One thing we discussed in class this week were the myriad instances of movies influencing trends, fashion, and habits of modern culture. This reminded me of a controversial, ongoing debate regarding whether violent movies and the prevalence of violence in the media, video games, etc. has an influence on the actions of youth being exposed to it. I do not have a particularly strong opinion about this, but I do believe that although (violence) has dramatically increased with the technological advancement of weapons, a large part of the increased violence rates can be attributed to social media. Social media as a mass communication outlet is a huge part of our generation, which has both positive and negative outcomes. One of the negative outcomes is the lost self-esteem that comes from constantly comparing to others, which can lead to depression, mental health issues, internal conflict, and therefore violence among youth.
When I read Desiree's blog entry regarding mass communication, I was thoroughly impressed. There was specifically one part that really stood out to me as not only interesting, but very insightful. The third paragraph clearly details a common misunderstanding pertaining to this concept-that the communication type is classified by how many people access, decode, and internalize the message. The truth is, the number of viewers is completely irrelevant when distinguishing a message as mass or group communication. "... it's not uncommon for an individual to misinterpret the message as mass communication equaling more viewers and group communication being equated to less viewers," she wrote. She is completely correct. Simplifying it, mass communication is partly defined by the amount of people it has to potential to reach; not the amount of people it actually reaches. This then got me thinking about potential, and what a powerful concept it really is. Potential is such a ...
Comments
Post a Comment