Bush, Praising Fed’s Intervention, Faces Criticism

In this article, Stephen Lee Myers outlines the recent controversies concerning the Republican solution to the recent mortgage crisis. Myers writes about how the measures taken by the Bush administration are meeting a lot of criticism on the part of Americans who feel that the government has used an unreasonable amount of money to bail out mortgage investors, while doing little to curb the difficulties being faced by the less financially solvent people now losing their homes.

Myers reports at length about Bush’ commentary on the measures taken. According to him, Bush singled out Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, for doing a marvellous job of handling the situation.

The article goes on to document the reactions of Democratic members of government, like Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. Those two senators had different things to say about the Republican solution. Barack Obama was far more defamatory about what has happened.

This article primarily raises issues of amorality and community. The article, which is neutral throughout, only documents the opinions of “important people” (opinion leaders) on the subject. The author makes no move to take a moral stand, suggesting that he is himself unaffected by the crisis, and that his community of readers is also unaffected. What’s more, the article uses a vocabulary that could potentially exclude readers who are not college educated. Words like “liquidity” and “opposed” are used freely instead of words that mean the same thing but are less complicated.

The article also raises this issue that the media influences public opinion, which in turn influences the media (as described in Katz and Lazarfield). The writer of the article acts as if the only people in a position to fix the mortgage crisis issue are government officials. This is basically like saying that ordinary, unaffected citizens have no obligation to help, or at least that they are excused from helping, since they are not in the best position to do so.

From the New York Times, March 17, 2008

Fashion Week Invites the World

In this article, Bernadette Morra informs us that Fashion Week in Toronto will be frequented by a number of international reporters. The arrival of such reporters will naturally mean that Canadian reporters may be given lesser treatment than they have been accustomed to receiving in previous years. This message in the article arrives at the reader like a wink from the author – a sure sign that the article is being addressed to a readership of fashion-savvy, haute-couture obsessed people. One way we can determine this fact is that very little is written about the way the fashion industry works, the way a small number of people monopolize the world of design – the way those people are the beneficiaries of very controlled investment. Moreover, the article doesn’t say anything about the problems faced by the hordes of textile industry workers, who will later be forced to mass produce the garments that will be on display. Instead, the author of the article informs us about the decorations that will be put into place at Nathan Phillips Square, saying nothing of the difficulties faced by the people who will have to put them up in the cold.

In that sense, the author is not only writing to a community, but she is also being a-moral, because she is failing to report on the very concrete ways in which hundreds, if not thousands of people will be affected by the upcoming arrival of foreign press at Fashion Week.
Finally, this article reinforces the common perception that the way the world’s economy works is nothing abnormal or inappropriate. The people coming for Fashion Week are the clothing industry’s stars, no matter how they got there, no matter what they do and allow to be done to maintain their place.

From the Toronto Star, March 14, 2008

http://www.thestar.com/article/345824

Tories to shake up immigration

In this article, Nicholas Keung reports on recent news that the Conservative government will be taking action with regards to Canadian immigration policy, both as concerns how potential new immigrants will be evaluated (i.e. accepted or rejected), and how the party will deal with the Liberal Party’s backlog of immigration cases. 800,000 cases are left to be dealt with from the last administration, according to Diane Finley, the new Immigration Minister.

What is startling about this article, from the perspective of issues of media literacy, is the way it approaches the issue. It doesn’t concern itself with dissecting the big questions that are at the root of this topic. Some of these would be: how should Canada pick its immigrants? What are the genuine needs of the Canadian workforce? And what kinds of prejudices are in play with immigration policies?

One must seriously consider why a more polemical tack isn’t taken in this article – why the author seems to approach the issues as if there are no moral questions involved. The topic of immigration is a loaded one, after all, and the policies that are put into place will have very concrete impacts on individual lives.

One hypothesis we can make about this issue of amorality is that the author of the article is in fact writing to a community that is itself unaffected by immigration policies. Why should a university professor care about immigration policies, if he himself is not an immigrant, and has no desire to bring in anyone from a foreign country? Signs that this article is in fact addressed to a specific community can be found in the way that it’s written. It’s disengaged and employs a fairly high level of vocabulary. (‘Opt’ is used instead of ‘choose’ for example.)

