Globalization

Stephen Elfenbein
Blog
In class we talked about the article that Professor Burns was quoted in about Twilight, and how the journalist was not interested in the all facts and details regarding the movie, she was just interested in those that would help her story. This led to a class discussion in which we realized that the media has a habit of either over analyzing or crafting facts to fit their stories . In the discussion on Twilight I think at one point someone in the class said, “Get over it’s a love story nothing more”. The basic summary of that discussion was that while some media does stand for something and should be interrupted as more than just a movie or a song some are just songs or just film. In other words Masters of War by Bob Dylan is more than just a song and demands analysis. Whereas Britney Spears’s Hit Me Baby One More time does need not analytical analysis. This is what I believe what Conrad Lodziak was talking about when he said, “media theories often have a tendency to exaggerate the broader social significance of their subject of study”( Mcquail,226) This discussion has made me think of not a just a single medium of media, but a recent development in media, Globalization. Is Globalization really a problem or is it a non issue.
In Chapter 19 John Tomlinson address this very issue of globalization in the media. There are many critics of Globalization; some think it is another form of imperialism, Cultural imperialism. Done just for money. Marxist believe that cultural imperialism and Capitalism go hand and hand and that “capitalism is a homogenizing cultural force”’(Mcquail,229) in other words they believe that capitalism makes everyone the same. Tomlinson brings up an interesting point in that the Modernity of Globalization can be used for and against it.
My main question is, at its most fundamental stage is globalization of media wrong, should we see so much British T.V like The Office or the other works Ricky Gervias should we know what Bollywood is, and should other countries know so much about our media. My personal opinion is yes. I think that globalization is good. Media has the potential to help and impact other forms of media. The globalization of the media has given us the British Invasion, Film Noir and many other positives. Another positive that Globalization has brought is the opportunity to bring in a wider audience and therefore make more money. This is something that David Croteau and William Hoynes address in there article The Media Industry: Structure, Strategy and Debates which is also featured in my Media Studies text book by Eoin Devereux. Croteau and Hoynes give three reasons why Globalization is good for the U.S movie industry. The first however is the one that is most relevant to our discussion, “Domestic markets are saturated with media products, so many companies see international markets as the key to future growth” (Devereux 35) They go on and give an example of a film called The Island starring Ewan McGregor , which did horribly in the U.S. but did rather well in the foreign markets making 124 million dollars, thus making the film a success. In other words they are giving an example of how Globalization helps and is a positive. A recent article form Business Day Online describes just how successful the world wide box office has been this year, “The output of such a combined effort: the tally for 2009 from worldwide box office sales for all films was USD 29.9 billion, which reflects a growth of 7.6% over the previous year. It is estimated that in 2009 over 2500 movies were made across the world, even though in the United States the number of movies produced has declined over the last few years, from 920 in 2005 to 677 in 2009! And, today with the advances in technology, movies are dubbed or sub-titled in almost every language.) (“http://www.businessdayonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9458:movies-movies-and-more-movies&catid=96:columnists&Itemid=350
This is describing what we already know, movie making is no longer just an American business.
To make clear my main question is what do you think about globalization and its impact on the world of media.

All of this Media: Is it a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

There is so much media that we all consume on a daily basis. We consume media through many different devices. We consume media through the Internet, television, cell phones, newspapers, magazines, and other devices. Baran and Davis discuss media literacy and how important it can be in today’s society. Media literacy is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages (Baran & Davis 338). Two parts of media literacy really stood out for me and helped make sense of it all. Baran & Davis say that, “Media content can implicitly and explicitly provide a guide for action.” They also say that, “People must realistically assess how their interaction with media texts can determine the purposes that interaction can serve for them in their environments.” I think that these two statements can definitely be true because what people see in the media really can have an affect on how they live their lives or at least what they think can happen in real life. While reading about the effects that media can have on viewers and how they may interact in real life based on what they see, I started to think about how all of this media can affect children who use it. I found an article (http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/apr/11/not-all-tv-is-bad-for-kid-viewers/?partner=yahoo_feeds) that discusses how not all TV is bad for kids. Kurt Boyland, a marriage and family therapist said, ““Most research shows that educational, age-appropriate, non-violent, non-aggressive television programming may have positive effects on children and their social interactions with others” (Lober). “Shows that portray good pro-social skills can be a good opportunity to learn those things along with problem-solving skills. This contributes to their health, which can contribute to their self-esteem, which can contribute to their peer relationships,” said Dr. Lori Copeland, associate professor of psychology at Hardin-Simmons University (Lober). I agree with these statements because these types of shows can definitely have a good impact on their self-esteem and how children interact with other children. Boyland does go on to say, “Studies show that children may better understand and learn from real life experiences than from television” (Lober). So, does media literacy really pertain to everyone who consume media on a daily basis? Or, does it have a lesser effect on children?

Maybe it has to do with the quality of television programming. Herbert Schiller says that, “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 (6). Basically, Schiller is discussing how the lack of quality programming on TV has an effect on the way people view the world and there isn’t enough culture in the media. Now, this could relate to children because they see this kind of programming on TV. They may see sports, violence, and programs with bad language and too much drama. This could affect their interactions with other people and it could also affect the way they see the real world and the society they live in. With all this said, do you think media literacy is important in today’s society? Should children be watching as much TV as they are or does it not have too much of an effect on them? Also, is it a good thing or a bad thing for children to be media literate at such a young age?

Does the media give athletes "power"?

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?

Are you in, or are you out?

In the music industry, your image and personal life are just as important as the actual music that you make. Undoubtedly, for success in the industry, you need to have a certain amount of sex appeal. You also need to play up your sexuality and discuss your sexual escapades in detail whether it’s in an interview or in your song lyrics.

