But Wait: How DOES The Media Tell You What To Think? 

One idea I didn't really hear you touch on is media as a bottleneck for ideas. The media can make sure that only certain ideas get through. And it taints ideas that travel through other media as 'fringe' or even crazy.

Hegemony is the process of turning an ideology (political or religious) into a social norm. All media is inherently political and carries with it a message, this occurs regardless of if it is one that supports current norms or opposes it. This is not to say that you would be mind controlled, but instead that popular opinion can over time and with enough exposure be altered or enforced. Take any news article and compare its headline from different sources. What each headline says will tell you everything about what that individual news company want you to think about the reasons behind the article. By performing enough of this constantly and unrelentingly it is possible to make the masses believe intentionally skewed or just false information. Jeremy Corbyn is an example of this. He has been called dangerous, a failure and weak. They have straw manned his views to the extent where only 11% of articles even represent what he actually believes. Yet the influence is so much that many people (granted it is by and large people who were already against him) do not even understand his beliefs. Recently on Facebook I saw a local page ask the question "was your vote in Brexit influenced by the media?" the answers were a resounding "No." I personally believe that the medias influence in the UK is so strong and so relentless that it has actually pushed people into believing that they are not consuming any ideology and that any ideology that they have must be their own, otherwise why would they think it.

I am consistently impressed with how this channel continues to raise the bar on the types of questions you explore.

Media is powerful NOT because of the message content, but because it shapes the *context* of followup processing of the content. For example, if media tells you Trump should win over Hillary, you may disagree but now you are framing the conversation as Trump vs. Hillary. Why not frame it another way?

in my childhood, I watched a muppet, sesamestreet-like with cartoons, who taught me at the end of every show than I shouldn't watch advertising on TV... I miss this guy... when I think of it, it was one of the only show who just wanted to entertain me without selling any crap. I wish this spirit could come back today

Political opinions probably work memetically through society, new information, tribalism, confirmation bias, persuasion, emotion, and many more factors. Media probably doesn't directly make our opinions, it absolutely influences it though. Very little of this is based in science though.

CGP Grey's "This Video will Make You Angry" ties well with this the gratification theory of media. Rather than having a taste maker or large agency determine which media should be absorbed, media creates enticing labels for us to read while looking in the aisles. These labels often override our logos by impacting our pathos; our emotions, especially anger, can easily allow for draw and appeal. From there we create our own personal taste makers in regards to our feeds and friends. We are attracted to individuals who share a post about something which also enraged or tickled you. You could make the case that we are looking for medicine in the pharmacy and rather than looking at what is in the bottles we use our personal biases and the opinions which support our perspective to formulate a decision. Like a disease, the more infectious the idea, the more likely it will be distributed.

It's not just what's *in* media that influences our perception of the world, but what is not. If only certain kinds of people show up in media, you become familiar with them and either identify with them, or feel like you have to identify with them to interact with other people.

I wonder how many will get this: _Sniff_ Pure Ideology _Shirt Pull_

As a media "influencer" and mentor for other influencers... this is what is always on my mind and the ethics of it. I teach Singularity Storytelling, and my thought process is exactly that every day - Why do I like this. Then it goes back to me consciously choosing my experience and enjoying the feelings that they bring me, with the emerging technologies and how as a species we are evolving we do need to become more conscious of "WHY" we do what we do, consume what we consume, etc. Because once a full on merging of technology and humanity occurs we can't just let things to chance.

My dear Mr. Rugnetta, you've just summarized the first year of my communication career in a 10 minutes video. This is why I watch Idea Channel. Kudos.

People generally watch what reinforces their own opinion. Simple. Also there is the general desire to be informed, but I think if it were purely that, there wouldn't be as much desire for shit like Us magazine or as many celebrity stories on CNN

Two step flow matches perfectly the "read title (maybe skim article) -> read top comment(s)" cycle on Reddit.

I know why I watch IC: you ask thought-provoking questions in an interesting and respectful way, with added subtle but not overly distracting humor, and have a pleasant speaking voice. You try to be fair, respond politely to your comments, and admit when you are wrong or didn't think about an angle or point of view. (I may also be somewhat swayed by your adorable puppy-dog eyes when you get all wide-eyed and earnest, though...but I swear, that's not the main reason!)

