus from time to time, but not particularly often, meet a need for escapism and a need to get away from the people around” (360). Do we watch entertainment shows to get away from our day to day routines, and do shows such as The Daily Show helps us in this endeavor because our nightly news is just too depressing?
Monday, February 23, 2009
“Exactly what constitutes being a journalist? What moral and ethical standards should guide media professionals?” (97 Baran & Davis).
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Social Responsibility Theory
McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory states, "Social responsibility theory is one response to the perceived impasse of classical liberalism in the twentieth century....social responsibility theory takes seriously many of the accusations of critics of a laissez-faire media system. These critics contend that there are tendencies toward monopolization in the media, that the people or the public are inattentive and are not concerned with the rights or interests of those unlike themselves, and that commercialization produces a debased culture and a dangerously selfish politics" (184). The idea of Social Responsibility Theory within the American and International Media today is something of great importance, there is a great deal of concern, even now with our failing economy that there is going to be more monopolization within the media. By looking at areas such as radio, Sirius has recently merged with XM, creating a monopoly on satelite radio, one of the largest radio organizations in the country, Clear Channel, has been letting people go, however they are not losing any of their stations because they have such a stronghold on the market.
This short article from an NBC affiliate in Rochester, NY explains why the cutbacks are happening and how the "nation's largest owner of radio stations" is dealing with the problem. (http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S754956.shtml?cat=0)
If there was not an economic problem within the United States today, there would be no meantion that Clear Channel is making cutbacks in the news because the general public is not interested. There is only a small portion of people not in the media or music industry that would care of clear channel is going under, there is actually a comment from a site which I found that states, "Who cares what Queer Channel does. If they fail, the nation will be a better place...so perhaps I should say, who cares what Queer Channel does....as long as it dies a well deserved death!(longstaff, http://www.topix.com/forum/com/ccu/T34ORBRU488UGTHNH).
However, while Social Responsibilty Theory has a large stake in the media of America at this time, the media is also slowly moving away from social responsibilty theory, as stated in an article entitled Fifty Years of Community News (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/3/8/3/pages203835/p203835-1.php). This article "suggests that modern America journalism has evolved away from the Social Responsibility Theory, toward an Entertainment Theory of the Press. A case study of news coverage of a mid-sized community over time illustrates this premise, using a secondary analysis of content-analysis projects describing the community’s media since 1956." The relevince is that it backs up what we have been saying in class, the media industry is becoming more focused on entertainment, and more interested in what the "general public" wants to know about than what is acutally going on in the world.
Do you think that the media is moving away from Social Responsibilty Theory towards a more entertainment driven news media? Is media really more interested in showing the entertainment value than the straight news?
How does social responsibilty theory relate to what we have been talking about in class?
This short article from an NBC affiliate in Rochester, NY explains why the cutbacks are happening and how the "nation's largest owner of radio stations" is dealing with the problem. (http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S754956.shtml?cat=0)
If there was not an economic problem within the United States today, there would be no meantion that Clear Channel is making cutbacks in the news because the general public is not interested. There is only a small portion of people not in the media or music industry that would care of clear channel is going under, there is actually a comment from a site which I found that states, "Who cares what Queer Channel does. If they fail, the nation will be a better place...so perhaps I should say, who cares what Queer Channel does....as long as it dies a well deserved death!(longstaff, http://www.topix.com/forum/com/ccu/T34ORBRU488UGTHNH).
However, while Social Responsibilty Theory has a large stake in the media of America at this time, the media is also slowly moving away from social responsibilty theory, as stated in an article entitled Fifty Years of Community News (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/3/8/3/pages203835/p203835-1.php). This article "suggests that modern America journalism has evolved away from the Social Responsibility Theory, toward an Entertainment Theory of the Press. A case study of news coverage of a mid-sized community over time illustrates this premise, using a secondary analysis of content-analysis projects describing the community’s media since 1956." The relevince is that it backs up what we have been saying in class, the media industry is becoming more focused on entertainment, and more interested in what the "general public" wants to know about than what is acutally going on in the world.
Do you think that the media is moving away from Social Responsibilty Theory towards a more entertainment driven news media? Is media really more interested in showing the entertainment value than the straight news?
How does social responsibilty theory relate to what we have been talking about in class?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Framing and the News
After reading chapter 11 from Baran and Davis, I can see how many of my expectations were formed from the media. And with the media that I and many others consume, there is many errors in it being that institutions such as news stations decide what will be broadcasted. Goffman defines a frame in a frame analysis as “a specific set of expectations used to make sense of a social situation at a given point in time.” (317) These sets of expectations change so often that we do not even notice it because we are surrounded by it all the time. The problem with this is that we do not control what we are being fed by the media. Goffman uses the example of sex appeal in advertisements and the way that the media portrays females to men. I think that most of what we view in the media on a daily basis effects us, even if we do not know it. Almost all social norms started someplace and when we are constantly fed this over and over again in the movies, television and news, it becomes the only thing we know. I will focus more on the news in my blog, and how the news that is picked by the journalists to cover can definitely change our expectations and our “frames”.
