Wanted: the media that we need

In my previous post, I discussed the confusion and deception of believing that our society receives the media it demands, when in reality it wants the media it receives by being taught what to want. In this case, however, there are no blurred lines between the two concepts: the media that we want and the media that we need differ significantly.

Linda talks about how “media is not a social force [but] its presence, capabilities and power have rendered it powerful in shaping not only society but our day to day lives.” (http://lt09mj.wordpress.com/). For me, the media that I need are political issues around the world because it will better my knowledge of things that control my life. However, this relates closely to the media that I want: I take a large interest in politics as a subject, therefore I want to be informed about it.

While sometimes the two may be the same depending on the individual’s taste, the media we want and the media we need benefit us in different ways. 

“The media must provide content that is interesting for the audience as people can choose to watch whatever they want. Nowadays there are thousands of media choices that we can make” (http://st12tq.wordpress.com/). Sarah proves that for different people, the benefits of the media apply differently. As I said, the media that I need to hear about is globally informative. However, this is also a media that I want, which backs up Linda’s point: it varies from individual to individual. My taste doesn’t stand solely in politics, but, for example, also largely in music.

Aside from politics, I like to keep up to date with what music and concert tours my favourite bands are planning on releasing because that is a form of entertainment for me. This, I believe, is the definite line. Entertainment is not an essential part of living (specifically to the age of information), but essential to the way our modern society functions. “Media producers realise [sic] that every individual is different, so they continue to release new forms of the media that will relate to each individual” (http://britshannon.blogspot.ca/).

A want is a need based on interest rather than on survival and knowledge. As Brittany puts it, people differ in their tastes, which is why it is hard to identify whether the media we all want is the same as the media all need. For example, some audiences want to hear about what songs are currently the most popular, while others need to hear about the same issue because it may benefit them for work or business related affairs. Often enough, the media that we want and the media that we need are the same for individuals based on their interests. However, ultimately, the media we want and the media we need differ in definition and in benefit to our society.

1F25 Post 2: The Media We Want?

The information presented to consumer audiences does so in a cycle so that we want the media that we get, and in turn get the media that we want. However, as I have argued in the past, a lot of sources of media feed their audiences biased information. Therefore, the consumers are in touch with media that they think they want. In reality, they have been tricked into wanting the media that they receive.

This is most evident when presented with information about world politics. Political parties will often use to their advantage the media sources that support them to indirectly advertise themselves. The power of a political party mixed with the influence of the media on consumers is capable of controlling the way that audiences think:

…media practitioners often see themselves as political watchdogs, and in this respect are referred to as the ‘fourth estate’…The media, as the fourth estate, are a body who can comment on, criticise [sic], and investigate, through free speech, what these other institutions do… (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, Fears about political use of the media, 16).  

By presenting information that either supports or opposes the political party, the source deceives its audience into thinking that they are receiving the media that they want; people want to know which political party is up to good or bad and why or why not to support it. However, that source of media is presenting its own biased opinion and, by doing so, teaching its audience what to want to hear. As a result, the audience, under the impression that it is receiving the media it wants, actually wants the media it receives.

Our society has had a large shift in what is considered entertainment now in comparison to as little as twenty years ago.  The “Hangover humour” movies (as I like to refer to them) such as the series itself, 21 Jump Street, and This Is The End, would have been considered outrageous at the end of the 20^th century and would only target a certain mature audience. Today, they are much more casual. It is debatable whether the reason for that is because consumers want more of this entertainment or are influenced by it and as a result, demand it: “It has been suggested that the cumulative effect of consuming media that contains violent and/or sexualized content might be particularly harmful to young viewers, due in part to the tendency of young people to learn by mimesis…” (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, Fears about the media’s influence on morals and health, 17).  

Here is a cycle where the media outputs entertainment that has a negative effect on impressionable youth. This causes a change in attitude, which causes a change in view. Now these youth want more of that entertainment. A growth in demand causes a growth in production, and the cycle begins again. Although the audiences are receiving the media that they want, the media has again trained them into wanting a certain type of it. Thus, ultimately, the audience wants the type of media that it receives.

1F25 Response 1: Media Impact on Others

After reading through several other blogs, my sentiment on if and/or how the media has had an impact on my worldview hasn’t changed but expanded. Every student whose post I read agreed with what I had to say: the media has a huge effect (if not the largest) on our worldview as a society, and the majority agreed that it was a negative effect.

I was convinced that media sources split into two categories: completely corrupt (the negative) and completely wholesome (the positive). However, after reading what Kelly Gorman had to say, I learned that we are not solely affected negatively by corrupt or biased information, but also by our constant obsession with the lives of others. Kelly discussed how Miley Cyrus’ “We Can’t Stop” and “Wrecking Ball” videos had millions of views within a matter of hours at the same time that the U.S.A was planning a strike on Syria – a matter that she isn’t very well informed about. However, Kelly mentions that it’s easier to hear about Miley Cyrus than it is to hear about the uprising in Syria because “the media would rather shove information about celebrities wrong-doings down our throats then [sic] a civil war.” (http://cpcfkells.blogspot.ca/). More people were concerned with the details of a single celebrity’s heartbreak than with the vicious politics of the world surrounding them and directly affecting them. This is a negative effect on our society by the media, but it is not a result of corruption – it is the result of consumerism and obsession.

In my post, I mentioned that a lot of audiences and consumers have become so brainwashed by the media that they accept any information fed to them. Danielle Schwartz pointed out that referencing a Facebook status or Twitter post now has a socially accepted validity to it and can be used as a “legitimate source” (http://danielle111blog.wordpress.com/).  Although I was referring to sources of information (ie news stations, magazines, etc), after reading Danielle’s post, I realized that it’s possible to be equally as consumed by social networks and observe the same effect. This is especially true with Facebook and Twitter’s initiative to “verify” accounts of celebrities, news stations, and so on.

I frequently came across blogs that discussed the effect that the media has on women. Again, the media has mostly had a negative effect on females. While I discussed the inequality women experience as a result of the objectification of the female body, Haley Bourqu talked about the pressure young girls experience by media to look a certain way. Haley pointed out that most of the women seen in the media are set out to portray a perfect image, which makes the girls that idolize them feel as if they have to resemble that image (http://hb123na.wordpress.com/). Obviously, we know that the use of Photoshop in the media is not uncommon, so the image these girls want to resemble is nearly impossible. Impossible expectations lead to disappointing results. This only reinforces the point I was trying to make about the treatment of women in our society – which, to say the least, is poor.