http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-swine-flu24-2009oct24,0,2748081.story

This article justifies the importance of media as a tool for information distribution. In this globalization age, where population is increasing day by day, the difficulty of ensuring that each and everyone benefits receiving certain information increases. Media communication theories has it said that there exists an agenda setting function which states the media's ability to raise the importance of an issue in the public's mind.

The recent H1N1 pandemic has raised worldwide concern. A piece of newspaper article like this article is vital and critical in ensuring that people are aware of its dangers and take precaution as and when needed.

Another important function of media, I feel, would be to clarify any misunderstandings on any topic the society is currently concerned about. Like in this case, the quote about how"but federal health officials dismissed media reports from a day earlier that 1 in 5 children had contracted swine flu during the first weeks of October." This clarification can help to alleviate unnecessary worry and alarm among citizens.

For such informative articles, the moderation effects theory comes into play. Though H1N1

becomes a global concern as it grows in severity and time, not everybody would be willing to spend time reading or reacting to such articles even though they are aware of its consequences. Therefore, although the ability of the media to influence its audience remains, it is highly relative. Some of the people who are too entrenched in their working lives would probably not bother to react (i.e. watch out for their children, take precaution) , whereas some who are more cautious would probably ( for e.g bring their children for influenza jabs) after reading this article.

Another reason for people to not react to this article can be due to its accuracy. Like in this article, "some researchers fear that states are not fully reporting such deaths, however."

This ties in with the theory of priming where the media attends to some issues over others and thereby alter the standards by which people evaluate the issue. In this case, if states do not fully report actual death tolls, people might over or under estimate the severity of the problem. The latter will lead to inadequate precautions, inadvertently increasing the number of people who are vulnerable to the disease. The former will lead to unnecessary red tape if everybody reacts to it overly.

HUNGER!Culture?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8309979.stm

In the midst of entrenching ourselves in our daily lives,

how often do we hold back our massive footsteps to care about global issues?

Asians have been thought to be classified under the collectivist, high context culture which thrives on notions of thrift, mutual sympathy, equality in reward distribution and fulfillment of other's needs. In a high context culture, relationships are valued over anything else. Could that be the very key China and India's slight success in fighting hunger?

According to the report, the above hypothesis does not hold for countries like India, (in the article) have apparently been criticized for not doing enough to fight hunger. Can we then say that the properties surrounding a collectivism and individualism loses its credibility and accuracy? I think those properties need not be false, and that hunger is a huge issue to handle especially if the country is so large. Also, it depends on the government's willingness to really " fulfill the needs" of its people, however huge the population it requires to feed. In China's case, the country as a whole is receiving massive exports from powerhouses like the US and many other countries, greatly solving the problems of unemployment and promoting economic development, despite the humongous population. Therefore, it is in a better position to alleviate problems of hunger than India.

On the other hand, a seemingly low context, individualist culture like Brazil was ranked first in fighting hunger. Again, an individualist culture should embrace notions of freedom, hedonism and reward distribution based on individual performance. Does this mean, then, that the properties guarding individualism cannot hold?

My answer to that would still surround notions of relativism. These properties of the two different cultures are generalized and do not apply for all countries in the world. Just like in DCs e.g. the US, UK, Japan and Singapore where affluence is a common trait, there are still people living in poverty.

To highlight the point on relativism, I shall use Singapore to accentuate my stand. Residing in a collectivist environment, we most of the time practice modesty, and in the midst of our own groups, when someone is able to speak confidently of his/her achievements or capabilities, we consider that person, arrogant. We also practice filial piety and it seems like the reversed role of caring and providing for our parents is already like an integral part of life, but in the midst of the mass of us, there are still, a handful of ungrateful souls who have failed that very responsibility. The government tries to practice equality in reward distribution as can be seen from bonuses given to citizens whenever there is economic growth. In the midst of it, there are other aspects of development the government has to consider and so at times, increased national income are channelled to these areas instead of distribution. The people can benefit from these development in the long run. Lastly, having an asian mindset has enabled us to be thrifty. That is however not to say that our young especially, do not indulge in materialism. Nonetheless if we were to compare ourselves to the western culture of spending, we, can be relatively thrifty.

