Identity and Social Media

If mass media is a window to the world, then social media is this and more – with the added function of providing for the world a window to ourselves.  Yet so often there is little truth in the way we cultivate our own public image. Perhaps Facebook is pandering to our lust for fame as we fantasize about the idea that like a celebrity – someone is watching us, or at least the person we want them to see.

IDENTITY

Identity is much more complex than it seems.  It describes a person in more ways than one.  It can be someones sex, religious views, moral beliefs, and cultural practices.  In my case, I am a male, young adult, athlete, musician, entrepeneur, rapper, and a dancer.  Being all of these things puts me into a group of people who share the same traits.  “In effect they identify by placing individuals into groups who share the trait.”  I disagree with the following statement: “it means that identity is won at the price of reducing individuality.”  During argues that being put into groups (as previously mentioned) reduces individuality, which I think is absurd.  If anything, identity increases individuality.  “Without identity, there is no such thing as a socially situated individual.”  During goes on to say this, which pretty much contradicts what During previously said.

Here is a very comical (unintentionally so) youtube clip of perhaps the most intriguing, unique human being I have ever seen.  He has an identity like no other.  Cheers!

Research Interviewing & Report Writing

So, before I begin I just want to say I wish this weeks readings were prescribed a week or two ago, especially the article on research interviewing. I did this reading after already conducting my interview, and I’ve written a reasonable chunk of the report already, so the information on how to conduct a proper interview would have been super helpful about a week ago, and its not so helpful now. I know I could have easily gone and read ahead, but realistically, who has the time for that? Also, similar to the first set of readings we had relating to our assignments (the ones about research proposals), the articles were definitely directed at persons aiming to write a far more formal report than what is expected of us. But, having said that, both articles were okay reads as they weren’t theoretically heavy, more guidelines for how to write the best report possible.

Anyways, I thought I’d focus more on Liamputtongs’ article “Writing a Qualitative Research Report” (as I wasn’t too interested in Weeakkody’s article seeing as I’d already conducted my interview) which effectively gives a synopsis on how to write a good research report. Firstly, as I noted before, a good chunk of this article seems to be directed at more professionals researchers, with topics relating to writing books and monographs as well as “Writing for publication” . Even in the more relevant sections, such as the bit on reports, a far more formal outlook is suggested (through the list of components – table of contents, executive summary, etc) which to the best of my understanding, is not required of us in this particular assignment.

Yet, excluding those sections, this reading was really helpful, not so much in creating a guideline of what to include (unlike the readings on the research proposal) but more  in the sense that Liamputtong suggests certain things to keep in mind whilst writing. In particular, I found this list of criteria for the evaluation of qualitative papers very helpful. Although it is included to help researches determine the probability of their work being published, there is a lot of similarity between this list and our own marking criteria. Questions such as: Are the research methods appropriate? Is the research clearly contextualized? How systematic is the analysis? etc, are criteria universal to any strong analytical research paper. Moreover, throughout the article Liamputtong includes little comments on language appropriate for a research paper i.e. “language is not as objective…uses the first person” pg 318, which helpfully reiterates what we have learnt in class about the appropriate writing style for a media research paper.

Overall, I do not think this was a particularly amazingly helpful article in  the formulation of our research papers, as a lot of it was irrelevant and that that was relevant just wasn’t that directive. However, there were some useful comments and I do definitely foresee myself using the criteria provided when looking over and editing my paper to make sure I’ve covered all necessary topics.

Hope everyones’ assignments are going well! Erica Berki

Lessons in Grammar: How Ideology Shapes the Reporting of War

This was a nice, short and quite interesting reading that looked at the way a reporter’s ideology and feelings about the war in Iraq can effect the way they the tell the story through the subtle manipulation of rhetoric. The Iraq war is notably different from others conflicts due to the high frequency of media coverage and reports on the conflict. The reading delves into the type of language choices made by war reporters and the possible meanings behind this very specific reporting rhetoric.

Lukin looks at a real example of war reporting as a guide throughout the reading. This real story looked at an Iraqi boy Ali (a civilian) who was seriously injured in a missile attack, something that would be a regular occurrence in Iraq at the time. This was seen as a human interest piece about the human collateral during war time. She analyses the way various scrupulous ways famous publishes tackled the story. Despite the facts of the story being very clear and unified across all the reports, Lukin shows how much a story can differ even when the facts are essentially the same. The main point of contention comes from left Wing reporter Robert Fisk whose story differs the most from the general structure seen in most of the other publications.

Robert Fisk’s version of the same story told by everyone else drops all euphemistic devices and rather starkly sticks to the brutal reality of the situation. Instead of suggesting that he lost his arms (something impossible except in metaphorical sense), Fisk suggests that a missile blew off his arms, a violent image but in all fairness much less of an inaccurate one (although one claim Fisks statement in general are a touch hyperbolic, but they are better and fair representation of the incredible destruction power of wars). I should mention that if I was writing this story I would probably also use the phrase ‘lost his arms’ but I’m not sure if this due to my unconscious mind or because I’m so used to hearing that phrasing.

