What do media refer to? General
understanding sees it synonymous to journalism—news that is printed on
newspapers, broadcast on television and radio and hosted on the website. My
encounters with my friends and relatives have produced the same result, to a larger
extent. Hence, it becomes crucial to distinguish between media and journalism.
While journalism is a part of media, mass media, abbreviated as media, is a
larger picture comprising all forms of mass media used to disseminate mass media
content. To elaborate, media is not just the Press, but also other forms of
mass media genres and their content, including movies, documentaries, videos,
infotainment amongst others. What it means is, while mass media is limited,
media content is diverse and incorporating to modern times.
As I mentioned before, mass media
is a platform that is used to disseminate mass media content. While the World
Wide Web has significantly challenged this one way flow in recent times,
especially after the upsurge of social networking sites like Facebook and micro
blogging Twitter, I will stick to traditional media platforms (Television,
Radio and Print) for this article.
Students who have pursued their
Bachelors or Masters degrees in Journalism and Mass Communication are often
familiar with the history of media—the invention of Gutenberg Press in 16th
century has been linked with the foundation of modern journalism. Airwaves
invented by Marconi was pivotal for radio and later was incorporated for
television after (ABC)’s ingenious idea to incorporate airwaves with video. The
invention of media, as one can see, intertwines with developments in
journalism. Hence, media often becomes
been misunderstood for journalism and vice versa.
Regardless, of the history,
researches in the field of media studies and journalism have time and again
proved the impact media (here, traditional media) have on the people.
Communication researches in the early and late 20h century, like the
Shannon and Weaver’s model, Two-step model, The Hyperdermic model amongst
others have highlighted the power media possesses to affect individuals.
Likewise, while modern researches
done by the likes of Roberts and Bachen (1981), Hearold (1986) and others now
contend that media does not affect individuals as it was initially thought of,
citing various criteria’s: media literacy, knowledge, literacy, exposure,
socio-cultural and economic values amongst others; they nonetheless agree that
media does influence. Hence, it would not be wrong to say that media and its
content can be used for development.
Media creates love as much as it
creates hatred or resentment. It creates hope as much as it creates
desperation. It strengthens love and friendship as much as it fuels enmity or
anti-sentiments. Media tailors all of these human values to create an impact.
Hence, we act and react to certain contents. For example, rape or adversities
evoke feelings of helplessness, prosperity evokes hope for ourselves, romantic
movies make us think of our loved ones and make us compare our love to that in
the movies. We express such reactions because we have been affected by the
media content. Hence, it would be impossible, if not improbable, to say that
individuals exposed to media content would not be able to be affected.
Having seen the thread of effect,
we can easily apply it for development. While some contend that media is only a
reflection of the society, it also tends to enforce or bring in new concepts
and trends in a society. For example, three decades ago, we did not even know
of Burger. But now, burger has become a part of our lives. When strangers meet,
they are likely to acquaint themselves over a bottle of beer as much as they
would do with coffee or tea in the past.
Hence, media content can be used
for development and to forecasting future as much as it can be used for
depicting or reminding what our society is about; depravity, hopelessness,
resentment and statelessness.
Western action movies (which to a
larger extent becomes American movies) woe us by the patriotism of American
soldiers, their willingness to die for saving a single individual. We
immediately look into Nepal Army—something Nepalese know extremely less of. We
wonder if our state would also do the same and stay quiet with disappointment.
War movies produced by the West and our Southern neighbor India has helped
produce patriotism as well as rivalry in their citizens. India is seen against
Pakistan, The United States and its NATO allies are seen against the Communist.
All of these examples probably help
us to retrospect and introspect our national media content that finds its place
in media. It is high time that media be used extensively to promote development
and create positive change. While every Nepalese is pinning hopes of a
constitution which would lead the nation towards stability, it would be
erroneous from the media (to be understood in larger context) to sideline other
developmental aspects of our society. Nepalese movies should work to identify
Nepal, its beauty and diversity. It should urge us to denounce violence as a
form of patriotism. It should help us to live in mutual co-existence and
respect to one other, regardless of caste, class, gender or ethnicity.
To conclude, Nepal has greatly
been less aware of its power to influence and create change. It is seen as
synonymous to journalism and very less, as an agent of social change. While
media content investors might blame it for the lack of audience or economic
constraints, I would see it because we fear to try something that’s never been
tried. We look for profits on-the-go rather than learning from the losses. Hence,
Nepalese media should work to change societies in a positive way by being able
to context sensitive. It is through such responsible acts that they will be
always remembered.
