The Internet and Revolution

It would be very difficult to try to contest the belief that the United States generally controls the global media economy. Even many industries which own, distribute, or otherwise have a stake in “global” or “non-western” cultural products are often times controlled or funded by an American corporate interest. Herbert Schiller, one of the world’s “most influential political economists of communication” asserts that “corporate interests pervades every aspect of society” (Baran 223). In his article “American Pop Culture Sweeps the World” Schiller asserts that these corporate interests are the cause of the “Americanization” or “westernization” of global culture. Furthermore, he says that this “weakens the influence of local leaderships and thereby creates additional national and global instability.” (Schiller 3)
When I read this article that last sentence sort of blew me away. For four years I’ve studied the effects of media on individual, societal and global levels, but never did I think that the (western) media is creating “additional national and global instability”. I was astounded that it could have such extreme negative effects. Looking for modern examples to support this theory touted by Schiller I first considered looking at how the West influenced the recent political upheaval in the Middle East. However, I quickly expelled the idea that the Arab Spring was a result of western media influence, a true “Twitter Revolution”, due to a number of factors (outlined to some degree here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/iran-twitter-revolution-protests ) but most importantly, I rejected this idea because social media did not spawn the ideas which birthed a revolution, it just helped spread them.
Schiller might disagree with me. His belief that media (in this case social media) has a “direct, though immeasurable impact on human consciousness” (Schiller 5) might cause him to contend that these revolutions were indeed a result of western media influence, even if he does not solely blame social media but rather implicates the whole western media economy.

Do the global and local civil society have their activities enhanced by the internet? (Schiller 5) OR has the internet let to more “national and global instability”?

Schillers feelings about the homogenization of culture through media are mirrored by McLuhan’s ideas about the “global village”. McLuhan believes that “a new form of social organization would emerge as instantaneous electronic media tied the entire world into one great social, political, and cultural system.” (Baran 231)

Do you share Schiller’s skepticism about the west’s place in global media?

Or do you understand and agree with McLuhan’s “optimism” regarding the emerging media landscape?

Perhaps some of Schiller’s fears about the future of globalization are rooted in his belief that “the internet itself is all too likely to be transformed into a commercial and pay for use system in the near future.” (Schiller 6) More than ten years later, we have seen this happen to some degree as many websites are run solely by advertisements and have their messages dictated by the corporate interests that fund them. Also, we have seen many ISP’s begin charging users based on how much data (measured in Megabytes) they consume.

Does this mean that a “commercial” internet is a bad thing when considering that it is more or less controlled by western industry?
Before you answer, consider the other alternative. A internet controlled and regulated by a Western Government. Recently, this hypothetical almost recently became a reality. The SOPA and PIPA bills which sent the internet community into an uproar (and cause many of the highest trafficking sites to “blackout” for 24 hours in protest) would have made it “harder for sites — especially those located outside the United States — to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material such as movies and music as well as physical goods such as counterfeit purses and watches.” (Magid) Although these bills had seemingly “good”, or at the very least safe, intentions, the actual implications of this legislation would have drastically changed the way we use the web.
The fears of many internet users were echoed in a statement made by the Obama administration:

“Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.

The administration also echoed concerns raised by a number of security experts, including some anti-malware companies that the bill could disrupt the underlying architecture of the Internet.” (Magid)”

Given this information, what are some more problems that arise from governmental and corporate internet control?

Would this issue be better suited to be studied by a Cultural Studies Theorist or a Political Economist?

Works Cited

Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Magid, Larry. "What Are SOPA and PIPA And Why All The Fuss?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. .

Schiller, Herbert. "American Pop Culture Sweeps the World." Societies, Masses, and Publics (1996): 2-13. Print.

Weaver, Matthew. "Iran's 'Twitter Revolution' Was Exaggerated, Says Editor." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 09 June 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. .

Sports and gender

There has always been a certain connection between masculinity and sports. In an article written by Nick Trujillo, he states that sport plays a crucial role in symbolizing masculinity in our culture. Trujillo believes there are five forms of hegemonic masculinity that are widely accepted in our society. Those five forms listed in Trujillo’s article are “(1) physical force and control, (2) occupational achievement, (3) familial patriarchy, (4) frontiersmanship, and (5) heterosexuality”. Can you think of any ways in which these forms can be applied to sports? Trujillo states that “Perhaps no single institution in American culture has influenced our sense of masculinity more than sport”. Sports are a way for masculinity to be displayed through on-field competition, violence, fan passion, and advertisements. Can you think of any advertisements shown during sporting events that display masculinity? Or can you think of any ways in which sports fans display their masculinity? Sports are also a great way for the media to impose masculinity on the public, according to Trujillo. What are some ways you can think of where the media imposes masculinity on the public through sports?

In Trujillo’s article, he states that “Media representations of sport reaffirm and reproduce the features of hegemonic masculinity”. Masculinity and sports come hand and hand; one is connected with the other. Why is this so? And why is sport associated with masculinity more so than anything else in our culture? Also, Trujillo lists heterosexuality as one of his five features of hegemonic masculinity. While this does not just apply specifically to sports, what role does sexuality play in sports? What would the impact of an athlete openly acknowledging that he is gay be?

Trujillo also mentions that in sports, the media “has placed far more emphasis on marginalizing women as cheerleaders, spectators, and advertising women”. I would take this a step further and say that sports actually marginalize female athletes. In 2007, the University of Colorado’s football coach was suspended for comments made about walk-on kicker Katie Hnida, a female who was playing on the men’s team. One day after Hnida accused a fellow teammate of raping her, Coach Barnett told reporters that Hnida was “an ‘awful’ player and said she couldn’t ‘kick the ball through the uprights’.” (www.cbsnews.com) Barnett was completely insensitive to the rape accusation, and actually took that opportunity to blast Hnida’s on-field performance. Instead of standing up and defending her, Barnett chose to scold her. Barnett was not fired for the comments that he made. What does this say about the treatment of women in the sports culture? Can you think of any other ways where women are marginalized through sports in our culture?

