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.
I would not consider myself to a die-hard obsessive fan. I don’t see myself as a screaming and crying fangirl at a concert, hoping for a small handshake. I find these fans to be overwhelming and I feel embarrassed for them. For example, I saw “The Hunger Games” at the midnight showing last week. There were girls who were having panic attacks, with their friend reciting “BREATHE” over and over. These are the girls Jensen would say is the “obsessed loner, who (under the influence of the media) has entered into an intense fantasy relationship with a celerbity figure” (344). These girls are the ones who dream about Peeta baking them bread and sweeping them off their feet. They are clearly delusional, believing that Peeta is a real person whom they can love. This is directly seen in Radway’s study of romance novels. “The romance inadvertently tells its reader, then, that she will receive the kind of care she desires only if she can find a man who is already tender and nurturant” (316). Why find a real man, with flaws and flesh, when Peeta is already so perfect? Also, at the premiere, it was interesting to see how people reacted during the movie. Obviously, those girls screamed when Peeta was first shown and during the kiss. People even wept during the movie, and all I felt was uncomfortable. Clearly, these types of fans are over the top. But, I have to say – I think we all have a bit of this in us. And unfortunately, I have to admit to this. I am a huge “Parks and Recreation” fan. I am devastated when I can’t watch a new episode live. When there was a book released that was “written” by Leslie Knope, the main character, I wanted to go out and buy it immediately. Even though in the back of my mind, I knew that’s exactly what the producers and executives wanted me to do. I usually scoff at promotional items like that, saying “Pft, why would anyone be stupid enough to buy that?” And yet when the book came out, I was that idiot. Also, Adam Scott, Leslie’s boyfriend on the show – and an all around gorgeous individual – was recently on the “Rachael Ray Show” a few weeks ago, where I intern. When the opportunity arose, I practically begged my coordinator to let me sit in the audience during his interview. And, I hate to say it, but I was that extreme fan girl. I was on the edge of my sit, huge smile on my face, clapping the loudest out of anyone. I was the girl everyone hates, but I was having such an incredible time it didn’t even matter to me. I think Christine put it nicely that “Media takes hold of us individuals without realizing how far down the rabbit hole we are.” I didn’t even realize I was that obsessed until…well, until I wrote this blog post! It seems so ridiculous to me, being a media studies major with so much information on communications theory, and yet I still fall for the same old tricks that everyone else does.
ReplyDeleteAs an avid media consumer, I think I’m most affected by music and television in terms of mediums. While I do enjoy reading, and have favorite books and characters, I don’t think I’ve ever come across a character that I have had such a visceral reaction to as the Twilight or Hunger Games fans that Christine mentioned. I, like the readers that Radway interviewed, read for pleasure and for escape, but not to invest in the characters I read about.
ReplyDeleteI think visual and sonic mediums effect me most because I can relate much easier to another human being who is in the midst of drama, or a poignant lyric that paints a picture, rather than an image I have to create myself, that can always change. The shows I am most invested in usually deal with relationships and drama that I want to see play out, and the music I listen to usually has lyrics that I can relate to, or is associated with a specific point in time in my life. These types of media require full concentration, and when you become invested in them, you become a “fan.”
Having said that, I don’t think I would ever consider myself a hysterical or obsessive fan – there are certainly shows or bands that I care about more than others, but I think that if I can meet my favorite singer without bursting into tears, then I am safely in the “appreciative consumer” zone. Yet, I think some people might consider me an “obsessive” fan because when I like a television show or an artist, I truly care about them. I will defend my favorite shows or artists against those who might not understand why I enjoy them, because when you are a devoted fan, you are enthusiastic about media. I am always the one who’s asked when shows are on, what happened in past episodes, or used as a source for trivial information about television by friends who may not spend as much time consuming media. As Jensen argues in her essay, most people who are not well-versed in media believe that those who watch a television show religiously or have emotional reactions at concerts are fanatics, when in actuality, appreciation of something more scholarly, like the works of Shakespeare, is still the definition of a fan.
I think media affects everyone differently, and those who have a more visible reaction should not be judged because of it. There will always be fans of media, and their passion and investment is not something to be looked down upon, but something to be celebrated.