I've worked in the news in some capacity or other for the last 3 years, and I think one of the interesting things about how this all works is what we *don't* tell people something. As the self-imposed gatekeepers of knowledge, if a story doesn't run for whatever reason, most people will never experience it in their daily lives, even if it may be important. For instance, if a report comes out talking about how crime is down across the country, it may not run if it comes out the same day as some national tragedy like the Orlando shooting or the Dallas ambush. Media is by its nature, required to keep itself alive, so some messages may be more difficult to find if they go against what that particular media sources is selling.

It seems to me like all of these theories are different oversimplifications of something we just can't really simplify in that way at all. Humans are complicated, and I cant think of a more vague and wide question about complex human behavior than what is essentially "How do humans consume ideas?" Its an interesting thing to think about, but it seems like as soon as someone wants to theorize a global and simple idea of how this works, they are already making a huge mistake. Not everything can be simplified in that way!

I guess there is one more important aspect out there - social inclusion. Social media first offers an array of social bodies, and then allows you to become part of one/several of them. It is especially evident when you look at RU-vid creators and their "fans", or even political parties with their voters. Of course, one can say that it is still a "two-step flow" theory, but the thing is that there is much more than just an authority figure: there is a whole community with certain benefits and drawbacks of being included in it. And one can choose (unconsciously in most cases) which community to join and follow. Thus, each social platform represents a distinct social group, and inclusion into this group (with its pros and cons) is a way how it actually "tells you what to think".

Have you looked at the syllabus for my first year communications class? This is straight up stuff from my old communication classes and I love it! haha. It's explained in a much more exciting way compared to my how my prof did it. Since we're still talking about these kinds of media effects theories, it would make sense to now talk about Encoding and Decoding, since it's related to how audiences make sense of the media. Also cause Stuart Hall is the bomb, ok?

No! I am an independent being in full control of my thoughts and opinions! I am an individual who is not affected by propaganda and trends! I support things that are right, not things that are popular! if I go too far with this the sense of sarcasm is going to wear off.

I feel like I'm back at first year of college, studying all the theories and the effect on people and stuff. It's nice

Great new series. I like the complexity of the subjects being talked about, it has that nice "I've got a lot to say" feeling about it.

So youtube glitched for me and showed a black screen and I thought it was intentional..

The only thing we need is the freedom to have our own opinions and not be afraid of thinking outside our social framework.

The vast majority of my media consumption is through youtube (from my subscription feed, sometimes related videos, and videos linked from other sites). RU-vid allows me to specifically seek out the kind of content I am interested in even if I don't know what I like or why I like it. The types of videos in my feed cover a wide range: comedy, science, education, gaming, vlog, music, etc. One thing I have noticed about my subscriptions is that most of them have a good character/narrator/host. The content being delivered to me is less important than who delivers it and how they do it. I guess maybe I'm lonely and desperate for friends. (Mike, you make a good imaginary friend in case you were wondering)

This Script Generator is getting really believable

To continue with the drugstore analogy, if you consider the medicines as messages, then the drugstore owner would be media. They would pick out what "messages" you have access to in their store. Different media outlets would be like different stores, each having more or less selection of different kinds of messages. You, the consumer, would pick media outlets that tend to have more of the selections you like, or the ones you already have the habit of going to.

The only way for one to remain uninfluenced by "media" is to be a direct witness of an event. Even honest representation, can unwillingly cause a difference in the perception. I know that I have a media/social bubble, but living without one would be maddening.

wat... guess i should make a "last time i was this early" joke. meh. lets not

What a great episode. Thanks ;)

There was no mention of the information that is left out, glossed over, or purposely left out of the media. My example is our past governor Jim Macgreeve that appointed his gay foreign born friend to be head of Homeland Security in NJ. He could not get a security clearance and therefore could not attend FBI briefings on the subject.

1) Why didn't you talk about the Agenda Setting and how it affects public opinion? 2) What's the name of that sunglasses movie?

This was my favorite Idea Channel video in a long time. Great work!

