This is for question #1: "The media is dialectically intertwined with everyday life."
Media builds a culture; defines through culture everyday living. Everyday life wouldn't be as interesting without the mediation of communication. Imagine a housewife doing house chores 24/7 without TV, or a clothing brand without advertising, or a consumer good without appropriate marketing. Media encompasses all the aspects of everyday living.
In the field of economics, media is used to let people know the recent trading news in the stock market. Moreover, media is a mainstream tool in promoting economic goods and services.
In religion, broadcasting of Papal events is vital in bringing the Pope's teachings to the home, when the faithful cannot be physically present with him.
In the field of politics, we wouldn't understand senate hearings without commentaries from political analysts present in news shows.
Everyday life depends somewhat on media and communications. What will happen if media isn't present? There would be lack or absence of communication and most processes wouldn't take place. Media is vital in everyday life.
This is for question #2: "Why are narrative, compassion and imagination important in the study of media?"
Communication and media studies are social sciences, which means they do not not rely completely on scientific methods that prove insufficient, but also consider the humanistic approach. They are primarily concerned with human beings engaging in an everyday but complex social act. Narrative, compassion and imagination are important because these three are like pillars upon which media is built and also the things that are most affected/improved by the existence of media. Recently in Com101, we discussed the role of the communicator in Mead's Symbolic Interaction Theory. Relating that with this, I would say that minding, the "reflective pause between thought and action", cannot be completed without the three central pillars mentioned above, because the communicator needs to take on "the other" and try to put himself in the other's shoes. That is hardly impossible without a sense of narrative, imagination and compassion. These three are also what makes media NOT boring/tiresome even when it is in everything around us. As for being the things that are most affected by media, I refer to the Com100 Lecture #1, in which I recall the television being compared to a big window, the biggest window one will ever see. Because of the existence of media, one's own imagination is enhanced as he begins to see the world as it is seen by others very different from him. I also recall pictures of African children on the slides of that particular lecture, and I think that the compassion aspect can be associated with that. We are able to feel compassion for people far away because media makes it possible for us to be aware of them.
Question No.1: “The media is dialectically intertwined with everyday life” (Silverstone). Critically discuss.
Media affects everyday life. Watching Dyesebel, for example, has been part of the daily ritual of an avid viewer. She can hum the theme song and even ape Marianne Rivera’s acting. Everyday life, on the other hand, also affects the media. If many viewers stop watching Dyesebel, its ratings will plunge and the producers will be forced to axe the show.
But one aspect wrong about this dialectic unity is that life can spring from the media, not detached from it, and vice-versa (always-already mediation). A fan can actually name her newborn Marianne, or Dyesebel. The wave of the media is just so entrenched in our lives, it flows with the everyday.
The Dissemination Model is concerned with the broadcasting of information and making it available to a lot of people. It has been argued that this model is more selfless than dialogue because it lets other people in on the news , the information that a source has. It does not worry about how the information is interpreted as long as it gives the info to others. If giving to others means selflessness, then dissemination wins over dialogue in this sense.
Other-centered is one thing this model is described as, mainly because it does not fulfill its own motives or goals by making the other see things the way the source does. Dissemination is concerned with the other's obtainment of information and how the other is given what he has to know. There is an equal distribution of information to the other.
It is more ethical because in a corrupt world such as what we have today, justice and balance is usually more felt and seen when the information is right in front of us. It respects the other people's rights to know the things that are going on around them and it gives people the power to decide what to make of the information distributed to them.
5. studying american politics through persepective of positivist and through critical theory.
Through the perspective of a positivist, i would study the ratings of surveys from different candidates and also look at polls and surveys form different regions around the country. From there, i would make an educated guess as to who would win the election in november, based on which regions supported who and whether that region cotains alot of people.
for critical theory, i would take a look at what exactly each candidate was offering to the people and, possibly, their aimed demopraphic and where they give speeches. i would understand that you have to look deeper into the psyche of a person to really predict who they will vote for. for example, i could study one family in each region of the country and observe what they value the most and which political advertisement they repond positively to.
The dissemination model focuses on information being available to many by putting the message out there for everyone to see, while the dialogue model wants information to be disclosed personally, and preferably on a one-on-one basis, claiming that in this way, the information or the message is personalized and made more understandable for the receiver. But the dialogue model is too exclusive and elite. In applying the two models on education, the dialogue model is selective on students, and knowledge is made exclusive to those who are chosen by the teachers, and in this way, less are exposed to education, and less are able to explore and contribute knowledge to the world. The dissemination knowledge is said to be more selfless, other-centered, and more ethical, because it is not judgmental. It does not choose its receiver; rather, it is out there for others to see and make use of. It is other-centered in the sense that it focuses and ultimately relies on the other to make use of the knowledge and to contribute to it. It is more ethical, for who is to say that information should be revealed only to a particular group of people? In the dissemination model, everyone is given a fair chance at getting the information, and the receivers have the freedom to choose how they will apply or enhance that knowledge.
