News, Trust, and “Truthiness”

                Personally, I don’t believe that satirical news reporting is as reliable as main stream news in the sense of providing the most important details of current events. However, I do believe that they are still very valuable in making news more appealing to more people and inciting discussion within the public sphere, sometimes even more so than in genuine news sources.

                After reading a variety of different blogs posts, I noticed that most of them aligned with my point of view, in terms of how satirical news should not be an exclusive source of current events, but it can provide a broader appeal as well as some perspective and insight. Sarah Trotman said, “[satirical news] may be focused more on humor than important facts about the world” but that means it can “appeal to a younger generation”. I believe this is an important attribute because it can make normal news, which can be dull and depressing, engaging and can also invite a younger demographic into the public sphere.

                Ultimately, satirical news isn’t that reliable as a singular news source. That doesn’t mean that everything it says is false. Isaac C. says “It’s still news” and I have to agree with him on that. Typically for these types of shows, the facts of a popular news story serve as the set up to a joke. The audience needs to be informed of the news to some degree or people may not understand the joke or find the joke funny. In a sense, satirical news shows can function as a source of news, but this should be complimented with an actual news source.

                Like I said in my previous post, satirical news can be quite valuable in the public sphere. Not only does it welcome a younger demographic otherwise uninterested in the news into the public sphere, it can also, as Cameron Phillips puts it, “[present] a new side to the information being given to the masses, which can only lead to discussion and a desire for understanding”.

                When comparing satirical news with broadcast news, I find that they are two different entities which serve different purposes. You probably wouldn’t sit down and watch the evening news if you wanted a good laugh, and you wouldn’t refer to a satirical news show for the hard facts on world events. I don’t think either one is any better or worse than the other. They are both derived from truth and are both beneficial to society for different reasons. News gives you the facts, and satirical news gives the perspective to explore and question those facts.  At the end of the day, they should be complimentary to one another.

Is the Fake News the Real News?

                I do believe that satirical news reporting is a form of mainstream culture jamming. Although they may be more humorous than serious in nature, they can show things in a different light and are valuable within the public sphere.

                The more satirical the show is, the more powerful an example of culture jamming it is.  The Colbert Report, for example, is extremely satirical, especially with the main character of Stephen Colbert himself.  Colbert, through his exaggerated personality and absurd antics, is able to highlight the ridiculousness of American politics, especially conservatism. Because these particular shows imitate the elements of typical news and political programs so successfully, not only does it making the mocking of their targets so entertaining, but it also grounds the show in a reality that is relatable to the viewer. The more the viewer can relate to the elements of the program, the more the show can “subvert and rework the intended meaning of existing media” (Michael O’Shaughnessy, Media and Society, pg.213) and henceforth function as a form of culture jamming.

                I have no problem considering satirical news reporting a form of mainstream culture jamming, but if I were to reconsider my opinion, it would be because of the “mainstream” aspect. It is interesting to me that these shows operate through a medium that inherently contradicts the typical “counter-cultural” or “counter-hegemonic” (pg.217) quality of culture jamming. You’ll watch a segment on one of these shows that pokes fun at the absurdity of US consumerism, and immediately afterwards be exposed to 5 minutes of advertising during the commercial break. The fact that these shows can contradict themselves, gives me a sense that their messages are somewhat hollow.

                Within the realm of the public sphere, I find that these satirical news shows can be effective. They have the ability to underscore the problems with politics and society in a unique and entertaining way. They appeal to variety of demographics young and old, with the combination of humor and actual insight into world issues. They have ability to get a variety of different people and topics into the public sphere. They are also very good at inciting discussion, as questioning the current state of the world and society is an integral part for many of these shows.

                So although I am a little undecided about the “mainstream” aspect of these shows, I do consider them as a form of culture jamming. Despite how silly they can be sometimes, that silliness is derived from truth. I would argue that they can be quite effective in challenging our perceptions and even the current state of the world.

               

               

               

               

               

               

Demonstrable Demographics

                I read through a bunch of different blogs, and the authors did a good job of deconstructing their chosen ads.  After reading them, I noticed the importance of hailing in advertisements, and how hailing can be approached from a variety of different ways. Also, it gave me insight into how my particular demographic is targeted and portrayed.

Hailing in advertising can be a very beneficial marketing technique, and after reading some other blogs I can see why. I think this occurs because interpellation and hailing can be used in a variety of different ways. I’ve seen examples of hailing being used in a very direct way “Get in. Get Happy” in a Volkswagen commercial (http://normanazi.blogspot.ca/). Pretty straightforward, it is a “buy our car and you will be happy” approach. I have also seen an indirect approach, such as the Van’s Warped Tour “Best Day Ever” poster (http://earthtosydney.wordpress.com/) , which basically addresses the viewer in a way that makes them feel “left out” if they aren’t participating in the event. Indirect or direct, it is clear to see how this can really hit home for some viewers.

