This weeks blog focus on a theory of media awareness called "cultivation theory." This is a very interesting and though provoking theory which basically poses the question; Is television responsible for shaping the way in which its viewers see their outside world?
The following article does a nice job breaking down the theory for a better understanding of its concepts. It also categorizes two types of viewers; "The heavy viewers and the light viewers. The focus is on ‘heavy viewers’. People who watch a lot of television are likely to be more influenced by the ways in which the world is framed by television programs than are individuals who watch less, especially regarding topics of which the viewer has little first-hand experience. Light viewers may have more sources of information than heavy viewers" ( http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/Cultivation_Theory.doc/)
I feel that the younger generations are being exposed to more and more television. And these are the people who are and are going to be the victims of having their view of their world cultivated by television.
Parents have even been known to use T.V. to babysit their children. If the belief that everything starts with your parents is indeed true and parents are now passing that job onto the television set than almost if not all their children's views of the world, what the believe to be real will come from T.V. especially if their are programs called "reality" T.V.
Why should these "heavy viewers" even think for a moment that what they are watching is not real. See more on this in the following article http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawisecolumns/electronic_mw.shtml.
Just thinking back now, if I had not gone to college I would know a fraction of the information I know now about television, how it is made, who is involved in controlling what is and what is not aired and so on. With this new information I am able to put my cultivation guard up and not let what I am viewing effect the way I shape reality. However, I can not seem to escape its power to create ideas.
I am scared for those who do not know that they are being effected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I think it all goes back to a child's sponge like features. Think about it...children learn more before the age of 5 than most people do in their entire lives. By 5 years old, a child can speak an entire language, (it took 8 years of Spanish classes for me and I still can't speak fluently)they learn how to nourish themselves and most of all they learn how to manipulate (small joke) But today, must of the learning process is influenced by television, turning children into what the article perceives as "heavy viewers."
Today cable services promote their "parental controls" but there is so much a 4 digit code can keep a child from watching. Especially when it comes to advertisements. I can't tell you how many provocative ads I've seen even on the Disney Channel and ABC Family.
The thing is, as the lead blogger points out, children are being more and more cultivated by television, because parents use it as the ultimate babysitter. When I was a child, I went outside to play. Either that or I sat in the basement and played dress-up or barbie dolls. The thing is my TV time was limited. Whereas today, children watch more and more TV, thus cultivating their lives.
I see it in the kids I used to baby-sit for in undergraduate school and high school. All they did was watch TV or play their "Play station 2." Getting them to go outside and play or even play a game with me was like pulling teeth.
So with all this, children are getting the impression that what they are seeing on TV is real, because they do not know any better. How would they know that what they are watching is either fiction or the embellished truth if no body tells them??
I wasn’t sure how to take this article. It brings up good points about the questions raised and how they have shifted from “is this babysitter reliable” to “is this babysitter available”. Today, it is harder to coordinate schedules and to find someone willing to sit with children for more than an hour at a time. So this is where the electronic babysitter comes in. Now parents take full advantage of the fact that they can sit their child in front of a television set for hours and not have to worry. However, worry they should. Children are little sponges that soak up everything they see; they mock actions, repeat words and absorb things that they may be too young to handle. What got me about this article is the advice that was given at the end of the article in order to use the television as a “good babysitter”. I’m not saying that every parent should ban their children from TV, and I’m not saying that they shouldn’t carefully choose what they’re children watch, but where is the suggestion that children go outside and play? Where is the suggestion that children interact with other children? Television can be a good source of knowledge if you watch the right station. Some children may benefit from watching TV, however, I feel as though younger children may benefit more by going outside and getting some fresh air.
I will start off by saying, although I’m not a parent, I feel that this article is just making excuses for parents who use TV as a babysitter. First, I know there are times when parents just have to turn on the TV when the kids start acting up (believe me I was a babysitter). But isn’t it also easy to choose an appropriate station? Parents should monitor and decide for themselves what they think is suitable for their child and what is not.
Secondly, the fact that we are relying on television to keep our kids occupied rather than having them play outside or with friends is kind of depressing. No wonder some children have a warped view of the world. What happened to riding bikes, play dates and after school sports and clubs?
It’s obvious that children’s minds are like sponges and there are some inappropriate messages being sent out. But I think it’s a parents responsibility to make sure they know what their kids are watching. And how often they are watching.
-Katie Cocozza
I agree with the basic principle of Cultivation Theory; the viewing public is affected by what the see, read, and hear from mass media. Since the advent of the radio individuals have been drawn away from civic activities, instead choosing to focus their attention on outside infotainment to shape their views of the world. I use the term infotainment specifically in an effort to illustrate how even news is so saturated with sensationalism that it’s hard to discern the truth about violence, government, etc. This is dangerous for any culture, but perhaps even more so for that of a democratic society, which relies on its citizens to be fully informed about the world around them in order that they can better help govern themselves.
