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>.

Television Uses and Gratifications

              We all watch television in different ways and for different reasons. There are so many ways to watch television shows, whether it is live, online or through a recording device. It makes it so difficult to understand television ratings that are used to decide on whether to keep a show going or not. We watch what we want to, as long as we enjoy it. The “Nielsen Cross Platform Report” stated that, “Nielsen data shows that consumers are willing to pay for high-quality TV content—they’re just looking for the right fit for their needs” (pg. 1). We all have cable bills, it is usually the first utility that people look to sign up for when they move into a new house or apartment. The decision then comes down to what package you should get and what channels do you need to absolutely have in that package. We all have it in the back of our mind that we will likely watch a program or two online or another device but it is always a plus to have the ability to watch the television show live. We watch it live or catch up on programs for several social reasons.

               In the McQuail Reader, Celia Von Feilitzen states, “Television’s most important social functions are thus that one can identify with and obtain an almost real contact with people on television, that viewing has become a well-established habit, and that the programmes provide topics of conversation” (Feilitzen 359). As we have talked about in class, people love to talk about their favorite television shows with their friends. If their friends do not watch that show, they will often be forced to catch up on the show online or watch it when a repeat is aired. Also, many people like to compare themselves to characters on a TV show. There are so many times where people will sit around and say, “You are just like Ted on How I Met Your Mother,” or something like that. It gives us something in common and it is kind of interesting to think that we can be a character on a television show.

               The ability to put ourselves into a television character’s role is what makes ratings so important to fans and producers. So when reading “What TV Ratings Really Mean”, I was shocked when I saw the Nielsen Ratings say, “For our national ratings estimates, we use a sample of approximately 10,000 households, containing about 30,000 people who have agreed to participate” (pg. 3). They went on to say that there are more than 100 million households. It is tough to decide what program is good and what people really like when you take such a small sample. That’s why when we hear our favorite show may go off the air, most people are surprised because they thought it was a great show and really enjoyed it but television station executives only look at these national ratings that may not be entirely accurate.

               However, TV ratings mean a lot to television station. In a USA Today article, “CBS has given a thumbs-up to most of its prime-time series for next season in a sweeping renewal notice two months ahead of the network's formal May schedule announcement” (Levin). To renew so many shows so early is unheard of. They have obviously made these decisions based on what they see on the ratings that we may not fully understand. The executives know what to look for from the fans and they are clearly seeing successful shows. I’m not very surprised with the announcement, as once I read the article, I realized that some of my favorite shows are CBS and they have been great. It’s tough to keep up with television shows when we are such a busy society. So to see CBS declare this so early is great for them as a broadcast channel, which really has to try to appeal to a mass amount of people rather then cable stations.

               There are many reasons and ways to watch television shows these days. It makes it difficult for rating systems, like Nielsen, to get accurate information for ratings. We are so influenced to watch television because of its social nature that if we miss a program, we won’t have that feeling of satisfaction or identification. That is why watching shows online is happening more and more, because we cannot always catch a program on its scheduled time or day.

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. 359. 

Levin, Gary. "CBS renews 18 shows for fall." USA Today. (14 March 2012) Print.

“State of the Media." Cross Platform Report. 1.

What TV Ratings Really Mean. 3.