Semester 1 Chatter Thread (2008) (2 Viewers)

[amber44]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

If you're focusing on feminism make sure you point out how terrible the women's editions of both Honi Soit and the Bull are

LOL, OMG tell me about it. I'm a chick and even I found it BORING!

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

ROFL!!!!!
I'm exactly the same apart from the last 3 LOL I don't know if I can be bothered playing around with what Annette TRIED to mean. I'm thinking of just looking at is as a post modernist theory and then just critique it from the other perspectives. Half arsed job I know, but what do you expect. I'll also through in semiotics, but does that maybe fall under post modernist? FUCKEN HELL!

I'll probably pick feminism, because she mentioned it in the lecture and I know abit about it, and then I might pick....I'll see whatever theory offers anything substantial on media and agenda setting.

but post modernism is a sub-theory of the agenda setting approach

 

[scarybunny]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

LOL, OMG tell me about it. I'm a chick and even I found it BORING!

It wasn't just boring, it was fucking infuriating.

I'm glad people tore it apart in the editorials this week. I can imagine next week lots of feminists will complain right back "Waah you don't understand because MEN HAVE BRAINWASHED YOU".

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

I didn't find it boring. I found it pretty exciting.

 

[amber44]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

but post modernism is a sub-theory of the agenda setting approach

Thankyou stazi for ripping my crappy idea into pieces, and now I have nothing LOL

Honestly, ARGGGGGGGGG what is it with this lady, she's a wack!

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

haha the thing is, you can't escape the agenda setting approach. all it says is that those in 'power' will set the agenda in media. even if you look at semantics, culture is shaped by those in power, as well as our understanding of things. power dominates everything we do in society.

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

hey babes (boobzookajoe+amber) wanna layk compare essays and sheet

 

[Rafy]

Re: If this thread gets to 300000 posts I will bake BOS a nice cake.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-love-fest-in-sydney/2008/05/07/1210131067269.html

i now regret not going.

 

[amber44]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

haha the thing is, you can't escape the agenda setting approach. all it says is that those in 'power' will set the agenda in media. even if you look at semantics, culture is shaped by those in power, as well as our understanding of things. power dominates everything we do in society.

SO what are you saying....that indeed what Annette said to you makes sense, and that 'agenda setting' is just a theme amongst different schools of thought?

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

I think she doesn't think that it's a theme amongst different schools of thoughts, but that many schools can be applied to it. If you apply economic and marketing theory to the approach, it wouldn't work. However, in most cases, it does explain the nature of society, but omits some issues that are external to power issues.

What I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to come up with any demerits if you look at it as a whole. It is like a limitation section to a paper: "I will not look at X for issues of scope, but will deal with Y" - you can't fault an academic for doing this.

 

[The_Apprentice]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

you guys got a hard essay question.
When I did that unit our essay question was something like "what is the role of media in contemporary society?" ...or something stupid and open like that.

 

[amber44]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

I think she doesn't think that it's a theme amongst different schools of thoughts, but that many schools can be applied to it. If you apply economic and marketing theory to the approach, it wouldn't work. However, in most cases, it does explain the nature of society, but omits some issues that are external to power issues.

What I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to come up with any demerits if you look at it as a whole. It is like a limitation section to a paper: "I will not look at X for issues of scope, but will deal with Y" - you can't fault an academic for doing this.

Mmmm, it's late and I'm tired, can you please say that again stazi, in simple language?

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

lolz.

so, basically, as an academic you can say "this is the subject matter I will cover. everything outside of this subject matter, I will not comment on, as it's outside of my field of specialisation".

So, if an academic talks about farming and only talks about how animals need food, you couldn't say "but look at the temperature needed to maintain optimal crop growth".

This is similar: agenda setting theorists say that they will only talk about power. Power, like food, is fundamental to every living thing. If I am stronger than you, I have more power. If I am smarter than you, I have more power, etc.

So, another theorist can't come along and say "lol but you're not talking about how message structure is encoded and decoded". So, regardless of the alternate proposition, the agenda setting approach will always be correct, albeit limited in scope.

even simpler:
a gynecologist studies vaginas. he writes a paper on vaginas and how the vulva is sxc.
then a fag comes along and goes 'you forgot to talk about the cock. i love cock'

the fag can't do that, as the gynecologist's goal isn't to compare the two. he is talking about one single dimension of female genitalia.

 

[townie]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

any1 fancy spending about 15minutes with me to help with some pilot testing

Note: your data wont be included in the final set, it's just a refinement process

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

i'd help but i can't fly

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

lolz.

so, basically, as an academic you can say "this is the subject matter I will cover. everything outside of this subject matter, I will not comment on, as it's outside of my field of specialisation".

So, if an academic talks about farming and only talks about how animals need food, you couldn't say "but look at the temperature needed to maintain optimal crop growth".

This is similar: agenda setting theorists say that they will only talk about power. Power, like food, is fundamental to every living thing. If I am stronger than you, I have more power. If I am smarter than you, I have more power, etc.

