News, trust and 'truthiness'

News satire may be the best or worst thing that has happened to news media recent. Whether the effects of this media are good or bad is entire dependent on the perspective through which it is viewed but the reliability of this media is another issue. While some people may believe the satire to be real and factual, this seems like it would be a very small proportion; this possible misdirection could be reason to question the accuracy of the content but perhaps there is something bigger going on...

The main idea of culture jamming is to “bring light to an idea, a thought or a certain element that had been kept in the dark.¹” Satirical news does this by making suggestions that the ‘real’ news may not be accurate. Comedian Jon Stewart, star of The Daily Show, has declared numerous threats and impending disasters but the claims are not meant to be informative. He is making reference to the numerous moral panics that have been incited by the ‘real’ news by making even more ridiculous claims that, accurate or not, encourages the receiver of the media to be a little more critical of what they hear.

Focusing on the accuracy of the details seems to be missing the point of the satirical news, as it detracts from the overall message; if the goal of The Daily Show was to report the most accurate news, it would not be a satirical news show. A ridiculous claim can help illustrate this point; if Jon Stewart declared that World War 3 just broke out, people would like not believe him. Some people may look into the claim and why it was made, but no one would be building their bomb shelter and preparing for combat. The public seems unaware of the fact that culture jamming is “simply, the viral introduction of radical ideas.²”

Although usually inaccurate, this media serves a different function that does not require content accuracy. This media is meant to criticize the ‘real’ news in a way that leads viewers to think more critically about what they come in contact with, or in other words “these programs make them question the information they are provided and the integrity of the individuals about which information is being released.³” If the content that is presented is blatantly inaccurate, viewers will realize that it is meant to be satirical and critical of something else, which should lead them to an understanding of the true function of that media.

Questions attacking the reliability of the content of satirical news need not bother; it is not meant to be accurate. If the information presented on news satire programs was accurate, they would become what they are satirizing and questioning. News satire does not succeed in its blinding accuracy, yet it’s, at times, ridiculous propositions demonstrate how crazy some news appears to be and begs viewers to critically analyze other media forms they come into contact with. Questioning the reliability of a media form that was never meant to be reliable is missing the point completely.

Special thanks to:

¹http://mh12jf.wordpress.com/

²http://mm13sa.wordpress.com/

³http://nk13ps.wordpress.com/

Is the fake news the real news?

Culture jamming is a form of "resistance to the norms and conventions of mass culture that exposes and opposes the media’s underlying power structures and ideological messages" (O’Shaughnessy, 2012). With the popularity of news satire, some are questioning if the satirical news media is a form of culture jamming and whether it is a useful addition to the public sphere. Satirical news is a parody of “hard-hitting” news, like Fox, that is presented in a way that is typical of mainstream journalism. While there are several similarities, like the use of fake advertisements and new stories, the concrete link between the two has yet to be identified.

Since the aim of culture jamming is to highlight and question the media, news satire seems a fitting and rather popular representation. A favorite of mine is Jon Stewart, who has made a career out of publicizing and questioning media figures, among them is Bill O’Reilly, a political commentator and anchor at Fox news. The link below is a video of a Jon Stewart interview with Bill O’Reilly where they discuss rapper Common’s appearance at the Whitehouse. Paying attention to Stewart’s central point, his intent for this interview and, arguably, his entire show becomes clear.

Satirical news in the vein of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert serves as an addition to the public sphere, regardless of its accuracy. News in this style urges people to make comparisons between it and mainstream news, meaning that its function is not to inform viewers but to promote critique which means the accuracy of the information becomes almost unimportant. News satire is also meant to poke fun at whoever it is highlighting, so again the focus strays from concrete fact.

Another aspect of satirical news is the speed that the information can travel¹; because it is not always factual, stories can be forged to be more controversial, for example, and will spread faster as a result. Whether this is good or bad for the public sphere is dependent on whether this satire is viewed in the right way; if viewers keep in mind that this content is satirical, it may lead to a public that is more critical of the news that it is presented with, which would benefit public awareness and critical thinking. However, if this content is regarded as serious and factual, widespread misinformation would result, pushing citizens even further from the news and harming awareness and the public sphere in general.

