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

“Obama dashes ‘dream ticket’”

This article reports on Mr. Obama’s recent comments regarding the possibility that he would be a good running-mate for Hilary Clinton , were she to win the race to be the representative member for the Democratic Party. Mr. Obama is reported to have turned down this offer, with his fair share of humor. Considering his leading position in the Democratic race, he said he saw Hilary Clinton’s proposition as premature (1) and illogical (1). The illogical quality stems from the fact that one of Hilary Clinton’s main attacks against Obama throughout the campaigning period has been his alleged lack of readiness for the role of President (sic.). Thus, by his logic, if he’s not ready to become President, then why would she offer him a position that could put him in the role of President in a split-second?

This article also informs us about the ongoing media speculation, particularly over the past few days, that a Clinton-president, Obama-vice-president ticket would be both a possible and desirable combination. (That it would be desirable has been summed up quite nicely by the words “dream ticket.”) According to the article, this speculation has been occurring all over the news. The New York tabloids are but one cited example (1).

This article clearly raises the issue of trust. How should we respond to the articles in newspapers on this subject that continually raise the possibility of this “dream team” outcome, when Hilary Clinton is currently losing the Democratic race? Is it possible that these constant mentions stem from a deliberate attempt on the part of the media, subtly to influence the readers’ opinions, when they should simply be reporting results? Even this article in particular, which seems neutral at first, likens Obama to Al Gore, who lost the presidential nomination when he was running against Bill Clinton (2). At that time Al Gore said that he would not be a candidate for vice-president, and yet that was exactly what he became.

- from The Globe and Mail, March 14, 2008

Technology: a matter of trust

This CBC article addresses an interesting aspect of trust and media. It argues that people’s opinion of the reliability of a medium depends on the reliability of technology this medium is connected to. In order to provide the audience with useful information, the media is in the constant process of collecting information on audience response (thus participating in the cycle of discourse). The makers of the media are interested to know what movies we like, how often we watch television, whether or not we mute our radios when a commercial is on etc. However, the audience is at times reluctant to provide this information to the interested parties. The people want to understand who has access to information about them, who can buy it and what they can use it for. Because of this, complex security systems have been developed to safeguard banks of information about the viewers, listeners and users of media. These systems are used to assure the audience that their information is safe and secure.

Technology can thus influence trust, and trust can in turn influence customer preference. For example, if I as a user hear that my personal information is being used and sold by Facebook I will immediately cancel my profile and transfer to MySpace, an internet social space which provides similar services but promises greater security. In his account of trust, Silverstone concentrated on the trust we must feel for the media when it provides us with a message. This trust is based on the content of the message itself. However, the trust we feel when we are the ones who discloses information is different: we must trust the recipient for different reasons.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/privacy/measures.html

Sound Bite That Has Some Teeth

This article presents an example of how modern media technology may present new opportunities for opinion leadership to people that have never had it before. Derrick Ashong, a 32-year-old musician, was one of millions of people expressing their support for Barack Obama in the upcoming US elections. Ashong was not a celebrity, and therefore his opinion about politics would not ordinarily count (or have impact on society) any more than any other person on the street.
As the New York Times article states, the camera man interviewing Ashong expected an ordinary reply of a person charmed by Obama’s personality and completely ignorant to the candidate’s actual political objectives. Instead, the interviewer received a six-minute answer about the specific political commitments that Ashong favoured.
The resulting recorded interview was published on YouTube, receiving more than 850,000 views. Seeing how popular he has become, Derick Ashong posted another opinion piece on the same website, which was again viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. The fact that his second video was nearly as popular as the first is a testimony that Ashong has become an opinion leader who’s popularity went beyond the scope of a single video.
In the age when anyone can be an opinion leader, the power of an individual's agency may be as strong as ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/business/media/17carr.html?ref=technology

