In the 1930s to ‘50s, mass media was extremely influential.
(It still is today, but today’s audience admittedly has more of a choice to be influenced or not.)
In the past, its effect on its audiences was strong, direct and immediate; we call it the Magic Bullet Theory, or simply, Powerful Effects Theory.
According to University of Twente’s article on this theory, 4 main factors contributed to the formation of this theory:
- Invention of the radio and television
- Rise of advertisements and propagandas
- Payne Fund’s studies of the effects of motion pictures on child development (1930s)
- Hitler’s monopolization of mass media for propaganda during NAZI WAR –We can actually see a little of the “function of agenda setting” in Hitler’s propagandas. He confirmed for all that if you repeat a lie frequent enough in mass media, you convince people it is true. Indeed, today, repeated news coverage is made of issues that the Mass Media wishes to emphasize to the public. And often, our daily interactions with people are influenced by what we often receive from the media too.)
A classic example of this Powerful Effects Theory happened in 1938. After millions of people heard on radio on October 30, a Sunday, that Earth was under attack by Martians, widespread panic ensued. People fled their homes and some even packed up to leave the country! Police even had to be called in to restore calm.
?!
What they actually heard was an edited adaptation by Orson Welles from a well-known book, “War of the Worlds” by H.G. Wells. Indeed, in those days, people relied heavily on the mass media and believed everything they heard.
(This hence later came to be known as the “Panic Broadcast”. )
However, with the rise of new media, the Internet, and increased accessibility to alternative information sources, this theory has been deemed obsolete by many experts.
…Do you think so too?
Do you confidently say, “Yes, I am in full control of what I receive and perceive from the media” ?
Let’s have some fun and see who’s fickle and who’s not! (Okay, just kidding.)
Now we shall explore the what we call the Limited Effects Theory which some argue are more applicable today.This theory defines audiences as active receivers of media messages; they have the ability to resist them.
They say we can walk away from, switch off or self-censor media sources.
Indeed, self-censorship can happen on the individual level or even nationally. Media globalization in Asia has caused many governments to practice higher levels of censorship, in a hope to control what messages the public receives. Different countries have different agendas and benchmarks for banning or censoring products, of course.
This patriotic print advertisement displayed in billboards was actually banned in China. Can you guess why?
However, I feel that this absolute theory is highly flawed, too ideal and pretty is the picture painted.
This is because not all media messages are blockable. They are not when:
1. They are dictated to you under official circumstances. Eg. You are required to research on a particular topic for a school assignment.
2. Fixed social structures force you to consume the media product. Eg. Does your dad control the television?
3. Circumstances prevent you from leaving the place physically.
Eg. Trailers in a movie theatre after you have entered early and sat down (Of course, you should not have entered so early, but you risk missing out on front parts of the movie),
Eg. TV mobile on buses (Of course you can sleep or make careful effort to look out of the window.)
Eg. Loud radios or music in stores (You can also blast your iPod and risk…)
Nevertheless, whether highly influential or not, the agenda-setting function of the media was perhaps most succinctly described by Bernard Cohen (1963).
He said, “The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” -Quote adapted from TheoryistheReason
In my opinion, our society is more of a balance of both, which puts us in the category of the Moderate Effects Theories. What do you think? (:
Filed under: Uncategorized | 22 Comments
6th Article: Culture !
When I was poring over our COM notes on Culture, I looked up at my friend sitting in front of me and asked her curiously, “Are you a sequentalist viewer of time?” (Of course, I proceeded to explain that jargon to her)
That one question led to a most revealing, jawdropping “interview” I have ever had with friends.
Well, you see, my friend is someone who is always highly punctual. She does not arrive in time; she arrives ON TIME. Hence I was highly curious to know how things looked from her perspective. (I guess you can probably deduce by now that I belong in the Latecomers Category)
And I found out that she had a most interesting way of keeping time the moment she wakes up to that before leaving the house:
SHE SETS THE ALARM TO RING —FOR EVERY 15-MINUTE INTERVAL.
How impressive is that?! To tell the truth, I was greatly disturbed. I have known her for so long, yet I never knew about this till now. (We came to a concensus to keep this anonymous. I think she probably finds her habit disturbing too 
)
She explains, “It helps me keep track of time. So I won’t be late.”
Me, “But every 15 minutes?! And you do this EVERYDAY?!?!?!”
Her, “Yah.”
It then hit me: The wide chasity in Time Orientation between both of us. No wonder. I realize I hold a synchronic view of time; I often assume that time is unlimited, cyclical and repetitive. Travelling time is often underestimated. However, look at my friend here. So meticulous about time-keeping is she that she says never fails to keep up with this routine. As a Sequential-ist, to her, lateness deprives the other person of precious minutes. (Actually, it is really true.) She sees time as a line of sequential events.
