Cultivation theory is simply the idea that what we watch on television directly affects the way we relate to the culture around us. It focuses on the younger generation mostly because of the way are easily effected by what is on television. The two links below explore the origins of the theory and pose the question, "does television shape our culture, or does our culture shape television?"
This article is helpful in understanding some of the studies that have been done across the globe. It is interesting to see how controversial this subject can be. It is interesting to think of how our beliefs and lives can be shaped by a machine in each of our houses.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/audienceresec/audienceresec.htm
This article explores the idea of how crime is presented through television. It use cultivation theory to express a link between the increase of crime and the increase of crime that was beginning displayed on the news. The article also explores the coming about of violence in films. Expressing the idea that the rise in violence on film are in some way connected to the rise in violence in real life.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_200010/ai_n8916365
No one wants to believe that what we watch can have any effect on how we are as people. But, the truth is what we put in is at some point going to come out. Television has always been a form of entertainment and should be viewed as such. I hope that we do not let it shape who we are and it is up to us as the viewers to help regulate was becomes popular on television.
8 comments:
I want to agree with Michael Richardson's post that "...it is up to us as the viewers to help regulate what becomes popular on television." This should be applied to both Gerbner's classified "heavy viewer" and "light viewer" groups; just as all people should, without importance of contact level, equally participate positively in taking care of our natural environment.
I draw this metaphor from Rapoport's description of man's 'ocean of words' which to me is a good way of understanding the concept of the cultivation theory: "As our semantic environment incorporates the verbal outputs secreted into it, it becomes both enriched and polluted, and these changes are in large measure responsible for the course of human history."
We can relate through this idea that one main verbal output to our 'semantic environment' is the television. News outlets as well as entertainment programming both enrich and pollute our environment, our society.
One big example of the TV's pollution is the reporting and showing of violence. As the Reber and Chang article (above) show, violent content -in both reporting and entertainment- has increased. In McQuail's Reader in MassComm Theory, he lists, among other stats that: 'Every five minutes a child is arrested in America for committing a violent crime and gun-related violence takes the life of an American child every three hours.'
True that we should understand this problem as complex and multivariable but as McQuail asserts, we should not ignore TV violence.
Therefore, if we examine TV as a main outlet of cultivation, we can better appreciate the effect of TV and examine ways of filtering its negative effects, its pollution.
The 'MediaWise' article touches on this and relates the TV to a person, a babysitter. I think the best piece of advice from the article is to use the TV sparingly since no one can completely control the content. This article, without obtrusively stating it, applies exactly to the Gerbner's cultivation theory.
I have researched a good deal on cultivation theory because it is the theory I am presenting in the discussion assignment. Due to this, I have read a lot about the current research studies being done. I have also looked at many articles that concern the media & the effect it may have on children.
The idea that television can alter a person's reality and allow them to have a skewed perception of life isn't a far fetched idea. As the article stated, "violent content is not limited to entertainment programming." It can be available to view through the actual news. As the article states, "crime is a dominant topic of local news broadcasts." Due to the overwhelming amount of programs that contain violence, it seems inevitable that children will learn from these programs-- programs showing unhealthy and sometimes unrealistic matters. This proves true especially because the media-- mainly television, seems to be the babysitter for parents. Is it okay for parents to use on television as their babysitter?
On a different note, I tend to think other problems may occur from too much television use, etc. There was a show called The Swan. For those of you who aren't familiar, it was a show about taking a unhappy person who thought was ugly and making them more attractive by undergoing massive plastic surgery. Isn't this sending a negative message? If you feel ugly, surgery can fix you to make you attractive. WELL, who is to judge what is attractive and what isn't. Perhaps women, who don’t like their appearance, think beauty lies on the outside only. The media portrays what they feel the stereotypical "beautiful person" should look like and due to this many people feel unsatisfied with themselves. This is where I believe the theory comes into play again-- media can affect a person's outlook on life…
Perhaps the media(the industry) should stop and take a look at the effects it's having on their viewers. It's not just harmless doings anymore.
Just a thought...
