Author: Ethan

Who’s Really Behind the News You See?

In today’s world, it’s important to think about who owns and controls the media we turn to for our news. This question matters because it helps us understand the accuracy and trustworthiness of what we’re reading or watching. The media landscape isn’t just shaped by what we see—it’s shaped by the powerful corporations and political forces behind it. These entities influence not only what news gets out, but also how it’s framed and who sees it. The growing concentration of media ownership raises concerns about bias, transparency, and whether public opinion is being manipulated.

Who’s in Charge of the News?

In many countries, the news media is controlled by just a few big corporations. Companies like News Corp (which owns Fox News), The Walt Disney Company (owner of ABC News and ESPN), and Comcast (which owns NBC and Universal) dominate much of the media. This concentration of ownership affects the diversity of viewpoints we see in the media, since just a handful of companies decide what stories get attention. According to McChesney (2007), this consolidation restricts the range of voices we hear, limiting how we perceive both local and global events.

Then there’s the rise of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. These platforms have become major news sources, but they’re also owned by private companies with their own interests. The algorithms these companies use shape what news we see and how it spreads. For example, Facebook’s algorithm often prioritizes sensational or polarizing content, which can distort how we get information (Tufekci, 2015). In other words, these platforms don’t just control the flow of news—they also shape the stories around it, based on what gets the most engagement, whether it’s accurate or fair.

Why Should You Care?

The way media is controlled affects the quality and objectivity of the news we consume. When a small number of companies control most of the media, it limits the variety of perspectives available to the public (McChesney, 2007). With fewer voices being heard, the news we get could be influenced by corporate or political interests, leaving us with a narrow view of the world.

Media control also impacts how important social and political issues are framed. The way a story is told—whether certain facts are highlighted or how language is used—can influence how we think about an issue and even how we vote (Entman, 1993). This has a real impact on democracy, since the way news is presented can affect public opinion and decision-making.

Trust in News Sources

Given the complex world of media ownership and control, trust in news sources is more important than ever. For many people, trust in the news is shaped by whether the outlet aligns with their personal or political views. However, this can lead to confirmation bias, where we only believe information that supports what we already think (Stroud, 2010). To get a more balanced view, it’s important to mix up your media sources and be exposed to different perspectives.

For me, I trust news outlets that are transparent, reliable, and committed to journalistic integrity. While I tend to lean on well-known sources like the BBC, The Guardian, or local sites such as the Illawarra mercury, I stay cautious of sensational headlines or sources with clear political leanings. Research shows that people who seek out a variety of news sources tend to have a more accurate understanding of events (Kumar, 2018). Fact-checking organizations and a growing awareness of media literacy are also helping people make more informed choices about where they get their news.

Conclusion

The question of who owns and controls the media is deeply connected to how much we trust the news we see. As big companies consolidate control over media outlets and social media platforms become news giants, the narratives we’re exposed to are increasingly shaped by those in power. To stay informed, we need to be proactive about seeking out multiple perspectives and questioning the interests behind the media we consume. Being aware of how media ownership impacts our understanding of the world is a crucial step in making sure we get the full picture.

References:

• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
• Kumar, V. (2018). Media consumption and its implications on news literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(1), 1-12.
• McChesney, R. W. (2007). The political economy of media: Enduring issues, emerging dilemmas. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576.
• Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 13(3), 203-218.

In this blog, I’ve taken a deep dive into a Rolex ad that showcases one of its iconic luxury watches. Their ads typically put the Rolex watch front and centre, highlighting its metallic finish and the famous crown logo. The background is often dark or blurred, which draws all attention to the watch, the polished, the casing glowing hands, and, of course, the gleaming Rolex logo. The overall vibe of the image is one of elegance, superiority, and exclusivity.

Denotation: What’s Actually There?

When we talk about denotation, we’re looking at the literal details of the image with no added interpretation. In this Rolex ad, you see the luxury watch clearly positioned as the focal point. The watch is shiny, with its detailed gold casing and visible Rolex logo standing out. The lighting highlights its precision and craftsmanship. The background is typically dark and minimalist, with nothing distracting your attention from the watch itself. This clean, uncluttered design makes sure that the watch takes centre stage, suggesting it’s the star of the show.

Connotation: What’s the Deeper Meaning?

Now, let’s move to connotation, which is all about the deeper, symbolic meaning behind the image. A Rolex watch isn’t just a timepiece in this ad—it’s a symbol. It represents luxury, success, and a high social status. The ad plays on these ideas by showcasing the watch’s high-quality craftsmanship and the minimalist background that reinforces its exclusivity. The Rolex logo itself is closely tied to wealth, power, and success, which makes the ad appealing to people who aspire to these values.