And this led me to think how Time is only but one field in the broad concept of culture. This week in class, we learnt of culture. Its definitions, types and dimensions.
I am hereby exploring where our dear country Singapore falls under the various categories of cultural analysis.
Edward T.Hall (1983) defined culture as being “an invisible thought control mechanism which kicks in only when one is severely challenged”. Geert Hofstede said it is “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing a group of people from another”. Trendholm, on the other hand, gave 5 aspects of culture, that it is :
• Learned • Shared • Dynamic • Multi-faceted • The overlapping of identities
The mini-interview with my friend is perhaps symbolic of the differences among people in the world. Even those dearest and closest to you could be so different from you; what about those between different communities, nations or even continents?
There are two main dimensions of culture:
1. High or low context cultures (Classic dimension, by Edward T.Hall) 2. Individualism vs Collectivism (by Harry Triandis)
High context cultures are like Asian societies; they focus on the subtlety of communication. Low context cultures, on the other hand, are like many Western societies, they focus on the message transmitted and the written word.
I consider Singapore to be a balance of both, while leaning slightly more to that of high context. We value nonverbal cues greatly, politeness and “face saving” are the main concerns of many, and most find explicit communication styles as insensitive and crude.
However, I do acknowledge that our society has modernized much over the past few decades. The workplace is one area which places high emphasis on unambiguous verbal communication, while schools are increasingly encouraging students to open up and contribute to discussions forthrightly in class.
As for the individualist and collectivist dimension of culture, Singapore would belong more to the latter. Briefly for the sake of non-COM students, the Individualist has social behavior mainly determined by personal goals, beliefs and attitudes. The Collectivist’s is determined by those of the ingroup rather than of the self. Singapore, is indeed collectivist in nature largely. Even our education system places high importance on values of thrift, duty to parents, sharing, modesty and harmony.
Would you prefer if schools started promoting more on individualism instead though? I see some traces of that now already. For example, in how we enforce meritocracy. And also in abilities of the individual where portfolios are built independently. Can you name some other examples of individualist traits in our fairly collectivist society? (:
Hence, culture is indeed brain-saturating in terms of its aspects and dimensions, is it not?
P.S. By the way, I am going to try out my friend’s Alarm Clock Setting Ritual tomorrow morning just for fun. Perhaps you can try it too! My friend will be so proud
Filed under: Uncategorized | 22 Comments
5th Article: In a group….
Dear readers, since I have been using videos for the past few weeks, let’s do a pictures post today. (: A picture speaks a thousand words, doesn’t it, by the way?
GROUP COMMUNICATION!
All of us belong in at least a group (of people, usually). It could be a company, a non-profit organization, a college, your family, or even your little circle of close friends. Yes, no?
So I wonder, if you have ever ENVIED other groups, or wanted so badly to join a group you QUITTED your own. You could also be a homely person; one who stays comfortably in your present community, getting along with everyone else.
Or…are you forever trying to fit in?
I am not trying to be overbearing here, but apparently, there are stark reasons why people feel the need to belong in groups.
1. It’s “The More the Merrier” Syndrome…Group synergy! (Let’s admit it, an effective group will always be more productive than an effective individual.)
2. For support. (We often need to turn to loved ones around us for help, don’t we?)
(Of course, the above sounds a little extreme; but I hope you know I’m only trying to send across the message that we need loved ones, or least, people, around us for support.)
3. Lastly, to meet one’s interpersonal needs.
BUT, to put it harshly, humans are complicated; joining or staying in is not always easy.
Then…Relationships within groups get strained when needs of the individual and the group clash.
This is because people in a group can be vastly different. You familiar with this? Your friends who are similar to you may have differing values, perspectives , priorities etc.
Credits: A privately-created design from Here.
And when priorities differ, this is where group dialectics get in the way.
Then, there is the PRESSURE to fit in. (Ever been the runner? “Bullied”? Hoping you will somehow be accepted?) Of course, some choose to conform completely, while some maintain legitimacy of personal goals.
Organizations/committees/companies (or your project groups, in our context, for example) need competent members that fulfill appropriate roles.
No offense, I found this ad online:
Which brings us to another problem inhibiting groups of people from functioning properly….Groupthink! What’s this? It’s a state of thinking where people are “deeply involved un a cohesive in-group”, hence causing their “striving for unanimity” to override alternatives in apporach to issues. (Irving Jarvis)
One extreme example is Gangs.
These groups of people rationalize their actions. They think they are right, and that society is wrong.
“…many big gang sets have extensive books, usually handwritten, of rules and regulations and gang history. These rules must be memorized. Often, they set meeting dates, read from their “Book”, and discuss gang business. In a strange sort of way, these meetings resemble civic meetings. It is considered “violation” for not knowing a certain portion when called upon by a gang leader to recite it.” -Adapted from Gangs.
