There is not always an underlying message in media content, as I learned this week. The media may not be as "truthful" as they make out to be. They report a story, or an event, but analysts have a grouping classification. Grouping media content into 3 events:
- Genuine events
- Media events
- Pseudo events
I won't go into detail explaining these, but they reveal that not everything you see on the news is how it is depicted. Genuine, being spontaneous, happening then and there events that you can not prevent, whether there is a camera there to capture it or not, it will still happen, eg. Natural/Ecological events (Volcano, Tsunami etc.), Crime (The 16 year old girl shot in Tallaght recently (Feb 2012)). Media event being, a constructed event, that wound in peculiarities because of the public's expected media coverage, eg. The sensationalism of the Amanda Knox court case last year (2011), where the exaggerated media coverage simple made the trial popularized, when it was no different to another murder trial. Pseudo events are staged events that happen merely to increase media coverage and awareness, it is simply for the entertainment value, eg. The entertainment industry, Celebrities. Its extremely media friendly, and always positive.
Broadcasters arrange the content as to how it will be perceived by the viewers. This is important for media broadcasters and journalists. The whole point of releasing the content is to get the largest viewership imaginable, that is the sole purpose, profit. Who releases a news story the quickest is the most important for the company. Who gets there first, who has the first video coverage, if not then use images, a still by still coverage, it doesn't matter, as long as there is something for the viewer to see, however amateur, just as long as they can claim to get their first, and have a viewable source. If they have incorrect or false coverage, an apology can be issued the next day and the it will be forgotten about.
Being a media analyst involves, being able to decipher and analyse what you see. To look at the media in a critical and analytical manner, and question what you see. Always ask:
- Why (why was the story produced in this way)?
- How (how was it made/produced/distributed)?
- When (live, or as being live. what was the zeitgeist)?
- What (what are the effects on the audience, and the wider social audience)?
We discussed social institutions and the overall "Power of the Media". The media is a hugely influencial factor when it comes to social and cultural image. It can shape how we live our lives, haw we spend our money, and how we view the rest of the world. But it can cause violence, like the London riots last year, it can be argued that media coverage was adding"fuel to the fire". Promote sexual promiscuity, via pop culture. The current trend at the moment with "Tallafornia", "Geordie Shore", and "The Only was is Essex". With the media sensationalizing the ideology of "its ok to go out every night of the week and have sex with strangers". This mentally is fuelled by shows like these. But as I said in a previous paragraph. It doesn't matter, as long as there is a large audience and viewer numbers. The media can even cause corporate collapse, an ironic (ongoing) story being the collapse of the "News of the World", who accessed information illegally to obtain greater viewers/readers but in doing so diminished their own standing and ultimately collapsed.
Overall, the media is replacing the formerly important, or influencial social institutions. Instilling values that are no longer coming from traditional power brokers, eg. Family, or the Church. People are turning to the media for answers. But the media, an accidental social figure head, was not originally intended to be looked upon for answers to peoples livelihood, and moral compass. For some, it is their primary source of understanding of the world. But ultimately, portray a false reality, one that should not be instilled into peoples lives. The media modern media, only simulate a world without consequence.
Along with learning the analytical side of media, we discussed what the term "Discourse" means. Discourse is communicated through the media all of the time, and is deeply embedded in the everyone's daily interactivities and encounters. It is the parameters in which a particluar issue is discussed or framed by the media.
To put it in my own words, its the meaning behind the communication method. A communication method being text, or voice etc. There is meaning to almost everything we say or gesture. This is the called the discourse, the underlying meaning. The term 'text' is used to mean an observable product. The gesture or voice per say.
Discourse is the process, the underlying meaning. It is not the product ('text'). Discourse is manifested by its cultural outlines, the zeitgeist of a culture. It is a product of a meaning. It is someones cultural and social upbringing. How a subculture is viewed for example, when you hear the word priest , you would think of peodophilia. But why... It is because, the zeitgeist (feeling at the time), would suggest, that there have been various scandals and negative news coverage that we would associate all priests with peodophilia. It depends on cultural associate connotations.
A great example of this is, when someone tells a joke, and it did not come across as funny to the receiver, this suggests that the discourse is lost in translation. That you have associated the joke with something that you (personally) thought was funny, due to your associations with the subject of the joke. Where as, the reciever did not, and could have personal and emotional attachment to the subject, therefore making it unfunny.
This happened myself recently when I was dropping my girlfriend home. We would have come from the same different cultural backgrounds and social groups, her being from the south side of Dublin, around the Stillorgan area (very posh), and I, raised in north Dublin all my life (not so posh). I had made a joke using slang terminology (Jargon), commonly associated with the south of Dublin. Where I found it funny, and was expecting her to laugh, I got the complete opposite effect, where she was gravely disgusted. I hadn't taken into consideration her cultural background, or her views on that section of society, one that she was close to, or had associations with. It was interesting to use the knowledge gained in class to analyse that situation.
There is a lot to Discourse, as I learned. Discussing in depth the "Circuit of Culture" (which I will not explain), and how it is used to interpret different sociological and cultural meanings. The sense of naturalism, and culture associates arbitrary meanings to occupations, clothing and colors, for example, Truck driving and nursing are available to both genders, but it is the views of society that only make or females enter either occupation. Where it is not enforced upon, society encourages just male or female to enter the job, and then is seen as abstract that a man is a hairdresser, nurse, or househusband.
These are values instilled only by societal means, there is no laws enforcing association or connotation. It is just what has become the "Norm", what we accept as being right, or the way that it is. And if you differ... well unfortunately, you will become a social outcast. But these things change all that time, society creates different value systems. It is wrong to look down on someone for being different and not abiding by imaginary classification systems. And with discourse, it is interesting to understand underlying cultural conditions to the communication process.
James.
No comments:
Post a Comment