Untitled

[itsjolinkan]

Fallacy surrounding wearables     Jolin Kan A0203002L

In the reading by Crawford, K., Lingel, J., & Karppi, T. (2015), they discuss the birth of wearables and the significance, or rather lack thereof of data wearables collect. They compare the effects and advertising of wearables against the normal weight scale. When it comes to wearables today, many of us are extremely used to it as it has been normalised and we do not question how third party applications benefit and use our data or the effectiveness of wearables.

Wearables have always claimed to make users' lives better as they collect data of users and with that data, it will add to users’ self-knowledge which helps users get fitter. While it may seem to be a great premise for what is considered advanced technology and a great product, the authors put to light the gap of how self knowledge results in users getting fitter. If we were to approach anyone with a wearable device such as a FitBit and ask them why they are using it, they would likely answer that by measuring and tracking their progress it provides insight to the self. However, such an association seems to be a fallacy as it has been a theme that advertisers stuck to ever since the early 20th century starting from the weight scale. Users are convinced that with the data about themselves, it would naturally lead to self improvement. Users are so convinced by the narrative that they miss out the fact that they themselves do not do anything after receiving the data, there would be no form of self improvement. Furthermore, if users are passive about the recorded data, the only ones benefiting from it are third party analytics companies who have access to the data. While some may argue that wearables do more than just record personal data as they have algorithms to how one which percentile they are in, these results have no actual proven accuracy as the way they are constructed is unknown.

I agree with the authors’ point of view as I find that wearables have become normalised and often people do not question the actual effectiveness of such devices. Just like how we have become used to our smartphones, we are used to technology being part of our everyday lives and we perceive wearables as a need rather than want. However, this does not mean that wearables are completely useless as people who actually interact with the recorded data are able to actually reach the point of self improvement. For example, people who work out often or personal trainers tend to use wearables to keep track of their calorie count which aids them in meal and workout plans, which does in fact lead to self improvement.

In conclusion, advertisements creating a false sense of how wearables magically leads to self improvement has led to people being misled on the effects of wearables. Users themselves need to be active and interact with their data in order to fill gaps that advertisements do not offer in order to reach self improvement.

[itsjolinkan]

Digital intimacy- dating apps  Jolin Kan A0203002L

In the reading by Hobbs, M., Owen, S., & Gerber, L. (2017), they discuss the trend of dating apps and whether or not dating on such apps liquifies ‘love’. In today’s society, we live in a mediatised world so much so that dating has been brought to a digital platform and has slowly become a ‘norm’. Dating apps are socially accepted and many use such platforms to seek relationships, connect with others or even straight up look for one off sexual partners. Whatever the purpose is that people use dating apps, it is undeniable that more and more people are using such apps.

In the reading, the authors bring up arguments by Bauthman(2003) claiming that dating online is his definition of ‘liquid love’ whereby dating apps are just like ‘shopping’ for people where they can always return to the dating apps to find someone else when a date does not work out. He suggests that life long companionships found in relationships are being eroded by the extensive networks and choices of romantic possibility provided by dating apps. However, i disagree with such viewpoints as i find dating apps to be a good platform in today’s society whereby the extensive network of people on dating apps allows for increased chances to find partners. When it comes to dating apps, it has quite a bit of a bad reputation due to the stories of bad dates and it being termed as a ‘hookup’ app. However I find those claims to be rather superficial as dating apps act as a platform for people who are looking for others whether in terms of casual dates, long term relationships or hookups to connect with one another. While it is true that there are a significant number of people on dating apps looking for hookups, most of the time, people are truthful with their intentions and are direct about them. If people are looking for hookups, most of the time they would be upfront with it from the very beginning to avoid wasting their own and the time of the person whom they have or plans to match with. As long as people are direct and set expectations straight, dating apps should not be faulted for having people with different intentions on the app. Afterall, it is not always that people are looking for long term relationships and dating apps have given this group of people to look for like minded partners.

