Carter

Carter

What I find most interesting is "why (the author) teach about the media?". His love-hate relationship with the media as describe just hit me.

True, in the era with advanced technologies, we seems like soaking in the sea of information. We grow up watching television and films, reading comics and magazines, and getting loads of information from the media. Meanwhile, we contribute to the media by writing blogs, discussing on forum, and sharing linking. Just a few to name. Media simply permeate into every facet of our lives. Yet, without any exaggeration, this context does make us to be NUMB so easy, especially towards the operation of the "media mechanism" or the way how media convey messages.

Here's one personal experience: When I was small, I seldom saw breath-taking catastrophic scenes on TV. As I remember, the first time did shake me was when the South-Asia Tsunami stroke the coasts. That stirred up my deepest sympathy and my mother burst into tears when she saw the scene. However, in recent years, as the market is in dire thirst of scientific films having something like 2012 as their main themes, producers are enthusiastic to launch those movies with excellent special effects and stunts, aiming to depict the most genuine catastrophic scenes. With Youtube and other video-sharing web's acceleration, those scenes hence flood the internet. Whenever we come across those scenes, we don't feel shocked anymore. Like several months ago, when I came across the live news reporting the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, my first immediate thought was - How normal it is! The thought is cruel and inhumane, without single pinch of sympathy. And for some seconds, I then went to doubt whether the news is true or not - the scenes are exactly the same to those in cinema! I did take some time to re-adjust my attitudes towards the tragedy. To be sympathetic and considerate, at least.

In this case, I am not saying the media have been doing something extremely unethical or accusing them of offense like brain-washing the public with twisted values. Yet the ease that the media could get us numb does deserves concerns. Our initiatives in distinguishing rights and wrong, attitudes, habits, etc may be changed sub-consciously. This situation is extremely dangerous to the stability as well as the sustainable development of the society. That's why we have to study media and the author have to teach media - We love them as we can't live without them. We hate them as they can kill us silently. Hence, we had better study it and master it.

The author's love-hate theory simply does hit me.

Alan: Carter, it is interesting to read about the author's motivation to study media so passionately. It is difficult to say if our world would be "better" without media. Although, I might say that if it happened, it was because humans wanted it. It is like a very powerful weapon, which can be used for the good or the bad. I think that your case of not being impacted by the news anymore is an example of the advantages of the media: it helps us understand violence and other things that we might not be exposed in everyday life better. I think now you are just more familiar with the idea of natural disasters; you might have also thought it can sometimes happen to you. I would say, thought, that the way the media presents this disasters is very much exaggerated than it actually feels like; but it still gives you a better understanding than if you had not watched it at all.

Yes carter! while reading the booklet, love-hate theory grabbed my attention as well. I found it really important for any one who learns media studies because we have to see how we can relate to the importance of media studies in many ways. Sometimes media can show itself as an advantageous source of awareness, sometimes as a source of unnecessary information. Therefore, the importance of media studies intensifies.I would also like to support alan's comments. Nabeeh

Tinny: I do agree that the study of media is necessary because it has silently shaped our society and lives so greatly, and it is therefore essential to be able to see through the media's influence before we turn "numb". Media broadens our horizons in many ways but the constant flood of information also does in certain ways reduce our sympathy or concerns - it is sad to see how we actually lose awareness due to the abundance of information. Moreover who can live without media nowadays? TV? Music? Advertisements? It's 21st century, and communication is vital, where media is the platform.

Carter, I like how you analyzed the pros and cons of media and then considering them as the reason for us to study it. Indeed, we have to learn more about something before we can improve it. Just like you, the author's love-hate theory got me into deep thinking. It seems like a very simple and easy-to-understand theory, but when you think more, it is actually more complicated and there is a lot to be discussed. However, I have a different reaction from you when it comes to seeing news of natural disasters. Though I've watched a lot of movies that use such natural disasters as their themes, I still feel really sad when I read such news. I rarely doubt the truthfulness of the photos, etc. I think if the media make use of such tragedies to boost their sales, it would be an extremely shameful behaviour. -Michelle

Favorite advertisement

I firstly came across this advert some months ago. At the very first glance, I found it strikingly fresh. To be honest, I have never associated that it is an advert discouraging smoking. I thought it was an ordinary advert about health, life style or even grave-selling. True though, these elements are involved. But the real message of the advert is far more profound than just selling graves or promoting "green life is good". It subtly implies how lethal smoking could be by filling the smoking area with graves while the non-smoking area is free of graves. The facts about smoking is clearly revealed and it does hit the readers' mind. As readers have to think first, they simply get their brains "bling" when they get the message and surprise, " oh, wow, here comes the message!". That second of "bling" entertainment just intrigue me.


