I had a blog before, but it was like a diary and I would write an entry every half year or so, just to express my feelings to myself. I wouldn’t even leave the entry to be exposed, I would always make the post into an exclusive one, one that only I could see. So this is the first time I’ve ever had a blog that other people could read, even though it may have been a few. And the blog posts were about my thoughts, but they were more than a diary.
It was hard to write under a consideration of an audience, and the possibility of being exposed to an enormous number of anonymous people. I think to have a blog that has an opinion would require a willfulness to expose oneself to the mass audience, and be able to embrace the various reactions (by their comments).
Before this blog I had a hard time understanding the nature of blog posting. I always wondered why people make blogs and write posts, when there is no direct profit from that action. Some posts are about political issues, and the analysis is very intense and evident that the person had put very much effort to it. Other posts are critiques about films and music, and they are also intense and full with effort, and sometimes even better than critiques on mainstream newspapers or magazines. Why do bloggers put so much effort? And it was hard to explain that it’s just because that that is their field of interest. I have a field of interest, but I do not do intense blog postings. After posting on the blog, I did feel a sense why people have blogs. People have blogs because they are willing to share their interest to the world, and because they are fascinated by the interconnection with the world through the internet, and the possibility of communicating with various people through the internet. I could say that these people have a more positive point of view of the internet than I do.
I realized that one thing that has made me a non-blogger is because I am not that much interested in other people’s point of view, of what others think of my opinion. Also I am not quite openminded to the internet itself, and I have to admit I am skeptical about the democracy the internet could bring.
However, I do think it is time to change my perspective. Sure, the internet would have problems, but still it is no doubt a useful tool to communicate with other people and get what I think out there, no matter how trivial it may seem. I think the blogging experience has given me more confidence about what I could contribute to the internet community.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
My thoughts about the Media System
I think with the internet the media system has changed very much, and the blog postings of various people and the videos and music people post online have changed the production and consumption of the media. I am able to read various opinions about issues without the need of meeting people in person, and able to listen to music that is very good that I would not have known otherwise because it is not mainstream. However, as I have pointed out in some previous blog posts, the internet system is becoming more and more under the capitalistic system and under consumerism. Some blog postings are no longer candid, and are written on the behalf of products of certain corporations. But the biggest problem would be that we are not using the internet to its full possibility.
Even though there are independent news sources, they are not well known. People that have interest in independent news sources would find these sites and read them. However, people who do not have an initial interest in such sources may not find those sites. And these sites do not have the capital to make themselves more exposed to the public. The importance of net neutrality would come here, and people should be aware of telecom companies that are trying to make only the sites that pay them more accessible.
In addition, the internet has opened a place where anyone could post their comments and their opinions, but there are people who do not do that. Some people may just be interested on the headlines on portal sites, on games, or on only a few specific things. Some studies say that blogs could be used to gather people into a certain issue, but many blogs are just like diaries and do not have this kind of ideal function. People should be more acknowledged about what they could do on the internet, and various sites by non-profit organizations should have more exposure.
Even though there are independent news sources, they are not well known. People that have interest in independent news sources would find these sites and read them. However, people who do not have an initial interest in such sources may not find those sites. And these sites do not have the capital to make themselves more exposed to the public. The importance of net neutrality would come here, and people should be aware of telecom companies that are trying to make only the sites that pay them more accessible.
In addition, the internet has opened a place where anyone could post their comments and their opinions, but there are people who do not do that. Some people may just be interested on the headlines on portal sites, on games, or on only a few specific things. Some studies say that blogs could be used to gather people into a certain issue, but many blogs are just like diaries and do not have this kind of ideal function. People should be more acknowledged about what they could do on the internet, and various sites by non-profit organizations should have more exposure.
Giving Ideas or Solace?
Class Dismissed : How TV frames the Working Class talked about the television series Roseanne as a rare television series that has more real life depictions of the working class women than other television dramas. Also the scene that showed Roseanne’s confrontation with her boss as a rare event on television, and that it was disapproved because it could give people ‘ideas’. Class Dismissed must have had in mind that seeing such images about a working class woman fighting back for her rights to her superior would give women in an awakening about their own rights. However, I see this as too much of an optimistic point of view, because I think people find ‘solace’ rather than ‘ideas (or awareness)’ from television dramas.
That is, working class women in real life would not be able to confront their boss one handedly just as Roseanne does. They would wish to, and they are already aware of such injustice and unfairness of women in the working place. However, they cannot. And scenes such as the ones in Roseanne act as a solace for them, and a satisfaction they cannot have in real life but can feel through the television images.(Futhermore, do these images give solace, and block people from contesting the authority?)
