REFLECTION 1- COMMUNICATION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE- WEEK 1
Mass media has been used over years as a tool for social change, however it has not always been so as quite often according to the writing of Antonio Pasquali, the same mass media has been used as a tool for manipulation of the less dominant population from the more dominant.
In his writing by Bertoit Bretcht, explains that though a tool such as radio can be used for social change, many consumers of it, go to it mostly for entertainment. He critiques the medium as one that excludes the audience completely and takes the role of informer. Sentiments that are also observed by Pasquali who says that certainly much of mass media is controlled by a select of few, who often are the elite, taking an informer position as opposed to a dialogue approach.
However one cannot exclusively say that dissemination of information exclusively comes from one end as according to David Berlo, communication is a process, an ongoing one. One cannot quite tell the origin of the message as much of communication comes from previous experiences. For example a lot of the key messages are shaped by actions of masses.
These observation are correct to some extent, however as times have passed, mass media, including Radio has become more engaging. With the emergence of social media and call- ins, the perceived "masses" are able to interact with the informers. That way through their engagement, they have to some extent determined which content and information is relevant to them.
The Classic 105 breakfast show for example is very audience based. With even the audience setting up conversation that do get to be discussed. The Kenyan audience especailly is highliy engaged and involved, with even an emerged culture of Kenyans on Twitter who sometimes set the agenda.
However the effect of the dominant culture shaping key messages cannot quite be disputed. The media by and large still has influence in shaping the opinion of the "masses" in politics, socially and even economically. Today, the popular candidate often is quote and quote "friends with the media"
Even socially, the popular culture would often be that of the Elite imposed on the rest. And those who refuse to comply to the "popular culture" would have names tagged on them. Any behaviour that seems a little different has garnered reputations like "Shady", "Ratchet" or "Obbs" and many other terms that can be deemed derogatory with a view to exclude others or demean their difference.
True, consumers shape key messages to some extent, even though most of it is imposed on. As Pasquali puts it, for dialogue to occur, the informed must raise concern.. Occasionally Kenyan audience have rejected some messages, and have taken to social media to uproar. For Example when CNN called Kenya a "Hot bed of terror", Kenyans made them eventually apologize.
It is with these changes and the ever diverse media outlets that one cannot quite say that there is a mass culture that encompasses everyone. Since even the perceived "masses" are highly segmented in views and experience. Also in some cases the masses do not have access to mass media tools and hence are totally excluded from it's influence.
That said however, it is the media that is a tool that can reach out to largest populations and hence, the greatest tool for social change. However as Bertoit puts it, there has to be a deliberate effort for this to be made possible. For now, it is true that most people go to the media for entertainment and not necessarily for social change.
The deliberate effort to bring about this change would include getting out of the perceived assumptions that the audience is not really complicated and would not consume of "hard stuff". The assumptions that the audience is solely in pursuit of entertainment. This as mentioned in pasquali's observation is a a form of mediocrity which allows the communicator to not explore the various possibilities by saying, "We are giving them what they want to hear". Instead the approach should be holistic, encompassing everything relevant.
In his writing by Bertoit Bretcht, explains that though a tool such as radio can be used for social change, many consumers of it, go to it mostly for entertainment. He critiques the medium as one that excludes the audience completely and takes the role of informer. Sentiments that are also observed by Pasquali who says that certainly much of mass media is controlled by a select of few, who often are the elite, taking an informer position as opposed to a dialogue approach.
However one cannot exclusively say that dissemination of information exclusively comes from one end as according to David Berlo, communication is a process, an ongoing one. One cannot quite tell the origin of the message as much of communication comes from previous experiences. For example a lot of the key messages are shaped by actions of masses.
These observation are correct to some extent, however as times have passed, mass media, including Radio has become more engaging. With the emergence of social media and call- ins, the perceived "masses" are able to interact with the informers. That way through their engagement, they have to some extent determined which content and information is relevant to them.
The Classic 105 breakfast show for example is very audience based. With even the audience setting up conversation that do get to be discussed. The Kenyan audience especailly is highliy engaged and involved, with even an emerged culture of Kenyans on Twitter who sometimes set the agenda.
However the effect of the dominant culture shaping key messages cannot quite be disputed. The media by and large still has influence in shaping the opinion of the "masses" in politics, socially and even economically. Today, the popular candidate often is quote and quote "friends with the media"
Even socially, the popular culture would often be that of the Elite imposed on the rest. And those who refuse to comply to the "popular culture" would have names tagged on them. Any behaviour that seems a little different has garnered reputations like "Shady", "Ratchet" or "Obbs" and many other terms that can be deemed derogatory with a view to exclude others or demean their difference.
True, consumers shape key messages to some extent, even though most of it is imposed on. As Pasquali puts it, for dialogue to occur, the informed must raise concern.. Occasionally Kenyan audience have rejected some messages, and have taken to social media to uproar. For Example when CNN called Kenya a "Hot bed of terror", Kenyans made them eventually apologize.
It is with these changes and the ever diverse media outlets that one cannot quite say that there is a mass culture that encompasses everyone. Since even the perceived "masses" are highly segmented in views and experience. Also in some cases the masses do not have access to mass media tools and hence are totally excluded from it's influence.
That said however, it is the media that is a tool that can reach out to largest populations and hence, the greatest tool for social change. However as Bertoit puts it, there has to be a deliberate effort for this to be made possible. For now, it is true that most people go to the media for entertainment and not necessarily for social change.
The deliberate effort to bring about this change would include getting out of the perceived assumptions that the audience is not really complicated and would not consume of "hard stuff". The assumptions that the audience is solely in pursuit of entertainment. This as mentioned in pasquali's observation is a a form of mediocrity which allows the communicator to not explore the various possibilities by saying, "We are giving them what they want to hear". Instead the approach should be holistic, encompassing everything relevant.
Comments
Post a Comment