We had good classroom discussions today. I hope we can extend the lively discussion to this space.
Here are the questions that we attempted to answer today. Feel free to move the discussion forward.
1. To what extent do you agree with the Frankfurt School's critique of the media's role in contemporary society?
2. How does the Frankfurt School perceive the audience?
3. How does the Frankfurt School conceptualize media power?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Hello Sir!
Just wondering but I checked once more at the library and they said that they don't have a copy of the Week 3 readings since it ran out. I was wondering if there is another place that I could get a copy. I do have something to say about the ideas of the Frankfurt school based on our discussion it's just that I want to make sure that my statement is right by double checking the readings before I make any bold remarks. Thanks again.
Hi sir! I just want to say something about the relationship between the media and the audience.I was a little shy a while ago so i'll share my thoughts here. :)
I think that both the media and the audiences are passive and active toward each other. The media is passive because it follow the preferences and conformities or the "demand" of its audiences. However, it is also active in the sense that it can affect how the audiences make their decisions. It affects the perspective of its audience on objects or things through the use of commercials, advertisements, etc. The media give the satisfaction that audiences are willing to pay for. The same goes with the audience. They are active because they help give ideas on what they want so that the media can give them their desires, without them the media will not be able to make lots of money; while at the same time, they are passive since they tend to follow what the media say. :)
Hi, Jerome. I suggest you track down a classmate who has a copy. Anyone willing to help Jerome?
Hi sir, sorry wasn't able to leave a post right after the class yesterday. I usually rewrite my notes after class so that I could "absorb" the lessons. Then right after, that's the time I come up with questions or ideas of my own based on my understanding. Well, here are some of my insights about our class discussion yesterday...please do correct me if I'm wrong or if you feel like I'm making assumptions.
We discussed yesterday that media can be theorized in countless ways and you mentioned that it sets agenda (agenda-setting). I remember you used politics as an example like how media change people's behavior. Since the senatorial and local election here in our country had just taken place less than two months ago, I still have fresh memories with me of how it went about. The competition among politicians was pretty cutthroat since every candidate wanted to end up victorious. Most of the senatorial candidates made costly 30-second television ads just to make themselves known to the general public. It is already a given that campaign ads do swing votes; hence, it is already expected that whoever has more money could have his TV ad shown more frequently making his probability to win higher too. But the end result of the election was startlingly different. Well, yeah some of those with TV ads did win, but Pichay, the candidate who spent the biggest amount of money for his campaign and TV ads failed to make it to the top 12 among the senatorial bets. Consequently, in the local level, a mayoralty candidate in Nueva Ecija won by landslide although he did not have a single campaign paraphernalia. Why am I swerving to the issue on money? Because media is usually associated with money. (To advertise something on TV is expensive!) In Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's book entitled Freakonomics, it is written that in true political economics, “the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all” (p. 9). The assumption that money is the root cause of every candidate’s victory is a big post hoc fallacy in economic reasoning. Our mindset that candidates with more money to spend for media exposure would surely win is merely a case-to-case basis; hence, media power or supremacy during the election is a case-to-case basis as well.
The second thing I wish to discuss is about media's relations to dominations. Although men and women today are already perceived as equals, media still subtly favors men over women and I guess this is greatly due to our deep-seated history which has a great influence on our media culture today. Last semester, I made this paper in my English class about patriarchy and I think my readings about it best fit this issue. In Gerda Lerner's book entitled The Creation of Patriarchy, the unfathomable history behind the creation of patriarchy is discussed in detail. Everything started within the family, the basic unit of society. Even way back, women were no longer treated humanely, for in the eyes of men, they were mere commodities who render, among other things, "reproductive" services. It is not women "who are reified and commodified, it is women’s sexuality and reproductive capacity which is so treated.” (p.213). This historical account verifies why women today are sort of labeled in TV advertisements. I noticed that whenever the TV ad is a liquor or maybe a car, women are usually in skimpy two-piece bikinis or in revealing outfits. From my own point of view, I guess advertisers ask women to dress this way because liquors and cars cater to the "male market" and it's a fact that they are usually attracted to advertisements with women on. This treatment of women as "sex-toys" also cunningly suggests that MOST men only go after women for pleasure and some other economic reasons.
