I recently found out through the net about Larry King, the middle schooler who was shot on Valentine's day by another boy. Why haven'nt we talked about this in class? I am sick with people not educating their kids about the existence of gays and lesbians. To claim morals is not to initiate in blatant ignorance and disrespect for others. Even with a downright idiot in office who preached second class citizenship for his own people, you would assume that people are not that intolerant or dumb.
Here is Ellen discussing it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3855885439646181824&q=larry+king+gay+ellen&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
SInce when is it okay to go around shooting people? Who raises a child to act in that manner?
With everything that is going in in contemporary media, some will say that technology consumes our lives. I agree with those people. It had made our lives more interconnected and much easier. Mass communications has created titans who collectively are producing nothing short of a phenomena. Corporations like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Myspace and Facebook are working with each other not to dominate the world but to move us forward at leaps and bounds. Through creative exchange laws, these companies showcase the power of private enterprise. Capitalism has done wonders, providing services the public sphere cannot. . U.A.E. is an example of what massive wealth can accomplish without a heavy bureaucracy in place. The kingdom runs itself like a business. This is a good thing. Businesses know that in order to sell they will eventually have to catch up and be ahead of cultural trends. The greatest public space EVER is the Internet, which gave birth to these giants. Being online is a necessity, and those in charge of the hardware and software are benefiting the most. Facebook and Myspace grew out of online socializing, and reinvented them. In some areas, governments are totally missing the point. They have become slow, and American democracy has been polarized. The last election saw a fight between red and blue states, now most places on the map are purple.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
WouldntULIke2Know Bourdieu
Pierre Bourdieu’s “On television” accurately reflects the dangerous power held by many forms of media, particularly television. His discussion of the abundance of human interest stories that function as essentially a distraction technique is spot on. These social problems are played off as issues of extreme concern given the over-reporting of the rare, but horrific account of something unthinkable.
Giving significance to these “social facts [which are] tailor-made to arouse the pathos and indignation of some commentators or the tedious moralizing of others. This same search for sensational news, and hence market success, can also lead to the selection of stories that give free reign to the unbridled constructions of demagoguery (whether spontaneous or intentional) or can stir up great excitement by catering to the most primitive drives and emotions (with stories of kidnapped children and scandals likely to arouse public indignation). Purely sentimental and therapeutic forms of mobilizing feelings can come into play, but, with murders of children or incidents tied to stigmatized groups, other forms of mobilization can also take place, forms that are just as emotional but aggressive enough almost to qualify as symbolic lynching” (333).
I wish that I had read this article before turning in my literary review for Dr. Tillmann’s Researching Media and Culture, which was precisely on this topic. I focused my review on the media representations of child abuse and the effects that stemmed from the sensationalized reporting of said events. Given that ratings drive what is shown, as Bourdieu and many others have explained, the public has a tainted view of the issue being reported. Such is the case with child abuse. The notion of the threat of stranger danger (i.e. Elizabeth Smart, Jessica Lunsford, etc.) is one that has created a public moral panic. The overwhelming fear that many parents have is based off of inaccurate reporting reflecting a rare threat. The problem with this lies in that this misinformation leads to parents being totally unaware of the more common threat facing their children, abuse that occurs in the home. People are then mobilized to support a cause that is less likely to occur and thus, completely ignore the real threat facing children.
Giving significance to these “social facts [which are] tailor-made to arouse the pathos and indignation of some commentators or the tedious moralizing of others. This same search for sensational news, and hence market success, can also lead to the selection of stories that give free reign to the unbridled constructions of demagoguery (whether spontaneous or intentional) or can stir up great excitement by catering to the most primitive drives and emotions (with stories of kidnapped children and scandals likely to arouse public indignation). Purely sentimental and therapeutic forms of mobilizing feelings can come into play, but, with murders of children or incidents tied to stigmatized groups, other forms of mobilization can also take place, forms that are just as emotional but aggressive enough almost to qualify as symbolic lynching” (333).
I wish that I had read this article before turning in my literary review for Dr. Tillmann’s Researching Media and Culture, which was precisely on this topic. I focused my review on the media representations of child abuse and the effects that stemmed from the sensationalized reporting of said events. Given that ratings drive what is shown, as Bourdieu and many others have explained, the public has a tainted view of the issue being reported. Such is the case with child abuse. The notion of the threat of stranger danger (i.e. Elizabeth Smart, Jessica Lunsford, etc.) is one that has created a public moral panic. The overwhelming fear that many parents have is based off of inaccurate reporting reflecting a rare threat. The problem with this lies in that this misinformation leads to parents being totally unaware of the more common threat facing their children, abuse that occurs in the home. People are then mobilized to support a cause that is less likely to occur and thus, completely ignore the real threat facing children.
