Saturday, April 11, 2009
Petite Etoile, 4/12
In class we talked about how journalists have to have a tv program in order to be successful. But in today's world not only do you need a tv show, you also need a website, a facebook, a myspace, and a twitter account. And not only do you need these things, you also need them to look really really good. You can't just have an everyday normal account like everyone else does. You have to have it 'pimped' out and professionally designed so it looks completely different from a 'normal' person's account. With professional pictures and the focus being on whoever it is. Not only so, but you need to know all the right people who can promote you so you get the traffic flow on your site that you need to be famous. There's a whole network of hoops you have to jump through in order to get on television. Even if your a good writer or reporter it's ridiculously difficult to get on television. Much in the same way we talked about how it's so difficult to actually get your product onto the shelves in stores. And sadly this applies to almost everything - acting, modeling, professional sports, government positions, video game development, you name it and even if you aren't aware of it the same difficulties and injustices occur. And it's awful that we live in such a society that people can't do what they love or what they are good at because you have to have an immense amount of privilege and unfair advantages in order to do so. Most people wouldn't even know where to begin getting all of this for their career. And if they have some idea, and do begin to scratch the surface and try to get somewhere, then they realize how ridiculously twisted and difficult and uncertain the path is and become disheartened and give up all together. Our society has been created to set people up for failure so they can support the lives of the rich and famous.
000ooo000ooo Derrida
Derrida was definitely one of the most difficult theorists for me to read so far. I think part of the problem was the translation from french to english and the fact that a lot of the connections and conclusions he came to in french didn't exactly translate to english in a way that was easy to understand. Regardless of a language barrier, I think differance is a very difficult idea to understand because like the thoughts of Barthes and de Saussure, who Derrida draws from, he is talking about very abstract ideas that are difficult to visualize, put into context, or find meaning in.
Because I was having trouble understanding Derrida I looked online for some study-guides and summaries of his writing to try and better understand "differance". In my search I found a quote that I feel sums up postmodernism as a whole as well as Derrida's idea. After presenting "Differance" an audience member said, "It is the source of everything and one cannot know it: it is the God of negative theology." To this Derrida replied, "It is and it is not." Welcome to postmodernism.
While I find this type of answer extremely frustrating and difficult to learn from, I think that in the context of Derrida's essay it says a lot. It's hard to argue with Derrida's propositions because any time you start to define a word you have to use other words and you either use a synononym or an antonym. Antonyms, or what the word is the "opposite" of are usually most effective because synonyms require "its like a ______ except..." and then the difference, since very few words have exact synonyms. However, I would challenge Derrida's idea that our thought processes require this sort of thinking. When someone says "cow" I don't think of everything that is not a cow and the different things that make up a cow, I just picture a cow. Granted it's not the same cow everytime, but I just think of a cow, nothing else. I do understand though that everybody would have their own idea of "cow", even if it essentially the same thing, and perhaps this is what Derrida means when he talks about how meaning is always deferred. This could also relate to tmesis because you never know what a particular person's perception of a particular word will be.
Another disagreement I have with Derrida is that people see speech as being in some way above reading as a form of communication. Maybe they do that in France, but I have never felt that way in America. I think most people see speech as a casual method of communication, for conversations or watching TV, while the written word is formal and official. When we make formal agreements with other people we don't just promise, we write a document and sign it. When someone has something important to say they don't go on the radio or give speeches, they write a book - and if they are on TV or speaking its just to promote their book. Perhaps this point went over my head - as I'm afraid a lot of this essay did - but for now I have to disagree with Derrida that speech has been given appreciation over the written word.
Because I was having trouble understanding Derrida I looked online for some study-guides and summaries of his writing to try and better understand "differance". In my search I found a quote that I feel sums up postmodernism as a whole as well as Derrida's idea. After presenting "Differance" an audience member said, "It is the source of everything and one cannot know it: it is the God of negative theology." To this Derrida replied, "It is and it is not." Welcome to postmodernism.
While I find this type of answer extremely frustrating and difficult to learn from, I think that in the context of Derrida's essay it says a lot. It's hard to argue with Derrida's propositions because any time you start to define a word you have to use other words and you either use a synononym or an antonym. Antonyms, or what the word is the "opposite" of are usually most effective because synonyms require "its like a ______ except..." and then the difference, since very few words have exact synonyms. However, I would challenge Derrida's idea that our thought processes require this sort of thinking. When someone says "cow" I don't think of everything that is not a cow and the different things that make up a cow, I just picture a cow. Granted it's not the same cow everytime, but I just think of a cow, nothing else. I do understand though that everybody would have their own idea of "cow", even if it essentially the same thing, and perhaps this is what Derrida means when he talks about how meaning is always deferred. This could also relate to tmesis because you never know what a particular person's perception of a particular word will be.
Another disagreement I have with Derrida is that people see speech as being in some way above reading as a form of communication. Maybe they do that in France, but I have never felt that way in America. I think most people see speech as a casual method of communication, for conversations or watching TV, while the written word is formal and official. When we make formal agreements with other people we don't just promise, we write a document and sign it. When someone has something important to say they don't go on the radio or give speeches, they write a book - and if they are on TV or speaking its just to promote their book. Perhaps this point went over my head - as I'm afraid a lot of this essay did - but for now I have to disagree with Derrida that speech has been given appreciation over the written word.
Murphy, 4/11
Technology is one of the largest, if not the largest, proponents of human evolution. When technology advances, and becomes more efficient, society is forced to keep up and adapt to the new structures. When the printing press came out it was revolutionary and seen as a high-tech, speedy, a time saver, and something that could mass produce media and improved published communication. Although we still have printed press in our modern society, it is not the go-to, or main source of media (at least not the quickest source). In class we discussed how newspapers are going under today because of our cultural need to have a story in our hands as soon as it happens, if not beforehand. The newspapers cannot keep up with this desire.
This idea of fast=better brings me back to our discussion on Marx and the binary oppositions of the American ruling class. This idea that fast is better than slow, new is better than old, etc. These dictated concepts are universal constructions our society holds as ideological. With this dominant ideology in power, the printed media have no chance of thriving, let alone surviving against radio, television, and most recently and competitively, the Internet.
Some consider the study of new media and technologies to be a wase of time. Without studying them, people will not understand how to crtically analyze them and challange what they are producing. Bourdieu writes,"The failure of critical thinkers and organizations charged with articulating the interests of dominated individuals to think clearly about this problem only reinforeces the mechanisms I have described" (336). I think CMC is a great major to have, but I do not think it puts us completely out of the realm, of the advertisments. We have a better foundation to think outside of the box, but we are still under the infulence of the non stop exposure to media, advertisments, and labels.
This idea of fast=better brings me back to our discussion on Marx and the binary oppositions of the American ruling class. This idea that fast is better than slow, new is better than old, etc. These dictated concepts are universal constructions our society holds as ideological. With this dominant ideology in power, the printed media have no chance of thriving, let alone surviving against radio, television, and most recently and competitively, the Internet.
Some consider the study of new media and technologies to be a wase of time. Without studying them, people will not understand how to crtically analyze them and challange what they are producing. Bourdieu writes,"The failure of critical thinkers and organizations charged with articulating the interests of dominated individuals to think clearly about this problem only reinforeces the mechanisms I have described" (336). I think CMC is a great major to have, but I do not think it puts us completely out of the realm, of the advertisments. We have a better foundation to think outside of the box, but we are still under the infulence of the non stop exposure to media, advertisments, and labels.
000ooo000ooo 4/11
The idea that caught my attention the most in class today came in the second quote that Dr. Casey put on the board. In the following quote it was the notion of "freedom" which most drew my attention: "Increasing awareness of the mechanisms at work, for example, can help by offering a measure of freedom to those manipulated by these mechanisms, whether they are journalists or viewers" (335).
As an American, any time the word freedom is used I am forced to read its usage twice. We love the word "freedom" in America and tmesis acts heavily upon us anytime the word comes up. We claim that our country was built upon principles of freedom and that it is our duty to spread freedom throughout the world. As such, I find this example of the word freedom to be particularly interesting.
Bordieu is claiming that the media actually acts against freedom. This is a novel idea because one of the principle freedoms Americans site on a daily basis is "freedom of speech". The mass media often claim that they epitomize "freedom of speech". However, Bordieu suggests that these media actually detract from our intellectual freedoms, and when we lose our intellect we effectively lose our freedom of speech and rational action. This is a bold suggestion and to use the word freedom gives his statement even more weight.
Being CMC majors, we all know all about how the media can detract from the freedom of viewers. However, Bordieu also says that journalists and broadcasters are just as subject to this loss of freedom as everybody else and this is a more interesting claim. He explains how "the mechanisms at work" are so effective that newscasters can sit in front of people and lie or talk about irrelevant, frivolous things and not feel guilty because they are just as caught up as everyone else. I'm sure that nearly every journalist or TV broadcaster dreams of being the person to report on that once in a lifetime story or supply the world with information that will really make a difference. However, they lose this freedom because the mechanisms at work in the media industry - especially regarding the dissemination of information - are so powerful. Something like a missing child or a severe traffic accident is obviously a huge deal to those involved and are by no means "unimportant". However, to 99% of us they make no difference and we have no means of making a difference. Given this, and the fact that there are countless other issues that we are capable of making a difference in, these issues should not be reported on over more relevant stories. But, because they produce good ratings and are shown on other stations, journalists feel that they should report on them and fall into the same pattern as other journalists before them.
As an American, any time the word freedom is used I am forced to read its usage twice. We love the word "freedom" in America and tmesis acts heavily upon us anytime the word comes up. We claim that our country was built upon principles of freedom and that it is our duty to spread freedom throughout the world. As such, I find this example of the word freedom to be particularly interesting.
