In
the reading, “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators: the analysis of mass mediated public
message systems”, by George Gerbner, he discusses ‘cultural indicators’ as a
way to show the behavioral effects of T.V programs on American society, but
what I’ve learned is that it’s not only affecting American children but children
around the world as well. Gerbner stated, “What is informative, entertaining
(or both), good, bad, or indifferent by any standard of quality are selective
judgements applied to messages quite independently from the social functions
they actually perform in the context of large message systems touching the
collective life of a whole community” (Gerbner pg.147). The different programs
that are being shown on these television programs have a sometimes negative
effect on its viewers, maily its young viewers who tend to absorb things like
sponges and what is that doing to the way that our kids go about their lives?
I came across this news article called, “Music videos or
porn with music?” by Akua Djahle in which she discusses how these days it’s
extremely awkward to watch music videos with children because of the way women
are portrayed in these videos. What I found interesting in this article was that
it gave a little bit of a global aspect because she’s actually talking about
videos in the African country she’s from, but yet they practically imitate
American music videos. She talks about how she feels that the assimilation of
the American culture has had a negative effected on how the
children where she lives grow up as well. She even states, “Africans should use music and
videos to tell stories about their people. I am not suggesting we go tribal,
wear only loincloths and throw spears about”. The author states how music
videos are moving to far form actual cheoregraphy and more towards women just “shacking
their backsides” to the point where you only see that you don’t even see the
women’s faces. The author talks about how she bought a music DVD for her
children to watch not realizing how much inappropriate things would be in that
one video.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1985537161&Fmt=6&clientId=8920&RQT=309&VName=PQD
In Mcquail’s Reader in Mass Communication
Theory book Mcquail he states, “To the extent that the global nature of
television and film and the dominance of American popular culture is moving
across the privatized television environments of Europe and elsewhere, then
perhaps American television programming and its effects will foreshadow
concerns about television violence effect in other countries” (McQuail pg.
404). These kind of things are what make
me think that sometimes globalization in the media isn’t always positive;
western influence can have negative effects our culture should stay our culture
when other countries start to pick up our bad habits the consequences might be
even worse in other countries then they are here.
There’s another article I found, “Rihanna defends killing
portrayed in video” by, Gerrick Kennedy from the Vancouver Sun , that
refers specifically to Rihanna’s video “Man Down” where the the Parents Television Council join
together to “condemn the video and urge Viacom, BET’s parent company, to pull it because in the video Rihanna
shoots down a man in a crowd of people.
This video is a good example of music video on our television programs
shown to our children at any time of the day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhy-RXkNo0&ob=av2e
Djanie, A.. "Music videos or porn with music? " New African 1 Mar. 2010: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 6 Feb. 2012.
Gerrick D Kennedy.
"Rihanna defends killing portrayed in video; Advocacy groups disturbed by
scene that shows woman exacting revenge on sex offender. " The
Vancouver Sun 3 Jun 2011, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest.
Web. 6 Feb. 2012.
Do you feel that if the video is
trying to prove a certain message then the violence should be allowed or should
it banned altogether and only allowed online? How do you feel about the effect
music videos on television is having on our global community, how do you think
foreigners perceive us after they watch these videos? Should music videos only
be allowed online?
I feel as a consumer of media, that the music videos most talked about are the ones that raise eyebrows and cause controversy. What was Rihanna's need for gunning down a man in public? We might interpret that as her revenge to someone that has hurt her in the past, or simply that it was for show. But maybe children, especially children where American themes of violence and sex are being cultivated across the world into violent areas, will watch the video and think how a man in their past hurt them too and they will shoot them because "Rihanna did it." Obviously that is a stretch, and not every person who watched the video is going to pick up a gun. But just the fact that Rihanna is one of hundreds of artists that has violence in their music videos is disturbing.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rihanna and other "violent" artists are asked about their portrayed violence in the media, they might have a similar answer to George Gerbner's article "Toward 'Cultural Indicators': The Analysis Of Mass Mediated Public Message Systems": "The usual purpose of the fictional and dramatic modes of presentation is...the focus...on people in action; subjects and topics enter as they become significant to the situations (148)." In other words, Rihanna would say that she doesn't want her audience to focus on the man being gunned down, she wants to symbolize she can defeat the man and have power over him. It still is a stretch, but the crazy part of it all is that we live in a society where are freedom of speech and views are protected. Unless Rihanna's music video included specific directions on how to buy a gun and when to shoot it, she can only be morally criticized, not lawfully.
In the article, Wartella et al. throw down numerous statistics about the level of gun violence in the country, how 75 percent of all adolescent killings are gun-related, how juveniles being arrested on federal gun charges has been on the rise (note: the statistics are all even before Columbine took place), etc. The statistics all aim to show that juveniles and youths in America are growing up in an environment that will see them more likely than not being engaged in a gun-related crime. When Columbine took place, the first thing that was analyzed was what movies, television shows, music and video games were consumed by the two gunmen.
