News, Trust, and "Truthiness"

Having read my classmates' blog entries I have to admit I am pleasantly surprised. I am happy to see that the majority of my classmates whose blogs I read shared my belief that shows like The Daily Show are indeed an effective form of culture jamming. 

Having read some fellow bloggers' views, in combination with my own, I believe there will be plenty of room for satirical news shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, etc. to expand and receive more attention. It is quite possible that along with more viewers, these types of shows will become a more popular method used to inform oneself of the public and political goings on in the targeted groups. 

In her most recent blog entry Shaiann Richards wrote “In the end, I believe that satirical news is a form of culture jamming that is used to display different viewpoints of social and political issues.” (http://shaiannrichards.wordpress.com/). This is a good example of my point in my own blog entry; satirical news opens up different avenues of informing ourselves about current goings-on when the mainstream “normal” news doesn’t appease or appeal to us.

Another benefit of this form of culture jamming is that it helps take away the extra dramatic angles that newscasters and their stations impose on their stories in order to gain more attention. Another student wrote: “By adding humor to their show the topics on these shows lose significance. However the public is still made aware of these issues so these news broadcasts do not create misconceptions with their media portrayals.” (http://jattinc.wordpress.com/2013/11/). I agree with this statement and believe that that factor will play a major role in the snowballing popularity of satirical news shows.  

These shows are reaching out and getting the attention of different audiences than the mainstream news shows do, yet another reason this type of media will be quite viable in the future. I am not the only one that feels this way, either. Alana Lutz wrote “…these shows are using culture-jamming techniques to engage a different audience than the regular news outlets.” (http://itsalanalutz.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/is-the-fake-news-the-real-news/). She was not the first either who agreed that these shows are engaging to an entirely different crowd!

All in all this boils down to my opinion after having read many of my classmates’ blogs which still stands: these shows are now, and will continue to be, a very viable form of both culture jamming and informing oneself of the news without having to resort to the “normal” outlets.

IF25 Post 4: Is the fake news the real news?

Culture jamming is a new term to me, introduced to me a few days ago when I read Chapter 14 in the Media and Society textbook. What is not new to me is the purpose of culture jamming; I grew up on satirical, political based television shows (thanks Dad!) so the idea of resisting the messages of the mainstream media and retaliating with parodies and other propaganda is one I am familiar with.

Satire is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc.” and is the main technique used in delivering subversive messages on shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I liken it to a more professional and adult way of being sarcastic in order to make a point: the message is there! Like I said, I grew up on these shows; I was watching The Rick Mercer Report before I could even wrap my head around my own attitude let alone someone else’s. O’Shaughnessy and Stadler wrote “It is the form of communication, as well as the content of individual messages, that makes culture jamming subversive.” (p.216). Indeed the messages delivered by these shows are quite subversive!

My answer to the question “would it be legitimate to suggest that satirical news reporting is a mainstream form of culture jamming?” is a biased one based, of course, on my past experiences: yes, satirical news reporting is indeed a mainstream form of culture jamming. What better way to make a point than to use what the mass media says and does against them? The whole purpose of using humor in those shows, being satirical etc., is to keep the audience entertained. The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, The Rick Mercer Report, etc. all manage to pull in viewers because they keep their viewers in good spirit: fired up but still laughing. I was able to learn more about the political goings-on of the world by listening to Jon Stewart go on and on every night than I ever was by reading the articles and books assigned to me by my teachers. Watching those shows kept me interested by making me laugh but also making me curious enough to ask questions. When I was much younger I looked to my Dad for clarification, now I go online to credible sources to answer my questions; effectively I ought to be crediting those shows for making me dig deeper.

Like the textbook says, satire is a form of culture jamming that can “be used simply to be clever or funny, without a political or critical motive.” (O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J., p.214) Some shows, Saturday Night Live for example, use satire as an avenue for a more direct approach to humour (direct in that it lacks an underlying motive) and don’t always expect their readers to think much further than that. When it comes to culture jamming and politically satirical comedies, I do believe the aforementioned political based satirical news shows to be a useful addition to the public sphere. These shows allow people to ask questions about the mainstream/mass media and the messages they deliver; a very good asset in today’s day and age. 