Also nowadays there are television images about old, single women who enjoy dates with young men. Does this actually give ideas to the women, and liberate them from the society in which 'being young' is so idealized? I think it wouldn't be as easy as some television dramas depict it. In real life, relationships with old women and young men are hard to be attain, moreover be maitained. I think this is also an example where television imagaes work as a solace. Television images can give ideas, but it is hard for those ideas to become real life changes.
That is, working class women in real life would not be able to confront their boss one handedly just as Roseanne does. They would wish to, and they are already aware of such injustice and unfairness of women in the working place. However, they cannot. And scenes such as the ones in Roseanne act as a solace for them, and a satisfaction they cannot have in real life but can feel through the television images.(Futhermore, do these images give solace, and block people from contesting the authority?)
Also nowadays there are television images about old, single women who enjoy dates with young men. Does this actually give ideas to the women, and liberate them from the society in which 'being young' is so idealized? I think it wouldn't be as easy as some television dramas depict it. In real life, relationships with old women and young men are hard to be attain, moreover be maitained. I think this is also an example where television imagaes work as a solace. Television images can give ideas, but it is hard for those ideas to become real life changes.
The Audience and Media Representations-a Stake to Take?
There was an article from The New York Times magazine which I needed to read for a class about women in need of help and how people could help them, and there were some interesting discussions about the representations of women inside the article. The article was about the poverty and exploitation of women in countries such as India, Afghanistan, and countries in the African continent.
The article was about how women in such countries were threatened with sex trafficking, acid attacks, and bride burnings and mass rape. The article was trying to explain these situations, and also explain how organizations are now interested in funding women, for they are the key in solving world poverty and terrorism.
Interestingly there were students who had families in India and Afghanistan, and they pointed out the representations of the state of women inside the article were not fair. The women in their families were treated without discrimination and had an education.
Also the reason the article gave for concentration on funding women was because women would use money for the home and children, while the women would use the money for alcohol and other ‘personal’ use. Another reason was that if women in extremist societies were educated, such societies would not have an extremist ideology which leads to terrorism.
Representations of women in foreign counties in this article, and many others could be ‘over-generalized’, and the presumption that women are caring, responsible for their children, and are somehow naturally peaceful does have problems. However, the article aims to show that there are women desperate in need, and is aimed to an audience who perhaps does not know much about the women in those societies. To give out a message, and to show that there is, whether it is a just a part of a society or not, women who are in need of help, some generalization is inevitable.
http://www.charityhelp.org/press/the-new-york-times-magazine-the-womens-crusade.htmlThis is a link where a pdf file of the article is.
The article was about how women in such countries were threatened with sex trafficking, acid attacks, and bride burnings and mass rape. The article was trying to explain these situations, and also explain how organizations are now interested in funding women, for they are the key in solving world poverty and terrorism.
Interestingly there were students who had families in India and Afghanistan, and they pointed out the representations of the state of women inside the article were not fair. The women in their families were treated without discrimination and had an education.
Also the reason the article gave for concentration on funding women was because women would use money for the home and children, while the women would use the money for alcohol and other ‘personal’ use. Another reason was that if women in extremist societies were educated, such societies would not have an extremist ideology which leads to terrorism.
Representations of women in foreign counties in this article, and many others could be ‘over-generalized’, and the presumption that women are caring, responsible for their children, and are somehow naturally peaceful does have problems. However, the article aims to show that there are women desperate in need, and is aimed to an audience who perhaps does not know much about the women in those societies. To give out a message, and to show that there is, whether it is a just a part of a society or not, women who are in need of help, some generalization is inevitable.
http://www.charityhelp.org/press/the-new-york-times-magazine-the-womens-crusade.htmlThis is a link where a pdf file of the article is.
Tiger Woods and the Media-The creation and the dismatlement of sports stars
I do not exactly know how important or influential a figure Tiger Woods is in the American society, but I did grasp how much people thought of him as a star through the media coverage about his recent ‘scandal’. Tiger Woods is indeed a world famous sports star, however is it just me who thinks that the media is excessively interested in this scandal? True, Tiger Woods acknowledged that he has done some wrong, but that is his own personal life, and has actually nothing to do with his ability to play golf well.