Liesbet Van Zooten writes, “gender does not determine or exhaust identity (51).” But I believe that in the music industry, your sexuality DOES determine your identity. For example, Adam Lambert is a new rising star who has made his mark by being very much out of the closet. I don’t think there was ever really a doubt in anyone’s mind from the moment he first stepped on stage at American Idol whether he was gay or straight. Since then though, his sexuality, and consequently his image, have been amped up 100% into a gay musical icon. He has only fueled this by doing performances that are incredibly sexual and sometimes make it abundtantly clear what his sexual orientation is.

Adam Lambert’s openness on his sexuality doesn’t necessarily make his musical career any easier though, as many conservative people have been outraged over some of his performances, causing many news stories written about it. Lesley Robinson writes, “the study of popular music is a relevant and consequential project capable of revealing the ways hegemony is reinforced in culture (51).” Seeing that hegemony is the idea that ideology (a belief system that comes from society and culture) is used to keep certain groups in power, it’s easy to see how Adam Lambert might not fit into the equation very nicely, since he stirs the pot with his image, music and performances that are not particularly conventional in our society.

Looking back many (many, many, many) years ago when Ricky Martin was in the prime of his music career, the image that he portrayed was MUCH different than the person that he truly was. If anyone can remember his music video’s from back in the day, I’m sure that like me, you remember lots of attractive, scantily clad women dancing around in a provocative manner. Of course, Ricky Martin was interacting with these women in a sexual manner, because sex (of the heterosexual kind) is what sells. Just recently, Ricky Martin has come out of the closet and declared that he is a gay man (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/29/ricky.martin.gay/index.html?iref=allsearch). We haven’t seen Ricky Martin involved in the music scene recently (or at least, at the level he was back in the days of Livin La Vida Loca), but can you imagine what his coming out of the closet would have done to his career back then? Would it have ruined him? Or sky-rocketed his career because he was someone who was “different”?

Thinking back to all of Ricky Martin’s hits, they painted him as a heterosexual male who yearned for many women. But knowing now that he is in fact gay, does that change everything from the past? What if his songs had been about men instead of women? Take for example, the lyrics to one of his hits, She Bangs:

And she bangs, she bangs
Oh baby
When she moves, she moves
I go crazy
'Cause she looks like a flower but she stings
like a bee
Like every girl in history
She bangs, she bangs

Not to be crude, but, what if for every “she” you inserted a “he”? Would the song have been so popular?

So overall, what do you think? Do you think that an celebrity’s sexuality can help give that specific person an identity? Do you think it can overshadow more important things in regards to that person’s career?

Gender Stereotypes in the Media (on behalf of Heather Edwab)

In an article titled, Media Portrayal of Women, by Brenna Coleman (http://medialiteracy.suite101.com/article.cfm/media_portrayal_of_women), she discusses various female stereotypes that are perceived through the media. She has two viewpoints: the negative female stereotype and the positive female stereotype. She includes many examples of how women are negatively portrayed in the media. Women in video games are usually wearing revealing clothing and women in ads are usually half naked. She says that females in Disney movies are “slender, unrealistically curvaceous, and quite vulnerable young women” (Coleman 1). They are dependent on men and lack a sense of empowerment (Coleman 1). Did you also perceive this stereotype when you were younger and watched Disney movies? Did you notice that the movies made the male seem dominant and powerful, perhaps even proved the theory of hegemonic masculinity? As for me, I really don’t think that I even thought about this when I was younger.
She then brings up a few movies that represent the essential female role as powerful, dominant and hardworking at her career. But unfortunately because the female actress is so focused on her job, she “sacrifices a healthy relationship, family, and possibly even her sanity” (Coleman 1). In another words, she is saying that when a female has the role of being perhaps the dominant business owner, she lacks the predominant female role of being the loving mother and housewife. Do you think that the media rarely portrays the female role with “the whole package”(hard-working, loving mom, healthy relationship with husband, etc.)?
“A common response to the feminist claim that media distort reality by showing women in stereotypical roles of housewives and mothers, is that in reality many women are mothers and housewives too” (McQuail 48). Why do you think media executives put these stereotypes in shows & movies? Do you believe such stereotypes? I personally think that the public interprets the media by their perception of the reality of truth. If a stereotype is depicted by a certain race or gender and I encounter or see the same stereotype than it will be reinforced. But if I have familiarity with the specific race/gender and my experience goes against the stereotype than it will be dismayed. Would you agree/disagree?
Subsequent to the examples of negative stereotypes, she discusses positive stereotypes. Some shows do depict women with positive female roles, such as Lisa in The Simpsons, and she believes girls should be able to find more female roles, like Lisa, in the media. However, I think it is rare that people watch shows just because they like the gender role that is seen. In the Twilight series, my roommates and I perceived Bella as one who surrounds her life around Edward and depends on him for her survival. But, some of them are obsessed with Twilight, and in fact most girls are, so they obviously get past the stereotypical female gender role that is portrayed. So, how much do you really think these gender roles in the media truly affect one’s self image, self-esteem and even our culture in general? How do you enjoy a movie or show that depicts such negative gender roles?
In a study done in 1986, Lichter and Rothman analyzed the prime time network television for over 31 seasons from 1955 to 1986. Their results were, “Female characters are less in evidence than males, and in many ways are portrayed as the weaker sex. They are less likely to be mature adults, are less well educated, and hold lower status jobs. Their activities tend to represent the private realm of home, personal relations, and sexuality, while men represent the public realm of work, social relations, and sexuality” (Steeves 394). What is your overall perception on how the media portrays women today? Is your perception different from the analysis that was conducted over thirty years ago?

