An Insight into Media Communication Theories March 10, 2008

There are 5 theories I would like to discuss today. Each theory, I believe each has its advantages and disadvantages.

The powerful effects theory, more commonly known as the magic bullet theory states that the media is the most influential and audiences are passive. By now, most of you guys would have guessed what the problem here is. It assumes that audiences are passive. However as we have learnt from the first chapter in communication itself, communication is never a one-way exchange. It is a process of mutual influence and stimultaneous exchange. Therefore, in that manner this theory might prove to be fruitless. In my opinion I feel that this theory still can be utilised in some situations. For example, certain subject matters involving crime and safety most definitely follow this theory as the general public do act like passive audiences to whatever the media provides them. In these cases, this magic bullet theory would prove to be quite useful and work magic wonders, hence the term “magic bullet”!

The second theory which became popular in the 1950s and 1960s is the limited effects theory. This theory states that audiences are active with the ability to resist the influential media messages. It adds on by saying that the audiences are able to sought out the media messages to suit their particular needs. I feel that this theory is too extreme in the sense that all audiences cannot be totally active with the media’s influence downgraded to a little bit only. It is possible that the audiences are not active 100% of the time. Think back to the times when we “critically evaluated” the information that was appearing on the media, lets say on the news. Most of us just accept most information provided by the media to be true. Hence, it would be wrong to say that our “alert” senses are active all the time. There are other factors that contribute to this as well. We tend to be not very active if we had a tiring day at work, we just had a heavy dinner/lunch or even because we just do not want to. Therefore, social, psychological and individual personalities play a big role in the ability of the audience to actively resist the influence of the media messages. Hence, one cannot totally accept this theory to be totally true. 

The third is agenda setting function which talks about the ability of the media, through repeated news coverage, to raise the importance of an issue in the public’s mind. This is most evident in the extensive news coverage done here in Singapore every night. Recently, the escape of Mas Selamat has triggered interest among the public and almost worldwide. The media was able to make this a big issue by emphasising its importance over and over again. Telephone providers like Starhub and Singtel even sent out Multimedia Messages with a photo of him and asking for the public to be on a standby. Posters were put up almost in all places in Singapore signifying that it was really an important matter.  However I feel that after a few days, the publicity raised about this issue is lost as the media did not repeatedly cover this issue. Hence, the public also will eventually lose interest in this issue as this theory states. See the problem here? This theory depicts the public as being conditioned to certain issues through priming which may not be the case during all the times. I mean when I first learnt about this theory, I tried to be objective during all the media messages that were being shown on TV and it is amazing how through this theory held as within a total of 5 hours, a particular advertisement was advertised 16 times!!! It is frightening to note that the public can be so easily manipulated into buying a particular product or thinking about a particular issue just like that.

The next theory would be media hegemony which states that the media represents the view of the powerful elite; those who hold strong economical and political power have the ability to influence the media. I do not quite agree with this view maybe because of the fact that I am living in Singapore. Singapore has an extensive and organised goverment system which does not allow the politically powerful to dominate totally. Although, some of the sectors are being dominated by the powerful elite, I doubt that whatever they say does get screened by the goverment and that the goverment does a wonderful job of not allowing the powerful elite to dominate. For example, Mediacorp is owned by goverment-linked corporations. Although these GLCs are not fully linked to the goverment, they still have some independency on how they can run their media. This is deemed as an important aspect for me.

The next theory will be media determinism. Media determinism suggests that the medium is more important and influential than the message itself. To a certain extent, I believe that this is avsolutely correct. How the message is represented reflects on how well the audience or the public are able to retain the information that is on that particular media message. Therefore, I believe that this theory is extremely important as the medium affects the crebility of the media message itself by appealing to the ethos, logos or pathos of the audience.

To end off, I believe these 3 are the ones that have created a riot of emotions in me when I first came across them. In the end, I strongly feel that a combination of all theories is needed to achieve a stronger appeal to the audience.