Being exposed to this type of news coverage everyday causes up shifts and downshifts without us even knowing that it is happening. If you take a typical 30 minute news cast at 5:00pm, you’ll see a range of stories being broadcasted. The ones with the most violence or hype will get the most time but then they will throw in some random stories that are supposed to make you feel good or happy. Goffman defines this shift as “moving back and forth between serious and less serious frames”. (317) In the McQuail reader, “news is a depletable consumer product, news workers claim that ‘quickening urgency’ is the ‘essence of news’” (265). This is saying that the news workers feel that they have to make a story more urgent in order for people to even read or watch it and that it’s how the news is. This can create a distorted reality to a viewer, downshifting their frame and also causing new expectations about whatever they have viewed.
If a person who believes prior to watching the news, that they live in a safe area, may change that expectation after finding out in the news that three people were murdered the night before. The problem with this is that this could have been the only terrible crime in a very long time, but it will receive so much coverage that it will change people’s way of looking at things. Also with this type of coverage, the relationship between the consumer and the news media will change. James Carey suggests that the relationship between people and the journalists changes depending on what is being put out there and how it is being put out there. News that disrupts the status quo must show that the elites have it under control and that it is only temporary in order for people to feel better.
Do you think that the news has an effect on the way you look at situations on a daily basis? After learning about downshifting and up shifting, can you see how the news tends to do this, even with a 30 minute television broadcast?
Being exposed to this type of news coverage everyday causes up shifts and downshifts without us even knowing that it is happening. If you take a typical 30 minute news cast at 5:00pm, you’ll see a range of stories being broadcasted. The ones with the most violence or hype will get the most time but then they will throw in some random stories that are supposed to make you feel good or happy. Goffman defines this shift as “moving back and forth between serious and less serious frames”. (317) In the McQuail reader, “news is a depletable consumer product, news workers claim that ‘quickening urgency’ is the ‘essence of news’” (265). This is saying that the news workers feel that they have to make a story more urgent in order for people to even read or watch it and that it’s how the news is. This can create a distorted reality to a viewer, downshifting their frame and also causing new expectations about whatever they have viewed.
If a person who believes prior to watching the news, that they live in a safe area, may change that expectation after finding out in the news that three people were murdered the night before. The problem with this is that this could have been the only terrible crime in a very long time, but it will receive so much coverage that it will change people’s way of looking at things. Also with this type of coverage, the relationship between the consumer and the news media will change. James Carey suggests that the relationship between people and the journalists changes depending on what is being put out there and how it is being put out there. News that disrupts the status quo must show that the elites have it under control and that it is only temporary in order for people to feel better.
Do you think that the news has an effect on the way you look at situations on a daily basis? After learning about downshifting and up shifting, can you see how the news tends to do this, even with a 30 minute television broadcast?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Participatory News, Reforming Journalism Based on Framing Theory
Posted on behalf of John Devlin:
Framing theory is the idea of how people use expectations to make sense of everyday life situations, and how they unconsciously downshift and upshift frames using what they have learned throughout their lives. Sociologist Ervin Goffman developed this theory, and believed the power in frames was their ability to teach people. Goffman believed sometimes what is taught is bad. Goffman used the example of women presented in advertisements. They were depicted as less serious and more playful than men. This was due to many aspects in the advertisements from women’s smiles, to non-serious body positions, to wearing playful clothing, and even a willingness to take direction from men. Goffman stated this had effects on both men and women, and pointed out men learned from these advertisements in a misinterpreted way, and because of what they learned men may routinely misinterpret inadvertent actions by women. Goffman stated as a result from these advertisements, women might find it hard to maintain a serious frame for their actions. This theory shows that frames have effects on people; therefore frames must have effects on news audiences. Baron and Davis stated, “The most common finding is that exposure to news coverage results in learning that is consistent with the frames that structure the coverage.” (Baron and Davis pg. 322, Ryan, Carragee, and Meinhofer, 2001; Valkenburg and Semeko, 1999.) If the news is dominated by one source, that one source will mainly guide the audience, and the audience will learn specifically from that one frame. One specific source will create limitations for people especially when that source is negative. Continual coverage on that negative source; such as the war in Iraq, to diseases, to natural disasters, to accidents such as a passenger plane crash, will lead people to think only about these negative things and learn from them and only them, where they could be thinking and learning from more positive things. Theorists believe there are ways to overcome these limitations, and they want to advocate changes in journalism. Herbert Gans (2003) believes in a theory he calls “Participatory news”, which is news that reports on how citizens routinely engage in actions that have importance in their communities. Gans believes that this type of coverage in newspapers had basically vanished. He believes that this could be a vital part of encouraging people to become politically engaged; people could be learning positive aspects of their world and their community, instead they are learning negative aspects of the world and doing absolutely nothing about it, and these negative frames are over-powering everything people learn from the news. Do you believe framing exists in the news? Do you think the news is overrun with negative news reports that depict and teach people of a negative world? Do you think replacing continual negative news reports with positive news reports that show people making a profound and positive impact on their community will engage people in politics?