Thinking about this, I realized how sports stars revered as a role model, and is demanded to be a person not only good in his area of sport, but also a person who is both a good family person with moral. This would definitely connect to the endorsements of sports stars. And the media plays a big role in forming a ‘sports star’, but also has the role of tearing down the star. People might have a sports star they are interested in and become to see as a role model, but it is definitely the media that forms a kind of myth around a sports star. They write sometimes in a dramatic style about the life, the hardships, and the miraculous accomplishments they have made. Perhaps this is because the media needs someone to on the place of the hero, to feed the public on. I once read an interesting blog entry about Michael Jordan. In that blogger’s opinion, Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player in history. After his retirement, no basketball player was able to revive his legend, thus leaving the media deprived of a hero figure they could use to feed on the interest of the public. And that is why the media kept on making issues about Jordan’s comeback, even when Jordan’s comeback did not bring the results everybody hoped for.
Then again, the media has a big role in dismantlement of the sports stars, just as in the case of Tiger Woods. The excessive coverage(at least in my point of view) about Tiger Woods adultery, his fight with his wife, and his decision to quit golf, and many other speculations are all part of tearing down a star, just for the same reason the media has established one. The media is manipulating and feeding on the ‘disappointment’ of the public. And in the course, some news sources are not separating fact from rumors. An article in The Washington Post(‘In the Media Frenzy, the Tiger Steak is Served Rare’(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121004315_2.html) says that the mis-reports about Wood’s scandal are due to the fact that journalists are no longer keeping their roles as ‘gatekeepers’. The excessive interest about the star has led to false reports. Is what we see in sports stars, whether good or bad, what the media sees in them?
Thinking about this, I realized how sports stars revered as a role model, and is demanded to be a person not only good in his area of sport, but also a person who is both a good family person with moral. This would definitely connect to the endorsements of sports stars. And the media plays a big role in forming a ‘sports star’, but also has the role of tearing down the star. People might have a sports star they are interested in and become to see as a role model, but it is definitely the media that forms a kind of myth around a sports star. They write sometimes in a dramatic style about the life, the hardships, and the miraculous accomplishments they have made. Perhaps this is because the media needs someone to on the place of the hero, to feed the public on. I once read an interesting blog entry about Michael Jordan. In that blogger’s opinion, Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player in history. After his retirement, no basketball player was able to revive his legend, thus leaving the media deprived of a hero figure they could use to feed on the interest of the public. And that is why the media kept on making issues about Jordan’s comeback, even when Jordan’s comeback did not bring the results everybody hoped for.
Then again, the media has a big role in dismantlement of the sports stars, just as in the case of Tiger Woods. The excessive coverage(at least in my point of view) about Tiger Woods adultery, his fight with his wife, and his decision to quit golf, and many other speculations are all part of tearing down a star, just for the same reason the media has established one. The media is manipulating and feeding on the ‘disappointment’ of the public. And in the course, some news sources are not separating fact from rumors. An article in The Washington Post(‘In the Media Frenzy, the Tiger Steak is Served Rare’(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121004315_2.html) says that the mis-reports about Wood’s scandal are due to the fact that journalists are no longer keeping their roles as ‘gatekeepers’. The excessive interest about the star has led to false reports. Is what we see in sports stars, whether good or bad, what the media sees in them?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
What Kind of Media Consumer am I? Between feeling left out and feeling overwhelmed
I go on the internet daily, listen to music everyday, and watch television from time to time. I could spend hours on the internet with always finding something to do, even though if that 'something to do' is just clicking on anything and going back and forth to various sites. However I wouldn't feel devastated becaused I missed a show or couldn't use the internet for a few days. I even feel that I should put my eyes and ears to rest from all the information I need to process(I'm just a consumer and don't make any contents except for a few blog entries, so the relationship between the media and me would rather be one way). But even so I would feel left out if there is somekind of new information, such as news, a new drama series, or a new on line site. That is, I have a hard time 'ignoring' information-even though it would not effect my life in any way whether I know it or not.
I felt this strongly when I saw the 'Blue Man Group' show. In the middle of the show the three Blue Men each held a set of pannels that had something written on it. The first pannel read that we could choose only one pannel to read, and we would not be able to read all three because of the limit of time. And then, every 7 or so seconds, the Blue men turned each pannel they had. And I couldn't help myself from trying to read all three pannels even though I knew I wouldn't be able to 'process' it all. And it wasn't just me, since everyone laughed at a funny joke written on one pannel. The Blue Man Group even pointed this out, as one of the pannels read that people have an anxiety to consume all the information around them, even over the limit of conception.
Was it because I was just curious what was written on other pannels? Or was it because it was just 'there'?
The Blue Men only had three pannels, but in real life, there are millions of pannels of info. Do I choose from the flood of information, or do I try to get all the information out there, or, am I half forced to see information(with ads popping out of everywhere, ads everywhere outside, television dramas on the internet and portal sites having info about everything crammed into one page)?