Nike's Attempts at Symbolic Interactionism

The term which was studied by George Herbert Mead was intended to show “how we learn culture and how culture structures our everyday experience” (Baran and Davis 301). Furthermore, Baran and Davis write that “social roles and many other aspects of culture are learned through interaction, through experiences in daily life situations. Over time, we internalize the rules…” (302). It is apparent that the meaning of symbolic interactionism is intended to portray the idea that people learn cultural norms through interaction with others. They do not challenge what is learned but rather accept it as “right” and therefore this dictates the so-called rules to a society.

Upon hearing the definitions of these media influence terms, I was immediately drawn to thinking about the NBA and its typical stereotypes. It is of no surprise to anyone that the NBA and basketball in general is associated with African-American athletes. The league is made up of 75% African-Americans. This, is a very strong stereotype dominating our sports nation today. However, there is little being done to alleviate this dominating image and that is most evident within sports advertising. Judith Williamson furthers this statement in relation to advertising by saying “certainly advertising sets up connections between certain types of consumers and certain products” (McQuail 300). And this is exactly what is happening with Nike.

Nike is a leading advertiser of athletic apparel. The majority of their ads have undoubtedly been targeted towards basketball fans and thus they have taken an approach to emphasize the role of African-Americans in the commercials as well as interests (emphasizing certain consumers with certain products) Fred Edmund Jandt conducted a study in which he analyzed several Nike commercials over time. He examined the language, stories, messages and other elements of the ads to see how they fit in to consumers lives and found an overwhelming majority of the time these ads were aimed at African-Americans. Although the study was done several years ago, the same results can be found today and possibly even more justified. Jandt wrote, “More systematic investigations are needed but (nonetheless) based on the premises of symbolic interactionism, Nike has packaged and presented its advertisements in a culturally appropriate manner that perhaps may promote optimal communication with Black consumers.” A copy of the study can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zutRiJJMBQYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA264&dq=symbolic+interactionism+and+sports&ots=VdYEdDfqVb&sig=OlRreK4kxndsB71Jax15RPYH5k#v=onepage&q=symbolic%20interactionism%20and%20sports&f=false

So in summation, it is quite evident of the strong role of Black consumers within Nike advertising with particular respect to basketball but is this a good thing? Therefore, I leave you with a few questions to think about. Is it appropriate that Nike targets African-Americans because they are the primary consumers of basketball content? Do you think ads of this sort are fair and justified? Does Nike have a social responsibility to promote its products to all potential consumers? And based on your understanding of symbolic interactionism, do you think Nike’s promotion of these ideas facilitates appropriate communication with Black consumers?

Advertising vs. Real Life

After finishing this week’s readings I was ultimately attracted to the chapter on meaning and ideology with advertising, by Judith Williamson. It is interesting to think about how much advertising really does play a role in our everyday lives and how it has become a definition of how to live our lives and what should be important to us as a society. Sometimes these values that are being portrayed in the ads are good, but often times what you are seeing and what is surrounding us is advertising that is trying to persuade people to live a certain way that may not be the most realistic or ideal lifestyle. This has become an issue, especially in today’s society, when the media is always present in our daily lives therefore making it easier for ads to be influencing our thinking on a constant basis. As Williamson says in chapter 27, “Advertisements are one of the most important cultural factors moulding and reflecting our life today. They are ubiquitous, an inevitable part of everyone’s lives […]” (299).
Because of this large presence of advertising in our lives, it is important to look at what is advertised and the images that are portrayed. The first thing that came to mind is the way that women are depicted in ads and the pressure that is put on women as a whole in the society because of this. In an article from the TODAY show, they were talking to a woman who was a model for Ralph Lauren for eight years and just recently fired because they said she wasn’t fitting into the sample clothes that she needed to wear. As a size 4 she could not believe that they were firing her for this reason. Soon after this, she found an advertising image that had shown up on a blog site that had been photo shopped in a way that made her look unhealthily skinny. Ralph Lauren removed the ad and apologized for their poor retouching that resulted in a distorted image of a woman’s body. Filippa Hamilton, the model who was fired, said “It’s not a good example when you see this picture, every young woman is going to look at it and think that it is normal to look like that. It’s not. I saw my face on this super-extremely skinny girl, which is not me. It makes me sad. It makes me think that Ralph Lauren wants to have this kind of image. It’s an American brand ... and it’s not healthy and it’s not right.” (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33307721/ns/today-today_fashion_and_beauty/)
The way that women are depicted is not only dangerous to the model, but also to the young girls looking at the ads. Baran and Davis discuss symbolic interactionism in chapter 11 when saying, “Social roles and many other aspects of culture are learned through interaction, through experiences in daily life situations. Over time, we internalize the rules inherent in various situations and structure our actions accordingly” (302). This would explain the way that our society gets its values and ways of life from the media and its advertising. After seeing a number of skinny perfect women in magazines getting all the guys, it would be understandable to think that a young girl would act accordingly and try to manipulate the features of the women in the ads.
Do you believe that in our culture advertising tells us who we are and who we should be? Do you think that the way that women are depicted and the way the images tell us that in order to be accepted we need to be painfully thin? To what extent does advertising really keep us trapped in these specific roles that we are supposed to play, and specific characteristics that each gender should have?

Too Slow of a Media Transformation?

We are supposed to be living in a “new age”. The United States is supposed to be gradually improving. While I am proud of my country, one of the things that I find hard to be proud of is the lack of racial and ethnic support that the media portrays in its work. The message that the media is giving young children is that those who are racially and ethnically different are not as important, which is simply not true.

In Chapter 26 of McQuail, the author wonders, “how does meaning get into the image? Where does it end? And if it ends, what is there beyond?” (290). Baran and Davis also state, “they argue that elites sometimes use media to propagate hegemonic culture of as a means of maintaining their dominant position in the social order” (201). What both authors are basically saying is, the images in the media, which clearly have meaning behind them, are being controlled and they are being controlled to maintain some type of mysterious order. Even though we live in 2010, the media still continues to basically shut out African Americans and Latinos from coverage, whether it be reality or fiction.