When Individualism meets Collectivism….. February 28, 2008

This week we are learning  about intercultural communication. One of the main aspects of Intercultural communication is individualism and collectivism. Individualist cultures’s social behaviour is largely determined by their personal goals, attitudes and values whereas collectivist’s behaviour is largely determined by conformity , mutual sympathy and self-sacrifice for in-group members. Miss Hui mentioned that most of the Asian societies are collectivist cultures while the Western societies are individualist cultures.

In my opinion, I feel that Asian societies today are actually trying to incorporate many of collectivist aspects into their culture. One way is done through the various media. Especially in the Indian culture, it can be seen in various bollywood films, that they are trying to become more “liberal” just like the Westerners. You will know what I mean in jus a minute.

Please take a look at this video below.

This video is actually a tamil song from a recent movie. Yes I know, whatever happened to all those old-fashioned music videos where the girl runs behind the tree and plays hide-and-seek with the hero? (that is what used to happen in tamil movies in the olden days) It is evident that all the societies that were collectivist are slowly trying to adapt to the growing individualist culture that is spreading like wildfire. It is obvious from where the song also takes place; in a club with half-clad girls and a well-known rapper. The media has also taken more than enough initiatives to ensure that they do not lose the younger generations to the Western media which is more “liberal” in that sense. Therefore, like what the proverb goes ” If you can’t beat them, join them!”. That is exactly what collectivist societies are trying to do right now. It is a economic strategy to stay competitive with the western media; songs being more harder to understand, girls becoming thinner and guys wearing more bling. Asian societies know that they cannot obviously compete with the liberal Western culture , hence they have tried to incorprate many of Western elements into their many forms of media. It should be noted that the bollywood industry has already achieved this and almost on par with the Western industry. The tamil industry , on the other hand, is just slowly climbing up the social ladder. The song in the music video shown above is actually an old song that appeared in the 80’s. Producers have remixed this song and made it more appealing to the younger generation by “westernising” it and as a result this song has stayed on the top.

Being from a fairly conservative family,  you can imagine the shock when my family saw this video. The first thing that my mother turned around and asked me was ” What is happening to the indian kids nowadays!!”Well, I agree to disagree with her if you catch my pun. The younger generations are not exactly at fault as they have been born into a generation where we are celebrating freedom of speech, liberal worldviews and where bar -dancing is alright.; therefore, it is incorrect to blame the younger generations as the media mainstreams the world as such. On the other hand, it is not the parent’s fault as they did not have the many privileges that teenagers have. Hence, parents might be shocked as they might want their children to be exactly the way they had been when they were teenagers. Again, this might lead to conflicts between the parents and their children.

Even though, the media has become more liberal, it does not mean that families are also going to be the same. There is a positive and negative influence on various families. For example, an extremely ortodox family might look at the above video and deem it to be entirely unappopriate and ban their children from watching such shows ever again. This will result in extreme negative issues for the kid. He or she might be ostracised by other kids and even deemed a social misfit. The media has such power to inflict pain on those who do not go together with the flow of messages. On the contrary, if a family was open-minded, they would be willing to accept the fact that their culture is changing and accept the new ideas and concepts that are expressed through various forms of media. The older generations; however, might still have a conflict of interest between the younger generations.

I strongly feel that even though the media is inclined towards the Western culture more, an individual should not lose the essence of his or her culture because it is culture that has shaped our world today and makes us unique. I feel that adapting our culture to the changing trends in society is quite alright; however, an individual should not totally change from one culture to another. There is then no respect for the older generations as they have put in so much effort in ensuring that aspects of their culture are not compromised by the changing trends in society. This is the very basis of why we have various festivals celebrated by the different cultures in Singapore. It serves as a reminder to us that we still are part of something unique that nobody else haves.

Now, take a look at this video.