The reading also mentions a point now how dating apps have ‘urged’ more people to cheat on their partners as the convenience of the app allows so. However, I find this argument to be invalid as it always comes down to intentions. While it is true that dating apps are extremely convenient and easy for people to meet others, if someone goes on the app with the intention to cheat, then the reason for the cheating lies in disloyalty, not dating apps themselves. It is certainly true that intimacy online through dating apps have a huge gap from the traditional way of meeting people, it at least provides a chance for people to meet. When it comes to people who are more shy and introverted in real life, dating apps give them a chance to look for partners which would have been more challenging for them if it would to be the traditional way.

In conclusion, dating apps have certainly evolved and grew over the years. Whether it is the preferred method of dating or not, it is definitely here to stay. Stigma against dating apps should be eliminated so that more people will have a chance at meeting someone else.

[itsjolinkan]

Educational games     Jolin Kan A0203002L

In the reading by Pelletier, C. (2005), she discusses the concept of interactivity and interpassivity in relation to games. She also talks about the ideas of pleasure and agency when it comes to educational games and further delves into the 4 versions of cyberspace. When we talk about games, we often only think about the play and fun aspect, leaving out the important genre of educational games. While games generally do provide entertainment and pleasure, educational games provide pleasure while passing on knowledge at the same time.  

Educational games are more interactive and can be more ‘attractive to students who find traditional ways of learning to be mundane. This directly correlates to version 1 of cyberspace whereby games act as pain relievers.  As discussed in the reading,  school students and young people are no longer willing to engage with traditional forms of instructions(Prensky, 2001). While educational games do not necessarily make learning easier, they provide different elements of interactivity which leads to active learning and makes it more enjoyable for children. Educational games can also peak students’ interest which makes them want to find out more on their own accord where by activity and passivity appears to be mutually constitutive. For example, Duolingo is a website/app which allows users to learn language through its online resource and games. Learning language requires consistent effort and Duolingo makes it engaging such that users do not get bored easily and get to practise their language efficiency through their website. This shows how our agency goes in line with the game which motivates us to put in more effort in our learning. Another popular way of using games to engage students in singapore classroom context would be using kahoot. Kahoot is a game based learning platform where teachers often use it to quiz students to spike their interest in the topic they plan to approach and students often enjoy the use of Kahoot in lessons. This shows how educational games allow for individual agency in learning while better engaging students.

However, while educational games can be a better platform for people to learn, games can also be distracting as mentioned in version 2 of the cyberspace where games act as sensual temptations. People tend to lose regard for reality as they enter the virtual world of games, which is a negative effect of games. As for educational games, people may get distracted and not actually absorb the knowledge as they were supposed to . When we consider the use of games in education in the cultural context of Asia, games may not be the most effective or efficient way for children to study. This is because Asia is known to be a grade and exam driven region when it comes to education. Educational games target to bring knowledge across through more ‘pleasurable’ ways but may not target what exams demand from students which make it not as effective. Therefore, while students find more pleasure in learning through educational games, in-depth information which they may need to deepen their understanding may not come across through educational games.

In conclusion, I agree with the reading in general but I do find certain logical fallacies presented by the author.  She assumes that education(or traditional ways of learning) is not pleasurable or fun and the fun aspect can only be brought about by games.  However, I find that to be a false assumption as learning about what one is passionate about(using traditional means) can bring about just as much or even more pleasure. While educational games do bring about a fun element in learning, it may not be effective in all academic contexts.

[itsjolinkan]

WeChat and how it evolved

In the reading by Zhang, J., Muñoz, C. F., & Hänninen, L. I. (2019),  they explore the evolution of WeChat in China which has led to the rise of social network connections and China being a smart society. When it comes to China, many have a dated perception regarding the country, having skewed ideas that the country is not as advanced. However, China has very rapidly developed and rose in terms of technology and have surpassed many countries all around the world. One of their most notable achievements would be the growth of WeChat from a simple messaging platform to being a main factor in the creation of China as a smart society.

