Media and Society

James Curran

“Media and Society” by James Curran is a widely used textbook in the field of media studies, providing a comprehensive overview of the key theories, concepts, and debates surrounding the relationship between media and society. The book is written in an accessible and engaging style, making it suitable for both students and general readers.

Curran begins by examining the history of media and society, exploring the ways in which media have evolved over time and how they have shaped our understanding of the world. He then discusses the different ways in which we can study media, from the traditional methods of content analysis and survey research to the more contemporary approaches of cultural studies and critical theory.

Curran also delves into the various theories of media effects, exploring the ways in which media can influence individuals and society. He discusses agenda-setting, framing, and cultivation effects, as well as the social learning theory of media effects.

In the latter part of the book, Curran examines the relationship between media and power, exploring the ways in which media can be used to manipulate public opinion and maintain social control. He also discusses the role of media in shaping our understanding of identity, gender, and race.

Curran concludes by looking to the future of media, considering the challenges and opportunities posed by new technologies such as the internet and social media. He also discusses the importance of media literacy in a world where we are increasingly bombarded with information from a variety of sources.

“Media and Society” by James Curran is an essential resource for anyone who wants to understand the role of media in our lives. It is a well-written and informative book that provides a comprehensive overview of the field of media studies.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the book:

  • Media are not neutral conveyors of information, but rather active participants in the social world.
  • Media can have a profound impact on our thoughts, our emotions, and our behaviors.
  • The relationship between media and power is complex and multifaceted.
  • Media literacy is essential in a world where we are increasingly bombarded with information from a variety of sources.

 

Part I Media and Society: General Perspectives

The Global Internet

n Chapter 1, “The Global Internet,” of the book Media and Society, Jack Linchuan Qiu discusses the history, development, and impact of the global internet. He begins by tracing the origins of the internet back to the early days of computer networking and the Cold War-era development of the ARPANET. He then discusses the key technological innovations that led to the rise of the commercial internet in the 1990s.

Qiu argues that the global internet has had a profound impact on all aspects of society, including media, culture, politics, and economics. He discusses how the internet has transformed the way we communicate, consume information, and entertain ourselves. He also discusses the challenges and opportunities that the internet poses for individuals and societies around the world.

Here are some of the key points that Qiu makes in Chapter 1:

  • The global internet is a complex and evolving system that has had a profound impact on all aspects of society.
  • The internet has transformed the way we communicate, consume information, and entertain ourselves.
  • The internet has created new opportunities for economic growth and social development.
  • The internet has also posed new challenges for individuals and societies, such as the spread of misinformation and the erosion of privacy.

Qiu concludes by arguing that the global internet is a powerful tool that can be used for good or for bad. He emphasizes the importance of using the internet responsibly and ethically, and of working to create a more inclusive and equitable digital world.

Here are some specific examples of the impact of the global internet on media, culture, politics, and economics:

  • Media: The internet has revolutionized the way we consume media. Today, we can access news, entertainment, and other media content from all over the world at the click of a button. The internet has also led to the rise of new media platforms, such as social media and streaming services.
  • Culture: The internet has made it easier for people from different cultures to connect and share ideas. It has also led to the rise of new cultural forms, such as online gaming and social media art.
  • Politics: The internet has given citizens new ways to participate in the political process. For example, people can now use social media to organize protests and to express their views to elected officials.
  • Economics: The internet has created new opportunities for economic growth and innovation. For example, the internet has made it possible for businesses to reach global markets and for individuals to start their own businesses with relatively low overhead costs.

The global internet is a powerful tool that has the potential to improve our lives in many ways. However, it is important to use the internet responsibly and ethically, and to be aware of the challenges that it poses.

Popular Culture

n Chapter 2, “Popular Culture,” of the book Media and Society, Marwan M. Kraidy discusses the concept of popular culture, its relationship to the media, and its impact on society.

Kraidy begins by defining popular culture as “the everyday cultural practices, objects, and meanings that are produced and consumed by large and diverse populations.” He argues that popular culture is not simply a reflection of dominant social values, but rather a complex and dynamic field of meaning-making that is shaped by a variety of factors, including the media, technology, and social movements.

Kraidy then discusses the relationship between popular culture and the media. He argues that the media play a central role in producing and distributing popular culture content. However, he also emphasizes that audiences are active participants in the process of meaning-making, and that they can interpret popular culture content in different ways.

