Through out the readings this semester one thing that has really frustrated me is that few of the theorists we read ever propose ideas on how to solve any problems. They can all spend countless pages pointing out what is wrong in the most confusing ways possible but none of them seem willing or able to provide any solutions to these problems. If we aren't going to solve problems, what is the point of pointing them all out?
Given this, I was happy to see Bordieu proposing some solutions to the problem he sees in the field of television and newspaper journalism. However, I can't say that I necessarily agreed with all of his suggestions. His first suggestion is a very good one. On page 334 he basically explains the need for news that focuses on societal systems and patterns as opposed to episodic human interest stories:
"You can't understand anything if you don't understand the field that produces [it]... This understanding is important both to remove the analysis form the level of drama and to direct action rationally."
This concept makes a lot of sense to me, if we stop seeing individual instances as "significant" and start looking at what is going on on a grander scale, the emotions of individual situations will be removed and we can act rationally towards changing problematic social systems. Bourdieu also suggests that perhaps journalists from different media and companies could work together to cover stories so there wasn't a constant rush to get the scoop and one reporter could do an in-depth report instead of a whole bunch doing "water ski" types of reports.
However, it is Bourdieu's next suggestion that makes me nervous. He is talking about how TV has the power to give people a voice and whoever shows up on TV can have their opinions heard. In this sense TV is empowering and since reporters have the ability to decide who ends up on TV, they can decide who has power. To this end he suggests, "journalists might agree to forget about audience ratings for once and refuse to open their talk shows to political leaders known for and by their xenophobia. Further, they could agree not to broadcast what these figures say. )This would be infinitely more effective than all the so-called refutations put together.)" While I understand the idea behind this suggestion and I certainly don't think that people with the particular issue of xenophobia should be given the time of day on TV, it is a scary suggestion to propose that the media edit out whose voices we hear. This can become dangerous very fast and is actually something that has already happened to a large extent. We already only hear those people who can say things that work in the TV companies favor. I think a change in the system would be much more effective than a call to morality becomes when it comes to matters involving money, morality rarely wins out.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Asyouwish 4/1 High tech paranoia
After writing my other post about the Media and its Media giant’s being a potential power threat the concept of “high tech paranoia” came to mind. The media itself is dangerous because it could brainwash us but the technology we have created could easily make us its victim as well, at least according to science fiction movies, books and television shows. There are tons of media based texts that discuss how the electronics we as a species have created are going to revolt against us to take over our planet and kill us. Movies like irobot depict robots becoming smarter than humans and trying to take over. The Disney movie, (yes, even the big 5 are in on this trend) “Smart House” follows this concept of “high tech paranoia”. The movie is about a house that has been created to fulfill the wishes of its inhabitants through a computer in the mainframe of the house. This home is perfect at first but then the computer tries to be more than just a computer and soon it is trying to control the lives of the house owners and their children. After escaping the death their house tries to provide for them they dismantle the computer. Others present “high tech paranoia” as a state where we as humans become dependent on machines and electronics. Some movies also depict this type of dependent state. For example, Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the sith depicts Anakin Skywalker dying and his life only being spared by being turned into Darth Vader a man whose oxygen and body functions depend on the robot suit that has become part of him. In reality this paranoia also affects us, take Y2K for example which occurred in 1999 because everyone thought that when it became the new year (2000) all the computers and anything controlled by computers would crash because they weren’t programmed for the new millennia. It seems that “high tech paranoia” does not only occur in books, movies and television anymore but also reality because so much of our world depends on the use and function of computers and technology.
Asyouwish Herman and Chomsky
In CMC 100 I remember discussing similar ideas about how in the USA alone there are only 5 companies that truly influence us, media giants. In the USA our media giants are Walt Disney, News Corp, Sony, AOL Time Warner and Viacom. Each of these corporations are media giants because they do not only sell and therefore influence others in their own country but rather globally. Take the corporation Viacom which owns Spike TV, VH1, MTV, CBS, UPN, Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, TV Land, CMT, TNN, Noggin, The movie channel, Showtime Networks, Sundance Channel, FLIX, BET, Comedy Central, among other sub-branches. Not only does this corporation own a ton of television stations, but rather the most influential and many of the most globally publicized networks. Allowing a corporation such as Viacom to own so many different outlets in my opinion is dangerous. Since Viacom controls all of these stations they could easily use their power to control the way people think and see the world. In CMC 100 we learned about different types of integration vertical and horizontal. “One is Horizontal integration, when a company has production occurring throughout different media forms such as radio, television, and the internet. The other form of integration is vertical integration, when a company controls all stages of production or distribution, or both” (Finkelson 08). Viacom and the other media giants have both making them all the more dangerous. Media giants have both direct and indirect power over the generations being influenced by their media productions. It is almost impossible to go to a city or heavily populated town and not see something produced by one of the big 5, their products and productions are everywhere. The dvds in my room alone include 3 of the big 5 products, Disney, Viacom (paramount pictures) and Sony. Jameson talks about the media influencing every aspect of our lives and I agree. The media shows us only what they want us to see and hides everything else, we could already be brainwashed who knows.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Kuloco, Herman & Chomsky
“If the articles are written in an assured and convincing style, are subject to no criticisms or alternative interpretations in the mass media, and command support by authority figures, the propaganda themes quickly become established as true even without real evidence.” (282)
The article by Herman and Chomsky outlines a model through which mass media is “filtered,” or propagandized. The five filters the article describes are: (1) size, concentrated ownership and profit orientation; (2) advertising as a primary source of income; (3) reliance on information from government, business and experts; (4) flak and the enforcers; and finally, (5) “anticommunism” as a control mechanism and national religion. Like most readings for this class, this model was hard for me to comprehend at first. So I decided that for my blog, I would break it down and relate it to my past knowledge on the topics of mass media, advertising and propaganda.
I went in order, starting with the first filter: size, concentrated ownership and profit orientation. Since the onset of the Critical Media and Cultural Studies major, we have been programmed to question the actions of large corporations. In CMC 100, we focused largely on television and news stations. We know that the mass media is largely controlled by huge corporations. These corporations are influenced by their own elite economic standing—causing them to relay their lifestyle to the average consumers. The “news” that reaches the masses has been refined to display the interests of the corporations that control the media. An example of this that we have spent a lot of time discussing is Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News channel. When I used to watch Fox News at breakfast with my parents, I never noticed the bias that was presented; however, now, it is difficult to watch a Fox News program without having to switch the channel due the “propaganda” that is being shown. This reaction is not limited to only Fox News; I have a hard time watching any news channel or even reading magazines without feeling that I am being personally affected by the ideals of the large corporations.
The second filter deals with advertising. As previously mentioned, I have a hard time reading magazines that I used to read religiously. I blame this completely on our final paper for CMC 100. This critical view extends to almost every aspect of my life. I have been “brainwashed” to notice advertising… everywhere I go. This article, however, presented advertising in a different light, albeit not a positive one. It is defined as “a powerful mechanism weakening the working-class press” (266). Advertising, along with telling uninformed consumers what they “need” to have to be viewed positively in society, performs on a social level. Advertisers have the ability to determine what is shown on television and what is printed in magazines and newspapers.
The third filter discusses the media’s reliance on information provided by government officials, businesses and “experts.” What is often disregarded is how these “expert” opinions we have believed to be the truth is driven by the payroll of the large media corporations. While reading this article, I felt like I was being bombarded with underground knowledge about the media systems. The “routine” news sources we see on the news have been thoroughly refined by those who present the information. It has been put in laymen terms, which subsequently mocks the intelligence of the general public without doing anything to fix it. This leads commonly held opinions to prevail.
The fourth filter explains “flak,” or negative responses to media statements or programs. I witness this flak everyday, whether it is in discussion about something that had just been viewed, in class discussion in CMC courses or even viewing the radical examples of group protests. What I don’t see is how it affects the news corporations. Again, these large companies are just that—businesses. They seek a profit to be able to stay in business. This flak affects what programs are shown, what news is released, what advertisers support, etc.
The last filter that was discussed was anticommunism and its use as a control mechanism. Communism, as pointed out in the reading, is “the ultimate evil [that] has always been the specter haunting property owners, as it threatens the very root of their class position and superior status” (278). Even though I have not lived in a time where Communism has controlled the world, I have studied Marxist theory in CMC classes. Just by having knowledge of the history and ideals of communism in general, one is able to see how it would affect big media corporations. Using something like communism to rally the general public seems to be a smart business tactic; however, it can also have negative aspects. Anticommunism can cause a whirlwind of ideas and, even though they are the ones who sparked the though, governments and large businesses can experience loss of support during this time.
Like any other things we have studied in this class, after I gained a more comprehensive understanding of the article, I was able to relate it to other theorists and ideas. For this article, I went back to the beginning of the semester and the study of semiotics. I related Herman and Chomsky’s ideas about propaganda to de Saussure’s theory about language. The quote that stuck out at me was about community and how it is necessary in the formation of language and, later, ideas. It comes from our surroundings, which is made up in today’s society by the media. The mass media and large corporations have formed and relayed a set of political and social rules, dictated by the government, economics and the opinions of the elite. Another relation I found was to Walter Benjamin and his idea of cult value. The propaganda exists in mass media to spread a message that benefits their own interests. Another idea of Benjamin that I saw a parallel deals with the camera and how “it lies instantly.” This is proven true in the Herman and Chomsky article by the description of the filtering of news stories by the media. This filtering only shows the mass media’s perspective of truth, rather than “reality.” Therefore, the general public remains in the dark about a lot of issues that are occurring all over the world, and even in their own neighborhood.
The article by Herman and Chomsky outlines a model through which mass media is “filtered,” or propagandized. The five filters the article describes are: (1) size, concentrated ownership and profit orientation; (2) advertising as a primary source of income; (3) reliance on information from government, business and experts; (4) flak and the enforcers; and finally, (5) “anticommunism” as a control mechanism and national religion. Like most readings for this class, this model was hard for me to comprehend at first. So I decided that for my blog, I would break it down and relate it to my past knowledge on the topics of mass media, advertising and propaganda.
I went in order, starting with the first filter: size, concentrated ownership and profit orientation. Since the onset of the Critical Media and Cultural Studies major, we have been programmed to question the actions of large corporations. In CMC 100, we focused largely on television and news stations. We know that the mass media is largely controlled by huge corporations. These corporations are influenced by their own elite economic standing—causing them to relay their lifestyle to the average consumers. The “news” that reaches the masses has been refined to display the interests of the corporations that control the media. An example of this that we have spent a lot of time discussing is Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News channel. When I used to watch Fox News at breakfast with my parents, I never noticed the bias that was presented; however, now, it is difficult to watch a Fox News program without having to switch the channel due the “propaganda” that is being shown. This reaction is not limited to only Fox News; I have a hard time watching any news channel or even reading magazines without feeling that I am being personally affected by the ideals of the large corporations.
The second filter deals with advertising. As previously mentioned, I have a hard time reading magazines that I used to read religiously. I blame this completely on our final paper for CMC 100. This critical view extends to almost every aspect of my life. I have been “brainwashed” to notice advertising… everywhere I go. This article, however, presented advertising in a different light, albeit not a positive one. It is defined as “a powerful mechanism weakening the working-class press” (266). Advertising, along with telling uninformed consumers what they “need” to have to be viewed positively in society, performs on a social level. Advertisers have the ability to determine what is shown on television and what is printed in magazines and newspapers.