Firstly, WeChat as mentioned by the authors started out as a humble platform which allows for people to message one another. It started out as what is known to many as a ‘China version’ of WhatsApp (which is more globally used) and it has evolved tremendously where people can use it for digital payments and even as a social media feed. With such advancements in technology, it has allowed for most of China to go digital. Even before it's advancements, WeChat was already the most popular messaging app in China and therefore as it advanced, it's users kept up with its updates and new features which allowed for them to adjust to China’s development into a smart society. For example, QR codes meant for people to scan and pay through them are all over China as WeChat has become a popular method for people to make digital payment. Interestingly, this is not just the case in China as i have witnessed the wide use of WeChat QR codes as a mode for people to pay at airports. As China has a huge population, it is obvious that there are many Chinese tourists around the world and many stores and shops at airports support WeChat QR as a mode of payment as it has taken over China and is very much part of people’s lives. In popular DouYin(China’s TikTok) videos, there are also many popular plotlines which involve scenes of people asking for another’s contact number and they do it through scanning each other’s WeChat unique QR code. WeChat has truly revolutionised how people consume the media in China whereby many things have become mediatised and it is powerful as it is a single app which can perform many functions which makes people extremely dependent on it.

While I agree that a smart city/society can help improve the lives of people living there as well as help the city/country develop, I have some concerns regarding the fast paced progression towards becoming a smart society. Technology and the media is an undeniable part of our lives but there are certain groups in society such as the young(children) as well as elderly who may not be able to catch up with the fast paced changes. Even though a smart city helps us in providing the services that we need and often at a much more convenient pace, it may accidentally leave out those who are slower with technology behind, rendering them unable to keep up with the progress. In relation to Singapore where we have been slowly progressing towards a smart nation, I find that it is important to reach a common point where we are able to progress technologically while not leaving any parts of society behind. While it is important to constantly improve and advance, we must not neglect those who might find it difficult to keep up.

[itsjolinkan]

Sharing Economy   Jolin Kan A0203002L

In the reading by Ravenelle, A. J. (2019), she discusses the definition and impacts of the Sharing Economy today. According to Ravenelle, the sharing economy refers to firms that help people link up with others in order to share and provide goods and services. Some examples include AirBnb, Uber as well as Lyft. In this case, the term ‘sharing’ can be viewed in two ways one being the act of providing a good or service and in another way would be actually sharing the use of a good or service where the provider and consumer are using it at the same time. The idea and intentions behind sharing economy services come from a good place where consumers of the good or service in discussion would be available at an affordable price while providers of the good or service would be able to profit from it as well. It would also mean that there is a closer relationship between the providers and consumers as they are ‘sharing’ the commodity and there isn’t a clear distinction between them as a producer and consumer.

In the reading Ravenelle makes a point that there is a clear distinction between sharing and on-demand economies and such distinctions may not be obvious to the general public.  Strictly speaking, the term ‘sharing’ should only be used when the provider of the good or service is also using it and is offering to share the use of it with someone else. Therefore, when we refer to apps like Grab, it is technically just an on-demand app which makes it more convenient for people to hail a ride whenever needed. It is also profit driven and based as the drivers are just waiting for someone to book a ride and sending them to their destination and this destination is not the same for the driver and person who booked the ride. GrabHitch then falls perfectly in the category of the sharing economy as when a person hitches a ride, the driver is also coincidentally going to a nearby place and therefore makes some money while at it. This exemplifies the benefits and positive side of the sharing economy as it is a perfect win-win situation whereby the person who hitches the ride gets to their destination at a more affordable price and the driver gets to earn some extra income while on the way to somewhere he or she is already planning to head to. While this seems to perfectly showcase the beauty of the sharing economy, there still lacks the aspect of increased human interaction that is expected to come with sharing. When we think about sharing very simply, what comes to mind would probably be scenarios where we’ve shared a meal with someone, shared an item with someone and it usually centers around close interaction with others. However, with the evolution of the sharing economy, the aspect of interaction with people seems to have faded and while people benefit(convenience and financially)from the sharing economy, they have lost the aspect of interaction and actually sharing a conversation with others. Therefore, instead of connecting more people as what is expected, the sharing economy does not actually build that sense of connection as most people treat it as just a service.