See how strong a belief in a group’s culture can get?
Of course, returning to context, where our groups usually mean companies or organizations, it’s important that we acknowledge this fact: No group is infallible, however the size or strength.
What’s one big problem you can think about a group you’re in? AND WHAT’S ONE THING YOU LOVE ABOUT YOUR GROUP? (:
Filed under: Uncategorized | 8 Comments
It was a dear friend who told me of this movie, asking if I wanted to watch it together. Well, this week in COM 101 Class, we learnt of Interpersonal Relationships i.e. human relationships between (usually, two) people. I learnt to call getting together “relation formations”, breakups “dissolutions”, and the different stages leading to this “dissolution”.
Paper Heart, a semi-documentary by Charlyne Yi who embarks on her quest across America, got me thinking about the very basis of human relationships: Love.
Release date in Singapore: 1st October ]
Why do people get together? Why do people break up? And why do some get married, while some remain single forever? There are no definite answers, but after watching this video, it got me thinking about how DIFFERENT people’s perspectives on relationships can get.
There are different reasons why people fall in love, which kickstarts their “relation formation” process.
Some go for physical appearances. I have heard a fair number of guys say, “My girlfriend MUST look hot.”
(And they may be right, for general perceptions of attractiveness do encourage positive relational formation!)
Some go for smilarities, which can be classified into attitudinal (values, preferences, beliefs), or social (shared social activities) ones. I define it as stability. Charlyne Yi questions the guy at 0:53 min, “If you don’t even know me, how can you like me?” However, there are people who believe in “love at first sight”!
BUT some believe that familarity breeds contempt. We call this complementaries, where we humans tend to like forming relationships with people different from us. How many of you are supporters of the thinking that “opposites attract“?
Or do you go for a romantic partner? Some believe novelty and romance sustain their relationships.
(Part of an advertisment campaign at Unicenter Shopping Mall in Buenos Aires, Argentina for Valentine’s Day. Posted 3 Oct on website: Creative Ads Around the World)
…While some believe in reciprocity in liking, in other words, forming relationships with people who “return” our communication. Their love is hence based on security, and minimising of risks. But have you encountered counterfeit liking? It means receiving mixed signals from someone who probably had ulterior motives. Have you?
This video is so thought-provoking in how the foundation for relation formation is shaky in the first place. I can understand Yi’s sceptism in how Love, for her, does not exist at all. Yet, at least. It set me thinking, about the complexity of this issue. Or how it might be better to think about it simply perhaps.
People are attracted to each other for different reasons; some marry, and some divorce. I really hope you find your own answer, and your own happily ever after. (:
P.S. I hope you will catch the movie like how I will with my friend!
“I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), my constant friend, my faithful partner, and my love from this day forward, in the presence of God, family and friends; to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. To love and to cherish, from this day forward until death do us part.” -Marriage Oath, from Digalist.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 16 Comments
We engage in Non Verbal Communication (NVC) every day. You may not be aware of it, but your very sitting now, hunched or upright, in that chair of yours while reading this article is already a form of body language (whether you are considered communicating is, of course, a totally differently debate in itself).
Does anybody agree fully with me that the NVC is something we place utmost importance on, yet sometimes take granted for too? Today, I am using animated cartoons submitted to AniBoom Contest 2009. Here is one very capitivating example:
“To Flea or Not to Flea”, by Miroslav Mirchev , August 11, 2009
I am very sure you understood it perfectly! Why is it so, when this video is only 5% spoken while being 95% non-verbal? (Moreover conveyed by two non-humans too.)
This cartoon made me realize how universal non-verbal cues can be. If the fleas had relied on the spoken word throughout the whole clip, and spoke in for example, Russian, most of us would not have enjoyed it very much due to the existence of language barriers.
Hence, Mirchev had smartly utilized non-verbal cues we are familiar with in the making of his video. Indeed, communication experts have classified these as universal codes. For example, at 0.47 min, when both fleas trudged with their tongues out in the beginning, you knew they were two starving and dehydrated fleas. Even if you were to MUTE the volume during their short squabble (at 1.50 – 2.08 mins), Blue Flea’s laughter to oneself, Green’s Fleas wide sweeping of arms to indicate the “the whole doggy” is his, followed by clenching of fists, narrowing of eyes, and forward-leaning to each other, you knew a fight was going to ensue. No matter what culture you are from, you would interpret these cues similarly.
