Talk:Media studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] History of the article

Note that the discussion below is not necessarily in chronological order. The article was originally written in March 2005 by wikipedians with general knowledge of the subject, and only slightly revised, though there were a number of complaints about the quality. Most of the comments below refer to versions of the the first stage text In Dec 2006 a group of graduate students worked on the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_studies&action=history), alleviating some of the problems noted in the debate below. In Jan 2007 an 'expert' tag was added. Bine maya 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] discussion on quality (2005-Nov 2006)

Main comment:

  • This article needs work. It's not a great encyclopedia entry on media studies.

Secondary comments:

  • The list of university departments is pretty pointless, as we could add links to hundreds of university departments that teach media studies but it's not very helpful.
  • The focus on the UK is a bit odd, and the coverage of UK-based criticisms of the field is perhaps unnecessary and/or not very helpful for people who actually just want an encyclopedia entry on media studies.

I'll have a go at this myself sometime, but I'm reluctant to pitch in at the moment, while the article is so young, as I am a media studies academic myself and would be bound to add my own biases, which others might consider to be a conspiracy to promote my own interests and i don't want that! Could someone else have a go at putting down some basic stuff about media studies, its concerns, and its development...?

Davidgauntlett 00:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it really needs academics to work at it, otherwise it's going to be full of misinformation and myths from the media. Ironic, eh? However there's a few things that others can do... (see below)
Then again, people outside of the field are needed to ensure that the article stays a wikipedia article, and not a paper.
I wrote a substantial chunk of this article, such as most of the 'development' and 'Derogatory attitudes' sections. I've gone through it again but I'm not quite sure how it can be improved. I think it explains it pretty well.
My edit this morning has tidied it up a little. I can't believe that we'd omitted the word 'representation' from the entire article!!! The opening needs tidying, rather than being a list of other disciplines. How accurate is "It has greatly influenced the development of multimedia and of performance art."
We also need to be active in developing the sub-articles that have been created: (Media audience studies, for example, is unhelpful at the moment). Development of this and the others (and red links) will add context and help shape this article.
  • I agree that the list of university sites is redundant. It's really a glorified guestbook. I've removed them.
  • It is rather UK centric because that's where my knowledge lies. I wrote about the development in February, and no-one has since expanded it greatly to include other countries (Other than name dropping: Marshall McLuhan, Denis McQuail... ") It would be great if someone could correct the UK-centricity.
  • I disagree that the coverage of criticisms of the field is unnecessary. It is a huge aspect of the general public's perception, and needs addressing in its wikipedia article. The paragraph beginning "However, the 2004 Guardian Media Directory..." needs to be tightened, or lost. It is possibly too much about pushing an agenda. The external link to the recent John Ellis article does the same job, whilst maintaining NPOV by using an external link. If there are similar criticisms outside of the UK, then we need similar links to CNN stories (or whatever). Otherwise, the phrase "In the United Kingdom" needs to be used more.
I hope this addresses your concerns. I'm tempted to remove the expert tag (which implies inaccuracy - I acknowledge your points, but what is there is at least accurate as far as it goes): it might not be a great article, but it certainly isn't a poor one.
The JPS 11:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I'm less happy with the "Strands" section. The JPS 11:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi! Yeah, ok, good, i wasn't meaning to criticise the work of anyone in particular, obviously. And well done on the latest changes. I just meant that -- to make the article better -- this piece need to start with more broad general material introducing the field, before we get down to things such as people criticising the subject for trivial reasons. (I agree, though, that it's a conspicuous debate in the UK press). And, OK, I'll start to make some changes and additions myself, then ... ! Cheers.
Davidgauntlett 22:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It's now starting to shape up! :) We might even be able to get it up to Featured article status! The JPS 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Heavens I hope you are being sarcastic. That would make wikipedia a laughing stock. I hate to rain on your party but this is still far from decent. I'll try to get some help.Bine maya 12:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a prefered number of "see also" entries? I've noticed some articles have a few, while others are quite extensive. I believe this article in particular, had more see also entries previously. --Dymaxion 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of 'see also' sections. If another article is relevant then it should be properly wikilinked in context within the article, thus explaining its relevance. The JPS 21:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Is this a joke?

