Comparative Analysis C.A

My final C.A for my Media, Discourse and Analysis module. I will be comparing two video broadcasts of the same story and analysing their content against each other. The two videos I will be comparing are those of RTE and TV3’s broadcast of the story of the jailed Gardai who robbed an elderly woman and colleagues. The story was covered on the 17^th of May by both news broadcasters, one being a private broadcaster (TV3) and the other being a public service broadcaster (RTE). Link to each video:

RTE - http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0517/garda-who-robbed-elderly-woman-colleagues-jailed.html#video

TV3 - http://www.tv3.ie/news.php?request=&tv3_preview=&video=48696

Video titled “Former Garda given three year sentence”

As we know from learning about the media this semester, is that publishers and broadcasters control the content that is showed to the public audience. They are the ones who create a narrative from the raw event and influence our meaning of the mediated news broadcast. News broadcasters can be biased in their reports on news events, for political reasons or to maintain the hegemony within society. Therefore it is my job as a media analyst to discover if a broadcaster is biased in a report or if they hold ideological values and report the broad aspect and don’t stand on either side of the fence when it comes to producing a meaning in their reports. My goal in this comparison is to discover if public and private broadcasters can remain impartial when it comes to constructing and delivering a news story.

We will start with the RTE report. When analyzing a news report we must always keep in mind the “circuit of culture”, and question the representation, identity, production, consumption, and regulation of the broadcast. Who has created the broadcast, and who it is aimed at? What creative techniques are used to attract attention to the broadcast and what values, lifestyles and points of view are rejected, omitted or represented in the message? This means that certain choices have been made while constructing this text and reflect the attitudes and viewpoints of those who doing the construction. How might different people understand this message differently than me, this is based on our similarities and differences, each receiver of content has a unique life experience, which creates unique interpretations.

This is a media event, it has been “constructed” for an audience for them to understand what is happening within a 2 minute time period. Like and constructed video, choices have been made by authorities in RTE as to what they can and what they cannot or should not show within the broadcast. The broadcast opens in the studio with a brief overview of what has happened, then leads into the report by “Orla O Donnell” to give a more in depth review of the story. The report was produced as-live, as to provide a window as to allow the audience to feel as if they are actually witnessing the event then and there. The video was produced by showing footage of the garda walking into court, there were no interviews or “live” clips within the report, only short clips of various buildings, Criminal justice court, gard’s barracks and a bar. The only other footage was of the reporter talking outside the courts. A report of this nature has to especially remain impartial, due to ongoing trials. The language (however vague) used by the reporter suggests a condemning nature towards the suspect, reporting on the serious aspect, and how even though there was no violence involved, it is still a very serious case, “violating the safety of an elderly woman” and a breach of trust from elderly people towards members of the gardai. The possible zeitgeist being the lack of trust within society towards our own government. I believe the reporter remained impartial to the story, it was only her that was speaking, no additional creative components such as video footage, statistics, illustrations or audio was used to create meaning. It was a standard reported video, with no hidden media message. We have to understand that when a report like this is broadcast, the broadcasters must be aware of the discourse and meaning of the video. People will see it differently than others, for example, I would have viewed the video differently than the gardai in suspect, and even the judge doing the ruling. With this in mind, certain language must be used by the broadcasters, chosen carefully and constructed in an unbiased and impartial manner, based on the target audiences differences and similarities.

As an audience, we will never see the choices that have been made, of the text and footage that was not selected. This story strives to create fairness and balance. We expect this from a public service broadcaster. The story has been targeted at the elderly, there is a sense of an underlying theme of vigilance and safety running through the report. There is no point of view given prominence.

If we look at the second video, reported by TV3, we may have a different situation. TV3 is a private broadcaster. This means that they were set up with one concern in mind, money. Being more conscious of their ratings, there is more of a possibility that a report may be more one sided coming from a private broadcaster than a public broadcaster.

Keeping in mind the “circuit of culture”, we see that straight away this story is presented in a completely different manner. It is produced live, “on the spot”. Since being live, there is a chance that the report may not have been as polished as the other broadcast, and it is obvious that it is not. The broadcaster/editor of the other video had time in a studio to chose what words and images to use depending on the audience that it was most likely to appeal to, this is not the case in TV3’s report. There were no static images or voice overs used in this video, only short footage of the suspect walking to the courts. The broadcaster opted for a live reading of the information and details of the story, outside the criminal court of justice. Broadcasters must keep in mind different rules and conventions of broadcasting, socio-linguistics, the language used in the broadcast, who the story is aimed at, is the story even news worthy? Although the journalist reported the story, there was times when she did stumble and mix up words that made the report slightly more colloquial. This is no fault of the journalists, but is to be expected from a live broadcast. For example when she described what the suspect stole the money for, she finished with saying, “... all these things” which doesn’t seem very professional at a national level. It is important to know what language to use when mediating text to an audience. Different styles are used when addressing higher and lower class families, or office and trade jobs. Each audience member has a different discourse and understanding of the same text that was broadcast, just because of their upbringing and social background, the life they live. The video is quite similar to RTE’s broadcast, but an important aspect to this text is who is being represented, and their identity. The conversationalisation of the text is crucial to a story of this manner, considering that it is a member of the gardai who is in question and the fact that it is being broadcast from the Criminal Court of Justice. An event like this is most certainly associated with private life, encompassing political, business, educational or governmental institutions. Broadcasters keep this in mind whilst choosing what language to use, what local or regional accents and pronunciations to use, and what sector of society the text is aimed at. There is no use of colloquial language (slang terms) in either broadcasts.