Therefore, Triandis's properties of the two cultures are pretty much accurate in my point of view.

You, may beg to differ.

RIs Low

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/cna/20091009/tap-365-ris-says-stole-credit-cards-bipo-231650b.html

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-sg&vid=66e6daa6-e0c7-405c-9fbc-ba002d76a0c5&tab=g1245981235426

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-sg&vid=66e6daa6-e0c7-405c-9fbc-ba002d76a0c5&tab=g1245981235426

This week, I have decided to choose a local article about the much debated topic of town recently - the case on Ris Low, former Miss Singapore World. I have indicated the link of both the video and the article of her explanation for the words she had said that has, again sparked displeasure among Singaporeans and netizens.

Throughout the whole episode, I think it is quite clear about the few things that resulted in critics' conviction of ensuring that she pulls out of the competition and face her punishment. One, her bad pronunciation and diction in speaking the English language. Two, her credit card fraud episode which she has failed to admit to and instead, went ahead with the pageant. Personally, my perception is deeply entrenched in the mindset of practicality and propriety. In the Singapore context, or rather, in other parts of the world as well, crime is highly intolerable, except to varying extents. In our country, due to the harsh laws and good security, crime rates are relatively lower than in other countries. It is very hard for us to accept crime as a mistake that can still enable the criminal to live on after serving his sentence. I guess for most of us, this would demean punishment and encourage the tendency to involve in crime. To us, crime should ensue a lifetime of punishment and guilt. This, I maintain, is a good collectivist culture because we simply cannot live in a world where everybody's integrity is questioned and our safety is not ensured. The collectivist culture holds that social norms and duties are defined by the group rather than for self pleasure. Indeed, can you imagine if issues of crime are not influenced by collectivist mindset? Wouldn't many individuals be wanting to commit a certain crime for self pleasure since it is socially tolerable anyway? They would be thinking, let me just try it once as an experience. Will there be justice anymore in this world? You might very well get injured or killed, yet have to admit that it is merely pure fate. Therefore, I strongly believe that while a collectivist culture may erode our personal identities and even leaves us feeling stifled by societal norms and obligations, certain social beliefs are not there without a good reason.

In the case of Ris Low, the reason why netizens are so ready to slam her down for her actions is a classic example of a collectivist culture. Yet amongst the many people whom were interviewed about their takes on this matter, a few individuals actually did stood up for her, saying that she should be given a chance since she has already admitted her mistake, and some even mentioned the yellow ribbon project. This other school of thoughts would not have surface if the yellow ribbon project had not been launched. This goes to show how culture is dynamic, and how a collectivist society can breed mutual sympathy to some extent. It also shows that when certain norms are changed in this collectivist society, everybody's mindset starts to change too, albeit only after a period of time.

Indeed, a collectivist culture most of the time is highly interdependent and eternally ready to be influenced by others. This, is the kind of culture we live in, Singapore.

Relationships

hello people!

hope you had an eventful week.

I sure had mine,

though "eventful",

doesn't entirely consider a total positive connotation over here.

oops!

anyways,

this week's COMS lecture included the

most common topic we have around us daily:

Interpersonal Relationship.

with regard to this,

i refer to this article about problems a hollywood couple faced.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20309161,00.html

The contemporary definition of personal communication holds that it is when we make personal contacts, build a connection with, and establish a relationship with another individual to satisfy our social needs and realize our personal goals."

As we now clearly live in a place and space where societal views define our every move,

I guess it is true in the sense that we seek a partner no longer just for:

simple communication, clearing boredom but more of the social needs.

By that I do not mean what you think is a need in life, but what the society sees as a need in life.

