Comm_101_Homework_4

4Aly Pearl COMM 101 Assignment 4 A. Mediated communication is often an intervening agent, means, or instrument of media between a message sender and the message receiver that connects them (Lecture 11/4). In my opinion, mediation, in terms of how it differs from non-mediated forms of communication, depends on how the message is relayed and considered. Mediated communication usually does not include face-to-face communication between two people, it reaches out to a bigger audience. To explain mediation as being impersonal is an accurate bridge into the different forms of mediation (Lecture 11/4). As I learned in lecture, mediated communication can be passive, limited, and general. The passiveness of mediation means that the audience has no control over the content he or she is receiving, almost like the connection just happens. This can be seen in radio, where the listener is just there to listen. Thus making the listener apart of an anonymous general audience (Lecture 11/4). The limitation in mediated communication can be seen when, exampled in lecture, someone tries to submit a letter to be published in the Daily Wildcat. There is a delay between the editors deciding to publish the story and actually doing so. Therefore, it takes a long time for the person to receive feedback. This is also the case for comedy TV shows; they do not know they are funny to the audience until the ratings come in. However, non-mediated communication is almost automatic feedback. Similar to when Tusing gives a lecture to his class, there is direct feedback. To continue to compare and contrast mediated and non-mediated communication, one must determine if media is involved and how that message gets across. This can be toiled with when text messaging is involved. Text messaging leaves room for misunderstanding as to how people feel. I have run into this problem where I take a received text the wrong way. That is why when someone needs to express something important that involves emotion; they should do it in person so the message is direct. B. Media, such as TVs, radios, books, and the Internet have become an abundant necessity for modern society. The constant existence of media leaves viewers exposed to vast types of themes and messages. These effects can sometimes cause violence or stupid decisions, but these actions are not the media industries fault. The viewer is responsible for how he or she will absorb media content. To explain this question, I will explain two different theories and take the side of the one I agree with most, and mention how to take action with the issue. The first theory is called “Technological Determinism” where the viewer is subject to messages sent through the media (11/16). Technically, the theory means that the viewer is passive, the media exposure is powerful, and the effect results in cognitions Meaning that the viewer cannot control his/her thoughts about media and will sometimes act out things they find in it. I find this theory not to be true because, like in the Jackass TV example where a young boy lit himself on fire after watching it is his own doing (Lecture 11/16). That is why I believe it is the viewer who controls what they take out of media content. The Uses and Gratifications theory is used to explain my opinion. This theory describes how the nature of media can be used responsibly (Lecture 11/9). Thus the viewer is active and strong, the media exposure is weak, and behavioral effects result. This shows that the viewer is responsible to not act out or take messages into consideration that are violent or unsafe. A way to avoid sketchy media, it is not up to the government or the media industry; it is up to the viewer. If there is a radio station or TV shows that bothers someone, the best way to get rid of it is to change the channel. Just as the theory suggests, people have the power to determine and change what they watch or listen to. That is why a remote control was invented! C. The conflicts of interest are inevitable because media ownership has turned into a handful of monopolies that control most of the content of media and turn it into something that they will benefit from. According to lecture, about 20 years ago, many people owned their own independent media companies, which gave room for diversity in the content of the news. However, now that these smaller companies are ran by about five super companies, it is almost impossible to decipher what kind of news is true, according to tubbs and moss, or for self-interest (Moss 507). These big companies control the topic and content of the news and information that’s sent out from their companies. Since these media “conglomerates” are influencing local and other news corporations, it’s difficult to render if there is any way to trust the news. If an issue involving a conglomerate surfaced, it would be very unlikely that its smaller company would report on it. As the book states, “it means your not going to be investigating certain subjects. It means your not going to see NBC investigating General Electric (Moss 507)”. Thus, if General Electric makes a mistake, NBC won’t report on it, or they may change the story all together. That is why this conflict in inevitable because these rich conglomerates will do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing. That is why these companies don’t care if the content is factual or general since money isn’t made from things that in the news. It is the celebrity gossip and the product placements that make the most money. The news content that these conglomerates broadcasted should only be the real and relevant news. When I watch the news at home, it is sometimes hard for me to distinguish if the brand of wood cleaner being advertised on the TODAY show is really the best brand or are they a sponsor' This feeling tends to surface every time I watch the news because I want to make sure that what I'm seeing and hearing is legit. The content of news should be factual, since it’s a source of information other than witnessing it in person. But this is not the case in modern times because of these conflicts within the major media companies want for money. D. Mass communication technology conducted during wars has changed and affected the public’s knowledge of these wars enormously. In WWII, information about this war was greatly limited due to the lack of reporters in the war. This was because reporters were banned from attending battles due to fatal risks. According to the Tubbs and Moss textbook a female reporter snuck onto an assault battleship during D-Day and reported it with eyewitness facts. Following this war, the “pentagon approved the use of “embed” reporters in wars (Moss 511).” Embeds are reporters who, according to the textbook, are journalists placed into individual units who live and travel with troops. These journalists, most abundantly seen in this most recent Iraq War, open the doors to detailed and precise information about what is happening in the war. Since technology helps to create this mass broadcasting, it also can be altered with and censored by the government. Therefore, the limiting of content reported by journalists can aggravate the public and cause them to reject the news and its content. Aside from some censorship, technology has boosted the amount of mass communication reported through the Internet, TV, radio, and phone. Technology, such as video cameras on computers, let soldiers connect with family and interviews. This way, the channels of knowledge open up directly from the soldier, rather than a journalist. However, both journalists and soldier’s stories are prone to be restricted, and that is why when I hear about the war, I usually take the facts as being limited. As the textbook states, the challenge of the news organization is to “gather and meld fragments into a coherent and, you hope, accurate and impartial whole (Moss 513).” Although this is a struggle for journalists, it is not their fault when their information is candy coated. This is because since mass communication technology is so affluent and easily modified, it is easy to take chunks of information and turn it into what should be seen, rather than what really happened.