The writers of this article appear to have virtually no expertise, or even knowledge, of the subject. -- LKS 7/7/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.68.34 (talk • contribs)

If you have expertise to add, please feel free to edit the page. --mtz206 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Derogatory attitudes

" I disagree that the coverage of criticisms of the field is unnecessary. It is a huge aspect of the general public's perception, and needs addressing in its wikipedia article Otherwise, the phrase "In the United Kingdom" needs to be used more."

In Italy there is the same feeling, is The Example of the 'new' university.There are 10.000s people attending a degree in Media studies. Maybe it's a worldwide trend.

[edit] To do list (Nov 2006)

-- this article will be hard to fix. would almost be better to start from scratch. Bine maya 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] take out/completely redo

suggest we start by taking out the worst until we got something better (or more context so it starts making sense):

    • references list: is it supposed to be the references that were used to write the article? or further readings? in either case: it is worse than none- remove and replace: taking something from a syllabus of an intro to media studies course may be a start. (see section "for further readings" below)
    • the strands section is pure nonsense. again, remove until we got better.
    • the 'derogatory attitudes' section is an emabrassment. there should not be a heading like this to start with. 'criticisms of the field' is an appropriate section. but calling someone or something 'mickey mouse' is slander and not criticism. you have to distinguish between critique from other academic fields and public image. It would begin to make some sense if the preceding article were clearer, explaining that media studies was a reaction to quantitative oriented mass communication research. then you can have a section with academic critiques (of which lack of academic rigor is a part, but there's also a retort to that), and then if you absolutely must a section on 'public perception'- and here you cannot get around mentioning that image is created by mainstream media (who have their own interest in discrediting a field dedicated to critiquing them) - that's one of the main assertions of this field: media create (social) reality!

Bine maya 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] other to dos

  • * clarify: Media studies can refer to two things, the field of media and communication research as a whole (US English) or a specific approach within this field (UK, Australia, International English).
  • re-organize the sections
  • include a section on major academic journals and academic organizations
  • fix the history section
  • connect it to separate entries (also to be made) of mass communication research,media and communication research,media theory etc. also needs to be linked to cultural studies

the german article [1] is not too bad (but is true for the field in German , slightly different history & content)- take a look if you can. the organization makes some sense and the strands section [2] has some rhyme and reason to it.

Bine maya 08:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for Further Readings Section

need to be put in standardized format. anyone know what the convention is on that?

  • John Downing (ed) (2004) Sage Handbook of Media Studies Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • MEDIA STUDIES: A READER, ed. Paul Marris and Sue Thornham, Edinburgh University Press, 1996
  • The Media Student's Book, Gill Branston and Roy Strafford, London: Routledge, 1996
  • Approaches to Media: A Reader, Oliver Boyd-Barrett & Chris Newbold, ed. London: Arnold, 1995.
  • James Curran and Myung-Jin Park (eds.) (2000) De-westernizing Media Studies London: Routledge.
  • Liesbet van Zoonen (1994) Feminist Media Studies London: SAGE
  • Richard Collins et al. (eds) (YEAR?) Media, Culture and Society. A Critical Reader
  • journals:

New Media and Society mostly internet related media studies, Global Media and Communication] mostly international communication research, European Journal of Communication , Communication Research], International Communication Gazette- not only media studies, Media, Culture & Society], [Television and New Media], [Visual Communication]- included Media Studies among other approaches--- also check Taylor and Francis journals!

  • international associations of researchers : IAMCR (oldest, funded under UNESCO auspices, ICA (originally US-based)- all include not only media studies but also other types of media and communication research.