Bordieu is claiming that the media actually acts against freedom. This is a novel idea because one of the principle freedoms Americans site on a daily basis is "freedom of speech". The mass media often claim that they epitomize "freedom of speech". However, Bordieu suggests that these media actually detract from our intellectual freedoms, and when we lose our intellect we effectively lose our freedom of speech and rational action. This is a bold suggestion and to use the word freedom gives his statement even more weight.
Being CMC majors, we all know all about how the media can detract from the freedom of viewers. However, Bordieu also says that journalists and broadcasters are just as subject to this loss of freedom as everybody else and this is a more interesting claim. He explains how "the mechanisms at work" are so effective that newscasters can sit in front of people and lie or talk about irrelevant, frivolous things and not feel guilty because they are just as caught up as everyone else. I'm sure that nearly every journalist or TV broadcaster dreams of being the person to report on that once in a lifetime story or supply the world with information that will really make a difference. However, they lose this freedom because the mechanisms at work in the media industry - especially regarding the dissemination of information - are so powerful. Something like a missing child or a severe traffic accident is obviously a huge deal to those involved and are by no means "unimportant". However, to 99% of us they make no difference and we have no means of making a difference. Given this, and the fact that there are countless other issues that we are capable of making a difference in, these issues should not be reported on over more relevant stories. But, because they produce good ratings and are shown on other stations, journalists feel that they should report on them and fall into the same pattern as other journalists before them.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
dmariel, 4/9
I just recently started working downtown for a wedding photographer. I was hired for social networking purposes. I basically get paid to sit on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and blogs all day long. I thought that this would be so simple for my boss’s three companies, but I now have about eight different accounts for each of these social networking sites...and it is DEFINITELY hard to keep up with. I have seen numerous people that have successfully run an entire business through social networking. It is amazing to me how far the internet has grown in the past few years. My parents wouldn’t even have a clue with Twitter or Myspace is, yet people are building their lives on these sites. I think that this relates to Bourdieu’s theories in that the internet is the number one medium that can give us a sense of mediacy. TV has fallen behind and can barely get it’s information as fast as typical bloggers. I find that blogging has provided me with a more realistic news feed...unlike TV, which is constantly spitting out ‘infotainment’ over and over again. People are voicing out their opinions on what is going on in the world because they aren’t getting it through national news. They no longer care about the “man who used cocaine to build a leg cast”. People are coming together and spreading news from tweet to tweet.
In today’s generation, it is imperative to be technologically savvy. Bourdieu states that “Any journalist who wants power or influence has to have a TV program if it is even possible for TV journalists to get important positions in the printed press”. We talked in class about how in our world today this is true for every successful person having a website, a logo, a blog, etc..A man, about my fathers age, runs a business and has hired me to do his social networking as well. He has told me numerous times that he is amazed by the power of the internet but has no idea how to use it. All he knows is that he has seen the success of other people and companies getting the word out on the web and would like for me to do the same for him. I feel lucky that I am getting paid to be connected with all sorts of people all around the world. We have migrated to a medium that has given us a sense of mediacy in every way possible.
In today’s generation, it is imperative to be technologically savvy. Bourdieu states that “Any journalist who wants power or influence has to have a TV program if it is even possible for TV journalists to get important positions in the printed press”. We talked in class about how in our world today this is true for every successful person having a website, a logo, a blog, etc..A man, about my fathers age, runs a business and has hired me to do his social networking as well. He has told me numerous times that he is amazed by the power of the internet but has no idea how to use it. All he knows is that he has seen the success of other people and companies getting the word out on the web and would like for me to do the same for him. I feel lucky that I am getting paid to be connected with all sorts of people all around the world. We have migrated to a medium that has given us a sense of mediacy in every way possible.
LightningBolt, 4/9
Today in class we discussed the fact that journalist censor the material they cover without even knowing they are doing it. The news has become all about ratings and popularity and less about sharing occurrences in the world. News stations choose their stories based on what they think people will want to watch, giving them the highest ratings. In doing this news stations are claiming the power of knowing what we as the public should know and what we shouldn’t. Different news stations may have different standards of what they find to be news worthy but as soon as they see that another news station as valued a story differently they may reconsider their decision not to cover the story. The difference in new stories through out different networks seems to be rather infrequent. This is interesting because news anchors cover stories which can keep their own interest and therefore will keep the attention of the public.
This may be why people tend to find one news anchor that they particularly like and only watch them. Normally people can find one anchor whose interest correspond with their own and their political views parallel. Although news anchors personal views are not supposed to come through their work it is inevitable that it does. Even in picking the stories that they cover some of their intentions become evident.
Personally I get the majority of my new from the internet. Within the internet I normally go to CNN’s website. In doing this I have not become attached to any one anchor. This does however show that my political views are more congruent with the views of CNN and not Fox or other stations.
This may be why people tend to find one news anchor that they particularly like and only watch them. Normally people can find one anchor whose interest correspond with their own and their political views parallel. Although news anchors personal views are not supposed to come through their work it is inevitable that it does. Even in picking the stories that they cover some of their intentions become evident.
Personally I get the majority of my new from the internet. Within the internet I normally go to CNN’s website. In doing this I have not become attached to any one anchor. This does however show that my political views are more congruent with the views of CNN and not Fox or other stations.
Asyouwish 4/9
Today in class when asked if we knew what AC360 meant I had absolutely no idea, but of course I didn't want to stick out like a soar thumb so I kept my mouth shut. I asked someone behind me if they knew what it meant and they also had no idea so while this man is clearly well known he is not known by all. However when it came to Oprah I would be willing to bet there was not a single person in the room who didn't know who she was. This to me is amazing because she is a woman, and a black woman at that. It seems the lesser sexes and races are no longer. We mentioned Obama in class and how if his book were placed next to Oprah's book that would be the prime location in a book store. I would not argue with Dr. Casey here as this statement is most likely true. These two figures catch the majority of people's interest and thus a book placed between the most visited books in the book store would also attract attention because people would want to know it connected to these celebrities that our culture is obsessed with. They are people whose lives revolve around helping others, or at least who claim that is their purpose. We like what they stand for and thus we buy their books and listen to their philosophies and tips on living life to the fullest. Yes they do tell us what to think, but most people want to be told what to think by Oprah and Obama because they look up to them. Take Oprah for example, she has tips for almost every aspect of life, one would need no other source as long as they have Oprah. In class today we came across a search for Oprah's thyroid and Dr. Casey decided he would search other random body parts to see if there was any relation to Oprah. As it turned out, there was. It seems that Oprah can be connected to just about anything, now that is power.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
WoolyBully7, Bourdieu
“Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives or middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we ‘should think’ about what they call ‘social problems,’ such as violence in the inner-city or in the schools (329).”
After watching evening news for years and years I can no longer watch it after having read Pierre Bourdieu. In retrospect, all they really talk about are crime violence, fraud and scandals, which is common sense no matter where in the world you are for the most part. It doesn’t greatly affect what people already know or are aware of, at least for American news. Some countries have programs that may be a little more graphic but not astoundingly different. The goal of the TV news is to inform and relate to as many people as possible and then maybe attract new viewers, increasing their income from ad sales. This leads to the news being almost featureless without a whole lot of zest, every night is the same plotline over and over again it seems. This news cannot “offend” anyone, as to lose viewers, and can’t “bring up problems, and if so, cannot pose problems (328).”
I really enjoyed why he brought weather as the most common form of conversation since it’s so not political and so unemotional and unproblematic. Guaranteed every single one of us has started a conversation with the sayings, “I heard it is supposed to rain today” or “wow, what a gorgeous day.” Macherey can help us out with this one, “It is what has not been said that must be studied.” That rupture between what the news covers and something stupid like the weather, must be studied.
After watching evening news for years and years I can no longer watch it after having read Pierre Bourdieu. In retrospect, all they really talk about are crime violence, fraud and scandals, which is common sense no matter where in the world you are for the most part. It doesn’t greatly affect what people already know or are aware of, at least for American news. Some countries have programs that may be a little more graphic but not astoundingly different. The goal of the TV news is to inform and relate to as many people as possible and then maybe attract new viewers, increasing their income from ad sales. This leads to the news being almost featureless without a whole lot of zest, every night is the same plotline over and over again it seems. This news cannot “offend” anyone, as to lose viewers, and can’t “bring up problems, and if so, cannot pose problems (328).”
I really enjoyed why he brought weather as the most common form of conversation since it’s so not political and so unemotional and unproblematic. Guaranteed every single one of us has started a conversation with the sayings, “I heard it is supposed to rain today” or “wow, what a gorgeous day.” Macherey can help us out with this one, “It is what has not been said that must be studied.” That rupture between what the news covers and something stupid like the weather, must be studied.
Asyouwish Bourdieu 4/8
While reading Bourdieu's piece there were a lot of sections that prompted me with ideas for a blog but the one that I thought would provide for the most interesting blog was influenced by a quote of his on pg 332. "The fact that a television news anchor can become the editor of a newspaper or news magazine from one day to the next makes you wonder just what the specific competence required of a journalist might be"(332). This quotation make me think of Oprah, while she is clearly not an anchor or journalist she does have the same influence over our culture as if she were. Oprah is a household name, a woman who influences many women and a few men in the American culture. She has a daily television talk show that was the source for her stardom. However after the success of her talkshow she furthered her influences by producing a magazine called O (for Oprah) which gives the same advice and stories as one would find on the episodes of her show. If a show and a magazine dedicated to her were not enough she also has her own category of must read books, the Oprah book club. Oprah is like her own media giant, she distributes written and visual forms of information which her devout followers. However what makes Oprah the person to go to, she does not have any real experience in all these things herself, she finds her information from sociologists and researchers who present her with information on topics she is interested in. Yet people still follow her advice because she tells us what to think or what we should be doing. Bourdieu states that talkshow hosts "are always telling us what we "should think"(329), and in my opinion he is 100% correct. Oprah tells us to do things because they are her personal thoughts on something and what she wants to do. They pressure us with these decisions whether they are good or bad for us because it is the decision they want us to make.