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

1F25 Response 3: Demonstrable Demographics

I spent quite a bit of time reading my classmates' blogs trying to figure out the commonalities and differences in the hailing/interpolating techniques that they each made mention of. I struggled a bit with this assignment because I found that every person had a different idea of what the media were doing to group people together and get their attention. While in some ways we all participate in different demographics (i.e. race, culture, etc.), we all have the following in common: young adults (students) with our eyes open to the media. 

Most of the bloggers whose entries I read used advertisements for either a) sports games, b) make-up, or c) clothing. I feel like these three main categories that I came across are a good demonstration of the age group that most of the students in this class are in. Between the sports ads and the make-up ads, the stereotypic gender norms are covered, too. 

It seems that people our age (going to take a guess that we're mostly between 17 - 19 and upwards of 25 years of age) are easily targeted through ads related to alcohol, fashion, and appearance. I would certainly beg to differ were anyone to insist that this is an accurate depiction of the interests of everyone in this demographic, however that is not to say that it doesn't depict the interests of some quite well.

In one student's blog, she wrote that she needs to be able to identify with an ad in order for it to play on her successfully. "First, I look at this and see models, not myself, in the product. When I see an ad I need to be able to identify with it, or see myself in the product, to be able to count it as effective." (http://lookingformargo.wordpress.com/) Despite the ad being targeted towards young females of all races, she felt like she couldn't identify with it because of the way the women in the ad were portrayed (a lingerie ad from Victoria's Secret that only displayed women that fit a certain criteria). Generally this ad does indeed focus on younger, more impressionable women, who will crave the sexiness that the ad pours on. 

Another student found an ad and was actually able to identify with it. He felt that the ad represented his demographic quite well and for that reason he believed the ad to be a successful one. "I find this ad to be successful for a number of reasons. First off it was relatable to both my gender and age- they utilized working class men in their ad who seemed very realistic to the audience. As well, they incorporated their slogan into the ad without making it a central focus." (http://cardilloblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/1f25-post-3-what-the-hail/). This shows that our demographic isn't always misrepresented, that perhaps it's not that black and white.

The last, and perhaps my favourite blog that I have chosen to make mention of here, was written by a student who chose a PSA (public service announcement) about drinking and driving as her example of advertising. Her ad depicted a young, white woman in a bed who was clearly ill and hurt. This ad looks to be marketed towards young caucasian women. "Although the person in the advertisement is a white female, I do not believe that it is focusing primarily on Caucasian girls." (http://torigligic.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/1f25-blog-post-3-what-the-hail/). The author of this blog and I share the opinion that we do not think the ad is targeted only at the aforementioned demographic but rather a wider, more susceptible one; young adults, regardless of race and gender, can be affected by such a powerful ad. 

I think that our demographic can be represented quite well, and has been in many cases, but that it is never that black and white. There will always be outliers. I used the aforementioned blogs to show the disparity between ads that "work" and ads that do not. I personally think that it just depends on the advertisement.
 

IF25 Response 2: Wanted: The Media We Need

It’s Halloween today! My costume of choice? A cat, of course!

Socially it’s entirely acceptable for me, a 21 year old university student, to dress up as a cat on the 31^st of October. Culturally? Oh heck, my culture dumped Halloween on me long before I could even spell the world. If I recall correctly, my family dressed me as a unicorn 19 Halloween’s ago. That was the norm for this day in my culture!

While I completely respect the opinions of those who choose not to celebrate this day, I believe it to be an important day, especially for the media. Every year as Halloween approaches, television shows start airing spooky, frightful, fun episodes for its viewers, magazines alter their covers, celebrities dress up in celebration, everyone rallies and buys tons of candy for themselves, their children, the kiddies in their costumes, etc. Halloween is a huge deal here; the media helps make it so. Even if I didn't celebrate Halloween, I would certainly know all about it with the help of the media.

There are lots of aspects of social, political, cultural and economic goings-on that make it into the media, directed for our eyes and ears, but there are definitely some things we have to dig deep for in order to find out more.  Because the media is so big, if one outlet isn't delivering the information we desire, there will always be another that would love to in order to boost their ratings/popularity. “Nowadays there are thousands of media choices that we can make; there are hundreds of channels on our TVs and radios, and hundreds of different magazines and newspapers that we can choose from.” (http://st12tq.wordpress.com/). This is the very purpose of the media.