Bine maya 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Bine maya 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Bine maya 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

The article needs to be fully referenced. There should not be a 'further reading' list: such a list will rapidily become hugem with everyone adding their favourite textbook. The references should be what has been used to inform the article. The 'mickey mouse' stuff is about popular public perception, and thus needs to be addressed. The JPStalk to me 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Reply to response:
So how about this:

  • a References section and a separate Further Reading section (better a long one than none at all! and consensus can be found among researchers which textbooks are better than others). That seems to be pretty standard. but please make a better reference section. with this one the editors and authors make themselves ridiculous.
  • ditto about the Public Controversy section. should be separate from academic critiques section, and rewritten.
  • the reason I suggested temporary removal of both: people are saying academics should work on this, and i was about to contact a mailing list of researchers (though I'm a professional media researcher myself, I would not want to solo this.). However, I hesitate. I think if any media researcher less sympathetic than me (or davidgauntlett) sees this now, rather than helping us with this article they'll go out and do research on wikipedia as a failed project. I'm not joking. So I recommend: take out the most obviously controversial/superficially researched stuff and let's get some help. How does that sound?Bine maya 15:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No further references section is better than having one! (said JPS)
Why is that? Do we have a word limit? It's the only thing that is really reliable and helps people do their own research. I have yet to see an Encyclopedia that does without it. But I'm getting the impression that you are more interested in defening your own work rather than making a good article.Bine maya 07:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that 'public controversy' should be separate from an informed critique of methodology. We are supposed to reflect knowledge, not shape it. (said JPS)
OK, let's do it then. Bine maya 08:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The mailing list could be a good idea. From experience, academics revel in complaining about Wikipedia on such lists (but never have time to do anything about it...). Researchers can write what they want about Wikipedia: the only people who read journal articles are a handful of academics, and a handful of (postgrad) students anyway. Wikipedia is too big for us to care about that. It is unlikely that a media researcher would want to conclude that Wikipedia is a 'failed project' anyway: we are more likely to discuss audience /production communities, democratisation of knowledge, etc.
The JPStalk to me 15:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, it's the job of people writing encyclopedic articles to read academic research from various (not least of all printed) sources, pull out the salient info and make it understandable to a wider audience, and help that audience find ways to study more about that subject, so they can add/edit whatever they find and so on. Otherwise, wikipedia will be only another place to compile rumor and regurgitate media buzz and unnnecessarily confuse people about things that are pretty clear to those with access to academic knowledge. Ideally, a good number of researchers would participate in wikipedia and liberate some of their knowledge from the copyrighted books and journals (and seasoned wikipedians like you can help them with that). not insulting them and not getting too protective of an article you wrote in a few days would help though. Bine maya 08:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"But I'm getting the impression that you are more interested in defening your own work rather than making a good article." Assume good faith is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Please avoid making perosnal assumptions/comments. The JPStalk to me 09:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So is it OK to start to editing this seriously, taking out points that various people have identified as problematic for starters? and the merging debate seems to also have turned clearly against merging. so can we stop talking and start doing now? Bine maya 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Bine maya 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Add to, not remove. There are plenty of sources to cite in the 'attitudes' section [3] [4] It is a serious issue that is commonly reproduced. However, we should add any academic criticisms of methodology. As much as you, or I, don't like these (mis)representations of media studies, they are such a part of common knowledge that they need to be addressed in the article. We reflect knowledge, not shape it. The JPStalk to me 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten the section to remove some original thoughts and research. That section is now thoroughly cited. There now needs to be, as you proposed, a separate section dealing with academic criticims. The JPStalk to me 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf vandalism

This vandalism was quickly reverted, but I found it amusing enough to put here: "Media studies was invented in 1995 by Wolf from Gladiators. He receives 17% royalties from every Media student's university fees, which he spends on midget slaves which he keeps in the dungeon of his notting hill flat." The JPS 13:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Media Theory