Framing theory is the idea of how people use expectations to make sense of everyday life situations, and how they unconsciously downshift and upshift frames using what they have learned throughout their lives. Sociologist Ervin Goffman developed this theory, and believed the power in frames was their ability to teach people. Goffman believed sometimes what is taught is bad. Goffman used the example of women presented in advertisements. They were depicted as less serious and more playful than men. This was due to many aspects in the advertisements from women’s smiles, to non-serious body positions, to wearing playful clothing, and even a willingness to take direction from men. Goffman stated this had effects on both men and women, and pointed out men learned from these advertisements in a misinterpreted way, and because of what they learned men may routinely misinterpret inadvertent actions by women. Goffman stated as a result from these advertisements, women might find it hard to maintain a serious frame for their actions. This theory shows that frames have effects on people; therefore frames must have effects on news audiences. Baron and Davis stated, “The most common finding is that exposure to news coverage results in learning that is consistent with the frames that structure the coverage.” (Baron and Davis pg. 322, Ryan, Carragee, and Meinhofer, 2001; Valkenburg and Semeko, 1999.) If the news is dominated by one source, that one source will mainly guide the audience, and the audience will learn specifically from that one frame. One specific source will create limitations for people especially when that source is negative. Continual coverage on that negative source; such as the war in Iraq, to diseases, to natural disasters, to accidents such as a passenger plane crash, will lead people to think only about these negative things and learn from them and only them, where they could be thinking and learning from more positive things. Theorists believe there are ways to overcome these limitations, and they want to advocate changes in journalism. Herbert Gans (2003) believes in a theory he calls “Participatory news”, which is news that reports on how citizens routinely engage in actions that have importance in their communities. Gans believes that this type of coverage in newspapers had basically vanished. He believes that this could be a vital part of encouraging people to become politically engaged; people could be learning positive aspects of their world and their community, instead they are learning negative aspects of the world and doing absolutely nothing about it, and these negative frames are over-powering everything people learn from the news. Do you believe framing exists in the news? Do you think the news is overrun with negative news reports that depict and teach people of a negative world? Do you think replacing continual negative news reports with positive news reports that show people making a profound and positive impact on their community will engage people in politics?
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Framing - Sex in Advertising
Posted on behalf of Danielle Pouliot:
After reading Chapter 11, what stuck out with me the most was Goffmans’s theory of framing. His theory came about in the 60’s and 70’s. The framing theory is the idea of how people make sense of their everyday life through their expectations. Goffman theorizes different social cues we pick up on and how our expectations shift without us realizing as we move from different environments and social scenes. He particularly focuses on the representations of women in advertising and the sex appeal they have. We all know that sex sells but the question was asked, “could these representations of women be teaching or reinforcing social cues that have problematic consequences?”(Baran and Davis p 318) The emphasis advertising has put on women to be sexy doesn’t just affect the selling of a product but also sends a message to women on how they should look. Women are used in ads to attract the attention of men by placing women in sexy clothes, and playful positions. Most advertising will only feature good looking women with slender bodies. Goffman uses the term hyperritualization, which is a representation of our social actions. We start to learn social cues from these ads whether we realize it or not. The message sent out by advertisers is if you consume the product being advertised you will then get the girl. “Once learned, these cues could be used in daily life to make sense of members of the same or opposite sex and to impose frames on them, their actions, and the situations in which we encounter them.”(318)
Knowing that sex sells and women’s bodies are constantly being exploited to sell a product or send a message, do you think that men are being used in the same way? Are men developing these same insecurities as women are from these sexy ads? Is there a fair balance between the two?
In 2005, "Spicy BBQ Six Dollar Burger" in a T.V. advertisement has Paris Hilton crawling all over a Bentley taking a bite out of a burger with her signature phrase “that’s hot”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P82hABWq1To
When did it become necessary to promote a burger by using sex? Have ad campaigns crossed the line and gone too far?
There is so much pressure on women today to be beautiful and thin. The Dove Campaign “real beauty” tries to boost girls’ self-esteem and promote true beauty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ytjTNX9cg0&feature=related
From this video it’s clear that these sex ads and social cues being embedded into our brain do in fact have problematic consequences in our society. Is this something our society should look further into and possibly place a ban or a limit on how much we exploit women and sex in advertisements? When are we going to start sending the right message?