The third filter discusses the media’s reliance on information provided by government officials, businesses and “experts.” What is often disregarded is how these “expert” opinions we have believed to be the truth is driven by the payroll of the large media corporations. While reading this article, I felt like I was being bombarded with underground knowledge about the media systems. The “routine” news sources we see on the news have been thoroughly refined by those who present the information. It has been put in laymen terms, which subsequently mocks the intelligence of the general public without doing anything to fix it. This leads commonly held opinions to prevail.
The fourth filter explains “flak,” or negative responses to media statements or programs. I witness this flak everyday, whether it is in discussion about something that had just been viewed, in class discussion in CMC courses or even viewing the radical examples of group protests. What I don’t see is how it affects the news corporations. Again, these large companies are just that—businesses. They seek a profit to be able to stay in business. This flak affects what programs are shown, what news is released, what advertisers support, etc.
The last filter that was discussed was anticommunism and its use as a control mechanism. Communism, as pointed out in the reading, is “the ultimate evil [that] has always been the specter haunting property owners, as it threatens the very root of their class position and superior status” (278). Even though I have not lived in a time where Communism has controlled the world, I have studied Marxist theory in CMC classes. Just by having knowledge of the history and ideals of communism in general, one is able to see how it would affect big media corporations. Using something like communism to rally the general public seems to be a smart business tactic; however, it can also have negative aspects. Anticommunism can cause a whirlwind of ideas and, even though they are the ones who sparked the though, governments and large businesses can experience loss of support during this time.
Like any other things we have studied in this class, after I gained a more comprehensive understanding of the article, I was able to relate it to other theorists and ideas. For this article, I went back to the beginning of the semester and the study of semiotics. I related Herman and Chomsky’s ideas about propaganda to de Saussure’s theory about language. The quote that stuck out at me was about community and how it is necessary in the formation of language and, later, ideas. It comes from our surroundings, which is made up in today’s society by the media. The mass media and large corporations have formed and relayed a set of political and social rules, dictated by the government, economics and the opinions of the elite. Another relation I found was to Walter Benjamin and his idea of cult value. The propaganda exists in mass media to spread a message that benefits their own interests. Another idea of Benjamin that I saw a parallel deals with the camera and how “it lies instantly.” This is proven true in the Herman and Chomsky article by the description of the filtering of news stories by the media. This filtering only shows the mass media’s perspective of truth, rather than “reality.” Therefore, the general public remains in the dark about a lot of issues that are occurring all over the world, and even in their own neighborhood.
Murphy, Herman and Chomsky
(Pre-class, 3/31)
"A Propaganda Model"
Herman and Chomsky immediately jump into what a propaganda model is: "A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices" (257). The authors also write about mass media's use of communication to tell individuals what their behaviors should be. This dictation of values and beliefs changes and molds society to fit the prototype that the elite approve and encourage for their benefit. They describe this as "the media serve the ends of a dominant elite".
There are five filters that are used as standards before information/stories are published and broadcast. These five filters support the propaganda model and "define what is newsworthy". It is ironic that a select few can pick and choose what they want to be shown to the mass culture, when in reality there may be things left out that should be included, or things included that should more than likely be left out. Two examples of this jump to mind immediately. In CMC 100 we learned about Fox producer's hiding stories about bovine in milk products. They hid the truth and pulled the story from the air to protect the company. They left the public at health risk to save a penny. Another example that applies is how the major media outlets spent 130minutes covering the Martha Stewart scandal; the same media giants spent a mere 24minutes covering the genocide (declared by Colon Powell) occuring inDarfur.
I think a big point Herman and Chomsky discuss is that not only do the filters keep alot of stories from making into the news, but the filters also keep certain information from becoming "big news". They go onto say on page 282, "...we would anticipate outcries that the worthy victims are being sorely neglected, that the unworthy are treated with excessive and uncritical generosity...". In short, when watching the news, take everything with a grain of salt, and do independent research, taking information from a variety of sources.
"A Propaganda Model"
Herman and Chomsky immediately jump into what a propaganda model is: "A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices" (257). The authors also write about mass media's use of communication to tell individuals what their behaviors should be. This dictation of values and beliefs changes and molds society to fit the prototype that the elite approve and encourage for their benefit. They describe this as "the media serve the ends of a dominant elite".
There are five filters that are used as standards before information/stories are published and broadcast. These five filters support the propaganda model and "define what is newsworthy". It is ironic that a select few can pick and choose what they want to be shown to the mass culture, when in reality there may be things left out that should be included, or things included that should more than likely be left out. Two examples of this jump to mind immediately. In CMC 100 we learned about Fox producer's hiding stories about bovine in milk products. They hid the truth and pulled the story from the air to protect the company. They left the public at health risk to save a penny. Another example that applies is how the major media outlets spent 130minutes covering the Martha Stewart scandal; the same media giants spent a mere 24minutes covering the genocide (declared by Colon Powell) occuring inDarfur.
I think a big point Herman and Chomsky discuss is that not only do the filters keep alot of stories from making into the news, but the filters also keep certain information from becoming "big news". They go onto say on page 282, "...we would anticipate outcries that the worthy victims are being sorely neglected, that the unworthy are treated with excessive and uncritical generosity...". In short, when watching the news, take everything with a grain of salt, and do independent research, taking information from a variety of sources.
yellowdaisy 4, Chomsky And Herman
This article was interesting because like most people, I once believed that because of free speech, the media could put whatever it wants on television and even tell the truth to the public. I was drastically wrong due to a little thing called propaganda. Not only do the advertisements work with the media but they evidently decide what goes on and what messages will be sent. Unfortunately, this like most of everything today, all goes back to money. Without advertisers consent, media outlets wouldn’t receive any money to be produced so despite what they want to say, they have to get consent from the funders before it airs. I believe it makes sense to get just an opinion of who’s funding you but I feel like what the messages the media sends should be what they want or what needs to be heard. Yet, this is too idealistic for today’s world where everything seems to be monitored. This reminds to a video we watched last semester in CMC 100 about the Monsanto milk controversy. Reporters at a Fox news station got fired because they would not retract a story about harmful hormones in Monsanto’s milk because Monsanto was a sponsor for that station. Even though the reporters would be helping the people by telling the truth, the network sided with Monsanto because they didn’t want to lose their funding. This can connect to the popular newspapers that were discussed in the article; which all were the ones that stuck to the mainstream standard ideals instead of the more insightful ones that questioned things, all because of the advertisers. It’s unfortunate that the general public that does not study CMC like we do, usually never learns the real truth behind things and just believes the propaganda that is fed to them by the government and big corporations, no questions asked.
Happy Birthday, Herman and Chomsky
Throughout my CMC major experience I have personally written, read, created, memorized, studied, and looked at more advertisements than the average human being. Advertisements, media’s manipulation, deceit, and media conglomerates, IS my major. I was really relieved when reading this article because I felt like I had a direct connection with it, and I could relate parts of my life to what Herman and Chomsky were talking about. One quote that really stuck with me throughout the reading was the following:
“It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society”.(257)
This quote stuck out the most to me. This quote is one of the most accurate definitions of advertising I have ever come across. Our generation especially has never known life without thousands of advertisements thrown in their face every day. The government has no control over advertising and what companies want to put out there, which can sometimes lead problems. These ideas Chomsky and Herman put out there can be related back to Jameson’s notion of how we are “no longer scandalized”, and how nothing surprises us anymore because were so used to seeing advertisements that are controversial.
Both theorists are very insightful and make really good arguments. It was nice to be able to read an article that I could personally relate too, and understand. :)
“It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society”.(257)
This quote stuck out the most to me. This quote is one of the most accurate definitions of advertising I have ever come across. Our generation especially has never known life without thousands of advertisements thrown in their face every day. The government has no control over advertising and what companies want to put out there, which can sometimes lead problems. These ideas Chomsky and Herman put out there can be related back to Jameson’s notion of how we are “no longer scandalized”, and how nothing surprises us anymore because were so used to seeing advertisements that are controversial.
Both theorists are very insightful and make really good arguments. It was nice to be able to read an article that I could personally relate too, and understand. :)
Rubber Soul, Herman and Chomsky
“…an advertising-based media system will gradually increase advertising time and marginalize or eliminate altogether programming that has significant public-affairs content” (269).
The reading gives an example of three working-class newspapers that went under due to the fact that they didn’t have press advertising. The Daily Herald, News Chronicle, and Sunday Citizen were highly read newspapers, in fact, the Daily Herald had almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian combined AND its readers thought more highly of the Daily Herald than any other popular newspaper. These working-class newspapers served as, “an alternative framework of analysis and understanding that contested the dominant systems of representation in both broadcasting and the mainstream press” (267). Therefore, even a newspaper that is widely read by a massive audience and also provides multiple ideological perspectives loses out to a newspaper that supports the standard hegemonic ideals that limit and create a biased perspective merely because advertisers pay for pictures of their consumer goods to be printed on the pages. Advertisers don’t want to buy space on programs that deal with controversial issues because that might “interfere with the ‘buying mood” (269). They’d rather invest in safe lightly entertaining programs that don’t require too much critical thinking in hopes that their advertisements will seem more appealing to the viewer. Throughout the reading, political economy plays the leading role as to what we see and hear. What the major corporations deem newsworthy corresponds with how these stories send messages similar to the big business ideals. Media that chooses to focus on stories that don’t run with the mainstream ideologies have to “go to extra expense to find and check out information sources; they would elicit flak from government, business, and organized rightwing flak machines, and they might be looked upon with disfavor by the corporate community” (280).
The reading gives an example of three working-class newspapers that went under due to the fact that they didn’t have press advertising. The Daily Herald, News Chronicle, and Sunday Citizen were highly read newspapers, in fact, the Daily Herald had almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian combined AND its readers thought more highly of the Daily Herald than any other popular newspaper. These working-class newspapers served as, “an alternative framework of analysis and understanding that contested the dominant systems of representation in both broadcasting and the mainstream press” (267). Therefore, even a newspaper that is widely read by a massive audience and also provides multiple ideological perspectives loses out to a newspaper that supports the standard hegemonic ideals that limit and create a biased perspective merely because advertisers pay for pictures of their consumer goods to be printed on the pages. Advertisers don’t want to buy space on programs that deal with controversial issues because that might “interfere with the ‘buying mood” (269). They’d rather invest in safe lightly entertaining programs that don’t require too much critical thinking in hopes that their advertisements will seem more appealing to the viewer. Throughout the reading, political economy plays the leading role as to what we see and hear. What the major corporations deem newsworthy corresponds with how these stories send messages similar to the big business ideals. Media that chooses to focus on stories that don’t run with the mainstream ideologies have to “go to extra expense to find and check out information sources; they would elicit flak from government, business, and organized rightwing flak machines, and they might be looked upon with disfavor by the corporate community” (280).
post-it, Herman & Chomsky
Out of the five filters that Herman and Chomsky discuss in their essay titled “A Propaganda Model,” their theory on the advertisements function within the media. The second filter discusses this theory that holds that advertisers actually determine what might be reported so that their messages do not conflict. All aspects of the media are motivated, according to Herman and Chomsky, by advertisers because it is the money that funds the media outlet, which the advertisement is printed or broadcast. This also results in a marginally educated audience that is not aware of any stories or issues that might conflict with the advertisements that they will typically see in the media that gives them their news.
