by

News, trust, and thruthiness

The general idea on satirical news shows is that they are reliable, but not more so than the news in terms of delivering the most knowledge. They are, however, more effective at evoking debate and discussion, which my classmates agreed was a great thing in the public sphere.

 While the real news covers a much wider range of facts and topics, the satirical news shows are much more selective because they can be classified as both an entertainment show and a news program. They also have a much smaller time spot than the real news. My classmate from O’Connor media acknowledges the limitations of the satirical news by saying, “Progams such as RMR are not made to tell the audience every single fact and truth about political and societal issues.”  (http://oconnormedia.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/1f25-blog-entry-4-is-the-fake-news-the-real-news/).  If people were to distrust the real news altogether, and rely solely on the satirical news for their coverage, there could be a severe lack of knowledge for those people. They would be missing out on facts that a real news program would bring up. It is also important to note that these are satirical, making them biased. They are a mockery of the systems (mainly political) of society, and therefore rely on their criticism to run the show. People who watch these programs should also invest time in the real news, as I feel that they are most beneficial when viewed alongside each other.

 Another point many of my classmates touched on was how the fake news is good because it causes people to question things that are going on in the world.P olitical news is focused on and humiliated, and this is good because it allows people to speak up. In Skittie’s blog, they note, “Not only do satirical news shows provide the public with humour and entertainment, it also allows society to get a glimpse into the exposed reality of events, situations, and subjects.” (http://skittiess.wordpress.com/)In that way, the fake news can be considered more beneficial by giving the people a voice. If they see these satirical news sources exposing some stupid aspects of the world, then maybe people will feel inspired to speak out and stop things they disagree with. These are positive implications that can come from culture jamming. As the satirical news can be viewed as a positive outlet, it can have good implications on the public sphere.  O’Connor’s blog post coincided with this by saying, “They exist to make the public use their brain, to think about things a little deeper, and lighten up about various topics.”

There was an overall feeling that my classmates trusted the people behind the satirical news reports more than they did they the real news programs. Although my classmates agreed that the real news should not be replaced by the fake news, they seemed to believe that the fake news reporters were more honest and trustworthy. They believed that because the fake news can say whatever they want, they don’t have to censor or limit themselves. People expect them to be biased and ridiculous. Isaac’s entry puts trust in the fake news by saying, “they are done by intelligent people (or that’s what appears to be), not stupid comedians with no knowledge of political issues.(http://isaacc56.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/is-the-fake-news-the-real-news-2/).The result is people putting more faith in the names of Colbert and Mercer. People turn to them when they’re sick of hearing the real news and want a little escape from the hard, cold facts of the real news.

            The Public Sphere benefits from the fake news shows. While my classmates agreed that it shouldn’t replace the real news, the fake news is necessary as an escape and motivator for the people. The implications may not be major, but they are positive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

            

by

Is the fake news the real news?

Is the fake news the real news?

 

I never really paid much attention to satirical news shows. Once in awhile I’d see The Rick Mercer Report as my parents were watching it, and would get the impression that this guy knows what he’s talking about. However, with some research, I found that Rick Mercer, Stephen Colbert, John Stewart…etc are just actors and comedians. They’re not journalists, politicians, or political analyzers. They’re just funny guys who have a general idea of what’s going on in politics. With that in mind, I wouldn’t consider them more resourceful or informative than a serious news source. I would however, consider these satirical news programs more honest, in that they’re not afraid to say what the real news is. They can do this because people expect these parodies to be critical- that’s what makes them funny.

 

They’re allowed to be biased because people aren’t supposed to take them too seriously. Although they do keep up to date with the current going-ons of their respective countries, they’re not reliable resources. I would consider them more of a relief from the real news than a news source in themselves. It’s in the name; the genre of these programs is called “fake news”. People watch them to let off steam over lying/defective government practices, but they’re not going to rely on these programs to get their news.  They are Mainstream Culture Jamming. The text Media and Society:  Fifth Edition by Micheal O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler reminds us to, “bear in mind that culture jamming is a form of communication that can only come from outside commercial culture, not from inside the media industry” (page 214). Basically, this is culture jamming, not a news outlet, it comes from outside the realm of journalism and shouldn’t be relied on for a complete source of news, but rather an accompanying program to the news.