I find it interesting how the sharing economy brings people together but only in a transactional way which makes it not much different compared to other sectors or economies. Though marketed as a platform that brings people together through the sharing of goods and services, in reality social interaction has been increased or deepened. As Ravenelle, A. J. (2019) mentions, there have been multiple methods for interaction free contact between AirBnB hosts and guests and that amplifies the irony of the sharing economy. The sharing economy has also become profit driven in a way that it has become exploited for profit by the rich in society. The rich who can afford to distribute and provide the wanted services have somewhat built a monopoly on sharing economy apps and are abusing the initial intentions of sharing. It truly shows off the unfair dynamics as the rich in society have dominated such places which were meant to supplement the income of an average person sharing what they have.

In conclusion, as the sharing economy continues to grow, there will be an increase in people who can truly benefit from it as well as people who abuse the platform and profit from it as well. However, the sharing economy has proven to be a good concept especially during the Covid-19 pandemic where many turned to starting up their business on sharing economy platforms such as creating a home based business on instagram. Such initiatives allowed for people to survive and make it through a trying period the pandemic has caused both financially and mentally. The sharing economy should work harder to filter out those who are using the platforms for profit in order to maintain its original intentions.

[itsjolinkan]

User generated content   Jolin Kan A0203002L

In the book ‘Social media: A critical Introduction’ by Fuchs, C. (2013), he disputes several of Henry Jenkins’ main claims regarding User Generated Content (UGC) . Firstly, Jenkins argues that the internet has become a place where users actively contribute and participate. Fuchs however finds Jenkins’ perception on participation to be superficial as he does not take into account ownership, capitalism and class. Secondly, Fuchs also criticised Jenkins for allegedly wrongly taking politics as popular culture and mistakenly thinking that social media can create political revolutions as Fuch’s finds that social media is merely a supporting tool for such revolutions.

Fuchs finds that with UGC and users constantly generating or spreading content, there is exploitation happening, whether the users like it or not. Even when users themselves enjoy putting up content or spreading them, it is an example of free labour and users are being ‘used’. In Fuchs’ point of view, even when users do not feel that they are being used and they are happy with their time on social media, it does not take away from the fact that it is in fact an act of exploitation. Meanwhile, while Jenkins acknowledges the act of exploitation of free labour on social media, Jenkins passes it off as a problem with online platforms’ algorithms and such practices are social bonds between media producers and consumers. At the first look, Jenkins’ explanation makes sense as platforms such as YouTube have certain algorithms which favour certain types of videos. For example, recently, YouTube’s algorithms seem to be favouring longer videos such as commentary videos which pushed many content creators to create such content or even full episodes of their hour long podcast on YouTube. Jenkins also points out correctly that it is indeed some sort of social bond as when YouTube pushes content creators to make videos that will do well on the algorithm, YouTubers themselves end up getting better view counts which may lead to more benefits such as sponsorships. However, Jenkins fails to realise the root of the problem which has been pointed out by Fuchs. Such a relationship (eg YouTube and YouTubers) may seem to be mutually beneficial where both sides are happy, but it is a case of exploitation where the problem of capitalism is magnified. This ‘transaction’ ultimately benefits the company YouTube and while it may seem to be mutually beneficial, as with capitalism, it is controlled by YouTube for profit.

