Joseph's Media Blog

Defamation Law!

Have I hooked you yet? Probably.

To explain in the most basic form, the motivation behind defamation law is to prevent one from being discredited via false statements. It aims to maintain a balance between the right to free speech and ensuring one’s reputation is protected against harm.

Of course, in the world we currently live in, this balance can be quite difficult to strike. The difference between publicly shunning and publicly lying about a person becomes muddled very quickly, for all the defendant has to do is call ‘fair comment’. Another possible defence includes triviality – in which the defendant can prove that the accuser’s reputation was left unharmed. Naturally, the Defence of Truth is a big one, but particularly the Defence of Honest Opinion (all of which are taken directly from Justice Connect’s fact sheet on the topic). Rest assured for those in the public eye, these defences don’t work every time. 

The rise of social media has seemingly declared fair game on any and every celebrity – particularly politicians. Unfortunately for a few of the common folk, many celebrities have successfully fought against this notion. Peter Dutton’s defamation case has become a classic example of this in the political world. Despite Shane Brazzi’s ‘fair comment’ defence, he was rejected and forced to pay $35,000 in damages after referring to Dutton as a “rape apologist” on Twitter. 

However, despite the outcome, Justice Richard White still had this to say on the matter: “A sense of perspective does have to be brought to the assessment of the seriousness of defamation.” While he acknowledged that Brazzi’s statements were “no doubt” an example of “serious defamation”, he did not believe that Dutton was entitled to aggravated damages. His reasoning was that there was no evidence, or “suggestion” rather, that proved that Brazzi’s claims made any impact “in (Dutton’s) day-to-day political activities, or in his relationships with other people”.

The distinction made by Judge White is one that has become the main vocal point of most defamation lawsuits. Whether it overturns the verdict or not, the consideration of ‘serious harm’ has become a requirement in Australian law as of November 2019 (1). The debate between what is and what isn’t in the “public interest” has also been tossed around in recent years. 

Of course, there is a clear reason why these changes are being considered and implemented. The rise of social media and internet journalism have so far succeeded in stretching the line between defamation and freedom of speech, leaving the original laws surrounding the former outdated. There are countless, day-to-day examples that one could argue triggered the recent updates, though I doubt one would have to look much further after reviewing the Rebel Wilson Vs Bauer Media case.

For the few who didn’t hear, or don’t affiliate with the internet, let me take you on a journey. Back in May 2015, Bauer Media Group released a series of articles in which they branded actress Rebel Wilson a “serial liar” (2). They implied that the reason Wilson has found success in Hollywood is due to her lying about “many aspects of her private life”. 

Wilson responded to the articles by suing all eight of them two years later, leading to the most high-profile defamation lawsuit in the history of Australia. During the trial, she likened the articles to that of a “malicious, deliberate take-down” (3). She alleged that she was fired from two DreamWorks projects as a direct result of the articles – “all of a sudden doors that used to be open were shut and I basically had to beg to get back in the door”. She sought to prove her truthfulness by claiming that the articles had negatively affected her career. 

Bauer Media’s line of defence consisted of a variety of angles, wavering from triviality, substantive truth, and even statutory qualified privilege. One of their more significant angles was their attempt to refute the losses she claimed to have suffered. In June 2017, defence barrister Georgina Schoff claimed that Wilson was not entitled to her $5.893m special damages claim because ‘she had failed to prove the publications caused her loss’ (4). During a hearing, she claimed that there was not “one scrap of paper” that proved a connection between their articles and Wilson’s firing from the films Kung Fu Panda 3 and Trolls. “Her career has really not skipped a beat; there’s no actual evidence of damage being done to her”.

In the end, their defence was rejected. The jury verdict found itself overwhelmingly in favour of Wilson. Her legal team highlighted the orchestrated manner of the articles’ release (over the course of merely three days) and the gravity of the implications. They also made note of Wilson’s feelings being affected. Justice John Dixon awarded Wilson over $4.5 million in damages: $3.9 million of said damages consisted of economic loss. To this day, it remains the most significant defamation payout in the history of Australian law by a wide margin. Wilson’s lawyer Richard Leder claimed it to be “about four times the highest previous verdict in a defamation case in Australia” (3). Wilson herself commented: “I’m very glad that the jury has agreed with me and by their unanimous overwhelming verdict they have sent a very, very clear message”.