Because money is necessary to remain in business, it is the business of the advertisers to determine how their money is spent on the product that they pay for. This method of funding is detrimental to the media and has been the entity that has given media its reputation for skewed and one-sided perspective while also reasoning the media’s ability to control the public opinion because of the enormous amounts of money that determines what that public gets to see and read.
Herman and Chomsky take a negative stance on the media in this essay because they discuss ways in which the media is controlled by corporate businesses rather than control its own content. In a perfect world, the media would report all of the events that happen in the world so that the public could criticize the writing of the articles within the media rather than the topics the articles are written about. Seeing the images of the events outside the United States would also raise awareness about cultural differences. Therefore the perception of Americans would re-center to one of knowledge and acceptance rather than ignorance and misunderstanding; all of this being fueled by corporate money and the second filter.
Because money is necessary to remain in business, it is the business of the advertisers to determine how their money is spent on the product that they pay for. This method of funding is detrimental to the media and has been the entity that has given media its reputation for skewed and one-sided perspective while also reasoning the media’s ability to control the public opinion because of the enormous amounts of money that determines what that public gets to see and read.
Herman and Chomsky take a negative stance on the media in this essay because they discuss ways in which the media is controlled by corporate businesses rather than control its own content. In a perfect world, the media would report all of the events that happen in the world so that the public could criticize the writing of the articles within the media rather than the topics the articles are written about. Seeing the images of the events outside the United States would also raise awareness about cultural differences. Therefore the perception of Americans would re-center to one of knowledge and acceptance rather than ignorance and misunderstanding; all of this being fueled by corporate money and the second filter.
JLO63O Chomsky
Before reading Herman and Chomsky’s “A Propaganda Model,” I had this notion in my head that the media was the one thing that we as the people had control over, not the government. We learned in CMC 100 that since the deregulation of TV, commercials, advertisements and other such media constructs, advertising was able to be expressed in limitless ways that the government had no control over. Such ads (and I’m thinking specifically about ones that exploit women that are modeling in a fraction of clothing) that were once avant-garde have now become mainstream. The shock value, like Jameson talked about, is no longer scandalized. These effects have been the proliferation of the culture of ‘the hook up’ and courtship. (In the essence of time getting off track, Stephanie Coontz is speaking more about this issue Wednesday at 7pm in the Bush Auditorium).
In the section, Flak and the Enforcers: The Fourth Filter, it really opened my eyes to how much the government is still involved in the media and marketing. Throughout the chapter it is mentioned how information that is released into homes could be monopolized but powerful constructs. In this section specifically, Herman and Chomsky talk about indirect and direct ways that the media is readily subjected to boycott. Meaning, when the media is not being controlled by its constituents, there are other ways its power can break through and monitor media forms. The government and other powers are able to do this by directly addressing/threatening their sponsorship, or indirectly by funding political campaigns. Either way, both these means involve a degree of money and power.
Prior to this reading, I was thinking that the media (despite its pros and cons) was a production manufactured aside from the government. And now after reading this, I realize that the government has found loopholes and gained a degree of hold over this inarguable power. It frightens me because I think about shows like 24 and Prison Break where we see that the government is trying to hide and control everything, and we think that it could never happen in real life with our government. “The government is a major producer of flak, regularly assailing, threatening, and ‘correcting’ the media..” (277). I wonder what exactly the threats are that the government imposes on media conglomerates, and how it is handled behind closed doors?
In the section, Flak and the Enforcers: The Fourth Filter, it really opened my eyes to how much the government is still involved in the media and marketing. Throughout the chapter it is mentioned how information that is released into homes could be monopolized but powerful constructs. In this section specifically, Herman and Chomsky talk about indirect and direct ways that the media is readily subjected to boycott. Meaning, when the media is not being controlled by its constituents, there are other ways its power can break through and monitor media forms. The government and other powers are able to do this by directly addressing/threatening their sponsorship, or indirectly by funding political campaigns. Either way, both these means involve a degree of money and power.
Prior to this reading, I was thinking that the media (despite its pros and cons) was a production manufactured aside from the government. And now after reading this, I realize that the government has found loopholes and gained a degree of hold over this inarguable power. It frightens me because I think about shows like 24 and Prison Break where we see that the government is trying to hide and control everything, and we think that it could never happen in real life with our government. “The government is a major producer of flak, regularly assailing, threatening, and ‘correcting’ the media..” (277). I wonder what exactly the threats are that the government imposes on media conglomerates, and how it is handled behind closed doors?
brookes77, Herman and Chomsky
Herman and Chomsky's reading about the power and control the mass media has over our society was a powerful reading. The reading broke down the process of the media's influence and explained the factors involved. Also the reading illustrated exact names of the major media giants in the media. These media giant companies own much of what we read, hear, watch, it is scary to see how so few "giants" control such a big industry.
" The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convenience themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values.( 258) To me this quote stuck out because it explains how the the select higher class completely control the media, they are those who have the money, and even people who work for these high corporations and know what is going on, and the dominating process of the media, such as news casters, choose to disregard this and deliver the corrupt information in a passive manner. They take an "absent minded" stand in the process.
" In short the mass media are interested in attracting audiences with buying power, not audiences per se." This is a very valid point that is overlooked. The media, (advertisements) are displayed for all classes, and mainly for the working class population, yet these people are not who the media is trying to attract, although it seems this way, they are trying to attract those who can afford their product. The media attracts all classes, if he working class can not afford it, it becomes a desire, a dream, and ideology, which is just as important as when someone who can afford the product buys it. This quote exemplifies the images of the Mercedes and the General Motors signs that we discussed in class. The example with the Mercedes, it is a very well known brand because the media portrays the brand in a positive popular light, although this is is too expensive for the working class to buy, it is still advertised to them making them desire the Mercedes, when really the advertisements are relying on the upper class to buy the product, the Mercedes so they can become desired.
" The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convenience themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values.( 258) To me this quote stuck out because it explains how the the select higher class completely control the media, they are those who have the money, and even people who work for these high corporations and know what is going on, and the dominating process of the media, such as news casters, choose to disregard this and deliver the corrupt information in a passive manner. They take an "absent minded" stand in the process.
" In short the mass media are interested in attracting audiences with buying power, not audiences per se." This is a very valid point that is overlooked. The media, (advertisements) are displayed for all classes, and mainly for the working class population, yet these people are not who the media is trying to attract, although it seems this way, they are trying to attract those who can afford their product. The media attracts all classes, if he working class can not afford it, it becomes a desire, a dream, and ideology, which is just as important as when someone who can afford the product buys it. This quote exemplifies the images of the Mercedes and the General Motors signs that we discussed in class. The example with the Mercedes, it is a very well known brand because the media portrays the brand in a positive popular light, although this is is too expensive for the working class to buy, it is still advertised to them making them desire the Mercedes, when really the advertisements are relying on the upper class to buy the product, the Mercedes so they can become desired.
DBA123, Herman and Chomsky
I found Herman and Chomsky’s A Propaganda Model to the first of our readings I could relate many ideas proposed in our CMC major to. I found that the five filters were very applicable to media outlets today. Herman and Chomsky look at the history of advertising and make some very valid points. The second filter, The Advertising License to do Business, I found to be the most interesting.
“Before advertising became prominent, the price of a newspaper had to cover the costs of doing business. With the growth of advertising, papers that attracted ads could afford a copy price well below production costs. This put papers lacking in advertising at a serious disadvantage…A market share and advertising edge on the part of one paper or television station will give it additional revenue to compete more effectively- promote more aggressively, buy more stable features and programs- and the disadvantaged rival must add expenses it cannot afford to try to stem the cumulative process of dwindling market share,” (266-267).
The reading then goes on to explain why grassroots groups and other smaller companies that support ideas that don’t steer in the same direction as the dominant media outlets get little recognition of existence. It takes major movements to grow from being in a local paper to getting national attention. I feel as if our CMC major is focusing us on exactly this cause. In most of classes so far we study media intently, seeing how minority groups get portrayed, what type of news gets the most intention, how to improve the way media affects people. Herman and Chomsky make some very interesting arguments on how breaking media stereotypes is a very difficult task. I believe by being aware of these filters helps us come up with more creative ways to draw attention to what is usually not being looked at too closely.
“Before advertising became prominent, the price of a newspaper had to cover the costs of doing business. With the growth of advertising, papers that attracted ads could afford a copy price well below production costs. This put papers lacking in advertising at a serious disadvantage…A market share and advertising edge on the part of one paper or television station will give it additional revenue to compete more effectively- promote more aggressively, buy more stable features and programs- and the disadvantaged rival must add expenses it cannot afford to try to stem the cumulative process of dwindling market share,” (266-267).
The reading then goes on to explain why grassroots groups and other smaller companies that support ideas that don’t steer in the same direction as the dominant media outlets get little recognition of existence. It takes major movements to grow from being in a local paper to getting national attention. I feel as if our CMC major is focusing us on exactly this cause. In most of classes so far we study media intently, seeing how minority groups get portrayed, what type of news gets the most intention, how to improve the way media affects people. Herman and Chomsky make some very interesting arguments on how breaking media stereotypes is a very difficult task. I believe by being aware of these filters helps us come up with more creative ways to draw attention to what is usually not being looked at too closely.
CMCstudent, Herman and Chomsky
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse us, entertain, and inform, and inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into institutional structures of the larger society.” This is the opening quote from the Herman and Chomsky reading. It is true that if it were not for the media constantly providing a stream of information our society would not be functioning as it is today. The mass media institutes the values and beliefs of the dominant/ elite. These dominant/ elite values and beliefs are then followed by everyone else. As Karl Marx said, “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch of the ruling ideas.” Soon the “larger society” becomes those of the non-dominant unconsciously following the belief systems of the dominant. This happens because as Luis Althusser says ideology works on an unconscious level. Therefore no one realizes they are just following what is being presented to them, and instead of questioning what is going on around them, they take it all in. This pertains to when Benjamin says that “the public is a viewer, but absent minded ones.” This is because we do not question enough of what is really going on, instead we just take things for what they are shown to us to be. In Benjamin’s case this was when Nazism and Fascism were rising. The public was not thinking for themselves and Hitler was able to use the media to go in and manipulate everyone into doing what he wanted. Media is a powerful tool one can use to control people and although it may not be seen being used to the same degree as it was during the rise of Fascism, it is still one that is being operated every single day to influence ideas, beliefs, and values.
Smiley Face - Herman and Chomsky
Herman and Chomsky shed light on the manipulative industry of the news and the mass media. They highlight the over-powering control the government and elite news organizations have over the distribution of news and the deterioration of news being produced for profit rather than quality. The ruling elite in the government and the media industry use news as a form of producing and maintaining ideologies and fear in society, so that in response to the fear viewers are more likely to hand over their rights to freedom to the government who then have more control.
The article "CONQUERING THE MINDS,CONQUERING IRAQ - The social production of misinformation in the United States – a case study" by Arsenault and Castell in CMC 200, use Herman and Chombsky's concept of mass control over the news produced from the elite and apply it to the news produced on the Iraq war. The article reports a study conducted on FOX news viewers and viewers of other less predominant news provider. They were asked question on the link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks (which there weren't) and whether or not Iraq held weapons of mass destruction (which they didn't). There was a large increase in viewer misconceptions from those who relied on FOX who consequently believed that there were weapons on mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraq was part of the 9/11 attacks. Arsenault and Castell identify those larger media distributors as 'conveyors' of news, a point Herman and Chombsky make when stating how elite news groups insist on viewing the news objectively. In contrast those smaller news organizations view the news as subjective and therefore critically analyze the news before presenting it to their audience to ensure truth and fact.
