# data[].attributes.body
I enrolled in this course with nothing specific in mind since Media and Communication is such a broad subject, hence, I am open to learning even the most basic material since it plays a significant role in almost everyone's lives, especially for people in my age range. When referring to Media and Communication as a unit, I personally find it difficult to find a "starting point" as the topic presents itself in a quite complex manner, similar to a maze with many paths and crossroads; the only difference is that there will always be something at the end of every road. I presume that this course would lead me to the right direction of what I want to learn, rather than falling down a rabbit hole of aimless information on sites such as Wikipedia at three in the morning. Above anything else, I am looking forward to building a somewhat solid foundation of understanding of a subject that has evolved beyond my time, and finding effective and efficient ways of analyzing its function in society. After going through the syllabus, I am eager to dive into polysemic representations of different media, and how personal interpretations influence an individual down to their psyches.

# data[].attributes.body
Canada, despite being the second largest country in the world, is still somewhat indistinct compared to its neighboring country, the USA. It is a common misconception that Canada is not well-known due to it being often grouped with more "powerful" countries, such as the prementioned USA, and the UK. Due to this belief, Canada has made efforts to set itself apart by conforming to typical Canadian stereotypes as mentioned in the GSC textbook, such as its relationship with hockey and maple leaves. Although not entirely accurate, the exaggeration of these simple elements helped the country build its own identity. This attempt has succeeded to some extent as some, if not most, outsiders associate Canada to these ideologies.

The effect of these promoted stereotypes are also reflected in the choices the Canadian government took to further boost economy and encourage national identity.  There are laws created and passed to hammer recognition. Such as laws and rights that expressed the shared values and beliefs of Canadians towards respecting and acknowledging the indigenous cultures and diverse traditions. The creation of these laws helped shift a continuously evolving Canadian identity. One of the stereotypes of this country was that Canadians were "more polite", in a sense, and this is assumed to be the cause of shared values of human rights and gender equality. Canada has many provinces that have vast differences in many ways, and the aim of these colonial media systems was to unite the country under shared national symbols, values, and even Canadian pride to build a renowned and prominent identity to itself and the world.

# data[].attributes.body
This was an infamous Dove advertisement made back in 2017 which sparked quite the outrage in social media. Beauty standards have never been kind to black people and people of color, and as someone within that community, this advertisement has left a somewhat bitter impression on my young teenage self. It showcased a black woman removing her brown shirt to reveal a white woman with a light-colored shirt. Society has always favored light-skinned people, and Dove was not a stranger to this concept.

This piece of media conveyed the ideas that the brand stood for—white skin is beautiful. The anger and disappointment this notion earned is justified, according to many people. This production was created to attract consumers and sell their product, but you can imagine how ironic it was for it to backfire, starting with the #BoycottDove hashtag trending on numerous social media platforms. Not only did Dove encourage discrimination based on skin color, but they also pushed forward the idea that dark skin is “dirty" and it must be bleached to be, what is considered, beautiful.

Various kinds of people use Dove’s products, but this advertisement expressed a strong implication on the type of consumers they aimed to please, leaving out many marginalized populations. It insinuated that they catered only to the light-skinned, and they didn’t really care about the rest because of their unfavorable skin color, and at the end of the day, does it really matter to a brand if they're making a profit? Their insensitivity spoke volumes, and many caught on.

To their benefit, the brand did make an effort to backpedal against their colorist statements by issuing a public apology, but despite their conscious efforts, the damage has been done and their image has been tainted.

# data[].attributes.body
The theory which stood out to me in particular, was the Cultivation Theory (or Limited Effects Theory) which involves the effects of media, primarily television, due to long-term exposure to it, or if there is any effect at all. Gerbner introduced the idea that the audience’s perception of reality is molded by the TV content they consume. Hence, a “heavy viewer”, which defined by Gerbner as individuals who spend 4 or more hours watching the television, would be more susceptible to the influences shown through the screen. Television has lost its popularity compared to the past years, as satellite television has been collectively replaced by most in favor of online streaming. However, the effects, in my observation, is quite minimal, yet long-lasting; some not even realizing its impacts. I agree, to some extent, to what Gerbner has discovered⁠—television alone may not directly cause certain actions or ideas, but determine their views of the real world. It doesn’t change their behavior, but simply solidifies the pre-existing mental conceptions. I agree with this theory simply because I’ve seen and experienced it firsthand.

