So the media has been a part of our lives since we were born and it only has gotten bigger. In these last four years of college we all have been looking the media in a different light. We have looked at every component of the media and what it has done to this society. I have noticed it has been a positive and negative part of our lives.
In this week’s readings Baran and Davis talk about the idea of bias of communication. They state “bias of communication is Innis’s idea that communication technology makes centralization of power inevitable” (Baran and Davis 219). The meaning I got out of this was that the media gives people the idea of having that “power” in the world. This “power” is mostly seen with athletes in today’s society. The media’s coverage of a superstar athlete is ten times more the coverage about the war. But this is how society is built today. Do you think the coverage of famous people will die down soon? Personally I think it is only growing bigger and bigger.
I know we brought up Tiger Woods a hundred times this semester but he is best example. Before the car accident he was in a few months ago, he was not only on top of the golf game but sports as a whole. He was living the dream life of having that “power”. But after the car accident he wasn’t looked at as being the king of sports any more. He was now looked at as being the asshole of sports. There was no more coverage on his golf game but on his addiction and his marriage. This article explains it all.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/10/sports/AP-GLF-Masters-Tim-Dahlberg-041010.html?_r=1&ref=golf
Do you think the media gives superstar athletes the so called power? Or do you think the media just makes a big deal about everything in their lives, that they feel like they have the power? Does all superstar athletes have that power or just a hand full?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
James brings up a very interesting topic in his blog posting regarding the media and athletes. I personally believe that the media gives athletes and unrivaled power to any other area of coverage. In addition, sports in general receives an exceptional amount of viewership and as a result causes a transfer of power to athletes. Athletes become disillusioned with regular life by the amount of money they are paid, the amount of global coverage they get, and by the millions of fans that idolize them. This is not typical of normal people and therefore causes athletes to "think" they are more powerful than they really are. While I believe that the media is responsible for a part of this, I also believe we, the fans, are equally as important in contributing this sense of power to athletes.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best ways the media transfers power to the athlete is through offering contrasting viewpoints to appeal of a wide range of audience members. James points out that Tiger Woods had an exceptional fall from grace since that car accident in November, however the truth is, the media didn't just lose sight of Tiger Woods. Instead they focused on placing an extraordinary amount of coverage on his personal life. Every move he made was documented, and every speech he made was recorded. And furthermore, when he announced his return to golf at the Master's, the media covered every aspect of his golf game and his chance of winning. So rather than minimize the amount of Woods' coverage in an attempt to humanize the athlete, the media placed more coverage on him and in turn transferred more power to Woods. Essentially, the media showed him that he can still be the topic of conversation and that he still wields an enormous amount of power of the media. By presenting many aspects, both positive and negative of Tiger's life, the media also creates a larger audience. According to research on popular culture, "audience interpretations of content are likely to be quite diverse. some people make interpretations at one level of meaning, whereas others make their interpretations at other levels" (Baran and Davis 217). Since audiences are diverse, presenting diverse aspects of athletes lives will assuredly draw any types of crowds. And thus, more audience leads to more coverage, which transfers more power to athletes.
Finally, the media creates another sense of power to athletes because of the newest forms of technology and globalization. Herbert I. Schiller writes, "With the phenomenal growth of the transnational business system, and its utilization of the computer and communication satellite, what used to be national in form and content has become transnational, or, as some prefer to describe it, global" (7). This furthers the idea that because of the internet and other communications capabilities, the media is able to project ideas globally. What used to be viewed as a national perspective has grown into a global perspective. So whereas the coverage of American athletes may have traditionally been confined to a pertinent regional area, technology has allowed the coverage to become globally recognized. A perfect example of this is seen by the fact that Kobe Bryant has the number one selling jersey in the US for over 5 years but has recently become the number one selling jersey in China. This, ahead of Yao Ming, a Chinese native. Because of Bryant's tremendous success in the US, the media has translated his image easily overseas. Again, by doing this, Bryant has obtained more power from the media because of the enormous amounts of fans that will accrue from Chinese exposure.