The shiny surface, the sharp, clear details, and the lack of distractions all work to communicate that a Rolex is a brand that stands for accuracy, elegance, and exclusivity. The fact that no people are featured in the ad makes it clear: this watch isn’t for everyone. It’s for those who can afford such a luxury—those who belong to an elite group. Wearing a Rolex is presented as a marker of high social rank, placing the wearer among a class of successful, self-made individuals (Holt 2002).

Multiple Interpretations: Can It Be Read in Different Ways?

This ad can definitely be interpreted in a few different ways, depending on how you look at it. On one hand, it reinforces the idea that owning luxury items is a key indicator of personal success and status. This can promote a more materialistic view, where self-worth is tied to what we own. Some might even see it as just another capitalist ad pushing people to buy into consumer culture.

On the flip side, the ad can be interpreted as celebrating meritocracy. For many, owning a Rolex symbolizes the fruits of years of hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. The watch becomes a symbol of professional achievement, not just a flashy display of wealth.

Ideological Positions: What Does the Ad Say About Us?

The ad taps into several ideological themes: consumerism, aspiration, and meritocracy. From a consumerist angle, it highlights the desirability of luxury goods as symbols of success. But it also appeals to aspirational values, presenting the Rolex as a symbol of hard-earned success, not just inherited wealth (Elliott 2014). This creates a bit of tension between the materialistic and meritocratic readings of the ad, leaving room for different interpretations based on a person’s worldview.

Conclusion

To wrap it up, this Rolex ad isn’t just about selling a watch—it’s about selling an idea. The ad uses both the denotation (what’s literally in the image) and connotation (what it symbolizes) to promote not just a product, but an entire lifestyle (Elliott 2014). The ad appeals to viewers’ desires for success, exclusivity, and status. Depending on your perspective, it can be seen as promoting either materialism or merit, showing just how complex and layered visual advertising can be in shaping consumer values.

---

References:

• Elliott, R. (2014). The social and symbolic value of luxury brands. In: R. D. H. Holt (Ed.), The cultural power of brands: Luxury and global consumption (pp. 125-145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70-90.

Dear readers

Being an Audience Member: A University Lecture on Andragogy vs Pedagogy

One of my most memorable university experiences was attending a lecture for MGNT 322 (learning and development in organisations) that examined the difference between andragogy (adult learning) and pedagogy (children’s learning). As an adult learner, this lecture helped me critically reflect on my own educational journey and the impact of teaching methods on engagement and learning.

What Happened?

The lecture began by characterizing pedagogy as a conventional, teacher-centered approach in which students are only passive consumers of knowledge and the teacher guides the learning process (Knowles, 1984). According to Knowles (1984), andragogy, on the other hand, places more emphasis on self-directed learning, life experience, and practical application—qualities that are more prevalent among adult learners. The tutor emphasized the impact that the material’s relevance and connection to real-world problems had on adult learners (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). I considered my own educational experiences as I listened, and how I was more involved when I could relate ideas to my personal and professional life.

Why Was It Positive/Negative?

This lecture was positive because it validated the issues with traditional learning methods. I had often found myself disengaged in courses where I was expected to absorb information passively. Learning about andragogy gave me a structure to understand why I preferred more interactive, discussion-based courses (Brookfield, 2013). However, the lecture also made me realise how much of my earlier education had followed a pedagogical model, which often felt disconnected from my needs as an adult learner (Jarvis, 2006).

Why Was This Experience Important?

This experience was significant because it gave me a better understanding of how teaching strategies affect students’ learning. It clarified for me why some teaching philosophies appeal more to adult learners than others. I started to see the benefits of learner-centered education, which acknowledges students’ autonomy and past experiences (Tough, 1979). This insight not only changed the way I handled my own education but also the way I delivered content in classroom settings.

Connecting to the Ideas from This Week’s Lecture

The experience ties to the lecture material from week two because it concentrated on the concepts and notions of media and audience, as well as the elements that affect engagement and audience channels. According to Merriam and Bierema (2014), the lecture’s concepts are consistent with my own experiences; I was far more involved in classes that let the audience think independently.

Conclusion

Being part of the audience during this lecture on andragogy vs pedagogy allowed me to reflect on my personal learning preferences and how educational methods can either engage or disengage learners. It was a valuable experience that deepened my understanding of the importance of learner-centred education and its connection to adult learning theories.

---

References:

Brookfield, S.D., 2013. Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jarvis, P., 2006. The theory and practice of teaching. London: Routledge.

Knowles, M.S., 1984. The adult learner: A neglected species. 3rd ed. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Merriam, S.B. & Bierema, L.L., 2014. Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tough, A., 1979. The adult’s learning projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!