The Claude Shannon model of the “mathematical theory of communication” depicts the distribution of information in a very linear fashion. However, I think it is too simplistic of a model to be applied to an anthropological understanding of the distribution of media. One element that complicates this model is the active participation and engagement of the people who act as “receivers” of media. 

These ideas about the influence that an active audience can have on both the processes and content of media production came up in class. I had brought up examples of most recent Star Wars and Sonic the Hedgehog movies, which were productions that received such extreme public backlash that the directors and producers changed major plot points and design decisions. A lot of this public backlash was made known to the producers and studios through social media, and then the negative reception was also picked up by major news outlets which recirculated information about these events with more context and different perspectives. One of the most remarkable things about this engagement is that the intended audiences did not act as passive “receivers”, but rather they took an active albeit non-traditional role in the production of the media they would consume. As we discussed in class, the relationship between culture and media is inherently social because the relationship between producers and consumers is inherently social. All producers of media content are also consumers of media content, and consumers of media content are oftentimes producers of media content in one way or another. These examples reveal the complexity of the media distribution system. 

The above examples originate from the entertainment industry, which has a significant impact on culture. Entertainment is also a space wherein minority or underrepresented groups can depict their local culture for either local or global audiences. But how should we think about the anthropologists who seek to produce a work of media (especially film, TV, video, etc.) in order to depict an ethnographic account of a culture? This is a task with a fundamentally different goal from entertainment which implies the necessity for a different approach. I think that this shift in approach also lends to a more complex reading of Shannon’s graph. There are many ways to envision the position of the anthropologist in the media distribution system (a topic also brought up by Breakout Group 1). One way to apply Shannon’s model is to place culture in the role of the “information source” and the anthropologist in the role of the “transmitter”, the person who interprets the information about culture and conveys it to an audience. However, I can also see value in an interpretation where the anthropologist occupies the role of the “information source” while the “transmitter” just refers to his or her chosen media method of transmission (the aforementioned film, TV, video, etc.). 

Either way, considering that anthropology is a discipline of study but one that relies heavily on social analysis through social interaction, I’m curious about if and how an anthropologist’s intended audience can influence the media that they produce. How would an anthropologist respond to backlash from their intended audience, whether that is the cultural group they’re engaging with or someone outside of that cultural group? Like with a work of entertainment, is the anthropologist amenable to incorporating that audience input into the creation of their media? Or is this a matter more similar to journalism, which is less likely to allow audience input to influence their content? I am referring to input that comes from the general public rather than an academic peer. I would be curious to see how the media creation and distribution chart might be depicted on a case-to-case basis for different anthropological projects.