Halfdan

**Halfdan**
Interesting points:
 * Media bias interesting. Especially how hard it is to actually understand the theoretical bias behind news. All the factors to consider when determining in what way news are bias - because they are.
 * The 'for and against'-list. The interesting thing is that they're all true in some way. It is all about compromise.
 * The sociological and cultural aspects. How the media affects society and the cultural understanding people in between.

Questions:


 * Will we get more theory concerning the analysis of media bias?

Hannah:

I agree with you on all the points you found interesting, but especially the first. There are so many ways in which news reporting can be biased, and often the bias isn't even intended to be malicious! I think as an individual we have been shaped by the society's in which we live and thus have a sort of built-in bias of our own which affects how we perceive the news? This means that no matter if we are presented the whole truth, or if we experience it first hand, we will inevitably apply our own biased way of thinking to the message we receive! That said, it is only my opinion!! Alaa: Hey Halfdan, I think your question is directed to Linda and the IB course and I hope that we do. I really liked the for and against list, but I am more with the against because sometimes compromising can be ineffective because you always have a dominant factor/ predominant. Perhaps we should try to look at the culture thing positively, for a person who have never visited America I can pretty much picture what America looks like though they don't help further than that we all know what India spices shop would look like even though we have never went to India so it plays both positive and negative on that aspect as well :)

Salma: I found all the points you found interesting captivating as well. I would just like to say that I agree with you regarding the 'For and Against' list.It is all about the proportions we have. Just like no exercise is detrimental to our health, so is 'over-going' to the gym. Watching too much of something foreign may influence you to drop your own culture. Watching too little results in ignorance. However,watching ENOUGH creates cultural awareness and appreciation.Which brings us to the question, how do we know how much 'ENOUGH' is?

Maxim:

I think your bullet-points were good and clear. The message media transmits to us is always biased. This is why I think that "who benefits?" should be our first thought when we are in contact with media. Almost every message/news/program/media piece has its own purpose. It is easy to notice when we are persuaded to buy something, but it is much harder to notice when we are influenced on other issues, mainly on political and things related to our moral values. I found "for and against"-list too simplifying and narrow, because all "for" options were negated by the "against"-list - but that is just my point of view.

The documentary //No Logo: Brands, Globalization & Resistance// is based on the book //No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies// by Canadian author and journalist. Both book and documentary are divided into four parts: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs and No Logo. The documentary is obviously trying to create awareness around the multinational corporations and their objectives. It gives a very simple and easily relatable explanation to the creation of brands. Ultimately, the documentary wants the audience to take part in an anti-brands resistance. The most notable and critical part of the documentary is about Nike sweatshops; the factories in which Nike produces their wide range of sport-related products. Klein accuses Nike for exploiting workers. By moving its production outside of the US, Nike avoids many regulations that protect workers. Thereby it is possible to give them a much lower pay and restrict them from forming unions that could possibly better the working conditions, but also raise the production cost. The documentary supports fair trade as an alternative to free trade. The audience is primarily consumers. The documentary tries to be very informational and educational. It is ideal for students like us, because we are at an age, where we are very vulnerable to this kind of critical media – just as we are vulnerable to the corporations’ branding. The perspective of the documentary is mainly American as the examples chosen are American. This did not happen by chance though. The reason is that the creation of the corporations and the initial idea of branding derive from America, and the corporations are very much an essential part of American economy. They create jobs and therefor provide capital for the consumers to spend on their products. But as Jobs are moving to the third world, jobs are lost in America. Therefore temporary jobs are created Klein has selected companies that are first or most extreme in the use of branding. Making the book into a documentary is also a great way of racing a wider audience. Branding has become an almost “natural part” of marketing. It is not just about putting a product on the market. It has become a much more complex affair. It is a huge industry with enormous amounts of resources involved, and it grows as the corporations become more powerful. The division of power in society is changing and becoming less transparent. The language seems somewhat sarcastic, and implies that the way corporations and the people behind them think is quite banal. The pictures of “exploited” workers talk to empathy of the audience. When talking of how jobs are disappearing //No Logo// talks to the patriotic side of many Americans - What the documentary does very well is that it gives the audience an opportunity to make a difference. It informs of the many groups that fight the corporations and what they supposedly stand for. This way, the documentary, leaves the audience with a sense of optimism and willingness to make a change. I also watched //The Corporation//, which didn’t leave the same feeling.

__**Comment on the discussion concerning religious discrimination:**__

It was definitely an interesting discussion, although I didn't think it would last the entire class. It seemed a little unstructured and thus I didn't get all points made. But what was clear, was how media definitely contributes greatly with establishing prejudice based on ignorance. Ignorance was obviously the main reason for the Orange County protest. Also, we people have an incredible ability to generalize - to put everything into "boxes" with similar characteristics - as if we need to do this in an attempt to actually comprehend the enormous diversity we are surrounded by. This means that we have always have a preconception. It is so hard to know everything about every religion and every group of people, but we know a little, which is often not enough.

To me, religions seems on some points to have been good and necessary, and on other points to be bad and reason for endless disputes. It has contributed to the creation of various sets of moral ideals, which are now the very foundation of our society, and I could not imagine the world without. If religion is interpreted and implemented into lives with reason, I think it can be an excellent stabilizing force in society.

Halfdan, it is true that religion has been an important factor in the development of humanity. In fact, some neuroscientists believe that there is an specific part of our brain that handles religious views, and that it might be a product of natural selection. Ignorance, indeed, was the main problem in this protest though. We need a better way to learn about others, we need a better way for people to understand and communicate between each other. I think there is a great power in communication, and the Internet is helping it's development. We can already see the improvements this tool has given to us, and I think it can also be used as a benefit to join people together and understand each other.