"'All women's history is hidden to some degree.'- Mary Harron, director of American Psycho"
"media do not tell us what to think, but what to think about."
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 10:28
Okay, in my master's Communication Theory class I am struggling with this. Academic Communication asserts that "media do not tell us what to think, but what to think about" in something called CULTIVATION THEORY, which is boring buy basically says that TV affects us to a point where many people can no longer discern between reality and media-projected images (i.e. have any of us been inside a real Police Station, or do we only think we know what one looks like from Cop shows?)
So, I personally believe media has one heck of a lot of control over us, in many ways. I mean, political propaganda and advertising are probably the two most powerful. But in the midst of all these observations, the 'academics' state that "media do not tell us what to think, but what to think about."
Why do they say this? I think it is because if academics stated that media had a large amount of control over us, that wpuld be scary and would not empower society. Its almost as if they want to NOT believe media has an influence.
I don't understand. If all these men (and let's face it, 99% percent of the academics were, and are, male) who are older and far more educated than I am insist that media merely suggests topics for thought for us, and that we are really powerful and can influence media in many ways more than they can influence us, why do I so strongly disagree?
Arg, am really struggling with this. Going to have arguments in class.
I think what I really want to say is:
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 12:44
#2
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 13:11
#3
You know, it's also the old school journalistic way of thinking. I took some freshmen courses in journalism many years ago, and one of the things they taught us in writing up stories is that you always state facts without coloring the statements with your own opinion. This is sort of the Walter Cronkite method where you just tell the story as it is without interjecting how you feel about it.
This really isn't done nearly as much anymore. Many journalists stick their opinions in stories these days. As an ideal, I like it; but it's just not often done.
__________________
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 02:40
#4
Esoterically, media means middle men (it's a medium, the middle), a powerful arm of the State standing between the Controllers and the masses. Read the 1928 book Propaganda by Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays - you'll see how the elite run the media, because he's one of them. TV (a main media outlet) changes Beta waves to low Alpha waves, making it difficult to differentiate between fact and fiction. If your brain had a firewall, television would lower it. When you watch TV news, low Alpha mode makes critical thinking impossible.
Jessica, regarding your Fox News comment - That made me remember back to a year or so ago when it became mainstream information that Fox news was run by the Pentagon.
I think it almost comes down to ethics in journalism, and how the journalism is implemented. As an ideal, the suggestion that the media only suggests what we should "think about" isn't a bad one; but I think this is an ideal that is sometimes broken. Of course the media crosses this line sometimes, and can powerfully sway people's emotions and perceptions.
I can't see how this could be denied. I guess a good question to ask is if this is an ideal that is sometimes broken; or do they really believe that the media never has occasion to cross this line?