Asyouwish Derrida 4/8
On page 115 Derrida talks about how "you might see a neon sign for SHELL with a faulty circuit for the S so that it reads HELL, though a similar chance occurrence might have made it read SHE or HE or S ELL: now, what produced those meanings, the reader or the material system on which the sign relied? The method of deconstruction is as important as its consequences"(115). While I do believe this particular sign did not spell hell do to vandalism but rather a glitch in the mechanics, there are definitely other signs or things out there that read differently due to vandalism or rewording. My sorority sisters and I went to Michael's art store to pick up some supplies for an event we were having, on our way back we were topped at a red light. It was at this red light that I looked out the car window and noticed the crosswalk sign for the cross walk button said "push butt to cross gay" in addition to someone writing "cross-dress"in parenthesis. The sign originally and obviously said push button to cross gay (which was the name of the street). My friends and I thought this sign was hilarious and we even got out of the car to take a photo. However we know it is morally wrong to vandalize and yet people do it everyday because they find it amusing to alter the meaning of something. While writing this post I googled "funny vandalized signs". A search which was pretty rewarding and clearly showed that this type of thing happens all the time. A few of the results I came across were a bathroom sign that originally said "Don't Spread Disease, wash your hands after using the toilet" which was then altered to read "Spread Disease, wash your hands in the toilet". Another vandalized sign was one for a speed "Bump" but just read "Bum". I thought these were both fairly funny and in my opinion I believe we need to be able to deconstruct things sometimes, even if it is only for the purpose of creating some humor.
Petite Etoile, Bourdieu
I have to disagree with Bourdieu and his discussion about making everything ordinary on television. If I understand correctly what he is trying to say, that in order for television channels to thrive they must be careful not to step on anyone’s toes. I think that this used to be true, and can be seen in the fact that most shows were about families living happily together and if there ever arose any difficulties or problems they could conquer them by helping and supporting each other. (Which in retrospect, is that such a terrible message? That if we help each other we can do what we never thought possible? Or that a family really can be happy?) I Love Lucy was the very first show to ever have a toilet on set and shown on air. Television used to be very careful about not hurting anyone’s feelings or disgusting anyone or sending any ‘improper’ images. Now I think the opposite is true, in order for television shows to gain momentum they have to be edgy and ‘out-there’ and rude and crass. Family Guy is a great example of this because I am sure at some point they have made fun of every race, class, sexual orientation, gender, sport, hobby, and whatever else you can think of at some point in the show. And that’s why people like it so much. And if they are not directly offending someone they are talking about disgusting things or sexual things or improper things, plus there’s always farting or cussing or puking or something gross going on. I think this falls in line with how Prof. Casey was talking about the “Fear du Jour”. Even though the audience is going ‘eww this is so gross I cant watch!’ or ‘oh my god im so scared I cant watch!’ or ‘I cant believe im watching this it’s so crude!’ they do still keep watching and coming back for more. You would be pressed to find any movie that did well in the box office that did not have a sex scene or inappropriate joke or something gross or obscene if not all of those things. I think that in freeing ourselves from the restraints of society and not caring whose feelings we hurt or what boundaries we cross and putting whatever crap we want on air with little thought as to it’s content or affect on society, we have not become more advanced and edgy but more and more backward like the barbarians who used to slaughter each other for entertainment.
ashlayla, Bourdieu (response to CMCstudent)
“Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we ‘should think’ about what they call ‘social problems’” (329).
I agree with CMCstudent and how this quote is very true of some of today's television shows and their hosts. I have never actually seen an episode of The John Daily Show, but I have seen plenty of Oprah shows. In response to CMCstudent's question "do we just make them seem so brilliant?" I feel like we do make them into someone who is really smart. Oprah has been given this identity that she is a genius on the topics she writes about because so many people are buying her books and magazines. In this economical crisis, we are beginning to assume that Oprah is smart on saving and investing because she is including this kind of information on her shows and her books. I agree that Oprah has a huge cult that surrounds her. If Oprah didn't have a cult of people watching her show and reading her books, she wouldn't be so popular. During the election, Saturday Night Live became extremely popular because of the skits that involved the candidates. SNL was, in a way, telling us what we should think about the candidates through these skits. We had seen what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden were really like when they gave their speeches. But we believed that they were something different because of what we were seeing on SNL. It's like CMCstudent said, comedy shows can get away with making fun of things because they cover up the seriousness with humor. We laugh because we know that what Jon Stewart and the SNL actors are saying isn't 100% true.
I agree with CMCstudent and how this quote is very true of some of today's television shows and their hosts. I have never actually seen an episode of The John Daily Show, but I have seen plenty of Oprah shows. In response to CMCstudent's question "do we just make them seem so brilliant?" I feel like we do make them into someone who is really smart. Oprah has been given this identity that she is a genius on the topics she writes about because so many people are buying her books and magazines. In this economical crisis, we are beginning to assume that Oprah is smart on saving and investing because she is including this kind of information on her shows and her books. I agree that Oprah has a huge cult that surrounds her. If Oprah didn't have a cult of people watching her show and reading her books, she wouldn't be so popular. During the election, Saturday Night Live became extremely popular because of the skits that involved the candidates. SNL was, in a way, telling us what we should think about the candidates through these skits. We had seen what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden were really like when they gave their speeches. But we believed that they were something different because of what we were seeing on SNL. It's like CMCstudent said, comedy shows can get away with making fun of things because they cover up the seriousness with humor. We laugh because we know that what Jon Stewart and the SNL actors are saying isn't 100% true.
yellowdaisy 4, Bourdieu
I found the Bourdieu article to be very insightful in regards to how television and journalism have a strong impact on our society. When you really think about what we see on TV like the news or read about in big newspapers are stories that are safe. This meaning they will get a lot of people’s attention and apply to everyone. Television and journalism evidently decides what we think because we are watching or reading the same stories everywhere all over again that tell us what’s important enough to know and our opinion. This is usually something that avoids offending any audience so everyone continues to watch and they get good ratings. I found the part interesting where Bourdieu discussed how the safest subject to discuss is the weather because it doesn’t offend anyone or pose a real problem, yet even for that he had an exception being the farmer who needed rain. This brings me to think how every news show on television has the same stories of being the non controversial weather, sports scores and then what Bourdieu described as the “agenda”. The agenda is “the issues up for discussion” or “problems to be covered” which only applies to newspapers if the television show is covering it and “gives it full orchestration”. Not only does television decide on what our “social problems” are but also it has the power to tell us what we think about them. An example of this is how 20/20 can randomly decide to do an entire TV special of how a certain medicine is bad for you. Even if it was previously working for you just fine and you saw no bad side effects, most people will throw it away and agree with them and tell everyone else it’s bad too. I agree that TV is good for spreading important information yet we have to make sure we are getting all the information not just what was selected to be shared and that we still are capable of forming our own opinions on things.
CMCstudent, Bourdieu
“Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we ‘should think’ about what they call ‘social problems.’” (329)
This quote from Bourdieu is very true. It makes me think of shows like The Daily Show and Oprah. On the Daily Show Jon Stewart takes the news and toys with it, inflicting his personal opinions on what is actually going on. Audience members may take his news as factual, others see it as humorous. It is only because it is a comedy that he can have such opinions. In CMC 100, we learned about how you can get away with saying more if you covered it up with humor. If The Daily Show was a serious show, people would say he is messing up the news, and that he has no room to talk on what is being presented to us. However, since we know it is news shown in a humorous light it is ok to laugh, and go along with his opinions of trashing Bush.
Oprah is a good example of a talk show host turning into spiritual adviser. Oprah started out as a talk show host and now has out numerous books covering the topics of spirituality, nutrition, etc. Since when did a talk host become so smart that they are now publishing these kinds of books? Oprah’s books sell off the shelves like water in a drought. I never realized that talk show hosts were so brilliant, or do we just make them seem so? I say that because these people have a opinion on everything, and since they are famous everything they say becomes publicized constantly, perpetuating the false truth, as ideology works unconsciously. Who would of known that they can give spiritual advice, make a nutrition book, talk about the way people should be treated, and even address social problems? If Oprah ran for senate, there is no doubt in my mind that she would be extremely popular candidate. Oprah talks about the social problems and those in poverty all across the world. This woman has a huge cult that surrounds her, just because of all the person media has made her out to be.
This quote from Bourdieu is very true. It makes me think of shows like The Daily Show and Oprah. On the Daily Show Jon Stewart takes the news and toys with it, inflicting his personal opinions on what is actually going on. Audience members may take his news as factual, others see it as humorous. It is only because it is a comedy that he can have such opinions. In CMC 100, we learned about how you can get away with saying more if you covered it up with humor. If The Daily Show was a serious show, people would say he is messing up the news, and that he has no room to talk on what is being presented to us. However, since we know it is news shown in a humorous light it is ok to laugh, and go along with his opinions of trashing Bush.
