kMO 3/27

Mass media's function is not hidden, it is simply to bombard us with systematic propaganda. This is why the essential ingrediants of propaganda are based around media ownership...who owns the media HAS THE INFLUENCE. The increasing problem with american culture is the constant confusion between choice and democracy. Fox News is a prime example of propaganda gone wrong...the forced opinions exerted by their anchor reporters does the exact opposite of what we expect from a news channel. Instead of reporting what is currently happening we are exposed to biased lies (intended to sway our opinions). However, under the United States constitution they are allowed to act this way and sadly many people fall victim to this blantant trap.

The idea that advertisers will want, more generally, to avoid programs with serious complexities and distubing convtroversies that interefere with the buying mood also fits into the above statement. In my opinion it seems nearly impossible to find the pro's of a news channel such as Fox. What exactly could one advertise? It seems that at some point that same product could be torn apart by Fox itself. No one and no prodcut is safe from the brutal opinions of this particular media concentration...This set of ideas became much more clear to me post - class.

Cuckoo 4.1

I really enjoyed watching the OutFoxed video’s during Tuesday’s class. It was interesting to see how someone pulled different clips together to make their point. Even though we all do this in order to make our point. This also could easily be done with other news sources such as CNN, NBC, and ABC, which all give you different perspectives about what is going on. The news is something that you think would be straight forward because it is just facts, yet we can watch the same store on different channels and get a different view point of what is going on. One could watch a similar story on each of these different channels and come out with something different from each one. When you choose what channel you are going to watch you are aware of what view point you are getting, and will choose what channel you watch according your own perspective. There is not just one channel that will give you a general overview without and from of a bias opinion.

sawsaw Derrida

After reading this article, my whole definition of the word "Difference" changed. I had always assumed that difference was something that wasn’t the same and abnormal, know I realize that difference cannot be defined by just one thing but is a collect of ideas put together. Derrida writes on page 123, “Already we had to not that difference is not, does not exist, and is not any sort of being-present.” He is saying that difference is not a being-present. It cannot be contained or defined. The quote that spoke to me the most is on page 124, “The other sense of “to differ” is the most common and most identifiable, the sense of not being identical, of being other, of being discernible, ect.” This definition of difference is most evident in today’s society. Everyone wants to be different. If someone has a different opinion or feeling about something it is accepted. I often hear the quote, “What’s good for me might not be what’s good for you.” People accept different and some people and organizations strive off difference. For a product to be successful in today’s culture it must offer something different, something the consumer hasn’t seen before. In today's society, people are admired for being different or exotic.

I learned a lot from this essay by Derrida and have found it be very truthful in our culture. The question I am left with after reading the essay is how the same people who define "normalcy" in our society are the same people who are accepting "difference?"

Sgt. Pepper, Derrida

I'm not positive that "Differance" is the article Dr. Casey warned us about, but if not, then I'm terrified for the rest of the semester. I found Derrida's "Differance" to be a very difficult read, but I think I was able to catch a few points he was trying to make. First of all, Derrida's notions on language, specifically on words, reminded me a lot of some of the other authors we've studied. The basic structure of Derrida's text is him dissecting the word 'differance,' which is a term that he coined to explain a few theories of his on writing and speech. In Derrida's analysis of the word 'differance,' one conclusion he reaches is that writing and speech are equally important. He also points out that his word 'differance' is not, or it's nonexistent. His definition of the word 'differance' comes from two root words: first is differ, which signifies non-identity, and second is the -ance part of the word, which refers to something between active and passive. One of the points he tries to make with his idea of 'differance' is to show that the presence of a word's meaning isn't there in speech. Rather, we rely on an authoritative power to make up for its lack of spoken meaning, which brings me to another concept. A word cannot simply mean what it means. To reach the meaning of a word one must consider everything it does not mean. This directly connects to another author we've studied (who Derrida even mentions in his article) named de Saussure. de Saussure also follows the idea that in language, there are only differences (that might even be a direct quote). Both authors would agree that to find the true meaning of a word, or concept, the only way to reach an answer is to narrow it down. To first consider everything it does not mean.

ChittyChittyBangBang 4/1

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

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

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

ChittyChittyBangBang Bourdieu

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

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

Bella Post Class 4/1

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

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

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