In an age of scandals and misinformation, only exacerbated by the internet and the ease of creation that technology has enabled, something that engages the public and gets them thinking about the accuracy and legitimacy of media content seems essential. Satirical news media has been shown to urge this kind of thinking when the true intentions of the media itself have been revealed. I believe that satirical news is not only culture jamming but also a useful addition to the public sphere based on the fact that it can promote critical thinking in the general public.

·         ¹“Email and other forms of computer mediated communication (CMC) have been celebrated as being both democratic and empowering mediums of mass communication because they enable individuals and small groups to get their message out to large numbers of people without having to contend with restrictive policies and regulations or prohibitively expensive equipment and production costs” (O’Shaughnessy, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO_om3iK9kE

References

O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J.. (2012). Media and Society. 5^th Ed. South Melbourne, Oxford University Press

Similarities and/or differences of techniques for interpellating your demographic

There are several different techniques of hailing people to consume products but none of them seem to reflect well on the consumer. These techniques seemingly bank on the sheep-like nature of the consumer, suggesting that we as consumers will buy anything that is labelled trendy. As far as I am concerned, the way that these advertisers attempt to hail us speaks to our current social nature and there is nothing positive about it.

Apart from a handful of campaigns, advertisers rarely highlight the good in people; they go to great lengths to highlight the bad and offer a product to ‘fix’ what is deemed to be the problem. Advertising aimed at women is the biggest culprit of this, and statements like “women nowadays are not use to being told they are beautiful by advertising¹” do not seem unusual. Advertisers seemingly seek to create insecure consumers in order to sell them products which will ultimately offer them the security they once had. This may explain, at least to some degree, the mental health problems that are present today and the overall lack of self-esteem that is seen more often now, especially in females.  

Advertisers and media do not always seek to diminish everyone’s self-esteem; sometimes it is only a select few that they target. Historically, light skinned people have been labelled better than those with dark skin; slavery is the most extreme example of this but hints of this ideal are still present today. Television programs and advertisements are a main source of this thought, leading people to “believe that fair skinned is beautiful since ‘the television programs focus on individual starts and personalities’ who are mostly light skinned.²” It can be argued that there are subtle or blatant hints of racism present in media, advertising and ultimately the world, but it cannot be argued that people are being degraded in advertisements.

When advertisers are not targeting consumer’s individual sense of self-esteem, they use the social setting to try to coerce the public to consume their product. Quite often the idea of being left out of social circles is used to gather support for a product which leads to social groups built on what products its members consume. Advertisers assume that these group settings have immense control over people, particularly young people, and lead to advertisements that say things like “my skin is softer right away, even my friends notice.³” Setting up these little social groups based on product consumption is creating more blind consumers because they become accustomed to buying things simply to conform to the group expectations.

As evidenced above, advertiser’s view of their consumers, particularly young people, is quite negative. Various ads show that consumers are viewed as shallow and insecure in that they can be swayed into buying products by commercials and ad campaigns that create problems that can only be fixed by a certain product as well as coerce consumers into buying a certain product by suggesting that we will be ostracized from social groups without it. Personally, I feel these are horrible representations that sadly are at least somewhat accurate; a majority of my peers seem content in simply following trends.

Special thanks to:

¹http://cpcfkells.blogspot.ca/

²http://vaishnavicpcf.blogspot.ca/2013/11/what-hail.html

³http://britshannon.blogspot.ca

What the Hail?

Advertisers target certain demographics with each advertisement they create and they use methods called hailing and interpellation to get the attention of the target demographic. This involves explicitly identifying those that they wish to reach (“hey you with the _____”). This method can be extremely successful in reaching the audience but it can also fail in its attempts.

For this entry, I chose the Sailor Jerry commercial to examine. This advertisement is a collection of images that portrays a sort of alternative lifestyle which is made to seem appealing. This alternative lifestyle includes, among other things, tattoos, girls and lots of alcohol in a very laid back, party-like setting. The text points out that “the point is that all media texts, all forms of language and representation, carry ideological meanings” (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2012, p. 181-2) and this advertisement is no exception. The ideological meaning portrayed in this party-like atmosphere is one of manliness, which is represented through the tattoos, the partying and the implied copious amounts of rum consumed.