I feel that with the overflow of information, the ability to find out what you need efficiently without the pain of seeing other information is truly a great one. Otherwise we would be overwhelmed by the superabundance of information, and become passive receivers or just come to totally ignore it. But ignoring the information we get through the media, though it may bring the peace of mind, is not quite pratical. Using the information can be helpful whether it's the info on the internet and ads, or the entertainment we get from television.
I felt this strongly when I saw the 'Blue Man Group' show. In the middle of the show the three Blue Men each held a set of pannels that had something written on it. The first pannel read that we could choose only one pannel to read, and we would not be able to read all three because of the limit of time. And then, every 7 or so seconds, the Blue men turned each pannel they had. And I couldn't help myself from trying to read all three pannels even though I knew I wouldn't be able to 'process' it all. And it wasn't just me, since everyone laughed at a funny joke written on one pannel. The Blue Man Group even pointed this out, as one of the pannels read that people have an anxiety to consume all the information around them, even over the limit of conception.
Was it because I was just curious what was written on other pannels? Or was it because it was just 'there'?
The Blue Men only had three pannels, but in real life, there are millions of pannels of info. Do I choose from the flood of information, or do I try to get all the information out there, or, am I half forced to see information(with ads popping out of everywhere, ads everywhere outside, television dramas on the internet and portal sites having info about everything crammed into one page)?
I feel that with the overflow of information, the ability to find out what you need efficiently without the pain of seeing other information is truly a great one. Otherwise we would be overwhelmed by the superabundance of information, and become passive receivers or just come to totally ignore it. But ignoring the information we get through the media, though it may bring the peace of mind, is not quite pratical. Using the information can be helpful whether it's the info on the internet and ads, or the entertainment we get from television.
Capitalism and Consumerism-An inextricable relationship
To keep the economy growing, people must keep on consuming. Advertisements and other media show products that would make people 'unhappy' unless they have them. So we are living in a society of consumerism. We are buying more than we need, and we are never satisfied with what we have. We would be more happy and less broke if we 'break out' of consumerism and the standards the media has set.
But is it that simple?
Is sustaining consumerism for the growth of the economy? I would rather put it that it's to keep the economy from collapsing. The development of technology has brought an abundance of products, and the products need to be sold, in order to earn the profit a company needs to pay off the expense. If people start consuming less, sales will go down, companies would lay employees off, the layed off employees would not the money to buy products, and the situation will get worse. This is what caused the Great Depression of the 1920s.
The desire to buy, or the superabundance of products-which comes first is hard to know. However I think that the scale of the economy now relies on excessive consuming and the endless desire to have more and have better. This is where the millions of ads and media exposure comes in. Each ad may just be promoting their product, and dramas(such as Sex and the City)and reality shows(such as ProjectRunway and America's Next Top Model) may just be trying to please sponsers. But on the whole, it works as an effort to not stop the cycle of consuming and producing. Or otherwise, the whole system may crash down.
Of course I am not saying that consumerism is 'inevitable' and we should just live with it. I myself try not to buy things I really do not need. I am exposed to ads, dramas, and other media, and I have my own list of what I would like to have-but I try to think more before I consume. However, I just wanted to point out that by just changing how people consume will not solve consumerism-the structure of the economy itself may crash down even before consumerism does. Little changes made can be effective on a long run, but I think the 'producing' part may have to change. Small stores spreaded out rather than big retail stores, independent producing and catering rather than one large source of products may be an alternative.
But is it that simple?
Is sustaining consumerism for the growth of the economy? I would rather put it that it's to keep the economy from collapsing. The development of technology has brought an abundance of products, and the products need to be sold, in order to earn the profit a company needs to pay off the expense. If people start consuming less, sales will go down, companies would lay employees off, the layed off employees would not the money to buy products, and the situation will get worse. This is what caused the Great Depression of the 1920s.
The desire to buy, or the superabundance of products-which comes first is hard to know. However I think that the scale of the economy now relies on excessive consuming and the endless desire to have more and have better. This is where the millions of ads and media exposure comes in. Each ad may just be promoting their product, and dramas(such as Sex and the City)and reality shows(such as ProjectRunway and America's Next Top Model) may just be trying to please sponsers. But on the whole, it works as an effort to not stop the cycle of consuming and producing. Or otherwise, the whole system may crash down.
Of course I am not saying that consumerism is 'inevitable' and we should just live with it. I myself try not to buy things I really do not need. I am exposed to ads, dramas, and other media, and I have my own list of what I would like to have-but I try to think more before I consume. However, I just wanted to point out that by just changing how people consume will not solve consumerism-the structure of the economy itself may crash down even before consumerism does. Little changes made can be effective on a long run, but I think the 'producing' part may have to change. Small stores spreaded out rather than big retail stores, independent producing and catering rather than one large source of products may be an alternative.
