I pulled out my Penn State transcripts today to see what exactly it was that I spent my money on there. It turns out to be a BA from the College of Communications in Media Studies. I chose the general mass communications option as apposed to journalism, film studies or whatever else the hell the offered. My two year blur (I transferred with an AA in Multimedia Art from C.O.D) consisted of a couple of English and Rhetoric course, a handful of general ed., mass communication research classes and a shitload of studies in theoretical approaches to communications, mass and otherwise. I don’t want to talk too brave or anything, but I’m pretty familiar with the ideological theories of many media scholars. Along with my transcripts, I pulled out a few term papers on which my professor/adviser (and publish media activist) Ronald Bettig noted that while there were a “few minor glitches,” I pretty much knew what I was writing about. I did my homework and have the piece of paper that assumedly proves I have educational foundations of communication theories. Similar to the handouts on Rhetoric and Discourse last week, two years of thinking of nothing but mass communication and media theories made my head hurt. But, what else was I going to do in the Middle of Nowhere, PA. but ponder on what influences in my cultural absorption of life?
At least this week’s reading easier to absorb because of my previous studies. I remember such courses in “The Media and the Public,” “The Political Economy of Communications,” and “The Cultural Aspects of Mass Media.” (Does a BA make me an expert in media? Do I have to practice my knowledge of these theories to be a scholar? Can’t I just watch a block of commercials on the TV without analyzing the content, arrangement, and audience? Should I just have typed “advertorial rhetoric” instead of citing three rhetorical canons?)
Anyhow, I am familiar with Robert McChesney and his oppositions to the oligopoly that is the infrastructure of the current media ownership. His theoretical approach to media is that it should not be a political economy of media institutions because we live in a democracy. He believes that the media is biased because of a handful of rich, powerful people/companies own the top ten most profitable media corporations and they are ultimately a business rather than the voice of the people as democracy would have it to be.
Since I think a blog is not really an appropriate place to “insert senior thesis here,” I’m just going to rant (as seems to be my ongoing theme here). In “Culture, Society, and the Media,” the authors mention that both the traditional liberal and Marxist theories have shifted “to a more cautious assessment in which dominant meaning systems are moulded an relayed by the media (p. 15)” and then personalized by its audience into a meaningful meaning making for their particular socio- status. The rhetoric of a particular media is effective then the audience will perhaps then authenticate it to their belief system and respond accordingly. A true democratic media is “expected to reflect a multi-faceted reality, as truthfully and objectively as possible, free from any bias, especially the biases of the professionals engaged in recording and reporting…(p. 21)”
Like McChesney, Professor Bettig was very adamant about the political economy of the media being biased because of the influence of the upper class reinforcing their own political values through their ownership of the media. The pluralist approach is that the media reflects not one single explanation that can account for reality. If different cultures can coexist within one society, the media should reflect such different cultures. When only a few owners dominate media in, lets say, Chicago, (Tribune Company = Chicago Tribune = WGN; GE = NBC = Chicago Sun Times), there obviously has to be some bias.
Of course ownership is only the tip of the iceberg of the political economy of the media. They are businesses that need to be profitable so they do have to appeal to an audience. Independent filmmakers or unsigned artists are just that because they may not have wide appeal and a media company has to assess their risks of supporting an act. Since the distribution process is easier for a big company and because independents often don’t have the resources for distribution and production, they often get lost in the bombardment that is today’s New Media.
Sometimes I am confounded about the way in which so many theories on the communications of media are all interrelated and sometimes indistinguishable. I am a fan of the pluralist approach because there is no wrong or right way to view life, but that is not to say that life (our culture and society) does not play a part in our views. Also, I am a fan of polemical practices; probably because I like to be argumentative. Communication theory has to naturally begin with oral culture but electronic innovations have significantly changed human interaction in personal, public, and business behaviors. Once I wrote (and I quote myself) “great ratifications were anticipated in the use of electricity but were also expected to cause social catastrophes.” I go on to cite some works that say social breakdowns were not as horrible that predicted and that the industrial revolution included the power for societies to cross geographical and social lines through new technologies, but throughout it all, verbal interaction still to this day stages the foundations of communication.
If a thousand voices are individually recorded and then overlapped, whose can be heard? Is it
the one with the most to say, or the one with the loudest, powerful voice? I am sort of comfortable sitting on the middle of the fence, but at the same time I don’t want to be dumb or deaf to the voices that have something to say that impact me so why do I have to shift through shit to find it? It is not as if one can disregard the political economy of the media in regards to structuralist or culturalist theories, but even so, it sometimes seems too much for my puny brain to encapsulate try to figure out media as a whole. Possibly, as long as I am conscious of media as pluralistic and potential influences in my life, I can be my own authority when I choose my reality in today’s volatile society.
