Have you ever wondered why we go for films, go for spectacular events, watch TV?
It helps us take a break. It entertains. It shows us things we don't have a chance of otherwise experiencing. If these be some of the reasons. then all that the Media brings us must we well-received. But that does not happen?
The Media brings us pictures of the real, we are often told. But as the Media increases its presence in our lives, we'll find just as we learn to read between the lines, we will learn to see beyond the picture. That, in effect becomes a 'mediated reality', particularly in the case of the Television which brings the picture into our drawing rooms.
What really is taking place is, COMMUNICATION.
Why do we Communicate?
There can be plenty of answers - "I have something to say" and how we say it does matter. That is, when we speak we are communicating. when we use a Radio, TV , Computer, telephone or a writing tool, we are communicating.
In all this is involved 1) Non-Verbal Communication and 2) Verbal Communication
In Non-Verbal communication we have the early means of communication. Man, as he developed language and other means of communication, found there are different meanns of communicating, yet many are the occasions when we give meaning to a comment not purely for the way it is said, but also for the words used, the facial expression of the speaker, the body language of the speaker and our own perception of the speaker.
Thus you'll find that when we try to communicate it is not just words but at many levels meaning is put into the message.
In olden times, we have heard of the 'town crier' who went around the streets announcing a major event or the church bells announcing happy and unhappy events. That also was a means of Communication.
Think of the means of communicating
1) Drawings of the cave man
2) Sign language
3) Morse code (used in telegraphs)
4) Semaphore (using flags to convey messgaes between vessels out in the sea)
5) Human beings use their own face and body to communicate-anger, hostility, love, concern, friendliness, practically a lot of daily interaction does take place through non-verbal communication.
When 'Words' find expression thru speech or writing we have Verbal Communication . This opens up a host of possibilities to communicate between people which can be between 2 persons - dyadic communication, more than two which can be small group communication, public meetings.
We also communicate with ourselves this is called INTRA PERSONAL COMMUNICATION.
Therefore in simple terms you have -Intra personal, Inter-personal, Small Group, Large Groups and finally Mass Communications when a MEDIUM helps you multiply a single Message (can be speech, debate, entertainment, commentaries and all that we see on TV, Radio and now computer-aided technology) to reach many people.
Mass Communication involves both Technology as it develops and elements of Human Communication, both of which are evolving constantly And, getting more sophisticated as well as capable of being manipulated according to the potential of the Technology and the ability of the USER.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
An All -Powerful Media.......
For all the ills in Society we have one whipping boy "THE MEDIA".
If violence is increasing in the world around you, it is the Media that is making it happen.
If politicians don't see eye-to-eye it is the Media that is responsible for the sad state.
If crimes rates are rising it's because the Media brings into our homes, enough action which keeps our adrenaline flowing and raises our ability to watch violence of all kinds on the small screen.
If families are breaking up because the Media creates a picture of 'reality' which may be difficult for men-women to attain in 'life'- it creates a 'visually appealing picture of life'(thru serials, ads etc) and raise frustration levels. this list can go on and on.
BUT is the Media or the Medium as much of an evil as we make them out to be?
The Media isn't as bad as it is made out to be, provided Man learns how to cope with it and does not allow it to lead you by the nose. 'Media dependence' is our own creation, and the result of other factors like the politics, economics and the manner in which different social groups use the Media.
A few points on "how" and "what" we have to be alerted to when use the Media/Medium.
Print Media-suited for the literate person.From the movable blocks to the printing of multiple copies of the same thing (beginning with the BIBLE), we see printing and publishing coming as an industry. Later you have Newspapers......(more later)
Technology alters the manner in which the Media serves us.
The Radio -- breaks the literacy barrier and b'comes a genuine 'Mass Medium' where technology helps transfer of the same 'message' from one "SOURCE" to many receivers through a "MEDIUM" to many "RECEIVERS". It became popular in the early 20th Century. (Hitler is supposed to have used the Radio to the maximum as a part of his Nazi propaganda machinery!)
The Television went a step further and brought the visual and the sound combination to our drawing rooms.
And now we have Satellite aided methods, the Internet making Communication a totaly different experience with multiple ways of using it.
I)The Media tells us 'look here' and often when our attention is turned there, we are in the 'dark' or 'kept in the dark'by the Media. B'cos we also learn to 'TRUST' the Printed Word and then start accepting that a powerful visual is more communicative than a 'thousand words'.
II)There is a constant race between 'Technology'(Media)and 'Reality'- opened up by the former leads to "mediated" representations. The Media begins to 'shape the reality' and in that manner earns the sobriquet of 'mindbenders', one 'selling lifestyles'etc.
III) As we see it now the Media is also an 'Advertiser's Medium'. Newspapers and Channels become a 'marketplace of different types of wares' and that is why sometimes it is called the "Advertiser's Medium".
If "NEWS" is what we got from the Media in the early years, now we are told "News is what appears between Advertisements".
The presence of the Media is something we cannot ignore. It has arrived. And, is here to stay.
If violence is increasing in the world around you, it is the Media that is making it happen.
If politicians don't see eye-to-eye it is the Media that is responsible for the sad state.
If crimes rates are rising it's because the Media brings into our homes, enough action which keeps our adrenaline flowing and raises our ability to watch violence of all kinds on the small screen.
