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.