But Wait: How DOES The Media Tell You What To Think?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ค. 2016
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/donateidea
CONFORM CONSUME OBEY
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideachanneltwitter
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideachannelfacebook
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideachannelreddit
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideachannelirc
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Does the media control our brains?.... Probably not, but you can’t argue that the media-news, entertainment, even educational media-is able to handily deliver messages which impact the way we see the world. We learn our personal values from our parents, friends, colleagues, and authority figures but we also gain tons of insight about ourselves and the world from the arts, sciences, politics, entertainment, journalism... much information about this stuff gets to us through the media. The question is: as the media is bringing information and insight to us, and that info-slash-insight is having some kind of impact on our thoughts and actions, how exactly does that happen? In today’s “But Wait!” episode, we explore 3 different possibilities. Let us know what you think in the comments below!
-- MERCH! --
bit.ly/1U8fS1B
T-Shirts Designed by:
artsparrow.com/
-- TWEET OF THE WEEK --
/ 753674411568345088
-- Links --
No Don't Die
www.nodontdie.com/mike-rugnetta/
The Hustle Economy
www.amazon.com/Hustle-Economy...
-- ASSET LINKS --
00:00:50
Fox News Wayne Simmons
www.epictimes.com/10/16/2015/f...
01:05
Art Trip: Tijuana
• Art Trip: Tijuana | Th...
01:06
Why Salt and pepper?
• Why Salt & Pepper Ende...
01:07
Ted Cruz
• Will Ted Cruz Rejoin T...
01:07:16
$100 Stolen
• $100 STOLEN?/TOO STUPI...
01:08
Ukraine's Brutal war
news.vice.com/video/ukraines-...
01:34
Media is Mass
ramonatodoca.com/themediumisth...
01:43
Magic Bullet
• The Original Magic Bul...
01:54
Komm Zu uns
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/...
01:58
Germania
worldwarera.com/en/all-posters...
02:01
Make Mine Freedom
• Make Mine Freedom (1948)
02:14
Make Mine Freedom - Continue
• Make Mine Freedom (1948)
02:18
My Japan
• MyJapan1945 512kb
02:34
War of Worlds
magazine.funnewjersey.com/the-...
02:38
Adolf Hitler
• Video
03:46
Computer hoodie
design-interactions2007-2014.r...
03:48
The confession
• THX 1138 (3/10) Movie ...
04:24
Ghostbusters
• Ghostbusters - Janine ...
04:46
They Live Sunglasses
• They Live Sunglasses
04:51
Ted Talk Tristen Harris
www.ted.com/talks/tristan_har...
04:54
5 Easy Self-Care
• 5 Easy Self-Care Tips ...
04:58
Your Illness is not your Fault
• Your Illness is Not Yo...
05:01
First Time Eating Hawaiian Food
• FIRST TIME EATING HAWA...
05:08
Two Step Flow Media
www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenov...
05:57
Media Maze Image
www.emaze.com/@AIWLOCOQ/The-H...
06:03
Global Social Media
www.marketingprofs.com/article...
06:19
PBS Nova Creatures of the Night
• Video
07:08
Media Brainwash Image
lh3.googleusercontent.com/-r6...
07:10
$100 Stolen - Continue
• $100 STOLEN?/TOO STUPI...
07:13
Why Salt and pepper? - Continue
• Why Salt & Pepper Ende...
08:05
Mere Exposure
changingminds.org/explanations...
10:19
Ghostbusters - Continue
• Ghostbusters - Janine ...
-- MUSIC --
Monotone - Minimalist
/ minimalist
-- PERSONNEL --
Written and hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
(who also has a podcast! Reasonably Sound: bit.ly/1sCn0BF)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
One idea I didn't really hear you touch on is media as a bottleneck for ideas. The media can make sure that only certain ideas get through. And it taints ideas that travel through other media as 'fringe' or even crazy.
Word.
But what about fringe stuff that rises to the surface? "Nerd culture" comic book lore becoming THE money making genre for Hollywood. Fringe artsy film movements being absorbed and used by popular directors, at least aesthetically. Yes there is a bottleneck of what can become obscenely famous, but there's always all sorts of stuff growing underneath that waiting for its shot.