I also noticed after reading the blogs that identity seems to be a prime focus of many advertisements. Considering that we are all a similar age demographic (18-25), and at this point in our lives we are still trying to figure out who we are. Marketers take advantage of this and use it as a selling point. Mm13sa makes an interesting point when she says that marketers “try and sell our identity to us”. In my opinion, when we buy a product that is advertised, not only are buying the product itself but we are also buying into the ideology or identity that is portrayed.

I don’t think our demographic is represented accurately in advertisements and that is intentional. I have to again agree with mms13, in that, advertisers will depict an idealized version of our demographic so we can strive for it. In most cases, the product in the advertisement is presented as the solution to reaching that idealized state. I think the key part, however, to making convincing, effective advertisements, is by making the depictions of our demographic believable enough so we can relate to it, but at the same time make it unbelievable, almost unattainable, so we desire it.

This was very enlightening for me. I realized how advertisements can give you a sense that the influence itself is more important than the product advertised. Marketing strives to give people the feeling that they can become whoever and whatever they want, and be fully realized as a person. It is interesting to see the extent in which people can be manipulated, whether they know it or it not, through this particular type of marketing.

Thanks to,

http://normanazi.blogspot.ca/

http://earthtosydney.wordpress.com/

http://mm13sa.wordpress.com/

               

                 

               

What the Hail?

                I found this interesting advertisement by American eagle. It depicts a huddled group of young adults, probably in their early 20’s, all wearing American eagle denim products. In front of them is a super imposed slogan that says “We the People” and below that it says “Live in AE Jeans”.

                I see what they are trying to do with this ad, they are trying to promote their products by suggesting a sort of “revolutionary” or “rebellious” feel to their products. By wearing AE products, the company wants you feel like you are part of something bigger, like a movement or an action group. This is apparent in the young people depicted: some are shouting, others throw their arms up, and a strong sense of community is conveyed. It echoes the counter culture and social revolution of the 1960’s. I believe this goes hand in hand with the particular fashion trend depicted, which is clearly inspired by 1960’s style.

                I personally believe that it is ridiculous in this situation, that wearing a particular brand of jeans is somehow associated with, what is really, an intentionally ambiguous cause. I feel like this is ad is more concerned with creating the illusion that there is cause as opposed to actually supporting one.

                Although I do believe that the ad itself doesn't make any sense, I understand the Company’s approach. They are clearly addressing young a younger audience, probably around the ages of (18-25). They are also tending to the widely held belief, that youths, are rebellious and are active in their cause. I think this is especially evident in the use of the slogan “we are the people”. The use of the word “we” is functions as a “rich interpellative [mechanism]” (Media and Society pg. 188). It separates the viewer from the people depicted, in that only the people who wear American Eagle qualify as “the people”. Even though is separates the viewer, the slogan also indirectly invites them or “hails” them to be a part of the group, “the people”. Clearly this is an example of “positioning the addressee in relation to the addresser”(pg.185) to serve as a means on interpellation.

                Like I said, the marketing strategy is clearly pandering to the idea that the youth of society is inherently rebellious. And in the context of the ad, American Eagle products can serve as an outlet for this rebellion. I personally don’t give in to their angle, but I see how it works.

               

               

                

Wanted: the media that we need

After reading over some of the blog posts of my peers, I found some interesting insights into whether we receive the media we want or want the media we receive.  With those insights I was able to construct an understanding of how unreliable the media is and how it exploits our habits as consumers.

In terms of receiving information that better informs me of the world, I think that we will get the gist of the matter and there has to be some semblance of truth, but I think it will be packaged in way that is appealing to us and thus not entirely truthful. I think Veronica Field shares the same idea when she says “I believe that it all boils down to consumerism and giving the consumer what they want”. Considering that idea, you can see that in order to receive reliable information, you have to do some looking. But sometimes the act itself of  looking for “truthful” information can be a contributor to the problem.

Sometimes when I’m on Youtube and there is a heated controversial issue in the world, the mosque by the world trade center for example, I’ll click on one video that has a particular leaning to one side of the issue. When I’m finished watching the video I’ll see that on the right hand side all the “related videos” share the same stance on the issue. And if you continue down that track, you’ll find yourself watching a video that so far on one side of the issue that it’s almost extreme. I believe this goes to show that it is not entirely the media’s fault in providing misinformation. We, ourselves, have immense influence on what information we receive. In this day and age you can choose what you know and what you don’t about the world. In Amy Lowe’s blog, she talks about the filter bubble, and how “It has become the norm to have to comb through the muck of media to find stories that are of your interest or that are valid pieces of journalism.” Because this has become the norm, I feel the media can anticipate this, so when you finally comb through the “muck” of media it gives you the illusion that what you have uncovered is the objective truth and not something that leans towards your beliefs or the media’s agenda.

