Sunday, January 27, 2013

Post 1, Media and Ideology, Croteau

1) Media and Ideology, Croteau

2) Quotes

a. “In essence, the accumulation of media images suggests what is “normal” and what it is “deviant”… When such difference is highlighted by, for example, television talk shows that routinely include people who are otherwise invisible in the mass media- cross-dressers, squatters, or strippers- the media can become part of a spectacle of the bizarre.” (163)

Media creates an idea of normalcy by continually showing only a limited number of things. Anything that stands out from what media often portrays is seen as abnormal or unique. Those things that are considered normal is our ideology.  This is important because it tell us that there are things that are neglected in the media that are important too, but not given as much credit because we are not constantly seeing it. Even things that aren't necessarily "bizarre" at all are given special attention in television shows. For example, I watched an episode of Katie Couric's new talk show not too long ago that was all about women who didn't wear make up. ( I don't think its "deviant" to not want to wear make up, but I guess it can be seen that way when basically all women in the media are made up.

b. “Instead of seeing media as places where behaviors are normalized and boundaries are created, those in the industry tend to argue that the images they produce and distribute simply reflect the norms and ideas of the public.” (p.164)

The people in the media industry think that what they promote is already the popular ideas of the consumers. I can see why those people would say this. If media producers want a business, then they need to cater to what the public wants, in a way.  I still do think that the media can control us, but at the same time, I can understand how the media would want to be cautious in portraying things that the public wouldn’t like or accept.

c. “These examples illustrate how claims about nature work in the service of ideology. If such claims are widely accepted- if they are seen as the outcome of nature instead of culture- then there may be legitimate reason for racial inequality, sexual discrimination, and the demonization of gays and lesbians since these relationships are the result of the natural order of things. What we think of as natural and normal, then , is a central part of the terrain of hegemony” (p.167)

What we think of as natural is usually very different than what we think of as cultural. Cultural things can be socially created, while natural things are just seen as nature and always there. Although things are changing now, for awhile people thought it was natural to be heterosexual rather than homosexual and natural for women and men to be different. However, we know now that those things that people may take as being natural were socially constructed.

3) I thought the most about my second quote, because I can understand both sides of the argument. I’m wondering what other people think about this. Does the media cater to what the public already likes or does the media influence what the public likes in the first place? I’m not sure.

1 comment:

  1. In regard to your question about your second quote... that's a good question. This is gonna sound like a cop-out, but I think the media does a bit of both in some weird, pseudo-balancing act. They have to give the public enough of what it wants to keep them interested, but I think they subtly try to control the people by portraying things with an angle. They show certain things and withhold others (like you mentioned in the what is "natural" versus what becomes a spectacle argument). So... yeah. I kinda think it's a combination of both.

    Great blog entry by the way! Lots of food for thought! :)