Because modern media is so quickly expanding, the variety we have in terms of access and coverage is overwhelming. Of course there will always be the media giants that most people flock to, but we do have the choice to change the channel, to pick up another newspaper, to click a different link, etc. “Media that ends up successful is media that the consumers genuinely want. If they don't want it, then they will switch to another brand of media…” (http://pharaohjoe85.blogspot.ca/) is a quote I found in another student’s blog that applies well to my point. Sometimes the masses share a common social or political interest and those interests may dominate some media coverage for a while, but if certain consumers are looking for something more they have every opportunity to simply look elsewhere.

The media thrives on delivering to the masses what they want to see; their success depends on it. An example I found in another student’s blog of just how far the media have gone to be inclusive of other cultures’ and other groups’ needs: “They have even gone on the televise Hockey Night in Canada in Hindi, as well as many other languages, just so they can get a larger following.” (http://taradactyl25.wordpress.com/). The media does what it needs to in order to please and satisfy its viewers, followers, readers and so forth.

While my blog entry here very much sounds like an ode to media accessibility, I assure you it is not. My intention is to say that my media choices entirely reflect on my social, cultural, political and economic views because I have chosen to participate in and/or follow those media outlets that cater to my views. And if they didn’t pertain to my interests? Well then I’d have every right to change the channel (or what have you for other outlets) and find something that did.

1F25 Post 2: The Media We Want.

Do we get the media we want or the media we get?

     The media reflect different views and values depending on which market they are aiming to please but I generally believe that, with the exception of perhaps some geographic locations (i.e. communist countries like China and Laos), we get the media we want. The media focuses on getting a message across from one person or one group or one part of the world to another person, group, or part of the world.

     Whether we are reading about the crisis in Syria via a magazine, an online journal, or watching the news coverage of it on our televisions, we “are not seeing reality; we are seeing representations.” (p. 58). Somewhere between what is happening in Syria, the reporters out on the field getting a live-action idea of what’s happening there, and the viewer watching at home, there is someone whose job it is to determine whether or not the representations of these occurrences are newsworthy and whether or not to pursue them any further.

     What is newsworthiness and why does it matter? In the textbook O’Shaughnessy and Stadler defined newsworthiness as “a set of values and priorities that have come to be accepted by journalists as common sense in what is regarded as important to be reported.” (p.28) The media make their money and are able to continue thriving when the people, the viewers, are watching and partaking. Television shows like “The Simpson’s” are still on the air, in the case of “The Simpson’s” even after 25 years, because people like the shows and watch them, that gives the networks the ratings they need to see in order to keep a show on the air. This allows me to argue that the viewers “determine which media products succeed.” (p. 38). This goes for the news, too. If the 9 o’clock news reports stuff I don’t care about, stuff that most people don’t care about, their ratings will drop and they will no longer be receiving the money they require to continue reporting on these issues.

     Some forms of media do market research in order to figure out what their targeted demographic are interested in. Why? Because they want their audiences to eat up every little bit of it in order to make it profitable for them. The example of The Viral Factory was used in the textbook. The Viral Factory, an Advertising Agency in the United Kingdom, does market research in order to determine what is new and cool among youth. They do this research with the intent to “harness the aura of cool and create an association between it and a particular brand.” (p.13)

     I believe that it all boils down to consumerism and giving the consumer what they want. We are the consumers of mass media.  There is a quote from the textbook that perfectly encapsulates my whole point: “the audiences influence, if not control, media output through their choices of what media products to consume.” (p. 38).

O'Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J. (2012).Media and Society (Fifth Edition ed.). Australia: Oxford University Press.

1F25 Response 1: Media Impact on Others

I spent a good part of my morning today perusing the blogs that my classmates posted about their feelings regarding the media and I have to say, it was surprising how many of us are on the same page on the matter. In all honesty, I expected to see a number of blogs that argued only for the positive aspects of the media, but a number of them touched on similar views that I did. Shawn Poulin's blog (http://shawnpoulin.blogspot.ca/), for example, mentioned the way cartoon shows such as Sailor Moon had affected him as a child, much in the way I mentioned as well. He, too, spoke of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, that drove him into a place of fear. I took the following quote from his blog, which really illustrates my point: "My view of people became somewhat distorted after that because I felt like you couldn't really trust people for whatever reason and it took me awhile to actually get over this."

