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?
No comments:
Post a Comment