ReplyDeleteIn summation, the media coverage of professional athletes has caused many to feel they have a certain power. They expect millions of fans in addition to millions of dollars. The more coverage means more audience which means more power. Athletes are the only people who can dictate to the media what to do and that is because the media has given them this undeniable power. As long as there are fans to follow, this type of coverage will never die down.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile we’ve talked over and over again about Tiger Woods, I think it is certainly relateable to James’s point about athlete “power.” While I don’t think the media are 100% to blame for the fascination with celebrities, I do think they must hold most of the responsibility. I tend to often go back and forth about where I stand with the media’s level of responsibility in terms of this idea of celebrity power, but for the most part I think the media is mainly at fault.
ReplyDeleteBaran and Davis point out Mclulhan’s claim that the medium is “the message and the massage (220).” As they explain, “New forms of media transform (massage) our experience of ourselves and our society, and this influence is ultimately more important than the content that is transmitted in its specific messages” (220). This claim of athlete power is supported by this statement. I believe the emergence of new media has “massaged” our media experience and now influences the power we give athletes. I think the media have highlighted the impact of athletes, thus magnifying their importance in our lives, which has in turn led to the increased ego of these athletes and increased demand for knowledge about them.
Personally, I don’t think even the most “media literate” people are safe from this power of the celebrity. Let’s examine Tiger Woods again for this point. While you might be sick of talking about this issue, the fact remains that the media made such a huge deal out of it that it was hard to ignore. When issues about athletes such as this make it to the newspaper and even the nightly news, the media are “massaging” us to believe this is important content. When I first heard about the Tiger Woods scandal, I honestly didn’t care. I had the attitude that it was his life and the media should stay out of it. By the time he delivered his apology speech at the press conference, however, I made sure I was tuned in to watch it. As a student of Media Studies, I consider myself media literate, but even I wasn’t impervious to the alluring method of the media.
With all this media impact, one has to wonder what the effect is on the larger global community. In the article “International Communication at the Mass Media Level,” Karl Erik Rosengren argues, “Most of us get most of our knowledge about the world outside our home country from the mass media… We thus get a somewhat distorted picture about what human life looks like in other parts of the world—and in our own” (232). When it comes to the domination of athletes and celebrities in our culture, one has to wonder how other countries view such coverage by the media. Rosengren makes the assertion that “the greater the television use, the more lopsided the mental maps” (234). If this celebrity obsession and athletic dominance is being transmitted to the global community, then will these countries see us as foolish or will they follow this trend? Personally, I think this is sadly another one of those superficial effects we will have on other countries. I do not agree with it, but I do think it will happen.
To answer James’ questions, the media does give athletes this so-called ‘power, but I see this power in a different perspective’. Prior to media excessive media coverage athletes were forced to hold second jobs in the off season in order to make enough money. When the media arrived, it immediately made fans notice, immediately increasing ticket sales, and overall revenue. Today, sports has become so powerful that athletes are the highest paid individuals in the world. Think about this for a moment; According to forbes.com, the highest paid athletes are Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant, who with contracts and endorsements each earned over $40 million in contracts. On the contrary, the CEO of the United States, President Obama earned a little more over $2 million in 2008. “US Patterns of commercial hegemony…demonstrates that commercial broadcasting transmits images and messages vastly different from those produced by a public service broadcast system” (Schiller 5). The President’s media coverage can be compared to these ‘public service broadcast systems’ as it doesn’t create the ‘commercial broadcasting images’ athletes are capable of. As a result, these athletes make more money which translates to high media power.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Baran and Davis reinforce this stating that the “mass media often support the status quo and interfere with the efforts of social movements to bring about useful change" (224). The public will always be involved with politics but, again, the excitement sports and athlete
s bring (the status quo) is more emphasized because it’s wanted more.
James asks if all superstar athletes have power or just some. Although some athletes such as LeBron James, Tiger Woods, and more are more media friendly, it seems that if you’re an athlete, the media is going to follow you. Going back to salary and the significance it shows, a minimum salary for a veteran in the NBA is a little over $1 million. This is half of what the President of the United States make in a year. When you look at this in the big picture, it is shocking that an individual is financially even with the head of our country. Schiller says “the economy and cultural expression itself, have become the private domain of a highly concentrated transnational corporate power” (7). Our culture has come to embrace sports so highly that it has had a monopolistic affect on the way corporate sponsors are choosing to spend their money making athletes the most powerful individuals in the media.
