Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Media Torrent

In Media Unlimited, Todd Gitlin writes, "Media are occasions for experiences -- experiences that are themselves the main products, the main transactions, the main 'effects' of media. This is the big story; the rest is details." What do you think he means by this? And how is it related to the ideas of Georg Simmel discussed later in the book? Please respond by the start of class Tuesday, Nov. 27.

18 comments:

yellow rebel said...

I believe Gitlin is saying that whatever media presents to us is a product uch like anything else we consume. There is a subconscious consumer aspect og media that I think people are laregly unaware of. Media, more precisely TV, presents us with a product intended to make the public feel good in some way--which is why we tune in and endorse them. The "details" are all the scripted nuances (or in the case of reality TV, non-scripted nuances), the interactions that you see on screen, the overall presentation--those are all the details that help turn an otherwise regular desire (to feel "happy" or feel "good") into something else, more precisely into an "experience.

Simmel posits that we have compromised our existence under the dollar. Our fabric of existence now weighs solely on money and our survival within the modern terrain is circumscribed to how much money we ascertain. In existence as humans revolves around money and we have quantified "love and connection" to dollars and cents. In his relation to what Gitlin says, we don't feel happy unless we have money. More precisely, money is another medium that allows us to get closer to the experiences that makes us feel good.

kristen said...

Gitlin was saying that media's main function is to provide its viewers with an experience, or something that makes them feel. It reminds me of when we were talking about watching violent movies as a cathartic way to purge violent emotions. All media acts in a way to play to our emotions and feelings. Media is not about sending a message, because it's not about what's being said but rather how it is being said. The main product of the media is to make the viewer feel a certain way, so the message becomes just details.

This relates to the effects of the "blase attitude" Simmel addressed. Because of the relentless media overload that we experience every day we have developed this attitude towards them. In response the media caters to us by providing us with excitement and sensationalism to give us that momentary satisfaction, before we revert back to seeing everything as "being of an equally dull and grey hue." It also relates to the idea of nomadicity that we discussed. The viewer no longer has to seek out the media, because the media is already actively seeking out the viewer having to compete with other media forms in being the most exciting.

This is why the message simply becomes a detail. The media recgonizes that it's audience is as Simmel writes "a culture of sensation." It doesn't matter what you tell us, it matters how you make us feel.

Nick Hall said...

When Gitlin writes how Media are occasions for experiences, which are the main products, he is taking a step away from the Marxist views focusing in on the product sense and more onto why the experience is the product. He writes on how we as human beings have always created images and stories, and that the concepts of media are not new. Oral myths placing our power and reach with gods, novels, paintings, plays, and whatever other medium we have used all fall into giving us a specific experience that really doesn’t go much farther than aiming to stimulate us in a particular way. The example with Groucho Marx looking for perfect words that stimulate desirable reactions with the audience shows this objective well.

Later in the book Gitlin uses Simmel’s ideas to back up his own. Simmel focuses on the monetary economy and what it pushes people to want. We build ourselves around money, and the acquisition of it. To make money you need to be calculated, emotions are only part of the calculations that gain you the desired outcome, which is money. Human beings still desire emotion, so they are drawn to media. Media inhibits responses from us, regardless of the content. The responses take the shape of feelings and thus we look to specific media to rule over our emotions, internalizing them. We generally watch scary movies to become scared, we read a story about a hero to become inspired, or a tragedy to become melancholy or even reflective. The information they provide is trivial generally. We constantly look to fill the emotional gap that living our lives around money creates, but the gap becomes harder and harder to fill because we are filling it with media inhibited emotions. I can almost see what he is saying as taking more and more of a drug to get a high.

LynnAnne said...

Gitlin is saying that the "product" of the media is an experience. He sees this experience as a pliable solution to a variety of our fundamental human "desires." These desires, (for routine, for play, for diversion, to feel, or not to feel,) are all "indulged in the vast circus maximus" - the media. This is WHY we surround ourselves with television, cellphones, computers - the rest, what Gitlin calls the "details," are just that.
Georg Simmel has similar ideas. He believes that as human beings the decisive force in our lives is our emotion. "Desire precedes rationality," he says. If Gitlins claim is true - that the media fufills many of our emotional desires - then we instinctively appease them (with the super convenient media) before our rationale can do anything about it.
I think that the point Gitlin making is that the media is full of the distractions, something we naturally crave. In our country especially, they are everywhere- available at the push of a button ( or less.) If we want to be distracted , can easily be, and are encouraged to - it's no surprise we are. Constantly.

Damien Tavis Toman said...