So, another theorist can't come along and say "lol but you're not talking about how message structure is encoded and decoded". So, regardless of the alternate proposition, the agenda setting approach will always be correct, albeit limited in scope.

even simpler:
a gynecologist studies vaginas. he writes a paper on vaginas and how the vulva is sxc.
then a fag comes along and goes 'you forgot to talk about the cock. i love cock'

the fag can't do that, as the gynecologist's goal isn't to compare the two. he is talking about one single dimension of female genitalia.

Awh pure Stas.

 

[amber44]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

lolz.

so, basically, as an academic you can say "this is the subject matter I will cover. everything outside of this subject matter, I will not comment on, as it's outside of my field of specialisation".

So, if an academic talks about farming and only talks about how animals need food, you couldn't say "but look at the temperature needed to maintain optimal crop growth".

This is similar: agenda setting theorists say that they will only talk about power. Power, like food, is fundamental to every living thing. If I am stronger than you, I have more power. If I am smarter than you, I have more power, etc.

So, another theorist can't come along and say "lol but you're not talking about how message structure is encoded and decoded". So, regardless of the alternate proposition, the agenda setting approach will always be correct, albeit limited in scope.

even simpler:
a gynecologist studies vaginas. he writes a paper on vaginas and how the vulva is sxc.
then a fag comes along and goes 'you forgot to talk about the cock. i love cock'

the fag can't do that, as the gynecologist's goal isn't to compare the two. he is talking about one single dimension of female genitalia.

ROFL! Well the last bit just made it ever so clear!
Still, your average Joe Blow who rocks up occasionally to lectures will not get this just from reading the question!
Now I get everything you've just said, so taking the whole 'power' thing for example, Agenda Setting looks at 'power' like this, ALTHOUGH, *insert other theories* looks at power like this....compare, discuss etc, yeah?

 

[bazookajoe]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

stas I obviously haven't started it yet

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

ROFL! Well the last bit just made it ever so clear!
Still, your average Joe Blow who rocks up occasionally to lectures will not get this just from reading the question!
Now I get everything you've just said, so taking the whole 'power' thing for example, Agenda Setting looks at 'power' like this, ALTHOUGH, *insert other theories* looks at power like this....compare, discuss etc, yeah?

but I don't think other theories look at power. they just look at other parts of media in contemporary society.

like how some people look at forests, others look at the atmosphere and others look at waterways. There is some interaction between the elements, but ultimately, they are different aspects of the world.

this is quite poorly-written as I'm just typing what I'm thinking for the essay, but this explains it more (and is my conclusion).

After a critical evaluation of the agenda setting approach to media in contemporary society, the primary merit of the paradigm becomes transparent. Power is central to the lives of contemporary citizens, as the very definition of power implies a greater level of control over another party. Without completely trivialising the concept, if a human being is stronger than another, then they are more powerful, in that particular attribute than their colleague. This attribute is not limited to strength; it could be money, beauty, respect or intelligence. As such, a power imbalance exists and the study of how it is dispersed and reflected in contemporary society is valid and justifiable.

The demerits of the approach, then, also appear translucent. Whilst agenda-setting theorists are within their rights to limit the scope of their analysis, an officious bystander must enquire about the world outside of power relations: there is more to be analysed than issues pertaining to who sets the agenda within contemporary media. These issues, as discussed, include the identification of how media messages are encoded and decoded, the correlation between the evolution of media and technological advancement, and the facilitation of interaction between media and their audiences.

 

[amber44]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

but I don't think other theories look at power. they just look at other parts of media in contemporary society.

like how some people look at forests, others look at the atmosphere and others look at waterways. There is some interaction between the elements, but ultimately, they are different aspects of the world.

this is quite poorly-written as I'm just typing what I'm thinking for the essay, but this explains it more (and is my conclusion).

After a critical evaluation of the agenda setting approach to media in contemporary society, the primary merit of the paradigm becomes transparent. Power is central to the lives of contemporary citizens, as the very definition of power implies a greater level of control over another party. Without completely trivialising the concept, if a human being is stronger than another, then they are more powerful, in that particular attribute than their colleague. This attribute is not limited to strength; it could be money, beauty, respect or intelligence. As such, a power imbalance exists and the study of how it is dispersed and reflected in contemporary society is valid and justifiable.

The demerits of the approach, then, also appear translucent. Whilst agenda-setting theorists are within their rights to limit the scope of their analysis, an officious bystander must enquire about the world outside of power relations: there is more to be analysed than issues pertaining to who sets the agenda within contemporary media. These issues, as discussed, include the identification of how media messages are encoded and decoded, the correlation between the evolution of media and technological advancement, and the facilitation of interaction between media and their audiences.

YES YES! So basically, agenda setting is limited in it's scope, and doesn't take into account other relations that affect the audience in shaping ideology and public thought. These other features include, as you've mentioned semeotics etc etc etc, yeah?