This is another music video by Timbaland entitled Indian Flute. See the irony? Western cultures are now adapting more and more of Indian elements into whatever they are showcasing. Other examples include Shakira’s “Hip’s Don’t Lie” . However, even though we see Westerners incorporating more of Indian elements into their media, they do not necessarily change from one culture to another. They just see it as a form of entertainment. Moreover, I believe that Westerners also see it as a form of attracting the new generations as there is a fusion of music expressed which is depicted as the East meeting the West. Westerners have the ability to retain their culture and accept new ideas as well. This is the case as they have been encouraged from a small age to accept new ideas and to speak their thoughs freely. Liberalisation has been a key element of their lives from the very beginning. Easterners on the other hand have just begun to experience the true flavours of liberalisation through the changes in society and the ever-changing trends that they must adopt to.

The bottomline is that both Western and Asian cultures are changing; however, the problem lies in not losing the essence of both the cultures. If by accident we do lose it, there is no hope of the younger generation ever learning about our culture just like what we did from our forefathers.

Interpersonal Communication February 21, 2008

This week we learnt mainly about interpersonal communication which is basically communication between individuals. Like Miss Hui said during lecture today, this is based solely on personal experiences and one cannot possibly evaluate the usage of interpersonal communication in films or movies.

I would like to concentrate on one main process of relationships between individuals; relational formation and developement.

Relational formation and development

1.) Physical Apperance:

Personally I feel that for friends this is not a very important factor as what I normally look for in friends are similar ideas that we might share instead of whether that particular person is attractive or not. However when it comes to choosing a significant other, for me, physical appearance does play quite a huge role. I mean my special companion must at least be presentable-looking with a sense of style and fashion. This is mainly because he is someone I am going to introduce to my family members. As a result, the opinions of my family members will be very much be dependent on the first impressions that he creates, hence physical appearance does play an important role for me.

2.) Similarity:

This is a very big aspect for me. Regardless of friends or my significant other, there must be a common frequency between me and that particular person. Like what my mother would say, ” a relationship won’t work out unless both of you swim in the same direction”. However, again similarity like physical appearance is a perception. Even though ideas between two people might be very similar, they are subjective as in the way the ideas are similar might be very different. For example, even though my friend and I share the same aspect of needing to take a vacation, we might have different ideas on where and how we want to have a vacation. Therefore, I feel that this should not be given much importance as people in relationships will learn to adapt to their friends or significant others by trying to flow in the same frequency as them.

3) Dissimilarity- Personally I feel that this theory is not applicable. It states that people tend to form relationships with others who are not similar or not part of a conformity. However, I believe that this relationship will only last for a short while. When both parties realise that there is nothing similar between both of them, they might just lose out and end the relationship. I am a person who looks for a long-term relationship, be it friends or anyone, therefore I do not look for people who are dissimilar to me.

4.) Exchange- This is another theory that I disagree with. It states that people are merely in a relationship that is considered as a transaction based on costs and benefits. On the contrary, I feel that people might just do something because they might like doing it out of the goodness of their heart. For example, if a boy surprises his girlfriend on valentines’ day by coming to her house, giving her a present and leaving immediately after, does this mean that he still expects something out of her or the relationship they are in? Defining a relationship based on costs and rewards is very degrading of the relationship itself and I feel that two individuals can be in a relationship without expecting anything from either one.

These are the 4 aspects of relational formation and development that I have certain opinions of. I believe these 4 are the most important aspects that an individual looks for before engaging in a conversation with another individual to create a relationship.

Those of you who disagree, please feel free to drop me some comments..

The Simpsons and Verbal Communication February 13, 2008

Most of the public would have most probably watched The Simpsons.

Have you guys thought about the voice -overs for the characters? I have, on numerous occasions, given much thought to who could be the voice- overs for the unique personalities of the unique characters.