In James blog he proposes many interesting questions in regards to athletes and power. In recent decades we have seen a number of athletes receive large amounts of money. This trend started in 2000, when MLB gave out its first $100 million dollar contract (Kevin Brown). Since then we have scene premier players receive almost twice that amount. Alex Rodriguez really showed how much power athletes have when he demanded in access of $250 million dollars over 10 years. The media coverage on famous people will never die down. As long as the richer are getting richer, the media will constantly report on them. There seems to be a constant interest from the public as well. As long as the public responds to it, the media is managing to do their job.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Baran and Davis, “audience interpretations of content are likely to be quite diverse. Some people make interpretations at one level of meaning, whereas others make their interpretations at other levels" (Baran and Davis 217). That’s why when athletes receive such a controversial contract; it’s going to draw a bigger audience. Managing to have multiple views on topics such as A-rod (whether he deserves it or not) allows for more people to become involved.
I definitely believe the media are the ones who give the athletes this “power”. The media are the ones who manage to hype them up into the celebrities they are today. Schiller explains that there isn’t any quality televised programming. He states, “The absence of programming that might shed some light on the country’s deepening general social crisis does not seem to concern the industry’s owners. Instead, the audience is regaled with endless hours of sports spectaculars, fortuitous human tragedies, and infomercials” (Schiller 6). The lack of quality programming gives the media the ultimate decision to give the power to other areas. In many cases they tend to give that power to sports and celebrities.
I don’t believe all athletes have this so called power. However, the amount of hours they are televised defiantly gives many athletes a certain sense of power. They are treated like celebrities everywhere they go and expect to be treated as one as well. Whether they are big or not truly doesn’t matter. If they are the most popular player or not, someone, somewhere will know who they are.
I completely agree with James that the media has constantly set the standards within the sports world and sports fans by helping to provide more power to athletes. What does anyone know who LeDainian Tomlinson is? He used to be one of the top football players who played for the Chargers and recently got picked up by the Jets, he is an athlete on the downside of his career. Or how about Tracy McGrady, he is a professional basketball player who used to play for the Houston Rockets until he got injured and later traded and currently plays for the New York Knicks. McGrady’s career, like Tomlinson’s career is on its demise. The reason why I brought these two men up is because in their prime, these two men were all over the media; they had this same “power” that James is talking about. While reading I came across the idea that mass communication transmits messages “for the purpose of control” (Baran & Davis 215). While this “control” that they are talking about isn’t necessarily talking about the “power” that they provide those individuals who they cover a great deal, I believe that this is true of the “power” they give athletes. While the athletes are not in any sort of control, they are constantly gaining notoriety and attention. It can be assumed that since they are in the media so often, they are growing more and more famous each media clip or article that is dedicated to them, thus being a form of “control” and “power” this gaining of awareness.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the media is in total control of how famous an individual can become. This does not take away from how good of a golfer Tiger Woods is, his talent is his own however his notoriety which the media provides is triggered by his talent and thus his success. Another quote which I found interesting is “development of media technology has gradually given centralized elites increased power over space and time” (Baran & Davis 219). I believe that this quote also relates directly to the idea of athletes having “power” due to the media’s coverage of them. I look at it like, over time if they do well they will gain more “power”/fame however the opposite goes for if they begin doing poorly. If an athlete’s career takes a turn for the worse, he/she will lose fame and any “power” which they had will die with their career. However when one looks at a player who ended their career on a high, I believe that they still have their “power” and fame intact, it is when they end their career on a low that they lose this power. While retired athletes fall out of the media rather quickly to make room for the new up and coming fame within the game, they still have a sense of “power” that the media helped them to build. Michael Jordan is the perfect example of this, arguably the best basketball player to have ever played the game and he will always have a “power” which came from his incredible talent and skill teamed with the media’s coverage of him which spread his fame like wild fire.
