1F25 blog response 4: News, Trust, "Truthiness"

After reading other students blogs, I feel that both sides were argued; however, the majority of blogs I examined were that of students who agreed with me, saying that satirical news reporting did not benefit the public sphere.

“I believe satirical news creates tension amongst the public as some see nothing wrong with it, and others completely are disgusted and outraged. At the same time it makes it harder for the professionals. Satirical news can make professionals seem like liars or deceivers as they are often mocked and made fun of.” (http://shaiannrichards.wordpress.com)

This blog made me realize how satirical news can alter the otherwise simple job professional newscasts have. Broadcasts such as CTV news are simply doing what their jobs require; report on daily events, and yet they are being mocked. Because these satirical newscasts are making light of serious topics, it is no longer an easy task for legitimate news reports to be portrayed as serious. 

The final line in my previous blog stated that although these satirical shows are comical and entertaining, they do not add to the public sphere. One of my peers, Tori wrote “Although many people find these shows as hysterical, others may feel that they are unnecessary and in fact not funny at all.” (http://torigligic.wordpress.com) In this quote, Tori confirms that these types of shows are in fact comical, but made me realize this may not be the case for all audiences. Many headlines that hit the satirical news could be interpreted to be racial humor. I feel that this is a common theme among the mock news reports regarding the ongoing war involving the United States and Syria. Although this is the stories hitting the news, I still firmly believe this is not necessary, nor does it add to the public sphere.

One blog I read that looked at the opposite side of the argument, was Cassandra Graham’s. Before reading this blog, I saw the argument as black and white, and was firm in my position. Cassandra concluded her blog by saying: 

“I feel that the satirical reportage within our mainstream is a useful addition to the public sphere because the news that is presented within the shows on our televisions are not providing us with false information, but it is created in this form to make the information more interesting to the viewers, and give the audience a better understanding of what is taking place in our society in a lighter tone.” (http://cassandragrahamblog.wordpress.com) 

This was the first time I actually thought about the opposing argument. I always think of satirical news reporting to have negative connotations of the actual reports. Cassandra opened my eyes to see that they are indeed presenting facts, just in a different manor. I feel this could be a way to inform those individuals who do not commonly watch the 5 o'clock news.

After reading more of my peers blogs that argued against my point, I have opened my eyes to the opposing side. I now feel that, if presented in the right manor, satirical news reporting could be beneficial to the public sphere. I hope to one day see that more individuals are informed of social and political situations, because of satirical newscasting.

1F25 blog entry 4 - Is the fake news real news?

“Culture jamming is a form of communication that can come only from outside commercial culture, not from inside the media industry.” (pp. 214) Culture jamming is meant to use mass media to criticize consumerism and advertising, typically being aimed at brands that are highly recognized.  According to the definition provided in the text, I do feel satirical news reporting, seen on shows such as The Daily Show and The Rick Mercer Report, would be a definite form of culture jamming. The main purpose of these shows is to ‘make fun’ of serious political topics that are hitting the media.

Going along with the popular topic of my previous blogs, Miley Cyrus is one individual who is recently been all over the media. Miley is an innocent celebrity attempting to live her life. Unfortunately, her actions are all over every media platform. I recently watched the CMA awards, hosted by Carrie Underwood and Brad Paisley. Not only did their opening skit contain fragments aimed at mocking Miley, but they brought it up more than once throughout the show. Although this award show is not a news broadcast, and has the sole purpose of entertainment, is it necessary for Miley’s actions to be made fun of at every opportunity? I think not. Culture jamming has the goal of “… raising [awareness of social and political issues] as well as using the media to criticize.” (pp. 214) and that is exactly what Carrie and Brad did. The broadcast used the media to criticize the actions of Miley.

With this being said, the CMA award show is not a satirical news report. The Daily Show is though. After some research, I did find an episode in which Jon Stewart, a host of the show, wore the infamous nude “bathing suit” Miley wore as she preformed with Robin Thicke, and ‘twerked.’

As entertaining as I found this, I felt that it was unnecessary for the CMA awards to do this to Miley. As the text also outlines, “it is the form of communication, as well as content of individual messages, that makes culture jamming subversive.” (pp. 216) The example I provided clearly displays why this could cause a problem. I couldn’t imagine watching my life be made fun of on public television. Its hard enough being the girl who shaved her head at Brock, never mind the celebrity who shaved her head, who appears on every form of media there is. Fight the power Miley.

Overall, television shows such as The Daily Show and The Rick Mercer Report are not a useful addition to the public sphere, although they are entertaining.

1F25 blog response 3: Demonstrable Demographics

Shakespeare once wrote:
Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean,
Needs not the painted flourish of your praise:
Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye,
Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues - Love’s Labours Lost, 1588


After reading my peers blogs, I’ve come to recognize one very strong similarity, beauty. According to other students (the majority of which were female), Shakespeare is wrong, and beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, but predominantly in the eyes of the media. Regardless of what the advertisement was selling, the image of ‘what is beautiful,’ was displayed on the page. Many girls wrote about how degrading the ads were, and yet we’re still captivated by them. Allie Espana wrote; “Despite being harmful to self-esteem, this ad still initially grabbed my attention and made me want to buy the product.” (http://societythroughmyeyes.wordpress.com) This statement made me truly think, has society really dropped that low, allowing companies to use harmful advertisements to promote themselves and their products?

