For this post, I wanted to go back to identifying the difference between people who study media and ethnographers that we were discussing in class.  The topic for this week in ANT 300 was specificity, which I believe pertains to this discussion.  Ethnographers are able to approach media and its audience with more specificity then media analysts.   On page 13 of Media Worlds, the text states that anthropologists study the ” actual ways that audiences engage with media.”  In other words, anthropologists don’t analyze media and reactions to it as simply a cause and effect relationship.  They also study the background information and thinking process which are unique to each specific audience.

Again on page 13, specific examples are given that express how specificity is important to truly understand why an audience reacts a certain way to media.  Sponsored broadcasts in different parts of the world had varying results depending on the audience.  In certain locations like Puerto Rico, sponsored broadcasts can have a unifying effect.  On the other hand, the audience in politically repressed or struggling nations can react unfavorably toward sponsored broadcasts.  These nations are dealing with unique situations that lead to similar reactions.  Anthropologists study these environments with detail, whereas a media analyst may only see that sponsored broadcasts cause dissent.

Specificity is even more crucial in explaining the reactions of Thailand to media.  State sponsored television programs involving the royal family were successful in creating national identity and pride.  National television programs caused outrage as they were representing a disjointed reality that did not display the struggles on the streets.  A media analyst might find this confusing, as some sponsored media was successful and not others.  Anthropology dives deeper into each audience and tracks the how and why each reaction occurs.