+
international stuff is where the worse gatekeeping and tainting is because it cannot be easy confirm or disproof by the common guy
+theDCification I mean capitalism plays into all of this, of course fringe cultures have seeped into the mainstream. If there's a built-in audience, there's a guaranteed profit, and if you dumb it down enough (which they definitely have) than there's even more profit for them, because if there's pretty people and loud noises suddenly the people who used to make fun of the comic book nerds in their school in the eighties are now super pumped to go see the new Captain-HulkMan-HawkWidow movie. And no, I'm not calling these people fake nerds, I'm saying that the film isn't ACTUALLY a part of "nerd culture" but rather a product meant to PROFIT off of "nerd culture". This problem of "fringe" things being treated as weird or nuts is more of a problem in educational media and in the news media, anyway. A good example of this is how the libertarian party is treated in the mainstream.
Media is powerful NOT because of the message content, but because it shapes the *context* of followup processing of the content.
For example, if media tells you Trump should win over Hillary, you may disagree but now you are framing the conversation as Trump vs. Hillary. Why not frame it another way?
"Violent revolution: a viable option? More at 5."
+
that is called agenda setting. I think that is the "scariest" part, because (at least in theory) we can always think about what the media tells us and develop our own opinion (though most of the people don't actually take the time to go more in depth about what they maybe just briefly see on the news), whereas we completely ignore many other events that gatekeepers decided not to cover...
i would say media is powerful because it shapes how much wrong it let people think and do, if media was influencing good things we should not be having this conversation at all.
Agreed. This, I think is important to think about also because "gate keeping" doesn't just shut out topics, but allows more subtly consumers of media to project their own opinions onto the topic, and then get stuck inside their own echo chamber. Current example: if gate keeping in media dictates that major news will mention, talk about, or discuss the deaths of Black people at the hands of police officers, and the recent deaths of police officers, the framework is then set up to project a consumer's own biases onto that. And so it feels more like we, as a consumer, are not being influenced by the media (because you can say "well, I hear this this and this on the news, but here are all of my already formed opinions about that topic"). And that means we are less likely to think about why the media would only talk within the parameters of dead Black folk and dead police officers, and not talk about historical trauma, or lack of funding, or anything around the specific news item itself.
Hegemony is the process of turning an ideology (political or religious) into a social norm. All media is inherently political and carries with it a message, this occurs regardless of if it is one that supports current norms or opposes it. This is not to say that you would be mind controlled, but instead that popular opinion can over time and with enough exposure be altered or enforced.
Take any news article and compare its headline from different sources. What each headline says will tell you everything about what that individual news company want you to think about the reasons behind the article. By performing enough of this constantly and unrelentingly it is possible to make the masses believe intentionally skewed or just false information.
Jeremy Corbyn is an example of this. He has been called dangerous, a failure and weak. They have straw manned his views to the extent where only 11% of articles even represent what he actually believes. Yet the influence is so much that many people (granted it is by and large people who were already against him) do not even understand his beliefs.
Recently on Facebook I saw a local page ask the question "was your vote in Brexit influenced by the media?" the answers were a resounding "No." I personally believe that the medias influence in the UK is so strong and so relentless that it has actually pushed people into believing that they are not consuming any ideology and that any ideology that they have must be their own, otherwise why would they think it.
Brilliantly explained.
Great insightful comment!
I am consistently impressed with how this channel continues to raise the bar on the types of questions you explore.
in my childhood, I watched a muppet, sesamestreet-like with cartoons, who taught me at the end of every show than I shouldn't watch advertising on TV...
I miss this guy... when I think of it, it was one of the only show who just wanted to entertain me without selling any crap. I wish this spirit could come back today
You should watch Don't hug me I'm scared
+Dylan Vellut Nah
+TheAmusingOddities damn pesky bee, got there before me
+J Roberts. It's a little baby pidgeon!
I hate you, you hate me
I hate you all in harmunee !
Political opinions probably work memetically through society, new information, tribalism, confirmation bias, persuasion, emotion, and many more factors. Media probably doesn't directly make our opinions, it absolutely influences it though. Very little of this is based in science though.
It probably works in a scientific fashion. It just may not have been proven yet.
The main problems with media are that they:
-tend to educate too little (give background, context, show different sides)
-tend to focus on hype and their own percieved audience's interests and viewpoints rather than to try to look as objectively as possible at issues and potentially productive solutions and show nuance.
-tend to (unconsciously, perhaps) encourage people to look for more of the same rather than to encourage openmindedness (is that a word?).
-sometimes tend to obfuscate whether something is an opinion piece or a newsreport and at other times do say so but have something be heavily coloured by opinion while it is advertised as a newsreport.
And that's mostly talking about 'old media'. 'New media' has possibly more issues because it feels (hunch, not fact) more of a Wild West with both very good and very poor examples of how to do it right.
I wonder how many will get this:
_Sniff_ Pure Ideology _Shirt Pull_
i wish i had an insightful comment but i just wanted to say this was a great episode and i really enjoyed it.
