|
Discussion corner: The Media and the effects.
It's that time of day for one of my more important and mind working discussions!
No doubt we've all heard the theory that the Media "brain washes" people, and that it feeds ideas into their heads. There are people, however , who take it further than that, and claim that the more vicious media provoke vicious acts. What are your views on this? Please, don't make this into a "Video games do not make you attack other people" thread. I've heard so much of that before, and this thread isn't designed for that particular argument. This is media as a whole, adressing the whole world. Personally, it's an interesting thought. And although I am motivated by the media, be it adverts or films, or stars. But I always hold my own view on it, so I don't let it motivate me 100% how it wants to. Also, one thing I querie against the "action-causing" sides of the argument. If violent sequences, or games make us do violent things. Then how comes when we watch good and rational things, why do we not aspire to do those? |
Quote:
|
I'm sorry but I don't believe in it and it not work on me nothing happen to me. :/
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Who needs the media when you have *makes grand but vague gesture to the forum as a whole* the Internet?
|
The media really is just a scare tactic. I mean, the only way it's going to get you to come back is to "kick things up a notch" right? If the media didn't exaggerate then nobody would tune in because it's just boring and not interesting. This is why the media is intentionally brain-washing people into thinking the world has gone mad in order to enrapture the viewers and make more money. This should be common knowledge now...everybody knows the media is full of crap.
|
Whether or not I'm influenced by the media really depends on the topic.
Take politics, I listen to alot of talk radio. Choosing a candidate was hard for me because I constantly heard arguments against/for both McCain and Obama When it comes to everyday actions like manners and what not media played no role in that. My manners/actions came from home. A movie, video game, or t.v show can make me realize things that I didn't really think about before but it doesn't shape my opinion or actions as a whole. I think most people are this way. It's takes a particular person to let a movie strictly influence your actions. |
Quote:
|
Well Media, although it may 'brainwash' you, they do have some points that are good y'know.
|
Quote:
Personally, I am unaffected by the media because I realized that it was a load of BS. In no way are my actions and beliefs influenced by such despicable sources. |
The media definitely has a large influence on people and the choices we make. Probably larger than most of you think. Where do we get most of the information that we base our everyday choices on? Most get it from the media, few sit and read scientific studies, etc.
Is this a problem? It can be, as long as the media stays fairly objective it isn't, but who makes sure they do? Most newspapers, news channels rely on us for their survival, they need us to read and watch. How can they do that? By giving us what we want and that isn't necessarily the truth or the whole truth. They also rely on sponsors and advertisement which can also affect their objectivity. Considering how large the media's influence is and how much of what we know comes from the media, I find it a bit disturbing that a large private organization like Murdoch's News Corporation has such control over what we get to see. News Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rant over. |
I don't think you can talk about "the media" and what it does as one thing. There are all kinds of media, and it is plural for medium, or a way to transfer information.
"The media" doesn't have power over your. That's like blaming the beer mug for your alcoholism. The beer mug gives you the power to drink, but it has no feelings or desires in the matter. |
Quote:
May be some media may have brainwashed some, but unfortunately I don't bother with the news on tv or on paper...hmmmm...could be a bad thing...i dunno... ....all i know is that I'm gonna get me a 2nd mug-o-wine! |
Quote:
Or were you just trying to be a wise***? I know that you are quite intelligent, so it would be more interesting if you offered your opinion on the subject. |
Quote:
The implication I read is there is some unified message to influence us to do something. That "the media" is run by some guy behind a curtain like The Wizard of Oz, and that isn't the case. An election is a great example of the extreme of "media influence" because we can see clearly that some people want us to vote one way, and other people want us to vote another, and the agendas are pretty crystal-clear. But that's different than "brain-washing". For example, I thought the nuclear-bomb test in the last Indy Jones movie was a pretty clear anti-war, anti-nuke message. But it's just that, a message. I didn't see it as some attempt to influence my subconscious, especially as my conscious was so aware of it. So, no, it was no attempt to be a wise-a**. Like I said, it's like blaming the mug for your alcoholism. Don't blame the messenger. Look at who is sending the messages, and I think you see it is all kinds of different people with different agendas and different levels of agendas. |
Quote:
Naturally we have a choice to believe or not to believe in what we hear and see, but what we chose to believe is based on what we know, knowledge that we have acquired largely from the same source. Like I said before, as long as the reporting is honest and objective, that isn't a problem, but since financial and political interest have a large influence on what is reported and shown, objectivity has a tendency to suffer. |
What I personally get out of the original post of this "discussion" is the usual "Think what I do, believe what I do, don't make this about video games while I go off and talk about video games, don't disagree with me because you're wrong" type of forum statement.
Is telling people "The Media" (imagine the fingerquotes here) is brainwashing them a form of brainwashing? Seems like it to me. To extend the metaphor beyond reasonable limits, if "the media" is brainwashing people, and the internet is part of "the media" does that mean that the superficially independant parts of it supposedly written by individuals not involved in "the media" are, in fact, not written by individuals at all, but "the media"? Is there in truth no independant thought? |
Quote:
I wouldn't however call it "brainwashing", influencing, I think is a better word. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The proponents of this argument have science on their side too. If I remember correctly studies show that children who are exposed to violent games/movies tend to show more aggressive tendencies (that they don't manifest these tendencies beyond the law seems to be the position of the crowd that says "I play Grand Theft Auto and I'm fine" crowd which personally I think is stupid.) Personally I agree with strict censorship. In New Zealand it is a criminal offence to expose a child to media rated Restricted 18/16/13. You can face a hefty fine or even go to jail for this crime in the more extreme cases regardless of whether you are the parent/legal guardian or not. Unfortunately such a law is really way too hard to enforce to the letter so the best way to get people to change their behaviour is to inform them and promote good practice and social responsibility.... and the best way to do this? Via the media... So coming back to the thread topic. In my opinion the media is both a reflection of society and an influence on it. Lol... I'm rambling... |
i always saw the media as something that merely presents an idea & that it is up to me whether or not i will choose to believe in what is shown & how i react to it.