Kraidy concludes by discussing the impact of popular culture on society. He argues that popular culture can play a positive role in society by promoting social cohesion, providing opportunities for self-expression, and challenging dominant social norms. However, he also acknowledges that popular culture can have negative effects, such as promoting violence, sexism, and consumerism.

Here are some of the key points that Kraidy makes in Chapter 2:

  • Popular culture is a complex and dynamic field of meaning-making that is shaped by a variety of factors, including the media, technology, and social movements.
  • The media play a central role in producing and distributing popular culture content, but audiences are active participants in the process of meaning-making.
  • Popular culture can play a positive role in society by promoting social cohesion, providing opportunities for self-expression, and challenging dominant social norms. However, it can also have negative effects, such as promoting violence, sexism, and consumerism.

Here are some specific examples of the impact of popular culture on society:

  • Music: Popular music can promote social cohesion by bringing people together from different backgrounds. It can also provide opportunities for self-expression and challenge dominant social norms. For example, hip hop music has been used to challenge racism and sexism.
  • Movies: Popular movies can reflect and shape social values. For example, the movie “Black Panther” was praised for its positive representation of African Americans.
  • Television: Popular television shows can promote consumerism and unrealistic beauty standards. However, they can also educate and entertain viewers, and promote positive values such as tolerance and understanding.
  • Social media: Social media platforms such as Twitter and Instagram have become powerful tools for social organizing and activism. However, they have also been used to spread misinformation and hate speech.

 

Media Gender and Feminism

In Chapter 3 of Media and Society: General Perspectives, Susan J. Douglas discusses the relationship between the media, gender, and feminism. She begins by tracing the history of feminist media criticism, which emerged in the 1970s in response to the way that women were portrayed in the media.

Douglas then goes on to discuss a number of key themes in feminist media criticism, including:

  • The underrepresentation of women: Women are underrepresented in the media as both news subjects and experts. When they are represented, they are often stereotyped and sexualized.
  • The objectification of women: Women’s bodies are often objectified and sexualized in the media, which contributes to a culture of sexism and violence against women.
  • The promotion of unrealistic beauty standards: The media promote unrealistic beauty standards for women, which can lead to body image issues and eating disorders.
  • The reinforcement of traditional gender roles: The media often reinforce traditional gender roles, which can limit women’s opportunities and choices.

Douglas argues that the media play a powerful role in shaping our understanding of gender. She concludes by calling for a more critical and feminist approach to media consumption.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which the media promote sexism and unrealistic beauty standards for women:

  • News coverage: Women are often underrepresented in news coverage, and when they are covered, they are often stereotyped or sexualized. For example, women are more likely to be portrayed as victims of crime than as perpetrators.
  • Advertising: Advertising often uses women’s bodies to sell products, and it often promotes unrealistic beauty standards. For example, many advertisements for beauty products feature models with perfect skin and figures.
  • Entertainment: Entertainment media, such as movies and television shows, often promote traditional gender roles and unrealistic beauty standards for women. For example, many female characters in movies and television shows are portrayed as being obsessed with their appearance and with finding a husband.

 

Neo Liberalism and the Media

In Chapter 4 of Media and Society: General Perspectives, Mike Berry discusses the relationship between neoliberalism and the media. He begins by defining neoliberalism as a political philosophy that emphasizes free markets, limited government intervention, and individual responsibility. He then goes on to discuss how neoliberalism has shaped the media landscape in recent decades.

Curran argues that neoliberalism has led to a number of key changes in the media industry, including:

  • Increased commercialization: Neoliberalism has led to increased commercialization of the media, as media outlets have become increasingly reliant on advertising revenue. This has led to a focus on producing content that is attractive to advertisers, rather than content that is informative or educational.
  • Concentration of ownership: Neoliberalism has also led to a concentration of media ownership, as a few large corporations have come to control a large share of the media market. This has reduced media diversity and has given a small number of corporations significant control over the information that we consume.
  • Deregulation: Neoliberalism has also led to deregulation of the media industry, as governments have reduced their oversight of media outlets. This has given media outlets more freedom to operate, but it has also made them less accountable to the public.

