News, Trust, and “truthiness”

News, Trust, and “truthiness”

                The consensus after reading quite a few blogs from my classmates is that satirical news remains a valid news source and they agree (for the most part) it’s a mainstream form of culture jamming.  Another aspect the class enjoyed was not only the humour within shows like The Rick Mercer Report (probably the most mentioned) and The Daily Show but the “truthiness” they presented. Generally the students thought that satirical reports were very truthful and never really questioned their reliability. Ty has a quote about Rick Mercer suggesting that he is very reliable making people love him,
“Rick Mercer is famous for his witty humor and fast remarks about Politian’s on his TV show, but that’s only half the reason people love him, the second half is the fact the he brings out the truth about untouched areas in parliament and isn’t afraid to rip on Politian’s if they do something wrong.(http://tykeca.wordpress.com)”
The flip side might also be true; Rick Mercer seems more reliable because people love him. I do think that satirical news is very dependable, whether or not it’s more or less dependable than “real” news, is up for debate. If anything students may think that satirical news is more reliable than typical news because occasionally we have to question the reliability of news stations like CNN, Fox, and CBC. This may be due to the difference in personalities; people are more likely to trust a personality that is making them laugh and seem like a genuine person than a personality that can seem fake or simply because they aren’t making them laugh.
                The public sphere needs satirical shows to inform the youth about the news, and get them educated for the future. In my experience it’s definitely a good thing to have knowledge of what’s going on in the world. So if this generation can get some news in a way they may enjoy, it’s obviously beneficial.  “By using humor to critique what is presented in the media viewers are encouraged to think about how the media affects their lives.(http://dcharles10.wordpress.com/)” This quote by Charles shows why humour is good to have in the public sphere, people start to examine the media they are receiving because satire makes them pay attention.  Another quote that I found very true was by Kendra (unfortunately a few grammar mistakes, but the message is there) “It demonstrates the humanity inside the media, and how everything type of news can allow for another view, or shed of light on it. (http://kendrasamis.wordpress.com)” Kendra is referring of course to satirical news when she is talking about humanity in media.  I don’t know for certain what she actually meant by this but what I’m getting is that typical news and media is almost becoming robotic in sense they are just reading off the teleprompter, and there is no real emotion or opinion in it.
                In conclusion generally people in the class agree that the fake news is reliable and it’s debatable that it is more reliable than the real news, as well as satirical news is good for the public sphere.  

Is the Fake News The Real News?

Is the Fake News the Real News?

                Culture jamming is defined within the text as “a mode of resistance to the norms and conventions of mass culture that exposes and opposes the media’s underlying power structures and ideological messages (Klein 2000). ( Media and Society, Michael O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler, Page 213)” This definition suggests that in fact the satirical news can be considered culture jamming in a mainstream medium. The “fake” news resists going with norms and conventions of regular news by poking fun at news stations like CNN, Fox, NBC, etc., either opposing their view or just making fun of how they presented a story.  Satirical news will also have an opinion on popular (and unpopular) media stories. Rick Mercer, Jon Stewart, and other comical news entities will talk a lot about major political issues of the day, for example: obviously a huge topic for these hosts is the Rob Ford story that has been discussed by everyone everywhere. “The objectives of culture jamming often include consciousness raising (raising awareness of social and political issues) as well as using the media to criticise the media and dominant culture ( Media and Society, Michael O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler, Page 214)”. This provides better evidence that these shows are culture jamming on mainstream level, because it basically describes a political satirist’s job description. The quote is why I think programs like these are good for the public sphere, because it does raise awareness of current problems throughout the world. Another reason why these shows are good for the public sphere is because now news is being broadcast to a younger audience. When you ask most teenagers or people in their early 20s, do they prefer their news presented in a truthful and funny way or truthful but boring and a slightly biased way? Arguably speaking, most would say the first option, and even some adults would say the same, I know plenty of adults and even elderly people that love Rick Mercer. It’s still the news, whether serious or satirical, presented by a trained broadcaster or a stand-up comedian.
                I cannot say that we should eliminate “real” news, because although it’s not as humorous as satirical news reports, they will present more information on the story, and quite a few more stories about important matters other than just politics. If the only news you get is from satirical news centers, you are getting a very limited amount of news and a small range of opinions, typically the more opinions you get on a topic the better informed you are.  Another thing about normal news entities is that they will present news before the satirical shows get it. Since shows like The Rick Mercer Report are only weekly the news that they have is outdated, nonetheless it is good to hear Rick’s opinion on them. This brings me to my last point, although these are humorous shows, they are done by intelligent people (or that’s what appears to be), not stupid comedians with no knowledge of political issues. So is the fake news the real news? I don’t think it can replace CNN, Fox etc. but I think it is useful for society, and does talk about real news, which is sometimes more than you can say about some “genuine” news stations.    