 * Responding to the Class discussion on 14 October 2011**

To me, the class on 14 October 2011 is a very enlightening one. Honestly, I did not contribute much in the discussion. But then I was hesitating and thinking of one radical question. I was doubting the reliability of the media that we were referring to. In particular, we are discussing religious issues which are always one of the most personal, sensitive and conflict-making topic on earth.

I have to admit that the reason why I have such doubt somehow correlates to my cultural background - the Chinese Culture. Falun Gong is a spiritual discipline first introduced in China in 1992. It combines the practice of meditation and slow-moving qigong exercises with the moral philosophy articulated by its founder. Falun Gong places a heavy emphasis on morality and the cultivation of virtue in its central tenets of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance, and identifies as a qigong practice of the Buddhist school, though its teachings also incorporate elements drawn from Taoist traditions. Through moral rectitude and the practice of meditation, practitioners of Falun Gong aspire to better health and, ultimately, spiritual enlightenment. As it is a spiritual discipline, involving meditation and collection of cultures and moral values, it is generally regarded as a religion by scholars in the world. ( We have to accept that there are so many definitions for religion in the world.) Given China has been ruling by the communist party under one party rule and the ideas suggested by the Falun Gong somehow threaten the rule of the communist party, Falun Gong was regarded a illegal religious organization in China since its establishment. So to fight for their own freedom of religion and fair treatment, the believers of the Falun Gong has been protesting around China. And in Hong Kong, which is a relatively free and open special region of China, it is so easy to find the footprints of the Falun Gong. You can always see them protesting in the busiest districts like Causeway Bay and Mongkok in Hong Kong. For years, the Falun Gong has been accusing the Chinese government by torturing their believers. They claimed that their believers were burnt, executed with numerous shoots which is far from reasonable, having internal organs torn out and many other brutal means which are difficult to imagine. They have photos, videos and witnesses as evidence. And in return, as expected, the Chinese government denied and accused the Falun Gong is lying the public with falsified evidence. Of course, they provide evidence. Also, as anticipated, the Falun Gong accused the Chinese government is making up evidence as well. And if we view each piece of evidence or claim by the both sides, both seems so logical and reasonable. So who can tell whose evidence is true or falsified? And who is right and who is wrong? Especially what our judgement based on is so unreliable.

Hence, I apply this set of doubts again to the international religious issues. Given religious issues is so personal, sensitive and bias-involving, who can ensure that the reporters or the news-makers is not making biased reports leaning to one religion as one believe in that religion? It is so easy to make things look reliable and reasonable. The possibility does exist. So how can we judge?

I understand there will never be a definite answer responding to the above doubts. We cannot solve it or get it totally settled. Still, I fond it worthwhile to be raised out.


 * Comment on Frontline**

After browsing through the website, I do understand why FRONTLINE has been the "last best hope for broadcast documentaries". As I can see, FRONTLINE is so good at producing powerful reports tackling controversial, tough and sophisticated stories that shape our times. Particularly, Frontline is always audacious to reveal the secret America. In my view, it is doing a quite good job as a watchdog of the society.

Although some put pressure on Frontline of becoming profitable, I do reckon that it's fine for Frontline to take such action. One reason lies on the economic consideration. Like what Milton Friedman suggested, privatization always enables more efficient allocation of resources, hence we can strive for works with better quality. Secondly, if Frontline doesn't go profitable, it can only rely on the donation or investment by other organizations. And this implies that, Frontline may receive pressure from its "big-boss" and make unjust reports or avoid some of the sensitive topics. Its reputation as a reliable media will then be broken. Hence, we can see that going profitable is a quite good idea already, especially under the given constraints which Frontlone has to face.