Curran argues that these changes have had a negative impact on the media’s ability to serve the public interest. He concludes by calling for a more critical approach to the media, and for a more democratic media system.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which neoliberalism has shaped the media landscape:

  • The rise of commercial news: In the United States, commercial news outlets such as CNN and Fox News have become the dominant sources of news for many people. These outlets are reliant on advertising revenue, which means that they often focus on stories that are likely to attract viewers and advertisers. This can lead to a focus on sensationalism and conflict, and to the neglect of important stories that are not as commercially appealing.
  • The decline of local journalism: Many local newspapers in the United States have been forced to close or to reduce their operations in recent years. This is due to a number of factors, including the rise of online news and the decline of advertising revenue. The decline of local journalism has made it more difficult for people to stay informed about local news and issues.
  • The concentration of media ownership: A small number of corporations, such as Comcast, Disney, and WarnerMedia, now control a large share of the media market. This gives these corporations significant control over the information that we consume. It also means that there is less diversity of voices in the media.

Mass Communication

Mass Self-communication and power relationsips in the network society

In Chapter 5 of Media and Society: General Perspectives, Manuel Castells discusses the relationship between communication power, mass communication, mass self-communication, and power relationships in the network society.

Castells argues that communication power is the central power in the network society. He defines communication power as the ability to control the flow of information and to shape the way that information is interpreted. He argues that communication power is essential for exercising other forms of power, such as economic and political power.

Castells identifies two main types of communication power in the network society: mass communication and mass self-communication. Mass communication is the transmission of information from a centralized source to a large audience. Mass self-communication is the transmission of information from individuals and groups to a large audience through digital networks.

Castells argues that the rise of the network society has led to a shift in the balance of power from mass communication to mass self-communication. This is because digital networks have given individuals and groups the ability to produce and distribute information without the need for centralized media outlets.

Castells argues that the shift to mass self-communication has a number of implications for power relationships in the network society. First, it has given individuals and groups a greater voice and a greater ability to challenge the dominant narrative. Second, it has made it more difficult for traditional power holders to control the flow of information. Third, it has led to the emergence of new forms of social movements and political activism.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which the rise of mass self-communication has shifted the balance of power:

  • The Arab Spring uprisings were fueled by social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. These platforms allowed protesters to organize and communicate with each other, and to bypass traditional media outlets.
  • The Black Lives Matter movement has used social media to raise awareness of police brutality and racial injustice.
  • The rise of the #MeToo movement has shown how social media can be used to hold powerful people accountable for sexual misconduct.

The shift to mass self-communication is a significant development in the network society. It has given individuals and groups a greater voice and a greater ability to challenge the dominant narrative. It has also made it more difficult for traditional power holders to control the flow of information.

Castells concludes by arguing that we need to develop a new understanding of power in the network society. He argues that power is no longer simply about controlling the flow of information, but also about shaping the way that information is interpreted. He calls for a more democratic media system that gives everyone a voice and that promotes critical thinking.

Part II Media Systems, Production and Platforms

Have digital communication technologies democratized the media industries?

In Chapter 6 of Media and Society: General Perspectives, David Hesmondhalgh discusses the extent to which digital communication technologies have democratized the media industries. He begins by identifying four key characteristics of the media industries in the late 20th century:

  1. High levels of concentration of ownership: A small number of large corporations controlled a large share of the media market.
  2. High barriers to entry: It was difficult and expensive to start a new media outlet.
  3. Professional norms and values: Media production was dominated by professional journalists and other media workers who adhered to certain norms and values, such as objectivity and impartiality.
  4. Technological constraints: Media production was constrained by technological factors, such as the high cost of printing presses and broadcasting equipment.

Hesmondhalgh then goes on to discuss how digital communication technologies have challenged these four characteristics. He argues that digital technologies have made it easier and cheaper to start new media outlets, and that they have given individuals and groups the ability to produce and distribute media content without the need for professional training or access to expensive equipment.

However, Hesmondhalgh also notes that digital technologies have not led to a complete democratization of the media industries. He argues that the large media corporations have adapted to the digital age and have maintained their dominance of the media market. He also argues that the professional norms and values of journalism have come under increasing pressure from the demands of the digital economy.

Overall, Hesmondhalgh concludes that digital communication technologies have had a mixed impact on the democratization of the media industries. They have made it easier and cheaper for new media outlets to emerge, but they have not led to a fundamental change in the power structure of the media industry.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which digital communication technologies have democratized and not democratized the media industries:

Democratization:

  • The rise of social media platforms has given individuals and groups the ability to produce and distribute media content without the need for professional training or access to expensive equipment.
  • The growth of independent media outlets has provided alternative sources of news and information.
  • The development of new technologies such as blogging and podcasting has made it easier for people to share their ideas and opinions with a wider audience.