BubbaNub: 3/27
I am not sure if pastiche always eclipsed parody. When I think about this concept, I feel as though with most things, that it has evolved and grown with our society. Pastiche was not so evident back in the days, and yet today I am incapable of watching 10 minutes of "unintentionally" funny TV without laughing. Our nation has grown so absurd in regards to certain laws and aspects that I feel as though the last option permitted to me is to laugh. We waste trillions of dollars on losing wars such as Iraq, Vietnam, and the infamous DRUG war while simultaneously we miraculously fail to acknowledge the overwhelming numbers of poverty and our failing economy. And yet, with all of this fact and known, there remains the ideological projectors that continue to regurgitate the same messages they have been told to tell since the founding of America. If one cannot see the ridiculous hypocritical nature of the society we live in, they are truly devoid of a sense of humor.
I believe, even we (the educated), the ones responsible for leading these social changes are so overwhelmed by the idiocracy of our nation that we feel helpless as to where to start. It feels as though we are supposed to put a puzzle back together, one whos pieces never fit from the start. There is actually a fairly recent film out called "Idiocracy" by the same director that did "Office Space" that uses forms of pastiche with parody to show us a future of a hysterically depressing world run by people who have slowly evolved into lazy and boarder line mentally challenged beings. It is funny because we can see it happening, we can see it as truth, and the absurdity of it all makes us weep with laughter.
I believe, even we (the educated), the ones responsible for leading these social changes are so overwhelmed by the idiocracy of our nation that we feel helpless as to where to start. It feels as though we are supposed to put a puzzle back together, one whos pieces never fit from the start. There is actually a fairly recent film out called "Idiocracy" by the same director that did "Office Space" that uses forms of pastiche with parody to show us a future of a hysterically depressing world run by people who have slowly evolved into lazy and boarder line mentally challenged beings. It is funny because we can see it happening, we can see it as truth, and the absurdity of it all makes us weep with laughter.
Nichole 3-27
It is a pretty wild concept to think that we do not have any control over what we do anymore. Chomsky says that our decisions everyday are influenced and sometimes made entirely as a result of the media. Media outlets like the newspaper, magazines, daily news and television programs encode behaviors that will (they hope) influence consumers to partake in “institutional structures of the larger society”.
The ultimate hegemon, has the power to dictate what people will subscribe to. I am still guessing on who this might be but now I thinkg it is the highest producers and directors of the aforementioned media portals, most likely the people most educated (also the first on Chomsky’s list of systemic Propaganda: concentration of media ownership concerning size and wealth). This is perhaps also the derivative of the term “cultural schizophrenia”. Which we decided in class means that we are blurring the line between reality and what is fake. This also plays into the other term that we discussed in class “historiographic metafiction” which basically describes the means in which directors make a film “more realistic” by adding a historical character in order to set the time and place of the film better. The movie Factory Girl with Sienna Miller as Edie Sedgewick incorporates Bob Dylan into the film to better set the mood of the film. The addition of the fake Bob tells the reader that this is an artistic, wealthy crowd in the peak of the new movement of the 60s. I think that the play write does a good job when readers get this cultural schizophrenia because it means that the reader got lost in the film and forgotten that it is not possible to have the real person in the film, which happened with me while watching Factory Girl.
The ultimate hegemon, has the power to dictate what people will subscribe to. I am still guessing on who this might be but now I thinkg it is the highest producers and directors of the aforementioned media portals, most likely the people most educated (also the first on Chomsky’s list of systemic Propaganda: concentration of media ownership concerning size and wealth). This is perhaps also the derivative of the term “cultural schizophrenia”. Which we decided in class means that we are blurring the line between reality and what is fake. This also plays into the other term that we discussed in class “historiographic metafiction” which basically describes the means in which directors make a film “more realistic” by adding a historical character in order to set the time and place of the film better. The movie Factory Girl with Sienna Miller as Edie Sedgewick incorporates Bob Dylan into the film to better set the mood of the film. The addition of the fake Bob tells the reader that this is an artistic, wealthy crowd in the peak of the new movement of the 60s. I think that the play write does a good job when readers get this cultural schizophrenia because it means that the reader got lost in the film and forgotten that it is not possible to have the real person in the film, which happened with me while watching Factory Girl.
kaymac 3.27.08
Thursday's class depressed me quite a bit not only because it bashed the field that I want to get into, but because I know it's true and I still want to get into it, despite the fact that journalistic integrity has been thrown out the window. Which brings me to my question: Although we know that media is biased and influenced, why do we still trust it? (and my own personal question, why do I still want to get into it?).