This story is aimed at an Irish audience, first and foremost, as is at a regional level, and wouldn’t affect people from outside out the general locality where the crime took place (Cork) or even Ireland for that matter, certain terms used in both reports like “Gardai”, is culturally specific to this country. We rely on the news to help break the cultural boundaries and language barriers to further help us understand what is happening in the story. I believe that this story is worth broadcasting because it is very current in Irish times, with a lack of trust and concern from the public towards the government. The story ties into the social zeitgeist. Broadcasts have control over what they mediate, and in a time where public confidence in the government is at a serious low, the feeling from both broadcasts is that trust has been broken towards authority, but reassuring the public that this is a rare case, and not to believe that all authority is criminal. RTE quoted judge “Mary Ellen Ring”, saying that she “hoped the trust elderly people had in the gardai could be restored after this case”. One could see this as a back handed effort to maintain or restore confidence in not just the gardai, but to higher authority, namely the government.

I don’t believe that RTE or TV3 are coercing the public into thinking one side or the other in this story. My goal in comparing these two video’s is to question whether the news can continue to act as producers of meaning whilst remaining within the structures of formal rules about impartiality. Both Public broadcaster and private broadcaster were impartial on the matter. Both broadcasters had approached the raw story, each in different manners. Both came off well as to describing the story and used very similar language to each other, so much so as would lead you to believe that one had taken the report from the others website etc. There are certain ideological values in place by our government at the moment, such as restoring confidence to the Celtic tiger times. As an analyst, I have learned that it is the broadcaster’s job to construct and mediate text to an audience and to translate it into common sense terms for the audience to understand. In modern democracy, the media serve as a vital function in the public forum. To publish without fear or favour, and in keeping to the overall question posed by this comparative analysis, I believe that the media, no matter if they serve as a public or private service broadcaster, can still produce meaningful content and retain impartiality towards a “constructed” piece of text.

Week 13 - News Report C.A

We had officially finished the module by week 13, but since we had missed a full week back in week 10. The class had been given a C.A to complete before week 13, and we still had to present it. The C.A consisted of a news report, in which we had to create a mock television broadcast on a particular "controversial story in the media recently, but we had to put our own biased slant on on the broadcast.

This was a group C.A, and I had the privilege of working with Siobhan Gallagher and Eamonn Cahill for the project. We chose to report on the recent household and water charges. Combining both of the taxes into one story. Our slant was that we were create a fear campaign and trying to scare people into paying the charges. We interviewed students young and old around the college campus. Some people had different opinions to the ones we were trying to portray in the broadcast but we had to convince them to change their opinion for the sake of our news story.

Siobhan and Eamonn worked hard on the video, audio and editing side of the broadcast, while I worked behind the scenes, researching, gathering information, quotes and statistics to use within to broadcast. Only certain statistics were chosen in order to get our preferred meaning across to viewers. We all chipped in and worked on the technical report that was to be handed in. In the end, We came out with a relatively believable and very professionally presented 3 minute news report and video.

We gathered many vox pops from many people around the college and acquired media footage from the rte.ie website. Statistics were gathered from newspapers websites, the Irish Times and Irish Independent. The continuous report from the project can be found from the blog of the project. The voice over was done by scripted and recorded by Eamonn.

Blog - http://begrandlike.wordpress.com/

Week 12 - Regulation vs. Economics

This week we looked at Public service broadcasting vs. Private broadcasting in Ireland, from their point of view and how they broadcast according to their own agenda, in regards to television news.

Public Service Broadcaster - Educate, Inform, Entertain. (RTE, BBC etc.)
Private Broadcaster - Entertain, Commercial gain, Monetary reward. (TV3, 3e, UTV, Channel 4 etc.)

When broadcasting the news, primarily this meant a commitment to due impartiality so that no particular political bias or point of view is given prominence. But now, broadcasters are more and more conscious of their ratings. There is a growing pressure to reschedule the news to make way for more "popular" programmes. If you were to apply a newspaper analogy, the television is moving from a broadsheet to tabloid news agenda, where there is an emphasis on the entertainment side of news. Rather than actual important news. News that literally affects our everyday living in a country, pressing issues and debates being reported and discussed in a broadsheet newspaper. Rather than which footballer has slept with who's wife now, something you would see on a regular basis in a tabloid newspaper like "the Sun". We see a "dumbing down" process happening in television broadcasting.

Broadsheet - Political, Economic, Social Affairs.
Tabloid - Entertainment, Personalities/Celebrities.

