News, Trust, and "Truthiness"

While reading my classmates’ blogs, most of which agreed that satirical news are equally as reliable as legitimate news, I noticed a strong faulty trend that even I fell for when writing last week’s post – there was a common misunderstanding of the definition of “reliability”.

A majority of the class agreed that they like satirical news reporting because it is humorous in how it emphasizes the corruption and sometimes plain bigotry of power holders in our society (corporate companies, politicians, governments, etc), which gives its audience entertainment and awareness at the same time. However, this does not necessarily identify the source as reliable; in fact, it may very well play the opposite role.

Karandeep Dhillon backs up my point by stating that “…[satirical news shows] raise points regarding current situations which the general audience watches and is interpolated to think in the same way. The use of satire can create biases in audiences…” (http://jattinc.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/80/). For the sake of the entertainment business, the humour these shows use has to be somewhat controversial for an audience to be attracted to it. However, controversial information can cause for a bias in opinion, especially for an impressionable audience.

This can cause a problem because, as Isaac Cowan puts it, “When you ask most teenagers or people in their early 20s, do they prefer their news presented in a truthful and funny way or truthful but boring and a slightly biased way? Arguably speaking, most would say the first option…” (http://isaacc56.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/is-the-fake-news-the-real-news-2/). Beneficially, these shows interest a younger audience, which gets that demographic more interested in international issues, and ultimately, more active in working towards a cause they believe in. However, because youth are so impressionable, feeding them information that so strongly supports one ideology can bias their overall opinion.

That being said, satirical news shows should not be completely eliminated from the public sphere – rather, just independent from legitimate news sources. While their purpose is debatable, they do serve a good cause, as Jenny Tran proves in her blog post: “Even though some people do not like satirical news reporting such as The Daily Show and The Rick Mercer Report, it starts debates. This makes people see other people’s point of views…” (http://jt11mb.blogspot.ca/2013/11/is-fake-news-real-news.html). With so much heated debate in our society between political parties and their supporters, it is important to look at a situation from both perspectives to be able to properly present a well-informed, unbiased opinion.

Satirical news shows benefit our society in many other ways. As I discussed in my last blog post, the hosts of these shows often live off of humourously criticizing politicians and/or corporate companies and their faults. However, what some people see as faults, others can see as a move in the right direction, meaning that these hosts are presenting their own biased opinion. The benefit is that it raises awareness to a large audience; by making the bold statements that they do, they put a situation in a new perspective for people to rethink where they stand on said issue. This does not play the full role of a news sources, though, which is why I cannot define satirical news as reliable, but rather as beneficial.

Is the Fake News the Real News?

Earlier this year, we discovered how powerful the media is on our lives as a result of how much information is available to us – sometimes, overwhelming amounts. There is a reason that our era is and will remain to be identified as the age of information; Wikileaks is an excellent example of this overwhelming amount of information. With the accessibility to all these different sorts of information and from different viewpoints, we can expect strong (which often means biased) opinions. For this reason, culture jamming is growing in popularity.

Satirical news reporting started as just a part of culture jamming, but has evolved to define and control it. Forms of media that mock every last detail of a politician’s life (the Colbert Report, Daily Show, The Onion, etc.) have become a large seller for the entertainment business; audiences form strong opinions on politicians and parties, therefore it is now comedy to poke fun at them. This demand has grown so much that now, shows other than just satirical news use this form of entertainment to attract audience – SNL sees more political mocks and Ellen DeGeneres features frequent commentaries.

Personally, I find more truth in satirical news reporting than in legitimate news. The objective of this media is to make money from this form of entertainment. However, they do so by crossing boundaries in how much they criticize companies, politicians and anyone with a large effect on our society’s customs and behaviour: “The objectives of culture jamming often include…using the media to criticise [sic] the media and dominant culture” (Culture Jamming and Counter Hegemony, pg 214). This is a type of campaign and awareness that I hugely advocate. Only by crossing such boundaries can people fully understand an opinion different from theirs and realize the measure of corruption in other media, which is advantageous to improving the quality of life in our society.

