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. 

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.

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. 

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. ⁠⁠

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. 

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.