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