According to Van Zoonen, gender does not determine our identity; there are other factors that determine our identity.  While I agree with Van Zoonen to a certain extent, I also feel that gender definitely influences our identity.  Take the Colorado football incident as an example.  If that kicker was a male, do you think that his coach would have come to his defense?  But because the kicker was a female the coach undermined her story.  Also, the five forms of hegemonic masculinity listed by Trujillo identify some of the basic characteristics that a male in our society should have.  If a male does not fit these five forms, they are seen as deviant and are part of the minority.  One could make the argument that society and the media play a large role in shaping one’s identity.  So with this being said, do you think gender is the main factor in determining one’s identity?  Or is one’s identity determined by other factors such as the media? 

Trujillo, Nick. "Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound: Media Representations of Nolan Ryan and American Sports Culture." Cultural Studies in Mass Communication, 1991.

Van Zoonen, Liesbet. “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” Chapter 3. Ed. Denis McQuail. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 2002

"Coach Suspended For Rape Remark." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 05 Dec. 2007. Web. 08 Apr. 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-601302.html>.

Part 2

The article I found about Rihanna, “Rihanna: ‘I don’t try to be controversial,’ Talk That Talk’ singer insists her racy videos aren’t merely about garnering headlines…” I found this on NME.com. We all know that Rihanna has a unique style of music and she definitely pushes the envelope with her music videos. All of her videos raise different questions because of what she includes in them. S&M was a video that raised the issue of too sexual and inappropriate, Man Down dealt with the issues of rape and gun control, and some of the other ones that talked about sex. In this article Rihanna defends herself and her music to explain that she isn’t trying to create problems just expressing herself. The article talks about the recent video ‘We Found Love’ and ‘Man Down’. Anti-rape campaigners were the ones who felt that these videos go against what they represent because in ‘Man Down’ it shows Rihanna shooting a man who raped her, ‘We Found Love’ had sex scenes and in one she is spanked by her male co-star. Rihanna doesn’t deny that she takes things too far but no matter what her videos are her art and she is still proud of them. She stated that, “I never do anything to get banned, never do it for controversy. It’s always just honest and at times I just go a little too far for some.” (nme.com). She goes on to say, “When I make a music video, it’s a piece of art. It’s four minutes to make a visual, for people to understand the message in the song.” (nme.com). Not everyone agrees with her expression and messages but it doesn’t matter because she is strong women and is trying to bring her music to life. Sexual behavior and portrayal is part of that expression. She is young, beautiful, talented and willing to make a statement.

Lady GaGa we hear that name and the first few things I know I think of is outrageous, unusual clothing style, ridiculous, very proud of her sexuality and most definitely a woman who makes a statement in more then just her music but in her everyday life. She never backs down from challenges and she most certainly doesn’t back down from the negative opinions of the world. I found an article “Lady GaGa’s Telephone rings fresh sex controversy,’ on entertainment.oneindia.in. It talks about her 2010 music video ‘Telephone,’ and the sexual content that takes place. The music video in an artistic way shows her private parts but in a ‘pixelated’ form, the article says which raised the up roar about why it was included in the video. GaGa defended her video by saying, “The idea is that it’s an unanswered question. You kind of see whatever it is you see personally. Whether people think I was naked or think otherwise, it’s meant to be subjective to whoever is watching it. It’s pixelated for that reason but it’s interesting to see the different ways people view it.” (entertainment.oneindia.in). GaGa is not afraid to make her statement and bring her music to life, the songs become more then just lyrics that we memorize but they become a story, not always with a moral, but in a strange way the videos do make sense, I don’t always think so but the audience does. People complain that GaGa is too sexual in her music videos, lyrics always referring back to sexual content, body parts, sexual activities and more. GaGa is a woman with stories to tell and she does that in a very unique, outlandish way.

Female musicians aren’t trying to be sex objects they are trying to express themselves in which ever way they see fit. Its about creating visuals to tell a story for the audience to enjoy. Each story has a meaning to the artist and that is for people to interpret in their own way. Female musicians want to show their strength, talent, power, and ability to express themselves in their own way not in what everyone else thinks they should show. In the article ““Dirrty” Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music” by Lesley Robinson, she talks about Christina Aguilera’s music video “Dirrty” and the latent meanings behind her story telling. If you haven’t seen the music video it is a terrible video that makes no sense because all it is sexual dancing that’s it but when you listen to the lyrics that’s just the point. But, like other female artists would say its story telling and art. In the article Robinson says, “Of most relevance to Christina Aguilera’s video is Sarah Projansky’s definition of “sex-positive postfeminism” which “embraces a feminism focused on individuality, independence and women’s ‘choice’ to engage in heterosexually attractive bodily display.” (Robinson 2004). This quote basically sums everything up that I have been trying to say, female musicians like Rihanna, Britney Spears, Lady GaGa and Christina Aguilera, are strong women who are bringing their music to life by creating stories, visuals and expressing their sexuality. Although, some are taken too far, its still the basic need to express themselves. They are proud to be women who are beautiful, talented, powerful and think of their bodies as something worth showing off to their audience. Whether we judge them for looking like ‘whores’ because of what they are doing or if we view them as artists expressing themselves, we are living up to the expectations set up by the artist, and that is to interpret their videos as what we see fit. Its all about a personal experience with the artist, trying to understand their story, which isn’t always possible, but it is something we all try to do. I don’t always grasp their concepts because things just don’t make sense but I understand that they are powerful women who aren’t afraid to push the envelope in a culture that frowns upon that type of behavior being so open for us to see.

Zoonen, L. V. (1994). A 'new' paradigm?. In D. McQuail (Ed.), McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory (pp. 46-59). L: SAGE Publications.

Robinson, L. (2004). Dirrty discourse: the politics of gender representation in popular music. Mediations, 1, 45-52.

Garvey, M. (2011, October 18). Britney spears' controversial "criminal" video--how steamy is it?. Retrieved from http://www.eonline.com/news/britney_spears_controversial_criminal/270062

Rihanna: 'i don't try to be controversial'. (2012, April 4). Retrieved from http://www.nme.com/news/rihanna/63052.