The third and last point I want to raise is about our discussion on culture industry and how it deceives us to believe on some "false needs" and keeps us away from our "true needs". This is a somewhat negative perception of media that's why I want to give light on this issue and stress some of its good points. Yesterday, you discussed how media created this "new market" for metrosexuals through the introduction of male beauty products. Incidentally, my argumentative research paper last semester was about metrosexuality so I have some good things to say about this topic. While it is true that the term metrosexuality came into being due to the incessant media intrusion, this has also helped countless men from all over the world. Well to start of, Carl Jung said that there is an unconscious female feature in every man called the anima which is the reason why some men have the propensity to demonstrate the female behavior. (Meaning, they also love to put perfume on or use moisturizer before going to sleep just like the women) They often hide from view some of their perceptibly feminine qualities such as their receptiveness and coyness to avoid destroying their “macho” image and generating doubts from other people. Timothy Beneke, author of the book Proving Manhood: Reflections on Men and Sexism shares his views about men’s homophobic tendencies, “Men become terrified of being seen as gay or feminine—a fag, queer, wimp, sissy, and so on. The animating emotion is shame”. The “new market” created by media is not that bad after all. Metrosexuality has actually helped men to come out from their shells and to become true to themselves. Today, men are already going to salons and malls more frequently. I guess metrosexuality could now pass as one of the “true needs” of men because they have received enlightenment and underwent self-actualization in the process
Well, that’s all for now…tnx for reading!:)
hello Sir!
i just want to add to the discussion we had yesterday. In the movie, Morpheus referred to humans as batteries. It is similar to how the media works. In the movie the machines/robots use human beings as a source of energy much like how the media feeds of its audience specifically through financial means.
This is veryevident in reality tv shows like ABS-CBN's PBB and Fox' American Idol. The media says it is an interactive show becuase it lets its audience have a say to who will stay or who will go but in my opinion the're more in it for the profits. I guess in a way my view is similar to that of Frankfurt School of thought. But the truth is that the media is more of a capitalist venture.
That's all i wanted to add to our discussion. i guess it's a lot easier to say these things in the blog. hehe... thanks again.
Hi!
Based on yesterday's discussion, a question is raised in my mind. Is it really media that influences us or is it the other way around?
I'm quite sure that hundreds of academic papers all over the world have been dedicated to how media has changed views and created stereotypes and even Marx's "false consciousness". But seldom do people see that this, at some point, in itself is false consciousness as well.
Media has to follow its audience.. what they want to see and hear. If not, media will be void of one of its primary functions -- to sell. An example of this is Nadine's example of Pichay's failure to sell himself as a senator. After all, people don't want a senator symbolized as a vegetable (stress on vegetable referred to "gulay"/people in coma and thus incapable).
I am not saying that media is under the power of its audience PERIOD. I would just like to elaborate on the idea I raised in class and stress on the other side of media that is quite hidden as most people see only one side.
And btw Sir, will you be uploading the ppt presentation of last meeting's lecture? Thanks! :)
Brilliant posts so far. I like how you have started to play with the concepts and giving them new twists and turns. I'll be using some of these as springboard for discussion tomorrow.
Lecture slides for this week will be given to the beadles tomorrow, along with the readings for next week. :)
ei sir....
i've already made my remarks about these questions during our discussion in class
but one thing is still bothering me thou, and it's about the media having a "special power" and not just being used by the capitalists...
i wish to argue with your stand, because I believe that the media for a long time has been a strategic avenue for the capitalist (and by capitalist i mean gov't officials, advertisers, businessmen, and the likes) to pursue and achieve their desired goals: that is to profit and create false ideologies for their personal gain.
this is evidently shown by the programs being aired in telivision and radio today....,most of them are entertaining but senseless...,thus,reflecting the power operating behind the media ...,
These capitalists would go such lengths as sacrificing quality to attain personal satisfaction. And since the effect of media are too subtle, people tend not react, that is why they are being exploited..., in effect, this fuels the capitalists' desire for power and profit to broaden in scope.
I would like to add a little bit to the post about the power of the audience of the media.
While it is clear that media can control the images we see, the words and ideas we come to hear, they cannot control our interpretation of these information. This interpretation is born from the cultural identity of the audience. Their system of beliefs, values, and traditions, in a sense, dictate the representations of the media.
an example is that, here, the media play up the idea that white skin = beauty. While in the US, media hold holy the idea of "the perfect tan". Clearly, the latter would not work here, and that restriction is, I feel, the power of the audience over media.
