Questions for Week 10: Larsen

1.      Larsen discusses how television has “the lonely crowd” where people have secluded themselves from their community or neighbors because of the television.  Further explaining how society’s massive consumption of television does not encourage socializing, but in fact deters it.

From reading his article, it sounds as though it was written in the ‘90s.  I was wondering if the computer has taken the place of the television in terms of making us part of “the lonely crowd.” People still consume a lot of television but at the same time I wonder if television has lost some of its luster, especially in comparison to the internet.  In addition the technology surrounding the internet is rapidly and continuously updating, as opposed to the television. Do you think that the television still holds the same power to make us part of “the lonely crowd?” Do you think that the internet does this more effectively and if so, why?

2.      Larsen refers to McLuhan’s theory about hot and cold media. “Hot” media being that which is easy to perceive and demands little from the audience in terms of interpretation. “Cold” media is the opposite. It is more interactive for the audience and the message is less clear.

When thinking about news networks, such as FOX news, CNN, and MSNBC, which all have relatively clear political slants. Do you think that these would be considered “hot” media because of this? Or would you consider them “cool?” Why? Do you think that technology has anything to do with this?

3.      Gatekeepers decide what goes on the air and when. “Mass media do not tell us what to think; they tell us what to think about.” Sometimes there is deeper meaning to this, for example, news networks may decide against airing a program because it would upset their advertisers or conflicts with the head of the studio’s political views. But sometimes it merely has to do with time.

With newspapers disappearing and news being consumed by way of the internet, how do you think gatekeeping will affect journalism, especially investigative journalism? Do you think people are going to read an in-depth investigative article that is five pages online? How do you think this will affect the quality of journalism, if at all?