A big part of the way you receive information has to do with not only gatekeeping, like we discussed last week, but also framing. According to McQuail, “framing is a way of giving some overall interpretations to isolated items of fact” (379). Sometimes a newspaper presents a story a certain way that they don’t get their intended point across. For example after running an article entitled For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk, on Thursday February 21, 2008 the New York Times encountered a lot of angry readers because they felt that it was unfair to Senator McCain. In the article the Times claims that many people were concerned about his relationship with a female lobbyist during his first run for president in 2000. It claimed that some of his top advisors were “convinced the relationship romantic.” The paper received so many comments and letters that three days later the public editor wrote an editorial entitled, What That McCain Article Didn’t Say. It stated that the executive editor of the times said “the article about John McCain that appeared in Thursday’s paper was about a man nearly felled by scandal who rebuilt himself as a fighter against corruption but is still ‘careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that’s a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States’.” But that’s not what a lot of people took away from the article. A lot of people saw it as an article about a sex scandal with a few other things mixed in.
Like McQuail says, “when information is supplied to news media by sources (as much often is), then it arrives with a built-in frame that suits the purpose of the source and is unlikely to be purely objective” (379). The intention of the article was to show that although it may look like Senator McCain has rebuilt himself that might not be entirely true. But a lot of people saw it as a biased article against him. They felt that his relationship with this woman shouldn’t have been the one of the main focuses of the article. The Times claims they weren’t trying to allege that McCain had an affair, but that the point of the story was “that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.” A lot of readers felt that it wasn’t the Times’ place to talk about this relationship and that they were just trying to plant ideas in people’s minds.
This is an example how a newspaper can frame an issue a certain way and people don’t get the full story, or the story doesn’t come across the way it would have if it was presented by another source. Now here are my questions for you: 1) How effective do you think framing is in planting ideas in people’s heads? 2) Do you think that the New York Times did the right thing by beginning their article by talking about Senator McCain’s relationship with this female lobbyist? 3) Do you think that the candidate’s personal lives are any of our business?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Framing
I'd like to start by quoting McQuail's definition of framing (found on page 378): "...a frame is needed to organize otherwise fragmentary items of experience or information. The idea of a 'frame' in relation to news has been widely and loosely used in place of terms such as 'frame of reference,' 'context,' 'theme,' or even 'news angle.' ...it is also necessary to use the term with some precision, especially when the aim is to study the possible effects of framing of news. In that case the content frame has to be compared with the frame of reference in the mind of an audience member." McQuail continues to say that no journalist is ever able to be completely objective and there is always a tone that indicates some sort of bias.
What McQuail was trying to say is that every piece of media comes off with a subliminal message, especially pertaining to the news. Journalists are supposed to be impartial and objective, but particular word choice and story line-up order indicates certain messages to its audience. Framing is how a piece of media is presented and what message it delivers to the consumer. The slightest change in and adjective in a news package can dramatically sway the impression the audience is getting from the information.
Here's an example. Here are two stories on the same topic by different networks.
Ralph Nader Joins Presidential Race, CNN
Ralph Nader Joins Presidential Race, Fox News
I obviously had to chose this story because Ralph Nader trying to make a comeback is hilarious. Besides that, you can see how CNN frames the story as Nader running is a disgrace to the nation. The journalist got comments from other candidates that emphasized Nader's running is a mistake, and the overall tone of the article was negative. On the other hand, in the Fox News story, the main interview was with Nader himself and was more positive compared to CNN. Both stories are on the front page of their websites as one of the first links, and this is huge national news. Both stories are reporting on the fact that Ralph Nader is running for President as an Independent. But, the two different journalists swayed the stories to their liking and certain impressions were received about this situation due to their way of framing the article.
What are other examples that you have seen of framing? I know that every single night on the news you can tell what the producers believe is most important because they'll run those stories first. Also, over-dramatic language is emphasized in news packages, which encourages bias. It seems like you are unable to obtain any true, objective, factual information from the media anymore. Obviously, with editorials and features the journalist has the freedom to allow their personal opinions enter the framework. But, in general newscasting, objectivity is supposed to be the basis of their work. Factual reporting does not happen anymore.
This is a major issue because it messes with their audiences. Consumers are heavily influenced by what they are exposed to, as we learned from McQuail in the Uses and Gratifications theory. People, in their minds, turn to the news to obtain information. When they are utilizing this resource, they are being exposed to dramatized material and are going to be developing their own personal opinions from tainted sources. Do you feel the same way?
What McQuail was trying to say is that every piece of media comes off with a subliminal message, especially pertaining to the news. Journalists are supposed to be impartial and objective, but particular word choice and story line-up order indicates certain messages to its audience. Framing is how a piece of media is presented and what message it delivers to the consumer. The slightest change in and adjective in a news package can dramatically sway the impression the audience is getting from the information.
Here's an example. Here are two stories on the same topic by different networks.
Ralph Nader Joins Presidential Race, CNN
Ralph Nader Joins Presidential Race, Fox News
I obviously had to chose this story because Ralph Nader trying to make a comeback is hilarious. Besides that, you can see how CNN frames the story as Nader running is a disgrace to the nation. The journalist got comments from other candidates that emphasized Nader's running is a mistake, and the overall tone of the article was negative. On the other hand, in the Fox News story, the main interview was with Nader himself and was more positive compared to CNN. Both stories are on the front page of their websites as one of the first links, and this is huge national news. Both stories are reporting on the fact that Ralph Nader is running for President as an Independent. But, the two different journalists swayed the stories to their liking and certain impressions were received about this situation due to their way of framing the article.
