Week 11: Media as active agents...
This week's readings deals with the 'mediating function' of media. In short, they are the some of the first accounts that media acts not only as a carrier, but as an active moderator in the communication process. Also, it brings new light that the pattern of how people make sense of the mediated contents is an important factor. While Katz & Lazarsfeld emphasized the importance of how the mass-communicated meanings are (out)balanced by the interpersonal communication, Lang & Lang, McLuhan, Innis and others are more emphasizing the interaction between the media and the audience.
Lang & Lang's study is a fine and pioneering example of such. Their account of how TV actively constructed an unifying message into the televised content is a classic framework of semiotic media analysis. However, they do not touch on what the roles of each player involved was: What parts of the outcomes can be attributed to the event planners, journalists, the media characteristics of TV itself, and the cultural contexts of the audience. Regarding such, McLuhan explains about the mechanisms and functions of each medium can be different according to their 'technological' characteristics. Beyond considering the notion of written vs oral communication in Innis' footsteps , he starts to talk about how technology of media can bring about changes in the social aspects of people's lives. In his view, new media technologies bring the world in a closer tie, while decentralizing hierarchies and empowering audience participation (and his 'new media' was not even the Internet, but TV !). Some of the views are also expressed by Horton & Wohl, in their argument that the 'new' mass media brings the audience more close to the performer, bringing forth an intimate relationship and a para-social role model.
It is interesting to think that most of the thoughts on the TV the 'new media' has strong resonance with talks about the Internet. The new media with its superior mediation technologies are thought to bring people more closely together, and it could result in a global village or maybe easy faschism. Well, we know by now that it isn't that simple or decisive. It is rather how such media characteristics are utilized in the context of the ever complex becoming society. Therefore the key point that I think important is the notion that media is not communication per se, but a key actor that calls communication its own specialty. It applies to both the media instituion AND the media technology.
Thus it is important to conceptually separate between the agent and the function, and at the same time keep in mind that those two functions go always closely together in real world. With our overall theme of communication as the crucial element of integrating a community/association/society in mind, the thoughts in this week's readings raise the need for looking into the laws, rules and technologies that govern the process of media-mediated communication. It is the question of how the possible dysfunctions of 'mass-mediated' communication can be bettered out or transferred to alternative forms of media (or media institutions), to satisfy the original democratic ambitions. One overarching theme we should always come back to is how to make our media environment less 'massive', to more closely meet each of the social layers that people in this modern era are living through, and even fill the cognitive gaps between them to strengthen integrated social lives.
Lang & Lang's study is a fine and pioneering example of such. Their account of how TV actively constructed an unifying message into the televised content is a classic framework of semiotic media analysis. However, they do not touch on what the roles of each player involved was: What parts of the outcomes can be attributed to the event planners, journalists, the media characteristics of TV itself, and the cultural contexts of the audience. Regarding such, McLuhan explains about the mechanisms and functions of each medium can be different according to their 'technological' characteristics. Beyond considering the notion of written vs oral communication in Innis' footsteps , he starts to talk about how technology of media can bring about changes in the social aspects of people's lives. In his view, new media technologies bring the world in a closer tie, while decentralizing hierarchies and empowering audience participation (and his 'new media' was not even the Internet, but TV !). Some of the views are also expressed by Horton & Wohl, in their argument that the 'new' mass media brings the audience more close to the performer, bringing forth an intimate relationship and a para-social role model.
It is interesting to think that most of the thoughts on the TV the 'new media' has strong resonance with talks about the Internet. The new media with its superior mediation technologies are thought to bring people more closely together, and it could result in a global village or maybe easy faschism. Well, we know by now that it isn't that simple or decisive. It is rather how such media characteristics are utilized in the context of the ever complex becoming society. Therefore the key point that I think important is the notion that media is not communication per se, but a key actor that calls communication its own specialty. It applies to both the media instituion AND the media technology.
Thus it is important to conceptually separate between the agent and the function, and at the same time keep in mind that those two functions go always closely together in real world. With our overall theme of communication as the crucial element of integrating a community/association/society in mind, the thoughts in this week's readings raise the need for looking into the laws, rules and technologies that govern the process of media-mediated communication. It is the question of how the possible dysfunctions of 'mass-mediated' communication can be bettered out or transferred to alternative forms of media (or media institutions), to satisfy the original democratic ambitions. One overarching theme we should always come back to is how to make our media environment less 'massive', to more closely meet each of the social layers that people in this modern era are living through, and even fill the cognitive gaps between them to strengthen integrated social lives.
posted by KimNakho at
5:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home