Reflecting on the past six weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’ve really been enjoying BCM110. It’s been interesting and insightful and Sue does an exceptional job during lectures that just make them so engaging. The weekly tutorials have really assisted in the formulation of my blog posts and I’m grateful for that too because I don’t know how well I would have gone without them.
The theories and concepts that have particularly interested me the most were semiotics – the study of signs and symbols, changing ideologies, ownership of the media and public spheres. They’ve all challenged my previous thinking and formed new opinions and thoughts. For example, when I look at an advertisement now, I can identify different denotations and connotations. When I listen or watch the news, I question where it came from and whether they are revealing the whole story. When I watch my favorite TV shows like The Block and My Kitchen Rules, I question whether they’ve become to commercialized or trivialized. I’ve also taken an interest in mediated public spheres like Q&A which was shown in our lecture, and The Project. I’ve been exposed to a whole new side of the media. Reading my fellow peers’ blogs and their comments on my own blog has also expanded my thinking, exposed me to new lights and even made me question my initial opinion and thoughts. I really know what it is now to consider the two sides of one coin.
Although I found it interesting, I also found the Lecture 4: Information Just Wants to Be Free the most challenging. The whole concept of who owns the media, how much of it is controlled, whether we, the public, are shown only what those in power want us to see and the control it has over us, was a lot to take in and is quite mind boggling. In the tutorial for that week, we debated about whether those in power or the public should be in control and both sides raised very relevant and convincing theories. Although I seemed to agree that those in power should stay in control, it has also made me skeptical when listening to the news and I’ve become more cautious with what I believe when reading something online.
Last weeks lecture focused on kids in the media. We looked at examples of young girls posing for commercials that could be seen as quite controversial because of their poses that could be interpreted as seductive. Learning about semiotics and the denotations and connotations of images linked nicely with this topic because I had a good understanding as to why the public may view the pictures as sexualisation of children. Sexualizing children in advertising has been an increasing issue along with many others including the idea that their innocence is being taken away. Children are also increasingly exposed to the media where they can see their favorite celebrities dressing inappropriately.
This is just purely wrong! What is happening to the next generation and what will become of it? On that note, I want to leave you with one final article that is a very interesting read. It mentions that parents are dressing their kids in clothes that display adult jokes and children are becoming props for dirty jokes among adults (Snow D, 2013). Are the parents to blame? Are the companies who make these clothes the ones to blame? Or is the media to blame for abusing this information and advertising it?
Turnbull S, 2014, ‘Media Mythbusting: Relating Media Theory to Media Issues’ powerpoint slides, BCM110, University of Wollongong, viewed 8 April 2014
Snow D, 2013, ‘Stealing the Innocence of Children’ The Sydney Morning Herald, March 2 2013, viewed 14 April 2014 <http://www.smh.com.au/national/stealing-the-innocence-of-children-20130301-2fboe.html>
Jensen K, 2009, Top 10 Worst Fashion Trends Of The Decade, Heavy, viewed 14 April 2014, <http://www.heavy.com/comedy/2009/12/top-10-worst-fashion-trends-of-the-decade/>