In the article “International Communication at the Mass Media Level,” Karl Erik Rosengren states that, “Two very basic conditions for successful and efficient international communication, therefore, are that important news be first, efficiently distributed around the globe, and second, relatively quickly diffused among the various populations of the globe” (Rosengren 232). While Rosengren is discussing the international media, I believe that these same two conditions make for a successful transfer of news in the United States or anywhere for that matter. Athletes gain “power” and fame initially when news about them is distributed which happens immediately, then they continue to gain more fame, notoriety and “power” as this information is diffused and spread throughout populations. People talk about the news and what they see or read from the media, therefore the “water cooler affect” which is when you talk with others around the office is happening on a large scale all the time. All in all, I definitely believe that the media gives superstar athletes this so called power, the media gets their names and information out there on a much larger scale than any other form of dispersion would allow. I don’t believe that all superstar athletes have this “power” because while Shaun White is arguably the world’s best snowboarder he doesn’t seem to reach the headlines of major news corporations very often. Therefore only some superstar athletes seem to have the media discussing their every move and why is a question many would ask, why only some superstars? I myself have no idea why this is the case, clearly if you play on a big time team that everyone will know about and you are their superstar player, you have a better chance of making headlines than a superstar who plays for a no name team. Other than for that reason however I have no idea why only some superstars playing on big time teams seem to flood the headlines and news stories day in and day out.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the coverage of famous people will ever die down. Media coverage of “celebrities” has been happening forever, even before television and radio. Teddy Roosevelt was considered a great celebrity in his time and some of his strongest media coverage was from reporters simply spreading word of mouth. In Chapter 11 of Baran and Davis, the authors state, “when elements of everyday culture are selected for repackaging, only a very limited range is chosen, and important elements are overlooked or consciously ignored” (335). I took this to mean that the media basically dumbs down the general public and uses the coverage of famous people to take the place of coverage of important issues.
ReplyDeleteI think that the question asking if the media gives the athlete the power or if the athlete just thinks they have the power is hard to answer. I think it depends on the individual. Perhaps the answer is that it is a little bit of both. For instance, one could argue that Tiger Woods would always have felt that he had “the power” because he knew he was good at golf. And when the media started to cover Tiger Woods when he first became famous, he probably felt a little more famous. But Woods also gained power by gaining lots of contracts with outside companies. Perhaps he would have not gained the contracts had the media not “given him the power”.
McQuail states, “the world as pictured in television news was found to be somewhat lopsided when compared to corresponding extra media data…”(327). Media has always been lopsided. If it can make the world seem lopsided then it can certainly give lopsided fame to different athletes. I think the media chooses who it wants to give more power to. There can be two athletes, both equal in skill and experience, but one might be a little better looking than the other. Or one might have a more interesting life story. So in response to the question, yes, I do think that the media gives certain athletes more power than others.
I definitely don’t see the media converge of celebrities dying down anytime soon. People want to know what is going on with celebrities because their lives are so out of the norm for everyday people. James wrote, “The media’s coverage of a superstar athlete is ten times more the coverage about the war.” This made me think of the Baran and Davis reading about advertising. They state, “It is intended to encourage consumption that serves the interest of product manufacturers but may not be in the interest of individual consumers.” (Baran & Davis 337) This is similar to celebrity news coverage. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how many mistresses Tiger Woods has but it is all over every newspaper and magazine when in reality we should be hearing about the war and healthcare.
ReplyDeleteAs for athletes having “power” I don’t really know. I think the power they have is built on shaky ground. All it takes is one mistake and the media will never let them live it down. In the article, “American Pop Culture Sweeps the World” Herbert Schiller writes, “the absence of programming which much shed some light on the country’s deepening general social crisis does not seem to concern the industry’s owners.” (Schiller, 7) This is why I don’t think athletes have that much power because when it comes down to it they can’t tell the media what to publish. The media decides if they will run a bad story or a good story about an athlete just like they decide what they will cover on the news. They will publish what sells.
I must thank you for the efforts you've put in writing this website. I'm
ReplyDeletehoping to view the same high-grade blog posts from you
later on as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities has inspired me to get my own website now ;)
Also visit my website; fanskpop.com
I rarely comment, however i did a few searching and wound up
ReplyDeletehere "Does the media give athletes "power"?". And I do have 2 questions for you if you do not mind.
Could it be simply me or does it look like some of
these responses appear like left by brain dead people?
:-P And, if you are writing at additional online social sites, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post.
Would you list of all of all your community pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
Here is my web site ... bok of ra ()