I think the answer is that growing up, we have been constantly fed this idea that media is democratic and free and will give us the real story. However, as we grow older, we realize that media is not at all like that. Ideally, that's what it should be, but that is not what is on our televisions and in our newsstands. It's like when we were fed the story of Christopher Columbus in elementary school and as we grew older, we learn that Columbus didn't discover America, in fact, he didn't even set foot on the continent.
So then why do we still believe in it? And then why do we still feed the same crap that we're fed to our children? Why don't we tell them that corporate media is corrupted and is not to be trusted?
I would write more but my computer's about to die and I don't have my charger.
I think the answer is that growing up, we have been constantly fed this idea that media is democratic and free and will give us the real story. However, as we grow older, we realize that media is not at all like that. Ideally, that's what it should be, but that is not what is on our televisions and in our newsstands. It's like when we were fed the story of Christopher Columbus in elementary school and as we grew older, we learn that Columbus didn't discover America, in fact, he didn't even set foot on the continent.
So then why do we still believe in it? And then why do we still feed the same crap that we're fed to our children? Why don't we tell them that corporate media is corrupted and is not to be trusted?
I would write more but my computer's about to die and I don't have my charger.
Starfish 3/27
In class last Thursday, we discussed Herman and Chomsky’s theories of propaganda. They believe that the purpose of mass media’s existence is solely for propaganda purposes. Mass media “…inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” 257. This got me wondering. Is everything around me propaganda? The scary thing about it is sometimes we cannot pin point when things are. Propaganda can affect us subconsciously, so are we on a day-to-day basis being brain washed?
Another thing that I found interesting was the idea of “opine and recline.” We think that in everything we do and believe that we have a choice. We have control over our own actions, but Herman and Chomsky say that this is merely an illusion. I would really like to believe that I have complete control over everything I do, but it makes sense that certain things I believe and think were subconsciously put in my head by the media.
The news is a big portal for propaganda. We read the paper or watch the news to be updated on what is going on in the world. We trust the news to give us the facts, but sometimes the news does not report the whole story. In CMC 200, we discussed how on a late night program they had a segment called “The Casualties of War.” They then proceeded to show the pictures of the men who had died in the War on Terror. The government was outraged when this occurred because they don’t want American’s to see images like this. They only want us to see the positives of war. They don’t want us to see the reality of situations.
Another thing that I found interesting was the idea of “opine and recline.” We think that in everything we do and believe that we have a choice. We have control over our own actions, but Herman and Chomsky say that this is merely an illusion. I would really like to believe that I have complete control over everything I do, but it makes sense that certain things I believe and think were subconsciously put in my head by the media.
The news is a big portal for propaganda. We read the paper or watch the news to be updated on what is going on in the world. We trust the news to give us the facts, but sometimes the news does not report the whole story. In CMC 200, we discussed how on a late night program they had a segment called “The Casualties of War.” They then proceeded to show the pictures of the men who had died in the War on Terror. The government was outraged when this occurred because they don’t want American’s to see images like this. They only want us to see the positives of war. They don’t want us to see the reality of situations.
Jiggy 3/30
Jameson stated that there exsists an "underside to culture", one that doesnt reflect the negitive aspects. I would have to agree with this statment and argue that our culture exsists at the expensive of the loss of others. Almost all our products are developed overseas in countries were labor laws allow for long hours and little pay, for the enjoyment and profit of our nation. This side that allows our culture to exsists doesnt benefit from our idealistic culture that has been developed in the hundred years but rather is suffocated by it. Countries such as China, Indonesia and India need our business to survive but the lifestyles and conditons that it puts its people in harbors pain and suffering. It would be interesting to think about how our country would look if everything had to be made here, what kind of cars would we drink and products would we buy. Would the poverty rate be so high with millions of more jobs available, how would the nation respond. It seems as though in the last hundred years we have decided to pit a sales war aganist eachother that has led to companies constantly searching for the cheapest way out. American made pride is left at the bottom of the list, with employment for our own people the last and worst option. Our culture has developed for the death and blood of natives of other countries but our own. A new swing of American made pride is happening, with companies like Apple pushing toward US design and production, but we still have a long way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)