Watching the Rick Mercer Report tonight I realized it is generally just a place for him to rant- he says what people want to hear, he critiques the performance of politicians, but he’s speaking his opinion, not facts. That is where I believe that these satirical “news” shows are beneficial forms of Culture Jamming. He directly tries and makes people question what the Canadian government is doing. Media and Society and describes that this is an accurate element to Mainstream Culture Jamming when it says, “they actively try to denaturalize the media images that we see every day by making us notice and question their underlying message” (page 214).

I know this is beneficial to the Public Sphere because people shouldn’t put their complete trust in traditional news outlets- they aren’t fool proof or completely trustworthy. As well, people need to vent and these satirical news programs give people a chance to relieve steam over things they think the government is doing wrong. These fake news shows aren’t completely reliable, but they are beneficial in their own ways and they certainly follow the criteria of Culture Jamming programs.

by

demonstrable demographics

Blog response number 4

 Looking at the other classmates blogs, I noticed many of them covered beauty ads as part of their “What the hail?” assignment. Reading into these, it seemed fairly obvious that the pretty much all these ads used the “this is who you could be like/look like” hailing strategy.. I figured that was pretty typical, as in, if you’re trying to sell a product that revolves around what people look like, you’re going to emphasize that it makes you look good, using good looking people and usually celebrity endorsements, as well as the “sex sells” approach, which is exactly what is outlined in Madyson’s blog, discussing Abercrombie and Fitch’s ‘young and sexy’ campaign. Madyson makes note of how beauty ads target people’s identity by saying, “this advertisement can covertly be an external influence on an individuals’s identity, shaping and molding the person we ‘want’ to be.” This is exactly how beauty ads work. Unsurprised by this, and concluding that people are very consumed with their looks, I wanted to explore ads that don’t revolve around the beauty market because these types of products would have to resort to creative means to hail their audiences.

 The first thing I realized is that there seems to be some sort of celebrity endorsement in most ads. In the beauty market, that would be expected (beautiful people you could look like), but for other markets I thought it would be less used. Celebrity endorsement doesn’t even have to be direct for it to work. For instance, in Jamie’s ad analysis, she chose to do the oreo “wonderfill” campaign. This ad is entirely done in cartoon, but the music for the ad is from the popular band, Owl City. This isn’t direct celebrity endorsement, it’s more subtle but still gives off the “Owl City approves of this product, and you should too” feel. 

 I also see a trend here with Jamie’s ad because it is similar in strategy to the ad I chose to analogize. My ad was a coca-cola ad which sought to interpellate viewers through making them feel good. This oreo ad does the same, in using bubbly music, and showing oreos being handed to “bad guys”. Jamie mentions that this feel-good approach is at the core of this ad when she says , “This is a very successful ad…The nice song, the happy feel, the bright colours…This commercial surrounds its viewers with happy thoughts.” This suggests that our demographic is not only pop-culture oriented (celebrity endorsements) but also constantly seeking feel-good devices. Instead of saying that people will be more beautiful/successful with this product, they are suggesting that people will be happier.

 Finally, however, I realized that nearly all ads for a product, beauty or not, will play to the “person you want to be”. In the oreo and coca-cola examples, they played to people who wanted to be happier, or people who want to believe the world is a happy place. In Sanjeet’s blog, he talks about Gatorade. In his ad, they make it seem as if Gatorade will make you that stronger, better athlete who doesn’t give up. As if Gatorade is the miracle elixir that will make you a pro. What this commercial does is it tries to relate to the target, which is aspiring athletes. It relates to the pain they feel in training harder and pushing themselves to the limit, using a model example, Sanjeet says, “it uses a very good strategy to get its message across by showing a professional hockey player.” Someone to look up to, someone to aspire to be, someone Gatorade can make you in to.