As a child you are bought up to believe that there is a solid difference between good and bad, truth and lies, right and wrong. From growing up you become more aware of the line between good and bad getting thinner and thinner. Now, in our 21st century American culture the media has taken that line one step further by distorting it more in order to make capital from the audience. How can children grow in a society that can openly tell 'white' lies for the benefit of increasing capital? What will become of those children exposed to constant misinformation from presumably reliable sources? Will the disintegration of government and monopoly morals ultimately lead to the lose of morals in the viewer?
The article "CONQUERING THE MINDS,CONQUERING IRAQ - The social production of misinformation in the United States – a case study" by Arsenault and Castell in CMC 200, use Herman and Chombsky's concept of mass control over the news produced from the elite and apply it to the news produced on the Iraq war. The article reports a study conducted on FOX news viewers and viewers of other less predominant news provider. They were asked question on the link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks (which there weren't) and whether or not Iraq held weapons of mass destruction (which they didn't). There was a large increase in viewer misconceptions from those who relied on FOX who consequently believed that there were weapons on mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraq was part of the 9/11 attacks. Arsenault and Castell identify those larger media distributors as 'conveyors' of news, a point Herman and Chombsky make when stating how elite news groups insist on viewing the news objectively. In contrast those smaller news organizations view the news as subjective and therefore critically analyze the news before presenting it to their audience to ensure truth and fact.
As a child you are bought up to believe that there is a solid difference between good and bad, truth and lies, right and wrong. From growing up you become more aware of the line between good and bad getting thinner and thinner. Now, in our 21st century American culture the media has taken that line one step further by distorting it more in order to make capital from the audience. How can children grow in a society that can openly tell 'white' lies for the benefit of increasing capital? What will become of those children exposed to constant misinformation from presumably reliable sources? Will the disintegration of government and monopoly morals ultimately lead to the lose of morals in the viewer?
Trapnest, Herman and Chomsky
Herman and Chomsky in this work look to investigate mass media and the unofficial rules and regulations which govern it. In the beginning of the piece they outline a “propaganda model” as they call it, or a set of news “filters” for mass media. Really, what I feel they are establishing within this is the factors that govern what news story will be chosen and why. These factors are as follows:
1) “The size, concentrated ownership, power, wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media forms.”
This I feel takes on a similar approach as Horkheimer and Adorno’s works on the Culture industry. They discuss that the people who own the money are more likely to be able to influence culture because of that power. What Herman and Chomsky are saying is by all accounts almost the same.
It is this focus on ownership, power and profit that has lead to many news stations being bought out and taken over by other more powerful stations. The problem that occurs when this happens is that all the stations then have to air similar media, or at the very least draw from the same pool of resources. This also puts the media at a weakness to the market and creates a system that is not lenient for non-biased, free news.
2) “Advertising as the primary source of income of the mass media.”
Similar to number one, this is another way that the media becomes involved in business and projects that are beyond it. Media cannot screen anything that could offend it’s advertisers products. It also enables advertisers to take advantage of the consumer watching the media by carefully placing products where they’re likely to be seen.
Herman and Chomsky also discuss how this puts strain as well on the media companies because they have to focus on developing departments dedicated to advertising to not loose funding to their competitors.
3) “The reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary agents of power.”
This is another limitation to what gets aired on the news because the news reporters and correspondents cannot be everywhere at once. Therefore they must depend upon others to report stories to them. This creates a problem because it can develop obligations to air stories that may not be the best at times to keep good graces with a company friend. Or impose limits on the pool of knowledge that the news can draw from.
Herman and Chomsky also discuss two other points. I have separated them from the aforementioned three because these two, I feel, deal with the way the media puts it’s information forward and how it is received. Not as much about the media as an industry and the effects that the industry has on the news that is aired.
4) “”Flack” as a means of disciplining the media”
Flack is the negative feedback that the media can and will get at times. However, what I felt was most interesting was that Herman and Chomsky said how even those who put forward flack against the media will get their appropriate air time and proper recognition.
One of the things I thought about with regards to this was the recent Jon Steward vs Cramer from Mad Money. He said something about Cramer, and attacked the CNN network and all of a sudden the whole network was talking about it. Even though they were being portrayed in a poor light they continued to blow it up and discuss it. It evolved into this issue that even John Stewart was surprised about.
5) “”Anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism”
I feel that anticommunism to describe the media’s power to control is a little out of date. Anti-terrorism I feel would be more appropriate. This is the media’s ability to create, and abuse, the artificial terror that they have the power to produce.
In all, Herman and Chomsky investigate the media as an industry rather than a force simply designed to report upon facts and issues. That power is often abused by the industry, be it on purpose or simply by the nature of the industry.
1) “The size, concentrated ownership, power, wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media forms.”
This I feel takes on a similar approach as Horkheimer and Adorno’s works on the Culture industry. They discuss that the people who own the money are more likely to be able to influence culture because of that power. What Herman and Chomsky are saying is by all accounts almost the same.
It is this focus on ownership, power and profit that has lead to many news stations being bought out and taken over by other more powerful stations. The problem that occurs when this happens is that all the stations then have to air similar media, or at the very least draw from the same pool of resources. This also puts the media at a weakness to the market and creates a system that is not lenient for non-biased, free news.
2) “Advertising as the primary source of income of the mass media.”
Similar to number one, this is another way that the media becomes involved in business and projects that are beyond it. Media cannot screen anything that could offend it’s advertisers products. It also enables advertisers to take advantage of the consumer watching the media by carefully placing products where they’re likely to be seen.
Herman and Chomsky also discuss how this puts strain as well on the media companies because they have to focus on developing departments dedicated to advertising to not loose funding to their competitors.
3) “The reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary agents of power.”
This is another limitation to what gets aired on the news because the news reporters and correspondents cannot be everywhere at once. Therefore they must depend upon others to report stories to them. This creates a problem because it can develop obligations to air stories that may not be the best at times to keep good graces with a company friend. Or impose limits on the pool of knowledge that the news can draw from.
Herman and Chomsky also discuss two other points. I have separated them from the aforementioned three because these two, I feel, deal with the way the media puts it’s information forward and how it is received. Not as much about the media as an industry and the effects that the industry has on the news that is aired.
4) “”Flack” as a means of disciplining the media”
Flack is the negative feedback that the media can and will get at times. However, what I felt was most interesting was that Herman and Chomsky said how even those who put forward flack against the media will get their appropriate air time and proper recognition.
One of the things I thought about with regards to this was the recent Jon Steward vs Cramer from Mad Money. He said something about Cramer, and attacked the CNN network and all of a sudden the whole network was talking about it. Even though they were being portrayed in a poor light they continued to blow it up and discuss it. It evolved into this issue that even John Stewart was surprised about.
5) “”Anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism”
I feel that anticommunism to describe the media’s power to control is a little out of date. Anti-terrorism I feel would be more appropriate. This is the media’s ability to create, and abuse, the artificial terror that they have the power to produce.
In all, Herman and Chomsky investigate the media as an industry rather than a force simply designed to report upon facts and issues. That power is often abused by the industry, be it on purpose or simply by the nature of the industry.
Spaghetti, herman and chomsky
I really enjoyed reading this article because the ideas expressed in it seemed more concrete to me than those expressed in articles we have read in the past. I found it more relevant to what I want to get out of my CMC major than some of the other readings we have focused on in the past. This article draws on ways that major media conglomerates use their power for personal interest (ie that universally worshipped totalizing metanarrative of capitalism, money) and therefore generate and perpetuate the hegemonic ideologies that permeate our society. I think this article hit the nail on the head in terms of allowing me, the reader, to successfully apply the concepts to the world around me. It seemed most relevant to my life and my thirst for increasing my knowledge and awareness of the influence of the media outlets that surround us on an every day basis.
While reading Herman and Chomsky's article, i was able to draw and connect their concepts to those of other theorists. I was reminded of the ideas expressed by Lyotard of capitalism de-realizing familiar objects for individual agendas. Also, I was reminded of Adorno's concept as presented by Habermas in his article that states, Hegemony never sees itself as “political” or “ideological.” The advertising companies Herman and chomsky address are not attempting to contribute to a hegemonic ideology as their main purpose. They only care about revenue, a claim which Lyotard would emphatically support.
While reading Herman and Chomsky's article, i was able to draw and connect their concepts to those of other theorists. I was reminded of the ideas expressed by Lyotard of capitalism de-realizing familiar objects for individual agendas. Also, I was reminded of Adorno's concept as presented by Habermas in his article that states, Hegemony never sees itself as “political” or “ideological.” The advertising companies Herman and chomsky address are not attempting to contribute to a hegemonic ideology as their main purpose. They only care about revenue, a claim which Lyotard would emphatically support.
LightningBolt, Herman and Chomsky
Being a CMC major, we continuously learn about the negative effects of advertising on our culture; we are subconsciously being persuaded and influenced. After constantly talking about advertising in a negative light I began to think poorly of companies who’s ad’s I saw. Reading Herman and Chomsky I realized that there really no other option for companies besides advertising, and no other option for newspapers and television channels but to pay to present advertisements.
“an advertising based system will tend to drive out existence or into marginality the media companies that depend on revenue from sales alone” (267).
The second filter explains that companies that attempt to hold their ground and not give into the advertising phenomenon will eventually be driven out of business by the companies who are taking economic advantage of advertising, and not questioning the effects it has on our culture. The book discusses the fact that when newspapers first started developing they had to charge the price it cost to manufacture the paper and then plus enough to make a prophet from it. When papers started putting advertisements in their papers and gaining money this way, they were able to lower the price of papers. The papers that did not put ad’s in their papers still needed to charge the full production price. People obviously chose the lower priced paper and the non advertisement papers were forced pick up advertisers. This relates directly to today. If a TV network decided they did not want to have commercials on their station because they brain wash their viewers, they would be unable to pay shows as much as other stations and would no longer get the best TV shows. The only way that I could see the elimination of advertisements ever happening would be if every company banned together and agreed they would all stop. This way everyone would be on the same level and no one will have additional revenue. I realize that this is very unlikely and that advertising appears it will continue to be a large part of our culture.
“an advertising based system will tend to drive out existence or into marginality the media companies that depend on revenue from sales alone” (267).
