Long time no see! This week was a big week for us, and will be for you too since this is (probably) my final post!

We did a group video that was a parody of a meme you’ve probably seen a bunch of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDypskPegw

The original video can be found here, if you watch it you’ll see the amazing production quality and film accuracy that we completely nailed. On a more serious note, filming this with my other group mates was pretty great! Even when we got extorted by a movie editing program where we couldn’t use our video unless we bought the paid version (I know right).

An in-depth explanation

We tried to show another side to the mediated public sphere, and how user generated content (UGC) meant for humor can still offer commentary and highlight issues present in society. See, it’s nice that we can laugh about WWII now. It’s obviously not a present problem but we wanted to highlight a past and also present issue, hence WWII followed by the part about our current pandemic.

WWII was something that Singapore (or Syonanto, as we were called under Japanese occupation) did not handle well, so we wanted to go back and humorously shine some light on the events indirectly through the use of memes.

The part about our present pandemic however, is what I really want to discuss. We did not get out there to formally debate all the panic buyers, neither did we directly address them. We brought them up for the purpose of humor, but I still think it acknowledges the problem and could spark debate, or at least let people know that they aren’t the only ones aware of the problem. And that, is how we feel about user generated content being a vital part of the mediated public sphere.

How has user generated content changed the way we view and understand traditional TV?

I feel like user generated content (UGC) has made TV seem too non-specific for us. Let me explain, UGC is more diverse, there is content out there to scratch every niche, there are creators that are more credible than TV news, there are creators that make you feel a stronger personal connection than anything on TV, and I could go on. The point is, traditional TV at this point does not suit the standard of media that our generation is used to- it’s slow and created to appease a large audience, and doesn’t allow some of the gratifications we may chase, such as a need for community.

That also changes how we understand traditional TV. I feel like whenever we receive information from traditional TV, we ask questions that previous generations did not. Questions such as if this content was really made for you and is having the intended effect?

That’s not to say that UGC may not have it’s own agenda to push, it’s just that due to how diverse it is, you can usually find an agenda that suits yours, hence helpful news.

Hence, I feel like UGC has made us view traditional TV as slower, over-general, sometimes too biased, and impersonal. It’s not a far leap to assume we also understand the content as less important, as we always know that there is other (and likely better) independent content that is even more accessible.

That’s all for now (and ever)! Thanks for going through this blogging journey with me! Take care and goodbye!

Welcome back! This week was an interesting week. We did something I definitely did not expect to do in a university- arts & crafts.

We were supposed to do a little project on what we thought feminism was in 2020. Our original idea was from the prevalence of maid agencies in Singapore. We felt that while the word is not necessarily gender-bound, we have very feminine connotations about the term “maid”. We immediately assume a maid is a female, and we assume certain traits about them- maternal, being agreeable, etc.

So, with the help of an Ikea catalog and a kitchen magazine, we plastered this together. We created what a regular maid agency poster may look like, however we put a male on it (dude looks pretty happy to be there). We also plastered more female-assuming terms on there to drive the point home.

It was great working with my group mates, and I’m not just saying this because they’re forced to comment on my blog. For a brief moment I was mindful of how many gender-assuming adjectives we use. Sometimes it’s not a big deal, sometimes it adds to an unhelpful stigma.

Feminism in the public sphere

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0

The video is one that has made it’s rounds. You’ve probably seen it, actually. A short film by Gillete about men calling other men out for toxic masculinity. I felt this video was very relevant, and especially to my group, since we were trying to convey gender-assuming words that can be harmful. The video tells men to do better and to call out others when they display toxic masculinity, like for example, using female-slanted names as derogatory words.

For the record, I think Gillete razors are trash. But the short film is great. It also triggered the regular hyper-masculine crowd. Below is an example:

Of course, the hyper-masculine crowd still have wallets, and Gillete did lose $5 billion USD in the following quarter, according to a summit.news article. That said, the support for the campaign was impressive, and drove a few great arguments into common discussion.

According to Cerón from a thecut.com article, the Brand Ambassador of Gillete said “We expected debate. Actually a discussion is necessary. If we don’t discuss and don’t talk about it, I don’t think real change will happen.” I think that’s great, because it really did bring discussion into the mediated public sphere. Better yet, it showed the public that misogynists don’t really have that good of an argument, they just cling to values that aren’t really relevant.

That is a great pro of the mediated public sphere. We can all decide and debate with nuance and individual thought, rather than let people who may not represent us properly do it. I would assume 20 years ago, something like this would be swept under the rug, since we’d have people who represented us as a whole but maybe not really care about topics like this debate about it.

Anyway, that’s all for this week! See you guys next time!