What are other examples that you have seen of framing? I know that every single night on the news you can tell what the producers believe is most important because they'll run those stories first. Also, over-dramatic language is emphasized in news packages, which encourages bias. It seems like you are unable to obtain any true, objective, factual information from the media anymore. Obviously, with editorials and features the journalist has the freedom to allow their personal opinions enter the framework. But, in general newscasting, objectivity is supposed to be the basis of their work. Factual reporting does not happen anymore.
This is a major issue because it messes with their audiences. Consumers are heavily influenced by what they are exposed to, as we learned from McQuail in the Uses and Gratifications theory. People, in their minds, turn to the news to obtain information. When they are utilizing this resource, they are being exposed to dramatized material and are going to be developing their own personal opinions from tainted sources. Do you feel the same way?
The Structure of News: Bias and Framing
As we saw last week, news media has the power to shape what the public feels is and isn't important based on gatekeeping and agenda-setting techniques. Now imagine that the news not only tells you what to think about, but how to think about it. Just when we thought that news reporting is objective and unbiased, when one reads between the lines another story is told. Yes, it's possible: bias and framing techniques work subliminally to set off triggers in the audience/readers minds, giving the media the upper hand when it comes to presenting stories with underlying connotations. According to Entman (1993) in the McQuail text, "Framing involves selection and salience", and goes on to state that "frames define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments and suggest remedies. It is clear that a very large number of textual devices can be used to perform these activities. They include using certain words or phrases, making certain contextual references, choosing certain pictures or film, giving examples as typical, referring to certain sources, etc" (page 378-79).
In order to show exactly what is meant by framing and bias, I have picked out 2 articles from different sources about (essentially) the same topic: the struggles Senator Hillary Clinton is facing in her campaign for nomination to the presidency. The first article is from the New York Times, a traditionally liberal paper but one which holds itself to high journalism standards and practices (nevermind the McCain "romance" story). Entitled "Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens", the article uses war language such as "attacks", "morale", "retreating", "strategy" and "operation" as if she were literally a warrior taking hits in a battle. Even the title (and image, a stoic shot of a weary, wrinkle-lined face) a suggests thoughts along the same lines. A casual reader might think of this as just an article about what is going on on the campaign trail, however subliminally they are fed images of a once-mighty soldier who is now reflecting on the possibility of losing one of the most important battles in her career.
The other article, called "Ohio, Texas Uphill Climbs for Clinton", was posted on FoxNews.com but was written by a journalist for the Associated Press. It also focuses on Sen. Clinton's struggles, but (I feel, anyways) takes a more casual, "mocking" stance. Just look at the first 3 sentences (copied here):
Melissa
In order to show exactly what is meant by framing and bias, I have picked out 2 articles from different sources about (essentially) the same topic: the struggles Senator Hillary Clinton is facing in her campaign for nomination to the presidency. The first article is from the New York Times, a traditionally liberal paper but one which holds itself to high journalism standards and practices (nevermind the McCain "romance" story). Entitled "Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens", the article uses war language such as "attacks", "morale", "retreating", "strategy" and "operation" as if she were literally a warrior taking hits in a battle. Even the title (and image, a stoic shot of a weary, wrinkle-lined face) a suggests thoughts along the same lines. A casual reader might think of this as just an article about what is going on on the campaign trail, however subliminally they are fed images of a once-mighty soldier who is now reflecting on the possibility of losing one of the most important battles in her career.
The other article, called "Ohio, Texas Uphill Climbs for Clinton", was posted on FoxNews.com but was written by a journalist for the Associated Press. It also focuses on Sen. Clinton's struggles, but (I feel, anyways) takes a more casual, "mocking" stance. Just look at the first 3 sentences (copied here):
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's must-win states of Ohio and Texas are no cakewalk for her, largely because independents and crossover Republicans are welcome to vote in their Democratic primaries.
The political calendar of late winter has been less than kind to the embattled presidential contender, who once figured that a big day in early February would affirm her march to the presidential nomination and the rest would be icing.
Instead, it's been slippery ice at every turn, and Ohio and Texas contests on March 4 matter greatly, crucial tests in her big-state fallback strategy.
It sounds from FoxNews.com article as if Sen. Clinton foolishly thought the upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio were going to be easy, but now she's misstepping and slipping on the ice everywhere. Words connoting "military-style" language, as in the NY Times article, are also present here in the forms of "embattled", while Senator Barack Obama is surrounded by words like "strength", "mobilized", and "Obama's forces". The article is supposed to be about Sen. Clinton (which it is), so why do they only quote Sen. Obama?
These are just 2 examples of how journalists can put ideas into readers heads without them knowing it. Hopefully, this will teach us (and others) to read between the lines even more critically than we already have been. Here now are my questions to you: 1.) How effective do you think these and similar techniques are in swaying readers? 2.) Do they have any place in "objective" news reporting, or should it be left to other sources to provide spin? 3.) What effect can framing and bias have in such a close race, and even in other contexts outside of presidential politics?
