1. Shawn J. Parry-Giles, in her essay Mediating Hillary Rodham Clinton, discusses the way in which the media controls the images and stories they produce in order to make their viewers see things in a certain way. She explains that the media is capable, through the manipulation of film footage and quote selection, of making its viewers think a certain way about someone or some event. She talks about the concept of decontexualization and recontextualization and discusses how easily the media, especially television news, can manipulate the stories they report on. She quotes Hart who says that, “Television asks us to forget that its pictures have been selected from among an infinite number of alternative images, alternative news frames, alternative camera angles, and alternative dramatis personae.” Continuing on with this idea, Parry-Giles states, “Certainly, for most of us, the way in which we ‘know’ Hillary Rodham Clinton is through mediated discourse.” I am sure by the end of each presidential race, for example, everyone feels as if they “know” the candidates; however can we really know a person when the only knowledge we have of them is given to us through the media? How can we truly decide who to elect into office if all the information we have of that person has been delivered to us through forms which can be manipulated? Can we really ever feel confident when voting anyone into office? If so how? If not, why not?
2. Throughout her essay, Parry-Giles juxtaposes the two images the media portrays of Hillary Rodman Clinton in order to exemplify their capabilities of information manipulation. The first image is that of Hillary as an adamant feminist. This portrayal insinuates that she is not to be messed with and perhaps even a bit scary. The second image is her as a loving mother and ever supporting wife despite scandal and adultery. Upon examining the second representation of Hillary, Parry-Giles examines ABC’s emphasis of “the presence of HCR’s ‘good-mother’ image.” She goes on to comment that, “Such a focus on motherhood though is not at all surprising; ‘the central icon of the caring person within western culture is the figure of the mother.’” Is this stereotype the result of media influence? Or do the media portray women this way because of this western stereotype? And how will this stereotype be eliminated from our society: will it be abolished with the continuation of strong women taking charge like Hillary or by simply not allowing the media to continue to use sexist jargon?
3. As we all know from our years in junior high and high school, stereotypes and labels are everywhere. And once a person is stereotyped it is almost impossible for them to escape from it. Very few people are able to reinvent themselves unless they move away from those who have type casted them and start over with a fresh group of people. This dilemma exists even more intensely for those who live in the public eye. Parry-Giles discusses the idea of repetition as a vital aspect of the image-making process. Continuing to use Hillary Clinton as her example, she explains, that the repetition of the images placed upon Hillary by the media, for example the intimidating feminist or the traditional mother, “are rearticulated over and over, reifying HRC’s image in the mediated public sphere.” My question is then, will it ever be possible for the majority of the public to see the “real” Hillary or whoever it may be? Is it even possible that the public will understand that what they are seeing of people like Hillary has been manipulated and skewed? Obviously people such as Parry-Giles who pay attention to this sort of thing will understand the fact that the images of those in the public eye are manufactured and inaccurate, however will the rest of society ever understand this? And if not, could this be harmful to society?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Answer to Week Nine Questions
When I began reading the chapters from Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman, I am not sure if I was so much as offended as I was skeptical. I have always realized our culture was preoccupied with entertainment but I thought his proposition that “we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death” was a bit dramatic, although based in truth. Right after forming this opinion, I read his statement that Las Vegas is our country’s metaphor for national character. I had never really stopped to think which city exemplified our nation’s current values and societal needs. At this time I literally stopped reading and racked my brain to think of another city that might serve as a metaphor for our “national character and aspirations.” Sadly I could not. That is not to say that I have anything against Las Vegas but it does back Postman’s argument up quite beautifully. I was really hoping that our country was a bit more serious than Postman suggests.
I do not think that the image of Las Vegas as our cultural character or the idea of entertainment as a leading American value is perpetrated on purpose. I think our country is driven by money and power, two things that come from good marketing tactics and appeals to the population’s needs. Our world has become so incredibly busy that it is hard to get everything done. How many times have we heard someone say, “There are just not enough hours in the day.”? How many times have even we uttered that phrase? Realizing this, it should not come as a surprise that when people are looking for something to do in their limited and precious spare time, they want to do something relaxing that does not require much effort or brain power. Americans look for entertainment as a way to unwind and forget about their hectic and overwhelming lives. And if that is what the people want, that is what they will get, especially when they are willing to pay money for it. My point is that the image of amusement and entertainment is not perpetrated on purpose, I think it has become prominent in our society because that is what people want and will spend their money on and in return, that is what businesses and advertising companies strive to achieve. It is so publicized in order to make people continue to want it.