The Road Not Taken got into my head early and has impacted my reception of further media making my times more interesting in the Chinese proverb sense, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

I can generally name why I do or don't like something or why I feel anyway about most things. When I was in high school I was often confused by others who would say they simply liked something; to which I'd ask "But why!?" and they'd respond aggressively with "BECAUSE I DO!" I wonder if this manner of introspectiveness is something I picked up from some influential media.

When I read anything about anything through media outlets. I read several articles from different outlets so I can manage to filter through their opinions and find the facts. Because even though most people aren't trying to. Someone is always trying to sell you something. Whether a view point or a product. And I don't want their view point, I want the facts so that I and my friends can just talk about the facts of a situation. So that we can allow our experiences and opinions to change as we change. So that we can learn. And I always remember there is a why to anything, whatever it is, whoever says it.

This! this has been on my mind for the past few months and I've seriously questioned if everything i do, like, or think about are actually my own thoughts or they are just others people thoughts that live in my mind, now I'm paranoid of everything i hear or watch

Mike you are an "Influencer"...instant guacamole !

9:09 That thought process is actually more or less always in the back of my mind when I'm watching a TV show

Media refers to all communication outlets (which includes advertising). Sure talking to your best friend can be helpful in shaping your opinions, but largely what we know about the world is filtered through the media (news, entertainment, commercials, games, art, so on). This is why our worry vs reality of threats is so skewed....or why the majority of Indian women use skin whitening products....or why some societies become used to the idea of war and torture. It isn't "one piece of media controls your mind"....it is more "much of your mind is formed using the collective body of media you are exposed to" (books, plays, movies, youtube shows...basically everything outside of those friends and family you actually are talking to each day). This effectively "controls what people think" when the body of a societies media has certain agendas to push (for example, hatred towards LGBT people 50 years ago in America). Trying to split off "thought leaders" as something apart from the media is misguided (same with advertising). Unless those thought leaders are the friends you hang out with ....then they are media as well. Though, perhaps even friends and family are becoming part of "the media". With the advent of "social media". It is debatable if this falls under media (there is definitely a case to be made, for example advertisements on facebook saying your friends liked a page when they haven't....leveraging trusted sources to skew your thoughts towards products / ideas). Anyhow, the short answer is "yes, media influences us greatly".

I'm going to say that if you look at history it is clear that the media has extreme power over the way people think. Culturally, the world has changed so much and so suddenly in terms of values, aesthetics, and culture, and each of those changes happens yearly, monthly and sometimes even weekly. Prior to the advent of television and other forms of mass media, such abrupt and frequent changes didn't exist. What makes it so eerie is the way a set of values becomes commonly accepted throughout a social group, even when some of that social group doesn't even understand why they are supporting the issue. If it isn't the media, then where are these changes an ideas coming from?

Great video man. Love the humor and your in depth explanation and counter points is very enlightening. Welcome to my opinion leader team!!

Media does directly influence people to at least a small extent. This is because when you talk like the person you're speaking to, and use words that they like, they tend to let their defenses down some and understand you better. So they're more likely to seriously consider what you have to say. I remember that there are at least three different spectrums in this theory, and I think this is one example: Attempting to maximize persuasion for a highly logical person requires many words and phrases that convey logic and maximizing persuasion for a highly emotional person requires many words and phrases that convey emotion. Both are because you are, so to say, "speaking their language". Donald Trump uses a lot of emotion in his speeches, so people who are more emotional thinkers are more likely to vote for him. If we had a robot as a presidential candidate that uses mostly logical words, then people who are more logical thinkers will be more likely to vote for it. So there's a difference in saying (and this might not be the best example) "Statistics have shown that people who go to jail are more likely to return there" and "It's disgraceful that our laws perpetuate shameful actions that keep putting them in jail". So one way the media tells you WHAT to think, is using HOW you think.