Not democratization:

  • The large media corporations have adapted to the digital age and have maintained their dominance of the media market.
  • The professional norms and values of journalism have come under increasing pressure from the demands of the digital economy.
  • The spread of misinformation and disinformation online has made it more difficult for people to access reliable information.

Overall, digital communication technologies have had a complex and contradictory impact on the democratization of the media industries. They have made it easier and cheaper for new media outlets to emerge, but they have not led to a fundamental change in the power structure of the media industry. It is important to be aware of both the positive and negative effects of digital technologies on the media and to be critical consumers of media content.

The Mediations of Data

Powell begins by tracing the history of data mediation, from the early days of statistical surveys and social science research to the rise of big data and algorithmic processing in the digital age. She then goes on to discuss some of the key ways in which data is mediated today, including:

  • Datafication: The process of converting human experience into digital data that can be collected, stored, and analyzed.
  • Algorithmization: The use of algorithms to filter, sort, and rank data in ways that shape our exposure to different information and perspectives.
  • Platformization: The use of platforms to mediate our access to and use of data.

Powell argues that data mediation has a number of important implications for society. First, it can lead to the distortion of reality, as data is often collected, processed, and presented in ways that favor certain perspectives and marginalize others. Second, it can lead to the commodification of our personal data, as companies collect and sell our data for profit. Third, it can lead to the erosion of our privacy and autonomy, as we are increasingly subject to surveillance and manipulation in the digital age.

Powell concludes by calling for a more critical approach to data mediation. She argues that we need to be more aware of the ways in which data is collected, processed, and used, and we need to demand greater transparency and accountability from the companies and organizations that control our data.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which data mediation can have negative consequences:

  • Filter bubbles: Social media algorithms can create filter bubbles, where users are only exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs. This can lead to polarization and extremism.
  • Discrimination: Algorithmic decision-making systems can be biased, leading to discrimination against certain groups of people. For example, an algorithm used to screen job applicants may be biased against women or people of color.
  • Surveillance: Data mediation can lead to increased surveillance, as companies and governments collect and analyze our data without our consent. This can erode our privacy and autonomy.

It is important to be aware of the challenges and opportunities posed by data mediation. We can do this by being more critical of the data that we consume and by supporting initiatives that promote transparency and accountability in the data ecosystem.

 

Appproaches to the sociology of news

Chapter 8 of Media and Society, “Approaches to the Sociology of News”, discusses the different ways in which sociologists have studied news and the news industry.

One approach is the functionalist approach, which focuses on the role that news plays in society. Functionalists argue that news is essential for maintaining social order and cohesion. It provides people with information about the world around them, helps them to understand their place in society, and gives them a sense of common identity.

Another approach is the conflict approach, which focuses on the ways in which news is used to maintain power and inequality. Conflict theorists argue that news is biased towards the interests of the powerful and that it often marginalizes the voices of the marginalized. They also argue that news can be used to manipulate public opinion and to justify social injustice.

A third approach is the interactionist approach, which focuses on the ways in which news is produced and consumed. Interactionists argue that news is a social product that is shaped by the interactions between journalists, news sources, and audiences. They also argue that news is interpreted differently by different people, depending on their own social experiences and perspectives.

Powell argues that all three of these approaches are useful for understanding news and the news industry. She suggests that sociologists should use a combination of approaches to get a more complete picture of how news works and how it shapes our understanding of the world.

Here are some specific examples of how each of the three approaches can be used to study news and the news industry:

Functionalist approach:

  • A functionalist study of news might examine how news coverage of a major event, such as a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, helps to bring people together and promote social unity.
  • Another functionalist study might examine how news coverage of social problems, such as poverty or crime, helps to raise awareness of these problems and to mobilize public action.

Conflict approach:

  • A conflict study of news might examine how news coverage of a political election favors the interests of one candidate or party over another.
  • Another conflict study might examine how news coverage of social movements, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, marginalizes the voices of protesters and portrays them in a negative light.