While most events that happen around the world in raw form are not interesting to an audience and wouldn't hold the attention of the majority of the public. There is a need to package a raw event and deliver it as a narrative using different storytelling and literature techniques. By using different elements in a news story, such as, spoken word, video footage, illustrations, and photographs, creates a sense that the story contains "windows", which allow an audience to see directly into an event as if they were witnessing it then and there, but from the viewers own home.

Like the narration, these elements are abstracted from the stream of events, cropped and cut; and as with the narrative element, they can be given a different meaning. Delivering a preferred meaning, telling people what they should be seeing or noticing, leading people to believe in one side of the story, while not directly telling the audience what side to be on. Therefore, influencing their meaning.

News stories allow us to understand stories that would otherwise be separated to us by culture and languages, they help us to understand. In terms of the news story, we are on the outside, looking in. Coming in for a sample so we can appreciate the larger view.

We should note that news stories don't just bring together all these elements merely by putting them together in a single story or sequence. They are put together in a specific (narrative) way. To create a meaning. They are collected by people, who also have their own personal views and opinions, which may shift into their work, even if they are to remain unbiased on a story. There is always two sides to a story, but broadcasters want to point out what sides you should be "looking at" and give their own slant on a story but not forcing it on you. Its kind of like an underhand tactic for you to see what they want you to see, and believe what they want you to believe.

Week 11 - Media Bias

This week, we looked at the media as a means of production, and marxist and liberal approaches to the media. We were given an assignment to choose a news story/broadcast that involves some degree of political controversy and analyze that content.

There was a couple of stories I thought of that would be a good example of political bias, but none better than the Student Registration/Contribution Fees increase. This story was covered in November 2011, when the Union of Student in Ireland (USI) protested in Dublin City. This article from RTE covers the story.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1116/education.html#article

The reason that this story caught so much attention was due to the fact that earlier that year, 2 weeks before the general election in Ireland, TD Ruairi Quinn had signed a pledge, promising not to increase student fees whilst in government. His party then won the election and with less than a 8 months into term, had proposed to increase student fees two-fold. A controversial move and one that sparked outrage with students across the entire country.

From the start of the article, we know straight away that it is produced from an opposing/protesting point of view from the headline of the article, "Ruairi Quinn non-committal on fees issue". The article, reported by Emma O Kelly, is slightly more sided with the protests, but keeps to a neutral stance on ideology. Evident from the wording that is used, there are several references to figures and numbers within the video. Stating the amount of students there where at the protests (20,000), and how it "filled the streets", but also mentioning the more "conservative" figure stated by the Gardai (12,000), which would lead you to beleive that the Gardai are aiming to keep the figure as low as would be imaginable as not to generate even more hype, or to make it seem as if the protest wasn't as important or to subtract from its potential impact to the Irish public.

There are several interviews with students in the video that placed substantial importance on what the fees mean to those that were interviewed. Then, from a Gardai/Political approach, goes on to highlight the need for safety the student protests, and mentions how it was a "highly patrolled and organised march". This statement is almost straight from a TD's mouth. We see this clearly, from the language that is used, here and throughout the article. The fact that the word "march" was used instead of (what the event actually was) "protest" is to play down the whole event, as the word "protest" is surrounded by negative connotations and promotes violent imagery. This kind of political correctness is used throughout the report, as if to pander the importance of the protests to students and to discourage other sectors in the public from protesting in the future.

RTE promote a liberal political view and ideology (and have been accused of this recently - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0313/1224313204153.html). They produce a partial view of whats happening in the protests, as to cover the story, but conforms to the higher power in society, being that of the government. Although the reporter does state (from a students point of view) that the protests are directed at him and his controversial decision to increase the education fees.

As discussed in class, the report is in favour of a "hegemonic" view of politics, to maintain the status quo and the way things are. This report reminds me of this approach to re-enforce the dominant ideologies in society, especially those in power, politically and perhaps not as much as past times, religiously. Being coerced into believing that everything is fine, that there is no need to challenge anything the government are doing. After all, we are always being told to think about the future of Ireland, that the government are getting us back on track and you (the tax payer) are providing resources for the greater collective good of Ireland. 

Week 8 - Semiotic Print Advert Analysis

Over the past few classes, we have looked at many different aspects of semiotic analysis in mediated content. This week, we have been given an assignment to analyse a print advert in a semiotic approach. The print advert I have chosen is; Levi's "Who do you want to unbutton" promotion. A series of adverts from the Levi's in 2009. We are asked to consider different theories that have been addressed in class, such as;

• Types of Signifiers
• Paradigmatic Relationships
• Syntadigmatic Related Signs
• Narratives and Myths within our Culture

Analysis of the Advert

Straight off, we see a picture of a beautiful woman standing leaning on a counter on a street corner, with the text "the boy who makes my morning latte" and the promotional text underneath. These are the signs, the images that are most pronounced in the image, its denotative level of meaning. Basically, the "it is what it is" of the image, no arguments can be made against that. There are many different types of signifiers, on a connotative level. The underlying meaning of the image, The woman with her arm up, leaning against the counter, signifying confidence and beauty, while wearing casual jeans and top, her head tilted to the side. It all signifies a casual nature. She is easy going, free, her fashion suggests she is casual, and gives off a spontaneous attitude. The fact that she is in a dream like state, suggests there is a certain sexuality or prowess about her. These features conveyed by Erving Goffman's 1979 study of "Gender Advertisements", and how women are portrayed in print adverts.