After reading Chapter 11, what stuck out with me the most was Goffmans’s theory of framing. His theory came about in the 60’s and 70’s. The framing theory is the idea of how people make sense of their everyday life through their expectations. Goffman theorizes different social cues we pick up on and how our expectations shift without us realizing as we move from different environments and social scenes. He particularly focuses on the representations of women in advertising and the sex appeal they have. We all know that sex sells but the question was asked, “could these representations of women be teaching or reinforcing social cues that have problematic consequences?”(Baran and Davis p 318) The emphasis advertising has put on women to be sexy doesn’t just affect the selling of a product but also sends a message to women on how they should look. Women are used in ads to attract the attention of men by placing women in sexy clothes, and playful positions. Most advertising will only feature good looking women with slender bodies. Goffman uses the term hyperritualization, which is a representation of our social actions. We start to learn social cues from these ads whether we realize it or not. The message sent out by advertisers is if you consume the product being advertised you will then get the girl. “Once learned, these cues could be used in daily life to make sense of members of the same or opposite sex and to impose frames on them, their actions, and the situations in which we encounter them.”(318)
Knowing that sex sells and women’s bodies are constantly being exploited to sell a product or send a message, do you think that men are being used in the same way? Are men developing these same insecurities as women are from these sexy ads? Is there a fair balance between the two?
In 2005, "Spicy BBQ Six Dollar Burger" in a T.V. advertisement has Paris Hilton crawling all over a Bentley taking a bite out of a burger with her signature phrase “that’s hot”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P82hABWq1To
When did it become necessary to promote a burger by using sex? Have ad campaigns crossed the line and gone too far?
There is so much pressure on women today to be beautiful and thin. The Dove Campaign “real beauty” tries to boost girls’ self-esteem and promote true beauty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ytjTNX9cg0&feature=related
From this video it’s clear that these sex ads and social cues being embedded into our brain do in fact have problematic consequences in our society. Is this something our society should look further into and possibly place a ban or a limit on how much we exploit women and sex in advertisements? When are we going to start sending the right message?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Gatekeeping and Agenda-Setting
Posted on behalf of Nicholas Sardone:
Agenda setting is the idea that we are forced to think about certain things because of the media. Agenda setting states that the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but it tells us what to think about. The media controls many aspects of what we hear most about. This is especially true regarding politics and how we get news. Most news is about celebrities, this gets the most attention, why?
Why do we care so much, or do we really care at all? maybe we are just shown so much of this crap that we trick ourselves into caring. Why do they want us to care about it?
It is proven that media helps to shape each and every one of us, and for many of us it controls our entire life. For most of us in this class, as media studies majors, we rely heavily on the media. There are many forms of media, from newspapers to tv, to the internet. As each of these new forms of media were invented and introduced into society, questions about our high culture values were popping up and the idea that we were going to decline as a culture arose. In Baran and Davis' text, mainly chapter 3, they write that media has the “power to profoundly shape our perceptions of the social world and to manipulate our actions, often without our conscious awareness” (45). I would say that this is true. We see it every day.
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/7-4-agenda.htm
Is it right that we care so much about the media? We do let our lives get run by these stories we read and things we see on the news. It seems wierd, but we don't think so anymore because it has become so natural for us to just beileve everything we hear and care so much about what famous people are doing, or what other people think. Like the other bloggers stated, about such issues as Michael Phelps and his marijuana incident and A-Rod and his new links to steroid use in baseball. These stories are about other people's personal lives mostly, but now they are public and it is all you can hear about.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/150832/14-times-Olympic-gold-medal-winner-Michael-Phelps-caught-with-bong-cannabis-pipe.html
The main title to the article is a picture of him hitting a bong with the title reading "What a dope." Personally i don't think it is a big deal, marijuana is not a big deal to me. He is an athlete, the most decorated olympic athlete, and a hero to the US. Because he smokes pot, doesnt change anything. Yes, people are throwing fits about this, but why do we care? Because we get bored and need something to worry about?
So what do you think about agenda-setting? Do you think that these stories warrant as much attention as they getting? Should we really care about things that don't mean anything really in the broad spectrum of the world and real issues.Jessica Simpson is fat, Michael Phelps is smoking grass, Brad Pitt changed his hair style... etc. There are real issues in the world, but alot of the time media outlets just want us to hear these ridiculous stories that don't impact anything.
Agenda setting is the idea that we are forced to think about certain things because of the media. Agenda setting states that the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but it tells us what to think about. The media controls many aspects of what we hear most about. This is especially true regarding politics and how we get news. Most news is about celebrities, this gets the most attention, why?
Why do we care so much, or do we really care at all? maybe we are just shown so much of this crap that we trick ourselves into caring. Why do they want us to care about it?
It is proven that media helps to shape each and every one of us, and for many of us it controls our entire life. For most of us in this class, as media studies majors, we rely heavily on the media. There are many forms of media, from newspapers to tv, to the internet. As each of these new forms of media were invented and introduced into society, questions about our high culture values were popping up and the idea that we were going to decline as a culture arose. In Baran and Davis' text, mainly chapter 3, they write that media has the “power to profoundly shape our perceptions of the social world and to manipulate our actions, often without our conscious awareness” (45). I would say that this is true. We see it every day.