Interactionist approach:

  • An interactionist study of news might examine how journalists make decisions about what news to cover and how to cover it.
  • Another interactionist study might examine how audiences interpret news coverage of a particular event.

By using a combination of these three approaches, sociologists can gain a better understanding of the complex and multifaceted world of news.

Western media system in comparative perspective

In Chapter 9 of Media and Society, “Western Media Systems in Comparative Perspective”, Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini compare the media systems of 18 Western democracies. They identify three main types of media systems:

  • Liberal media systems: These systems are characterized by a high degree of pluralism and independence of the media. The media is largely free from government interference and is owned by a variety of private interests.
  • Democratic corporatist media systems: These systems are characterized by a more limited degree of pluralism and independence of the media. The media is more likely to be owned by large corporations and is subject to some government regulation.
  • Polarized pluralist media systems: These systems are characterized by a high degree of pluralism, but also by a high degree of polarization. The media is divided into partisan camps that reflect the underlying divisions in society.

Hallin and Mancini argue that the type of media system that a country has has a significant impact on the way that news is produced and consumed. For example, in liberal media systems, there is a greater emphasis on objective and impartial reporting. In democratic corporatist media systems, there is a greater emphasis on consensus building and social cohesion. In polarized pluralist media systems, there is a greater emphasis on partisan conflict and ideological debate.

Hallin and Mancini’s framework for comparing media systems has been widely influential in the field of media studies. It has helped to scholars to understand the different ways in which news is produced and consumed in different countries and to identify the factors that shape the media landscape.

Here are some specific examples of the key differences between the three types of media systems:

Liberal media systems:

  • The media is largely free from government interference and is owned by a variety of private interests.
  • There is a strong emphasis on objective and impartial reporting.
  • The media is often critical of the government and other powerful institutions.
  • There is a high degree of diversity in the media, with a wide range of different news outlets available to consumers.

Democratic corporatist media systems:

  • The media is more likely to be owned by large corporations and is subject to some government regulation.
  • There is a greater emphasis on consensus building and social cohesion.
  • The media is less likely to be critical of the government and other powerful institutions.
  • There is a lower degree of diversity in the media, with a smaller number of news outlets dominating the market.

Polarized pluralist media systems:

  • The media is divided into partisan camps that reflect the underlying divisions in society.
  • There is a greater emphasis on partisan conflict and ideological debate.
  • The media is more likely to be biased and sensationalized.
  • There is a high degree of distrust in the media, with people often consuming news from sources that confirm their existing beliefs.

It is important to note that no media system perfectly fits into one of these three categories. There is a great deal of variation between different countries, even within the same type of media system. However, Hallin and Mancini’s framework provides a useful starting point for understanding the different ways in which news is produced and consumed in different countries.

Global Screen Industries

In Chapter 10 of Media and Society, “Global Screen Industries,” Philip M. Napoli discusses the global film and television industries. He begins by tracing the history of the screen industries, from the early days of cinema to the rise of streaming services in the digital age. He then goes on to discuss the key trends that are shaping the global screen industries today, including:

  • Concentration of ownership: The global screen industries are increasingly dominated by a small number of large corporations, such as Disney, Warner Bros., and Netflix. This concentration of ownership has led to a decrease in diversity and a greater focus on producing commercial content.
  • Globalization of production and distribution: The production and distribution of screen content has become increasingly globalized in recent years. This is due to factors such as the rise of digital technologies and the growth of new markets in developing countries.
  • Convergence: The convergence of different media platforms, such as television, film, and the internet, has led to new opportunities for the screen industries. For example, the rise of streaming services has allowed filmmakers and television producers to reach a global audience without having to go through traditional distribution channels.

Napoli argues that these trends are having a significant impact on the way that screen content is produced, consumed, and regulated. He concludes by calling for a more critical approach to the global screen industries and for policies that promote diversity and competition.

Here are some specific examples of the trends that Napoli discusses:

  • Concentration of ownership: In 2020, the top six media companies in the world accounted for over 80% of global media revenue.
  • Globalization of production and distribution: In 2020, the global film industry was worth over $1 trillion, with over half of that revenue coming from outside of the United States.
  • Convergence: In 2021, over 200 million people worldwide subscribed to a streaming service.

The global screen industries are a powerful force in the world today. They shape our culture, our values, and our understanding of the world. It is important to be aware of the trends that are shaping the global screen industries and to think critically about the content that we consume.