Kara Balsdon found an advertisement for Proactiv skin care that made my stomach turn. The ad she found read; “Got Acne? Just ask your boyfriend what to do. Oh, that’s right, you don’t have a boyfriend.” in which Kara responded by saying; “Personally I find this message offensive and degrading on so many levels.” (http://karabalsdon.wordpress.com) This truly makes me sick. It is hard to believe that is how our demographic is represented, that we allow companies to manipulate what is beautiful, and what we should want to look like. I can almost guarantee if you don’t use Proactiv you can still be loved by someone. You do not need to use a product in order to have a boyfriend, as this advertisement implies. 

A few students were able to find advertisements that positively reflected our demographic. Victoria Ahle wrote about an advertisement she saw for Dove, as did I. Victoria agreed with me in saying “This ad is very successful in getting my attention because of how different it is and how positive the message is. I really value the message the ad is getting across that women are beautiful no matter what.” (http://youthnomore.wordpress.com) simply because it went against the typical style of advertising we see nowadays.

Allie Deyman wrote; “I believe that women should feel beautiful in their own skin, but when it comes to looking attractive, sometimes we cannot hold back and we fall into the pressure of society.” (http://alexandradeyman.wordpress.com) I feel this statement is entirely true, but this is unfortunately not how we are represented. The representations of our demographic is (for the majority) very negative. I feel if more companies used a more positive approach to their advertising - rather than telling consumers what they are not - girls would be more confident with their appearance.

1F25 blog entry 3: What the Hail?

When you walk through the aisles of any pharmacy, what helps you decide what shampoo or soap to purchase? Is it the packaging? Is it the name? I believe it is something more. Would you buy one specific brand over another, if it weren’t for their advertising tactics.

After realizing this, I thought about the products I find in my shower. Dove. The commercials you see for Dove, include women of all shapes, sizes, and ethnicities. The specific advertisement I chose to analyze is one of a fair-skinned, freckle-faced women. Beside her, two ‘check-here’ boxes, one reading “flawed?” and the other “flawless?”, followed by a caption reading “Is beautiful skin only ever spotless? Join the beauty debate.”

“Gender is central to identity, and gender socialization is one of the earliest processes of interpellation.” (pp. 185) Dove uses this to their advantage. Women nowadays are not use to being told they are beautiful by advertising. Typically, an ad would show a skinny woman, with airbrushed skin, promoting products - rather than a typical ‘everyday’ woman. This is an advertising strategy that catches my attention.

pp. 185 - Where Are Discourses and Ideologies Found?, Chapter 12, O’Shagnhessy


If all company's used this strategy, I feel it would be less effective for Dove. Since this goes against the ‘norms’ of advertising, yet stays within the restrictions of normal life, it is safe yet shocking, without being controversial. For this reason, it attracted my attention. A woman I can relate to makes me want to use the product, not a woman who portrays fake beauty. “[Advertising] causes us to question ourselves. What this suggests is that our personality, our individual identity, and our subjectivity have been produced by a number of external factors.” (pp. 184) 

pp. 184 - Where Are Discourses and Ideologies Found?, Chapter 12, O’Shagnhessy


Fortunately, after analyzing and realizing that this and other tactics companies use to capture the attention of potential consumers, I am still proud to say I use Dove products. Unlike many other companies, they use advertisements to boost the self-esteem of women everywhere. This is a company who uses their advertising to benefit their customers, as well as their own company. After reading this, would you still stand behind the products you use?

1F25 blog response 2: WANTED: The Media We Need

After reading other students blogs, I still firmly believe that as society, we want the media we get. Through the blogs I read, I am convinced many students agree with me. In saying this, I do not believe; however, that the media we want is the same as the media we need.

One student used the image of a mirror to represent media. “In all reality we are the mirror to the media and we accept the media we get which is us ‘wanting the media we get.’ As long as we allow ourselves to act as a mirror and follow what we are told and taught by the media our society will continue to spiral downwards.” (http://nhough95.wordpress.com). I never thought about examining the media in this manor, but feel it is a very good juxtaposition. In my opinion media we want is something to amuse, entertain, or inform us. The mirror is there for us to make us laugh, capture our attention, and show us how everything around us is behaving. I believe that the mirror is there to display this ‘want,’ which is infused with underlying meanings, as well as lies. Television shows such as Family Guy and The Simpsons have replica situations of that which is actually happening, while skits on late night television such as Saturday Night Live act out scenarios that are ongoing in the world. In my opinion this is what we use as news coverage. This form of media can be bias, and often blurs the genuine facts.

