Sophia

Sophia

I found it interesting that media developed mostly because of economic interests and for profit gain. I never thought of it from that point of view. I saw it more as the media was growing because of people's general interest in expanding information and trying to break barriers between nations. However, now I see that this could be true, but the backbone of it still includes economic benefits.

I really liked the for and against section (the advantages and disadvantages of media). It made me realize (and scarily too) that much of what I watch, read and listen from the television to YouTube and just articles from blogs and websites have played a part in influencing my way of thinking and my perspective towards different things. This section and the next section about media's influence on morals and culture is very useful because it's going to make me question myself more after consuming something from the media.

Another interesting bit is on page 13 regarding the fact that audience has a big say in what the media produces, because without demand, the media will fail. This made me question/realise that movies like SAW for instance is a great hit amongst teenagers and some adults and many other gory and violent media is still on the rise. And this sort of means that the audience could enjoy these movies and are being desensitized?

I do have a few questions,

Under the Frankfurt school, there's a line that mentions that the Nazi Germany defined the popular media in USA as 'consciousness industry' that helps to control the masses. What does it mean by 'consciousness industry' ?

On page 12, under political economy of the media, there are a few lines about how Australian and British industries show more films made in America compared to home-grown films. It mentions about ' the varying fortunes of these 'indigenous' industries can be charted in relation to government policies, tax incentives and investment'. What kind of government policies and tax incentives are they talking about here?

Alaa: Hey Sophie Okay I am not sure what they exactly mean by consciousness industry, but I think what they are trying to say is that after they saw the effect the media had on the Germans that they turned Nazis they decided that the media is a very dangerous tool that needs to be used on consciously/carefully and that USA used media to encourage people to join the army playing on their conscious to help their country. Second, when we are talking about gover. policies and tax incentives we are speaking economics so let me try to explain quickly, if we have a market economy like the US it is based on private ownership and fueled by profit incentive so people produce the highest quality possible with lost cost, but when you have a planned economy controlled by the gover. you have budget, offences, violence, portrayal of police/ ministry and so on and so forth restriction thus you find it more difficult to produce and even more you lose the incentive if the government is going to make you pay half your profits as taxes Sorry for getting into economy I hope it helps though :)

Minh's Response.

During Hitler’s rise and consolidation of power, the Nazi party made extensive use of propaganda – posters, radio broadcasts, and rallies – all of which made the citizens of Germany believe in the Nazi ideologies. The infamous example is the anti – Semitism in Germany, which was one of many ideologies that the population were indoctrinated to. It was not because the people were forced into believing these things out of fear, it was because this was the truth to them; it was even taught in schools to children.

I think that “consciousness industry” is the industry of media that manipulates the reader’s opinions on certain topics. Consciousness is similar to the word “conscious”, therefore it is associated with the mind. And the mind is where we think. The Nazis were very successful manipulating people, shown by the change of culture of Nazi Germany from the Weimar Republic. (Germany in 1919 – 1933.)

After the Second World War, people began to see the effects of media; they saw Nazi Germany as a warning sign on the potential power of media. Today, we can still see this “consciousness industry” still happening, most note-worthy is North Korea, which is constantly indoctrinating the population in believing in things that the government want them to believe – similar to Nazi Germany.

Please take note, that this information might be inaccurate and missing some important information that might give this response a biased viewpoint. It is not intentional of course. I only wish to convey knowledge.

Commentary on 'No Logo'

'No Logo' is an interesting documentary based on the book "No Logo- Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies" by Naomi Klein, a Canadian author deeply passionate about the issue on alter-globalisation. In order to understand the full extent of the documentary, a few important sections must first be analysed. The first important question to ask is what is the purpose of this documentary? Naomi Klein, being a social activitist and known by her excessive criticism on corporate globalisation probably wanted to convey an important message through this documentary. Her documentary was on the first level, to inform and to create awareness that there was something wrong with corporate branding and that we are actually facing a huge problem, and she does this especially under the section "No Jobs" which explains the tough implications that branding has caused to many parties, including third world workers being exploited and local citizens losing jobs. On a deeper level, like a lot of things on the media (whether an article, advertisement of reality television show) Naomi's hope was that in addition to the awareness gained, people would be //persuaded// and //influenced// to act on this awareness and lure this into something more concrete, like actually taking tangible action against parties that were causing these problems.

By this knowledge, the target audience of this documentary would be a range of people who could be interested in the ideas that she speaks of and people who could potentially be involved to make a change. In relation to this vast topic that she brings up which is on alter globalisation, the target audience is massive. We are talking about //economists// and their views on this particular issue (throughout the documentary, we can hear a lot of use of jargon about economics)//,multinational corporations// that are such a big part of the documentary, //students// studying media studies (like us for instance), //celebrities// whom play a huge role in branding, and of course, we are also talking about //consumers// as we/they are the force that creates a strong demand for these branded products.

The documentary sets out to achieve its purpose towards its audience by using many important features. It is important to note that this documentary is also a form of media and whilst Naomi Klein talks about how multinational corporations influence their consumers through various means such as the selling of lifestyles, this documentary itself uses the power of language to get its message across. The documentary has an emotive tone in certain stances. The whole section "No Jobs" appeals to our emotions and stirs up feelings of sympathy, concern and a desire to help. For example, there was use of real live images and videos of young women and children being exploited and abused at factories. There was also information on how MNCs were designing a work force which was easy to control by using young girls who were poor, away from their families, uneducated and easy to push around. Apart from that, throughout the documentary, there was effective use of sound and motion picture recording. The music in the background in the beginning was fast-paced, upbeat and accompanied by a fast slide show of photos of branded goods. This was a good way to grab the attention of the watcher and the fast flashing images of the different logos also created an effect whereby brands are everywhere around us, powerful and inescapable as we're all drowning in this fast-paced global predicament. The documentary was also split into four parts which were "No Choice", "No Space", "No Jobs" and "No Logo" which made it easier to follow through and compartmentalize. The register and style used in this documentary was rather informal, because Naomi was talking to the audience as if she was narrating a story to them. Also, there was effective us of relatable examples such as McDonalds, Nike and Apple which are logos that are so densely popular amongst people in the world today.