Digital Platforms, Globalization and Culture

In Chapter 11 of Media and Society, “Digital Platforms, Globalization, and Culture,” Aswin Punathambekar and Sriram Mohan discuss the impact of digital platforms on globalization and culture. They argue that digital platforms have created new opportunities for cultural exchange and collaboration, but that they have also exacerbated existing inequalities and created new challenges for cultural sovereignty.

Punathambekar and Mohan begin by defining digital platforms as “networked infrastructures that facilitate the exchange of information and goods between users.” They argue that digital platforms have become increasingly important in our lives, as we use them to communicate, consume news and entertainment, and shop.

Punathambekar and Mohan then go on to discuss the ways in which digital platforms have impacted globalization and culture. They argue that digital platforms have made it easier for people to connect with others from all over the world and to access cultural content from different cultures. This has led to a more globalized cultural landscape, with people around the world consuming similar forms of media and entertainment.

However, Punathambekar and Mohan also note that digital platforms have exacerbated existing inequalities. They argue that digital platforms are often dominated by large corporations from developed countries. This gives these corporations a great deal of control over the flow of information and cultural content. As a result, people in developing countries are more likely to consume cultural content from developed countries, rather than from their own cultures.

Punathambekar and Mohan also discuss the challenges that digital platforms pose for cultural sovereignty. They argue that digital platforms make it difficult for governments to regulate the flow of information and cultural content. This can lead to the erosion of cultural sovereignty, as governments are less able to protect their own cultures from the influence of foreign cultures.

Punathambekar and Mohan conclude by calling for a more critical approach to digital platforms. They argue that we need to be aware of the ways in which digital platforms can be used to promote or erode cultural diversity and to perpetuate or challenge existing inequalities.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which digital platforms have impacted globalization and culture:

  • The rise of global streaming services: Global streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video have made it easier for people to access cultural content from all over the world. This has led to the spread of American popular culture to new parts of the world.
  • The growth of social media platforms: Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have made it easier for people to connect with others from different cultures. This has led to increased cultural exchange and collaboration.
  • The spread of misinformation: Digital platforms have also been used to spread misinformation and disinformation. This can undermine cultural sovereignty and make it difficult for people to access accurate information about their own cultures.

It is important to be aware of the both the positive and negative impacts of digital platforms on globalization and culture. We need to use digital platforms in ways that promote cultural diversity and challenge existing inequalities.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Part III Problems and Challenges

Journalism online and offline

In Chapter 12 of Media and Society, “Journalism Online and Offline,” Andreas Veglis discusses the similarities and differences between journalism online and offline. He argues that online journalism has transformed the way that news is produced and consumed, but that it has also raised new challenges for journalists and the news industry.

Veglis begins by discussing the key features of online journalism. He argues that online journalism is characterized by:

  • Immediacy: Online news outlets can publish news stories as soon as they happen, without having to wait for the next print edition or news broadcast.
  • Interactivity: Online news outlets can engage with their audiences in new ways, through comments, social media, and other forms of user interaction.
  • Multimediality: Online news outlets can combine text, images, audio, and video to create rich and engaging news stories.

Veglis then goes on to discuss the impact of online journalism on the news industry. He argues that online journalism has led to a proliferation of news sources and has made it more difficult for traditional news outlets to compete. He also argues that online journalism has led to a decline in the quality of news, as journalists are under pressure to produce a high volume of content quickly.

However, Veglis also notes that online journalism has created new opportunities for journalists and the news industry. For example, online journalism has made it possible for journalists to reach a global audience and to bypass traditional gatekeepers. It has also made it possible for journalists to experiment with new forms of storytelling and to engage with their audiences in new ways.

Veglis concludes by arguing that the future of journalism depends on the ability of journalists to adapt to the challenges and opportunities of the online world. He calls for journalists to focus on producing high-quality, in-depth reporting and to find new ways to engage with their audiences.

Here are some specific examples of the similarities and differences between journalism online and offline:

Similarities:

  • Both online and offline journalists are committed to reporting the news accurately and impartially.
  • Both online and offline journalists use a variety of sources to gather information.
  • Both online and offline journalists are accountable to their audiences.

Differences:

  • Online journalism is more immediate and interactive than offline journalism.
  • Online journalism is often more multimedia-rich than offline journalism.
  • Online journalism is more competitive than offline journalism.
  • Online journalism is more susceptible to the spread of misinformation and disinformation than offline journalism.