Hey'ya I loved this video! And I think there is an interesting aspect of this here on RU-vid, which is how we both quantify how popular something is, or how popular some ONE is. The former is referring to views, but it's the latter I want to discuss, which is the amount of subscribers someone has. The reason why I only want to talk about subs is because, where an individual video that is really good, might get a lot of views, a lot of subscribers are a proof that you have made enough videos that are really good that people trust that you will do it again. Or put another way, you have earned a lot of peoples trust. Let's start with an example: If someone has over 100,000 subs we can trust what they have to say, thus we will let them influence us a little. If they have 500,000 subs we listen a lot more, one million is the jackpot and they're word is law (or a nice rule of thumb). Now if they have over ten million we stop trusting them, right? Nope, we do, except now we HAVE to trust them, except they are the leaders of their field. But it isn't the field of subject that they lead, just the field of education. This get's funny when, due to this sort of conditioning that we have gone through, we (or at least I) might not watch a college professor with only 5 subscribers, because their presentation as an educator is quantifiabley worse than a lot of channels with less ACTUAL credentials. What is the extra cherry on this is i am not saying that anyone would say what a college professor is wrong because of their amount of subscribers, the funny part is actually that even though we would all agree that this person knows what they are talking about, we don't watch them because of the quality of their video, when it is in fact the very that this person is not a youtuber (someone who strives for quality in their videos) which is what makes us able to trust them. Now that I have proven that I have proven subscribers equal trustworthiness though, I have one last hypothetical example, and it actually relates very much to my own life, because I am going to be releasing my first analysis video soon, but I don't have a lot of subscribers (I have two but both are literally me) and I'm not a college professor either, so if you gave me a shout out, would I then become trustworthy?Just a few thoughts, even if this comment isn't featured rock on for inspiring me to right all this! P.s. on a more related note, I one had my English teacher show me wisecrack back when it was just called thug notes and had only a around a 100,000 subs. This both made me want to listen to my teacher more (I take pride in the fact I am subscribed to a lot of educational channels and he showed me one I never heard of which blew my mind) and made me listen to wisecrack more and more as they started making better stuff. This caused a feed back loop where the more I liked wisecrack and the better I did the more impressed with my teacher I was for finding it so early on. Also My public speaking teacher (who was an English teacher but I never had him as one) got me into ted talks with the help of my art teacher. I think this is a conspiracy because these were 3 of my favorite teachers and I can't tell if it is because they we cool and thus new more about RU-vid, or I liked them because my brain associated the stuff said in those videos with the teachers.

Great video guys. I really liked the little animations in this one!

I feel like this discussion, especially the metaphor about the medicine, relate to the current political landscape of the United States. We pick and choose media that expresses similar views to our own. Part of how the media keeps our attention is by demonizing people with opposing opinions and leading us towards an 'Us vs. Them' attitude. I think this is the sort of amalgamation that he talked about, with us first choosing the media that suits us and then our opinion leaders and the media filling our heads with biases that in turn benefit them. Which is why I believe that we should aim to always see both sides of any issue, through whatever means to avoid as much manipulation as possible and come to our own conclusions.

I'm the kind of person who will avoid a piece of media if people respond to "Oh, I haven't seen it" with "What do you MEAN you haven't seen/read/heard...?", or "Well then, you're not a nerd/geek/reader...". It's one thing to be surprised and to think I should consume a thing, but the people pushing it need to do so politely. Beyond that, the media I consume seems to be mostly the stuff that catches my attention when I hear it described by someone in a community that I'm part of, like booktube, Idea Channel (fun fact: I got into Night Vale after a video on this channel), and from there it webs out. If a creator of a piece of media I love makes something new, I'm so in.

As someone who learned something similar to opinion leaders in marketing, I'm going to go with the Two Step flow theory. For the most part, I think human beings would rather elect a leader of sorts to help them form their own opinions as it's just easier than trying to find stuff you would enjoy on your own hence why a lot of unboxing videos and test videos are so popular on RU-vid. That being said, being an opinion leader isn't permanent. If the people find that your opinions are now trash due to a myriad of reasons, you can easily be dethroned and someone new will take your spot as an opinion leader. It's like electing a representative for your area. You hope they have your interests at heart and when they don't you oust them.