Gerbner additionally created the term “Mean World Syndrome”, where he proposed that those perpetually exposed to violent television media often sees the world more dangerous than it truly is. I believe that this extends to other concepts as well. For instance, TV shows often glamorize substance abuse, to the point where viewers no longer take it seriously anymore, and some even express their desire to partake in similar activities because the show downplays its significance. Such is HBO’s “Euphoria”, where it depicts the protagonist’s journey throughout high school accompanied by drug abuse, sex, and violence. TV shows that showcase these unhealthy behaviors are often the gateway to people taking part in it. I am fortunate enough to know that these depictions are dangerous, but this may not be the case for others, especially the younger audiences. TV shows romanticize it often enough to create a skewed image of the real negative effects of it, especially for impressionable teens. With Gerbner’s Cultivation Theory, there is an existing, undeniable link between television media and certain behaviors, substance abuse in this instance.

# data[].attributes.body
Reception studies (or reception analysis) emphasizes how the audiences react to media given the social context, and what they do with the newly acquired information, also suggesting the idea that the audiences have agency and critical thinking. Albeit similar, the uses and gratification theory only focuses on what the audience can possibly benefit from consuming media, disregarding social and cultural factors that come into play. The notorious ‘Potterheads’ fandom (Harry Potter fans) and their campaigns provide a great example of such reception studies. Harry Potter [as a franchise] was created simply by J.K. Rowling for the sake of entertainment. However, with the franchise’s global success, it has acquired a huge dedicated fanbase. One of these fans is Andrew Slack, who not only was engrossed in the show, but was also inspired to start a non-profit organization for human rights. This inspiration eventually led him to created the Harry Potter Alliance, along with a few co-creators, which was then later renamed Fandom Forward to include other fandoms in their activism.

With the uses and gratification theory, the enjoyment of watching the series is what the audience received from the media, but instead, the fans chose to look beyond the wall of entertainment and used their ability as an active fanbase to draw attention to world issues that mattered in society, and that is how reception analysis is applied.

In the article written by Rosenberg, Harry Potter [as the character] was a unique individual, with a noble moral compass and a set of values that he fought for throughout all seven novels. His character, alongside others such as Ron Weasly and Hermoine Granger, gave people the desire to be like them in some way that went beyond wizardry and house sortings (Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Slytherin). Harry Potter, in itself, has created a culture, as stated by Slack in the article. Slack, accompanied by numerous other Potterheads, wanted to extend this safe haven to people outside their organization. Potterheads represented Harry Potter, and they wanted to show that it was more than just a franchise, but also a community that advocated for equality and human rights.  This behavior is not only limited to Potterheads, but is also being followed by other fandoms who wish to partake in this activism to not only to uplift the pop culture icon they represent, but to also serve a purpose in society.

# data[].attributes.body
“No Logo” (2003) was particularly fascinating as it presented different perspectives on the concept of early consumerism. As someone on the younger age spectrum, I haven’t really considered the economic, social, and political impacts of certain well-known brands in the past. Unless you psychoanalyze the incentives of these brands, you won't realize that they use personal relationships and feelings to form some sort of para-social relationship through capitalism. Even more surprising,  their logos were strategically designed and developed to encourage people to find comfort in these brands as if there was an intimate connection between the consumer and the brand. Corporations hid their true primary goal of making profit behind the walls of comfort.

Building on this idea, once brands realized that people craved the feeling of belongingness, they created ideas based on this personal need e.g. selling the idea of the “American Dream”, nostalgia, etc. Instead of being straightforward, brands started selling lifestyles rather than the physical product itself as it spoke to consumers more, and was more emotionally compelling. Huge multinational brands, to some extent, contained subliminal messaging to slowly dominate every factor of people’s lives, removing choices and commercializing relationships in spaces that were once personal and disconnected from marketing and advertising. This, in turn, made Naomi Klein study such concepts and came up with the idea of anti-consumerism and anti-corporate resistance movements which she referred to as “No Logo”.  This movement didn’t just pop out of the blue, but was a result of gradually worsening conditions, in which she identifies as three forces: no space, no jobs, and no choice.

Comparing this to current brand culture, I’d personally say that nothing has changed. I’d even go as far as to say that brands have become bold and impudent in using meaning to advertise their products and services. Ever since the pandemic, many people turned to online spaces to fill the empty void caused by isolation, and brands knew this very well. And identical to their old practices, they have more awareness on how to target those emotions and promote their brand with the idea of being able to satisfy that need amidst the current unfortunate situations. On the other hand, communication and information technologies, such as the Internet, has made information available to anyone who wishes to learn more about what goes on behind the curtains in the corporate world, and many people have formed unions and started movements to oppose big names in the market. Audiences now have more power in resisting corporations, and even raising awareness to gather more support from other people. Overall, brands have found more methods to exploit their consumers, but at the same time, audiences have acquired more capacity to go against them and influence others to do the same.