Melissa
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Agenda Setting, Politics and Talk Shows
McQuail says in the text that "the term 'agenda setting' was coined by McCombs and Shaw to describe a pheomenon which had long been noticed and studied in the context of election campagns". Agenda setting is basically a theory that the media portrays the important issues of the current day to the public, and therefore the public believes and perceives that those issues are THE most important.
The idea of agenda setting began with studying election campaigns. It has grown beyond belief since then. In the article, "When Oprah Intervenes: Political Correlates of Daytime Talk Show Viewing", the authors discuss a number of things. They first discuss the idea of the cultivation theory, which we have already covered. However, then they take on the idea of the agenda setting theory, and describe how daytime talk shows influence opinion formation in the public. Whether it be from Oprah's "My Favorite Things" show around the holidays, to the roles of talk shows in forming opinions in politics.
This article hypothesizes that exposure to daytime talk shows would influence the public, and that the reality of these shows would lead to a positive correlation in public support for the government's involvements on the social issues presented on these talk shows. The study's hypothesis was correct. In McQuail, part of the chapter focuses on the idea of politics, and how "politicians seek to convince voters that the most important issues are those with which they are most closely identified". I believe that part of politicans agenda setting theory in the media involves these talk shows, because this study proves that they are very powerful mechanisms in engaging the public and encourages the public to become invovled. If I were a politican I don't think I could ask for a better tool in my campaign. Almost all of the candidates for this presidential race have appeared on at least one American talk show, which I think is smart because this article proves that the political correlation from talk shows is pretty good.
I'm asking you to read this article about political correlations in talk shows, posted here: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=9&sid=af69c31c-d668-4126-802c-2dfb3c40bb20%40sessionmgr7
First off, what are your thoughts on the agenda setting theory? Do you think that it is a concrete theory or that there are flaws? Also, how do you feel about the theory connected to politics, do you think that it is a powerful mechanism for politicans to use in their campaigns? Finally, how do you think the candidates for this presidential race are using this agenda setting theory, on talk shows in particular?
The idea of agenda setting began with studying election campaigns. It has grown beyond belief since then. In the article, "When Oprah Intervenes: Political Correlates of Daytime Talk Show Viewing", the authors discuss a number of things. They first discuss the idea of the cultivation theory, which we have already covered. However, then they take on the idea of the agenda setting theory, and describe how daytime talk shows influence opinion formation in the public. Whether it be from Oprah's "My Favorite Things" show around the holidays, to the roles of talk shows in forming opinions in politics.
This article hypothesizes that exposure to daytime talk shows would influence the public, and that the reality of these shows would lead to a positive correlation in public support for the government's involvements on the social issues presented on these talk shows. The study's hypothesis was correct. In McQuail, part of the chapter focuses on the idea of politics, and how "politicians seek to convince voters that the most important issues are those with which they are most closely identified". I believe that part of politicans agenda setting theory in the media involves these talk shows, because this study proves that they are very powerful mechanisms in engaging the public and encourages the public to become invovled. If I were a politican I don't think I could ask for a better tool in my campaign. Almost all of the candidates for this presidential race have appeared on at least one American talk show, which I think is smart because this article proves that the political correlation from talk shows is pretty good.
I'm asking you to read this article about political correlations in talk shows, posted here: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=9&sid=af69c31c-d668-4126-802c-2dfb3c40bb20%40sessionmgr7
First off, what are your thoughts on the agenda setting theory? Do you think that it is a concrete theory or that there are flaws? Also, how do you feel about the theory connected to politics, do you think that it is a powerful mechanism for politicans to use in their campaigns? Finally, how do you think the candidates for this presidential race are using this agenda setting theory, on talk shows in particular?
Even the News Needs to Convince the Bouncer
The media concept of gatekeeping is one that we are all familiar with, but are hardly even
conscious of the fact that it shapes our entire perception of media. Think of gatekeeping as the
bouncer at a nightclub or bar- they are the ones that determine who makes the cut, who looks
good enough, who wants or should be seen by the rest of the public in order to be talked about the next day. Gatekeeping is, in itself, a metaphor. According to McQuail, it is “the process by which selections are made in the media work, especially decisions regarding whether or not to allow a particular news report to pass through the ‘gates’ of a news medium into the news channels.” (308). McQuail and a boatload of other media scholars go on to explain that there are several different elements of gatekeeping. It is these elements that decide which stories will be allowed access through the velvet ropes and into the prestigious world of public recognition. I don’t use this bouncer- nightlife metaphor to be extra clever- I use it because a section in the chapter caught my eye and raised a red flag. McQuail spent so much time explaining gatekeeping and listing the primary news values in western media that were legitimate reasons as to why and when we end up hearing certain stories and certain information. For example, the book neatly lists in Box 12.1 the following, “large scale of events, closeness to home, clarity of meaning, short time scale, relevance, consonance, personification, negativity, significance, drama and action.” (310). All these elements seem like appropriate ones in order to make the cut. However, the section I was referring to that seems to make everything McQuail said a wash was on page 312. He notes that “The more prominent the person involved in any sphere, the more attention and privilege access as a source can be expected. News is often reports of what prominent people say about events rather than reports of the events themselves.” Wow. To me, that just makes me even more suspicious and skeptical of what I’m reading on a regular basis. But it makes sense if you look into it even just a little bit. This is what made me think of the bouncer-nightclub idea. We read so much about celebrities, socialites, and athletes (and usually not for their athletic skills) that it trumps the real news that’s out there. It’s not even that we’re reading about them, but also the trivial nonsense about them that sums up McQuail’s entire statement. The political and economic news takes a back seat to the public because the media sources believe that the consumer wants fluff news because it is more glamorous, exciting, simple and quick.