  • Oppose This is a distinct topic from Media Theory and is worthy of an article in its own right Bwithh 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Bwithh. The JPStalk to me 14:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per analogy of genre theory vs genre studies and various others, also, media theory is no more than a stub. Please see also the comment of User:Davidgauntlett at Talk:Media_theory --Jahsonic 16:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's like saying lets merge the physics article with the article on relativity theory, because we don't feel like writing a separate article.media theory article is a stub and needs work, but there's no way around doing that work. 'media theory' is a specific area of media research/media studies,which analyses the assumptions (explicit or not) behind the research/studies. If anything, media studies needs to be cross-listed with communication research/ media research/ communication research/mass communication research, and media theory needs to remain a separate entry. The reason we're seeing such absurd merger suggestions is because the article itself is still in bad shape. You don't have to be a media scholar, but you have to take your eyes off the screen and turn it to a book. But this has really gone on too long: I'm going out and call for help from some mailing lists of media researchers. Hold on! Bine maya 12:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • note: just checked other languages: the German article (which looks like academics or at least reasonably informed people were involved see [5]) has Media theory as a sub-section of media studies [6] I think that is argument enough.Bine maya 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • another note: I just spent some time working on the media theory article, academic literature in hand. See if you still think media theory and media studies need merging. (check out the discussion page also)Bine maya 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Media Ecology

This article seems to be describing the media ecology. I suggest that it be merged. Oicumayberight 23:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose Media studies != media ecology. Media ecology is a sub-field within media studies, and deserves its own article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the significant difference? It seems the two terms are easily interchangeable. They both seem to be studying the effects of media on our environment. If it's discussing media application effectiveness aside from the byproducts, there are more specific terms for that like advertising, education, entertainment, ect. I would see a significant difference if it was titled "Media Analysis". Then it would be at least separating the skill from the subject matter studied. Oicumayberight 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Media ecology is a subset of media studies. It is a particular discipline with a particular intellectual heritage, canon, etc. See [7]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose the terms are not interchangeable. It is possible to even consider media theory a subset of media ecologies, but that requires one to include academic practices reflexively in the media field.--Buridan 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose the terms are indeed not interchangeable. Here's an analogy: Media Ecology is to Media Studies, as Existentialism is to Philosophy. In further particular: Media Ecology is a specific approach to understanding media, associated with particular thinkers (McLuhan, Postman) and developed at a specific school (New York University). In contrast, Media Studies is the name often given for the general study of media, and includes not only Media Ecology but dozens of other approaches. I have direct experience in all of this: I have an MA in Media Studies from the New School, and a PhD in Media Ecology from NYU. I taught for more than a decade in the MA in Media Studies Program at the New School, and am now Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University. Hope this helps clarify.PaulLev 18:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be to oppose this merger. Removing tag. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McChesney and other recent deletions (Dec 2006)

JPS, do you have any idea who Robert McChesney is? He's quite a bit more than a "favourite lecturer" on this side of the Atlantic. He is one of the most important figures in media studies today (I neglected to illustrate why, though it would be obvious to anyone who went to his Wikipedia page).

More importantly, I am part of a group of communication/media studies graduate students who will be expanding the Media studies entry this weekend. On behalf of all of us, I ask that you refrain from editing and removing content from the page until Tuesday. If you do wait, you will see that the quality of the page will increase dramatically. Jstalker 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Jstalker

Nope, I don't have any idea who Robert McChesney is. Good luck with the additions. Please make sure that your additions are thoroughly sourced. I see an anonymous user has deleted the paragraph about Gauntlett's contributions... The JPStalk to me 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and one of the things that needs adding is 'criticism' of the field. Methodologies, etc.
You must cite your sources. There can be no original research. No matter how informed your additions are, Wikipedia policy requires sources. No editorial comment/asides. If you make a staement like "x is one of the most important figures in media studies today", it needs attributing to a verifiable source. I will remove additions that do not cite sources. The JPStalk to me 20:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular conceptions and derogatory attitudes (Dec 2006)

There seems to be evidence that these exist in the US as well, not just the UK. I just a saw a Simpsons episode dating from Jan 2000 which derides Communications as a degree (Communications roughly equivalent to Media Studies in the US)

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/BABF06

Hibbert: Son, I'm afraid that leg is hanging by a thread.

