Who is to blame?

I haven’t decided yet whether or not taking this class has damaged the way I view media. For instance, I am considerably much more aware of what type of navigational style I have when I am picking out what show to watch. I used to just think that I was keener than others when I could spot subliminal messages, or pick up on oblivious satire. But now, all I can think is that just makes me, as Gitlin describes, a “paranoid” or an “ironist.” And then again, I am also an “exhibitionist” because I embrace the torrent of media and often wish that I could be “America’s Next Top Model.” If I didn’t wish that, I never would have tried out for the show. But what exactly is so appealing about “reality” TV shows that make ordinary people want to be on them? Despite knowing that the network has edited and selectively chosen what parts of “reality” will give them the best ratings; we still strongly believe that it is the whole truth.

I think we believe this because we don’t want to face the fact that media isn’t serving its actual purpose: which is to deliver content that is overall beneficial for our society. And if it isn’t doing this, well what “real harm” is it actually inflicting on us? Or, the better question is, what can we, the mass population, actually do to change what’s happening? Just because we recognize and address the multiple issues that media reinforce or propel in our society isn’t enough. Today the idea that the government is to blame for the allowance of corporate domination over media outlets was brought up. I would have to agree. The mass population, or rather, the minority of us who recognize what is happening, do not have enough power to threaten the larger conglomerates. It has gotten to a point where any small organization that has enough courage to voice against the mainstream will be crushed instantly (in the sense that they could be bought or pushed out). So the idea that it is now our responsibility to do something against this rise of power is almost devastating because it seems impossible. The only way that I can see the way media is structured changing is to position myself into the media industry. That is, get a job at one of the larger corporations and work my way up to the leadership position where I could then enforce change. But, as I thought about that, I had to realistically ask myself, if that was even possible? Who is to say that once I am in that leadership position I will be able to do anything? Will I not just be a puppet of the large corporation and their profit-driven ways? Am I not so easily replaceable? So the question that we really must answer is not who can change the large corporations but what content and values must be reinstituted into our culture that can cause such a historic change?

First Thoughts

As discussed in class, the term “media” is commonly identified as a single term. We often forget that it is the plural of the word “medium” because when used contextually, people often say, “the media.” Using this catchphrase, the different mediums such as television, radio, literature, etc. conglomerate into one unit. Thus, associating all these mediums as a single identity allows society to take media for granted. For instance, media convergence has blended the mode of media delivery so that one is now able to watch a television program on his iPod. Or, receive caller i.d. on their television. This combinational approach gives less distinction and uniqueness to each type of medium. While a lot of this has to do with advancements in technology, I often wonder if it is really necessary. Many of the additional features of technological advancements appear to support the laziness of our society. Either that, or demonstrate how easily media can pull one away from social interactions.

The idea that media create para-social relationships is an interesting proposition. Gitlin writes, “But child or adult, we do demand something from our images, even if they are only ‘almost real.’ We expect them to heighten life, to intensify and focus it by being better than real, more vivid, more stark, more something” (23). These para-social relationships are perhaps relationships that we want because they are “better than real” relationships. They are “better than real” because the people that we listen to on the radio or see on the television are not people whom we socially interact with. They are people with whom we react to. But what is the purpose of these evoked emotions? Why do we constantly seek the stimulation of a quick sensational feeling? To be perfectly honest, I don’t even really know how to answer this question. It is almost scary to think about because when I ask myself why I continually watch reality television shows or yell angrily at Tyra Banks when she name-drops her own name, I don’t know. But then again, I can’t forget that television is the only form of media that stirs these types of feelings. The last Harry Potter book roused an argument between me and my friend where we were practically shouting at the top of our lungs at each other. Tell me, what is the point of arguing over one word a character says in 800 pages? Probably nothing. But, perhaps something. Who knows? I guess I have somewhat diverged from the origin of this blog. But that is probably the most fascinating thing about media: it allows for a boundless amount of topic conversation.

In case you were wondering, the word was “bitch.”