In Rogers and Dearing’s article “Agenda-Setting Research: Where has it Been, Where is it Going?,” they echo McQuail’s statement, saying that: “the media issue agenda as a result of the influence that powerful groups, notably organized business, exerted as a subtle form of social control.” (79). I would place a pretty high wager that these days, more people could tell you about the current status of Britney Spear’s mental health, or how the pregnant stars of Hollywood are doing rather than the issues still raging in Iraq or, probably more connected with this idea, what’s even happening in our local and state governments and economy- the issues that truly affect us. I found an article written by Bill Conroy for the Narco News Bulletin in 2004 that found him comparing the idea of gatekeeping to Stalin. More intense than my bouncer idea, yes, but it gets the point across with even more power. Conroy states, “...Journalism as an institution is Stalin. Everyone who obeys Stalin gets to stay in, gets to work there, gets to make all their money and write all their garbage and use monosyllabic tongue and keep everything in the normal, in the status quo, so nothing gets ruffled, so Stalin can keep the government going. All the people who want to go against the grain and push at their words to make a point, or to get some feeling into their writing, are all ostracized or purged, just like Stalin would do."
So to help you understand gatekeeping, you’ve now got Stalin in a nightclub. A little misleading right? That's essentially what gatekeeping can do to the public- mislead them. The point we’re trying to get across here is that the news and reporting it has become entirely subjective and not objective. You can read the whole article at http://www.narconews.com/Issue33/article1001.html
The first part is about the author and the last is a plug for his workshop- just another example of gatekeeping actually.
But the question that I wanted to ask was basically what do you guys think about all this gatekeeping and agenda setting in the media? I know we as a group tend to look at information in the media more critically anyway because we’ve studied it for a while now, but do you think the average person on the street is being mislead with what the news is allowing us, or not allowing us to read, hear or see? How do you feel about the idea that a very small group of powerful people are controlling a mass, multi-media institution that delivers the news to the public? Do you agree or disagree with the idea we either are or are not receiving the right amount of information, about the right issues? Do you think the public in general will be able to critically analyze the media, question it or break away from the more entertainment style media? Do you think there are any ways to ever move away from this idea of gatekeeping?
See you at the clubs and bars.
Kate
conscious of the fact that it shapes our entire perception of media. Think of gatekeeping as the
bouncer at a nightclub or bar- they are the ones that determine who makes the cut, who looks
good enough, who wants or should be seen by the rest of the public in order to be talked about the next day. Gatekeeping is, in itself, a metaphor. According to McQuail, it is “the process by which selections are made in the media work, especially decisions regarding whether or not to allow a particular news report to pass through the ‘gates’ of a news medium into the news channels.” (308). McQuail and a boatload of other media scholars go on to explain that there are several different elements of gatekeeping. It is these elements that decide which stories will be allowed access through the velvet ropes and into the prestigious world of public recognition. I don’t use this bouncer- nightlife metaphor to be extra clever- I use it because a section in the chapter caught my eye and raised a red flag. McQuail spent so much time explaining gatekeeping and listing the primary news values in western media that were legitimate reasons as to why and when we end up hearing certain stories and certain information. For example, the book neatly lists in Box 12.1 the following, “large scale of events, closeness to home, clarity of meaning, short time scale, relevance, consonance, personification, negativity, significance, drama and action.” (310). All these elements seem like appropriate ones in order to make the cut. However, the section I was referring to that seems to make everything McQuail said a wash was on page 312. He notes that “The more prominent the person involved in any sphere, the more attention and privilege access as a source can be expected. News is often reports of what prominent people say about events rather than reports of the events themselves.” Wow. To me, that just makes me even more suspicious and skeptical of what I’m reading on a regular basis. But it makes sense if you look into it even just a little bit. This is what made me think of the bouncer-nightclub idea. We read so much about celebrities, socialites, and athletes (and usually not for their athletic skills) that it trumps the real news that’s out there. It’s not even that we’re reading about them, but also the trivial nonsense about them that sums up McQuail’s entire statement. The political and economic news takes a back seat to the public because the media sources believe that the consumer wants fluff news because it is more glamorous, exciting, simple and quick.
In Rogers and Dearing’s article “Agenda-Setting Research: Where has it Been, Where is it Going?,” they echo McQuail’s statement, saying that: “the media issue agenda as a result of the influence that powerful groups, notably organized business, exerted as a subtle form of social control.” (79). I would place a pretty high wager that these days, more people could tell you about the current status of Britney Spear’s mental health, or how the pregnant stars of Hollywood are doing rather than the issues still raging in Iraq or, probably more connected with this idea, what’s even happening in our local and state governments and economy- the issues that truly affect us. I found an article written by Bill Conroy for the Narco News Bulletin in 2004 that found him comparing the idea of gatekeeping to Stalin. More intense than my bouncer idea, yes, but it gets the point across with even more power. Conroy states, “...Journalism as an institution is Stalin. Everyone who obeys Stalin gets to stay in, gets to work there, gets to make all their money and write all their garbage and use monosyllabic tongue and keep everything in the normal, in the status quo, so nothing gets ruffled, so Stalin can keep the government going. All the people who want to go against the grain and push at their words to make a point, or to get some feeling into their writing, are all ostracized or purged, just like Stalin would do."