The second filter explains that companies that attempt to hold their ground and not give into the advertising phenomenon will eventually be driven out of business by the companies who are taking economic advantage of advertising, and not questioning the effects it has on our culture. The book discusses the fact that when newspapers first started developing they had to charge the price it cost to manufacture the paper and then plus enough to make a prophet from it. When papers started putting advertisements in their papers and gaining money this way, they were able to lower the price of papers. The papers that did not put ad’s in their papers still needed to charge the full production price. People obviously chose the lower priced paper and the non advertisement papers were forced pick up advertisers. This relates directly to today. If a TV network decided they did not want to have commercials on their station because they brain wash their viewers, they would be unable to pay shows as much as other stations and would no longer get the best TV shows. The only way that I could see the elimination of advertisements ever happening would be if every company banned together and agreed they would all stop. This way everyone would be on the same level and no one will have additional revenue. I realize that this is very unlikely and that advertising appears it will continue to be a large part of our culture.
thestig, herman and chomsky
This is a really excellent article because it outlines the political and economic forces within media conglomerates unlike any other article I can recall reading for CMC in the past. “It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” (Herman 257). Herman and Chomsky’s definition of what media is, to me, defines what propaganda is. The media must “inculcate individuals... [to] integrate them into...larger society.” This is nerve wrecking considering some of the points later addressed throughout the article, most notably the correlation between a network’s revenue to advertising and broadcasting schedule. Herman and Chomsky show how a network depends heavily on advertising revenues to sustain their organization, and to expand, becoming the massive conglomerates that they are. Most companies, however, will only advertise when programming won’t interfere with the “buying mood.” Therefore, most companies will not advertise if there is a serious documentary on, or if there is something about the programming that will be in alignment with the company’s policies or political views. This begs the question: how can we expect media conglomerates to stay afloat if they will not receive advertising monies if they are always airing public service or programming that isn’t “buying mood” friendly? We like the “buying mood” type of television shows, which is why we’ve got survivor, American idol, and the biggest loser. These shows are popular and claim high ratings. These ratings result in ad revenues: plus or minus one percentage point in Nielsen ratings for a television network can result in the different of $20 million in advertising revenues alone (268).
If we revisit the quote that I pulled from the text at the beginning, it feeds into this concept of media and cultural studies perfectly. “A propaganda model focuses on … interests and choices” (257). What choices do we have if the only information we get from the media is information that sells? This means that issues that are important and not profitable are ignored. This limits the possibilities of interests and choices made by the people consuming media, which in this day and age is pretty much everyone in the country, and most everywhere around the world.
As a side note, I though this was an interesting line: “It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public” because it utilizes The New York Time’s slogan, “news that’s fit to print” to describe the political agenda, and how it decides what is really fit to print (257).
If we revisit the quote that I pulled from the text at the beginning, it feeds into this concept of media and cultural studies perfectly. “A propaganda model focuses on … interests and choices” (257). What choices do we have if the only information we get from the media is information that sells? This means that issues that are important and not profitable are ignored. This limits the possibilities of interests and choices made by the people consuming media, which in this day and age is pretty much everyone in the country, and most everywhere around the world.
As a side note, I though this was an interesting line: “It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public” because it utilizes The New York Time’s slogan, “news that’s fit to print” to describe the political agenda, and how it decides what is really fit to print (257).
coolbeans, Herman & Chomsky
The propaganda model seems to be a way in which major businesses, government, and media outlets are able to communicate the values and beliefs of the particular businesses, government, and media outlets to the masses. These three entities seem to be influential amongst each other and therefore work together to support each other. The government can work with businesses because businesses will show their support for the government if the government provides them with something that be beneficial to the company. The same thing applies to the media. Therefore all three work together and attempt to disperse their propaganda, meanwhile having the same interests at hand. In CMC 200 we read a research study called A Tale of Two Wars by Daniela V. Dimitrova and Colleen Connolly-Ahern in which four different news outlets were studied (The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Al Ahram, and the NY Times) in order to see how they were framed to portray the events of the Iraq War. It was found that the NY Times highlighted more the reason for war being to help a nation in trouble, while Al Jazeera and Al Ahram highlighted the violence and deaths and The Guardian was the most neutral. In this case it is clear that the media clearly is working in the best interests of the governments that they correlate with because they are sending out the exact message that the governments want to send out to the people. By framing the articles in a certain way, the media (whether it means to or not) helps to get the government message out to members of society. Another recent example of the propaganda model in effect is the recent government bailouts for AIG. AIG is a huge company that many other companies also rely on as well. The collapse of this one company could be very bad for the economy. The government worked with the company to do what was beneficial to both the company as well as the government.
ginger griffin, herman & Chomsky
Advertising in the media, for as long as it has been around, has always been ruling-class based, and I feel that without media and advertising, objects would be made a whole lot better because we (the buyers) wouldn't have to be convinced about something and how great it works. To further my point about the ruling class, I give you this quote, "...media are tiered, with the top tier - as measured by prestige, resources, and outreach...It is this top tier, along with the government and wire services, that defines the news agenda and supplies much of the national and international news to the lower tiers of the media, and thus for the general public." (260) A few things popped out to me when I first read this: that the general public (larger of course) is not that of the ruling class, which ceases our discussion a few weeks ago about was the upper class or the general public the ruling class, well Herman and Chomsky would state that it was the ruling class in which we (the general public) get our ideas.
It is assumed that the larger general public are just a bunch of robots ready to be made into whatever it is that the ruling class want to mold us into. "It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society." (257) After reading this I began to think about the video we watched in class last week about the kids being made into robots, standing in line falling into machines that eventually make them into spaghetti meat. I believe that Herman and Chomsky knew what they were talking about when they wrote about advertising. I think it is safe to say that advertising makes objects seem like they are bigger better faster than the previous model. Advertising sells, we all know that, but what if we stopped buying? What would happen to the industry then?
It is assumed that the larger general public are just a bunch of robots ready to be made into whatever it is that the ruling class want to mold us into. "It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society." (257) After reading this I began to think about the video we watched in class last week about the kids being made into robots, standing in line falling into machines that eventually make them into spaghetti meat. I believe that Herman and Chomsky knew what they were talking about when they wrote about advertising. I think it is safe to say that advertising makes objects seem like they are bigger better faster than the previous model. Advertising sells, we all know that, but what if we stopped buying? What would happen to the industry then?
dmariel, Herman and Chomsky
In my CMC 350 International Media class last year, we studied Herman and Chomsky in regard to the propaganda model. This quote seems to sum up the purpose of the propaganda model: “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society”. I find it interesting that Herman and Chomsky state the first purpose of the propaganda model as amusement. I have always associated amusement with laughter and jokes. I definitely believe that this type of wording has a deeper purpose.
I have recently learned about a news station program, Al Jazeera (headquartered in Qatar), that functions very differently than any news program that we have in the United States. Their slogan is “the opinion and the counter opinion”. They try to appeal to as many viewers as possible and to encourage numerous opinions. Unlike the US news, AlJazeera gives background information and more truthful documentation about what is going on in the world and why. On the other hand, the US sticks to ‘filtering’ news and giving cover stories. AlJazeera is an example of what Herman and Chomsky refer to as a medium that actively “competes, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest”. What I always found astonishing about our relationship, or should I say lack of relationship, to AlJazeera is the US’s resistance to allowing it to be broadcast within the states. Although, very hypocritically, the US has designed a news station called Al Hurra that they broadcast in the middle east. This news station is a lame attempt at programming and it carries over an obvious propaganda model into the middle east. I believe that the US feels extremely threatened by AlJazeera, seemingly because they tell the truth. American news stations do everything to distract the average American citizen from seeking anything other than what news and information that they are given.
I have recently learned about a news station program, Al Jazeera (headquartered in Qatar), that functions very differently than any news program that we have in the United States. Their slogan is “the opinion and the counter opinion”. They try to appeal to as many viewers as possible and to encourage numerous opinions. Unlike the US news, AlJazeera gives background information and more truthful documentation about what is going on in the world and why. On the other hand, the US sticks to ‘filtering’ news and giving cover stories. AlJazeera is an example of what Herman and Chomsky refer to as a medium that actively “competes, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest”. What I always found astonishing about our relationship, or should I say lack of relationship, to AlJazeera is the US’s resistance to allowing it to be broadcast within the states. Although, very hypocritically, the US has designed a news station called Al Hurra that they broadcast in the middle east. This news station is a lame attempt at programming and it carries over an obvious propaganda model into the middle east. I believe that the US feels extremely threatened by AlJazeera, seemingly because they tell the truth. American news stations do everything to distract the average American citizen from seeking anything other than what news and information that they are given.
Petite Etoile, herman and chomsky
I think that if advertisements did not exist the world would have a lot more things that were well made. Because instead of being convinced on what to buy because a company has a good marketing team and great advertisers and models and photographers, you would buy products simply because of their ability to function well or because of their good taste. You would go into a store and buy the shirt that looked the best and fit the best and felt the best, not because years of advertising has taught you that GAP is better than some random “no-name” brand. And not only would products be of better character, but you would pick things that are better for you regardless. Some people just don't look good in certain types of clothing, but they buy them anyway because they are popular. In the same way with food and drink. You wouldn't buy food because it has a strong brand name on it and because you have been fooled into believing that it's better than the other foods because it has a better advertising campaign, but simply because it tastes better or because it was made with better products. And if that was the case than maybe we would be more concerned with how products affect the environment or whether or not people were abused or taken advantage of in the making of this product. And not to mention the fact that prices would be much better for the consumer because we wouldn't be willing to pay more for something simply because it was brand name. Companies would be more competitive with their prices because none of them would have the upper hand in popularity and know that they can charge more an get away with it. In essence we would have better quality, safer production, and better prices.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Murphy, 3/26
When discussing the waning effect, Jameson writes "But it means the end of much more-- the end of for example of style, in the sense of the unique and the personal, the end of the distinctive individual brush stroke". We looked at this quote in class in the power point as "the end...of style, in the sense of the unique and the personal."(492). I think the full quote adds extra emphasis to how detrimental and important it is to realize that if postmodernism is played out individuality will be snubbed out. Our culture is taking a shift, and has been for the past few decades, towards a society that encourages "sameness". There are magazines, websites, t.v. shows and other media outlets that describe in full detail how to be just like celebrities. The idea of copying a style, personality, sense of humor, look, or overall being has become a positive and enhancing trait. An example of one of these websites is...
http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-Like-a-Celebrity
On this specific page there are explicit step by step instructions on how to change your individual and unique self to become a replica of someone famous. The ironic part is you get to choose who and what to look like.
* Act Like a Celebrity
* Be Like Paris Hilton
* Look Like Britney Spears
* Look Like a Movie Star on a Budget
This concept ties well with the quote that we saw earlier in the class on Thursday, "waning of affect"(489). Jameson describes the change postmodern culture experiences, and how although we do not loose all emotion and thought, we do lose some. Through repetition we are loosing individuality and the value of the original. This idea brings me back to Jenkins quote, "As more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the Web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk-culture understanding of creativity"(556). The internet is the perfect example of how a postmodern shift in culture encourages repetition and discourages new innovations and individuality.
http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-Like-a-Celebrity
On this specific page there are explicit step by step instructions on how to change your individual and unique self to become a replica of someone famous. The ironic part is you get to choose who and what to look like.
* Act Like a Celebrity
* Be Like Paris Hilton
* Look Like Britney Spears
* Look Like a Movie Star on a Budget
This concept ties well with the quote that we saw earlier in the class on Thursday, "waning of affect"(489). Jameson describes the change postmodern culture experiences, and how although we do not loose all emotion and thought, we do lose some. Through repetition we are loosing individuality and the value of the original. This idea brings me back to Jenkins quote, "As more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the Web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk-culture understanding of creativity"(556). The internet is the perfect example of how a postmodern shift in culture encourages repetition and discourages new innovations and individuality.
aro0823, herman and chomsky
“Television is an advertising-supported medium, and to the extent that support falls out, programming will change” (268)
I was a bit taken aback by this reading due to the sheer fact that I could understand it and the concepts are applicable to my everyday life. As we discussed in class last week, our generation has never known life without constant advertisement bombardment. Because they are so prominent, it appears on the surface level that advertisements need television, internet, newspaper, etc. to survive, not the other way around. The thought never struck me that “without their support, [the media] would cease to be economically viable” (266). I would argue that, without advertisements, the media would still exist in localized forms, but the globalized media conglomerates that dominate the airwaves and make millions could not.