George Gerbner, the creator of Cultivation Theory, argues that this type of media exposure can be positive; “that television tends to cultivate middle-of-the-road political perspectives.” I fear that nothing can be further from the truth. I was in New Hampshire during the Democratic Primary in 2002 and saw firsthand that those candidates with the most wealth were the ones who managed to manipulate the mass media by sending out radio and television commercials, both advocating for themselves and defaming their competition. Others, such as Representative Dennis Kucinich, took to the streets in grassroots efforts to gain popularity and favor amongst voters. Mr. Kucinich engaged the people of New Hampshire while the wealthier candidates used the population’s tendency to be civically-disengaged against them by manipulating the mass media.
Disengagement of any sort translates into people experiencing few things first-hand. Although I have no article to support this contention, I feel that this disengagement has only worsened with the advent of the internet which allows people to remain disengaged while thinking they are active participants in society. Ultimately Cultivation Theory suggests that people on mass are quite easily seduced by the glam and gore of the media and generally offers little opinion on whether this is positive or negative, but I still feel that one point regarding politics deserved attention.
In his initial explanation of the theory, Gerbner hypothesized how the effects of “heavy viewing” versus “light viewing” coupled with any number of intervening variables such as age, sex, and education could effect how media influenced peoples’ direct perceptions of the world and people around them. I find this observation interesting as well as critical when trying to answer the question as to how the media really does affect different people in alternative fashions. If nothing else it demonstrates how difficult it is to develop accurate quantitative studies to affirm the complete accuracy of cultivation theory.
Onto the articles…I found the article written by Bryan Reber to be particularly interesting, though it reveals little that I did not already expect to see. By analyzing a series of studies directed at discerning the amount and types of violence portrayed in journalism, Reber makes it abundantly clear that even news is misleading, clouded by exaggerated coverage of murders and rapes (hence my initial reference to mass media as infotainment). Is rape news? Is murder news? It is but it shouldn’t constitute 2/3 of an entire news program. Taken a bit further, this type of coverage creates a culture of fear that permeates much of the American culture. People become afraid to walk down the street. They become fearful of their ethnic neighbors (because people of color are by far disproportionately represented in murder and rape stories). Ultimately people become afraid to speak their minds. And this, in a nutshell, threatens the very nature of American Democracy. It is why Cultivation Theory demands additional research.
The last article I want to mention is written by “Dr. Dave.” This article astutely states that children are more susceptible to this theory of cultivation. Children’s brains are capable of storing a vast amount of information that adults brains simply cannot. If a child sees someone on television he is more likely to imitate it or think the action perceived is normal. However adults are just as easily swayed and perhaps especially if they recognize that media is trying to manipulate their opinions. In today’s world it is almost impossible to not be directly exposed to media messages, whether it is by glancing at billboards while driving or seeing flashing popup adds on the internet. Simply by giving attention to these messages, even if it’s to condemn them, sets in motion a person’s subconscious thing process. The media messages are given attention and that is all it takes to begin to alter a person’s idea of reality.
I believe cultivation has an affect on the world, but in my opinion, it is not way the direct cause. Time and time again, I see society place the blame on television. I can agree that too much t.v is unhealthy for the younger generation, but television programs are not our parents/guardians. In some cases, parents are so quick to point the finger at television programs when they should be pointing the fingers at themselves.
On the other hand, it can be understood when it is assumed that the younger generation’s views will be cultivated by television. I see their views being more affected by stereotypes played out in the media, more than being the leading cause of causing violence in their daily lives. It is more realistic that someone would think a certain way about a “certain” group of people, before I can fully believe that someone reenacted a violent crime in real life because they saw it on television.
Parents that utilize television as a babysitter shouldn't have kids. Some argue parents that put their kids in daycare or have a nanny shouldn't have kids, but at leasy daycare workers and nannies have actual pulses. Not even regarding the horrible messages television sends, it's unexcusable for a parent to leave a child in the care of a machine.
Children watch enough television as it is. Part of having a babysitter has nothing to do with supervision--its about social learning and interaction with others. If this weren't the case, everyone would be home-schooled and sheltered away from socializing with humanity. Useful skills are learned that a machine just can't teach.
And then there's the solid argument that television is full of sex, drugs, and so on. All the more reason for parents to be monitoring what their kids watch. It's true that a provocative advertisement has done its damage once its been seen, but a parent nearby can explain what it all means and separate fact from fiction.