ReplyDeleteI think some basic aspects are ignored when you hone in on just media’s influence on a person’s disposition. For one thing, there was little done to explore the idea of the “Trenchcoat Mafia” that the Columbine shooters belonged to. While it is easy to blame the media for their depictions of violence begetting violence, it is also important to understand context as well. As Gerbner notes, “we need to know what general terms of collective cultivation about existence, priorities, values, and relationships are given… before we can reliably interpret facts of individual and social response.” (Gerbner 147). It is highly unlikely that the two gunmen were the only teenagers in their school who listened to Marilyn Manson, played Doom and Quake on their computers, watched violent movies or followed violent television shows and yet they were the only two who went on and did something horrendous. There is just too much at stake when children and youths commit violent behavior where blaming or believing one perpetrator – the media – is at fault makes any sense.
I think the Rihanna video is an interesting point. I remember when Jay-Z released a video for his song “99 Problems” MTV would not air it. I remember watching the video on MTV (back when they still played music – not that long ago, apparently) and the video was preceded by a recording explaining that MTV has a policy of not showing such graphic violence in their videos, but were making an exception in the case of Jay-Z because of some reasoning that involved the death of Shawn Carter in the video and not Jay-Z… I don’t know, it was artistic licensing of a severe degree and MTV thought it was OK to show with that warning attached. The graphic violence? It was a scene near the very end of the video that showed Jay-Z walking down the street and being gunned down. I remember also learning that MTV and other stations around then refused to air the final scenes of Pearl Jam’s infamous “Jeremy” video (which was, like the song, based on the suicide of a teenager in front of his high school classmates with a gun) because of the graphic violence. In the case of “Jeremy”, the only version that would air would remove all traces of the gun being pulled out in the classroom and being pointed into the mouth. The uncut version of that video would play at hours when children would not be watching (i.e. competing with infomercials).
By going online, where there is no gatekeeper, Rihanna’s video bypasses that “natural” censor board. Nobody on YouTube or VEVO will prohibit the video from airing, nobody in either institution will find a need to attach a warning video preceding it noting that there is graphic gun-related violence. I think by going online, music videos may become more liberated to explore whatever theme they want in any fashion as there is no one to stop them. To go back on point, if people believe that limiting the amount of violent material children have access to is key to reducing violence behavior overall, then having music videos only thrive online might not help their cause. (Uncut versions of Jay-Z and Pearl Jam’s videos are also on YouTube, without any barriers to watching them.) But I’m not convinced that watching a single violent video is enough to cause someone to do something – there are other factors at work, that aren’t media-related, which need to be addressed first.
I feel as a person who doesn't and never really has been an avid TV watcher but lives on music, I understand that the mass media only makes a big deal out of those that take controversial subjects or topics and turns them over to the consumer to watch. I watched the Rihanna video you mentioned and I was in shock, I mean I understand that she is trying to express herself and she has been abused in the past but I feel the shooting of a person who sexually assaulted you is not the right thing to portray because of the fact that its not the answer to those situations. That solution portrayed doesn't help give the right outlook on violence and how useless it is in solving problems. I will say that music artists are just that, artists, they have the same right as we do to express ourselves.
ReplyDeleteDo I think that the solution portrayed is right no, because again it sends the wrong message, but I also think that she wanted to show the dangers and repercussions that may happen because of that type of situation. I also decided to do some looking at other videos of Rihanna and her "We Found Love" video is about sex, drugs, alcohol and rock and roll and love built on all of those things. That is her whole image, she likes to push the envelope just like every other female artist trying to stand out and be known. People want to hold her accountable by the law for her video when she hasn’t done anything illegal to be held accountable for. People aren’t going to like what every artist has to say in their videos but if there were anything that would break the law, the music video wouldn’t have been approved to air on BET. Today is about "sex sells" instead of what the music is supposed to be about. Human beings are designed to learn from watching others, we learn based on what we see, is what we are supposed to use to define ourselves, the problem today is that music videos, television and other aspects of observations contain messages and images that aren't necessarily the right thing to observe.
After reading, "Toward 'cultural indicators': the analysis of mass mediated public message systems," by George Gerbner, he makes a comment that I think fits perfectly with the controversial issue as the one we are discussing, "What is informative, entertaining (or both), good, bad, or indifferent by any standard of quality are selective judgments applied to messages quite independently from the social functions they actually perform in the context of large message systems touching the collective life of a whole community. Conventional and formal judgments applied to selected communications may be irrelevant to general questions about the presentation of what is, what is important, what is right, and what is related to what in mass-produced composite message systems." (Gerbner 147).
In Baran and Davis, Cultivation Analysis "the theory that television "cultivates" or creates a worldview that, although possibly inaccurate, becomes the reality because people believe it to be so." (Baran and Davis 340). The expression of artists has been done in numerous ways and music videos bring to life the lyrics of the song, no one has the same view of what is right and wrong, the music videos today take things one step farther to see how much they can get away with. We can't take away their form of expression every time we don't all agree on their video but we can defend our opinions. People want to blame the media for things that go wrong and others want to defend the media for making important statements. Its a double-edged sword. No one really wins.