In today’s society the media has large control over public
views. It is the media that decides what stories we see and what becomes
important. They are the ones who chose what the public will hear and not hear
and it is largely the media that helps the public to form a certain opinion on
what they present to them. In the wake of the Grammys, one story that has been
a very popular one is that of Chris Brown performing and winning for Best
R&B Album. This was met with a lot of controversy because of his domestic
violence past with former girlfriend, Rihanna who also performed at the show.
One article from the Los Angela’s Times talked about his performance. The story
is told in a way that informs the viewer that he won while also bringing up his
past and taking small jabs at him even saying he won in a “weak field”
(McDonnell).
The idea of personalized news is apparent with some news
casters or writers who from their media by implementing their own views on the
issue. “The focus on individual actors[s] who are easy to identify with positively
or negatively invites members of the news audience to project their own private
feelings and fantasies directly onto public life” (Baran & Davis 303). This
is done to cause more dramatizations to bring the viewer in. The flaw in this
is that focusing on just one individual takes viewers away from the larger
issue at hand. In this case the larger issue would be domestic abuse and its
causes. Could there be certain social factors or contributions that cause
people to be domestic abusers? What is being done about domestic abuse? It becomes
less about the issue and more about how much the individual is hated like in
Chris Brown’s case. The media plays up the drama of the event, especially because
it involved two different celebrities, but when they are focusing so much on
this person the larger issue at hand is not really being addressed.
The way in which the article in the Los Angela’s Times is
written is defiantly exemplifying a certain way of framing a story. Framing is “how
people use expectations to make sense of everyday life” (Baran & Davis
330). These “expectations are often associated with and can arouse strong
emotions such as hate, fear, and love” (Baran & Davis 330). I think the
writer in this article, (and most stories about Brown), used framing to convey
a sense of hate for the singer. I think this would be the case with any
domestic abuser who is in the public eye. There are certain social cues used by
this writer to take jabs at Brown and convey a sense of dislike. Also the writer
brings to the viewers attention that it was “striking” that Brown’s performance
and win was in the wake of Whitney Houston’s death who was also abused by her
ex-husband. Some younger generations may have not known that Whitney Houston
was domestically abused, but the writer does frame the story in this way to
bring it to the viewers attention that it was distasteful when they may have
not known that before.
It’s actually surprising to me that Chris Brown did perform
and did win a Grammy because his reputation was largely damaged after the domestic
abuse against Rihanna. Usually people don’t often speak out against the view of
the public. This is known as the “spiral of silence”. I think Chris Brown lost
a lot of his fans after the incident maybe not because they didn’t like his
music but because since the media hated him they did too. Obviously in large
part society didn’t like him anymore because he became known as an abuser. But
I wonder if some people out there still liked him but were too afraid to say
that they did because of the public’s view of him. “Silence, it appears, is a
reaction to taboo, fear and shame – for those who think differently than what
they perceive others to be thinking. Asch finds that some people actually begin
to see things as they think others do” (Katz 381). Were people afraid to say that they liked
Chris Brown before? Also, has his reputation now been repaired and has the
silence been lifted? “When everybody believes that he is the only one who
thinks something, and does not talk about his opinion for fear of violating a
moral taboo or an authoritarian ruler, or of just being unpopular, it sometimes
happens that a wave of publicity will sweep through the community, informing
people that everybody else (or many others) think as they do” (Katz 381). I
wonder if more people will like him now because a form of media (the Grammys) really
went against the public view and portrayed him in a better light, even awarding
him. Will people now not be afraid to say that they like him?