So how does this tale connect to the bigger picture? Well, judging from the significantly large damage cost, along with the wide global reach the trial endured, it’s safe to say that defamation cases have suddenly been taken more seriously. Despite the appeal that occurred the following year, changes to the system still went underway – as was alluded to earlier. Wilson’s emphasis on the economic loss the articles caused her – highlighted by her incredibly high damage sum – has set a precedent. This is evidenced by Geoffrey Rush’s major court victory, which occurred only a few years later. Rebel Wilson has effectively set an incentive that was once reserved to compensate for non-economic loss. The weight carried by the ‘serious harm’ argument has been amplified thanks to Wilson’s efforts in defending herself – leading only to more high profile defamation cases and significant reform.

Defamation lawsuits just got a lot more serious (at least for celebrities) (screw the general public).

Sources/Reference List

AAP. 2018. “Rebel Wilson to take defamation appeal to Australia’s high court.” The Guardian 12 July.  https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/12/rebel-wilson-to-take-defamation-appeal-to-australias-high-court

AAP-SBS. 2018. “Rebel Wilson loses 90 per cent of $4.7m defamation payout”SBS News 28 June.  https://www.sbs.com.au/news/rebel-wilson-loses-90-per-cent-of-4-7m-defamation-payout

(4) Australian Associated Press. 2017. “Rebel Wilson’s $7m damages claim should be thrown out, Bauer Media says” The Guardian, 22 Jun https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jun/22/rebel-wilson-7m-damages-claim-extraordinarily-large-says-bauer-media

Byrne, E. 2018. “Rebel Wilson’s legal battle ends as High Court rejects appeal over defamation payout.” ABC News 6 November. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-16/rebel-wilson-loses-high-court-bid/10503644

Clift, B. 2021. “Why defamation suits in Australia are so ubiquitous — and difficult to defend for media organisations” The Conversation 15 March. https://theconversation.com/why-defamation-suits-in-australia-are-so-ubiquitous-and-difficult-to-defend-for-media-organisations-157143

Dawson, S. 2018. “Rebel Wilson’s High Court defamation bid fails, bringing Wilson v Bauer to an end” Bird and Bird LLP 30 November https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=764dacfc-246c-4e79-a253-d8b00442c870

(1) Douglas, M. 2020. “Australia’s ‘outdated’ defamation laws are changing – but there’s no ‘revolution’ yet”, The Conversation 28 Jul https://theconversation.com/australias-outdated-defamation-laws-are-changing-but-theres-no-revolution-yet-143532

Mitchell, G. 2021. “Peter Dutton wins defamation case against refugee advocate Shane Bazzi” The Sydney Morning Herald 24 Nov https://www.smh.com.au/national/peter-dutton-wins-defamation-case-against-refugee-advocate-shane-bazzi-20211124-p59bn6.html

Rolph, D & Douglas, M. 2017. “Rebel Wilson’s $4.5 million win a sobering reminder that defaming a celebrity can be costly” The Conversation, 14 Sep https://theconversation.com/rebel-wilsons-4-5-million-win-a-sobering-reminder-that-defaming-a-celebrity-can-be-costly-83968

Supreme Court of Victoria, “2017. WILSON V BAUER MEDIA PTY LTD [2017] VSC 521”, Sep  https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/court-decisions/judgments-and-sentences/judgment-summaries/wilson-v-bauer-media-pty-ltd-2017-vsc

(2) Supreme Court Of Victoria. 2018. “BAUER MEDIA PTY LTD V WILSON [NO.2] [2018] VSCA 154”, June https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/court-decisions/judgments-and-sentences/judgment-summaries/bauer-media-pty-ltd-v-wilson-no2-2018-1

Whitbourn, M. 2022. “Peter Dutton, political defamation and the rise of social media lawsuits” The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 Jan https://www.smh.com.au/national/peter-dutton-political-defamation-and-the-rise-of-social-media-lawsuits-20211213-p59h9f.html

(3) Younger, E. 2017 “Rebel Wilson wins defamation case against ‘bully’ magazine publisher Bauer Media” ABC, 15 Jun  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/rebel-wilson-wins-defamation-case-against-bauer-media/8609670?nw=0&r=Gallery