I definitely agree, then, with Postman’s idea that the people, the audience, are the creators and influencers of the media. In my opinion, the majority of television news is geared toward what their audience wants to hear and how they want to hear it. Not only do certain news stations spend much more time on irrelevant news stories than on more important ones in order to please their audience, but they spin their news in order to give their viewers a spin on the story that they want to hear. The majority of news today is not meant to inform, it is meant to comfort and to make people happy. I then totally agree with Postman again when he says that television should not be used as a serious medium for expressing information or opinions in important matters. I have nothing at all against television or entertainment for that matter. I watch t.v. quite frequently and love going to see movies and concerts. I think entertainment is important especially in today’s busy society. However I do think people need to remember how important the written word is and that television should be separate from serious intellectual matters. That is not to say that one cannot learn from watching television, but it should not be taken seriously. When it is time to learn and explore serious matters, other forms, such as literature, should be used.
As it is probably clear, I agree with a lot of what Postman has to say in the chapters we read of his book. However, when he gets to the part about how we are becoming too “silly” and that “our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense,” I do not fully agree. We are a nation focused on entertainment and having fun but as was pointed out earlier when examining the hectic and nonstop lives we lead, we are also a nation of hard workers. Entertainment has become our reward for all our hard work. There are, of course, those lazy bums who take advantage and give the rest of us a bad name. But there have always been lazy people and there always will be. I do not think there is anything to worry about in regard to our country’s love of entertainment. There is a problem when people try to combine entertainment with activities that broaden the intellect. However, if we keep those two entities separate, I don’t think we will have a problem maintaining their coexistence. Besides, every civilization goes through stages, just as each individual does. Western Europe went through many stages in which their politics, religious affiliation, and even aesthetic changed drastically. From the era Romanticism to the Enlightenment, to the age of Annihilation, people are constantly revising and redefinition their idea of what is important and what is true. Our country currently believes that entertainment is something to be valued and to be shared. And I do not think that is something to be very worried about.
I do not think that the image of Las Vegas as our cultural character or the idea of entertainment as a leading American value is perpetrated on purpose. I think our country is driven by money and power, two things that come from good marketing tactics and appeals to the population’s needs. Our world has become so incredibly busy that it is hard to get everything done. How many times have we heard someone say, “There are just not enough hours in the day.”? How many times have even we uttered that phrase? Realizing this, it should not come as a surprise that when people are looking for something to do in their limited and precious spare time, they want to do something relaxing that does not require much effort or brain power. Americans look for entertainment as a way to unwind and forget about their hectic and overwhelming lives. And if that is what the people want, that is what they will get, especially when they are willing to pay money for it. My point is that the image of amusement and entertainment is not perpetrated on purpose, I think it has become prominent in our society because that is what people want and will spend their money on and in return, that is what businesses and advertising companies strive to achieve. It is so publicized in order to make people continue to want it.
I definitely agree, then, with Postman’s idea that the people, the audience, are the creators and influencers of the media. In my opinion, the majority of television news is geared toward what their audience wants to hear and how they want to hear it. Not only do certain news stations spend much more time on irrelevant news stories than on more important ones in order to please their audience, but they spin their news in order to give their viewers a spin on the story that they want to hear. The majority of news today is not meant to inform, it is meant to comfort and to make people happy. I then totally agree with Postman again when he says that television should not be used as a serious medium for expressing information or opinions in important matters. I have nothing at all against television or entertainment for that matter. I watch t.v. quite frequently and love going to see movies and concerts. I think entertainment is important especially in today’s busy society. However I do think people need to remember how important the written word is and that television should be separate from serious intellectual matters. That is not to say that one cannot learn from watching television, but it should not be taken seriously. When it is time to learn and explore serious matters, other forms, such as literature, should be used.
As it is probably clear, I agree with a lot of what Postman has to say in the chapters we read of his book. However, when he gets to the part about how we are becoming too “silly” and that “our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense,” I do not fully agree. We are a nation focused on entertainment and having fun but as was pointed out earlier when examining the hectic and nonstop lives we lead, we are also a nation of hard workers. Entertainment has become our reward for all our hard work. There are, of course, those lazy bums who take advantage and give the rest of us a bad name. But there have always been lazy people and there always will be. I do not think there is anything to worry about in regard to our country’s love of entertainment. There is a problem when people try to combine entertainment with activities that broaden the intellect. However, if we keep those two entities separate, I don’t think we will have a problem maintaining their coexistence. Besides, every civilization goes through stages, just as each individual does. Western Europe went through many stages in which their politics, religious affiliation, and even aesthetic changed drastically. From the era Romanticism to the Enlightenment, to the age of Annihilation, people are constantly revising and redefinition their idea of what is important and what is true. Our country currently believes that entertainment is something to be valued and to be shared. And I do not think that is something to be very worried about.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Week 7 - Answer to Elizabeth's Question 1
In response to Elizabeth’s first question, I both agree and disagree. I think there are a number of definitions of argument and that these definitions depend on the context in which the argument takes place. I definitely prefer the form of argument Elizabeth talks about when she says, “Isn’t the point not to persuade but to enlighten?” I have always believed education in the form of enlightening oneself is much more effective and beneficial than merely distinguishing right from wrong, or deciding a winning argument from a losing one.
