We live our lives immersed in a world of media; 'media' being the instrument/vector by which we transfer ideas of communication. Traditionally the two major mediums were speech and alphabet; only recently has the term come to mean the electronic medium through which we communicate.However, we are now so immersed in this media-centred world that we rarely question our role or influence in its continuation and development. Do we hold an influence over the media (as a unified institution, in this case), or does it hold an influence over us? Indeed, the question could be asked: does the media act as a metaphorical mirror (reflecting values), or a metaphorical syringe (injecting them)?
This is clearly a tricky question. Most media outlets claim that they are simply 'holding up the mirror to society' - that they report on, create movies about - such things that we are already interested in and are doing anyway.
Take the 21st Century interest in celebrities, for example. The print media is unlikely to report on something that doesn't sell papers; that in turn will make them unpopular and therefore monetarily weaker. As such, it will only publish articles on matters which it knows we are likely to be interested in (and which we will therefore buy, making them monetarily stronger). Equally, films - or any other type of institutional media - are highly unlikely to create and develop something that is going to be unpopular, because by virtue that will make them a loss, or a minimum return at the very least. Therefore - by definition - the media cannot be the cause of the interest per se, but simply the medium by which the interest can be further channelled. Here it acts as the mirror, reflecting the interests and values that are already there in the first place.
On the other side of the coin lurks the rather more sinister 'hypodermic syringe' model, which sees the media as the aggressor, injecting its values and ideals into our rather hungry veins. This is less appealing, as it suggests we are all passive media-junkies, almost unconsciously begging for the next fix.
In this model, the culture of the celebrity can be seen to operate like this: the media need to find the latest 'fix'; something that will pacify the masses for a while longer and keep them coming back for more. Celebrities clearly have a long shelf-life and are in many way grandiose versions of ourselves: more power, more money, and more sex; therefore, the media can logically suppose that we will be interested in this. It can then test this theory by slowly drip-feeding celebrity news down its syringe, gradually upping the dosage until we are whole-heartedly hooked on the stuff (ring any bells?) By this definition, it is the media who create the specific interest (i.e. celebrities), spotting a generic interest (money, power, sex, love), and giving it a modern twist or counterpart.
Of course, life is generally not that simple. The truth more often than not lies in the middle-ground; the 'grey area' that is naturally harder to define. Both of these models, for example, are built on the idea of the media being a one-way process: they propose that media and audience are two separate identities.
This is clearly untrue; YouTube, Blogging, Fan Forums, etc., all demonstrate a growing interdependence between media and audience. Indeed, newspapers and broadcasters now recognise the influence and importance of so-called 'citizen journalism', whereby news stories can often be picked up by a member of the public (the supposed audience) even before the journalist himself. The use of camera-phone footage before 'real' (i.e. institutional) footage can be given being an obvious example here.
The fact of the matter is that we are much more conscious and savvy to the media than we used to be. We might well have depended on it when it first arose: only those with knowledge and power had the control then (think of the BBC when it first emerged; would Points of View been on its TV listings back then?), but we are now much more active users of the media. They need us, as much as we need them. The 'audience' has grown-up: we are no longer the child blindly obeying its parent; indeed, some of us are becoming parents ourselves.
In many ways, this has a lot to do with how immersed we and the media have become. Media is now wholeheartedly integrated into our everyday lives; the internet has done much to accelerate this. Perhaps we are fast coming to the point where the terms 'media' and 'audience' are nonsensical comparisons: media is the audience and audience the media. We are transcending interdependence, and entering some kind of synthesis between the two. Indeed, Marshall McLuhan may well have been frighteningly accurate when he said that 'the medium is the message'.
Long live the message.
Of course, life is generally not that simple. The truth more often than not lies in the middle-ground; the 'grey area' that is naturally harder to define. Both of these models, for example, are built on the idea of the media being a one-way process: they propose that media and audience are two separate identities.
This is clearly untrue; YouTube, Blogging, Fan Forums, etc., all demonstrate a growing interdependence between media and audience. Indeed, newspapers and broadcasters now recognise the influence and importance of so-called 'citizen journalism', whereby news stories can often be picked up by a member of the public (the supposed audience) even before the journalist himself. The use of camera-phone footage before 'real' (i.e. institutional) footage can be given being an obvious example here.
The fact of the matter is that we are much more conscious and savvy to the media than we used to be. We might well have depended on it when it first arose: only those with knowledge and power had the control then (think of the BBC when it first emerged; would Points of View been on its TV listings back then?), but we are now much more active users of the media. They need us, as much as we need them. The 'audience' has grown-up: we are no longer the child blindly obeying its parent; indeed, some of us are becoming parents ourselves.
In many ways, this has a lot to do with how immersed we and the media have become. Media is now wholeheartedly integrated into our everyday lives; the internet has done much to accelerate this. Perhaps we are fast coming to the point where the terms 'media' and 'audience' are nonsensical comparisons: media is the audience and audience the media. We are transcending interdependence, and entering some kind of synthesis between the two. Indeed, Marshall McLuhan may well have been frighteningly accurate when he said that 'the medium is the message'.
Long live the message.
