![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Writer's Block: Cause or symptom?
Nov. 16th, 2010 09:18 am[Error: unknown template qotd]
Two separate questions. I shall address the first.
I don't think there can be any doubt that media promotes what it communicates. Just as violent media promotes violence, inspirational media promotes inspired behavior, and appeasing media promotes appeasement.
The tricky word here is "promotes." A medical study done a few years ago concluded that some incredible percentage of patients who were told of an unquestioned need to change their lifestyle in order to prolong their life (can you think of anything more important?) will not make that change. (I don't have the figure in front of me, but it was something like 90%-95%.)
I think this example is easily extended to media in general, which is to say that while media promotes what it communicates, the effectiveness of such promotion is very, very low.
Need more proof? Consider advertising. A bulk mailing that results in a 1% response is considered successful. Manufacturers spend millions of dollars to achieve "name recognition," and then spend millions more to maintain it. Marketers face an ongoing struggle to establish a recognized "position" for their product inside your head.
If media was effective at promoting what it communicates, you'd expect early birds in any market to have little trouble repelling attempts by latecomers to capture market share, but that simply isn't the case.
Does violent media cause some people to become violent in real life? Undoubtedly, and it's easy enough to find correlations, especially if one relies on anecdotal evidence. But here's another question: Can violent media smother violent tendencies in other people, serving the same function as a safety valve on an overheated boiler? The correlation is harder to identify, but I think the answer to the second question is also in the affirmative.
So the answer to the first question is "Yes." To which one must add: "So what?"
Cheers...
Two separate questions. I shall address the first.
I don't think there can be any doubt that media promotes what it communicates. Just as violent media promotes violence, inspirational media promotes inspired behavior, and appeasing media promotes appeasement.
The tricky word here is "promotes." A medical study done a few years ago concluded that some incredible percentage of patients who were told of an unquestioned need to change their lifestyle in order to prolong their life (can you think of anything more important?) will not make that change. (I don't have the figure in front of me, but it was something like 90%-95%.)
I think this example is easily extended to media in general, which is to say that while media promotes what it communicates, the effectiveness of such promotion is very, very low.
Need more proof? Consider advertising. A bulk mailing that results in a 1% response is considered successful. Manufacturers spend millions of dollars to achieve "name recognition," and then spend millions more to maintain it. Marketers face an ongoing struggle to establish a recognized "position" for their product inside your head.
If media was effective at promoting what it communicates, you'd expect early birds in any market to have little trouble repelling attempts by latecomers to capture market share, but that simply isn't the case.
Does violent media cause some people to become violent in real life? Undoubtedly, and it's easy enough to find correlations, especially if one relies on anecdotal evidence. But here's another question: Can violent media smother violent tendencies in other people, serving the same function as a safety valve on an overheated boiler? The correlation is harder to identify, but I think the answer to the second question is also in the affirmative.
So the answer to the first question is "Yes." To which one must add: "So what?"
Cheers...