Long Night's Journey into Day

In his portrayal of the Other, Silverstone described relationships of great complexity between members of a community and those who do not belong with them. Ongoing developments in media technology and globalization have played a major role in changing the way the Other is perceived. An interesting example of such interactions is the ongoing socio-political transformation of South Africa.
During South Africa’s apartheid regime, the society was split into two distinct racial groups, most easily described as the “blacks” and the “whites”. The white minority ruled the country, while the native black population suffered under heavy oppression. During this time, the local media formed an abominable image of any black opposition, branding attempts of protest as terrorism. The documentary entitled “Long Night’s Journey into Day” covers the consequences of one such attempted protest, and the role of mass media in fuelling the conflict between local racial groups. An undercover policeman was planted in a group of anxious black youths living in the town of Guguletu. The youths disliked the government, but were unwilling to act. The policeman worked to push the young men towards action. Once the group decided to raid the local police headquarters, they were ambushed by the police and slaughtered in front of a school bus. Weapons were planted on the dead bodies to justify the police counterattack. The resulting media coverage called the group “terrorists” and portrayed the incident as an example of order and justice being restored by police in a troubled town (“Long Night’s Journey into Day”).
The above example illustrates how mass media can isolate the Other despite its proximity. In South Africa, white people and black people lived right next to each other. Yet with the help of mass media and public images, the two communities were separated and lost care and responsibility for each other (as described by Silverstone). The power and importance of mass media is further illustrated in the documentary when another attempt at restoring justice went awry. Robert McBride was targeted by mass media after killing three white women in an arson attempt to destroy a popular hangout of racist police. Instead of drawing attention to the injustices happening in the country, McBride’s actions were explained by mass media as violent unjustified attacks against the white population, making the oppressor-race scared and angry. During the trials that followed, a victim’s sister showed complete ignorance towards the political state of her country. She said that she was not aware that people were oppressed in her country. At the same time, her response to the arsonist’s apologies was that of pure anger.
In a state such as this, the media is truly amoral (as argued by Silverstone). It is used only as a tool to control the people and promote a certain selection of ideals. In the aftermath of the end of apartheid, this tool may be seen as taking on wholly different roles. Although several cases from the documentary “Long Night’s Journey into Day” were referred to above, it was not mentioned that the film itself is dedicated to describing four cases reviewed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (or TRC) was founded for the purpose of encouraging reconciliation between the former oppressors and the formerly-oppressed. The commission operates by recording public testimonies of people who violated human rights during apartheid. All testimonies are recorded on camera, and some are aired on radio and television. For example, the public confessions of Amy Biehl’s killers were aired on the radio twice in a single day (“Long Night’s Journey into Day”). The TRC is known for advocating restorative, rather than retributive, justice. This means that instead of punishing criminals, the commission requires them to sincerely describe their crimes in great detail. If the TRC finds a wrongdoer’s confession sincere, they are granted amnesty and are not punished for what they have done, no matter how horrific the act. A key justification for such an unusual system of justice is the possibility of bringing truth about the country’s past into the light (as described by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in the documentary). Hence while still being amoral, the media is now used to inform (rather than misinform) the people about what really happened.
It is therefore clear that in the present political situation in South Africa, reconciliation between people through public truth-telling is favoured over a conventional corrective system of justice. Reconciliation may be seen as partial elimination of the presence of the Other in South African society. By identifying with each other’s grief, people may restore feelings of mutual care and responsibility. Both sides have suffered during apartheid, and by sharing this experience they may come to maintain relative peace. As mass media was once the tool of separation and promotion of the concept of the Other, it now serves to inform the people, ensure reconciliation and diminish the significance of racial “otherness”.

Documentary homepage: http://www.irisfilms.org/longnight/index.htm

Journal Entry 1

Article: Cheers! Legal for Oscar

This Toronto Star article describes the opinions expressed by a young actress, Ellen Page, about the impact of her movie on the audience. Page starred as a protagonist in the movie Juno which is now nominated for four Oscars. The movie illustrates the story of a teenager girl (Page) who gets pregnant but decides not to have an abortion. The actress believes that her character may have a positive influence on the attitudes of young women and the choices they make, and may be seen as a role model by some (p. 2). However, Page also expresses concern about how the movie has been interpreted by some members of the audience. "What I get most frustrated at is when people call it a pro-life movie, which is just absurd," Page said in an interview with the Toronto Star (p. 1). The questions of the uses for abortion are a part of common discourse, and Juno was inevitably connected with these issues when it presented the life of a young woman grappling with pregnancy. As a result, the movie was interpreted by the audience as supporting the ban of abortion. "That's just not true." Page continues "To me, it's not a political film. I never thought about that when we were making it" (p.1). This movie is therefore a clear example of a message sent through the media, and interpreted by the audience differently from what was intended. As a result of the audience's unexpected interpretation, very popular movies like Juno and Knocked Up might contribute something to the common discourse without their directors' consent. The new wave of comedies about pregnancy might soften the judgment and scorn people felt for teens that have been "knocked up".

Source: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/Movies/article/298588