Framing: What and How to Think

I found myself intrigued by a third case study that was used as evidence that the process of framing actually alters images in peoples' minds when reading or watching the news. Griffin notes the third study conducted by Salma Ghanem for her doctoral dissertation under McCombs' supervision at UT (Univ. of Texas) on page 366. In short, Ghanem analyzed the percent changes of crime concern among Texas residents and actual criminal acts. Concern had gone up even though the frequency and severity of crimes had gone down and realized that the increased salience of crime was driven by the local media. Using the two levels of agenda setting in her study, she tracked the transfer of salience of specific crime attributes as well as the frame of where the crime took place. The frame that crime could 'happen to anyone' was powerful as well the crimes that were 'close to home' versus the ones that happened out of state. The correlations between these media frames and public concern suggest that attribute frames make compelling arguments for people who are exposed to the news.

This case study was interesting to me, because more often than not, when I watch the news, I always find myself thinking how depressing it is with the stories they choose to cover.
I have also fallen for the fear instilled by some of the news stories that some of these crimes portrayed "could happen to anyone" and although that is certainly true, I think that the salience of certain issues is magnified two-fold by the media. I would be interested to see more of these studies conducted in different areas to see if it really holds true.

Important? Says who?

The concept of the agenda-setting theory is a familiar one. As a communication major, although I have no interest in being a journalist, I have heard many times before what the "duty" of a journalist is. I've heard from people who aspire to go into journalism that they wish to 'report the truth, unbiased.' But we all know this isn't true... or at least the case these days. In Chapter 28, McCombs and Shaw developed the agenda-setting hypothesis, believing that "mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news agenda to the public agenda." (p. 359). Everyone would like to think that they are independent thinkers... and for the most part, most of us are-- however the news cues us on where to focus our attention. The quote that I find true is: "We judge as important was the media judge as important" (p. 359). And that is evident by the news channels we watch. Stories are quick and run 15 seconds or so, anything that run 30-45 seconds you know has a little bit more significance based on its length and frequency it appears in the media. It hard to tell whether agenda-setting is more of a positive or negative thing, but I suppose it has both aspects. It's a matter of whose agenda is imposed upon the audience, I find myself always thinking, 'who is this coming from?'

But I think the best thing for us to do is take our information and facts from various sources in order to establish our own "truth" and what's important.

Making Meaning...

According to Michel Foucault, his concept of discourse is defined as the "frameworks of interpretation" (p. 337) in order to make sense of relationships between societal power, communication, and mass media. But Stuart Hall claims otherwise-- he claims that the 'primary function of discourse is to make meaning' in his book Representation. The catchy phrase that caught my attention is the one that is stated in the text: "Words don't mean; people mean." That short statement says a lot to me, because it's something that I also believe. I almost interpret it as words don't mean anything unless there is something/someone to validate it, or back it up. But of course, not everyone is going to interpret meanings in the same way. Stuart Hall's theory is that people learn what signs mean though discourse (through communication and culture). He proceeds to explain how culture works in terms of producing and exchanging meanings, and that people of the same culture are likely to interpret the world around them in similiar ways. This makes a lot of sense considering meanings and signs are learned culturally and through past experiences.

Electronics?

In Chapter 24, McLuhan divided our human history (means of communication) into four periods. However, the one that is most intriguing to me is the Electronic/Digital age, probably because I have been born right into it. But the Digital age is a splint of the Electronic Age, which encompasses a lot. The electronic ages includes electronic media devices starting from the telegraph, telephone and radio all the way through to cell phones, computers, PDAs and MP3 players. I don't know whether I'd be able to function without any of these things because they have become so entwined in our everyday life, as a Global village. Griffin describes a Global village as "a worldwide electronic community where everyone knows everyone's business and all are somewhat testy" (p. 317). It's so true, because who don't you know about these days? Whether it is Joe Schmoe or some celebrity... you can find anything about anyone in the click of a button or quick call. The instant methods of transferring information or communication as changed greatly and continues to change. Everything gets faster, or smaller and that seems to be the direction that electronics go these days. Anything more compact is considered more "convienent" as I know I've seen the beginning of cell phones and computers (how big and bulky they were) to what they are now.... sleek, slim and tiny!

I'm interested to see what the Digital age continues to bring...

Media & Culture--- It is what we make it

The subject of media and culture is one that is very fascinating. The introduction of media and culture helps us understand this by using examples from the movie Blade Runner (which I have yet to see... it sounds interesting from Griffin's description!) But something interesting that Griffin brings up is the concept of hyper-reality: that recurring media images are more real than real. "Our mental pictures of the perfect body, house, meal, vacation, and sexual relationship have been created through exposure to constantly recycled media depictions that have no basis in fact--but it is these images that create our expectations" (p. 309). This is something that unfortunately so true... I think the media portrays very unrealistic images that people strive to attain.... and it's not reflective of what is real, or should be real. Baudrillard stated that "it's not TV as a mirror of society but just the reverse: it's society as the mirror of television" (p. 310). Which is what is exactly happening.... all these shows that have created 'reality' for our impressionable young generations via MTV and all the other garbage reality tv shows. It's crazy how much people believe these shows to be the truth or actual reality.