Lady gaga's telephone rings fresh sex controversy. (2010, March 23). Retrieved from http://entertainment.oneindia.in/music/international/2010/gaga-telephone-controversy-230310.html.

Female Representation in Music Videos (Part 1)

Britney Spears, Rihanna, and Lady GaGa 3 very strong and powerful female singers in today’s pop music scene. These women are also known for pushing the envelope with their music videos and the portrayal of sex in their videos. They are three women who are comfortable with their sexuality and not afraid to show it. I would usually argue against their inappropriate behavior in but in terms of this assignment I am taking a different side. Spears, Rihanna and GaGa aren’t trying to be sex-crazed women who dance sexually, make-out, and ‘have sex’ with their co-stars in their music videos they are instead artists expressing themselves in their music. The problem is that in today’s culture what they do in their music videos and lyrics is so far from the norm it is frowned upon and they become the controversial topic of the week when they premiere a new video. Feminists would see what they are doing as objectifying themselves in a man-run world and giving into the stereotypes of being nothing more then sex objects for me. But, that is not it they are trying to show their strength as female music artists in a business that is run by men.

In A ‘New’ Paradigm? By Liesbet Van Zoonen, she talks about feminism and the new approach to the feminist theories. It brings to light the other side of things and how as pop culture has changed in the media so has the ideas of feminism. Zoonen states that, “Media production, for instance, is neither a straightforward derivative of the malicious intents of capitalist male owners, nor is it merely the product of the sexist inclinations of media professionals.” (Zoonen 1994) Zoonen goes on to say  that, “It cannot be seen as a simple black box transmitting the patriarchal, sexist or capitalist values of its producers. It is better characterized by tensions and contradictions between individuals with different professional values and personal opinions, and between conflicting organizational demands such as creativity and innovation on the one hand and the commercial need to be popular among a variety of social groups on the other hand.” (Zoonen 1994).

Basically, while women live in patriarchal world, women aren’t going to allow things to be seen in one way instead they are going to create things in the media that gives the audience a different point of view on things, to represent their personal views and allow others to form their own based on what they are shown. Trying to be a female artist in the media world isn’t easy because you have to stand up and be strong as well as defend your ideas and bring them to life. These three women do just that and they don’t care as much of what people are going to take away from it because they are doing for their own expression but they also do it to share with their fans. Feminists don’t approve with the new pop culture music and don’t find what they do as actual art because to them these women are flaunting their bodies and in a negative way giving meaning to the stereotypes that are placed upon women in this man-run world we live in.

I found an article for Spears, Rihanna and GaGa, to help explain my point. The first article was about Britney Spears’ music video ‘Criminal,’ “Britney Spears’ Controversial “Criminal” Video—How Steamy is it?” by Marianne Garvey. In 2011 Britney Spears released a music video and in her video it starred her current boyfriend and some very sexual moments. “The singer, who filmed the video in London last month with her real-life boyfriend, gets completely naked with her man, takes a sexy shower with him and rolls around in the sheets with him in what look like some very real love scenes.” (Garvey 2011). The shower scene was where Spears got the biggest uproar, next to the robbery that involved Britney holding up a convenience store owner at gun point. The shower scene was very revealing and showed more of Britney then most people would have liked and it didn’t make much sense with the video but Spears is also a woman who is proud of her sexuality of being a woman and has so qualms of showing her audience that she is beautiful. The article also gives a statement given by Britney’s people, “But Brit’s camp slammed the attack on her, telling E! News the video is “a fantasy-themed story featuring Britney’s boyfriend.” (Garvey 2011). That’s exactly what music videos are they are a make-believe story being told, the videos bring the lyrics of the songs to life and there is nothing wrong with that. Women have the right to express themselves and if showing off what they have to offer as beautiful strong women, then it’s a good thing. For anyone who hasn’t seen the music video and would like to check it out here is the link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b33PTbGxk&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dbritney%2Bspears%2Bcriminal%26oq%3Dbritney%2Bspears%2Bcr%26aq%3D0p%26aqi%3Dp-p1g9%26aql%3D%26gs_nf%3D1%26gs_l%3Dyoutube-psuggest.1.0.35i39j0l9.236.7651.0.8617.7.7.2.0.0.0.520.1069.0j4j5-1.5.0.&has_verified=1)

Gender Representations in Music

                Christina Aguliera’s “Dirrty” video has been the go-to reference for the hyper-sexualized representation of women in music. Aside from the song’s suggestive lyrics, the video contains provocative choreography, with Christina barely clothed participating in some sort of boxing match. The video is analyzed in Lesley Robinson’s “’Dirrty’ Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music” from several perspectives. She offers the male hegemonic approach, which claims that Christina behaved the way she did to appeal to the more dominant structures of masculinity in society, as well as the feminist view that Christina was simply embracing her sexuality.
                There are many questions to be so considered, the most important being the question of industry norms. Did Christina represent herself this way in order to make money? If this is the case, can her behavior truly be viewed as inappropriate? Or, did she have to conduct herself in this manner, when most males will likely perceive her as a sexual object regardless of what she was wearing anyway? Are males threatened by this overtly-sexual woman?
                If she did chose to represent herself explicitly on her own terms, can she be deemed a bad role model for her predominately female audience? Is she empowered by embracing her sexuality (“sex-positive postfeminism”)? Robinson neglects to include two pieces of information that may also affect someone’s opinion of the music video, and certainly information that influences my opinion. It is important to note that Christina defended her video on numerous occasions, likening it to the “let loose” mentality any 21-year-old might have. Also, she has made it known her overall distrust of males after witnessing domestic violence in her home as a child. These factors, while personal to Christina’s life, could have some sort of weight in the debate over whether her video was overtly sexual simply to make money or to affirm her sexuality.
                “Since popular music is defined by industry norms, Western definitions of what constitutes ‘music’ and representations of race, class, and gender, ‘we might best think about music and politics as an activity embedded in relations of power’” (Robinson, 47). While there is certainly a power struggle between males and females, it is up to the fan whether or not to entertain these relations as they play out in the music industry. Given that Christina has significantly more female fans than male fans, what do you think the overall opinion was of the “Dirrty” music video? What was your personal opinion? Do you think this video helped or hindered her success as an artist?
                As Christina represents herself as a sexual object, there is a LGBT community in music that represents itself similarly. An article from Pitchfork entitled “We Invented Swag: NYC’s Queer Rap” details the rise of queer rappers in NYC that all have one thing in common: they play into their sexuality by appearing in drag when performing.  However, if Christina’s representation of herself as a sexual object was indeed to turn a profit, these rappers do not have the same kind of advantage. “When it comes to a culture that caters almost exclusively to heteronormative sensibilities, it’s easy to applaud topic gestures of gay acceptance without demanding to see them applied on a tangible, more mainstream level, be it in the form of live bills shared between  gay and straight rappers, co-signs, radio play, or label deals” (Battan). Why do you think this is? Why is Christina’s creation of sexually-charged material an accepted method of achieving success in music, but queer rappers cross-dressing does not legitimize them in the eyes of music professionals? Does being part of the hip-hop genre make them less likely to be successful?
                Furthermore, given the complexities of sexual orientation, can gender representation be so simply categorized?  Liesbet van Zoonen makes an interesting point in “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” when she concludes, “Gender should thus be conceived, not as a fixed property of individuals, but as part of an ongoing process by which subjects are constituted, often in paradoxical ways. The identity that emerges is therefore fragmented and dynamic; gender does not determine or exhaust identity” (van Zoonen). If gender is not the sole determiner of identity, why did Christina choose to represent herself in such a clearly feminized way, and why do queer rappers choose to represent themselves in a way that is entirely indicative of their genders?