2016. “Defamation Law: Information Sheet” Arts + Law http://www.artslaw.com.au/images/uploads/Defamation_law_(REPLACES_BOTH_PRE_AND_POST_2006_VERSIONS)_.pdf

2018. “Rebel Wilson ordered to repay millions in defamation case” BBC News, 27 Jun  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44625076

2022. “Understanding defamation laws” justice connect, 3 Mar https://www.nfplaw.org.au/free-resources/advertising/understanding-defamation-laws

Cinema would not be the same today without the influential work of Steven Spielberg, with his take on horror – 1975’s Jaws – serving as a prime example. The film casts a spell – that of fear. Among the multiple factors that contribute to its influence, the sound design is key. The tension is provoked  not only by what you see, but by what you hear as well. They coalesce to create an experience that prevented an entire generation from wanting to go near the ocean again. The sound design was effective enough to earn the film an Academy Award not only for Best Sound, but also for Best Original Score. There is one particular scene that proves the film to be award-worthy – the ‘Get Out Of The Water’ scene. It is the scene that, for many, fully encapsulates the effectiveness of the film’s sound design, in addition to Spielberg’s visuals. They combine to create an extremely tense experience, despite the simplicity behind the techniques. Culture Reporter Alex Abad-Santos went as far as to refer to this scene as “one of the best in movie history” (1).

The clip opens, and what we hear at first is the sounds one would normally hear on a beach during a summer’s day: chattering, splashing – families are enjoying themselves. In other words, the film is relying on diegetic sound to establish the relaxed mood of the scene, a mood that proceeds to be effectively upsetted by the sound design. As someone is conversing with the film’s lead, Martin Brody (Roy Scheider), we hear a woman screaming nearby. By having these two layers of sound overlap, the viewer feels the sudden surge of paranoia that courses through Brody as well. Even after it is revealed to be a false alarm, the paranoia remains. This in part was built from the chilling opening scene, and effectively continued through this moment. The false alarm only adds to the anticipation for the horrors that will inevitably follow. This would not have been possible if not for the choices made by Spielberg and his sound designers.

Their choice to use overlapping sound layers to create tension is utilised again less than a minute later. A child is singing The Muffin Man to himself. At the same time, a young man is calling out for his dog, who has mysteriously disappeared. These layers, contrasting with the background noises of children splashing around in the water, create an eerie tone. Before long, the background noise fades out, as does the singing, allowing the fact of the missing dog to stand out. The moment of silence that follows allows the paranoia to morph into legitimate tension. By silently focusing on the abandoned dog bone in the water, the film more-or-less confirms the dog’s fate. Over a minute of ambience has passed, and the audience is already anxious. Spielberg decides to only use the sounds of the beach to set the stage for the horror that comes in the form of non-diegetic sound.

John Williams’ iconic, Oscar-winning score is a master class in suspense. Much like the film’s use of ambience, the simplicity of the main theme proves extremely effective in building tension. On paper, all we see are two notes played repeatedly. What we end up hearing has become the epitome of suspense. The sound builds in resonance and menace as the camera zooms further in on Bruce the Shark’s unsuspecting victim. The contrast with the calm sounds of the water continues the sense of eeriness even as the orchestra slowly takes over. The sound effectively becomes the shark, eliminating any need for Spielberg to show it in-frame. Even so, once it is distantly in-frame, the score briefly becomes second priority. The diegetic sound takes the wheel as the camera shows people on the beach reacting to what’s happening in the distance. The fear and alertness that suddenly fills these people has already been earned on the audience’s part, preventing the score from being necessary. However, it swiftly returns as we cut back to underneath the water; back in the shark’s brain. We watch as the child is gruesomely torn apart, with the music generously informing us that there is no saving him. The score reaches its maximum pitch as we cut back to the parents desperately calling out to their children. In other words, the shark’s presence has overtaken the beach, replacing the cheery ambience that previously permeated. We now hear children screaming for their lives; parents running towards the shore. Williams’ score plays like a siren. Chaos has invaded the beach – conveyed perfectly through a harrowing combination of diegetic and non-diegetic sound layers.

The heavy layers slowly fade out as all of the children are returned to shore, which seemingly provides the audience with a moment of relief. This feeling proceeds to shatter, however, as the camera and audio focuses on the mother of the sole victim, calling for her son. The scene ends with a shot focused only on the flattened floatie and blood left behind from the attack washing up on shore. All we hear is the peaceful sound of waves – allowing the audience to mourn the child’s death before transitioning to the next scene.