Lubchenko: Lubchenko must return to game!

Hibbert: [chuckles] Your playing days are over, my friend. But, you can always fall back on your degree in ... [reads chart] communications!? Oh, dear Lord!

Lubchenko: I know! Is phony major. Lubchenko learn nothing. Nothing! [cries]

Bwithh 00:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent -- feel free to make the required adjustments... The JPStalk to me 12:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about oversimplification of media

I asked this same question in the WikiProject Media talk page; but maybe it's more relevant here.

It seems media is oversimplified to mean mass media in many places on the wikipedia. There was a move to disambiguate the word in articles. Most uses of the word have been directed to mass media. Now it appears that media theory has been directed to the Media influence article, which only covers mass media. In media studies, is mass media the only significant subject of study, or is media usage on every scale the subject of study? Oicumayberight 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

GOOD point! i agree with you oicumayberight that it's a good idea to distiguish between 'media' and 'mass media' in this article, though unfortunately many scholars in the field are not very careful about this either ;(. there is also the common problem of mixing 'the media' (= mainstream media organizations who use a narrow set of technologies) with 'media' (= means of communication.) Got to sort that out as much as possible.

what does media studies study? indeed, the study of mass media (or 'mass communication) is one, perhaps the oldest strand of media research, and it continues to be the most influential one. But it is by no means the only one- others include research on all forms of public communication- blogs, wikipedia, community radio, listservs, even theatre, grafitti, etc. As long as a communication uses a kind of media technology (though it may be 'low-tech') and is somewhat 'public' (i.e. audience includes people unknown to the speaker), it's the subject of media studies. Does that make sense?

bordering & overlapping fields: communication research (including private communication as well, as well as in-group, in-firm, interpersonal, infra-personal etc.; and non-mediated i.e. face-to-face); cultural studies; computer science (computer mediated communication is a field that seems like it would be connected to media studies, but historically has not been), informations studies, library science, etc. Bine maya 16:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


can only agree with above - the problem with this and other articles regarding media is the lack of a separate entry that discusses 'Media' and its different conceptualizations. most articles are in the comm-studies/mass media tradition, reserving the term for massmedia, their structure and effect. newer mediatheories and studies employ a broader definition of media, that would include everyday items like glasses as media, but also investigate large scale systems like the postal system as media. the article needs to reflect these differences and their historical development.

NoisyNarrowBandDevice 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from media theory

I merged media theory into media influence, but it has now been decided that "media theory" should redirect to this page. Here is the last edition of media theory. I suggest someone familiar with this article (media studies) scavenge suitable content from it.

My dear. have not been here for a few months and though at least the worst nonsense has been removed this article is still a total mess. Experts will be needed for sure. All of the above mergers are bad ideas. Media Theory is a sub-field of media studies. media influence (more commonly known as media effects) is another one. If anything, this article should be retitled or cross-named Media and Communication Research and then separate articles made for the subfields. Bine maya 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This article will always be a mess as different editors come from different perspectives. Of course, it might be best to avoid hypercritical hegemony by implying that anything that doesn't conform to one's owns likes is substandard. The JPStalk to me 10:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media Studies in India

I've just fixed up the grammar of the section on media studies in India, but it looks unreferenced and irrelevant to me. Is a characterization of the media industry appropriate for a media studies article? I didn't think so, but I'm no expert in the field. The grammar at least is better now, but I have an inkling that the section should just be deleted. Avram (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)