Firstly, I thought Bart Simpson (son of Homer Simpson) would be voiced over by a young male. Furthermore, I thought each character would have one voice over each. Therefore, it came as a very big shock to me when I discovered that Bart Simpson was voiced over by a female!!!!! Furthermore, almost each voice over took the parts of at least 10 characters on the average. Can you guys believe it? Maybe you all knew about this earlier, but since technology and I have been out of touch for very long, I just skimmed through you-tube videos and came across this astonishing news today.

Although, this may take a while to load please take your time to watch it. It is worth every single minute of your time.

I believe that verbal communication plays a very important role in this multi-award winning series. This video is actually the last of a five-part  interview in ”In the Actors Studio”. It provided me with useful insight into the usage of verbal communication.

Firstly, language is often a powerful relational tool. Therefore, when Homer Simpson says really mushy stuff to his wife when he is drunk (which is like always !), one cannot help but also feel some form of affection towards him. The words that he uses are not at all understandable, however he has formed his own “language” with the words that he uses and hence we tend to feel affection towards him. 

It is to be noted that just like what I stated above, the words that each of the individual characters used in The Simpsons in turn relate to their character. Through their verbl communication with each other and the manner they interact with other family members, we get an idea of what their character is and we in turn develop our own views about them. Therefore, it is obvious that verbal communication helps to decide how a person views another person as well. For instance, Lisa (Homer Simpson’s daughter) is always the ” good” girl who always cares about others and ever-ready to lend a helping hand. You might ask how I know this? (well, I have asked myself many times this!) The truth is, I do not know. I do not Lisa personally and yet I have managed to form an impression of her in my mind just by looking at the way she speaks. Lisa never uses any vulgarities and there is a stark contrast between Bart and Lisa in the manner that they speak. In my opinion, I feel that this is generally a good tactic used by the director (who is the voice over for Homer Simpson and 10 other roles) to convey the different personalities that are portrayed in the family.    

Towards the end, one of the first-year students asked about whether their roles as actors affected their outlook on life.

It seems that there is a cult in England that idolises Ned Flanders! The power of the language and the way he has related to people of similar characteristics can be evidently shown here. For those who never have watched The Simpsons before, Ned Flanders is a very pious person who always follows in the way of Christianity. There are certain jargons that he uses that are associated with Christanity and this in turn has attracted millions of fans just because of the fact that they are just as pious as he is. For example, any incident that happens or any action that anyone uses, Ned Flanders always associates it with Jesus Christ. Instead of seeing whether he is religiously correct, it can be noted that the ability of Ned to influence others through his words s indeed extremely large. It seems that the cult only watches The Simpsons when the episodes that are being screened include Ned Flanders. All the other times, they watch reruns of the same episode repeatedly. Moreoever, instead of visiting churches, it seems that this particular cult listens to a particular sermon given by Ned Flanders on one of the episode. You can see the power of verbal communication very well in this instance.

However, it is obvious that there are downsides to the show as well. Like what is mentioned in the video above, it was criticised as it allowed Bart to use words like “Kiss my ass” and a few others. On top of that, it uses slang that tend to exclude other minority groups and “encourages” racism. For example Papu, an Indian who owes the local grocery store, is voiced over with a strong Indian accent after living in the same neighbourhood as The Simpsons for 20 years. Therefore in a way, I feel that they should try to minimise the usage of slangs and jargon and maximise the usage of more appropriate words. Culture is the main element that is being affected here. What is the show trying to encourage? It is very difficult to answer that question. Although through Lisa they might try to instill some good values among the kids, in some shows even good-two-shoes Lisa was depicted as being a bad girl. When the director does it, it throws the younger generation into confusion over what to believe.  

Personally, I feel that it was alright as the show was targeted at a much older generation. Of course, it is definitely not suited for kids because of the ambiguous language used and bypassing may occur. Kids may be subjected to various intepretations and this of course will pose a problem for their parents. Therefore, the bottomline is that this is just not the programme for the younger generatio as they lack the thinking to critically analyse what the show is actually trying to tell and may end up having the wrong idea.