In this type of hypothetical situation, a world without billion dollar media conglomerates, the news could be about real objectivity, not just ‘objectivity’ within capitalistic bureaucratic constraints. Because the dominant media firms are nothing more than businesses, they seek to appeal to other businesses to make profit instead of operating within their assumed niche of newsgathering and informing the populace about “the real story.” I lament the fact that there is no true newsgathering organization. The stories that the public should actually know about are hidden behind thousands of spools of red tape created by high-powered lawyers. It is logical to take a constructivist approach to dissecting this propaganda industry because the media is only what we make it out to be. Before horizontal and vertical integration became fashionable, regulatory laws didn’t have to exist. After the onset of regulation laws, lobbying became vital. Then, came along the necessity for the revolving door between the public and the private spheres. At the heart of this mess lies the advertising industry, who arbitrarily assigned value where value should not be assigned. The advertising industry made impossible for independent media to exist, or even any story with substance or a hint of controversy. Who needs to know about the “military industrial complex, corporate support and benefits from Third World tyrannies” or environmental depredation worldwide, for in today’s industry, the only important consideration is if Rupert Murdoch can add a few million more businesses to his worldwide, hundred billion dollar conglomeration.
I was a bit taken aback by this reading due to the sheer fact that I could understand it and the concepts are applicable to my everyday life. As we discussed in class last week, our generation has never known life without constant advertisement bombardment. Because they are so prominent, it appears on the surface level that advertisements need television, internet, newspaper, etc. to survive, not the other way around. The thought never struck me that “without their support, [the media] would cease to be economically viable” (266). I would argue that, without advertisements, the media would still exist in localized forms, but the globalized media conglomerates that dominate the airwaves and make millions could not.
In this type of hypothetical situation, a world without billion dollar media conglomerates, the news could be about real objectivity, not just ‘objectivity’ within capitalistic bureaucratic constraints. Because the dominant media firms are nothing more than businesses, they seek to appeal to other businesses to make profit instead of operating within their assumed niche of newsgathering and informing the populace about “the real story.” I lament the fact that there is no true newsgathering organization. The stories that the public should actually know about are hidden behind thousands of spools of red tape created by high-powered lawyers. It is logical to take a constructivist approach to dissecting this propaganda industry because the media is only what we make it out to be. Before horizontal and vertical integration became fashionable, regulatory laws didn’t have to exist. After the onset of regulation laws, lobbying became vital. Then, came along the necessity for the revolving door between the public and the private spheres. At the heart of this mess lies the advertising industry, who arbitrarily assigned value where value should not be assigned. The advertising industry made impossible for independent media to exist, or even any story with substance or a hint of controversy. Who needs to know about the “military industrial complex, corporate support and benefits from Third World tyrannies” or environmental depredation worldwide, for in today’s industry, the only important consideration is if Rupert Murdoch can add a few million more businesses to his worldwide, hundred billion dollar conglomeration.
Marie89, Herman and Chomsky
While reading this text, I was shocked to discover that twenty four media giants control the top tier of media companies in the
post-it, 3/26
Marx brings up a relevant topic in today’s economic transition from a culture that sought the most luxurious to a culture that is digressing to a renewed belief in practicality and utility. Wasting money in today’s economic climate is irrational, everything that a consumer is not. This is creating a media attitude of “less is more” and segments are being featured about renewing one’s spirit and enjoying the important things in life. That the media must remind us of these basic ideas and activities to spend our time demonstrates the American reliance on the media to tell us what to do and how to do it.
Althusser’s ideas on the Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses give names to the ideas that Marx had. The ISA’s are at work in Western culture. Media is included on this list of things that operates as a way to keep us from total rebellion. Media calms us and educates us on the topics that we are allowed to understand. Power is withheld from the public through the information that the media does not publicize.
Learning about these theories during this period in American history is allowing our class a lens to truly see the implications of these theories at work. On days when the media share the ideas of the economy that are positive, the stock market goes up. On days that information is shared about the lasting effects that the poor economy will have on our society, special segments are offered to help those in an economic pinch cope with the situation. Coupons are also making a comeback although they have been available online for years. The way that we are changing our living habits is also leading to a more conscientious society that is learning to think about the impact of their actions upon those around them. The theories that Marx and Althusser had about the world are taking shape as necessity and cultural changes expose the system that has controlled our emotions to make us believe that we need more to be happy.
Althusser’s ideas on the Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses give names to the ideas that Marx had. The ISA’s are at work in Western culture. Media is included on this list of things that operates as a way to keep us from total rebellion. Media calms us and educates us on the topics that we are allowed to understand. Power is withheld from the public through the information that the media does not publicize.
Learning about these theories during this period in American history is allowing our class a lens to truly see the implications of these theories at work. On days when the media share the ideas of the economy that are positive, the stock market goes up. On days that information is shared about the lasting effects that the poor economy will have on our society, special segments are offered to help those in an economic pinch cope with the situation. Coupons are also making a comeback although they have been available online for years. The way that we are changing our living habits is also leading to a more conscientious society that is learning to think about the impact of their actions upon those around them. The theories that Marx and Althusser had about the world are taking shape as necessity and cultural changes expose the system that has controlled our emotions to make us believe that we need more to be happy.
Happy Birthday, 3/29
In class on Thursday we discussed Jameson’s view on multinational capitalism. Jameson believes that postmodernism and multinational capitalism are the same thing. He stresses the fact that our culture is currently dominated by corporate need for profit. This idea can be related back to Horkheimer and Adorno when they state, “Mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same” (43). Everything nowadays is created for a profit—nothing is valuable to us anymore unless someone else wants it and then it becomes worth something. I know we’ve used this example millions of times in class, but it’s just like television shows! Identical television shows are made in order to make a profit, the reason why they are the same as every other show is because no one wants to make a television show that’s “new”, for the fear of it failing—so everyone just re-invents a show that has already been made (the bachelor). Jameson states, “depth has been replaced by surface”. (490) Jameson is saying that we have evolved into a society which is driven by want instead of need and craves the newest, fastest, $$ product. Also, Jameson touches upon this notion that nothing is scandalous to us anymore, and nothing shocks us. Jameson stresses that all aspects of our society once shocked people, but as time progressed these shocking behaviors became normalized and part of mainstream culture. A good example of this seen today all over Rollins campus is men wearing “womanish” clothing. For example, bright colored v-neck tee shirts, tight bright colored pants, scarves, and jewelry are seen quite frequently nowadays. However, this was not the trend ten years ago. This trend has become normalized and part of our everyday life—but I can remember thinking how weird it was when I saw a guy wearing tight skinny purple pants (11th grade in high school)….now though, it does not even phase me. I think our society will begin to normalize things much quicker and accept new looks, ideas, people, and pretty much everything a lot quicker because we are so different than any generation.
yellowdaisy4, 3/29/09
There were a few quotes we discussed in class from Jameson that I understood the most and could connect other things we discussed to. In the readings, Jameson talked about the “waning of affect” which means the going away or decreasing of feelings or of an emotive response. This quote relates to how the media, especially the news, bombards us with so many images constantly to a point where tragic events are no longer that shocking or moving and more of just a typical story. This reminds me of what Lyotard was talking about when he wrote how the media provides the correct images, narratives and the format so it is designed as “the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depression the public experiences” (41). This quote relates because it describes how the media uses the same formula, like the mother of a missing child in suffering formula, that although depicts real pain uses the same formula as the other stories so viewers don’t feel as compassionate as they normally would because they are used to it. Instead of feeling sorry for the family, viewers would more likely be annoyed of too much coverage of that story.
I also found Jameson’s quotes about how “pastiche eclipses parody” and “parody finds itself without a vocation” (493) to be interesting because that definitely affects pop culture today. Television shows like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and even Conan O’Brien are so popular and all they do is just piece actual clips of things people said together, usually politicians, which in themselves are so funny. It’s either hard to actually make fun of something or too easy because it’s already done for you by the actual person. This connects to another Lyotard quote of “so called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery” (40). It’s entertaining for us to watch how silly our world is and see how others react to it.
I also found Jameson’s quotes about how “pastiche eclipses parody” and “parody finds itself without a vocation” (493) to be interesting because that definitely affects pop culture today. Television shows like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and even Conan O’Brien are so popular and all they do is just piece actual clips of things people said together, usually politicians, which in themselves are so funny. It’s either hard to actually make fun of something or too easy because it’s already done for you by the actual person. This connects to another Lyotard quote of “so called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery” (40). It’s entertaining for us to watch how silly our world is and see how others react to it.
Dot, 3/29
I was very interested in many of the things I learned while discussing Adorno and Horkheimer in class on Thursday. I have also been curious about the ways in which mass culture controls our lives and I found Adorno and Horkheimer's views on the subject quite insightful. Out of everything that we talked about in class, I was taken aback by one statement in particular.
"Only those who can keep paying the exorbitant fees charged by the advertising agencies... That is, those who are already part of the system... Can enter the pseudomarket as sellers" (68). I had never really thought about this in an academic setting before, but it is definitely something I think about on a regular basis. I am from a small town where most of the businesses are family run. In recent years, many of these small businesses have been struggling to compete with corporation owned companies that sell similar products. They do not have the economical resources that larger corporations do and therefore find it hard to stay open. Larger companies are able to not only advertise more, as Adorno and Horkheimer argue, but also they are able to sell a larger range of products, where family owned businesses normally stick with specialized items that may not draw as many customers.
A few years ago a Target opened up in my town and for months all I ever heard people talk about was how much of an impact it was going to make on the local economy. I, however, was overjoyed that such a new and exciting place to shop was opening up nearby... Before Target on had to travel at least forty minutes to go to such a store. I did not understand how much this new corporation would really effect everything in the town. Since its opening, many smaller, family owned stores have been forced to close down, forcing those who did still buy goods at those stores to shop at Target.
When presented with the quote by Adorno and Horkheimer, I thought about and for the first time realized how much advertising big corporations really do send out and how much it must cost. Every Sunday the local newspaper in my town contains a glossy paged Target ad booklet, where local businesses may put a small ad in the newspaper. Companies like Target also advertise all over the internet and on television. They can afford to spend money on tons of advertising and therefore stay in the minds of consumers where small businesses do not have this luxury.
The end of Adorno and Horkheimer's quote also presents a very interesting point. The world of consumer marketing and selling is a circle of sorts that is very hard to break into. This circle contains the larger companies and corporations that are able to pay its high fees, but excludes smaller businesses and limits them from being able to sell their products. The economy of our culture at this time does not really help the smaller businesses either; as they are having a hard time paying for everything, advertising is probably their last concern.
spaghetti, 3/29
"To be entertained means to be in agreement." Upon reflection of this quote form Adorno, I began tho think about my praxis project regarding 9/11 and its affect on the film industry. In my group, we researched not only the fascination with terror but also the common fixation with destruction as entertainment. To a certain extent, this quote applies to the concept at hand. In oder for a film to be truly "successful" (meaning it generates a lot of profit), audience members not only have to subscribe to the ideas expressed in the film, but they also have to enjoy them to a certain extent. I remember one time asking my mother how she liked a movie she told me she had gone to see. She told me she and her friend found the film so offensive and sexist that they left. Therefore, audience members have to agree somewhat with the ideas expressed in the film in order for the film to make any money. In terms of the movies that have come out since the 9/11 attacks, audience members have to agree with the notion that the United States is an innocent victim and that the terrorists are the unprovoked aggressors; because this is the sentiment expressed in the majority of mainstream and conventionally successful films regarding the subject. But what makes people subscribe to this particular ideology? I blame the media, and more specifically news networks. Opposing viewpoints exist, but are very rarely publicly broadcast. The reality of it is its ties into a political agenda. The hegemonic ideology is that which is expressed in these films, and people absent-mindedly subscribe to it. It they didn't these films would not make as much money and wouldn't be as well received by the general public.
