Does the Media Matter?

Does the Media Matter? Does the media (print, broadcast and mass entertainment) matter? Do they change society or merely reflect society? Or do they reflect the changes made by others? Look carefully at the Frankfurt school as a source of information. The media is an integral part of modern life experience in western society today (Giddens 2001, 452). It surrounds us in its various forms through each waking moment of our lives, whether TV or radio, newspapers and magazines or most recently the internet and mobile phones. The extent of media penetration into peoples lives leads to many questions concerning the relation of society and the media: does the media matter, does it change or reflect society and if so, what parts of society? This kind of questioning of the modern mass media was pioneered by the Frankfurt School in the 1930s, who examined the economics of the mass media, or culture industry, as well as recognising them as significant agents of socialisation, reifying or creating social norms and ideologies in the interests of the dominant social groups (Hardt 1979, 28f.; Curran Seaton 2003, 323-29). This essay will explore these questions. Perhaps the most significant difference between modern and past societies is the existence of the mass media. The development of printing and the spread of paper manufacture represented the first major advance in the dissemination and preservation of information since the invention of the book form (Gardiner Wenborne 1995, 618). A consequence of cheaper reading matter, made cheaper and more available still by the industrialisation of the process in the late 18th and 19th centuries, was a rise in literacy, which in turn led to the increasing politicisation of the mass of society and a press reckoned by some to express public opinion and make governments accountable (Curran Seaton 2003, 4). Even before those developments, pamphleteering, made possible through the burgeoning print media, aided the spread of ideas essential to the Reformation. The sheer growth and spread of the media, beginning with the printing revolution, shows that indeed it does matter. Nowadays, it would be fair to say that we live in a mass media society, dominated by the print media and a variety of electronic media. Advances in technology, in particular the internet and mobile phones, have become rapidly widespread. Concerning the extent to which the media dominates peoples lives, Giddens observes that people aged four and over watch an average of twenty-five hours of TV a week and that if current trends in TV watching continue, by the age of eighteen the average child born today will have spent more time watching television than in any other activity except sleep (Giddens 2001, 453f.). This being the case, what exactly the media promotes or reflects is of prime concern. The commoditisation of culture that some have identified may be indicated by the prevalence of TV advertising. The revenue and commercial interest in the media certainly show its considerable importance. The National Association of Broadcasters in the USA sets a limit on the amount of time that can be devoted to TV advertising: 9.5 minutes per hour during prime time and 16 minutes at other times (Giddens 2001, 454). Such statistics could indicate that watching advertising may take up over 6 hours per week. The revenue from such adverting is enormous and this in itself shows the belief that the media thus influences culture and behaviour. Indeed, the power of media advertising has lead to the creation of media simply aimed at opening new markets (Curran Seaton 2003, 29-34). In the above discussion, we have briefly observed the importance of the media in terms of society and economics. Kellner observes that the Frankfurt School were the first social theorists to see the importance of what they called the culture industries in the reproduction of contemporary societies, in which so-called mass culture and communications stand in the center of leisure activity, are important agents of socialization, mediators of political reality, and should thus be seen as major institutions of contemporary societies with a variety of economic, political, cultural and social effects (Kellner 2005). We should now examine more closely whether the media changes or merely reflects society. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the media has the power actively to change society rather than merely present a passive reflection of it, discussed briefly above. The very existence of censorship and rules governing advertising proves that there is a widespread belief that the media will affect behaviour. Other evidence that suggest the mass media has an effect on society could be the standardisation of languages and the forging of national identities as well as the use of advertising campaigns that deliberately seek to change behaviour on a mass scale, with regard to, for example, seatbelt use in cars, drink driving and AIDS/HIV awareness (Cardiff, D. Scannell, P. 1987). The media has also been implicated in promoting and reifying particular gender roles through the characterisation of men and women. Trowler observes that women were seven times more likely to appear in TV advertising for personal hygiene product than not; 75% of all adverts using females were for pro ducts used in the bathroom or kitchen; 56% of women in adverts were shown as domestic housewives and only eighteen different occupations were shown for women, in comparison to forty-three for men (Trowler 1996, 96). The ban on tobacco advertising also shows a clear acceptance on the part of the government that such advertising has an effect on behaviour. It is evident that the Frankfurt School had a value-laden judgement of mass media culture.Adorno commented that I consider . that the average television entertainment is fundamentally far more dangerous politically than any political broadcast has ever been (quoted in Underwood 2003). Important in this view was their concept of an authentic culture and a debased mass culture that produced illusions of individuality while maintaining vested interests.Discussing this notion in their work Dialectic of Enlightenment, Adorno and Horkheimer stated: From the standardized jazz improvisation to the original film personality, who has to hang a curl over her eye so that she can be recognized