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?
I definitely agree with this blog. I think people do in fact hide behind the Internet and other technologies. However, I also think people use technologies to feel good about themselves. Baran and Davis write this about a subtheory of the entertainment theory called mood management theory, “It argues that a predominant motivation for using entertainment media is to moderate or control or moods.” (Baran and Davis 256) They use listening to music when you’re in a bad mood as an example. However, I know many people whose mood can be changed by someone “liking” their status or writing on their wall on Facebook. I had a friend freshman year that would always tell everyone about all the “friends” she had on Facebook. Meanwhile, she didn’t even know most of them she would just friend people all the time but she thought she was cool because she had like two thousand friends.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, by Joli Jensen, she writes this about fandom, “fans suffer from psychological inadequacy, and are particularly vulnerable to media influence and crowd contagion. They seek contact with famous people in order to compensate for their own inadequate lives.” (Jensen 349) I think this can relate to people who go online to express themselves. They use Facebook “friends” and Twitter “followers” to feel good about themselves. It’s almost like they are trying to be the celebrity and get as many “fans” as they can. This doesn’t have to be a bad thing either. If you’re being yourself and finding people with similar interests then why not. They are technically social networking sites. But if you’re pretending to be someone you’re not then all you’re really doing is lying.
I definitely agree with Mike’s blog. I feel that people are always self conscious about some aspect of the appearance and I definitely believe that people write what they think will make them look “cool” to everyone else. I think that dating websites are the perfect example and the fact that people send pictures that aren’t even of themselves to me is completely ridiculous. Do they honestly not believe that if they actually met a person face to face that person wouldn’t realize they aren’t who they’ve been pretending to be? To me, if you are pretending to be someone else then you are clearly a severely insecure individual. It seems the only possible reason why people would do this is to have online relationships with others and never have to meet face to face, thus they can have another identity. We learned in my other class about a girl named Autumn Edows who was seriously insecure and didn’t feel loved. Autumn decided to make a website for herself (a rather provocative one at that) in which she transformed into some sort of a gothic barely clothed person and immediately gained a huge audience full of positive feedback. I note this story just to explain that perhaps these people use fake pictures in order to have people talk positively about them to make themselves feel good because they don’t get that in real life.
ReplyDeleteI think of facebook and the fact that people are constantly changing their profile pictures in an effort to put the best picture of themselves they can find on display (I think everyone has done this…more than once). Also, now there are all of these Photoshop and image altering programs where people can change the coloring of photo’s and manipulate and edit photos so that they are as attractive as possible. To me it seems like no one is perfectly comfortable in his or her own skin and everyone always wants something they don’t have whether it’s to be shorter, taller, skinnier, (usually not fatter) have blonde hair, have brown hair, have blue eyes, have green eyes. Nobody is ever perfectly content with “what their momma gave them.” I completely agree that we are all audiences to each other’s facebook pages, text messages and so on. Whenever I am bored I go on facebook to see what has popped up on my news feed, I unconsciously log on to facebook to check updates even though what could have possibly changed in the past 10 minutes? Facebook is a matter of uses and gratifications I believe, however it’s not that I even expect any sort of a reward other than procrastination and updating myself on the lives of my friends. Schramm wrote “people weigh the level of reward (gratification) they expect from a given medium or message against how much effort they must make to secure that reward” (Baran & Davis 232). Facebook is so quick to log on to and now that we can automatically save our passwords, the process of logging on takes almost no effort at all.