Suffice to say, this scene on its own would be enough to prove the influence of Jaws. It has everything: the ambience, the lived-in characters, the subtlety, the iconic score and, most importantly, the suspense. Despite never capturing a clear shot of the shark itself, the seamless intertwining between Spielberg’s visuals and the sounds created by designers John R. Carter and Robert L. Hoyt, along with the amazing John Williams, manage to conjure up the shark’s presence all on their own. Writer George Morris claimed that the film succeeded to the extent it did because it “showed audiences the type of excitement they couldn’t get anywhere else” (2). The spectacle was unlike anything they had ever seen up to that point. Its mega success speaks greatly to the potential effectiveness of subtlety in film – something that would not have been possible without the top notch sound design.

Reference List/Bibliography

(1) Abad-Santos, A. 2015 “Why the Jaws beach scene is one of the best in movie history” Vox, 30 Mar  https://www.vox.com/2015/3/30/8311209/jaws-breakdown-beach-scene

“Analysis of Jaws Essay” bartleby research https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Analysis-of-Jaws-F3VDG2YVC

DeMarco, L. 2015 “Jaws’ 40th anniversary: 40 reasons why Steven Spielberg’s movie is the ultimate summer blockbuster (photos)” cleveland.com, 18 Jun https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2015/06/jaws_40th_anniversary_40_reaso.html

Golding, D. 2022 “From Jaws to Star Wars to Harry Potter: John Williams, 90 today, is our greatest living composer”, ABC News, 8 Feb https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-08/composer-john-williams-90th-birthday/100811254

Kermode, M. 2015. “Jaws, 40 years on: ‘One of the truly great and lasting classics of American cinema’” The Guardian, 31 May https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/31/jaws-40-years-on-truly-great-lasting-classics-of-america-cinema

MacKay, R. 2020 “45 years on, the ‘Jaws’ theme manipulates our emotions to inspire terror” The Conversation, 27 Apr  https://theconversation.com/45-years-on-the-jaws-theme-manipulates-our-emotions-to-inspire-terror-136462

(2) Morris, G. 2020 “Creating a Genre: ‘Jaws’ and the Modern Blockbuster” 1 Jun https://www.gmorris.co.uk/post/creating-a-genre-jaws-and-the-modern-blockbuster

Murray, N. 2014 “Jaws and the sound of dread and wonder” Dissolve, 8 Jul https://thedissolve.com/features/movie-of-the-week/649-jaws-and-the-sound-of-dread-and-wonder/

Rennie, D. 2020 “REMEMBERING BRUCE, THE MALFUNCTIONING ANIMATRONIC SHARK THAT MADE ‘JAWS’ A HORROR CLASSIC” Bold Entrance, 15 Jul https://boldentrance.com/remembering-bruce-the-malfunctioning-animatronic-shark-that-made-jaws-a-horror-classic/embed/#?secret=mJmcu4nVLn#?secret=a20RpwzngU

Shields, M. 2020 “Jaws’ and Genre: The Horror of an Unseen Threat” FSR. 6 Nov https://filmschoolrejects.com/jaws-horror-movie/

Stephens, D. 2021 “For Better & For Worse: The Legacy Of Steven Spielberg & How He Changed Cinema Forever”, Top 10 Films, 16 Apr https://www.top10films.co.uk/63417-for-better-for-worse-the-legacy-of-steven-spielberg-how-he-changed-cinema-forever/

Waxman, O. 2020 “Why Hit Movies Are Called Blockbusters” Time, 7 Feb https://time.com/5776406/blockbuster-meaning/

Who controls the media I use to access my news?

I’ve never really thought about it until now, probably to my detriment.

I’m going to be honest: I don’t follow the news that closely. While I know what Ukraine is, I don’t go out of my way to keep myself morali-uh, updated. Because of this, you probably could tell me I’ve been misled by the media my entire life and I’d believe you…. and never dwell on it again. 