The couple in the article, I believe, is not just the only celebrity couple I can justify my hypothesis on.

From the states, we also have Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Efron, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

In the local context, we have Daniel Ong and Jean Danker, Christopher Lee and Fann Wong.

Sometimes, we fail to realise that all kinds of communication thrives on the word "propriety".

I refer to celebrity couples because they can most prove my point. As celebrities, much of their original identity is greatly erased once they've stepped into the media. They become people whom they once never thought of becoming, in terms of action, behavior, tastes, interests, habits: everything has changed. The paparazzi and so-called fans have shaped these attributes more then themselves. Subsequently, they realize that the change is due to not innate/conscious reasons but more towards the environment/unconscious factors. How people view them, how and what people want them to be in order to be considered safe-to-stay in the media industry. This becomes such a big causation that even life's big decision like marriage is somehow influenced by "the people" and "their views". Therefore, building a relationship to satisfy social needs may sometimes triumph over realizing our personal goals.

Perhaps ,I am being a little too extreme in that view, because we definitely cannot rule out the fact that celebrity couples do have feelings for each other before getting hitched. Nonetheless, can you just imagine if having a relationship at a tender 13 is not such a trend in schools these days. Would the phenomenon of relationships be so huge now?We may think that " I need you in my life, love" is something that is gearing towards personal needs. But in actual fact, did people not panic themselves over not getting hitched beyond the age of 30 or not having a boyfriend at a tender age "because all my friends have this "great" person in their lives?

I refer back to the article on Pratt and Montaq. According to Knapp's model of rational development, this couple should be at stage 5 of the model:bonding. Personally, I feel that the model provides quite an accurate but standardized version of basically how a relationship goes.

Take for instance this sentence in the article: "She's not the kind of person who would lie – she would just walk away and not answer the question," he says. This proves that the couple has already undergone stage 3 where disclosure of feelings have occurred such that each party is relatively clear about the other person's characteristic and mentality.

Due to this clash in ideology, the couple now faces a problem that none of them are willing to give way to. Stage 6 might follow whereby this intense differentiation may reflect a relationship that has developed too fast. Before getting married, plans of giving or not giving birth to children should have already taken place instead of getting into a problematic situation after marriage. Since sex and babies are almost an integral part of a couple's journey in life, this difference should not have occurred unless there wasn't proper discussion or planning before marriage. Montaq is only 23, 2 years after the the "legal" age of 21. Could the relationship have developed too fast in this case? Were the both of them really thinking that after marriage a consensus would be reached and hence ignored the problem?

If this problem does not find itself a solution, stage 7,8 ,9 and even 10 may concur.

The couple might very well find themselves "not wanting to talk about it" because they are sick of it, enter stagnation whereby there is an absence of joy and excitement in the relationship, avoid one another and stage 9:"termination" ends it all...:(

Gossip Girl:)

http://www.gossipgirlinsider.com/about-gossip-girl/

http://worldofwonder.net/2009/09/22/Gossip_Girl/

Howdie people!

time flies and its time for my weekly post again.

the long awaited Gossip Girl Season 3 has just begun,

and I'm just so fascinated I decided to write a commentary about an article about it.:)

as usual, please, please leave your comments.:)

I refer to the article by Lydia Rendon about the the new episode of GG.

As weeks pass, I realized that that was learnt in the communications module does really apply in every single piece of information we receive by ear (phone, music), sight (movies,articles).

First Impression matters a lot and sometimes, it is quite hard to change that perception of someone or something due to the first impression. By that, the theory about past experiences holds true because the first impression will always result to be a past experience with time.

