Windows 8 Download

Microsoft has released its Windows 8 Developer Preview operating system, for PCs and tablets, to the public as a free download.

This is the same software which Microsoft gave to developers on prototype Samsung tablets this week at the company's Build conference in Anaheim.

And while this pre-beta version of Windows 8 is not close to ready for consumer consumption, and meant to be used by developers who are looking to make apps for the desktop and tablet OS, anyone can download the software -- no developer registration or anything like that needed.

The move to release Windows 8 so early on can be seen as a testament to just how much Microsoft wants, and needs, developers to get into building apps for the new OS before it is actually released as a retail product that will compete on tablets against Apple's iPad (running iOS) and Google's Android software.

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive, made a surprise appearance at Build on Wednesday and touted 500,000 downloads of Windows 8 overnight as a testament to developer interest in the new platform, according the tech blog This Is My Next.

Microsoft has made available three different versions of Windows 8 for download (two versions built for 64-bit systems which use new processors and can make use of more RAM, versus older 32-bit PCs that use earlier chips and less memory), which all show up as an ISO file when downloaded.

The three versions also vary in size and as an ISO file will need to be downloaded and burned to a DVD or installed on a bootable USB drive before being installed (Microsoft, of course recommends using Windows Disc Image Burner on Windows 7 to get the ISO file onto a DVD).

The three versions, all in English, are:

• Windows Developer Preview with developer tools, 64-bit:  A 4.8-gigabyte download, this version includes Windows 8 Developer Preview operating system with a Windows software developer kit for Metro style apps made up of Microsoft Visual Studio 11 Express and Microsoft Expression Blend 5, as well as 28 preview apps.

• Windows Developer Preview, 64-bit: A 3.6-gigbyte download, this version is made up of just the Windows 8 Developer Preview OS and the 28 preview apps -- no added developer tools

• Windows Developer Preview English, 32-bit: The smallest of the bunch, this 2.8-gigabyte download includes the Windows 8 Developer Preview OS and the 28 preview apps.

Since this is a preview version of Windows 8, it still has plenty of bugs that need to be fixed. This isn't yet even a beta release and not polished enough for the mass market. So if you're interested in downloading this early release, it might be a good idea to install it on a spare PC rather than your main computer. If you only have one computer, do consider the risk here.

Microsoft has said that all Windows 7 apps should work in Windows 8 on desktops and laptops, but there are no guarantees that will hold true at this point given the OS is in development.

MICROSOFT’S BUILD CONFERENCE

There has been a lot of speculation and anticipation surrounding Microsoft’s BUILD conference which started today in Anaheim, California. We can’t be there ourselves, so here’s a link to Winrumor’s liveblog, and be sure t 4: Windows pen and other input options improved.o check out their website for more exciting developments. We’re excited about the new stuff! Are you?
UPDATE 1: It seems that Samsung is making a Windows 8 tablet.
UPDATE 2:The task manager has been updated; it looks fresh and new. Plus, there’s a new backup feature called File History.
UPDATE 3: Microsoft to release Windows 8 developer preview today at 8PM!
UPDATE 4: Windows pen and other input options improved in Windows 8.
UPDATE 6: Hands on video!

UPDATE 7: Windows To Go: Boot Windows 8 from a USB!
UPDATE 8: Nvidia shows off quad-core Tegra based tablet
UPDATE 9: Pretty awesome App Store video from Winrumors. It looks great!

UPDATE 10: This is probably already outdated, but 500,000 downloads of Windows 8 developer preview so far! Off to a strong start, eh?

Moneyball

Based on Michael Lewis' 2003 book,Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, the surprisingly effective Moneyballhas a smart script, solid direction and great performances. This true story of Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane and his unorthodox winning formula is a career best for topliner Brad Pitt who plays Beane with the smooth assurance of Robert Redford or Paul Newman. Baseball movies are hit and miss, but this one is the shrewdest take on the game since Ron Shelton's Bull Durham and it has appeal that reaches beyond the ballpark. Well timed to hit theaters near the end of the season, this one should score at the box office.