This article is therefore a good example of the amorality and ambiguity of media (as described by Silverstone). It also demonstrates how media may use this amorality to preserve a community (i.e. Canadians) that may risk falling apart because of its responsibilities for the Other (i.e. prospective immigrants).

From the Globe and Mail, March 14, 2008

Kiss rock and performance

An interesting object of study of Silverstonean performance is the band Kiss. The rock band was formed in 1973 and became quickly known for their easily-identifiable image during concerts. All four members of the band painted their faces with black and white paint and wore gothic costumes with leather and metal. Their concerts commonly involved fire-breathing, blood spitting, smoking guitars and pyrotechnics. The band consistently maintained this image for ten years (when they were most famous) to the extent that it was impossible to see a picture of them without face paint. Once their popularity diminished, it was decided by the band that it was time to appear without painted face masks. Kiss first appeared with unpainted faces on MTV in 1983 and have since regained some of their popularity. Silverstone emphasized that performance must be something that a person maintains on a consistent basis, so that the image becomes the individual. Kiss wear their unique costumes to concerts to this day, and are currently on tour.

During the times when Kiss was at peak of popularity, a community of fans was formed called the “Kiss Army”. Some fans would go as far as paint their own faces like their favorite performers. Others would limit their participation to listening to Kiss music and buying their merchandise. Hence the band Kiss has formed a community based on collective performance and collective consumption. For example, Kiss’s homepage features a picture of a four-year-old boy with his face painted as a member of the band.

Whether in the end the band’s behavior may be classified as performance or play would depend on how seriously they think of their masks and demeanor. On the kiss homepage, some members are shown screaming and showing their tongues even when not wearing facemasks (like the video of Gene Simmons performing for CNN).

http://www.kissonline.com/

http://mr.kissonline.com/flash/player/

We need a new alternative to indie

In this article, Jian Gomeshi argues that it is time to retire the term “indie” from common discourse. Gomeshi states that the term has been recycled to the point where it completely lost its original meaning. The term was coined in the 1990’s and intended to distinguish alternative music from pop music. “Indie” music was defined as music produced by small, independent producers and known only to a small group of dedicated fans. Over the years, the term has been popularized and the bands that are now called “indie” no longer correspond to the original criteria. Gomeshi gives several examples of modern “indie” bands that are distributed by gigantic corporations and are well known everywhere. Furthermore, Gomeshi states that “alternative”, a term used in music industry with similar meaning, was similarly corrupted in the 1990. Furthermore, both “indie” and “alternative” have been expanded by consumer society to apply to other commodities such as clothes and corporate “attitude”.

Several organizations giving out music awards have created a separate category for “indie” performers. Yet again, such popular performers as Leslie Feist and Tom Cochrane have been awarded in this category. Neither of the two performers would correspond to the original criteria for the term. Gomeshi concludes by proposing that we as consumers stop using the term due to the fact that it is now obsolete. He argues that the meaning of “indie” was not changed as much as widened so much that it is no longer clear what is implied when something is called “indie”. The term became a part of common discourse when it was created by the consumers. Consequently, it was drawn upon by the media and continuously recycled, with its meaning gradually changing with every “cycle”. Gomeshi demonstrates a clear will for consumer agency by attempting to impact the content of common discourse, and inviting us to do the same.

National Post, March 17, 2008

“How oil keeps women oppressed and isolated.”

