I would like to reflect upon Jean Baudrillard's essay, Requiem for the Media. Specifically the paragraph titled "Speech without Response," because it grabbed my attention for many reasons.
Baudrillard brings up a very interesting view point and that is that mass media is only considered media if there is room allowing for the consumer to give a "response." Communication must be defined as an exchange, he says. The general public must understand communication other than "the simple transmission-reception of a message." I would say that most people in this society today would never categorize the mass media in that way, even though the Oxford dictionary defines communication as "exchanging information or news." I certainly wouldn't.
Baudrillard then gives a drastic example by stating that "...owning a TV...is no more significant that the possession of a refrigerator or toaster. There is no response to a functional object: its function is already there, an integrated speech to which it has already responded, leaving no room for play, or reciprocal..." Basically a television is not considered mass media with his definition which is incredibly intriguing for he is looking at our main communication system today and blunting stating that it really isn't communication. Our basic American society seems to revolve around the television and yet it doesn't constitute communication. This just goes to show the degree in which our society is vastly failing.
This leads on to one of his most important points, in my opinion, and that is that "power belongs to the one who can give and cannot be repaid." So does this not once again leave our American Society in disgrace?? Who really has the power in our society? And a further point, American Idol is a show which does constitute communication by Baudrillard's definition, with more people voting for that show then for our president. So where does that leave us? Has communication really gotten that desperate?
Our society's way of communication resembles that of a prostitute desperate for reciprocation.
Solid analysis of the Baudillard essay - I have to agree with you (and against Baudillard) that media can only be considered media if it allows the consumer to give a response. I am not sure why Baudillard decided to focus on this one aspect of media (viewer response) as holy grail of media, but I personally think that media comes in many different shapes and sizes. While some variants of media - newspaper, television - lack any substantial viewer interaction, other variants - call-in talk radio and television shows with live studio audiences - include some forms of viewer participation in the production of the media content, and other variants - wikipedia, blogs - allow for viewer-produced media content. Rather than solely focus on this one criteria to evaluate media, I see media as encompassing a multitude of core characteristics. In particular, I see the presentation of a information (facts) or an argument (knowledge) as a key aspect of media that Baudillard ignores in his critique of non-conversational media.