Content deleted Content added
Successfully de-orphaned!♦ Wikiproject Orphanage: You can help!♦ |
m Typo/general fixes, replaced: ’s → 's (6), an individuals's → an individual's |
||
Line 1:
{{notability|date=October 2012}}
Regarding the [[influence of mass media]], '''Intimization''' is "a revelatory process which involves the publicizing of information and imagery from what we might ordinarily understand as [an
==Definitions==
Line 11:
Stanyer argues that Intimization as a process relates primarily to media content formation and dissemination in any society and should not be conflated with [[Parasocial interaction|para-social]] or tele-mediated intimacy between audiences and those who appear on TV.<ref>Stanyer, J. (2012) Intimate Politics: Publicity, Privacy and the Personal Lives of Politicians in Media Saturated Democracies. Cambridge: Polity</ref> Horton and Wohl, writing in the 1950s were particularly interested in the relationship between audience members and those they saw on the TV screen.<ref>Horton, D. and Whol, R Richard. (1956) Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry, 19: 215-229.</ref> Horton and Wohl were not interested in the information and imagery to which audience members were exposed and made no distinction between the public and private matters but were rather interested in their illusory (para-social) relationship between audience members and those they saw on the TV screen. While not downplaying the importance of the audience, Stanyer observes it is the information and imagery to which an audience is exposed that is important in the intimization process. It is the mass exposure of information and imagery from what we might ordinarily understand as the personal / private life of a public figure as opposed to their public/ professional life. Information and imagery we might expect only to be exchanged between those in a close relationship. In other words, public figures (politicians, celebrities, sports stars etc.) are not just familiar to us (that is recognisable) but potentially more information about their personal life circulates in the media, and the audience are exposed to more information from the private lives of public figures. An important distinction is made in this respect between familiarity and intimacy.
Stanyer suggests that flows of information can come from three specific areas or domains of the personal life. ‘The first ___domain concerns the ‘inner life’ of [a person]. This includes, for example, his or her health, well being, sexuality, personal finances, deeds, misdeeds, key milestones (such as birthdays), life experiences and achievements, but also choices about the way an individual wants to live his or her life: for example, life-style choices, ways of behaving, choice of religion or questions of taste. The second ___domain concerns significant others in a
While Stanyer observes that intimization consists of "the publicizing of information and imagery from these three domains," he also notes such information can enter the public sphere with or without expressed or implied consent of those in public life and can either be [[scandal]]ous in nature (it reveals a transgression of societal norms) or non-scandalous.<ref name="Stanyer">Stanyer, J. (2012) Intimate Politics: Publicity, Privacy and the Personal Lives of Politicians in Media Saturated Democracies. Cambridge: Polity. p. 16.</ref> An example of the former "might be an act of self-disclosure on a talk show or in an [[autobiography]] which is then recycled in the media." Example of the latter "might include, [[paparazzi]] photographs of politicians backstage or off-duty, taken without the
In sum, drawing on these definitions initimization can be seen as a society wide ‘revelatory process’ which involves the publicizing of information and imagery from the different domains of public figures’ personal lives, either with or without expressed or implied consent of the individual involved.
Line 20:
The growing visibility of the private lives of public figures has been much commented on but has received little systematic attention. The findings that emerge are somewhat mixed. Errera analyzed coverage of French politicians’ private lives in two magazines ''[[Paris Match]]'' and ''[[VSD (French magazine)|VSD]]'' over a seven-year period between 1990 and 1997.<ref>Errera C (2006) 'La vie privée des politiques, un tabou de la politique française.' Communication et langages 148(1): 81-102.</ref> She found that politicians’ relationships, personal health, their home and family life, personal financial issues and their past life were very much to the fore in the magazines’ coverage especially of leading French politicians, such as, [[Jacques Chirac]] and [[François Mitterrand]].
In terms of newspaper articles referring to UK national leaders’ personal lives, Langer found a clear upward trend over time.<ref>Langer AI (2007) 'A Historical Exploration of the Personalisation of Politics in the Print Media: The British Prime Ministers 1945–1999.' Parliamentary Affairs 60(3): 371-387. p. 383</ref> The coverage of their private lives rose from around 1% of the
However, Rahat and Sheafer, who looked at election coverage in two leading Israeli newspapers for 16 campaigns between 1949 and 2003, found no significant trend in media coverage of candidates’ personal life, with the focus on personal life never exceeding 15% of the news items over time.<ref>Rahat G and Sheafer T (2007) 'The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949-2003.' Political Communication 41(1): 65-80. p. 74.</ref>
| |||