Question 1: You’ve just been hired to work in the Standards and Practices Department at CBS. Your first task is to devise a list of 5 items that you think constitute inappropriate content for your network’s prime time schedule. In other words, what should be censored? Keep in mind your network still needs to make money so, if you place too many restriction they may lose viewers, which translates into you losing your job, and you would really like to keep your high paying, very prestigious job.
The first thing I would examine is what similar stations are already censoring. I would also look at Hollywood ratings and what they mean. People are accustomed to the ratings and to other TV shows, obviously, and there hasn't been any uproar over content, so I would assume that they find the other programs acceptable.
The obvious issue to examine is sexual content. I would censor anything with the actual act of fornication, and I wouldn't allow nudity either. People aren't expecting to see that much skin when they're watching television. Making out and foreplay would be acceptable, as long as it wasn't too vulgar, which leads us to the next item on the list: language.
I would allow swearing, but not the F-word, since that's the most offensive, in most people's opinions. I would censor racial slurs, unless they were specifically for a purpose--such as an episode that was explicitly about racial relations or characters realizing that they were too prejudiced. If it contributed to a good message, I would be more lenient. The less offensive swear words, like damn and hell would probably be acceptable under all circumstances, and the ones in between would be okay once in awhile, but not frequently.
Alcohol and drug use would also need to be taken into account. Alcohol is more acceptable than drugs, particularly when everyone is of drinking age. However, if they are not, drinking would be okay if it was done for the sake of veracity, or humor. Drugs, on the other hand, are much more serious. I would likely want to censor any gratuitous drug use.
Violence is another big issue. Too much and people feel squemish. Too little and they're bored. I think that any really gory programs would have to have a warning before the program began. I also think that violence without much gore is much more acceptable. Gore is for horror movies. If someone gets punched--or even shot--and there's no blood, I think that people have seen it enough in the media that they wouldn't even flinch.
Serious content, like someone dealing with an addiction, or abusive parents, would likely fall under respective categories, like drug use or violence. I would want to censor out any material that would make people too uncomfortable, but I wouldn't want to completely remove those issues, since they are important and very real in our society.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Chapter 13
Question 1: Describe a situation in which you thought personal or public expression went too far and should be curbed? How might you remedy this situation?
When I was in high school, I was in an intensive government class, where we debated today's issues in a Constitutional context. Most of the time, everyone was very respectful of one another's views, and we didn't have any trouble with too much freedom of expression. However, I do remember one particular occasion where everyone was shocked at a statement from one of my classmates.
We were discussion abortion, and I understand that it is a very emotional issue for some people. Actually, it's a very emotional issue for me. However, when two of my classmates began debating fervently, I could tell that one of them, who was defending the more conservative side of the issue, was getting seriously upset by the arguments. Finally, in what seemed like desperation, my classmate demanded, "So you really don't care about babies getting chopped up and vacuumed out? Would you personally kill babies? I think that's sick!"
I think that there were probably some expletives in there too. Needless to say, the debate was over. The student who had exploded was escorted to the dean's office, and the student who had been shouted at had sat down, looking shaken.
While I think that everyone has the right to express themselves, I do think that some people, like the student above, can take things too far. People can speak their minds, certainly, but they shouldn't be attacking anyone or swearing or making outlandish claims that are only meant to injure.
Frankly, I don't think we can solve that issue. We can put restrictions on what people can say in broadcasts, in newspapers, on TV, in movies, but when it comes to people just speaking their mind, we can't do much preemptively. We can only castigate or arrest or fine them afterwards, when the damage has already been done.
When I was in high school, I was in an intensive government class, where we debated today's issues in a Constitutional context. Most of the time, everyone was very respectful of one another's views, and we didn't have any trouble with too much freedom of expression. However, I do remember one particular occasion where everyone was shocked at a statement from one of my classmates.
We were discussion abortion, and I understand that it is a very emotional issue for some people. Actually, it's a very emotional issue for me. However, when two of my classmates began debating fervently, I could tell that one of them, who was defending the more conservative side of the issue, was getting seriously upset by the arguments. Finally, in what seemed like desperation, my classmate demanded, "So you really don't care about babies getting chopped up and vacuumed out? Would you personally kill babies? I think that's sick!"