 While I focused on ads relating to a product to that you can buy, trends became extremely clear. Whether the target was male athletes, young woman, children etc., early all ads portrayed that their product would give the people something they wished they had. Another thing that seemed to go hand in hand with this idea is that the ads would give viewers a model, either a celebrity or a relatable character, that they would trust, and that would further imbed a desire to have the product. I believe to some extent that this is accurate; people are impressionable and typically always want to be something more than what they are. However I believe it is important as a society that we remember that these are just products, and that true happiness, skill, and beauty comes from something that cannot be bought.

 Madyson’s blog = http://madysylvester.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/what-the-hail/

 Jamie’s blog  = http://comedressedtoimpress.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/cpcf-1f25-what-the-hail/

 Sanjeet’s blog = http://mavisanjeet.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/what-the-hail/

 

 

 

 

by

CPCF Blog: What the Hail?

CPCF Blog: What the hail?

 

Ads of today are all about appealing to the heart. While any ad works to appeal to the consumer by making their product seem desirable, there are some companies who seem to take an irrelevant, emotional concept, and apply it to their product for the largest possible impact on audiences, even if the concept doesn’t have anything to do with their product. I remember seeing a Tide detergent ad talking about how Canadian’s aren’t afraid of the cold. How on earth does that relate to Tide detergent? Somehow they stretched it to apply, and in doing so, made it extremely obviously that they were attempting to capture the hearts of patriotic Canadians, interpellating them into the idea that real Canadians use Tide. While this example sticks out to me because it seemed ridiculous and obvious, there is one particular ad that stands among the rest that is so good at hailing people, and so effective at attaching a completely unrelated concept to their product, that I have to examine it further.

In 2013 Coca-Cola continued using an “open happiness” campaign. Their TV/movie theatre ad starts with showing security cameras on building while playing “Give a little bit” by Roger Hodgson.  The entire ad consists of security footage from all around the world of people doing good things. Such things include people being saved by strangers from trapped cars, random acts of kindness, silly people dancing on the streets, and couples in love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8m5d6xENWA).The entire ad is just so damn good at making people smile. Audiences will feel its honesty because it’s from security footage, not actors. It’s the most effective ad I can think of in hailing people, but it has literally nothing to do with the beverage Coca-Cola. Except for the little animation at the end, where the footage comes together to make a Coca-Cola bottle silhouette, and a little line that says “open happiness”, it has no relation to the sugary, carbonated soda pop.

Yet, it’s incredibly clever. I can guarantee that there isn’t a single, normal functioning, emotional human being on this planet that wouldn’t enjoy watching this ad. It hails us in highlighting the random acts of good that exist in society among all the bad, and successfully makes the viewer feel connected to random strangers all around the world. In this sense, it interpellates the viewer into being one of these “happy and heroic” people presented in the video. What better way to make strangers connect to other strangers than showing them multiple videos of random act of kindness among people who don’t know each other?

What’s most important about this ad is that it appeals to the general public’s morals, values, and beliefs. Most people are good, and want to see good things happen, like heroic acts and people giving generously. The text book Media and Society: Texts and Practices Fifth Addition by Michael O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler notes that, “we will still always have a set of values, beliefs and feelings that guide our behavior…” (page 177). If people’s behaviors are guided by their morals, then perhaps they will buy Coca-Cola because their ad suggests that they share the same morals.

