I found Silverstone to be very dense reading. There was discussion and defining of many important ideas such as other versus self, thinking versus judgment, author versus audience, mediation, appearance, mediapolis, boundaries, globalization, proper distance and narrative. Some of the questions that came up during the reading where:
Do other people’s views of us change us, and if so, how?
Does the Internet distance us or bring us closer together?
Do we or don’t we live without reference to the media?
Has technology homogenized culture? Is this a good or a bad thing?
Can globalization be conceived without media?
Is the Internet making the world more global and liveable?
Who controls the online media, the author or the audience?
How is media “a key component of the cultural infrastructure?
How does online space influence relative moralism and ethics?
Why can’t human beings live without the play of differentness and sameness?
Has the media lost its role as the guardians of public good?
Is media the key to rhetoric’s formation and acceptance?
How does mediated communication offer and define our participation with others?
What are the differences between just viewing the mediapolis (pumping the key pad, clicking the mouse) and participating in it?
What resources has globalized media provided for understanding and responding to differences?
How does media, particularly online media, polarize global culture?
In what ways does media change the possibilities for collective action?
Is it as Sliverstone asserts, that it is the responsibility of public media to provide resources to make effective judgments?
Is proper distance the same for all?
What is the status of the mediapolis in global communications and in mediation?
What are the implications in that the creators are also the audience?
Do all of the Web 2.0 tools make the Internet a plural medium?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Silverstone- Media Ethics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Whew! Looking forward to discussion...
I wanted to address one specific question from Dr. Pleasant's blog: Do other people’s views of us change us, and if so, how? I would say that other people's views of ourselves influence us but do not change at core who we are as an individual. For example,an individual has a strong desire to be liked and may act differently if perceived that this is or not the case. A person that is in the prescence of someone or multiple persons who likes them and communicates this through verbal queues and non verbal(body language and tone) may be influenced to take an action - perhaps agree to participate in some volunteer work that otherwise they would not. However, if they were morally and ethically in opposition with the cause at hand -this would not prevail. However, with deference to the reading dealing more specifically with media influences over our identities. One could argue that prolonged exposure to one type of message over and over could influence and even shape our identitiies in ways that cannot be measured or known. For example, CNN is regarded as more libral and Fox News to hold a conservative slant. Would someone that grew up watching one of these networks be more likely to absorb the general political view and adopt it as their own? Assuming that it is factual that these networks or biased, is it morally and ethically right that they should be so. Should news not be simply the act of reporting it without interpretting it for the viewer? In my opinion, there is no way to know exactly what influence media may or may not have on our identities as an individual or in the broader social context because there is no way to measure it.
Delphine, you pose a good point. I think I am more inclined to believe that people are often shaped by how they are portrayed or how they perceive others to view them. Think of how women may develop a view of their worthiness or role in society based on cultural constructs that are reinforced by other members' views.
Also, CNN and Fox may still have a lot in common even though one is conservative and one liberal. Collectively they may work to shape a commonality among Americans in political thought, even despite their evident differences.
Post a Comment