I think that there were probably some expletives in there too. Needless to say, the debate was over. The student who had exploded was escorted to the dean's office, and the student who had been shouted at had sat down, looking shaken.
While I think that everyone has the right to express themselves, I do think that some people, like the student above, can take things too far. People can speak their minds, certainly, but they shouldn't be attacking anyone or swearing or making outlandish claims that are only meant to injure.
Frankly, I don't think we can solve that issue. We can put restrictions on what people can say in broadcasts, in newspapers, on TV, in movies, but when it comes to people just speaking their mind, we can't do much preemptively. We can only castigate or arrest or fine them afterwards, when the damage has already been done.
Chapter 12
Question 1: Are public relations activities like image consulting ethical? Explain.
I think that they are, especially considering who PR reps represent. Extremely public figures, like large corporations, politicians, celebrities, etc., are put on a pedestal. However, they are ultimately human, and their faults will come out. When someone gets angry with the press, or when a business has a lawsuit on its hands, their image is bound to be tarnished. They need to do everything they can to get back on their feet.
There are some people who claim that "image consulting" is synonymous with "lying." I don't think so. If it was really lying, well, the companies that hire these PR reps could just lie on their own. They don't need anyone's help blatantly lying to the American public. They don't need someone there to tell them how to completely disregard the truth. They do, however, need someone to tell them what kind of spin to put on the news so it doesn't affect them unduly. Spinning is not lying. Spinning is figuring out how to tell the truth without drastically cutting down public image or profits. Yes, some people don't like the supposed secrecy of the whole affair, but without it, bluntness and cruel honesty would rule the day, and then companies would get nowhere.
The Bible was the first example of PR, and most people don't start complaining about how they spun the events and wrote down their own side of the story. The truth is, without PR, companies would probably be more likely to lie, since they would have difficulty admitting anything that would hurt them. This way, they tell us the truth, but we have to be smart enough to tell how drastic the truth really is.
Question 2: Showman P. T. Barnum epitomized 19th-century press agentry with exaggerated claims such as those about Tom Thumb and Jenny Lind. Do such promotional methods exist today? Are there examples?
Sure, but selling a person is the same thing as selling a product in today's world. Both PR reps and advertisers are constantly exaggerating and underemphasizing press that they think will help or hurt their business. It just so happens that PR reps are selling people instead of products, so it appears to be more dramatic and despicable for them to make outlandish claims.
However, I think that PR agents have become either more subtle or less outlandish since Barnam's exaggerated claims, because I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. I'm certain it does exist, and I don't want to be thought naive for being unable to think of any examples of how the truth has been greatly stretched to make me think better of an individual or a company; however, I can't think of anything as dramatic.
I think that they are, especially considering who PR reps represent. Extremely public figures, like large corporations, politicians, celebrities, etc., are put on a pedestal. However, they are ultimately human, and their faults will come out. When someone gets angry with the press, or when a business has a lawsuit on its hands, their image is bound to be tarnished. They need to do everything they can to get back on their feet.
There are some people who claim that "image consulting" is synonymous with "lying." I don't think so. If it was really lying, well, the companies that hire these PR reps could just lie on their own. They don't need anyone's help blatantly lying to the American public. They don't need someone there to tell them how to completely disregard the truth. They do, however, need someone to tell them what kind of spin to put on the news so it doesn't affect them unduly. Spinning is not lying. Spinning is figuring out how to tell the truth without drastically cutting down public image or profits. Yes, some people don't like the supposed secrecy of the whole affair, but without it, bluntness and cruel honesty would rule the day, and then companies would get nowhere.
The Bible was the first example of PR, and most people don't start complaining about how they spun the events and wrote down their own side of the story. The truth is, without PR, companies would probably be more likely to lie, since they would have difficulty admitting anything that would hurt them. This way, they tell us the truth, but we have to be smart enough to tell how drastic the truth really is.
Question 2: Showman P. T. Barnum epitomized 19th-century press agentry with exaggerated claims such as those about Tom Thumb and Jenny Lind. Do such promotional methods exist today? Are there examples?