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/7-4-agenda.htm
Is it right that we care so much about the media? We do let our lives get run by these stories we read and things we see on the news. It seems wierd, but we don't think so anymore because it has become so natural for us to just beileve everything we hear and care so much about what famous people are doing, or what other people think. Like the other bloggers stated, about such issues as Michael Phelps and his marijuana incident and A-Rod and his new links to steroid use in baseball. These stories are about other people's personal lives mostly, but now they are public and it is all you can hear about.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/150832/14-times-Olympic-gold-medal-winner-Michael-Phelps-caught-with-bong-cannabis-pipe.html
The main title to the article is a picture of him hitting a bong with the title reading "What a dope." Personally i don't think it is a big deal, marijuana is not a big deal to me. He is an athlete, the most decorated olympic athlete, and a hero to the US. Because he smokes pot, doesnt change anything. Yes, people are throwing fits about this, but why do we care? Because we get bored and need something to worry about?
So what do you think about agenda-setting? Do you think that these stories warrant as much attention as they getting? Should we really care about things that don't mean anything really in the broad spectrum of the world and real issues.Jessica Simpson is fat, Michael Phelps is smoking grass, Brad Pitt changed his hair style... etc. There are real issues in the world, but alot of the time media outlets just want us to hear these ridiculous stories that don't impact anything.
Agenda-Setting in 2009
Agenda Setting is the idea that the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but it tells us what to think about. The media controls many aspects of what we hear most about. This is especially true regarding politics. The text talked about a study done in 1968 during a presidential election. The findings of this study concluded that media coverage had a great impact on what voters considered the major issues. McCombs and Shaw wrote, “In short, the data suggest a very strong relationship between the emphasis placed on different campaign issues by the media….and the judgments of voters as to the salience and importance of various campaign topics.”
The text has some criticisms of the study done by McCombs and Shaw, suggesting that the earlier studies had many limitations but did inspire other researchers to conduct studies. As it being an earlier study it left many unanswered questions. This may be true but I found one aspect of the McCombs and Shaw study particularly interesting. Towards the end of their study they start to get into the emphasis certain news mediums put on stories. They compare the agenda setting correlation in Newspapers, Television, and News Magazines. They found that even though these mediums are different they mostly suggested that they all had consensus on major news items. They also suggested that particular mediums had only enough room to focus on what they deemed the most important issues. They wrote, “Since a newspaper, for example, uses only about 15 percent of the material available on any given day, there is considerable latitude for selection among minor items. In short, the political world is reproduced imperfectly by individual news media”. Since this study was done in 1968 it didn’t get to factor in where a lot of people (especially young people) get their news today; the internet.
The internet has many different news sites, and blogging has become a new phenomenon where individuals get to determine what they deem most important. The presidential election was the topic of 2008, and is now continuing to be the topic of 2009. With all these new outlets of media, one would think that many different stories and outlooks could be covered. However, this is a wrong assumption. The bloggers who have the power to focus on any topic they please have all decided to focus on one topic; the presidential inauguration. This article compares the top news stories from January 19th to 23rd 2009. http://www.journalism.org/commentary_backgrounder/bloggers_ponder_every_aspect_obama%E2%80%99s_inauguration
One can see that both mediums have a major focus on certain issues. And that the bloggers have a major focus on the presidential inauguration. This can be considered a negative, because although the presidential inauguration was important for America and inspiring there a lot of other issues in the world that are not getting talked about. This shows that agenda-setting crosses over into an age where anyone can express their own personal opinion.
What do you think? Do you think that even bloggers do not place emphasis on smaller news stories? Or do you disagree and think that the internet and bloggers have helped society to hear about important issues that might have been missed by mainstream media? Do you think the inauguration received too much attention from the media while other importance issues of that week were hardly talked about, or do you think it was given a fair amount of time? Can you think of another issue that you found was a major topic in people’s minds because of internet coverage? And finally what are your thoughts on the difference between television coverage and internet coverage?
The text has some criticisms of the study done by McCombs and Shaw, suggesting that the earlier studies had many limitations but did inspire other researchers to conduct studies. As it being an earlier study it left many unanswered questions. This may be true but I found one aspect of the McCombs and Shaw study particularly interesting. Towards the end of their study they start to get into the emphasis certain news mediums put on stories. They compare the agenda setting correlation in Newspapers, Television, and News Magazines. They found that even though these mediums are different they mostly suggested that they all had consensus on major news items. They also suggested that particular mediums had only enough room to focus on what they deemed the most important issues. They wrote, “Since a newspaper, for example, uses only about 15 percent of the material available on any given day, there is considerable latitude for selection among minor items. In short, the political world is reproduced imperfectly by individual news media”. Since this study was done in 1968 it didn’t get to factor in where a lot of people (especially young people) get their news today; the internet.