Something that I neglected to do, that some other students did really well, was to look on both sides. I used my allotted word count to drivel on about how mass media has harmed me, but I completely disregarded all the good it has done for me. There were a number of students who were able to casually bring up both sides of the argument. For example, the author of one blog (http://noubayan.wordpress.com/) wrote that "...advertisements such as celebrity magazines and television shows like “Jersey Shore” or “Miss Universe” give us a false idea of what men and women are “supposed” to look like and it’s because of this kind of mass media that men, women and even teenagers feel bad and insecure about themselves." This was something that first came to mind when I wrote my own blog on media impact. The same author also wrote the following: "...the news helps us gain knowledge about life around the world. It keeps us up to date on the economy and things we can expect in the future." They go on to mention the other ways that media benefits us, including media outlets like the internet. I enjoyed this blog because the author was able to display both sides of the spectrum without taking any of the strength out of their opinion. Rather than seeming uncertain or wavering, which is something I feared would happen to me were I to include arguments for and against the media, the author seemed both open to the media and informative about it.

I enjoyed the aforementioned blogger's perspective so much that it did, indeed, make me reconsider my position. I am definitely open to the idea that the media isn't all bad. While I still stand by my previous opinions on it, I do agree that the media has some pretty wonderful effects too. I seem to forget that I use Facebook every day to keep in touch with family and friends, Microsoft Outlook to send and receive mail regarding my work and school, and I use Skype at every opportunity to be able to see and hear the ones I love who, in some cases, live extremely far away. There are definitely factors that add to the positive side of media impact that I overlooked!

1F25 Post 1: Media Impact

How significant do you think the impact of the mass media is on your worldview?

When I was younger I would watch shows like Sailor Moon and I'd feel inadequate, even at only eight years old, realizing that I didn't look like those girls. The more I matured, the more I realized that the women on television and in movies were nothing like me. No one wants to watch a television series about a chubby fourteen year old girl who goes to a crumby high school in an even crumbier town. Nobody wanted to read a book detailing the life of someone who pretty much did what everyone else did to get by. I wasn't beautiful, I wasn't special, and do you know how I knew that for sure? Because the media was always quite apt to make it known.

Body image and the way I portrayed myself was hugely impacted by the media, all throughout highschool and even now, when I so readily will tell you that I do think I'm a stellar individual who has the ability to get past what the media says. I love to think that I'm a strong, independent woman who can form her own thoughts and opinions, free from media-related influence, but that'd be a lie. I still get down from time to time knowing that I'm too tall to be a runway model, too thick to wear the cute dress that Zooey Deschannel wore on the cover of Cosmo a few weeks back, and that my skin is too pallid to even bother trying to put cover-up on every day. That's all just under the one category, too. We've only scratched the surface on how the media has skewed my worldview. 

My self-esteem and my body image are my direct worldview in the sense that they affect me the second I wake up and step in front of a mirror. But there's so much more to my worldview than that. The media has helped me be afraid for the future, it's helped me hate people (hordes of people) for reasons that I couldn't even rightfully explain to you now. I grew up at just the right time (sarcastically speaking) to learn why everyone but us is bad. I was in the fourth grade when those terrorists hijacked those planes and crashed into the World Trade Center. Grade four. I was nine years old when I first learned just how scary and ugly the world really was. Nine years old when I learned how to hate a whole group of people (wrongfully so). Nine years old when I started letting the media speak for me.

It has taken me until now, just about, to really separate myself from the media. I sound like a conspiracist or a crackpot when I say this, but really think about it, for so long we've let the media speak for us. I have my own opinions, I'm sure in some ways they're still skewed, but at least I know enough now to really look into things and not just take what the Global News anchors tell me without question. I read up on things, I look at different angles, both sides of the story, everything that I can do to free myself of that one-sided, fearful, hateful mind frame I'd been living in for so long. 

TL;DR: The world is weird and everyone is all messed up sometimes :/ myself included.