Media has once again seemed to penetrate every fabric of our lives (see "What is Media?"), especially the private and sacred parts. So why does it matter to us if we are to be consumed by the media anyway?
Just as a pushy salesperson paid on commission will practically prostrate him or herself to a customer for a purchase, so also do the militant media making sure their mastery of our minds are outright and encompassing. Hell, something for the media has to pay the rent. The media is unfortunately NOT a free enterprise, and its only means for obtaining payments is through the consumer. Therefore, it can be argued by any entrepreneur that knowing what the public wants rather than simply asking it is more advantageous and beneficial to the both the business (more profits, less unnecessary costs) and the consumer (to not feel haranged or annoyed by people asking of their opinions.)
However, what the video footage displayed sickened me--how selfish can any person, organization, or entity be that it must exploit children even when they privately go to the bathroom!? Is it ultimately that necessary for children to know what brand of diaper is better? In my mind, it seems that the consumer here is the parent; in that case, durability and cost management seems pertinent to the diaper issue. I will also concede that certain designs on said diapers (for giggles, let's just say Barney is implicated) will enhance or deter the "fondness" of the toddlers using them and those who are watching the implicated characters' television programs. Some of that funding does not need to come directly from the consumer but from the television show itself and some of its sponsors.
In addition, does it take a rocket scientist to know which Spanish-laced program [say, between Dora the Explorer or Rio Bravo] relates better to children? No! Depending on the demographic targeted, Huggies can avoid any wasteful or distasteful methods for obtaining which brands children enjoy simply by asking for daytime television ratings or walking into a TOYS 'R' US.
After all, 360 degree immersion marketing and exploitation are not keys to good learning, Disney. Success and education will help future children and generations become who they want to be, not what the media trains them to be. Nonetheless, the media can try to persuade the masses that their methods for obtaining knowledge is completely ethical--but they're not fooling anyone. After all, in the immortal words of Mitch Hedberg, "I know a lot about cars: I can look at a car's headlights and tell you exactly which way it's coming." Clearly, the media is frankly more obvious than they will elusively admit.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
What is Media?
Research is a fundamental part of understanding and evaluating concepts that pertain to all effects or related issues of a certain observed situation. Given that idea, one must look into several outside "sources of error," mainly referring to outside influences. What better outside influence is there than the media? The media consumes us to purchase nonessential items, drives us to make brash decisions, and exposes weaknesses to curb our perspectives.
So if the media influences every part of our lives and "research," why is it considered a limiting factor or outside influence? Why is the media "factor" not simply considered a null constituent such as the force of gravity, considering it is always around? The logic I generated from this relates to the notion that the media affects every person differently, whereas gravity exerts a consistent 9.8 meters per second-squared force. Then how does one measure how the media effects individuals?
The best method proposed for such an undertaking is to group individuals by commonalities, particularly by gender, age, and ethnicity. For my particular "research," I engendered four media-related questions, expressed to four different individuals: two teenagers (one African-American male, one Hispanic female), one white middle-aged woman, and one white female senior citizen. All members featured in this "study" mentioned that they felt the media was anything that displayed or relayed information or entertainment. This included all forms of communication, particularly involving radio, television, billboards, newspapers, and the internet. However, all members felt the media was bias in all aspects, whether pro or con to each individual's politics and ideals, and some went so far as to suggest that the media is the primary instigator in influencing the country's political theme and cultural bias.
For the older members of the study, the media proved not only a means of information relay but also a method of evaluating others opinions and creating one's own based off them. For the teenagers, there was a substantial impact of the media's constant bombardment of information of brand names and "self-images" portrayed on the average teenager. These "images" are some of the most important characteristics of a teenagers life--whether they acknowledge the fact or not--mainly through involvement and belonging. Ultimately, this makes sense. While the two older members used newspapers, pamphlets, and the radio for obtaining information and gaining knowledge, the teenage students mainly used the television and other audio/video materials for entertainment. Again, no surprise, students who continually learn in the classroom need that escape from "work" and utilize the entertainment portion of the media, whereas the adults continue to further their educations through mediums through which they can manipulate.