Also seen in the article patterns is the way Ali is treated, grammatically speaking, as an Actor (i.e, the person or thing who acts) in this situation, whereas Fisk position the boy solely as the Goal (the person or things against which things happen) in this situation and considers the war itself and the missile as things which are acting in this situation. This gives direct responsibly of Ali fate to the things which deserve it, like the war as opposed to the other article which are suggesting through their rhetoric that Ali played a part in his fate. The others stories, whether consciously or not, tend to marginal the role of the war and the missile in the resulting loss of limbs for Ali.

Lukin is not suggesting that other publications are being intentionally misleading or false (although one could make that claim in some situations) but rather she is suggesting that choices, sometimes unconsciously, are made on behalf of the writers to avoid the direct cause and effect relationships (and embrace euphemistic styling)that occur during such horrifying and dehumanising conflicts. And through this she is trying to explain how powerful our subconscious is in that it allows stories to take completely different meanings based on our reaction to the type of content we are writing about.

-Nicholas Hayes

Semiotics and Truth

I think the argument presented in Figure 5 (that we discussed in this week’s tutorial) offers some interesting points exposing a more complex view of the history of Australia’s white settlement.  However, I believe that if we water down the brutality of Australia’s colonisation – even for the purpose of giving a more balanced historical portrayal – we would find ourselves on a slippery slope towards ignoring completely the oppression of the ‘invaders’.

The semiotics of our history books certainly raise questions about the value of truth: In the name of free speech, it would be wrong to keep the public in the dark about the complexities of Australia’s colonisation.  However, the reality is, we generally take a fairly simplistic view of the past.  For this reason, I believe it would be dangerous to promote the idea that relatively speaking, the British settlers may have been ‘less brutal’ than their contemporaries.

When addressing a general audience, one can never tell the whole story.  I feel that history books aimed at such an audience should be required to express the oppression of the white settlers even if that means simplifying the true history of the time.  Whilst the atrocities committed towards indigenous people in the early period of Australia’s settlement might be consistent with the broader imperialist context, we cannot excuse them for this reason any more than we can excuse the holocaust as a product of the anti-Semitic sentiment that pervaded that time.  To understand the predicament of Aborigines today, one must understand the connection with the land that is such an inextricable part of indigenous culture and the drastic repercussions of the displacement that came about as a result of the white settler’s actions.

The author may consider the ‘invasionist’ portrayal of Australia’s colonisation as propagandist, however I believe that the alternative: to promote to a general audience a watered down view of white oppression would be infinitely worse.  The symbolism of turning around and saying “actually, the whites weren’t that bad” would be a travesty regardless of whether there is an element of truth in the author’s argument.

Whilst the article may be right in saying that technically the term ‘invasion’ might not be completely justified in light of the times in which the events took place, perhaps we need a word like this – with connotations of oppression, violence and injustice – to express to a general audience, the extreme suffering of the indigenous that came as a result.  irrespective of semiotics – that suffering was and is an absolute truth.

Signs and Meaning

So, after being initially overwhelmed at the list of four different readings, I discovered that this weeks texts were actually quite reader-friendly for a topic I thought seemed a bit complex (semiotics). In their text, Schirato and Yell aim to explain how semiotics, that is the theory regarding the connection between language and meaning, is an integral part of media. Every sign is underlain with connotations that reflect some viewpoint.

In a superficial summary – they basically discuss the notion that the meaning of any sign is arbitrary in so far as it is never fixed, but rather shaped by social and political context. Whilst the Signifier may be concrete, the Signified is subject to interpretation. This point is further demonstrated both by Lukin and Clark where they each use respective examples (reporting of war and victimization of women) to illustrate how something as simple as the structure of a sentence (demonstrated by Lukin) or how a person is described (shown by Clark) can influence how audiences will understand the issue as a whole. I think it is important to note how these effects change over time. For example – the description of someone as ‘of middle eastern descent’ nowadays is packed with meaning (‘the other’, terrorist, extremist, etc) whereas, such a description wouldn’t be nearly as potent a few decades ago, particularly pre-9/11. The context within the signifier is places has, in my opinion, the greatest influence of the concept which is subsequently evoked.  Schirato and Yell go onto discuss Saussure’s distinction langue and parole, characterizing it as the “language system” and “actual speech”. I’m a bit uncertain on the actual distinction, however as I understand it, Saussure separates the language system from the practice as the system is relatively concrete (aligned with the rules of chess) whereas language practices are far more fluid, and shape themselves to suit a situation (like the actual moves of chess).

However, Saussure’s theory is illustrated as flawed, insofar as he fails to account for the  chaos that is reality, and so we turn to the theory of Volosinov. Volosinov does subscribe to the basis Saussure’s theory regarding sign/signified/signifier, however he follows on to disagree with his formulation of language system, deeming them as unstable. He notes that “the meaning of the word is determined entirely by its context” which in fact reiterates what I was discussing in the first paragraph. Essentially, Volosinov presents an interpretation of semiotics that is most cohesive with a modern day understanding. He draws upon the notion of signified/signifier to denote the link between words/images and the concepts and emotions they evoke. However, the distinction is drawn when Volosinov’s theory prioritizes context, reinforcing the findings of the articles written by Lukin and Clark.

