skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I wanted to emphasize more on the definition of "democratic pluralism". Hall defines democratic pluralism as "the myth that society is held together by common norms such as equal opportunity, respect for diversity, one person- one vote, individual rights, and rule of law." (p. 335) I guess I can say I agree that this is s myth. People immigrate to America for these rights and come here to see that there is still unequality here. Up until the 1960's, Blacks did not even have the same rights, when they were slaves and even after slavery was abolished, they did not have the right to marry. Interracial marriage was also shunned upon. There is still unequality. Even with people who are American and of all diversities. Like with same sex marriage. Religion and politics should not be tied with each other. I think that everyone should have the right to marry and have the same rights as everyone else in their country. Just like America stands for. So I do have to say that democratic pluralism is a myth.
"Corporate Control of Mass Communication." (p. 338) This part of the chapter reminded me of a project I did last semester at SRJC. It was called project censored and was based out of SSU. We learned about how the media portrays and filters the news because it is owned by certain corporations. That's why we only see a certain realm of media on the news. The corporations have such a power to control what we know about, so its basically junk food news (thats what they call it). I don't watch the news because I don't necessarily learn anything new from it. I think it brings more fear than information to people. From the project, I also learned that this filtering happens in journalism too. Journalists who let information out about a certain subject that may involve or connect with the corporate companies that own the media will most likely get assigned to another area or get fired. I'm not trying to preach or hate on the news, this just reminded me of a project that I studied a lot about, and appreciate. It's also cool because this is now a worldwide organization and it started in my hometown :-) If your interested in learning more about it heres the site:http://www.projectcensored.org/
In this chapter, I really appreciated Marshall McLuhan's Media Map of History. (p. 315)There are four ages and one possible age. In order from oldest to newest, they are the Tribal Age, The Literate Age, the Print Age, the Electronic Age (present) and the Digital Age (future). The Tribal age was a era when the only base of media communication was by ear and the community. The Literate Age started when the Phonetic Alphabet was invented (2000-1500 B.C.). It was a visual era where most media communication was done by visuals and because "the eye is the dominant sense organ" (p. 316). The invention of the Printing Press in 1450 started the Print Age. The Print Age was also a visual era when a mass production of books "usher in the industrial revolution and nationalism, yet individuals are still isolated" (p. 316). The Electronic Age started when the Telegraph was invented in 1850. It is an era of "instant communication; a return to the global village with all-at-once sound and touch." (global village: a worldwide electronic community where everyone knows about everyone's business and all are somewhat testy.") (p. 317) Lastly, there is the Digital Age, which hasn't started yet, and we don't know when it will or if it will. The digital age would be wholly electronic. It is defined as "a possible fifth era of specialized electronic tribes contentious over diverse beliefs and values." (p. 317) I think that there is a good chance we will go into a digital age, since there are so many electronic things replacing the old fashioned devices. I guess we just have to wait and find out.
This whole chapter stood out to me and reminded me a lot of qualitative research. The information that is passed on is by story telling and other narrative ways. My professor told me that story telling was one of the most reliable and better ways to get information on a particular culture or story, because those people know it the best (even if it isn't particularly true, it is still valid because its someones story). On page 302, it states that "people are essentially story tellers", which makes a lot of sense because we usually tell stories everyday. It also ties into the previous chapter, where there were the "acts" and "scenes" of narrative story telling. Fisher states that a narrative paradigm is " a theoretical framework that views narrative as the basis of all human communication." I agree with this definition and believe that the narrative paradigm is one thing we use all the time. even as toddlers, we would tell stories about what happened to us/them. I also appreciated the story about Ruth and David, the greatest King of Israel, I think that is a clever and interesting story.
I think we use Kenneth Burke's dramatism theory all the time without even realizing it. People use it in everyday life. I know I do. I act and over exaggerate to get my point across, to make the situation seem more serious than it is and to use other ways that may fit into what I'm saying (that only words can not say). I think I experience the "act" and "scene" terms the most. I usually or usually hear people talking with dramatic verbs to illustrate and summarize what has been done. I think this helps me understand more of what they are trying to say because sometimes one good word can say it all. The "scene" idea is my favorite. Although books and authors don't necessarily tie in with this idea, their description of the scene is a perfect example of how it should be executed. If people were to talk in that complex, they would be great at the "scene" demonstartion because it is like painting a picture through words. I think these are great ways to better understand the situation and communicate it with others.
I agree with Aristotle's three Rhetoric qualities that build high source in credibility. I would rather listen to a credible speaker than a non credible speaker, even if I did not agree completely with the credible speaker. The three qualities are intelligence, character, and goodwill. I think that the book was right on track when they mentioned Martin Luther King. Though I was not alive when he was, I have heard his speeches and have seen how he changed and moved his audience, which resulted with a change in history. The book says that MLK had "competence (intelligence), trustworthiness (character), and care (goodwill)" p. 283. I think there are other people in society that have those credible qualities too. Even though views are different, I can say that most Republicans think that McCain is a high source in credibility because of his military intelligence, "maverick" character (lol) and goodwill for his country. Most democrats and liberals believe that Obama has those same qualities but in different ways. Obama shows a lot of intelligence in his speaking and knowledge, healthy character and care for the people of his country. I'm sure there are many Republicans and Democrats who think that their opposing candidates are not a credible source. Just like others thought that MLK wasn't a credible source. But as long as their audience and listeners think that they have those qualities, they are considered a credible source.
A lot stood out to me in this chapter. Deetz did a great job of explaining the communications that take place in organizations. There were a few things that stood out to me. The first one was about the mangement and the power trips that they can have. I liked the Dilbert comic on p. 267. I think that was a good way to show how some managers are very selfish and don't necessarily think about how they are treating their employees. The manager only wanted to make effort in communication because he thought the company ould do better, but he didn't pay attention to what his employees might need. Also, on p. 265 it has the quotes "because I'm the boss", "because I say so", "if you don't like it, quit", and "it's my way or the highway". When people say that to me it makes me extremely mad. I've had someone say the first three quotes to me and it infuriates me. It makes me feel (and I'm sure it makes others too) like I am unappreciated and if I quit it really wouldn't matter. Though I try to be the best associate and hard worker I can be. I've been in leadership and management positions before and I would never do that to my associate, I would want them to be heard and welcomed. I would want them to feel safe and appreciated even if we don't agree on things.