For Moneyball, key members of the Social Network team including producers Scott Rudin and Michael De Luca and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin reunite to make another true life tale that pays attention to the details and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. The good news is not only doesMoneyball succeed in taking us on a tour of the business side of baseball, it humanizes the shop talk to keep it from crashing into a sea of statistics. Thank writers Sorkin and original writer Steven Zaillian for keeping their eye on the ball in this story of a baseball-obsessed kid Billy Beane (Pitt) whose career takes him to the front office. He shocks the baseball world by ditching his the star players and hiring replacements in the most unorthodox ways imaginable. Credit for this his curious new protocol goes to a business-minded Yale grad named Pete (Jonah Hill) who devises a system that deprioritizes star power in favor of research, cold heart stats and cheaper players. The scenes where the very non-athletic Pete explains his methods to the grizzled veteran coaches are priceless and help give Moneyball its swing. But the film belongs to Beane and Bennett Miller's direction carefully weaves in the no-nonsense man's struggle to keep his career and personal life together despite a divorce and a job that doesn't let him spend much time with his daughter.

Pitt has never been better—he's shrewd and wonderfully engaging—and you can see why he stuck with this role through eight years of development hell including the dispatching of original director Steven Soderbergh just days before the film was due to shoot two years ago. It's a movie star role and Pitt, one of our last movie stars, fits it like a well-worn glove. Jonah Hill is his perfect counterpoint, deadpanning and underplaying at every turn. They make a great pair and Hill is well-positioned to move beyond comedy roles. In the role of the veteran (and conservative) manager, Philip Seymour Hoffman is perfectly cast as a man who clearly isn't looking for any change. Robin Wright appears briefly as Beane's ex-wife and Kerris Dorsey is a delight as his musically-inclined daughter. In flashbacks to Beane's early baseball career, Pitt is nicely played by twenty-something look-a-like Reed Thompson. For baseball fans Moneyball is nirvana. For everyone else, it's simply a smart, damned entertaining time at the movies.

Distributor: Sony Pictures
Cast: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Wright, Chris Pratt, Kerris Dorsey, Tammy Blanchard, Kathryn Morris
Director: Bennett Miller
Screenwriters: Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin
Producers: Scott Rudin, Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz
Genre: Comedy/Drama
Rating: N/A
Running Time: 126 min.
Release Date: September 23, 2011

Exploring the spiral of silence in the virtual world: lndividuals' willingness to express personal opinions in online versus offline settings

Journal of Media and Communication Studies Vol. 3(2), pp. 45-57, February 2011
Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/jmcs
ISSN 2141-2545 ©2011 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Exploring the spiral of silence in the virtual world:
lndividuals' willingness to express personal opinions in
online versus offline settings
Xudong Liu
1
 and Shahira Fahmy
2
*
1
School of Journalism, College of Mass Communication and Media Arts, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL,
62901, United States.
2
School of Journalism, Department of Near Eastern Studies, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, the University
of Arizona, 845 N. Park Avenue, Marshall Building 325, P.O. Box 210158B, Tucson, AZ 85721-0158, United States.
Accepted 30 December, 2010
This study extends the understanding of the spiral of silence theory by taking into account the impact of
new media on virtual behavior motivation. It explores individuals' willingness to express opinions online
and offline and tests how the constructs proposed by the spiral of silence theory work in each setting.
Results of a survey (N=503) suggests that when the  likelihood of speaking out online increases, the
likelihood of speaking out in a real setting also increases, and vice versa. Findings further suggest that the
congruency of current opinions with one's own opinions predicts the willingness to speak out offline.
Congruency of future opinions, however, failed to predict the likelihood of speaking out offline. Findings
also indicated that congruency of future and current opinions did not predict the willingness to speak out in
the online setting. Furthermore, while experiencing fear of isolation predicted by the willingness to speak
out online, it did not affect offline outspokenness.
Key words: Spiral of silence, opinion-climate online, online environment.