If families are breaking up because the Media creates a picture of 'reality' which may be difficult for men-women to attain in 'life'- it creates a 'visually appealing picture of life'(thru serials, ads etc) and raise frustration levels. this list can go on and on.
BUT is the Media or the Medium as much of an evil as we make them out to be?
The Media isn't as bad as it is made out to be, provided Man learns how to cope with it and does not allow it to lead you by the nose. 'Media dependence' is our own creation, and the result of other factors like the politics, economics and the manner in which different social groups use the Media.
A few points on "how" and "what" we have to be alerted to when use the Media/Medium.
Print Media-suited for the literate person.From the movable blocks to the printing of multiple copies of the same thing (beginning with the BIBLE), we see printing and publishing coming as an industry. Later you have Newspapers......(more later)
Technology alters the manner in which the Media serves us.
The Radio -- breaks the literacy barrier and b'comes a genuine 'Mass Medium' where technology helps transfer of the same 'message' from one "SOURCE" to many receivers through a "MEDIUM" to many "RECEIVERS". It became popular in the early 20th Century. (Hitler is supposed to have used the Radio to the maximum as a part of his Nazi propaganda machinery!)
The Television went a step further and brought the visual and the sound combination to our drawing rooms.
And now we have Satellite aided methods, the Internet making Communication a totaly different experience with multiple ways of using it.
I)The Media tells us 'look here' and often when our attention is turned there, we are in the 'dark' or 'kept in the dark'by the Media. B'cos we also learn to 'TRUST' the Printed Word and then start accepting that a powerful visual is more communicative than a 'thousand words'.
II)There is a constant race between 'Technology'(Media)and 'Reality'- opened up by the former leads to "mediated" representations. The Media begins to 'shape the reality' and in that manner earns the sobriquet of 'mindbenders', one 'selling lifestyles'etc.
III) As we see it now the Media is also an 'Advertiser's Medium'. Newspapers and Channels become a 'marketplace of different types of wares' and that is why sometimes it is called the "Advertiser's Medium".
If "NEWS" is what we got from the Media in the early years, now we are told "News is what appears between Advertisements".
The presence of the Media is something we cannot ignore. It has arrived. And, is here to stay.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
TV-ADDICTION
Book Review : Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, Penguin, 1985. ISBN 0-14-009438
In AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH, Neil Postman provides a brilliant analysis of our TV-addicted society.
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
"But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.' In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
"This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right." [p.p. vii-viii]
"From Erasmus in the sixteenth century to Elizabeth Eisenstein in the twentieth, almost every scholar who has grappled with the question of what reading does to one's habits of mind has concluded that the process encourages rationality; that the sequential, propositional character of the written word fosters what Walter Ong calls the "analytic management of knowledge." To engage the written word means to follow a line of thought, which requires considerable powers of classifying, inference-making and reasoning. It means to uncover lies, confusions, and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another. To accomplish this, one must achieve a certain distance from the words themselves, which is, in fact, encouraged by the isolated and impersonal text. That is why a good reader does not cheer an apt sentence or pause to applaud and even inspired paragraph. Analytic thought is too busy for that, and too detached." [p. 51]
"I will try to demonstrate by concrete example that television's way of knowing is uncompromisingly hostile to typography's way of knowing; that television's conversations promote incoherence and triviality; that the phrase "serious television" is a contradiction in terms; and that television speaks in only one persistent voice - the voice of entertainment. Beyond that, I will try to demonstrate that to enter the great television conversation, one American cultural institution after another is learning to speak its terms. Television, in other words, is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business. It is entirely possible, of course, that in the end we shall find that delightful, and decide we like it just fine. That is exactly what Aldous Huxley feared was coming, fifty years ago." [p. 80, Neil Postman, AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH]
In AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH, Neil Postman provides a brilliant analysis of our TV-addicted society.
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
"But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.' In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
"This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right." [p.p. vii-viii]
"From Erasmus in the sixteenth century to Elizabeth Eisenstein in the twentieth, almost every scholar who has grappled with the question of what reading does to one's habits of mind has concluded that the process encourages rationality; that the sequential, propositional character of the written word fosters what Walter Ong calls the "analytic management of knowledge." To engage the written word means to follow a line of thought, which requires considerable powers of classifying, inference-making and reasoning. It means to uncover lies, confusions, and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another. To accomplish this, one must achieve a certain distance from the words themselves, which is, in fact, encouraged by the isolated and impersonal text. That is why a good reader does not cheer an apt sentence or pause to applaud and even inspired paragraph. Analytic thought is too busy for that, and too detached." [p. 51]
"I will try to demonstrate by concrete example that television's way of knowing is uncompromisingly hostile to typography's way of knowing; that television's conversations promote incoherence and triviality; that the phrase "serious television" is a contradiction in terms; and that television speaks in only one persistent voice - the voice of entertainment. Beyond that, I will try to demonstrate that to enter the great television conversation, one American cultural institution after another is learning to speak its terms. Television, in other words, is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business. It is entirely possible, of course, that in the end we shall find that delightful, and decide we like it just fine. That is exactly what Aldous Huxley feared was coming, fifty years ago." [p. 80, Neil Postman, AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)