Is the media we want the same as the media we need?

The question of whether we get the media we need and whether it should inform us about the world seems fairly straightforward. But the more you look at it, the complicated this question becomes.

Like most people, I do not seek out informative media; for me, this is because I am simply not happy with what I find. For example, whenever I turn on the news someone is dying or going to jail and following politics is just disappointing; last time I checked Mayor Ford was smoking crack. All of the “news” I receive is so sensationalized that, because I am interested in the real facts, it stops me from looking for other news because I am so disappointed with what I get, I no longer want to bother. Brooke believes that, “people can help do things to get the media we want such as exclude details, not releasing certain information to the public, etc.” (Harnum, 2013) and I agree with that; it is my opinion that this is exactly how news agencies make certain headlines more shocking and controversial, which deters me from being interested in the news.

“Think of going through life blindfolded, everywhere you go, you are guided and told what your surroundings look like, what the actions of others are, and what is constantly going on around you. This depiction portrays your life” (mm13sa, 2013). This would be the world of a person who is totally unaware of what is going on around them and it is hard to stay informed. There are those few examples of social media benefitting someone’s social consciousness, however. On Facebook, I am subscribed to The Sociological Cinema, which disseminates sociological information, and Upworthy, a page that raises awareness of a variety of issues, several of which are related to the media. Most of the stories on these sites are interesting and would draw viewer attention but these are also both pages that I found incidentally after years on Facebook and I never really access them unless I am already online.

The reason not many people are compelled to seek awareness through media is because we have associated media with being meant for pleasure. As Amy Lowe (2013) wrote in a blog post, “we often choose the media that we want whether it is informative or not,” and she is right. No one would argue that more people watch TMZ than CPAC. And TMZ is an example of another reason people do not seek informative media; they are conditioned to have shorter attention spans. Between advertisements and TV shows that do not focus on one thing for very long, people are conditioned to have shorter attention spans and then cannot focus long enough to analyze or store important information.

Whether or not we get the media we need is up for debate and is all dependent on what people feel the media is responsible for. However, if you are looking for something more stimulating than mainstream media, you will have to find it on your own.

Special thanks to:                                                                                                                                                      

http://brookeharnum1.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-media-we-want/

http://lifeoflowe.wordpress.com/

http://mm13sa.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-media-we-want/

Do we get the media we want, or want the media we get?

                A seldom argued fact about the media today is that they are incredibly powerful. The degree of their influence over the public is such that we are asking, do we get the media we want, or want the media we get. For example, look at Duck Dynasty, the reality television show about a family company making duck calls. A couple of years ago, a show like this seemed absurd and now it is a top-rated show on A&E. The media requires support to be successful, but are they powerful enough to change the desires of viewers?

                One argument may be that media outlets can change public desires as evidenced by the constant flow of young pop stars. For example, Hilary Duff was marketed as the good girl by Disney and her show and other commodities (dolls, clothes, etc.) were very popular. Soon after, Miley Cyrus got a television show and we stopped hearing from Hilary Duff. Some would say the success of these two acts is evidence of a change in audience desires, but these too acts were incredibly similar. Both stars were originally marketed as the “good girl” and both had music and television careers supported by Disney. The change was not in the desire or the content, but simply the face that was connected to it all.

                Another aspect of this duality is dependent on the media companies wanting to stay in business, which really means that they want to make money. As is so often experienced, rocking the boat, to speak metaphorically, is not always well received in pop culture. A company that could successfully start a trend would perhaps be very well rewarded, however, “as an antidote to the notion of a powerful elite in charge of the media, note that the media have to sell themselves successfully to large numbers of the population; they have to win big audiences in order to be economically viable and survive (O’Shaughnessy et al. 2012). It is very risky to start trends and I do not believe that media companies are willing to take that risk.

All of this stems from the media companies underlying desire; making money. As the textbook says, “most media changes have occurred in capitalist economies, so their development has been hugely influenced by profit motives and we must understand that the media have been developed in the interest of making money” (O’Shaughnessy et al. 2012), which means they are far more likely to follow trends simply to make money. This goal explains why a company would support an artist so fervently and then simply just drop them and choose another artist.

Media today has an enormous influence on people of all races, ages and social classes. It is arguably corrupting the youth of the world, turning them into nothing but consumer robots that buy anything they are told to. I believe the media has a more firm grasp on the desires of children but overall, as evidenced, I do not believe they control the desires of the masses.

References

O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J.. (2012). Media and Society. 5^th Ed. South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

1f25 blog response 1: Media Impact on Others

Despite taking in a large amount of similar media, the thoughts of the people that have consumed it are, though very similar, different in their specifics. For example, in this post I draw on the thoughts of three other students that all view media as having negative effects on society. However, each of them differs in their thoughts on and approaches to the media and though they all mention things that I previously did not, they have all added new dimensions to the media as I know it.   

Reading Brent’s post, I completely understand what he is saying. Claiming that the “ally of justice” (http://bb11tl.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/cpcf-1f25-assignment-1-how-the-media-affects-my-own-personal-worldview/), in him is slowly disappearing and that the media is to blame really struck a chord in me. Like Brent, I once held the idealistic view of the world that he describes early on and was dissuaded from these thoughts by the media. Though Brent makes a valid point about the reality that the media portrays, I do not want to agree with it because it is such a sad picture of media. However I know that it is true and completely agree with Brent.

                Different from but still complimentary to Brent’s post is Hunter’s post. Hunter agrees that the media has a substantial influence on its consumers and that this influence is primarily negative, but he goes into more explicit detail of how the media appears to do so. Hunter feels that the media shapes messages by withhold important details, which I also strongly agree with. It is described in the post that “media has made us their puppets” (http://lunterhackey.blogspot.ca  /2013/09/impact-of-media-on-my-worldview.html), and while I do not agree that the statement applies to all, I agree that it has a large influence.

                Montana agrees that media has a vast influence on people just as Brent and Hunter do, though she approaches this belief differently. As she puts it, “you get affected through movies, magazines; media sites (Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr and many others)” (http://montanahighley.wordpress.com /2013/09/19/1f25-post-1-media-impact-2/) and she is totally right; we are bombarded constantly by various forms of media and her approach to dealing with this is the one I connect with most. She continued to be herself and refused to let the media change her, which was my initial view until I let myself become opposed to mainstream media and fought  it.

                Though I did not explicitly express the ideas found in the three blogs I have referenced, I agree with all of these insights and they each add a new dimension to my view of the media. In hindsight, Montana’s approach to rebelling against the media seems more logical than my own, but it fights against media in a different way, namely choosing your own path whereas I allowed media to push me in the direction I was headed. Both Brent and Hunter’s posts appeal to my inner cynic and raise some good points of their own. All three posts have offered fresh insights and have made me contemplate my own position on the media.