The thing about culture is that it continually changes, that new experiences could bring about a change in the direction of a people. The media is forced to adjust to this direction as well, or else it would lose some of its power, some of its credibility.
This brings to light the political ads of the past election. Many of the senatorial candidates believed that popular songs turned campaign jingles would win the voters over just as the "VOT FOR D CHAMPP" campaign a few years before. However, again, with the example of Pichay above, this was not to be so. While Trillianes, who had one of the smallest campaigns, was able to make it to his senatorial chair. I was surprised, and very thrilled, to be honest, at the idea that actors such as Cesar Montano, Richard Gomez, and the all-mighty Manny Pacquaio failed to claim victory in the elections, no matter how famous they had become. So here, I believe, is an example of the audience's power over the media. We, the audience, could choose to take the media as truth, or with a grain of salt. These choices are based on who we are, and what we have experienced. Our identity as a Filipino people is a force that can control the motion of Philippine media.
Thus, the power and control regarding media and audience is a subtle, intricate interplay between the two, with both sides exerting force on one another. Media and the audience feed off of one another, in a somewhat symbiotic relationship, with one inextricably intertwined with another.
Hi sir, hi guys..
Sir, I think, not the audience nor media is more powerful than the other.. I believe that they are interdependent to each other in a way that both are using one another for their own advantages.. In other words, media will not exist if not for men but men on the other hand rely greatly also in media..
Like in the Matrix, it was said that men are like batteries that powers media. So here, we can say that media is dependent on men.. But if we think the other way around, we also rely greatly on media. I just couldn't imagine myself without any strain of media in my daily life.
Just to restate my point, Media and men are interdependent to one another.. Media needs men and men needs it.. Media influences men yet men controls it. We can also say that it is just a big cycle where everything just evens out..
hey sir!
In relation to the post of binks, that media is being used by capitalists to gain profit even going as low as creating senseless shows in tv and radio.
It is the sad truth but we must not forget that media is a business and must therefore make a profit. And since only a few people control the media industry, only their ideologies are expressed.
Media has also a lot of social and political implications. It may influence the elections (just as nadine stated), it can be also used to inform us about social issue. One example of this are the public service announcements we hear on the radio.
About the opinion of the frankfurt school regarding the audience, i would disagree with them as seeing the audience as people who take just take in the ideas thrown at them. In the movie The Matrix, people were shown as mechanical beings. But in reality, we are all unique. We all have different experiences that shape us. Even if we are greatly affected by media, we still have the power to choose. I think that people only select what they want to see or hear from media based on their needs, joys, troubles,anxieties,etc.... and because we have the power to select what we want to see from the media, we weaken the projection of media as a thing that controls our lives. ( this way we may view media as our batteries instead of the other way around).
One thing bothered me though.I remembered one of the speakers in last weeks talk said that she had to unlearn to write formal correct Filipino in order to write "barok" Filipino. Her job required her to do that because those are the one's that sell. Is this because media adjusts to the colloquial language in the Philippines or is it because of media has greatly influenced the culture to communicate this way?
Media is a very powerful tool but a tool nonetheless. We may choose to use it to our advantage or let it control our lives.
I kinda agree about Frankfurt School's critique of the media's role in contemporary society... mainly about the capitalism area wherein Marx created this strong ideology about it.
It is true that media are really powerful and they distort reality - a huge influence to this is capitalism...making profit. It is really obvious that media create this kind of fake perception of things just to sell their product. One example would be commercials... some may appear to be stereotypical...some may appear to be anti-feminist... and some may appear to say that "if you dont do this, then your a big loser". Haha! anyway, all of those things, even though insulting and indirectly hitting some huge issues, are all because of monehhhhyyy!!!!
I also agree that media kinda like... have this sense of hierarchy like.. "HAHA! I CONTROL EVERYTHING!!! FOLLOW ME!" That even GMA, our president, got to talk to some newspaper about issues like putting on news that are bad more than the what's good...thus, losing the people's trust to the government. I kinda agree to this one. Although we must know the truths behind the government and all, but this wouldnt really help create a better country if all we hear are mean things. I think, more than just exposing the truths, media settled with bad news since it sells more than the good ones. HAHAHA! (i'm so mean).