In closing, Griffin says for postmodernists, it's not an issue of whether the media distorts reality. "In today's world, the media have become reality---the only one we have" (p. 310)

Rational-world Paradigm

Griffin explores Fisher's paradigm shift in Ch. 23, from a rational world paradigm to a narrative one. Fisher discusses how the "Greek word logos originally included story, reason, rationale, conception, discourse, and thought--all forms of human communication" and that "imagination and thought were not yet distinct" (p. 301). So writings of Plato and Aristotle supposedly reflected the evolution from a generic to specific use of logos, from story to statement, referring to philosophical discourse. Rhetoric fell somewhere in the middle of logos and mythos, 'practical speech' that included pure logic as well as the ability to stir up passions and emotions. (p. 301) To me, that's a pretty logical way of explaining he difference between the two.

Fisher describes philosphical and technical discussion as the "scholars'" approach to knowledge, also known as the rational-world paradigm. The text defines this as "a scientific or philosophical approach to knowledge that assumes peopler are logical, making decisions on the basis of vidence and lines of argument" (p. 301) There are five assumptions of the prevailing rational-world paradigm:
1. People are essentially rational
(I have to interject my opinion here........ Usually... but not always)

2. We make decisions on the basis of arguments
(I know I make decisions on the outcomes of arguments)

3. The type of speaking situation (legal, scientific, legislative) determines the course of our argument
(How you should speak or present to certain groups)

4. Rationality is determined by how much we know and how well we argue
(how smart you know/sound and how well you do it!)

5. The world is a set of logical puzzles that we can solve through rational analysis

To me, the whole world is a puzzle.... anything can be solved through analysis... it's overanalysis that gets you in trouble! ;)

Victimage

Burke's concept of Dramatism in Ch. 22 was a little odd to me... at least when it gets to the theological terms. Guilt Redemption seemed odd to be included with Rhetoric. It was hard for me to put the pieces together of how it was related, but eventually it started to make sense... and the part of the chapter about Guilt redemption that stuck out to me the most was the idea of "Redemption through Victimage." To me personally, victimage sounds so harsh or even violent of a word. But what's interesting is Burke's theory claims that a speaker has two choices: mortification (confession of guilt and request for forgiveness) or victimage (scapegoating; the process of naming an external enemy as the source of all ills) [p. 293]

Since mortification requires purging through self-blame, Griffin uses interesting examples such as OJ Simpson and Bill Clinton, who have found it difficult to admit to the public that they are the source/cause of their own grief. A good way for me to remember this is through the idea of confession (catholicism)... if you imagine some of the things you may confess to the priest, you may find yourself "mortified" (embarrassed) because there is no one else to take credit except yourself. But as most people know, it is much easier to put the blame on someone else and play the 'victim' hence the term "victimage." You designate the fault to someone or something else. Which has been prevalent in many forms of rhetoric. Again, the examples that keep popping up in my head, are the presidential and VP candidates (politics in general) that use this... only because this is what's currently going on... And the examples listed include things from Al Qaeda, homosexuals, to religious fundamentalists, etc. The term "congregation through segregation" (p. 294) sounds like such a dated idea, but it unfortunately still holds true today:

"The easiest way for an orator to identify with an audience is to lash out at whatever or whomever the people fear" (p. 294) This quote is especially true of politics....

Public Rhetoric

So... something I've noticed in all our quizzes, as I'm sure some of you have as well.... is that we are quizzed on the little snippets that proceed a new topic of chapters. So I thought I would include some information on the "Public Rhetoric" that comes before chapter 21. Because something from it will likely show up on the quiz.

This section served as an introduction to Aristotle and the study of rhetoric. "Aristotle defined rhetoric as 'an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion.' " but Griffin uses the term public rhetoric to refer to a speaking context in which the speaker has an opportunity to monitor and self adjust to the response of his immediate audience (p. 276). I'm trying to discern the difference, but Griffin's is much more detailed in terms of what one should expect with public rhetoric. There are five parts (divisions) that the Greeks and Romans used when studying rhetoric (also known as the five canons of rhetoric):

1. Invention - ways to find convincing arguments
2. Arrangement - organization to have desired impact
3. Style - using appropriate language and diction
4. Delivery - combination of voice and gestures
5. Memory - mastery and rehearsal of content

These seem to be general rules that sound all too familiar. These are things I remember from my public speaking class, in order to have a successful or efficient speech. It's a combination of all these things that make a great speech... which, depending on the type of speech you are trying to deliver.

In this case, what I've come up with--

Basically, persuasive speech = rhetoric

Participation from Everyone!