I too disagree with Jensen’s definition of what a fan is and I don’t believe that there are two types of fans. In all of the reading I have done and all of the MSS classes I have taken I have decided one thing; the studying of critical audiences will never be “right”. What I mean is that we can’t perform studies and categorize fans due to their levels of devotion or even their actions. The fact is, all people are different and all people will act and react differently in the same situation. I strongly disagree with Jensen’s statement that “the fan is defined as a response to the star system” (Jensen 343). I believe that I am a fan of facebook (as are most college students) but the “star system” had nothing to do with any of us becoming fans of facebook. We are not “a result of a celebrity” (Jensen 343) we are simply people who have hobbies and if anything, we were drawn to facebook due to the fact that it is a sort of currency amongst people our age. If we aren’t on facebook, we are out of the loop, we are not as updated on people’s lives as we would be if we had facebook and could read their statuses, write on one another’s walls and stalk their pictures. I believe someone who religiously attends John Mayer concerts would be considered a fan of John Mayer, however following someone on twitter is not the same. If you are a fan of…let’s say Brad Pitt, you will perhaps follow him on twitter, have watched nearly every movie he is in and wish that one day you could meet him in person. Jensen explains that fans who have a para-social interaction with a celebrity and thus believe that they have some sort of a relationship, eventually they will seek actual contact. Is this saying that since I wish I could meet Brad Pitt and Lil Wayne one day that I will have “become dissatisfied and attempt to establish actual contact…” (Jensen 347). Jensen then writes, “…the fan, unable to consummate his desired social relations ‘normally,’ seeks celebrity contact in the hope of gaining the prestige and influence he or she psychologically needs, but cannot achieve in anonymous, fragmented modern society” (Jensen 347). I believe that this is totally unethical, since when is being a fan of a celebrity placing you on the edge of being totally insane. I believe that the issue of fandom has clearly been taken too far and Jensen is extremely over-thinking what it means to be a fan as well as the number of “crazies” there are. Jensen is making it seem as though the majority of fans are deranged and nuts. I am a fan of Lil Wayne and I love his music and I would die to meet him (not literally) but I wouldn’t go off and try to kill him, view him as an actual friend (I wish) or stalk him I would simply be pumped I got to meet him face to face.
ReplyDeleteI think that the internet is a scary thing. In reality anyone can do anything in any way they want. Anyone can be anyone and while hiding behind their computer they can have an alter ego. Facebook is an online community and can be looked at as a dating community. If I have up pictures of me that are from 5 years ago and don’t look like me anymore how will anyone know? How will anyone know the truth about anything they read of see online. We hear about online scams all the time and maybe the biggest scam of all is the false selling of ourselves.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Mikey’s blog I tried to think of a way that I have altered my ego in a way via the internet. I have never taken on a complete different image or personality, but I have put up pictures that look like I had an amazing time even when I didn’t. Simply because, it’s easy to draw your life out to be perfect when you can proofread it.
McQuail’s chapter 29 discusses the ideal romance. The theory behind this is that analyizing the ideal romance consists of three essential stages : an initial situation, a final transformation of that situation, and an intermediary intervention that causes and explains the change. (pg. 312) The analysis of the ideal romance can be related to how people think. Since this chapter broke down the process of the idea romance by explaining situations between a heroine and hero, it is easy to say we know how people think. Because of this we are more able to predict individual actions and can see why and how an individual might manipulate their image or personality via the internet. Because of the search for the idea romance and observance of interactions between parties, it is safe to say that the media is responsible for why an individual may want to manipulate their true being through means of the internet.
In one of my classes we were talking about senators who ‘tweet.’ One of my classmates said her summer internship was being responsible solely for updating his twitter! Does this make him a phony? If people are genuinely a fan or have an interest in this man, does someone else stepping in for him alter their loyalty or reputation?
In Baran and Davis’s chapter 9 they discuss the idea of targeting. They define targeting as “identifying specific audience segments and reaching them through the most efficient available channel.” (pg.260) The idea of targeting is how marketing teams use the media to best reach their target demographic audience. However, when we look at how the consumer of media uses the internet we can refer to them as marketers as well. For example, an individual uses facebook, twitter or match.com to SELL themselves to the TARGETED man of their dream. Isn’t their personality/image manipulation the same as major companies using the media to target their desired audience? Is all of the media just one big outlet to buy, sell and possibly manipulate consumers?
When it comes to the idea of who to trust on the internet the answer is simple: TRUST NOONE! People can be whoever they want and easily manipulate anyone. When I read this blog I thought of “online bullies.” Many students have used the internet to bully others online. Many times arguments take place on the computer because they have the protection of their screen to hide behind and are more willing to say things they otherwise might have omitted. I have even gotten an apology e-mail from one of my ROOMATES who was to scared to approach me. Is the internet going to prevent us from being able to adapt to the real world? With everything and conversations online is our generation doomed on interviews and REAL face-to-face interactions? The internet is impersonalizing and also less mentally stimulating.
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. Somehow, some way, it all comes out eventually...doesn't it?