At least this week’s reading easier to absorb because of my previous studies. I remember such courses in “The Media and the Public,” “The Political Economy of Communications,” and “The Cultural Aspects of Mass Media.” (Does a BA make me an expert in media? Do I have to practice my knowledge of these theories to be a scholar? Can’t I just watch a block of commercials on the TV without analyzing the content, arrangement, and audience? Should I just have typed “advertorial rhetoric” instead of citing three rhetorical canons?)
Anyhow, I am familiar with Robert McChesney and his oppositions to the oligopoly that is the infrastructure of the current media ownership. His theoretical approach to media is that it should not be a political economy of media institutions because we live in a democracy. He believes that the media is biased because of a handful of rich, powerful people/companies own the top ten most profitable media corporations and they are ultimately a business rather than the voice of the people as democracy would have it to be.
Since I think a blog is not really an appropriate place to “insert senior thesis here,” I’m just going to rant (as seems to be my ongoing theme here). In “Culture, Society, and the Media,” the authors mention that both the traditional liberal and Marxist theories have shifted “to a more cautious assessment in which dominant meaning systems are moulded an relayed by the media (p. 15)” and then personalized by its audience into a meaningful meaning making for their particular socio- status. The rhetoric of a particular media is effective then the audience will perhaps then authenticate it to their belief system and respond accordingly. A true democratic media is “expected to reflect a multi-faceted reality, as truthfully and objectively as possible, free from any bias, especially the biases of the professionals engaged in recording and reporting…(p. 21)”
Like McChesney, Professor Bettig was very adamant about the political economy of the media being biased because of the influence of the upper class reinforcing their own political values through their ownership of the media. The pluralist approach is that the media reflects not one single explanation that can account for reality. If different cultures can coexist within one society, the media should reflect such different cultures. When only a few owners dominate media in, lets say, Chicago, (Tribune Company = Chicago Tribune = WGN; GE = NBC = Chicago Sun Times), there obviously has to be some bias.Of course ownership is only the tip of the iceberg of the political economy of the media. They are businesses that need to be profitable so they do have to appeal to an audience. Independent filmmakers or unsigned artists are just that because they may not have wide appeal and a media company has to assess their risks of supporting an act. Since the distribution process is easier for a big company and because independents often don’t have the resources for distribution and production, they often get lost in the bombardment that is today’s New Media.
Sometimes I am confounded about the way in which so many theories on the communications of media are all interrelated and sometimes indistinguishable. I am a fan of the pluralist approach because there is no wrong or right way to view life, but that is not to say that life (our culture and society) does not play a part in our views. Also, I am a fan of polemical practices; probably because I like to be argumentative. Communication theory has to naturally begin with oral culture but electronic innovations have significantly changed human interaction in personal, public, and business behaviors. Once I wrote (and I quote myself) “great ratifications were anticipated in the use of electricity but were also expected to cause social catastrophes.” I go on to cite some works that say social breakdowns were not as horrible that predicted and that the industrial revolution included the power for societies to cross geographical and social lines through new technologies, but throughout it all, verbal interaction still to this day stages the foundations of communication.
If a thousand voices are individually recorded and then overlapped, whose can be heard? Is it
the one with the most to say, or the one with the loudest, powerful voice? I am sort of comfortable sitting on the middle of the fence, but at the same time I don’t want to be dumb or deaf to the voices that have something to say that impact me so why do I have to shift through shit to find it? It is not as if one can disregard the political economy of the media in regards to structuralist or culturalist theories, but even so, it sometimes seems too much for my puny brain to encapsulate try to figure out media as a whole. Possibly, as long as I am conscious of media as pluralistic and potential influences in my life, I can be my own authority when I choose my reality in today’s volatile society....We fear that pop-culture
Is the only culture we're ever going to have
We want to stop reading magazines
Stop watching TV
Stop caring about hollywood
But we're addicted to the things we hate...
So what do you want
You want to be famous and rich and happy
But you're terrified you have nothing to offer this world
Nothing to say and no way to say it
But you can say it in three languages
You are more than the sum of what you consume
Desire is not an occupation
You are alternately thrilled and desperate....KMFDM, DOGMA
No comments:
Post a Comment