Critical Media Studies - Reflections

First of all, I'm glad that we had a seminar this week since I now have something real to reflect on, compared the unfortunate cancelation of last week's seminar. Going in to the seminar room, ready to start reflecting with Dahlberg and my fellow classmates was my expectations mixed. The positive surprise of the meeting was that we didn't only go through the seminar questions and talk about the general quality of the book by Adorno and Horkheimer, but also allowed ourselves to get wild and discuss other relevant questions. Another key insight from the seminar was that the heavy focus wasn't on the terms "enlightenment" and "myth" which I experienced beforehand, but rather "the culture industry" and "mass media / mass deception". That shift in focus was something that pleased me, since the authors' thoughts on those two subjects still is applicable today. Of course has both the culture industry and mass media / mass deception grown a lot and almost changed meaning since 1944, the year the book got published. But I believe that the key elements of the two subjects persist over time, and that's what making the book still relevant today. Now, as well as back then, is it still money and what the masses wants that controls the market. Both the positive effects e.g. information spread and the negative effects e.g. the risk of abusing power are still necessary to take under consideration.  

Our first big discussion in class concerned censorship, a subject I hadn't reflected so much upon in relation to the text by Adorno and Horkheimer. Some in class argued that they thought censorship was a good idea, since there are many damaging and awful things in life. My natural instinct was everything but understanding since I'm very liberal in my way of thinking. Because if we were to censor certain subjects or concepts in life, who should be the almighty persons whom decides what shall pass and what shall be censored? That idea sounds close to dictatorship. If we were to allow everything and not censor one single thin in life does it arise a couple of concerns though. One of the biggest is child pornography, if everything were to be allowed, does that mean that child pornography should be allowed? The problem with that line of thought is that innocent children get hurt in the process, which isn't acceptable. One alternative could be to allow everything and not censor anything except illegal activities, an exception which child pornography falls under. In conclusion, I do believe that nothing should be censured and it's up to each person to decide what to experience and what to avoid, as long as no one gets hurt or used in the process. 

Further was both the subject and literature good this week, Adorno and Horkheimer but up some good questions and much of what they wrote are important questions to discuss. Since they wrote it so long ago do they miss some relevant facts in their conclusions to make it 100 per cent relevant today. One of those facts were that they didn't point out that we consume media differently in different situations, the television is for example not always our first screen and main focus point.