Tangents in research

Thinking of communication theories, such as semiotics and agenda-setting processes, where the media constructs the public ideology through the inclusion or exclusion of information, I started then to think of how the reality that the public perceives is in itself, the reality that the media has created. The media, intentionally or unintentionally (it doesn't really matter) takes information in from a number of sources – the standard procedure of reportage. Then through the newsroom process the information is filtered, bestowed a weight or degree of importance, and then dispersed to the audience.

The problem then, does the information that the media filters out as being unimportant to the needs of the audience, or more prominent (articles on the front page, bold-faced headlines, etc.), and thus more "important," contribute to the an artificial reality for the audience, who is fed this information?


Think then of how society places value on news stories. Many of us perceive the actions of a handful of bad-acting celebrities as being more "important" to the sum value of culture than we do other news stories, such as information on Iraq, politics, business, the local community, et cetera. But here is the chicken-and-the-egg question: Does the media set the agenda and thus the audience demands for information, i.e. is the media the root cause of this phenomena? Or is the media responding to the desires of the audience, i.e. the media is giving the audience what it wants?

It seems that it's all just a big construction - this little world of ours.

Or maybe I'm just reading to much about the Westley-MacLean model of communication, or reading too much Umberto Eco and other hyperrealists.

Whatever.