Larsen Response Questions for Week 10

1. “In a way we are all getting the same news. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the news is accurate and as long as the key items get printed or broadcast. This is the problem. The key items don’t always get on the front page” (Larsen 308).

Due to the concentration of power among companies that provide news through broadcast, periodicals, and radio stations, our news is often filtered through the funnel of a small pool of individuals. A given company might own a broadcast company and a radio station, for example. Sometimes the two are easily recognized as the same company, and sometimes it takes a bit of detective work to discover which hand is in ultimate control of both. This is somewhat deceiving for a member of the public seeking different varieties of news through different mediums who are receiving limited information as a result. Most people are exposed to or seek out their news through a variety of media, which likely fall under the umbrella of conglomeration. Ultimately, most news stories are deemed “newsworthy” by a small group of people. Since media, especially news broadcasts, have only limited time to present the local and national news to the audience, only certain stories make the cut. With the presence of conglomeration, these certainly tie into agenda setting and gate keeping principles addressed in the reading. As members of the audience, how should we react to the notion of gate keeping and agenda setting from this perspective? Are we really to accept the stories presented to us as the most “newsworthy”? Is the news always a reflection of what we demand as an audience?

2. Larsen presents the interactive electronic word as one of our culture’s media innovations. This is a relatively new medium which brings with it tremendous future potential. The interactive electronic word offers undeniable comparison to novels such as Huxley’s Brave New World which speculates about the future of our society through the development and adaptation of technology. Larsen relates Huxley’s “Feelies” (movies which can be truly experienced by the audience) to the potential inventions that evolve from the interactive electronic word. These inventions are innovative to say the least, yet there is something unsettling about the idea that so much can be experienced from going to see a movie, for example. Is there a point in which these innovations become detrimental the experiences of “real life”? Could these developments be potentially beneficial to our society?

3. Clearly we all rely on media innovations to different degrees and with different proficiencies. A general question about media innovations: are all of them equally important? In terms of usefulness, do they all succeed in serving our needs as senders and receivers? Do we need to continue developing each of them in order for them to serve us in the future?