Technology-a possibility ?
Even though I have my own MP3 player, cell, and laptop, I tend to perceive technology in a negative way. Technology seems to alienate people when I see half of the people in the subway(back in Korea actually)absent mindedly watching something on their phone or PDP player(something like an iphone). People don't seem to talk to each other, and turning on their high tech gear has become a habit and some kind of ritual. Turning on the television, going on the internet seems to the same-how many people actually use technology just as much as they need? How many people are actually in control of the technology surrouding them? I think not many. Many people have come to rely on technology for spending their free time. People experience music, film, sports and maybe human relationship through technology. Wii sports, Wii fit might provide something similar to the 'real thing', but it's definitely not the same with playing sports outside with your friends or family.
Some people even say that it's lame to go to the movies and pay 7-10 dollars when you can download it onto your gadgets for less money. But when did people just catch a movie just to see the movie, and (absolutely) nothing else? Hanging out with people, getting something to eat, or going somewhere else in the end out of impulse is all a part of human experience technology can't do for you.
However, while there are some points that technology seems to ruin the human experience, there are some ideas interacted with technology that seem to enhance it. Recently while surfing around the internet, I saw a video about a 'phonebook', which uses the iphone to make picture books more interactive. Children can play with the moving characters, or move the book around and the video on the iphone will play suit. This kind of technology would be something that helps children experience more than they can when just reading a plain book. Technology not made just for convenience but for interactiveness will have a greater possibility in making our lives better.
iphone phonebook video
Sunday, October 25, 2009
'Glocal Scene'-becoming mainstream without mainstream industries
'Glocal Scene' was about how 'local' musicians could still be known through posting their music in the internet and performing theirmusic anywhere they can. Local bands are not trying to get industries to acknowledge, produce, and promote their music, but are trying to make the sound they want to make and 'share' it with other people. This is definitely different from how the music industry works. Most music industries know that there is a tune that sells, whetherthe sound is creative or not. They produce music for the artist, or at least choose which songs to sell and promote. And as the documentary 'Money for Nothing : Behind the Business of Pop Music' shows, venues and resources to produce and perform music are owned by few promoters-making it hard to distribute music unless they work within the system of the music industry.This makes it hard for musicians who are not making music that can 'sell' be known to a wider range of people.
Glocal Scene shows that nowadays, through the internet music can be distrubuted and circulated throughout the world. Musicians can make the music they want to make, distribute it with low cost, and reach to a wider audience. Since they can work more independantly, various types of music can be made, and musicians could experiment using theircreativity. The documentary is mainly showing this point, but has a limit in that it is only showing English using bands, and in that it has a too positive view of the internet.
The internet has become an alternative place in delievering and promoting music. However, even the internet works under acapitalistic system(or rather it is subject to the evolutionary theory). What is not 'popular', dies out. Of course just being able to post the music on the internet is a great advantage and opens an opportunity to be heard. Many styles of music can be posted on line, but depending on the 'preference' of the audience, some songs or performances will get more clicks or visits while others just fade away in the background, and be forgotten. That is, the internet could be a place where evaluation of what kind of sound is popular and the creation of anothermainstream happens just quicker and faster-something the music industry is doing already.Of course just being able to post the music on the internet is a great advantage and opens an opportunity to be heard.
One French musician in the Glocal Scene said she had to use English on the lyrics of her music, because that was the only way people would even try to listen to it. People wouldn't listen to a 'French' French rock band. This shows howthat even the internet has its mainstreams formed and how it could form mainstream, excluding the various musicians, theirlanguage, style, and artistic forms that are unique of their home.
Glocal Scene shows that nowadays, through the internet music can be distrubuted and circulated throughout the world. Musicians can make the music they want to make, distribute it with low cost, and reach to a wider audience. Since they can work more independantly, various types of music can be made, and musicians could experiment using theircreativity. The documentary is mainly showing this point, but has a limit in that it is only showing English using bands, and in that it has a too positive view of the internet.
The internet has become an alternative place in delievering and promoting music. However, even the internet works under acapitalistic system(or rather it is subject to the evolutionary theory). What is not 'popular', dies out. Of course just being able to post the music on the internet is a great advantage and opens an opportunity to be heard. Many styles of music can be posted on line, but depending on the 'preference' of the audience, some songs or performances will get more clicks or visits while others just fade away in the background, and be forgotten. That is, the internet could be a place where evaluation of what kind of sound is popular and the creation of anothermainstream happens just quicker and faster-something the music industry is doing already.Of course just being able to post the music on the internet is a great advantage and opens an opportunity to be heard.