References:

Cerón, E. (2019). MRAs Outraged After Razor Company Asks Men to Show Common Decency. The Cut. Retrieved 5 March 2020, from https://www.thecut.com/2019/01/gillette-the-best-men-can-be-commercial-backlash.html.

Watson, P. (2019). Procter & Gamble Loses $5 Billion Dollars Following ‘Woke’ Gillette Ad Campaign. Summit.news. Retrieved 5 March 2020, from https://summit.news/2019/07/31/procter-gamble-loses-5-billion-dollars-following-woke-gillette-ad-campaign/.

Welcome back! This week we’ll be discussing the differences between government-owned and private-owned media, mostly using us Singaporeans as an example. You’ll also hear my thoughts on why we may need a change!

Good doggo from CommunismMemes

Defining terms

Very quickly, private-owned media means that the media is controlled by (hopefully) separate private entities. These entities may have different political affiliations, agendas, and so on.

Government-owned media, on the other hand, means that all media is regulated and parented by the government. Media in this case has the same political affiliation and hence, may unite on an agenda.

We should move away from Government-owned media

Sadly, I think as Singaporeans, many of us may not actually know what private-owned mass media (like TV) feels like- It’s heartwarming that our generation has the freedom of the internet. I recall in the early, early days, I was watching Kids Central at my friend’s house (I had cable at my place), and there was some kind of Singapore rally on the channel. I remember asking why we were watching this- even as a primary school kid this was too propaganda-ish for me.

The internet got us around this, of course. Now we get information (and critique) on our nation from many, many different minds. I’d like to think we’re more open minded than our ancestors, but what if it happened to the internet too? If we entrust all our information needs on one party, well, what if the party is ultimately wrong?

Private-owned media may have it’s cons, but ultimately you are exposed to more opinions that may even conflict, and you are given the autonomy to negotiate the most beneficial message. The responsibility is in YOUR hands, and that’s a good thing.

So why is that a good thing?

Good question, my pensive friend! It just so happens I have a flawless argument based on very real and recent examples. So recent, in fact, that you may just have been complaining about it last week!

So last week, we had a DORSCON orange alert, followed by a horde of aunties and uncles panic buying all non-perishables at supermarkets. I need to stress that this was after weeks of TV news laying on the ketchup. I mean, that’s where these people get their news from isn’t it? They don’t go on Reddit and get told to chill.

Funny enough, this was followed by some damage control by the Minister of Trade and Industry, Chan Chun Sing:

In my opinion, if our media wasn’t government-controlled, and we actually had conflicting opinions on mass media- last week would not have happened. The entire spectacle was a result of a generation being spoon-fed fear for weeks, they don’t have the autonomy to change their view if one view is all they know.

And with that, I think we need a change. I think the privilege of not getting your opinion funneled should be a human right. Hence, I think we need a free media, and I hope that you do too! See you next week!

References:

CNA. (2020). The Big Read: Panic buying grabbed the headlines, but a quiet resilience is seeing Singaporeans through COVID-19 outbreak. [online] Available at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/coronavirus-covid-19-panic-buying-singapore-dorscon-orange-12439480 [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].

Welcome back! Today we’ll be discussing the Uses and Gratification theory, as well as an example of how media can be perceived by different people.

So on to the theory itself

The Uses and Gratification theory was developed by Blumer & McQuail in 1969. It recognizes the audience as individuals with not only control over what media they consume, but also has control over how they perceive messages within the media.

The theory also references Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, so now you know why this may cause a few flashbacks if you were a Mass Comm student.

Cognitive needs

People require knowledge. They may choose media that has information about a topic they care to learn about, or they may simply enjoy the feeling of learning something new. An easy example is infotainment.

Affective needs

We may sometimes choose media to satisfy or express certain emotions we want to feel. I could very well use the example of a soap opera (the ones that your mother watches), however feel-good media is popular as well. I personally find it quite helpful to just watch a 5 minute video about dogs every now and then.

Personal integrative needs

This one will have an example that is a little more controversial. Some may consume media that reassures them of status, or rather gives them an idea of where they stand. This includes comparing yourself to the people suffering on My 600lb life. Acknowledging that their life is suck-ier reaffirms you that your life isn’t all that bad.

Of course, this one goes the other way as well. Ever open Instagram to see that the new standard of living is owning $1500 sneakers?

Social integrative needs

This one encompasses consuming media as a form of integrating yourself in a social setting. If you hang out with people that don’t have personalities, you likely run into this one a lot- the only thing that you have in common is whatever Netflix show you’re keeping up with.

Tension free needs

Lastly, this one is just consuming media to help you relax or get away. Hint: scrolling social media while waiting for someone counts (I think)

So what would Uses and Gratification research look for?