Article
Shannon Fitzmaurice Post #1
ReplyDeleteThe past three years have been a tumultuous period for R&B singer Chris Brown. Brown was on top of the world with two Platinum albums, and it seemed all that was left for Brown was to climb the charts. In February 2009, Brown was charged with felony assault against then-girlfriend and R&B singer Rihanna. Immediately, the media and the public felt the need to analyze the relationship and who was really to blame for the domestic violence. Hollywood took the “spiral of silence” approach (Katz 380) where some celebrities remained neutral on the subject such as Lindsay Lohan, “I have no comment on that. That’s not my relationship. I think they’re both great people” (Pasulka 2012). It is interesting to think that if Lohan, or other celebrities who took the neutral viewpoint such as Carrie Underwood or Mary J. Blige, were victims of domestic violence, would they be so passive? Would they call their abuser “beautiful” or “great”? As Katz explains in his article “Publicity and Pluralistic Ignorance: Notes on the ‘Spiral of Silence’”, “communication may be liberating, we have seen, or it may be an agent of repression. It may stimulate further communication, or it may cause silence to spread. In the one case, communication may be seen to correct a false impression; it permits ‘true consciousness; to prevail. In the opposite case, communication is the agent of pluralistic ignorance, or of false consciousness, causing people to misperceive what their similarly- situated fellows think to believe” (Katz 383). “Old Media” such as newspapers and television sided with the victim Rihanna, while “New Media” such as blogs and social media came to the defense for “Team Breezy.” Whichever side consumers chose, they were practicing media selectively. In Maxwell McCombs’ and Donald Shaw’s article “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media,” the authors explain selectively- paying more attention to the major and minor issues oriented to their own views (158). If people were pro- Team Breezy, they would post their opinions on how Chris Brown is still a talented entertainer, that Rihanna “asked for it” and how they will be loyal no matter what. If people were pro- Rihanna, they would take the stance that domestic violence is never the answer, that Chris Brown’s career will quickly diminish and they would repeat the details of February 8, 2009.
Fast-forward three years to 2012, and Chris Brown has just won best R&B album at the Grammys and performed twice at the prestigious music awards show. Brown is now dubbed the comeback kid, and his career has been uplifted again. There are many who are still in outrage that Brown has been welcomed back into the music industry, but the many who supported Brown are in celebration. It seems there are more Chris Brown fans than ever before, and peer pressure may be the cause of that. In the article “Agenda-Setting Research: Where Has IT Been, Where Is It Going?” by Everett Rogers and James Dearing, they explain how “social pressures…also affect the public’s judgment of an issue or person as important. For one thing, people talk to one another about social issues, and these conversations may play an important part in their judgments” (85).
Shannon FItzmaurice Post #2
ReplyDeleteSo will the public surrender to Team Breezy again? It is hard to say, but the people who were afraid to publically like him are coming forth now. However, the media can set their agenda all they want, and us as media consumers can interpret it the best way we can. Our opinion however, should come down to how the people involved are feeling. HollywoodLife.com reported Brown and Rihanna “spent four hours alone in a dressing room [together] in the Staples Center during the Grammy rehearsals last week.” If Rihanna is willing to forgive him, then maybe we should too.
http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2012/02/12/chris-brown-grammy-awards-2012/
http://hellogiggles.com/im-not-okay-with-chris-brown-performing-at-the-grammys-and-im-not-sure-why-you-are
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1606481/chris-brown-police-report-provides-details-altercation.jhtml?xrs=share_twitter
In the article, “The agenda-setting function of mass media” by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw they mentioned Cohen who says that, “the press may not be successful much of the item in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (McCombs & Shaw 154). That quote is all I can think of when I read that article about Chris Brown at the Grammys this year. When discussing the topic all the author discussed were issues that Chris had in his past that have absolutely nothing to do with his talent or his reason for winning a Grammy. This author intentionally wanted to talk negative about Chris, she wanted you (the reader) to not think about what a great album it was that he had or how his performance at the Grammys want but she wanted the reader to only think that because of what he’s done he isn’t worthy of the Grammy and shouldn’t even of been there in the first place. I don’t understand how his issues with the law had anything to do with his singing. If that was the case they should of discussed Whitney’s addiction with crack cocaine. The authors job as a news writer should have been to discuss the actual show and leave Chris’s personal life out.