The internet has many different news sites, and blogging has become a new phenomenon where individuals get to determine what they deem most important. The presidential election was the topic of 2008, and is now continuing to be the topic of 2009. With all these new outlets of media, one would think that many different stories and outlooks could be covered. However, this is a wrong assumption. The bloggers who have the power to focus on any topic they please have all decided to focus on one topic; the presidential inauguration. This article compares the top news stories from January 19th to 23rd 2009. http://www.journalism.org/commentary_backgrounder/bloggers_ponder_every_aspect_obama%E2%80%99s_inauguration
One can see that both mediums have a major focus on certain issues. And that the bloggers have a major focus on the presidential inauguration. This can be considered a negative, because although the presidential inauguration was important for America and inspiring there a lot of other issues in the world that are not getting talked about. This shows that agenda-setting crosses over into an age where anyone can express their own personal opinion.
What do you think? Do you think that even bloggers do not place emphasis on smaller news stories? Or do you disagree and think that the internet and bloggers have helped society to hear about important issues that might have been missed by mainstream media? Do you think the inauguration received too much attention from the media while other importance issues of that week were hardly talked about, or do you think it was given a fair amount of time? Can you think of another issue that you found was a major topic in people’s minds because of internet coverage? And finally what are your thoughts on the difference between television coverage and internet coverage?
Agenda-Setting
posted by Kristen Finelli:
At the mall yesterday, my brother picked up an Alex Rodriguez t-shirt, turned it around and said, "Pretty soon, these are going to say A-ROID." I laughed, but it turns out that he wasn't the only one thinking it.
The section in the textbook discusses agenda-setting and politics, but I'm going to talk a little bit about agenda-setting and sports. The text defines agenda-setting as "the idea that media don't tell people what to think, but what to think about" [B&N 279]. And this week, New York media wants people to think about A-Rod. Everyone in New York has some opinion on this story. Whether they're Yankee fans who are angry about it, Yankee fans who insist he did nothing wrong, or, like me, Mets fans who are just amused by the whole thing, you cannot go anywhere without hearing about it.
The top story for the Daily News this morning reads "Sources: A-Rod Used Steroids". The less important stories are listed below: "West-Side murder suicide", "Obama urges Senate to move on stimulus", "Driver quizzed as tossed man dies". Is a story about a baseball player really more important than heinous crimes, or the country's failing economy? The Daily News seems to think so. So does the New York Post. Their front page story reads "A-R*D: Only the Truth Can Save Rodriguez Now". Even the New York Times has a story about Rodriguez on the front page. Flipping through the television stations last night, every news program was talking about it. It was as if it was the only news to break in New York City this weekend, despite the fact that hundreds died in fires in Australia and there was an accident on Lake Eerie.
The same thing happened last week when Michael Phelps was busted for smoking pot. I went into New York City on Monday for my internship, and as I walked from Grand Central Station to Madison Square Garden, I passed dozens of men selling newspapers, all with Michael Phelps' face plastered on the front page. A week later, people are still talking about it. A Google news search resulted in over 17,000 stories, with more being written every hour.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&q=michael+phelps
The text also says that "...Readers learn not only about a given issue, but how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position...[B&N 279]. If a person from outside the country saw the newspapers or watched the evening news this weekend, they would assume that Alex Rodriguez, who supposedly took steroids over six years ago, while he was still on the Texas Rangers, was the absolute most important thing to happen in 72 hours. Or, that, shockingly, a 24-year-old male was caught smoking marijuana with his friends.
So what is your opinion on agenda-setting, especially in relation to these sports stories? Do you think that these stories warrant as much attention as they getting? Should the "real" news be pushed to the back burner while the country discusses the poor judgement of two "famous" men?
At the mall yesterday, my brother picked up an Alex Rodriguez t-shirt, turned it around and said, "Pretty soon, these are going to say A-ROID." I laughed, but it turns out that he wasn't the only one thinking it.
The section in the textbook discusses agenda-setting and politics, but I'm going to talk a little bit about agenda-setting and sports. The text defines agenda-setting as "the idea that media don't tell people what to think, but what to think about" [B&N 279]. And this week, New York media wants people to think about A-Rod. Everyone in New York has some opinion on this story. Whether they're Yankee fans who are angry about it, Yankee fans who insist he did nothing wrong, or, like me, Mets fans who are just amused by the whole thing, you cannot go anywhere without hearing about it.
The top story for the Daily News this morning reads "Sources: A-Rod Used Steroids". The less important stories are listed below: "West-Side murder suicide", "Obama urges Senate to move on stimulus", "Driver quizzed as tossed man dies". Is a story about a baseball player really more important than heinous crimes, or the country's failing economy? The Daily News seems to think so. So does the New York Post. Their front page story reads "A-R*D: Only the Truth Can Save Rodriguez Now". Even the New York Times has a story about Rodriguez on the front page. Flipping through the television stations last night, every news program was talking about it. It was as if it was the only news to break in New York City this weekend, despite the fact that hundreds died in fires in Australia and there was an accident on Lake Eerie.
