Old Media/New Media - What?

When I studied at USF in San Francisco, Professor Andrew Goodwin was always a challenging facilitator. His style of lecturing is something I have aspired to. His planning and his delivery were always very very professional and well thought out and delivered.

Therefore I have kept in touch with him virtually. I see today his blog on New/Old media. Why this topic is not being discussed and evaluated as he has done HERE in all media circles is beyond me. Perhaps the simple and obvious is just not so simple and obvious.

I feel myself spiraling into a quagmire of dichotomies which I believe life, in general, to be- the simple is the most difficult, nature is simple and complex, language is so clear and multi-layered, looking after our bodies is simple and our bodies are extreme feats of innovative technologies, gardening is heavenly, the land is surreal, nature is beautiful and grotesque and so on... So I'll pull back.

Traditional Media is so well ingrained in our societies that it is going nowhere for now... And probably never will. Marketing will always have to be done to grab the attention of the market. Advertising will always have to be catching and aesthetically pleasing to us humans. Money will be the bottom line when working for the mass media.

Check out Andrew Goodwin's observations as he drank a "simple" cup of coffee (which may have travelled thousands of miles to his cup), in a simple bricks-and-mortar coffee shop in California.

Perception of media: Reality becomes itself.

The Rolling Stone's Peter Travers reviewed It Might Get Loud in the August 20 issue. He was impressed. Davis Guggenheim, who directed An Inconvenient Truth, directed this movie about rock guitar legends, Jimmy Page, The Edge and Jack White.
He refers to the presentation of a behind the scenes look at these musicians as "rock heaven."

On the other hand Professor of Pop titles his review of the movie "It Might get Dull." POP is looking for the movie to live up to its genre identity - the documentary. POP is not happy with the lack of probing, of discovery, or analysis of the political economy of the music industry through discussions with the three guitarists.



I haven't seen the movie/documentary yet but it is interesting to me that two reviews could be so different. POP is demanding some depth. I remember him demanding this in classes that he taught. But I woud expect a reviewer in The Rolling Stone to be somewhat demanding too.

The reception of a media production by a viewer is a very personal one. We, as producers, can plan all we want, and there are ways to direct the receiver in a way desireable to the producer, but in the end it is a decision made by the individual viewer how they accept the production. It is as complex as life itself and also as simple as you want it to be. We can analyse and critique for ever, and this is the fun of the media scholar, but in the end it is received as it is received.

The perception for the individual is what is their reality. After we plant all the psychological, subconscious hints to guide the viewer to what we want them to appreciate it is, in the end, in the control of the viewer.

The viewer has the power to decide whether the show is good/bad, successful/disastrous, desireable/undesireable, etc. The question is "How much power does the viewer really want?"