Oprah is a good example of a talk show host turning into spiritual adviser. Oprah started out as a talk show host and now has out numerous books covering the topics of spirituality, nutrition, etc. Since when did a talk host become so smart that they are now publishing these kinds of books? Oprah’s books sell off the shelves like water in a drought. I never realized that talk show hosts were so brilliant, or do we just make them seem so? I say that because these people have a opinion on everything, and since they are famous everything they say becomes publicized constantly, perpetuating the false truth, as ideology works unconsciously. Who would of known that they can give spiritual advice, make a nutrition book, talk about the way people should be treated, and even address social problems? If Oprah ran for senate, there is no doubt in my mind that she would be extremely popular candidate. Oprah talks about the social problems and those in poverty all across the world. This woman has a huge cult that surrounds her, just because of all the person media has made her out to be.
post-it, Bourdieu
I think that blogs are becoming an interesting way for anyone to post their thoughts and opinions on any topic that they choose, although I also believe that they undermine the status of print media in the United States. By giving bloggers the same level of visibility as an educated journalist devalues the role of the journalist in our society. The internet’s amazing and paradoxical ability to give this visibility while taking jobs away from the same journalists is explained in Bourdieu’s article, “On Television.” His view of television is that it exists in a realm of competition and balance between ratings and the market, unlike most commodities that must only satiate one of these measurements. It is the television media that has control of this industry. I say this because television networks must compete to give news to their not-wanting-to-think viewers. So it is the competition that dumb down the news. It is the competition that makes Americans unable to give networks a reason to change their stories to substantial stories of traditional journalistic culture. The way they are now, the news sounds the same every evening. The format leads to a routine. Shooting story followed by the exciting court cases that went on trial to a commercial to the positive outcome of a school board meeting to the breaking news, which is just a non-updated version of the first story that was shown. In this case, reporters look for such stories to fill the slots that have become so familiar in content and schedule. The competition between reporters to get their story on television results in reports of the same themes, but also allows the network to formulate the best broadcast from the lot that is given to them. It is for this reason that I believe the format is to blame for my preference not to watch the news. All I do is find myself making fun of the reporters. They are supposed to tell me what is going on in my world, not the other way around.
coolbeans, bourdieu
The reading on television by Bourdieu has a lot of correlation with many things that we have studied so far this year. Television plays a large role in everyone’s lives. Many things that people relate to come from television. Bourdieu states that television covers topics that interest everyone and do not cause conflicts in different groups. I have noticed that this is true in much of television. Usually television programs do not discuss topics that are controversial, but if they do then the controversial topic is either magically solved over the course of an hour television program or it is made to be looked at as a thing to be ridiculed. For example, programs such as the Maury show and the Jerry Springer show usually discuss very controversial things that many people would frown upon. Usually featuring people who cheat on their girlfriends, or have a teenage daughter who wants to have a baby, these shows depict these people as “freaks”. The people are shown to be trashy, classless, types making the controversy that they embody to be almost comical. How can a subject of controversy such as teenage pregnancy or cheating husbands be taken seriously if the people who are shown in the shows are seen as a classless parody? The answer lies in the fact that television is meant to be something that interests everyone, entertains everyone. If we were to take the people featured in daytime talk shows seriously we would have to acknowledge the fact that our society in fact does have many problems. However, if we view them as entertainment then we need not take it seriously. As Horkheimer and Adorno said, “Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness” (57). This means that the intent of television is to entertain the masses. In order for people to be entertained we must ignore suffering and be powerless and agree with what is being presented to us.
Dot, Bourdieu
Throughout his essay, Bourdieu's central argument remains that of the power television has over our society. He makes it very clear how ruling television really actually is, leaving little room for us to question otherwise. Many of the things he presents in his article can be easily related to everyday life, making his argument even stronger.
While reading his essay, I was able to recognize areas of his argument in my own life. One thing he presents is the way in which television is able to diffuse information to mass quantities of people. In our society, most people own or have access to a television and If they do not readily watch it, they more than likely absentmindedly listen to what is being said when it is turned on. People who do not have time to sit down and read the newspaper can turn on the television and listen to the news while they are doing other things. This is one reason why I believe television has the power that it does. In today's world, everyone runs from appointment to appointment and rarely takes time to relax. They count on being able to quickly turn on the television to find out what is going on in the world rather than having to set out time to read about it.
Our society also has a mindset of being told what to do. Bourdeiu also discusses this in his essay in relation to the way television has come to have so much power. He states that television tells us what we "should think", I believe that because of this, people have stopped thinking for themselves and have begun to rely on television programs to do it for them. Having this control definitely puts television in a high ruling position in our society.
If one day all the televisions in the world stopped working, or at least the news stations stopped broadcasting, what would people do? Would our society know how to function without television telling us how to? Could we really be a technologically -devoid society?
ginger griffin, bourdieu
"Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle class morality. They are always telling us what we 'should think' about what they call 'social problems...'" (329) I feel like this is a topic that will never go away. Television has the power to have a large mass audience usually with the same view points. Tv is powerful because it reaches new levels of audience reception than any other media out there. I feel that this is a main topic discussed in CMC and that it will continue to be talked about for a very long time. Tv has the power to take a mass audience and turn them into robots, making them all think the same thing, "Television's power of diffusion means that it poses a terrible problem for the print media and for culture generally." (328) This relates directly to Horkheimer and Adorno when they state, "Culture today is infecting everything with sameness." Their main idea was that nothing is original and that everything is all the same, television just reinforces this idea by mass producing the same thing everyday to the same audience. Television is not always a bad thing, though, because it has the ability to get news out quickly in the case of an emergency. If you relied on other forms of media, such as the newspapers, then you might not be able to avert the tragic situation. Television is like the devil sitting on your right shoulder and the angel sitting on your left. It has the power to be a good thing but more often than not it will led you down a dark and scary path, that path being infected with sameness.
Marie89, Bourdieu
“The failure of critical thinkers and organization charged with articulating the interests of dominated individuals to think clearly about his problem only reinforces the mechanisms I have described” (336)
In order to be affected dramatically, we must have the freedom to choose what is enlightening and what is not. When we are manipulated into only viewing certain images or viewpoints, we are not free to discover new ideas, etc. as these ideas are picked out by a larger ruling class who claims that these ideas are the best and therefore the most prevalent. When we are incapable of critical thinking because we are caused not to by the media, especially TV, then nothing is shocking to us as we are entitled to just take everything in. This idea relates back to the idea of Horkeimer and Adorno that we are put in a world where everything is the same. We believe to live in a free society in which we may have options, etc., but in reality, our options are just variations on the same thing, making us not choose from extremely different things, but only those which have already been accepted and molded by the media and the ruling class. For example, as a culture, we are “Enslaved by audience ratings, television imposes market pressures on the supposedly free and enlightened consumer” (336). We are thought to behave like enlightened consumers, yet the media has already turned us into robots in that we have very little choices as to what we see or claim to have an opinion on. We claim to have interests as individuals, yet what we are interested in is what the ruling class has already deemed interesting. The ruling class attains much power through the media as we are subconsciously programmed to feel free and have choices. However, when thought about, it is interesting to think that new ideas are hard to come by as many ideas have already been thought and presented to the society. The news continuously probes society with the same stories; TV shows seem to take ideas from other TV shows, etc. causing nothing to be dramatically different from anything else. It is as if we are continuing our past despite beliefs that we have fresh ideas, new choices, and free will.
In order to be affected dramatically, we must have the freedom to choose what is enlightening and what is not. When we are manipulated into only viewing certain images or viewpoints, we are not free to discover new ideas, etc. as these ideas are picked out by a larger ruling class who claims that these ideas are the best and therefore the most prevalent. When we are incapable of critical thinking because we are caused not to by the media, especially TV, then nothing is shocking to us as we are entitled to just take everything in. This idea relates back to the idea of Horkeimer and Adorno that we are put in a world where everything is the same. We believe to live in a free society in which we may have options, etc., but in reality, our options are just variations on the same thing, making us not choose from extremely different things, but only those which have already been accepted and molded by the media and the ruling class. For example, as a culture, we are “Enslaved by audience ratings, television imposes market pressures on the supposedly free and enlightened consumer” (336). We are thought to behave like enlightened consumers, yet the media has already turned us into robots in that we have very little choices as to what we see or claim to have an opinion on. We claim to have interests as individuals, yet what we are interested in is what the ruling class has already deemed interesting. The ruling class attains much power through the media as we are subconsciously programmed to feel free and have choices. However, when thought about, it is interesting to think that new ideas are hard to come by as many ideas have already been thought and presented to the society. The news continuously probes society with the same stories; TV shows seem to take ideas from other TV shows, etc. causing nothing to be dramatically different from anything else. It is as if we are continuing our past despite beliefs that we have fresh ideas, new choices, and free will.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Trapnest, Bourdieu
Bourdieu in “On Television” makes a strong point to create a theme of the power that television has over its viewers/consumers. One of his first points is that television has a strong influence over its audience’s minds and moral outlooks on life. This is the first key to power, as Althusser would likely argue if television holds the capacity to set the dominant ideology for a large audience then it possesses a great amount of power in society. Bourdieu explains that television puts forth characters like news anchors or talk show hosts who have become preachers of dominant ideology in our society, permeating our communal “public space” in a way that they control all the forms and outlets for media.
Bourdieu’s second theme of the power television has over its audiences is with regards to its effect on what classifies as “news.” This argument is presented by discussing the power television has over the field of journalism specifically. Journalists have become in a state where they “struggle over television” and what will make the news. And, what often makes the news is as a result of those seeking “after anything sensational, spectacular, or extraordinary, a certain vision of the news comes to take over the whole of the journalistic field.” (332). Newspapers, by Bourdieu’s argument, alter themselves to look like news, resulting in the journalist’s dependence upon television and it’s power within society.
The third, key argument with Borudieu presents is market and audience pressure. The audience is conditioned into seeking the same thing that the television wants for its audience to be seeking. As a result they seek to other mediums which resemble television, putting aforementioned stress on other industries. Because the television is the dominant ideology, again as Althusser would say, those under its pressure don’t realize such and find it difficult to present counter arguments.