So to help you understand gatekeeping, you’ve now got Stalin in a nightclub. A little misleading right? That's essentially what gatekeeping can do to the public- mislead them. The point we’re trying to get across here is that the news and reporting it has become entirely subjective and not objective. You can read the whole article at http://www.narconews.com/Issue33/article1001.html
The first part is about the author and the last is a plug for his workshop- just another example of gatekeeping actually.
But the question that I wanted to ask was basically what do you guys think about all this gatekeeping and agenda setting in the media? I know we as a group tend to look at information in the media more critically anyway because we’ve studied it for a while now, but do you think the average person on the street is being mislead with what the news is allowing us, or not allowing us to read, hear or see? How do you feel about the idea that a very small group of powerful people are controlling a mass, multi-media institution that delivers the news to the public? Do you agree or disagree with the idea we either are or are not receiving the right amount of information, about the right issues? Do you think the public in general will be able to critically analyze the media, question it or break away from the more entertainment style media? Do you think there are any ways to ever move away from this idea of gatekeeping?
See you at the clubs and bars.
Kate
Saturday, February 16, 2008
"The Real World" becoming MORE cultured?
Today New Haven hosted auditions for “The Real World” Season 21 and I was among those who auditioned. Even though I am well aware that the show “type casts” and has a way of manipulating those on screen, I couldn’t help but be interested in the casting process.
An article in Thursday’s Yale Daily News explains casting director Damon Furberg’s reason for making New Haven among one of the cities visited:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23515
Amid the students questioned about whether they would “seriously consider auditioning” was Janice White who said about the show, “It’s really invasive. People on that show don’t look good.” The show has often been characterized as one that promotes drinking and sex, but this year they are looking for more social/political/environmentally active people who have distinct career goals.
Only the airing of the show will tell whether the producers have slipped back into old habits and give in to the content that “sells most or gets highest ratings” outlines McQuail in Chapter 12. Most can agree that “sex sells” and that many MTV fans tune in for the partying and the drama. So what about the selection of what will be aired? McQuail states, “[M]edia organizations tend to reproduce selectively according to criteria that suit their own goals and interests” (329). Since many of the 20 seasons that have already been filmed have focused on partying, this particular agenda may be hard to break free from in the case of “The Real World.”
Media researchers believe, “[…] the media can ‘construct reality’ and impose their construction on defenseless minds” (McQuail Reader 387). In the case of “The Real World” it would mean choosing to air certain content over others to display a falseness of actual attitudes or beliefs.
Personally, I do not feel as though the content will change unless those who are cast are aware of the producer’s desire to change the agenda. Although it is supposed to represent real people, events, attitudes, etc., I believe there is no shame in knowing which direction to take the program.
Do you agree with McQuail’s statements regarding the media’s role in shaping our perceptions of “reality”? Do you think that “The Real World” will change its image, and if so, do you think it will it draw an audience? And finally, as a fun question for me to poll you on: Would you ever try out for a reality show (why or why not)?
An article in Thursday’s Yale Daily News explains casting director Damon Furberg’s reason for making New Haven among one of the cities visited:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23515
Amid the students questioned about whether they would “seriously consider auditioning” was Janice White who said about the show, “It’s really invasive. People on that show don’t look good.” The show has often been characterized as one that promotes drinking and sex, but this year they are looking for more social/political/environmentally active people who have distinct career goals.
Only the airing of the show will tell whether the producers have slipped back into old habits and give in to the content that “sells most or gets highest ratings” outlines McQuail in Chapter 12. Most can agree that “sex sells” and that many MTV fans tune in for the partying and the drama. So what about the selection of what will be aired? McQuail states, “[M]edia organizations tend to reproduce selectively according to criteria that suit their own goals and interests” (329). Since many of the 20 seasons that have already been filmed have focused on partying, this particular agenda may be hard to break free from in the case of “The Real World.”
Media researchers believe, “[…] the media can ‘construct reality’ and impose their construction on defenseless minds” (McQuail Reader 387). In the case of “The Real World” it would mean choosing to air certain content over others to display a falseness of actual attitudes or beliefs.
Personally, I do not feel as though the content will change unless those who are cast are aware of the producer’s desire to change the agenda. Although it is supposed to represent real people, events, attitudes, etc., I believe there is no shame in knowing which direction to take the program.
Do you agree with McQuail’s statements regarding the media’s role in shaping our perceptions of “reality”? Do you think that “The Real World” will change its image, and if so, do you think it will it draw an audience? And finally, as a fun question for me to poll you on: Would you ever try out for a reality show (why or why not)?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Does Violence in Music Affect Children?
For this weeks blog I’d like to pose the question does violence in music affect children? In Chapter 18, McQuail essentially says that cultivation theory is a hypothesis that says exposure to media causes an adoption of traits, characteristics and beliefs regarding the world. Basically, McQuail thinks that the media shapes the way people behave.