Sure, but selling a person is the same thing as selling a product in today's world. Both PR reps and advertisers are constantly exaggerating and underemphasizing press that they think will help or hurt their business. It just so happens that PR reps are selling people instead of products, so it appears to be more dramatic and despicable for them to make outlandish claims.
However, I think that PR agents have become either more subtle or less outlandish since Barnam's exaggerated claims, because I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. I'm certain it does exist, and I don't want to be thought naive for being unable to think of any examples of how the truth has been greatly stretched to make me think better of an individual or a company; however, I can't think of anything as dramatic.
Chapter 11
Question 1: Select 2 advertisements you consider good and 2 you consider bad. Include the ads (or copies) and explain what makes each a good/bad ad.
Here's one that I especially despised:
I thought that this was tasteless and frankly, quite offensive. And to top it all off, the commercial had absolutely NOTHING to do with burgers. It was a blatant appeal to sexuality and wish-fulfillment. And seriously, what was up with the car?
And here's a few commercials I thought were good:
Frankly, it's because they're funny. That's pretty much the only reason I will sit up and pay attention to commercials anymore.
Question 2: Is advertising effective? Why? List some examples of where it did and did not influence one of your buying decision.
Well, of course it is, or it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. Advertising affects us both consciously and unconsciously, both positively and negatively. Sometimes we are aware of every facet of the advertisements we are viewing. Other times, as we learned in class, it seems as though there are plenty of subliminal messages playing on the two subjects our minds are constantly thinking about--either sex or death. Advertisements are successful because they don't just sell us the product. They sell us the emotion behind the product. If they are trying to sell age-defying makeup, they'll also sell a fear of aging. If an advertiser is trying to sell clothes, they also sell the confidence and attractiveness those clothes are supposed to come with. Advertising works because it makes us think that the product will fulfill an emotional need, rather than a physical one. And sometimes it does. But ultimately, that is why advertising is so effective.
Ads usually convince me to buy something when they give me an actual reason, rather than just throwing images out. Or, frankly, if the advertisements are really really cool, I'll be more inclined to buy the product. I remember liking a Pepsi commercial so much that the next time I bought a soda, I remembered the unique commercial and I bought Pepsi, even though I like Coke better.
However, when ads are thoughtless or boring, I get bored in return, and I tend to steer away from buying those products. The same goes for if an ad is especially tasteless or raunchy. I remember that when I saw the Carls Jr. commercial that was practically pornography, I didn't go back to that restaurant for years, just on principle. It offended me, I didn't think it was clever, so I refused them my business.
Here's one that I especially despised:
I thought that this was tasteless and frankly, quite offensive. And to top it all off, the commercial had absolutely NOTHING to do with burgers. It was a blatant appeal to sexuality and wish-fulfillment. And seriously, what was up with the car?
And here's a few commercials I thought were good:
Frankly, it's because they're funny. That's pretty much the only reason I will sit up and pay attention to commercials anymore.
Question 2: Is advertising effective? Why? List some examples of where it did and did not influence one of your buying decision.
Well, of course it is, or it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. Advertising affects us both consciously and unconsciously, both positively and negatively. Sometimes we are aware of every facet of the advertisements we are viewing. Other times, as we learned in class, it seems as though there are plenty of subliminal messages playing on the two subjects our minds are constantly thinking about--either sex or death. Advertisements are successful because they don't just sell us the product. They sell us the emotion behind the product. If they are trying to sell age-defying makeup, they'll also sell a fear of aging. If an advertiser is trying to sell clothes, they also sell the confidence and attractiveness those clothes are supposed to come with. Advertising works because it makes us think that the product will fulfill an emotional need, rather than a physical one. And sometimes it does. But ultimately, that is why advertising is so effective.
Ads usually convince me to buy something when they give me an actual reason, rather than just throwing images out. Or, frankly, if the advertisements are really really cool, I'll be more inclined to buy the product. I remember liking a Pepsi commercial so much that the next time I bought a soda, I remembered the unique commercial and I bought Pepsi, even though I like Coke better.
