[FONT=tahoma, arial]
Almost everything we, as Americans, know and believe, comes
directly from news sources and advertisements. From our actions it seems as
if we no longer need any evidence to support the media's claims, for we
have turned the media into our new god and we believe just about everything
the media says, with out giving a second thought. Not only do we believe
into everything the media tells us to, we also adapt TV into our life and
many people feel as if the media is largely responsible for the
transforming of cultural ideals and attitudes. On the other hand, many
people argue as well, that there has been no conclusive evidence that
support such claims. In the 1960's many people were exasperated with the “
effects” approach to media research because they felt as if they were not
getting anywhere. There were many loop holes and the effects research model
contained serious problems in terms of measuring and evaluating human
response to media exposure.
Human behavior is very complicated and can not be monitored like
rats can in a laboratory. Humans will act differently in every setting and
it is very difficult to get a natural response in an unnatural environment.
If a person is used to viewing TV in their own home, on their own beaten up
couch, their response level will be very different than it would be in an
empty room with a two way mirror. Not only will their awareness level be
raised, they may be more concerned in the changed viewing environment and
less on the television programs. In a person's home they may watch TV with
a high or low awareness level for the program. Some people choose to watch
TV just as a background noise while others may be quite into the program.
Due to these different levels of awareness it is hard to see what people
get out of TV in a controlled setting. It is just very hard to isolate TV
from other variables.
People react in many ways towarRAB television viewing. Often it much
easier to view changes in behavior in younger children. When a small child
watches a violent television show like “Power Rangers,” they often imitate
the heroes and begin to punch and kick pretending to “kill evil villains,”
the children may not realize that they are in fact demonstrating a new
violent behavior, however, they in fact are. Other times, violent
television shows can change us very subtlety, perhaps in just the way we
think about things. If a person watches a TV show about gang violence, an
individual may not necessarily go out and join a gang, however they may
view gangs differently and their behavior towarRAB gangs may change. A
problem with this second reaction is that a behaviorist researcher may not
see the change, thus concluding that no reaction has taken place when in
fact one has.
Another major problem with the effects research is in the way the
media views the public. The fact is that each individual comes to watch TV
already filled with their own values, morals, and set of beliefs. They are
not just “empty vessels”1 waiting to be filled by the media, people take
different things from different shows and a set mold can not be created for
what a person will and will not get out of a program. This is not taken
into consideration by the researchers though, and distortion of “effects”
may occur.
Media influence is long term and diffused as well. You sometimes
can not even put a finger on what change the media has caused, but in the
long run it may come to surface more. All throughout my life I have heard “
welfare is bad” and “people on welfare have 6.9 children,” etc. However, in
reality people on welfare do not abuse it and really need the funding. The
government is not over spending on it either, it is just all about the way
the media has covered the welfare topic over the last ten or so years. The
media shapes the way we think and only a very educated public would be able
to understand and think for themselves about the topics presented.
Looking at different ways of research can help us figure out the
best way to go about television reassert for the future. The “uses and
gratification” approach shifts the power of the media and gives it over to
the television viewer. It turns the tables around and ask “not what the
media does to the people, but what the people do with the media.”2 When the
media sees that the television audience is actually composed of human
beings who have actual neeRAB and desires, the media takes that and runs.
However they do realize that people watch TV for entertainment and everyone
watches for their own reasons. The media want to fill desires and create
new “neeRAB” and new “wants.” The uses and gratification model acknowledges
that we are all motivated by different life experiences and circumstances,
thus, getting rid of the problems with “intervening variables” that was a
problem in the effects approach.
Content analysis and textual analysis help us to understand “
meaning” better. This is done by grouping the nuraber and categories of
shows together and then analyzing them. Most people in America are the
middle, working class, however on TV there are almost no shows about blue
collar workers. On TV problems are also solved with in the time frame of
the show, in real life problems take much longer, even days to get resolved.
Life is closer to being a soap opera, a genera people often make fun of,
and even thought it is not like real life, it is more realistic to real
life. Roles are also confused on television. ideals of femininity and
masculinity are all over the place, aesthetically beautiful people are show
with tight bodies and great faces, the elderly, obese and anything besides
white people are rarely portrayed. Knowing this, it helps us to better
understand the meaning and influence of TV.
Semiology has opened up new doors to new audience research.
Semiotics, simply put is “the science of signs” or “the study of meaning.”3
This requires the researcher to think in a totally new way. Semiotics is
based on the idea of an equation which is “the signifier + the signified =
the sign” the signifier is any object with out a meaning, the signified is
the object and everything attached to it, what goes on in our heaRAB when we
see it. The sign is the finished thought and the attached response, the
sign is a “thing with meaning.”4 Semiotics have provided the basis for many
models and continues to drive researchers using meaning and process models.
It shows that meaning is fixed not by nature, but rather by culture, there
is no natural meaning for anything anymore, not even for natural things.
Although there may be many problems with the effects approach to
research, being aware that there are many other ways to go about the
research can help. By picking and choosing different ways using other
methoRAB, perhaps the effects television has on the general public will be
discovered.