As you can see Kristin concentrated on the film aspect and Logan on the TV aspect of the cultivation theory; I am going to focus on the music side of the cultivation theory. So do you think that music in today’s society affects people’s behavior? I know in doing my research I came across a lot of stuff on pointing the finger at Marilyn Manson after the whole Columbine thing went down. It later came out that the 2 men were not even fans of Manson…however, Manson was interviewed about the subject and he gave some really good insight in a Rolling Stone article:
“When it comes down to it who’s to blame for the high school murders in Little, Colorado? We’re the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we’re the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think that the NRA is too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries, or yours truly. In my work I examine the America we live in, and I’ve always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us.”
So do you think that the parents are really the ones to blame? It’s easier to point the finger at someone else instead of taking responsibility for your own children…like Marilyn Manson didn’t raise those 2 kids to shoot anybody. But at the same time, producing music that has such intently violent songs about killing your friends and killing police and raping girls isn’t something that’s going to make our society any better.
An interesting article that I found was about a study that the American Psychological Association did and it found that even college aged students were influenced by what kinds of music they listened to.
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/tool/articles/story/5935924/do_tool_dmc_cause_violence
The study played really violent music (Tool’s “Jerk Off” which includes the lyrics “I should play God and shoot you myself”) and after the people listened to violent music they were asked questions about completely non-violent items, like “rock” and “stick” and they responded with really violent answers about what they would like to do with those items. It sort of creeped me out just hearing a song made a person want to hit someone over the head with a rock. But when you think about today’s culture, like going to concerts for an example…have you ever been in a mosh pit? I mean how violent is listening to a song of someone screaming and everyone running around smashing into one another? It’s not my idea of a good time so I don’t understand why these, most of the time young males, find enjoyment from smashing their bodies together.
Another song that I always thought was creepy was Eminem’s “Stan” especially the part where the Eminem wannabe guy is calling Eminem and telling him how is girlfriend is tied up in the truck and how he didn’t slit her throat because he wants her to suffocate because that’s more suffering than easy one two to the jugular. But do you think that young boys who listen to Eminem think that what he saying is cool and want to emulate him or do you think that they know its just for enjoyment? Who can listen to these kinds of songs for pleasure and sing along in their cars like they are having a grand old time? When I listen to songs like these I makes me want to lock my doors and never go to Eminem concert.
So ultimately, do you guys think that people’s feelings and aggressions are at all influenced by the music that they listen to?
As you can see Kristin concentrated on the film aspect and Logan on the TV aspect of the cultivation theory; I am going to focus on the music side of the cultivation theory. So do you think that music in today’s society affects people’s behavior? I know in doing my research I came across a lot of stuff on pointing the finger at Marilyn Manson after the whole Columbine thing went down. It later came out that the 2 men were not even fans of Manson…however, Manson was interviewed about the subject and he gave some really good insight in a Rolling Stone article:
“When it comes down to it who’s to blame for the high school murders in Little, Colorado? We’re the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we’re the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think that the NRA is too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries, or yours truly. In my work I examine the America we live in, and I’ve always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us.”
So do you think that the parents are really the ones to blame? It’s easier to point the finger at someone else instead of taking responsibility for your own children…like Marilyn Manson didn’t raise those 2 kids to shoot anybody. But at the same time, producing music that has such intently violent songs about killing your friends and killing police and raping girls isn’t something that’s going to make our society any better.
An interesting article that I found was about a study that the American Psychological Association did and it found that even college aged students were influenced by what kinds of music they listened to.
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/tool/articles/story/5935924/do_tool_dmc_cause_violence
The study played really violent music (Tool’s “Jerk Off” which includes the lyrics “I should play God and shoot you myself”) and after the people listened to violent music they were asked questions about completely non-violent items, like “rock” and “stick” and they responded with really violent answers about what they would like to do with those items. It sort of creeped me out just hearing a song made a person want to hit someone over the head with a rock. But when you think about today’s culture, like going to concerts for an example…have you ever been in a mosh pit? I mean how violent is listening to a song of someone screaming and everyone running around smashing into one another? It’s not my idea of a good time so I don’t understand why these, most of the time young males, find enjoyment from smashing their bodies together.
Another song that I always thought was creepy was Eminem’s “Stan” especially the part where the Eminem wannabe guy is calling Eminem and telling him how is girlfriend is tied up in the truck and how he didn’t slit her throat because he wants her to suffocate because that’s more suffering than easy one two to the jugular. But do you think that young boys who listen to Eminem think that what he saying is cool and want to emulate him or do you think that they know its just for enjoyment? Who can listen to these kinds of songs for pleasure and sing along in their cars like they are having a grand old time? When I listen to songs like these I makes me want to lock my doors and never go to Eminem concert.
So ultimately, do you guys think that people’s feelings and aggressions are at all influenced by the music that they listen to?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Film Violence leads to Violence in the Real World?
Hey guys. I’m writing about chapter 18 in McQuail, which discusses different theories on how media consumption affects viewers.
The cultivation theory, proposed by Gerbner, states that consuming media, such as films, television, and music proposes an idea of reality for the viewer that may be different than actual reality, “substituting its (distorted) message about reality for personal experience and other means of knowing about the world” (McQuail 497). Basically, what this means is that Gerbner, and believers in the cultivation theory, believe that, over time, exposure to the media changes and forms a perception of reality that is different from actual reality.
