Clarifications On Gratifications
Greetings! 3rd week into BCM110, and now we have an interesting new topic to follow up from last week’s. Traditional mass media, and now new media, presents a whole plethora of options for the active audience to entertain, educate, or to express themselves. Media today has a reach that is ever further and wider through the use of the internet, and anyone with access to these platforms can be the content creator and viewer simultaneously. A theory that has active audiences in mind was needed to study media and how it’s used.
I’ve found the Uses and Gratification Theory (UGT) to be an update from the “Media Effects” model. The flaws highlighted in “Media Effects” model has been addressed via uses and gratification theory. What we observed was that the “Media Effects” model does not accommodate how viewers can have different interpretations and perceptions of the media they expose themselves to, but UGT precisely focuses on active audience who select media content to view and platforms to participate, in order to gratify their various needs. These needs can be: self-expression; finding support from a like-minded community; reinforcing ideals through role models/idols; escapism; relief; to be acknowledged and heard; for educative purposes. Content analysis was also employed in UGT research as a means of in-depth assessment of media, explaining how its consumption varies from rural to urban areas.
Yet, the possibility remains that UGT might also cower in the face of the immensely powerful media. Media is constantly and rapidly fine-tuning its systems, to be relevant and used by an even larger community. As a result, they are bringing more of what each individual prefers, right to their screens ever more immediately and attractively (just look at the cooking videos and controversial topic headlines on Facebook and other popular ‘news’ sites). This complicates the research and computed results, which is worsened by the unprecedented evolution of media, and our increasing reliance on instant gratification.
The Wobbly About The Lobby
Lobby groups are defined as a group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause, such as an industry or an item of legislation. Lobby groups fights for causes they believe in, but not all causes are altruistic. More often than not, they are for selfish gains by a privileged few. Lobbyist rarely function alone, and are usually not self-funded. Personal interests of a particular organisation may be ensured by employing lobby groups to influence legislators for the political outcome, or the press to sway public opinion, in their favour.
One such example is the Friends of Science (FoS) campaign on climate change denial. They were kick started by a $175,000 donation from Talisman Energy (a fossil fuel company), to lobby against the Canadian government’s decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 2003. Ever since then, they have launched numerous campaigns to deny climate change in Canada. An example is the billboard posting seen below:
FoS claimed that the solar activity is actually the main cause of global warming, along with the intentional misinterpretation of Earth being small and susceptible to the sun’s immense heat in the image. A less-informed citizen might agree with FoS, re-affirming themselves that there’s no way insignificant humans can cause warming only the sun is capable of; that their carbon footprint makes little impact and there is no reason to reduce it. As such, I’ve always felt that such selfish aims of preservation by organisations don’t just serve to protect their short-term revenue. They also sacrifice the long-term sustainability of human and nature’s survival and development.
To end with another piece by me (heh heh):
References:
https://www.learning-theories.com/uses-and-gratification-theory.html
http://communicationtheory.org/uses-and-gratification-theory/
http://tissa.org/uses-and-gratification-theory.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lobby+group
Peeks Into GheeK's 
Hey, Ghee! Nice drawing you got there! Quoting from what you said in your blog post ‘does not accommodate how viewers can have different interpretations and perceptions’, I got to agree to the point. Let say a Harry Potter novel. I read it because I enjoyed reading it but some others may hate it but why they are still reading it? Maybe because they are doing research. Literature students perhaps? As we all know everyone need media consciously or unconsciously. However, everyone has a different stand in why they need media for. It is good, that the lobbyist make campaigns so that everyone is aware what is happening around us. Without them, I don’t think we would even know how global warming could affect us.
LikeLike
Hey Ghee,
Good read! And the drawings are really interesting, nice artwork you’ve got there 🙂 ” The Sun is the main driver of climate change” Hmm, i wouldn’t agree to this point. It definitely got to do with us humans as well. For example, numerous factories in Singapore especially Jurong Island area emitting harmful gases into the air which in return do play a part in damaging the ozone layer and not to mention the co2 emission from car exhaust pipes. So I would definitely not blame the Sun alone. Humans are being part of it.. I was a Geog student so I could relate to them haha.
LikeLike