Note that all the points I covered above are not exclusive, meaning you consume for more than one interest.

The theory is typically used to understand why a population or an individual would consume certain media, as well as understand what they receive from it in terms of gratification.

For example, a case study by Weaver (2003) found that those who were more socially inept, received a much greater gratification from certain aspects of television contents, as well as identified social motives for watching television, in comparison to their extroverted counterparts.

A real world example:

If you are fortunate to have not heard about Juul, Juul is/was a tobacco-alternative (hint: vaping) company that controversially targeted kids that were not nicotine addicted.

Up till this campaign, Juul was marketed as a smoke-free alternative for individuals looking to quit smoking.

They also spent USD $1.2 million lobbying against both health and advertising regulations in the US. The whole time claiming that it is for adults who need an alternative to cigarettes.

Let’s break down one of their ads from their Vaporised campaign:

On a denotation level: we see a girl using the e-cigarette

On a conotation level: you could argue that the girl looks extremely young, A Forbes article compared the model to the popular pop singer Ariana Grande.

And on a mythic level: We could say the advertisement is clearly trying to target youth, with trendy clothing, young models and bright colours.

Robert Jackler, a professional that studies e-cigarette use amongst youth, says: “Juul ads are filled with attractive young models socializing and flirtatiously sharing the flash-drive shaped device, displaying behavior like dancing to club-like music and clothing styles more characteristic of teens than mature adults“

While Juul cannot outright make hard sells to kids, it’s quite clear they are trying to start them young.

That’s all I have for you today folks. Hopefully you found something to think about for the rest of the day. See you next time!

References:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2018/11/16/the-disturbing-focus-of-juuls-early-marketing-campaigns/#45bdcda514f9

Alright, let’s tackle this one. First of all, it was George Box (I think) who said “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. So, hopefully whatever I say today just adds nuance.

How do you actually correlate media & harsh effects in population studies?

I understand the general concept of reverse engineering the cause of behavior on a case study basis. Case studies isolate the root cause better, at the same time are not regarded as important, because it’s just a case study.

Media researchers and their commissioners are looking for differences in media consumption when they look at populations. They don’t have the resources to dig deeper, nor is it even part of their field. Hence, you’ll likely find what you’re looking for if you’re trying to correlate media consumption & behavior.

Also, how can you quantify media consumption in population studies. You can quantify hours viewed of programs with violence (for example). So how violent? How was the violence portrayed? Was a moral standpoint depicted with the violence? And also, from the consumer side, were they idle, or fully cognitive to the messages?

How effective is meta-analyzing data from a few years ago and today?

In sports science, people still reference human studies from the 1960s. That’s because we didn’t grow a 3rd arm in the 21st century, hence research can still be relevant.

Compare that to studies on media consumption, our media habits are extremely volatile. In fact- I remember just a couple of years ago when being racist on the internet was still cool.

There may be assumptions that are not properly questioned. We know the consensus of relating violent programs on TV with violent behavior. That is generally agreed upon, however I would ask how relevant that is when we take kids today who are getting media from the internet. Are they still susceptible, or even more susceptible to behavior change when they are on a platform that requires more interaction?

My point is that there are holes when applying a population study to literally anything that is not the specific population that was studied. Of course, that can be said for any field, not just media.

Practical questions for the role of media today

In the past, with television, you could make broader assumptions since every viewer of a particular channel would be consuming the same media. Whether they are cognitive to all the messages is a different debate, however still just compare that to the vast internet where everybody has their own niche.

I also think it is not practical to ask if every corner of the internet is created to be an enriching experience. Rather, any mass media source on the internet could be questioned on the overall good and bad they cause.

Take for example the corona virus epidemic. Is reporting on it meant to be sensational or cause panic? Does it also educate and aware people of an issue? It likely does all those things, hence going back to my first statement- nuance.

Thanks for reading folks, see you next time!

Welcome! I’m Shern, and here’s a little introduction about myself:

Communication and Media Psychology

Oh boy. I used to be a Mass Comm student so I’m already feeling jittery.

Modern media isn’t going anywhere, it will continue to enrich or plague us for a long time- however you wish to view it.

It’s significant how we perceive messages. It’s the foundation of understanding both the positive and negative outcomes of exposure to media.

I get that it’s cool to discuss all the negative and extreme cases of exposures to certain types of media. And of course, that’s important. However as I said, it will continue to be part of our lives and of course has to enrich it in some way. How about shaping and consuming our thoughts of our exposure where it aids in our development?

I hope Communication and Media Psychology will be a great introduction to what’s behind the curtain.

Anyway, that’s all for now. Thanks for reading and see you again next time!