Probably the best thing that PBS produces

I'm not sure whether this was a case of media shaping public opinion, or media bending to fit with public opinion, but when I read the live coverage of the recent attacks in Paris, I became deeply concerned that the killings were being called an "act of terrorism" when the same live article also said that the identity of the perpetrator was not known, and there was no indication that the motivation was political or ideological. It turned out that this was indeed an act of terrorism, but I worry that media jumped the gun because we've become too paranoid about these things. In principle, isn't it possible that this atrocity could've been committed by a secular French person of French ancestry with a deeply troubled mind? Why was this possibility seemingly dismissed before sufficient information became available to clearly refute it? Ultimately, was the media trying to subtly manipulate consumers of media, or was it giving people what they want or expect?

I think all of these theories work in different ways for different people. Like for instance, I have given up cable television but routinely watch youtube or netflix which can contain advertisements that effect me. There are some things that I took an interest in because others around me did, but then again there's a lot that I'm interested in that not a lot of people around me enjoy or agree with. I do not see media as a bad thing even if it is manipulative because that media is an expression of a person's ideals and ambitions. It comes down to the individual to decide whether the media is something they want to whole heartedly accept as fact or use it as a tool along with research and experiences to form an opinion. These types of things really interest me because I often find myself enjoying the observation of human interaction and personality and how people think based on their personal experiences.

Just watched They Live for the first time yesterday. Amazing!

:( I never would have thought PBS would sink so low as to say that mass media is not trying to conform us to their 'agenda'. I will be re-thinking my opinions about PBS!

I'm an overly-analytical person. I scrutinize pretty much every thought and emotion I have. In my alone time, I question the origins of my actions, emotions, and interests. I've concluded that no amount of media can change my behaviors, as I am a full grown stubborn adult. I know why I like the music I like, why I'm overly empathetic, why I'm un-motivated by money , and why I seek adventure. All of it can be traced to my childhood. My experiences as a kid were so profound, that they permanently shaped my fundamental opinions, interests, and even political views.

Im 5 years late to this video but wow. It's refreshing to find a video that looks at multiple aspects within it. I could watch brain food like this all day. Thank you for making videos like these. 😅😅

I love that you touched upon education media, and I know this episode was entirely geared for the traditional news and popular media segments of our culture, but I as an aspiring teacher have been wrestling with the idea of education as inherently brainwashing. Sure we sugar coat it as informing the students so that they can empower themselves, but ultimately education seeks to affect the thinking of their students. Implicit throughout this video is the idea that brainwashing is conspiratorial and bad, but education is an example where brainwashing perhaps is good (with the understanding that students do still fall through the cracks). Are there other examples of productive brain washing? For instance alternative medicine is largely believed to be based on the placebo affect: where the mind believes it is healed and the body feels better. That is, in a sense, brainwashing as well. Where can we draw the line between the good and the bad manipulation of thought?

To continue the medicine metaphor, we could say the Hypodermic Needle Model is akin to direct advertising of medicine (TV ads, magazine ads, etc.). Meanwhile, being prescribed medication by your doctor is similar to Two-step Flow, in that pharmaceutical companies promote various medications to doctors in the hope that they will then go to prescribe those medications to their patients.

it's amazing how it sounds more logical to consider that our behavior and actions are determined by an outer source than admit otherwise. This way we are more likely to do things we'd be judged upon if it was purely made by our inner self and I think the media took advantage of it and made diverse products to reach most people with the "We Tell You What To Do" hint to let them feel less in charge of what they like and do

I've always loved Oscar Wilde's quote “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” I wonder if this could also be at play here. I know some of my opinions and even behaviours are adopted from people I respect, sometime it's conscious sometimes it's not. Our psyches are a patchwork or even a frankenstein of tidbits from people and media - then coupled with the mere-exposure principal we follow the path that aligns most with the patchwork we've created - sometimes consciously, sometimes not...

That's right, tell everyone that it isn't happening. BECAUSE IT ISN'T HAPPENING...

Media messages (especially news) can both inform our ideas about what reality is like and shape the way we experience the world. These messages become both facts we accept without any other experiential evidence and the schema by which we assess what we see. For instance, the news regularly discusses crime and violence, so we assume that crime is on the rise despite it actually being on the decline. But then, after being exposed to this idea from the media, when we see something that might be ambiguous we more easily assume that it is a criminal act rather than a possibly benign one. We then add this assumed criminality to the evidence for our assumption that crime is on the rise, kinda like a feedback loop. I guess its most like an IV drip, you get a little bit over time, and its only after you have a lot that you really feel its full effects.

