Alaa

Alaa What is media? I really loved the part with the comparison of for and against media, I found myself nodding to most of the against and going angry at the supposedly 'benefits" of media. I am not denying that it has its benefits but its disadvantage weight more. So in this case we can give up the benefits to avoid the disadvantage (when I write this what I have in mind is television and not all media). I also came to the conculusion that there is no controlling media just as there is no defining media. It has become so large and out of control that we have no choice but to just let it be. I was also very interested on how they related media to economics and their interrelationship, maybe its because I am an economic person or just the fact that economics play a huge role in a lot of things. I think the text was an easy read and quite interesting, to the point yet informative. It somehow focused on factors that helped media grow, but I just didn't get it all.I believe the exercise commentary are worth the while to do it in class because they will bring about the cultural difference along with opposite views. I was really happy with the differentiation between actual and potential use of media because this is where the argument of for and against media is vulnerable. I also think the term 'love-hate' relationship is really precise. Another thing is the idea of media control, its really interesting and my opinion would be that government control could expend to a great extend if it has the means so I guess we are all relieved it doesn't have the means yet. In addition to all that I found myself worried about the part where they give examples about how media can control the kind of news that reach you. How they report little or not at all "//not reporting rather than mis-reporting"//. Furthermore, I liked the part where there was a clear table of question, name of media and type of media research. Sometimes, "simplification and sensationalisation" are important to the general public who don't have the time to catch up on all the details and still have a full-detailed version available to those who need it. Indeed to study media we have to look at the social and aesthetic aspect.

Questions: I don't get what 'agenda setting' and 'gate keepers'? how do mass media gain their popularity?? Does media take away the right to mental property, personal freedom and privacy? If we consider the internet a medium, then who is the sender and who is the receiver? Which part of the process is considered media? lines blurring

You express that the media have more disadvantages that advantages. I have to disagree with you. I feel the advantages of the media are way more important than the disadvantages. To refer to the text: the media is one of the main sources of people’s knowledge. Thanks to the media our knowledge has increased to a status that would have been impossible without the media. Also: the media gives everyone a voice. Especially with the invention of the internet all minorities has the change to express themselves – we can even do it anonymous! This is something I value and I think it weight much more than the drawbacks mentioned in the text. Lærke Point Granted, but I think what comes to my mind when I think of media is television especially because it involves a lot of ads and hidden messages. I totally agree that a lot of our knowledge comes from media, but how can you verify that the info. is correct and trustworthy and what about hackers and impersonations. We have created a great web, but forgot to create a method of protection. Sophia:
 * Commentary to Alaa:**

I think that yes, knowledge is one of the key advantages of media. The media is the main reason we don't live under a shell anymore. One interesting thing I want to mention is on Laerke's point on the media gives everyone a voice. This is beneficial when we're talking about oppressed minorities or people who need their voice to be heard. However, I also see the danger in this. The media gives EVERYONE a voice. It doesn't matter whether you are saying something inspirational or demoralizing, you can say anything. In many cases, we have seen problems arise from this freedom of speech. One micro example is cyber bullying. Because of anonymity, many people say mean things to a targeted person online and they can spread lies and malice anonymously (they could even be the same person pretending to be many) and this virtual reality has caused some kids to have mental breakdowns, committed suicide etc. Just saying that there is always two sides to everything. True, thank you sophie

I went to visit the CNN headquarters in Atlanta, USA this summer and took a tour around the building with my family. When we were going past the "information room" (i think that is what it is called, I don't remember the name exactly) the tour guide told us that about 1000 news pieces from around the world are sent to the information room every single day, then sent to "controllers"(once again I just made up a name for them because I cannot remember) who choose which stories get picked to be broadcast, one thing that she said was "Now you know how little is reported in the news."

( I just wanted to share that)

Another thing I want to comment on what you said is where you mentioned that there are "two sides to every story". You said that people could say demoralizing things through the media, but once again "one persons freedom fighter is another person's terrorist" - it may be upsetting to you but it could be inspiring for another group of people. If one group can have a voice then why not another group. Of course I am not encouraging people to spread the message of murder and hate to the world. I just wanted to put this out there. -Mia

Salma: I would love to tackle your question on 'how do mass media gain their popularity??' In my opinion, the people behind the media have studied their audience in terms of what they like and what they don't. As a result the media serves us what we like to see. That is how, I believe, they gain their popularity. The grave disadvantage of this is that the media may not present what is accurate/helpful just so that they please their consumers. I would like to give an example of my father who is a Human Resources Practitioner. He prepared an article titled 'Embracing your Supervisor' which was to appear in a national daily back home in Kenya. However, in its place on the day it was to appear was a piece regarding a celebrity break-up. The Newspaper's core-business is making profit and if you ask me, more readers would like to read gossip rather than a piece concerning employment. Of course factors like word of mouth, advertisements and peer pressure play a big part in spreading the opinion regarding what is good to watch. I hope this has helped:)