By saying you enjoyed this episode you are saying Mike is doing a good job and should keep making episodes like this, helping him to plan for future ideas and thus being insightful.
+
Are you his grandma?
+
+
I have come here to chew bubblegum and make obscure references to cult movies. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
isnt this a game reference?
+
+Blue★ No?????
The games that you've likely seen, or heard this in, is referencing the movie "They Live" Where the protag goes into a bank and says the line, "I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum." The beginning of this episode GIF and the pictures of the black and white "OBEY" are from the movie.
Everyone thinks that quote comes from Duke Nukem now, sadly.
CGP Grey's "This Video will Make You Angry" ties well with this the gratification theory of media. Rather than having a taste maker or large agency determine which media should be absorbed, media creates enticing labels for us to read while looking in the aisles.
These labels often override our logos by impacting our pathos; our emotions, especially anger, can easily allow for draw and appeal. From there we create our own personal taste makers in regards to our feeds and friends. We are attracted to individuals who share a post about something which also enraged or tickled you. You could make the case that we are looking for medicine in the pharmacy and rather than looking at what is in the bottles we use our personal biases and the opinions which support our perspective to formulate a decision. Like a disease, the more infectious the idea, the more likely it will be distributed.
and if its in the supermarket, its convenient but not ultimately full choice of available labels to be enticed by. we may chose to go to an indenpendant shop and have this echo chamber challenged, but maybe that shop is also doing the same thing with the labels. we may chose to go to a different kind of shop entirely, or even quit shopping if we really wanted to (by growing our own produce)...or a different medium of shopping, like home delivery, internet or whatever...but few do, right....for the most part we are only chosing between products in our local supermarket, and don't take the 'meta' leap to consider there is a different level of choice.
It's not just what's *in* media that influences our perception of the world, but what is not. If only certain kinds of people show up in media, you become familiar with them and either identify with them, or feel like you have to identify with them to interact with other people.
I propose a fourth model where the media steers discussion by controlling *which* opinions get repeated. For example in Europe economic austerity features a lot in the news. But the mainstream channels only offering different views of how it should be delivered, and what effects it is happening. Dissenting views suggesting alternatives to austerity, or even just opposing it, are not shown.
I do notice, that standards are employed for selective reporting, but also it can be so far as subtle language and tone of voice to imply something is 'true' or 'accused', for example, or whether a political acts is implied to be bad or good. and all through that they've not lied once, its just the subtle ethical swaying, and omission.
No! I am an independent being in full control of my thoughts and opinions! I am an individual who is not affected by propaganda and trends! I support things that are right, not things that are popular! if I go too far with this the sense of sarcasm is going to wear off.
People generally watch what reinforces their own opinion. Simple. Also there is the general desire to be informed, but I think if it were purely that, there wouldn't be as much desire for shit like Us magazine or as many celebrity stories on CNN
When a non-news or non-issue are headlines over and over again, how is this not influencing the public?
I've worked in the news in some capacity or other for the last 3 years, and I think one of the interesting things about how this all works is what we *don't* tell people something. As the self-imposed gatekeepers of knowledge, if a story doesn't run for whatever reason, most people will never experience it in their daily lives, even if it may be important. For instance, if a report comes out talking about how crime is down across the country, it may not run if it comes out the same day as some national tragedy like the Orlando shooting or the Dallas ambush. Media is by its nature, required to keep itself alive, so some messages may be more difficult to find if they go against what that particular media sources is selling.
Wow. Amazing comment. Thanks for sharing your insight. This makes a lot of sense.
So youtube glitched for me and showed a black screen and I thought it was intentional..
This Script Generator is getting really believable
My dear Mr. Rugnetta, you've just summarized the first year of my communication career in a 10 minutes video. This is why I watch Idea Channel. Kudos.
What a great episode. Thanks ;)
When I read anything about anything through media outlets. I read several articles from different outlets so I can manage to filter through their opinions and find the facts. Because even though most people aren't trying to. Someone is always trying to sell you something. Whether a view point or a product.
And I don't want their view point, I want the facts so that I and my friends can just talk about the facts of a situation. So that we can allow our experiences and opinions to change as we change. So that we can learn. And I always remember there is a why to anything, whatever it is, whoever says it.