I personally refuse to watch cable tv or anything that has commercials, as well as radio. I choose what I want to hear and sometimes, I change my mind on things just because something else makes more sense. Although I have not changed my mind on politics since college, and yes, it is different than it was in college.

I bought a red t-shirt and some bookshelves after watching this.

From my experience, I think each of the theories could be true, but they’re all contingent upon precisely what kind of media the consumer has available to watch. When I was a kid, our house internet and computers were pretty slow, and we didn’t have cable, so the only thing I ever could watch was PBS, thus I ended up watching all the usual PBS Kids shows like Cyberchase, Arthur, Fetch with Ruff Ruffman, etc. At the time watching them felt like a choice, as I loved those shows, but I also remember my father talking about how “stupid” the shows on other networks like Cartoon Network were. It’s very possible we only had PBS because my parents only wanted me and my sister to watch PBS, and as the result of watching media only from one source, those shows very well were indoctrination of some kind. But today, with the rise of Netflix and youTube, there’s limitless possibilities to what I can watch, and I’ve responded by watching My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, something I’m sure everyone truly expected from me. Originally, I watched it because a few close friends recommended it, but after that, all the obsession was on my end. The show itself didn’t tell me to get involved with the fandom, and no opinion leader encouraged me to buy merchandise or go to conventions; those were all decisions I made pretty much because “I [found] this media message pleasurable and I [allowed] it to dictate my opinions because the in-group.” While one might say that show controls me to participate in the fandom, I’d argue otherwise as I’ve also seen other shows, most recently “The Bachelorette,” and I’ve chosen to be less engaged with them also because I find their media messages to be less valuable. In the end, I think many people want to be fanatic about something, and if the media is restrained to one thing, then most will become fanatic about that one thing. However, if given the freedom of choice, the fanaticism will be spread across many different media messages. I think this can be seen in politics too; in single party states, the dictator always has fanatic supporters because all opposition is silenced, but in the US two (large) party system, both parties have fanatic supporters. But that’s a different topic …

There is nothing better than, a cup of coffee and the latest episode of Idea Channel.

I've noticed people don't like being refered to youtube videos when asking to describe things. in internet arguements, I often get asked complex things that I don't have time to explain. I refer people back to idea channel or extra credits videos or the like, because I find them very accurate. I then get accused of not thinking for myself. the thing here is, the videos I am reffering to were close to what I already thought on the subject before I even watched the video, yet people think I'm assimilating to that video. that's not even mentioning how I can't ever refer someone to a feminist frequancy video, because nearly everyone is more familiar with strawman versions of her criticisms than the criticism itself.

I'm not in the right headspace for something smart right now, I'll have to come back and watch this later.

0:37 Holy crap I forgot about Arnold taking his space helmet off and freezing to death. Thank you, Idea Channel, for reminding me of one of the key moments of my childhood. Also, MR. SNAFFLEBURGER REFERENCE IN THE DOOBLYDOO? YES PLEASE. And the Magic Bullet infomercial is the best infomercial ever made. Thank you for that as well.

My 2 cents. I graduated in advertisement. And back in university I noticed that people had a misguided view of what we were learning there. The field of study in Social Communications is not exact at all. I could calculate how many people I would reach through a campaign and how much that would cost me, but ultimately I couldn’t tell how many of those I reached actually received my message the way I wanted. Communications is a field of bets not one of certainty, no matter what we say to the client. But it’s not just those who are in the field of advertisement that have this view. It’s especially outsiders who see it as a powerful force for changing the views of the masses. Often these people think they themselves are immune to the suggestions on TV. “I’m drinking this Heineken but it’s not because I just saw 007”. There is a documentary that I always recommend called, “The Century of the Self”. It’s not perfect but it talks about Edward Bernays. I feel that a lot of the “evil media” reputation can be traced to some of the things he did and said. I think much of it is bullshit but… If you feel strongly about it, you watch it and make your own opinion. What I want to say really is just that advertisement is much like hypnotism. If you believe in its power, it will have a lot of power on you.

new person. so well done. so well done.