Most people know one thing about me-I am a fan of Britney Spears. I never change out the Britney CD in my car, I can spend hours watching her music videos (and consider my time spent productively), and my room is covered in posters of the pop superstar. The first words out of my mouth when describing myself to someone new are usually: I’m a twin, I’m Italian, I’m a Britney Spears fan. Why is it that I identify so closely to her, a public figure I will never have any type of personal interaction with?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that I use her to explain myself as a person is completely indicative of the level of adoration I have for her. I cannot give a specific answer as to why I feel this way, as I am the first to admit she is not super talented. Perhaps it is the spectacle that is her performances, or her stage presence, but these are just guesses. The reason for my Britney appreciation is unknown, and most likely a testament to those who marketed her. Regardless, I know I like her and enjoy her as an artist.
Christine’s question about what is really considered truth in our society is interesting and drives this last point home. If I know that I like Britney Spears, that knowledge is my truth. What I believe about her negates what anyone else thinks, even if they have thoughts based on fact. This is what the media does – create truth in the minds of people who choose to believe what it presents. Therefore, in my opinion, while truth can be influenced, it is entirely subjective. However, I also agree with Christine’s statement about the media being responsible for societal norms. Because they are the standard, these norms are accepted as truth because most people do not want to be the exception or are afraid to deviate. Such issues as eating disorders in females and steroid abuse in males come from the pressure the media puts on these audiences to look the way society “wants” them to look.
This pressure is found particularly in magazines, to which Christine accurately attributes these societal forces. Linda Steiner’s “No Comment” study found that when decoding from an opposing perspective, “Magazine examples can teach women how to identify these texts and help them develop interpretations serving their own interests rather than those of the patriarchal elite” (Baran & Davis, 261). I am not sure if I completely agree. I am reminded of Sherry Argov’s best-selling book, “Why Men Love Bitches”, which, while humorous, touches on an important fact: women look to magazines in order to discover ways to better appease their male counterparts. I would argue that magazines today, especially those geared towards women, offer many more “get the guy” tips than valuable knowledge on how to be independent or self-reliant. Is this not the type of information that serves the interests of “patriarchal elite”?
While I wouldn’t place myself in either category of fandom that is mentioned in the beginning of this week’s blog, I would consider myself an active audience member, and there are moments that I do too fall into the rabbit hole. As an enthusiast of media, I do enjoy forming relationships with media content that I find entertaining. In my case, it is the types of media that cross an emotional threshold that resonate with me the most. If media can make me laugh like one of my best friends, or cry because of intense emotion being evoked, I’m hooked. I invest my own emotions into the media that I consume. Normally, this is music, but there are authors and characters that I have related to so intensely, I found them to be as familiar as family. I suppose that even against my will, this does draw me into the category of fandom. I also have been susceptible to the notion that our peers and circles within which we interact within, can control, persuade and effect the types and amounts of media which we consume. There have been more than a handful of instances where I have read an article, a book, seen a movie or bought a CD because a friend or someone dear recommended such. But many times, I draw different conclusions, see other things and take away an alternative meaning than those that had consumed the media before me. With this, I have joined the “semiotic democracy” and agree with Baran and Davis’ idea that “audience members [have the] ability to make their own meaning from television content” (260). On the other hand, I seen examples how media can come to shape and alter our own opinions and conclusions that we draw from the content that we are consuming. Although, I must say that I don’t necessarily believe that the opinions expressed in media are the end all, be all for what we as audiences think. However, the influence and power of the media is undeniable. The creators of our content have the power to persuade our emotions and find things inside ourselves that otherwise we might not have found.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has heard me speak (way too often) in class knows (or heaven help you if you follow me on Twitter or Facebook), I am a fan of many things – the TV series’ “Community” on NBC and “Cougar Town” on ABC, for example, or sports teams ranging from the New York Yankees of baseball, Liverpool FC of soccer, the Indianapolis Colts of the NFL (although THAT’S coming under some review now) and the Chicago Bulls of basketball. But I’m also a fan of the Harry Potter books (reservations of the last book aside), the entire Song of Ice and Fire series, the Lord of the Rings universe (books, movies, the other books, you name it) and generally well-written stories I have been fortunate enough to read: the first example I can think of is “Life of Pi” by Yann Martell. Why do I describe myself as a “fan” of the book rather than someone who admires it? I think that goes back into semantics.
