The effects of Mass Media on our society

Are We Getting What We Are Asking For?
The Effects of Mass Media on Our Society
Jeff Eakins
COML 509 – Social Dynamics of Communication Technology
Sept. 25, 2009

Not long ago, I turned on the television and saw a commercial for a sweetened breakfast cereal. The commercial was loud and energetic. It used vibrant colors and a mix of cartoon characters with real people. The actors were mainly children and seemed to be having the time of their life because they were eating this cereal. It had no impact on me and I simply turned the channel. The next day I saw another advertisement for the same sweetened cereal. The commercial consisted of adults enjoying a morning breakfast in the country. The sun was shining, there was a warm glow and the actors were discussing how the cereal made them live healthy, meaningful lives. They were better parents to their children for it. Later that day, my wife came home from the store with that very cereal. I had to laugh as I thought about how this company portrayed two different messages to two different target markets, but received the same results…we bought the cereal. I couldn’t help but relate this experience to how media influences the masses in all facets of life whether it be politics, religion, education, or sweetened cereal.

American intellectualist Noam Chomsky stated in the film Manufacturing Consent (Achbar, 1992) “Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain.” Just as this company profited by using the media to coerce me into buying their cereal, so do other institutions use the media to promote their agendas to the masses. The question is, are we getting what we are asking for? Have we as individuals as well as a society allowed the mediums of print, television, internet and other forms of communication to replace the personal interaction and communication amongst ourselves? Are we too trusting in the images we see and the messages delivered through the mediums of mass media?

According to the A.C. Nielsen Co. (Violetplanet, 2009), the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. Ninety-nine percent of households possess at least one television. The number of hours per day that the TV is on in an average U.S. home is six hours and forty-seven minutes. There have been over four thousand studies done regarding the effects of television on children. These studies have shown:
• Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 3.5
• Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
• Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54
• Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
• Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500
• Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000
• Number of TV commercials seen by the average person by age 65: 2 million
• Rank of food products/fast-food restaurants among TV advertisements to kids: 1
• Total spending by 100 leading TV advertisers in 1993: $15 billion
• Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30
• Percentage devoted to stories about crime, disaster and war: 53.8
• Percentage devoted to public service announcements: 0.7
• Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59
• Percentage who can name at least three justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: 17

These alarming statistics show the effect that media can have on our society. It is no wonder that we as a people trust those we see on TV as “experts” in their field. There is no doubt that the industry leaders understand the power that media has and there is no doubt that they are aware of these statistics. Those who use television and internet to promote their agendas certainly know that they can sway the masses with a carefully articulated message centered around their target audience. Does it matter to those profiteering from such messages what kind of an effect this is having on our society as a whole? I propose that it does not. The media will change their messages and images based on their careful analysis of trends. They will feed us what we want, they will feed us what we will buy.

As children, we watch the television for entertainment. We grow to learn the faces and products on TV. We trust what we see to be reality and this carries over into adulthood. We see individuals on TV as attractive, famous and successful. We feel that because they are successful and famous, they must be knowledgeable and trustworthy. We accept what they offer us without realizing that they have tailored their messages to us based on where we are at in our stage of life. Just as a cereal commercial is tailored to a child in order to get them to buy, that same company markets the same cereal in a different manner to an adult. This happens with political agendas as well. In the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (Greenwald, 2004) one intellectual states, “What the public learns is what the media shows them, or doesn’t show them. What the media tells them or doesn’t tell them.”
As individuals, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves on such matters. We must wade through the sea of mass media and information and decide for ourselves what we want to believe, not what those who profit from media want us to believe. As it stands now, we are being told what profit wants us to hear. Corporate media institutions portray the messages, both textually and sub-textually, of those who are willing to pay them to do so. When we as a society stand up and demand unbiased information, when we show the broadcasters that we will not accept what they are offering by not purchasing the products of advertisers or cause a drop in ratings by not watching what they show, we will then have an impact on the information we are given. The media corporations will quickly turn their focus on the true source of their profiteering – the general public. “What seems to me a - in a sense - very terrifying aspect of our society, and of other societies, is the equanimity and the detachment with which sane, reasonable, sensible people can observe such events. I think that's more terrifying than the occasional Hitler or LeMay or other that crops up. These people would not be able to operate were it not for this apathy and equanimity. And therefore I think that it's in some sense the sane and reasonable and tolerant people who share a very serious burden of guilt, which they very easily throw on the shoulders of others who seem more extreme or more violent” (Achbar, 1992). The problem is that we are too accepting of their entertaining shows, the celebrity based shows. Those programs which they intertwine amongst their politically biased and profit based programs that keep us from just turning the television off. "I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air... and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a great wasteland" (Minow, 1961).













References
Achbar, M. and Wintonick, P. (1992) (Directors) Manufacturing Consent: The Political
Economy of the Mass Media Zeitgeist Video Canada

Greenwald, R. (2004) (Director) Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism Brave New
Films July 13, 2004 United States

Minow, N. (1961) (Speech) - National Association of Broadcasters, Washington., DC, 5.9.1961).