I think that the extent of the success of this documentary relies heavily on the context of people involved. Someone from say, a large MNC, like the CEO of Nike, will not fulfill the purpose of this documentary. Many multinational corporations are out there to to make a profit and business is their main priority. This is a motive which is terribly difficult to change especially because almost everything we live by today is based on money. The rich class of consumers who are already immersed in branded goods and have it set in mind that branded goods are 'right', 'popular' and of 'good quality' may not find it easy to come out of this web. On the other hand, families with lower income and families who know people who are being exploited as pawns of multinational corporations may feel passionate about this video and want to make a difference for themselves after understanding the problem they're facing. Hence in my opinion, I feel that as much as it can bring success in terms of awareness, I don't think it can bring drastic change because change always comes easier for people with power and control. And I feel like the people with control here are unfortunately, those big corporations who are already holding such a large part of the economy.

Comment on discussion on Orange County:

Discrimination I’ve learned is something that cannot be escaped from no matter where you are. Coming from Malaysia, which is a Muslim country (Islam is the official religion of the state) and having a vast majority of Muslim citizens, we still get discriminated against sometimes in our own country. Especially after the September 11th incident, many Muslims in my school were frowned upon and we became the butt of many jokes such as “Do you have a bomb in your basement?” and “The world is going to end in your hands”. Just sharing something funny with everyone here, which is that in my country, people usually think that I’m Chinese. Often times, they insult Muslims around me forgetting that I’m actually a Muslim. When I was younger, and less aware, I used to be slightly ashamed that I was a Muslim because I couldn’t explain it myself. Why were there so many news clips showing videos/images of Muslims bombing buildings with headlines such as “Muslim terrorists found…” and “Cries of ‘La Ilahaillallah’ were heard during bombings” and “Muslim suicide bombers”. As a young girl who wasn’t so equipped with knowledge of Islam, I, a Muslim myself, felt embarrassed. Could it be true what they are saying? I asked myself. This goes to show the effect of media on people who are ignorant and people who don’t know anything about Islam. I personally feel that language plays an important role in setting stereotypes in our minds whether we realize it or not. In Malaysia, there was a huge uproar about newspapers that used the term “Muslim terrorist”. Being a terrorist goes against every principle of Islam, suicide is also considered a great sin in Islam. People questioned how then the two terms “Muslim” and “terrorist” could be put next to each other? It was deemed to be an oxymoron, a paradox in itself. Hence, I feel that terms like “Christian terrorist” or “Buddhist terrorist” also should not be used as it sends a wrong message that doesn’t coincide with the religion as all religions teach good.

The discussion in class though made me realize that even Christians are discriminated a great deal, which was something I never really acknowledged before this. I enjoyed Martin’s remarks on how Christians were being discriminate against in Morocco, which was something I knew nothing about before this. Through the discussion, it’s obvious that the media is a powerful and manipulative tool. The media is able to pinpoint the weakness of human beings, which in this context is the impulsive instinct to judge and to be angry and to blame a certain party. The September 11 incident sparked anger and fear amongst many people. If the media had immediately decided to clamp this anger and fear, they maybe could have done so through positive remarks and explanations. However, like we’ve studied in the readings before this, what makes a piece of news newsworthy is evidence of negativity, tragedy and conflict. It seems to me that the media has identified our weakness as human beings and chosen to magnify it by showing biased news to parties already affected by certain incidents. It was then easy to identify the fear and anger within people, (such as the Orange County people) and spread propaganda through articles, magazines and brochures. Another thing interesting to note is that as human beings, it is easier to take sides and conform rather than have a sole and different opinion. I feel that the media has created this “herd mentality” by targeting specific groups with specific intentions and it is not something hard to believe. If I myself could feel embarrassed to admit that I was Muslim during that intense and devastating period, what more people who knew nothing about Islam other than what they’ve heard in their small and maybe judgmental circles?

It is thus important for us to be more critical in terms of what we read. We ought to remember that every piece of news is biased in the sense that something could be exaggerated or perhaps something was left out.

Dear Sophia,

I found what you wrote very interesting, especially when you mentioned how the media always put the word "Muslim" in front of terrorist when a Muslim committed a crime. I have never seen any newspaper headline with "Christian terrorist" or "Buddhist terrorist" - it's strange how the media all around the world ( especially the West) go out of their way to try to depict Muslims as dangerous people who you can expect to bomb your airplane at any moment. What about white guys who rape their daughters, or Chinese men who beat their wives?

You simply cannot categorize a certain group according to the actions of one single individual. I don't think religion should even be mentioned when someone is writing about an attacker or attack that happened - there is no religion in the world that aims to kill people. (DUHH) The murders,rapes,bombings, beatings and so on are individual acts that have nothing to do with the general public, enough with stereotypes!

Mia

Dear Mia, Yup, I completely agree. No religion should be associated with a crime!

Sophia.

Halfdan: Actually, Mia, it happened just this summer: Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist, was called a "Christian terrorist".