Demonstrable demographics

Demonstrable demographics

            After examining a few blogs, there was a trend that stood out; sex sells. Although this topic was not something that was in all blogs from the sample, it was in a majority. It seems that most of the class see that advertisers use either sexual innuendo or blatant sex messages in their marketing strategies. These approaches are obviously directed at our demographic, specifically our age group. You will probably not see any commercials focused on the elder citizens that have sexual content. Commercials that fit their age demographic would be products like insurance and vacation advertisements. The male demographic or our age group appears to be a bit easier to sell to because of course it has been known for a very long time that most young adult men want to look at women, so clearly it’s not too hard for marketers to figure out how to present their products to young adults. Efe said,

“we see beautiful young women emasculated by various men, or a young woman empowering various men, and other campaigns along those lines.  These ads stand out in a way that makes the buyers want to have that same feeling, they make it in a way that almost says “if you wear this certain brand of clothing you can feel this certain way”, and in all honesty these ads 80% of the time work. (http://eo09tm.wordpress.com/)”

This quote although probably wrong on the stats, (I only say this because I think as a generation we don’t really buy stuff due to the advertisement anymore, as much as what we think the brand portrays in other people’s minds) is right in generalizing the ads themselves. We also look at the people within the ad, and nine times out of ten the individuals are what society says is beautiful (male or female) and when there is not-so-beautiful people (by society’s standards) in the ad, it’s hundred percent of the time ironic. Women according to the sample of blogs that I read written by a female, do not approve of this marketing strategy. Korinna when referring to an ad by Victoria Secret with four scantily clad women said, “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/)” Madison said referencing a make-up advertisement by Revlon, “We are not considered beautiful women, unless we apply make up and look appealing to the opposite sex. (http://mb12qe.wordpress.com/)” It appears from these quotes that some, maybe not a majority (otherwise the ads would probably be different) of women are not falling for or accepting these advertisements as much as they may have in the past.
This suggests that ads working with sex in the fore front are more successful for the occasionally primitive male demographic but will not sell quite as well for the female demographic within young adults.

What The Hail?

The advertisement I chose to do is a 2013 Superbowl commercial that starred Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Bob Odenkirk (Saul from Breaking Bad) and a small cameo of Lebron James. Seth and Paul have both been brought in to pitch an idea for an ad for the Samsung Galaxy to Bob, comedy ensues and at the end they are both rejected for Lebron. 
                “The sports section hails the reader as male, the social pages hail the reader as female, the finance section positions readers as anonymous but tends to locate them within a privileged, well educated class.( Media and Society, Michael O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler, Page 186)”
                Like this quote demonstrates the ad tries to hail to a certain audience. This ad tries to target I would assume males (not saying females wouldn’t find it funny); probably younger as it is a technological device as well as the pop culture celebrities would not be known by the older generations. This commercial in way hails to a mostly white audience although with the cameo from Lebron they tried to include the African-American culture as well; being that Lebron is a major African-American celebrity they did a good job. The commercial hails us by telling us subliminally “major celebrities endorse and use this phone, why shouldn’t I?”  The ad also uses the celebrities and comedy to make it memorable, so when it comes time to buy a phone we will remember the comedy between Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd and the endorsement by arguably the best basketball player Lebron James.  
This ad also shows the major identity of western culture: individuality. “Entertainment, sports coverage, films, and televisions programs focus on individual stars and personalities. (Media and Society, Michael O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler, Page 189)” Paul and Seth are competing against each other the entire commercial trying to have a better idea or proving that they are “the next big thing” having a very individualistic view.
                Did this ad appeal to me? Would I buy the phone because of the ad? Honestly I probably would at least think about it seeing the phone, so the ad company did their job. With four celebrities in one commercial plus add some mild comedy and you have a highly successive formula for an advertising campaign. 

