ChittyChittyBangBang 4/1

Tuesday's class was a fun discussion. It was very entertaining to watch the clips from Outfoxed and see how ridiculous the news can be sometimes. It was interesting to divide up the different main sources of news such as Fox, CNN, ABC, and NBC and talk about the types of news they are each going to try to show because of who owns them. Such as Dr. Rog's example of what channel you should turn on if you want to hear about a baby suffocating in a refrigerator....fox... : ). It really goes to show that depending on what news source you favor really makes the difference of what information you know, what you believe, and that biases are going to be in each one. My parents for example, ONLY watch FOX news and they try to convince me that that’s all I need to watch. (even though im sure they too know the stereotypes of FOX) After taking some CMC classes though I'm a bit skeptical of taking any of the sources 100% seriously. There is so much propaganda behind the media.

I thought the examples in class about the weather reports were pretty funny. Bourdieu talks about how the "object of news is constructed in accordance with the perceptual categories of the receiver." (328) So a topic such as the weather is usually safe and often discussed even in people's personal lives if they are stuck in an awkward situation. It usually comes up as a conversation piece. Like many other things in the media, the weather stories are usually extremely exaggerated/dramatic! We talked about the famous shot of the news anchor standing in front of the shore for instance with an umbrella that’s breaking in half and the wind howling so hard that the anchor is yelling at the top of their lungs etc...etc... I also really want to find that clip of the lady canoeing down the street during a flood and then have a man walk right behind her. The news can be comical but they usually succeed in stirring interest and high audience ratings.

Another point I want to mention is the notion that people don't want to be challenged and hear complex things. The audience usually just listens to what the media says is bad such as Global Warming even though most people do not know or have the desire to know details behind the phenomena. I know I have spoken to people who do not do things that could help prevent global warming (or even really understand what it is) but talk about how scary and real the problem is. It doesn’t really add up. The news may scare several people but they don't always do the best job in actually informing and accurately educating their viewers.

ChittyChittyBangBang Bourdieu

I enjoyed Bourdieu's depiction of postmodern TV. Television is one of the most powerful media sources around the world. "...the evening news on French TV brings together more people than all the French newspapers together...when the information supplied by a single news medium becomes a universal source of news, the resulting political and cultural effects are clear" (328).

The news tries to favor topics that are appealing to "everyone" and according to Bourdieu usually just "confirm what they already know" so that problems don't arise. People expect to see certain things when they turn on their TV; our society likes structure and wants to be satisfied. Most "romantic comedies" for instance give you around the same order of events and usually the same kind of ending that we want to see in order to be satisfied. For example, most women when watching those movies want the fairytale ending and if they don't get it then the movie was unsuccessful and shocking. The same goes for the news. The news tries to give us the type of stories that they think we want. To keep our attention in the news we like to hear violent and bizarre stories therefore the news sometimes might be criticized for exaggeration and biases. Audience ratings are what counts; Bourdieu emphasizes the competition in the journalistic field of TV which shines through in onscreen interactions. (331)

Bella Post Class 4/1

I loved the OutFoxed video we watched in class today. In fact, I liked it so much, I just spent an hour on Youtube watching several different clips from Outfoxed and Fox News. Earlier today, my Dad had emailed me an excerpt from the book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone? and I felt that it was a perfect correlation with what we discussed in class, today. In class, Dr. Rog said, “Media has a liberal bias…The world is dominated by ideology”. The world is dominated by ideologies–ideologies that keep us silent, feeling helpless and passive. Where have all the leaders gone? Lee Iacocca wrote,

"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course" Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic!”

I felt outraged at the idea of being a passive receiver of propaganda and media messages. I feel as if I barely recognize our country anymore. I haven’t been around for very long, and this culture is all I’ve ever known. What if the generations that come after me don’t understand the idea of propaganda anymore; what if it becomes “real”? What if Fox News becomes the norm? Ahhh, it makes me anxious just thinking about it. I guess it is our responsibility to stand up and say ENOUGH. We need to tell our politicians that we’re not stupid, that we know what they’re doing, tell the media to stop playing down to us, tell Congress to actually accomplish something. Bourdieu said, “Here in lies the danger of simplistic criticism. It takes the place of the work necessary to understand phenomena….” (Bourdieu 329). Simplicity will not suffice. I’m going to take this big green theory book and start bashing people’s heads in until they get it. Well, maybe not that violently, but I just can’t take it anymore.