However, when ads are thoughtless or boring, I get bored in return, and I tend to steer away from buying those products. The same goes for if an ad is especially tasteless or raunchy. I remember that when I saw the Carls Jr. commercial that was practically pornography, I didn't go back to that restaurant for years, just on principle. It offended me, I didn't think it was clever, so I refused them my business.
Chapter 9
Question 1: Track your television viewing for one week. What did you learn about yourself? What did you learn about television? What does television provide you?
I don't normally watch television, since I'm in college and I barely have time to sleep, let alone entertain myself. However, this week I made an exception. I found that my favorite programs to watch were The Office, Extreme Home Makeover, Dexter, Eli Stone, and some cartoons on Nick and Disney.
The Office was a rather obvious choice for me, since all my friends are into it, and I think it's hilariously funny. It provides me with release and relaxation. Extreme Home Makeover provided me with emotional stimulation and relaxation, as well as some emotional connections to the people on the show. Dexter and Eli Stone both proved mental stimulation and relaxation, and the cartoons were just a time when I let my brain totally shut down and I stared at the bright colors on the screen. I don't think I could even tell you what the episodes were about. I just completely blanked out for half an hour, and it felt wonderful not to think for that amount of time. I don't even do that when I'm trying to sleep.
All the shows I watched, I realized, made me laugh, and they all relaxed me. I didn't watch really intense shows like Heroes because I would have had to make connections with the characters, and I would have had to be too awake to follow the show, instead of casually watching it. Television, I learned, is a welcome release of pressure and stress for me, but I also sometimes got caught up in the shows and forgot all the millions of things I had to do.
Question 2: Critics argue that in trying to "offend no one," the networks tend to offer TV programs that appeal to the "lowest-common denominator." Do you agree? Can you name programs that are definitely for the LCD? Can you think of any network programs that defy the LCD label?
I don't know who says this or how they got to that conclusion, but I have no idea what those critics are talking about. Every single television show that I enjoy--The Office, Gossip Girls, Dexter, Heroes, etc.--has parts of it that would offend someone. I suppose that shows like Friends or Everbody Loves Raymond are most focused on not offending people, and were therefore very popular. But I think that we are gradually graviating away from that safe zone of LCDs into a more risque kind of television viewing.
I suppose that shows don't have a lot of blatant racist humor, or sexist major character, because it would alienate a large part of their audience. But things like sex, violence, and language alienate many people, and they are all still very prevalent in TV shows, and are getting worse. Even shows that seem harmless, like Zach and Cody, from the Disney channel, oversexualize their preteen characters, which alienates some mothers from letting their children watch it. Even shows meant for children, which probably could avoid offending anyone, don't.
However, I do see the point of having an LCD program, just not based on the attempt not to offend anyone. I think that television shows direct their programs to an LCD audience that is based on the wide variety of people they can entertain and stimulate. The LCD is stupid people, and so smarter television shows get lost.
Question 3: Many people would say that television has had a greater impact on society than any other form of media. Do you agree? Why or why not?
I think that if it had been 20 years ago, or even 10, I would have been inclined to agree with this statement. Television is so pervasive--everyone had one, everyone talked about it; it was a social, political, religious, solitary, or emotional experience, depending on the program you were watching and who was with you. It fulfilled nearly every need that people had. Unlike radio, which was also extremely important in its time, television offered visuals. Television changed the way we view news, the way we view romance, comedy, friendship, school, work, and basically everything else. And if it weren't for one factor, I would be inclined to say that television has been the media outlet with the most impact.
That one factor is the internet. The internet fulfills every need that television does--it even has television shows on there, sometimes before they air on your TV because someone has ripped it or it was leaked. It has visuals, it has sound, its superfast, supercompatible, and multifaceted. It has everything that TV has, fulfills every need that TV does, and then it has something more: the ability to communicate. With TV, we communicate, but it is delayed. We will watch a show and talk to our friends about it the next day. We'll watch the news and call someone about a story. But on the internet, we can communicate instantaneously with people all over the world. Our needs of comfort, revitalization, relaxation, and stimulations are all fulfilled by TV and the internet. But the internet also fulfills the need of connection, and that is why it has the greatest impact on society, instead of the television.