as such, pseudo-individuality is everywhere. Individuality is reduced to the generalitys power to stamp the accidental detail so firmly that it is accepted as such. Precisely the defiant reserve or the sophisticated appearance of the individual on show is mass-produced like Yale locks (quoted in Underwood 2 003). The FrankfurtSchool were undoubtedly influenced by the rise of totalitarianism, as well asMarxist theories of society and Fordist systems of mass production (Curran Seaton 2003, 323f.; Giddens 2001, 383, 462). However, it has been noted that the Frankfurt School failed to differentiate between the mass and the individuals that form it (Underwood 2003). Underwood, in more pluralistic fashion, emphasises both the active participation of individuals in their relationship with the media, selecting and interpreting the messages they receive and notes that this participation feeds back to the media itself(Underwood 2003). This is in contrast to the deterministic position of theFrankfurt School, which seems to observe the mass as a homogeneous and passive victim of the media. Of course, it should go without saying that the media is made up of many thousands of individuals who have families and actively participate in society the media is not external to society or the individuals that form it. Another member of the Frankfurt School, Marcuse, however, viewed advertising as a manipulation of the false needs of society, and therefore may have concluded that even the extent to which people actively participate in a relationship with the media is defined by its manipulation of them (Curran Seaton 2003, 328). Significant in the debate over media influence is the creation of grassroots media, notably inLatin America (Green 1997, 102f.). This movement has appeared both as areaction to the domination of the media by big business and against the dominance particularly of North American cultural models expressed in film, TVand music. In conclusion, it can be seen that the media is undoubtedly important and that there is extensive evidence that it both reflects and shapes society and individuals in both positive and negative ways. The ideas of the Frankfurt School are useful in considering the relationship between the media and society but tend to view the masses en masse, and as passive victims of the media, rather thanas individuals who participate in an active relationship with the media. The issue of control and ownership of the media, and the extent to which this affects society, remain problematic. Bibliography Cardiff, D. Scannell, P. 1987. Broadcasting and national unity. In Curran, J., Smith, A. Wingate, P. (eds.). 1987. Impacts and Influences: Essays on Media Power. London: Methuen, pp157-173. Curran, J., Smith, A. Wingate, P. (eds.). 1987. Impacts and Influences: Essays on Media Power. London: Methuen. Curran, J. Seaton, J. 2003. Power Without Responsibility. London: Routledge. Kellner, D. 2005. The Frankfurt School and British Cultural Studies: The Missed Articulation. Available at: http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell16.htm (16/3/5) Gardiner, J. Wenborne, N. (eds.). 1995. The History Today Companion to British History. London: Collins Brown Limited. Giddens, A. 2001. Sociology. 4th edition. Cambridge: Polity Press. Green, D. 1997. Faces of Latin America. 2nd edition. London: Latin America Bureau. Hardt, H. 1979. Social Theories of the Press. London: Sage. Trowler, P. 1996. Investigating Mass Media. London: HarperCollins. Underwood, M. 2003. Mass Media: cultural Effects. Available at: http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/marxism.html 16/3/5) Has Science Done More Harm Than Good? A Reflection Has Science Done More Harm Than Good? A Reflection Anuradha Boodoo-Balliram Academic Essay Title:â€Å"Science has done more harm than good to the overall development of society over the last 200 years† â€Å"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.† (Isaac Asimov) As I drove along the Golconda bypass I looked towards the sky and noticed something I never thought I’d see in our country. The skies over Point Lisas and the outskirts of San-Fernando were filled with smog. I then started to wonder if science had done more harm to humanity than good. I came to the conclusion that science has indeed done more good than harm, and it is humanity that is solely to blame for the problems that their irresponsible use of science has caused. It can be said that technology is making people more and more lazy and people are getting laid off of their jobs because of increased mechanization. Its also not natural; it is something that has to be created, but on the other hand, it has helped humankind advance in the world more over the last 200 years than in a thousand years before. â€Å"Science is the quest for truth about Nature. Its aim is not to produce technology, but to understand how Nature works and discover the tremendous order and intelligence operating around us. If Nature were chaotic, if sometimes a stone went up and sometimes down, then there would be no science. But definite causes produce definite effects, and that is why science is possible. The scientist does not create order, he merely studies it.† (Prof. P. Krishna, 2005). There is no doubt that with the development of science, mankind has been affected; the way we think, the way we live and even the way we worship has changed all due to science. A few thousand years ago man lived a terrible and nomadic existence and the average lifespan wasn’t even 50. Science has become so important to human life because it enhances the way we live. When Dutch spectacle makers Janssen and Lipperhey developed the concept of the compound microscope, they had no idea that it would be the basis o f many important scientific discoveries. The discovery of cells would create the foundation for a new way to look at life and medicine. Louis Pasteur used a microscope when he discovered yeast fungus which led to the process of pasteurization. Antonio van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria through the lens of a microscope and because of this humanity has been able to learn about sickness and how it is spread. The invention of the electron microscope is solely responsible for humanity’s knowledge on the atom†¦the foundation of everything and all technologies! Can we even begin to imagine