As defined in the text, this is media activism (pg 214). Since we have already acknowledged that the media has a huge effect on our society, we can conclude that media activism is popular, but more importantly, is effective: “In the 1970s, feminists…started to paint slogans and captions on images of women…Such political graffiti drew attention to the sexism in these images and in doing so changed patriarchy” (pg 214). Feminism, for example, is known to be the most advanced movement in political history, largely due to media activism. While it is an ongoing movement, women’s rights have seen drastic changes (positively) in the last century.

Conclusively, culture jamming in any form is advantageous to a society’s functioning. Although it is most popularly a form of entertainment, it is still significantly effective to changing world politics in general. Culture jamming identifies the corruption (and sometimes, just plain ridiculousness) in the logic of other media, which helps its large base of consumer audiences form better informed opinions on what controls their society. It positively affects the entertainment business and it successfully targets exploited marketing, which ultimately makes it a useful part of our society.

Demonstrable Demographics

Through my classmate’s blogs, I found a variety of advertisements targeting my (or safely, our) demographic – our age. The majority agreed that these advertisements generalized a certain population under a stereotype. At the same time, they agreed that the generalizations are most often not true or applicable, but perhaps inflated forms of what is truthful about the demographic.

In her post, Kendra Samis discussed how Coca Cola produced an ad targeting women, especially adolescent girls. The ad is meant to show that their product was now available with a lower calorie count, since (stereotypically) women are always concerned about their weight and teenage girls are always trying to get in a better (usually slimmer) shape: “Due to the simplistic message of the ad it can be believed by many…that if you consume Diet Coke you will start to see changes in your body and wieghtloss [sic]” (http://kendrasamis.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/what-the-hail/).

This advertisement was created specifically targeting my demographic – women. Women suffer largely from constant criticism from companies telling women how to look better. As a result, self-esteem levels hit rock bottom, especially at my age. Although I’m no physician, I do know that Coca Cola products are not produced for health benefits. In their ad, they depicted an idea that since their product is now healthiER, it is healthy in general, but this is untrue. They successfully, however, chose a demographic that this would attract – people constantly worried about their physical appearance. Whether or not it represents the demographic correctly (I, for one, am not concerned with whether or not I drink Diet) is debatable and applies differently to all members of the demographic.

Ty Keca chose an advertisement by Dove that went viral. Dove has now popularized itself as an advocate of natural beauty. In their ad, they show what process a model undergoes before being presented to the general public in an attempt to shame large companies for creating such unrealistic expectations. “Dove has been using these techniques in their commercials to attract to the reality of beauty rather than this fake beauty portrayed in the picture…” (http://tykeca.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/what-the-hail/). As put by Ty, Dove is advocating natural beauty in this advertisement, and since they associate themselves with that cause, they are promoting themselves as a company. For me, I think Dove has successfully targeted my demographic better than Coca Cola – although they both target the same demographic, Dove exposes the corruption in other companies, which gives women a sense of empowerment. Rather than telling women how to look better, they teach them how to see the beauty in themselves, which is an accurate representation of what that audience needs.

I have never been a fan of Maybelline and Deanna Quait chose an ad that backs up my opinion. Maybelline produced an ad that connects a woman wearing their mascara to her success in completely irrelevant aspects of her life: “At the end of the commercial the woman beats the men at the [card] game and in turn gets to walk away with their clothes and leave them at the table to sit naked. The fact that she beat them in cards and got their clothes has nothing to do with mascara at all and gives girls the idea that if they wear this mascara, they can beat men at card games and get their clothing” (http://deannaquait.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/what-the-hail/). Here, Maybelline targets teenage girls obsessed with being attractive and the idea of being loved. They connect the use of their product to popularity among men. This hits two stereotypes in one – they are telling girls how to look better, and at the same time how looking better will make men attracted to them. Of course, this is completely inaccurate (I’m sure men look for more than just mascara on women), but it sells as a result of girls’ despair for those two things. Even if it wasn’t there to begin with, these ads help create a generalization of a certain group. When people want to fit in with what these companies depict as normal, they buy the product, which does normalize it, and eventually represents the demographic.

What the Hail?

One of the smartest ways that the media works is in advertising, and it does so in a sly manner. A now popular form of advertising is to target certain audiences by showing them what positive changes can be made to their lives with a certain product, even if the product is completely irrelevant to that aspect of life. This is how companies advertise themselves.