While Dr. Dave makes some good points, he almost contradicts them all at the end by giving criteria for when is acceptable to use television as a babysitter. I'm not saying kids shouldn't watch television ever (I don't think I'd be the person I am now if it weren't for the highly sophisticated, intellectual stylings of 'Bananas In Pajamas') but not in place of human interaction.
I believe that while TV can have some degree of influence, especially younger viewers, it will still have nowhere near the influence that real life experiences will. When it comes down to it, even young children know that TV is a flashing box for the purpose of entertainment. I don't believe that we are nearly as desensitized as people give us credit for. I believe we are just desensitized to violence, sex, etc, presented through media. Just to illustrate how much more influential real life events are than those viewed on TV, imagine how much more of an impact it would make on someone if they witnessed someone die in person versus on TV. It might drastically change our life. Kids are very impressionable, but not stupid, and I believe they take what they see on TV with a grain of salt. There are so many other influences in our lives, and the lives of children, which have many times more power of influence over how their world view is cultivated.
Also, to quote the article by Dr. Dave:
"Imagine if I came home one afternoon and found the babysitter I had hired talking with my kids in the family room using crude language, telling off colored jokes, and encouraging them to fight and put one another down. What would I do? Well, for sure that would be the last time I ever left my kids with him. Every one of us has a much more powerful and persuasive babysitter in our house every day-the television. We have to be as careful with the electronic sitter as we are with the human variety."
This is just a ridiculous comparison to make. Children see television as a form of entertainment, and a "real live" babysitter as an authority figure. Most parents will often tell their children to behave for the babysitter and to do what they say, listen to them!, etc. Have you ever heard a parent say any of these things about a television set before leaving their child unattended for any length of time? In our society children are usually directly told who to listen to and to take moral value from, literally. This might be a parent, teacher, babysitter, etc. Unlike an authority figure, a child can simply walk over to a TV and hit the off button if they so choose. Now I'm not saying that children are only influenced by those with direct power over them, I believe that they are also very much influenced by their friends, enemies, and peers in general. I am saying though that TV plays a very minor role when it is compared to the role played by real life experiences. I feel as though many people are putting the two on the same level.
I think it is very interesting how much TV has an effect on our culture and individuals in general. I think it was the great movie Independance Day where they said "a person is smart, people are stupid..." Anyways, something to that extent and that rings true with television and the type of programming and it's effects. Usually a level headed person can decide what is real and should be accepted and what is purely fictional. However, in this day of mass ratings and commercials, these programs are aimed at having the most amount of people watch. In doing that they usually have to sacrafice what most would consider 'wholesome' shows to put on more about sex, drugs and violence.
It has always interested me how much TV effects peoples actions. The idea of a TV being a babysitter was something I never gave much thought to before but can see it's negative effects with a child. But the TV cannot recieve all the blame as almost anything in moderation is ok. These people, especially children have to learn to distinguish between real and fiction and often times there is nobody there to help them. This is usually an endless cycle. Who's fault is it? Well their are plenty of fingers to go around but this world of constant entertainment and the audience as an active consumer is the one we live in.
I agree with most of the bloggers here, and on the other posting as well.
I think that the cultivation theory has a lot of good points, but like a lot of the others, think that the media does not affect children as much as people think it does.
I have always said that it is the parents responsibility to raise their children. It is their responsibility to check what they are doing on their computers and what they are watching on TV.
If the parents don't want to be bothered with checking up on their own kids, then they shouldn’t allow them to use the media that will harm them.
It wouldn’t take that long to just check up to make sure that they aren’t on adult websites, or watching adult shows on TV.
First of all, they could solve a lot of their problems by simply not giving their children there own computers and TVs in their rooms.
I never had a TV in my room until I moved into college, and never had my own computer in my room until then as well.
And, my parents always checked to see what my sisters were watching on TV, and if it was something they weren't sure about, then they would watch it with us.
So, basically, I think that parents being too busy and not having enough time to spend and monitor their children is the problem, not the big, bad media as they make it out to be. It’s a nice, easy scape goat for them though....
I agree that whomever uses an “electronic babysitter” extensively should seriously evaluate their parenting skills.
Yes, the media influences children, but it is the parent’s responsibility to ensure that what their children are watching on television is suitable and age appropriate.
It’s unfair to solely blame the media for influencing children and causing more violence in society, when parents aren’t watching what their children are exposed to.
Dr. Dave in the last line of the article seemed to be saying that if it weren’t for the media, an electronic babysitter would be an entirely suitable solution for a busy parent.