MerryChristmas!, 3-29
"The dominant taste derives its ideal from the advertisement, from commodified beauty."
During our class discussion, this quotation stood out to me because of previous class discussions in CMC 100 and CMC 200. We discussed this notion of the "commodified beauty" in advertisements and celebrity endorsements. What is "commodified" beauty? Who establishes what beauty is? Dove is one company in particular that I focused this notion of commodified beauty on. Their campaign for "real beauty" is one that seems to go against the norm. However, some ulterior motives may take place here. Dove's "real beauty" campaign features everyday looking women who have realistic body types with curves. The women in Dove's advertisements are of all races and ages. This idea seems refreshing and like a positive influence on the surface. However, when you take a step back to realize what is going on here, the marketing campaign is ingenious. If the majority of women can relate to these ads and women assume they are promoting a positive image, more products will be sold. It seems likely that the people behind the advertisements were simply trying to find a way to sell the product. What not a better way to sell a product than by depicting realistic women on their ads rather than unrealistic, tall, thin models with perfect complexions that are most likely tall, caucasian, blonde, and with blue eyes. As stated in one of my communications classes, the average size pants in the United States among women is size 14, not a size 2. So by showing women who can relate to the majority, Dove will sell more products as a result. This is the only instance where I see this idea of commodified beauty not being used, but most likely being a success.
Here is a youtube video as part of their campaign for "real beauty", check it out. It is really interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U
During our class discussion, this quotation stood out to me because of previous class discussions in CMC 100 and CMC 200. We discussed this notion of the "commodified beauty" in advertisements and celebrity endorsements. What is "commodified" beauty? Who establishes what beauty is? Dove is one company in particular that I focused this notion of commodified beauty on. Their campaign for "real beauty" is one that seems to go against the norm. However, some ulterior motives may take place here. Dove's "real beauty" campaign features everyday looking women who have realistic body types with curves. The women in Dove's advertisements are of all races and ages. This idea seems refreshing and like a positive influence on the surface. However, when you take a step back to realize what is going on here, the marketing campaign is ingenious. If the majority of women can relate to these ads and women assume they are promoting a positive image, more products will be sold. It seems likely that the people behind the advertisements were simply trying to find a way to sell the product. What not a better way to sell a product than by depicting realistic women on their ads rather than unrealistic, tall, thin models with perfect complexions that are most likely tall, caucasian, blonde, and with blue eyes. As stated in one of my communications classes, the average size pants in the United States among women is size 14, not a size 2. So by showing women who can relate to the majority, Dove will sell more products as a result. This is the only instance where I see this idea of commodified beauty not being used, but most likely being a success.
Here is a youtube video as part of their campaign for "real beauty", check it out. It is really interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U
JLO63O, 3/26
When I think of culture I think of something unique, special, and comparably different. I think of indigenous tribes with campfire rituals and I think of tea ceremonies and chopsticks. So when Adorno wrote, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” (41) it sounded like an oxymoron. Unfortunately, the more we talk and think about it, the more oxymoronically correct this statement becomes. It seems more and more like everywhere we go and everything we see there are a set of norms and sameness in the results. After traveling much of the world, I found that in no matter what country— however same or different from the US – I would always be able to get around. In Tokyo for example, among all the Japanese Sanskrit, I could find a Starbucks logo. I could go into a starbucks the same exact menu (and same exact seasonal specials!), and I could even use my Starbucks card I got for my birthday back in the States. The more we expanded on this concept in class, the more we came to realize that sameness was truly infecting everything. Pandora radio is an example that I thought was exceptionally interesting in the fact that Pandora prizes itself on supplying a wide array of music, but in the end, we’re still all listening to the same songs! We see sameness in fashion and movie constructs as well. In Tokyo the majority of people weren’t walking around in Kimonos but rather in Jeans and high-heels. And Tokyo, to me, when I went in November was exceptionally familiar because Christmas music was echoing in the streets and shops were decorated with fake snow and ornaments.
I took this picture when I was abroad in Japan because I remember looking at it and thinking how unnatural this seemed. I realize, after saying that, how this statement can be viewed as naïve or narrow minded, but I came to Japan with a set list of norms and values that I would have to adapt to in order to pay respect for the country (such as bowing and using chop sticks). I thought they were Buddhist and Shinto, and not to say that I wasn’t pleasantly surprised how comfortable I was half way across the world, but I was surprised how same their culture was/is becoming to ours (and I say that because I know for certain that we’re not becoming more like them!). On the one hand, it’s a very easing feeling knowing you can travel the world and almost know what to expect… or at least know wherever you go it won’t be uncomfortably foreign; but on the other hand, there is so much less to be learned from sameness.
I took this picture when I was abroad in Japan because I remember looking at it and thinking how unnatural this seemed. I realize, after saying that, how this statement can be viewed as naïve or narrow minded, but I came to Japan with a set list of norms and values that I would have to adapt to in order to pay respect for the country (such as bowing and using chop sticks). I thought they were Buddhist and Shinto, and not to say that I wasn’t pleasantly surprised how comfortable I was half way across the world, but I was surprised how same their culture was/is becoming to ours (and I say that because I know for certain that we’re not becoming more like them!). On the one hand, it’s a very easing feeling knowing you can travel the world and almost know what to expect… or at least know wherever you go it won’t be uncomfortably foreign; but on the other hand, there is so much less to be learned from sameness.
CMCstudent, 3/29
“To entertain means to be in agreement.” (57)
“Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its roots it is powerless.” (57)
We discussed these two quotes in class this week. Placing these quotes together I felt a strong connection with Eco’s quote on Disneyland, “a place of passivity, its visitors must agree to behave like robots” (205). One must not question where all of the African Americans are because then Disneyland would no longer be fun. A place is only fun if you take it for what it is, instead of analyzing every aspect there or not there. One must agree with what they are seeing rather than oppose it.
We also discussed as in any entertainment, racial stereotypes and gender stereotypes must be put aside in order to enjoy what is being presented to you. If one looks too deeply into what is actually going on and the suffering that is taking place in order to make people laugh we may feel sympathy towards them and be unable to enjoy the “amusement.”
Horkheimer and Adorno say that amusement is powerless but I beg to differ on that. I think amusement can be very powerful. If amusement is able to put suffering out of our minds even when it is right in front of us, I would have to say that it is a pretty powerful tool. Personally I do like movies like Saw because I do not understand how people can enjoy watching others being tortured. Whenever I watch a movie, I always find myself putting myself into characters places, seeing how I would feel in situations. It is for that reason that I could never watch a movie like Saw, because I could not imagine myself having to mutilate myself in such a way and I certainly do not find it to be entertainment.
“Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its roots it is powerless.” (57)
We discussed these two quotes in class this week. Placing these quotes together I felt a strong connection with Eco’s quote on Disneyland, “a place of passivity, its visitors must agree to behave like robots” (205). One must not question where all of the African Americans are because then Disneyland would no longer be fun. A place is only fun if you take it for what it is, instead of analyzing every aspect there or not there. One must agree with what they are seeing rather than oppose it.
We also discussed as in any entertainment, racial stereotypes and gender stereotypes must be put aside in order to enjoy what is being presented to you. If one looks too deeply into what is actually going on and the suffering that is taking place in order to make people laugh we may feel sympathy towards them and be unable to enjoy the “amusement.”
Horkheimer and Adorno say that amusement is powerless but I beg to differ on that. I think amusement can be very powerful. If amusement is able to put suffering out of our minds even when it is right in front of us, I would have to say that it is a pretty powerful tool. Personally I do like movies like Saw because I do not understand how people can enjoy watching others being tortured. Whenever I watch a movie, I always find myself putting myself into characters places, seeing how I would feel in situations. It is for that reason that I could never watch a movie like Saw, because I could not imagine myself having to mutilate myself in such a way and I certainly do not find it to be entertainment.
Juice15 3/24
There were a few interesting quotes this week that really made think deeper about them. One quote was from Hebdige. This quote was “Advertising and the culture industry are merging technically no less than economically. In both, the lame things appear in countless places.” In CMC 100 I wrote a critical analysis paper about how athletes are portrayed in magazine advertisements. After reading this quote I realized that I have seen many of the same advertisements in that magazine appear on many different websites. Also, I have seen advertisements for the same products with the same athletes on television commercials. I have even seen a few of the advertisements in newspapers. I feel this is what Hebdige is talking about when he said “countless places,” which today means almost every possible medium. Trying to defamiliarze myself with this idea is something that I have never thought of. There are so many different pop ups and online advertisements today that I have learned to get rid of them or ignore them without any trouble. Pop ups have been part of my Internet usage ever since I first started to use it. Some advertisements cover up the whole screen, some just pop up, some show up when your mouse moves over a certain area of the website and the rate and repetition which these are used or seen is very high especially online.
I feel this can tie into another Hebdige quote “Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine.” I looked at this more as how mass culture can turn something into routine. Even though some people feel pop ups all the time are a tragedy. I just see how this merging of advertising and the culture industry is a very routine thing to do and is not seen as anything new or excited, but more of an accepted fact.
I feel this can tie into another Hebdige quote “Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine.” I looked at this more as how mass culture can turn something into routine. Even though some people feel pop ups all the time are a tragedy. I just see how this merging of advertising and the culture industry is a very routine thing to do and is not seen as anything new or excited, but more of an accepted fact.
ashlayla, 3/24
During Tuesday's class, I was able to relate two quotes from the Horkheimer and Adorno essay together. The first quote is, "The standardized forms…were originally derived from the needs of the consumers…” (42). To me this quote is saying that the want becomes the need. I today's society we want new and we want better. If a new model of a cell phone comes out on the market we want it because it is new and better than the old model. We wanted and needed transportation, so car companies like Ford began making cars for the consumers. We are transitioning from like homemade products more to liking homogenized products more. We are blending products together that have very few similarities to create a new and better product. This is where I was able to tie in the other quote, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness.” (41) We have to have similarities with each other in order to be a culture, which is similar to mash-up culture, when we combine the different elements and make them something new. I was also able to relate this to Jencks' notion of radical eclecticism...when you take two things that are as far apart as possible and put them together. Like, for example, at the Louvre where there are classical and modern types of architecture present. Or when a power plant was turned into the Tate Museum in London. I was able to connect all three of these ideas together because, in today's society we are constantly wanting something new but we want it to be better. So, we create a product that is unique and much better than the original by combining two different elements. For example, people wanted a phone that they could also use to take pictures with, so we "mashed" together a phone and camera to create a camera phone. Camera phones were new and better than the original cell phones which pleased the consumer. Our society will continue to bring together different products to create newer and better ones because consumers are going to always want something that is new and better than what they currently have.
coolbeans, 3/29
This week in class there was a quote that particularly stuck out for me. "To be entertained means to be in agreement” (57). This was particularly interesting to me because I was trying to think of ways in which this statement could be false. The statement is true in every scenario that I could think of. The quote seems strange because we never think of entertainment as agreement. If someone were to ask me if I knew a synonym for entertainment the first word to come to my mind would certainly not be agreement. Usually, entertainment is associated with fun, leisure, amusement, or hobbies. I found it interesting that Horkheimer and Adorno had equated entertainment with agreement because it is a highly critical way of viewing entertainment. Entertainment which is seen as something fun, interesting, exciting, is shown as something to be conformed to. It is as if those who agree to buy into this “entertainment” are being suckered into believing something. It just goes to show that everything does require ideology in order to be something. If nobody bought into entertainment then it would be nothing. It is a little bit similar to the idea that for something to have value people must place a value on it. A product will not be considered valuable if nobody cares about it. Similarly, entertainment cannot exist if people do not agree to the terms required of them to be entertained. For example, a person who goes to see a hypnotist show will not be entertained if they go into the experience having already decided that hypnotism is not real. Whereas a person who allows himself to be open to the experience will be entertained when he sees the people undergoing hypnosis. It is strange to view such an ordinary everyday concept such as entertainment in a critical way, as something that needs to be bought into.
