Study Guides (400,000)
CA (160,000)
UOttawa (10,000)
CMN (400)

CMN 1160 Study Guide - Intertextuality, John Stuart Mill, Social Inequality


Department
Communication
Course Code
CMN 1160
Professor
Catherine Elliott

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 34 pages of the document.
CMN1160A
Lecture 1
September 11, 2012
Week 1: Introduction Media and Society
Daniel J. Paré
University of Ottawa, Department of Communication
September 11, 2012
TA: 1. Kevin Johnson
Email: JohnsonK.TheTA@hotmail.com
Office Hours: Mondays 13:00-16:00 (DMS 11140)
2. Radamis Hany
Email: rhanyintrocomm@gmail.com
Office Hours: Wednesdays 9:00- 11:00 (DMS 11129).
Intro
-Started using reason as a base instead of class. Basing the advancement of knowledge on science.
Giving up the divine rights of kings.
-Had to think about what to debate, who should be involved, how hierarchy should work, public access
and opinion, etc.
-Entrusted parliament and elections to ensure these values. To ensure the flow of knowledge, we
developed mass media.
-Freedom of speech, privacy, ownership of the media go to the heart of the society you want to
establish.
-16th 18th century involved the role of communication and orienting it towards who should participate
and how they should participate. Were they knowledgeable/interested enough?
-20th century: media studies becomes an active field. 1900s involved emphasis on the formation of
public opinion. 1930s onward shifted towards sociologically and psychologically based groundings. What
effect do these media messages have?
Three types of approaches to communicatons:
1) European Approaches
-More sympathetic to Marxist thought
-Involve the role of social, political and social interest in shaping media messages
2) U.S.
-Administrative school: looks at communication breakdowns and how to enhance the means of
conveying content.

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

3) Canada
-How the conveyance of content influences culture. Ties into our insecurities of our national culture.
Importance of media
Primary agent of socialization
-Influence is the primary agent of socialization, even more than family.
-Media messages are powerful forces of influence on us as individuals; our ideologies, our consumerist
concerns, our culture concerns, etc.
Information source
-Central to our understanding of the world and how we coordinate our actions in it.
-Canadian Radio Television Commission (CRTC) released a report on our exposure to media. Roughly 18
hours of radio per week; 28.5 hours of TV per week; Anglos are 18 online and Francos 13 hours online.
-Historically, the key role of the mass media was to inform people. Audiences were viewed as being
passive. Mulled it over, but accepted what is happening to us.
-We shifted in this dynamic; not only news organizations providing this info, but us as well providing it to
each other.
Entertainment/Info-tainment
-Political/media content may be dumbed down. A shift from news to info-tainment. (E-talk daily, human
interest stories)
-More people get their news from the Daily Show than an actual news source. Some feel this is a point
of concern.
Agenda-setting
-Historically, media picks what is news. There is a multitude of information, and they decide how they
are going to be framed.
-They play a role in structuring public perception.
-Doesn’t tell you what to think, but what to think about. (Protest news coverage was limited )
Global Economy
-Communicative technologies are the key to the economy. Final transactions and communication
devices is the majority of the market.
-Collapse of time and space; distance is no longer a factor.
Binding/unifying (or fragmentive?)
-A tool for unity. Ex: The Queen’s jubilee in the 1920s united many Canadians through the radio; they
had never done that before.
-1930s: War of the Worlds (Orson Wells) caused a mass panic. People were bound together in their fear
using the radio.
-9/11 and Kennedy assassination binds us together in history.

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

-Personalization of media and news disallows us this binding agent. The atomization/fragmentation of
society is easier.
-We cannot develop a sense of nationhood if we live in our own tailored news environments.
-Fragmentation in Canada becomes worse because of distinct regional identification (language,
multicultural, etc.)
Media trends
1. Convergence (Blurring of sectoral boundaries)
Three types:
a) Technological end of distinction between content and carriage
-Carriage was the infrastructure; content was the stuff that went through it. Up until the ‘90s, if
you provided infrastructure, you could not provide content (Bell Canada provides infastructure,
but couldn’t regulate content).
-Rogers couldn’t get into the carriage gate (infrastructure). There was a clear distinction.
-A feat of engineering and vertical integration.
b) Commercial bundling of services
-Cell and TV services together, etc. This was seen as being anti-competitive and detrimental to
companies.
c) Corporate consolidation of media companies
-Bell is buying out Astral Media.
Vertical Integration: The combination in one company of two or more stages of production normally
operated by separate companies.
Horizontal integration: buying a business that has nothing to do with your business.
ex: Bell acquiring Maple Leafs sports and entertainment.
Concerns with integration:
1) Reduction of the quality of the company due to pressure of quarterly profits.
2) Homogenization of content. Ex: trashy reality TV has taken over the market.
2. Regulatory uncertainty
-Control of diffusion of content?
It was common to hear historically that the government couldn’t patent content. Now, we know that to
be false (ex. Online)
-Canadian content rules?
Fears about the social media platforms etc. do in protecting Canadian content. The CRTC ruled in the
past not to regulate Canadian content.
-Liberalism vs paternalism
How much regulation, what to regulate, and how to regulate it?
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version