Comm 100 is one of the strangest classes I've ever taken. Everything I've learned in there sounds like a conspiracy theory, even though we're only studying the way everything works. There's no conspiracy. We're a debt-based capitalist democracy (which does sound a little pradoxical) and our economy really is driven by consumerism. So it should come to us as no surprise that nearly everything we do is riddled with advertisements and endorsements to entice us to buy more.
I'm unsure whether to call this bad or good. In fact, there are aspects of both in there. Hopefully, I'll develop some cohesive overview of mass communication in our country by the end of the semester (and if I don't, I'm sure visiting Tokyo and Taiwan will help me reassess everything a little more effectively).
I found this video on YouTube by comedian Jon Lajoie. In the words of Corky Romano, "It's funny 'cause it's true!"
I think the portrayed 'problem' with mass media is above the control of government and even, at this point, advertisers and big money-making machines. The public supports simple, overly dramatic television shows with little meaningful content. But that may be part of a feedback loop started and reinforced by these big companies. This is yet another time when I don't know what to think. The vast arrays of mass communication and media available to us in the mainstream is astounding, but the amount of advertising the generally solipsistic programming approach is not. Although I don't have a TV, when I'm by one, I'm glad Penn State provides programming from India, Italy, China, and South America. I'm glad shows like "NOVA" are still around. I think (and this is my theory, and many people, including my teacher, would probably debate otherwise) that this trend of mind-numbedness began in the 80's (maybe 70's, my time-line's askew) when televisions became affordable necesseties around the house instead of an expensive status symbol. Televisions are still status symbols. But they're also another step in the direction of the "American Dream." From this stance, how television programming has become an embedded 'given' in our American culture is not so difficult. Things aren't this way in Italy, and I'm curious how it is in other countries. While there are celebrities around the world, I don't think anyone worships or follows their celebrities quite like America does. I think this is bad. If we follow celebrities, shouldn't it be their accomplishments more often than their 'problems?' And we do, sometimes, but I more often hear about who broke up with who and "by the way, this movie they've been shooting for three years that's coming out next week" is a footnote. If we're following actors and actresses and high income workers, the focus should be on their work, not on their private life. This invasion of other people's existance is inhumane. Mainstream Media becomes a virtual petting zoo. Something I've learned from being picked on from elementary school and throughout college - when you start going out of your way to pick up and exploit every single characteristic 'problem' or 'in consistancy' about a person, unless you're paid to do so by that person him-/herself (like a psychiatrist, or as part of a BDSM session), you need a life. This exploitation is, in my opinion, one of the ugliest sides of our culture: it shows us as lazy, boob-tube sucking, malignant tumors soaking up and reinforcing and false reality. There are times to do that (like ARG's), but not like this. But in the general use of mainstream media as a consumerist goldmine (which it kind of is), it's not necessarily bad in and of itself. But we have to be careful. When we start significantly sacrificing art and worldviews as part of a congolomerate money-making scheme, which we are, some things ought to be reassessed. But I'm not quite sure what yet, so I'm keeping my cards to myself.
Leave a comment