VioletPlanet (2009) Watching Ourselves Into A Stupor: The Lure of the Screen March, 28 2009
retrieved from http://www.zimbio.com/Sociology/articles/71/Statistics+Watching+Ourselves+Stupor+Lure

Is Internet Access a Fundamental Right?

Is Internet Access a Fundamental Right?
Addressing the Issue of Governmentally Controlled Internet Access

Jeff Eakins
COML 509 – Social Dynamics of Communication Technology
Sept. 12, 2009

On June 20th 2009, a shocking video of the death of Neda Soltani was uploaded to YouTube. As a young, female reporter, Neda was on the streets in Iran during the protests against the re-election of President Ahmadinejad when she was shot through the heart by a stray bullet. Observers captured the scene on video as she lay on the street, blood pouring from her mouth and nose. The video was uploaded to the internet and Neda quickly became a rallying cry for the world against oppression. Among the protests and violence lay another issue which presented itself in the way the video was uploaded. The Iranian government had blocked access to websites and jammed satellite television signals in order to quell the riots and hide from the world, the disarray their country was in. They made it illegal to broadcast any material dealing with the riots. However, the Iranian people were able to use anti-filtering software as well as cell phones and Bluetooth technology in order to get their message and images to the world.

Such a ban on internet use and governmental controlled access to websites causes one to question – is internet use a fundamental human right or is it a privilege? “Are peoples' fundamental human rights being violated when they don't have access to the internet? It's tempting to consider internet access a luxury, but consider the increased quality of life that comes with the huge jump in access to cultural and logistical information the internet brings.” (Kirkpatrick, 2009)

In June of 2009, France’s high court, the Constitutional Council, ruled that access to the internet is a fundamental human right. (Kirkpatrick, 2009) This ruling came in a case where France was trying to deny internet access to those who had “three strikes” against them regarding copyright infringement. However, the European Parliament voted against codifying internet access as a basic human right. “It's gratifying to see that someone recognizes that Internet access doesn't rank alongside free speech, even if it can help to publish that speech. Speech is fundamental, but how you express it need not be.” (Asay, 2009)

Should access to information be a right for all people? If so, should all information be accessible or is that to be limited? “If the stated direction of government is eGovernment then citizen access to the Internet is a right not a privilege. Following this line of reasoning, shouldn't I have a right to cable TV, since that's where I watch C-SPAN and other government-related activity? Indeed, the interesting thing about the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is that they mostly involve keeping government out of the lives of citizens, whereas these new government-granted rights do the opposite: they beg government to get deeply involved with citizens' lives through taxes and regulation.” (Asay, 2009)
On September 11, 2009 I posted a comment on the discussion board for my Communications 509 class at Gonzaga University. The post was also about whether internet access was a right or a privilege and had a link to a video stream on hulu.com. Unfortunately my instructor, Alexander Kuskis, was not able to view the post because he lives in Canada and has restricted access. His return post offered great insight into this argument. “Over 60 years ago the United Nations enacted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations” (UDHR, 1948). Two articles of this declaration make reference to the access and use of technology as a human right:
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (UDHR, 1948).
Article 27: Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits (UDHR, 1948).
Additionally, the United Nations Development Program brings further definition to internet access as a human right:
Education, knowledge, information and communication are at the core of human progress, endeavor and well-being. Further, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have an immense impact on virtually all aspects of our lives… Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organization. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits the Information Society offers (UNDP, 2001).

If this is the case, however, then why are governments outside the United States restricting access to certain websites and content? Could this be a positive thing? I take into account the crime that is being committed through the internet as a medium. Consumer Fraud Reporting (2009) reports the following statistics regarding internet fraud, scam and crime statistics:

I think of James von Brunn who shot and killed a security guard at the National Holocaust Museum after bragging of his racist and murderous tendencies on the internet. I think of George Sodini who blogged about his attempts at shooting women in a fitness club long before he actually carried out the act. I also think of other information that leads to crime- pornography, gambling sites and other forums. Should they not be monitored and controlled? Should sex offenders or other convicted criminals be granted internet access to further their
illegal activities? So, is global internet access a right or a privilege? “Basic access is a right, just as being able to read a newspaper or use a phone. We all have a right to information, and there is some information that is *only* available online. As often is the case, technology has blurred the line and will force us to rethink many things.” (Jerv, 2009) Writer Matt Asay says it best, “We may choose to shoulder the responsibility for delivering Internet access to Europe and the rest of the world, but let's term it as a "fundamental responsibility," and not as a "fundamental right." (Asay, 2009)


References
Asay, M. (2009, May 6) Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'? The Open Road retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10234555-16.html

Consumer Fraud Reporting (2009) [Graph illustration chart 10, contact methods] Contact
methods used in internet crime retrieved from http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/internet_scam_statistics.htm

Jerv (2009, Aug. 20) [Msg 9], Is Internet Use a Privilege or a Right? message posted to
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1651778

Kirkpatrick, M. (2009, June 11) Is Internet Access a Fundamental Human Right? retrieved from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_internet_access_a_fundamental_human_right_franc.php
Kuskis, A. (2009, September 11) Knowledge & Communication Are Rights [Msg 2], Message
posted to http://jesuitnet.blackboard.net/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_3694_1%26url%3d