Last weeks class was kind of interesting, we constantly talked about the media circle and how reproduction has an ongoing effect and the components that supports it. The four propaganda ingredients: 1) size, wealth, concentration of media ownership, 2) advertising as primary income source, 3) reliance of media on institutional information source (experts), 4) Flak (media hides stories that will hurt the industry), and 5) anti communism is used as a control mechanism, obviously play major roles when producing material to society.
There are two out of the five ingredients that I would like to touch base on because they are more common in the post-modern culture. First, ingredient number four determines what is forecasted in front of the public’s sphere. Government officials have a lot of hidden stories or twisted stories that they feel should or shouldn’t be casted. For example, the war in Iraq is a strong subject for many families and individuals because they have loved ones fight over there for our country. At the Peace Film Festival there was a film that showed all of the demoralizing events that took place, but it wasn’t produced by the main media circle, it was documented by an insider. Some of the events that took place included sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse to its maximum potential. Media coverage wasn’t forecast on our NEWS channels because our American troops were the ones who committed these dehumanizing acts, not the Iranians.
The final ingredient is number five, which suggests that those who go against American policies or ideologies will be casted as anti-communism. I personally have a problem with this notion because it takes away from the freedom that America suggests to its people. As long as citizens are not breaking laws that effect or harm government officials, then they shouldn’t be given a negative connotation. Framing an individual as an anti-communist is a control mechanism for authority figures.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Starfish Bourdieu
This article was helpful to me personally because my paper for CMC 200 has to do with the influence that television has on its viewers. Many people do not realize just how powerful television is. People tend to say that they are not affected by the news, or other television programming they watch, but the truth is whether they know it or not, they are. People look to television to get their news, and to be entertained and a lot of the time their thoughts and views on the world are affected subconsciously. It is not only the programs that affect the viewer but Bourdieu says that the individuals on these programming have a certain power over the viewer.
“Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we “should think” about what they call “social problems”, such as violence in the inner city or in schools” (329)
After reading this quote the first thing that popped into my head was Opera, the most famous talk show host of all time. I know woman who almost base their lives around Opera talks about on her show. People look to her for guidance and think a certain way because Opera tells them too. Her book club is another great example of her influence over people. If a book is on Opera’s list and has been highly recommended by her, the book sells like crazy. Everyone needs to read it because Opera says so.
Another point Bourdieu makes is that television has upstaged print media. “Television’s power of diffusion means that it poses a terrible problem for the print media...”328. I like this to the concept of “cult of the new.” In the postmodern culture, we want everything bigger, newer and faster. When you compare television to a newspaper or print source, there is no competition. Television brings people the information they want when they want it, and is more technologically advanced.
“Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we “should think” about what they call “social problems”, such as violence in the inner city or in schools” (329)
After reading this quote the first thing that popped into my head was Opera, the most famous talk show host of all time. I know woman who almost base their lives around Opera talks about on her show. People look to her for guidance and think a certain way because Opera tells them too. Her book club is another great example of her influence over people. If a book is on Opera’s list and has been highly recommended by her, the book sells like crazy. Everyone needs to read it because Opera says so.
Another point Bourdieu makes is that television has upstaged print media. “Television’s power of diffusion means that it poses a terrible problem for the print media...”328. I like this to the concept of “cult of the new.” In the postmodern culture, we want everything bigger, newer and faster. When you compare television to a newspaper or print source, there is no competition. Television brings people the information they want when they want it, and is more technologically advanced.