Bumble: Bourdieu

While reading Bourdieu, I could not help but to think about Benjamin or Lyotard the concept that has been drilled into our heads that something successful is something that has already been created and is simply repeated. What is our aversion to something different or new. As I have always believed that humans are creatures of habit and everything and anything can shake our core and throw us into oblivion. Think about why we enjoy putting on a TV show like FRIENDS, we know that every time we turn on that TV we will be seeing the character Joey act in a certain way and Chandler will make some cheesy and pathetic joke. It is comforting for us to see and hear. We always like to be comforted and have ritual behavior in our intimate or close relationships. Imagine you have a best friend who you open up to about everything. This friend is a vegan because she is an avid animal lover and has a gentle persona. You expect a certain behavior from this person and we build expectations about how this person will act. One day you see her and you find she has on a leather coat and bunny ear muffs and orders a steak from Ruth’s Chris Steak House… UM, what would you do? This is not expected, this is like a sub culture, she stepped away from this thing you knew and suddenly it is NOT what you want anymore. We learn to expect and so when something changes it can be very disconcerting.

Our television shows and news casters are our spiritual guides? We do spend a great deal of time preoccupied watching the news which is supposed to represent reality. We weren’t there though, so how do we know it is real? We formulate these ideas in our heads about how we are supposed to interpret the news and what to expect from it. These ideologies are powerful because they lead or guide America to all think in the same plane of thought. For my CMC200 paper I am examining how most people receive much of their understanding about sex and relationships from the media and often look at TV shows for advice on how to act on a date, or how to “be” in a relationship. It is all channels all sources that guide us in our daily behaviors that we might not even be aware of!

bumble: post class april 1 // Chomsky and science?

Chomsky and Bourdeu believe that everything is lived by ideologies… there are biases in everything… What I am curious to learn about is, what in the world do they think about hard science? Do they believe that there is a possible differentiation between social sciences and hard sciences? Is it possible to conduct an objective scientific experiment? Science is an interesting topic to approach in this course because many theorists like Baudrillard question if there is reality or not!? If there is in fact no reality, or simply things mimicking reality then can there be scientific facts? Part of post modernism is that everything is open to interpretation and there are no solid facts. If everyone took the post modern approach to life then perhaps we would not have scientific and technological advancements like we do.

Bumble: post class April 1st

The evangelical pastor video which we watched today really made me think, what exactly do we value as Americans? The second video with the word over lays absolutely is positive for Barack. Let me explain… so initially it seemed as though the pastor was almost attacking our country and takes on a pessimistic view of ourselves. However, when the words were over laid on the clip and the question popped up “just think about it,” it did in fact provoke a lot of thought.

What do we want in a leader? Is it wrong to take an introspective stance and be able to acknowledge flaws or problems that need to be worked out. Any interviewer and job owner would tell you that in an interview you better be prepared to answer the question about what is your greatest flaw. If you can admit to a problem or mistakes then you are not living in denial, you are living in truth. America stands on truth, and maybe we need to face our world problems because it is the first and crucial step to making things better. I like a leader who won’t just push down problems, the pastor was not saying that we are evil, but perhaps just saying (VERY MUCH LIKE A CRITICAL STUDIES CLASS) that we can not just accept what we hear without thinking critically about the truth. Also, it makes Obama look even stronger because if you are willing to step in a take on the responsibility of leading our country and you are willing to admit to certain flaws than it proves even more his love for the country. I get upset when any candidate is bashed so much because I think it is important to note how much you have to be willing to sacrifice when running for president. You open up your life to the scrutiny and attack of every media outlet. The responsibility that president has for the entire nation, for the peace between nations, and for keeping an entire population of such diverse religions and ideals united as the nation of America. To keep the support of such a large group pf people from all different economic, social, racial, and religious backgrounds is next to impossible. Also, like the job of any authority figure, there is a tough place to be in to lay your foot down with rules and regiment, but not be a dictator and also not have the reputation of being harsh or mean. Clearly you have to deal with a lot of problems faced and no one would put themselves out there in such a clear path of danger and vulnerability unless they did really care.

booboo bear April 1

“Can you Google that for me please?” Dr. Casey

I think this quote by Dr. Casey is postmodernism at its best. Dr. Casey was asking Dr. Tillman in class to search for a website. He used the word Google as a verb. Google is a search engine website, so 5 years ago the question would be asked, “Can you search that on Google for me?” We have become so familiar with the word and its meaning that Google can be used as a verb. This is a bit off topic but I thought it was appropriate.