# data[].attributes.body
In all honesty, I was at the very least, aware of the numerous methods of surveillance in my daily life, but I never really cared for it. Surveillance technologies are something I’ve grown up with, so these things are more of an afterthought than anything else. But when told to put into perspective such as now, I didn’t realize that I was being tracked to this extent. I knew I was being monitored, but putting a quantitative number on such made me realize that a huge portion of my life is under someone’s gaze, which in itself is somewhat disturbing if you think about it too much. The surveillance methods authoritative figures have come up with to avoid agitation and doubt between them and the people is astounding⁠ —  most people being unaware of this fact unless it is pointed out and exposed is a indication of their success.

I do agree that we live in a panoptic society, supported by my previous statement where most of our lives are always under surveillance without us even realizing it until it’s too late. Although I do agree with the panoptic concept of society, I do not share the same feelings Jeremy Bentham implies towards a panoptic society. He made it seem like it’s an inherently bad thing, but if you consider current societal and cultural conditions, a panoptic society is arguably necessary to maintain some form of order. A lot of the devices and technology we interact with collects some form of data and information from us, hidden cameras to watch our movement, applications to track our online activity, and so much more. Being made aware of the fact that we’re being watched keeps us in line with the law, and besides, sometimes, these collected data often don’t serve a malicious purpose. On the other hand, I can’t blame Bentham for his justified resistance of a panoptic society —  he didn’t have the opportunity to grow up with such technologies and consider its benefits which most of us can do today. Overall, while I do agree that we live in a panoptic society, it’s not as bad as people like Bentham claims it to be, in fact, I believe that it can be helpful rather than invasive if used responsibly by the right people, which is the broad problem that needs to be addressed rather than this. ⁠⁠

# data[].attributes.body
I usually get news from cable TV, but since I don’t own one in my current apartment, I turn to online articles from the news outlets’ official social media accounts, usually Twitter (and the occasional news article links my mom sends me from Facebook). The news outlet I frequently see on my Twitter timeline is CNN News, and considering that they’ve been in the media industry for a long time, I consider them a reliable news source. I judge their credibility based on the news outlet and the person behind the article. Journalists from the same brand usually have their own particular style of reporting news, and I find some to be more truthful than others, so I trust their reports.

When it comes to political issues, however, I often stray away from big news outlets’ since I find that they usually are legally obligated to side with a certain party, even if the individual reporters/journalists have different political opinions. I tend to look for smaller, often a one-man show, for reliable content. I find that because they are not under contracts like the big brands, they work under their own volition and independent of legal bindings. This is not always the case, but there are times where these types of news are more reliable as they are usually primary sources.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I find polysemic meanings to be the most interesting topic in this course. I knew about the concept, but I didn’t know that there was a term for it until now. It’s interesting how media content usually has this blatantly obvious idea that they're trying to convey, somewhat like the “tip of the iceberg” I might add, but depending on a person’s beliefs and ideals, they may choose to disregard that message and go down that iceberg to find a more in-depth message that may either agree or disagree with their opinions. Moreso, audiences may add meaning to the messages which affects the impact of it. One example that stood out to me years ago was the Harry Potter housings: Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Slytherin. At the most straightforward approach, it’s simply a house assigned to you by a magical talking hat based on your identity and personality, but some dedicated fans of the Harry Potter franchise found a deeper meaning related to society and culture, such as segregation and stereotyping as seen in real life. One could find a more positive perspective and praise the symbolic multiculturalism shown through the houses. It all depends on how someone chooses to view the media content and their interpretation of it.

The main challenge was realizing that because of the broad meanings of media, there are different ways of interpreting and understanding the meanings and content itself. It requires you to take into consideration that different perspectives with respect to social and cultural contexts, and how it affects the message overall. Media itself is an extremely broad topic, and as I mentioned in week one’s reflection prompt, it’s quite difficult to find a starting point and direction of understanding it. Growing up, I only saw media as it is and nothing more. But through this course, I found out that most of the ways I approached media had actual reasons and studies behind it, which is honestly fascinating. I simply thought that the meanings were all universally agreed upon, and everyone saw it that way, when in reality, the way I viewed content were all somehow influenced by different factors.

All in all, with what I’ve learned in this course, I believe that I have a somewhat solid understanding of why people get different interpretations of various media content, and that even though I may have different opinions with someone else, I can find a middle ground in which we can both agree upon. People don’t have certain beliefs and values with no reason, but it’s influenced by different contexts and factors. I shouldn’t expect everyone to share the same ideas as I do because everyone sees things differently, and through this course, it gives me some mutual understanding with people who think otherwise. I expect this to help me be able to communicate with other people with more consideration and sense, and not be all holed up in my narrow mindset.