Anyway, so about Frankfurt School perceiving the audience... i guess for me, they perceive the audience as kinda like stupid people HAHAHA! cuz we get easily controlled by media and thus, we lose our "ability to think critically for ourselves". I don't know about that. I mean, how will they know that our decision is influenced by media? What if we just decide, "oh hey, i want to buy this product because i feel like buying it". And i do believe that media help create our identity and our decision... it's kinda like social thing. We're not really controlled by it, i think we just get influenced by it and we still have this free will to think for ourselves. ...clear ba? HAHAHA!
hi sir!
i believe that what lies between the media and its audience is a struggle of power. more like a game of tug-of-war, at times, the audience prevail over media but most of the time, it's the other way around.
if we'll go back to the example of the recently held elections,just because the senatoriable who paid the most for tv commercials did not win doesn't necessarily mean that "media power or supremacy during the election is a case-to-case basis..." because the same senatoriable who began at the bottom of the race ranked 15th in the final tally.what i'm pointing out here is that the end results of the poll just shows how the audience "evolved".
there is a reason why politicians are willing to spend a fortune on these ads- because based on previous elections, this was how the battle was won. However, this time around, i can say that the audience (the voters) became more critical- they saw through the ads and looked for substance,not just exposure.
can we say now that the audience in this case was more powerful? yes, maybe. the truth still remains that through the redundant streaming of Pichay's commercials, millions of Filipinos were coaxed to vote him.
from our discussion, we identified media as having "soft power". when we take media, however, and pair it with politics, its power becomes more top-down, thus, the audience are able to go against its dictates.
on a more economical approach, though, i think that the media still is powerful enough to put its audience under its control. some would argue that media only gives its audience what they demand but do they really know what they want/need? more often than not, they only take their cue from what they see in television or read in magazines and newspapers.
until the audience pin-point exactly how and when the media influences their decisions, then is the time they can really decide for themselves. then is the only time they can rightfully be deemed powerful.
hi sir. these are random thoughts on this week's readings. i wasn't able to participate last tuesday kasi medyo lost pa ko non coz i wasn't able to get a copy earlier. you know what happened.
anyway, here goes.
1) we allow ourselves to be unconsciously manipulated or controlled by the media because, for one, we don't have any choice but to take-in everything offered to us because of our exposure to it. also, we are blinded by its "benefits", that, for our own comfort, we don't think about the negative aspects, rather, we focus on what we can get from it.
we can't "fight" against it when we are easily contented with what it offers us.
2) about false consciousness and substitutes for real solutions, the first thing that entered my mind was the show pinoy big brother. (haha weird). but anyway, lately, there are lots of news about PBB--the lives of the people who were part of it. it annoys me because our exposure to it make us think that it's normal to snoop on the lives of other people and that we do it for our own entertainment. so most of the time, what we consider as "source of entertainment" affects our character in a very subtle way.
3) everything we do is for our own comfort. we conform, we let us be controlled by media because we don't want to compromise the "comfort" and the "benefits" we get from it.
Hey hey hey Sir! :)
I would have to agree with the Frankfurt School regarding Media as the means of capitalizing to make profit. Take for example the television shows in both ABS CBN and GMA such as PBB, Starstruck and the like-- these shows are continually making profit for they require most importantly people participation. The profit of these television shows come at the expense of others' money. The people watching the shows at home might fail to notice that they are spending money as well even as they just watch (Meralco right or Cable TV?). More than money the media take a lot of time in people's lives as YES the people have grown to be dependent on media (but as what Van said, the media also depend on the people).
Then as these television shows entertain us the advertisments in between the shows' segments make us "batteries" as well already. Since people watch television and see these commercials, they are able to know the products being advertised and although they don't plan to buy it, good advertisments have a lasting impression on viewers. (As me and some of my friends even end up talking of commercials from way before)
Now take for example the internet, it may be the most powerful media alive today. For man has learned to depend a lot on what the internet offers. But for man to actually access the internet, he needs MONEY to avail for internet cards and dial-up, and MOMONEY to be able to access FASTER internet connections (DSL). Just look at all the advertisments of PLDT, Globe, Smart, Bayantel and etc. in trying to promote their internet services.