In class we talked about Obama’s Pastor and his recent controversy. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Obama’s Pastor is not Obama. Why do we have such an obsession with this man when he has nothing to do with Obama’s presidential run? This is ridiculous! By no means am I a supporter of Obama but I find it extremely unfair to use this man to bring Obama down. I almost feel like people couldn’t find anything else negative to say about this man, so they went looking for people he is linked to. The crazy thing is, Obama wasn’t even in attendance that day.

Since we are on the topic of politics, I wanted to raise a couple issues I have problems with. First of all, why can’t we form an unbiased news source that presents each candidate’s plans and allow the people to make the decisions for themselves. As a person who knows nothing about any of the candidate’s policies, I want to know about each candidate and what they are going to do to improve our country (not what their preacher thinks). This brings back the quote from Lawton Chiles that Dr. Rog mentioned, “if you got to explain it, you aint gonna win.” I want it to be explained to me. If not my vote will be based on whoever my dad tells me to vote for. Which brings me to my next point, why is everyone allowed to vote? I know this is against our philosophy of a democratic society but honestly, we are in a world where we have a bunch of people who will not vote for someone because of superficial ideas. For example, some people won’t vote for Obama because of his pastor and some people might not vote for Hillary because they might think, if she cant control her husband (Lewinsky ordeal) how can she control this country (Yes, I have heard this). I think we should have to pass a test to be allowed to vote. Otherwise, the fate of our country is in the hands of ignorant people.

Before I get bashed for my last comments, I think it is ridiculous that I am allowed to vote. I know absolutely nothing about any of the candidates but my vote counts just as much as someone who might devote their entire lives to breaking down the pros and cons of every candidate.

Sgt. Pepper, 3/27

Like many people stated in their post-class responses, it's a little eerie to think about how much our thoughts are controlled by the hegemonic power. Chomsky explains in his article, "A Propaganda Model," that for the most part, we are so affected by propaganda through mass media, constant advertisement exposure, etc. that we do not even notice how much it shapes us. What scares me the most about this notion is the fact that these morals, or fashion statements, or whatever it is that we're being fed, it's all a matter of consumerism. Like I mentioned in my Bourdieu article, it is all motivated by profits. Hegemony doesn't care if we're in debt, unhappy, or unhealthy, it only cares if we're buying.

I am a victim of this whole process. I am what Chomsky might refer to as the blind consumer, unaware of what he is being told to do, how to think, how to act, how to dress, how to live his life. And it's such a disappointment because I am now realizing that the way people are being told to act, dress, and live is not with their best interests at heart. It's with other people's wallets in mind. Just like TV is sucking the creativity and art out of people's everyday lives, consumerism is sucking the happiness.

Sgt. Pepper, Bourdieu

I really enjoyed Bourdieu's article about the field of journalism and how much it is being affected by postmodernism. And by postmodernism, Bourdieu is primarily referring to television. He begins by discussing why TV "works," or gets the ratings, that newspapers don't these days because it "promotes social conformity and market values." (329). I, personally, do not watch TV because I just cannot find time in my day. I don't see how people do it. What I've noticed since I stopped watching TV, though, is that when I do sit down to watch it, it puts me in a daze. Like Bourdieu explains, there is nothing truly shocking on TV. There is no creativity, and it is no where near an art form. This reminded me of Horkheimer's and Adorno's criticism of film in today's society and its lack of quality. Instead of making a movie or a TV show about a worthwhile topic that is important but could potentially offend some people, movie makers and TV show producers are taking the safer, hegemonic path. And this lack of creativity, these mindless forms of entertainment are all about one thing: profits. Not only are they made to attract a specific (yet general) crowd, but the TV show itself further promotes these hegemonic views which could include a moral stance on abortion or a certain brand of soft drink to buy. What Bourdieu is trying to prove in his article is that since TV promotes a certain way of thinking, it affects every part of one's life often leaving no more room for newspapers. TV shows/news programs also cater to the Casey's "cult of the new" concept since it is on 24 hours/day. In this article, Bourdieu discusses TV as an ever-expanding mass media form and notes the affect it's already had on the newspaper industry. I like how he titles one section of his article "Making Everything Ordinary," because that is exactly what's happening with the same messages being drilled into the millions of heads that watch TV every day. Hopefully as Bourdieu's message is spread, people might start to appreciate a more spontaneous approach to sources of media.

