Tuesday, April 20, 2004
More thoughts on understanding media
A few clarifications to the last post. The kind of knowledge I seek is more of an explanation for the current state of media (in the positive sense) and less of a running commentary as things evolve. This means it’s more likely to be found in a book or a university course than in a magazine. And this presents a problem.
The western world—particularly the United States—has been at the forefront of media evolution for well over a century. New observations on consumer preferences are made and reported there, and the necessary changes effected, long before those changes arrive here. But arrive here they eventually do.
The trouble now is, within local media, there is no observation to report, merely the result of the change. To understand what’s going on, I, the media student, must study two reports: observation and results in western media, and results in local media. The report from across the world invariably contains cultural references that I don’t understand.
For example, in Faster, James Gleick points out that baseball has been losing prominence on television because it is not a game that can be hurried along and slotted into a specific timeframe. It doesn’t help that I know nothing of baseball beyond a few movie scenes. I have to mentally substitute baseball with cricket and think of the difference between Test Cricket and One Day International Cricket (and given my interest in the game…). But that’s an easy one; here’s a googly: do you know exactly what a city block is?
The western world—particularly the United States—has been at the forefront of media evolution for well over a century. New observations on consumer preferences are made and reported there, and the necessary changes effected, long before those changes arrive here. But arrive here they eventually do.
The trouble now is, within local media, there is no observation to report, merely the result of the change. To understand what’s going on, I, the media student, must study two reports: observation and results in western media, and results in local media. The report from across the world invariably contains cultural references that I don’t understand.
For example, in Faster, James Gleick points out that baseball has been losing prominence on television because it is not a game that can be hurried along and slotted into a specific timeframe. It doesn’t help that I know nothing of baseball beyond a few movie scenes. I have to mentally substitute baseball with cricket and think of the difference between Test Cricket and One Day International Cricket (and given my interest in the game…). But that’s an easy one; here’s a googly: do you know exactly what a city block is?
quizling — Apr 20, 2004 8:44:36 AM — # ↩
I'd always assumed it to be the area between one intersection and the next — including all the houses, apartment complexes, restaurants and alleys in between.
So surprise me. :)
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 20, 2004 8:53:26 AM — # ↩
fox2mike — Apr 21, 2004 8:45:57 AM — # ↩
And there's no clear demarcation. The blocks change from one street to the next to the next. Gah.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2004 8:51:32 AM — # ↩
fox2mike — Apr 21, 2004 9:53:21 AM — # ↩
I guess Banglore is happy with its Mains, Crosses, Phases, Blocks, Stages & did I miss out on anything ?
quizling — Apr 21, 2004 10:22:53 AM — # ↩
birdonthewire — Apr 21, 2004 11:08:19 AM — # ↩