This clip is from last year when MadTV mocked the fact that there are no African Americans present on many of the “hit” reality shows, such as The Hills. Sadly, their comedic point is very true. If we are supposed to be watching “reality” TV, then where is the reality of diversity? Watch the clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV7Fh4nWAD0

I took the liberty of doing a little research on Cosmopolitan magazine. The magazine is arguably very popular and is supposed to show girls what is “sexy”. I went to the magazine’s archive and decided to look at the cover girls of the last ten years, month by month. One would assume that America has diversified more in the past ten years. In the last ten years, the magazine has had 137 different covers. Out of the covers, only 18 have featured African American or Latino women! 18! 18 is surely better than one or two, but at the same time, one can clearly see that the ratio is not even.

The “more mature” readers of Cosmopolitan are not the only groups of people being affected. Nickelodeon, a highly influential children’s network, currently has 25 shows that it plays on a continuous basis during the day. Out of those shows, only 1 centers around a “non-white” character. On the Disney Channel, out of their normally running 26 shows, only 4 shows center around culturally diverse families.

In Chapter 27 of McQuail, the author states, “certainly advertising sets up connections between certain types of consumers and certain products” (300). The author goes on to say, “thus instead of being identified by what they produce, people are made to identify themselves with what they consume” (300).

I take McQuail’s words to mean that the media and its executives want us to consume “white culture”. But why? The United States has become so diverse, and yet the “white image” is continuously thrust down our throat. If McQuail’s theory is true, in a sick kind of way, the advertisers are telling people of diversity that if they buy a “white product” they will become a little “whiter”. Shouldn’t people be proud of their heritages?

In my opinion, the media and advertisers are steering the viewers in a non-culturally embracing direction. It is unfortunate to see, but yet it continues to happen.

Why do you think that the media just can’t seem to evolve culturally? Or if you do think it has evolved, do you think it has evolved enough? Do you think that what you saw on TV as a child swayed your cultural view of things today? Do you subconsciously recognize the lack of cultural diversity in the media in present day? Do you see the media changing/evolving in a more embracing cultural way in ten more years?

Celebrity Obsession

Posted on behalf of Tara-Ashleigh Brennan:

In this day in time, society is obsessed with the lives of the rich and the famous. From gossip magazines and websites to newspaper headlines and breaking news stories, celebrity news is of great importance in society as they are always being observed, reported on, and discussed. Though this is not a new type of fandom, our advanced technology has made the viewing of celebrities everyday living, even their most intimate moments, so accessible and so available that one no longer needs any sort of talent or intellect to become a celebrity. A great number of people read about, seek information on, talk about, and follow celebrity news all the time. As discussed by James Chapman in the Daily Mail in 2003, this type of societal fanatic infatuation is called celebrity worship syndrome:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-176598/Do-worship-celebs.html

According to the article by Chapman, there are three different dimensions of celebrity worship syndrome. The lowest level relates to the entertainment theory discussed in Barans and Davis which “conceptualizes and explicates key psychological mechanisms underlying audience and enjoyment of entertainment-oriented media content” (249). In this first dimension, fans are drawn to the celebrities in a casual way, taking pleasure in the talents of the celebrity, and chatting about them with other fans. Fans of the middle dimension feel they share an intensive personal connection to and about the celebrity. The third level of celebrity worship syndrome is characterized by obsessive behaviors and fantasies such as fantasizing about marrying that celebrity.

As seen in the past, a fan’s love for a celebrity has become perilous. Do you believe that this “celebrity worship syndrome” is a real illness? Or is it too ridiculous, too difficult to believe?
In a second article, it is stated that celebrity worship syndrome is one that people should make themselves aware of since almost one-third of the world’s population is affected by this illness. Those who suffer from this have extremely diminished self esteem as well as depression and anxiety. As Jenson writes, “fandom is seen as excessive, bordering on deranged, behavior” (320). For those in fear of having this illness, the article does provide guidelines to help the reader diagnose the dimension he or she is in within this syndrome:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/312088/celebrity_worship_syndrome_do_you_have.html?cat=4

So is society’s fascination in the lives of the rich and famous a healthy hobby or a dangerous addiction? Even if a person’s celebrity-following is to a minimum, can it really be considered as just a healthy, innocent hobby if it has the possibility to lead to a dangerous addiction? Do you think it is more or less common amongst certain demographics than others?

I'm so much cooler online

What has media dependency become? It used to be just tuning into your favorite TV show, or checking the scores of your favorite team online. Now, we have become dependent on much more than that. As media continues to evolve, people have begun to depend on the media as an outlet to mask their personality. A 5'7" brunette can be a 6'0" blonde. And why not? No one will ever know...right? Yet, it's not only the physical traits people are altering through online social networks...it is personality traits as well. On Facebook, under 'Interests', one can write whatever he/she desires. Why not put a similar interest as your class crush? Maybe he/she will see it! Or maybe not. Then what? Then are you just a liar? A sell-out? Someone who has altered their personality online just to seem more appealing to your so-called "audience"? And let's be honest. That's what we all are. Just audience members to each other's Twitter page, audience members to each other's Facebook page, and audience members to each other's text messages. P.S. - I can't wait to check my phone after I write this blog.

So what has an audience evolved into? What has a fan evolved into? McQuail speaks about fans and fan behavior. I have to say. I don't know if I agree with McQuail's definition of what a fan is. Let's be serious here...if someone checks John Mayer's Twitter page everyday, does that make them a fan? What is he/she a fan of? His Twitter updates? Or is a real fan someone who appreciates his music...his art? I'd say so. But what do I know, right? It's these people who are under this delusion that if they check a celebrity's Facebook status/Twitter update, they will feel as though they actually know the celebrity. What if their lying? We know that people lie about their status all the time. What makes everyone so sure celebrities don't do the same? No, no, no...Angelina Jolie would never lie to her fans. And it doesn't just stop at celebrities. We check each other's Facebook page and Twitter page just as much...and are under the same delusion about one another.