I agree. I think it's great you try and hear more than one voice on a topic or current event. A step further that I have found to be helpful, is to remain open to the truth wherever it is. Even if the truth and the facts differ from what you thought previously. See where the connections are, not where you want them to be. Go down the rabbit trails. Question the ideas of those you agree with and disagree with. See if they are telling the truth. If they say such and such is something then fact check it as best you can. Like a detective, follow the evidence. Don't decide the "truth" and then look for evidence to fit your premise. Instead fight against your premise and see if there is another possibility. Sadly, when I dug for the dirt, against my firmly held feelings or beliefs about something, I generally found it. People are not as perfect as we think they are. They are often liars. Sad to say. I found out the hard way. It can be a little disheartening when you find your heroes are just sinful creatures like the rest of us...except they pretend to be better than us. They pretend to be righteous and are just human, like everyone else. You can fact check a lot by going on government websites for instance. You can see clearly how they vote. Talk is one thing, how they vote is completely different. You will know them by their actions. What do they do? Not talk, but do? Who are their friends? What do they act like in their free time and in their work? Do they talk or do? Are they liars? Fact check, fact check , fact check. And if you are looking for truth it will show up, if you are truly seeking for it.
I know why I watch IC: you ask thought-provoking questions in an interesting and respectful way, with added subtle but not overly distracting humor, and have a pleasant speaking voice. You try to be fair, respond politely to your comments, and admit when you are wrong or didn't think about an angle or point of view. (I may also be somewhat swayed by your adorable puppy-dog eyes when you get all wide-eyed and earnest, though...but I swear, that's not the main reason!)
I learned about something similar in a college class: it was a psychological tic called something like the "one story effect", where hearing only a single perspective about an issue over and over causes people to think it's the case in general (or maybe relating how common each perspective is to how often they hear that perspective). You can basically see it in effect today with things like paranoia over Muslim immigrants in America, or how people think of Africa (a continent that almost never shows up in the news). It might be something like people being led to think a certain way simply because they've never seen any other perspective as common or "normal".
Paranoid about Muslims, . . . They were brought over on a lie, where's the wmd? And they are useful idiots, art of war, divide and conquer. The deep state don't work for you. . . To keep your job you have to take the clot shot. . . .looks like you don't think to hard.
Great new series. I like the complexity of the subjects being talked about, it has that nice "I've got a lot to say" feeling about it.
One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them
-Aldous Huxley
It seems to me like all of these theories are different oversimplifications of something we just can't really simplify in that way at all. Humans are complicated, and I cant think of a more vague and wide question about complex human behavior than what is essentially "How do humans consume ideas?"
Its an interesting thing to think about, but it seems like as soon as someone wants to theorize a global and simple idea of how this works, they are already making a huge mistake. Not everything can be simplified in that way!
I used to work at a large pizza chain in my college years and it was there that I learned the power of advertising and the media's effect on people.
I remember that we normally sold maybe 1 or 2 calzones a month; that is, until an ad campaign ran for calzones. There was no "deal" or "sale", but people all of the sudden went absolutely bonkers for calzones: making them our highest selling item for the duration of the campaign.
Today, I work in advertising and I can assure you that we do have meetings about how to get people to do the thing we want you to do. In my case, it's to get you to watch our TV channel. However, even with mastery of the art of advertising, I can't *force* you to watch our shows if you don't find them interesting. So most of my current job is about convincing you that our shows are interesting.
The pizza chain's advertising team had it easy I think: pretty much everyone's already interested in pizza.
This was my favorite Idea Channel video in a long time. Great work!
As a media "influencer" and mentor for other influencers... this is what is always on my mind and the ethics of it. I teach Singularity Storytelling, and my thought process is exactly that every day - Why do I like this. Then it goes back to me consciously choosing my experience and enjoying the feelings that they bring me, with the emerging technologies and how as a species we are evolving we do need to become more conscious of "WHY" we do what we do, consume what we consume, etc. Because once a full on merging of technology and humanity occurs we can't just let things to chance.
Two step flow matches perfectly the "read title (maybe skim article) -> read top comment(s)" cycle on Reddit.
I guess there is one more important aspect out there - social inclusion.
Social media first offers an array of social bodies, and then allows you to become part of one/several of them. It is especially evident when you look at TH-cam creators and their "fans", or even political parties with their voters.
Of course, one can say that it is still a "two-step flow" theory, but the thing is that there is much more than just an authority figure: there is a whole community with certain benefits and drawbacks of being included in it.
And one can choose (unconsciously in most cases) which community to join and follow.
Thus, each social platform represents a distinct social group, and inclusion into this group (with its pros and cons) is a way how it actually "tells you what to think".
:( I never would have thought PBS would sink so low as to say that mass media is not trying to conform us to their 'agenda'. I will be re-thinking my opinions about PBS!
The only way for one to remain uninfluenced by "media" is to be a direct witness of an event. Even honest representation, can unwillingly cause a difference in the perception.
