The Political Economy of the Media

The media is controlled by a few which are called "the elite". Through which they hold great power over vast audiences. In a way it falls dangerous since the path of influence is narrow. Narrow in a sense that it is not open to many opinions. In this way these few guide the mass and the outcomes are relative to their intentions. As media has a massive audience, to use it to advertise products and goods is nothing but common sense, instant information relayed to the audience. In fact, it is very effective, though expensive, many still think it is ideal. That is how the media keeps itself running, short advertisements will cost thousands or even millions on the television. But does it really cost that much to run itself? Surely there are lots of profits behind. The media also have its eyes on every corner of the globe. In that way they are always updated and informed of the latest news and trends. These are what they use to control the masses. Such a good business, controlling us through ourselves.

Cultivation Analysis Theory

This theory explains the media as a mind setter. It is evident in our world today that media has great influence over the people and how quickly people conform to the information they receive. Just a realization, it is clear that the upper class of this country are the ones into trends and the latest styles though it may be the availability of resources, it is them who always dwell on such. The lower class on the other hand is not so concerned about trends;there are only a few social climbers at hand. About the influence of media on sex and violence, it is actually the upper class who are deeply affected. We may see the poor with children but that is just half the story. They don't have the resources for safe sex but as you look into the conversations of the upper class, sex seems to be a big deal these days. As for violence, some of the poor commit such crimes out of survival instincts, but the ones who are not experiencing any form of poverty are also into such crimes. Take for example the Maguindanao massacre. It was a ruthless act of injustice and they were the kings of their land. We can conclude that indeed the rich are more exposed and therefore more influenced by media's nets of sex and violence and the poor are just too busy working their asses off to dwell on such subjects.

Merchants of Cool

What is cool exactly? Is it simply the thing we call what is "in"? How exactly do we know what is "in"? I believe nothing is. What we may call cool maybe funny and completely awkward to another group. For example, I grew up as a simple kid, with casual shoes, a normal shirt, short cut hair and a taste for soothing music. Other kids may see me as a family boy, a mommy's boy, uncool and ordinary. In my point of view, they are the one's who need judging. Kids with baggy and loose jeans, extremely large tops, phat caps and with lots of chain hanging around seem pretty irrational. Being a gangster requires a lot of pulling pants up. Goths and what they call "emo" people also have this weird taste. They have black as the dominant color and for fashion they have skinny jeans, one-sided hair, leather bracelets with metal studs and at extremes they wear eye liners. Boys with eye liners? That's over the line. For sure there are more groups that exhibit their wild imagination and style. Is cool then relative to an individual? Where is the media taking the youngsters? Or better where are the youngsters taking themselves? I myself am not a follower of trends nor am I a trend setter. I see what's happening as pure brainwash. Youngsters now create their own worlds and live by their ego. What's worse is they will forget reality and lose rationality.

Culture is not what an organization has but what an organization is.

Dating back a little more than a year ago, I entered my freshman year in the Ateneo staying as a boarder at the residence halls. I was naive and under the weight of culture shock. In the residence halls we have our own definition of what OrSem means. Old folks usually call it the "initiation". It was a week of hard work and a lot of dancing and singing in front of a whole crowd. Rules were said and sanctions were given to those who disobey. The line that I could vividly remember was "the failure of one is the failure of all". Not only when we failed did our batchmates make up for it but also the heads of the event shared the sanctions. Now, all we thought during our participation was that this is bull**** and a complete waste of precious time but at the end of it all, I found myself a place in the system. I was and still am someone in this organization which is, by the way, ARSA. It stands for Ateneo Resident Students Association. I also noticed that every time my class ends, if I have nothing better to do, I automatically walk back to the dormitory. Good or bad it may be but I find myself at home with these people. Looking back into the "initiation", not only was it a big entry cost but also it was a view of what the organization is by living it. I guess it all boils down to it that that way of living was in itself the organization.

Dear COMM,

On Social Exchange Theory, I sincerely disagree with its stand in making relationships beneficiaries, especially on friends and "special" friends. Being a friend does not and should not require any costs and rewards. We brand some people as gold diggers, sugar daddies, sugar mommies, user-friendly, and we hate them to hell. This theory points out that all of us are somewhat like that. During a time when I had my special friend, I knew I was on the losing end. Of course, I had to spend so much time, money, and effort but did she ever ask me to buy her all of those presents or did she ever ask me to pay for her part of the bill? Absolutely not. All I ever had to do was to treat her special because that was what she was. Yes, man is a rational being but I believe that the reasons to which his actions are rooted should not solely lie on pleasure and self appraisal. Cliche as it sounds, we know it's true.

Yes, I had a good night.

I think I have found the solution to cognitive dissonance and uncertainty reduction. Last night, I went riding on the red horse. It was a wild and crazy drunken convention of drunkards. I became a participant observer. Hitting two birds with one stone, I formulated my ideas for this blog while having G-L-A-M-O-R-O-U-S(first class) night. Most of the people there were freshmen dormers. I did not know most of them and probably they didn't know much of each other as well. Jesus Christ was all over the place (awkward silence). After riding the red horses with the zombies, Tia Maria's Cantina became a super night club. People were screaming as they danced with the music. Everyone was fluid and had no trouble fitting in. Then I can say that alcohol is the ultimate social lubricant. Although it may have some bad side effects, it is indeed pretty good in reducing uncertainties.

No matter how you look at it.

All theories are rooted to a common ground. All of them pertain to a source and a receiver, the message to be exchanged, the encoding, decoding, and how the source and the receiver switch tasks. But how come there are still newer(maybe a little bit better) theories coming one after the other? Man always struggles to put meaning and explanation to everything he experiences. And maybe that is what is happening in the world of communication. The piling up of theories somehow show that man hasn't defined its behavior down to the very last detail. Maybe that's because of its infinite mysterious ways as to how it is done. Yes, mysterious ways like how do you know that some person behind you is staring at you when you don't even have eyes at the back of your head? How was that information received? That, I hope, man could explain.