I always took for granted that television is sort of our lens through which to view the outside world. Like someone else said, television can be both enriching and polluting. We recognize the obvious pollutions- overtly violent, sexual and negative images. However, through television, I also know a lot more about my government (watching CNN, C-Span etc.), I can learn about places I've never been to and events in history I've never witnessed. These "positive" messages help me to cultivate my social reality as well.
The passage that stuck out most to me, in the article by Michael Morgan, was that humans depend on story telling to preserve and pass on our cultural identity, but that TV is now the primary source for story telling. I say, only if we let it be.
Morgan does go on to admit that other factors such as peer socialization, family and personal experiences also cultivate our perceptions. This is especially relevant to children, as is discussed at length in this week's other blog. Children should be interacting with their families, friends and teachers and using their imaginations (playing) to learn about the world around them...not interpreting it from a televison show. And honestly, it isn't that hard to control childrens' TV intake. I was a nanny for a family who beleived in limited and supervised internet/TV access and it worked, not perfectly, but enough. The girls were happy to take up other (more constructive)activities. I understand it may be more difficult for families who can't afford childcare, but then the problem is deeper than television content- it's that families can't make enough money to provide adequate care for their children. I agree that television has an effect on us. My most simple example is that after I turned off 24 last night, I felt a little uneasy. I know it's totally fake, but after taking in the violent and edgy messages in the show, I needed some mental releif. I turned on the Westminster dog show, (albeit accidentally), but problem solved.
My point is, TV can effect us. But no one is putting guns to our head telling us what to watch. We do have some control over the messages/content we (and our children)take in.
(The)Jared Zeidman writes:
Not to say that I'm a non believer, but my issue is that the cultivation theory controls far more than poularity in regards to television. While one of the world's most poular sayings is "art reflects life," the wild fictional directions that television has moved to has created a terrible influence especially on the younger demographic. As an adult, if you blame your actions on a tv show, you are just a mook. But as a kid, many times that part of your brain that says "stop being a mook," hasn't been developed yet. I would want to examine a possible evolution of the cultivation theory. Instead of just normal back and forth interaction, it is more like a game of poker. The house will always try to up the ante and see if the person will budge. That is why MTV can get away with shows like "My Super Sweet 16." or "Laguna Beach" or "That show where my boyfriend cheats on me with 8 other girls and I watch it on camera." no audience's budged. The elaborate and genuinely absurd birthday celebrations became a teenage fantasy, and a bunch of ficticious mooks from california have become teenage role models.
The Cultivation theory presents a problem where the mass media influences the perceptions and values that people have. We are so enveloped by the programming on tv stations and what the news has to say that we at the moment we are watching it almost become "one w/the show". There has been an ongoing theme where media has been blamed for the violence acts that children across the country have been committing. As an example of this, people blaming Grand Theft Auto for sniper acts, killing officers etc. It is like these people create pseudo-reality that they live in being influenced by this media and their perceptions and knowledge of reality!
As stated in one of the articles, "Gerbner and his colleagues claimed that heavy exposure to television was associated with exaggerated beliefs about the amount of violence in society," I have to agree with this in that if a person is only viewing violence on television and not interacting with the world they are left to believe the world is this way. I agree with hbuechel that the media is too often being blamed for violent acts committed. People need to take responsibility for what they are doing.
Gerbner believes that "heavy" viewing of violence on television consists of 4-5 hours a day. How can we measure the amount of violence each person is consuming when there are so many other factors to consider? Is the person interacting with the outside world? Or are they using the media as their only guide in life?
Media does and does not have an effect of the way people should act. Television shows, news, and other types of meida should help you learn as an individual, but it gets to be too much. The way people react and believe they are one with a show can be a little bit beyond what these shows should be getting at. People paln there weeks around television shows and are disappointed when it is a bad episode where something doesnt go the way they want. That should not be the case. People should learn from television but that is taking it to a whole new level. Just like with video games. People blame video games for some childrens actions. If the parents are letting their child play the games then they should be held accountable also. The children should know right from wrong and not try and imitate the game which they are playing.
Post a Comment