This week’s
reading of Dow’s “Introduction: The Rhetoric of Television, Criticism, and
Theory” challenges the way that television is analyzed and opens the readers
eyes to new opportunities when critiquing the media in general. Dow states, “However, the motive for
diversity in critical approaches should not be a search for the holy grail of
truth but an exploration, with unavoidable twists and turns, toward the many,
sometimes contradictory, possibilities of understanding.” This is a statement that holds a lot of
power.
Critics often
become so easily enraptured and consumed by the artifact that they are
analyzing that sometimes an overall perspective is lost. Many criticisms tend to have tunnel vision in
the sense that they disregard other perspective or other issues that the
particular criticism can uncover. What Dow
is challenging with her statement is for critics to open their eyes and to not
take themselves so seriously. There is
no doubt that a traditional critical standpoint is valued in all aspects of the
world of academia, however being staunch and static in research can limit one’s
opportunities to discover new perspectives.
Dow is merely pointing out that sometimes our pursuit to discover the
truth, we sometimes neglect other important factors in our research. Finding the truth is important, but it should
not always be the main focus so that it blinds us to other research opportunities.
Dow is hinting
that a stagnant view of criticism can limit the impact it has on the audience. She also wants us to consider how the research
that is conducted will impact the audience, as well as the role that the
audience plays in the research. Dow believes
that we should give the audience credit.
They are not mere passive viewers, but instead are often engaged in the media
outlets which they are consuming. There is
no doubt that there are indeed passive viewers out there, however Dow is simply
saying that scholars do themselves and the audience a disservice by
over-generalizing and assuming that all consumers of television and media are
passive.
Dow calls into
question how scholars view the audience because it is reflective of the critics’
quest for seeking the ultimate truth. If
we are consumed with finding the truth, but only seek it from a certain perspective,
than are we really going to find the capital “t” truth? The question I bring to the table is who are
we to determine what is true and what isn’t?
How are we to know each audience members frame of reference and past experiences? What is true for us as scholars and as an
audience will not necessarily be true for other audiences. As scholars, we should not limit ourselves by
assuming that the audience we are analyzing is in capable of understanding the
mediated messages we are receiving.
Condit as quoted by Dow articulates it best by saying, “…The masses may not
be cultural dupes, but they are not necessarily skilled rhetors.”
While we should
not doubt the intelligence level of the audience being analyzed, we should also
recognize that they are subject to and fall victim to the hegemonic messages
that the media produces. Dow states, “I
question the quality or power of that resistance in the face of the repetitive
and consistently reinforced hegemonic media messages that they consume.” We should not assume that the audience is
unaware of the power that the media has over them, however we would be naïve to
believe that the constant exposure to these messages and ideas leaves no
impact.
There are all
things that we as scholars need to consider when conducting our research. We need to recognize that it is important to
find truth as it is defined to us, however we cannot become blinded by our own
ambition and we cannot discredit our audience.
If we can handle our “truth,” so can they.
