Who You Reppin?

            Everyday professional sports are played around the world. For some of these professional teams, millions of fans follow them with a relentless fervor. All of these teams sport matching jerseys in every single contest in which they compete. Not only do these jerseys identify specific teams, but they also identify geographic region, and in most cases the emblem of the companies that created the jerseys, and the logo of those who sponsor the teams.

            The people who wear a player’s jersey are putting forth an idea to those around them that follows the receiver’s, person looking at the one wearing the jersey, idea about that player. Thus, depending on which player’s jersey one may be wearing, the connotation surrounding that jersey varies not only with geographic area, but with personality variations as well.

            Moreover, player’s names are almost always displayed with their last name only on the back of their jersey. In “Media Society” by Croteau and Hoynes, they write that “research has demonstrated that dominants are more commonly referred to by their last names” (215). This idea is absolutely fostered in part by sports as all players display their last names on their jerseys that millions of people wear worldwide. These athletes that millions of people idolize generate tens of millions of dollars in our economy every year. With that in mind, the power of the name on the back of the jersey is undeniable.

Check out a news story on Lebron James' jersey sales outlook after being signed by the Miami Heat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSepN304fmY

Ghetto Blaster

Recorded music has been around for centuries. In order to compose and listen to recorded music, one has to have the necessary means in order to hear the creations of the artist(s). One of the most significant artifacts that enabled people to enjoy recorded music was the boombox. The boombox, or ghetto blaster, was the first portable music player that allowed multiple people, without headphones, to hear the music at one time. The origins of the break dancing and hip-hop movements are so deeply rooted in the boombox that without its conception, these music-related developments would have never been possible.

Hip-hop music can be traced directly to urban areas, mainly New York City, in the 1970s and 1980s. The source of distribution that allowed the masses to hear the hip-hop music being produced was none other than the boombox. With the help of the boombox, the hip-hop revolution found its legs and is now a world-wide phenomenon. Heard by tens of millions of people each day, hip-hop music is an all-encompassing force in today’s media.

Another movement that is the product of the boombox is break dancing, or breaking. During the beginning of the break dancing movement, parks, parties, and street corners were hot spots for breaking. However, in the twenty-first century breaking can be found not only in the above mentioned areas, but on nationally broadcasted television as well. Networks such as MTV, VH1, and even NBC habitually televise programs that have breaking in nearly every episode, such as America's Got Talent and America's Best Dance Crew. Through the millions and millions of televisions viewers, breaking has become a medium through which people can express themselves to a nation-wide audience.

Although break dancing and hip-hop music are only two of the products of the boombox, it is clear that the effect of the boombox on society is immense. From the urban projects of New York City to the screens of millions of televisions world-wide, the boombox has created two mediums that are irreplaceable in today’s society. So pay your respects, and go turn up your ghetto blaster.

From the 1974 movie "Breakin'", a sample of break dancing to a hip-hop beat on a city street corner(notice the boombox against the wall):

Breakin'

In the Eyes of the Receiver

            Generally, when one thinks of media the immediate thought leads to something along the lines of the associated press. However, this could not be further from the truth. Another assumption that holds little truth is the idea that media has to be something that are far reaching, or mass media. This is not true as a phone call from one person to another, for instance, is just as much a demonstration of media than is the use of the internet. Thus, the concept of media is the processes that allow communication amongst the creators of a message and the receiver(s) of that message, wherein the receiver dictates the nature of the relationship.

            In order to dictate the nature of a relationship one has to display the majority, if not the vast majority, of the power in the relationship. It is understandable to question the reasoning of this idea as the creator(s) of the message has complete control of what message he or she is attempting to convey. What is not as obvious is that each and every receiver of a given message reacts in a way that is unique to all parties involved. Ergo, the receiver of the message has complete control of what the message actually means to that individual. Taking this idea one step further, a message has no actual meaning until the receiver(s) assigns a meaning to that message. In Media Society by David Croteau and William Hoynes, a great example of this concept is provided with that of a tattoo. Croteau and Hoynes state that “the meaning of tattoos must be constructed by those observing them” (7). For example, a person with a tattoo of a dragon on their back could be interpreted by another as one who is interested in ancient Chinese mythology or one who enjoys the film “Enter the Dragon” starring Bruce Lee. Therefore, the receiver is the one who dictates the relationship, and the meaning of the message, created by the sender of the message in discussion.

            Another concept that supports the notion that receivers dominate the relationship between senders and receivers in media is that of socialization. Croteau and Hoynes define socialization as “the process whereby we learn and internalize values, beliefs, and norms of our culture and, in so doing, develop a sense of self” (13). What Croteau and Haynes are saying is that each individual builds a unique character through the methods above, and in turn creates a personality that is unparalleled by any other. Consequently, one cannot be certain the media that are intended for an individual(s) will be perceived in an exact way.

            Although the idea described above details that the sender of a message through media cannot be sure of the perception of the receiver, it would be imprudent to believe that the sender does not usually have an indication of the expected response of the receiver. Nonetheless, the sender cannot ever be completely certain of how the receiver will perceive the message provided by the sender. An example that comes to mind when speaking on this topic is the idea of how a snowflake never has a duplicate. If one were to try to draw the next snowflake to hit the ground, he or she would have a very informed indication of what that snowflake might look like; however, it is extremely unlikely that he or she would be able to exactly draw that next snowflake. The same idea can be applied to media, where the artist is the sender and the receiver is the snowflake.

            From the ideas discussed above, it is clear for one to assume that media are a very broad concept, in which the individual(s) who are receiving the message are in control of the situation. Through socialization, receivers are able to enjoy the power in the relationship between senders and receivers. In other words, the messages in media are in the eyes of the receiver.