Fuchs also argues that it is wrong to see fan culture as part of something much more significant such as important political or social movements. He finds that such thoughts are idealised despite the fact that fans provide feedback in the feedback loop. He also claims that fans do not play an important role in political revolutions and they are at most supporting characters in such instances. However, i disagree with Fuchs on this point as i feel that he is undermining the power of fan culture especially after how it has evolved in today’s society. In today’s world consumers have become much more powerful and fan communities have evolved to have so much more power. Take the kpop fan base for example, they are well known for having much power on social media as they are able to through various ways use social media to achieve something. For example, kpop fan cams are a type of spreadable media and while it's primary purpose was just to take close up videos and promote their favorite artist, kpop fans have started using fan cams to support political and social causes. During the peak of the #blacklivesmatter protest, a hashtag #whitelivesmatter was started to protest the movement. This obviously sparked much anger as it was disrespecting the very real and happening issue of police brutality against black people. In this situation,  kpop fans actually managed to shut the hashtag down by spamming fan cams of their idols on twitter with that hashtag, flooding the hashtag with fancam.  This drowned out the messages trivialising the black lives matter movement. This shows how fan communities actually hold much power and are able to lead in important political instances.

In summary, User Generated Content has led to rise in many new discourses where many can stand divided on such issues such as Jenkins and Fuchs. Fuchs generally holds the view that UGC may not be as glamorous as it seems as the irony of capitalism lies strongly.

[itsjolinkan]

Week 5: Convergence Culture  Jolin Kan(A0203002L)

In the reading by Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2012), they claim that mass media and mass culture is becoming homogeneous, creating similar and mediocre content. They heavily criticised how everything on the media is conforming to a typical norm and consumers tend to just accept them without much disagreement. They also mentioned that films only reproduce the world of everyday production and it has become a standard for production implying that films are boring and do not give the audience any space for imagination.

I find that Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W’s claims to be rather superficial as they categories all forms of mass media as being homogenous. They also frame all kinds of conformity as negative which I feel to be extreme and not realistic at all. Firstly, they do acknowledge that in attempts to satisfy customers’ needs, it pushes the culture industry to produce and come up with what the audiences want, resulting in similar content published. However, they overgeneralised the entire industry and ignored any forms of creativity or any reason as to how conformity is not all bad.

Firstly, conformity may not always be a bad thing as we live in a society where supply and demand exist and interact with one another. As audiences subscribe to a certain kind of content, it becomes popular and performs well in algorithms. For example, in Singapore, listicle types of videos are extremely popular on YouTube and they do well in the YouTube algorithm. Such videos get many views and are well liked by the Singapore audiences. Even though it seems like many Singapore YouTube channels are doing the same type of videos, they are not so similar after all. While the thumbnail and titles of such videos are similar, the actual content of the videos are vastly different as they are meant to appeal to different target audiences. For example, YouTube channel JianhaoTan appeals more to an international audience while NightOwlCinematics(NOC) appeals to Singaporeans, which makes their creative choices different.

Secondly, they claim that films are just reproductions of everyday life and do not leave space for creative choices. I find this to be untrue as there are many films that are expressed creatively, send a good message and are still well loved by audiences. One example of such a film would be Parasite. A korean film which contains messages about the rich and the poor and the cruel reality of society, this film managed to portray such messages in a cinematically creative way. Simple yet impressive details such as the rich in the film are always literally higher than the poor in every shot of the film and how the rich never looked down. This film was critically acclaimed and many loved the way it was shot and how the story was told. Many videos explaining the theories and ending of the film spurred as many were so drawn in the story. Therefore, it shows that films actually act as an opening for people to discuss and talk about many themes and topics and does indeed leave many up for imagination and discussion.

In conclusion, consumers no longer passively accept whatever is thrown at them and they actively consume what interests them. While mass media does indeed follow a certain ‘norm’ and standard, creators on different platforms would lose support eventually without innovation. It is with creativity and innovation that these standards are constantly changing and others thus try to emulate it, resulting in convergence culture. However, people are constantly innovating and conformity does not necessarily mean bad results.

[itsjolinkan]

Significance of Self-tracking (Jolin A0203002L)

In the reading by Lupton, D. (2020), the topics of data mattering and self-tracking which are closely related to mobile media was discussed. The study mainly concluded that people who were self-tracking their own data acknowledge the positive and negative impacts of making sense of such data. As self-tracking depends largely on the individual to do so, the choice of consistent and constant self tracking is fully on the user. In the reading, participants mainly echoed a similar consensus of how self-tracking data allows users to feel empowered and well aware of what is happening in their life be it their health or lifestyle.

