Salma

Salma

I found the entire piece very interesting. What I found most interesting though were the different takes on why the media is a good or bad thing. It is fascinating that different people view the media so differently i.e some think that the media unites people while others are of the opinion that the very same media destroys minority cultures.In my opinion, the reason for this is the fact that people from extremely different backgrounds are being fed with the same 'stuff'. A certain sitcom for instance may be considered by some to be entertaining but to another audience the show could be downright immoral.

What I learned was that I should be aware, almost suspicious of the media. That the U.S actions in East Timor(pg.12),1978, were almost genocidal yet there was zero coverage about the issue in American and Canadian Media. That gave me a lot to think about.

The concepts of agenda setting and gate-keeping were not as clear as I would have liked and any assistance will be appreciated.

Comments from Beanka It is interesting how the topic of the "nature" of media is so appealing to so many of us. I do agree on what you say about how people from extremely different backgrounds are being fed with the same information. Adding on that, I think what leads to this situation is the "generalization" of media since fewer media moguls are controlling more means of communication (e.g. one media mogul's company can own newspapers, TV channels, and other means at the same time, so people are being "fed" the same information over and over again). From my understanding of the text, gate-keeping means preventing people from obtaining certain information, while agenda setting depicts the facts that editors and producers choose the news that the official viewpoint thinks is important to show the general public, influencing our perceptions of what is important. I hope this helps your understanding.

Comment from Anna I found the point of connecting background's influence with appreciation of media very interesting, so that the people, who actually create the media, have not only to think about the political content, but also to predict the attitude of different types of audience on their creation.But mostly the different appreciation of media is conditioned by lifestyles/interests/etc.E.g. the members of the family may have different outlook on the same event, which may cause dispute, which,according to a saying ,give birth to truth. I guess everyone of us should not be aware of media, but to have enough brain not to consider it literally and after being fed with information to find time to think about what we've been fed with, though sometimes it may be not as easy at it seems to be.

Salma, I think we should not be overtly suspicious of the media. Instead, we should just "filter" the information that we receive through our ability to recall or comprehend the content of the news. -Michelle

**__Naomi Klein’s ‘No Logo’.__** I would like to start by saying that I found the documentary thoroughly eye-opening**.** It brought to my attention concerning corporate issues. ‘No Logo’, in my understanding was meant to alert the unsuspecting society of the ‘madness’ of corporate ambition that has become an integral part of its everyday life and therefore goes unnoticed. By ‘madness of corporate ambition’ I refer to the amount of advertising we face (that gives us ‘No Space’) and the heights that corporations are willing to go to so as to make that extra dollar (to be precise million dollars). The case presented in the documentary being poor worker’s conditions (hence ‘No Jobs’)

Klein, in my opinion, was targeting everyone with this. I say everyone because I believe any consumer would be interested in knowing what is presented in the documentary; the truth about what they take in. The documentary is suitable for people of different ages and backgrounds. The serious content would be attractive to adults. The music that accompanies each beginning of a segment would attract the younger audience. The brands given as examples are those that, if you ask me, that are popular with the youth: Disney, Nike, McDonalds. This would definitely have the younger generations watching.

Additionally Klein might have been targeting the producers. To me, the, documentary had a ‘We know what you are doing!!!!’ feel. Klein is sending a message to the consumers telling them the negatives of marketing and some brands attitudes towards their labour and that is sure to keep the producers on their toes. I say that the piece would be fit for all because there is something in it for everyone. So many brands are mentioned that I think almost everyone can identify with at least one of them. Brands like ‘Nike’ are used by so many millions of people globally in the world and that they are used in the documentary would attract many people to watch it.

Something else that makes the documentary very attractive is how well Klein uses the power of narrative. She sequentially produces the information. There is a follow-through in what is being given. How producers decide on what brand to have, then how they market that brand, then how the advertising gets a bit out of hand giving the consumers ‘No Space’ and so on.