Simpson fanatics have actually written a Simpson’s dictionary. This is unbelievable right? Although the show has been running successfully for 13 years, I feel that more improvements could be made for the programme. For example, maybe the use of jargons could be terminated and more grammatically correct english could be used. This is case will in turn will make the show lose its “unique” factor which makes it so appealing. Therefore, there must be some kind of balance where the slangs and jargons are equal to grammatically correct english. Maybe, the director can work towards achieving this purpose.

 However all in all, I still love The Simpsons!!

Like Homer J Simpson would say “D’OH!!!!” (in the Simpson’s script, this is referred to as an “annoyed grunt”

P.S. Those who want to catch it, they air it on star world everyday at 6 pm and sundays on channel 5 at 7. 

P.S.S Those who want to watch the full interview, just go to you tube and type “The Simpsons-Inside the Actor’s Studio”   

If only looks could kill… January 30, 2008

Well, this week we learnt mostly about non-verbal communication and the various types of non-verbal communication technics that can be used.

One that particularly interesed me was oculesics (I hope the spelling is right!). Oculesics basically refers to the usage of one’s eyes to convey a particular message. Especially in my culture (I am Indian if anyone was wondering.), where we do not actually say much, our eyes serve a very important purpose. For example, if I were to spend a night out at the club with my friends, I would have to ask my mother for her approval first. Most of the time when this happens, although she nods her head in approval, her eyes tell a different story. I know that she is displeased as she never looks at me when I ask her for permisson. Basically, she is using reverse psychology by agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. It  is amazing isn’t it?

Furthermore, I used to learn classical dance when I was younger and the emphasis that they had on the eyes was extremely great. When one dances, all the emotions have to be shown through the eyes. You do not have to look at an advertisement or look at the television to know about occulemetics. You just have to observe the people around you.

Like for instance, there is this girl in a few classes of mine. She just stares at me everytime I walk in. Mind you, its not just any other normal stare. If only looks could kill, I would have been a pile of ashes by now.

However the thing about using your eyes right, one doesn’t know whether it is positive or negative. Let’s go back to the girl whom just stares at me. I mean I do not really know whether she is staring at me because she hates me or maybe I am staring at her too. I cannot possibly go up to her and outrightly ask her “Hey why are you staring at me for!”. Firstly, the Asian culture does not allow us to practise much of this without feeling embarrassment. Secondly, she is probably going to think I am out of my mind if she in the end has no problem with me at all. The usage of the eyes to convey a message is very subjective.

Moreover, if if the girl just looks like that at every single person, then I would be the one to blames for coming up with a subjective opinion. If you want to use your eyes to convey a message to someone you have to be sure that the person reading your eyes knows what you are really trying to say. That means you and the other person need to know each other really well. Furthermore, one has to ensure that the message sent is equal to messgae received. This means that both parties involved have to be getting the same message through the eyes. Another fault with the usage of the eyes that you cannot “privately” send a message. I mean its not just me who notices that this particular girl stares. There a lot of others as well. Hence, if u send a message through the eyes, it might up result in being sent to unintended parties and inicidentally they might misintepret the message one is sending and as a result miscommunication occurs.

Oculesics is useful in cases where only non-verbal cues are used and they are very revealing. For example, Indian classical dance which places a lot of emphasis on this shows simple emotions that are similar across cultures. For example happiness is revealed with the widening of the eyes and a smile on the face whereas anger is expressed by widening of the eyes, arching of the eyebrows and lips scorning. As it is seen, oculesics is best used with affect displays as it paints a clearer picture of what the communicator is trying to say.

Therefore, when you really come to think of it, usage of the eyes to convey a message might just lead to having one to have false assumptions, and information.

Boy, am I glad looks cannot kill!