July--> Bourdieu

Media shapes our minds into numerous universal ideologies, which is unconsciously done to the people by media reporters who are aware of their actions. The media space should be held accountable for their actions, but the audience needs to be able to shape and mold their own ideas into the notions given from discourse. Media faces two alternatives when being produced: going in the direction of the dominant model (which is known as dominant hegemonic readings) or emphasizing on its differences and engaging into a product differentiation (which is known as oppositional readings). Another form of media reading is negotiated readings, which is a mixture of dominant hegemonic and oppositional readings, this form is difficult to detect.

Dominant hegemonic discourse is determined by hegemonies’ ideologies. For example, the NEWS channel is altered to fit certain perspectives that are already casted into society, but it is up to the individual to step out of the box and create their own thoughts. The NEWS channel cast numerous of stereotypes about different cultures and if someone believes and acts in a certain way because of previous notions about that culture, then the participant is associated with dominant hegemonic encoding and decoding.

Oppositional discourse is rejecting the dominant hegemonic reading and creating a newer version of the ideal that was suggested by the media. For example, MySpace is associated with negative labels because of the mishaps that have taken place on this one website. A concerned parent may proceed with caution if their child is a member of MySpace, but she will not make her child delete her account, she will only inform her child about the security issues that has occurred or will occur. Of course, the parent understood the concept of MySpace being a bad place for children, but she undermined all of it and handled the situation in her own way.

July 3-27-08

Last weeks class was kind of interesting, we constantly talked about the media circle and how reproduction has an ongoing effect and the components that supports it. The four propaganda ingredients: 1) size, wealth, concentration of media ownership, 2) advertising as primary income source, 3) reliance of media on institutional information source (experts), 4) Flak (media hides stories that will hurt the industry), and 5) anti communism is used as a control mechanism, obviously play major roles when producing material to society.

There are two out of the five ingredients that I would like to touch base on because they are more common in the post-modern culture. First, ingredient number four determines what is forecasted in front of the public’s sphere. Government officials have a lot of hidden stories or twisted stories that they feel should or shouldn’t be casted. For example, the war in Iraq is a strong subject for many families and individuals because they have loved ones fight over there for our country. At the Peace Film Festival there was a film that showed all of the demoralizing events that took place, but it wasn’t produced by the main media circle, it was documented by an insider. Some of the events that took place included sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse to its maximum potential. Media coverage wasn’t forecast on our NEWS channels because our American troops were the ones who committed these dehumanizing acts, not the Iranians.

The final ingredient is number five, which suggests that those who go against American policies or ideologies will be casted as anti-communism. I personally have a problem with this notion because it takes away from the freedom that America suggests to its people. As long as citizens are not breaking laws that effect or harm government officials, then they shouldn’t be given a negative connotation. Framing an individual as an anti-communist is a control mechanism for authority figures.

Starfish Bourdieu

This article was helpful to me personally because my paper for CMC 200 has to do with the influence that television has on its viewers. Many people do not realize just how powerful television is. People tend to say that they are not affected by the news, or other television programming they watch, but the truth is whether they know it or not, they are. People look to television to get their news, and to be entertained and a lot of the time their thoughts and views on the world are affected subconsciously. It is not only the programs that affect the viewer but Bourdieu says that the individuals on these programming have a certain power over the viewer.

“Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we “should think” about what they call “social problems”, such as violence in the inner city or in schools” (329)

After reading this quote the first thing that popped into my head was Opera, the most famous talk show host of all time. I know woman who almost base their lives around Opera talks about on her show. People look to her for guidance and think a certain way because Opera tells them too. Her book club is another great example of her influence over people. If a book is on Opera’s list and has been highly recommended by her, the book sells like crazy. Everyone needs to read it because Opera says so.

