I swear I will not make things up. But this is as far as I can go. Piece of advice, when you know the readings are a bit technical, make sure you make it to class. :-)
So, James W. Carey identified two views of communication: the transmission view and the ritual view. The way I understand it, transmission view is the simpler, more linear, maybe more common view. It's basically the traditional Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver approach. More like a one-way text message, perhaps.
The ritual view is more interesting. Communication here is defined by shared beliefs or as something that brings people together. There is participation and fellowship and common faith. This view, I think, gives communication more justice. Because ultimately, communication is and should be more than transporting and imparting messages and information.
Take public speakers, for example. Or politicians during campaign. They always speak in the locals' tongue, even just to say good evening, or say "ang lola ko laki dito (kahit hindi)." The result, an applause from the "kinikilig" voters. No matter how tacky, it works. It's like you are sharing something in common and possess the same frames of reference.
Another example I can think of are the TV Networks' taglines: Kapuso, Kapamilya, Kapatid, Kabarkada. Surely, these networks want to communicate that they are one with the Filipino family, that they feel them, that they won't ever leave them. See how that single word can create a loyal following. It's amazing how one word can make people feel that they are a part of something.
And recently, I had a problem with "double meaning." Never did I think I would be summoned by the MTRCB. The program, which I produce for, has a love advice segment. The letter sender was writing to ask for tips on how women could be attracted to him. The hosts used a double-meaning acronym, and went on forever. MTRCB received complaints because as Grace Poe reasons, the problem with double meaning is that receivers (viewers, in this case) almost always tend to have only one interpretation. (Just like pun. They're always intended.)
The culture of "bastos" is common. Especially in the mass media. And people will always relate to it. It can bring people together or break them apart. But it will always be shared.
See you all on Tuesday!
I agree that the ritual view is a more interesting take on communication. Though it might seem childish, "news" has always had a very serious and dull connotation for me with the very mechanical who, what, where, when, why, and how formula. So to say that news is drama, as Carey suggests, is quite intriguing for me. And when I thought about it, I realized that I can see this in the thematic nature of some news programs. For example, during the height of the financial crisis, Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN featured a segment called Culprits of the Collapse, from which (as a viewer) I didn't just take away information on the crisis, but I also felt a sense of indignation (shared by many other viewers) at the reality being presented to me by the program.
ReplyDeleteI agree that art of persuasion is a mean to get not only your message across but also win the hearts of many people for a brief period of time.
ReplyDeleteAs persuasion is always a mandatory trait to success, its means to an end seems to be outdated. Most of the time nowadays if you want people to listen to you it is, I believe determined of how you help people where they want to go and them accomplish the goals for them as well - not for yours, as generations Y and Z are bound to be more influential.
-MJ Ramos
I find your take on "double meaning" quite interesting. I'd like to know more details regarding that, especially what that controversial acronym might be. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Serena when she said, "'news' has always had a very serious and dull connotation for me with the very mechanical who, what, where, when, why, and how formula." I guess this is why our reporters write their story with a certain "emotional factor," so as to appeal more to the public, and at the same time, to get their desired kind of reaction from their audiences.
I also think the ritual view is more interesting. With the ritual view, there is more to the usual sender-receiver relationship between two communicators, as is provides an atmosphere of sharing and participation. Instead of having one sender and one receiver, everybody can take turns in acting as senders and receivers.
(Heyz Elizes)
Fantastic examples, Icy! For someone who missed class, you seem to have a very good grasp of Carey's arguments (clap, clap).
ReplyDeleteI think what's important to remember from his article is that even if most people look at communication in a highly 'transmissional' sense (i.e., remembering what we see on TV, getting information from newspapers, behavior modification via advertisements, etc.), it's actually easier to see the social and cultural impacts that the media has on audiences, which reflects the ritual view.
What I find most intriguing is this: since the ritual view looks at participants of the communication process as 'co-creators' of messages rather than 'senders and receivers', does this mean that AUDIENCES are as responsible for what the media contains as the producers themselves? It's a classic chicken-and-egg argument. Does media influence audience tastes and preferences or does the media merely provide what audiences want? Think about it. :)
Yap! There is always a drama in news. Carey is definitely correct because news touches the heart of every individual receiving the message...regarding "double meaning" words aired on TV, personalities can always get away with that...
ReplyDelete