Priming is the last media impact theory I will be discussing for this assignment. The theory is that one thought can trigger other thoughts, which if used properly, can make a person react in a anticipated or even desired manner. This is often seen in the context of violence, how if someone watches enough violent content that has a consistent action (such as a guy punches another guy for giving him a dirty look) that they will repeat it if put into the scenario (a person gives them a dirty look). Priming is used in other ways than just the incidence of violence. For example, one article I found states how news can mention certain events (like 9/11 when discussing war or Casey Anthony when discussing missing children) to move people to the desired mindset about it. I found this particularly interesting because for some reason it had never really occurred to me that they do it. It would be logical if you want to paint the parents of a missing child in a light of suspicion to mention a prominent case where a parent was a suspect.
However, I think priming is more commonly used with advertising. This can be as simple as presenting your product in a way to try and evoke a certain emotion whenever someone thinks of it (like this Coke ad):
*On a side note I thought this one was really creative in using a close-up of part of the logo to make the smiley face.*
To setting up a standard for how someone should act. A classic example of this would be the diamond ads that used to air.
De Beers advertising has made it so men automatically think of a diamond ring when they consider proposing. Even if they are not thinking of buying a new ring but passing down a family heirloom De Beers is actually responsible for that as well (the "Diamond is Forever" slogan was created to encourage sentimentalism and deter people from selling diamonds, which increased their value).
I'm going to end it here due to my last example I had wanted to present was about Rush Limbaugh was saying the Dark Knight Rises was a ploy to prime people to paint Romney as a villain, You can read about that here if you like, but as I sit here this morning and wait to hear what the motive was behind the Aurora shooting just makes me want to hold off on really going into it. I realize there will be huge discussions on why he did it when we find out, and priming may play a role in it. However, I hope it is done in a way to grant the people lost and the ones left behind some peace and respect. So to end this, I am just going to say my thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Colorado.
So today will be a short entry, but hopefully it will still pack some food for thought. Social Learning theory basically states that people (specifically our youth) learn consequences to actions from what they observe in the media. The theory goes on to explain that based on how anti-social behavior (crime, violence, drinking, drugs, promiscuity, etc.) is portrayed will determine if youth will imitate it or steer clear. I propose two modern examples of social learning theory that are widely recognized and debated due to their potential influence on youth. The first example would be MTV's Teen Mom. Here's a clip from the show when it first started in 2009:
When it first came out, it garnered positive reviews. These days however...
What was once supposed to be a show about showing the hardships of becoming a parent young now seem to glamorize it, making critics scorn that they may be actually encouraging teen pregnancy. I have not watched the show very much but it seems, in my opinion, that it portrays domestic abuse as an everyday occurence. As if it is something someone should just expect.
Another show used to influence teens is Scared Straight (or the updated version A&E's Beyond Scared Straight):
While it can be argued that Beyond Scared Straight is still trying to do what it set out to originally, there are plenty that argue this was never the way to go about it.
So what say you, blog readers? Do shows like these teach our youth and influence them? And if so, are they sending the messages they intend to and does it have the effect they desired? If it can be found that a show has a negative influence, should we keep it on the air? I'd love to hear your opinions!
Warning: Today's media clips may contain foul language, and/or violence. This is not done to be offensive, just to prove the point of today's topic.
Even if you are not familiar with the catharsis theory you have participated in it. Catharsis theory basically states that by people viewing morally wrong content (violence, crime, drug use, promiscuous sexual behavior) they are satisfying an urge in themselves and do not have to commit the acts depicted. Debates have been going on for years about whether or not watching stuff like this does more harm than good, primarily in the realm of violence (you can read arguments from both sides here and here).