Battan, Carrie. “We Invented Swag: NYC’s Queer Rap.” Pitchfork. 21 Mar. 2012. Web. Accessed 5 Apr. 2012.

Robinson, Lesley. “’Dirrty’ Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music.” Mediations 1, 2004. 45-52.

van Zoonen, Liesbet. “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” Chapter 3. Ed. Denis McQuail. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 2002.

Gender Representation in the Media

“All forms of media communicate images of the sexes, many of which perpetuate unrealistic, stereotypical, and limiting perceptions” (Wood, 31).  In an article titled Gendered Media: The Influence of Media on Views of Gender, author Julia T. Wood discusses the drastic misrepresentation of gender roles in the media.  She strongly argues that all media forms portray unrealistic and stereotypical views of both men and women.  I can honestly say that I agree with her when she states that many forms of media depict males and females in one way or another, but her argument for the fact that women in particular are almost always underrepresented in media doesn’t seem to be completely true in my opinion.  When we think about how the sexes are represented in different forms of media, what comes to mind?  I think it’s safe to say that sex appeal, from both men and women, is a popular form of advertising for many companies.  When we think about shows on television, what characters come to mind as being “stereotyped”?  In movies, are there any characters that you can think of who might be just a bit too typical?  In her article, Wood mentions that media often present “limited perceptions” of both males and females.  In addition to this, she mentions three themes that she claims describe how media represents gender.  “First, women are underrepresented, which falsely implies that men are the cultural standard and women are unimportant or invisible.  Second, men and women are portrayed in stereotypical ways that reflect and sustain socially endorsed views of gender.  Third, depictions of relationships between men and women emphasize traditional roles and normalize violence against women” (Wood, 31).  According to her, these three themes describe how people view gender roles based on the media, but these themes may not hold true for everyone.  How do you feel about these themes?  Do you think that they’re accurate?

Three more themes are discussed in Liesbet van Zoonen’s article titled A ‘New’ Paradigm? in which she describes her views on gender depiction in the media.  “Feminist research assumes a rather straightforward ‘sender-message-receiver’ sequence in which media are conceived as transmitting particular messages about gender (stereotypes, pornography, ideology) to the wider public.  The social control function of the media is central to all three themes, although there are some differences as to how social control is achieved” (van Zoonen, 47).  Here, she seems to be arguing that although the media, or “sender,” may have a certain idea, or “message,” that they want to convey, there’s always potential for the audience, or “receiver,” to take that message in an altered context.  Do you think this is a strong argument?  Does the message have the potential to become skewed once it leaves the sender before it reaches the receiver?  I think it’s safe to say that messages often get misinterpreted, whether they’re spoken words, a text message on a cell phone, or even just a look given from one person to another.  Misinterpretation is a common human characteristic, but how prevalent is it when dealing with messages from the media?  More specifically, how often do you think it occurs when dealing with messages from the media regarding gender roles? 

Julia Wood’s article discusses male and female gender roles in the media, but talks a little bit more about the roles of women as opposed to the roles of men.  An article titled Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound: Media Representations of Nolan Ryan and American Sports Culture written by Nick Trujillo, examines print and TV representations of baseball great Nolan Ryan to portray how hegemonic or dominant masculinity is emulated in mediated sport.  “This article examines print and television representations of Nolan Ryan as an illustration of how images of male athletes are reproduced in American culture” (Trujillo, 290).  In Trujillo’s article, he states, “Media critics and scholars of gender ideology have described at least five features of hegemonic masculinity in American culture: (1) physical force and control, (2) occupational achievement, (3) familial patriarchy, (4) frontiersmanship, and (5) heterosexuality” (Trujillo, 291).  Here, he is stating that it has been noted in the past by media scholars that these are five of the most prevalent features of dominant masculinity in American culture.  Physical presence, occupational success, male dominance over women and children in the family, frontier-like qualities, and heterosexuality are five qualities that a male must have to display hegemonic masculinity, according to American culture and during the time Nolan Ryan’s baseball career.  Regardless of whether or not people agreed with this theory at the time, it’s the way that the media presented professional athletes like Ryan.  Would you say this is still an accurate depiction of dominant males in the media?  What about popular professional male athletes?  Do you think anything has changed since the publication of this article regarding the representation of hegemonic masculinity in our society?   

References:

Trujillo, Nick. "Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound: Media Representations of Nolan Ryan and American Sports Culture." Cultural Studies in Mass Communication, 1991. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. https://courses.quinnipiac.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-639882-dt-content-rid-1266972_1/courses/MSS495A_12SP/Course%20Materials/Class%20Readings%20Feminist%2C%20Masculinist%20%26%20Queer%20Studies%20Trujillo%20-%20Hegemonic%20Masculinity/Trujillo%20-%20Hegemonic%20Masculinity.pdf.

