Response to Shelsea; Mass Media - an open arena?

2.)“The mass media are the most effective channels to persuade people. Mass Media persuade us to buy products, to vote, and to take up causes. Why is this? One reason may be that there is only limited feedback in mass message systems (you cannot question, applaud, or respond), so certain ploys work that will not work in open arenas.” (Larsen). I think that this statement is not necessarily true today. With so many things online and so many ways for one person to respond to any particular situation they see on TV or hear on the radio, they have plenty of ways to express how they feel about something in the mass media. So my question is, is this statement true? Are we becoming just drains in mass media and taking what we hear and see for face value and believing in it? Or are we using our mass media resources to say what we think and get our opinion out there?

Today, more than ever before, we are very much involved in the media available to us and have a significant influence on what we read, see and hear in the media. The section the majority of us decide to click on in a newspaper’s website, for example the entertainment section, will likely cause the presence of more entertainment news on the website in the future as it will receive more “hits” and the producers will assume it is what the consumers want more of. This is to say that we, the consumers, have a fair amount of control over what we read, see or hear in whatever medium we utilize. Our participation does not end here.
Let us concentrate on the radio. This medium requires that we hear its content and could seem like a “hot medium” as described by McLuhan; a high fidelity or definition form that requires little participation. In this day and age, I would disagree with this claim as a fair amount of radio stations demand that its listeners participate. You can call, send emails or letters, and be heard on the station. You can input your opinion about certain discussed subjects or request that a song be played. You can participate in varying contests and send money during a pledge drive. This is to say that we have plenty of opportunity to give feedback.
Furthermore, on television, another medium that is considered “hot”, though we may appear passive, we have a say. If we don’t watch a certain show, it will be cut off the air. If we demand that a show continue, a new season will be produced. With the continuing growth of reality TV, we are now more able than ever before to be on the screen. We can call after watching an infomercial, or to ask a talk show host a question. We can be as involved as we would like.
The best and most appropriate example I can think of that demonstrates that we are not merely passive and that is most certainly an open arena is the worldwide web. The internet is perhaps the largest and most effective communication facilitator. It connects people across the globe and allows us to respond to anything in it and create our own content. It is a medium for the people, by the people. Because of it, we can engage in conversation with those trying to “persuade us to buy products, to vote, and to take up causes.” We post opinions and comments on various articles. We write blogs to share anything we wish to share with others. We join social media websites such as Facebook to converse with those we know, meet new people, network and show who we are and what we believe in. what is more, is that all this shared information is instantaneous and this makes us even more engaged and more connected.
To conclude, I cannot agree with Larson’s statement in this day and age. I think that we certainly do make use of our mass media resources to say what we think and get our opinion out there. Six-year-old children are just as involved in the online conversation as big corporate businesses are. We are definitely the “me” generation. We like to be heard, recognized and involved. This attributes to a near impossibility in filtering information in controlling media content, allowing for more transparency and a larger presence of faulty information. We chose to make our mass media this way and we must now master its use, which is not an evident and easy thing to do, but not impossible either.

Questions; week of March 1st readings.

1) Marshall McLuhan speaks of the states of high and low definition in categorizing the types of media. High definition, or a hot medium, is the “state of being well filled with data” and low definition, cool media, implies a provision of very little information where much participation and feedback is expected of the receiver of any message. Do you agree with McLuhan that certain media are more characteristic or appropriate to a certain culture as he suggests the radio is of oral tribal societies in Africa for example? Do you think that such cultures/societies will change over time with the evolution or introduction of new media? Will the oral tribal societies McLuhan speaks of become consumers of more low definition states of media? The American society seems to certainly evolve in conjunction with the media. Culture and media are now interconnected. What does this mean for the future of the society? What role do you think the Internet will play in the progression of our generations? Is it a medium of high or low definition?

2) Are you offended by the proposition “we [Americans] are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death” Neil Postman makes, or suddenly grasping the (possible) reality of the statement? Apparently, the City of Las Vegas is a metaphor for the national character and aspiration of the United States as it is a symbol for entertainment. Why is this the case? Is this image perpetrated on purpose? How has this affected the country’s image and is it relevant elsewhere? Postman makes it rather clear that he believes people are the creator of the media and the controllers of its destiny. “The news of the day is a figment of our technological imagination.” So are all media. However, as he mentions in a later chapter, television has become a myth, we take it as something completely natural and quotidian and are no longer amazed by its novelty and capacity. Has the audience become more passive or will the Internet continue to revive the audience and inspire curiosity and ongoing participation? Postman further claims “we are getting sillier by the minute,” that “our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense.” This must be our own fault. Are we ok with being silly? With the continual growth and highly visible impact of social networking and need for the input of individual opinions online, are we becoming sillier or will we try to shift towards a more serious tone again?

3) In the chapter The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments, Anthony Blair presents the concept of visual argument and discusses its complexity and truth-value. We are very visual, and at the same time heavily reliant on verbal communication as well. It seems as though we can hardly dissociate the two as one always helps us to effectively assert what we are communicating through the other. We live in the era of YouTube and careful selection of Facebook/MySpace profile pictures. However, merely pictures never satisfy us and we must add related information or a caption. Blair speaks of the immediacy visuals provide, but how about the immediacy verbal interaction provides? Images require interpretation, but when you have a text attached, any question or inquiry we may have can be instantly attended to. Do you believe we can argue visually? Can you think of an instance when you were convinced of something through use of visuals only?