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?

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?

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?

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?

Audience and Media Use

What are we seeking from media, and are we getting what we want? (Baron and Davis 228).

Stepping away from the effects the media has on us, this week focused more on the uses and gratifications approach, which Baron and Davis defined as an “approach to media study focusing on the uses to which people put media and the gratifications they seek from those users” (232). We all “use” the media for different purposes, and I think by now, we all know what medium to turn to to get exactly what we want.

An important aspect of the uses and gratifications model was illustrated by Katz, Blumer, and Gurevitch in “Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual.” They brought up the point of how “the audience is conceived as active, that is, an important part of mass media use is assumed to be goal directed” (164). All audience members choose what medium to turn to at any given time, and “use” it they way they would like. Personally, if I want to hear about Obama’s latest stimulus plan, I turn to CNN.com. If I want to find out what’s going on locally in Connecticut, I would turn to a local news channel. If I want entertainment, I turn to PerezHilton.com or E News.

On the subject or celebrity gossip and Perez Hilton, why are we so interested in the life of the rich and famous? What are trying to get or accomplish from reading gossip like this? Don’t we all have enough going on in our own lives to actually care about a celebrity weight gain, or new hair cut? This article by Paul Steinberg seems to answer some of those questions, but what do you think?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Celebrity-Gossip-and-Why-We-Love-It&id=1772012

I thought it was interesting to think about though, when Baron and Davis discussed the problems that can arise from this, and the confusion of media uses and functions that occur. Every media source serves a different purpose for every individual. Our authors state though, that “they might not necessarily be the purposes they serve for the people who consume the media, and these functions can be different from the intended uses of audience members” (235). When I read this, I immediately thought of crime shows, such as Law and Order or CSI. A use or gratification from watching these shows may be to see drama, or see bad guys in action. It’s odd and scary to think about, but I would propose that most people who watch these types of shows a lot, can cover up their own crime scene, or even know how to shoot a gun. These shows inadvertently teach us things like this, even though we are watching them to be entertained. Or, perhaps people are watching crime shows or horror movies to let out their own type of aggression, without actually performing any illegal acts. What do you think of this? Agree/disagree? Is this where uses and gratifications of media gets blurred with media effects?

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?

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?