INTRODUCTION
The spiral of silence theory, which proposes that people will choose to remain silent if they evaluate that their
views fall in the minority, matured in a traditional media context (Noelle-Neumann, 1973, 1984). Because the
internet has now passed its incubation stage into a part of the mainstream media (Best and Kureger, 2005), the virtual environment offers new communication possibilities and uniqueness (McDevitt et al., 2003;
Witschge, 2007) that legitimize the retesting and rechecking of established traditional spiral of silence
theory in the virtual setting versus the traditional setting. The literature indicates that experiencing fear of isolation and perceptions of the opinion climate are two key constructs related to this theory, nevertheless, they were not specifically tested in the online discussion context, despite the fact that Internet is used as a public sphere to encourage political issue discussion increasing sharply in recent years (Shah et al., 2008; Tian, 2006); moreover research shows online political discussion has been growing and having a greater influence on public opinion (Price et al., 2006).  As expressing online opinions is perceived to be
another dimension of speaking out, and as accessibility of online opinions becomes far more extensive and
immediate than opinions and information presented by traditional media, this study is one of the first studies to
compare and explore expressions of personal opinions in an online environment versus a traditional nvironment. Indeed questions of whether the spiral of silence theory operates differently in the offline and online world remains in question. For example, to what degree can the theory be applied to the online setting? How can online expression affect an individual’s offline outspokenness?
While previous studies found that computer-mediated communication provides an alternative way for
interpersonal communication on politics (Hardy and Scheufele, 2005), and facilitates public discussion of
political issues (Ho and McLeod,  2008;  Li,  2007),  these studies failed to elaborate on how mediation affects the variables addressed by the spiral of silence model work in the online setting.  This study, therefore, seeks to expand our understanding of the spiral of silence theory in three ways: First, this is one of the first studies that attempts to explore how key variables regarding the spiral of silence theory applies to an online context and selective exposure. It tests the different modes of speaking-out regarding a controversial issue — the legalization of same-sex marriage in offline and online settings. Although limited literature examined whether respondents would be willing to speak out if they were placed in  a face-to-face discussion group in one condition and in anonline chat room discussion group in the other condition (Ho and McLeod, 2008), results suggested the spiral of silence theory might have different impact on the online world than in the real world. Additional research isneeded, however, to better understand how online discussion and Internet chat rooms could create a platform that would or could generate free exchange of opinions and/or new ideas that might eventually lead to problem-solving (Kalyanaraman and Sundar, 2008; Kim,2006; Bekkers, 2004). Thus the question of whether the spiral of silence works in the same way in offline and online communities merits more attention. Second, to contribute to research validity, this studyexplores the correlation between speaking-out in online and offline settings. While previous studies have viewed traditional media as a tool for social control in manipulating the formation of public opinion (Lasorsa, 1991; Price et al., 2005; Salwen and Lin, 1994), they did not take into account that the Internet itself is a marketplace of diverse opinions. Results of this study, therefore, seeks to expand our comprehension and application of the theory by addressing whether the Internet can help individuals counteract the spiral ofsilence effect and express personal opinions

‘Weeds’ Ends with Season 7, Creator Reveals

Sad news for all “Weeds” fans: season 6 now over, they only have one more season to look forward to for their favorite show. Series’ creator Jenji Kohan has revealed that there may be no more of the Botwins after season 7.

This week’s season finale has (again) seen Nancy Botwin (Mary Louise Parker) in a situation from which she can’t possibly get out – or so we think. TV Guide has the scoop (story via OMG Yahoo).

Kohan is aware that the tendency of the writers is to back themselves into a corner as regards plot, but, at the same time, she also knows that this is something that can’t possibly last for much longer.

She hasn’t heard anything from the network in this sense, but Kohan says she “feels” the seventh season may be the last. Or that it should be the last, at least.