The text next to her in large free-hand typography fills up more than half of the image. The fact that it is in red, in this context and with what she is saying, suggests passion, lust, sex. With the text being in free-hand suggesting that this woman wrote the piece of text, and with the colour, conveying the possibility that it was written with lipstick, furthering the thought of sexuality within the image.

As for the area within in the image, on a denotative level, this is just a street, with a few cars in the background and a bike in the right foreground, that could be anywhere in the world. But because of the colour of the cars in the background, straight away, from our own cultural upbringing, we know that this is a street in New York City, simply because of the architecture and style of the buildings and street, and colour of the cars. The cultural associations with New York, the city of opportunity, where you can do make anything of yourself, its young, vibrant, the city that never sleeps, with lots of interesting and different people there. It suggests that she is an active and outgoing young woman.

The condiments on the counter beside the woman suggests that she is at a cafe, and along with the text in the picture, "The boy who makes my morning latte", leads us to believe that she is at this cafe where the boy works, and he is currently getting her morning latte. Which would indicate that the narrative of the story is set in the morning. The bike leaning against a pole to the right, just out of frame, suggests that she is active, possibly concerned for the environment, possibly on her way to work, as getting a latte coffee in the morning would suggest that she needs to get a kick and wake up before a long day ahead.

These connections of events and signifiers are defined as the narrative. This narrative is communicated to us in such a way as to seem familiar, which is does. We can all associate with what is going on in the image, perhaps not location wise, but as in contextually. By piecing together the story, bit by bit, we realize that all aspects of this advert have been thought out very carefully by the advertiser, as so not to be misunderstood by an advert that will be promoted worldwide, as many steps as possible have been taken as to not do any harm that may potentially arise, if an advert has an underlying message, unnoticed by the advertisers. With this advert, the advertiser wants to be associated with an easy going nature, for young people, in fashion, who take things in their stride, who have or want to have sex appeal.The advertisers intended message and their viewers cultural upbringing and  is important to understand as an analyst. 

Week 6 - Semiotics

*Stucturalism to Semiotics

This week, we discussed more in depth about semiotics and different levels of meaning in media and media messages.Semiotics can be deifined as a study of signs, but can also be applied to all sorts of human endeavors, eg. Cinema, Theaters, paintings, politics etc.

We use a variety of gestures to signify a sign. We need to think of texts as a system of signs. Which gain their effect via the constant clashes between these systems. For example, everybody knows what hand signs mean when driving when a garda flags you to move on, or stop. Or even when we are playing sport, like football, when the referee signals different hand gestures, we know what he is doing, it is something basic, but its because we have learned these over time, that it becomes instinctive. But with that being said, different cultures have different values, and one gesture may mean another in different countries, or what a person has grown up and learned through a different background.

Written texts involve the sequence of letters and words, images involve arrangement of shapes and colours. Music involves the composition of sound, but ultimately they all can be regarded as amalgamations of signs.

An example of how signs can be perceived differently is in the videos we watched, of "Mary Popins" and "The Shining", where they had been edited to be the exact opposite of the original movies, eg. Mary Popins was edited to be a horror movie, and The Shining had been made to look like a happy romcom style of movie, just by using editing techniques, the style and story were drastically changed and no outside footage had been used other that the original shots from each movie. The use of music/editing/narration/imagery/cuts, can be very misleading, this is due to the semiotics.

The successful communication of meaning is reliant on shared societal systems of understanding.

Levels of meaning can be seen in two ways:

Denotative: refers to the most immediate level of meaning eg, what a dictionary would do. It is what it is, and cannot be argued. A photo of a street is a photo of a street, but there are so many signifiers and representations within this photo, that to someone who is looking at it may have a memorable meaning, and may possess emotion to the picture, based on there feelings and memories of that particular street, which leads us to:

Connotative: This is the second order, associated meanings. They are more likely to be culturall specific, like what I just discussed about the photo of the street.

The communication is unlikely to be successful unless the audience is well versed in the particular cultural conventions by which they operate.

We discussed Paradigms & Syntagms.

Pardigm: is a vertical set of units, from which the required one is selected.

Syntagm: is the horizontal chain into which units are linked, according to the agreed rules and conventions, to make a meaning whole.

An example of this, is the classic... A terrorist bombed a government building this morning. There are so many cultural specifics in that sentence. Substitute, "Terrorist" with the word "Freedom-Fighter", then the sentence has completely new meaning. Just like taking out the "this morning" part of the text, then we have no time boundaries and are unknown to the time that this event took place. There are many substitutions that can be made to any text, to give it a whole new meaning. This is something that, as a media analysist, I am learning to become aware of.

