Media Manipulators

“Aside from the constraints of being newsworthy, sometimes other forces inside and outside of government impinge on journalists and affect the reality of the news they create” (Harris 200).

Disclaimer: This entry is not meant to be a criticism of censorship, but rather, a discussion about media that is no longer hard fact, and a press that is still not yet free.

Hard facts have long been censored, by government officials, by advertisers, even by angry parents. The truth hurts, offends, and disillusions our world, but lies are all of that, and potentially harmful. Not to accuse many credible news sources, but there are a number of publications that tweak their facts by reporting partially, or spin a story so that it airs at a time when very few viewers will pay attention. Outside influences may pressure reporters to only share some of the facts, or to enhance the truth with some seemingly harmless fabrication. By parodying facts or playing them off as insignificant, public figures can send a subliminal message to their audiences suggesting that such facts are irrelevant to daily life, or not even facts at all.

Censorship of fact or conjecture alike comes from government and from the public. Social pressures of the time period, as well as pressure from advertisers can convince reporters to twist or angle their stories in a way that doesn’t offend a certain group of people. Companies that support one side of an argument may pull the plug on funding for stories that present the other viewpoint. Governments can cut off access and block reporters from discovering unfavorable information, such as corruption or threats. Whether protection of information is worth the censorship is another topic for further discussion.

News or Nonsense?

“The news is not a reflection of the day; it is a ‘set of stories constructed by jounalists about the events of the day'” (Harris 187).

When the average American citizen turns on the news station or opens up a newspaper or flips through news channels, they expect to see realistic reports of factual events. However, when a relatively large network of people tries to connect over a limited amount of print space and air time, some things have to go.

When newscasters and anchormen and women choose what to show as “news” they can only pick a certain number of stories. In addition to pressure from advertisers and sponsors, they have to carefully consider what will be most entertaining and appealing for the public to absorb.

Like tabloids and blogs, mainstream news now focuses on pieces that spark human interest, with drama and action, not to mention sensationalist or bizarre elements. These stories have morals and themes and subliminal messages within them, and they are all carefully designed to hook an audience and keep them coming back, all while flashing sparkly ads in their face. With news that is spun like fiction, how can we tell what is really real and what is just hype?

On the flip side, with campaigns and ads that are highly one-sided, opinions can seem like fact. When official looking newscasters are presenting one side of an argument, without a rebuttal or counterargument, the public begins to believe in that viewpoint without even considering the other possibilities. This type of manipulative media can be potentially dangerous.

Monkey See

“In one of the earliest studies of this issue, children many decades ago reported that most of their information about people from different nationalities came from their parents and television, with TV becoming increasingly important as the child grew older (Lambert & Klineberg, 1967)” (Harris 65).

TV is replacing real life observation when dealing with people unlike ourselves. Different races, genders, economic classes etc. are portrayed repetitively on television and in movies. There are a number of stock characters on television, stereotypes of women vs. men, white v. black, straight vs. gay, or child vs. adult. However there aren’t these perfect boxes in reality, as everyone is a unique individual with a different story that may or may not match up to a predetermined list of character traits based on television’s pseudo-reality. In neighborhoods where there is little diversity, children will learn to base their knowledge about other cultures off of media information. This ignorance creates problems later when sheltered children become prejudiced adults.

For example, women are often portrayed as imperialistically inferior, and they use seduction and deception for purposes of self-promotion. They are also often seen as overly emotional and catering to men both in the workplace and at home. This subliminally tells women that they are supposed to use sex and not intellect to gain respect and power. Men are often portrayed as insensitive or blundering, and out of touch with their emotional side. They are also seen as dominant both in the workplace and at home. This subliminally tells men that they are not allowed to have feelings, or that they are required to be in control of everything.

Media Motives

“What draws different people to consume different types of media may be a critical issue” (38).

Why does a small child turn on Saturday morning cartoons while his father reads the local paper and his mother reads a romance novel? Different people gravitate towards different types of media, and answering “Why?” is a big piece of understanding the effects that this media has on the human brain.

One thing that influences the motives for media is the target audience and intended use of the media. For example, a child will probably like a television show that is intended to entertain a youth demographic more than he or she will like a show that is intended to educate a college demographic. The target audience and intent of a certain piece of media may also partially rely on stereotypes or profiling. Society defines roles for certain genders, races, social classes, ages, and other demographics, and these roles play into the types of media we gravitate towards. For example, a grown man will probably like an news article that pertains to his college football team more than a magazine article pertaining to his wife’s favorite fashion designer.