The future of journalism is uncertain, but it is clear that online journalism will play a major role. Journalists need to be prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the online world. They need to focus on producing high-quality, in-depth reporting and finding new ways to engage with their audiences.

Media, Race and the Infrastructures of empire

Paula Chakravatty

The Politics of Reality tV

In Chapter 14 of Media and Society, “The Politics of Reality TV,” Susan Murray discusses the ways in which reality TV shows reflect and refract the political and social landscape. She argues that reality TV shows are not simply entertainment, but also powerful political tools.

Murray begins by discussing the rise of reality TV in the context of the neoliberal era. She argues that reality TV shows are perfectly suited to the neoliberal emphasis on individualism, competition, and self-promotion. She also argues that reality TV shows often reinforce social hierarchies and inequalities.

Murray then goes on to discuss the ways in which reality TV shows have been used to address political issues. She argues that reality TV shows have been used to promote social change, but they have also been used to trivialize and exploit social problems. She also argues that reality TV shows can be used to manipulate public opinion and to promote particular political agendas.

Murray concludes by calling for a more critical approach to reality TV consumption. She argues that we need to be aware of the ways in which reality TV shows can be used to shape our understanding of the world and to influence our political views.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which reality TV shows have been used to reflect and refract the political and social landscape:

  • Reflecting social hierarchies: Reality TV shows often feature contestants from marginalized groups, but they often do so in ways that reinforce negative stereotypes. For example, reality TV shows about dating often portray women as catty and competitive, and reality TV shows about poverty often portray poor people as lazy and irresponsible.
  • Refracting the political landscape: Reality TV shows can sometimes be used to address political issues in a more nuanced way. For example, the reality TV show “The Real World” has been used to raise awareness of issues such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. However, reality TV shows can also be used to trivialize and exploit social problems. For example, the reality TV show “Intervention” often portrays people with addiction problems in a sensationalized and voyeuristic way.
  • Manipulating public opinion: Reality TV shows can be used to manipulate public opinion and to promote particular political agendas. For example, the reality TV show “The Apprentice” was used by Donald Trump to promote his business interests and his political ambitions.

 

Democratic Functions of Entertainment

In Chapter 15 of Media and Society, “Democratic Functions of Entertainment,” James Curran discusses the ways in which entertainment can serve democratic functions. He argues that entertainment can help to promote civic engagement, social cohesion, and critical thinking.

Curran begins by discussing the role of entertainment in the public sphere. He argues that entertainment can provide a space for people to come together and discuss social and political issues. He also argues that entertainment can help to raise awareness of important social and political issues.

Curran then goes on to discuss the role of entertainment in promoting social cohesion. He argues that entertainment can help to build bridges between different groups of people and to promote understanding and tolerance. He also argues that entertainment can help to create a sense of shared identity and belonging.

Curran then goes on to discuss the role of entertainment in promoting critical thinking. He argues that entertainment can help people to develop their critical faculties and to think more critically about the world around them. He also argues that entertainment can help people to develop their own values and opinions.

Curran concludes by arguing that entertainment is an important part of a healthy democracy. He argues that entertainment can help to promote civic engagement, social cohesion, and critical thinking.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which entertainment can serve democratic functions:

  • Promoting civic engagement: Satirical comedies such as “Saturday Night Live” and “The Daily Show” can help to raise awareness of important social and political issues and to encourage people to get involved in politics.
  • Promoting social cohesion: Soap operas and reality TV shows can help to build bridges between different groups of people by depicting characters from different backgrounds and experiences.
  • Promoting critical thinking: Films such as “V for Vendetta” and “The Hunger Games” can help people to think more critically about the world around them and to question authority.

Entertainment is a powerful medium that can be used to serve a variety of democratic functions. It can help to promote civic engagement, social cohesion, and critical thinking. It is important to be aware of the ways in which entertainment can be used to serve these democratic functions and to support entertainment that promotes these values.

Political Impact of media

In Chapter 16 of Media and Society, “The Political Impact of Media,” Stephan Cushion discusses the ways in which the media can influence political outcomes. He argues that the media can influence public opinion, set the agenda for political debate, and legitimize certain political actors and ideas over others.