If only the media (let us say the television specifically) were, as some hold them to be, merely a sort of illustrated guidebook for the conducting of actual life. Imagine if one actually turned on Gilligan’s Island to learn how to cope in an unknown and isolated locale, or, even more implausibly – if one turned on the network news to learn what it is necessary to know in order to play one’s part in democracy – to think roundly, to act with deliberation. Would this not be the natural light in which to view television, if it is truly a means of communication?

As Todd Gitlin points out, however, television is not so much a means of conveying information, as it is a means of triggering sensation. Even in advertisements, it is not what we are taught about a product that captures our attention: it is the way in which the advertisement – and by association, the product – makes us feel that determines its commercial appeal. We do not want to know what unholy ingredients are used to make the flavor of the chewing gum last twice as long as its rival brands; we merely want to know – or to feel – that, by chewing it, we will have twice as much time in which to appear attractive to others. The purpose of the advertisement may be to sell longer-lasting gum – but it is only effective if there is some pleasant feeling associated with the chewing of it – such as the feeling of being beautiful, the feeling of having fun, the feeling – even – of falling in love. It is not necessary that one actually believes that purchasing the gum or chewing it will really bring these sensations – these experiences about; the seed of association is already planted, and it sprouts when we find ourselves in the checkout line, eyeing the chewing gum selection, and searching inwardly for the recollection of a sensation, granted us in some semi-conscious half-moment by an advertisement.

According to the same theory then, we do not go to our televisions – irrespective of the programming – for information, or for what we will “take away with us” from watching them – but for experience, for a sensation as real as reality itself, without nearly the investment. We watch a football game, we commit our time and our attention to it, and we receive in return a plethora of sensations: excitement, anticipation, anxiousness, victory, loss, admiration, disdain, the gush of omniscience, the terror of impotency. We may acquire knowledge of the game and of the players, but it is knowledge that we keep and cherish not because it is useful or valuable to us, but because our interest in it serves to enhance the visceral experience of each game we watch, and each game we discuss with our fellow “experiencers” afterward. We know more so that, in knowing more, we can feel more. But for all the numbers, the statistic, the commentary, the exposition and elucidation provided by the television, all that was really communicated was the experience of watching itself, and the emotional sensations produced thereby.

This would make perfect sense to George Simmel, who argued first, that humanity was motivated by its emotional needs as much if not more than its physical, and second, that modern man in general was becoming blasé - that its ability to experience the world viscerally and authentically was becoming stifled by the necessity to play-act its way through a stratified and ritualized society, and its propensity for attaching monetary values to every person, thing, and circumstance it encountered. Simmel would look at our world and see that feeling and sensation have become compartmentalized and commoditized, and that we seek out sources of entertainment – namely the media – to help us experience our emotions (one might say, experience ourselves) in an appropriate setting, at an appropriate time, according to appropriate methods, at an appropriate price. We “invest” in more cable channels and larger televisions with clearer pictures and louder sound. We pay $10 to see a movie because the movie is “worth it.” We take our entertainment where and when we will, because we “deserve” it, we’ve “earned it.” It’s our “down-time.” Our “me-time.” Yes, Simmel would have understood it all too well. The poor man saw it coming.

This has been the cause for my argument all along that it is too much to ask of television news, or of that medium in general, that it be informative – that it be expected to educate. I am with Postman in asserting that television is tailor-made to entertain, to conduce feeling – that if it is entertainment and the safe experience of rationed and regulated emotion that one desires, television is the place to go for it. For education and learning, we have libraries (filled increasingly with DVDs and hardcover thrillers), universities (filled increasingly with glorified tradespeople), and lecture halls (filled increasingly with self-help authors, psychics, and pseudo-scientists.) We have, in a word, options. More than we need. More, I say, than we can afford; more, I say, than we can sustain; more, I say, than we can choose from.

Next time somebody on the television advises you to follow your heart, see if it doesn’t lead you smack into the checkout isle – and the chewing gum rack.

Gina Davison said...

Gitlin is saying that we are no longer allowed to have free-flowing emotions, nor to allow our basic human reactions to surface in most daily situations (in public, at work), so, the media artificially substitutes experiences for us so that we can have an outlet for these emotions, only under controlled, private circumstances. The media is selling us an experience, an alternative part of our lifestyles in which we are, not just permitted to, but encouraged to feel (which is an artificially furnished "feeling" to simulate the state of actually being human).
He uses Simmel to talk about the two states of people, which are cynical and blase. Those who are cynical are helpless in terms of entertainment, however, those who are blase are constantly on the hunt for more excitement. Just as a drug addict, the more you get, the less effect it has on you, until you are left addicted to (media) with little or no satisfaction possible.
I also think what Owen Barfield (42) says about gramatical reference to the action of entertainment by an object to it's subject; previously, the action was assigned to the object itself, while, currently, the action of pleasing or entertaining takes place in the person himself. This shows the transition of how we now value things for the effect they have on us.

Tara Quealy said...