Debating aside, people are drawn to this content for different reasons. Some state it is curiousity, like people watching Faces of Death to see what someone dying looks like. Some are seeking to experience something they may not be able to do themselves, kind of like a manufactured daydream. A good example of living vicariously is the example of revenge. We've all had someone that has slighted us somehow. A friend, a rival, lover or boss. By society's standards we are taught to let it go, to have no type of reaction. When most of the time we would rather do something like this:
Or another good example is the "flip out" moment (my own personal term) when life gets to be a little overwhelming we may have a desire to do something such as:
(oh come on, don't groan- you know you loved me using Kevin Spacey in both of those clips.) In both of these instances we know that if we were to act that way we would face serious consequences for our actions, but just viewing them satisfies some deep dark urge because we can connect with the desire to do .
Sex and nudity in media has a similar presence. There are numerous arguments for how nudity and sex in the media promote sex outside of marriage or committed relationships, affairs, and increased teen pregnancies. Yet there are positive aspects such as it serving as a safe outlet for people to explore their sexuality and live out their fantasies.
What is most interesting to me is how controversial media has evolved over the years in television to go from being something that was simply present to satisfy the impulses of the audience to they now help to add depth to characters or enrich storylines. These characters, which are classified as morally grey, are often the protagonist. There are things these characters do that are wrong by society's standards and should make them not likeable, but their normal sides and emotions connect to us on a relate-able level and make us attached to them. A few brief examples are: Dexter Morgan (from Dexter)- A father and brother in one part of his life and a serial killer in the other. The fact that he only kills other killers allow us to accept his "dark passenger" personality and we connect on his struggles to become a better person. Gregory House (from House MD)- A brilliant, sarcastic, anti-social diganostician. He has a drug addiction but due to his fight to overcome it and how he saves a patient every week we still like him. Walter White (from Breaking Bad)- A chemistry teacher that is diagnosed with terminal cancer who starts making meth in order to support his family. Mary Margaret Blanchard and David Nolan (from Once Upon A Time)- Two characters having an affair that we root for because in another world they were Snow White and Prince Charming.
In the end, I personally believe in the catharsis theory. People are complex emotional beings and sometimes living in civilized society stifles us. Through media we can let out feelings in a safe manner we would not be able to otherwise.
How do you feel as a consumer of media? Do you believe morally questionable behavior and content (primarily sex and violence) provides a much needed outlet? Or does it harm its audience?
So the topic today might ruffle some feathers, but I am going to state upfront that I am trying to remain unbiased in all of this. The theory of selective processes basically states that people's media use will cause them to seek out the information that helps to support their views, opinions, desires, etc. Probably the biggest example of selective exposure is the way people consume media in terms of politics. It seems in politics, especially in election years, people have opinions on everything. Republicans vs. Democrats, Conservatives vs. Liberals. If it has anything even remotely to do with politics, somebody has an opinion about it. I see people everyday supporting their opinion/beliefs when it comes to politics. It can go as simple as someone wanting to get Obama re-elected or being determined to vote republican on everything because they are registered as republican. As the theory of selective exposure goes, these people will seek out the media that helps support their cause, which in this case would be news. Consider this graph:
This graph shows how the three major news networks' websites are viewed according to people's party affiliation. Republicans tend towards Fox News, democrats favor MSNBC and independents or no party affiliation usually seek out CNN. While all the networks will try to claim they are unbiased, isn't it conceivable that they may want to skew their coverage to appeal to their largest market in order to keep up their ratings?
I am not about to say one network is superior to the other, and to be fair I will provide examples of both selectively reporting the news to make it look like what they want (which will support their target audience's opinions). These are commentaries that give full context to try and show the complete story of what is being discussed. Now, let me go ahead and point out before I say anything else that I
chose clips that came from the same person to try and eliminate the view
that I was using clips of people who were already leaning one way or
another politically.
Here is one about Fox News (heavily favored by republicans) tackling the subject of voter fraud:
And here is one about MSNBC (that is mostly viewed by democrats) on Romney's stance on immigration:
The connection between people's party affliations and where they get their news seems to be so deeply rooted these days that if someone says their party, a person will automatically assume what they watch. I don't agree people should be able to be identified this way, but even I fall into the statistics. I'm registered as having no party affiliation and CNN is the news channel I tune to automatically when I'm trying to find out information.