However, critics do argue that not all nonverbal cues are universal. I do acknowledge this fact, as different cultures worldwide result in different communication styles. Have you had a bad experience where a friendly gesture failed to convey your intended message because of cultural differences? For example, eye contact is associated with sincerity in some societies, while being regarded as a hostile stance in others. Do share an “interesting” occasion you encountered with everyone to enlighten us all!
Furthermore, one knows how a picture speaks a thousand words. An action, a million? Nonverbals are highly favoured by the media. They are often used in commercials, print-ads, and cartoons because they reach a bigger audience and are usually more interesting than droning spoken messages.
However, one has to note that how interesting your nonverbals can get takes skill too. When communicating, you wish to capture both the voluntary, as well as involuntary attention of your listeners. Here’s one extreme example I found, submitted to AniBoom’s competition too:
“Awesome Summer Vacation”, by CaseyKirkpatrick, September 17, 2009
That kid did catch attention, did he not? But is it the right type?
Nonverbals are nevertheless an important part of communication, but how important it is, as well as how it is interpreted and used, differs for everyone. I hoped you have learnt a fair bit on NVC today. Maybe my article even changed your opinion on nonverbals. (Did it?)
I am sure you have your take on this, and I am very interested to know your personal point of view on the interesting world of nonverbals. Feel free to air your views, however short or violently opposing, on any part of my article. Feel free to comment on the lovely videos too!
Filed under: Uncategorized | 15 Comments
Tags: aniboom, body, cartoon, communication, language, nonverbal, verbal, wecritique
hEAR-Screening for All
Hey readers! As a token of appreciation, here’s a “health screening test” for you guys.
If you are worried from the “2nd Article:Are you a good listener?” for some obvious reasons, perhaps the reason why you aren’t listening well has nothing to do with your “attitude”. Maybe, you aren’t even hearing well in the first place!
So.. Here’s a fascinating site I found. Test out your hearing people!
All in all, thank you for your support, and especially if you are a fan of short animations, do stay tuned for my 3rd Post (comprising of 2 cute videos!) coming up in less than 24hours.
: )
Yours Critically,
Author of WeCritique
Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments
Tags: communication, ear, health, hear, screening, test, wecritique
These advertisements are just getting better.
Here is one specific yet highly representative example: an “Anti-Drink and Drive” advertisement produced by Spinnaker Sounds, a production house which broadcasts advertising and corporate videos, on 25th August 2009:
Spinnaker Sounds has done a terrific job of turning a supposedly-serious issue into a humorous one. Amusing it may be, many would find it a highly rememberable one too.
Many advertisments for such campaigns are starting to veer from the cliche; getting creative but realistic.
Here, let us applaud this advertisement for its pragmatic approach. “Police roadchecks can pop up anywhere.” In this case, even in Rebecca the movie from 1940. (Of course, re-enacted out by artistes of Spinnaker Sounds.) It reminds the public not of fatalities…
(*Photo from : www.car-accidents.com. But chosen media product still remains video above.)
…but of summons and revoking of licences during checks, which are more believable and actually convincing.
According to Transport Accident Commision (TAC), many consider it safe “to drive with low, but illegal, blood alcohol concentrations”.
Indeed, psychologists’ research has shown that most people have a “nothing bad can happen to me” mindset. It is probably this complacency of drivers that has prompted campaigns to start incorporating what communication experts would recognise as logos in their advertisements. In other words, the hope that logical scenarios can drive home the message better.
Also, over the years, many have criticized campaign advertisements as being only one-way communication; that viewers are assumed to be a passive audience. They will be informed, they will see the error of their ways, and they will heed the advice. Critiques label them as being too linearic a model.
But humans are sceptics, and even more so in this generation. Drink-drivers may not agree with even the most logical or persuasive of advertisements.
We are starting to see improvement though.
Now, campaign advertisements are slowly resembling an ”Interactive Model” where feedback from viewers is increasingly possible on file uploading websites, online forums and newspapers. It is the age of the Internet that has made all this possible.
I found this very video from Youtube, a highly popular website allowing people to share videos and also feedback through the Comments feature just below the video for easy access.
In fact, in 2007, a local series of anti-smoking advertisements by the Health Promotion Board had screening time rescheduled after parents protested them as too frightening for their children. A good example of how the public’s reaction to advertisements is now reaching authority and getting official recognition.
A heartening sight it is. We expect to see even better ones soon.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 15 Comments
Search
-
Blogroll
Recent Entries
- 7th Article: Theories of Mass Media, Then and Now
- 6th Article: Culture !
- 5th Article: In a group….
- 4th Article: Of Love and Interpersonal Relationships
- 3rd Article: Communicate Verbally… or Non Verbally too?
- hEAR-Screening for All
- 2nd Article: Are you a Good Listener?
- Anti-Drug Abuse Campaign Advertisements are just getting Better
Categories
- Uncategorized (8)