I know that I have a media/social bubble, but living without one would be maddening.
A blast from the past. TH-cam recommends me this video even though the channel is dead for 6 years
Probably the best thing that PBS produces
Love these videos. I cant wait for the next one!
The only thing we need is the freedom to have our own opinions and not be afraid of thinking outside our social framework.
The vast majority of my media consumption is through youtube (from my subscription feed, sometimes related videos, and videos linked from other sites). TH-cam allows me to specifically seek out the kind of content I am interested in even if I don't know what I like or why I like it. The types of videos in my feed cover a wide range: comedy, science, education, gaming, vlog, music, etc. One thing I have noticed about my subscriptions is that most of them have a good character/narrator/host. The content being delivered to me is less important than who delivers it and how they do it. I guess maybe I'm lonely and desperate for friends. (Mike, you make a good imaginary friend in case you were wondering)
Just watched They Live for the first time yesterday. Amazing!
I feel like I'm back at first year of college, studying all the theories and the effect on people and stuff. It's nice
There was no mention of the information that is left out, glossed over, or purposely left out of the media. My example is our past governor Jim Macgreeve that appointed his gay foreign born friend to be head of Homeland Security in NJ. He could not get a security clearance and therefore could not attend FBI briefings on the subject.
I think there can also be a polarising effect when people bring their pre-existing world views to a message.
I have often seen a politician interviewed on television where half the audience will say, "what a great interview, that reporter really nailed him with the questions he didn't want to answer", while the other half might say, "that reporter didn't show any respect at all, he didn't let him speak his opinion". Politics is the best example of this but any issue where there are two major opposing viewpoints can be used. One group might agree & have their viewpoint reinforced by the media message while other will claim bias & call the coverage unfair.
To continue the medicine metaphor, we could say the Hypodermic Needle Model is akin to direct advertising of medicine (TV ads, magazine ads, etc.). Meanwhile, being prescribed medication by your doctor is similar to Two-step Flow, in that pharmaceutical companies promote various medications to doctors in the hope that they will then go to prescribe those medications to their patients.
1) Why didn't you talk about the Agenda Setting and how it affects public opinion?
2) What's the name of that sunglasses movie?
+1 For bringing up Agenda Setting.
The movie is "They Live".
Risky Business?
there's also something to be said about how people naturally copy what they see on TV and radio because they're so saturated throughout our daily lives and are therefore a sort of behavioral reference point from birth. Also, media can influence people through a fear of inadequacy by depicting people with certain traits as the butt of jokes and just as generally worth less than a "normal" person, so all sorts of complications exist cause of it. There's just SO MUCH to talk about on this subject
I'm the kind of person who will avoid a piece of media if people respond to "Oh, I haven't seen it" with "What do you MEAN you haven't seen/read/heard...?", or "Well then, you're not a nerd/geek/reader...". It's one thing to be surprised and to think I should consume a thing, but the people pushing it need to do so politely. Beyond that, the media I consume seems to be mostly the stuff that catches my attention when I hear it described by someone in a community that I'm part of, like booktube, Idea Channel (fun fact: I got into Night Vale after a video on this channel), and from there it webs out. If a creator of a piece of media I love makes something new, I'm so in.
sidenote: if you _do_ happen to think about the media you consume in that kind of analytical way mike says "never happens"... get a journalism degree. we could stand to have a few more of you around. :-)
Have you looked at the syllabus for my first year communications class? This is straight up stuff from my old communication classes and I love it! haha. It's explained in a much more exciting way compared to my how my prof did it. Since we're still talking about these kinds of media effects theories, it would make sense to now talk about Encoding and Decoding, since it's related to how audiences make sense of the media. Also cause Stuart Hall is the bomb, ok?
I'm an overly-analytical person. I scrutinize pretty much every thought and emotion I have. In my alone time, I question the origins of my actions, emotions, and interests. I've concluded that no amount of media can change my behaviors, as I am a full grown stubborn adult. I know why I like the music I like, why I'm overly empathetic, why I'm un-motivated by money , and why I seek adventure. All of it can be traced to my childhood. My experiences as a kid were so profound, that they permanently shaped my fundamental opinions, interests, and even political views.
If I read a newspaper in the morning and tell someone about the news, I'm a better news outlet than TYT.
But then your information is coming from either a liberal leaning newspaper The New York Times or from the republican leaning New York Post. I'd argue that at least TYT is vocal about their ideological perspective, but these other newspapers try to appear "neutral." There can be no news source that is unbiased, and therefore the former two are less genuine. Your best bet is to expose yourself to news source across the political spectrum and find out what you, personally, agree and disagree with based on your fundamental ideas and ethics.