Now I don’t believe mass media is completely unreliable, there are times when the media will give truthful and necessary information to benefit society, like Brooke Harnum’s example of a mass murder on the loose. Although, Sometimes this information is sensationalized and blown out of proportion. I think that is the media’s attempt to entice consumers to a particular idea at face value, and some go for it. Others, however, don’t but that doesn’t mean they have overcome the untruthfulness of the media. Ultimately, it’s my belief that the media, through examining us as consumers and understanding our place in the information age, can use our own habits to fool us.

Blog Entry #2

Do we get the media we want or do we want the media we get? I think both the audience and the distributors of media are both key determinants in media, but at the end of the day, I think the audience is key. The audience will determine the success of media, so distributors will have to accommodate and adapt to what we want.

I think that because of the advancements in media technology, specifically the internet, the determinants of mass media has changed drastically. Back before the internet, the line between distributor and recipient was a lot more defined. The limited amount of medium forms meant that media could be broader and the audience more or less had no choice but to accept what they were consuming. With the internet, the line between distributor and recipient is blurred. Now, because there is something for everybody, we can find what we want. With that in mind, not only can we influence media but we have the ability to create it for ourselves.

I still think distributors can influence what we accept as “popular common sense”, and that will be a natural factor in our response to media. As the book says “media representations or popular common sense; the two are permanently intertwined.” So, in that sense, we do want the media we get, but the way the distributors do this is subtle and is more difficult. I think it is now easier for an audience to influence media by either rejecting or accepting it.

It goes without saying, these perspectives can be vastly different depending on different societies and cultures. For example, in communist countries, the major use of media is for propaganda. The main goal is to instill values that align with the party that is currently in power. The media will not be as flexible to the audiences demand, not as much as democratic, capitalist countries like this one. This kind of media would fall into the Frankfurt School’s theory that media is used as a “kind of social control in keeping the masses ordered.” Media in predominantly western societies, however, will be tailored more to the audience, as success can not only influence their attitudes but it will also earn capital.

Ultimately, both perspectives work together and flow into each other. Both are key factors in characterizing the end product that is mass media. Although mass media is inherently given to the people, and people react to the media, the audience has a powerful influence in defining what the media will inevitably look like.

1f25 blog response 1: Media Impact on Others

For this assignment, I examined the blogs of Justin Young, Ronny Mondal, and Adam Tusim.  All three of these blogs insinuated that mass media is a significant part in their lives, however, the reasoning differs between all of the blogs including my own. They gave me an interesting insight into how much mass media influences my life in a variety of different ways.  

In my blog post, I mostly focused on how mass media can distort the representation of reality and inhibits us from getting an objective “truth”.  I didn’t really consider how it affects my perceptions of others, myself, and the world as a whole.  I knew it influenced my perceptions, but I didn’t really think that it did, at such a rudimentary level.  For example, I believe that all the clothes I wear is influenced by mass media one way or another.  This idea is effectively expressed in Justin young’s blog when he states, “…the fact remains the same; if the media emphasizes it, then it becomes the “proper” or “acceptable” way of life;  or at least, that’s what society believes. It isn't always obvious why we are who we are, but surely enough, the media has become a major contributor to the process”.  Because mass media defines the norm and society reinforces that norm, I will dress a certain way to pursue that norm or more simply “fit in” to what is deemed acceptable.

Justin’s blog focuses on the perception of “one’s self”, as Adam Tusim’s is concerned with how mass media influences perceptions of others. Adam writes, “The constant bombardment of negative imagery throughout the middle-east that mass media produces on a daily basis can sometimes give the public a negative perception when it comes to other certain individual backgrounds.”  I couldn't agree more with what Adam is saying.  It makes sense to me that our understanding of other groups, especially ones that we don’t encounter ourselves, will be significantly influenced by mass media’s representations of those groups.

Both these previous points have a negative approach to mass media, but Ronny Mondal’s blog explores mass media in a more positive light.  He says, “Without different forms of mass media telling me otherwise, I would have assumed that the entire world is, more or less, a safe place.” Despite his viewpoint being contrastingly more positive than mine, we are both saying that mass media gives us the information of the state of the world in which we live.  This can be a two edged sword, as mass media presents us with information, however, that information can be biased or subject to inaccuracies.

Although all these blogs describe an assortment of different opinions from different viewpoints, I think I've been able to find common ground amongst them. We all agree that mass media plays an important role in our lives, and that our perceptions, whether it be of ourselves, others, and the world are all gravely influenced by it.