Content deleted Content added
Magioladitis (talk | contribs) m clean up using AWB (10703) |
Iridescent (talk | contribs) m →Definitions: Typo fixing, typo(s) fixed: In other words → In other words, using AWB |
||
Line 14:
The term [[privatization]] has sometimes also been used to signify the same process. Rahat and Sheafer, for example, define privatization as "a media focus on the personal characteristics and personal life of individual candidates."<ref>Rahat G and Sheafer T (2007) 'The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949-2003.' Political Communication 41(1): 65-80. p. 68.</ref> However, the use of this term is problematic as the word, most commonly associated the sale of state-owned assets, means the reverse, privatizing of something that is public not publicizing the private.
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 person’s personal life and his or her relationship with these actors. This includes relationships with partners, other immediate and extended family members, friends and extra-marital lovers. The third ___domain concerns an individual’s life space: this includes his or her home but it also includes happenings in locations outside the home where the individual is not performing a public function and might want privacy, such as on family holidays’<ref>Stanyer, J. (2012) Intimate Politics: Publicity, Privacy and the Personal Lives of Politicians in Media Saturated Democracies. Cambridge: Polity. p.14.</ref>
| |||