In relation to the claims made in the reading, I agree with them as in today’s society mobile media is so integral in our lives that we take part in self-tracking voluntarily and we happily do so. From having applications that track our finances in an organised manner to even calorie tracking applications that help us keep track of the food we are consuming, they help us organise our lives in an extremely easy and convenient way. With self tracking, people are now more sensitive and aware of what is happening to themselves are they are able to take note more of both their mental and physical health. Nowadays, we can easily find someone with a smart watch such as Fitbits or Apple watches, tracking their progress as they complete their runs, monitoring their heart rate and many other functions of self tracking. Self-tracking with mobile media has advanced from just mobile phones to devices like smart watches. Self-tracking really allows people to keep track of their progress and allow them to monitor themselves without much effort. However, it is important that what people do with the data next is the most crucial step as to whether or not self-tracking really is effective. Data that come from self-tracking are dynamic as they interact with graphs or different types of visuals to present themselves to users. Personally, I do find myself tracking unconventional(maybe not so unconventional these days) parts of my life such as a period tracker. There are multiple apps that help one track their period and can even predict one’s next cycle based on information provided. Information that one can provide varies from period cycles to even mood swings. These help the app make better predictions as to when one’s next cycle is most likely to happen and can even estimate fertile periods. It really does make it a lot more convenient as there is no need to manually count days to the next period and it may even be more accurate as it takes into account many aspects such as exercise and lifestyle.

As mentioned in the reading, data can also come off as overwhelming as things that we may not have been cautious of have been carefully recorded and it can be overwhelming when we review them. It also brings up the issue of privacy as such tracking apps have access to personal information that users provide. It appears to be a choice made by users whether they are willing to trade privacy for convenience. One could be alarmed by their spending habits when they review their data and it can be overwhelming for individuals. However, I find that to be a positive aspect of self-tracking and the data it provides users an opportunity to reflect on their habits and make necessary changes. Without that data, people would be living in denial where they are not even made aware of certain bad habits or lifestyles and therefore don’t even have the capacity to fix them. Such data allows people to keep themselves in check and with mobile media, it's convenience has made it much easier for people to do so. People thus develop a certain sense of responsibility where they work together with non human entities(mobile media devices that allow tracking) to make better sense of their lifestyle.

[itsjolinkan]

Week 3: Television and its relevance (Jolin Kan A0203002L)

Domestic Media

In the reading by Spigel, he dives into the history of Television(TV), its functions and the ideologies it enforces on people. TV is a huge part of communication technology where it plays a significant role in the way information is passed and how people appear to view the world where we can access technology at our fingertips. Spigel also mentions how TV has contributed to the increasing mediatisation of our everyday lives. With TV’s arrival in homes after WW2, it brought to people a tingling hope of reuniting with their separated/lost family members. It also held the power of bringing families closer to each other as they could enjoy watching TV together in their homes and spend quality time without having to go out. However, it also brought about the normalisation of sexist ideas. TV often portray women as having a housewife role of having to do housework, take care of children and inferior to men while men dominated and held power over women through a seemingly simple act of having control of the remote control. I definitely agree with Spigel and his points are relevant even in the context of Singapore. The portrayal of gender roles in advertising have always been skewed where women are the domesticated ones while men have power and are the ones earning for the family. These have instilled in us ideas that these gender roles are ‘normal’ and it is one of the key reasons why people still do not get used to reversal in depicted gender roles such as househusbands. House Husbands also usually get much praise and approval for doing the exact same things as a housewife does which comes to show how there is gender bias and these ideologies mainly stem from media influence.