“In my mind, it is. Everyone’s contract is up next year, [including] the actors and mine. Seven years is a good run, and I’d rather leave while on top. I’d never say never, but I have a feeling this might be it,” Kohan explains.

Showtime won’t comment on this, saying only that whatever decision they make regarding an eighth season, it will be made next summer – and probably announced shortly after.

If the seventh season turns out to be the last, Kohan is ok with it, having long come to terms with the idea that it would be best to end the show on a high note, as opposed to spoil it in a desperate bid to boost failing ratings.

“It’s very strange and exciting and scary and sad in a lot of ways. We have such an extraordinary team. I would hope to take everyone over to [my] next project, including some of the actors, if possible,” the series’ creator says.

“I think it’s such a strong group of people across the board. That will be very hard to let go of. However, I think growth is an obligation of a writer and it’s time to stretch my wings,” Kohan adds.

Keep an eye on this space to see what becomes of this.

Thor – Movie Review

Where Shakespeare meets Marvel, the biggest and well-greased comic book-based movie making machine, there’s the recently released “Thor” (in 3D): over-dramatic and philosophical in its approach of family conflict, and loud and arresting in its presentation of action scenes. Still, “Thor” lacks an ultimate sense of purpose: it’s like we’ve seen all this in other, better movies.

Marvel made a very odd choice for the director of “Thor,” a release that ties in the “Iron Man” films to the upcoming “Green Lantern,” in preparation for the release of “The Avengers” in 2012 (just make sure you hang out until the credits end, because there’s an Easter Egg in there for you).

British Kenneth Branagh is well-known for his vast Shakespearean work (he directed countless movie adaptations), with his “Hamlet” being the perfect example of how theater should look on film – which is precisely what makes him an odd candidate for a live-action, Marvel-made, 3D, adrenaline-pumping, testosterone-packed movie like “Thor.”

The film starts with scientist trio Jane Foster (an astrophysicist played by Natalie Portman), Dr. Erik Selvig (her mentor, Stellan Skarsgard) and Darcy (an assistant, Kat Dennings) driving in the New Mexico desert to monitor an occurrence that, Jane believes, will revolutionize the world by proving that, as cliché as it may sound, “we are not alone.”
As expected, they get more than they bargain for when, in the middle of the storm, a handsome, blue-eyed, blonde and incredibly muscular man falls out of the sky – and is then smacked by Jane’s speeding truck.

The story immediately shifts focus to Asgard, a brass-colored and magical place where all the gods idly spend their time, enjoying the peace they established in the universe centuries ago while tasting the finest foods and showing off their supernatural, godly powers.

Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins) is the king of this magical world connected to the other realms through an equally magical, rainbow bridge guarded by the all-seeing Heimdall (Idris Elba). Odin’s time is nearly up and he’s about to name the heir to the throne.

There’s Thor (Chris Hemsworth), looking positively breathtakingly statuesque in his red cape, hammer in hand, and Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who’s more feeble-looking but whose eyes betray that which he cannot hide no matter how hard he strives: a propensity to evildoing.

The king eventually chooses Thor as heir because he’s the first born, and he’s already proved he’s a worthy warrior and leader of men – but how much of a diplomat is he, another essential quality to every good king, god or not?

Apparently, that’s the one quality that the handsome Thor lacks. The moment Odin’s longtime enemies, the Frost Giants, make an attempt to break into Asgard, the God of Thunder opts to disobey his father’s command and urge to diplomacy, and teach the villains a lesson they will never forget.

His pride gets him banned to Earth where, you guessed it, he meets Jane. We’ve come full circle: man and god finally meet.

Stripped of all his superpowers, Thor is now just a simple mortal who needs “sustenance” (which is what he calls food), and who believes he can just walk into a pet shop and tell the owner he “needs a horse.” Nevertheless, he also happens to look amazing in a tight shirt.