Great video guys. I really liked the little animations in this one!
That Big Science album in the back!!
Fantastic episode! I'm really loving this new format. Seems a little more structured and I, at least, find it easier to follow than your regular stuff.
I'm going to say that if you look at history it is clear that the media has extreme power over the way people think. Culturally, the world has changed so much and so suddenly in terms of values, aesthetics, and culture, and each of those changes happens yearly, monthly and sometimes even weekly. Prior to the advent of television and other forms of mass media, such abrupt and frequent changes didn't exist. What makes it so eerie is the way a set of values becomes commonly accepted throughout a social group, even when some of that social group doesn't even understand why they are supporting the issue. If it isn't the media, then where are these changes an ideas coming from?
To continue with the drugstore analogy, if you consider the medicines as messages, then the drugstore owner would be media. They would pick out what "messages" you have access to in their store. Different media outlets would be like different stores, each having more or less selection of different kinds of messages. You, the consumer, would pick media outlets that tend to have more of the selections you like, or the ones you already have the habit of going to.
9:09 That thought process is actually more or less always in the back of my mind when I'm watching a TV show
Great video man. Love the humor and your in depth explanation and counter points is very enlightening. Welcome to my opinion leader team!!
This! this has been on my mind for the past few months and I've seriously questioned if everything i do, like, or think about are actually my own thoughts or they are just others people thoughts that live in my mind, now I'm paranoid of everything i hear or watch
Mabey you should read some wittgenstein:)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Wittgenstein.27s_beetle
Mike you are an "Influencer"...instant guacamole !
As someone who learned something similar to opinion leaders in marketing, I'm going to go with the Two Step flow theory. For the most part, I think human beings would rather elect a leader of sorts to help them form their own opinions as it's just easier than trying to find stuff you would enjoy on your own hence why a lot of unboxing videos and test videos are so popular on TH-cam.
That being said, being an opinion leader isn't permanent. If the people find that your opinions are now trash due to a myriad of reasons, you can easily be dethroned and someone new will take your spot as an opinion leader. It's like electing a representative for your area. You hope they have your interests at heart and when they don't you oust them.
And consider irresponsibly created media with all kinds of negative messages in them... the exposure effects in such things are truly something disturbing...
I can generally name why I do or don't like something or why I feel anyway about most things. When I was in high school I was often confused by others who would say they simply liked something; to which I'd ask "But why!?" and they'd respond aggressively with "BECAUSE I DO!" I wonder if this manner of introspectiveness is something I picked up from some influential media.
Love the breakdown Mike! Awesome video as usual :)
Media refers to all communication outlets (which includes advertising). Sure talking to your best friend can be helpful in shaping your opinions, but largely what we know about the world is filtered through the media (news, entertainment, commercials, games, art, so on).
This is why our worry vs reality of threats is so skewed....or why the majority of Indian women use skin whitening products....or why some societies become used to the idea of war and torture.
It isn't "one piece of media controls your mind"....it is more "much of your mind is formed using the collective body of media you are exposed to" (books, plays, movies, youtube shows...basically everything outside of those friends and family you actually are talking to each day).
This effectively "controls what people think" when the body of a societies media has certain agendas to push (for example, hatred towards LGBT people 50 years ago in America).
Trying to split off "thought leaders" as something apart from the media is misguided (same with advertising). Unless those thought leaders are the friends you hang out with ....then they are media as well.
Though, perhaps even friends and family are becoming part of "the media". With the advent of "social media". It is debatable if this falls under media (there is definitely a case to be made, for example advertisements on facebook saying your friends liked a page when they haven't....leveraging trusted sources to skew your thoughts towards products / ideas).
Anyhow, the short answer is "yes, media influences us greatly".
"If we feel gratified, that media must have been right, or good."
Sad but true. I like to think of myself as aware.. Yet, I have this same mindset. It's crazy to think about...
I think the 2-step flow is the most accurate, the uses & gratifications has some truth but still opinion leaders will continue telling us what to think even if we choose other things to see in the media, also, opinion leaders tell us what to see.
Just to make clear: they tell us what to think and what to see but that doesn't mean that we always obey them.
That's right, tell everyone that it isn't happening. BECAUSE IT ISN'T HAPPENING...
My 2 cents.
I graduated in advertisement. And back in university I noticed that people had a misguided view of what we were learning there. The field of study in Social Communications is not exact at all. I could calculate how many people I would reach through a campaign and how much that would cost me, but ultimately I couldn’t tell how many of those I reached actually received my message the way I wanted. Communications is a field of bets not one of certainty, no matter what we say to the client.