life without science or its applied counterpart – technology? No vaccinations or anaesthesia, no electricity to work our appliances, no telephones, computers or internet! Two hundred years ago in the nineteenth century bloodletting and leaching was practiced to help alleviate the ills of man. Fortunately, because of proper application of scientific knowledge we now know how to treat various disorders using the right medication and surgical methods. Antibiotics have become the biggest life saver, vaccination is the best preventative method of potentially fatal illnesses and most importantly surgical procedures can be done with no pain through anaesthesia. Methods of communication are improving at a rapid pace today than in any other century. We now have telephones, emails and cell phones that can send text messages and are internet ready. When the telegraph was invented in the 1830’s it allowed messages to be sent through a series of electric impulses. Although inconvenient compared with modern technology, it provided a lead forward in communication when compared with traditional mail. This would not have been possible if wasn’t for science and scientific experiments. It is in my opinion that when scientist learned to harness the power of electricity, the entire world changed for the better, development and progress in science and technology was done at a quicker pace. Society had a safe source of light; electricity replaced gas lamps and fires and eliminated accidents that may have been occurred because of this. It made refrigeration possible and because of this food lasted longer, food safety improved and food transportation was easier. The quality of life improved with electricity, industrialization was possible; dangerous jobs that were done manually were now done with machines. Various forms of communication stemmed from electricity such as the telegraph, telephone and television. The main function of the scientific goal is to carry out a comprehensive and thorough inquiry into nature and society, leading to new knowledge. This new knowledge provides educational, cultural and intellectual enrichment and leads to technological advances and economic benefits. New scientific knowledge may lead to new applications and new technological advances that may lead to new scientific discoveries. For example, the discovery of the structure of DNA was a fundamental breakthrough in biology. It formed the basis of research that would ultimately lead to a wide variety of practical applications, including DNA fingerprinting, genetically engineered crops and tests for genetic diseases. DNA copying and sequencing technologies have led to important breakthroughs in many areas of biology, especially in the reconstruction of the evolutionary relationships among organisms. The impact that science has had on society can be seen anywhere we turn, it is very visible; progress in agriculture, medicine and health care, telecommunications, transportation, computerization and so on, it is part of our daily living. To say that science has done more harm than good is naive, science does neither harm nor good because it is simply a disciplined way to understand how things work. It is mankind that uses the knowledge that science provides and they decide what kind of application to make of it. As the quote by Isaac Asimov says; science is gaining knowledge faster than man gains wisdom. If there is wisdom, we will not use the knowledge gained by science for destructive purposes. Albert Einstein whose theory of relativity was used in the making of the A-Bomb said â€Å"the discovery of nuclear reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind anymore than the discovery of matches.† The gun was invented with the sole purpose to kill, an equalizer in so me way. The individual who invented the gun intended it to promote peace, by discouraging violence. It made hunting easier for man to do than with bow and arrow. All tools that are made are made for the sole purpose of making life easier. If a hammer is used to kill someone, the hammer is not to blame, it is the person who used it, and same too is the gun. Therefore in conclusion, I can now say that science without wisdom and conscience will be the destruction of humanity as we know it. Science is a good tool but it is only a tool. Like a knife, science has to be used with knowledge, wisdom and understanding. It needs to be guided by people who understand this concept so that it benefits mankind and not destroy it. Science can be referred to an intelligent child with a lot of potential, without the right guidance, that child will wreak havoc with his newfound power†¦his knowledge. â€Å"Science has generated tremendous power; knowledge always gives power and is useful because it increases our abilities. But when we do not have wisdom and love, compassion or brotherhood, which are all by-products of wisdom, then power can be used destructively. Sixty- five percent of all the scientific research being done currently is directly or indirectly meant for developing weapons, and supported by the Defence Ministry in every nation. In the last one century, 208 million people have been killed in wars, which is without precedent in any previous century.† (Prof. P. Krishna, 2005) References 10 Science Experiments That Changed the World : Discovery Channel. (n.d.). Discovery Channel : Science, History, Space, Tech, Sharks, News! : Discovery Channel. Retrieved March 7, 2013, from http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-science-experiments.htm Benefits of science. (n.d.). Understanding Science. Retrieved March 7, 2013, from http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_18 Category. (n.d.). Timeline The History of Guns Rifles and Machine Guns. Inventors. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms_2.htm History of the Microscope Who invented the Microscope?. (n.d.). Best Microscope Reviews and Microscopy Research. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.microscopemaster.com/history-of-the-microscope.html Krishna, P. (n.d.). The Impact of Science on Society. Homepage of Prof. P. Krishna. Retrieved March 7, 2013, from http://www.pkrishna.org/Impact_science_society.html My Century | BBC World Service . (n.d.). BBC Homepage. Retrieved March 7, 2013, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/mycentury/science.shtml