The media does distort the Want vs. Need concept of man. Since advertisments are everywhere, these really do have certain psychological effects on people. For they will not settle for less, they will want more for themselves (especially the rich ones). While other people (eg streetchildren) could only want the things that would keep them alive. And besides these streetchildren are really not exposed much to media as compared to the people who can afford to.
The audience are both the source and the victim of media. Ironic as it may seem but the people are the ones who give media a purpose. And the media's function on the other hand is to satisfy (and in the process capitalize) on the people's wants and needs. As seen on TV, advertisments continually change for certain products because people get tired of the same old commercials if companies like SMB, Rexona, Safeguard etc. don't change their ads.
It is true that media are very powerful. But it will never be as powerful as the people. People made media, people can dissolve media.
The people should be able to make the best decisions for themselves even though media have asserted its dominance in their lives. They must know how to differentiate between their wants and needs for they are rational beings.
hi sir! this is RA Angeles...
I would like to agree with mark's comment that media is primarily a mean of capitalization.
I am an avid Pinoy Big Brother fan and I have been very much updated with the controversies of the show. Many people seem to think that ABSCBN uses its most controversial housemate (Wendy) in order to attract viewers despite "cheating" on the audiences. That particular housemate had already been evicted before she emerged as the 3rd placer of the contest. For me it was really unfair for the other housemates since this is still a game with 1 million pesos at stake. Obviously, the network is only concerned with its ratings since that housemate (Wendy) adds spice to the show because of her aggressive and fiesty personality and because of her love team with another housemate.
Media has become more concerned with high ratings and profit and has set aside ethics, fairness, and the truth.
Hi Sir and Colleagues!
I would just like to comment on what vanina said about the media and its audience both being passive and active towards each other. I don't really know her personaly but her comment caught my attention.
I think that, although her statements are true and very relevant, it is only so to some extent. This is because the people of today let media enter their lives to such a great extent that the infuence that it has on them is greater that their influence on it. Sad to say, but I think that the media industry is practically dominating us today. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing entirely. There might be a positive side to it depending on us.
That's all sir. I'm not sure if what I said is relevant, but it is what I think and feel.
Thanks.
hi sir :)
In a way, I think that some of the Frankfurt school's ideals still hold true in todays contemporary society. Despite having an exaggerated view of the unified traits of modern societies and overly pessimistic conclusions about the audience's fate, their studies are probably quite helpful. Viewers can have more "control" against capitalism in media. Awareness gives one power over his surroundings. Because of studies like these, media is also challenged to make "art for its own sake" and not just stuff for commodity and exchange. Honestly, I don't think every person who is exposed to media becomes a slave to it. I mean Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse must have been exposed to a lot of media to have made so much opinion about it and obviously they're not enslaved by it. Well, maybe it really just depends on how much awareness a person has about himself and his surroundings. That's all, thanks for reading..the class bell is about to ring.
Based from last Tuesday's discussion, I had this notion that the Frankfurt School sees the audience as media underdogs. And to some extent, this is factual. Having always wanted to live in a perfect or ideal world, we always take into consideration the information that the media provides us. It is because the schemes that media use never fail to give us the idea that this highly diverse and incomprehensible world still has hope, despite all that's happening. So yes, most of us abide by it for the very reason that we are still hopeful for a better society. And as media shows us the "ideals", we alter ourselves just to be worthy of everyone's approval. True enough, media is uncontrollably taking over its audience, manipulating them and influencing their perceptions. However, as I may argue, it is not such a bad thing because it keeps people optimistic and moves them to act accordingly to create a better society for everyone.
Although most of the Frankfurt School's critiques are unarguably true, I personally think that we should not see them under a negative light. Sure, the media has got all these mysterious, and probably self-beneficial stuff, going but I would want to give them a great deal of credit for it. Yes, they control us; they get to us, but isn't it amazing how a pile of "contrived" information is able to manipulate people, the highest form of beings in the planet? This omnipotence of media is still something I can't get over with. It seems surreal, yet quite rational.
Just my two cents. I hope it's relevant. :P
I think that the Frankfurt School underestimated the audience. As influential as the media is, people are still equipped with critical minds. After all, the brilliant minds behind media are also audiences.
*Maan Bernardino, Section E*
Hi sir!