The text has a quote that describes hailing and interpellation very well through the use of a personal example; “my teachers ‘hailed’ or ‘interpellated’ me, Michael, as ‘the wild Irishman’ and I accept this, recognized myself, and internalized the ideological values of the wild Irishman as my identity” (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2012, p. 185). This ad seeks to hail potential rum customers by presenting a lifestyle that is laid back and free of responsibility, showing only the positive points of a party-centric way of life. The numerous girls that are seen throughout the commercial only strengthen its appeal to male viewers and presenting an alternative lifestyle is always appealing to consumers, and is now appealing to producers as well since the counter culture is now bought off the shelf.

  This ad appealed to me personally because of my liking of counter culture, which was not incited by this commercial. The lifestyle that was portrayed in the ad, namely one of no cares and lots of partying and fun, would appeal to most of the population, especially those that work hard and behave according to society’s rules. Behaving according to the rules of society would be obeying and conforming to the norms and laws that are present and constantly enforced in one’s culture. This ad however did not make a connection to the product that was explicit enough for me to associate the images from the commercial with this rum only. The only connection between the rum and the images of the commercial is that the people shown might have consumed rum prior to these activities.

This advertisement succeeds in hailing a very broad demographic with the use of the girls and the portrayal of a care free lifestyle, especially since it seems that the average person is becoming busier as time progresses. However, the lack of connection between the images that the commercial presents and the rum that it is trying to sell is simply not explicit enough to make me want to try this rum. This ad campaign has failed to hail me personally but will likely be reasonably successful due to its broad focus.

References

O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J.. (2012). Media and Society. 5^th Ed. South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

Is the media we want the same as the media we need?

The question of whether we get the media we need and whether it should inform us about the world seems fairly straightforward. But the more you look at it, the complicated this question becomes.

Like most people, I do not seek out informative media; for me, this is because I am simply not happy with what I find. For example, whenever I turn on the news someone is dying or going to jail and following politics is just disappointing; last time I checked Mayor Ford was smoking crack. All of the “news” I receive is so sensationalized that, because I am interested in the real facts, it stops me from looking for other news because I am so disappointed with what I get, I no longer want to bother. Brooke believes that, “people can help do things to get the media we want such as exclude details, not releasing certain information to the public, etc.” (Harnum, 2013) and I agree with that; it is my opinion that this is exactly how news agencies make certain headlines more shocking and controversial, which deters me from being interested in the news.

“Think of going through life blindfolded, everywhere you go, you are guided and told what your surroundings look like, what the actions of others are, and what is constantly going on around you. This depiction portrays your life” (mm13sa, 2013). This would be the world of a person who is totally unaware of what is going on around them and it is hard to stay informed. There are those few examples of social media benefitting someone’s social consciousness, however. On Facebook, I am subscribed to The Sociological Cinema, which disseminates sociological information, and Upworthy, a page that raises awareness of a variety of issues, several of which are related to the media. Most of the stories on these sites are interesting and would draw viewer attention but these are also both pages that I found incidentally after years on Facebook and I never really access them unless I am already online.

The reason not many people are compelled to seek awareness through media is because we have associated media with being meant for pleasure. As Amy Lowe (2013) wrote in a blog post, “we often choose the media that we want whether it is informative or not,” and she is right. No one would argue that more people watch TMZ than CPAC. And TMZ is an example of another reason people do not seek informative media; they are conditioned to have shorter attention spans. Between advertisements and TV shows that do not focus on one thing for very long, people are conditioned to have shorter attention spans and then cannot focus long enough to analyze or store important information.

Whether or not we get the media we need is up for debate and is all dependent on what people feel the media is responsible for. However, if you are looking for something more stimulating than mainstream media, you will have to find it on your own.

Special thanks to:                                                                                                                                                      

http://brookeharnum1.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-media-we-want/

http://lifeoflowe.wordpress.com/

http://mm13sa.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-media-we-want/

Do we get the media we want, or want the media we get?

                A seldom argued fact about the media today is that they are incredibly powerful. The degree of their influence over the public is such that we are asking, do we get the media we want, or want the media we get. For example, look at Duck Dynasty, the reality television show about a family company making duck calls. A couple of years ago, a show like this seemed absurd and now it is a top-rated show on A&E. The media requires support to be successful, but are they powerful enough to change the desires of viewers?