So, who can we trust? If people are depending on the internet to make them look more appealing to their friends, foes, and the opposite sex, how can we know what's true and what's not? Is this a bad thing? Sure, an individual should certainly be thankful for what they have and be confident enough in themselves that people will like them for who they are. But let's be honest, it doesn't work that way. In an article from Scientific American Magazine entitled, "The Truth About Online Dating", a man tells his story about a woman he met online through a dating website who he grew fond of through the emails they exchanged. When he met her in person, she looked nothing like the pictures she sent him. In fact, she was a totally different person! Now, he did admit that they shared a number of interests, and he enjoyed her company...but, she sent him a fake photo. Does one cancel out the other? I don't think so. Bottom line, it's lying. What do you think? In my opinion, she hid what she looked like to trick the guy into going out with her. So is this an issue on Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter? I don't think a lot of people are putting up fake photos of themselves; however, I do believe people are altering their personalities to seem "cooler".

Baran and Davis speak about the Entertainment Theory and how people don't really know why they depend on different media outlets. Is it for entertainment reasons or something else? I believe it is used as an escape from reality. Facebook is an online community that differs from every day life. Your Facebook personality can be completely different than your actual personality. Should they be one in the same? Is this bad? To be honest...I don't really care. Let someone alter what they are interested in or what they look like through the internet. Because if I meet a girl who is supposed to be a 5'10" blonde and is actually a 5'4" brunette...to me that just means this is a girl who is a 5'4" brunette who wishes she was a 5'10" blonde. Perhaps her online identity is the least of her personal issues. And I'm not picking on women here. I know for a fact that men have what I like to call, "courageous thumbs". I know every guy who is reading this blog right now has sent a text to a 'crush' saying something way more courageous than anything you would have said in person. So, is this bad? Is this good? Has the media impersonalized relationships? Has the media given people an escape? The truth is that people hide behind the media. They use the media as a shield to hide who they really are. But, let's be honest. You can't hide forever. Some how, some way, it all comes out eventually...doesn't it?

The Media: Entertainment or Necessity?

Television, the internet, Twitter, YouTube, and texting. What would we all do without any of these? The media has become such a major part of our lives that it is hard to think of society without it. Thinking back to 1998, I had one or two television shows I liked to watch. I didn't need to check the internet. In fact, other than homework the only times I ever used the computer was for games like solitaire. Society has changed so much in that aspect that we now surround ourselves with all forms of the media. Have our lives become overly consumed by the media?

In an article written by Annie Stamwell, (link below) she suggests that because of Twitter and twitpic people can now "be places" without physically being there. People use social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, to know what is going on in other peoples lives. Whether they are friends, enemies, famous, or not, you can know what people are doing 24/7. After having these abilities, people become reliant on it. They need it.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annie-stamell/tv-and-twitter-go-togethe_b_419026.html)

According to the Entertainment Theory, some people don't think they use the media for the actual reasons they do. For example, people may think they are checking Twitter or watching TV for pure entertainment purposes when it may be another reason such as altering your mood or trying to be socially involved. It is also suggests that people "could have been 'conditioned' by past experiences with media content to know which forms of content will induce feelings that you unconsciously want to experience" (Baran & Davis 258). For whatever reason we do chose to use the media, does it not seem like we rely on it in our lives a little too much sometimes?

Looking at our incessant use of the media, and reading about fans and fan behavior, I feel it is safe to say that we are all fans of the media. We make use of the media every day. A fan "is seen as being brought into existence by the modern celebrity system, via the mass media" (McQuail 343). Because of what we can do with the media today, anyone can be famous. Celebrities use Twitter constantly, and it is a way we feel connected to them. Fans have also been described as "crazed." Would you not go "crazy" if you didn't have access to any form of the media for even one whole day?

It is hard to ignore the media. Some form of the media is everywhere you turn. It may not be a personal experience for you, but think about the people you know. Do you know anyone that is too dependent on the media? What happens when the internet is down and the cable isn't working? Is there a solution to the rising dependency we have on the media, or is it even a problem to begin with?

Love at First Click?

Love at first sight is one of the oldest clichés. What does this quote mean in the 21^st century with all the newest dating and relationship technologies? Today many people are heading to the Internet for love. So the question is can you find real love through website questionarires, email and instant messaging?

“The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating,” a study by Larry D. Rosen, Nancy A. Cheever, Cheyenne Cummings, and Julie Felt says it is estimated that 40 million Americans visit online dating services monthly and that 25% of singles have tried one. Also, 14% of singles were dating; married to, or engaged to someone they met online (Rosen, Cheever, Cummings, & Felt, 2007).

In the Baran and Davis reading, they describe the five elements, or basic assumptions of the uses-and-gratifications model. One of the elements states “value judgments regarding the audience’s linking its needs to specific media or content should be suspended” (Baran & Davis 241). This means people use the media in different ways and people view the media in different ways. Some people view online dating sites as “creepy” because you never know whom you’re really talking to. However, some people swear by them. How do you think people perceive relationships that began online? Is there a stigma attached?

Baran and Davis write, “Defenders of new media advocate the merits of using social networking websites, e-mail, and text messaging to maintain contact with a wide variety of friends,” (Baran & Davis 241) I think this idea can be related to relationships. I’m sure many of us know someone or was the person who came to college with a boyfriend and girlfriend and realized they couldn’t do the long distance relationship. However, some people still do this everyday. Do you think with technologies like webcams and text messaging, it is possible to maintain a relationship where two people barely see each other in the “real” world?