Week 5 - "Approaches to Media Analysis"

Week 5 continues, "Approaches to Media Analysis", which delves into the Analytical side of media. 3 topics discussed:

1. Linguistic and Socio-Linguistic Analysis.
2. Conversational Analysis.
3. Semiotic Analysis.

Linguistic Analysis:

Ways of looking at how language, used within the media, can be of interest to linguists for their own purpose. Eg, Newspaper Headlines. We I mean is, The way in which a newspaper uses the front page, and what words go onto the front page are all selected with good reason, and there are many factors that are dependant on how a headline is worded. Even something as arbitrary as spacing on the front page is important as to what wording can be used.

The choice of language is dependent on the audience that the text is aimed at. Such as, skilled workers, professionals, office workers, manual labourers etc. This effects the type of language used, as in the words that the person uses, but also, the accent plays a key role in how the piece of media is presented. Eg, Dundalk FM being delivered by a person with a Cork or strong inner Dublin city accent would not have the same affect, because of the area of the radio station.

Conversational Analysis:

Ethnomethodology, an interpretive approach to sociology which focus upon everyday life as a skilled accomplishments and upon methods people use to produce it.

Formulation: A widely used device interviewers use to summarize what interviewee's have said.

John Heritage (1985), sees Formulation as a technical device which interviewers use to manage interviewers within constraints under which they are forced to operate.

• One constraint is the presence of a listening audience. The need to keep an audience interested, by drawing out/clarifying what the interviewee says.
• Another constraint is the requirement on interviewers to maintain a stance of formal neutrality. Gearing an interview one way rather than another.

Interviewees don't always answer the question, a case more commonly associated with politicians. Sometimes they answer the question by introducing topics of their own. As we discussed in class, politics is a hard area for an interviewer, you need to be stern, but without startling the interviewee away from answering more in-depth questions, and if something comes their way that they do not like the sound of, then they will divert the question and word it in a way that doesn't answer it, but introduces another question which they then answer themselves. Evading they critical questions, for what reason, probably to save their own skin, or that of a party or party member. No other thought comes to mind than that of Irish presidential candidate, Sean Gallagher. Just watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOAHJ6y94DY

Semiotic Analysis:

John Hartley conducted an important study of news in 1978 and focused upon the semiotic codes and conventions which underlie both linguistic and visual aspects of news stories.

-Categorization of stories into smaller number of major topics.

-The effect of news values on the treatment of topics (is it news worthy? Valuable?)

-Audience address, The operation of broadcasters as "mediators" who translate news into common sense terms of audience.

-Use of conventional communication style.

-The Structuring of the news stories.

Week 4 - "Decoding an Encoded Reality"

Following from last weeks discussion of our individually researched theoretical media journal. Each member of the class presented a media topic to the rest of the class, researched themselves, and dissected and analysed the material using the "Circuit of Culture" theory.

This week, the lectures, title "Decoding an Encoded Reality", asks 5 key questions relating to public discourse.

• Who Created the message?

How a message is constructed and the choices made key considerations made by those who have created the piece of text. But as media analysts, we are aware that what we see is not "real", only a representation of what has happened. The text has gone through a process of construction, where choices have been made and decided as to what wording will be used in the text, as to how is will be perceived by the viewers, in a process of selection and substitution. As an audience, we never get to see what has been rejected etc. What has been chosen, has been chosen for a reason.

• What Creative techniques are used to attract my attention?

This is the format of the mediated text. What creative components are used when putting the piece together? The use of words, is there music, what colours have been used, movement of the camera, is it panning, zooming, a close up, and what kind of camera angle is being used. These have all been selected for a reason.

• How might Different people understand this message different than me?

-Our Differences influence our various interpretations of media message.

-Our Similarities create common understanding.

No 2 people will see/understand the same piece of text, despite the content remaining the same and not changing for either receiver. Each receiver has a unique life experience which creates a unique interpretation due to their lived culture.

• What values, lifestyles &points or view are represented in, or omitted from, this message?

Choices are made when constructing mediated messages, they reflect the values, attitudes and points of view of the ones doing the construction.Decisions about a characters age, race, gender, mixed with the lifestyle, attitudes and behaviours that are portrayed, the selection of a story, and the actions and reactions in the plot, are some of the ways that values become "embedded" in a TV show/Movie/Advert etc. The news strives to create fairness and balance in idea's and viewpoints. We need to know how to locate alternatives of news and entertainment.

-Less Popular or alternative ideas can have a hard time getting aired.

-Unless challenged, old assumptions can create or perpetuate stereotypes.

After all, the worlds media was originally created as a money making enterprise, with advertising first then the news second.

• Why is this message being sent?

Money... most likely. Putting a program to get an audience and then selling that audience to advertisers. A term called "Renting Eyeballs". Simple. The aim of the game is money at the end of it.

When analysis the media text, by which the actual language opposed to the coded message, we need to remember 3 sets of questions:

Representations, Identities, Relations.