But it’s not just those who are in the field of advertisement that have this view. It’s especially outsiders who see it as a powerful force for changing the views of the masses. Often these people think they themselves are immune to the suggestions on TV. “I’m drinking this Heineken but it’s not because I just saw 007”.
There is a documentary that I always recommend called, “The Century of the Self”. It’s not perfect but it talks about Edward Bernays. I feel that a lot of the “evil media” reputation can be traced to some of the things he did and said. I think much of it is bullshit but… If you feel strongly about it, you watch it and make your own opinion.
What I want to say really is just that advertisement is much like hypnotism. If you believe in its power, it will have a lot of power on you.
I think it's also important to consider what 'needles' are available for Use and Gratification. I'm constantly seeking out media that portrays trans women like me as real, whole people(or characters in the case of fiction), but my brand of cold medicine isn't as widely available. And I think that is an experience a lot of marginalized people can relate to.
+
+
I've noticed people don't like being refered to youtube videos when asking to describe things. in internet arguements, I often get asked complex things that I don't have time to explain. I refer people back to idea channel or extra credits videos or the like, because I find them very accurate. I then get accused of not thinking for myself. the thing here is, the videos I am reffering to were close to what I already thought on the subject before I even watched the video, yet people think I'm assimilating to that video. that's not even mentioning how I can't ever refer someone to a feminist frequancy video, because nearly everyone is more familiar with strawman versions of her criticisms than the criticism itself.
Media does directly influence people to at least a small extent. This is because when you talk like the person you're speaking to, and use words that they like, they tend to let their defenses down some and understand you better. So they're more likely to seriously consider what you have to say. I remember that there are at least three different spectrums in this theory, and I think this is one example:
Attempting to maximize persuasion for a highly logical person requires many words and phrases that convey logic and maximizing persuasion for a highly emotional person requires many words and phrases that convey emotion. Both are because you are, so to say, "speaking their language". Donald Trump uses a lot of emotion in his speeches, so people who are more emotional thinkers are more likely to vote for him. If we had a robot as a presidential candidate that uses mostly logical words, then people who are more logical thinkers will be more likely to vote for it. So there's a difference in saying (and this might not be the best example) "Statistics have shown that people who go to jail are more likely to return there" and "It's disgraceful that our laws perpetuate shameful actions that keep putting them in jail".
So one way the media tells you WHAT to think, is using HOW you think.
9:10 - I've actually thought something similar to that. In different words, though: "I need a new fandom to help define me". It's a bit of a sarcastic, self-aware comment, but there are really forms of media out there with ideas that I want to adopt as part of myself. It's sad, in a sentence, but beautiful in practice. If the mind is the soul and ideas add to the mind, why not find the best of humanities' ideas to have the best soul?
That is a pretty cool thought.
I feel like this discussion, especially the metaphor about the medicine, relate to the current political landscape of the United States. We pick and choose media that expresses similar views to our own. Part of how the media keeps our attention is by demonizing people with opposing opinions and leading us towards an 'Us vs. Them' attitude. I think this is the sort of amalgamation that he talked about, with us first choosing the media that suits us and then our opinion leaders and the media filling our heads with biases that in turn benefit them. Which is why I believe that we should aim to always see both sides of any issue, through whatever means to avoid as much manipulation as possible and come to our own conclusions.
If you want to see how media effects you personally, I suggest cutting all sources of advertising for a week (at least.) After doing this, go back to a normal TV channel or radio station with full advertising, and observe your own reactions. I was shocked the first time I tried this.
I think what we consume, even ideas, influences us by tiny drops. Enough of the same type of liquid pools together (in the ocean of our mind) and we have a glob of an idea. We can't point to exactly where it came from, but it wasn't from us. Some of them are harmless, some of them are toxic, and some are healthy. Figuring out what works for you is the tricky part.
Great video! Very educational. Loved the sociological aspects of it. It's exactly what I needed for my exam! :)
The NDAA of 2012 (I think) legalized propaganda so broadcasters may now be told exactly what to say and when to say it.
Im 5 years late to this video but wow. It's refreshing to find a video that looks at multiple aspects within it. I could watch brain food like this all day. Thank you for making videos like these. 😅😅
omg you mentioned this to me at Vidcon on the last day of my Vidcon vlog series! It was so great to meet you there! :D
trust no one not even PBS IDEA CHANNEL
New Subscriber here!
Inlove with this channel !!
👏👩😘🌏🌼💞💙💋
I bought a red t-shirt and some bookshelves after watching this.