Bourdieu’s second theme of the power television has over its audiences is with regards to its effect on what classifies as “news.” This argument is presented by discussing the power television has over the field of journalism specifically. Journalists have become in a state where they “struggle over television” and what will make the news. And, what often makes the news is as a result of those seeking “after anything sensational, spectacular, or extraordinary, a certain vision of the news comes to take over the whole of the journalistic field.” (332). Newspapers, by Bourdieu’s argument, alter themselves to look like news, resulting in the journalist’s dependence upon television and it’s power within society.
The third, key argument with Borudieu presents is market and audience pressure. The audience is conditioned into seeking the same thing that the television wants for its audience to be seeking. As a result they seek to other mediums which resemble television, putting aforementioned stress on other industries. Because the television is the dominant ideology, again as Althusser would say, those under its pressure don’t realize such and find it difficult to present counter arguments.
Juice15, Bourdieu
“Above all, though, with their permanent access to public visibility, broad circulation, and mass diffusion-an access that was completely unthinkable for any cultural producer until televisions came into the picture-these journalists can impose on the whole of society their vision of the world, their conception of problems, and their point of view” (Bourdieu 330). I feel that this statement sums up what cultural producers are trying to do with television and how we allow this to happen.
The first part of this quote talks about the reach and range that television has today. Television is a relatively new technology but has just exploded onto the world in major ways in the last ten years or so. Today many houses not only have one television, but have two, three or even more than five. I have never had a television in my room, but I know parents who let their five and six year olds have televisions in their rooms. People are even putting televisions in their bathrooms and kitchens. This is only helping cultural producers reach a larger audience on a more consistent basis. The way televisions are today is also helping this visibility and circulation. Televisions are getting cheaper which helps and there are many different kinds, brands and sizes of televisions which suit certain people’s needs.
People can always turn off their television if they do not like what they see. But it seems impossible to get away from all television news and stories. Journalists go after stories that will grab people’s attention and get the high ratings that are so important to them. Many times in this article the idea of audience ratings is discussed and how it is important to get high ratings. We do not necessarily get to choose the news we see, but the corporations and journalists choose what is put on the news and how it is portrayed to us. Many times during the political election it was obvious to see how certain news corporations portrayed candidates differently. This is how they get their point of view across to the viewers. But the last sentence in this reading says “The failure of critical thinkers and organizations charged with articulating the interests of dominated individuals to think clearly about this problem only reinforces…” (Bourdieu 336). We all need to be critical of the news we receive and we need to judge and choose for ourselves what we believe and think without certain news influences.
The first part of this quote talks about the reach and range that television has today. Television is a relatively new technology but has just exploded onto the world in major ways in the last ten years or so. Today many houses not only have one television, but have two, three or even more than five. I have never had a television in my room, but I know parents who let their five and six year olds have televisions in their rooms. People are even putting televisions in their bathrooms and kitchens. This is only helping cultural producers reach a larger audience on a more consistent basis. The way televisions are today is also helping this visibility and circulation. Televisions are getting cheaper which helps and there are many different kinds, brands and sizes of televisions which suit certain people’s needs.
People can always turn off their television if they do not like what they see. But it seems impossible to get away from all television news and stories. Journalists go after stories that will grab people’s attention and get the high ratings that are so important to them. Many times in this article the idea of audience ratings is discussed and how it is important to get high ratings. We do not necessarily get to choose the news we see, but the corporations and journalists choose what is put on the news and how it is portrayed to us. Many times during the political election it was obvious to see how certain news corporations portrayed candidates differently. This is how they get their point of view across to the viewers. But the last sentence in this reading says “The failure of critical thinkers and organizations charged with articulating the interests of dominated individuals to think clearly about this problem only reinforces…” (Bourdieu 336). We all need to be critical of the news we receive and we need to judge and choose for ourselves what we believe and think without certain news influences.
Monday, April 6, 2009
DBA123, Bourdieu
I felt as if the reading “On Television” directly related to topics we discuss in CMC all the time. TV’s ability to reach such a large audience is what gives it so much power. Not only over the general public, but other media outlets as well. Bourdieu discusses how the news must report only on soft subjects, or ones that are less controversial, in order to keep viewers happy and ratings high. He also really hits hard on journalists.
“Journalists- we should really say the journalistic field- owe their importance in society to their de facto monopoly on the large-scale informational instruments of production and diffusion of information.” (329)
Bourdieu’s opinion of the field of journalism is that these people want nothing more than “to be a part of the intellectual crowd,” and are sometimes given recognition as being so due to the fact that they have the power to control what the public thinks. What they report on, or what they find important, can shape society’s “vision of the world, their conception of problems, and their point of view,” (330). When these thoughts are expressed on television, other media outlets, mostly print media, are forced to decide if they should follow suit and report objectively to gain larger public recognition, or continue to run smaller special interest pieces, more relevant to a smaller group of people. Print media could be in danger of losing much of its clientele when it chooses to not report from such an objective angle, or because it chooses to not run the same types of articles everyday (beside from the obvious topics such as weather).
One of the past theorists we studied, Adorno, says, “to be entertained means to be in agreement.” Bourdieu points out how journalists accomplish this; “telling us what we ‘should think’ about what they call ‘social problems,” (330). If we are agreeing to listen to what the journalists are reporting about, we are letting them decide what we should find significant in the world’s daily happenings.
“Journalists- we should really say the journalistic field- owe their importance in society to their de facto monopoly on the large-scale informational instruments of production and diffusion of information.” (329)
Bourdieu’s opinion of the field of journalism is that these people want nothing more than “to be a part of the intellectual crowd,” and are sometimes given recognition as being so due to the fact that they have the power to control what the public thinks. What they report on, or what they find important, can shape society’s “vision of the world, their conception of problems, and their point of view,” (330). When these thoughts are expressed on television, other media outlets, mostly print media, are forced to decide if they should follow suit and report objectively to gain larger public recognition, or continue to run smaller special interest pieces, more relevant to a smaller group of people. Print media could be in danger of losing much of its clientele when it chooses to not report from such an objective angle, or because it chooses to not run the same types of articles everyday (beside from the obvious topics such as weather).
One of the past theorists we studied, Adorno, says, “to be entertained means to be in agreement.” Bourdieu points out how journalists accomplish this; “telling us what we ‘should think’ about what they call ‘social problems,” (330). If we are agreeing to listen to what the journalists are reporting about, we are letting them decide what we should find significant in the world’s daily happenings.
brookes77, Pierre Bourdieu
“Making Everything Ordinary” was the first sub category in this reading. It discusses how in television, we can predict what we will see. People talk about the weather every day and on the news because it is not a topic that will shock anyone and it is normal to us. TV does not want to “offend anyone and it must never bring up problems- or if it does only problems that don’t pose any problems.” This is so true we like to watch every day things, and talk about them, it is our social norm. When we view a news story that is about child hood shooting, or stories such as Columbine, we are extremely shocked, when really stories such as these happen every day, maybe not as extreme. Also Bourdieu brings up a really interesting argument. He states that people pay a lot of money for this notion of “TV news. It suits everybody because it confirms what they already know and above all, leave their mental structure intact….that aim at the material bases of society.” Why do we pay so much to listen to “safety stories” why do we not want to hear or believe what is going on. We act unconscious that we are saving ourselves from hearing something avant guard, that will mix up the structure of what we know. It is a waste of money to tell ourselves we are learning something out of our comfort zone.
The article then goes on explaining the pressures and hardships of journalists and how they use “censorship” without even realizing it because this is what sells, this is what is interesting to people. Although I do believe that our society is changing and as Lyotard explained we find pleasure out of pain. It has become something we have enjoyed and it has become less avant guard in our journalistic news stories. People do choose to watch reality TV shows more because, as Bourdieu states, are more “slices of life” and they can relate to because this is the easy way out. I believe this is directed to the youth of America, they are becoming lazy, their way of thinking is becoming lazy and they are not willing to step out of their normal programs to watch something real that would affect and stick with them. Another important quote in the reading was what Boudrieu explains how journalist and sociologists think that “ you haven’t a prayer of being popular with TV people if you try to tell the truth about television”; this means people really do not want to hear what is real, they like to think they know what’s real like in reality TV shows, but what is real requires much effort and too much hear. Another quote that supports this argument was on page 333: “ If sociologists always disturb things, its because they force us to make conscious things that wed rather leave unconscious.” We would rather just pretend it is all ok, and that we can relate to this perfect world.
The article then goes on explaining the pressures and hardships of journalists and how they use “censorship” without even realizing it because this is what sells, this is what is interesting to people. Although I do believe that our society is changing and as Lyotard explained we find pleasure out of pain. It has become something we have enjoyed and it has become less avant guard in our journalistic news stories. People do choose to watch reality TV shows more because, as Bourdieu states, are more “slices of life” and they can relate to because this is the easy way out. I believe this is directed to the youth of America, they are becoming lazy, their way of thinking is becoming lazy and they are not willing to step out of their normal programs to watch something real that would affect and stick with them. Another important quote in the reading was what Boudrieu explains how journalist and sociologists think that “ you haven’t a prayer of being popular with TV people if you try to tell the truth about television”; this means people really do not want to hear what is real, they like to think they know what’s real like in reality TV shows, but what is real requires much effort and too much hear. Another quote that supports this argument was on page 333: “ If sociologists always disturb things, its because they force us to make conscious things that wed rather leave unconscious.” We would rather just pretend it is all ok, and that we can relate to this perfect world.
