People have different opinions about this or that activity, event, or just imagine different things differently and it is considered to be a norm, as people are different, both by mental and physical abilities. Taking the example of any sports activity (let it be football) it is possible to criticize and analyze it from different points of view, such as the expectations from attending the sports activity and watch it in the open air and the experience from just watching the football match on TV, and it is impossible to deny that different experience and expectations are going to be the results of these different activities (participation in the match as a viewer and media watching).
The experiences between watching some sporting event on TV or being present on the field are two different things, but the modern tendency is that TV enters people’s life deeper and deeper and today most people also enjoy watching TV with the same excitement as if they are present on that match. Funkhouser and Shaw (1990) claim that mass media has “the ability to shape portrayals of reality in ways that may in turn shape audience perceptions of content” (p. 75) what means that media has strengthened its positions to such extension that people may experience the same feelings and emotions while watching TV as if they were present on the match.
Two different activities, to watch the football match on TV and to be present on the field may be considered from the point of view of being tolerant for boredom or inactivity. The main point which activity to consider boring depends on people’s perception the entertainment and rest. It is possible to call watching the match on TV boring, uninteresting, and inactive as sitting home person usually does not jump, scream or do other activities which people usually do in the stadium. Watching at home on TV people usually sit watch and are happy for their team quietly, without any active movements. On the other hand, taking into consideration the cultural norm theory and cultivation theory, it may be said that watching TV may also be interesting, active, and exciting. To explain this, cultural norm theory and cultivation theory are going to be analyzed. Cultural norm theory explains the ability of people to change their attitude to mass media and TV in our case. Cultural norm theory shows how watching the match on TV may be exciting, as a person has been influenced by TV and his/her attitude to the football match has been changed and the person considers it a good opportunity to watch the match on TV. Cultivation theory underlines that TV has a great role in the life of Americans (Harris, 2004). After considering these theories it is possible to say that watching the football match on TV also became a very interesting and exciting affair, which may be compared with the experience received from attending the football match at the stadium.
The expectation of the perfect and high level of performance is the other issue for analyzing the media and open-air experience of football match watching. The previous people’s opinion was that only watching the match on the field was possible to catch the most interesting moments, to see the technology and the performance of the attacks or the defense. It was impossible to catch these moments watching TV, and the experience from the match was losing its attraction. Moreover, the commentaries to the match and the pictures were shown only those which the director of the channel wanted, so it was impossible to judge the perfectness of the match. According to the media consonance theory, mass media becomes very important in developing people’s free opinion in the modern world (Kwansah-Aidoo, 2005). Modern technologies in the combination with unobtrusive commentaries allow people to see all the moments and to make their own opinion about this or that moment in the match. Agenda-setting theory claims that mass media can show the importance of the event (Gudykunst, 2002), so the watchers will be able to see the expected perfect and high-level performance as well as they could see it on the field. So, people’s expectations from the football and the perfect and high-level performance may be seen both in the stadium and watching the match on TV, as modern technologies allow people to see all that happens on the field during a live broadcast.
The problem of possible misconceptions of physical events from the point of view of the media perception or the live watch experience has a lot of issues and moments for discussion. First of all, people still misunderstand the role of TV in the watch translation. The understanding it as the less possibility to get the excitement from the match is wrong. Moreover, mass media allows people to re-watch the moment, so see it in a slow-motion shot, which is impossible to do while being present on the match. This misunderstanding and some misconceptions created a bad reputation for the media as the match translators and online translations of football are more frequently refused to be watched on TV, but thanks to new technologies more opportunities are given to people by TVs, such as re-watch or slow motion shot. Focusing on media from this point of view it is useful to remember a gatekeeping method, which is aimed to control the process of studying (Shi & Singh, 2007). Watching football on TV it is easier to control and identify the progress of footballers as everything may be watched several times and examined and analyzed better. The gatekeeping method maybe not be so perfectly provided when watching the match on the field as football is a quick sport and sometimes it is impossible to notice some moments, especially when they take place on the other side of the field. But at the same time, the gatekeeping method is responsible for “a primary care physician coordinates all health care services” (Shi & Singh, 2007, p. 344) which are impossible to provide without being present in the stadium during the match.
Possibly limited contact with superficial views of one’s environment is the last problem which is going to be discussed from the point of view of media or live experience from the match. This problem deals with the construction of social reality as only people make this or that event either valuable or not, as only people can emphasize this event and take aside the other even if they are equal in level of interest and quality (Searle, 1997). Understanding match watching on TV as unimportant, the viewer denies him/herself with a great opportunity of the privileges of media and restricts him/herself only to life match, which is considered by the society to be more exciting and interesting. It is impossible to deny that environment influences the experience which is got from the match, but it does not mean that watching the match at home is impossible to have a fan or to contact other people. The situation when contacts are limited may in the stadium when a person comes along and tries to border from the other people. Everything becomes known in comparison and people for themselves create their environment and chose whether to contact people or to limit them. Framing is the other concept that may explain the possibly limited contact with superficial views of one’s environment as the people’s stereotype which people have used to take as the base for event reaction. Consideration media as the limitation from the outside contacts is a stereotype that was created by people and it is difficult to avoid it.
So, after focusing on different aspects, theories, and conceptions of watching a football match on TV or be present during the game in the stadium, the conclusion may be made that stereotypes have greatly influenced people’s understanding of media as a bad experience. At the same time, the understanding of these stereotypes makes some people get rid of them and enjoy match watching at home, getting the same experience from the match as if from the presence on the field. Modern technologies make it possible to feel at home as if on the match in the open air. Still, watching football matches in the open-air remains the best way to get a great experience from the match as the feelings are great and the communication and atmosphere on the field cannot be transmitted through mass media.
Reference List
- Funkhouser, GR & Shaw, EF 1990, ‘How Synthetic Experience Shapes Social Reality’, Journal of Communication, vol. 40 no. 2, 75-87.
- Gudykunst, WB 2002, Communication Yearbook 26, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.
- Harris, RJ 2004, A cognitive psychology of mass communication, Routledge, Oxford.
- Kwansah-Aidoo, K 2005, Topical issues in communications and media research, Nova Publishers, New York.
- Searle, JR 1997, The Construction of Social Reality, Free Press.
- Shi, L & Singh, DA 2007, Delivering health care in America: a systems approach, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, New York.