LAST BLOG RESPONSE!!!!!!!!!!! News, trust and truthiness

After reading my classmate’s blogs I have seen the consensus that satirical news reports are generally viewed as important sources of information through various means. The way they convey their messages and critiques appear to have more of an impact on my classmates because of their use of how they provide a more personal atmosphere, humour, and telling the truth.

In order to capture the attention of today’s youth, media broadcasters must realize that traditional ways of conveying news are not effective. As Natalie Kit mentions “reporting are useful sources of entertainment that provide relief and a sense of voice for viewers of the public sphere who choose to indulged” (http://nk13ps.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/is-the-fake-news-the-real-news/).  From this one can see that through Jon Stewart, or Rick Mercer’s personal connection to their stories, people find them easier to watch, and thus they will become a more watched source of news. By adding a personal touch, people will empathize more easily with their news stories than just stating the “facts” of the story. Through this action they effectively help facilitate the public sphere by having people be more in tune with how they feel about the current state of affairs.

Likewise they increase discussion made in the public sphere through their actively challenging dominant ideologies which are wrapped around humorous insights. Britney Shannon states “By using humour to explain current events…also brings awareness to those who do not enjoy watching the news” (http://britshannon.blogspot.ca/2013/11/is-fake-news-real-news.html). Using humour as a means of conveying the news has its strong and weak points. By having humorous content wrapped around heartbreaking news stories will show that they are not taking it seriously, like the ever serious CBC news or something. However using humour draws in people because everybody loves to laugh, and by laughing and using humour, one is able to put a different perspective or shed some light on an otherwise dark story. Therefore these programs use humour may decrease their credibility a little with other news stations, but would increase their viewers and ratings, which would allow them to continue producing content that helps facilitate the public sphere opinions and discussions, and bringing awareness to darker issues.

Lastly, these non-traditional news sources are a reliable source because through their humour they are able to tell the truth in a non-threatening way, which is exponentially a better way than lying to make people feel better would do. Nicole Hough says “Yes comic relief can be too much sometimes and yes it can offend certain people, but lying doesn’t” (http://nhough95.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/cpcf-1f25-blog-entry-4/). From this one can see that the general populace feels that comedy is better than being lied to, which is the way it should be. I mean why people think it is better to not tell the truth and not offend anybody then it is to crack a joke and maybe offend somebody, people get too damn offended at everything these days. These programs use humour to convey messages that speak the truth and report the truth, ohh but since they told it as a joke they can’t be a reliable source. Luckily this is only a problem with the older generations. Therefore using humour to tell the truth helps increase their reliability if they are around the younger demographic, but older ones would see it as malicious or mean.

In the end, my classmates and I personally think that satirical news reports are important sources of information because of their expertly crafted reports based off of their personal experiences, humour and truth.

 

Advertisements

Blog assignment 4: Culture jamming and stuff

In the 2000’s there has been a rise of many mock news shows, with the more famous Daily Show and The Colbert report, and the lesser known Rick Mercer Report and The Burn with Jeff Ross. These shows would criticize events and people in the world currently and present it in a way that is funny, and over-the-top. However some would say that these shows are a mainstream and modern form of culture jamming, but I would disagree. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying these don’t have aspects of culture jamming, I would just contest to the fact that due to the way they choose to present their media is not culture jamming. In the textbook it states “But bear in mind that culture jamming is a form of communication that can come only from outside commercial culture, not from inside the media industry” (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, Media and Society, pg. 214). From this one can extrapolate the fact that through their medium of communication alone they cannot be called culture jamming. These types of shows lack a hard-hitting impact of their messages and critiques because of the format they are presented in and by who is presenting these facts. Culture jamming is used to bring light on the ideologies and thoughts of the more dominant ones in society through alternative methods, that means using white, male and presumably middle-class or higher individuals as their presenters and television as their form of presentation they cannot be consider culture jamming. So if I had to compare the two, it would be satirical news shows are to culture jamming, as are margarine is to butter, the two are not exactly the same but they sure as hell play the part. Therefore due to being mainstream and drawing aspects of the dominant, these shows are culture jamming in the pure sense, but more of a culture critique.