 * Linda **

//**I've really enjoyed reading through these posts and hearing different views about the advantages and disadvantages of media. De Bono has suggested that we should also look at what's**// __**interesting**__ **in cases where we are considering this (i.e. not get locked into binary thinking about good/bad). So perhaps we could move the discussion forward that way. Usually there are not just two sides to a story, but that expression tends to lock us into that way of thinking...**

**I like the way you have built upon each others' points--how you agree, partially agree, disagree. This kind of point and counterpoint will be helpful to you in ToK and your other subjects.**

**I'd just like to make the point that media are extremely varied-- as are audiences. It is not some big 'Thing' out there pouring propoganda/ideas into our heads, though of course, there are producers who do try. And we are not 'unthinking jugs' that take in everything that we hear/see/read. This is why the IB insists so strongly on 'critical thinking' and 'reflection'. As an educator, I think new technologies create a wonderful opportunity to counter some of the negative effects of media (eg the documentaries we have been watching that deconstruct some of the damaging marketing trends.**

Commentary On 'No Logo': Due to the fact that this is a personal reflection on the documentary the pronoun 'I' might be used frequently.To analyse this documentary we have to start with the style in which it was presented and to whom it was presented; who were/are the target audience of the d.? This video is for all age groups and social classes for all the people around the world, for the simple reason that we are all //victims// of media, nobody can lead a media/ads free life anymore. The d. was done in a very organized manner that helped the audience get the main concepts very easily, a style literary wise known as syllogism; a logical statement that usually give evidence and derive conclusions, sometimes in an if-then statement form. The documentary reaches for the audience by speaking their language, using examples out of their everyday life that everyone can relate to and connect with the concepts introduced. It was divided into three major topics though interrelated, introduced separately so the viewers can understand the origin of the issue and the consequence of each one individually. The main speaker is Naomi Klein a Canadian activist and journalist whose identity gave her credibility with the audience especially that her position was neutral to a great extend, she didn't attack multinational cooperation, but rather informed and educated the viewers about their own lives. The d. introduced and defined a new concept, the concept of branding not mere marketing a product with a constant logo or a face, but marketing a product with identity and certain lifestyles. This dominating market concept goes beyond the three media objectives of making money, influencing choices and capturing attention, it goes to the extent of making belief in other words selling theories and ideas not products. To be honest it is scary especially that the d. started with identifying this as a political movement and to me as a consumer of imported goods I can see the "complex relationship between identity, community, language, and powerful modes of production" (English: Course Companion). Now that I have watched this video I can see where the lines blur and its not only the loss of culture identities, it is the loss of places identities how there is no place where we can relate to each other as 'non-consumers'. Thus the library looks like the bookstore and the mall looks like the school and our living blocks look like shopping centers. The metaphors used in media nowadays are hidden metaphors because they are not metaphors in written text, but in imagery for example almost every ad has happy and attractive people why?? To imply that those who use this product are happy people. From this we conclude that with changing media, advertising become more dependent on images to convey messages subtly affecting consumers of media. Another thing was the use of parallel structure to state the three drawbacks of globalization "No space, no choice, no jobs" just the word //No// grabs our attention as to what are we forbidden to do. The moment we read or hear the word 'no' we are alert because it is usually related to something negative or bad. The documentary was presented in an informal style in which you can see the speaker unlike most documentaries where you see images and hear a non-diabetic sound speaking. This way the documentary gained the power of narration because it took the viewer gradually through the change of media and the sequence of events that lead to our modern world. An interesting method was the use of text color, a red NO and A white logo with a black background logo. All the texts were written in red to alert the audience, the color of love yet blood, which conveys the love-hate relationship of media. To me the producer of the documentary though criticizing media, used a lot of media weapons to promote this video like the sound effects played with different images, the use of real videos to associate it with our own lives, and use of language power to choose the slogan "Brands Globalization Resistance" that in itself is bias. By the end of the documentary the audience are urged to do something about the rising of globalization, "the globalization debate is not about being for or against, its about democracy ... and having a say in controlled public resources". We are asked to do something which might ultimately turn against us, so even this video holds a one side story that the viewer needs to analyze before taking any action. NO LOGO

