What I should add to my Section B answer – Shiloh

My question for Part B was “Convergence allows audiences to access media content from multiple platforms on one device. Assess the impact of convergence in your cross-media study. My three products were Teen Wolf (Network: MTV), The Originals (Network: The CW) and American Horror Story (Network: FX).

I think I should include stereotypes and countertypes in my Section B answer. Stereotypes are a fixed cliché of a person or thing. For example, the saying that blonde people are dumb. This is stereotypical as not all blonde people are dumb. I believe this can be used in the Part B answer. For instance, for my three choices of the broadcasting platform, I could talk about how the genre of production is portrayed and how they relate to the generalisation of such shows. Countertypes are positive stereotypes that accentuate the positive attributes of someone. For instance, a countertype could be that blonde people are smart. This is a countertype as it accentuates the positivity that blonde-haired people are smart. I could talk about how countertypes are used to influence the audience into wanting to watch such shows and movies, and to increase the popularity of the shows so the audience talk about it to people who do not watch it, which can intrigue others to watch it.

Image result for ahs posterImage result Continue reading “What I should add to my Section B answer – Shiloh”

Was it Facebook ‘wot won it’? – BBC News

Here’s an article I just read closely related to my post yesterday: Is the media responsible for Trump’s victory? (In a way you may not expect)

Is broadcast and print media not as influencial as it thinks it is?

Facebook played a large role in the US election, but Mark Zuckerberg is not engaging with claims that it helped Donald Trump win.

See below for the full article:

Source: Was it Facebook ‘wot won it’? – BBC News

Is the media responsible for Trump’s victory? (In a way you may not expect)

usa-election.jpg

I was listening to LBC (http://www.lbc.co.uk, 97.3fm) during the commute today (More than expected as the journey in took an hour and a half, but I digress).  It’s a talk radio station, which I felt was probably worth a listen today, due to the news from the other side of the Atlantic. You should give it a go.

There was a particularly interesting conversation on the way home, where a caller (Named Sam in case you were wondering), suggested the involvement US media institutions had in the coverage and representation of both (President-elect) Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. The caller and the host agreed that all-but-one major TV networks (CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC), showed clear support to Democratic candidate Clinton (The exception being Fox News).

“Yeah, so she should have won?” I hear you cry.

But consider the alternative possibility; what if all that positive coverage from the majority of institutions for Clinton actually hid the fact that the American people didn’t actually want to vote for her? What if they (and we over here in the UK), thought it would – of course – go to Clinton as she was getting all the positive representation, but in the process actually missed out on hearing from the audience?

In case you’re wondering how the states voted:

usa-election-mapv35.jpg

A reminder perhaps in the shift in power from institutions to audiences?

What do you think? Agree or disagree?