Responses to Kim's 3rd question

This is in response to Kim Thomas’ 3^rd question she posted concerning hot and cold media.

            “With the 2008 election being very media driven, do you see Obama and McCain as cool persuaders?  Were their messages cool, or requiring a lot of audience participation to create the whole meaning?”

            In response to the first question I believe that most of the media attention was actually hot media. I say that because in the beginning it may have seemed that by presenting what each candidate represented, it was using cool media for the audience to come to their own conclusions, but later on much more explaining had to be done by each candidate (hot media). This candidacy race was unlike any other, in more ways than one, and as far as the candidates having to present their views I think a lot more convincing had to be done this time. People were asking more questions, they had higher expectations after the Bush administration, and people wanted answers. More than I can remember from past election races, the candidates had to go through a lot more and share more in order to capture voters.

            I can see also from the view that cool media was used because based on the information Obama and McCain presented us with people had to come to their own conclusions on who they felt to be the better candidate. As a whole though, I think each campaign did lots of work in order to make sure voters knew who they were voting for.

            Another example of hot media can be seen in the debates. They always do a lot of story telling to help answer their questions, which I think helps the audience relate and better understand what each party is trying to accomplish. By telling these stories and answering the questions the candidates seem to be using the hot media. They want to make it as simple as they can for voters to understand their position and choose their side.

            The ads that are run against each candidate however use the cool media very skillfully. They present a picture to the audience and then they end they add by asking the viewer a question. By asking the viewer to answer a question they are making them think about which side they would choose, and ultimately leave out details for the voters to come to their own decisions. Though these ads are usually annoying after seeing them a couple times, it presents enough information to persuade the audience while still allowing them to decide on their own.

            I think its safe to say that both hot and cold media played a part in this past election. Each candidate wants to successfully display their views to voters while also letting the voters come to their own conclusions on some situations. That is what made the election between Obama and McCain so exciting; no one really knew what people would decide.

Questions from Charles Larsen Chapter 12

1.     In Chapter 12 Charles Larsen points out an interesting fact when he states that “the power of the printed word has diminished to some degree” (pg. 288), in highlighting the drop of readership among newspapers. In class we discussed the various reasons that this may be the case when we read the letter to the editor from a high school student who encouraged the reading of newspapers. As a class we were able to discuss why the Internet had become so much more convenient and user friendly for those looking for fast, local, and current news. N reading this chapter, however, I believe Larsen has pointed out another major hindrance to the newspaper when he discusses the rates of illiteracy among people. The 30% of illiteracy among Americans is from 1993, but it does still exist today. In your opinion does the problem of illiteracy still affect the survival of newspapers today? Have people become too lazy to read and keep up with the growth of the printed word?

2.     In discussing the agenda setting being done by the media, Larsen wants to encourage consumers of media to be critical and open to all avenues of the media. Those may seem contradictory but by open he wants consumers to be able to look at a wide variety of media so that a fuller, more complete picture can be seen. “With several sources telling you what to think about, you can decide both what to think and what to think about” (pg. 307). Every form of media has an agenda that it wants to set, whether its television, newspaper, radio, or Internet. The question I pose to this part of his article is if the Internet has helped in being more open to new avenues of news, or if it has added more distractions to what we are trying to find out? The Internet as an electronic word has brought in tons more advertisements and many more avenues for people to share their view on a certain topic. So do all of these new advertisements, blogs, and articles added by the Internet distract us from what may be the correct news or does it help us as consumers?

3.     The final question I would like to ask refers back to Larsen’s emphasis on the manipulation and persuasion of our media. The media doesn’t tell us what to think but it does influence what we think about. By ignoring certain information and being influenced by sponsors on what to report, the messages we receive can be severely distorted. In my communication class from last quarter we discussed the bias that each major media source is influenced by and it was disturbing to hear how much is hidden and censored from us as consumers. If the media is catering to the audience to get more viewers, instead of catering to the issues and informing us, then how can we be sure what facts are true? In thinking back on the various news stations you’ve watched, or newspapers you’ve read, can you see the bias of our media being portrayed in the stories? Do you think that by reading, or watching, several different broadcasts on the same issue can help us get past these biases as consumers?