Meyrowitz is too idealistic and optimistic in his theory on television’s effects on reality. To say that all people are cultured or brought together by a television program is an exaggeration. When I watch the news I do not feel connected to other viewers, I feel like I am seeing a brief and mediated portion of life somewhere else. In this way, I see Baudrillard and Meyrowitz coming together. Baudrillard says that the media creates the event whereas Meyrowitz feels that media brings the event closer to everyone in the world and thus connects the world through a common experience as well as through broadening of horizons. I agree with Baudrillard only to a point. I agree that television sometimes seems real and that it can become extravagant and produce unhealthy concepts of reality, but I do not think that confusion about reality is as widespread as he does.
Selective exposure lends some perspective to Meyrowitz’s theories. His theory is plausible, but most people do not watch the television in order to broaden their horizons. Instead, people watch television to be entertained. People watch what they want so, someone watching an informative program on Discovery Channel or PBS may fit the mold that Meyrowitz defines. Some people may choose to watch a program that broadens their horizons and helps enlarge and shape a picture of the world that, otherwise, that person would never experience. When a person chooses to watch things like Real World or Desperate Housewives they are less likely to broaden their horizons and more likely, as Baudrillard suggests, to have a false impression of reality.
Baudrillard discusses his “hyperreality” theory as something freshly developed. However, Lippmann talks about how we all create our own realities and each individual has his own concept of the world around him. A concept of reality is different from confusing reality with imaginary. According to Lippmann, the individual creates meaning through experience and person frame of reference. Baudrillard’s hyperreality involves adopting someone else’s fiction as a reality. While there is interplay, I see a difference between these two ideas. Lippmann emphasizes individual interpretation of the same element to come up with different meanings whereas Baudrillard highlights a conjured dream world passing as reality. I am inclined to agree with Lippmann that as individuals we can see the same movie and each have different reactions because of where we are and where we have been in life.
While watching Brothers & Sisters I was struck by how different yet similar my life is to the lives of the characters. I have experienced my fair share of family conflict and disillusionment. The show takes these experiences to the extreme for the sake of drama and entertainment. I watch because I can relate to the characters. I see the emotion and connect it to my life. I relate the shows content to reality.
On the other hand, the drama of Brothers & Sisters is exaggerated and beyond anything I have ever experienced. In watching the show, one would expect illegitimate children, twenty-year love affairs, noble drug abuse, and extravagant lifestyles as run of the mill. This element of fantasy also lends to it appeal. Baudrillard’s view manifests itself in the surreal side of Brothers and Sisters. However, even though I find amusement in the exaggeration, I recognize that it is not real; I think most people do. I am not convinced, as Baudrillard seems to be, that television creates a false reality. I think elements may find there way into life, but in the end, television is an illusion and usually recognized as such.
No comments:
Post a Comment