In her article, Rendon adopted quite a satirical tone with the sentence "Oh, how convenient it is that all the GG kids go to NYU, even home-schooled Vanessa.".

well, Perhaps her intention wasn't sarcastic at all (remember that non verbal communication is always receiver oriented), but that got me thinking about social norms yet again. We all know that by season 3, Vanessa is probably the only one left who's not in high society. Even the Humphreys "upgraded" themselves when Rufus wedded Lily. Typical perception has it saying that only the rich and known gets to NYU, and of course meritocracy. It was a bit too much of a coincidence that Vanessa could actually get into it. In real life, is that really possible? Then again, is it true that just because the majority of top universities consist of the rich,famous and brains, it has to be that much of a "surprise" that a mundane mid class, low profile but smart student can enter?

"Similarity", one of the ways of organizing information accords group stimuli to prototypes. abstract and complex indicators. Students in NYU have their own identity base on their fame, wealth and intelligence. This, besides being a group stimuli, on a larger picture, becomes social perception. It is hard to break because this is precisely how our mind selects, organizes and interpret information. By studying the perception process, it is then probably easier to understand why is it that social perception,the herd mentality is so hard to break. It is already within us, almost like a natural process in the mind to take in information from what we see around us and from there form a perception.

AKON/ KANYE SHOULD BE FORGIVEN?

HOWDIE everyone!

thank you very much for your constructive comments and opposing views which broadens my perspectives on the issue i raised last week.

This week, I'll bring to you the latest controversy regarding Kanye West and his "heartless" comment to Taylor Swift during the VMA.

I refer to the article from Los Angeles Times:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/09/kanye-west-needs-his-own-sorry-blame-it-on-me-single.html

(http://theblemish.com/2007/04/the-akon-underage-dry-humping-video-is-back/)

While Akon was blamed for "dirty dancing" with a young teen fan two years back now,

the author of the article seems to have given him the benefit of the doubt in her style of writing (lexis), as she maintains that Akon "could have" (diction) just ignored the problem, suggesting that he was a repentant pop star. Also, she uses effect from a short, concise sentence to awaken readers that despite having a choice to escape, "But, he didn't." and instead, he released an album mostly compiled with the intentions of apologizing. Again, from this short elaboration, we can almost see how important lexis is from the encoder to the decoder in changing their perception.

After reading the article, I thought about his intentions for making that mistake in the first place. I would think that his intention of publicly dancing the way he did was for pathos and ethos. This daring dance move would've shocked the floor of audiences and increased his sex factor. Just like the other advertising films are now so good at: creating attention. Always remember, bad attention, is still, attention. And that's all they really want.

Moving on to the rest of the article where the writer consistently seeks reasons for West's behavior. In communications term, we call that attribution, referring to the process of assigning cause to human behavior. The writer wrote that West was seen with a bottle of beer, suggesting that that might be the cause to his rude interruption into Taylor Swift's speech moment and even added on to comment that he was previously suspected to have drinking problems. The writer is at the point of discussing what caused the behavior observed. Then what is there to say about that person after that? Can we then accuse West for being an unworthy singer or do we accept drinking as part of a way for momentary relief of the self? Also, if this episode was really because of his drinking habits, will he be more likely to be more mindful about where and when to drink in future?

My point of view is that before all the above questions can be answered, it is partially unfair to judge Kanye based on solely one incident. It is purely perfunctory to judge , criticize and boycott public figures based on one incident. Of course, that is not to say that their actions are acceptable and forgivable, but there is a difference between not accepting and criticizing.

In life, we are so used to self serving biases (to judge ourselves more tolerantly than we judge others) that we sometimes forget to look back and reflect on ourselves. Just because these public figures are a sort of role model in society does not mean that they have to be perfect.

Of course, there is the other school of thoughts who feels that public figures, especially pop idols should watch out for themselves since they are icons in society, which I so kind of agree.

But just because of the very one mistake that they make that caused such a big hoo-ha, can we conveniently accuse them of not trying hard enough to keep up that image, or should we just see it as part of a careless mistake that we all do make once in awhile?

I would agree with the latter more than the former, for I feel that public figures are already under a tremendous amount of stress trying to suit the needs and meet up to the expectations of not only their fans but also propriety (shaped by society).