Wood, Julia T. "Gendered Media: The Influence of Media on Views of Gender." University of

            North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.udel.edu/comm245/readings/GenderedMedia.pdf>.

Zoonen, Liesbet Van. Feminist Media Studies. London: Sage, 1994. Print

Tru

Advertising Culture

PT1

Cultures have been shaped by the rapid advances in technologies and the roles that various media outlets play in the lives of individuals. In recent history, this role has become more prominent in the everyday lives of people, and has outstanding influence on the way we govern ourselves socially and identify ourselves personally. There are two ways to realize the impact mass media has on a culture; observing the individual’s behavioral patterns (microscopic) or a communities’ behavior as a whole (macroscopic). The limited-effects perspective “focuses on whether media content can have an immediate and direct effect on individuals’ specific thoughts and actions.”(Baran & Davis 210). Due to the recent trend of buying devices that allow one to consume media almost wherever they go, it is incredibly likely that this media is having a direct effect on the lives of individuals. According to Baran and Davis, the average 8 to 18 year-old spends 7 ½ hours a day, 7 days a week, consuming media: more time spent than on any other activity other than sleeping. Has our culture reached a point in which this consumption has gotten out of hand, or is this new life governed by media socially acceptable? In other words, media is transforming our everyday lives and our communities, but is it harmful or beneficial to our culture? Macroscopic researchers, those who study the effect of mass media on communities, “view media as industries that turn culture into a commodity and sell it for a profit.” (Baran & Davis 213) In this age, culture is created and shared, for the most part, on the internet or other devices that allow the spread of information. This has transformed our culture, providing us with countless capabilities to better our lives and connect with people wherever they may be, but it has also transformed many of the traditional aspects of our culture. With social networking sites, individuals can socialize without being social. We can sit behind of our computers and engage in all sorts of relations without any human contact. Furthermore, we can identify ourselves through our interests and activities, and while consuming, we can be told what we like to consume.

Semiotics in Television

            In our day in age, symbols are everywhere we look. Whether they come in the form of an advertisement, product placement, or a subtle cue meant to wink at a deeper meaning, the power of imagery is ubiquitous. This week’s reading dealt with semiotics, or the study of signs. Philosopher George Herbert Mead asserted, “Symbols mediate and structure all our experience because they structure our ability to perceive and interpret what goes on around us.” (Baran & Davis, 318) As humans, we rely on symbols every day to inform our interactions with others, and how we understand occurrences in our daily lives.

            So how does this apply to media? Producers use symbols constantly so that they can effectively communicate their messages to audiences. This is based on the theory of “social constructionism” which assumes that audiences are actively processing media, interpreting it based on their personal experiences, and then relaying their understandings. This understanding is only half of the equation, however; “Active audience members use the media’s symbols to make sense of their environments and the things in it, but those definitions have little value unless others share them – that is, unless the symbols also define things for other people in the same way.” (Baran & Davis, 324) Media is not simply about one individual’s interpretation of content – it is about the larger interpretation, and how society uses it.

            Think of your favorite television show, or shows. While you might watch it by yourself, it’s always more fun to watch in a group when you can discuss and dissect plot lines and character’s motives. Or, even if you would rather watch alone so you can concentrate on the show, being able to contribute to a water-cooler conversation the next day is always fun because you can compare notes with your peers, or go online and read many different interpretations.

            Right now, my favorite television show would have to be Mad Men. Though my number one spot fluctuates with what’s currently on-air (until we meet again, Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,) I have to say that Mad Men consistently holds a high ranking in my extremely long list of shows that I watch. Last week was the two-hour season premiere, after an extremely long hiatus of 17 months. After the premiere, I was delighted to see so much Internet chatter on the new season. (Spoiler Alert!) Between the discussions on Don Draper’s new apartment, the inclusion of a Civil Rights plot line, and the music and fashion choices, fans were actively discussing the much-missed show. However, the loudest discussion, which resulted in a top Twitter trending topic, and countless news articles, was a song performed by one of the characters during a party scene.(See here for the performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXoILGnHnv)

    The cover, a French hit from the 1960’s, was released the next day on iTunes and vinyl, and landed on the Top 100 charts. (Wiedeman) This was all extremely entertaining, and led to an insightful write-up by New York Magazine on the symbolism of characters singing on Mad Men. The article, written by Margret Lyons, states “Mad Men is a show about artifice, how we convince other people that who we are is who we are, how we manipulate people's wants to seem more desirable or right, how people lie to themselves and each other all the time, just to get through a day. But singing punctures that, and suddenly we see the man (or woman) behind the curtain.” (Lyons) Singing, and sometimes even dancing, are actually tools that allow audiences a glimpse into who these characters actually are, rather than who they want to be, or who they appear to be to others. I never realized until I read this article that singing and dancing are symbols used by the show creators to reveal deeper character traits. Obviously, every viewer takes away different meanings or notices different cues in a television show – it’s the basis of Stuart Hall’s encoding and decoding method. Every viewer brings their personal experiences and perspectives when interpreting media. Hall recognized this, and created labels for how viewers interpret, and subsequently understand media – they produce dominant, professional, and negotiated readings. (Hall)  In the case of my understanding of Mad Men and Margret Lyon’s, I think that we both had dominant readings of the content, but our backgrounds and experience levels in reading media text made our interpretations different.

            Do you think symbols play an important role in every television show you watch? Or do you think symbols only have deeper meanings in shows with dramatic plot lines like Mad Men? Additionally, can you think of any symbols in shows that you watch that you think are important to the program that maybe not every viewer notices?

Works Cited

Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. "Media and Culture Theories: Meaning-Making in the Social World." Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2012. 318-24. Print.

Hall, Stuart. "The Television Discourse; Encoding and Decoding." McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory. By Denis McQuail. London: Sage Publications, 2002. 302-08. Print.

Lyons, Margaret. "Vulture." Vulture. New York Magazine, 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2012. <http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/mad-men-megan-singing-peggy-joan.html>.