The second idea I ask is why do people turn to online relationships to begin with? In the Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual, Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch write, “The media compete with other sources of need satisfaction. The needs served by mass communication constitute but a segment of the wider range of human needs,” (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 165) For billions of people love is a human need and they want to find their “soul mate.” Has the Internet just made it easier to do that? Has it made it easier to fulfill our need for love?

The smartphone: Making all other Mediums Obsolete?

Living in a society where technology is continuously advancing, cell phones are making once popular devices obsolete. Already replacing traditional home telephone landlines, smartphones are about to evolve into next generation's source for all mediums. In Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch's "Utilization of mass communication by the individual", the refer to

"...the relationship between unique grammar of different media-that is, their specific technological and aesthetic attributes-and the particular requirements of audience members that they are capable or incapable of satisfying" (Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch, 5).

In the past 20 years we have seen the Internet start to replace older mediums such as newspaper and radio. Today it now has a high viewership rate for TV and movies. In a fast paced, never stopping society, is it realistic to think these capabilities can all be replaced and become obsolete due to the smartphone?

A smartphone is a cell phone with superior computer-like abilities. The advanced mobile device offers applications such as email, Internet, and music software. Essentially a computer with telephone capabilities, the sophisticated device could potentially be the source for all other mediums.

The Internet is the best example of this theory. According to Information Week, an online survey revealed that "30% of smartphone users say they use their devices for enterprise connectivity, and 37% either occasionally or frequently leave their laptops at home in favor of their smartphones" (Wolfe, 2008). Given the increasing advancements these phone have made in a short period of time, it seems likely that they can take over this market share sooner rather than later. Looking at this trend, could you realistically see your main source of all media being your cell phone?

"Old media increasingly competes for our attention with a growing range of new media that serve similar needs more cheaply, easily, and efficiently" (Baran and Davis, 240). Given this notion, the smartphone is becoming the easiest and most efficient device to access all mediums making it hard to deny that it could make all other sources obsolete.

In the chapter "Audience Theories: Uses, Receptions, and Effects", Baran and Davis explain that "...people weigh the level of the reward (gratification) they expect from a given medium or message against how much effort they must make to secure that reward" (232). This theory helps make the argument for the smartphone. Being that there are essentially no limitations, why wouldn't you choose it over any other medium? If people are weighing the level of the reward on effort, many will choose the ease of the smartphone.

Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch explain that "...individuals use communications, among other resources in their environment, to satisfy their needs to achieve their goals..."(3). If this approach is true, is there any easier and more efficient way to do this then by using a device that can access anything simply from the palm of your hand?

Is the Internet replacing Television?

Over the past decade, the Internet has become increasingly more popular. It seems like every year, a new social networking website explodes out of nowhere. First, we had Myspace, then Facebook and now Twitter. On Twitter, users can update their status to tell their friends what they are doing at the moment. During the 2010 Winter Olympics, users could “tweet” as they watched the games and could discuss what was going on in the games. If fans on the east coast can tweet what is going on during the Olympics, will it ruin it for fans on the west coast? Will the fans on the west coast still watch the games even when they know what is happening?


According to this article, “Water-Cooler Effect: Internet Can Be TV’s Friend,” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/media/24cooler.html?ref=television) the Internet actually can be more helpful than harmful to Olympic viewership. In fact, ratings for the Olympics were up this year, possibly because of websites like Twitter. The article also refers to the incident at the 2009 Video Music Awards where Kanye West rudely interrupted Taylor Swift. The show had the highest amount of viewers than it has in six years. The increased ratings in these already popular television programs suggests that using social media websites while watching television can actually make viewers more interested. Although they know what is going to happen, some viewers will still tune in because they want to actually see it happen. Social media websites like Twitter and Facebook allow people to have online water-cooler conversations. Do you think social media websites are positively affecting viewership? Are you more likely to watch a program if it is talked about, or do you only watch if you had an interest in it in the first place? Does it take away from the excitement if you know what is going to happen, or does it make it more thrilling to expect it?


In describing the five elements of the uses-and-gratifications model, Elihu Katz, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch say that “in the current media environment, old media increasingly compete for our attention with a growing range of new media that serve similar needs more cheaply, easily, or efficiently” (Baran and Davis 240). Do you think new media could eventually wipe out old media? Could old and new media form a friendship, as the article suggests?


The increasing popularity of social media websites help audiences be more active. Rather than discussing a new episode of a TV show or the latest current event at the water-cooler at work, we are now able to make small talk online instantly after we see or hear something. In “Utilization of Mass Communication By the Individual,” Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch suggest that “mass communication is used by individuals to connect themselves – via instrumental, affective, or integrative relations – with different kinds of others” (166). Social media websites such as Twitter help people connect instantly, while television offers more of an implied connection. On social media websites, you can actually interact with other individuals rather than just feeling a sense of connection to others who are viewing the same media content. You can share your opinion and interact with those who have similar or opposite views. You do not have to wait until the next day because you can discuss the topic immediately. Do you think this instant connection can be beneficial or harmful to audiences? As far as water-cooler discussions, if we discuss everything online immediately, will there be difficulty making conversation in person the next day?

Iraq War, Media & Politcs, Oh My!

“We want free speech for many reasons. Some involve essentially individual interests; others, the public interest or the common good. Some have to do with politics…others concern intellectual values like the truth.” (Lictenberg/McQuail)

Freedom of speech is one of the constitutional rights that are most valued in the United States. When I think of freedom of speech I consider it in relation to politics and media. I believe the war in Iraq is a topic that is covered in a very “delicate” way. Last week in the NY Times (online) the main story displayed was about the top celebrity talents and on the side in small print was a short story (with no visual aid to grab the reader’s attention) about the war. I personally feel that the war is a topic that is vaguely covered in the news. I think that if more visuals would be shown people would remember that we are actually in a war instead of being able to displace this truth far from their minds.