This article by Antonia Zerbisias is actually a review of a paper by Michael Ross, entitled “Oil, Islam and Women,” that was published in The American Political Science Review. The paper itself argues that an oil rich economy is at the root of the oppression of women in countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates. It’s not Islam that oppresses women, Ross argues, but the way the presence of oil increases foreign dollar imports and therefore curtails mainland production. (Women don’t have skilled jobs because most of the skilled labour positions available in those countries have to do with heavy machinery. Also, because oil increases the amount of trade with foreign economies, there is less of a need to develop a skilled labour force in other industries, like textiles, which are historically known to employ women. So, in short, women don’t have skilled jobs because the oil industry makes those jobs unnecessary – or allows for a climate in which those jobs can be done without because of imports.) Of course, it follows that if women had more skilled jobs then they would rise up against their oppressors once they had come together as a skilled and educated proletariat. (Living at home, Ross argues, is an isolating and oppressive factor.) Ross (or Zerbisias, it isn’t clear) also compares their situation to the situation of white Anglo-Saxon women at the turn of the century. North American immigrants are also included in terms of their organisation through factory work – organization that came about because of their numbers, their close proximity in working conditions and their increased education.

We should pay attention to the fact that the author writes the article in such a way as to indicate some fervour that belongs to a community. The review hardly starts as a review at all: “Smash the patriarchy in the Middle East!” is clearly a call to arms for women who are sympathetic to feminism, and want to develop a global consciousness. In fact, to further support this idea that this is an article targeted at women, one should note that it is directly above an article about Fashion Week, and a picture of a trendy-looking girl. Then, at the end, there is the remark “[Ross’] work suggests one thing. Sisters shouldn’t drive SUV’s.” This last comment suggests that the modest action of refusing to drive a high energy consuming car is an act of moral righteousness and feminist solidarity. And what’s dangerous about it is the way it seems to let women off the hook. The reader can find this moral tack attractive, and s/he (more probably she) doesn’t have to analyse her actions further, as in take the subway more. (Although it should be noted that immediately following the opening call to arms Zerbisias writes: “Walk, ride your bike, take the TTC.”)

What’s most troubling about this article though, from the perspective of media awareness, is the way the author of the article is really very cursory in her analysis of Middle Eastern issues. Her article, which is snappy (as is demonstrated by the opening sentence) doesn’t delve particularly deeply into the issues. Is Michael Ross’ paper really a sound analysis of the reason for the poor state of women’s rights in those countries? Zerbisias barely even asks. In fact, she leaves her criticism at : “[The article] makes sense, although it lets ancient tribal customs off the hook.” In this way, the article manages to be both community orientated and somewhat a-moral, as it fails to show that this issue, which is important on a global scale, considering the number of women affected, is actually important enough to warrant further analysis.

-From the Globe and Mail – March 14, 2008

A Family Tree of Literary Fakers

This article, which was featured in the Arts section of the New York Times, chronicles the history of the United States’ most famous literary “fakers,” i.e. people who published work and called it autobiography, when it was really largely fiction. The article, which delves into seven individual cases, raises a series of issues that are significant in the context of the course.

One of the authors who was “unmasked” was totally unapologetic, and claimed that she had published her work as fiction (2). This fact raises the issue of trust. If Laura Albert was not a “literary faker” according to her, then why is she being presented in this fashion? It was true that she allowed a man to masquerade around claiming to be one of the book’s characters, but otherwise she did nothing wrong. She was a friend of an impersonator, not a literary faker.

Another issue raised in this article is the issue of community. The article is written in such a way that suggests that the concept of autobiography is very stable, and that the audience understands this. It is widely understood, however, at least in some circles, that a good amount of what is written in autobiographies is not necessarily perfectly recalled – sometimes, even recalled at all. This is because it is almost impossible to record whole conversations, exactly as they occurred, without the aid of a tape recorder, and a fast typing secretary.

What is interesting though, is the veneer of authenticity that is given to autobiographies, because they appear to capture some truth about a person’s experience. This happened to so-and-so, and it reflects on life, and it was written by so-and-so, therefore it is an autobiography. And yet, novels which are largely based on reality, but in which there are some minor alterations made, for whatever reason, are not classified in the same way. (There, the concept of “play” is different. The reader willfully suspends disbelief, even when not a lot of suspension is required.) Authors are often aware of the way classification affects their book sales and so may be tempted to use this knowledge to their advantage, as is recorded in the seven cases listed in this article. It is important to note, however, that most of the cases in this article involved a great deal of departure from “the truth.”

From the New York Times, March 14 2008