Wiedeman, Reeves. "Vulture." Vulture. New York Magazine, 30 Mar. 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2012. <http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/mad-men-s-zou-bisou-frenzy-who-will-profit.html>.

Media's Representation of Society

There are many degrees of fandom. According to Joli Jenson there are two, “the obsessed individual and the hysterical crowd” (McQuail, 345) We have all witnessed the “Twi-Hards” and the Harry Potter fans. Have you ever considered yourself a obsessive or hysterical fan? Media takes hold of us without individuals realizing how far down the rabbit hole they have gone. We buy into exactly what the media producers wanted. Producers want to moderately effect us, yet what they may or may not realize is that the media being produced is impacting our society at large. Some categorize audiences as passive, however it is my belief that both consciously and unconsciously we are forming opinion every time we turn a source of media on and we choose to consume it. Baran and Davis claim this phenomenon to be the “moderate-effects theories”, where “mass communication theories that conceptualize media as capable of inducing important effects under certain conditions”. (Baran & Davis, 262) Under what circumstances do you feel you are most effected as a consumer of media? What type of media effects you the most? We talked in the last class about how often our friends make us consume media we would not normally choose to consume in order to fit in. This is a perfect example as to how media comes into play everyday of our lives. Do you feel we choose the media we consume, or that society and or friends, choose it for us? Where do we step in to making our own choices? 

John Fiske coined the term “semiotic democracy” in reference to “audience members ability to make their own meaning from television content” (Baran & Davis, 260)  I think of the “Vampires in the Media” course, where we discussed how younger women should not look up to the Twilight female protagonist, Bella, because she is weak and vulnerable. However would I have come to this conclusion if I had not taken this course? Often we do not notice things until another person comments on it, then it is safe to speak out and agree. “Oppositional decoding” refers to “when an audience member develops interpretations of content that are in direct opposition to a dominant reading”. (Baran & Davis, 258) Has there ever been a time where you have disagreed with a popular view when consuming media? It seems as though many times it is either, people love something or hate it. Take Justin Bieber for example, most women love him, while men hate him. Who is the oppositional decoder and who is the preferred or dominant reader? Can there be a happy medium between people? Or is this a instance of negotiated reading?

Celebrities seem to define status quo. Men often look to their favorite athletes to see what being in peak condition looks like. Women look towards celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian to find what it means to be the ideal woman. This reminds me of “reception studies”, an “audience-centered theory that focuses on how various types of audience members make sense of specific forms of content” (Baran & Davis, 257) Thus do you feel men and women look at celebrities in different ways, or to use celebrities to gratify ourselves in different ways? According to Carlin Flora of “Psychology Today”, “Celebrities tap into powerful motivational systems degisned to foster romantic love and urge us to find a mate. Stars summon our most human yearnings: to love, admire, copy and, of course, to gossip and to jeer” (PsychologyToday.com) I can’t help but agree, although I wish this wasn’t the case. How many times do I see a beautiful female celebrity and think, “Man I need to hit the gym”. This is a form of copying and admiring. Do you feel this is a true statement, or do celebrities have a different role in your life?

It is understandable that what media consume is related to our own interests, but what about the social issues that force us to look at media a certain way. Take for instance a magazine like “GQ” and then look at a magazine like “Cosmopolitan”, most of the content although aimed at different demographics, contain topics like sex, health, beauty, and fashion. It is all about how to become as elite as the athletes and celebrities that we idolize. Is this a personal interest or a societal issue that they are aiming to target. What topics do we skim through in a magazine, and what topics do we actually take time to read? 

In Baran and Davis, they describe how media distorts reality and gives people the false impression of what societies principles truly are. Where do we find the truth about society then? We have claimed that news makes the world appear more dangerous than it really is. Magazines are overflowing with pictures of rich and beautiful celebrities. It is no surprise that society is obsessed with elitism. This factor has always been apart of media, and does not appear to be changing. Neither of these media sources gives us an accurate picture of the world we are living in. Thus is media ever truly a reliable source to look to when we want to investigate what is happening, or is it just a means to make the world appear in perfect balance? How do we use media to gratify ourselves into believing that the world is just as it should be, when what is being represented is untruthful? 

In conclusion media has a tremendous role both on society and on our personal lives. In reading these articles I have found myself observing my media choices more than ever, and the opinions that I draw from consuming certain types of media. However  I also feel as though I am unoriginal in my opinions, because media is based so heavily on the elitist opinions. 

Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Flora, Carlin. “Seeing by Starlight: Celebrity Obsession” Psychology Today. 12/28/11. 3/21/12. Print. 

Jensen, Joli. "Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterization." McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory. Ed. Denis McQuail. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2002. 359. 

Mood Management Theory and Fans

If you were to reflect on the various times you have turned to media for entertainment could you recall times in which your mood dictated or affected your media choice? Did you intentionally choose a comedy to turn your bad day around, or avoid movies about love and relationships during a bad break up?  If so, were you aware of the fact that your media choice depended on your current mood and what kind of mood you were hoping to achieve or was it just a subconscious factor?

Different from the uses and gratifications theory we discussed last class, the mood management theory does not expect audiences to readily identify and report how they use particular media to change their moods. Mood management theorists “argue that people do not have to be consciously aware of their content attributes. We don’t need to use them to consciously select content. Instead, we can be guided by our feelings about content- our vague expectations about what will make us feel better as opposed to a well thought out rational strategy guiding our selection” (Baran and Davis, 272). What sometimes appears to be a habitual or a seemingly meaningless choice in media consumption can potentially be the result of subconscious and psychological workings in which one turns to the media to moderate his/her mood.

According to Baran and Davis, “the core prediction of mood management theory claims that individuals seek out media content that they expect to improve their mood. Mood optimization in this sense relates to levels of arousal- plausibly, individuals are likely to avoid unpleasant degrees of arousal, namely boredom and stress By selecting media content, media users can regulate their own mood with regard to arousal levels” (Baran and Davis, 271) It makes sense that people would strive to improve their mood through their media choices however, how does one then explain those who choose to watch sappy love movies at the peak of a bad break up with a significant other, or those who intentionally listen to sad or melancholy music when already in a down mood? I definitely see the logic behind such a theory and I do think that it makes some good points but I have also witnessed the opposite role, or affect of media in that it can be used to reinforce an already present mood, not help to change or regulate it.

