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?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)