One French musician in the Glocal Scene said she had to use English on the lyrics of her music, because that was the only way people would even try to listen to it. People wouldn't listen to a 'French' French rock band. This shows howthat even the internet has its mainstreams formed and how it could form mainstream, excluding the various musicians, theirlanguage, style, and artistic forms that are unique of their home.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Depiction of Crime in News-Avoiding the 'Real Problem'?
In today's class there was a discussion about the reading 'Prime Suspects: The influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public'. There were questions about if the news should censor the amount of crime we see on TV, and if crime on the news will have a negative effect on people. I think the problem is not just about the amount of the crime the media shows but definitely the way news shows crime. The news concentrates on an individual-the individual's race, actions, what weapon one used, etc. They show surveillance camera coverages, and interviews from witnesses. They need the audience'sattention, so they show fragmented, sensational, clear images of what the person(or people)did, over and over again, emphasizing the violent part of the crime. The news focuses on just the people who commited the crime.
However, crime is not necessarily about the 'bad' individual(s), but a more complicated problem interwined with social background, inequality, class, national welfare, law, politics, government policy, and so on. Problems such as national welfare and social inequality could be the basic reason of crime. For example, if a society does not provide enough resources for an unwed mother, the mother would have to find more work to provide for herself and her child. Also as a woman she could be less paid than a man, which makes her busy in earning the money she needs for life. So the mother is too busy to spend more time with her child, which can make the child fall into various trouble(gangs, drugs, and what not)without the parent being able to warn about or prevent beforehand. This, in the end, could lead to crime. Of course the example is too simple and it's all under assumption ofwhat 'might' happen, but it is possible. So crime cannot just be seen as an individual problem.
The news does not go into depth from this point of view, or address the problems of the system relating to crime. They might sometimes address the problems of the judicial system. However, those are the consequences of crime, rather than fundemental aspects of why something is happening, and how it can be prevented. This kind of media coverage has a negative effect, not that it would cause future generations to be violent, but to feel 'fear'-afraid of 'people', rather than making people try to think about how the system should be fixed. What is more problematic is that based on the news depictions of crime, the fear and prejudice could be toward certain class/race/gender. People would lose judgement about what is happening in the society they live, when they should be able to see that there is more to a crime than violence and a 'prime suspect(s)'. These days the media, which should be addressing the social issues behind the incidents, seem to be just avoiding controversy or complicated reporting in order to make the news more 'attractive'.
However, crime is not necessarily about the 'bad' individual(s), but a more complicated problem interwined with social background, inequality, class, national welfare, law, politics, government policy, and so on. Problems such as national welfare and social inequality could be the basic reason of crime. For example, if a society does not provide enough resources for an unwed mother, the mother would have to find more work to provide for herself and her child. Also as a woman she could be less paid than a man, which makes her busy in earning the money she needs for life. So the mother is too busy to spend more time with her child, which can make the child fall into various trouble(gangs, drugs, and what not)without the parent being able to warn about or prevent beforehand. This, in the end, could lead to crime. Of course the example is too simple and it's all under assumption ofwhat 'might' happen, but it is possible. So crime cannot just be seen as an individual problem.
The news does not go into depth from this point of view, or address the problems of the system relating to crime. They might sometimes address the problems of the judicial system. However, those are the consequences of crime, rather than fundemental aspects of why something is happening, and how it can be prevented. This kind of media coverage has a negative effect, not that it would cause future generations to be violent, but to feel 'fear'-afraid of 'people', rather than making people try to think about how the system should be fixed. What is more problematic is that based on the news depictions of crime, the fear and prejudice could be toward certain class/race/gender. People would lose judgement about what is happening in the society they live, when they should be able to see that there is more to a crime than violence and a 'prime suspect(s)'. These days the media, which should be addressing the social issues behind the incidents, seem to be just avoiding controversy or complicated reporting in order to make the news more 'attractive'.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Internet as a 'Public Sphere'
Habermas wrote about the 'public sphere' as a system where individuals could express their opinions and share them with other individuals. The media, such as newspapers could be a kind of 'public sphere', as they have a role in addressing questions about social issues and also criticizing the political power. A few classmates talked about how the internet fuctions as a public sphere. Clearly(as Habermas explains) media such as newpapers and TV news have become a place for competition of private interests, in which many cases the interest of the powerful win. The media has become less critical, more sensational, and less concerning of the 'public interest'.And media has been mostly a one-way process, the few creators injecting information to the audience. The audience did not have an accessible, convenient outlet to show their opinions, until the advent of the Internet.
