Sep 14 2010
Response-Week 3
After finishing my reading, I believe I have a greater knowledge of some of the theories that made a major impact in Communication Studies. Accordingly here are my responses to my previous questions for this week:
1. After re-reading the section discussing Lasswell and his public opinion and propaganda theories, I believe that the subsequent attitude change and its effects on users are still a huge aspect in today’s marketing and advertising culture. Advertising, especially, is trying to persuade viewer’s perceptions and attitudes in favor of the product in which they’re trying to sell. Therefore, these studies were incredibly helpful in understanding whether or not these messages produced direct and powerful effects on users. Today, however, I believe is much different than back in the 1920’s and 40’s when these studies begin to rise. Because people have much more access outlets to a wide array of information, I believe that the propaganda/advertising that is used today are not as powerful as they were once considered to be. In today’s society we have the ability to access information, compare and contrast information, and determine our own attitudes of whether or not the advertisement/propaganda is truthful or only a mild perception of reality. In this way, no longer do I believe is there a need for mainstream fear involving propaganda and its effects on society. Another communication social scientist, Walter Lippman believed that “people relief on simplifications such as stereotypes and developed a world view based on exposure to only a limited amount of detail”, but now that we have various amounts of media devices and widespread information outlets, people are now capable of searching and locating material to gratify and reinforce their needs, rather than being cultivated or “fed” certain ideas and beliefs through propaganda. Therefore, I believe we are more resistant to its effects today more so than ever before.
2. I believe that the opinion leaders do still exist today. But this being said, many of these opinion leaders ARE the media leaders themselves. In the words of Benard Cohen in his description of the agenda-setting theory, “The media doesn’t tell us what to think; it tells us what to think about.” In essence, these specific opinion leaders use the media as an outlet into which they decide what the most important stories are for the public to absorb and ponder. Accordingly, both the two-step flow theory and agenda setting theory are closely related and intertwined. Therefore, I believe that the two-step flow of communication is prevalent still today. Many people use the Internet and other various media devices to access the news and information from the top news corporations, such as MSNBC, FOXNews, CNN, NYTimes, etc. Although citizen journalism is becoming more and more popular, most people still try and verify these stories and information through reputable news sources. Another huge sector for discussion on the topic of opinion leaders is that they receive information through others in their social circles or networks. But for this to work, the opinion leader must have a greater knowledge or access to mass communication that others do not, and most of the time these opinion leaders gather this from these major media outlets. Therefore, I believe that there is a hierarchy of informational order that exists today and therefore these opinion leaders are given these authoritarian powers to disseminate information in the ways that they wish. Because of this, I do believe that the system of the media acting as the “4th estate” of our government does provide a checks and balances action for the people because of the power the media is given by the people for its opinion leader position. How much authoritarian power that is given to the media, I do not know and this may be the reasons why people are very fearful of this power.
3.In response to question three, I can say that I believe that Media Systems Dependency Theory can be applied to Internet addiction. On Pg. 127 of our book, it states that “the more a person depends on having needs gratified by media use, the more important the media’s role will be in the person’s life, and therefore, the more influence those media will have.” Hence, this theory is a great one to apply towards the indicators of Internet addiction. Many people depend on the Internet to gratify most of their needs, whether it be political, personal, news information, educational, or social. Therefore, the Internet is a great example of how an individual can easily attach oneself to this selective medium to satisfy all their needs. Because of the idea of convergence media, even other media such as music that one finds on the radio and television shows can be found and played on the Internet. But since this has become more socially acceptable, my question is “how much dependency on a specific set of media technology is too much and can be classified as addiction?” I would have to say when it becomes obsessive and takes over normal everyday functions is when the term dependency can be substituted for addiction.