Audience Fragmentation W9/D3

While reading chapter 11 the concept of audience fragmentation (also known as demassification) caught my attention as I was able to relate it to my own experiences with media. Audience fragmentation is defined as separate specialized audiences. Rather than everyone being placed in one single mass audience, people are now separating themselves into smaller audiences based on such things as interests, beliefs, political standing, etc. By having audience fragmentation everyone may not be exposed to the same information that could widen their knowledge. This made me think of the different news stations we have today: FOX News, ABC, CNN, NBC, Etc. Each of these news stations cater to a specific audience. For instance, FOX News is known to be Republican and therefore, much (if not all) of their topics are caters or biased toward the Republican standing. Because of this bias viewers are only given specific perspectives on news reports rather than given the full coverage. Because of the bias that audience fragmentation can have I do not always see it as beneficial, especially if it is about the news. It can, however, be beneficial for ratings. It can also be beneficial if one is wanting to target a specific demographic.

The Medium is the Message W9/D2

I do agree with Marshall McLuhan’s idea that the medium is the message. The medium in which a message is delivered can affect two things (in my eyes) who it is received by and how it is perceived. For instance, messages that utilize more new media and that use more electronic/technological channels may be better received by younger generations as people my age and younger are more familiar with the informational and digital age. Messages that use social networking sites, smart phones, and television are not only perceived as being more trendy, but they are used more often by my generation and my preceding generations. While messages that use more old media, i.e., print media and radio may be better received by older generations as that is what they are more accustomed too.

            In terms of cool media, I do see television as being cool media as you need to have a certain level of attractiveness and charisma to be well received by the audience. While in radio or print looks don't really matter.

Cyberspace friendships W9/D1

I have not made friendships solely through the use of cyberspace. I have, however, developed friendships online. For instance, I have met people on vacation and then later built relationships through keeping in touch on social networking sites like Facebook. While on vacation I only knew them for a short period of time so at the time I only considered them acquaintances because I did not know them well, but as we got to know more about each other online I now consider them friends.

            I believe that friendships built in cyberspace are different than those developed through f2f contact as some may feel more inclined to be open through media. For example, because there is no pressure of talking to someone face to face, they may find it easier to talk openly to that person. Also, friendships made online are different in that one can control what they let the other person know. One might expose only their more attractive attributes online rather than letting others see their true selves. I believe this idea relates to the term uses and gratifications where people who use cyberspace focus on building a particular identity online. Because of this I would suggest that those who make cyber friendships be very careful.

Workplace Relationships W8/D3

One idea discussed in chapter 8 that caught my eye was workplace relationships and how to promote professionalism in workplace relationships. This concept caught my attention particularly because it is something that I can personally relate to as I currently hold a job as an elementary art instructor and am a member of a sorority. In the reading Trenholm explains that although we may feel inclined to want to build intimate relationships with our coworkers or group members, we aren’t paid to have fun or hang out with them. Withthat said, workplace relationships must be kept professional. In my experience, I would think that it is also important to keep work and organization relationships professional because mixing your personal life with your professional life can get pretty messy. For instance, in my sorority those who hold positions and who have to get work done shouldn't bring outside squabbles or disagreements into meetings where we have to handle business. I am not completely against creating relationship with coworkers or fellow group members as long as you know where to draw the line.

Organizations & Environment W9/D1

From what I understand from this weeks reading, organizations can be connected to their environments through culture where culture is defined as a particular groups or a particular environments ideas, beliefs, and morals among other things. The contexts of a groups or an environments culture can affect the organizations climate, which is also defined as an organizations identity. With that said, the relationship between an organization and it’s environment needs to be cohesive. In my opinion a successful organization needs to cater to or at most be accepted by the environment. In terms of a University and a local community I would say that the school should offer resources or obtain organizations that suit or cater to the town or city it is in. For instance, because San Jose is so immensely diverse in terms of culture, race, language, education, and SES it would be good if the school had numerous organizations that served this diversity. 

Relational Maintenance W8/D3

            One set of concepts that I found to be most interesting from chapter 6 was the relational maintenance strategies, which are basically behaviors people use to keep their relationships at a desired level. Although, many use a variety of techniques to maintain their relationships, five strategies have been identified as being the most used: positivity, openness, assurance, networks, conflict management, and advice. After reviewing these strategies and reflecting on my own personal experiences with maintaining relationships I have to agree that I too use these techniques most often. With that said, the strategies that I employ are also often affected by the kind of relationship I am maintaining. For instance, I may employ particular strategies for a friend, a different set of strategies for best friend, a different set for a family member, and so on. Generally, however, these five strategies can be used to productively maintain any sort of relationship. 

Duck's Theory W8/D2

            Like many, I too use filters to eliminate people from consideration as both potential romantic partners and potential friends. Personally, my filters can range from superficial things like age and looks and social status to more in depth characteristics like personality, goals, and beliefs. I believe that those who have goals, good intentions, humor, and great communication skills are most attractive. In contrast, I see those who are unmotivated, ill-intentioned, ignorant, and have horrible communication skills to be unattractive.

Duck’s theory makes perfect sense to me, and I very much agree with his concept. Furthermore, I have utilized all four of this filters including the sociological and preinteraction cues. In terms of the sociological cue, I have eliminated a potential relation due to the fact that I could not see how we would be able to get to know one another if there were little chance of us running into each other. Basically, I eliminated the individual because it would be too much work to, well, make it work. And in terms of the preinterest cue, I am sure many of you, including, myself have elminated another only because you were not physically attracted to the other. With that said, I am sure many of you, like myself, have reconsidered the relationship after looking past superficial traits and getting to know the person. I have done so with people who I elminated based on low attraction after finding that we very much connected intellectually. The  intellectual factor alone drew me back in.

Role Relations W8/D1

After reflecting on my own personal experiences with role relations I have come to the conclusion that competitive symmetry can be the most difficult to change while rigid complementary may prove to be the most damaging to the self-esteem of the particular individuals involved.

Competitive symmetry reminded me of sibling rivalry or of friends who are constantly trying to compete with one another. I believe that this role relation usually develops between individuals who have similar personalities. Because of the similarity many may feel that they have to prove something; prove that they are better. This role relation can also occur between those who are innately competitive, and because the competitive trait can be innate, I would assume that is why it can be the most difficult to change. Although those in a competitively symmetrical relation could discuss amongst themselves solutions to their competitiveness, I believe that there will always be an underlying sense of competition between one or both those involved in the relationship. They may no longer voice the competitiveness, but it could continue to show in their thoughts and actions.

In terms of rigid complementary, I drew on my experiences and knowledge of parent to child relationships. As stated by Trenholm, although there are advantages to this role relation, problems can occur. For instance, the individual in the submissive role can resent the constant control of the dominant individual or the dominant individual can tire of always being in charge. Although those who find themselves in rigid complementary relationships can easily find solutions to their problems, for instance children and parents can mature and eventually become equals or close to equals in a relationship, I believe that great damage can be done within the time of rigid complementary relationships. For instance the constant nagging or put downs from the individual in the dominant role can lower the self-esteem of the individual in the submissive role. Or the individual in the submissive role can be conditioned to never voice their opinion or always cater to others while the individual in the dominant role can become too used to always having control.