DeleteIn the McQuail Reader it states, “Asch found certain of his subjects self-confident and fiercely dedicated to the independence of their own observations…Coleman assumes that individuals are motivated by self-interest; this may sometimes lead to action that takes no account of the group or action that is contingent on what the others do” (Katz 382). If you would of asked me a year ago I definitely would of said that this statement was true: “the spiral of silence theory in which individual supporters of one of the major political parties believed their cause to be doomed because they inferred from the media that everyone believed the other side would win, and began to believe so themselves” (Katz 381). I related to this because at one point I use to even say, “I just like his music, that doesn’t mean I like him as a person”. Then I realized his music is who he is and I can’t separate the two. After a year I’ve grown and made decisions based on more of what I thought, not what other people wanted me to think. I think that given what Chris has had to go through over the years with so much hate and ridicule he’s managed to keep his mind focused on what mattered, which is the music. Things could of gotten worse for Chris, he could of gone into a depressed hole and fell to drugs and depression but he didn’t. I know he’s had altercations at shows , like Good Morning America, because of his anger. The thing once again media wants you to see what they want you to see so they press his patience and hope that he snaps, eventually he does and gets blamed for what clearly the host instigated.
Yes, I am a fan of Chris Brown and with that being said I can honestly say that out of all his albums F.A.M.E was his best. He deserved that Grammy he worked just as hard as everyone else did and it shows, his personal life should have nothing to do with that award.
Katz, Elihu . Publicity and Pluralistic Ignorance:notes,on "the spiral of silence'. 2002. 381-389. Print.
From Roshco, B. et al. (eds) (1972) The Public Opinion Quartely, Vol.36, NO.2. Columbia University Press, New York , pg. 176-87
Actors, Artists, Political figures, Musicians, Heiresses and business moguls rule our media. Every two seconds on E News, Entertainment Tonight and Perez Hilton we hear the breaking news in the lives of the elite. Every tabloid on the stands features the drama of the Kardashians, who’s breaking up and hooking up, and Brangelina’s current update. The media is so focused on whose who, which star is getting arrested and drugged up. But wouldn’t our lives be better without the focus souly on those in the spotlight? Awesome, they are rich and in movies, on billboards, magazines and radio. But aren’t they just the same as you and me? Yes, they have more talent in their area and definitely a larger capital income than us, but they are just human. (Unless they are playing a creature which isn’t, but you know what I mean.) In Baran and Davis’ reading, they wrote: “The focus on individual actors[s] who are easy to identify with positively or negatively invites members of the news audience to project their own private feelings and fantasies directly onto public life” (303). In this day and age we do a lot of living vicariously through those who have been dealt a better hand then ours. We are so engrossed in celebrity lives that if you ask some members of this nation who the president is they wouldn’t know, but if you asked them what happened with Kim Kardashian’s marriage, they can give you more info than People magazine. The news is incredibly manipulated by the broadcast stations. Think of Murdock and fox news. Everything on there fits his incredibly republican views, and the tones of the pieces are very noticeable as such. McCombs and Shaw discussed this exact idealism: “In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position” (153). This idea blew my mind. I began to realize what was important in the media.
ReplyDeleteAs we talked about last class the news does shape our view and draw us in with fear. When the big orange juice debacle was prevalent, it was all the news discussed, to the point my mom was worried about buying orange juice. If you look at the real facts however, the level of this bacteria or toxin cannot actually affect you unless you drink copious amounts of orange juice every day. The world can be a scary place but it is definitely high lighted in those areas. The 10 o’clock news in my area says “its 10 pm do you know where your children are?” How is that not kind of creepy? Its as if your child isn’t home they are out in the alley doing heroine or getting pregnant. But in most cases this is not true. The news does focus on the negative more than it should, but if the news just talked about how nothing bad happened today, would you believe it?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I think that some reality shows are a great example of this media theory. So many reality shows have cult followings, but many fans are very reluctant to admit it in public. I think this is because the content is so strange and sometimes controversial – such as; pregnant teenagers, desperate women, and just quote unquote reality. “When everybody believes that he is the only one who thinks something, and does not talk about his opinion for fear of violating a moral taboo or an authoritarian ruler, or of just being unpopular, it sometimes happens that everybody else (or many others) think as they do” (Katz 381). Who really wants to admit to loving “Dance Moms” or “Toddlers and Tiaras?” TV recappers play into this spiral of silence by mocking the shows, and thus give them no credibility. I must admit that I am a quasi-fan of the Bachelor/Bachelorette series. While I get to play out my ridiculous notions of romance, I still understand that the show is total nonsense. Afterwards, I usually read the recaps on the Entertainment Weekly website. One of the writers always uses the term “ladies,” in quotations just like that, when referring to the women who are competing for the Bachelor’s heart. The author obviously plays into that spiral of silence by making it seem like this show is absolutely absurd. When some truly die-hard fans read the article, they may realize that society is not encouraging them to like this kind of television show. They will be more reluctant to voice their opinions about “The Bachelor” knowing that the recapper disapproves of them. “Reviewing the experimental literature on conformity, Kresh et al. suggest that individuals are more independent when status in the group is less important to them, or when they can expect to be rewarded by an outsider for non-conformity, as when a prize is offered for being right or for being independent” (Katz 382). The recapper has the opportunity to share these not quite offensive, but sarcastic ideas about the show because they are in a position of authority. They will receive more followers and comments – a prize – for expressing this unorthodox view of “The Bachelor.”
