Walking into school this first week of a new semester felt like the floodgates of the heavens just opened, drenching me in a tsunami of workload. Besides that, I'm starting to stres over missing weeks 3 &4 of school when I visit Korea for a Christian Convention.

Anyway, to get my engines started (especially since edveNTUre won't let me post.. stupid technology), I'm going to discuss a few thoughts on Media Effects today. Yeap, not surprised, it's COM256, this module I'm taking. Plus lots of new fanciful jargon that the communication discipline has introduced to me.

For one, Hagiography. This brings to mind, besides Wilbur Schramm and today's communication history class, Michael Jackson. Way more interesting character, huh? Honestly, I can say I am quite a fan of his because I admire & respect his talent, sympathise with his plight and numerous accusations by others, as well as feel touched by his meaningful songs and childlike innocence of Never Neverland. Ok, I'm digressing.

The point is the media (TV/Radio/News/Internet/New Media, etc) has actually engaged in the practice of Hagiography after his death. They have not only re-conferred Royalty upon him, as the title King of Pop clearly shows, but also shone the limelight on him for a considerable period of time. ALL types of media, literally, have not neglected covering at least a teeny aspect of Michael Jackson, his death and his life. So far, it seems that he has left behind a legacy to be continued and passed down for generations by the media. This makes me wonder - leaving behind a legacy would be next to impossible if not for communication, if not for media. This halo effect, as the Evolutionary Psychology discusses, just goes to show how media has the power to skew the image of a person to 1 end of a spectrum, almost for eternity. This ties in with History, a subject that if not cautious, could easily slide down the slippery slope of hagiography, saying nothing wrong about a person.

And for the first time this year, I think that the international masses actually wanted the media to cover a specific news story - the death of Michael Jackson, to shed light on his life story. This time, I think it quite safe to say, that the people got more out of media than they usually do - it was more of using media as a tool to communicate to the advantage of the public, than of newsmakers using media as a money-making machine (of course, they did make a substantial sum by cashing in on the opportunity to feed the appetite of the people). As David Hinckley, Daily News TV critic reports, " It does remind us, though, that networks can't ignore News Viewers Actually Watch. It also underscores the impact of stories that generate a passionate emotional investment. "