As he sets out to prove he’s worthy of the hammer he’s also been stripped of, he will show mortals that that which they call science or magic is actually fact: they are not alone and, as much as it may pain them to accept that, they are not the most powerful either.

In the meantime, back home in Asgard, Loki is going overboard with his scheming to take over the throne and have Thor out of the picture for good.

  

 

There’s a lot going on in “Thor” and the two narratives (which also come in different tones) represent just the beginning. While said duality would, at least theoretically, ensure balance, there’s very little of that.

Critics agree that one of the biggest problems of “Thor” is the fact that it requires the viewer to take everything at face value, without being offered a context for it: quite a lot to ask from your fans. This makes everything going on onscreen not relatable at all, there’s no sense of involvement on the part of the viewer.

Similarly, characters are so vaguely drawn that they’re almost forgettable: Jane is the funny and giggly female stereotype, Thor has an imposing physical presence but zero substance, while his allies and enemies are just as weightless.

The only two characters who actually get a shot at an existence in “Thor” are Odin (which is not that surprising, since this is Hopkins we’re talking about) and Loki, whom Brit Hiddleston plays with the utmost relish, even if he sometimes gets too carried away.

Overall, “Thor” is funny where it’s supposed to be funny, and entertaining where it aims to be so. At the end of it, though, there’s this distinct feeling that it’s all been done before. At best, “Thor” is decently entertaining and forgettable – but, as noted above, important because Marvel wanted us to remember “The Avengers” is coming.

“Thor” runs for 114 minutes and contains violent action and brief, mild obscenity. It opened in Italy and France on April 27, has premiered in the US nationwide on May 6, and will end its run in Japan on July 1, 2011.

The Good

It could be that the script works against Chris Hemsworth in “Thor” in terms of showing off his acting chomps, but he makes for a very believable and awe-inspiring God of Thunder, physically speaking. Hopkins and Hiddleston are the only ones who shine every time they come on screen. Certain scenes come with good special effects and real emotion, but they’re sadly too far in between.

The Bad

“Thor” was converted to 3D in post-production and viewers can tell that instantly, with some minor exceptions. Riddled with very good and very bad moments, “Thor” is Marvel’s own Melting Pot – and it’s not even an insanely entertaining one while at it.

The Truth 
“Thor” could have been ten times better than it came out, but that’s not to say it’s a complete waste of time. At the start of the summer blockbuster season, it’s a decent way to spend two hours, though there are countless other action movies which arefar more entertaining.

  

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides – Review

“There’s the Jack I know!” Johnny Depp is back again as Cap’n Jack Sparrow, the always half-drunk, dread-wearing, eyeliner-loving, witty, shameless, coward yet bold at the same time, buccaneer dripping in more trinkets than a souvenir shop. In “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” he meets his match.

