“Cantrill was interested in exploring the variability of listener’s experiences, factors that may have inhibited the critical ability for some, and contradictory accounts, pointing toward how the same information heard by individual listeners was processed in very different ways.” Relating Cantrill’s concept to What is a Media Effect, the same message can be interpreted differently by different people. Preexisting attitudes, beliefs, cognitions, and behaviors may influence how we feel about, interpret or respond to a message. Whether or not the message contradicts or reinforces our current cognitions can influence our reactions. For example, the statement that “viewing violence in the media causes aggression” can evoke varying responses. Based on individual’s lived experiences (and possible knowledge on the subject learned from the media as well), they could exude a subtle response if violence is related to factors that they believe can be controlled, such as fighting and verbal insults. Whereas someone who reflects on violence as a complex occurrence that can’t always be controlled, such as racism, sexism, ageism, genocide, killings, and crime, may experience an extreme heightened awareness.
“Cantrill also argued that neither educational level nor the medium in which the message was conveyed were sufficient to explain the susceptibility to suggestion or different standards of judgment displayed by individuals. He argued that psychological personality traits predisposed individuals to uncritically believe what they were hearing.” I agree that certain predispositions can influence our judgment, but I relate this concept to Marshall McLuhan’s The Medium is the Massage in that the medium in which the message is communicated through is the message itself, not the content of the message. For example, the Nixon-Kennedy debate was a clear indicator that the medium affected the decision of who the audience thought had won the debate, depending on if they tuned into a radio or a television. Furthermore, LinkedIn vs Twitter could demonstrate another example of how the medium is the message. By posting “Family practitioner with 25+ years of experience looking to help develop low-income clinics in the Dallas area” may receive extremely different responses, or no response at all, depending on where the caption was posted. LinkedIn is a culture of professionalism and networking for careers whereas Twitter is more informal and immediate. Because of varying reasons, such as being socially ostracized, we can’t post information interchangeably across all mediums (social media platforms).
To me, it makes sense that one must be able to comprehend the information they are being presented. For example, we don’t teach 8th-grade level algebra to 1st graders. Likewise, it’s important to weigh the options of whether or not children should be exposed to certain content simply because it is an everyday occurrence in life. What is the argument for why sex should be salient to children? Yes, children are curious, but should we organize and present information in a way that coincides with cognitive development? For example, young children don’t understand object permanence – they think that when a toy or their caregiver disappears that they will live eternity without the object that has since gone missing. Should we make an exception that children be exposed to violence because it’s something that they will inevitably encounter in life? Since a child’s cognition is not yet developed for abstract situations (such as hypotheticals and watching something that we know shouldn’t be repeated), it’s important to present the information in layers at the appropriate time (e.g. stages of cognitive development). When starting a new job, we don’t learn and practice all of the job responsibilities all at once. There’s a progression of learning, whether it lasts for two months or only lasts for less than a week.
What is a Media Effect discusses a theory that we learned in class: reinforcement. The author described change as having the possibility to be both good and/or bad. With reinforcement, a person’s belief or attitude is not changed. For reinforcement to occur, the belief or attitude is confirmed and bolstered.
In referring to the Mutual Causation Model of media effects, I try to associate violence in the media and violent behavior as bidirectional. This model states that maybe children are influenced by violence in the media, and in turn, are more likely to become more aggressive. However, certain children who are predisposed to violent tendencies may seek out or pay special attention to violence in the media. Therefore, the children who show the most drastic increase in aggressive behavior may be the ones who specifically seek out or relish the violence in the media.
In regards to violence causing aggression in children, I think it’s important to understand the notion of being predisposed. Once our predispositions are triggered, the behavior is likely to be exacerbated. Violence in the media is not likely to be inventing an otherwise nonexistent aggressive tendency, instead worsening or increasing the occurrence of the violent behavior of the individual.
Aside from the consensus that media do perpetuate stereotypes, a question I ask myself is why do the media do it? Going beyond media effects and whether not the media are the agenda setters, are employees of the media that report the news (journalists, editors, reporters, and other staff members) showcasing their inherent bias? If so, where does that bias come from? Are the effects revolving.... the individuals who work for the media are also influenced by the same media as individuals who are merely spectators? We can agree that racism and sexism portrayed by the media are bad (bad in general no matter how it is communicated), but what is the motive for perpetuating this dogma? We can specify what is wrong with the media and what we dislike about them, but how can we fix the issues at had unless we know precisely what is causing the issue? Is it members of the media who intentionally or unintentionally convey their bias when conveying information to the audience? If it's unintentional, why did they develop those improper preconceived notions? Maybe it's a group-think issue. As in, the media outlets compete with each other by evolving more and more extreme viewpoints to further solidify their stances. Maybe it's the advertisers (such as product placement or integrating brand names into scripts) who pay money to the media stations that are influencing the dogma. Furthermore, can we or will we be able to articulate what is the cause of the cause?