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, arial]WorRAB: 1215 [/FONT]
Almost everything we, as Americans, know and believe, comes
directly from news sources and advertisements. From our actions it seems as
if we no longer need any evidence to support the media's claims, for we
have turned the media into our new god and we believe just about everything
the media says, with out giving a second thought. Not only do we believe
into everything the media tells us to, we also adapt TV into our life and
many people feel as if the media is largely responsible for the
transforming of cultural ideals and attitudes. On the other hand, many
people argue as well, that there has been no conclusive evidence that
support such claims. In the 1960's many people were exasperated with the “
effects” approach to media research because they felt as if they were not
getting anywhere. There were many loop holes and the effects research model
contained serious problems in terms of measuring and evaluating human
response to media exposure.
Human behavior is very complicated and can not be monitored like
rats can in a laboratory. Humans will act differently in every setting and
it is very difficult to get a natural response in an unnatural environment.
If a person is used to viewing TV in their own home, on their own beaten up
couch, their response level will be very different than it would be in an
empty room with a two way mirror. Not only will their awareness level be
raised, they may be more concerned in the changed viewing environment and
less on the television programs. In a person's home they may watch TV with
a high or low awareness level for the program. Some people choose to watch
TV just as a background noise while others may be quite into the program.
Due to these different levels of awareness it is hard to see what people
get out of TV in a controlled setting. It is just very hard to isolate TV
from other variables.
People react in many ways towarRAB television viewing. Often it much
easier to view changes in behavior in younger children. When a small child
watches a violent television show like “Power Rangers,” they often imitate
the heroes and begin to punch and kick pretending to “kill evil villains,”
the children may not realize that they are in fact demonstrating a new
violent behavior, however, they in fact are. Other times, violent
television shows can change us very subtlety, perhaps in just the way we
think about things. If a person watches a TV show about gang violence, an
individual may not necessarily go out and join a gang, however they may
view gangs differently and their behavior towarRAB gangs may change. A
problem with this second reaction is that a behaviorist researcher may not
see the change, thus concluding that no reaction has taken place when in
fact one has.
Another major problem with the effects research is in the way the
media views the public. The fact is that each individual comes to watch TV
already filled with their own values, morals, and set of beliefs. They are
not just “empty vessels”1 waiting to be filled by the media, people take
different things from different shows and a set mold can not be created for
what a person will and will not get out of a program. This is not taken
into consideration by the researchers though, and distortion of “effects”
may occur.
Media influence is long term and diffused as well. You sometimes
can not even put a finger on what change the media has caused, but in the
long run it may come to surface more. All throughout my life I have heard “
welfare is bad” and “people on welfare have 6.9 children,” etc. However, in
reality people on welfare do not abuse it and really need the funding. The
government is not over spending on it either, it is just all about the way
the media has covered the welfare topic over the last ten or so years. The
media shapes the way we think and only a very educated public would be able
to understand and think for themselves about the topics presented.
Looking at different ways of research can help us figure out the
best way to go about television reassert for the future. The “uses and
gratification” approach shifts the power of the media and gives it over to
the television viewer. It turns the tables around and ask “not what the
media does to the people, but what the people do with the media.”2 When the
media sees that the television audience is actually composed of human
beings who have actual neeRAB and desires, the media takes that and runs.
However they do realize that people watch TV for entertainment and everyone
watches for their own reasons. The media want to fill desires and create
new “neeRAB” and new “wants.” The uses and gratification model acknowledges
that we are all motivated by different life experiences and circumstances,
thus, getting rid of the problems with “intervening variables” that was a
problem in the effects approach.
Content analysis and textual analysis help us to understand “
meaning” better. This is done by grouping the nuraber and categories of
shows together and then analyzing them. Most people in America are the
middle, working class, however on TV there are almost no shows about blue
collar workers. On TV problems are also solved with in the time frame of
the show, in real life problems take much longer, even days to get resolved.
Life is closer to being a soap opera, a genera people often make fun of,
and even thought it is not like real life, it is more realistic to real
life. Roles are also confused on television. ideals of femininity and
masculinity are all over the place, aesthetically beautiful people are show
with tight bodies and great faces, the elderly, obese and anything besides
white people are rarely portrayed. Knowing this, it helps us to better
understand the meaning and influence of TV.
Semiology has opened up new doors to new audience research.
Semiotics, simply put is “the science of signs” or “the study of meaning.”3
This requires the researcher to think in a totally new way. Semiotics is
based on the idea of an equation which is “the signifier + the signified =
the sign” the signifier is any object with out a meaning, the signified is
the object and everything attached to it, what goes on in our heaRAB when we
see it. The sign is the finished thought and the attached response, the
sign is a “thing with meaning.”4 Semiotics have provided the basis for many
models and continues to drive researchers using meaning and process models.
It shows that meaning is fixed not by nature, but rather by culture, there
is no natural meaning for anything anymore, not even for natural things.
Although there may be many problems with the effects approach to
research, being aware that there are many other ways to go about the
research can help. By picking and choosing different ways using other
methoRAB, perhaps the effects television has on the general public will be
discovered.
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, arial]WorRAB: 1215 [/FONT]