I agree with what Mina said earlier in class.
Yes, media cannot control the minds of audiences but they surely can inhibit in their subconsciousness. People's decisions are highly affected by what media is presenting to them. like for example the way people dress up. We cannot deny the fact that most people go for what's "in". isn't it that media is the one setting the trend? and isn't it also that most people today would not want somethhing which is already out of style? so how can we say that audiences are in control when they are already "subconsciously" controlled by what they see around them?
This sad reality I believe is due to the capitalists who are the minds behind media. Media is just a tool used by them to fulfill their very own self-interest and that is to create false ideologies among audiences inorder to gain profit.
-chona abad
com11-B
Hey. Nathan Yu from Comm 11 E
I think that the Frankfurt school is correct in saying that media is being used by those in power for their capitalist venture. I think that some ads on TV tell promises that this product does this and does that. However, some of these promises could be lies and are just used to make more money. And since they have money, they can do whatever they want.
An example would be M&M's. They advertise that the chocolate doesn't melt in your hands but only in your mouth. So, people go and buy m&m's to see if it's true. And, it still melts in your hands. The makers make money and stay in power. That's all for now. hehe
hei sir, hei fellow comm 11-ers
On my opinion, or on my observation rather, the Frankfurt school is elitist. Not only because it looks as the audience as somewhat stupid or sa madaling salita "tanga". Media, like Justin said earlier should be a medium. It should be a universal medium and when i say universal medium i mean the exchange of information should not only be limited to product-consumer cycle, instead it should also have a consumer-consumer exchange and product-product exchange.
I say this because media is a very powerful tool, if used correctly, media could be one of the weapons or tools that could break the barrier between the high class and the low class, in short media could make us all equals. Why you ask?
Media sends information to man, whether he be a he, she be a she, or be he/she rich or poor. The bottom line is, media will reach man. It is up to man how to respond to that given information. If interreted correctly, man could be capable of doing great things, and one of these great things is coming up with an idea that all men could be equal.
An example i could present is the Nike Commercial. There is a Nike commercial which i saw once that went out of the so-called "sports niche". This commercial portrays a lot of things done by normal men and women in and outside sports. The commercial featured a young boy running to school, a young man jogging to work, and a few other people doing normal everyday things. What is the connection you might ask, my point is this. Nike broke the barrier that seperated the professional athletes from the men outside the sports arena. Nike took a step higher and gave an image that nik isn't only for the athlete, nike is for all.
This is the power of the media, if used properly, it could have the same effect nike gave to the people. A sense of equality, a sense of balance. All man kind as one, no rich, no poor, not boy nor girl, simply man.
The frankfurt school, for me basically, is an attack towards man's sense of equality. This ideology seperates the rich, wealthy, smart from the poor, stupid and ignorant. This should not happen.
Media could be used to revise or rather correct these wrongs not only for media's sake but for man's sake as well.
I know my idea's aren't much, but yeah, this is what i think and this is what i speak :)thanks sir, fellow comm11-ers.
-Eero
Actually, we can't really distinguish where this power originates from. Whenever the thought of the capitalist's control over society enters my mind, it again goes back to these capitalists adjusting to the needs and wants of the people.
This so-called media power simply has a circular flow that can be manipulated easily. Thus, the shift of power can at one moment be the capitalist then the next, the proletariat.
hi sir!
i think that a lot of the Frankfurt School's critique is still relevant today, but only to a certain extent. Like we discussed,the Frankfurt School tends to put media in a negative light, and we can't deny that although media carry a lot of negative messages and cause negative effects on its viewers, it is still a useful tool for more positive things (such as learning, entertainment, etc.).
Based on what i interpret the readings to be saying and our class discussions, the Frankfurt School perceives the audience as passive receivers of media. It's like a one-way relationship where the audience just take in anything that the media will give, without any feedback or reaction to the makers of media. i would have to disagree with this concept because the media caters to its audience, and if media makers do not consider what their audience has to feel or say, then i don't think they would bother with any studies on how to better capture the audience. If media didn't consider studying their audience, then i don't think media makers would bother to evolve or progress to make their outputs more attention-grabbing.
Like many people have said, media and its audience are interdependent. if they fail to effectively interact, then media have failed to reach out and its audience has failed to read and react to the message that it aimed to present.
Post a Comment