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.