The question is whether or not film violence has a lasting impression on viewers, enough so to make them perceive violence as acceptable. Does film violence and violence in the media in general cause people to act differently than they would had they not consumed that media, and other media like it? Does media consumption over time lead to changes in a viewer’s perception of reality?
Different media sources are constantly being blamed for violent acts. For example, I found this article that discusses 50 Cent’s movie “Get Rich or Die Tryin’.” Linked below, it talks about all the violent acts that have happened, such as riots and deaths, which are somehow being linked to the film. Check out the article:
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-05/11-14-05/a01lo354.htm
I personally do not believe that seeing a single film is going to contribute to someone’s feelings of rage that prompt him/her to commit a violent act. There have to be more contributing factors. Perhaps over time there may be a correlation between violent acts and consumption of film violence, but I find it hard to believe that the media is the only influence involved. Someone said in class the other day that people would rather blame anyone than themselves, and I think that is the best way to put it—people would always rather blame the media before they look at other possible contributing factors. I also think that people who are going to see films with absurd amounts of violence, such as R-rated films, should be old enough to realize that it is just a movie. Of course, all of my opinions could stem from the fact that I am educated, so I am skeptical and I realize that a film is just a film.
What do you guys think about the cultivation theory? Do you think that 50 Cent’s movie was responsible for the riots and other violent acts? Do you think violent films foster violence in real life?
The cultivation theory, proposed by Gerbner, states that consuming media, such as films, television, and music proposes an idea of reality for the viewer that may be different than actual reality, “substituting its (distorted) message about reality for personal experience and other means of knowing about the world” (McQuail 497). Basically, what this means is that Gerbner, and believers in the cultivation theory, believe that, over time, exposure to the media changes and forms a perception of reality that is different from actual reality.
The question is whether or not film violence has a lasting impression on viewers, enough so to make them perceive violence as acceptable. Does film violence and violence in the media in general cause people to act differently than they would had they not consumed that media, and other media like it? Does media consumption over time lead to changes in a viewer’s perception of reality?
Different media sources are constantly being blamed for violent acts. For example, I found this article that discusses 50 Cent’s movie “Get Rich or Die Tryin’.” Linked below, it talks about all the violent acts that have happened, such as riots and deaths, which are somehow being linked to the film. Check out the article:
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-05/11-14-05/a01lo354.htm
I personally do not believe that seeing a single film is going to contribute to someone’s feelings of rage that prompt him/her to commit a violent act. There have to be more contributing factors. Perhaps over time there may be a correlation between violent acts and consumption of film violence, but I find it hard to believe that the media is the only influence involved. Someone said in class the other day that people would rather blame anyone than themselves, and I think that is the best way to put it—people would always rather blame the media before they look at other possible contributing factors. I also think that people who are going to see films with absurd amounts of violence, such as R-rated films, should be old enough to realize that it is just a movie. Of course, all of my opinions could stem from the fact that I am educated, so I am skeptical and I realize that a film is just a film.
What do you guys think about the cultivation theory? Do you think that 50 Cent’s movie was responsible for the riots and other violent acts? Do you think violent films foster violence in real life?
Violence + TV= Violent Children
In chapter 37 of the Reader, McQuail correlates violence in television and violence by children. McQuail begins the chapter by rocking our worlds, by stating that us “Americans live in a violent society.” He then claims via some nice statistics that Americans watch a lot of television, “98 percent of Americans have televisions in their homes” and that “the television set is on more than seven hours in the average American home.” With some help from the NTVS, The National Television Violence Study for those of you who were too lazy to read the chapter, McQauil shows us that “the majority of American television shows have at least one act of violence in them.” He then claims that because of this extreme amount of TV consumption by Americans and the enormous amount violence shown in television programs that “by the time the American child graduates from elementary school, he or she will have seen over 8000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence.” McQuail then turns to his scientific buddies, the American Psychological Association who state that, “there is absolutely no doubt that those who are heavy viewers of the violence demonstrate increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased behavior.” To wrap up McQuails argument, the great amount of violence on television results in the violent behavior of children.
I agree with McQuail and believe that it is this desensitization toward violence which results in more violence. Television and furthermore media have become social teachers in our society. They create our social constructions and with the enormous amount of violence portrayed by the media, as a society we begin to become disenchanted by the negative effects of violence. With the youth of
Here is an article I found online that agrees with Mr. McQauil and me.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186670,00.html
I was wondering what your views on the subject are? And if negative how can a society so entrenched by violent media, fix the problem?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
An economy grows around Britney Spears
In Chapter 16, McQuail discusses what influences choices and behaviors of the media. On page 420 he asks, “what content, presentation, and circumstances help draw and keep audience attention.”
Video Games Becoming More Social
In Chapter 16, McQuail describes the media as a social tool, which can be positive or negative. On page 438 he writes "Mass-mediated social contact can supplement and complement, as well as displace, real personal contacts with others. As a result, the potential for social interaction can just as easily be enlarged by mass media as reduced."