My media choices inform me about social matters, and minimally about political, cultural, or economical matters. I always know, for example, what’s going on with the latest fashion trends, what celebrities are eating at Menchies, and how Miley is doing with her ‘twerking,’ and yet I can honestly say that I still don’t know what countries were involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks (other than the United States). I believe the reason I am so misinformed about matters of this level of importance is because I don’t take the steps to find out whats going on. All it would take is me to visit a news stations website, or flip on the TV, the real stories are not out of anyones reach. Matters of political, cultural, and economical materials represent the media we need, while the social matters is what I want, and therefore what I get. “In the end consumers want what they get, because they desire what media gives them...” (http://hecticglow.blogspot.ca).

Overall, I still believe that we receive the media we do, based on what the media wants us to believe.  After all, “the famous phrase in business is “the customer is always right” which is also true in [the] media.” (http://isaacc56.wordpress.com)

1F25 blog entry 2: The Media We Want?

I believe that we want the media we get. I don’t believe we have a say in what is presented to us, regardless of what we chose to watch or listen to. 

The text provides an example of a world where the roles of men and women are reversed. “The men will all eat and sleep together in one building with the children, while the women will eat and sleep together in a separate building. … The women go out and grow the crops while the men do all the cooking.” (pp. 62) I try to picture this example displayed as a television show, and find it next to impossible to do. Typically television shows portray the father ‘bringing home the bacon,’ while the mother either has a laid back job, or stays home with the children. This is what I picture when I think of the typical American family. This is one example of how we don’t get the media we want. If I were to wish to watch a show about this backwards lifestyle, I would have to write it myself. Shows of this nature are not available for viewing. I am not saying; however, that this is nonexistent anywhere, merely stating that it is rare to see the gender roles reversed on television nowadays. Recently television shows such as Glee, and Modern Family are trying to change the way we view society, but I still believe they’re playing it safe. The standards they’re playing with are still within very safe walls. For example, the boy in Glee who is homosexual, has a quarter back for a brother, and parents that are happy and approve of his life choices. In Modern Family, the homosexual male couple both have male roles, rather than one being more of a feminine figure. Although they’re toying with gender roles slightly, the media is maintaining a safe distance between what would be totally socially intolerable. 

pp. 62 - What’s in a Name? Language and the Social Construction of Reality, Chapter 4, O’Shaghnessy

“The media show us what the world is like; they make sense of the world for us.” (pp. 35) I believe this demonstrates how the our idea of the world is handed to us on a silver platter, by the media. What the media wants us to think about the world, is what we think about the world. There is no suggestion box for us to drop what we want to see next on the news. The angles portrayed on CTV are created by the media, and are displayed in a manor that is socially acceptable. Generally, the media decides what they displays, and what they do not. They completely control what we receive.

pp. 35 - What Do the Media Do to Us? Media and Society, Chapter 3, O’Shaughnessy

Overall, as viewers I don’t believe I get to actually chose what I view on television, or the news. Television shows avoid topics that would arise questions, or unacceptable topics, and the news channels display the opinions and images as they chose. 

1F25 blog response 1: Media Impact

After reading some of the blogs of my peers, many questions I had never considered in my blog, popped into my mind. Many of the blogs I read were similar in content. Most students agreed that media has changed our lives, and continues to do so. My original opinion still stands after reading the blogs.

Meagan McLeod said “Try and think back to the last time you had something you needed to tell someone so you walked to their house to update them? Was it hours, days or months? Whichever it is, slowly we are losing grip of a media free world.” (http://mm13sa.wordpress.com) I examined media on a much larger scale, and how it is broadcasted across large groups of people. Meagan looked at media on a more ‘hands-on’ scale. After reading her blog, I realized how attached I was to my cellphone. It almost never leaves my sight, and I bring it absolutely everywhere. I am constantly checking it, browsing multiple forms of social media. I still remember what the world was like before we had such widely used technology of this form, and its crazy to think that the generations following mine won’t ever understand what that is like. 

Chloe Bromhead said, “When I was little I used to play outside if I did not have anything to do inside, now when I have nothing to do I automatically rely on the mass media to keep me entertained.” This accompanies what I said about Meagan’s post, that our kids won’t understand what the world is like without relying on technology and media. Young children know how to surf the internet, use Facebook and Twitter, and communicate without face-to-face interaction. As these forms of media become more and more popular, younger and younger children are going to be accustomed to this way of life. Is it possible that face-to-face communication will be obsolete to the next few generations, if we continue at this rate?

Upon reading multiple blogs from fellow students, I feel that the majority of us have the same opinion. Media has changed our world entirely. I did however, come across a blog that disagreed. Allie Towne believed that media does not impact her world view. Allie said, “I do not believe the media has a huge impact on my world view mainly because I question in great detail everything I see in the media”. (http://allietowne1613.wordpress.com) This made me question how that is possible. We receive media coverage from all around the world, how is it that we could create our own opinion about what is going on? I accept that we can question what they’re telling us, but the majority of what is said has to be accepted in order to have ANY knowledge of worldly news. Without boarding planes and flying over to Syria, we cannot fully create our own opinion about the situation. I couldn't imagine living my life questioning everything, everyday!

I still firmly believe that media has truly changed our lives, and will continue to do so in the future. This fact is inevitable.