Culture through unbiased eyes

Culture is unique to each individual, even those that live in the same one; everyone has a different interpretation as well as different rituals within that culture.  Take the United States; one could say that the U.S. has an American culture, but within that culture people practice very different rituals.  A person from Utah looks at life differently than someone that lives in New York.  If these two people were to meet, many of their cultural interpretations would probably differ.  For example, their views on abortion could be opposites; one person agrees that abortion should be illegal, while the other disagrees.  But who is right?  And that is the ultimate question that no one can agree upon.  Is there a way to see issues from an unbiased standpoint?

I don't believe there is a way to see through unbiased eyes; I don't believe that culture can be factored out--it will always be an influence.  For example for myself, I do my best to see both sides of the big issues in society today.  But even if I believe I am being unbiased, how do I truly know?  Many of my viewpoints were influenced by my parents and I share similar viewpoints with them today.  That is not to say that I agree with all of them; I have some that differ from my dad's.  In mass media today, I believe that most of the news is biased in some form; even the outlets that try to be unbiased.  Messages are most likely framed in some form or another.  It just isn't possible; cultural influences cannot be escaped.




References

picture from https://www.google.com/search?q=biased+media&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS554US554&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix-f7D0OTLAhXJax4KHd5UCc4Q_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&q=unbiased+media&imgrc=RS4imRSX0SqjCM%3A

Hegemony in Mass Communication

Hegemony in terms of mass media can be defined as the "subtle sway of society's haves over its have-nots" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 341).  Looking at this definition only, I couldn't decipher exactly what it meant; the term hegemony for me has a historical definition.  I have a minor in History and hegemony came up frequently in many of my history courses.  Hegemony to me is when a nation or government is dominant over another, or over its people.  People under the dominance are aware of their oppression/domination by government or nation, but do nothing to actually create equality or change their status; they continue the status quo.

This definition helped me understand what hegemony meant in terms of mass communication.  Hall describes the relationship as being a "production of consent" rather than a "reflection of consensus" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 341).  I take this to mean that mass media is not a reflection of everyone in society's opinions, only those who hold power in the media.  This makes sense, because the mass media we consume comes from corporations or Washington and information is circulated down to the public.  Consent comes from the public accepting the ideas distributed by the mass media--sometimes because it is in alignment with the public's interests or that do it without consciously knowing that they do.  Hegemony is also described as being particularly influential and present in keeping the power unequal--"maintaining worker unrest at the level of moaning and groaning rather than escalating into revolutionary fervor" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 341).  This description is familiar to my understanding of hegemony--people are aware of the power of the media and they may complain (moaning and groaning) but they do nothing to change it and they accept mass communication messages anyway.  This continues the cycle of mass media being circulated by people who have power and those that have not.  




References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

picture from https://www.google.com/search?q=hegemony+in+mass+media&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWzsGDy-TLAhVD9x4KHU50ARQQ_AUICCgD#tbm=isch&q=hegemony&imgrc=s8bwW4WAh1VASM%3A

Semiotics

We see and interpret signs every day, and these signs mean something different to each individual person.  Most signs can be interpreted mutually and generally draw the same conclusions, but sometimes this isn't the case and that is why I don't think that signs are stable or objective in their meanings.  Semiotics can be defined as the "study of social production of meaning from sign systems; the analysis of anything that can stand for something else" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 327).  Anything that can stand for something else means that there can be multiple meanings, which wouldn't make a sign the same to every person and therefore not stable.  

For example, a sign in one culture can have a different meaning in another culture.  Even within the same culture, signs have different meanings to different people.  Take Beyonce's performance at the Superbowl--Beyonce performed her new song, "Formation," during the Superbowl half-time show.  Controversy surrounded the performance as well as the music video released the day before after the fact about the different interpretations of these performances.  Many believed that her performance was in support of the "Black Lives Matter" movement as well as her costume representative of the Black Panthers.  In an article by Brasted on Beyonce's music video released the day before the Superbowl, different media networks interpreted what her performance and music video meant to them.  A columnist writer for NPR wrote that Beyonce's performance was "glorifying her bama blackness" while Wortham from The New York Times stated "It's also not insignificant that she's electing to parade her substantial wealth and ability to outearn most men in the music industry (including her husband, Jay Z) during the Super Bowl — the flagship event of male virility and violence in this country. That's incredibly meaningful. It's a moment where the entire country will be watching, and forced to sit up and pay attention" (Brasted, The Times-Picayune).  Others believe Beyonce's song is a protest against the police which has caused some protests and boycotts mentioned in the article; everyone has an opinion and a different interpretation.  But the point being that Beyonce's song means something different to to everyone that interprets the message she was trying to convey.

References

Brasted, C. (n.d.). Beyonce Super Bowl halftime show leads to protests, boycotts, conversations. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.nola.com/music/index.ssf/2016/02/beyonce_boycott_racist_protest.html

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory(9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

picture from: https://www.google.com/search?q=beyonce+formation&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjou-PumbzLAhUMWh4KHTV7D4EQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=Qgi0cM5l-LvBpM%3A

Media Ecology: Loss or gain?

Media and technology have changed my life in ways that I think most of us don't really notice.  We grew up in this age where there were cellphones, supercomputers, and the start of new Apple technology, but I find it interesting to think as far back as when my parents were children.  It's so strange to think that in the 1960's and 1970's, technology and the world was radically different.  Now that this question has been brought to me, it's funny to think about how my parents reacted to these new technologies as they grew up which were radically different from the technology that they were used to.

In terms of what I think I have lost and gained by technological advances, I think there is a balance of both.  I think a lot about how when I was younger, I didn't have a cell phone until I was a senior in high school.  Today, there are 2nd graders with iPhones.  In some ways, I think this is a loss for their generation; kids don't experience the same outdoor experiences and ways to use their imaginations as much as I did when I was a little kid.  I used to build intricate towns for my toys with a school, houses and everything that went along with the houses that would expand from my room to my brother's room to the living room.  Today, I think kids sometimes miss out of the hands-on experiences and building and imagining with what they have to work with in favor of a game on their mom's phone.  Obviously, most kids still play with toys but a lot are just given a tablet or iPad to play with and told to sit quietly on the couch.  Playing with toys was also social; I had a bunch of friends over all the time to play with and to help me build my towns.  Kids today have friends over, but they connect through an online game.  I just don't think it's the same anymore and I personally think that it is a disadvantage of technology.

I think this loss is pretty important, but technology does have it's advantages.  I've been able to connect with friends I knew when I was younger through Facebook that live in different states and that I don't see anymore.  Before, I would see them one a year when our parents went camping together.  As we got older, we each had our different activities and busy lives, so we saw less of each other each year.  Recently, I was able to friend them on Facebook and direct message with them and catch up.  While social media does have an unsocial aspect of being plugged in from the outside world and physical interactions, being able to connect with people all over the world instantaneously offers a lot of cultural benefits and social situations.  It's a great way to stay connected with people.

References

picture from: https://www.google.com/search?q=slow+children+texting+meme&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS554US554&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=623&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs4_e-mrzLAhWBHR4KHZeiBxAQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=Gd1M9HocBdQr4M%3A