Cushion begins by discussing the different ways in which the media can influence public opinion. He argues that the media can influence public opinion through priming, framing, and agenda-setting. Priming refers to the process by which the media can make certain issues more salient in the public’s mind. Framing refers to the way that the media presents information about an issue, which can influence how the public thinks about that issue. Agenda-setting refers to the process by which the media can influence the issues that the public thinks are important.

Cushion then goes on to discuss the ways in which the media can set the agenda for political debate. He argues that the media can do this by focusing on certain issues and by giving certain actors a platform to express their views. He also argues that the media can influence the tone and tenor of political debate.

Cushion then goes on to discuss the ways in which the media can legitimize certain political actors and ideas over others. He argues that the media can do this by giving certain actors more coverage than others and by portraying certain ideas as more reasonable and legitimate than others. He also argues that the media can contribute to the creation of a “spiral of silence,” in which people are less likely to express views that are not seen as popular or legitimate.

Cushion concludes by arguing that the media play a significant role in shaping the political landscape. He argues that the media can influence public opinion, set the agenda for political debate, and legitimize certain political actors and ideas over others.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which the media can influence political outcomes:

  • Priming: A study by Iyengar and Kinder (1987) found that exposure to news coverage of the economy primed the public to focus on economic issues, which led them to be more critical of the incumbent president, Ronald Reagan.
  • Framing: A study by Entman (1993) found that the way in which the media framed the Vietnam War as a “quagmire” or a “police action” influenced public support for the war.
  • Agenda-setting: A study by McCombs and Shaw (1972) found that the issues that the media covered were more likely to be seen as important by the public.
  • Setting the agenda for political debate: The media often focuses on certain issues and gives certain actors a platform to express their views. For example, during the 2020 US presidential election, the media focused on the issues of COVID-19 and race.
  • Legitimizing certain political actors and ideas: The media can legitimize certain political actors and ideas by giving them more coverage and by portraying them as more reasonable and legitimate. For example, the media often gives more coverage to the two major political parties in the United States than to third parties.
  • Creating a spiral of silence: The media can contribute to the creation of a “spiral of silence,” in which people are less likely to express views that are not seen as popular or legitimate. For example, people may be less likely to express negative views about a popular political leader.

The media play a significant role in shaping the political landscape. They can influence public opinion, set the agenda for political debate, and legitimize certain political actors and ideas over others. It is important to be aware of the ways in which the media can influence political outcomes and to be critical consumers of media.

 

Media, Emotions and affect

In Chapter 17 of Media and Society, “Media, Emotions and Affect,” Jens Eder, Julian Hanich, and Jane Stadler discuss the complex relationship between media and emotions. They argue that emotions play a significant role in media consumption and production, and that media can have a powerful impact on our emotions.

The authors begin by discussing the different ways in which emotions and affect can be defined. They argue that emotions are subjective experiences that involve physiological changes, cognitive appraisals, and behavioral expressions. Affect, on the other hand, is a broader term that refers to the entire range of human feelings, from basic emotions to more complex moods and atmospheres.

The authors then go on to discuss the role of emotions in media consumption. They argue that emotions play a key role in motivating us to consume media, in determining how we interpret media messages, and in shaping our memories of media experiences. For example, we may be more likely to watch a movie that is advertised as being funny or heartwarming, and we may be more likely to remember a news story that evokes strong emotions, such as anger or sadness.

The authors also discuss the role of emotions in media production. They argue that media producers often use emotions to engage and persuade audiences. For example, filmmakers may use suspense, music, and special effects to evoke fear or excitement in viewers. News organizations may use images and language that evoke sympathy or anger in order to frame a story in a particular way.

The authors conclude by discussing the ethical implications of the relationship between media and emotions. They argue that media producers have a responsibility to use emotions responsibly and ethically. They also argue that media consumers need to be aware of the ways in which media can manipulate our emotions.

Here are some specific examples of the ways in which media can influence our emotions:

  • Media can induce emotional arousal. For example, watching a horror movie can induce feelings of fear and anxiety.
  • Media can influence our emotional responses to events. For example, news coverage of a natural disaster can evoke feelings of sadness and compassion.
  • Media can shape our emotional understanding of the world. For example, exposure to violent media can lead to increased desensitization to violence.

It is important to be aware of the ways in which media can influence our emotions. We need to be critical consumers of media and we need to be mindful of the emotional impact that media can have on us.