them, rather giving them access to new content. It is possible to apply the uses andgratifications theory on audiences here; although they cannot
to the text as such, they areusing it as a means of entertainment; to escape from the “everyday problems and routine”. Thenew media also gives audiences access to a type of culutural transmission; no doubt, a key tolearning about other societies without ever leaving home. This is also relative to how
has changed audiences, as well as this mass unification of the world’s media.Access to media from across the world undoubtedly has made audiences more aware and is likelyto have caused audience’s behavior to have changed. For example, have audiences from England become more violent as a result of seeing so much violence (mainly including guns) fromAmerican media? It is interesting to consider this whilst looking at the such concepts as the mediaeffects model, as well as David Gauntlett’s argument against it. It is very possible that theviolence portrayed and increased rates of crime and violence, are directly relational; that themedia is having such a dramatic effect as to cause audiences to go out and change to partake inviolent acts. Alternatively, as Gauntlett suggests, the media could simply be being used as a boycott for increased violence here, whereas the actual reason is the people or other factors.Increased coverage of violence is either considered irrelevant, or a coincidence. Gauntlett’s studyon the relation between young offenders and television demonstrated that they did not in fact
to any of the fictional characters they see at all, and struggled to remember them, never mind be influenced by them; strongly agreeing with the concept that television does not correlateto behavior. However, it is always possible that already-violent members of society can
thismedia, as part of the uses and gratifications theory, and then go on live the life seen there. Thereare many angles at which the question could be approached, but as it is a psychology matter, thereis no way to be completely certain on exactly what effect this media has had.Other examples of media like this areWider integration of new technologies within media (due to globalization) have also increased theability for people to communicate amongst each other; not long ago it was rare to speak to aforeigner without travel, whereas nowadays anyone can sign up to a forum or message board and be conversing with people from a number of cultures in minutes. Countries sharing their ideasand concepts has led to advancements such as broadband, telephones and even smaller accomplishments such as new methods for research. When looking at globalization this way, inrelation to media, it should be looked upon with great esteem – having brought around manyadvancements that have allowed media to develop and be distributed.
Find a fucking theory forthis.
Globalization has brought us a generally improved lifestyle; countries drawing on each other’sskills and material to develop not only media technology, but technology that we now take for granted. Media’s access to such technologies have allowed it to evolve onto different formats, andto convey messages to audiences in a number of different ways. Aside from technology,globalization has also led to a change in
. Audiences are now able to view material fromall over the world, having access to many different cultures and concepts – viewers needs can besatisfied now by foreign media, and easily. It is also possible that changes in modern media (dueto globalization) have altered the behavior of society – for example, violence – if not in our culture then in