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?