I am not trying to defend these idols for their mistakes, for mistakes are definitely mistakes, there's no denial for that. But I think at the end of the day, idol critics who are always ever so ready to publicly slam public figures immediately after they heard what has happened, should step back and try to seek attribution and context to the situation first before getting personal on criticizing the poor fellow.

DeGeneres in/out?

I refer to this article by USA TODAY regarding Ellen DeGenere and her future participation in American Idol,as a judge. This article remains controversial but I thought I would just bring in my point of view. No offense to any one in particular and yes, I am open to any opposing viewpoints.:)

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-09-10-ellen-idol_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular

The article first caught my eye as I was scanning through USA TODAY by its catchy title, " Risky Move" or " Brilliant Plan". It can then be concluded that Francis Bacons's theory on "Idols of the marketplace" is an effective way of reaching out to readers (communication), for its the to different extreme of the titles that caught my attention, even more so in this contemporary period today than in the modern period. In fact, media industries highly make use of language to draw viewer's curiosity,thereby attention.

Being a relatively consistent viewer of " The Ellen DeGeneres Show", I would be the first to vouch for her natural gift of connecting with her audience through her jovial and easy demeanor. However, being a fan of "American Idol", I would also have to agree that having a talk show host judge a singing competition, deviates from the norm. Even "Idol" judges in Singapore have to be somewhat linked to the music realm of sorts and this, is what gives the judges persuasive power in leading the competition and somehow guiding voters in their votes.

At this point, Bacon's "Idols of the cave" theory comes into context again as we see how we usually have a beforehand mentality of what is supposed to be and what is not, often not asking ourselves what we actually think is right instead. It is indeed one huge irony that in life, every individual likes to seek his own individuality in terms of style,appearance or what we call "unique character" but yet, our mindsets are always rigidly constrained by societal dos and don'ts.

I would definitely support Cecile Frot-Coutaz's statement that "[the idol show is] also about being a star [besides being a vocal competition] and getting fans to love you, which Ellen knows all about". Indeed, the "Idol" show needs to have judges who expertise in vocals so that they can give the necessary advice and set the basis of this competition right.
But that is precisely why we need more than a judge isn't it? Since Simon Cowell's definitely going to stay, the other judges can possess other fields of expertise to offer a more holistic advice. The "Idol" show as Cecile has so rightfully pointed out, is also about having the X-factor and personal appeal (ethos) to be able to communicate and connect with the audience. And this, is something Ellen can definitely bring out in the idols, more than the other judges, shall I say?

Also,"Idol" fan Beth Jones maintained that "[She's] just like to see Idol take itself more seriously. The performers deserve more.", assuming that Ellen will always be how she is during her talk shows. However, the fact is that more often than not, we have different facets to our actual self and there is always an occasion for our different characters to shine. The simplest example would be our different selves when we are at work and when we are holidaying for example. Since Ellen has proven to have a way in engaging well with her audiences, which makes her talk show that popular, I believe that she might understand the principles of "Kairos" - the opportune occasion for speech. While there are many ways to get a point across, her advices may come in a lighthearted or comical way, but I believe the essence of her words will benefit the idols a lot. Of course, this is also an assumption on my part and you may beg to differ.

Lastly, Simon Cowell was also quoted to believe that " Idol being only about finding vocal talent". My question is if that is so, is the fact that all the Idol champions so far are good-looking purely coincidental? And if that is so, why is there an age limit restricting the children and the elderly to enter the contest since they may also prove to have good vocals.


In this article , the different people who commented on this issue may also have their personal biases in them, which is good because from the psychological perspective, miscommunication occurs when there is no feedback. By listening to the various points of views, we are, ourselves able to better locate our stand in this matter, like the way I did. I guess this is how the media industry continues to boom rapidly in this contemporary period. Forums/discussion boards and the mounting trend of "idols and fans" allow an effective two way communication that makes the world this interesting and challenging place we live in today.