sometimes I just want to talk about media theory and its relation to media criticism. stuff like “criticism of media should be proportional to its source, reach, and context in order to be effective” where:
Source: is the media putting itself forward as an expert, educational, or reliable source? Is the creator seen as knowledgeable? Historical accuracy is very important in documentaries, far less so in doctor who episodes. Documentaries should face harsher criticism than doctor who for historical innacuracy.
Reach: how many people can be expected to see this? How accessible will it be? What are the barriers to entry? highly promoted movies should face harsher criticism than unlisted YouTube videos. Obscene content with no warning should face harsher criticism than obscene content with a warning.
Context: where was this published? How does it compare to other similar works on the same platform and in the same time period? How reputable is the platform and the media shown alongside it? Works published in an online journal should face harsher criticism than tumblr posts. 20 year old editorials should face less harsh criticism for not using modern vocabulary.
Effective: how likely is this criticism to stimulate a productive discussion and potentially effect change? Would a change by the creator and/or audience have an impact that’s worth your time? Spending 48 hours to get someone to take down a post with less than 200 views just isn’t worth it, especially if you increase its reach in the process. Sometimes languishing in obscurity is a more effective criticism than anything you could say.
Sometimes languishing in obscurity is a more effective criticism than anything you could say.
This is something I feel like everyone needs to understand a lot better.
Just another WordPress site