LightningBolt, Bourdieu
Referring to TV news: “It suits everybody because it confirms what they already know and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact” (329)
I can not remember the last time I saw something on TV news that had an impact on my life. I am entertained while watching the news, telling myself that I am learning about the world and all of the important issues. I now realize that any important issue that could possible have an impact on my life would be much too challenging a topic to put on TV news. If one of these topics somehow makes its way to television it is presented in a censored manner that allows up to remain calm and not see the true catastrophic nature. When turning on national TV news we are almost guaranteed to see some clips referring to the war. These segments are familiar to us because we see them frequently. While the governments allows TV news to show some coverage of the war it is simply enough to convince everyone we are completely filled in on what is going on. If everything that the government knew regarding the war was televised the public would be in total uproar. As Bourdieu explains, TV news can only broadcast news that will keep the publics mental structures intact. This means nothing life changing or catastrophic.
Bejamin refers to the ability of a camera to deceive the images it is filming. A combination of film altering what we see on television with the news censoring what is presented results in the public’s inability to be connected to true occurrences in the world. What would happen if our information was not censored? Is it really in our best interest to not know the detailed of what is happening in the world?
I can not remember the last time I saw something on TV news that had an impact on my life. I am entertained while watching the news, telling myself that I am learning about the world and all of the important issues. I now realize that any important issue that could possible have an impact on my life would be much too challenging a topic to put on TV news. If one of these topics somehow makes its way to television it is presented in a censored manner that allows up to remain calm and not see the true catastrophic nature. When turning on national TV news we are almost guaranteed to see some clips referring to the war. These segments are familiar to us because we see them frequently. While the governments allows TV news to show some coverage of the war it is simply enough to convince everyone we are completely filled in on what is going on. If everything that the government knew regarding the war was televised the public would be in total uproar. As Bourdieu explains, TV news can only broadcast news that will keep the publics mental structures intact. This means nothing life changing or catastrophic.
Bejamin refers to the ability of a camera to deceive the images it is filming. A combination of film altering what we see on television with the news censoring what is presented results in the public’s inability to be connected to true occurrences in the world. What would happen if our information was not censored? Is it really in our best interest to not know the detailed of what is happening in the world?
JLO63O, Bourdieu
My grandmother used to tell me that I should never talk about religion, politics, or money when I’m at a party and I think Bourdeiu could have said those words himself. In this article, On Television, Bourdeiu talked about ‘TV news’ and how its text has to be universally inoffensive. The news, in this case, seldom brings up problems unless they themselves do not pose any problem. The weather, for example, is a “soft” subject because it’s a topic that favors everybody and does not stir up controversy. It is surface information, as Jameson would refer. The weather is not hermeneutical/ interpretive or explanatory. It is the ideal conversation starter in this postmodern era.
“[The news] suits everybody because it confirms what they already know and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact” (329).
I am going support this quote with another one from Lyotard, “What is advised… is to offer works… that the public will recognize what they are about, will understand what is signified.” In order to sell things, whether it is a book or the news, you need to tell people things they already know and ‘leave their mental structures intact.’ If you do not, instead of diving in, people will just disregard such information or commodities and proceed with their daily routines unaffected by the works. For example, if a surgeon were to walk into our classroom and talk about the procedure of removing a liver, it would probably sound like he was talking a foreign language because we don’t know the medical terms that are common knowledge to specialists of that field. “There is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments” (Lyotard). It isn’t until you share the same knowledge that you begin understanding and communicating with each other that things start to make sense. In agreement with Lyotard specifically, Bourdeiu is saying in this article that the news has to take what people already know, their Ideological State Apparatuses for lack of a better term (Althusser), and operate within them.
“[The news] suits everybody because it confirms what they already know and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact” (329).
I am going support this quote with another one from Lyotard, “What is advised… is to offer works… that the public will recognize what they are about, will understand what is signified.” In order to sell things, whether it is a book or the news, you need to tell people things they already know and ‘leave their mental structures intact.’ If you do not, instead of diving in, people will just disregard such information or commodities and proceed with their daily routines unaffected by the works. For example, if a surgeon were to walk into our classroom and talk about the procedure of removing a liver, it would probably sound like he was talking a foreign language because we don’t know the medical terms that are common knowledge to specialists of that field. “There is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments” (Lyotard). It isn’t until you share the same knowledge that you begin understanding and communicating with each other that things start to make sense. In agreement with Lyotard specifically, Bourdeiu is saying in this article that the news has to take what people already know, their Ideological State Apparatuses for lack of a better term (Althusser), and operate within them.
Kuloco, Bourdieu
“Any journalist who wants power or influence has to have a TV program… This calls into question the specificity of writing, and, for that matter, the specificity of the entire profession.” (331-332)
Pierre Bourdieu is a sociologist, giving a fresh and less dense critique of our postmodern society. While he analyzed French television in the 1990s, one can see the parallels to contemporary television in American culture. In our postmodern American society, just as Bourdieu noticed with the French, information is received by the general public through the easiest and most accessible form. Recently with the advances in technology, consuming media has become inexpensive and effortless. This is represented most by television.
Television has expanded to encompass, what seems like, an infinite amount of channels. No matter what you are in the mood for, no matter what your point of view, anyone can find something that they want to watch. The television has become so embedded into our daily lives that it is often on in the background, while people go on living their lives. However, even though it does not hold the same important and impressive connotations that it has in the past, it still has a great influence in the beliefs and opinions of the general public. This is best exemplified by “TV news.” Bourdieu points out that these views that are held by mass television audiences reflect the opinions of the journalists’. Stations like CNN and Fox have perpetuated the views of the elite corporations through the stories and information that is provided by journalists on these news networks. As the quote states above, audience beliefs are largely influenced by these programs.
In a generation that is so dependent on technology for all aspects of life, information is often received through the easily accessible “TV news.” Young people in our society have been seriously impacted by these channels, and they are socialized to believe what they are told—who to trust, what to think and how to feel. This socialization has given credibility to the news channels. Since it was mentioned on the syllabus, while reading Bourdieu’s article, I kept referring to Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report. Television and news channels act to inform and entertain the audiences, and not many people have epitomized on the entertainment factor as much as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They have formed a new genre of television shows—comedic news television. While they function for entertainment purposes, the younger generation has started to give them more validity as news sources—starting to take the opinions of comedians, rather than those of journalists. Their impact has sparked another movement, one that normalizes this behavior. This movement could possibly have many negative consequences for the political and educational future of our society.
Pierre Bourdieu is a sociologist, giving a fresh and less dense critique of our postmodern society. While he analyzed French television in the 1990s, one can see the parallels to contemporary television in American culture. In our postmodern American society, just as Bourdieu noticed with the French, information is received by the general public through the easiest and most accessible form. Recently with the advances in technology, consuming media has become inexpensive and effortless. This is represented most by television.
Television has expanded to encompass, what seems like, an infinite amount of channels. No matter what you are in the mood for, no matter what your point of view, anyone can find something that they want to watch. The television has become so embedded into our daily lives that it is often on in the background, while people go on living their lives. However, even though it does not hold the same important and impressive connotations that it has in the past, it still has a great influence in the beliefs and opinions of the general public. This is best exemplified by “TV news.” Bourdieu points out that these views that are held by mass television audiences reflect the opinions of the journalists’. Stations like CNN and Fox have perpetuated the views of the elite corporations through the stories and information that is provided by journalists on these news networks. As the quote states above, audience beliefs are largely influenced by these programs.
In a generation that is so dependent on technology for all aspects of life, information is often received through the easily accessible “TV news.” Young people in our society have been seriously impacted by these channels, and they are socialized to believe what they are told—who to trust, what to think and how to feel. This socialization has given credibility to the news channels. Since it was mentioned on the syllabus, while reading Bourdieu’s article, I kept referring to Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report. Television and news channels act to inform and entertain the audiences, and not many people have epitomized on the entertainment factor as much as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They have formed a new genre of television shows—comedic news television. While they function for entertainment purposes, the younger generation has started to give them more validity as news sources—starting to take the opinions of comedians, rather than those of journalists. Their impact has sparked another movement, one that normalizes this behavior. This movement could possibly have many negative consequences for the political and educational future of our society.
Smiley Face - Bourdieu
Bourdieu is the first theorist to take ideology and hegemony etc in society and apply it to an actual media field: journalism and television. While all of the previous theorists look at media,signs, theorists and so on from an objective view, Bordieu connects it to specific media genres.
The purpose of the article it to look at the over-powering force of television and how it acts as a threat to other forms of media, such as print. As we all know, for beliefs to form in society they must become universal and accessible by all (reflecting on the work of Marx for a moment there) and this article conveys how television has become the prominent source for news. This is particularly noticed in the defining of the 'agenda' through television. One of the articles in CMC 200 recognizes the framing of the agenda in media via the spreading of fear leading to the public handing over their faith in the government. This vicious cycle of 'agenda-setting' clearly depicts the further threat television has on print media - ever since television became the dominant for it was given the luxury to determine the public's opinion, which is also determined by the journalist. Furthermore, the journalist is becoming pressured to move from print media to television. Therefore, print media faces extinction in the near future due to the over-powering forces of technology and 'the cult of the new' (thank you Habermas).
Along with the power of television over other forms of media, we have the need for audience ratings and validity of news to the maintenance of power. Bourdieu claims that "Human interest stories create a political vacuum" (332). This quote caught my attention specifically because of the influx of 'missing children' stories that have hit the front-stage of media over the past couple of years. These stories, though terrible and do deserve attention, take credit away from the news that follows. The news should act as an un-biased observer of the world and reflect the mot relevant stories to its audience, but it is difficult to witness this with 24-7 surveillance on the case of the latest missing child as opposed to news on the economoy that is important for everyone to know.
Television has reigned the stage of media for a while now, but with the dominance of anecdotal and over-publicized stories on the screen, does it represent the fall of TV as the leading media field?