Conclusively, the "research" I conducted reflected what I already suspected about the media: gender, ethnicity, and especially age is greatly affected by the media. The media is everywhere and anywhere--there really is no escape from it without completely secluding oneself from the rest of humanity. (Unfortunately, with population explosions and resource demands, escaping entirely from humanity may only yield an isolated hut somewhere on Antarctica.) So if the media is always around, why is it such a significant issue? It is through the media that we are ultimately united and definitely divided: the media forces us to choose sides and evaluate opinions of others, causing us to form alliances with groups and enemies against factions. With the media, there is neither middle ground nor a definite side; neither a benefit nor a malignance; as long as free speech is possible, the media will continue to be a free-flowing force that will both impregnate and deplete us with our culture, our history, our ideals, our lives.
So if the media influences every part of our lives and "research," why is it considered a limiting factor or outside influence? Why is the media "factor" not simply considered a null constituent such as the force of gravity, considering it is always around? The logic I generated from this relates to the notion that the media affects every person differently, whereas gravity exerts a consistent 9.8 meters per second-squared force. Then how does one measure how the media effects individuals?
The best method proposed for such an undertaking is to group individuals by commonalities, particularly by gender, age, and ethnicity. For my particular "research," I engendered four media-related questions, expressed to four different individuals: two teenagers (one African-American male, one Hispanic female), one white middle-aged woman, and one white female senior citizen. All members featured in this "study" mentioned that they felt the media was anything that displayed or relayed information or entertainment. This included all forms of communication, particularly involving radio, television, billboards, newspapers, and the internet. However, all members felt the media was bias in all aspects, whether pro or con to each individual's politics and ideals, and some went so far as to suggest that the media is the primary instigator in influencing the country's political theme and cultural bias.
For the older members of the study, the media proved not only a means of information relay but also a method of evaluating others opinions and creating one's own based off them. For the teenagers, there was a substantial impact of the media's constant bombardment of information of brand names and "self-images" portrayed on the average teenager. These "images" are some of the most important characteristics of a teenagers life--whether they acknowledge the fact or not--mainly through involvement and belonging. Ultimately, this makes sense. While the two older members used newspapers, pamphlets, and the radio for obtaining information and gaining knowledge, the teenage students mainly used the television and other audio/video materials for entertainment. Again, no surprise, students who continually learn in the classroom need that escape from "work" and utilize the entertainment portion of the media, whereas the adults continue to further their educations through mediums through which they can manipulate.
Conclusively, the "research" I conducted reflected what I already suspected about the media: gender, ethnicity, and especially age is greatly affected by the media. The media is everywhere and anywhere--there really is no escape from it without completely secluding oneself from the rest of humanity. (Unfortunately, with population explosions and resource demands, escaping entirely from humanity may only yield an isolated hut somewhere on Antarctica.) So if the media is always around, why is it such a significant issue? It is through the media that we are ultimately united and definitely divided: the media forces us to choose sides and evaluate opinions of others, causing us to form alliances with groups and enemies against factions. With the media, there is neither middle ground nor a definite side; neither a benefit nor a malignance; as long as free speech is possible, the media will continue to be a free-flowing force that will both impregnate and deplete us with our culture, our history, our ideals, our lives.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Blog #1: My Story in Life
One day, I went to the mall to buy a gatorade for my mom. But my mom didn't like gatorade.... uh oh.
The mystery continued and when Carl sat next to me in Media class.... What was I supposed to do when he sat by me? His dominating presence as a captain in track proved me no more worthy than a flea to a dog: a parasite to his persona. But then I realized it was just Carl.
The mystery continued and when Carl sat next to me in Media class.... What was I supposed to do when he sat by me? His dominating presence as a captain in track proved me no more worthy than a flea to a dog: a parasite to his persona. But then I realized it was just Carl.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