The Mist January 25, 2008

Recently, I watched a movie entitled “The Mist”. It’s actually a book by Stephen King which was adapted for the screen. Initially, I did not really want to watch the movie since I was not a big fan of Stephen King’s books. The funny thing is I first read his book when I was in my primary school. Some of his phrases, and scenes were actually a little bit too intimate for me. Hence, the eventual disgust at his books.

However, the movie really surprised me a lot. It had all the right elements that a movie should have. Suspense, comedy, and a little pinch of romance were all main elements of the movie. I was just tightly gripping the edge of my seat during almost every minute.

Let me just give you guys a brief overview. It’s actually about this small town which gets engulfed in this mist that appears after a heavy thunderstorm. In the mist, are things that really can make your hair stand on its ends. Basically, its about this man who gets trapped with his son at the supermarket where everyone runs for shelter. The story evolves around the man, and the son, and whether they actually make it out of the supermarket alive. They have a major twist . I really want to say it, but I shall not spoil the surprise for those who are planning to watch it!

 As I was saying, the movie was really good. They knew the audience’s interests, and toyed with their feelings. For example, while trapped in the supermarket, there was this Jewish women*no offence* who tried to turn the remaining survivors against one another, and all of the audience were so irritated with the woman that when she finally got shot, nearly all clapped and cheered! Do you see what the director did? He actually managed to move us through pathos, and I think that is the true success of the director!

Furthermore, the non-verbal cues, especially paralinguistics definitely played a big role. I mean in any movie, the sound effects add a special touch to the atmosphere. The sound effects actually made me tear at the end. The movie ended off sad, if you guys know what I mean.  The actors were double as good. Their emotions were well acted through verbal, and non-verbal gestures. For example. there was once when the 9 year old boy was so scared that he went back to his childhood state, and started sucking his thumb. This showed us the intensity of the fear of the people in the supermarket.

Like what I was saying above, the director knew how to make use of pathos,logos and ethos. Ethos refers to the character’s personal appeal and he or she manages to convince the reader or the audience through that. The movie was unique in the sense that there were a variety of characters, each with their own individual character. There was the heroic figure who turned out to be not so heroic when he refused to accompany a woman outside of the supermarket at the beginning of the movie. The uniqueness lies in the director’s ability to portray the heroic figure as an ordinary man just like anyone else who was involved with his own emotions and interests. However, ethos also can dissuade an audience from liking that particular character. In this case of the Jewish woman, I doubt that anyone from the audience actually emphatised with her for any reason. She was full of herself and was intent on turning the remaining survivors against one another. Therefore, the director was smart enough to apply two different contexts for the usag of ethos.

Pathos lies in the emotional context of the speech or in this case movie. Pathos is most regarded by Aristotle and other famous philosphers to be the most influential and therefore the most “dangerous”. Dangerous here means in the sense that one should be aware of the various pathos strategies used in speeches and then should critically evaluate the content of the speech. However, The Mist had a lot of speeches appealing to the pathos of the audience. For example, the director tried to move the audience by using the sound effects to create a gloomy atmosphere providing a sense of foreboding. In this case, I feel that the audience were well-knowledged about the usage of pathos and were able to critically evaluate the speeches that were spoken there. This provided a platform to gauge the evaluation of the movie as a whole. 

Lastly, logos refers to the logical content of the movie itself. I feel this is the director’s weakest point. He claims that in the mist there are creatures from other planets whom have slipped through this “window” during a military operation. It seems to me be almost like an utopian dream. It does not really try to  appeal to the logic of the audience since the subject matter is not very viable. The director assumes that everyone in the audience will just be forced to dream along with him a period where aliens from other planets try to conquer Earth. We can forgive the director for the rest of the story really appeals .

Therefore, The Mist is the movie with a nice twist, not the movie with the nice story.  

Weird or Real? January 23, 2008

I never have really thought much about communication. Therefore, when I had to take the module this semester, I did not realise that it had so much to with psychology. It was surprising that, communication, just like psychology, had different perspectives, and theories. What I thought would be a boring module has actually turned out to be very interesting, and informative.