There are however, other forms of argument that require a confirmed winner and must take place in a public arena. These include, as Hollinhan and Baaske discuss, academic debate, political campaigns, courts of law, or business meetings. For example, in an academic debate, the debaters will not always be able to argue for the side in which they agree. The sole purpose of the debate is to simply engage in organized argument. Lawyers are another example of people that cannot always argue for the position they agree with. They have to argue in favor of their client, whether they believe them or not; whether they agree with what they did or not. In political campaigns, the purpose is not just to enlighten, but to persuade citizens to vote for them. All of these forms of argumentation are based on persuasion. This does not make them worthless by any means. They are, in fact, essential to the continuation of civilized society.
There are however, other forms of argument that require a confirmed winner and must take place in a public arena. These include, as Hollinhan and Baaske discuss, academic debate, political campaigns, courts of law, or business meetings. For example, in an academic debate, the debaters will not always be able to argue for the side in which they agree. The sole purpose of the debate is to simply engage in organized argument. Lawyers are another example of people that cannot always argue for the position they agree with. They have to argue in favor of their client, whether they believe them or not; whether they agree with what they did or not. In political campaigns, the purpose is not just to enlighten, but to persuade citizens to vote for them. All of these forms of argumentation are based on persuasion. This does not make them worthless by any means. They are, in fact, essential to the continuation of civilized society.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Week 6 Questions
1. In chapter fourteen, Hauser discusses Milan Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. He does so to point out some of the problems with quasi-logical arguments. In doing so, Hauser takes a quote from Kundera, part of which reads, “The only reason people want to be masters of the future is to change the past.”
This made me wonder about the human psyche. Do people only want to mould the future just so they can feel better about their past? Or is it possible that they want to shape the future in order to redeem humanity’s past?
Then again, could people want to influence the future in order to make things better for themselves, not because of the past but because of the excitement of what is to come? Or better yet, do people want to be “masters of the future” to make the world a better place for the future generations? Or the negative side of that, do people want to change the future in order to make future generations look back on them as people to be revered?
2. In his chapter on narrative, Hauser also examines the arguments made by psychologist Jerome Bruner. Bruner, on page 188 says, “There is no such thing as ‘life itself.’ At very least, it is a selective achievement of memory recall; beyond that, recounting one’s life is an interpretive feat.”
On the following page, in his second paragraph, Hauser talks about how, according to Bruner, humans re-interpret our past experiences every time we remember them. We give meaning to our lives through our interpretations, giving ourselves a storyline to define ourselves by. He goes on to say, “…that as these experiences defy this storyline, we must make cognitive readjustments, such as reframing the event so it fits or altering the basic storyline.”
Does this not mean that everything has a bias? Can any memory truly be objective? Does our understanding of “life itself” then also have a bias?
3. Barbara Warnick and Edward Inch, in their chapter Reasoning: Making Inferences, list and explain several different forms of informal logic. One of these forms is generalization. Their definition is stated as, “In a generalization one reasons that what is true of certain members of a class will also be true of other members of the same class or of the class as a whole.” However during their explanation of generalization, they point out its flaws and how it so easily falls short. This led me to wonder if generalization even really works as a form of informal logic. Would it even work on an audience?
This made me wonder about the human psyche. Do people only want to mould the future just so they can feel better about their past? Or is it possible that they want to shape the future in order to redeem humanity’s past?
Then again, could people want to influence the future in order to make things better for themselves, not because of the past but because of the excitement of what is to come? Or better yet, do people want to be “masters of the future” to make the world a better place for the future generations? Or the negative side of that, do people want to change the future in order to make future generations look back on them as people to be revered?
2. In his chapter on narrative, Hauser also examines the arguments made by psychologist Jerome Bruner. Bruner, on page 188 says, “There is no such thing as ‘life itself.’ At very least, it is a selective achievement of memory recall; beyond that, recounting one’s life is an interpretive feat.”
On the following page, in his second paragraph, Hauser talks about how, according to Bruner, humans re-interpret our past experiences every time we remember them. We give meaning to our lives through our interpretations, giving ourselves a storyline to define ourselves by. He goes on to say, “…that as these experiences defy this storyline, we must make cognitive readjustments, such as reframing the event so it fits or altering the basic storyline.”
Does this not mean that everything has a bias? Can any memory truly be objective? Does our understanding of “life itself” then also have a bias?
3. Barbara Warnick and Edward Inch, in their chapter Reasoning: Making Inferences, list and explain several different forms of informal logic. One of these forms is generalization. Their definition is stated as, “In a generalization one reasons that what is true of certain members of a class will also be true of other members of the same class or of the class as a whole.” However during their explanation of generalization, they point out its flaws and how it so easily falls short. This led me to wonder if generalization even really works as a form of informal logic. Would it even work on an audience?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)