Gitlin feels the media is far more than shows or movies we simply like and watch or don't. He feels using the media is a time for interaction and that media helps us evoke different emotions. He writes that we have a give and take relationship with the media and that when we use the media we are watching, listening and feeling. He writes that when using the media we are practically escaping from life (page 9). The media helps give our lives some stimulation.
Simmels ideas relate to Gitlins. He feels humans are always looking to feel connected and want to develop social and emotional relationships. Humans need and want to feel different emotions and the media can help bring out those different emotions. Simmel feels that humans crave excitement to stimulate the "blase persona". It is like Gitlin's view that the media can help us escape. The media can take people out of the everyday boring persona and give them some excitement.

Christal said...

Media have been used for entertainment or distraction from life. However, over the years the viewers have become consumers. What we now watched is a packaged product ready to be sold to the world. Simmel relates to this idea when he mentions a culture of sensation. A person that has the personality of being blase. They have "completely lost the feeling for a value..." This media experience has become dull and grey.

Christal said...

Media have been used for entertainment or distraction from life. However, over the years the viewers have become consumers. What we now watched is a packaged product ready to be sold to the world. Simmel relates to this idea when he mentions a culture of sensation. A person that has the personality of being blase. They have "completely lost the feeling for a value..." This media experience has become dull and grey.

Dawn said...

Simmel believes in the fact that "the human condition begins with dependencies that are emotional"(31) (love, emotional needs, physical needs). In addition he says that man is a ‘purposive’ animal that develops goals with a mindset focused on tools and money.
With that said, as Gitlin has pointed out throughout the book, our media related experiences have been amplified in conjunction with our sensory experiences with media influences.
This human condition explained by Simmel supports Gitlin’s claim that the nomadic tendencies of media outlets, such as walk-mans, the up and coming web-man, and the overall pervasiveness of televisual, image and sound based media experiences is a main contribution to the basic emotions and feelings "felt" by people today.
Even our experiences with national chaos and death are completely different from the way it was experienced even only ten years ago.
9/11 is an example used by Gitlin to illustrate how cell phones changed the closure between victims and their families by a final phone call before death.

Jillian said...

We are chained to the desk (be it a work or school desk, sometimes both) for ten hours a day, then we rush home, grab a bite, pay some bills, check our kids’ homework, make tomorrow’s lunch, tackle the work we brought home with us, etc. We do not leave ourselves time for “real” experiences. We have been conditioned not to value real experiences. What we cannot shake, however, is our desire for these experiences. The safe and “acceptable” ways to experience something - oh goodness, anything- are via the media. We plop down on the couch, kick off our shoes and thank heavens that we have the next ten hours to ourselves (although, since maybe six of them will be spent sleeping and the remaining four will be spent in the glow of the media, I hardly consider this time for ourselves). We are so hungry for sensation that we favor a quick fix over a true experience. We “learn” both what to feel and how to feel by drifting away in the media torrent. That is what Gitlin means when he writes that “Media are occasions for experiences…”

According to Georg Simmel, what most influences our decision-making is “the power and the rhythm of the emotions.” In our world of a “Ça m’est égal” kind of indifference, we crave disposable feelings, feelings which simulate experiences – but not too intensely, or for too long. We constantly calculate, quickly categorize, and always “size-up.” We assign monetary value to everything, and disturbingly, everyone. We are encouraged by others, and in turn, encourage others, to keep a straight face, be useful, be efficient, produce more, consume more. We must not value passion and creativity too much, lest our emotions disrupt the machine – cold information, hard cash, and a matter-of-fact approach are far more beneficial to our “outer lives.” Simmel believes that the roles we play, the constraint of our outer lives, only breeds more longing for our more fulfilling inner lives.

Shannon said...

Gitlin is saying that we use the media to distract us from our emotions. We live through the experiences of the media rather then our own.
Simmel talks about the blase attitude that people have. They do not have excitement in their lives and look toward the media to get that excitement and experiences.

Kalli Chapman said...

Gitlin is saying that based on our human nature we are driven by the idea of feeling. We crave emotion of all sorts and the experience is what brings our emotions to the surface. The experiences which are the products act as a tool to have the individual relate and feel. Simmel thought the decisive force in people lives was "the power and the rthym of emotions". Which relates exactly to Gitlins point. Desire indeed overides everything else and prevails to be the reason for humans dependency on emotions.

Doug Carter said...

As mentioned, Gitlin describes the function of the media as providing us with an experience. In a constantly moving society, people have little time to experience life to its fullest, and rely on the TV to provide them. Although most TV is seen as unrealistic, we resort to TV to provide us with some sort of experience. By watching TV, people are able to live the lives they aren't in the real world, and instead are able to leave their boring lives to take part in a journey a character in a show may be going through. Simmel goes into explaining how, "From the moment of birth, to live is be and feel connected. Our cognitive and intellectual faculties rest upon foundations of feeling." People yearn to feel like they are living meaningful lives. As explained by Simmel, people tend to have a blase attitude and when the aren't achieving any sort of experience from their own lives, they turn to the media to provide them with an environment where they can get a true experience through the lives of someone else.