Whether used to reinforce a mood or, as the theory suggests to regulate and improve a mood, how is the media/audience relationship dictated? Are there in fact subconscious effects at play in which people are not aware of what the media does to them or is it possible that when  people make their choices they do it knowingly and with a particular expectation of what the outcome will be? Are we as audiences, ignorant to the power of media and not fully aware of all its complexity as some mood management theorists state? Baran and Davis stated that mood management theorists can be contrasted to uses and gratifications theorists but I wonder if it could instead, be said that the two theories are somehow related. Maybe people use media to manage their mood and depending on their media choice that will either be successful or unsuccessful.

Just as people turn to certain media for mood regulation, perhaps, the notion of fandom can be explained by people’s desire to ease some void in their own reality. According to Jodi Jenson, “they seek contact with famous people in order to compensate for their own inadequate lives. Because modern life is alienated and atomized, fans develop loyalties to celebrities and sports teams to bask in reflected glory, and attend rock concerts and sports events to feel an illusory sense of community”(Jenson, 349). Fans associate with certain celebrities and sports teams to have that feeling of companionship and to essentially improve their mood and the way they feel about themselves. Enjoying a game and being fond of someone’s talent and work is completely acceptable but what sometimes happens is people take those feelings and those emotions and that line between reality and fantasy becomes very blurred. Take for example, and incident I read about on CNN. According to the article,  “Egyptian soldiers clashed with thousands of angry soccer fans in a Mediterranean coastal city over the suspension of their club following a deadly riot last month, witnesses said Saturday. A medical official said a teenager was killed and 68 people injured. The Feb. 1 melee following a match in the city of Port Said in which at least 73 people died was the world's worst soccer-related disaster in 15 years” (CNN). I think people have every right to support their team or celebrity of choice but to take it such an extreme is unfathomable to me. It is hard to understand how such a disconnect from reality can occur but fandom of that intensity and extremity is obsessive and even psychotic. How is it that some people are capable of seeing and establishing that distinct line between reality and fantasy but others are not? In cases of extreme fandom which is to blame,  is it the media that does this to people or do people take what they see in the media and shape it to their own misperceptions and beliefs?

Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Egypt Soccer Fans, Troops Clash; 1 Killed." CNN.com. Associated Press. 24 03 2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/soccer/03/24/egypt.fans.ap/index.html

Jensen, Joli. "Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterization." McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory. Ed. Denis McQuail. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2002. 359. 

Mood Management Theory and Fandom

In media research a question that is consistently asked is, why do we use media? There are a multitude of media forms that people make use of, and thus a multitude of theories about why we use those media. It has been hypothesized that people turn to the movies and television often to assist in the expression of an emotion, or to improve their mood. Baran and Davis refer to this type of media use understanding as mood management theory. Baran and Davis state that the theory, “argues that a predominant motivation for using entertainment media is to moderate or control our moods” (Baran and Davis 271). People seek out media that will act as a catharsis for the mood they want to express. When audiences want to laugh they will see a comedy, when they want excitement they could watch action or thrillers. An individual could have the desire to express an emotion, and after viewing a television show or film that helps to bring about this emotion, the viewer leaves feeling content, and thus an improved mood. Could it really be this simple?

This theory is frequently used to explain why audiences go to sad movies. It is hypothesized that the viewer is feeling upset or sad, and needs something to help them find a way to express that emotion. Watching a sad movie acts as the catharsis for the individual. As they release the emotion because of what they feel as they watch the film, they also release the emotion from what was making them feel sad before. The viewer then leaves with a better mood because of the release of emotions.

An article from CNN titled, “Obsessions: Crying at the Movies” supports this theory, but adds some stipulations. According to the article, the film itself does not always make the viewer feel better; it is the act of watching a sad movie that more importantly assists in the expression of emotions. The article states, “While movies might not actually make viewers feel better, they do allow us to experience strong emotions in safe places” (Goldberg). In this case it is not that the content of the film is necessarily causing the viewer to be sad, but it is providing a place for the viewer to feel and express an emotion they already had. This could extend further to any type of film and the emotion and mood that result. Do you agree? When you watch a film, is it the only the content that affects your emotions, or does is the film watching setting that allows you to express emotions you already had before the experience?

It is movies and films that are written well that are best able to help their viewers express an emotion. The article further states:

Good writers and producers know how to arrange the elements of the film

to hold you in a non-critical experience state where you are engaged with

the main character, and that character's experience…

Done well, you experience the main character's emotions

along with her” (Goldberg).

Good films and television shows allow the viewer to feel how the characters feel, so that the media can be fully interpreted. In many cases the individual viewers will be able to identify with a character from a film or television show. Identification with the character is what leads viewers to become fans. The emotions they feel as they watch a film or television show tie the viewer to it. This can be a good thing until viewing the media becomes the only place for a fan to express certain emotions, or develop a certain mood. When this happens, the line between reality and fictionalized reality is blurred by the fan, and he or she could become obsessive.

In “Fandom as Pathology” Joli Jensen details how obsessive fan behavior comes about. She states, “Fandom is conceived of as a chronic attempt to compensate for a perceived personal lack of autonomy, absence of community, incomplete identity, lack of power, and lack of recognition” (Jensen 17). There could be something lacking in a viewer’s life, which does not allow them to express an emotion, or feel a particular way without viewing the media they are a fan of.

The is a relationship between viewing media, emotions, mood, and fandom. But, there are questions we need to think about when contemplating the relationship between mood management theory and fandom. Is using the media as an outlet for the expression of emotions a positive or negative use of the media? Could identifying emotions through viewing media lead the viewer to only be able to identify their emotions when viewing that media? Furthermore, could managing our emotions and moods through media consumption lead to obsessive fan behavior?

Work Cited

Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012). Print.

Goldberg, Stephanie. "Obsessions: Crying at the Movies - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2012. <showbiz/movies/crying-in-movies-the-vow/index.html>.