The NDAA of 2012 (I think) legalized propaganda so broadcasters may now be told exactly what to say and when to say it.

Finaly an episode i understad of idea channel in almost two years

All I have to say is that I loooove this new series of videos. Or maybe the media makes me think that.

What I'm wondering is how reader response theory would fit into these media consumption models, because a problem I've noticed with all these theories is that they're incredibly static. They don't say a lot about how we change as people or how our media changes as...whatever it is; they're both fixed entities where one exerts power over the other. That's how you end up with these power imbalances: one side implies that people aren't changed that much by the media they consume (they just gravitate toward what they already wanted) or they have no agency to exert in the first place (they're just sponges, awaiting guidance from distant authority figures). And I'm not sure reality plays out quite that cleanly. Media can change meaning based on the audience that consumes it, or audiences can change their views of the world based on the media they consume. (In fact, that latter point is what a lot of media relies on.) In that regard, reader response theory does a little better since it admits readers create their own meaning from the text, although I'm reluctant to agree with it entirely. I'm not sure media is quite as empty and boundless as reader response theory would suggest it is. I don't know; all this sounds a little circuitous and tautological, like there's this major outside context that none of these theories consider. Two-step flow, I think, comes closer than any of the others.

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.. Is a Book that describes all the ways that the media and salesmen, politicians and influences use to effect you.

On the matter of why I like things I do sometimes (most commonly with music) I think critically of why I like consuming things and which things I want to both consume and think about consuming.

"If we feel gratified, that media must have been right, or good."

Mike Rugnetta. This subject may be one of the most important to pass through the periphery of any thinking being. Not only does the idea of electronic media influencing consumer behavior signal the falcon's screech, but ideas being disseminated generally is the bedrock of philosophical discourse and of great sociological import. What piques my interest is the question of 'how', indeed. I've conscientiously disavowed all exposure to advertising since I was a late teen (after discovering Adbusters and psychedelics 11 years ago). One of my favorite past times is asking people why they think what they think, especially regarding anything pop culture. My position is this: all ideas (commercial, artistic, philosophical, otherwise) must find a receiver, and therefore a believer. The 'controller', however, is a meta subject perhaps too complicated for this forum.

The stuff about opinion leaders resonates with me a lot. I wonder to what extent belief formation has to do with personal identity. I think that our willingness to accept an idea is strongly related to identification (or non-identification) with the speaker.

I imagine that our interaction with media is better thought of like a crowded canvas. Everyone has their internal model of reality (the land) where every point in the canvas is a different topic, and new information coming through the senses (media, in this case) can either contradict/disagree with what's already there (be a different color), agree with it (same color), or exist in a new, slightly and barely different spot. Because topics are nearby based on similarity, viewpoints on similar topics metastasize to and affect the model of reality at the points around it (paint spreading). That's why we could have pre-disposed views on topics that we've never experienced before, and to an extent, some of these topics are already slightly painted by base instinct (the ambient nuanced colors of the base canvas), while others are completely blank. All inputs: media, friends, parents, school, even internal thinking can either paint a null spot, agree with what's already there or conflict with it. In the case of the confliction, factors like our opinion of the input source (which in the case of media varies wildly from case to case) can affect how powerful ideas paint these topics in the plot (perhaps if this is water coloring, then the strength of the color i.e. the amount of diluting water represents the overpowering strength of the opinion/belief).

Really great episode. I would like to add the idea that there is no such thing as “non-mediated” reality or information without media. The body itself is a medium (for example, look at the work of Marcel Mauss and the technologies of the body) and every action, reaction, every sense of being in a socio-cultural context is mediated. Most “consume oriented media”, books / television / movies / games / internet are composed of the re-combination of other aspects of mediality (such as language, images, etc.). The question may arise, if there is a distinct difference between the way in which different media outlets or media production and creation is making the act of being a medium more transparent or concealed. I would argue that “the bad media” (or non trustworthy media) is to be understood as media production in which the act of mediating (the act of creating) is neglected and an ideology of immediacy / directness is established. So the different theories can describe different modes on how media production and consumption is linked. Also, it might help to look up the ANT (actor network theory) to look onto a different way on how to describe media / human agency.