I do think the features of the Internet-blogs, commenting, and accessibility-help people from all over the world share ideas and contest againstthe dominating ideas from the (previous) mainstream media. However, the internet can be used by the powerful to manipulate people and spread ideologies, and spread information that are in favor of certain parties. And since the circualtion of info is so quick and contributors in some way anonymous it can be done with less effort.A very basic example is the commenting or rating about movies on the internet. This seems to be collecting public opinion, but 'anyone' couldcomment or vote-meaning people who need the movie to be seen as a good one could add fake comments. People could be paid to do this, or corporatemembers can disguise themselves as consumers and put in a good word for a specific product. It's the same for politicians and social issues. Rumors can be spread to make the 'opposite' side to look bad, with no confirmation about whether the information is true or not.
Also the anonymity of the internet causes people to be more careless when they express their opinions. There is an on going debateabout the abolition of anonymity in the Internet. Some people think the government is just trying to get hold of people who are critical about thepolicies of the government, and freedom of speech would be impossible once anonymity is not ensured.
The problem of consummerism in the internet is also an issue. Bloggers post what they think about some product or some place. First it's justlike a diary, the postings casual. Later on businesses in all areas find bloggers who have the ability to write a good posting, and use them as amarketing point. Some publishing companies also publish a book based on the postings of a blog-travel guides, cookbooks, DIY book, and so on(Since the cost is relatively lowand the content popular because it 'seems' candid). The internet is a source where people could express opinions right away, and read what others think. However there are many problems such as those above-which makes the Internet to have limits as a public sphere. The contents could be just as fabricated and turned into a tool to make profit, or earn publicity.
I do think the features of the Internet-blogs, commenting, and accessibility-help people from all over the world share ideas and contest againstthe dominating ideas from the (previous) mainstream media. However, the internet can be used by the powerful to manipulate people and spread ideologies, and spread information that are in favor of certain parties. And since the circualtion of info is so quick and contributors in some way anonymous it can be done with less effort.A very basic example is the commenting or rating about movies on the internet. This seems to be collecting public opinion, but 'anyone' couldcomment or vote-meaning people who need the movie to be seen as a good one could add fake comments. People could be paid to do this, or corporatemembers can disguise themselves as consumers and put in a good word for a specific product. It's the same for politicians and social issues. Rumors can be spread to make the 'opposite' side to look bad, with no confirmation about whether the information is true or not.
Also the anonymity of the internet causes people to be more careless when they express their opinions. There is an on going debateabout the abolition of anonymity in the Internet. Some people think the government is just trying to get hold of people who are critical about thepolicies of the government, and freedom of speech would be impossible once anonymity is not ensured.
The problem of consummerism in the internet is also an issue. Bloggers post what they think about some product or some place. First it's justlike a diary, the postings casual. Later on businesses in all areas find bloggers who have the ability to write a good posting, and use them as amarketing point. Some publishing companies also publish a book based on the postings of a blog-travel guides, cookbooks, DIY book, and so on(Since the cost is relatively lowand the content popular because it 'seems' candid). The internet is a source where people could express opinions right away, and read what others think. However there are many problems such as those above-which makes the Internet to have limits as a public sphere. The contents could be just as fabricated and turned into a tool to make profit, or earn publicity.
Media and Ideology-Few examples I have encountered
Media is a source of reproducing social norms. How the media depicts a certain content, or how it excludes/includes contents are ways that the media makes the social norms more concrete. There are also media contents that challenge the dominant ideology, however it is limited in exposure.
Personally I think the school textbook is an influential media. The textbook, whatever subject it may be, are reproductions of perceptions and concepts the society accepts as normal. Recently there was an issue about a new highschool economy textbook in Korea. Generally Korean society perceives competition, especially for financial success negatively. Also people are not in favor of the big corporations as they are(in most cases)the center of corruption. So Korean school textbooks on the Economy subject usually have negatvie notions about spending and earning money. Dissatisfied with the 'narrow' views of the textbook, corp owners have made an association called 'The New-Right Oraganization', and have made new Economy textbooks that have positive views about competition, the market, and consumming. People are worried about that the new textbook will influence students to become more comfortable about consummerism and make financial success their main purpose of life. On the otherhand, the New-Right Organization believes that consumming cannot just be negatively seen, as it is necessary for the growth of the economy.