We discussed Conversationalisation. The accent and delivery of a mediated text. The use of more local/regional accents as opposed to received pronounciations, are more associated with real/ordinary working class people, who are seen as "one of us" and "someone like me". Received Pronouciations are associated with an official institution, and would not the same reach as a colloquial language or regional accent. As discussed in class, popular accents, like the "Geordie" accent, is more associated with public life, and entertainment, as opposed to political, governmental, science and education etc.

Private = Entertainment, Common Interest etc.

Public = Education, Politics, Business etc.

Marketisation is an important factor when media crosses with entertainment and a serious nature. A large part of media output is clearly designed as entertainment, with the likes of drama's, comedy, quiz shows, soaps etc. There is a definite shif in the boundries of Public and entertainment in media and we see a dumbing down of information in order to appeal to a larger portion of society. We discussed Frontline on RTE, as being a serious current affairs program, but wih entertainment elements almost shoved, awkwardly into the show in order to keep viewers interested, because, lets face it, viewers want entertainment, especially at that hour of the evening. It is too much hard work to concentrate and have a serious thought about the state of the economy after the hardships of the day, commuting, work, commuting again, its takes out the portion of the day, so do viewers want to put in more hard work then to focus on serious topics that late at night? Probably not.They know their time is valuable and want to relax, "switch off" and watch bad television, where they dont have to think for themselves or be educated while watching TV.

We get a "sugar coating" effect, with our serious current affairs programs. But is this patronizing the viewer? Possibly. But at the end of it all, if a program isnt getting viewers, it will be pulled off air. So the logical thing to do is, give the viewers their entertainment, as long as it keeps viewers, it keeps the money rolling. What does that say about our society tho, is it a typical, "Irish" society. Not taking anything serious, not having an open mind about current affairs, not being educated in ongoing and serious social problems within our country and even worldwide?

I think it is down to the individual to source their own quality information, it is out there, and if you want to go past the commercialized corporate TV shows (out for the money), then so be it. It must be done, in order to gain a better knowledge of current social affairs. And it has never been easier to source elsewhere, with the likes of Twitter, Google, and newspapers having content online, the tedious task of cringe-worthy band playing during a serious debate on Household tax and Cuts in the Budget can be avoided, but only from TV.

Theoretical Media Journal #1

As part of the class, I am required to analyze and put my own thought and learned skill of media analysis and discourse, that has been discussed in class, to an article of news and critique it myself. Keeping in mind the "Circuit of Culture" theory.

The article of news that I will analyse is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/12/greece-eurozone-bailout-deal?newsfeed=true

Representation: This is how the news piece is re-presented to us the, viewers/readers. So straight away we see the image. It depicts the Greek police in riot gear with flames all around them, so clearly pointing to the fact that there is unrest within the article before even reading the text. That is a big indicator to the article. The reason this picture was chosen was to clearly signify the problems within Greece. Using this picture, I would say they pulled it off very well, and that's before even reading the text. But to us, the reader, it was to instantly signify that something is wrong here, there is civil unrest and that its not a safe or peaceful place to be. The article was absolutely aimed at Ireland/UK readers, because after the opening paragraphs depicting the protesting/riots, there was consequences aimed at this side of the EU, stating what would happen, if Greece didn't implement the austerity. It has a bias against Greece, the language used seems to almost condemn them, and comes off as if it is their fault that the EU is like the way it is.

Identity: The Story was published Sunday evening, after the protests the night before, by the Guardian UK. The Guardian is a long running (well over a century) daily, national newspaper in the UK. Their newspaper is second most popular online newspaper website in the UK.

Production: A written article, made with the UK in mind, stating consequences etc. I don't believe there is bias toward any group within the text, but there is certainly a sensationalized feeling from the article of the protesters. The article makes out that Greece is so brave to "defy" the protesters and pass this bill, almost blaming the protesters for what has happened. In much the same way as Enda Kenny a couple of weeks ago, when he blamed the people of Ireland for causing the economic downturn in the country. I think there is far too much emphasis put on heavy words like "Apocalyptic", and referring to Greece as a "War-Zone", a bit dramatic of course. But I guess that's what grabs peoples attention. Its a wonder why the Guardian didn't have a video for the story to go alongside, as other news websites had footage of the protesting that night. While reading, there was a definite sense of urgency, there was pace to the article, perhaps by the author proclaiming that the austerity measures had to be signed now, or the EU is doomed. This was the style of approach in my opinion. I can understand that the author has to use over the top statements and language to hype the Greek situation, because so much is happening in Greece, do people still follow up on it, do people even care about it? There is only so much you can hear of something before it starts to lose its effect and peoples attention start to wander.

Consumption: Meaning that the consumers reception of the intended meaning could be blurred by their lived culture and background. For this, I mean, what would a Greek person living in England and after reading this, think about the article. Would it fill them in, would they be upset that their country is being depicted as this. And it may not be exactly how it is in Greece, possibly popularizing the protests, because people do associate protesting with a violent nature now, and I think that the lines of protesting and rioting have been blurred due to recent (2 years) media attention on the matter of protests, eg. The London riots. The article was definitely intended to be consumed by a British audience.