I don't normally watch television, since I'm in college and I barely have time to sleep, let alone entertain myself. However, this week I made an exception. I found that my favorite programs to watch were The Office, Extreme Home Makeover, Dexter, Eli Stone, and some cartoons on Nick and Disney.
The Office was a rather obvious choice for me, since all my friends are into it, and I think it's hilariously funny. It provides me with release and relaxation. Extreme Home Makeover provided me with emotional stimulation and relaxation, as well as some emotional connections to the people on the show. Dexter and Eli Stone both proved mental stimulation and relaxation, and the cartoons were just a time when I let my brain totally shut down and I stared at the bright colors on the screen. I don't think I could even tell you what the episodes were about. I just completely blanked out for half an hour, and it felt wonderful not to think for that amount of time. I don't even do that when I'm trying to sleep.
All the shows I watched, I realized, made me laugh, and they all relaxed me. I didn't watch really intense shows like Heroes because I would have had to make connections with the characters, and I would have had to be too awake to follow the show, instead of casually watching it. Television, I learned, is a welcome release of pressure and stress for me, but I also sometimes got caught up in the shows and forgot all the millions of things I had to do.
Question 2: Critics argue that in trying to "offend no one," the networks tend to offer TV programs that appeal to the "lowest-common denominator." Do you agree? Can you name programs that are definitely for the LCD? Can you think of any network programs that defy the LCD label?
I don't know who says this or how they got to that conclusion, but I have no idea what those critics are talking about. Every single television show that I enjoy--The Office, Gossip Girls, Dexter, Heroes, etc.--has parts of it that would offend someone. I suppose that shows like Friends or Everbody Loves Raymond are most focused on not offending people, and were therefore very popular. But I think that we are gradually graviating away from that safe zone of LCDs into a more risque kind of television viewing.
I suppose that shows don't have a lot of blatant racist humor, or sexist major character, because it would alienate a large part of their audience. But things like sex, violence, and language alienate many people, and they are all still very prevalent in TV shows, and are getting worse. Even shows that seem harmless, like Zach and Cody, from the Disney channel, oversexualize their preteen characters, which alienates some mothers from letting their children watch it. Even shows meant for children, which probably could avoid offending anyone, don't.
However, I do see the point of having an LCD program, just not based on the attempt not to offend anyone. I think that television shows direct their programs to an LCD audience that is based on the wide variety of people they can entertain and stimulate. The LCD is stupid people, and so smarter television shows get lost.
Question 3: Many people would say that television has had a greater impact on society than any other form of media. Do you agree? Why or why not?
I think that if it had been 20 years ago, or even 10, I would have been inclined to agree with this statement. Television is so pervasive--everyone had one, everyone talked about it; it was a social, political, religious, solitary, or emotional experience, depending on the program you were watching and who was with you. It fulfilled nearly every need that people had. Unlike radio, which was also extremely important in its time, television offered visuals. Television changed the way we view news, the way we view romance, comedy, friendship, school, work, and basically everything else. And if it weren't for one factor, I would be inclined to say that television has been the media outlet with the most impact.
That one factor is the internet. The internet fulfills every need that television does--it even has television shows on there, sometimes before they air on your TV because someone has ripped it or it was leaked. It has visuals, it has sound, its superfast, supercompatible, and multifaceted. It has everything that TV has, fulfills every need that TV does, and then it has something more: the ability to communicate. With TV, we communicate, but it is delayed. We will watch a show and talk to our friends about it the next day. We'll watch the news and call someone about a story. But on the internet, we can communicate instantaneously with people all over the world. Our needs of comfort, revitalization, relaxation, and stimulations are all fulfilled by TV and the internet. But the internet also fulfills the need of connection, and that is why it has the greatest impact on society, instead of the television.
Chapter 8
Question 1: Why is the amount of sex and violence increasing in motion pictures? Is this a case of Hollywood giving society what they want or is it simply society's acceptance of what we are given?