“Cantrill also argued that neither educational level nor the medium in which the message was conveyed were sufficient to explain the susceptibility to suggestion or different standards of judgment displayed by individuals. He argued that psychological personality traits predisposed individuals to uncritically believe what they were hearing.” I agree that certain predispositions can influence our judgment, but I relate this concept to Marshall McLuhan’s The Medium is the Massage in that the medium in which the message is communicated through is the message itself, not the content of the message. For example, the Nixon-Kennedy debate was a clear indicator that the medium affected the decision of who the audience thought had won the debate, depending on if they tuned into a radio or a television. Furthermore, LinkedIn vs Twitter could demonstrate another example of how the medium is the message. By posting “Family practitioner with 25+ years of experience looking to help develop low-income clinics in the Dallas area” may receive extremely different responses, or no response at all, depending on where the caption was posted. LinkedIn is a culture of professionalism and networking for careers whereas Twitter is more informal and immediate. Because of varying reasons, such as being socially ostracized, we can’t post information interchangeably across all mediums (social media platforms).
To me, it makes sense that one must be able to comprehend the information they are being presented. For example, we don’t teach 8th-grade level algebra to 1st graders. Likewise, it’s important to weigh the options of whether or not children should be exposed to certain content simply because it is an everyday occurrence in life. What is the argument for why sex should be salient to children? Yes, children are curious, but should we organize and present information in a way that coincides with cognitive development? For example, young children don’t understand object permanence – they think that when a toy or their caregiver disappears that they will live eternity without the object that has since gone missing. Should we make an exception that children be exposed to violence because it’s something that they will inevitably encounter in life? Since a child’s cognition is not yet developed for abstract situations (such as hypotheticals and watching something that we know shouldn’t be repeated), it’s important to present the information in layers at the appropriate time (e.g. stages of cognitive development). When starting a new job, we don’t learn and practice all of the job responsibilities all at once. There’s a progression of learning, whether it lasts for two months or only lasts for less than a week.
What is a Media Effect discusses a theory that we learned in class: reinforcement. The author described change as having the possibility to be both good and/or bad. With reinforcement, a person’s belief or attitude is not changed. For reinforcement to occur, the belief or attitude is confirmed and bolstered.
In referring to the Mutual Causation Model of media effects, I try to associate violence in the media and violent behavior as bidirectional. This model states that maybe children are influenced by violence in the media, and in turn, are more likely to become more aggressive. However, certain children who are predisposed to violent tendencies may seek out or pay special attention to violence in the media. Therefore, the children who show the most drastic increase in aggressive behavior may be the ones who specifically seek out or relish the violence in the media.
In regards to violence causing aggression in children, I think it’s important to understand the notion of being predisposed. Once our predispositions are triggered, the behavior is likely to be exacerbated. Violence in the media is not likely to be inventing an otherwise nonexistent aggressive tendency, instead worsening or increasing the occurrence of the violent behavior of the individual.
Aside from the consensus that media do perpetuate stereotypes, a question I ask myself is why do the media do it? Going beyond media effects and whether not the media are the agenda setters, are employees of the media that report the news (journalists, editors, reporters, and other staff members) showcasing their inherent bias? If so, where does that bias come from? Are the effects revolving.... the individuals who work for the media are also influenced by the same media as individuals who are merely spectators? We can agree that racism and sexism portrayed by the media are bad (bad in general no matter how it is communicated), but what is the motive for perpetuating this dogma? We can specify what is wrong with the media and what we dislike about them, but how can we fix the issues at had unless we know precisely what is causing the issue? Is it members of the media who intentionally or unintentionally convey their bias when conveying information to the audience? If it's unintentional, why did they develop those improper preconceived notions? Maybe it's a group-think issue. As in, the media outlets compete with each other by evolving more and more extreme viewpoints to further solidify their stances. Maybe it's the advertisers (such as product placement or integrating brand names into scripts) who pay money to the media stations that are influencing the dogma. Furthermore, can we or will we be able to articulate what is the cause of the cause?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.