When we talk about communication, its basically about individuals creating communication, communication creating individuals, communication as a partnered process or communication as something deeply rooted with culture which is almost tied hand-in-hand with some of the psychology theories I have learnt last semester.

One advertisement that has always interested me is the one about smoking. This particular ad has been pasted in bustops , and has even appeared in newspapers, and televisions. The advertisement tries to discourage smokers from (obviously!) smoking by showing a picture of a woman with tongue cancer, making her look very hideous. What interested me were the comments of the people.

It seemed that non-smokers actually found the advertisement to be utterly revoulting while the smokers could not care less! (How ironic is this!) In a survey posted online by the Health Promotion Board, it seems that only 47% of smokers acually stopped smoking after seeing that particular advertisement. For some, the statistics shown here might be alright, but we are in a country where almost 70% of the population are smokers and it is increasing as the years go by. In my opinion, I feel that more effort could have been put for the advertisement. One smoker even said that he knew that such a thing will NEVER occur to him; therefore, he could not care less. Even though this is an advertisement that appeared last year, when I took up this module, the first thing that popped into my mind was this advertisement since it created such a stir among the public.

Since one part of communication is persuasion, I doubt that this advertisement actually achieved its original purpose. Smokers seemed uninterested, and non-smokers were increasingly agitated. They complained that the children were getting affected, and scared unnecessarily. Hence, the media development authority of Singapore actually shifting the screening of the advertisement on the televison to after 10 pm so that the children will not see it. Instead of creating a persuasive technic to dissuage reluctant smokers, all the advertisement did was to increase the worries of the general public.

Furthermore, when the New Paper revealed that the woman posing for the advertisement was actually a non-smoking model, the little persuasion that the advertisement had was totally gone. I feel that such advertisements are just simply attracting people without achieving their main objective. I doubt that majority of smokers actually stopped smoking after seeing the advertisement. Moreover, I feel that if the advertisement actually sets out to persuade a certain group of people, den it should not straight away stop after one advertisement. Instead, they should continue releasing similar advertisements in the same format so that the public will be constantly reminded. Of course, this will be a strain economically on the sponsers.

However, it is evident that if u want certain people to stop a certain habit, they have to be continually reminded of its negative effects, if not they will just be without any apathy for that particular issue.  

Since one of the theories I have explained above talks about 4 processes, one might be wondering where these processes fit in together with this advertisement. I think this advertisement should fall under the pragmatic perspective as it is about interdependent moves that become patterned over time. For instance, the media interacted with the public by publishing the advertisement. This might be called a 2-act sequence which is known as an interact. Afterwhich, the public responded by giving negative comments to the advertisment and creating unnecessary publicity which had nothing to do with smokers stopping their smoking. Lastly, the media reacts to the public by stopping the advertisements slowly and then completely stopping the publication and airing of the advertisement.

The pragmatic perspective likes communication to a game. Likewise, the relationship the media has with the public is also like a game; each party waits for the other to respond so that eventually both parties will have patterns of interaction that satisfy them both. Furthermore, silence in this case is also considered an important part of communication. When the public keeps quiet after the advertisements are no longer being published, the media understood that the problem was solved; therefore, they no longer had to worry about the negative publicity that they would get further.

The downside to this is that the pragmatic perspective states that only the moves that the parties engage in are important, the game itself is not important. For example, the media stops publishing the advertisement after it receives negative publicity. However, it does not know whether there were any other social factors that could have affected the public’s decisions. In this manner, the pragmatic perspective dissaproves the individuality of an individual and makes creativity utterly useless.

Therefore I feel strongly that for the case of the smoking advertisement, the pragmatic perspective could be very much put into use. There are many similarities seen between the pragmatic perspective and the relationship between the media and the public. Just like this, all other communication theories can be applied to real-life situations as well.:)