The purpose of the article it to look at the over-powering force of television and how it acts as a threat to other forms of media, such as print. As we all know, for beliefs to form in society they must become universal and accessible by all (reflecting on the work of Marx for a moment there) and this article conveys how television has become the prominent source for news. This is particularly noticed in the defining of the 'agenda' through television. One of the articles in CMC 200 recognizes the framing of the agenda in media via the spreading of fear leading to the public handing over their faith in the government. This vicious cycle of 'agenda-setting' clearly depicts the further threat television has on print media - ever since television became the dominant for it was given the luxury to determine the public's opinion, which is also determined by the journalist. Furthermore, the journalist is becoming pressured to move from print media to television. Therefore, print media faces extinction in the near future due to the over-powering forces of technology and 'the cult of the new' (thank you Habermas).
Along with the power of television over other forms of media, we have the need for audience ratings and validity of news to the maintenance of power. Bourdieu claims that "Human interest stories create a political vacuum" (332). This quote caught my attention specifically because of the influx of 'missing children' stories that have hit the front-stage of media over the past couple of years. These stories, though terrible and do deserve attention, take credit away from the news that follows. The news should act as an un-biased observer of the world and reflect the mot relevant stories to its audience, but it is difficult to witness this with 24-7 surveillance on the case of the latest missing child as opposed to news on the economoy that is important for everyone to know.
Television has reigned the stage of media for a while now, but with the dominance of anecdotal and over-publicized stories on the screen, does it represent the fall of TV as the leading media field?
aro0823, bordieu
When I began my high school career, I purposefully signed up for electives such as “on-camera performance” and “basic video production” because I loved the glamorized image of the journalistic profession. Interestingly enough, the ignorant reasons that I used to want to be a journalist are the same reasons Bourdieu highlights explaining why the news industry is on a rapidly downhill spiral.
To begin, journalists don’t necessarily have to know things, they just have to have an attractive face and good speaking voice and the public automatically respects them by virtue of being on television and reading from a prompter. Automatically, they are assumed to be a part of the “intellectual crowd” (330) regardless of their actual academic qualifications. Thus, they can “impose on the whole of society their vision of the world” (330) and people will interpret it as the truth. The problem with this assumption is that, regardless of how much “real news” you think you are getting, it is always biased by the constraints and structure of the industry. As Chomsky enumerated in our last reading, even the most objective journalists are still restricted by the political economic trappings of big business and media conglomerations. So, thought journalists are allowed to posit their worldviews, they can only do so if their worldviews are relatively homogenous and will thus produce ratings.
Alas, if you are getting the ratings, no one really cares if the information is right or wrong. Weather people are perfect examples of this phenomenon: people have no expectation of the weather people and weather people have job security even if their predictions are wrong 6/7 days a week. The factual nature of the information is not the underlying issue, but instead the novelty, kitsch, and non-controversy of it all. Not surprisingly, there are “no negative sanctions for journalists” because the media industry no longer plays a real role in investigating hard news and stories of actual consequence and substance. I can’t help but think that because no one plays a real role in investigating anything, perhaps that is why so many scandals explode and the banking industry collapsed since we don’t attempt to solve problems until after they occur.
Accordingly, I wanted to be a journalist because they essentially get paid to ramble about whatever they so please (within reason), impose their moral beliefs upon society as the correct ones, and not be responsible for the massive brainwashing and manipulation of the absent minded populace.
To begin, journalists don’t necessarily have to know things, they just have to have an attractive face and good speaking voice and the public automatically respects them by virtue of being on television and reading from a prompter. Automatically, they are assumed to be a part of the “intellectual crowd” (330) regardless of their actual academic qualifications. Thus, they can “impose on the whole of society their vision of the world” (330) and people will interpret it as the truth. The problem with this assumption is that, regardless of how much “real news” you think you are getting, it is always biased by the constraints and structure of the industry. As Chomsky enumerated in our last reading, even the most objective journalists are still restricted by the political economic trappings of big business and media conglomerations. So, thought journalists are allowed to posit their worldviews, they can only do so if their worldviews are relatively homogenous and will thus produce ratings.
Alas, if you are getting the ratings, no one really cares if the information is right or wrong. Weather people are perfect examples of this phenomenon: people have no expectation of the weather people and weather people have job security even if their predictions are wrong 6/7 days a week. The factual nature of the information is not the underlying issue, but instead the novelty, kitsch, and non-controversy of it all. Not surprisingly, there are “no negative sanctions for journalists” because the media industry no longer plays a real role in investigating hard news and stories of actual consequence and substance. I can’t help but think that because no one plays a real role in investigating anything, perhaps that is why so many scandals explode and the banking industry collapsed since we don’t attempt to solve problems until after they occur.
Accordingly, I wanted to be a journalist because they essentially get paid to ramble about whatever they so please (within reason), impose their moral beliefs upon society as the correct ones, and not be responsible for the massive brainwashing and manipulation of the absent minded populace.
Rubber Soul, Bourdieu
"TV news...It suits everybody because it confirms what they already know, and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact" (329).
When discussing Lyotard, he states "What is advised... is to offer works... that the public will recognize what they are about, and will understand what is signified" which essentially means that you can tell people what they already know to make a million dollars. Television operates in this matter as well. Programs that are shown focus on safe subjects that require little critical thinking. Bourdieu refers to these "newsworthy" stories as "tried and true formulas" which tend to encompass human interest stories or sports. He says, "No matter what has happened in the world on a given day, more and more often the evening news begins with French soccer scores...Or it will highlight the most anecdotal ritualized political event... which are [stories] apt to arouse curiosity but require no analysis, especially in the political sphere" (332). This idea ties into Chomsky's analysis of how the ruling class dominates the realm of mass media. The huge concentration of media ownership translates into only certain information in the best interest for the ruling class getting relayed to the public. Thus people conform to the moral codes that are presented to them, even if these values don't necessarily suit the public. The result is a lack of sociological imagination. "Invisible power relations are translated into personal conflicts and existential choices" (333) meaning that a person blames oneself even when the real issues lie within the flaws of the invisible structures in power. Television is one of these powers and that is why it is so important to understand the decision making process for why we are shown the things we see on T.V. Bourdieu sums up the current process in an almost snowball effect--"Through pressure from audience ratings, economic forces weigh on television, and through its effect on journalism, television weighs on newspapers and magazines... The weight then falls on individual journalists, who little by little let themselves be drawn into television's orbit" (335). Television is a business, so we are shown what makes the large and in charge stay in power.
When discussing Lyotard, he states "What is advised... is to offer works... that the public will recognize what they are about, and will understand what is signified" which essentially means that you can tell people what they already know to make a million dollars. Television operates in this matter as well. Programs that are shown focus on safe subjects that require little critical thinking. Bourdieu refers to these "newsworthy" stories as "tried and true formulas" which tend to encompass human interest stories or sports. He says, "No matter what has happened in the world on a given day, more and more often the evening news begins with French soccer scores...Or it will highlight the most anecdotal ritualized political event... which are [stories] apt to arouse curiosity but require no analysis, especially in the political sphere" (332). This idea ties into Chomsky's analysis of how the ruling class dominates the realm of mass media. The huge concentration of media ownership translates into only certain information in the best interest for the ruling class getting relayed to the public. Thus people conform to the moral codes that are presented to them, even if these values don't necessarily suit the public. The result is a lack of sociological imagination. "Invisible power relations are translated into personal conflicts and existential choices" (333) meaning that a person blames oneself even when the real issues lie within the flaws of the invisible structures in power. Television is one of these powers and that is why it is so important to understand the decision making process for why we are shown the things we see on T.V. Bourdieu sums up the current process in an almost snowball effect--"Through pressure from audience ratings, economic forces weigh on television, and through its effect on journalism, television weighs on newspapers and magazines... The weight then falls on individual journalists, who little by little let themselves be drawn into television's orbit" (335). Television is a business, so we are shown what makes the large and in charge stay in power.
thestig, Bourdieu
It’s pretty remarkable to me that the people of today’s society aren’t getting more angry at “the man” for focusing on things “which are apt to arouse curiosity but require no analysis, especially in the political sphere” (Bourdieu 332). For example, our news is dominated by Brittany Spears and the death of Anna Nicole Smith. At a time when our nation is taking over national corporations, it’s important for the American people to be aware of what is going on with their money. However, these networks have the “audience ratings mindset,” in which those who “set the agenda” are focused more on what is of interest to the consumer and lessen the importance of what is actually going on in the world.
I thought one of Bourdieu’s strong points is that the agenda setters are also “victims of the ‘audience ratings mindset’” (Bourdieu 333). It’s a symptom of capitalism. We’ve seen greed take over our economy in the past year, i.e. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, which is an example of this sort of capitalism. Do whatever it takes to make more money. In this case, we’re seeing media executive and agenda setters focused of featuring profitable programming as opposed to programming that educated its viewers.
Finally, I thought that Bourdieu’s solution to the problem as rooted in sociology is an interesting approach to this issue. As I mentioned earlier, I think it’s incredible that today’s society isn’t more critical of the media, demanding more honest reporting. Bourdieu contends that in order for this to happen, individuals have to be educated on the “mechanisms at work” (Bourdieu 335). It’s true – this will start the movement. I just finished writing a paper on Emile Durkheim’s analysis on the malaise of modern society, and he contends that it will be solved by moral regulation. With corporate organization – Durkheim’s term for organizing infrastructure and a collective consciousness amongst individuals in society – people will be able to realize media’s shortcomings.
I asked Ed Royce earlier this morning what the deal is with corporate media in America. I asked, about advertising and it’s highly politicized organization, if that’s just “the way it is.” His response was along the lines of this: It isn’t just the way it is because there was someone behind all of this who decided that the privatization of media had to be driven by enormous profits. All we have to do is look at how other countries model their mass media to realize how ridiculous our media companies really are, i.e. the BBC.
