The functional purpose of media is built on the motivations of creators and distributors to affect the behavior of consumers.
#3234 Created Updated 01/16/2018
Media relationships in the United States have changed over time. These reflect changes in the three business interests of media, which in turn have been influenced by changes in technology.
(note: three business models of media: serving media, serving consumers, serving commerce.)
The sense of the word "media" that implies "intermediate agency" has been in use in English since about 1600. That sense, as a place of content transference between humans, has been gradually displaced by the sense of media as a process designed to affect consumers. Consequently, commercial value in media is gauged by the media consumption and post-consumption behaviors of consumers.
Media through the 20th Century was organized adjacent to "events", such as publications or broadcasts or releases of movies or books. In most cases, the media event was planned, scripted, sold, and produced in advance. Commercial sponsorship of such events was frequently for the purpose of attracting consumers to purchase products or services, and consequently much research attention has been directed at trying to measure the relationship between specific media content and events, and the presence of or degree of change in consumer attitudes or behavior as a result of the event exposure.
Media is both processes and products in the physical world, sets of procedures and hoards of media objects. Media normally does not come into existence on its own; it is always the product of human intent, whether purposeful or benign. While media may be conceived, constructed, and distributed as objects or distributed as events, the process of media can also be summarized as humans with motives creating content and operating distribution mechanisms. Thus, the functional purpose of media is built on the motivations of creators and distributors to affect the behavior of consumers.
We make this type of assertion without regard to content, either the content of the media objects, or the content that is the motivations of creators or producers. This is of course at odds with the expected approach to such a question, which sometimes would be to examine content in relation to changes in opinion and behavior, with an eye toward detecting patterns of consumer behavior that are useful to commerce.
Another approach is to consider the question from the perspective of groups and benefits, and visualize structure as the result of consumer behavior in general. Each great era of media has worked for the benefit of a particular congregation of technology and interests, and has drawn its wealth from a particular combination of consumers and businesses. By objectifying content, placing it as the silent constant in the equation, we can turn our attention to the interesting interplay between behavior and structure.
We consider the realm of consumer media behavior to have existed roughly with the life-span of newspapers and magazines. While the creation of artistic and literary media have existed for centuries, the technologies necessary for the creation of substantial audiences only began to appear in the 1600s. The opportunity for mass media to play a role in local commerce becomes visible during the American Colonial era with, for example, the 'Merchant Press', which served the early merchant communities and the sea-borne shipping industry.
Technological change brings new masters.
Media is a business. Many businesses, actually. But a business, nonetheless, because media means creating and moving content through structure to consumers. Creation costs money, structure costs money, and movement costs money. The role of consumers is to generate -- directly or indirectly -- money for the media businesses.
Simple as that. Media (and the instruments of media) are created with human intent, to affect the behavior of humans. Distribution brings content to consumers, and consumers react to content with behavior, which rewards -- or does not reward -- the producers of content.
The fun part is that we can completely ignore the nature of content in this quest. In fact, you have to become blind to content, to a degree, in order to see the actual behaviors of consumers, and the consequent structures of media.
That's right. Behavior creates structure, more than structure guides behavior.
Think of it this way: you can create whatever clever media product or service that you can imagine, and you can fund it with money and staff it with talent. Then you launch, and the consumers respond.
While the developer rightly believes her cleverness and effort produce content that attracts consumers, it is the choice of consumers that determines success. Lots of "great" ideas go away because too few consumers changed their behavior in a way that resulted in the product being the "content" of a particular "structure" of production, distribution, revenue, and profit.
There's lots of reasons why things work and don't work, but overall the things that do work result in the creation of structures, which in turn influence the behavior of consumers. Greater consumption of particular blends of content, products, and services means greater need for product creation, production capacity, supply and delivery infrastructure, financing, employees, buildings, utilities, etc.
Structure. The flow of money reveals the presence of structure. In modern media economics, "nothing succeeds like success" (Alexandre Dumas).
When the behavior of consumers creates structures that influence the behavior of consumers, it can create self-reinforcing phenomena. Things (ideas, services, products, fashions, anything that can be carried by media) become popular fast. When this happens fast, it's called a Fad. When it's wide-spread, we may call it a paradigm shift or a market trend, etc.
de- a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin ( decide ); also used to indicate privation, removal, and separation ( dehumidify ), negation ( demerit; derange ), descent ( degrade; deduce ), reversal ( detract ), intensity ( decompound ). Compare di-2 , dis-1 .
He does, however, argue that a statement is the rules which render an expression (that is, a phrase, a proposition, or a speech act) discursively meaningful. This concept of meaning differs from the concept of signification: Though an expression is signifying, for instance "The gold mountain is in California", it may nevertheless be discursively meaningless and therefore have no existence within a certain discourse. For this reason, the "statement" is an existence function for discursive meaning.
it is not the expression itself, but the rules which make an expression discursively meaningful.
Thus, the meaning of expressions depends on the conditions in which they emerge and exist within a field of discourse; the discursive meaning of an expression is reliant on the succession of statements that precede and follow it.
"statements" constitute a network of rules establishing which expressions are discursively meaningful, and these rules are the preconditions for signifying propositions, utterances, or speech acts to have discursive meaning. However, "statements" are also 'events', because, like other rules, they appear (or disappear) at some time.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110216165223AAb15Vg The genealogy of knowledge consists of two separate bodies of knowledge: First, the dissenting opinions and theories that did not become the established and widely recognized and, second, the local beliefs and understandings (think of what nurses know about medicine that does not achieve power and general recognition). The genealogy is concerned with bringing these two knowledges, and their struggles to pass themselves on to others, out into the light of the day.
Genealogy does not claim to be more true than institutionalized knowledge, but merely to be the missing part of the puzzle. It works by isolating the central components of some current day political mechanism (such as maintaining the power structure which diagnoses mental illness) and then traces it back to its historical roots (Dreyfus and Rabinow, p.119). These historical roots are visible to us only through the two separate bodies of genealogical knowledge described above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralists Structuralism is a theoretical paradigm emphasizing that elements of culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system or structure. It works to uncover all the structures that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel. Alternately, as summarized by philosopher Simon Blackburn, Structuralism is "the belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract culture".
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/#3 "The point of a genealogical analysis is to show that a given system of thought (itself uncovered in its essential structures by archaeology, which therefore remains part of Foucault's historiography) was the result of contingent turns of history, not the outcome of rationally inevitable trends."
"The point of a genealogical analysis is to show that a given system of thought was the result of contingent turns of history, not the outcome of rationally inevitable trends."
Similarly, a geological analysis is to show that a given system of relationships (among consumers, media, and commerce) are also the result of contingent turns of commercial and technological development.