Visual Culture and Mass Media

I just finished reading the chapter on The Mass Media and the Public Sphere. I found it very interesting reading - some of which I have lived through and remember vividly. It was amazing to me while reading to think how quickly 'media' has changed in the 50 years since television came into the home.

It was interesting to me to read about how we categorize 'media' in some kind of hierarchy making one more important than the rest - not unlike art and how we value some forms of art higher than others. Newspapers are probably considered by most as the most truthful in reporting the news; but what about magazines? Ones like The National Geographic, MacLeans and Time are just as respected as a truthful source of news. I wonder though how we managed to be so convinced of this fact. Who decided that those forms were more truthful - more respected? Why does television news channels (such as CNN which was used as an example in the chapter) become more respected? How many times have you yourself say you heard it on CNN as if that means it is the truth?

I think that since the revolution of different types of 'media' there have become more public spheres. As it stated in the chapter there are many types of public spheres that overlap each other (theorist Nancy Fraser); she cited spheres such as working-class, religious, feminist, nationalist. Today I think there are other spheres that can be identified such as age and generational. These are I think in part due to the explosion of the use of the internet and other forms of information gathering (electronic multi-media devices such as the iPhone).

In the chapter it gave a couple of examples of how events were reported (Kennedy's assassination, Princess Diana's death) - it is because of media that we see these reports almost in real time as well as the stories being reported over and over throughout the day. A couple of other examples of this is the Oklahoma bombing and the World Trade Centre. Particularly with the World Trade Centre - I heard many people state that they wish they hadn't had to see it so much. It polarized many and had young school children worrying about it happening to them. Sometimes media reporting of these types of events are good and bad at the same time. How many times do we need to re-live these events?

In the textbook chapter it talked about the coverage of Princess Diana's funeral - it became a media event; I am not sure that is a good thing. I wonder which was covered by the media more - Diana and Charles' wedding or Diana's funeral. Should the media be covering a funeral? Does the public have a 'right to know' in this case? What about common decency? How is it we have made some people into public figures? Is it simply by way of the media reporting on their every move? Is this a good thing?

I am looking forward to discussion in our seminar on Monday; and look forward to the lecture as well. Its an interesting topic to me - especially since we are living right in the middle of it.