I don't have a question so much as a comment on something you talked about. Growing up in the 1960s (yes, I'm that old), I saw radio as a benefit to recorded music, especially in the rural or small-town setting. Without radio, we would have had little idea about much of the music that was popular throughout the nation, and the world. Radio basically "sold" me to buy a single or an album from an artist that I liked. There were exceptions to that idea, of course, but radio enhanced my knowledge and enjoyment of music, and in turn, prompted me to buy more records to further enhance my knowledge and enjoyment.
Yes, the commercial media in its initial stage has accidentally served as a public sphere for enlightenment and democracy. Later on, they concentrated on the commercial side of their business. I am glad you help me to acknowledge that development.
Ideally, the mass media should be a neutral place for public transaction of information and knowledge. But government investment in this kind of public space has the risk of government ownership of media, which exactly is what happened in North Korea and China. So we allowed entrepreneurial individual, such as Thomas Edison, to invest in media and hope they can balance their commercial interest and public interest. The result is not beautiful. Those private investors transformed the media to a money machine mainly for commercial interest and their narrowly-defined political interest. The public is not part of the business. The public is consumer. This business model is the starting point of all the problem with today's media. I know it is a dilemma. So far, we don't know how to solve this dilemma. But we cannot dwell on it.
Obviously, loud and heavy music is the most harmful to my hearing at least. Music which makes us more angry, more intemperate, more impulsive is the most harmful to our heart. For example, music which glorify gun violence and pimping is harmful to our heart. Am I a prude? Again, all is my personal choice. But I do insist that we need to make a choice when it comes to music. Some music nurture our heart, some music corrupt our heart. All depends on personal choice. I will not recommend good music based on my life experience in case I am perceived as prejudicial.
I don't know what music specifically is constructive, but I know every time I listen to Beethoven Piano Concerto No.5 I can not sit. I have to stand up to finish the whole listening.
First, sorry for the late reply. It is hard to call which type of media the most effective and efficient? Efficient is an economic term about investment vs. return. All the mass media communication is more efficient than one on one communication. You can hit the button and billions of people receive your message immediately. But most of the time one on one (face to face) is more effective in get your message across than one to many. So we need to strike a balance between being efficient and effective. If I am a communicator and want to influence people both effectively and efficiently, I would choose film. Hitler charmed the Germans so much because of Leni Reifenstale's film: The Triumph of the Will.
As to the time frame when mass media excelled the most, I would like to call the radio broadcasting of 1930s. Radio invented many program format which later on was copied by television. Radio help FDR to rally the nation to win the World War II. Even today, some people, including me, still enjoy listening to radio. Radio is a very personal intimate medium. Broadcaster talks to you just like your friend talk to you. It is so captivating.
Radio was so effective and efficient in 1930s that people can overthrow government simply by seizing the control of radio stations (or networks.)
Those who owns the media has huge influence on media content, and, by the media content, has hugh influence on public opinion. Since our politics is government by consensus, those who can influence consensus, a.k.a. public opinion, can influence government. So, I can boldly say that today's U.S. government is controlled by those who owns the media.
At least, in the U.K., it has been agreed by most people that media, the newspaper controlled by Murdoch, can determine the election results. Because media can manufacture consensus.
That's why we need to grasp skill in critical thinking when we examine our media system. Even our critical thinking can be poisoned by the mass media which controls the textbook publication.
To be short, our election results is controlled by the media, not by the people.
I don't have a question so much as a comment on something you talked about. Growing up in the 1960s (yes, I'm that old), I saw radio as a benefit to recorded music, especially in the rural or small-town setting. Without radio, we would have had little idea about much of the music that was popular throughout the nation, and the world. Radio basically "sold" me to buy a single or an album from an artist that I liked. There were exceptions to that idea, of course, but radio enhanced my knowledge and enjoyment of music, and in turn, prompted me to buy more records to further enhance my knowledge and enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteYes, the commercial media in its initial stage has accidentally served as a public sphere for enlightenment and democracy. Later on, they concentrated on the commercial side of their business. I am glad you help me to acknowledge that development.
DeleteOk so here is my question. Which aspect of media do you think is ruining our society most?
ReplyDeleteIdeally, the mass media should be a neutral place for public transaction of information and knowledge. But government investment in this kind of public space has the risk of government ownership of media, which exactly is what happened in North Korea and China. So we allowed entrepreneurial individual, such as Thomas Edison, to invest in media and hope they can balance their commercial interest and public interest. The result is not beautiful. Those private investors transformed the media to a money machine mainly for commercial interest and their narrowly-defined political interest. The public is not part of the business. The public is consumer. This business model is the starting point of all the problem with today's media. I know it is a dilemma. So far, we don't know how to solve this dilemma. But we cannot dwell on it.
DeleteIn your opinion, what music do you consider to be the most harmful? And what do you consider to be the most constructive? -Fallon
ReplyDeleteObviously, loud and heavy music is the most harmful to my hearing at least. Music which makes us more angry, more intemperate, more impulsive is the most harmful to our heart. For example, music which glorify gun violence and pimping is harmful to our heart.
ReplyDeleteAm I a prude? Again, all is my personal choice. But I do insist that we need to make a choice when it comes to music. Some music nurture our heart, some music corrupt our heart. All depends on personal choice. I will not recommend good music based on my life experience in case I am perceived as prejudicial.
I don't know what music specifically is constructive, but I know every time I listen to Beethoven Piano Concerto No.5 I can not sit. I have to stand up to finish the whole listening.
In your opinion, which type of media is most effective and efficient? Also in what time frame do you think mass media excelled the most?
ReplyDeleteFirst, sorry for the late reply. It is hard to call which type of media the most effective and efficient? Efficient is an economic term about investment vs. return. All the mass media communication is more efficient than one on one communication. You can hit the button and billions of people receive your message immediately. But most of the time one on one (face to face) is more effective in get your message across than one to many. So we need to strike a balance between being efficient and effective. If I am a communicator and want to influence people both effectively and efficiently, I would choose film. Hitler charmed the Germans so much because of Leni Reifenstale's film: The Triumph of the Will.
ReplyDeleteAs to the time frame when mass media excelled the most, I would like to call the radio broadcasting of 1930s. Radio invented many program format which later on was copied by television. Radio help FDR to rally the nation to win the World War II. Even today, some people, including me, still enjoy listening to radio. Radio is a very personal intimate medium. Broadcaster talks to you just like your friend talk to you. It is so captivating.
Radio was so effective and efficient in 1930s that people can overthrow government simply by seizing the control of radio stations (or networks.)
Thank you for asking.
Because the mass media is the ruling social system in todays society, how much do you believe it affects todays politics?
ReplyDeleteThose who owns the media has huge influence on media content, and, by the media content, has hugh influence on public opinion. Since our politics is government by consensus, those who can influence consensus, a.k.a. public opinion, can influence government. So, I can boldly say that today's U.S. government is controlled by those who owns the media.
ReplyDeleteAt least, in the U.K., it has been agreed by most people that media, the newspaper controlled by Murdoch, can determine the election results. Because media can manufacture consensus.
That's why we need to grasp skill in critical thinking when we examine our media system. Even our critical thinking can be poisoned by the mass media which controls the textbook publication.
To be short, our election results is controlled by the media, not by the people.