I found Jean Baudrillard’s article, “Requiem for the Media,” very interesting. Especially since this blog is suppose to focus on the theory of media and this article begins by stating “There is no theory of the media (278).” Baudrillard’s elaboration on how media is a capitalist enterprise (ah Marx) with an imbalance in the power and a lack of irresponsibility on the side of the receiver was both frightening and true. His description of mass media (TV and radio) as “non-communication” was something that I had never considered before. In reality, our society has become more based on a media power hierarchy and those who control or influence the media are definitely the “haves” and those of us left listening are the “have-not's.” There is no communication left, we are told something and expected to believe (or not believe) in the information, the “have-not's” have no way of entering the conversation. In proper communication there should be a sharing of knowledge, a bouncing around of ideas, not a limited and controlled release of information. But the question arises, “How do we create an equal playing field in new media?” I guess it could be argued that computer technologies and the internet have begun to equalize things, but my blog doesn’t have the same impact as a presidential candidate’s or movie star’s. Even if my blog is better written and more intelligent than Ms. Spear’s rants, hers are still quoted in various other forms of media and mine are left strictly to the pleasure of classmates and friends. Even though I have the means of entering the conversation now, I lack the position to do so.
What does my rant mean? Well, Baudrillard felt that media needed to be interactive, “a press edited, distributed, and worked by its own readers (286),” in order to “unfreeze” our current “blocked” situation. But isn’t his description basically what blogs are today? And unless the Today show starts quoting my blogs the way they quote the crazed celebrities I don’t think that anything has been unblocked. We just have millions of “underground” conversations that lack the power to compete with the information put forth by the “have’s.” How many people today believe what a celebrity tells them strictly because they are famous? An example, Pam Anderson is PETA's spokesperson, what does she know about animals or hunting or farming or any of PETA's issues? Probably nothing, or at most she knows what PETA's big wig (who by the way has diabetes and needs to use insulin, gee I wonder where they get that from) told her, but she has media power so people listen and believe her.
Baudrillard article is very much a warning, just like in the past when is was the people who owned the machines that had the power, now it is the people who control the media. They now have the power to control what we know, how we think, and what we have access too. It almost seems as though media is teaching us not to think, because it will think for us. I think there are sci-fi movies that begin this way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm not sure what he would say about blogs. I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't make the "Today Show" vs. blog argument (ah, the MSM meme...). I suspect he would find moments of confrontation useful, but mostly I think he would see hacking as more true "communication."
I understand what you are saying about your blog not carrying the same weight as someone who is famous. I agree that the power (whatever form of technology it may be) is in the hands of a few, and they aren't necessarily the best choices to be in charge. I think that although right now there are numerous "underground" conversations going on, I think that the fact that many of us potentially have access to them is a step towards moving away from what Baudrillard is cautioning: even if a select few control the (most of) the media, by putting a little of the media into the hands of many hopefully we won't find ourselves living in a sci fi movie.
I think you're very much so right about PETA and Pan Anderson's support of them (who knows what the hell these people think they know) but I'm really interested in how this might intersect with Baudrillard says about the ability to mediate the revolutionary right out of the transgressive act. PETA might actually have the popularity it does because the the nature of their "revolution" is only available for understanding by it's nature as a mediated event. If people were to fully understand that nature of their transgressive philosophy intimately I doubt they'd incur so much support from celebrities like Pam Anderson.
I found the last paragraph of your post quite interesting. In today’s world, the media doesn’t seem to be just the media anymore. There are the people who have control of the Media (almost like the canonized media like television, radio, etc.) and those who have control of the media (YouTube, blogs, etc.) which is not canonized/privileged because access has been opened to a larger group of people. As for your comment that “it almost seems as though media is teaching us not to think, because it will think for us,” I agree and disagree. Media (capital M) does seem to think for us in many ways. Advertisements tell us what to buy, commentators explain the news for us and tell us what to think, etc. However, media (lowercase) allows us to respond and interact and think in many ways more than we have been able to in the past. The strange part is, both make evaluating information an invaluable skill because people need to think for themselves when evaluating the Media but they also need to distinguish who does and does not know what they are talking about when evaluating the media.
Post a Comment