I thought one of Bourdieu’s strong points is that the agenda setters are also “victims of the ‘audience ratings mindset’” (Bourdieu 333). It’s a symptom of capitalism. We’ve seen greed take over our economy in the past year, i.e. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, which is an example of this sort of capitalism. Do whatever it takes to make more money. In this case, we’re seeing media executive and agenda setters focused of featuring profitable programming as opposed to programming that educated its viewers.
Finally, I thought that Bourdieu’s solution to the problem as rooted in sociology is an interesting approach to this issue. As I mentioned earlier, I think it’s incredible that today’s society isn’t more critical of the media, demanding more honest reporting. Bourdieu contends that in order for this to happen, individuals have to be educated on the “mechanisms at work” (Bourdieu 335). It’s true – this will start the movement. I just finished writing a paper on Emile Durkheim’s analysis on the malaise of modern society, and he contends that it will be solved by moral regulation. With corporate organization – Durkheim’s term for organizing infrastructure and a collective consciousness amongst individuals in society – people will be able to realize media’s shortcomings.
I asked Ed Royce earlier this morning what the deal is with corporate media in America. I asked, about advertising and it’s highly politicized organization, if that’s just “the way it is.” His response was along the lines of this: It isn’t just the way it is because there was someone behind all of this who decided that the privatization of media had to be driven by enormous profits. All we have to do is look at how other countries model their mass media to realize how ridiculous our media companies really are, i.e. the BBC.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
dmariel, Bourdieu
Throughout my CMC studies, I have become so fascinated by big news corporations--CCN, NBC, Fox News, etc. Ever since I have taken a critical approach to these channels I have realized what Bourdieu refers to as their way of “telling us what we ‘should think’ about”. News can and often does depoliticize and reduce “what goes on in the world to the level of anecdote or scandal..to be transformed into illustrations of ‘social problems’”. The news has insurmountable power and creates effect which are “completely original”. When reading this article, I was reminded of the day when Dr. Casey said recession + recession + recession = recession. I believe that the news is a huge factor in the reason that our economy is the way that it is right now. People believe that what they hear on the news is completely true and unbiased, when really there is no obligation for the news to tell the truth or even to filter the information for viewers. Rather than filter, they simply convey what is entertaining and enticing. American culture, for the most part, is entertained by tragic stories, scary weather reports, etc. The news continues to feed the same stories over and over again to the public, suiting everyone “because it confirms what they already know and above all, leaves their mental structures in tact”.
Bourdieu proposes an extremely important question when he debates whether or not newspapers should report news like we see on TV or should they emphasize how they are different? There is an economic dilemma here, especially because today the newspaper is becoming very outdated. People are becoming more and more lazy, sitting back and getting their news from the TV. If newspapers do not cater to the dramatic quenching lives of Americans they may go out of business. But on the other hand, where will practical news stories be found if not in the newspaper? Although TV has the potential to reach such a wide number of viewers easily, it hasn’t done it in the most proper or culturally sound way. The newspaper, on the other hand, has remained practical for the most part. I hope that, for the good of the American people, the newspaper will continue to differentiate and give us real news.
Bourdieu proposes an extremely important question when he debates whether or not newspapers should report news like we see on TV or should they emphasize how they are different? There is an economic dilemma here, especially because today the newspaper is becoming very outdated. People are becoming more and more lazy, sitting back and getting their news from the TV. If newspapers do not cater to the dramatic quenching lives of Americans they may go out of business. But on the other hand, where will practical news stories be found if not in the newspaper? Although TV has the potential to reach such a wide number of viewers easily, it hasn’t done it in the most proper or culturally sound way. The newspaper, on the other hand, has remained practical for the most part. I hope that, for the good of the American people, the newspaper will continue to differentiate and give us real news.
Petite Etoile, 4/05
We talked in class about how it takes so many millions of dollars in advertising and developing and marketing or whatever else it is they do to get there products on the shelves in a grocery store. But this got me thinking… what kind of terrible things does a company have to do to get its stuff into snack machines in colleges and highschools and near movie theaters? And not only that, but what does it have to do to get it’s products in EVERY snack machine in the country? I mean it’s a pretty crazy idea that coca cola has gone so far. I was at a conference this weekend at UCF about activism and grassroot organizing and I went out to get a drink and every single machine around, which since UCF is massive their were like 5 in the same hallway, were all filled with coke products. And its not just the coke, diet coke, coke zero, cherry coke and other obviously coke products that are from coke. But even if you wanted to buy a water, its dasani…made by coke, or a fruit drink, its Fuze… also made my coke, or an energy drink, its Full Throttle… also made by coke. I wouldn’t be surprised if coke secretly made snicker bars and trail mix too. It’s just ridiculous how they have completely monopolized the beverage market and our government does nothing. Isn’t that still illegal anymore? And then I went back inside to our meeting and someone mentioned something about the Killer Coke Campaign. I still haven’t had the time to fully look into what that’s all about, but it sure doesn’t sound like the commercials of good time old American smiling fuzzy feeling coca cola in a glass bottle with your family type image they’re trying to push. And it sure doesn’t sound like something our country should allow, much less endorse, and put in every corner of every school from kindergarden all the way to college. Just because you see coke everywhere and it just seems natural to see coke everywhere we tend to forget that someone somewhere is making money every single time someone buys one. Take a second to try and calculate how many cokes are in one machine, how many machines are on one campus… one city… one state… the entire country. It’s mind blowing. Just because it’s accepted doesn’t mean it’s right. And just because we don’t see the abuse happening, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And even if we aren’t aware of the atrocities we are supporting doesn’t mean they aren’t real and we aren’t responsible.
coolbeans, 4/05
In class on Friday we discussed how many times the ads that are featured during shows are targeted to the audience that would be watching the shows that are featured. The broadcasting agencies make a lot of money from selling airtime for the advertisements and the products make a lot of money from the advertisements because it helps get the name of the products out to the public. It is very rare to see a company that is able to sustain itself without the use of advertising because if nobody knew about what a product was then they would not know to purchase it. It makes a lot of sense why a company such as Mattel would purchase airtime on Nickelodeon because a lot of kids watch Nickelodeon and the target age for Mattel toys are kids. Nickelodeon and Mattel rely a lot on each other in order to make money off of each other. It seems as if advertisements are a necessity in order for our economy to be functional. A lot of CMC theorists seem to view advertisements as control mechanisms, but aren’t they kind of necessary? What would happen if advertisements were made illegal? The shoe designer Christian Louboutin, does not create advertisements for the shoes because of his belief that the quality of the shoes should speak for themselves. Because of this, the shoes are not nearly purchased as much as a highly commodified brand such as Steve Madden. The company however is still able to survive because the shoes are priced at $700-$2500 a pair. Therefore, in order for a company that does not advertise to make as much profit as a company that advertises a lot, the price of the product must be raised much more. If advertisements disappeared altogether then would everything have to be priced double what it is now in order for the companies to stay afloat?
thestig, 4/5
The propaganda model is a very interesting map of how information reaches a wide audience. In short, you need to be extremely rich and extremely powerful to get your message across to the general public. Adorno and Horkheimer also touched upon this, and in paraphrasing, they are making the point tat anyone can sell anything, but unless you ave a ton of money, you can’t get it out into the public domain. Though this is becoming less true with the internet, it is still astronomically expensive to get an item onto the publix shelf (68, 3/24). Alright, we get it! Only the “big wigs” can get their product to be advertised on big networks during primetime.
But we have to understand that the only way these media companies can stay afloat is if they charge an arm and a leg for advertising. Let’s not forget that the media business is extremely expensive. The cost of equipment and labor is probably one of the most costly of any business in the world. So the issue is, and what I found to be most interesting about Tuesday’s lecture, is the “buying mood,” and how much more complex the media web really is. What we found is that the advertiser doesn’t just pay for the ad to be on the television, but that the ad is going to be placed just before or just after a program or news piece that in some way, shape, or form is connected with the product being advertised. And I never noticed this until it was pointed out in Tuesday’s class. I went home for lunch, put CNN, and was greeted with a Lockheed Martin advertisement about how their military technology is so innovative. I immediately said to myself, “Well, I bet we’ll see some news segment now on military technology.” Drum roll please! The first segment was on technology being developed for amphibious warfare so soldiers can “see what’s on the other side of that hill without going over it.” The product was like a small airplane that could be thrown into the air, fly, and take pictures of what’s below, and in real time show it to the soldiers who just threw it. A pretty remarkable technology.
So then, it seems that the problem is not with who is advertising, or why they are advertising, but the close working relationship and agenda the media has with advancing the sales of their advertiser to the extent that their programming is dictated by the advertisers wishes.
But we have to understand that the only way these media companies can stay afloat is if they charge an arm and a leg for advertising. Let’s not forget that the media business is extremely expensive. The cost of equipment and labor is probably one of the most costly of any business in the world. So the issue is, and what I found to be most interesting about Tuesday’s lecture, is the “buying mood,” and how much more complex the media web really is. What we found is that the advertiser doesn’t just pay for the ad to be on the television, but that the ad is going to be placed just before or just after a program or news piece that in some way, shape, or form is connected with the product being advertised. And I never noticed this until it was pointed out in Tuesday’s class. I went home for lunch, put CNN, and was greeted with a Lockheed Martin advertisement about how their military technology is so innovative. I immediately said to myself, “Well, I bet we’ll see some news segment now on military technology.” Drum roll please! The first segment was on technology being developed for amphibious warfare so soldiers can “see what’s on the other side of that hill without going over it.” The product was like a small airplane that could be thrown into the air, fly, and take pictures of what’s below, and in real time show it to the soldiers who just threw it. A pretty remarkable technology.
So then, it seems that the problem is not with who is advertising, or why they are advertising, but the close working relationship and agenda the media has with advancing the sales of their advertiser to the extent that their programming is dictated by the advertisers wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)