I have to admit that I like this ad very much, but I’m aware that it is just a marketing scheme, it’s not like Coca-Cola directly made these random acts of kindness possible; they merely used them in an ad to make us feel good about their product. The text warns us of this by saying, “Most advertisements, films, and television programs offer us the pleasure of looking at and identifying with the beautiful people and objects that are portrayed. Such texts subtly seduce us into conceding that they represent ideal types and desirable commodities, and believing that if we purchase the products or emulate the people represented, we will be more like the models or actors and will find pleasure, happiness, and desirability,” (page 203). While this Coca-Cola ad doesn’t use models or actors (which is one of the reasons the ad is so affective) it does convince viewers that if they drink Coca-Cola, they will find happiness in the world much like the people in the security footage from their ad. While I am pleased that this ad promotes love in the world, I have to laugh at the irrelevance it has to the actual product, and have to wonder if it really reflects how the Coca-Cola company runs. 

by

Wanted: The Media that we need

You can never trust a source on the internet. Even pieces of edited and published sources, (in terms of the news) shouldn’t be completely trusted.  I tend remind myself of this whenever I visit the newspaper, online news websites, and other sources of articles which claim to be truthful. This has a bit of an influence of how actively I choose to encage in reading or listening to the news. I tend to only notice or look for stories that catch my attention, but these types of news stories tend to be stretched the most, or contain the most fabricated elements. Especially through word of mouth, a semi-interesting story can be expanded into a disastrous lie. As well, just because the news source is major station/outlet well known amongst our society, this does not grant them complete trust. Fox news has had many instances where there reporters did not fully research a particular fact, embarrassing themselves virally.

 In Alexandra’s blog, she speaks about what the media does to gain our attention, and states that, “ The media’s number one job is to keep the audience satisfied and entertained. They will do everything in their power to make us turn on the TV or open a magazine to attract our attention.” I believe this is true. Although news sources are obligated to portray accurate information, a news source will beef up the information with some false applications, because they are primarily a business and will do whatever is in their power to hold our attention. Because of this, I have lost interest in the news. I merely watch it when I’m bored, or if I catch word of something that pertains to me.

 Hunter makes an excellent point in his blog regarding the news’ distortion of information when he says, “because the media is now responsible for passing informative intelligence to the population, they must improve their appearance in order to appeal to people.  However, I believe that in the media’s effort to enhance their presence, important aspects have been removed from their stories.  The media will present to the viewers what they want to see, not what is the most important.”

 This excellent point further supports my negative view on the news.  Basic stories are contorted and bent to rally up and entertain those who are watching. Even if a news story is not tampered with, a news source can, and usually will, influence a bias somewhere within the information, again to please the demographic they are targeting to. A Christian news program may cover a story of gay marriage, and be heavily biased rather than objective. Allan Edington reflects my view on biased news by saying, “What I want from media is precise reporting which is unbiased and without conjecture.” I agree fully with this, as society would have a much rounder view on major events and issues without simply one side, which may be biased or untrue. 

 I consider myself an impressionable person. Much of what reaches me causes me to consider, think, and even change my mind.  I understand this about myself, and so I usually choose to distance myself from news sources, which I believe are the strongest media outlets because they have real life, real time implications. While I do not believe in fully ignoring all sources of news, I do believe in taking everything with a grain of salt. Also, when we are moved by a particular news story, we should conduct our own research as accurately as possible to ensure we get the full and true story, rather than jumping into opinions and lashing out for the wrong reasons.

 

Blogs cited:

 Alexandra’s

 http://alexandradeyman.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/do-we-get-the-media-we-want/

 Hunter’s

http://lunterhackey.blogspot.ca/2013/10/wanted-media-that-we-need.html

  Allan’s

http://edgington1812.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/wanted-the-media-that-we-need/

by

The Media We Get

In the text book Media and Society: Fifth Edition from Michael O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler, two ideas are discussed: whether the society demands what the media gives it, or if the media tells society what to demand. Basically, who influences whom? While it is easy to see that they both have an effect on each other, I feel that it is the media who primarily influences society.