Another point Bourdieu makes is that television has upstaged print media. “Television’s power of diffusion means that it poses a terrible problem for the print media...”328. I like this to the concept of “cult of the new.” In the postmodern culture, we want everything bigger, newer and faster. When you compare television to a newspaper or print source, there is no competition. Television brings people the information they want when they want it, and is more technologically advanced.

Bella Bourdieu

When referring to journalists, Bourdieu wrote, “Above all, though, with their permanent access to public visibility, broad circulation, and mass diffusion–an access that was completely unthinkable for any cultural producer until television came into the picture–these journalists can impose on the whole of society their vision of the world, their conception of problems, and their point of view” (Bourdieu 330). He describes how journalism has become divided, and differentiated, separating itself from other forms of media, establishing its mode of expression and the representation of opinions and ideas. I think he is arguing that journalists (on television) are responsible for manipulating information and picking and choosing what is represented on air, but I’m not sure I agree. He didn’t seem to address the factors behind the representation of information on television. Every journalist has a boss that they must answer to; every boss has a superior, and so on. Each person answers to a higher power that influences and helps to decide which information is provided to the public. In my mind, the journalist is at the very bottom of the ‘news food chain’–they are simply ordered about, told what story to research, find everything out, give the report to the handsome man and woman anchors for the show, and watch them read it aloud. The higher powers have personal interests in which stories are presented, whether it is coming from economic or political persuasion, or whatever, the journalist is not making the most important decision of all. Granted, Bourdieu is probably looking at a lower level–anything that comes from one person’s mouth to another’s ear is going to be biased, selective, and changed. Perhaps that is what Bourdieu is talking about in his piece about Television. He wrote, “The effect is censorship, which journalists practice without even being aware of it. They retain only the things capable of interesting them and “keeping their attention,” which means things that fit their categories and mental grid; and they reject as insignificant or remain indifferent to symbolic expressions that ought to reach the population as a whole” (Bourdieu 330). He also mentioned the ‘pseudo scholarly research’ being performed on media currently, and how some people have declared ‘mediology’ a science, to which he clearly disagrees. Ultimately, Bourdieu feels that “the increased influence of the most cynical and most successful seekers after anything sensational, spectacular, or extraordinary, a certain vision of the news comes to take over the whole of the journalistic field” (Bourdieu 332).

romulus Bourdieu

"Human interest stories create a political vacuum. They depoliticize and reduce what goes on in the world to the level of anecdote or scandal." 

The essay notes that the evening news brings together more Frenchmen than any newspaper can. It is a wonderfully disturbing thought that a massive amount of people tune into the exact same thing at the same time. It showcases the powerful medium that television is. One of the number of issues associated with this daily phenomena is that one perspective is being peddled to consumers. I refer to television audiences as consumers, because that is what people do when they sit in front of the tube, consume what is being presented to them. 

In order for people to continue spending their time watching the evening news, the journalists presenting are given material that the network decides is worthy to talk about. This causes a number of stories to be ignored in favor of those that are produce higher ratings. This puts a journalist in a difficult position that is messy and potentially morally challenging. What makes a great journalist? Barbara Walters is an icon in the news media. So are the boys over on Comedy Central, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The writers strike proved how unfunny John is without them, but he's still one great 'fake' real journalist. These three figures are a brand in themselves. Honestly I cannot name anyone from France who reports on the news. Is a true journalist a person who can create an identity that does not necessarily depend on the network that they work for? 

Nichole Bourdieu

When I first began reading this article I thought the direction it was beginning to take was quite the opposite. It says that “the political and cultural effects are clear when the information supplied by a single news medium becomes the universal source of news” (328). I thought the clear direction was that the leading means of news would begin to spread false information much like a tabloid would do as well as push for one or so products in advertising because there are no competitors and could monopolize the advertising world. However, the article took quite the opposite position and said that in order to not offend ANYone, the news would be glossed over and “soft” media information like the weather forecast is.