With the recent outrage on who the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch, Mike Jeffries, wants to target with his clothing, I decided to look into A&F advertisements. With no surprise, I found that almost all of their advertisements were of half naked teenagers. The ad in the following link (http://robertmoss.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/abercrombie-fitch1.jpg?w=640) is made to target adolescent boys and girls alike. For me, it implies that if I shopped at their store, I would be much more popular among attractive young men (and vice versa), although there is hardly any clothing being advertised. Although this marketing does not attract me, it is successful based on the impact of A&F, which to say the least, is huge. “When we think of our own subjectivities it is helpful to see both the autonomous power we have…and the determined quality of our identity or subjectivity” (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, pg 190).

For example, an image of an “average” teenage girl appears, followed by an image of mascara, and followed again by an image of that same girl with flawless skin, dressed attractively, and edited to perfection. Although the last image did not pay particular attention to the use of mascara, the advertisement was made in such a manner that it allowed the targeted audience (teenage girls) to make a connection between purchasing this product and resembling the flawless and perfect physical appearance. This is what A&F has done with that advertisement.

Jeffries recently said that he only wants to see the “attractive kids” wearing his clothes and that they are designed to fit a certain physique – the tall and attractive girls, and the athletic and muscular guys. While many people found this outrageous and consequentially boycotted A&F, another group found that if this is the image that A&F was targeting, they could improve their own image by wearing that clothing: “If we accept values…then we carry those ideologies as part of who we are. The idea here is that our identities (our concepts of who we are) are…constructed…” (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, pg 184).

Whether or not these advertising schemes successfully represent me is debatable based on my views of the media. This applies equally to everyone in my demographic. In general, I can conclude that they work based on the success of the advertiser. Abercrombie and Fitch, although controversial in its marketing, has successfully reached its target audience and, as a result, is a very successful clothing company. Instead of saying that they did not reach their entire target audience, I prefer to think that I (and anyone else it does not effectively reach)  am not part of their target because I have seen myself fall for this scheme with others. Ultimately, it is an effective marketing strategy.

Wanted: the media that we need

In my previous post, I discussed the confusion and deception of believing that our society receives the media it demands, when in reality it wants the media it receives by being taught what to want. In this case, however, there are no blurred lines between the two concepts: the media that we want and the media that we need differ significantly.

Linda talks about how “media is not a social force [but] its presence, capabilities and power have rendered it powerful in shaping not only society but our day to day lives.” (http://lt09mj.wordpress.com/). For me, the media that I need are political issues around the world because it will better my knowledge of things that control my life. However, this relates closely to the media that I want: I take a large interest in politics as a subject, therefore I want to be informed about it.

While sometimes the two may be the same depending on the individual’s taste, the media we want and the media we need benefit us in different ways. 

“The media must provide content that is interesting for the audience as people can choose to watch whatever they want. Nowadays there are thousands of media choices that we can make” (http://st12tq.wordpress.com/). Sarah proves that for different people, the benefits of the media apply differently. As I said, the media that I need to hear about is globally informative. However, this is also a media that I want, which backs up Linda’s point: it varies from individual to individual. My taste doesn’t stand solely in politics, but, for example, also largely in music.

Aside from politics, I like to keep up to date with what music and concert tours my favourite bands are planning on releasing because that is a form of entertainment for me. This, I believe, is the definite line. Entertainment is not an essential part of living (specifically to the age of information), but essential to the way our modern society functions. “Media producers realise [sic] that every individual is different, so they continue to release new forms of the media that will relate to each individual” (http://britshannon.blogspot.ca/).

A want is a need based on interest rather than on survival and knowledge. As Brittany puts it, people differ in their tastes, which is why it is hard to identify whether the media we all want is the same as the media all need. For example, some audiences want to hear about what songs are currently the most popular, while others need to hear about the same issue because it may benefit them for work or business related affairs. Often enough, the media that we want and the media that we need are the same for individuals based on their interests. However, ultimately, the media we want and the media we need differ in definition and in benefit to our society.

1F25 Post 2: The Media We Want?

The information presented to consumer audiences does so in a cycle so that we want the media that we get, and in turn get the media that we want. However, as I have argued in the past, a lot of sources of media feed their audiences biased information. Therefore, the consumers are in touch with media that they think they want. In reality, they have been tricked into wanting the media that they receive.

