Module 3 Reflections

Module 3 has deepened my understanding of how media is a representation of society, how senders and receivers of information use attention, and how attention, power, and visibility are all connected. Media is a representation, not a reflection, of society because, it sets agendas and chooses content to focus on. Agenda setting theory proposes that because media chooses what stories to share, and repeatedly share, that it sets societies agenda on what is viewed as important or newsworthy (Sternheimer, 2013). With this theory in mind, this weeks readings really hit home. Media is a representation of what is popular, gets good reviews, and keeps people’s attention. An example of how media is not a reflection of society is the lack of news coverage on America’s poverty issue. Huge television networks like ABC and NBC rarely ever do segments on the poor and if they do only show elderly or those in the armed forces (deMause and Randall, 2007). News stories on the poor categorize these people as “deserving poor” and do not focus on the structural issues in society that are causing this issue (deMause and Randall, 2007). Media across the board do not report factual or inciteful information on the poor and I ask my classmates why is that? Some reasons may be contributed by the fact that media owners want content that drive consumerism or portray their beliefs, values, and lifestyles (Kuper, 2013). I believe that stories on the poverty issue just do not sell to people seeking information. I wonder if, since society is socially constructed through life experiences, that we ourselves do not want to hear about these stories thus making them unpopular and unsuccessful in media. For stories on poverty to be successful then diverse and accurate stories are needed (Ridgway, 2013). The readings in this module made me realize how blind I am to the poverty issue as well. I argue that stories on poverty should shed light on structural issues that contribute to poverty, the real numbers of children and adults in poverty, and ways to reform these issues. Not only are stories of poverty are far and inbetween but the national poverty line is half of what a family in poverty actually needs to make just to get by (Jiang, Ekono, and Skinner, 2015). This shows that media is a representation and not a reflection because media creates mediated realities that do not capture the full picture of society.

 

In a world where access to information is literally at our fingertips, attention is becoming a finite resource. Attention, unlike information and data, is a scarce resource that media is fighting for (Lankshear and Knobel, 2001). I applied this critically in two ways first, being that as receivers of information we can only pay so much attention in a day. Youth pay most of their attention to school and leisurely activities like television (Lankshear and Knobel, 2001). In this aspect producers of media are fighting for consumers attention and the economy is switching from goods to information, intended to capture attention (Lankshear and Knobel, 2001). With so many products and media sources I see this as being true because when we pay attention to those sources they make money in various ways. Secondly, I now view attention similarly to the way I view visibility. I think that what media makers choose to pay attention to relates to agenda setting and power. An example of this is how media content focus on some stories while ignoring others. How do some terrorist ISIS attacks like those in Belgium get national news coverage but some in Turkey or Pakistan do not? Media content places values on stories and therefore consumers get mediated realities. In what other circumstances have media heavily focused on certain stories to maybe cast our attention? This idea closely connects with the readings on poverty and how media does not reflect society. With 31.8 million people living in low-income families and 15.8 million living in very poor families (Jiang et.al, 2015), how does this issue still get ignored on major news sources?

Media also tends to pay attention to details that may not have causality in topics like poverty and violence. In poverty segments media focus on people as statistics, as making poor life choices, or as people who are just unlucky for the moment (Ridgway, 2013). None of these segments focus on the real threats to society that are causing such mass numbers of poverty. As stated by Marian Wright, the largest threats to American society are not external but internal structural issues that are plaguing society (Delman, 2015). Another example of how society and media frame issues and pay attention to the wrong details is when the connection between youth violence and violent media are made. Countless news reports and studies have created links between actual-real-life violence and media violence however these connections focus primarily on individuals behaviors and experiences rather than questioning social forces (Sternheimer, 2013). Studies and research are easily manipulated and bias meaning many studies can create desired results and with little question from consumers. The amount of research and news stories done on this topic has made people believe that it is common sense that violent media is connected to violence in the youth while ignoring all the raw data out there about actual crime numbers and average ages that violent crimes are conducted (Sternheimer, 2013). The research even contradicts itself stating that those with more access to violent media are more likely to be violent however the data shows that those in poverty are more likely to commit violent crimes (Sternheimer, 2013). I think an important question is why is so much research being done to create a link between violence and media and not more research done on what forces in society are making those in poverty have higher crime rates? And how do we shed light, or visibility, on those issues and fix them?
Module 3 has allowed me to make many connections between attention, visibility, and power in media. It makes me ask a lot of questions about the intentions media makers have, their influence on societal values, and how we can change the our realities are mediated. In one of the voice threads Dr. Kaia asked us if and when children should be taught to denaturalize normality. This reminded me of a previous question in a module stating that teaching media literacy at young ages may cause cynicism and skepticism. It has become more apparent that media education at young ages is necessary in not only deneutralizing normality, but changing media standards. I am curious to know what my group members think about this idea and hope to have some more in depth conversations about attention, visibility, and power and how it relates to media standards.