Bourdieu continues on to explain that this happens at times when people don’t necessarily WANT it to happen but somehow seem willed to happen. This quote reminds me of Lyotards essay which discusses revolting against the things that happen unwillingly; to challenge the normal and let creativity rein once again and not to fall into the cracks as Bourdieu describes is happening with television news vs. print media at present.

I don’t particularly care for his argument on journalists dominating members of social superiority. Obviously there are certain people, journalists associated with a particular paper or magazine, that have continual access to expressing their vision on one topic or another. Although they strive to remain neutral obvious biases to one side or another will occur and unfortunately readers may be suaded with the argument to one side or another. That much I agree with, but I think in no way that journalists want to break down the “experts” (we talked about in class) by dis-crediting them of their knowledge. They are not out to break down the intellectual crowd to gain a step up from them. I can, perhaps, see where his argument might come from: the most popular news articles, especially right now, are the cons of the presidential candidates (perhaps why people say they are going to vote for “the least bad candidate”), because its easier to point out where people mess up than when they bring up a good point (The recent blooper by Hillary that made headlines says she “was under sniper fire”). The journalists, I feel, are simply sharing information that others should be aware about; not to bring powerful people down.

NewYorker - Bourdieu

This article was pretty straight forward and said a lot of the things we are already aware of of the media and TV industry. The part I liked the best was "Such visibility [about being on TV] gives them greater status in their newspaper or journal. Any journalist who wants power or influence has to have a TV program." 331. The fact of the matter is, is that it is basically true. TV produces great exposure because it can reach millions of people at once, and it is instant. People can easily tune in, and usually if there is a TV show that is out, people have heard of it. They are more likely to hear of a show than to have heard of a title of an article in a newspaper/magazine. Also, nowadays with DVRs and TiVo, people are more able to watch more TV because they can record several shows, or record a program when they are not home and watch it later. Even channels show reruns if it gets such great ratings, that they will show it again.
Also, when we spoke about experts, the ones that make it to a talk show or news program, are going to get even more credibilty, and if they have a book out (which they probably do because that is usually the reason for getting on a show in the first place,) their sales will go up because of their exposure. I know of several books that were just ordinary books until Oprah exposed them on her show and made them part of her Book Club. Or even chefs who work for nice restaurants, once they get a segment with Ellen or Martha Stewart, their careers sky rocket. It's amazing how much influence celebrities can have over someone's career and credibility.
He also spoke about the power of television itself. TV is consumed by ratings and the audience's demands. That influences what gets shown - it's like a cycle. We want more blood and gory, we get more doctor/hospital shows. We want more crime and action, we get 24 and CSI. We feed off of other's depression and misfortune, because that is all we see on the news and in shows.

BubbaNub: Jameson

Jameson's "The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" attempts to break down the key components of postmodernity, and in doing so brings together numerous concepts of works that we have previously read. Clearly this era is not a singular definitive but rather an eclectic gathering of the degraded modern, the nostalgic historic, and the "hysterical sublime." He is quick to recognize that postmodernism is most evident in archictecture, relating directly to Jencks. Then he goes even farther, acknowledging Adorno's concept that "pastiche eclipses parody." He even echoes the sentiments of Barthes and Eco by speaking of the inimitable styles of postmodernity and the new "real" city.

Altogether Jameson doesn't bring together many original observations of his own, but merely compiles the previous research of some great theorists in a very presentable manner that we have not seen before. After looking at all these various theorists separately, it can be difficult to see where their individualistic ideals fit into the scope of postmodernity as a whole, however, Jameson does just that. I found reading this, specifically at this place and time during the course, to be very helpful in obtaining a grander sense of the intricacies of our era.

romulus 3.27

I recently found out through the net about Larry King, the middle schooler who was shot on Valentine's day by another boy. Why haven'nt we talked about this in class? I am sick with people not educating their kids about the existence of gays and lesbians. To claim morals is not to initiate in blatant ignorance and disrespect for others. Even with a downright idiot in office who preached second class citizenship for his own people, you would assume that people are not that intolerant or dumb.


Here is Ellen discussing it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3855885439646181824&q=larry+king+gay+ellen&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

SInce when is it okay to go around shooting people? Who raises a child to act in that manner?