Bella Bourdieu
When referring to journalists, Bourdieu wrote, “Above all, though, with their permanent access to public visibility, broad circulation, and mass diffusion–an access that was completely unthinkable for any cultural producer until television came into the picture–these journalists can impose on the whole of society their vision of the world, their conception of problems, and their point of view” (Bourdieu 330). He describes how journalism has become divided, and differentiated, separating itself from other forms of media, establishing its mode of expression and the representation of opinions and ideas. I think he is arguing that journalists (on television) are responsible for manipulating information and picking and choosing what is represented on air, but I’m not sure I agree. He didn’t seem to address the factors behind the representation of information on television. Every journalist has a boss that they must answer to; every boss has a superior, and so on. Each person answers to a higher power that influences and helps to decide which information is provided to the public. In my mind, the journalist is at the very bottom of the ‘news food chain’–they are simply ordered about, told what story to research, find everything out, give the report to the handsome man and woman anchors for the show, and watch them read it aloud. The higher powers have personal interests in which stories are presented, whether it is coming from economic or political persuasion, or whatever, the journalist is not making the most important decision of all. Granted, Bourdieu is probably looking at a lower level–anything that comes from one person’s mouth to another’s ear is going to be biased, selective, and changed. Perhaps that is what Bourdieu is talking about in his piece about Television. He wrote, “The effect is censorship, which journalists practice without even being aware of it. They retain only the things capable of interesting them and “keeping their attention,” which means things that fit their categories and mental grid; and they reject as insignificant or remain indifferent to symbolic expressions that ought to reach the population as a whole” (Bourdieu 330). He also mentioned the ‘pseudo scholarly research’ being performed on media currently, and how some people have declared ‘mediology’ a science, to which he clearly disagrees. Ultimately, Bourdieu feels that “the increased influence of the most cynical and most successful seekers after anything sensational, spectacular, or extraordinary, a certain vision of the news comes to take over the whole of the journalistic field” (Bourdieu 332).
romulus Bourdieu
"Human interest stories create a political vacuum. They depoliticize and reduce what goes on in the world to the level of anecdote or scandal."
The essay notes that the evening news brings together more Frenchmen than any newspaper can. It is a wonderfully disturbing thought that a massive amount of people tune into the exact same thing at the same time. It showcases the powerful medium that television is. One of the number of issues associated with this daily phenomena is that one perspective is being peddled to consumers. I refer to television audiences as consumers, because that is what people do when they sit in front of the tube, consume what is being presented to them.
In order for people to continue spending their time watching the evening news, the journalists presenting are given material that the network decides is worthy to talk about. This causes a number of stories to be ignored in favor of those that are produce higher ratings. This puts a journalist in a difficult position that is messy and potentially morally challenging. What makes a great journalist? Barbara Walters is an icon in the news media. So are the boys over on Comedy Central, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The writers strike proved how unfunny John is without them, but he's still one great 'fake' real journalist. These three figures are a brand in themselves. Honestly I cannot name anyone from France who reports on the news. Is a true journalist a person who can create an identity that does not necessarily depend on the network that they work for?
Nichole Bourdieu
When I first began reading this article I thought the direction it was beginning to take was quite the opposite. It says that “the political and cultural effects are clear when the information supplied by a single news medium becomes the universal source of news” (328). I thought the clear direction was that the leading means of news would begin to spread false information much like a tabloid would do as well as push for one or so products in advertising because there are no competitors and could monopolize the advertising world. However, the article took quite the opposite position and said that in order to not offend ANYone, the news would be glossed over and “soft” media information like the weather forecast is.
Bourdieu continues on to explain that this happens at times when people don’t necessarily WANT it to happen but somehow seem willed to happen. This quote reminds me of Lyotards essay which discusses revolting against the things that happen unwillingly; to challenge the normal and let creativity rein once again and not to fall into the cracks as Bourdieu describes is happening with television news vs. print media at present.
I don’t particularly care for his argument on journalists dominating members of social superiority. Obviously there are certain people, journalists associated with a particular paper or magazine, that have continual access to expressing their vision on one topic or another. Although they strive to remain neutral obvious biases to one side or another will occur and unfortunately readers may be suaded with the argument to one side or another. That much I agree with, but I think in no way that journalists want to break down the “experts” (we talked about in class) by dis-crediting them of their knowledge. They are not out to break down the intellectual crowd to gain a step up from them. I can, perhaps, see where his argument might come from: the most popular news articles, especially right now, are the cons of the presidential candidates (perhaps why people say they are going to vote for “the least bad candidate”), because its easier to point out where people mess up than when they bring up a good point (The recent blooper by Hillary that made headlines says she “was under sniper fire”). The journalists, I feel, are simply sharing information that others should be aware about; not to bring powerful people down.