In chapter 14 McQuail addresses how there is a limited amount of ‘mass media space-time’ and there is only so much news that can be aired on major channels of mass communication. The problem with this is how (or who) decides what stories should be covered and how. He proposes certain factors for why and how the news gets covered, these ideas include: new organizations that belong to large corporations that have the say of what gets covered and how, economic influences (proposing stories to captivate the largest audience wheatear the story is most news-worthy or not), manipulation by government officials, media characteristics that can distort or constrain the stories (and how they are delivered.)

In this YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKSk9uwg7LI protesters fight the media and how it covers the Iraq war. In fact one of the protesters signs boldly states “media lies, people die.” They argue that the media never reports on the Iraq war in a sufficient way. They are boycotting the news coverage not for LACK of information, but for manipulating the minds of Americans into thinking that everything revolved around the American involvement in the war is good and pure when in reality they are responsible for inhumane and criminal acts. Due to lack of news coverage are we as Americans being manipulated by our media and government into believing that the war is something it’s not? Should the Media be held responsible and be obligated to cover stories more accurately so the American people do not blindly back their country?

In the reading from Baran & David (chapter 5) the idea of Social Responsibility is presented. They explain how during the time of the cold war Joseph McCarthy, was able to manipulate the minds of Americans through propaganda and was able to stir hatred towards certain minorities or people. Much like how Hitler was able to gain support through falsely advertising himself and reporting false truths, we must think of the consequences of what is reported past the initial airing. When we look at the manipulation from leaders we must demand the truth about the Iraq war. Not only so we are represented properly by our nation, but so we can support causes that are just and not misrepresented. For reasons of manipulation prevention and false “advertisement” do you think it is important that the media is held responsible for accurately showing the facts of the Iraq war?

“There’s not a seriousness to the coverage and there’s not an empathy to the coverage.” (J. Scahill)
In this YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3kQXs-KMIQ&feature=PlayList&p=8BDF46EE3328D4DC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=11 Jeremy Scahill discusses how the media leaves the American people blind to the reality and severity of what the Americans are doing over in Iraq. He blatantly says that the majority of Americans can NOT accurately tell you the death count of Iraqi people however almost every American can tell you the name of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby’s father. Is this just news coverage?


After reading the assigned reading and viewing the provided YouTube clips I think we must ask ourselves if the media should be held responsible for the lack of information provided to the people in regards to the war. Should we as Americans be forced to view the truth about the war through media coverage wheatear we like it or not? If the media covered news more accurately would we therefore be forced to stand up and say this is ‘not going to happen in my name anymore?’ Because of the lack of information and truth provided through media outlets, is America and the Media therefore misrepresenting us?

Tiger Woods: Media Interest or Public Interest?

One of the main objectives of the press is to act in the interest of the public, but where is the line drawn between media interest and public interest? Society in general, and more specifically, our generation is immersed in technology and the media. We constantly need to know what is going on with whom and we need to obtain our information as soon as possible.

Social responsibility theory analyzes the pros and cons of the amount of freedom the media should have and when control should be enforced. When discussing this theory, Baran and Davis say that “these controversies are not easily resolved… the conflict between our basic belief in freedom of press and our desire to build a humane, meaningful society in which all people can live safely and with dignity” (Baran & Davis, 97). Is there any way to compromise the amount of freedom the press should exert when the safety and dignity of an individual or the public is at stake?

The media provides various outlets to receive news, but is it always of what is in the public interest, or do they just find a way to mask their own interest by appealing to the public?

Celebrity culture has gained popularity and although athletes are recognized for their talents, once scandal is involved, it seems to overlook any other aspect that defines them. Even people who aren’t sports fans all of a sudden find a spark of interest once celebrity statuses are negotiated by scandal. Tiger Woods held a press conference to speak out about his affairs and offer an apology. The 13 and a half minute apology can be summed up in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_tiger_woods

Tiger Woods achieved much success in his golf career, but it was this scandal that gave him a great deal of attention. In discussions on the press and public interest, Everette E. Dennis explains that “the press/public interest would be measured in terms of the degree to which the press fostered the free flow of information and satisfied the justifiable information needs of its consumers” (McQuail, 170). With many celebrities, people often feel a closer connection to them when they learn of their personal life, but are their personal lives really of public interest? Or is it the media that has triggered the public to think that it is?

Dennis also mentions the idea of a free flow of information as “…allowing the purveyors of communication maximum freedom, the means for the free flow of information to the public is determined” (McQuail, 165). The public puts a greater trust in the press when they receive honest and abundant information, and when there is not a free flow of information from one media outlet, they will turn to another. The media has made it as simple as a click of a button to get any information on any topic. You probably know who Tiger Woods is, but unless you are an avid golf fan, you will probably be able to estimate the number of affairs he has had closer than the number of PGA tours he has won. Do you think the public’s need to know comes from their own personal interest or from an idea instilled by the media?

Posted by Michelle Squires

Free Flow of Information vs. Too Much Information?

As students of Media Studies, we know that an important function of the media is to provide the public with a free flow of information, especially when that information is in the public interest. Indeed, Judith Lichtenberg cites the theory held by Alexander Meiklejohn in her article “Foundations and Limitations of the Freedom of the Press”, which says that the First Amendment freedoms ensure that the media can serve its “informative function: Free speech permits the flow of information necessary for citizens to make informed decisions” [McQuail 177]. However, we must ask ourselves: when is the free flow of information too much information?