Regulation: Of course it is unacceptable for riots in any country and culture, and it seems to be happening on regular basis in Greece, unfortunately. Who wants to walk down the street in fear of violence and rioting as imagined from the article). Its a tough situation for Greek police, as who is peacefully protesting and who is rioting.

All I know is, Greece wont be getting the revenue through its tourism that's for sure.

Week 2 - Construction of the "Real"

This week, continuing with the description of what "Media, Discourse and Analysis" actually is, we delve into what it means to analyse a piece of media. As analysts of media, we learn the ability to critique media content, and create an understanding of the underlying message, if any. The reason I say if any, is because there is so much media in the world that, as I stated last week, with all the content the world has on offer, the lines between reality and simulations of reality become blurred.

There is not always an underlying message in media content, as I learned this week. The media may not be as "truthful" as they make out to be. They report a story, or an event, but analysts have a grouping classification. Grouping media content into 3 events:

• Genuine events
• Media events
• Pseudo events

I won't go into detail explaining these, but they reveal that not everything you see on the news is how it is depicted. Genuine, being spontaneous, happening then and there events that you can not prevent, whether there is a camera there to capture it or not, it will still happen, eg. Natural/Ecological events (Volcano, Tsunami etc.), Crime (The 16 year old girl shot in Tallaght recently (Feb 2012)). Media event being, a constructed event, that wound in peculiarities because of the public's expected media coverage, eg. The sensationalism of the Amanda Knox court case last year (2011), where the exaggerated media coverage simple made the trial popularized, when it was no different to another murder trial. Pseudo events are staged events that happen merely to increase media coverage and awareness, it is simply for the entertainment value, eg. The entertainment industry, Celebrities. Its extremely media friendly, and always positive.

Broadcasters arrange the content as to how it will be perceived by the viewers. This is important for media broadcasters and journalists. The whole point of releasing the content is to get the largest viewership imaginable, that is the sole purpose, profit. Who releases a news story the quickest is the most important for the company. Who gets there first, who has the first video coverage, if not then use images, a still by still coverage, it doesn't matter, as long as there is something for the viewer to see, however amateur, just as long as they can claim to get their first, and have a viewable source. If they have incorrect or false coverage, an apology can be issued the next day and the it will be forgotten about.

Being a media analyst involves, being able to decipher and analyse what you see. To look at the media in a critical and analytical manner, and question what you see. Always ask:

• Why (why was the story produced in this way)?
• How (how was it made/produced/distributed)?
• When (live, or as being live. what was the zeitgeist)?
• What (what are the effects on the audience, and the wider social audience)?

We discussed social institutions and the overall "Power of the Media". The media is a hugely influencial factor when it comes to social and cultural image. It can shape how we live our lives, haw we spend our money, and how we view the rest of the world. But it can cause violence, like the London riots last year, it can be argued that media coverage was adding"fuel to the fire". Promote sexual promiscuity, via pop culture. The current trend at the moment with "Tallafornia", "Geordie Shore", and "The Only was is Essex". With the media sensationalizing the ideology of "its ok to go out every night of the week and have sex with strangers". This mentally is fuelled by shows like these. But as I said in a previous paragraph. It doesn't matter, as long as there is a large audience and viewer numbers. The media can even cause corporate collapse, an ironic (ongoing) story being the collapse of the "News of the World", who accessed information illegally to obtain greater viewers/readers but in doing so diminished their own standing and ultimately collapsed.

Overall, the media is replacing the formerly important, or influencial social institutions. Instilling values that are no longer coming from traditional power brokers, eg. Family, or the Church. People are turning to the media for answers. But the media, an accidental social figure head, was not originally intended to be looked upon for answers to peoples livelihood, and moral compass. For some, it is their primary source of understanding of the world. But ultimately, portray a false reality, one that should not be instilled into peoples lives. The media modern media, only simulate a world without consequence.

Along with learning the analytical side of media, we discussed what the term "Discourse" means. Discourse is communicated through the media all of the time, and is deeply embedded in the everyone's daily interactivities and encounters. It is the parameters in which a particluar issue is discussed or framed by the media.

To put it in my own words, its the meaning behind the communication method. A communication method being text, or voice etc. There is meaning to almost everything we say or gesture. This is the called the discourse, the underlying meaning. The term 'text' is used to mean an observable product. The gesture or voice per say.

Discourse is the process, the underlying meaning. It is not the product ('text'). Discourse is manifested by its cultural outlines, the zeitgeist of a culture. It is a product of a meaning. It is someones cultural and social upbringing. How a subculture is viewed for example, when you hear the word priest , you would think of peodophilia. But why... It is because, the zeitgeist (feeling at the time), would suggest, that there have been various scandals and negative news coverage that we would associate all priests with peodophilia. It depends on cultural associate connotations.

A great example of this is, when someone tells a joke, and it did not come across as funny to the receiver, this suggests that the discourse is lost in translation. That you have associated the joke with something that you (personally) thought was funny, due to your associations with the subject of the joke. Where as, the reciever did not, and could have personal and emotional attachment to the subject, therefore making it unfunny.