                One argument may be that media outlets can change public desires as evidenced by the constant flow of young pop stars. For example, Hilary Duff was marketed as the good girl by Disney and her show and other commodities (dolls, clothes, etc.) were very popular. Soon after, Miley Cyrus got a television show and we stopped hearing from Hilary Duff. Some would say the success of these two acts is evidence of a change in audience desires, but these too acts were incredibly similar. Both stars were originally marketed as the “good girl” and both had music and television careers supported by Disney. The change was not in the desire or the content, but simply the face that was connected to it all.

                Another aspect of this duality is dependent on the media companies wanting to stay in business, which really means that they want to make money. As is so often experienced, rocking the boat, to speak metaphorically, is not always well received in pop culture. A company that could successfully start a trend would perhaps be very well rewarded, however, “as an antidote to the notion of a powerful elite in charge of the media, note that the media have to sell themselves successfully to large numbers of the population; they have to win big audiences in order to be economically viable and survive (O’Shaughnessy et al. 2012). It is very risky to start trends and I do not believe that media companies are willing to take that risk.

All of this stems from the media companies underlying desire; making money. As the textbook says, “most media changes have occurred in capitalist economies, so their development has been hugely influenced by profit motives and we must understand that the media have been developed in the interest of making money” (O’Shaughnessy et al. 2012), which means they are far more likely to follow trends simply to make money. This goal explains why a company would support an artist so fervently and then simply just drop them and choose another artist.

Media today has an enormous influence on people of all races, ages and social classes. It is arguably corrupting the youth of the world, turning them into nothing but consumer robots that buy anything they are told to. I believe the media has a more firm grasp on the desires of children but overall, as evidenced, I do not believe they control the desires of the masses.

References

O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J.. (2012). Media and Society. 5^th Ed. South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

1f25 blog response 1: Media Impact on Others

Despite taking in a large amount of similar media, the thoughts of the people that have consumed it are, though very similar, different in their specifics. For example, in this post I draw on the thoughts of three other students that all view media as having negative effects on society. However, each of them differs in their thoughts on and approaches to the media and though they all mention things that I previously did not, they have all added new dimensions to the media as I know it.   

Reading Brent’s post, I completely understand what he is saying. Claiming that the “ally of justice” (http://bb11tl.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/cpcf-1f25-assignment-1-how-the-media-affects-my-own-personal-worldview/), in him is slowly disappearing and that the media is to blame really struck a chord in me. Like Brent, I once held the idealistic view of the world that he describes early on and was dissuaded from these thoughts by the media. Though Brent makes a valid point about the reality that the media portrays, I do not want to agree with it because it is such a sad picture of media. However I know that it is true and completely agree with Brent.

                Different from but still complimentary to Brent’s post is Hunter’s post. Hunter agrees that the media has a substantial influence on its consumers and that this influence is primarily negative, but he goes into more explicit detail of how the media appears to do so. Hunter feels that the media shapes messages by withhold important details, which I also strongly agree with. It is described in the post that “media has made us their puppets” (http://lunterhackey.blogspot.ca  /2013/09/impact-of-media-on-my-worldview.html), and while I do not agree that the statement applies to all, I agree that it has a large influence.

                Montana agrees that media has a vast influence on people just as Brent and Hunter do, though she approaches this belief differently. As she puts it, “you get affected through movies, magazines; media sites (Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr and many others)” (http://montanahighley.wordpress.com /2013/09/19/1f25-post-1-media-impact-2/) and she is totally right; we are bombarded constantly by various forms of media and her approach to dealing with this is the one I connect with most. She continued to be herself and refused to let the media change her, which was my initial view until I let myself become opposed to mainstream media and fought  it.

                Though I did not explicitly express the ideas found in the three blogs I have referenced, I agree with all of these insights and they each add a new dimension to my view of the media. In hindsight, Montana’s approach to rebelling against the media seems more logical than my own, but it fights against media in a different way, namely choosing your own path whereas I allowed media to push me in the direction I was headed. Both Brent and Hunter’s posts appeal to my inner cynic and raise some good points of their own. All three posts have offered fresh insights and have made me contemplate my own position on the media.