If at the end of the third “Pirates” movie, it seemed almost a given that Disney couldn’t possibly come out with something new for the exhausted franchise, it’s because it didn’t have director Rob Marshall and Jerry Bruckheimer on board. Marshall, he of the acclaimed “Chicago” and “Nine,” is well versed in putting dancing on film, a skill that comes terribly in handy when shooting action scenes – of which “On Stranger Tides” has in abundance. With Gore Verbinski, who directed the first 3 “Pirates” films, out of the picture, it was to be expected for the fourth to be different – nay, it was desired that it be so, otherwise Sparrow would have been dead in the water. Literally. “On Stranger Tides” aims to rid itself of the cluster of plots, subplots, sub-themes and supporting characters that nearly drove “At World’s End” into the ground towards the third act. Jack Sparrow is now in London, where he learns that some other pirate pretending to be him is looking for a crew to sail to the famous Fountain of Youth. The impostor, it seems, is actually one of Jack’s former acquaintances: Angelica (played by the feisty and lovely Penelope Cruz) is trying to get together a crew to sail with her father, the terrible Blackbeard (Ian McShane), for the Fountain. If they don’t make it there in two weeks’ time, Blackbeard is in mortal danger – and even though he’s a “very bad man,” Angelica can’t let that happen. So, she’ll use whatever ace she has up her sleeve to get Sparrow to show her the way there. The problem is, of course, that they’re not alone in wanting to get to the Fountain: Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), now a one-legged aide to the king of Britain, has set eyes on it, as also did the Spanish. As with every other “Pirates” movie, nothing is what it seems at first sight: Angelica may not be Blackbeard’s daughter, Barbossa may not be loyal to the king, and Sparrow may not know the way to the Fountain as he claims. None of that really matters, though, because “On Stranger Tides” actually manages to do what only the first installment in the franchise, admittedly the best, did to a certain extent: get from point A to point B without endlessly and pointlessly going around in circles. Moreover, it brings a much-needed breath of fresh air to the franchise, thanks to the introduction of several new characters that actually do their part in terms of keeping this huge, bombastic ship of a movie balanced. While some may have decried the departure of Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom from the franchise, as well as the death of the superb villain played by Bill Nighy (Davy Jones), their absence is not felt as sharply as one may think. For one, Penelope Cruz brings a much-needed counterpart for Depp’s Sparrow, and they do such a fine job on their own that there’s hardly any need for supporting characters in the film. They could have done just as good a job without the underdeveloped love subplot. Then, there’s Blackbeard: McShane is menacing even when he doesn’t talk, which means he’s by far the best villain in the franchise. Not only does Blackbeard command the grimiest and deadliest pirate ship ever, Queen Ann’s Revenge (the Black Pearl is gone, by the way), but he can also turn his crew into zombies because they’re more submissive that way. Blackbeard is so self-sufficient and powerful that he can even command the ship on his own – supernatural powers, it’s always great when a pirate has them. The only dead weights to the narrative are the cleric Philip (newcomer Sam Claflin) and the siren Syrena (Astrid Berges-Frisbey). They may be unspeakably pretty and their presence makes sense, but it’s their eye-locking and thoughtfully gazing at each other that seem to bring the pace of the film to a screeching halt. Speaking of the pace, while “On Stranger Tides” is just as action-packed as all the other installments, it makes more sense than them by far, mostly because of the above-mentioned linear plot. Action scenes and bloodless fight scenes are all well choreographed and acted out, the production value on every minute of the film being painfully obvious. This is a film that stands out for being incredibly labored, nothing is left to chance, from the costumes to the brilliant score by Hans Zimmer. “On Stranger Tides” has also been shot and is released in 3D, which, again, gives it the upper hand on previous installments, to which it will undoubtedly be compared. Then again, seeing how “Pirates” will, from now on, move into an entirely different direction with Cpt. Sparrow as the leading character, this is probably the best idea that Disney could come up with to mark the break. All in all, while still longer than it should have been (137 minutes), and at times a bit too loud and exhausting, “On Stranger Tides” marks a step up for a franchise that many – and critics mostly – believed was dead. “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on May 14, opened nationwide in the US on May 20 and in most territories, and will end its run in Argentina on June 9. The Good There’s a new dynamic obvious in “On Stranger Tides” and it marks a much-needed change from previous installments. The fourth “Pirates” film is better balanced, better acted, and boasts mind-blowing special effects and excellent 3D. The Bad This is a film based on a popular Disney ride, so it’s a wonder it’s made it so far as it is. In other words, some of the jokes and moments seem dated and overdone. Parts of “On Stranger Tides” play out like scenes we’ve already seen – and of which we’ve already grown weary. The Truth As critics put it, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” is much better than the third installment, a bit improved as compared to the second, and somewhat worse than the first. Fans should not – and will not, most likely – miss out on yet another crazy ride with Captain Jack Sparrow at the helm.