This is most evident when presented with information about world politics. Political parties will often use to their advantage the media sources that support them to indirectly advertise themselves. The power of a political party mixed with the influence of the media on consumers is capable of controlling the way that audiences think:

…media practitioners often see themselves as political watchdogs, and in this respect are referred to as the ‘fourth estate’…The media, as the fourth estate, are a body who can comment on, criticise [sic], and investigate, through free speech, what these other institutions do… (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, Fears about political use of the media, 16).  

By presenting information that either supports or opposes the political party, the source deceives its audience into thinking that they are receiving the media that they want; people want to know which political party is up to good or bad and why or why not to support it. However, that source of media is presenting its own biased opinion and, by doing so, teaching its audience what to want to hear. As a result, the audience, under the impression that it is receiving the media it wants, actually wants the media it receives.

Our society has had a large shift in what is considered entertainment now in comparison to as little as twenty years ago.  The “Hangover humour” movies (as I like to refer to them) such as the series itself, 21 Jump Street, and This Is The End, would have been considered outrageous at the end of the 20^th century and would only target a certain mature audience. Today, they are much more casual. It is debatable whether the reason for that is because consumers want more of this entertainment or are influenced by it and as a result, demand it: “It has been suggested that the cumulative effect of consuming media that contains violent and/or sexualized content might be particularly harmful to young viewers, due in part to the tendency of young people to learn by mimesis…” (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, Fears about the media’s influence on morals and health, 17).  

Here is a cycle where the media outputs entertainment that has a negative effect on impressionable youth. This causes a change in attitude, which causes a change in view. Now these youth want more of that entertainment. A growth in demand causes a growth in production, and the cycle begins again. Although the audiences are receiving the media that they want, the media has again trained them into wanting a certain type of it. Thus, ultimately, the audience wants the type of media that it receives.

1F25 Response 1: Media Impact on Others

After reading through several other blogs, my sentiment on if and/or how the media has had an impact on my worldview hasn’t changed but expanded. Every student whose post I read agreed with what I had to say: the media has a huge effect (if not the largest) on our worldview as a society, and the majority agreed that it was a negative effect.

I was convinced that media sources split into two categories: completely corrupt (the negative) and completely wholesome (the positive). However, after reading what Kelly Gorman had to say, I learned that we are not solely affected negatively by corrupt or biased information, but also by our constant obsession with the lives of others. Kelly discussed how Miley Cyrus’ “We Can’t Stop” and “Wrecking Ball” videos had millions of views within a matter of hours at the same time that the U.S.A was planning a strike on Syria – a matter that she isn’t very well informed about. However, Kelly mentions that it’s easier to hear about Miley Cyrus than it is to hear about the uprising in Syria because “the media would rather shove information about celebrities wrong-doings down our throats then [sic] a civil war.” (http://cpcfkells.blogspot.ca/). More people were concerned with the details of a single celebrity’s heartbreak than with the vicious politics of the world surrounding them and directly affecting them. This is a negative effect on our society by the media, but it is not a result of corruption – it is the result of consumerism and obsession.

In my post, I mentioned that a lot of audiences and consumers have become so brainwashed by the media that they accept any information fed to them. Danielle Schwartz pointed out that referencing a Facebook status or Twitter post now has a socially accepted validity to it and can be used as a “legitimate source” (http://danielle111blog.wordpress.com/).  Although I was referring to sources of information (ie news stations, magazines, etc), after reading Danielle’s post, I realized that it’s possible to be equally as consumed by social networks and observe the same effect. This is especially true with Facebook and Twitter’s initiative to “verify” accounts of celebrities, news stations, and so on.

I frequently came across blogs that discussed the effect that the media has on women. Again, the media has mostly had a negative effect on females. While I discussed the inequality women experience as a result of the objectification of the female body, Haley Bourqu talked about the pressure young girls experience by media to look a certain way. Haley pointed out that most of the women seen in the media are set out to portray a perfect image, which makes the girls that idolize them feel as if they have to resemble that image (http://hb123na.wordpress.com/). Obviously, we know that the use of Photoshop in the media is not uncommon, so the image these girls want to resemble is nearly impossible. Impossible expectations lead to disappointing results. This only reinforces the point I was trying to make about the treatment of women in our society – which, to say the least, is poor.