This happened myself recently when I was dropping my girlfriend home. We would have come from the same different cultural backgrounds and social groups, her being from the south side of Dublin, around the Stillorgan area (very posh), and I, raised in north Dublin all my life (not so posh). I had made a joke using slang terminology (Jargon), commonly associated with the south of Dublin. Where I found it funny, and was expecting her to laugh, I got the complete opposite effect, where she was gravely disgusted. I hadn't taken into consideration her cultural background, or her views on that section of society, one that she was close to, or had associations with. It was interesting to use the knowledge gained in class to analyse that situation.

There is a lot to Discourse, as I learned. Discussing in depth the "Circuit of Culture" (which I will not explain), and how it is used to interpret different sociological and cultural meanings. The sense of naturalism, and culture associates arbitrary meanings to occupations, clothing and colors, for example, Truck driving and nursing are available to both genders, but it is the views of society that only make or females enter either occupation. Where it is not enforced upon, society encourages just male or female to enter the job, and then is seen as abstract that a man is a hairdresser, nurse, or househusband.

These are values instilled only by societal means, there is no laws enforcing association or connotation. It is just what has become the "Norm", what we accept as being right, or the way that it is. And if you differ... well unfortunately, you will become a social outcast. But these things change all that time, society creates different value systems. It is wrong to look down on someone for being different and not abiding by imaginary classification systems. And with discourse, it is interesting to understand underlying cultural conditions to the communication process.

James.

Week 1 - Where is my Reality?

This week in MDA, the class discussed news and how it is delivered to us. The world is a large an active environment, and in these times, we rely on others, meaning the journalists and broadcasters to mediate the events of the world to us, on a daily basis. There is always something happening in the world and everyday we tune in/log on to our media source, to find the latest reports on those activities and keep us up to date with the latest news events in the world.

But as we discussed, these news stories are not always as they seem. Yes, the latest worldwide events are broadcast to us and we (I use we and us to signify the public) discover the latest riots happening in which third world country, the latest sporting hero, or another tax/levy being introduced and cuts being made. Yes the news is depressing, but that's a media broadcasters/journalists job, and by reporting these local or worldwide events, they are completing their jobs... But to what extent are these "stories" believable?

Are these stories exactly to the truth? Perhaps in some cases. Or are they in a way, slightly fabricated? But just enough to invoke a sense of personally opinion and bias? I'm not saying that a story has been completely manufactured for the broadcasters benefit, I'm just questioning the legitimacy of certain "Hot" topic media subjects, and the style that they are presented to a common member of the public. For example, the U.S and their reports on terrorism.

This is an area of sensitivity in the United States, for people fear that their lives and their freedom is at stake to the hands of terrorist in the middle east. The so called al-qaeda group who claim to carry out militant attacks in countries all over the world. This is a big issue, without a doubt, but the way it is portrayed in the media then filtered down to the public, would lead you to believe that along the lines, this (story) has been manipulated. What I mean is, the facts of the news report may be there, but it is the style in how it is delivered to the public that alters their opinion on the matter.

The media are in full control of this, they choose the wording and the format to broadcast a sensitive story such as a terrorist group. The way I see it, its like a good guy versus bad guy narrative structure. The American media portrays it as, we (the good guys) are fighting to protect your freedom again the terrorists (bad guys), so in this fashion, they are deemed to be almost brainwashing american citizens. A "fear the reaper" mindset.

This is a total case of agenda setting on the liberal media's part. There is evidence of these types of reports on middle eastern activity, in an example we seen in class, 2 papers reported on the same incident, but in complete different manner to each other, one more scare mongering than the other.

In no way is this broadcasters own fault, its a two horse race. I'm sure that at some stage in time, the government has had something to say about the delivery methods of sensitive issues such as, the war on terror. There is always a higher power at hand when it comes to matters of media bias. Corporations have massive, undue influence in what the media output to the public, its an image thing. Money makes the world go around.

There is media everywhere, there will always be a story to be covered, and as mentioned in class, the more coverage there is, the more saturated the media becomes. It gets increasingly difficult, because the news events are changing ever so quickly, and the more activity there, the harder it becomes to distinguish between reality and what is really being shown to us (a re-presentation), the lines become blurred. It is up to us to take a step back and look at the stories, to divide real world experiences and media simulations of events.

James.

Introduction to this blog

I set up this blog in accordance with my module this semester, entitled: Media, Discourse and Analysis.

I will use this space (weekly), to discuss topics from the module surrounding the media, and how the media delivers news based on societies status, and current standing. How the media, for example, can slightly alter a news story, either to advantage or disadvantage a party, faction, nation, or event etc. and offer a biased view. Perhaps based on peers and corporate involvement. those are just some of the topics that shall be discussed.

Expect an entry every week with a discussion on topics mentioned within the class, with my own personal opinion and input on the matter/subjects being discussed. Feel free to comment if you oppose or have a different opinion.