Wanted: the media that we need

Wanted: the media that we need

                Is the media we want the same as the media we need? Not entirely. Allan had a great quote that said “This world, as presented by the media, is not the real world but a ‘cut and paste’ assembly of what is the media’s position on a subject at a certain time. (http://edgington1812.wordpress.com/) ” . Ellen reinforces this idea “the media may be seen as brainwashing people into what they are seeing and not giving the full truth about many stories. (http://em12jk.blogspot.ca/)” I completely agree with both Allan and Ellen, the media only wants you to see what they want you to see (which bringing it back to the last entry is what you want to see). For example if CBC is doing a story about happiness in Africa, they are going to show very little, if any examples of unhappy, hungry, sick people in Africa. On the flip side if they want to show a place hit by an earthquake they are not going to show a person whose damage to his house was a single shingle fell off, no they would show a house that completely collapsed. We don’t need media that shows only half the story; we don’t need media to further build up celebrities that majority contribute nothing but entertainment (some of which don’t even contribute that) to society. Today’s media is not all dark and gloomy but often is saturated with celebrity gossip which for the most part is unnecessary but unfortunately is necessary for the media provider to stay above water. Brandon said “media is required to do this now to satisfy their majority audience and survive as a company or a source of media (http://brandonlewis94.wordpress.com/)” which sums up why we are now bombarded with celebrity news. I can’t say personally I am against celebrities because some celebrities I do appreciate, but I am not naïve enough to believe that they are essential to society, which they seemingly have become.
                Media being filled now with cultural news it’s getting harder to find useful media like political and economic. Unfortunately I can’t say I look for news like that very hard, which is mostly to do with fact it is often times boring. I’m not saying all useful media is boring but often times it is, therefore I don’t search for it unless it is a major news story, and even then I am still the last to know about it in many circles. This is no one’s fault but my own, I think I should be better updated on important events but unless its tweeted by someone on my twitter or a story on Facebook there is a good chance I won’t hear about it which is sad.         

The Blog Assignment #2- The Media We Want?

When I first read the question the first answer and the answer I’m going to go with is: we get the media we want. The reason for this opinion is my original thought when hearing the question is when I type something into a Google search bar, that search is taken into account and used as information for advertisers; so they will advertise something related to that search. This is clearly an example of getting the media we want.
I think in today’s society all the media is a result of what we want. In reference to the Olympic Game coverage it was quoted “Because of this imperative, the marathon has been run at times best suited to worldwide television audiences, rather than to athletes (Media and Society, Michael O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler, Page 45).” This quote is brought up because it highlights that it’s all about what the audience wants. This is suggesting if the audience wanted to see the marathoners run in the pitch dark at 2am; they would. The famous phrase in business is “the customer is always right” which is also true in advertising and every other form of media.
Media in general has always been asking the question “what do the people want?” the media couldn’t until the Internet target the individual, before it was all about the masses. “These channels have continually struggled with the need to maintain ratings and the need to present programming that satisfies their mass audiences (Media and Society, Michael O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler, Page 38).” Television didn’t care at all about the individual, it cared about how many people watched and how well it did with the masses. Before the internet the “we” was reference to the masses, now it is seems to have become a lot more about the individual.
I get that video ad on the sidebar of YouTube because they think I want it there, because I watched something related to it. That chocolate bar commercial on, we get that because a lot of people support and enjoy that chocolate bar.
Almost everything we do in today’s society is to obtain something we want, why should media be any different.