no one & nothing can "make me" do something. |
Quote:
For example you are more likely to lose your temper/get frustrated more easily, be more likely to inappropriately express your more negative emotions (anger, jealousy) as well as be more likely to over-react in potentially confrontational dillemas. You personally may be able to display these tendencies without going beyond the law however if you look at the bigger picture, societally speaking a whole bunch of more aggressive people is going to naturally lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour which for some people could lead to crime. Of course there are other factors... poverty etc... but I think the media is a significant one. I don't think banning games/movies/music which feature anti-social behaviour is the answer... but I do believe in stricter guidelines as well as increased public awareness. |
Quote:
How these things affect "you" is different not depending on "the media" but depending on "you". |
Quote:
Then come back, put your head together and post. |
I can't even begin to tell you how many essays I have wrote about this! I've done speeches on it and everything!
In any case, I really don't think the media has as much effect as people like to make out. Although I do think it influences what we think of people, for example, celebrities, I'm sure that not everyone just takes it in as the whole truth. I think on the whole we do look at things more skeptically and don't just take things in. There is a theory to describe the influence of the media, called the 'Hypodermic Needle.' This is the theory that people see the media, take it all in without a conscious thought, and are influenced by it. Personally, I think while this may be the case for very few people, it's not the general feeling. Another theory which I'm incline to agree with more is the 'Two-Step Flow' theory, which is were the main source of the information comes from the media and is filtered down through 'opinion leaders' - people who do heavily influence the way people think. It's a sort of mediation through the opinion leaders which makes it less heavily media influenced. |
Quote:
I think the two step flow sounds about right when it comes to news media. But when it comes to violence in video games, porn increasingly entering the mainstream etc. I believe the "Hypodermic Needle" theory sounds more accurate... But I haven't really studied the subject in depth... is there something I'm missing? |
Porn increasingly entering the mainstream?
Ask 10 Americans to name 5 porn stars right now, and I bet they couldn't 30+ years ago, in the age of Linda Lovelace, I bet they could. |
Quote:
People may not be able to name porn stars... but I think that there could be many reasons for that over-exposure being one. In my father's generation I would have had to enter a video store or convenience store to buy/rent porn. Now if I want I can access it anonymously via the internet (which I did once when I was less aware of the sort of harmful effects it can have). Also cable/satellite TV brings it right to your TV with the flick of a switch. |
Firstly: MMM, I'm not talking about "The Media" like you're saying. I'm talking the different aspects of it. The news, films, journalism, games, the internet. All types.
Secondly: I, like Josh 50% agree with you Ronin. I agree that it makes a difference in kids, because kids are more susceptible to such things. But then again, when a person ages, the effects become nullified by the person's capability of having their own thoughts and knowing between right and wrong. Misa: There's another Theory also, I'm not sure if you've heard of it. It's sometimes called Hall's theory. It's the theory that the audience and people are actively engaged with the media. People react, and de-code a piece of media text (Text as in a sort of media, be in advertisement on tv, or a piece of writing) differently. There are three types of ways people "de-code" the texts. 'Dominant Reading' - Where the audience accepts the "message". 'Negotaited Reading' - Where the audience half accepts the message, and half disagrees. 'Oppositional reading' - Where the audience disagree outright with the message. I personally think the right theory, in my views, is Hall's theory. Because it's the basis of how we perceive the media. Just think, when you're watching TV, how many things you ignore, or listen to. (Let's use adverts for an example). Let's think of an advert... hmmm... Ah. A McDonalds advert that advertising a new burger. They have their saying that :"It' 100% beef" and that "It's really tasty!" Now each one of us would judge that advert differently. Personally, I'd be half half, whereas I know that itd be tasty, I'm not sure if it's 100% beef. Sorry for the rambling, I just wanted to show that theory, and I seem to ramble on at times. Either way, It's mostly still clear on what I mean, I hope. |
Quote:
So what you're saying is, pretty much, that propaganda through media doesn't work? It is all up to "us" to distinguished between the different realities presented? Of course we have choice in the matter, I'm just saying that we only get one side of a story, we are much more inclined to believe that side. Even if it's true or not, the whole truth or completely taken out of context. Quote:
|
Quote:
The It's really tasty part is very subjective and just because some or most people find it tasty, that is no guarantee I will. |
Quote:
I am saying propaganda through the media only works if that propaganda is a unified message, like in N. Korea. Everything that goes against that message isn't allowed. We don't have that in the West. We are told Bush is good, and Bush is bad. The war in Iraq is good and the war is bad. A band rocks or a band sucks. There is no unified message in what we are bombarded with, so any propaganda isn' effective. |
Quote:
I used to live in London and would see chav kids copy their behaviour from chav adults. In America ghetto kids become ghetto adults. Not that I would go as far as saying that chavs are the media's fault... rather age does not bring about nearly as much wisdom as you suggest it does. So how does one become aware of their behaviour? As I said before.... social responsibility and awareness is the answer I believe. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 AM. |