Since this discussion, I have begun intentionally examining media texts to discover how much unnecessary information is added to stories. The challenge that I now pose for myself, and anyone who wishes to accept it, is to spend the next week examining stories to see just how much irrelevant information is added. Are these stories advancing true ideas and enhancing the debate in the marketplace of ideas, or are they simply appealing to the themes that Hodkinson mentioned that ensure media consumer's interest and attention? Are media stories creating an informed, knowledgeable public, or are they distracting us from issues, de-politicizing our opinions, and increasing our focus on our self over the greater public good?
Friday, April 22, 2011
Media Challenge
Last week in my political sociology class, my professor presented the class with the idea the media environment, which was originally intended to serve as a public forum for the discussion of all ideas, has been so de-politicized that it no longer serves as a "public space." Instead people are encouraged to only discuss their individual feelings in the public space, rather than discussing or arguing for specific individuals. As my professor stated, the media encourages this political apathy through selection in stories. Rather than providing information, or connecting specific stories to larger, more pervasive societal or political issues, media stories are permeated with unnecessary background information intended to distract the media consumer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hilary, I think this is a great question! Personally, I believe that media stories are not actually creating an informed, knowledgeable public, but that they are distracting us from issues and increasing our focus on our self over the greater public good. Using the toppling of the statue (discussed early on in the course) as an example, each television network produced videos that were framed in correlation to that particular stations beliefs and values. As a result of this, viewers became less informed about the event, and more concerned of their personal views of it. Framing was a distraction which encouraged us to look deeper into what message each station was trying to relay. For example, conservative viewers watching a liberal station, such as NBC, were less focused on the issue of the toppling and more on their opposition to the stations broadcast simply because they don't share the same political values.
ReplyDeleteDani, having read your post, I think that you agree with me that news stories are intended to distract us. As you mentioned, even attempts to watch stories presented on channels known for political opinions different than the viewer's own may not foster a more balanced opinion. Instead, it will likely force the viewer to focus on the issues that they do not agree with, or oppose, rather than understanding both sides of the issue. I know that personally, if I watch FoxNews, which presents political opinions different from my own, I do not gain a bipartisan understanding of issues. Instead, I tend to get annoyed or frustrated with their framing, selection, and presentation within their stories, further polarizing my liberal opinion and isolating my understanding of conservative ideals. Perhaps this is what is polarizing the political arena and debate. Like you said Dani, instead of framing the multi-faceted aspects of new stories, specific media producers are selecting, framing, and presenting stories that ultimately serve economic and ideological goals, rather than the traditional ideals of honest, unbiased reporting.
ReplyDelete