Jensen, Joli. "Fandom as Pathology: the Consequences of Characterization." McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory. Ed. Denis McQuail. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2002. 9-23.

Uses & Gratifications

What is your favorite media source? What is your favorite television show or film? Why do you watch? There are many different reasons for media usage and the gratification we derive from our usage. According to Stanley J. Baran and Dennis K. Davis, the “uses-and-gratifications approach” is defined as the “approach to media study focusing on the uses to which people put media and the gratifications they seek from those uses” (Baran, Davis 245). Herta Hertzog started this theory as she studied how and why people listened to the radio. Essentially, Hertzog created the study of fans and their importance. It is important that media researchers study fans and what they are seeking in their experience when participating as an audience member.

According to Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch, audiences are very active. “Of course, it cannot be denied that media exposure often has a casual origin; the issue is whether, in addition, patterns of media use are shaped by more or less definite expectations of what certain kinds of content have to offer the audience member” (Blumer, Gurevitch, & Katz 164). As audience members to the media, we have certain expectations. We expect comedies to be funny, romantic comedies to have happy endings, and dramas to make us cry or even leave us at the edge of our seats. But aside from expectations within television or films, as audience members, we have expectations and purposes for watching these media texts in the first place. Why do we pick up newspapers or magazines? Why do we frequently log on to Facebook or Twitter? Why do we tune in every Monday night to our favorite lowbrow reality television show? Are we actually fans or are we just casual viewers of the exposure?

We see with the Nielsen ratings media researchers are not receiving adequate information on the “uses and gratifications” each audience has when watching a particular show. Ratings essentially answer the questions of what shows had the largest audiences (What TV Ratings Really Mean 2). I researched the top ten shows with the largest audience for the week of March 5-11. The number one show that was listed was “American Idol” with 18.69 million viewers. That being said, what are the demographics and psychographics of the audience? What were their uses for tuning in? Were they active fans? Do they watch every season or just this one? Do they know someone who was on the show or auditioned? Do they like watching the talent? Do they watch it for the personal stories of the contestants? Do they like watching the judges? Are they leaving their televisions on for background noise while they do other things? Are they waiting for the show to come on after American Idol or were they already watching the FOX network? Is it a family activity to gather around and watch the show because it appeals to all ages? Did the viewer just happen to turn it on for the first time that day? All of these questions cannot be answered through the Nielsen ratings. We do not know the gratifications people received after watching American Idol either. Did they feel enjoyment? Were they entertained? Did they laugh at the judges’ comments? Did they get angry if the judges made cruel remarks towards their favorite contestant? Did they tear up when their favorite contestant was sent home? The ratings tell us how many people watched a show however researchers do not know why the audience watched it or how they felt before or after the viewing. We do not know their reasoning for watching a particular show or what they got out of it.

So what do you all think? Do you think the rating systems are a good example of studying the uses and gratifications of audiences?

Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Communication Theory/Uses and Gratifications." - Wikibooks, Open Books for an Open World. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Theory/Uses_and_Gratifications>.

"Nielsen Ratings: New Series on CBS, ABC Enjoy Their Best Weeks | Recordonline.com." Recordonline.com. Associated Press, 16 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. <http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120316/ENTERTAIN/203160313/-1/SITEMAP>.

Uses and Gratifications in Media

In today’s society we are surrounded by so many different types of media. On one device we can watch television, surf the web, listen to music, and read a newspaper. But even though all these different types of media are available to us in a matter of seconds, it doesn’t mean that we always use them. According to Baran and Davis, “we all make decisions about which content we choose based on our expectations of having some need met” (Baran and Davis 246). Each time we use media we are expecting something out of it. We can use media for things such as finding out information, making decisions, or being entertained. Sometimes we don’t even know what gratification we are obtaining from media but I don’t think we would be using media if we weren’t getting anything out of it.

                Think about how many times in a day you hear one of these questions: Did you see what happened on (enter TV show) last night? Did year hear about this latest celebrity scandal? Did you see the game last night? These are all common question that we all hear on a daily basis and without the media we wouldn’t be able to answer them. According to Celia Von Feiltzen, television viewing “has become a well-established habit, and that the programmes provide topics of conversation” (Feiltzen 159). Television, along with other media, have become a tool for socializing in our society. People can bond over the fact that they watch the same Television show, or like the same sports teams. These are interests that can start new relationships, and it is all due to us using the media as conversation starter.

                In an article from CNN called “Why Are We Still Watching Award Shows?” the author talks about how we use television as a way to communicate with each other. It is common knowledge that towards the middle of January and continuing into February award season is on everyone’s minds. People are exciting to see what dress their favorite actress is wearing, or placing bets on who is going to win. According to Stephanie Goldberg, watching award shows is “a wonderful opportunity to vent about Hollywood and celebrity culture while also participating in it”(Goldberg 1). After a big event like an award show, or the Superbowl, everyone talks about it because they feel like they are a part of it. You can’t escape people’s reactions, and social media as only added to that. According to the article, “the social media aspect also pressures viewers to watch the shows live. Nobody wants to be the guy tweeting about Ricky Gervais' monologue halfway through the Golden Globes” (Goldberg 1).

                We are now using media as a way to stay connected with one another because we feel more accepted by others when we know what is going on. Imagine being without media for a week, and then get thrown back into a social setting. Are you going to know what everyone is talking about? Maybe some big scandal broke during that week, do you think you would know about it? The answer is most likely not. Just like Goldberg said in her article, even though we might not watch an event like the Golden Globes, we will be aware of what is happening because of social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter. People can tweet about a major event in a matter of seconds and it can spread like wildfire. But without using media we will be disconnected from our social world. We all want to feel included by society and we have now learned to use media in order accomplish that.

Feilitzen, Celia Von. "Needs as an Explanatory Factor of Television Viewing." McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory. Ed. Denis McQuail. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2002. 357-363

Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6^th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012).

Goldberg, Stephanie. "Why Are We Still Watching Awards Shows?” CNN. 19 Jan. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/showbiz/tv/awards-shows-still-watching/index.html>.