In my opinion, the reason sex and violence in movies is increasing is a combination of both of the aforementioned reasons. I think that the theory of 'acclimation' applies here, actually. It's just like how if you were to move from California to Utah in the middle of the winter, you'd be freezing. But if you moved to Utah in the summer and the temperature gradually dropped, the more years you stayed there, the less cold you would feel. It's still cold, of course, but you are less inclined to feel it.
The same principle applies to sex and violence. If someone from the 1950s was suddenly teleported here, they'd probably be shocked and appalled at the types of movies that we let young children and impressionable teenagers watch. But for those of us who have grown up with these movies, even though they are worse than they were in the 1980s or 90s, we have become acclimated. We expect everything to be bigger, better, more dramatic, more intense, because that is what we have slowly become used to.
As for who is responsible for this gradual rise in sex and violence, and why it has become worse, I think that it is often the nature of American media to "push the envelope." People have come to expect dramatic, sometimes shocking sights and sounds from not just movies, but also television, music, radio, and even the news. The collective media has taken on the role of putting forth new, thought-provoking, or just startling programs. I think that people expect to see fiction in motion pictures, and they often expect them to be startling. I think that people probably enjoy it because it is sometimes a fulfillment of desires that they can't have themselves. The media is giving society what they want, yes, but society only wants it because the media has led them to expect it. It is something of a vicious cycle, and I don't see any way to stop it, since each side feeds the other.
Question 2: If you were a movie producer, what would you do to make a box office hit in 2008?
I think that currently, there is a push for the "strange" or the "different." People are tired of the box that politicians, authorities, and yes, the media have put us in. Many of us are tired of the same formulaic romantic comedy, or horror film, that we keep getting, year after year. So, in correlation with the answer to Question 1 of this post, I would produce a movie that both pushed the limits of what people have come to expect with sex and violence, and I would try to make it different.
I'm not talking about necessarily making the film especially risque, or making it really gory and horrible. I mean that I would try to have a different take on sex or violence.
On the other hand, however, there is a reason why the formulaic films work. Strange films, like V for Vendetta or Moulin Rouge were popular in their own right, and they did have something of a following, but they didn't exactly break the box office. Movies like Titanic, or Star Wars, or The Dark Knight, on the other hand, made at least half a million dollars. They were popular because they were a little different, but not so much that it alienated the general population.
Therefore, I think that i would try to make a movie that had both romance and violence in it (as all three of those did), but that I would focus on making the special effects bigger and better than anything people had ever seen. That was the reason Star Wars caught the imagination of so many--because it was different in a way they had never imagined.
In my opinion, the reason sex and violence in movies is increasing is a combination of both of the aforementioned reasons. I think that the theory of 'acclimation' applies here, actually. It's just like how if you were to move from California to Utah in the middle of the winter, you'd be freezing. But if you moved to Utah in the summer and the temperature gradually dropped, the more years you stayed there, the less cold you would feel. It's still cold, of course, but you are less inclined to feel it.
The same principle applies to sex and violence. If someone from the 1950s was suddenly teleported here, they'd probably be shocked and appalled at the types of movies that we let young children and impressionable teenagers watch. But for those of us who have grown up with these movies, even though they are worse than they were in the 1980s or 90s, we have become acclimated. We expect everything to be bigger, better, more dramatic, more intense, because that is what we have slowly become used to.
As for who is responsible for this gradual rise in sex and violence, and why it has become worse, I think that it is often the nature of American media to "push the envelope." People have come to expect dramatic, sometimes shocking sights and sounds from not just movies, but also television, music, radio, and even the news. The collective media has taken on the role of putting forth new, thought-provoking, or just startling programs. I think that people expect to see fiction in motion pictures, and they often expect them to be startling. I think that people probably enjoy it because it is sometimes a fulfillment of desires that they can't have themselves. The media is giving society what they want, yes, but society only wants it because the media has led them to expect it. It is something of a vicious cycle, and I don't see any way to stop it, since each side feeds the other.
Question 2: If you were a movie producer, what would you do to make a box office hit in 2008?