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I think that there are many shows that actually benefit from the spiral of silence theory. Such shows are extremely popular, and most people wouldn’t understand why someone would dislike them. “The media, because of a variety of factors, tend to present one (or at most two)sides of an issue to the exclusion of others, which further encourages most people to keep quiet and makes it even tougher for the media to uncover and register that opposing viewpoint” (Baran and Davis 298). The media doesn’t find these “haters” because they are only presenting one viewpoint, which is positive. Shows such as “The Cake Boss” or “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” have no bad press, as far as I know. Audience members who do have an opposing viewpoint to the general public on these shows are given little opportunity to express their opinion, and are therefore forced into silence about their feelings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why I think the Chris Brown at the Grammy Music Awards story is interesting is because of the reaction I saw to him, specifically in person and on Twitter/Facebook (conventional media was too busy with Whitney Houston's death to really focus on this). I personally realized how uncomfortable I felt whenever he appeared on stage to perform or receive his award. I almost cringed when I realized Rihanna and Chris Brown had just performed on the same stage together - even though they performed hours apart. And people I follow on Twitter and on Facebook were positively vicious in their reaction - one friend continually complained about turning her TV off to avoid seeing him (with expletives thrown in for good measure), a few celebrities reacted negatively to him winning the award and more celebrities retweeted links to articles or opinion columns about why we should not forget what Chris Brown did years ago, why he does not deserve atonement or forgiveness - even an upload of the original assault document itself.
I think the "spiral of silence" in Chris Brown's case has morphed into something a little larger because of the recording industry's decision to not only bring him back as a performer but to award him as well, and because the general media has not forgotten (nor allowed the audience to forget) his assault case on an even more famous celebrity a few years ago. It isn't a case about being silent while liking his music because there has been this intense hate of him - it's now become an issue on whether or not it is ever possible to atone, at least in the eyes of the media and the audience it sculpts, for any past digressions, no matter the severity of those.
Disclaimer: I never was that big a fan of Chris Brown, nor am I today, and there is absolutely no way domestic violence is ever condonable.
I think that people have always been afraid to speak up about something with celebrities because those who have a bad reputation end up being hated by a large amount of the population. Chris Brown was a person who was liked by everyone, his music was great and he came off as just a young kid who made it to the big leagues per se. But, when the scandal of him beating Rihanna was released his reputation was destroyed and the people his fans everyone almost despised him. However, people still liked his music but didn’t want people to find out because it would probably turn into a debate about morals and values.
ReplyDeleteBaran and Davis talk about framing and because I am a psychology minor I referred back to my cognitive psychology class textbook and found “Framing is the term used to describe the effects on decisions based on how a scenario is presented.” (Riegler and Riegler 484). Framing is actually something that takes place in everyday decisions that we make and we don’t always realize that we are doing it.