I agree that some parents today take the easy way out and plop their children in front of the TV when the kids become energetic or annoying, or when the parents just need some time to do their own chores and time to themselves. Granted, shows like Baby Einstein, Blues Clues, Sesame Street or other learning shows can be helpful learning tools, but parents cannot rely just on the television. Children need to be stimulated in other ways than just the TV since the majority of shows and advertisements aim for the adult population or try and take advantage of young minds. Even with parental controls, there is only so much a parent can block a child from seeing. Parents should let their kids go play outside or take them to museums where they really learn important things. It seems like parents don't want to see their kids get dirty anymore! Children that use just television or video games to learn can become very to themselves and socially inept. Like anything else that is said to be bad for you, moderation is what's important. Don't take the TV away from children completely- just use it carefully.
Stories-from myths and legends to sitcoms and cop shows-tend to express, define, and maintain a culture's dominant assumptions, expectations, and interpretations of social reality.
I found this quote to be interesting. TV shows to use ideas that our society and culture assume to be true and a social reality. For example: when the NYC subway is expressed or shown in a television show or movie, is it shown as a safe and warm environment? No, almost all of the time it is a place where crime is heavily committed, and unsafe and dirty environment. This is what society assumes about the subway system, however is it necessarily true? Or does this assumption become true because it leaves an impression on the “heavy-viewers” of media and influences their thoughts?
On another note, I definitely agree with Evan’s comments about television not being a significant replacement for human interaction. I find it absolutely horrible that parents are using the television as a baby-sitter. What ever happened to becoming creative with children, and having them play games or read them a book, or do an arts and crafts project? Is society merely too lazy to be creative with our children that we simply sit them in front of a television set and allow them to be entertained? Children are young and highly influential. If a parent does not take time out of their busy schedule to explain the difference between fact and fiction to their children, their children may assume that everything they view on television is in fact reality and a fact.
-Cara Schultz
I agree with what most people have said...especially the point Aubrey makes about "children aren't as influenced by the media as some people make them out to be." I completely agree with this. I saw plenty of bad television when I was a child yet it was because of my strong upbringing that it didn't influence me in any major life decisions. Like many on this blog, I wasn't allowed to have a television in my bedroom until I was about 13 or 14, and even then, I had to save my money for the television and buy it myself. My parents also kept a close watch on what my brother and me were watching on TV. I can remember feeling embarassed because my parents wouldn't let me see an R-rated movie when I was 12. Thinking back, it was definitely the right call and is something I will do whenever I become a parent. And yes, parents who use their television to do the "parenting" aren't doing themselves any favors, but honestly, they probably don't realize the damage they could potentially cause their children.
I do think, however, that television gets a bad rap. There are plenty of good family-friendly shows out there that children can innocently enjoy. I wouldn't say television is ONLY a bad thing; it also can have its positive effects as well.
Amanda Lockwood
The fact that society has reached a point where we - in a general sense - are making the choice to avoid personal contact with our children and put them in front of an electronic box instead of interacting with them is quite sad and concerning. Sure, you can argue that there are some real quality programs that educate and help in the developmental process of children, but this is all meant to be a supplement to the primary nurturing of the parents and family. By sitting your kid in front of the television you are avoiding contact and quality interaction time and leaving the development of your child in the hands of the images on television. Simulatanously the child is receiving messages that his/her parents are too busy for them and choose to take the easy way out and sit them in front of the television instead of spending time with them.
I saw a disturbing show last night while I was trying, unsuccessfully to fall asleep. The piece was on neglected children and they focused on this one girl that was locked inside her room for 13 years. There was hardly any light in the room and she lived in a cage and the father told the rest of the family not to interact with her at all. This child was so isolated that the neighbors didn't even know she existed. As a result of complete isolation the girl never developed any verbal skills and could not function in society. When she was freed from her captivity she had to be "introduced" into the world and taught how to function. The saddest part of this story was that due to the isolation her brain never fully developed and thus she was damaged for life. They showed pictures of brains at certain stages in development. On one side as a normal child's brain and on the other was one of a child that was neglected. It was obvious by looking at the pictures which one was the brain of the neglected child.
I believe television has a huge impact on forming our views and perceptions of the world. This is mainly due to the fact that television has become such a big part of our lives. If television ceased to exist for one day, many of us would feel the effects of withdrawl of not having television.
Although I agree with the cultivation theory, I think this is only an excuse for deeper issues. Ultimatley it comes down to the set of morals and vaules that have been instilled into children that the reference when making decisions. If they have a solid reference point for decision making they will be able to differentiate between fact and fiction. I'm sure there are plenty of us in class that are TV addicts, witnessing hours and hours of violence, but that won't lead any of us to act upon it. The difference maker is the ability to decipher between what is right and wrong. The cultivation theory may help gray the area between right and wrong but ultimately it's a lack of clear and sound reference point to make solid decisions which lead a person to commit acts of violence.
Post a Comment