            The content of the media is based on trends. Pop music is popular in today’s youth, and so the majority of music on the radio will be pop, what fashion trends are hot this season will be what stores produce and advertise. The greatest example of a relevant trend in today’s society would be superhero movies. Right now people are demanding superhero movies, so Hollywood is working to pump out as many as they can to cash in (think Avengers, Thor, Captain America, Thor 2, Avengers 2, Dark Knight Rises, Kick-Ass 2, Ironman 1, 2, and 3, the Amazing Spiderman all within the last 2 years). In this way, one might argue that society gets from the media what it wants. However, who sets these trends? The media! And so, at the root of it all, the content of the media is decided by the media itself and not by the people.  Celebrities wear the latest fashion trends, advertisements promote their movies as #1 in Canada!, the media produces and advertises countless ideas and many are bound to catch on. In popular movies, what characters wear, their style and even their name can catch on.  So yes, society gets the media they want, but they only want what they want because the media tells them what to want.

            However, all these examples are based on fabricated ideas. By that I mean, trends have to be created, but I believe that in other forms of media, where things are not meant to be fabricate, both the media and society influence each other, although again I believe the media has a bigger effect on the society than vice versa. The text mentions, “The development of the media has made our lives quicker, more sedentary, and more domestic…” (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, 47). It lists various, drastic examples of how the media has changed our values. With smartphones and superfast computers, society is no longer concerned with stopping to smell the roses, but instead values speed, convenience and connectivity. It seems that the media was able to change society’s viewpoint, which is a pretty dramatic change if you ask me. The textbook agrees with this when it notes, “Since people rely on the media for information about distant places and events, control of media representations can be remarkably effective in promoting particular beliefs and attitudes: to a certain extent, the media shape our perception.” (O’Shaugnessy & Stadler 49).  This basically is a way of saying that how and what the media shows us gives them control over what we belief, want, value, and promote. While they have the power to censor and edit whatever most of what they show us, we only have the limited power to ignore what is being said, and that’s pretty tough to do in a media-saturate society, and even then, by closing one media outlet, we may be closing ourselves to other, beneficial media outlets.

            In conclusion, I believe that when it comes to who decided what, the media has a strong upperhand in deciding what the people can see, and in doing that, they influence the people into believing that what they get is what they want. 

by

CPCF post 2- Media Impact Response

To the question “How significant do you think the impact of the mass media is on your worldview?” the general consensus of my peers is quite clear; the media has a dominating effect on how we view the world. More specifically, as I continued reading blogs, that effect seems to typically be more detrimental than positive. When I wrote my thoughts on that question, I focused more on one aspect of the media being negative, being that the media can only show us certain points to a story and limits our knowledge of the truth. The thoughts of my classmates have helped to expand my thoughts on weighing both the pro’s and con’s of the mass media, but my own opinion is still that it is more so a harmful affect than a helpful one. While many of my classmates listed both negative and positive outcomes of the media’s influence, the idea I got from it all was that the bad outweighed the good.

 For example, Brittany Noel points out that media is good for inspiring her creative writing, but there is a severe, heavy influence in the media that defines our definition of beauty. She notes, “The mass media constantly feeds society unrealistic images of what we should be, what we should wear and how we should look” (http://cpcframblings.blogspot.ca/ ).Because this ideal image can drive people to harm themselves and destroy their self-esteem, this point can be seen as one of the media’s most destructive aspects. It highly impacts today’s youth and can cause serious physical damage.

 Another argument for the media’s “more harmful than good” debate was brought up by the blogger on O’Connor Media. O’Conner’s ideas seemed to relate to my personal blog on the fact that what he media tells us is limited knowledge, and one sided, but he also points out that these limited opinions that the media creates in people spread like wildfire. O’Connor states, “Ten minutes we spend watching national news forms our opinions of global events. Whatever is said during the first few headline reports becomes our knowledge base of an issue” (http://oconnormedia.wordpress.com/). Then he goes on to make the valid point that people see these basic news stories and then head to twitter to spread their limited opinions (which can also be extremely incorrect if the news source isn’t creditable). People who didn’t research the topic agree, and then re-tweet those limited opinions exponentially and people all over the web believe it. Social media can be a good place to stay connected to friends, but can be an awful place to gain valid information on serious world issues. A version of this naivety among social media can be seen in those facebook posts, which state: “This is a baby who has been hit by a drunk driver. His parents can’t afford medical costs but doctors say for every ‘like’ this post gets, 1 dollar will be donated to save him.” How obviously fake is that?! Yet people repost it like it’s their day job.