Harris also mentions the parasocial connections that consumers feel with media figures, be they a news anchorwoman or a comic book character. Even though these figures are fictional, or at least, not physically available in person, consumers feel a great deal of emotional attachment and empathy to them. When fictional characters or idolized celebrities die, overcome a hardship, or undergo a traumatic experience, consumers and followers feel the burden and loss as if the character or figure had been a close friend or family member. This sort of relationship with physically or emotionally unavailable is a phenomenon that spurs many people to watch television, read books, or follow celebrities. If these pseudo-relationships take the form of real-life relationships, then it explains why certain demographics (of age, race, economic status, level of education, gender, etc.) gravitate towards different types of media, because they relate most to characters and figures of similar demographics.

Reality TV

When viewers experience a fictional plot, in the form of a movie or sitcom episode, how much do they perceive as real and how much do they integrate into their own reality? Harris divides the components of viewing into parts that he calls “factuality…the belief in literal reality of media messages” and “social realism, which refers to the perceived similarity or usefulness of the media to one’s own life, even while recognizing its fictional nature” (62).

The factuality factor relates viewers to what they are watching. The sitcoms, the soap operas, the cartoons, all of them can be said to represent some aspect of reality. The viewer may not actually believe in the existence of a particular character or town, but he or she will certainly be able to recognize certain personality traits or family traditions that the characters on-screen possess. How much the viewer perceives to be true depends on personal experiences and background, such as country, gender, race, religion, etc.

The social realism factor leads the viewer to the conclusion that, if certain aspects of a show or movie are “true” or representative of reality, what practical applications can be drawn from that? How can knowledge of certain environments, situations, or circumstances be used to navigate real life obstacles? When a viewer sees a favorite character in the same dilemma that he himself is faced with, the character’s fictional reaction and response may be translated into a real life response that affects the viewer’s reality.

This cause-and-effect pattern detail the majority of how the populace views and perceives both the fictional worlds on silver screens and their own reality.

Identity Crisis

“Although both men and women identify more with same-sex characters who are successful and intelligent, women also identified with those who were attractive and admired, while men identified with media men who were violent” (Harris 52).

As Lee tells Sam Hamilton in John Steinbeck’s East of Eden, stories are compelling because audience members feel a part of themselves within the story. This concept is not only true for books and oral traditions, but also now plays, movies, and television shows. The audience relates to the characters in one way or another, and that is the driving force that keeps them coming back for multiple productions, reruns, and new episodes.

A person watching his favorite television show will, of course, find himself to be somewhat like a charismatic, successful character within the show. After all, we humans like to think the best of ourselves, and boost our egos whenever possible. However, a person watching his favorite television show may also recognize some of the dangerous, “bad-boy” tendencies of his television hero, and empathize with him during a fight scene, or a battle. In real life, the viewer may not actually be remotely violent or dangerous, but there is some instinct, perhaps on a unconscious or primal level, that connects the viewer to his favorite show. The viewer may wish to believe that he is tough and courageous in the face of danger, or perhaps it adds excitement and adventure to believe that such danger exists in the world.

This response of male self-identification is contrasted when the viewer’s girlfriend also watches the same show. She will also admire a strong and powerful female character, but instead of identifying with a character that is vicious and out for blood, she will more likely identify with a character that is physically attractive or popular. Regardless of whether she herself is popular in real life, in her mind she will empathize with a character that has many friends, and see the similarities between herself and a popular female character. She will want to consider her own life in the best light, and if she can relate to a popular character, it will give her the idea that she is capable of being well-liked.

Men realize the danger and violence within themselves and their race, but women focus on the social details. Society has thus far been built upon men seeking adventure and war and women seeking societal acceptance and admiration, so it comes as no surprise that this split in self-identification exists.

Side Effects May Include…

“As applied to media, this principle states that (1) people believe that others are more vulnerable than themselves to persuasive messages and other media influences; and (2) such perceptions can influence behavior” (30).

The majority of media users each tend to think that the rest of the world is more susceptible to advertising, subliminal messaging, and overall influence than themselves. This suggests that each of us either cannot or chooses not to see and understand the effect that media has on ourselves.