Anonymous said...

I think Todd Gitlin's quote means that media as a whole shapes who we are, and that the "details" are the reasons why media holds such power in shaping our lives.

Simmel's main idea is that a man or woman is always striving for more, more excitement, more thrill. Media gives us the details of "colorness," excitement, uniformity, a sense of connection. It gives us the "more" that we are looking for, which unfortunately, leaves us craving...more.

Gitlin expands on Simmel's thoughts by adding that in a way, most people take media for a way of living- the feelings experienced from media are the feelings wanted. In turn, people lose their authentic "real life" feelings, which is exactly the problem.

"The individual is, above all, his or her feelings." I just liked this quote a lot.

Julia P. said...

With this statement, Gitlin emphasizes the relationship between the media and our experiences. We try to achieve a feeling we long for, and only hurt ourselves when we look to media as the solution. I think Gitlin aims to help us understand ourselves and human behavior in general. A steady trend in human behavior is our desire to be entertained and feel. After we revel in our experiences, we only want more and deem ourselves more entitled to these pleasures. We never want to deprive ourselves, and are often unaware of how our need to be pleased has escalated through the years. He considers our need to feel a necessity to life similar to being hungry. However, we as Americans often overeat as a hobby or when bored. Just as we overindulge in food, we are media gluttons as well. Although in the 18th Century the media torrent was not as strong, people still found alternative methods to experience things and control their emotions. For instance, women often resorted to reading romance novels to capture a sense of excitement and escape from their mundane lives. Now in full swing, the media adds to and replaces old methods of escapism. We have evolved into a society where we are completely immersed in media without even giving our consent. The media decides our experiences, and calls the shots. In doing so, it makes for a more disconnected community since we often feel cynical and blasé. We are unimpressed when we encounter the many screens and soundtracks of our lives and may try to avoid this sound and eye pollution with our ipods, mp3 players, etc. This prevents us from interacting with others since we would rather be occupied by a media device to feel better, in an attempt to escape some other bother. Gitlin states that we want to be distracted from our distractions. We are trapped since when we buy ipods or other technological gadgets; we support the growth of consumerism and only add to the media stronghold on our lives. In order to escape it, we are still conforming and worsening our condition. Simmel’s ideas relate to all this since as we feel entitled to things that make us feel more human, we depend on money to buy them and soothe our emotions. Although we may not see anything wrong with purchasing things we desire, in the end, it is all materialistic nonsense that can only bring us short-lived happiness (39). We are dependent on the media to be everything in our lives that we may be lacking, but never find eternal fulfillment in their offerings, becoming indifferent to it all. The media stimulates us and then strips us of our ability to feel, leaving us numb. I think we should all listen to the Beatles because, “money can’t buy me love.”

kt said...

When Gitlin claimns the "media are occassions for experiences," I think he's saying that because the media are such a big part of our lives, that we can't escape from them, they has become a driving force for what happens to us. We don't decide what the media do anymore, they (not in all people or all cases)decide what we do. The media are no longer (were they ever?) a "mirror" for our experiences--they have become our experience, one that's not limited to but extremely prevelent in America. It's not enough for Gitlin to say that our lives revolve around the media, but that the media revolve around our lives, infiltrating and transforming our experiences.


This relates to what Simmel is saying because as the media drive our experiences, and Simmel thinks people "develope mental faculties to 'size up' people, things and situations reliably and quickly," it makes perfect sense that people turn to media for experience and relations with other people. The media literally can "size up people things and situations" for us, and definitely quickly. The question of whether it's a reliable experience or not is debatable.

Another area of Simmel's thinking that pertains to what Gitlin is saying is that "the more money becomes the sole center of interest, the more one discovers that honor and conviction, talent and virtue, beauty and salvation of the soul, are exchanged against money." This concept can be directly applied to the media--it's one of, if not THE biggest issues we've been discussing.

. said...

Gitlin means that not only is the media all around us, we relate to the media and its characters as if they are real. We experience through the media. Gitlin says: “We want a burst of feelings, a frisson of commiseration, a flash of delight, a moment of recognition- so that’s what it’s like when your boyfriend sleeps with your sister...” [page 23] We experience feelings not by feeling them ourselves, but by seeing how other people (on the television) deal with these things.

When Gitlin describes Simmel's ideas he says that according to Simmel we hold media accountable for how we are feeling. The media should make us feel, or have feelings.

- Chantal