If one were to ask me who controls the media I use to access my news, it would take me a while to give a direct answer. Whenever Google recommends a headline that catches my eye, I usually click on it without worrying about who published it. There are a few exceptions I believe to be obvious – The Sun has a long history of bullshitting the public. Really, all you need to do is look up ‘Hillsborough disaster’ and it’ll tell you all you need to know about The Sun. I tense up a little when I see that name plastered on the top of the article, but I tend to read it regardless, if it’s a topic that interests me (not that there are many). Most other publications seem reliable enough only because I don’t take the time to research.

So I guess Google controls my news? And, if I had to be more specific, Rupert Murdoch?

The more I write, and the more time I take to research this question, the more I realise how much I should care about what’s being placed in front of me. I’m now starting to see what being an intense vegan feels like. 

As I continued down the rabbit hole for this question, I discovered the sheer amount of power Murdoch has over the news media. Labor spokesman Shayne Neumann said it best when he claimed in 2014 that “there’s too much power in the media controlled by one man who lives overseas”. 

What makes this stance stand out was the effect it had on his reputation. Multiple news agencies, all owned by Murdoch, turned on him. The Australianreferred to his comments as “disgraceful, divisive, and ignorant”. Many other politicians stood in support of Murdoch, including Tony Abbott, who claimed “no newspaper has more profoundly or more consistently shaped the intellectual life of our country”. He continued by referring to The Australian as “(Murdoch’s) gift to our nation”.

As I read this story through Eric Beecher’s article, a sudden fear swelled within me, a fear I’ve never felt. While I’ve always been convinced that this sort of thing is a common occurrence in politics (thanks largely to House Of Cards), never has it felt as real as it does now. The article includes a quote from Bruce Hawker’s book The Rudd Rebellion which states that “News Corp is easily the most powerful political force in Australia — bigger than the major parties or the combined weight of the unions”. Neumann’s situation and the desperate rallying behind Murdoch that followed has allowed this quote to hold 100% truthfulness.

This task may have just prevented me from ever fully trusting the news again. With one man eyeing everything placed before us, we may never be free from political bias.

This is why I usually stick to movie stuff.

References

Siregar, C. 2022. “Why is The Sun hated by Liverpool fans & banned in many places?” GOALS 16 Jan. https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/why-the-sun-is-hated-by-liverpool-fans-banned-in-many-places/2hrhnj5tch2r1ae7tllvac6fb

Beecher, E. 2020. “Murdoch’s power: how it works and how it debases Australia” Crikey, 23 Oct https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/10/23/rupert-murdoch-power/

Samios, Z. 2020. “How much influence does the Murdoch media have in Australia?” The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 Oct https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/how-much-influence-does-the-murdoch-media-have-in-australia-20201015-p565dk.html

Look at this:

McDonald’s ad campaign – The Onion, 2019

This here was the moment when the health-conscious folk came out of the woodwork and responded by saying they indeed CAN run forever… or this was the moment when all the communists in the world held a rally proclaiming the wickedness of capitalist propaganda… or this was the moment when fries people made their voices heard…… or, and hear me out here, this was the moment when McDonald’s became Heisenberg.

My point is that each of these options (and others, I’m sure) must have aligned with at least one person some time or other since the release of this image. When interpreting an image, it is widely understood that the sender’s job is to encode the intended message, and the receiver’s is to decode it. Naturally, the decoding process always yields different results – the world sucks that way.

Let’s peel it back further by first asking the question: what is there? Well, there’s a burger made of either ham or cheese (how does it work?). There also appears to be a fancy ‘m’ in the corner – whatever that means. And there are words present: ‘You can’t run from us forever’. All that’s missing now are the blood stains, but I digress.

In terms of what it all means, well, that’s up to the receiver. 

When it comes to promotional material, the sender’s job typically is to portray only one message. In this case, the message is that there is no escape from McDonald’s. Yes, this promotional image was a threat. The blood stains are warranted. Add them now. 

This was confirmed by McDonald’s senior manager of global corporate communications Terri Hickey, who is quoted here alongside the ad campaign: “Despite the trend toward calorie counting, green eating, and plant-based diets, we at McDonald’s will track you down—and we will feed you”, said Liam Neeson. They continued: “You’re on your high horse now, but you know that won’t last forever.”

Now, this would seem to put the nail in the interpreting coffin. But wait, there’s more!