I think that currently, there is a push for the "strange" or the "different." People are tired of the box that politicians, authorities, and yes, the media have put us in. Many of us are tired of the same formulaic romantic comedy, or horror film, that we keep getting, year after year. So, in correlation with the answer to Question 1 of this post, I would produce a movie that both pushed the limits of what people have come to expect with sex and violence, and I would try to make it different.
I'm not talking about necessarily making the film especially risque, or making it really gory and horrible. I mean that I would try to have a different take on sex or violence.
On the other hand, however, there is a reason why the formulaic films work. Strange films, like V for Vendetta or Moulin Rouge were popular in their own right, and they did have something of a following, but they didn't exactly break the box office. Movies like Titanic, or Star Wars, or The Dark Knight, on the other hand, made at least half a million dollars. They were popular because they were a little different, but not so much that it alienated the general population.
Therefore, I think that i would try to make a movie that had both romance and violence in it (as all three of those did), but that I would focus on making the special effects bigger and better than anything people had ever seen. That was the reason Star Wars caught the imagination of so many--because it was different in a way they had never imagined.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Chapter 7
££Radio is described as “the most personal of the media,” why is that? Why do you think music is an important part in radio programming? Why is talk radio so popular?
I have never heard that statement before, so answering it took some thought. I suppose that radio could be considered more "personal" than other types of media simply because it is involved in the music industry. Music speaks to people, and speaks to people's emotions, more directly than many other types of media.
Television and movies could also be considered "personal" kinds of media, for the same reason: they create an emotional response in people. However, I think that radio should be considered more personal than either of those, for two reasons.
First, because radio is specified and localized. Movies and TV shows are meant for national or international audiences. While there are some radio stations, like NPR, that are focused on reporting national news, for the most part, radio stations are limited to one or two counties. That way, talk radio, advertisements, even the music played, can all be personalized to the personality of the community. Radio seems to be the last localized medium left--magazines, TV, the internet, books, newspapers, virtually any other type of media is sold to national audiences.
The second reason radio is more personal is because people can have a shared experience while listening to it, but they can also communicate during the experience. A few days ago, my friend and I were listening to the radio when "I Kissed a Girl," by Katy Perry came on. We think the song is awful, but also hilarious, so we sang along for a few lines. Suddenly, my friend broke off and asked me if I remembered the time we were driving up to Utah together, and we spent hours singing along to musicals. The conversation continued from there, with Katy Perry and eventually other artists as comfortable background music. With things like TV, movies, or newspapers, the experience is generally a lonely one. Sure, you laugh with your friends during movies. But having a conversation during them is generally frowned upon. That's why radio is so personal--because people can talk and make connections with one another with the radio as a background or foundation or conversation topic.
I have never heard that statement before, so answering it took some thought. I suppose that radio could be considered more "personal" than other types of media simply because it is involved in the music industry. Music speaks to people, and speaks to people's emotions, more directly than many other types of media.
Television and movies could also be considered "personal" kinds of media, for the same reason: they create an emotional response in people. However, I think that radio should be considered more personal than either of those, for two reasons.
First, because radio is specified and localized. Movies and TV shows are meant for national or international audiences. While there are some radio stations, like NPR, that are focused on reporting national news, for the most part, radio stations are limited to one or two counties. That way, talk radio, advertisements, even the music played, can all be personalized to the personality of the community. Radio seems to be the last localized medium left--magazines, TV, the internet, books, newspapers, virtually any other type of media is sold to national audiences.
The second reason radio is more personal is because people can have a shared experience while listening to it, but they can also communicate during the experience. A few days ago, my friend and I were listening to the radio when "I Kissed a Girl," by Katy Perry came on. We think the song is awful, but also hilarious, so we sang along for a few lines. Suddenly, my friend broke off and asked me if I remembered the time we were driving up to Utah together, and we spent hours singing along to musicals. The conversation continued from there, with Katy Perry and eventually other artists as comfortable background music. With things like TV, movies, or newspapers, the experience is generally a lonely one. Sure, you laugh with your friends during movies. But having a conversation during them is generally frowned upon. That's why radio is so personal--because people can talk and make connections with one another with the radio as a background or foundation or conversation topic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)