6 comments:
This is for question #1: "The media is dialectically intertwined with everyday life."
Media builds a culture; defines through culture everyday living. Everyday life wouldn't be as interesting without the mediation of communication. Imagine a housewife doing house chores 24/7 without TV, or a clothing brand without advertising, or a consumer good without appropriate marketing. Media encompasses all the aspects of everyday living.
In the field of economics, media is used to let people know the recent trading news in the stock market. Moreover, media is a mainstream tool in promoting economic goods and services.
In religion, broadcasting of Papal events is vital in bringing the Pope's teachings to the home, when the faithful cannot be physically present with him.
In the field of politics, we wouldn't understand senate hearings without commentaries from political analysts present in news shows.
Everyday life depends somewhat on media and communications. What will happen if media isn't present? There would be lack or absence of communication and most processes wouldn't take place. Media is vital in everyday life.
This is for question #2: "Why are narrative, compassion and imagination important in the study of media?"
Communication and media studies are social sciences, which means they do not not rely completely on scientific methods that prove insufficient, but also consider the humanistic approach. They are primarily concerned with human beings engaging in an everyday but complex social act. Narrative, compassion and imagination are important because these three are like pillars upon which media is built and also the things that are most affected/improved by the existence of media. Recently in Com101, we discussed the role of the communicator in Mead's Symbolic Interaction Theory. Relating that with this, I would say that minding, the "reflective pause between thought and action", cannot be completed without the three central pillars mentioned above, because the communicator needs to take on "the other" and try to put himself in the other's shoes. That is hardly impossible without a sense of narrative, imagination and compassion. These three are also what makes media NOT boring/tiresome even when it is in everything around us. As for being the things that are most affected by media, I refer to the Com100 Lecture #1, in which I recall the television being compared to a big window, the biggest window one will ever see. Because of the existence of media, one's own imagination is enhanced as he begins to see the world as it is seen by others very different from him. I also recall pictures of African children on the slides of that particular lecture, and I think that the compassion aspect can be associated with that. We are able to feel compassion for people far away because media makes it possible for us to be aware of them.
:)
Question No.1: “The media is dialectically intertwined with everyday life” (Silverstone). Critically discuss.
Media affects everyday life. Watching Dyesebel, for example, has been part of the daily ritual of an avid viewer. She can hum the theme song and even ape Marianne Rivera’s acting. Everyday life, on the other hand, also affects the media. If many viewers stop watching Dyesebel, its ratings will plunge and the producers will be forced to axe the show.
But one aspect wrong about this dialectic unity is that life can spring from the media, not detached from it, and vice-versa (always-already mediation). A fan can actually name her newborn Marianne, or Dyesebel. The wave of the media is just so entrenched in our lives, it flows with the everyday.
For question #3:
The Dissemination Model is concerned with the broadcasting of information and making it available to a lot of people. It has been argued that this model is more selfless than dialogue because it lets other people in on the news , the information that a source has. It does not worry about how the information is interpreted as long as it gives the info to others. If giving to others means selflessness, then dissemination wins over dialogue in this sense.
Other-centered is one thing this model is described as, mainly because it does not fulfill its own motives or goals by making the other see things the way the source does. Dissemination is concerned with the other's obtainment of information and how the other is given what he has to know. There is an equal distribution of information to the other.
It is more ethical because in a corrupt world such as what we have today, justice and balance is usually more felt and seen when the information is right in front of us. It respects the other people's rights to know the things that are going on around them and it gives people the power to decide what to make of the information distributed to them.
5. studying american politics through persepective of positivist and through critical theory.
Through the perspective of a positivist, i would study the ratings of surveys from different candidates and also look at polls and surveys form different regions around the country. From there, i would make an educated guess as to who would win the election in november, based on which regions supported who and whether that region cotains alot of people.
for critical theory, i would take a look at what exactly each candidate was offering to the people and, possibly, their aimed demopraphic and where they give speeches. i would understand that you have to look deeper into the psyche of a person to really predict who they will vote for. for example, i could study one family in each region of the country and observe what they value the most and which political advertisement they repond positively to.
for question#3:
The dissemination model focuses on information being available to many by putting the message out there for everyone to see, while the dialogue model wants information to be disclosed personally, and preferably on a one-on-one basis, claiming that in this way, the information or the message is personalized and made more understandable for the receiver. But the dialogue model is too exclusive and elite. In applying the two models on education, the dialogue model is selective on students, and knowledge is made exclusive to those who are chosen by the teachers, and in this way, less are exposed to education, and less are able to explore and contribute knowledge to the world. The dissemination knowledge is said to be more selfless, other-centered, and more ethical, because it is not judgmental. It does not choose its receiver; rather, it is out there for others to see and make use of. It is other-centered in the sense that it focuses and ultimately relies on the other to make use of the knowledge and to contribute to it. It is more ethical, for who is to say that information should be revealed only to a particular group of people? In the dissemination model, everyone is given a fair chance at getting the information, and the receivers have the freedom to choose how they will apply or enhance that knowledge.
Post a Comment