Spigel also argues that TVs help to produce social environments even though it does not seem to be a ‘real’ space. The interaction humans have with TV allows relationships to be formed, human to human and with things or places. While I agree that TVs help to produce social environments such as in context where people first come to know about different social groups in the world(eg:LGBTQ community) as well as the diversity in the human race, I find that TV may not be the best medium as a constructive space. Everything on TV has in some way been ‘institutionalised’ and has gone through agenda setting which may deliberately lead viewers to a certain way of thinking. This can be dangerous as it could lead to one having a very narrow view on the social environments which they are exposed to only on TV and limit their knowledge.

Spigel also makes an interesting point of how TV, ignoring its functions as a form of communication and media but as a physical object itself, holds much significance in a household. In today’s world especially, TV is not viewed as an important necessity but it did not correspond with the quantity sold. People are still buying TVs, even more than ever as it is seen as a sort of symbol representing social class. As Spigel mentioned, in the 1940s, TV moved from being a symbol representing one’s health to being a mass medium owned by almost every other American home, it seems to be going full circle where it is now more ‘symbolic’ rather than functional. I personally found this point to be very interesting as even though Spigel focuses his writing on western patterns and examples, I found it to be very relevant in Asian/Singapore as well. Even in my own household, it is safe to say that no one uses the TV to watch shows as we all have our various devices like our laptops and phones but the TV is still an integral part of our living room. Interestingly, it was shifted around multiple times, switching back and forth between the master room and the living room. Even though it was utilised more when it was in the master room as my mom could catch up with news and watch shows before sleeping, it was ultimately moved back to the living room as the house did not seem ‘complete’ without it in the shared space and the living room felt ‘empty’.

In conclusion, television encourages global connectivity which brings about advantages as we are able to keep up with what is happening around the world. Its relevance may have fluctuated over the years but it is definitely an important form of communication and represents so much more than it appears to.

Image retrieved from: https://www.memesmonkey.com/topic/tv

[itsjolinkan]

Week 2 : Jolin Kan A0203002L

In the reading by Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017), they defined the social world as communicative construction whereby the media plays a huge role in influencing the social world. The social world which is theorised by Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017) to consist of multiple domains where boundaries are often blurred as they cross each other, has everyday reality laid as its foundation. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017) claim that the media is essentially interwoven with the social world and communication plays a crucial role in the construction of the social world rather than it just being a medium(language) as claimed by Beger and Luckmann(1966).

I personally find Couldry, N., & Hepp, A’s claims to be extremely relevant in today’s world. Firstly, we cannot deny that we live in a mediatised world where the ‘reality’ that we see is edited and shaped by the media and not experienced first hand most of the time. For example, most of the news which allows us to know what is happening in our country or around the world are all provided to us through media outlets. These media outlets go through agenda setting and thus present news to us with rather specific intentions. Recently, US ex president Donald Trump had granted pardons to 73 people, including singer Lil Wayne. Headlines reporting Trump’s actions just hours before his presidency ended mostly included Wayne’s name intentionally in order to attract attention with his celebrity status, and indirectly highlight the absurdity of Trump’s actions. News, therefore, is not just a reflection of what is going on and the social world that we live in is intertwined with the media as it is a mediatised social world. However, it is important to note that a mediatised social world does not mean that the media is shaping or manipulating the social world, it simply means that the social world(and the construction of it) is influenced by the media.

Communication also plays a crucial role in the construction of the social world as claimed by Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). Communication is something simple even though we may not consciously realise it. To communicate appropriately and effectively is complex and part of socialisation. Besides humans using communication to ‘build up’ the social world, the media institutionalise communication. The rise of social media is an example of how communication has been institutionalised whereby we try to present ourselves in a different light on social media. Therefore, the process of communication should not be overlooked in its importance in the construction of the social world.

 Coscarelli, J.(2021). Lil Wayne and Kodak Black Among 4 Hip-Hop Figures Trump Pardoned ,New York Times, Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/arts/music/trump-pardons-lil-wayne-kodak-black.html

 Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The social world as communicative construction. Chapter 2 in The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge, UK;Malden, MA;: Polity Press. Pp. 15-33.