A blast from the past. RU-vid recommends me this video even though the channel is dead for 6 years

omg you mentioned this to me at Vidcon on the last day of my Vidcon vlog series! It was so great to meet you there! :D

Organize these theories by age groups, kids, young adults, middle age, then in reverse for elders. then compare to the media produced for these demographics. The patterns will likely emerge.

I've become very resistant to these kinds of influence ever since: 1, I was informed/educated of all the manipulative science that goes into things like advertising and 2, I learned that exposure to advertisements actually negatively affects your psychological health.

Veritasium just put out a video about the concept that repeating something over and over and over can make you believe it as true whether it is or not. So, if you lie, plausibly, and repeat that lie again and again and again...it becomes the truth.

I hope this gets more than 10 million views some day. 134,680 is not enough.

I vehemently disagree with some RU-vidrs but continued to watch them. This is because I want to understand how the world thinks, even if I'm not a part of it. The veiws of people is good information to me even if I know that are wrong about what they believe.

this is my media studies course a few years ago consentrated into 1 video

I think there is something to be said about media manipulation. Do extreme, reactionary politicians show up after the media hypes a certain controversial topic, or does the media hype in preparation for that flavour of politics? There have been some pretty clear cut cases of Murdoch media attempting to influence political opinions, but are those of us that noticed a minority as we oft believe?

I feel like in my life I've had a lot of usage, where the goal was to be the two-step middle man. My house was where everyone gathered for movie nights in high school, and I was always looking for the next big thing that everyone "had to see right now."

When a non-news or non-issue are headlines over and over again, how is this not influencing the public?

I believe that the world would be a much better place if people once in a while asked themselves why they like things.

So happy to see House of Leaves on your bookshelf! Maybe an episode about that and other unconventional literature like it?

I can't help but notice that people tend to gravitate towards ideas where their own temperament or personality is somehow favored or "better" than others. At this point, it seems like "messages" are so common, available, and diverse, that it's very easy to find ideas that very precisely "suit" yourself and gravitate towards them without really thinking about it. I know that's how I ended up at a lot of my own opinions, and I'm not exactly proud of that.

Love "They Live" thanks for the references. "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass..... and I'm all out of bubblegum."

I think media is a medium that is skewed through the person who owns the media opinions therefore, telling us on what to think from their perspective and beliefs and not from our own, or even that we take their message and confer it to our own liking by changing it even more from what actually happened.

I used to think it was my fault when I didn't enjoy some thing x that I was told my group y must appreciate. I would say that I must be missing something that makes that thing x great and if I just tried harder at being part of group y, I would learn to appreciate thing x properly. But as time went on, I noticed I would grow more disenchanted with these things my group people "should" like and because of this I realised I didn't have to like things because I "should" which in turn allowed me to think more critically about the labels I'd placed on myself, and how much those groups really applied to me or how I should interact with the views of groups I may consider myself a part of. It is really empowering to move away from a group which you defined yourself by in the past and/or to reinvent your relationship within a group instead of allowing others to overly direct your sense of self and taste.

I notice the use of two step follow in the media quite often. Now known as influencers, which is a big deal via social media.We see big name people promoting certain products and it gains the attention from viewers and since they sometimes believe that since certain higher figures use certain products then we should try it out as well. The list is big such a Nicki Minaj and Dr.Dre Beats or Katy Perry and Covergirl etc.With Mere-Exposure effect, I think Apple is a good example for some people. iPhones are huge and I heard many people say that they will never buy another type of cell phone because iPhones is what they love and are use to. I am one of those people so this effect is very powerful.

We don't believe what's on TV, Because it's what we want to see, And what we want, we know we can't believe, We have all learned to kill our dreams. |-/

watching people like Darren Brown, researching Edward Bernes, and researching Nero-placticity lead me to believe what I watch (and think) directly shape me. Should ads for consumables be data to keep from manipulating your populous.