The Road Not Taken got into my head early and has impacted my reception of further media making my times more interesting in the Chinese proverb sense, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
wat... guess i should make a "last time i was this early" joke.
meh. lets not
good choice...
wait a minute
I believe that the world would be a much better place if people once in a while asked themselves why they like things.
I've always loved Oscar Wilde's quote “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” I wonder if this could also be at play here. I know some of my opinions and even behaviours are adopted from people I respect, sometime it's conscious sometimes it's not. Our psyches are a patchwork or even a frankenstein of tidbits from people and media - then coupled with the mere-exposure principal we follow the path that aligns most with the patchwork we've created - sometimes consciously, sometimes not...
Interesting thought.
But what if I believe I'm not be affected by media in any significant sense? Because I kind of believe that... I can't think of any way that I have been really swayed by media in any regard.
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.. Is a Book that describes all the ways that the media and salesmen, politicians and influences use to effect you.
Uses and gratifications, as presented in this video, is broad enough to include the previous two.
Nothing in it prohibits the media to tinker with their stuff so that it's more pleasurable for the general public. This may also include repeated exposure in an attempt to get the viewer used to whatever is presented. Repeat a lie long enough and maybe some people start believing it (assuming they weren't put off by it).
Similarly, having someone you look up to or just enjoy being with to agree with your stance is usually associated with feelings of happiness. The theory itself doesn't say anything about how happiness comes about - you may follow the beliefs of a good friend subconsciously because agreeing with them is more fun than disagreeing or because it increases the time you spend together.
I agree. I just posted something similar.
I'm not sure whether this was a case of media shaping public opinion, or media bending to fit with public opinion, but when I read the live coverage of the recent attacks in Paris, I became deeply concerned that the killings were being called an "act of terrorism" when the same live article also said that the identity of the perpetrator was not known, and there was no indication that the motivation was political or ideological. It turned out that this was indeed an act of terrorism, but I worry that media jumped the gun because we've become too paranoid about these things. In principle, isn't it possible that this atrocity could've been committed by a secular French person of French ancestry with a deeply troubled mind? Why was this possibility seemingly dismissed before sufficient information became available to clearly refute it? Ultimately, was the media trying to subtly manipulate consumers of media, or was it giving people what they want or expect?
There is nothing better than, a cup of coffee and the latest episode of Idea Channel.
Finaly an episode i understad of idea channel in almost two years
I personally refuse to watch cable tv or anything that has commercials, as well as radio. I choose what I want to hear and sometimes, I change my mind on things just because something else makes more sense. Although I have not changed my mind on politics since college, and yes, it is different than it was in college.
it's amazing how it sounds more logical to consider that our behavior and actions are determined by an outer source than admit otherwise. This way we are more likely to do things we'd be judged upon if it was purely made by our inner self and I think the media took advantage of it and made diverse products to reach most people with the "We Tell You What To Do" hint to let them feel less in charge of what they like and do
Interesting.
I can't help but notice that people tend to gravitate towards ideas where their own temperament or personality is somehow favored or "better" than others. At this point, it seems like "messages" are so common, available, and diverse, that it's very easy to find ideas that very precisely "suit" yourself and gravitate towards them without really thinking about it. I know that's how I ended up at a lot of my own opinions, and I'm not exactly proud of that.
People have no clue.....
And they do not want to know, the lies are so sweet.
Why would people in control of the information we get lie?!
"Zzzzzweet dreams are made of this, who am I to disagree?"
I've become very resistant to these kinds of influence ever since: 1, I was informed/educated of all the manipulative science that goes into things like advertising and 2, I learned that exposure to advertisements actually negatively affects your psychological health.
I hope this gets more than 10 million views some day. 134,680 is not enough.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
I love that you touched upon education media, and I know this episode was entirely geared for the traditional news and popular media segments of our culture, but I as an aspiring teacher have been wrestling with the idea of education as inherently brainwashing. Sure we sugar coat it as informing the students so that they can empower themselves, but ultimately education seeks to affect the thinking of their students. Implicit throughout this video is the idea that brainwashing is conspiratorial and bad, but education is an example where brainwashing perhaps is good (with the understanding that students do still fall through the cracks). Are there other examples of productive brain washing? For instance alternative medicine is largely believed to be based on the placebo affect: where the mind believes it is healed and the body feels better. That is, in a sense, brainwashing as well. Where can we draw the line between the good and the bad manipulation of thought?
The two step flow reminds me of the satirical news show, and how they play a reflective role on other news sources and putting them in a certain perspective and through this they get people more riled up than regular news