That however, doesn’t take away from the major affect they have on the public sphere. These shows collectively help set the stage for which discussion can be made, through forums, social media sites and even conversing with your friends. By encouraging discussions on the current state of affairs, these shows act as a catalyst for social reform which is similar to culture jamming, and in the end isn’t that all that matters when it comes to the public sphere. These programs, through their humour and wit, empower their viewers and help facilitate deep and insightful reflection in order to point out the flaws of how everything is going on right now. The textbook states that “This in itself can be empowering for media consumers because they can make their point of view known and communicate it to other individuals with whom they have some personal connection” (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, Media and Society, pg. 217). These programs also add a sense of personal-ness to them, due to the way their presenters can draw from their life experiences and put out how they truly feel about it, unlike regular news reporters and culture jamming methods. So by adding this personal reflection to how they present information, it is much easier to take in what they say and understand what critiques they are trying to put out, therefore one can say that they are a more effective means of helping the public sphere then normal culture jamming.  

 

 

 

 

Literature Cited

O’Shaughnessy, M., Stadler, J. (2012). Media and Society, 5th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

 

 

 

Blog Response 3: Demographics and stuff

As I was reading through my peers blogs, I began to notice a very common theme through the blogs. That common theme was the extreme generalization of the youth today and that was the how they tried to connect our identities to their products sold. This connection was made more obvious once I noticed that all of these commercials were for clothing brands, such as Tommy Hilfiger, American eagle and Abercrombie and Fitch.

All of these brands tried to get our demographic by tying in OUR identities with THEIR products, saying various things to try and entice us into purchasing their products, thus creating our identities.

One way of ads trying to assimilate our ID with their products is through our sense of community. As shown in Abbey’s blog, “this contributes to the idea that no matter who you are, what race you are, you can feel included and get along with everyone else, as long as you wear American eagle jeans” (http://abbeyunyi.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/what-the-hail/). What one can take from this statement is that you are only diverse and have the ability to make friends as long as you are wearing our clothes, and if you don’t then good luck being sad and alone. This reinforces the idea that ad companies are trying to intertwine who we are with what they sell, even going as far as to exclude and alienate people because they don’t use their products.

The second way ads try to show our demographic is through our insecurities, which is fairly common when one is in a college setting. Apparently when one buys Abercrombie and Fitch clothing, one will feel “Young and Sexy”, which they try to incorporate into our identity due to the insecurity of not having the perfect bodies, fair, or even anything. As Mady states “…clothing, fragrances and undergarments is sure to make you feel sexy and desirable” (http://madysylvester.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/what-the-hail/). This ad tries to put out that if we don’t wear their clothing or smell like them we are undesirable, and thus will be forever alone. Through their use of “traditionally attractive” individuals one can see that they are trying to enforce this as a norm, and if you don’t fall in this norm you are unattractive, which is the last thing a young person wants to be seen as. They try to capitalize on our insecurities and it sucks that it works.

The last way ads try to hail and interpellate our demographic is through our values, or what they think we should value. Nicole mentions “our values should be focused on education and not on our clothing choices” (http://era-nicolexo.blogspot.ca/2013/11/what-hail.html).  From this one can see that they try to appeal to our sense of value by showing that the women in the ad are studious, through their Tommy Hilfiger clothing. This advertisement tries to play with our sense of values, and that means that if we purchase their clothing then we will have these values as well, otherwise we’d be uneducated, which is something the young generation wouldn’t want.

In the end these I feel these ads are successful at using their techniques to describe out demographic unfortunately. This is due to the techniques of hitting our insecurities, values and our sense of community through the use of trying to sell products that tie into what they feel we should be like. 

Blog Assignment 3: Advertisement and stuff

 The ad I chose for this blog entry is a commercial for the Chinese restaurant called “Frontier Wok”, located in Burbank, CA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdrCtodiw_Q). The commercial is named Kung Pow!, and it was created and directed by Youtubers Rhett and Link. This advertising for the restaurant starts off like a typical western movie, where the stranger (customer) shows up and wants to steal (in this case eat) at the saloon (restaurant). The sheriff (owner or head chef) shows up and displays a variety of dishes served at their restaurant in a fashion similar to showing a gun, in a midday showdown. The video ends with the customer thoroughly satisfied that he had his last meal at Frontier Wok.