Media can also be a way dominant ideas can be challenged, thought limitidly. I remember seeing an ad for gay rights. A teenage boy was having dinner with his two fathers. He looks around nervously, and brings up the courage to say "I'm not gay". This ad is challenging the conception that gay parents would be a 'bad influence 'to the child if they are allowed to adopt, because they are not a 'normal' family. However I saw this ad through the internet, and I am not sure how long or often, and specifically what kinds of channels this ad was shown.
Personally I think the school textbook is an influential media. The textbook, whatever subject it may be, are reproductions of perceptions and concepts the society accepts as normal. Recently there was an issue about a new highschool economy textbook in Korea. Generally Korean society perceives competition, especially for financial success negatively. Also people are not in favor of the big corporations as they are(in most cases)the center of corruption. So Korean school textbooks on the Economy subject usually have negatvie notions about spending and earning money. Dissatisfied with the 'narrow' views of the textbook, corp owners have made an association called 'The New-Right Oraganization', and have made new Economy textbooks that have positive views about competition, the market, and consumming. People are worried about that the new textbook will influence students to become more comfortable about consummerism and make financial success their main purpose of life. On the otherhand, the New-Right Organization believes that consumming cannot just be negatively seen, as it is necessary for the growth of the economy.
Media can also be a way dominant ideas can be challenged, thought limitidly. I remember seeing an ad for gay rights. A teenage boy was having dinner with his two fathers. He looks around nervously, and brings up the courage to say "I'm not gay". This ad is challenging the conception that gay parents would be a 'bad influence 'to the child if they are allowed to adopt, because they are not a 'normal' family. However I saw this ad through the internet, and I am not sure how long or often, and specifically what kinds of channels this ad was shown.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
What kind of consumer am I..?
As a person whose native language is not English, the mass media is one of the primary sources I use in learning and enhancing English skills. Documentary programs, radio, drama, news broadcasting, newspapers, and magazines are all sources where I would learn new vocabulary, idioms, facts about American society, and the world as American news or magazines see it. Many people in my home country(South Korea) watch American tv shows to learn English. So mass media is an important tool for me to learn new facts and language.
On the other hand, I also watch Korean documentaries and sometimes the news, but I try not to pay too much attention to the television news or the newspapers. The way they present the news is sensational, and it seems that different newspapers have taken different political sides, some being totally(maybe too) liberal and the others being to much of an advocate of the government(whether it's democratic or conservative-they seem to change sides after every election). It takes a lot of newspapers too get the whole picture of an inccident, as they are all concentrating on the 'facts' that they wish to present, and making it seem like the whole truth. So instead of the paper newspaper, I read news on the internet. There are many links to various on-line newpaper homepages on the portal site I use.
I guess I'm more critical about the mass media inside my home country than that of the US, as I do not have enough knowledge about how the American media works, and also because I don't have the adequate background knowledge about America to interprete the intentions and maybe even the fabrications of the mass media.
However I am aware that news reports, dramas, and even documetaries are sometimes trying to be too sensational in order to catch the audience's attention. I'm careful not to always blindly believe the messages from the mass media. It's very alarming to see how the same news story changes bit by bit as the day goes by, and how unconfirmed information circulates in the internet through the comments and blog postings! of millions of 'anonymous' people.
So mass media is important to me because it is a tool for learning, to a certain extent. And of course television shows and magazines are a source of entertainment. But I try to not be biased by the images or words I consume through the media.
On the other hand, I also watch Korean documentaries and sometimes the news, but I try not to pay too much attention to the television news or the newspapers. The way they present the news is sensational, and it seems that different newspapers have taken different political sides, some being totally(maybe too) liberal and the others being to much of an advocate of the government(whether it's democratic or conservative-they seem to change sides after every election). It takes a lot of newspapers too get the whole picture of an inccident, as they are all concentrating on the 'facts' that they wish to present, and making it seem like the whole truth. So instead of the paper newspaper, I read news on the internet. There are many links to various on-line newpaper homepages on the portal site I use.
I guess I'm more critical about the mass media inside my home country than that of the US, as I do not have enough knowledge about how the American media works, and also because I don't have the adequate background knowledge about America to interprete the intentions and maybe even the fabrications of the mass media.
However I am aware that news reports, dramas, and even documetaries are sometimes trying to be too sensational in order to catch the audience's attention. I'm careful not to always blindly believe the messages from the mass media. It's very alarming to see how the same news story changes bit by bit as the day goes by, and how unconfirmed information circulates in the internet through the comments and blog postings! of millions of 'anonymous' people.
So mass media is important to me because it is a tool for learning, to a certain extent. And of course television shows and magazines are a source of entertainment. But I try to not be biased by the images or words I consume through the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)