“Enlightenment of
Mass deception” is so far the most interesting chapter in this course. I felt
illuminated about this matter (mass deception of culture industry) when reading
this chapter. I have had a lot of reflections during the past week about
Swedish mass media. Interpreted relations between mass media and their
audience, been trying to figure out what would be the best way of stopping mass
deception of culture industry. After reading other student blogs from Theme 2,
I also found a particular interesting thought from Alexandros question 6. Where
he points out the time span from when the book was actual written (1944). This
made me realize that I have applied Adorno and Horkheimer’s arguments/thoughts
without considering the expanded media forms since. Internet is a great example
of new media platform that have expanded the limit of free thoughts. Internet
is making a huge difference concerning mass deception in my opinion. It may
also be used for mass deception (Facebook etc), but people can interact with
each other and share thoughts in ways that’s not possible through
TV/Radio/Newspapers. Everyone can be heard on Internet.
It would be
interesting to read a text about today’s culture industry in contrast to this
old text and compare differences. My point is that with further “newer” media
platforms, the settings for culture industry should differ from 1944. I assume
that Internet have had a positive effect to prevent mass deception. Thoughts
can be shared in big and small Internet communities with possibility of
interaction among the audience. But the question still remains if Internet has
affected “new media” from 1944 (TV, Radio) to become media of less mass
deception since 1944. Please share your thought concerning this question. What
is your opinion of today’s mass deception in culture industry compared to 1944,
more or less? Internets significance?
I see your point and luckily for us as europeans the Internet is some kind of way out from the boring flatness of classic broadcasters, but as we know it is not the same everywhere.
SvaraRaderaIn many countries the main social networks are banned and not only China, Iran and Egypt, take a look what happened in the UK to some political motivated groups on Facebook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook.
And remind that until the servers of the main social network will be in the US they would everywhere comply with american laws.
Yes, at least we are lucky enough to have full access to internet i Europe. Comparing to Horkheimers view of mass deception then, what is your view of what have changed and how heavily we are influenced now compared to then (in Europe)? In what ways?
RaderaHej Gustav!
SvaraRaderaInternet might allow us to interact and communicate in a different ways today.
Though it might not be possible for everybody to freely express themselves on internet (as Matteo suggested), it could be said that people do have a saying and they can express their opinion. But what impact can that have, if my voice is not heard? It might be out there, but the problem is that there is an overload of information. In this chaos, some voices that should be heard are lost. On the other hand, there is a dominance of some voices. In some cases I think that there is everything is the same. It feels like we keep reading the same ideas, and I guess that this is due to the fact that they are recycled.
Concerning your question on the role of media in mass deception today, for me this deception is even stronger. As I said, overload of information available on internet makes it difficult to hear some voices. Plus, I feel that the power game today might seem to have changed, but the players are still the same. I am referring to conglomerates and their role in mind-shaping. So, for me mass deception is of a different form today, but it still there.
Good reasoning and an interesting point you made. You talked about the dominance of some voices in the Internet. Have you ever thought about why some voices are heard and some are not? Today there is a shift in what we call "opinion leaders". Before the Internet era, opinion leaders were people who gained their role through knowledge, money and/or power. Katz also defined some factors: expression of values, professional competence and nature of their social network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_leadership). Nowadays, everyone can become an opinion leader by meeting just the last factor, since Social Media or the Internet makes it possible for everyone to be heard. The difference here is that you have to be "liked" by a great amount of people. The one's who meet the demands of the network community will be heard. As long as you want to maintain your position you will need the Internet community as your "fans" and you will do anything what please them in order to keep them. No later by then you will loose your critical reflection and will turn into a marionette to serve the masses. This is the great difference between the Internet and other forms of media I think.
RaderaGreat discussion, and very good points made! By your expression being turned into a marionette to serve the masses, you mean that the "leader" turn from serving their own view into serving others. I'm guessing you mostly referring to people with influences over big areas, like politicians. I agree with that but also think that more powerful people that have influence in the same area have more of a "bad" influence of what you should think than the masses. I don't believe that just the masses make you loose your critical thinking, but overall its hard to tell who lost their critical thinking and who have not.
Radera