Going back to the question involving whether Chris Brown should have performed at the Grammy’s did he deserve to be there and would people come out and admit they still liked him or would they continue to keep quiet and go along with the majority due to fear that they wouldn’t be accepted; is hard to say because of the timing as well. The whole issue was intensified because Whitney Houston had just died and she was a domestically abused woman from her ex-husband. Timing is a huge factor that also plays into the concept of Spiral of Silence. In my cognitive psychology book it talks about a theory designed by Caruso, Gilbert, and Wilson (2008), “In their view, the value of outcomes also differs with regard to time; they propose that people experience a temporal value asymmetry in think about future events and past events. Specifically, people place more value on the future than they do on the past.” (Riegler and Riegler 484). So, although people didn’t expect Chris Brown to perform I think people when his whole scandal came out assumed that he wouldn’t be apart of something has huge as the Grammy’s because who would want a domestic abuser to be considered good enough to earn something that is an honor.
Now, adding in the role of the media and their effect on the whole Chris Brown and the Grammy’s situation, they hyped up the whole issue because now they had the whole Whitney Houston’s past of domestic abuse to add into the equation. So, now past and present events were being added in. The Spiral of Silence was increased I think because of Whitney Houston dying.
Continued:
ReplyDeleteIn Baran and Davis they quote, a woman Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1984) and her definition of the spiral of silence, “Observations made in one context [the mass media] spread to another and encourage people either to proclaim their views or to swallow them and keep quiet until, in a spiraling process, the one view dominated the public scene and the other disappeared from the public awareness as its adherents became mute.” (Baran and Davis 298). I think that this fits the situation perfectly because the mass media basically took Chris Brown’s past and compared to Houston’s past and made it seem as though Brown was a terrible person and him winning a Grammy was a disgrace per se. The people were already devastated of Houston’s death and Brown performing and winning was just a total upset and the majority was against him and angry at him and people who voted for him to win. The people that voted and those that liked him were in no way going to speak up because they were afraid that they would be excluded from the rest of the people.
The media holds the power and helps to determine what reaction the people will have and influences it more then expected. “Mass media constitute the major source of reference for information about the distribution of opinion and thus for the climate of support/nonsupport.” (Katz 380). The media makes it difficult for people to speak up when the majority is against them and their view of, in this case, Chris Brown.
Works Cited:
Cognitive Psychology: Applying the Science of the Mind. 3rd edition. Bridget Robinson-Riegler, Gregory Robinson-Riegler. Pearson Higher Education. (2008).
This is a very interesting and insightful view of how the media is dealing with Chris Brown. The idea of the “spiral of silence” provides a very clear explanation as to why the media has refused to speak out in support of Chris Brown in any way, for fear that by doing so they would be seen as supporting domestic abuse. However, in light of his recent Grammy win it is becoming harder to avoid talking about the subject in the public sphere and to continue painting Chris Brown in a negative light.
ReplyDeleteI think we, as students of media studies need to look at a few things in order to understand how and why this subject is being framed as it is. First, we need to, as Rodgers and Dearing would suggest, look at the gatekeepers and who is setting the media agenda in response to Chris Browns actions (in both issues concerning domestic violence and his Grammy performance). Primarily, there are journalists, like McDonnell, who are more or less actively trying to keep the tide of public opinion against Brown. This is possibly due to the journalists personal feelings towards domestic violence, however for the sake of continuity with Rodgers and Dearing’s theory, we can assume that McDonnell’s feelings are more his understanding of the public’s understanding of the issue.
Another gatekeeper we have to consider given Brown’s nomination for a Grammy is the National Academy of Recording Arts. The organization which gives out the Grammys every year certainly wants to protect the dignity and legitimacy of the event. Therefore, any media which paints Chris Brown (a nominee and performer) in a negative or disparaging light poses a threat to the Academy as a whole. However, is it their job to try to sway public opinion regarding Chris Brown, a clearly talented performer, or merely present awards to those they feel deserve it?
In her blog post Allie cites Katz that, “Silence, it appears, is a reaction to taboo, fear and shame – for those who think differently than what they perceive others to be thinking. Asch finds that some people actually begin to see things as they think others do” (Katz 381). Can this also be applied to entities like the Recording Academy and not just the public?
In the case of Brown it appears so. And with this fact we also find an answer to my previous question. While most of the public is likely so condemn Brown for his previous behavior, the Academy (“thinking differently”) decided to recognize him solely for his performing ability and remain silent on any other aspect of his life.