There is allusion to brand-names that not all would be familiar with. However, one can quickly understand what is being referred to with the accompanying visuals. When mentioning Starbucks for instance, a coffee café was shown. That for me helps to make the documentary successful in that it is very easy understandable. I strongly believe that Naomi Klein’s efforts were very successful. Her 40 minute documentary changed how I look at things. I was awed by what she said about brands selling lifestyles and not the product. Production is now almost incidental. Producers now establish the brands and ideals they want to be known for then get a product which is tradition’s reverse.

**__My reflection on the Hypersexualization topic.__** Fading away are the days when girls in their pre-teens and early teens would ride their bicycles, skate, play sports and throw caution to the wind regarding whether they looked attractive or not. Such outdoor activities started to be replaced by television and the internet. The depiction of girls in the media forces the young viewers to believe that to be female means being pretty and attractive. Nowadays it is being put more bluntly out there that to be feminine is to ooze out sex appeal.

When I was 10 years old my mother would buy me clothes and I would never complain, not because I could not but because my mom would always pick out something cute. Which pre-teen does not want to look cute? . . . I can tell you that-the one that wants to look hot!!

Now I know that the topic of Hypersexualization is broad and covers so many other issues like the increasing amount of sexual content in music, film and even marketing. But I choose to dwell on the issue of Hypersexualization of children because I enjoyed my childhood just being a ‘kid’. I did not think about boys (at least not in that way) and I was very ok wearing my hair in cute ponytails.

I feel like yelling out to these kids, ‘Enjoy your childhood when it lasts!!!!!!You will miss getting away with being a playful innocent child who has no worries!!’What makes the whole preteens-wanting-to-be-sexy thing a grave issue is the actual sexual activity that comes with it. Our teenagers are eager to be among the first in their little groupings to have a boy/girlfriend then to kiss then eventually to have sex. And guess what? The media makes it look like the very right thing to do. Something radical has to happen to change the state of affairs. . . and fast.

PS: I come from a conservative society (as you all know by now J ). I am not only African but also Muslim. It was refreshing seeing other people, in this case the French women in the documentary and you, my classmates, talking about the issue of Hypersexualization. It was a ‘Phew!! I thought I was the only one being disturbed by that’ moment.

**__ My reflection on the discussion regarding religion. __**

Before setting foot into LPC I knew that many of my beliefs would be challenged and I would participate in very uncomfortable discussions. Well it finally happened, from a rather unexpected place though, my dear English class.(I am not complaining)

I picked up several things from the discussion that day. Perhaps the most important was how personal religions are to those who have them. A lot of passion was evident in the voices, words, tones and pitch of many of those who contributed to the discussion. At some point it seemed to me as if the Muslims, me included, were watching out for each other so were the Christians.

And why is it that way? Why is it that our first instinct was to defend what was our own? Firstly it is what I have already mentioned, the value of our religious beliefs to us. Secondly, at least in my case, is that my religion is under constant attack in the media so whenever Islam is mentioned I am alert because I expect that something false and nasty will be said about it.

I thought that what Linda kept on saying was very important. Just because either side does wrong the faults are not cancelled out. So in the next class if we happen to watch a video of Muslims hurling insults at Christians the last thing that will come to my mind is ‘Serves you right, you insulted us in Orange County!!!’ And that is what we have to get more of. Support for each other. That, my very dear classmates is already in existence. The media just does not show it. Then it would not be a story.

From the last piece of reading we had, one of the traits that contribute to a story’s news-worthiness, according to Allan Bell, is __negativity.__ Let us take a look at a summary of the BBC story that Alaa brought to our attention:

a) Some form of religious dispute arises in Egypt. The Copts are the ones who have been violated. Several Copts take to the street protesting the unfair treatment they have received.

b) Some form of religious dispute arises in Egypt. The Copts are the ones who have been violated. Several Copts and Muslims are protesting the unfair treatment the former have received.

a)Is what was reported while b) was what really happened. a) is much negative, it implies that there is a Christians vs. Muslims situation in Egypt. Wow, what a story!!

Such stories by the media fuel the unnecessary animosity between people from different faiths.

By making stories, the media manages to create beliefs and stereotypes as well. Again we see how powerful the media is.

I would like to finish off by saying:

PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, IRREGARDLESS OF YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, **UNITE!!**