So, the chicken came first because the egg had to be laid. But, for chicken to exist it would have had to be born from the egg? And so on, so on, so on. The same debate could be applied to a lot of scenarios: did the artist make the art, or did the art make the them an artist? Do we shape our opinions, or do our opinions shape us? Does the mirror show who we really are, or do we only see what we want to see when we look in that mirror? Yet, I find the most provocative chicken-egg debate now is surrounding the media’s influence on society, or maybe, society’s influence on the media.
The media has always been a part of our community; with developing communication comes a developing media - from printed scrolls to what is now streamed on our television and mobile phones, there has always been that underlying force providing us with surveillance. Its much like how we have always had our own views and opinions on certain affairs within our society, but along with the rapid advancement of the media has come partnered with the rapid growth of our confidence to voice and share our views – and with developments such as UGC (User Generated Content) with our blogs and our personalities we portray on Social Media, it is very difficult to argue against the idea that we are an active audience and the media has little influence on us. However. Our eagerness to argue that we, as a community of individuals, are the overriding force in society against the media is actually fuelling the argument that the media will always have an effect on us. We feel that to establish our importance and to have our opinion accepted, it must be presented through the media. And because of this dominant force, we remain to be an active audience, but in a thick bubble of hyperreality that hinders our ability to think past what the media is presenting us daily. So, does the media reflect society? Or does society reflect the media? Baudrillard says so. Through the media’s efforts to captivate and entertain a mass audience, certain identities and certain social situations are exaggerated to the point we have become unable to distinguish that difference between the simulacra and reality. This is common in the younger generation and celebrity culture; a devoted follower of the Kardashians then indulges in expensive brands, promoting curvy figures on Instagram and releasing sex tapes just so they can live the life of a hyped celebrity, but what are they missing? Undoubtedly, a lot – intrusive paparazzi and media figures, restricting lifestyles and pressures of filling a certain role to please the public. The spoilt, the “extra” and the glamourous we are exposed to when “Keeping up with the Kardashians” is a prime example of a simulacra us audiences choose to endorse. But whether the media is attempting to reflect society is ambiguous. I find it a somewhat terrifying thought that the cultivated representation of a mental illness is madness, instability and depravity, or that our News channels continuously roll the same theme of world terror and extremist violence, is subsequently painting a biased image of society and is making people fear what is outside their front door and corrupting their morals. All this is resulting in an increasing lack of social mobility among our budding generations as they fear to venture further into a “cruel” and “sacrificial” world. I would never go the extent of saying we are a wholly passive audience – I believe with the educational opportunities and benefitted upbringings most now have access to, especially in our culture, our innate sense of what is right and what is wrong is brought to book. But am I believer that the media is massively controlled by a one-sided, powerful force? Most definitely. Our open and progressive society has also remained to be a very materialistic one, that Marxist theory has proved to be exploitive on the behalf of the wealthy and prosperous. With cultural imperialism favouring especially the US as a media superpower, the working classes are submitted to false consciousness of capitalism; we are blindly accepting the “norms” of a society divided by wealth, class, race, religion, and so forth, and endorsing this inequality by consuming its media. The chicken or the egg debate will still remain unanswered for me, but I am confident that the media will always be a dominant force in our world as much as we want to believe we have progressed into a more empowered community or as much as we want to deny it. It’s difficult, especially with it being so prominent in most values of society (entertainment, education, forming and maintaining relationships, enforcing law), for it not to have such effect and it is it’s growing effect that we should be wary of.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Jem DuttonStudent Blogger. Archives
April 2018
CategoriesAll Current Affairs Lifestyle Narrative Journalism Opinion Articles Personal |