This commercial tried to target by demographic through two main strategies based off of my age and my nationality/ethnicity. The first strategy, which is based off of my age, is quite clearly given through the medium it is found on and its humour. The video itself was found on YouTube, which is commonly a site used by the younger generations instead of the older ones. Through the medium alone it is apparent that their audience is young, presumably between the ages of 9-18.They try to bring out the ideology that they are a hip establishment capable of staying in touch with the youth through YouTube and humour. These personally targeted me because of my frequent use of YouTube and watching movies, which they assume makes up my entire identity. Now cultural theorist Kathryn Woodward states that “Identity can be seen as the interface between subjective positions and social and cultural situations” (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, Media and Society, pg. 191). This commercial tries to play up both the fact that they are hip and in order for us to be hip, we must eat at their restaurant.

The second strategy, based off of my nationality/ethnicity is portrayed through the inherent fact that it is an Asian restaurant commercial showing itself in a western setting, which is like me, an Asian in a western culture. “We live in a culture that glorifies the individual, encourages us to believe that every person has unique qualities…Western culture glorifies the individual” (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, Media and Society, pg. 189). This commercial tries to express its individuality and uniqueness through the use of using Asian people in the familiar “white” western theme.  Through this Asian and western culture fusion, it tries to get me to identify with the commercial, and accept that my identity is that similar to the Asian sheriff, which is that of pleasing/working for others. In turn this causes me to lose my own uniqueness and gain the uniqueness/individuality that they see fit for me. Or it could also try to portray the fact that the western culture is the ultimate and that others must be like it in order to be successful. The showdown between the two could also represent trying to reclaim my identity back from what others think it may be or even trying to take claim of the culture for our own, seeing as how he defeats the stranger and that the stranger comes into acceptance of their identity (or in the commercial’s case he was glad that that was where his last meal was).

In the end, I feel that this ad accomplishes its job of wanting to entice people to eat at their restaurant. However I feel that my values of individuality as a young-ish Asian in western society was not represented well, due to the connotations of trying to emulate the superior, more hip western culture.

 

 

 

Literature Cited

O’Shaughnessy, M., Stadler, J. (2012). Media and Society, 5th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 

Blog Response 2: is the media we want the same as the media we need?

The question for this week is “is the media we want the same as the media we need”, and I personally think that it depends entirely on that person and thus cannot be generalized to a mere we want what we need. Some people want to know about what is happening in the world while others do not. Therefore it makes sense that these people would actively or not go out of their way in order to get the media they want. For some people what they want is to know the current state of affairs in a country and others would want to know if the new Drake album is full of swag. What everybody needs depends on the person, and what they’ve experienced in their life. As stated by Paris Dickinson “producers have to take into account what we as a majority population want displayed…” (Dickinson, http://therealmedia95.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/the-media-we-want/), which basically means that they try to cover the masses and the not the individual with the media they provide. While this is not necessarily a bad thing it just further proves my point that each individual has different needs, therefore by having different needs but receiving the same media, those people are either left satisfied or not.

Another reason why I think it depends on the person is that everybody uses the media for different reasons, such as watching their favourite show or hearing gossip about the newest yolo swag clothing.  The way we choose to immerse ourselves in the media will entirely depend on the person, which brings back my point stated previously. As stated by Adriana Arezza “shows and games contain mass amounts of violence, sex and drug/alcohol use which can become an outlet for someone who wants to have those experiences without the consequences” (Arezza, http://skittiess.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/the-media-we-want/), this can be taken that people will use/receive the media in a different form. Some people might see the new GTA as a way to express their violent urges in a safe way, others might feel obligated to copy those actions in real life, while others will just play it since it’s a video game. This basically means that whatever the media puts out there, there will be people who see it one way, another way or not at all, which can lead to wanting or not wanting the same media as we need.