Diplomatic, this is what I promised to be, and this is how I feel after my English class today. I feel that this discussion was very important to me and all my classmates. I never intended to discuss this article in class, but now that I did there is no regrets. This article is a very good model to apply the last reading about journalism, so I will give it a try. First this article meets the "newsworthy" conditions purposed by Bell in 1991 ** ; 1. it has just only happened 2. is bad or negative 3.fits the reader preconceptions or stereotypes about how the world is 4. consists of or can be supported by figures **. Elaborating on this, 1. this event took place 3 days ago and the article was published the next day from the event 2. it carries bad news because it is talking about the clash between the army and the people which resulted in 25 victims 3. It fits the international view that Coptic(s) (Egyptian Christians) are discriminated against because they are the minority in a Muslim country 4. If they interviewed any relative of the victim he/she will support this article thus having proof of their credibility. Now every news has an agenda analyzing this article the purpose was to highlight an issue, to criticize and to distract attention. Some of you might frown at the last purpose so let be expound on that. Egypt is rather unstable because the people in power(used to be in power) are fighting for their wealth and status, they are resisting to the very last breath the inevitable change initiated by 25th of January Revolution. Now here I am aware that I am speaking from a 'knower' position, so let my 'knower' position work to my advantage, this article reported true facts, but half truth for example "churches require presidential permission to be built" omitting the fact that so does mosques to be built. It stated that "Muslims are not allowed to convert to Christianity" but it failed to clarify that it is not the Egyptian government, its the Religion itself. Some say Coptic are endangered by the fact that they are Christians, yes, it maybe true and I am willing to concede such, but so are Muslims with beards imprisoned because they are Muslims in a Muslim country! What people need to consider when approaching this issue, is that its a country's policy, the government is afraid of any strong religious movement because its a corrupt government and any religious movement will easily overthrow it. It's all about politics and nothing to do with the religion in reality. Ask yourself how was the story told and why? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15242413 why was that picture published and not this picture? I also like the video Linda played so much because it showed how discrimination is a world-wide thing and how this doesn't cancel this, I just want to say I know how Christians feel, we know more than you are aware of because we are discriminated against as much as you are so lets unite to stop this, lets create a better chance of understanding between religions I loved what Linda said "meet the person and not the stereotype"

Wow I haven't realized we haven't written in so long... Welcome 2012

Date: 11/1/2012 //Media Bias, Wikipedia// Notes: Bias is the selection of what to cover and who to cover it, it is not only political, but there is sports bias and science bias accusations with some bases to it. But first the who what and why? By journalist and media producers Prejudice in selection of stories and how they are covered Inevitable, selectivity is bias Limitation that cause it can be: Censorship can reach anything from banned/burnt books to unpublished broadcast through various methods ex. George Orwell preface conservative-liberal balance Are Journalists a reflection of the public opinion or do they formulate public opinon? Is the practice of journalist to give personal opinion a wrong practice? should they give both opinions? "Degree of Centrism" who to ask for opinion (eco. policy)? the government officials? the labor representatives? the consumers? =//"Balanced is Not fair, Its avoiding real reporting" Ken Silverstein//= //Editors and reporters must share values with the corporate.// //Experimenter's bias// //12 Methods to quantify bias:// = //What to do?// = //Roundtable? opposing views comments on the issue// //disclosure of affiliations// //country law// //Gover. presence / monopoly of media// //ownership by a small group of people --> media bias// //Anti-science bias --> promotion of superstition// //pro-science vs. Business interest --> global warming// //media bias is a scapegoat for many political issues// //Language:// //"language in absence of translation"// //Translation provides room for bias// //dialect-// //Words with connotations rather than neutral meaning// //Anglophone dominance// //of media?!// //Main religion exert influence if not domaince//
 * 1) Coherent Narrative format
 * 2) government influence
 * 3) market forces:
 * ownership
 * intended audience
 * advertisers-funders
 * //+ve or -ve analysis//
 * //collection of quotations//
 * //journalist professional connections//
 * //policies recommended//
 * //use of exports//
 * //payment of journalist//
 * //government propaganda frequency//
 * //Advertising content vs. Info. content//
 * 1) //reporter = careful//
 * 2) //false balance-equal validity//
 * //taboo exists around viewpoint//
 * //inaccurate info.//
 * 1) //misleading balance//
 * 1) //bias towards accent language speakers//
 * 2) //limit/exclude language non-speakers//

//what they think the public wants//
//Bias is conflict of interest// //sports: famous athletic, established league team, respective country// //Alaa Abdelfattah//