With everything that is going in in contemporary media, some will say that technology consumes our lives. I agree with those people. It had made our lives more interconnected and much easier. Mass communications has created titans who collectively are producing nothing short of a phenomena. Corporations like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Myspace and Facebook are working with each other not to dominate the world but to move us forward at leaps and bounds. Through creative exchange laws, these companies showcase the power of private enterprise. Capitalism has done wonders, providing services the public sphere cannot. . U.A.E. is an example of what massive wealth can accomplish without a heavy bureaucracy in place. The kingdom runs itself like a business. This is a good thing. Businesses know that in order to sell they will eventually have to catch up and be ahead of cultural trends. The greatest public space EVER is the Internet, which gave birth to these giants. Being online is a necessity, and those in charge of the hardware and software are benefiting the most. Facebook and Myspace grew out of online socializing, and reinvented them. In some areas, governments are totally missing the point. They have become slow, and American democracy has been polarized. The last election saw a fight between red and blue states, now most places on the map are purple.

WouldntULIke2Know Bourdieu

Pierre Bourdieu’s “On television” accurately reflects the dangerous power held by many forms of media, particularly television. His discussion of the abundance of human interest stories that function as essentially a distraction technique is spot on. These social problems are played off as issues of extreme concern given the over-reporting of the rare, but horrific account of something unthinkable.

Giving significance to these “social facts [which are] tailor-made to arouse the pathos and indignation of some commentators or the tedious moralizing of others. This same search for sensational news, and hence market success, can also lead to the selection of stories that give free reign to the unbridled constructions of demagoguery (whether spontaneous or intentional) or can stir up great excitement by catering to the most primitive drives and emotions (with stories of kidnapped children and scandals likely to arouse public indignation). Purely sentimental and therapeutic forms of mobilizing feelings can come into play, but, with murders of children or incidents tied to stigmatized groups, other forms of mobilization can also take place, forms that are just as emotional but aggressive enough almost to qualify as symbolic lynching” (333).

I wish that I had read this article before turning in my literary review for Dr. Tillmann’s Researching Media and Culture, which was precisely on this topic. I focused my review on the media representations of child abuse and the effects that stemmed from the sensationalized reporting of said events. Given that ratings drive what is shown, as Bourdieu and many others have explained, the public has a tainted view of the issue being reported. Such is the case with child abuse. The notion of the threat of stranger danger (i.e. Elizabeth Smart, Jessica Lunsford, etc.) is one that has created a public moral panic. The overwhelming fear that many parents have is based off of inaccurate reporting reflecting a rare threat. The problem with this lies in that this misinformation leads to parents being totally unaware of the more common threat facing their children, abuse that occurs in the home. People are then mobilized to support a cause that is less likely to occur and thus, completely ignore the real threat facing children.

BubbaNub: 3/27

I am not sure if pastiche always eclipsed parody. When I think about this concept, I feel as though with most things, that it has evolved and grown with our society. Pastiche was not so evident back in the days, and yet today I am incapable of watching 10 minutes of "unintentionally" funny TV without laughing. Our nation has grown so absurd in regards to certain laws and aspects that I feel as though the last option permitted to me is to laugh. We waste trillions of dollars on losing wars such as Iraq, Vietnam, and the infamous DRUG war while simultaneously we miraculously fail to acknowledge the overwhelming numbers of poverty and our failing economy. And yet, with all of this fact and known, there remains the ideological projectors that continue to regurgitate the same messages they have been told to tell since the founding of America. If one cannot see the ridiculous hypocritical nature of the society we live in, they are truly devoid of a sense of humor.

I believe, even we (the educated), the ones responsible for leading these social changes are so overwhelmed by the idiocracy of our nation that we feel helpless as to where to start. It feels as though we are supposed to put a puzzle back together, one whos pieces never fit from the start. There is actually a fairly recent film out called "Idiocracy" by the same director that did "Office Space" that uses forms of pastiche with parody to show us a future of a hysterically depressing world run by people who have slowly evolved into lazy and boarder line mentally challenged beings. It is funny because we can see it happening, we can see it as truth, and the absurdity of it all makes us weep with laughter.