Media influences us in ways that we don’t even think about on a daily basis. People may not realize the fact that they cheer when they win a video game, or that they cringe when they watch an animal get shot. No one wonders why they feel like crying when watching a soap opera, or why they get so angry at a certain movie character.

Likewise, the mode of media greatly influences our cognition of the information and the subtext. For example, if a child reads a story or hears it told out loud, that will remember the words and sounds, but if that same child watches the story played out as a movie or a TV program, then the child will remember the images and movements. The way that we absorb the media correlates to the information we retain and the responses that we give.

Sometimes targeting, or the idea that a certain piece of media is meant for a certain group, has the opposite effect on that group, or has an effect on the wrong group. For example, if a certain movie trailer is targeted for an adult audience, rebellious teenagers may only read the rating of the movie, and want to see the movie. Adults may then be led to believe the movie is meant for a teenage audience, given the median age of viewers. The box office will have then a higher profit from teenage customers and not adult customers. Likewise an anti-smoking commercial targeted at younger children and adolescents may be viewed by their parents and other adults who will be convinced to quit smoking.

These completely natural responses—behavioral, emotional, cognitive—often go undetected, and then the public speculates whether or not the media, especially advertising, is influencing youth, education, and health. We, as a media-ridden generation, need to become more cognizant of the effects, both positive and negative, of media on our own opinions, behaviors, and physical selves, as well as that of our peers.

More Mass Media

In addition to television and film, mass media include radio, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet.

Radio is still the most accessible form of media, globally speaking. The convenience in terms of cost and use is a main factor in making it available to almost every corner of the world. The popularity of radio also reflects the penchant for music over television in the human spirit. Music is something innate and moving in a way that a silver screen can never be. Music is also accessible and easily replicated by anyone who feels like singing or picking up an instrument. Television and film takes more effort and collaboration, which isn’t always an option, because of time, space, or numbers.

Film ratings are a huge controversy, as mentioned in yesterday’s post. What is considered more dangerous: sex or violence? Why is it okay for children to watch a man or woman kill another man or woman, but not watch a man or woman love another man or woman? Much like the argument for a lower legal drinking age, do ratings like NC-17 and R movies encourage kids to rebel and seek danger and inappropriate materials and activities?

Though newspapers are declining in popularity, magazines still play a crucial role, especially in the female adolescent experience. Young teenage girls bond over glossy pages and fashion advice while they gossip and discuss romance and growing up.

Perhaps an until-now ignored topic of mass media is the social networking: Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Friendster, LiveJournal, etc. What do we gain when online chats and wall posts replace face-to-face conversations? Why is it more awkward to share personal sentiments and inner thoughts to an actual person, and not to their face on a video chat? The amount of time spent pouring thoughts out to a keyboard is disgusting compared to the amount of time spent actually working out problems in live interactive situations.

Mass Communication

All forms of media are for the purposes of mass communication: newspapers, magazines, radio, television, film, etc. Is this constant stream of media healthy? Detrimental? How does it influence the new American way of life?

The average American household is more wired now than it ever was before, and it’s changing the way the world perceives itself and the information within. What is the ratio of face-to-face conversations to online chats? Is it necessary to build shopping malls and grocery stores when online shopping has already started to corner the market? Video rental places are now outdated, thanks to sites like YouTube and Netflix, and video tapes themselves are now replaced by DVDs and Blu-Ray discs. Music stores and CDs are replaced by iTunes and MP3 players.

Censorship is a huge issue in mass media. Who gets to decide what the public sees? What is “appropriate material” and what is considered “dangerous” for America’s youth? The rating system in America favors violent over sexual content, so that scenes with nudity or sensuality are considered more “explicit” and rated higher than scenes with gunfire and blood. Is it really more acceptable to endorse violence and pay for murder? Is this more moral than encouraging pornography or teenage pregnancy?

In a world driven by money, mass communication is driven by advertising. Advertising companies have even more powers of manipulation beyond their own commercials and billboards.  They influence what stories make it to the public, on television or in magazines. These companies have the power to control the information that the average consumer uses to make daily decisions, beyond buying new products.

Is this media-centric world moving toward a more advanced, individualized society? Or are we becoming dependent on our cell phones, iPads, and twitters to tell us what and how to think?