1F25 Blog Response 1: Media Impact on Others

I admittedly did not read every blog posted, but from the sample of blogs I did read there were plenty of common themes including: “We use media every day” and “Without the media we would be in a different world.” Then the blogs would usually take a stance on whether the media was overall a good or bad thing.
One theme used was how dark the media portrayed the world. Brent said, “If the media were to somehow integrate a more positive outlook, I feel that it would help create a more positive worldview (http://bb11tl.wordpress.com/).” As simple as that is, it’s true because seemingly all the news we get is negative. The problem I think is that when something that is a positive news story like “local hero saves boy/girl from drowning” is on the TV or whatever medium you get your news from, we tend glance at it and forget about it relatively quickly. Every day there is probably millions of good deeds done around the world (that aren’t covered), but as soon as disaster happens the world has to know about it. It must be human nature to be attracted to what is bad in the world, unfortunately I can’t explain why.
Another theme that made media out to be a bad thing was the debate against social media and texting. Natalie said “Some people will use texting or use their cell phone as a way to communicate but in person they lack all social skills (http://nataliecollierblog.wordpress.com/).” I agree with this statement and it makes me sad to think that this will only get worse. My generation didn’t have cellphones until late elementary (for the lucky ones) or early secondary, but as of late kids are getting cellphones and logging on social media sites at much younger ages, and this worries me. I think Natalie is right by saying that it is starting to show in social skills which is in a way ironic that SOCIAL media is causing SOCIAL skill problems.
With all the negativity that surrounded media, Vincent brought up something that I had forgotten about, “In a marketing perspective, strategies have changed dramatically, opening up a whole new target market (http://expiredtransfer.wordpress.com/).” I’m glad he brought up media with reference to marketing but I don’t understand what he is saying with “new target market” I agree completely that strategies have changed. When you use a search engine, what was searched is taken into account and used for advertising purposes.  For example if you search “Used Cars” in Google, you may have Autotrader.ca advertising on the side of the page.  With modern media, marketing has gotten a lot more refined then even 10 years ago.
In general mass media was deemed necessary for a worldview by most blogs but there are still a lot of problems with it, but nothing is perfect.

1f25 post 1: media impact

1f25 post 1: media impact

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word “media” is sports and entertainment reporters. This stems from countless stories of athletes and actors/actresses saying the common phrase: “The media are blowing it way out of proportion!”
Unfortunately I think there is a good reason for this association; the fact is celebrities rule the majority of our media today. There is not a day that goes by that a celebrity of some calibre is making “front page news” on a certain medium, whether it is: literally front page news of the local newspaper, trending on twitter, or top story on an entertainment show.
I believe that celebrities are a product of the media. Without the entertainment shows, the paparazzi taking shots of them every time they are in public, or commercials advertising their movie/ TV show/album they wouldn’t be known. Without media as a whole, we would not know much.   There would be no way that we would know anything about forest fires in California or the six foot snow drifts in Alberta. Everything would be word of mouth, which not only would take longer but it would have far less of a reach.
Today media is extremely accessible; the first thing majority of teenagers (including myself) do when waking up in the morning is check their cellphone for latest tweets on twitter or stories on Facebook and other social media sites.  Social media has revolutionized media and a lot more students now are updated on the news of the day by twitter or Facebook because of a friend telling them or they follow/like a news entity. I think as much as there are downsides to them, for keeping students and adults alike up to date on important stories there isn’t much better then social media sites.  They also let people express their opinions, which can encourage healthy conversations and debates.
Overall without media of any kind the world would be a very enclosed within different communities, I wouldn’t have an opinion on the potential war in Syria or poverty in Africa; without media I wouldn’t have a worldview at all

Introduction to my music taste

Introduction to my music taste