I think the most interesting part of selective exposure concerning politics is people's connections to their political parties is reinforced by selective retention. Selective retention states that a person's memories will distort in order to support their beliefs. There is an article that says people's political affiliations are so strong because when people take a side in politics they are essentially adopting a tribe. With the tribal mentality, what the party stands for becomes sacred and its members will support it almost without question. When these opinions/beliefs become sacred, for many they will also become core values that will be shared with other "tribes" they are members of (i.e. their families, churches, clubs). Values are prone to be subjected to selective retention due to they will be biased to reinforce the views of the "tribe" that is bestowing them. This at least offers some kind of explanation to why someone can say they hate a candidate but are still willing to vote for them because they represent their party or how they are a member of a party because their family is.
In conclusion, let me ask you: in your opinion how well does the selective processes theories hold up? Do you believe selective exposure is in play when it comes to politics? Can someone be identified politically simply by where they get their news? Do certain news networks have a skewed view that supports their audience base, and if so, is there a network that can be considered to be truly unbiased?
The apocalypse, rapture, doomsday, armageddon, end of days... no matter how you term it or how it comes about, these are all names we use to describe the end of life as we know it. When I started reading about the hypodermic needle theory, doomsday is what came to mind. The theory goes that media can "inject" people with strong images to sway their minds to a way of thinking. This has been done numerous times throughout history with the result being a call to arms or a blinding panic. One of the most recognizable examples of this would be Orson Welles' War of the Worlds.For those who don't know, War of the Worlds was a radio show that was aired on October 30th 1938 in New York and New Jersey. Listeners were convinced by "news bulletins" breaking into the program that an alien invasion was happening and erupted into hysteria.
While there is documentation that it was a fictional broadcast, there are those who believe otherwise.
Another event that had a similar impact would be the Y2K bug that sparked a frenzied year of preparation in order to prevent the collapse of society.
In all incidents of hypodermic needle theory it seems to be consistent that people respond strongly; mostly out of fear of death or civilization ceasing to exist.
This year I've noticed an increasing trend of TV shows focused on the subject of doomsday, such as:
Doomsday Preppers
and
Doomsday Bunkers
Both of these shows focus on people who are preparing for an array of disasters. What disasters, you ask? Oil crisis, hyperinflation, electro-magnetic pulses, earthquakes, climate change, overpopulation, nuclear accidents, government takeovers, disease pandemics... the list never seems to end. Heck, people are even starting to believe zombies are an issue.
As much as I shake my head in wonder at all of this, it must evidently have some people worried. Preppers have actually become a niche market on the internet where you can buy supplies, custom-made doomsday kits and even shelters.
As we get closer to the end of the Mayan calendar, I think we will find an even greater increase of panic and preparation among people as the media focuses more intensely on the end of times. I personally feel 2012 stands about as much chance as zombies and will probably play out as well as Y2K did. What do you think? Do you have a way you believe society will end? If so, do you think it will happen in your lifetime or do you think the masses are prepping for a "rainy day" that will never come?
This blog was created to do a project for class, but I thought I would give a brief background of myself for the first entry. I'm a student who is just a couple of credits shy from completing my bachelor's in professional communications. I have two children, am a very active aunt to two more kids, and have more cats and dogs then I care to disclose. When I am not handling my household, I spend my time at my internship that gets waaaay more than the 15 hours a week I signed up for (hence the blog title "in the pursuit of more time"). In my spare time I enjoy reading, trying to catch up on my favorite TV shows, seeing new movies, spending time with the kids and dabbling with creative writing. For what I am currently up to... Adele is in the CD player and I'm starting to watch Breaking Bad on a recommendation of a co-worker. Has anyone who happens to read this watched it? What is your opinion of it?