Smiley Face - 3/29
What stuck with me most from class this week was the clash between the presence of subcultures in society and the concept of multinational capitalism. Culture, from the perspective of Horkheimer and Adorno, 'infects' everything with the notion of 'sameness.' They believe that culture takes different formats of culture and mashes them together in order to make one generalized culture that is accessible to all as well as being a safe way of ensuring profit. In previous classes we discussed the development of certain shows (such as Lost from Guilligan's Island) that are in fact the same format but have been reproduced to seem 'newer' and 'better,' bordering Habermas's "cult of the new." The sameness originally came from the needs of the consumers, yet over time that 'need' gets easily mistaken for 'want' and therefore the sameness of culture emerges. One way Horkheimer and Adorno recognize as a way of the ruling class maintaining control over the reproduction of sameness is culture is by creating and re-creating the 'success' myth, the American Dream in the US, to have the masses constantly following the ideology and consequently accepting the repetition of culture. Another means of keeping that control is by the presence of 'pseudoindividuality,' the individual personalization of the same thing available to everyone else. Here it is obvious to contrast the American ruling class ideologies of fast, new, active, and many to slow, old, passive and few (going back to Marx). Culture presents itself to the consumer as unique, yet it is appealing to the consumer because it is similar to what they have previously experienced.
To go further with the idea of sameness to guarantee profit, Jameson introduces the term 'multinational capitalism' in reference to the guarantee of profit from a global stand-point, and holds many similarities to postmodernism. Culture creates an 'economic urgency' to reproduce the 'new' not because it is necessary but because consumers are lead to believe they 'nee' it.
Culture, from the view of Horkheimer and Adorno, is progressing in an unoriginal fashion while Jamerson recognizes culture as being dominated with a corporate need for profit. The consumers and producers understanding of 'need' has altered over time to having a 'want.' Greed now rules culture.
To go further with the idea of sameness to guarantee profit, Jameson introduces the term 'multinational capitalism' in reference to the guarantee of profit from a global stand-point, and holds many similarities to postmodernism. Culture creates an 'economic urgency' to reproduce the 'new' not because it is necessary but because consumers are lead to believe they 'nee' it.
Culture, from the view of Horkheimer and Adorno, is progressing in an unoriginal fashion while Jamerson recognizes culture as being dominated with a corporate need for profit. The consumers and producers understanding of 'need' has altered over time to having a 'want.' Greed now rules culture.
000ooo000ooo Chomsky
I found Herman and Chomsky's essay to be kind of refreshing because I could actually understand what they were talking about all the way through it. It was also good to brush up on some of the basic CMC ideas. Reading this article I began to wonder what could possibly be done to change the situation. When the government, the media, and corporations are all in on the same system, it is going to be incredibly difficult to challenge or take down this system. However, I think the internet could pose a major challenge to the current system. The internet offers a way for each of Herman and Chomsky's five filters to be avoided.
First, through Jenkins we have seen how participatory fan communities can put control of information into the hands of the public and we have seen the internet's ability to break down spacial barriers and connect people from all over the world. This would help break through the first filter, "Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media". The size of the media makes it nearly impossible for new media outlets to compete with the well-established ones. It costs so much to start up a newspaper, TV station, or or radio station that only the elite can afford to do this. However, it is virtually free to post a video online. Additionally, it costs a lot of money for one outlet to cover stories from all over the world. Using the internet, a bunch of different people from all over the world could contribute to a single outlet and none of them would have to worry about anything but "local" news, which is much cheaper and easier to cover. Also, "profit orientation" would not be an issue because corporations and stockholders would not be involved.
"The Advertising License to do Business" would not effect this kind of internet based news because costs would be so low and advertising works differently on the internet than on TV. Costs would be low because people would just be covering pseudo-local news for themselves, you wouldn't have to pay celebrities like Dan Rather or Katie Couric, and the only technology people would have to invest in is a camera and a computer - both relatively cheap technologies today. Additionally, without the need for major advertising, reporters would not have to worry about upsetting sponsors.
"Sourcing Mass Media News" could be an issue because it would be difficult for individuals to get access to the same first hand information as other large news sources but these other sources publish what the sources say so it is easy enough just to see what is reported and then look more in-depth into that.
"Flak and the Enforcers" would probably still exist but if a media is not dependent on the approval of corporations and the government then this kind of "flak" cannot do much. Even lawsuits would be risky for corporations to carry out because they would simply draw more attention to the charges made against them.
Finally, I do not think that anti-communism is still much of an issue because the Soviet Union has collapsed since this essay was written and it is rare to ever hear people talking about communism anymore.
Although I see a lot of promise in the internet, it also seems that the hegemonic system we have in place is capable of commodifying and swallowing up just about any threat that it sees. I'm sure that as soon as a viable alternative to mass media news springs up some corporation will buy it out or find a way to overshadow it and its effects will be marginalized.
First, through Jenkins we have seen how participatory fan communities can put control of information into the hands of the public and we have seen the internet's ability to break down spacial barriers and connect people from all over the world. This would help break through the first filter, "Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media". The size of the media makes it nearly impossible for new media outlets to compete with the well-established ones. It costs so much to start up a newspaper, TV station, or or radio station that only the elite can afford to do this. However, it is virtually free to post a video online. Additionally, it costs a lot of money for one outlet to cover stories from all over the world. Using the internet, a bunch of different people from all over the world could contribute to a single outlet and none of them would have to worry about anything but "local" news, which is much cheaper and easier to cover. Also, "profit orientation" would not be an issue because corporations and stockholders would not be involved.
"The Advertising License to do Business" would not effect this kind of internet based news because costs would be so low and advertising works differently on the internet than on TV. Costs would be low because people would just be covering pseudo-local news for themselves, you wouldn't have to pay celebrities like Dan Rather or Katie Couric, and the only technology people would have to invest in is a camera and a computer - both relatively cheap technologies today. Additionally, without the need for major advertising, reporters would not have to worry about upsetting sponsors.
"Sourcing Mass Media News" could be an issue because it would be difficult for individuals to get access to the same first hand information as other large news sources but these other sources publish what the sources say so it is easy enough just to see what is reported and then look more in-depth into that.
"Flak and the Enforcers" would probably still exist but if a media is not dependent on the approval of corporations and the government then this kind of "flak" cannot do much. Even lawsuits would be risky for corporations to carry out because they would simply draw more attention to the charges made against them.
Finally, I do not think that anti-communism is still much of an issue because the Soviet Union has collapsed since this essay was written and it is rare to ever hear people talking about communism anymore.
Although I see a lot of promise in the internet, it also seems that the hegemonic system we have in place is capable of commodifying and swallowing up just about any threat that it sees. I'm sure that as soon as a viable alternative to mass media news springs up some corporation will buy it out or find a way to overshadow it and its effects will be marginalized.
Trapnest, 3/29
As someone who is interested in going into advertising and marketing as a profession Adorno’s comments on the world of marketing and advertising were of particular interest to me and raised particular mention. These two quotes seems to work together:
“The Dominant taste derives its ideal from the advertisement, from commodified beauty.” 64
“Only those who can keep paying the exorbitant fees charged by the advertising agencies… that is, those who are already part of the system… can enter the pseudomarket as sellers.” 68
The reason why I chose these two to begin my discussion is I believe they set up the framework for our world of advertising. Firstly, it is advertising that establishes what we want, what we “Have to have.” Think of (a classic example in the CMC major) the pet rocks that were popular back in the sixties. Everyone knows a pet rock, is a rock, and will not do anything. Yet advertising sets in motion the proverbial snowball, once a few people have to have it, everyone does. The next quote exemplifies who has power to do this within the market. Everyone knows about that actually useful product that’s out for five years and you only eventually hear about it though one of your friends because all the company had money for was a 20 minute infomercial on Lifetime at 3am in the morning on a Tuesday night. Whereas there are hundreds of products that may not be as good as my hypothetical example but you see them everywhere so you’re more likely to consume them.
Another great example of these working in tandem is the movie industry. Think of the last movie you saw that was a let-down. Everyone has gone to the movies, sat down, excited for what you’re about to see and then realizes they put the “best parts” in the preview. Advertising creates an artificial hype about its products. Companies with money pay millions of dollars to have their posters in every theatre, previews on every channel, and cardboard cut outs in every movie store. When you constantly hear and see something you cannot help but having an invested interest in it.
While this is a theorist/theory that is brought up a lot I believe this exemplifies the cult of the new. Advertising continually creates “new” and “better” things that you have to have. And it could not have this power to usurp the old products if it was not present in all aspects of society, a constantly convincing and present force.
“The Dominant taste derives its ideal from the advertisement, from commodified beauty.” 64
“Only those who can keep paying the exorbitant fees charged by the advertising agencies… that is, those who are already part of the system… can enter the pseudomarket as sellers.” 68
The reason why I chose these two to begin my discussion is I believe they set up the framework for our world of advertising. Firstly, it is advertising that establishes what we want, what we “Have to have.” Think of (a classic example in the CMC major) the pet rocks that were popular back in the sixties. Everyone knows a pet rock, is a rock, and will not do anything. Yet advertising sets in motion the proverbial snowball, once a few people have to have it, everyone does. The next quote exemplifies who has power to do this within the market. Everyone knows about that actually useful product that’s out for five years and you only eventually hear about it though one of your friends because all the company had money for was a 20 minute infomercial on Lifetime at 3am in the morning on a Tuesday night. Whereas there are hundreds of products that may not be as good as my hypothetical example but you see them everywhere so you’re more likely to consume them.
Another great example of these working in tandem is the movie industry. Think of the last movie you saw that was a let-down. Everyone has gone to the movies, sat down, excited for what you’re about to see and then realizes they put the “best parts” in the preview. Advertising creates an artificial hype about its products. Companies with money pay millions of dollars to have their posters in every theatre, previews on every channel, and cardboard cut outs in every movie store. When you constantly hear and see something you cannot help but having an invested interest in it.
While this is a theorist/theory that is brought up a lot I believe this exemplifies the cult of the new. Advertising continually creates “new” and “better” things that you have to have. And it could not have this power to usurp the old products if it was not present in all aspects of society, a constantly convincing and present force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)