I also share similar sentiments with Sabrina Taylor to which she mentions “whether we get the media we want, or want the media we get the end result is the same” (Taylor, http://st13sw.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/blog-entry-2-do-we-get-the-media-we-want-or-want-the-media-we-get/). Eventually the media will become so a part of everybody lives that it will become a necessary thing in order to be a decent and functional person in society. This is due to the increasing immersion of media that has been happening over the years such as with phones and the internet, which allow the media to become so close to us that one cannot function without it.

In the end the media is different for everybody, thus having a different level of importance for all. But in the end it they will end up being the same. 

Blog Assignment 2: Do we get the media we want or want the media we get?

The media as a whole is a complex subject to understand, so to start I believe that answering the question “Do we get the media we want, or want the media we get?” is a good place to start. This question about the media implies 2 conflicting or opposite things about the media and its relationship with its audience. The first is that it is the audience that controls the media, and the second is that it is the media that controls its audience. I personally believe that it is the audience that controls the media because of two different reasons.

The first reason is that I see the media as an outlet for its audience to express different things that we are unable to express due to the repressive nature of society. As mentioned in the textbook “It is important that people have access to information about real violence and sexuality because restricting such access and information can be socially and politically repressive” (Media and Society, pg., 49). Often it is said that the media is the one that coerces one into doing violent or sexual things, but I do not think so. I believe that the media often reflects the nature of its audience, and displays these acts as an outlet so that we can experience it without experiencing it firsthand due to societal repressiveness. So depending on what the audience wants the media will happily display it in order to please the viewer so that they can create a profit, often seen with television shows, movies and music about partying, or “living the high life”. However while this seems to paint a picture of sensationalizing sexuality and violence, I believe due to our repressed nature we use the media as a way of vicariously living through the characters present in the certain medium, in order to see the consequences without actually doing it. This is one reason why the audience controls the media, so as long as it “pleases” our restrained nature.  

The second reason is that I believe people have a sense of autonomy, meaning we are able to make informed and capable decisions about what we choose to consume or not consume via the media. This point is about how we simply do not want whatever the media shows us, but we actually have some choice about the type of media we consume. As spoken about in the textbook “Blaming the media is an excuse that denies our responsibilities” and “The media are not responsible for making people bad” (Media and Society, pg., 49). What these quotes are trying to reiterate is that people often will push the blame onto the media instead of taking responsibility for our actions. As humans we have free will and we are not easily swayed by the pretty words or fancy sayings of commercials, TV, movies or music. Free will is important because as mentioned earlier I believe that the media is used to express latent desires stemming from repression, thus being able to choose what media you see will reflect your own self and latent desires. The media only represents the perspectives of different stories containing violence and sexuality. Audiences need to understand that the media is only what you want of it and not some hyper-influential creation that controls our lives. As autonomous beings we must carefully analyze the media for what it is, a reflection of what we want, and not what the media wants us to be. Otherwise the media would become not a tool for entertainment and information but as an excuse from our responsibilities and duties to each other as a society.

 

Literature Cited

O’Shaughnessy, M., Stadler, J. (2012). Media and Society, 5th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 

Blog Response assignment 1.

In my previous blog entry I wrote about how the mass media had corrupted the way I saw the world. So as I read some of my classmates’ blogs I noticed that others had thought this way as well. There was this common theme of how prevalent and corrupt the media is in shaping our world view.

Adrienne Reds mentions that we don’t start out lives dependent on technology to connect to the media, but as we grow so did our dependence (Adrienne Reds, http://adriennereds8.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/1f25-post-1-media-impact/) I agree with what she mentioned. As a species we do not have any need for the technology that keeps us attached to the media, but we have grown to become weird codependent creatures with our technology and media. Many individuals are so stuck to their phones and media outlets that they would breakdown if they were somehow cut off. This dependence may or may not corrupt your worldview, but it is so important there is no way it is not an integral part of our lives already. The key thing to note is that the media will always be around; it is only how one deals with it will it show any effect on our worldview.

