Standpoint Theory

The Standpoint Theory of Sandra Harding and Julia Woods found in chapter 34 was really relevant to a conversation that I had with a few girlfriends. The fact that Harding and Woods focus on women as a marginalized group is something that my girlfriends and I agree on. We discussed the fact that society and culture differentiate males and females from the beginning starting with pink for girls and blue for boys. Girls are given dolls to play with and boys are given trucks. Girls are consoled when they cry and boys are told to not cry.

Harding and Wood point out that “women are not a monolithic group” (Griffin, 2009, p. 444). In other words we don’t necessarily take the same standpoint on issues. This is where the conversation with my girlfriends comes in. I happened to mention chivalry and how I appreciate a man who opens the door for me or takes my hand to guide me. The reaction I received was not what I expected. My friends said my view on chivalry was demeaning to women and views like that can take away what women have fought so hard for. I happen to not agree. In fact it is my opinion that society has made an impression that chivalry is becoming a stigma and men who demonstrate chivalry are addressed as weak. So I guess I would concur with Harding and Woods point that women are not a monolithic group.

The train/plane test

In chapter 29 the train/plane test was interesting. The German Public Opinion Research Center found a way to see if people are willing to speak out in favor of their own opinion. There were six factors that determined the likelihood of this happening. If the opinion is with the majority they will voice their opinion. The willingness to speak out depends on future trends. Those who share the same thoughts are willing to speak out. Those who remain silent have low-self esteem. Middle and Upper class along with young adults and males are more incline to speak out. Last, laws support those who express their opinions even if they are the minority.

As I continued to read the chapter and went over the critique, one of the flaws was that the train/plane test uses a hypothetical situation to measure the willingness to speak out. It has been suggested that they use observation methods instead of hypothetical situations. This makes sense. It would be interesting to see if the observation method proved the same six factors of likelihood to speak. I believe the factors would change.

Agenda - Setting Theory

With the presidential campaign so close to elections chapter 28 shed some insight to the mass media reporting of this campaign. The agenda-setting theory of McCombs and Shaw hypothesis is defined by Griffin (2009) as, “the mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news agenda to the public agenda” (359). This morning on Good Morning America there was a segment on undecided voters and the impact the media has had on their subconscious. It was really interesting because the participants were asked if they though McCain was too old to run the country. They all stated “no” but when they took an online quiz and all of the participant’s scores demonstrated the word old and McCain were correlated. The same held true for Obama. When the participant’s were asked if they believe Obama has terrorist/Muslim ties they all replied “no” and again after the quiz there was a correlation between Obama, terrorist, and Muslim. There have been many stories about both of these issues regarding the candidates that the media has reported. After watching this segment on Good Morning America, I have to say that I am inclined to think that the media do present a picture in our head and we derive our opinions by these pictures. What do you think?

Interview with McCombs

The last comment McCombs made during his interview, “Most journalists are messenger-producers, they are not communicators”, was a real eye opener. I never thought of journalists in that way but once you think about it, it’s true. McCombs made several comments that I feel need to be mentioned. The agenda-setting function of the media had a catchy phrase, “the media don’t tell us what to think but they do tell us what to think about”. The first part of this phrase no longer holds true. There is now a second level to the agenda-setting function. The second level consists of what are the pictures because our attitude and opinion come from that picture. This is really important because the premise is that the media can influence how we think and sometimes what we do.

An Obstinate Audience

The obstinate audience caught my attention when reading this section in chapter 26. The section focused on the fact that the audience does not always interpret the ideology that the media presents. According to Griffin (2009), “there are three decoding options to obstinate audiences and they are as follows: operating inside the dominate code, applying a negotiable code, and substituting an oppositional code” (p. 342). The one that made the most sense is substituting an oppositional code. I am currently reading a book titled Muhajababes by Allegra Stratton. The book focuses on the very definition of this code, “the audience sees through the establishment bias in the media presentation and mounts an organized effort to demythologize the news. In Muhajababes the youth of Middle Eastern Countries are beginning to engage in a cultural identity of their own and are making efforts to produce their own media to counter that which is being viewed.

Digital Age

Earlier I mentioned that there were a few perspectives from chapter 24 that intrigued me. I blogged about the electronic age but I want to comment on the digital age as well. Griffin (2009) defines the digital age as, “A possible fifth era of specialized electronic tribes contentious over diverse beliefs and values” (p. 317). The text mentions how the electronic age is part of the digital age because it is the “power source”. The reliance on digital technology is becoming more abundant as time moves on and increasingly easier for members of society to have access. With that being said how reliant will we become on digital technology?

Some thoughts about the electronic age

Chapter 24 brought up a few perspectives that I would not have never considered. The one that caught my attention was from the electronic age. The first thing that intrigued me was the mention that sound and touch is more important than sight. It is some what true when you think about it. Books use the eyes and that is it. With the electronic age Griffin states, “Whereas the book extended the eye, electronic circuitry extends the central nervous system” (p. 317). This makes me think of neuroplasticity. I know this probably sounds foreign to most of you but I work in a nursing/biology department and we just discussed this. Neuroplasticity is the ability of the nervous system to adapt. You might have heard of a blind person whose sense of hearing increased as they went blind. This is the ability of the nerve cells to form a new connection to the neuron. Alright enough of the medical jargon, my point is that through out time of the different ages as we change how we communicate the neurons change as well. This might be why it is so difficult for some seniors want to experience electronic media. It’s something to think about.