The same thing happened last week when Michael Phelps was busted for smoking pot. I went into New York City on Monday for my internship, and as I walked from Grand Central Station to Madison Square Garden, I passed dozens of men selling newspapers, all with Michael Phelps' face plastered on the front page. A week later, people are still talking about it. A Google news search resulted in over 17,000 stories, with more being written every hour.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&q=michael+phelps
The text also says that "...Readers learn not only about a given issue, but how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position...[B&N 279]. If a person from outside the country saw the newspapers or watched the evening news this weekend, they would assume that Alex Rodriguez, who supposedly took steroids over six years ago, while he was still on the Texas Rangers, was the absolute most important thing to happen in 72 hours. Or, that, shockingly, a 24-year-old male was caught smoking marijuana with his friends.
So what is your opinion on agenda-setting, especially in relation to these sports stories? Do you think that these stories warrant as much attention as they getting? Should the "real" news be pushed to the back burner while the country discusses the poor judgement of two "famous" men?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Power of the Internet
Submitted on behalf of Stephanie Feirsen:
It is hard to deny that media, in some way or another, helps to shape each and every one of our lives. Today, there exist numerous forms of media from newspapers to the internet and everything in between. As each new form of media was introduced into society, questions arose as to whether it had the ability to undermine and displace tradition and “higher” cultural values. In chapter 3 of Mass Communication Theory, Baran and Davis write that media has the “power to profoundly shape our perceptions of the social world and to manipulate our actions, often without our conscious awareness” (45). In this same chapter, the authors discuss the ideas of Gemeinschaft, folk communities bound by ties to tradition, family, and rigid social control, and Gesellschaft, modern industrial society in which people are weakly bound by even weaker social institutions instead of tradition. The authors argue that the influx of newer media has caused American society to transition from a relatively Gemeinschaft society to a Gesellschaft society. This was not an overnight change. Instead, much like Laswell’s ideas about propaganda, the media influenced people in gradual ways, eventually creating new norms in society (93). It became a rare occurrence in society when a person joined a bowling club or a book club. People went from attending school board meetings and neighborhood watch meetings to being glued to a form of media.
Recently, the Internet has come under fire as critics have expressed the idea that the World Wide Web does not, in fact, broaden and increase social relationships; instead it has created and will continue to create a society of anti-social individuals with an isolation complex, thus fully transporting us into a Gesellschaft society. Many have argued that the Internet not only created a direct link to information, but also a reason for people to exist as an entity unto themselves.
On September 1, 1998, Science Daily featured an article about a Carnegie Mellon study which revealed that the Internet, a seemingly social technology, actually had very negative and anti-social effects on consistent users. The study declared that teenagers were the most at risk since they seemed to be the most frequent “consumers” of this media. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980901024936.htm
There are others who celebrate the power of the internet as a social networking tool. During a CNN interview circa March 11, 2008, Alex Steffan (the editor for Worldchanging) expressed the idea that the internet is acutally mending relationships and bringing people back together. He insisted upon the notion that the internet provides an outlet in which people can find others just like them, people with whom they can relate. To be lonesome is a thing of the past; friends are just an internet connection and a computer click away. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EED81131F93BA25751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
What do you think? Is the Internet really mending relationships, or is it breaking interpersonal bonds so badly that we are becoming an anti-social society? Is it a problem that so many people have taken to the Internet and have given chat rooms a priority over face-to-face interactions? Why is it that people are considering the Internet more of a threat to traditional social institutions more than any other form of media? Do you believe that we, as a society, can ever go back to a Gemeinschaft society?
It is hard to deny that media, in some way or another, helps to shape each and every one of our lives. Today, there exist numerous forms of media from newspapers to the internet and everything in between. As each new form of media was introduced into society, questions arose as to whether it had the ability to undermine and displace tradition and “higher” cultural values. In chapter 3 of Mass Communication Theory, Baran and Davis write that media has the “power to profoundly shape our perceptions of the social world and to manipulate our actions, often without our conscious awareness” (45). In this same chapter, the authors discuss the ideas of Gemeinschaft, folk communities bound by ties to tradition, family, and rigid social control, and Gesellschaft, modern industrial society in which people are weakly bound by even weaker social institutions instead of tradition. The authors argue that the influx of newer media has caused American society to transition from a relatively Gemeinschaft society to a Gesellschaft society. This was not an overnight change. Instead, much like Laswell’s ideas about propaganda, the media influenced people in gradual ways, eventually creating new norms in society (93). It became a rare occurrence in society when a person joined a bowling club or a book club. People went from attending school board meetings and neighborhood watch meetings to being glued to a form of media.
Recently, the Internet has come under fire as critics have expressed the idea that the World Wide Web does not, in fact, broaden and increase social relationships; instead it has created and will continue to create a society of anti-social individuals with an isolation complex, thus fully transporting us into a Gesellschaft society. Many have argued that the Internet not only created a direct link to information, but also a reason for people to exist as an entity unto themselves.