            Another negative aspect that I hadn’t considered was brought to my attention in Jbunison blog. Here she says, “In the present day, many aspects of the mass media have worked their way into culturally shaping what society considers ‘normal’ and socially acceptable.” (http://jburnison.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/cpcf-1f25-post-one-media-impact/) I couldn’t agree more with this point. The media forms what we find socially acceptable. From the media’s example, ideals are planted into our minds and anything that doesn’t fit that model is rejected by the mainstream population. For example, the media put an emphasis on terrorists and the Muslim relgion during the time of 9/11. The mass media in western culture created an image that the Muslim religion should be rejected, and people became extremely racist to religions different than their own.

            In conclusion, reading the blogs of my peers coincided with my ideas that the media is typically detrimental, but also expanded my viewpoint to see other ways in which the media harms our worldview. Many people brought up how the media picks and chooses what to tell us, creating biased stories and limiting knowledge that we’re entitled to. I cannot ignore that there are definitely benefits of having the media around us. However, sometimes those benefits are more theoretical than they are helpful. The contents of the media do not always reflect the good that can be done by broadcasting to mass amounts of people. The important thing to remember is that we should also question the creditability of what we’re told and should always look to other sources.

 

 

 

by

CPCF 1f25 Assignment 1 – Personal Worldview on Media Impact

Personally, I believe the media has nearly everything to do with how we, and myself view the world. Mostly all of us get our knowledge of any subject from some form of mass media, typically Internet or television. Even knowledge we acquire first-hand or through other means we seek to confirm via mass media. Today, if someone tells me something groundbreaking or unfamiliar, I head straight to google to confirm and keep me up-to-date.

            I haven’t travelled very far in my life and so nearly everything I know about the world outside North America comes from the news or pop culture. To say that the mass media has influenced my view on the world is an understatement- it’s pretty much created my view. I understand this view is considerably limited, however I believe it is because a news program may show of a subject, only what is relevant to that particular news story. In that way, what that news program shows me is the only impression of that subject I will have. I’m sure a great deal of the population is like me in that way. For instance, based on recent news, my only impression of Syria is that it is a war-torn place. That’s literally the only thing I know about Syria, aside from that this war is between government and civilians. The only reason I know that much is because of mass media. With every news station flashing that war at me, it’s hard to associate Syria from anything else but unstable. I cannot be the only person with media-limited knowledge of Syria. The only word I can associate with it is war, despite the fact that is an entire country. This is an indicator of just how significant the media is on my world view. The media picks and chooses what to show me and I form an image based on that.

            There are other influences the media has on my perception of the world, however some I know should be re-thought. It’s frustrating to try and research what information is biased and what is objective. Is Mexico truly a bad tourist destination? I’ve heard reason to believe it’s not as bad as it’s made to seem. The point is, I should know better than to believe everything the media tells me, however it’d be unrealistic to say that I could obtain all my knowledge of the world from first-hand, double-checked resources. The Mass Media is an extremely fast source, and it’s going to reach us before we have time to conduct our own research. It’s all around us. My car radio is almost always on, with music and programs that put a predisposition of the world into my head. My laptop with yahoo news is always by my side. With 8 people living at my house, the television is always blabbering.  

            I’m not saying that the information gathered from Mass Media sources is bad, but it does have a dominating effect on the way I see things. It was Jim Morrison who said, “Whoever controls the media controls the mind.”  The public relies on the mass media for information in a media based world, and I don’t mean that lightly. I’m no different in that sense. The media powers my perception, and from there I try to make the best with what it gives me.