tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4280685660918852895.post7919789564765797033..comments2023-10-05T06:13:48.018-07:00Comments on Media Studies 102: Effects of Mass Media: Criticism of "Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination"Alenda Changhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12808749949370769131noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4280685660918852895.post-3671576156169999562012-08-29T21:56:09.917-07:002012-08-29T21:56:09.917-07:00Just my thoughts on the Radio/Television debate on...Just my thoughts on the Radio/Television debate on which is best or most honest.<br /><br />I have to agree that audio media definitely leaves more room for the imagination than visual media does. Audio media draws similarities to text based media (Books/Novels etc...) in that the audience is left to their own devices to imagine the sights, sounds, and smells of a particular location or situation that visual media just plainly shows. This is definitely debatable, but one could look at visual media as more of an escape from reality to a fantasy world created for us, while audio media we create that fantasy. While some might argue one is "better" than the other, "better" will always be subjective and as such instead of looking at what is "better", one could look at both forms of media and appreciate them for what/why/how they are used (which has changed over time).<br /><br />In one of Thursday's reading (Television begins - William Boddy?) a point is raised that while the introduction of television and its explosive growth has greatly reduced the average number of hours an individual listens to the radio, it has not completely disappeared and at certain hours of the day remains the same or has grown over time. This is simply explained by the fact that radio/ audio media can be used while doing the chores/driving (essentially being mobile), television/ Visual media cannot ( well not yet anyway.....). This then goes back to point that certainly both forms of media are unequal in what they can inspire or produce in us and likewise both are equally dishonest (Rush Limbaugh.....Fox News....), but both are for most part used in/for different circumstances which change over time. <br />Ryan Teehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821704667390761584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4280685660918852895.post-60377520152697063892012-08-28T23:00:05.048-07:002012-08-28T23:00:05.048-07:00Josh, thanks for getting us started this week. I t...Josh, thanks for getting us started this week. I think you make two valid objections to Douglas's argument, though I think we could also question whether or not what we see on television (or any other screen, for that matter) necessarily represents "truth" or "reality." As you point out, the televisual image, in addition to sound, seems to contain more information on which to base evaluations and the like. But I'm a little wary here, primarily because of the danger of misjudging someone or something based on appearances (from the adorable otter that attacks a tourist to outwardly upstanding politicians with dark secrets!).<br /><br />Underlying the Douglas is really a very old debate about the level of involvement required by various media: Roland Barthes's "readerly" vs. "writerly" texts (<a href="http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0250.html" rel="nofollow">see The Electronic Labyrinth</a>), the famous media theorist Marshall McLuhan's "hot" vs. "cold" media (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#.22Hot.22_and_.22cool.22_media" rel="nofollow">see Wikipedia</a>), etc. Note that McLuhan actually would have agreed with you!Alenda Changhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808749949370769131noreply@blogger.com