I agree with him, using the Media as a way to block out society is no way to live your life. Even though some days all you want to do is sit on the couch and watch TV and read gossip magazines (which is okay) the media can be a strong social bond that connects people. Meeting your friends to go to a movie or trashing the newest Britney article on perezhilton.com with someone you met in class(Media 331 maybe?) are great ways to make that connection. Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is that the Media is really stepping up in ways you would never realize to market their product as a socializing tool.
I found an article in the New York Times on Friday about how the video game industry is booming in production for it's human contact games. Games that encourage interaction, like Wii and Guitar Hero. Even though these games aren't getting high ratings with the critics, they have become very popular in the general public. These are games that are more fun to play in a group, not alone in a basement with Cheeto residue on your shirt. These games have become easy enough for audiences of all ages, they're not just marketing to the teenage males anymore. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/arts/01game.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=wii&st=nyt&oref=slogin
What do you all think about this outbreak in social video games? I'm sure some, if not all, of you have been exposed to the explosion of games like Guitar Hero, Wii and even Dance Dance Revolution. Do you think the media is a positive or a negative tool for social interaction? Why do you think so? Happy posting!
I agree with him, using the Media as a way to block out society is no way to live your life. Even though some days all you want to do is sit on the couch and watch TV and read gossip magazines (which is okay) the media can be a strong social bond that connects people. Meeting your friends to go to a movie or trashing the newest Britney article on perezhilton.com with someone you met in class(Media 331 maybe?) are great ways to make that connection. Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is that the Media is really stepping up in ways you would never realize to market their product as a socializing tool.
I found an article in the New York Times on Friday about how the video game industry is booming in production for it's human contact games. Games that encourage interaction, like Wii and Guitar Hero. Even though these games aren't getting high ratings with the critics, they have become very popular in the general public. These are games that are more fun to play in a group, not alone in a basement with Cheeto residue on your shirt. These games have become easy enough for audiences of all ages, they're not just marketing to the teenage males anymore. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/arts/01game.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=wii&st=nyt&oref=slogin
What do you all think about this outbreak in social video games? I'm sure some, if not all, of you have been exposed to the explosion of games like Guitar Hero, Wii and even Dance Dance Revolution. Do you think the media is a positive or a negative tool for social interaction? Why do you think so? Happy posting!
Friday, February 1, 2008
Uses & Gratifications
Hey Everyone! I'm posting a little early because I'm super busy and also so that anyone who hasn't posted on one of Professor Burns' blogs can get the gist of it.
So, my topic to post on is Uses and Gratifications, Ch. 16 in McQuail.
Uses and gratification theory pretty much says that people consume certain types of media to fufil needs in their lives. McQuail breaks this down on page 425 into four main categories of "important media-person intereactions". Those categories are diversion, personal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance. Definately interesting to think about when trying to fit our own media usage into those categories. For example, I watch American Idol as a "diversion" because after watching the show, I personally feel better about my own life.
Its my own personal opinion that most people watch television as a form of diversion, or escape from their lives. (Mostly because of research done in Prof. Worthington's audience class.) But the most interesting of these interactions to me is the "personal relationships" category. I immediately thought of the Superbowl and how regardless of whether or not my friends like football, we all always get together to watch the game.
This survey done by comScore, and reported on FoxBusiness.com, reflects some patterns about the Superbowl:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/technology/article/comscore-2008-super-bowl-pregame-survey-reveals-internet-plays-important-role_460750_12.html
The most interesting being the amount of people who said that they watch the game to be with friends and family:
Q: What is your favorite part of watching the Super Bowl?
Activity Total Male Female
Watch the game 49 % 65 % 33 %
Watch the ads 26 % 16 % 35 %
Spend time with friends/family 18 % 15 % 20 %
Watch the half time show 6 % 3 % 9 %
I personally thought it would be higher.
So, what do you think of the uses & gratification theory? And do you think that your television habits conform to any of those catergories? And, why do you watch the Superbowl?
So, my topic to post on is Uses and Gratifications, Ch. 16 in McQuail.
Uses and gratification theory pretty much says that people consume certain types of media to fufil needs in their lives. McQuail breaks this down on page 425 into four main categories of "important media-person intereactions". Those categories are diversion, personal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance. Definately interesting to think about when trying to fit our own media usage into those categories. For example, I watch American Idol as a "diversion" because after watching the show, I personally feel better about my own life.
Its my own personal opinion that most people watch television as a form of diversion, or escape from their lives. (Mostly because of research done in Prof. Worthington's audience class.) But the most interesting of these interactions to me is the "personal relationships" category. I immediately thought of the Superbowl and how regardless of whether or not my friends like football, we all always get together to watch the game.
This survey done by comScore, and reported on FoxBusiness.com, reflects some patterns about the Superbowl:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/technology/article/comscore-2008-super-bowl-pregame-survey-reveals-internet-plays-important-role_460750_12.html
The most interesting being the amount of people who said that they watch the game to be with friends and family:
Q: What is your favorite part of watching the Super Bowl?
Activity Total Male Female
Watch the game 49 % 65 % 33 %
Watch the ads 26 % 16 % 35 %
Spend time with friends/family 18 % 15 % 20 %
Watch the half time show 6 % 3 % 9 %
I personally thought it would be higher.
So, what do you think of the uses & gratification theory? And do you think that your television habits conform to any of those catergories? And, why do you watch the Superbowl?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)