Nichole 3-27

It is a pretty wild concept to think that we do not have any control over what we do anymore. Chomsky says that our decisions everyday are influenced and sometimes made entirely as a result of the media. Media outlets like the newspaper, magazines, daily news and television programs encode behaviors that will (they hope) influence consumers to partake in “institutional structures of the larger society”.
The ultimate hegemon, has the power to dictate what people will subscribe to. I am still guessing on who this might be but now I thinkg it is the highest producers and directors of the aforementioned media portals, most likely the people most educated (also the first on Chomsky’s list of systemic Propaganda: concentration of media ownership concerning size and wealth). This is perhaps also the derivative of the term “cultural schizophrenia”. Which we decided in class means that we are blurring the line between reality and what is fake. This also plays into the other term that we discussed in class “historiographic metafiction” which basically describes the means in which directors make a film “more realistic” by adding a historical character in order to set the time and place of the film better. The movie Factory Girl with Sienna Miller as Edie Sedgewick incorporates Bob Dylan into the film to better set the mood of the film. The addition of the fake Bob tells the reader that this is an artistic, wealthy crowd in the peak of the new movement of the 60s. I think that the play write does a good job when readers get this cultural schizophrenia because it means that the reader got lost in the film and forgotten that it is not possible to have the real person in the film, which happened with me while watching Factory Girl.

kaymac 3.27.08

Thursday's class depressed me quite a bit not only because it bashed the field that I want to get into, but because I know it's true and I still want to get into it, despite the fact that journalistic integrity has been thrown out the window. Which brings me to my question: Although we know that media is biased and influenced, why do we still trust it? (and my own personal question, why do I still want to get into it?).

I think the answer is that growing up, we have been constantly fed this idea that media is democratic and free and will give us the real story. However, as we grow older, we realize that media is not at all like that. Ideally, that's what it should be, but that is not what is on our televisions and in our newsstands. It's like when we were fed the story of Christopher Columbus in elementary school and as we grew older, we learn that Columbus didn't discover America, in fact, he didn't even set foot on the continent.

So then why do we still believe in it? And then why do we still feed the same crap that we're fed to our children? Why don't we tell them that corporate media is corrupted and is not to be trusted?

I would write more but my computer's about to die and I don't have my charger.

Starfish 3/27

In class last Thursday, we discussed Herman and Chomsky’s theories of propaganda. They believe that the purpose of mass media’s existence is solely for propaganda purposes. Mass media “…inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” 257. This got me wondering. Is everything around me propaganda? The scary thing about it is sometimes we cannot pin point when things are. Propaganda can affect us subconsciously, so are we on a day-to-day basis being brain washed?
Another thing that I found interesting was the idea of “opine and recline.” We think that in everything we do and believe that we have a choice. We have control over our own actions, but Herman and Chomsky say that this is merely an illusion. I would really like to believe that I have complete control over everything I do, but it makes sense that certain things I believe and think were subconsciously put in my head by the media.
The news is a big portal for propaganda. We read the paper or watch the news to be updated on what is going on in the world. We trust the news to give us the facts, but sometimes the news does not report the whole story. In CMC 200, we discussed how on a late night program they had a segment called “The Casualties of War.” They then proceeded to show the pictures of the men who had died in the War on Terror. The government was outraged when this occurred because they don’t want American’s to see images like this. They only want us to see the positives of war. They don’t want us to see the reality of situations.

Jiggy 3/30

Jameson stated that there exsists an "underside to culture", one that doesnt reflect the negitive aspects. I would have to agree with this statment and argue that our culture exsists at the expensive of the loss of others. Almost all our products are developed overseas in countries were labor laws allow for long hours and little pay, for the enjoyment and profit of our nation. This side that allows our culture to exsists doesnt benefit from our idealistic culture that has been developed in the hundred years but rather is suffocated by it. Countries such as China, Indonesia and India need our business to survive but the lifestyles and conditons that it puts its people in harbors pain and suffering. It would be interesting to think about how our country would look if everything had to be made here, what kind of cars would we drink and products would we buy. Would the poverty rate be so high with millions of more jobs available, how would the nation respond. It seems as though in the last hundred years we have decided to pit a sales war aganist eachother that has led to companies constantly searching for the cheapest way out. American made pride is left at the bottom of the list, with employment for our own people the last and worst option. Our culture has developed for the death and blood of natives of other countries but our own. A new swing of American made pride is happening, with companies like Apple pushing toward US design and production, but we still have a long way to go.