Theory 4: Agenda-Setting and Framing Theory (Week 6)

Heading – “Country X confronts a dilemma of urinating and spitting in public”

The Minister of Health of country “X” is very concerned that the older citizens are spitting and urinating in public places and the younger generation believes that to be a cultural norm. This will adversely affect the image and economy of the country as foreign companies will be less willing to invest in a country that cannot manage public deviance that fosters an unhealthy environment. The government believes that public education must start immediately.

At the same time, a public survey was recently conducted by an independent body and the predominant public concern is the lack of primary schools for younger children who are working and running amok in the streets, which is causing a rise in criminal activities. The public believes that public education must begin with the development of schools so that a higher educated population will curb the acts of social deviance. In the long run these changes will attract investors and help the economy.

PRIORITY: POLICY/GOVERNMENT AGENDA

Agenda – Image and economy of the country depends on the standard of living of the people and its environment.

Framing Amplification : Firstly, the journalist could point out the main issue which concerned the government. In this case, a problem of urinating and spitting in public is seen as a drawback to the government where an unhealthy environment could affect the economy of the country as the foreign investor might withdraw themselves to invest from country X.

Framing Extension : Next, the journalist also might need to convince the public that their act of deviance would affect their future well-being as it is affected by the image and economy of the country. Thus, through this explanation, the reader/public is alert that how their inappropriate action could contribute to an adverse effect to their country and this attempt is to ensure that they listen to the government.

Framing Bridging : Lastly, after persuading the reader to listen to the government, the journalist could suggest that the government are trying to solve the problem where they need the support of the public. Also, the journalist could say that with the cooperation of the public and government, government X would be able to maintain and improve the economy as well as the image of the country.

Solutions:

The government needs to provide free public education for every citizen. In this case, the government must successfully convince the public by explaining and emphasizing on how the act of urinating and spitting in public could affect their well-being. By educating the public, it is also hoped that it can change the younger generation’s way of thinking in which the act of deviance is not seen as social norm. Thus, this will indirectly. Although the government might need to spend more to educate the public as it involve high cost, they might see it as future investment where through this public education, it will indirectly improve the image of country X as well as boost the economy of the country – through foreign investment. However, government X might also face some difficulties to handle the citizen where they need gather all the citizens and approach them to attend for public education. Thus, again, the government might need to offer them something so that they listen to the government. Alternatively, instead of offering something to the public for them to listen to the government, the government might need to use sanction approach where the government made a compulsory public education to everyone or they need to impose fines or taxes for those who did not attend the public education and those who urinate and spit in public.

ANALYSIS:

Media effects could influence the audience depending on the effectiveness of the content of the message being presented and delivered. Scheufele D. A. and Tewksbury D. (2007) once quotes Frank Luntz (1997), “It is not what you say; it is how you say it”. Journalists struggle on how to attract the attention of the audience where the audience no longer perceived certain issue as urgent or they might see other issues as more urgent. [McLeod, B. & Byrnes (1974/1991)]. Thus, it is important for a journalist to influence the society to prioritize that particular issue in which it must be handled immediately which refer to agenda and the journalist must reduce the complexity of the issue in order for the audience to understand the issue called framing.

In order to attract the audiences’ attention, according to Entman (1993), the journalists need to select certain aspect which could be perceived in real life and make them more salient when using communicating text, where the journalists could explain the definition of the problems, recognize the causes, moral evaluation and also recommendation for that particular issue. He further explained on how the media provide the audiences with plan for interpreting events.

 In the case of country X, as a journalist where he prioritize a national agenda, he should points out the issue of urinating and spitting in public and explain the major effects of such action. Since it is related to the people of country X, thus there is a possibility the audience is aware that the article might refer to them. Once the audience is alert, the journalist should take this opportunity to convince the audience that they should listen to the government as they are responsible with their action.

Apart from that, Kahneman (1979) and Tversky (1984) examined how the differences in presentations of essentially identical decision-making scenarios are able to influence people’s preferences as well as their evaluation on various option presented to them. Meanwhile, Goffman (1974) assumed that individuals cannot understand the world as a whole and they continuously struggle to express their life experiences and how to make sense the world around them.

On the other hand, agenda setting does not always work. Em Griifin (2011) use the idea of Gerald Kosicki (1993), in which he stated that agenda only engage in active construction of messages but they do not merely keep watch over information. Kosicki (1993) also raised a question whether framing could be considered as a valid topic to study under an agenda- setting. He sees nothing in McCombs and Shaw’s original model which anticipate the importance of interpretive frames.

In conclusion, media will only give long term effects to audience if the message is presented effectively. According to Entman (1993), to frame is to define the problem, recognize the causes and give solution to the problems. However, Kosicki (1993) questioned whether framing could be considered as valid in the study of agenda-setting theory.

REFERENCES:

Griffin, E., (2011) A First Look At Communication Theory, 8^th Edition. Pp.388-389. New York: McGraw Hill.


Kalvas, F., Vane, J., Stipkova, M., Kreidl, M. (n.d). Framing and Agenda – Setting: Two Parallel Processes in Interaction. Pp. 3-4

Scheufele, D. A., (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Pp. 107.

Scheufele, D. A., Tewksbury D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Pp. 9-12.

Theory 3: Media Ecology (Week 5)

Analytical text - “Medium is the message”

                                                                                           

In the first place, media ecology focused on how media of communication could influence human’s perception and understanding. Specifically, it examines on how media changes the society and practically dominate over the walks of life without people actually noticed. Through a medium, communication takes place where the content of the message is successfully being delivered. In this case, Marshall McLuhan (1964) prioritise medium over the content. McLuhan did not see medium as a channel to express content but instead as a message. This is because he believes that medium has the ability to change the meaning and message of that particular content. In other words, different medium deliver messages differently depending on the character of the medium itself.