Last week, as the 2010 Winter Olympics began in Vancouver, what is usually a joyous and exciting occasion was marred by tragedy. As we all know, a Georgian luge athlete named Nodar Kumaritashvili was killed during a practice run on the same day that the Opening Ceremony was held. Obviously, NBC was put into a very tough situation as a result—they had to cover the story, to ignore it would have been unacceptable, but exactly how much coverage would be appropriate? NBC made the decision to air footage of the crash, and as is the custom for most news coverage, they showed it repeatedly, in regular and slow motion, and they even showed his lifeless body being attended to by the first responders, despite the fact that he was already dead. Of course, a warning that the footage would be graphic and disturbing preceded the airing, but not everyone would have been able to see that warning.

Was the airing of this footage really necessary? Of course, a tragedy like this happening at such a major event like the Olympics is clearly something that is in the public interest, so the media has a responsibility to present this information to the public. But, when we as the public hear that an Olympic athlete has died in a horrific crash, do we really need to see the crash to understand the gravity of the situation? Or should the media trust its audience enough to know that we will understand the tragedy without having to see it?

Many news outlets have given their opinion on whether or not showing this footage was the right decision, and most agreed that the airing of the footage, despite the fact that NBC placed a warning before it, was gratuitous and unnecessary. You can read more of their opinions here: http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Should-NBC-have-shown-video-of-Nodar-Kumaritashv?urn=oly,219497 (like NBC, I will warn you that this article contains a picture of the crash) and here: http://www.examiner.com/x-14552-Social-Media-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Winter-Olympics-luger-death-How-much-visual-media-is-too-much

An important factor we must think about here is privacy. Obviously, this young man had family and loved ones who surely would not want to see his final moments played out over and over again for millions to see. As Cheryl Phillips pointed out in her article from Examiner.com, Kumaritashvili’s father has been quoted as saying that he refuses to watch the footage, so why should the rest of the world have to? It should be noted that in the end, NBC was largely praised for their handling of the situation, especially after they announced that they would not be showing the footage again—though, in the age of YouTube and the Internet, footage is never truly “gone”.

But, would putting restrictions on what is too much information hinder the ability of the media to freely dispense information regarding other matters? There have been countless court cases related to the freedom of the press, and as Everette Dennis pointed out in “The Press and the Public Interest: A Definitional Dilemma”, the courts have largely held that “the free flow of information is in the public interest” [McQuail 166]. Should we accept that in order to get as much information as we can in other situations, we will have to deal with being shown things we might not want to see or know about?

Many questions are present in this situation. The readings mention that journalists and media professionals must follow a code of ethics. Do you believe that NBC handled this story professionally and in an ethical way? Do you think it was right for NBC to show the footage in the first place? What could they have done differently? What do you think proponents of the social responsibility theory would say about this controversy? Finally, would putting restrictions on the free flow of information undermine the functioning of the media?

Turned Away or Drawn In

I’m sure you’ve all heard about the recent tragedy that occurred at the Winter Olympics on February 12^th when 21 year old luger Nodar Kumaritashvili of the republic of Georgia passed away during his final trial run. Evidently, various athletes have complained about the speed of the course because it continues dropping all the way to the end where as other courses flatten out before reaching the bottom. Just to give you an idea of the speed’s reached at the Whistler Sliding Center a new world record speed was recorded at Whistler on February 21, 2009, when a men’s luger reached 95 mph during competition. Before this, American luger Tony Benshoof held the world record at a speed of 86.8 mph which he set in 2001.

Kumaritashvili crashed and was thrown into the air out of the track where he struck a steel pole on his last turn and was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. The video of his crash is extremely gruesome and I find most news coverage of his crash particularly controversial due to how graphic it is. I searched through a variety of news stations websites and I found that very few were professional regarding the incident. MTV for example has a photograph of Kumaritashvili laying lifeless on the ground after the crash with a pool of blood around his head. (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1631877/20100212/story.jhtml) Do you believe that this image is newsworthy and that it should have been posted? I then found that CNN had an image very similar on their website, however they had been sure to angle the camera so that the photograph would not have blood in it. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/02/12/olympic.luge.crash/index.html)

On MSNBC’s website I then found a slideshow with 27 images of Kumaritashvili before the crash, images of him in the air, an image of medical staff working on him and then images of people mourning his loss. (http://www.nbcolympics.com/photos/galleryid=412282.html#photos)

I also found that CBS had posted a video of the crash on their website which was shown up until he hit the pole and was laying motionless. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6202459n) Do you believe that it was professional for CBS to air the crash video as well as to post it on their website?

I read that in order to minimize harm and be professional in cyberjournalism that journalists must, “Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief” (Baran & Davis 121) Do you feel that MTV minimized harm when posting the photograph of Kumaritashvili with a pool of blood? What do you think that MTV could have done differently? During the time when yellow journalism was prevalent, the majority of media professionals cared little about public sensitivity then the concept of professionalism in the media came to be and its goal was to eliminate shoddy and irresponsible content.(Baran & Davis 97) When it comes to the news coverage of Kumaritashvili’s deathly crash, do you believe that no images or videos should have been aired or posted on news websites? Do you believe that any of the four news stations whose websites I posted above were responsible with their coverage of this story? Does anyone have any other news stations reports of Kumaritashvili’s death that they recall that were even more graphic?

We all know that every organization that isn’t non-profit, aims its efforts at making money which is exactly what these news stations are doing. “News organizations are driven economically to capture the largest possible audience, and thus not to turn it off with whatever does turn it off—coverage that is too contro-versial, too demanding, too disturbing” (McQuail 173) Do you believe that the majority of people would turn off news coverage that is extremely graphic such as some news stations graphic video coverage or images of Kumaritashvili’s crash as this quote implies? Also, do you believe that the crash video itself, with no close up of Kumaritashvili’s lifeless bloody body is professional to show? And, can you think of any other news stories that you feel the news should have been more sensitive with?

Olivia Kravitz