Haya Alsakka points out that through mass media one is presented with information that they form an opinion on, however the more popular sources of information are corrupt (Haya Alsakka, http://hma95.blogspot.ca/2013/09/1f25-post-1-media-impact.html) I believe these popular sources are paid by certain groups in order get an increase in their influence on others. The more popular sites and news stations are often ones that offer more corrupt or biased view towards more controversial topics, especially that of victim-blaming or objectification of women. I noticed that as one uses only one site it will shape their opinion significantly in the same way using multiple sites would affect somebody, which may or may not be a good thing. Haya mentions that Tumblr shows people’s opinions that are against social standards, and praises it for changing her political opinion. I disagree because I think Tumblr is also one of these popular sites which often enforces their view and berates those with differing views. A website or news station is only a good influence when they show both sides of an issue in order to get a better understanding.

Mady Sylvester writes that we are the generation that depends on computers for information, research, and socialization, which play massively in constructing our views. (Mady Sylvester, http://madysylvester.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/1f25-post-1-media-impact/). This is not inherently a bad thing, but the media will use any means to grab the attention of its users with the latest news, gossip and false information in order to spread out their influence. Grabbing the attention this way would easily corrupt the minds and views of those easily influenced, such as young teens. She also notes the media can be a positive platform in order to raise awareness and campaign, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Her post made me realize that the media can affect you positively or negatively as long as you formulate your own thoughts and not take everything they spit out at you as “truth” or “fact”.

Thus all 3 of my classmates agree that the media plays a significant role in shaping everybody’s and their own worldviews. There was this common thought that the media is everywhere and it will corrupt you. From what I collected it is how you deal with the media determines how it affects your way to see the world. If you’re too dependent then the bias and your own dependence on it will ultimately corrupt you. But if you take everything the media says with a grain of salt, then you’ll be able to successfully manage it. In the end, some of my classmates thoughts and views on the media have opened up my mind to perceiving the world through media in a less cynical and harsh way by way of showing me to take it all with a grain of salt, and use the information I get from mass media and formulate my own thoughts and opinions. 

CPCF 1F25 Assignment 1: How the media affects my own personal worldview?

When I was a younger I grew up watching shows like Pokémon, Digimon and Yugioh. Then at five or six years old I knew what I wanted to be, I wanted to be a hero or an ally of justice, and all I wanted to do was to save the world. Like the protagonists of these shows I wanted to travel around defeating the likes of evil-doers. Realistically at the time I knew there was no way that will never happen so I settled for wanting to become a policeman at the time. At this point in my life my worldview was one filled with justice and heroic ideals, through my viewing of media. The media has played a significant role in shaping my worldview because of their prevalence and the fact that parents use the media as a way to keep their children occupied, both resulting in overexposure..

Then as I got older, what I watched changed and what I saw on the television was not news of heroic deeds, but news of tragedy. My young and naive sense of justice was abruptly impacted by the media, with stories of missing children in my area and the crash of 9/11. The once great world filled with heroes in my mind was changed into a world full of tragedy and evil which made me realize how ugly and disgusting the world truly is. Slowly stories like these started to change how I thought about the world as less of an accepting place to a world full of hate. Tragic stories such as these seemed to occupy more time on the news than stories of human triumph. This bias toward the negative is the reason why I think the media has a strong negative impact on my worldview. I mean they were able to convince many people that there was only one group to blame or that there was a conspiracy or that it was an inside job. Whether it is news about a potential war, or publicly shaming certain individuals, regardless of the content the media portrays it still has a strong significance in shaping worldviews.

Okay, now I know the media isn’t the worst, but at the time I thought they were. Now growing up to where I am, I know the world isn’t terrible, but that influence the media has on me isn’t one that would be easily shaken off. If the media were to somehow integrate a more positive outlook, I feel that it would help create a more positive worldview. I think it’s due to the prevalence and ease of access of the media via their phone, computer, and television that people, including myself, are more likely to be influenced. This means that the media can instill fear, and hatred into your hearts, or political authorities can use them to sway the masses. The more connected you are to these objects the more strongly the media influences you, which is why I think the media has and always will have a firm influence on everybody, and whether this is good or bad is up to you.

In the end I know the world is a good place, and not the total disaster the media portrays it to be, it’s just that with each day that naive ally of justice in me slowly disappears, and the media is to blame.