People often mistook the content as they thought that it would give out valuable information when actually the way the content is delivered is rather important. This is because when the medium changes, the communication environment would also change. Thus, medium also has strong influence to change the society as a whole. Paul Levinson (2000) once said that “whether one writes with a squiggle (i.e., the alphabet) or a picture (i.e., hieroglyphics) can and indeed did change the course of civilization”.

For example, in the old days, people tend to meet with their friends just to have a conversation – refer as oral medium. But today, telephone makes it easier to communicate without even seeing each other even if our friends are abroad. Sometimes people take for granted where they can get in touch easily compared to before. This shows that the medium could shape the society from seeing each other to just talk through phone calls and people thought that it is better to communicate with those who are far than those who are near. Hence, McLuhan comes up with an idea called “global village” where he sees that one day media could make the world become smaller.

Apart from that, McLuhan’s classification of media might prove that media could change the human communication and their culture. The classification is referred to the degree of participation of the audience. It can be either hot or cold. A media is cold when there is low information load however there is high participation such as television. This is because McLuhan claimed that it requires more effort on the part of viewer to determine meaning. Meanwhile, radio can be considered as hot media because listening did not require a lot of participation from the listener but there is high information load.

However, according to Neil Postman (2002), who once supported the McLuhan’s idea on analysis of the content, but he rather looks at the humanistic point of view about media. He wanted to make people aware that human being live in two different environments in which one of them is media environment consisting of technology and machines. It is all about understanding how and whether media ecology does make human being worst or better. Postman also claimed that one should take into account the clear facts that each individual would have different views on what is good and bad for them.

Herbert Blummer (1969) sees society as the product of the everyday interactions of individuals. In other words, it is individual’s behavior that shaped the society because meaning is attached in human’s action. Once the society is developed, the behavior is then organized. The society determines what kind of behavior is appropriate and acceptable and how the individual should behave. Thus, Blummer said that it was actually the expression of the self upon the world.

In conclusion, media has the ability to influence the society subtly. McLuhan also believes that medium is the message, instead of the content because the medium is able to change the meaning of the message. On the other hand, according to Postman, media ecology should also examine whether media system and environment would actually make people better or worst. Blummer argued that society is continuously created through the interaction of the individuals.

REFERENCES:

Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory. 8th Edition. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Levinson, P., (2000). McLuhan and Media Ecology. Retreived from 02/03/2012 from http://www.media-ecology.org/publications/MEA_proceedings/v1/McLuhan_and_media_ecology.html

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. (Pp.23-25 & 63-67). New York: Signet.

Postman, N., (2000). The Humanism of Media Ecology, Proceedings of the Media Ecology Association, 1, 10-12, New York.

Theory 2: Semiotics (Week 4)

Analytical Text – A logo of “Green Tomorrow”

To begin with, sign generally implies something that intended to have a meaning. In other words, there is a relationship between that something for example an object itself and its meaning. An object could not be considered as a sign if it does not entail a meaning. The question is where does sign comes from? Obviously, sign is one of the creations of human being. It is human who provide meaning to that particular object. However, a sign can only be created if it is culturally acceptable because that particular sign need to be understood by people – which is refer as a code.  

For example, a recent and well-known issue of global warming has raised the concern of people throughout the world and thus many organisations attempt to conduct campaigns to save the earth from pollution. In this case, the above logo of “green tomorrow” can be used to analyse how far it can be understood and considered as a sign.

Firstly, signifier and signified need to be identified to form a sign in the logo. The signifier is everything that can be seen in the logo. Then, a mental concept is created through the signifier called a signified. The signified in this context could be save the plants, protect the earth from harms or prevent global warming. Thus, the above logo is also seen as a sign because it symbolise a step to prevent from global warming. The whole logo represents “Support and Protect, Bio-degrade and Recycle, Green”.

 Apart from that, denotation could also form along with the sign or signifier – the factual description of the object. Instead of just saying a logo, there is green round shape, 2 hands holding a plant as well as a wording of “Green Tomorrow”. Once the logo has been denoted, it can then be conceptualised depending on how individual sees it – called connotation.

According to Marcel Danesi (2004), a sign can be referred as referent. There are 2 types of referent which are concrete referent and abstract referent.  A concrete referent is something that can be shown in real world but on the other hand abstract referent is only the imaginary thing usually refers to ideas which can be easily perceived. Simply saying, some logo can interpret the meaning of the sign in the picture directly but some others have the ability to influence people to anchor the meaning of the signs. In this context, it is believed that everyone can connote the sign directly such as from the wording “Green tomorrow”.

However, as stated by Daniel Chandler (2002). Saussure argued that signs refer to purely structural and relational rather than referential. Saussure said that no signs can make sense on its own but it has a systematic relation to each other. Instead of just analysing the whole picture in the logo as a sign, the symbols in the logo can also be analysed into details. In other words, the whole logo and the symbols are related. For instance, the two hands holding a plant (signifier) represents that it is the responsibility of the society to protect the ecosystems from further damage while the green round shape indicates that save the earth and the ecosystem. The whole logo implies the cooperation is needed to save the earth entirely and stop destroying the ecosystem.

Finally, sign can only be interpreted if it has object and meanings as well as widely accepted by the society. Danesi concluded that sign is based on referential where sign can be seen directly or through imagination. Nevertheless, Saussure stated that signs should be based on structural and relational where signs must have relation with each other and it cannot make sense of its own.