ReplyDeleteJoli Jensen makes a distinction between a “fan” and an “aficionado” – “the obsession of the fan is deemed emotional (low-class, uneducated), and therefore dangerous, while the obsession of the adicionado is rational (high-class, educated) and therefore benign.” (Jensen 350) While most of the things I have listed above (did I forget to add Britney Spears? I think Suzi beat me to that, though) have me categorized as a fan, it is interesting that if I were to mention Yann Martell’s book (and only that one book), I would suddenly become an aficionado of good, modern literature. Similarly, if I were to tell people that I am still captivated by Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird” and that the cinematic adaptation was a work of art, people would applaud my high tastes and respect my admiration – but they would also derisively shake their head when I tell them how much I loved the Harry Potter series’ and how much I hated their movies. Whereas I see no issues in talking about Bollywood movies starring Aishwariya Rai and Preity Zinta in the same breath as discussing books like “The God of Small Things” (they’re all based in India, that’s my excuse), it might be seen a blasphemy to someone who things such mixing of the classes (funnily enough, something that many Bollywood movies AND books from authors like Arundhati Roy touch upon) is unacceptable. I, however, like to think of myself as a fan first, an aficionado when needed – and that goes back to Christine’s questions about why we consume the media we do.
Jensen writes that “the inadequate fan is defined as someone who is making up for some inherent lack… [seeking] identity, connection and meaning via celebrities and team loyalties.” (Jensen 348) I think this connects to what Baran and Davis state about “mood management theory”, or “a predominant motivation for using entertainment media… to moderate or control… moods.” (Baran and Davis 271) I initially became a fan of so many things to feel a sort of connection – by rooting for the Purdue Boilermakers on Saturdays and the Indianapolis Colts on Sundays, I was able to connect with many of the people on campus at Purdue, even without being explicit about my loyalties. By identifying as a fan of Britney Spears I was able to empathize when she hits her highs, her lows or stays somewhere in the middle – and it makes the act of occasionally listening to her music, watching her videos or taking in her performances that much more exciting. By being a fan of the British series “Doctor Who” I am not only a fan of great television and exposed to brilliant, budgeted storytelling but I am also connected to generations of fans spanning the globe – and, more specifically, with a group of Bangladeshi fans on Facebook where talking obsessively about the greatness of Tennant vs. Smith, the amazing Donna Noble and how gorgeous Karen Gillan as Amy Pond is does not seem out of place but is rather encouraged. And I really shouldn’t need to add any more reasons to why I’m a fan of “Community.” Simply put, I am deriving what Baran and Davis writes as being “hedonic valence”, which “refers specifically to the potential that content has to induce positive feelings.” (Baran and Davis 271)
DeleteGoing back to Christine’s question about the circumstances relating to media consumption, which in turn lead me into becoming a fan (or avid hater, contrarily) of certain elements in the media, it is for a sense of community along with a hope to derive a semblance of pleasure or happiness from consumption. And that is why I like being a fan – they’re allowed to do that shamelessly.
Being an aficionado is so distant.
Great Blog. You really bring up some interesting points and raise some good questions. Particularly, when are we most vulnerable to the messages of the media we consume and how do we choose the media we consume? Personally, I always seem to more readily accept the message of media I choose to consume myself, rather than the message of something that a friend suggests. I would not be surprised if other people felt like this too. Even among your average media consumer this is a natural skepticism that causes one to take the suggestions of others with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I am much more apt to immediately like a movie that decide to see for myself, rather than one I see at the behest of one of my friends. If X says “Hey Kris, lets go see ABC..” The entire time I’m watching I am going to be constantly picking apart the message that is being made by the film.
There a few possible explanations for this phenomenon (a phrase which I use lightly). First, it could be concerned with the active audience theory. Perhaps, when viewing ABC I am merely looking to participate as an audience member and that simply manifests itself as the action of criticizing the film. This is also related to Fiske’s “semiotic democracy” theory which concerns “an audience member’s ability to make their own meaning from television content” (Baran & Davis, 260) In a way I would also be doing this in viewing a film of my own choosing, but the criticism is more positive (generally) .
This could possibly be explained by the oppositional decoding theory. Perhaps, purely based on the fact I am seeing the film at a friend’s suggestion, I automatically assume that their interpretation (a presumably positive one ) is the dominant reading. Therefore I develop “interpretations of content that are in direct opposition to a dominant reading”. Or maybe, despite all of this, I’m just a jerk who thinks my friends have terrible taste in movies.
This opposition I feel is not just in regards to film, but all other forms of media too; music, books, television.