When analysing signs within an image, analysers often refer to signifiers (things that give meaning) and what is signified (evoked in the mind). Author David Pavón Cuéllar puts it this way in his 2010 book From The Conscious Interior To An Exterior Unconscious:  “There is a fictitious understanding of an imaginary signified, which is passively determined, distorted, changed, replaced, reconstituted, re-created, symbolised. And all of this is accomplished by the signifying symbolic, which is actively determining, distorting, etc (the activity being designated by the present participle)” (p. 46-47). If you can’t comprehend the above quote any better than I can, please see the alternative explanation above it.

Now let’s utilise this concept using the example at hand. 

Even without Hickey’s input, the conclusion he confirms is one that can easily be made when considering the signifiers displayed within the image. The foreboding red void that fills the space, drawing all attention to the ham-filled/cheese-filled burger. This is an ominous symbol of the ever-stubborn presence of McDonald’s, which is what is signified.

However, it is true that other conclusions can be made, no matter how outlandish many of them likely would be (for this is the world we live in). This image really could refer to anything, depending on the perspective – many of which I alluded to in my intro. There are a million, likely better, examples of this – most of which don’t even come with an explanation. Interpretation remains as varied as ever no matter what the product is, and even with professional systems put in place.

References

2019, “McDonald’s Appealing To Health-Conscious Consumers With New ‘You Can’t Run From Us Forever’ Ad Campaign” The Onion, 17 Sep https://www.theonion.com/mcdonald-s-appealing-to-health-conscious-consumers-with-1838181744

Cuéllar, From the Conscious Interior to an Exterior Unconscious : Lacan, Discourse Analysis and Social Psychology, 2008 (p. 46-47)

So last weekend, I decided to stretch my Indie credibility by watching a little film called The Batman – I doubt you’ve heard of it.

I sat down in the semi-comfy cinema for the second time in two years, ready to experience the three-hour spectacle I’d heard whispers of for a while. As the two hours of advertising was playing before our eyes, the theatre was chattering in… I couldn’t tell. You would think excitement but I’m sure it was more mundane than that. Maybe they rented a new car recently. Who knows?

When the film finally began, something stuck out immediately. And no, it was not the creepiness of Paul Dano, or the beautiful cinematography, or even the Nirvana song. It was the sound of chattering that I’d heard during the advertisements. For whatever reason, it hadn’t stopped. A group of 20 something-year-old men sitting directly behind me had continued their level of noise as if the ads were still going. What made these guys even more killable was the fact that they felt the need to comment on what was happening before our eyes.

For three hours, this never stopped – preventing me from fully engaging with Matt Reeves’ vision of Batman. It was only after hours of reflection when I found myself fully appreciating what I had watched, time extended due solely to the distraction occurring directly behind me throughout the entirety of the film’s runtime.

Believe it or not, this experience was echoed during my viewing of another underrated independent film – one some refer to as Spider-Man: No Way Home. My ability to enjoy the sound of Willem Dafoe referring to himself as something of a scientist again was foiled by the sight of glaring lights protruding from phones put at maximum brightness (an epidemic worthy of a blog of its own). It was to the point where I could hardly see a thing.

So, after a mere two experiences at the cinema in the last two years, I can safely claim that Covid has ruined us. The extended time we’ve all spent streaming at home has transformed us into intolerable creatures; also known as Americans. What was once a hilarious Seinfeld scene has become reality. 

Or maybe I was just lucky pre-COVID?

Probably.

Maybe everything I just wrote is completely meaningless.

All I know is that I would much rather stay within the confines of a dark, demented back room with nothing but a TV than leave and have to experience people at the same time. Being able to take in every word of what I’m watching is a beautiful thing to behold. I’m able to fully escape and reflect on what’s occurring as it happens. And maybe I have discussions afterward, but I’m pretty introverted, so probably not.

So in a way, I’m both an active and passive audience member at the same time: I’m actively paying attention, but not openly commenting on the media I consume. It wasn’t until I came across M M Kobiruzzaman’s thoughts on the topic when that notion began to make sense to me.

It is mainly thanks to those two horrible experiences I recounted that I’ve now come to this meandering conclusion. All I truly know is that I now plan on keeping my cinema experiences to a minimum from now on (until Doctor Strange).

References

Kobiruzzaman, 2019. “Active and Passive Audience Theory, Example, Definition, & Difference”, Newsmoor, 6 Dec  https://newsmoor.com/active-passive-audience-differences-example-active-audience-theory/