 

Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century(USES AND GRATIFICATIONS THEORY )

ACTIVE AUDIENCE
Also, in the 1980s, researchers reevaluated the long-held notion of an active audience. During this time, some researchers reiterated that although both uses and effects sought to explain the outcomes or consequences of mass communication, they
did so by recognizing the potential for audience initiative and activity (Rubin,
1994b). Levy and Windahl (1984) attempted to articulate a theoretically more complete notion of audience activity and to test a model of audience orientations that
linked activity to U&G, and Rubin (1984) suggested that audience activity is not an
absolute concept, but a variable one. Notably, Windahl (1981) argued that “the notion of activeness leads a picture of the audience as superrational and very selective,
a tendency which invites criticism” (p. 176). Instead, he argued audience activity
covers a range of possible orientations to the communication process, a range that
“varies across phases of the communication sequence” (Levy & Windahl, 1984, p.
73). More succinctly, different individuals tend to display different types and
amounts of activity in different communication settings and at different times in the
communication process.
In support of this, theoretical active audience models have increasingly emerged
that range from high audience activity to low levels of involvement. For example,
both dependency and deprivation theories suggest that some individuals under certain conditions such as confinement to home, low income, and some forms of stress
formhigh levels of attachmentto media.These include television (Grant,Guthrie,&
Ball-Rokeach, 1991), newspapers (Loges & Ball-Rokeach, 1993), and communication technologies such as remote control devices (Ferguson & Perse, 1994).
DEPENDENCY THEORY
Media dependency theory itself posits that media influence is determined by the interrelations between the media, its audience, and society (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach,
1982). The individual’s desire for information from the media is the primary variable in explaining why media messages have cognitive, affective, or variable effects. Media dependency is high when an individual’s goal satisfaction relies on in-
8 RUGGIEROformation from the media system (Ball-Rokeach, 1985). Rubin and Windahl (1986)
augmented the dependency model to include the gratifications sought by the audience as an interactive component with media dependency. For Rubin and Windahl,
the combination of gratifications sought and socially determined dependency produced media effects.They argued thatdependency on a mediumor a message results
when individuals either intentionally seek out information or ritualistically use specific communication media channels or messages. For example, McIlwraith (1998)
found that self-labeled “TV addicts” often used television to distract themselves
from unpleasant thoughts, to regulate moods, and to fill time. This link between dependency and functionalalternatives illustrates how U&G is a theory “capable of interfacing personal and mediated communication” (Rubin, 1994b, p. 428).

formation from the media system (Ball-Rokeach, 1985). Rubin and Windahl (1986)
augmented the dependency model to include the gratifications sought by the audience as an interactive component with media dependency. For Rubin and Windahl,
the combination of gratifications sought and socially determined dependency produced media effects.They argued thatdependency on a mediumor a message results
when individuals either intentionally seek out information or ritualistically use specific communication media channels or messages. For example, McIlwraith (1998)
found that self-labeled “TV addicts” often used television to distract themselves
from unpleasant thoughts, to regulate moods, and to fill time. This link between dependency and functionalalternatives illustrates how U&G is a theory “capable of interfacing personal and mediated communication” (Rubin, 1994b, p. 428).

DEPRIVATION THEORY
Deprivation theory has an even longer history in U&G research than dependency
theory. Berelson (1949) studied the effects of the 1945 strike of eight major New
York City daily newspapers on audience behavior. Since that time, additional studies of media strikes have emerged: Kimball (1959) replicated Berelson’s study during the 1958 New York City newspaper strike; de Bock (1980) studied the effects of
newspaper and television strikes in the Netherlands in 1977; Cohen (1981) examined a general media strike; and Walker (1990) analyzed viewers’ reactions to the
1987 National Football League players’ strike.
Related, Windahl, Hojerback, and Hedinsson (1986) suggested that the consequences of a media strike for adolescents were connected to the total degree of perceived deprivation of television as well as the specific content such as entertainment, information, and fiction. These deprivations are related both to media
variables like exposure, involvement, and motives, and nonmedia variables such as
socioconcept orientation and activities with friends and parents. Windahl et al.
found that individuals in more socially oriented environments tended to feel more
deprived than those in conceptually oriented settings.