In Ch. 20, another element Griffin focuses on is Deetz' theory in regards to participation. Deetz views participation as a 'stakeholder democracy'; democratic participation allows for better citizens of a community as well as choices. Participation is defined as "the process by which all stakeholders in an organization negotiate power and openly reach collaborative decisions" (p. 270). The way I view the meaning of 'stakeholder' is someone who holds a stake... in essence, someone who has say in something. Deetz lists specific groups of stakeholders who should have a say in how a corporation is run for different needs:

• Investors
• Workers
• Consumers
• Suppliers
• Host communities
• Greater society and the world community

This reminds me of topics we are learning about in my Management & Organizational Behavior (BUS160) class... we have studied corporations who have allowed for a complete open door policy, making everything known among including "inside information" such as financials, and say in what was going to happen much like the example given of Saturn in our text. Everyone had equal opportunities to obtain information, and learn to do something new everyday if they desired. ANd employees were generally happier. The story of SRC where the janitor confronted the manager about the balance sheet and warned him against having 'all his eggs in one basket,' thus causing the company to diversify, stick out through the recession and expand. In most corporations, you would NEVER see this happen. But it proves that given the opportunity, anyone could contribute something if given the chance. Stakeholder participation can really make a difference.

Corporate World takeover?

Ch. 20 really grabs my attention by depicting the use of the movie Erin Brockovich. That was a movie that I have seen and liked, and although I knew that was based on a true story, to see it in a published 'matter-of-fact' summary in a textbook paints a much clearer picture for me. I am able to understand how a major corporation can and has affected people by the choices they make. Multinational corporations have become entwined, or as Griffin put it, "encroached upon every area of life outside the workplace" (p. 262). Corporations have colonized our way of living.

Deetz says that corporations "control and colonize" modern life in ways
that no government or public body since the feudal era ever thought possible.
(p. 262)

This statement really makes a lot of sense to me, especially considering corporations such as AT&T, Time Warner, Disney and Microsoft. These handful of companies own a large percentage of wealth and resources, having the ability to influence masses. Who hasn't heard of these corporations? Disney for instance, has controlled and colonized millions of children who grow up influencd by their fairy tale stories, characters, and even the by-products of young Disney stars. Notice how much control Disney exerts on their young stars and tight of a rein they keep? Do the stories of Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus or any of those teeny boppers ring a bell anyone? Disney is known to run a tight ship (I have a friend who's company paired up with them to promote "Enchanted" and she informed me of all the restrictions and regulations they had)... therefore with their strategies they are able to rake in the millions.

What is Culture?

The word culture can take on so many different forms and meanings... depending on its context. In Ch. 19, Geertz and Pacanowsky take a look at culture from a symbolic approach, 'considering culture as more than just a single variable in organizational research:'

"... From our point of view, culture is not something an organization has; a
culture is something that an organization is" (p. 251)

This quotation alone really resonated with me because it reminds me of something I learned while at San Diego State about culture. The concept of culture is defined as "systems of shared meaning" (p. 251). I believe I mentioned this is myComm scholar, but a lesson I learned at SDSU while taking a sign language course, was the fact that I was not only bi-cultural, but tri-cultural. My mother is Vietnamese and my father is European (Caucasian), so when people asked me about culture and background, those were the two things I identified with. Growing up in a household where I learned sign language (probably as my first language if not simultaneously with English), I never thought anything of it. I grew up my whole life knowing my parents were deaf (which was different from everyone else), and that was that. I attended deaf functions, knew my parents' deaf friends, but I still maintained my relationships and identity with hearing people. It wasn't until I took a sign language class, learning from an "outsiders" perspective how much "culture" existed among the deaf. Deaf culture was in fact existent, however since I was immersed in it my whole life, it had never occurred to me that the "shared systems of meaning" were significant in that it created a subculture in itself based on the language, structure, understandings, experiences and perceptions of deaf people. It was as if a light bulb went off in my head seeing it from a different point of view. And I'm glad it turned on!

Use and Abuse of Rules & Resources

The use and abuse of rules and resources in a small group setting is something that is inevitable. Rules are defined as "propositions that indicate how things ought to be done or what is good or bad" (pg. 240). Resources are defined as "materials, possessions, or attributes that can be used to influence or control the actions of the groups or its members" that individuals bring to the group (p. 240). The only way that that a group can implement rules and utilize resources are when they can come to a decision as a group. If a group is not cohesive, or cannot come to a consensus, it will be hard to enforce any rules. Group members may not want to contribute their resources if there are no rules present. For instance, the book gave an example of Michelle the 4.0 GPA student who may get frustrated with the way the group functions, and not want to bring her knowledge (resource) to the group. I can relate to that situation because there have been times in groups where there are no rules and nothing is getting done or moving forward, and I've been hesitant to contribute all my ideas because you don't want to be the one carrying all the weight of the work. But at the same time, you don't want the group to fail. I think most people have had experience of consensus or majority rules for leadership styles in terms of making decisions/rules. If resources are effectively and evenly used/distributed, then there should be no cause for abust.