NewYorker - Bourdieu
This article was pretty straight forward and said a lot of the things we are already aware of of the media and TV industry. The part I liked the best was "Such visibility [about being on TV] gives them greater status in their newspaper or journal. Any journalist who wants power or influence has to have a TV program." 331. The fact of the matter is, is that it is basically true. TV produces great exposure because it can reach millions of people at once, and it is instant. People can easily tune in, and usually if there is a TV show that is out, people have heard of it. They are more likely to hear of a show than to have heard of a title of an article in a newspaper/magazine. Also, nowadays with DVRs and TiVo, people are more able to watch more TV because they can record several shows, or record a program when they are not home and watch it later. Even channels show reruns if it gets such great ratings, that they will show it again.
Also, when we spoke about experts, the ones that make it to a talk show or news program, are going to get even more credibilty, and if they have a book out (which they probably do because that is usually the reason for getting on a show in the first place,) their sales will go up because of their exposure. I know of several books that were just ordinary books until Oprah exposed them on her show and made them part of her Book Club. Or even chefs who work for nice restaurants, once they get a segment with Ellen or Martha Stewart, their careers sky rocket. It's amazing how much influence celebrities can have over someone's career and credibility.
He also spoke about the power of television itself. TV is consumed by ratings and the audience's demands. That influences what gets shown - it's like a cycle. We want more blood and gory, we get more doctor/hospital shows. We want more crime and action, we get 24 and CSI. We feed off of other's depression and misfortune, because that is all we see on the news and in shows.
Also, when we spoke about experts, the ones that make it to a talk show or news program, are going to get even more credibilty, and if they have a book out (which they probably do because that is usually the reason for getting on a show in the first place,) their sales will go up because of their exposure. I know of several books that were just ordinary books until Oprah exposed them on her show and made them part of her Book Club. Or even chefs who work for nice restaurants, once they get a segment with Ellen or Martha Stewart, their careers sky rocket. It's amazing how much influence celebrities can have over someone's career and credibility.
He also spoke about the power of television itself. TV is consumed by ratings and the audience's demands. That influences what gets shown - it's like a cycle. We want more blood and gory, we get more doctor/hospital shows. We want more crime and action, we get 24 and CSI. We feed off of other's depression and misfortune, because that is all we see on the news and in shows.
BubbaNub: Jameson
Jameson's "The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" attempts to break down the key components of postmodernity, and in doing so brings together numerous concepts of works that we have previously read. Clearly this era is not a singular definitive but rather an eclectic gathering of the degraded modern, the nostalgic historic, and the "hysterical sublime." He is quick to recognize that postmodernism is most evident in archictecture, relating directly to Jencks. Then he goes even farther, acknowledging Adorno's concept that "pastiche eclipses parody." He even echoes the sentiments of Barthes and Eco by speaking of the inimitable styles of postmodernity and the new "real" city.
Altogether Jameson doesn't bring together many original observations of his own, but merely compiles the previous research of some great theorists in a very presentable manner that we have not seen before. After looking at all these various theorists separately, it can be difficult to see where their individualistic ideals fit into the scope of postmodernity as a whole, however, Jameson does just that. I found reading this, specifically at this place and time during the course, to be very helpful in obtaining a grander sense of the intricacies of our era.
Altogether Jameson doesn't bring together many original observations of his own, but merely compiles the previous research of some great theorists in a very presentable manner that we have not seen before. After looking at all these various theorists separately, it can be difficult to see where their individualistic ideals fit into the scope of postmodernity as a whole, however, Jameson does just that. I found reading this, specifically at this place and time during the course, to be very helpful in obtaining a grander sense of the intricacies of our era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)