When we think of the saying “mass media” I am certain that
what pops into most regular minds, is the TV, the radio, and film. Collectively
we put these media forms together and denote a negative understanding – “mass”
meaning cheap and easy, being everywhere, not individual. When we do this we
also assume that if we have mass media then production is accompanied by mass
audience as Peter Steven writes. I couldn’t help but delve into Steven’s train
of thought and pin point his idea that mass media does not define our audience
and its effectiveness.
‘The term mass media fails to describe
the ability of media to control and shape the direction of society, the range
of content quality and the diversity of audiences’. (QUOTE P.4)
Great example that I’m sure we can all convert our minds to:
THE OLYMPICS! The lead up to the games was more exciting than the games
themselves this year. I’m not sure – perhaps it is because Australia is going
terribly or because our ability to enjoy an event 24/7 shows the negative affect
mass media can actually have on its audiences.
The Olympics is a globalised phenomenon - a chance for mass media to grasp its
influences and branch out to the world the domination that it can have. But
when push comes to shove really how effective is it? We can simply flick a
switch and it can be gone.
Hi Tess.
ReplyDeleteYour blog was interesting because it viewed mass media, from a different and somewhat negative perspective, which most people ignore. I agree that when we think of the term, we immediately turn to television and the Internet and fail to recognize the flaws and mishaps, and you have linked this to the Olympics. I agree that this is a negative example of mass media and a globalized phenomenon. Keep up the good work!