On September 1, 1998, Science Daily featured an article about a Carnegie Mellon study which revealed that the Internet, a seemingly social technology, actually had very negative and anti-social effects on consistent users. The study declared that teenagers were the most at risk since they seemed to be the most frequent “consumers” of this media. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980901024936.htm
There are others who celebrate the power of the internet as a social networking tool. During a CNN interview circa March 11, 2008, Alex Steffan (the editor for Worldchanging) expressed the idea that the internet is acutally mending relationships and bringing people back together. He insisted upon the notion that the internet provides an outlet in which people can find others just like them, people with whom they can relate. To be lonesome is a thing of the past; friends are just an internet connection and a computer click away. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EED81131F93BA25751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
What do you think? Is the Internet really mending relationships, or is it breaking interpersonal bonds so badly that we are becoming an anti-social society? Is it a problem that so many people have taken to the Internet and have given chat rooms a priority over face-to-face interactions? Why is it that people are considering the Internet more of a threat to traditional social institutions more than any other form of media? Do you believe that we, as a society, can ever go back to a Gemeinschaft society?
Body Image and Cultivation Theory
Hi everyone. My blog entry is going to discuss cultivation theory, but rather than focus on how it relates to violence, I’m going to address how I feel it is visible in the portrayal of body images in the media.
In chapter 11 of our textbook, Baron and Davis define cultivation analysis as a “theory that television ‘cultivates,’ or creates a worldview that, although possibly inaccurate, becomes the reality because people believe it to be so.” (B&D 324) This theory, initiated and studied by George Gerbner, becomes implanted in our brains and lives through our constant and prolonged exposure to media. The text refers to the exaggeration of violence on television programs in relation to real-life violence. Violence occurs far more on television than it does in reality, causing people to believe what they see on TV and assume that violent acts in the real world take place in similar frequency.
Not only has the overestimation of violence come as a result of cultivation theory, but so has the portrayal of an inaccurate body image. For years celebrities and models, the people who cover the television channels and magazine pages, are photographed and depicted as having thin bodies and few imperfections. Seeing as nearly 100% of American households own televisions (McQuail 399), these are the images that surround the public. It makes sense, then, that audiences would believe this is how many, if not all, people truly are- fit, trim, and near perfect. These body images have become ingrained into our psyches as what is normal and common.
However, the majority of Americans do not even come close to these portrayed body images. The average American woman is a size 14, not a 2 or a 4 like most celebrities are shown as. Males, as well, typically do not have bodies resembling those of actors, singers, models, etc. Cultivation has skewed the American people into thinking that the average body image is much smaller than it actually is.
Recently, as I’m sure many of you know, Jessica Simpson and her body have become the subject of media scrutiny for a recent public appearance.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/01/26/2009-01-26_jessica_simpson_shows_off_new_curves_at_.html
Tabloids, blogs and the like have bashed Simpson for her curves, weight gain, and getting “fat.” Now call me crazy, but fat would not be one of the first hundred words I would use to describe Simpson. Sure she may not be a size 0, but there’s nothing wrong with that. She breaks the Hollywood status quo and much more accurately represents the American public.
My question is, how do you all feel about this? Do you think media should make more of an effort to expose the truth and break cultivated views like these?
In chapter 11 of our textbook, Baron and Davis define cultivation analysis as a “theory that television ‘cultivates,’ or creates a worldview that, although possibly inaccurate, becomes the reality because people believe it to be so.” (B&D 324) This theory, initiated and studied by George Gerbner, becomes implanted in our brains and lives through our constant and prolonged exposure to media. The text refers to the exaggeration of violence on television programs in relation to real-life violence. Violence occurs far more on television than it does in reality, causing people to believe what they see on TV and assume that violent acts in the real world take place in similar frequency.
Not only has the overestimation of violence come as a result of cultivation theory, but so has the portrayal of an inaccurate body image. For years celebrities and models, the people who cover the television channels and magazine pages, are photographed and depicted as having thin bodies and few imperfections. Seeing as nearly 100% of American households own televisions (McQuail 399), these are the images that surround the public. It makes sense, then, that audiences would believe this is how many, if not all, people truly are- fit, trim, and near perfect. These body images have become ingrained into our psyches as what is normal and common.
However, the majority of Americans do not even come close to these portrayed body images. The average American woman is a size 14, not a 2 or a 4 like most celebrities are shown as. Males, as well, typically do not have bodies resembling those of actors, singers, models, etc. Cultivation has skewed the American people into thinking that the average body image is much smaller than it actually is.
Recently, as I’m sure many of you know, Jessica Simpson and her body have become the subject of media scrutiny for a recent public appearance.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/01/26/2009-01-26_jessica_simpson_shows_off_new_curves_at_.html
Tabloids, blogs and the like have bashed Simpson for her curves, weight gain, and getting “fat.” Now call me crazy, but fat would not be one of the first hundred words I would use to describe Simpson. Sure she may not be a size 0, but there’s nothing wrong with that. She breaks the Hollywood status quo and much more accurately represents the American public.
My question is, how do you all feel about this? Do you think media should make more of an effort to expose the truth and break cultivated views like these?
Friday, January 23, 2009
Welcome!
Welcome to our class blog. Lead blogs are due by noon on Sunday of each week. Responses are due by Tuesday at noon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)