It’s pretty late, so I may have gotten a bit confused with concepts, comment if you think I have!

The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon

This was a quite long but fairly engaging reading that basically looks at the way the composition and behaviours of media audiences has changed over time with changes in technological innovation. Using the format drawn up by Abercrombie and Longhurst, he discusses the three phases in media audience construction and development (simple, mass and the contemporary diffused audiences) and adds one of his own (extended audiences).

The first suggested phase was the simple audience phase. This stage was the pre-media age characterized mainly by the existence of theatres and books as the main destination of media audiences. The second phase was the mass audience phase where film, newspapers, radio and television dominated. This period extended from late nineteenth century to the mid twentieth century.

However most of the focus in the reading is, naturally, the period we currently inhabit, the diffused period as named by Abercrombie and Longhurst but reconsidered by Couldry as the extended period. The phrasing of this age of the media audience as diffused comes from the fact that the contemporary audience is diffused or spread out across space. And media audience are so spread out due to the fact that media itself is so spread out. The phrase also accepts that media exists everywhere and anywhere in society. Anytime we leave the house these days we will be bombarded by various sort of media, whether through the flooding public advertising or technological innovation that allows for the increased and widespread mobility of media technologies, like mobile phones, iPods and laptops.

The diffused audience concept also reconsiders the role of the consumer and their interaction with media. These days consumers not only have a passive, consumptive relationship with media, but rather through the development of new media technologies, can also take a hand at producing media content. It is no longer difficult and costly for the average Joe to produce new media content. This semester for my consumer behavior class we’ve had to create a series of youtube style videos to persuade the potential audience to like/dislike a certain brand of bottled water and upload in to UNSWTV. Sure my video was pretty atrocious, but the actual editing and the use of video and sound effects were definitely the easiest part of the assessment. Despite all this, I do feel a lot more of the time like a consumer than a producer and it is only on a rare occasion that I would produce media content like previously mentioned. This seems to be Couldry biggest complaint against the idea of the diffused audience; that many people still feel as though they’ve never really been a media producer/performer.

He suggests that the power in media still rests mostly with those who have always had the power, large media corporations. Through this he suggests that we should consider the contemporary media audience as an ‘extended audience’. This concept merely suggests that while media audiences are indeed more dispersed and seem to exist all of the time, the relationship of power between the media and the audience is only a slight extension of what it used to be during the mass audience phase many years ago.

-Nicholas Hayes

Phone Advertisement

This clip isn’t particularly relevant to this weeks subject but I just thought I would post it anyway because it does encapsulate many of the ideas we keep coming back to in class.

The Extended Audience: Scanning The Horizon

This reading is all about media audiences, how these audiences have developed over time, and challenges facing traditional audiences when adapting to 21st century audiences.  The challenges include technological challenges, social/spatial challenges, and experiential challenges.

An example of a technological aspect would be the consumption of traditional forms of media via different means.  For instance, listening to the radio on the internet, checking email on blackberries, etc.  This is described as an “interlocking between old and new media,” and, to me, highlights one of the pervasive ideas that this class promotes.

The social/spatial aspect of the reading describes specifically how audiences have evolved over time.  The three stages are the simple audience, mass audience, and diffused audience.  The simple audience represents the earliest era of audiences, and was prevalent before there was really media.  Mass audiences were most prevalent during the late 19th to early 20th century – I think of the American industrial revolution, mass immigration, and the Roaring 20’s to describe this era.  We are currently in the age of the ‘diffused audience’.  These audiences have access to almost limitless forms of media.

The experiential challenges, as I understand, are a bit more confusing.  They include how an audiences EXPERIENCE has evolved.  The best example is the DotComGuy.  Through the internet, he completes every task needed to live a normal life – buys groceries, makes money, engages in recreation.  In a previous era, this DotComGuy did not exist; no form of audience every EXPERIENCED it like this.

Programming Your Own Channel

So, this week was another reading which I didn’t mind so much. I quite enjoyed the first half of Rizzos’ article as I felt it to be relatable and I could see examples within my own life of how IQ, Youtube and the iPod are changing networking. Admittedly, the second half of the reading was slightly more tedious, and I struggled to understand her exact explanations of the changing notion of flow, overall I found this to be a good reading.

Rizzo takes the 3 case studies of Foxtel IQ, Youtube and the iPod and efficvely uses them to demonstrate the shift in traditional media networks. Each of the media types essentially enable a new level of interactiveness with the media, i.e. IQ allows one to record and view television at their own discretion, Youtube allows for one to view at their own discretion, form playlists and upload, and the iPod does this plus completely undermining the spatial factor of media, as it can be taken everywhere. Media is no longer temporal place that you ‘tune into’. but rather a spatial place that you visit, or even take with you, based on your own schedule and convenience. One  point  I felt interesting that was presented by Rizzo is the fact that these new digital environments, through the use of the playlist, are not in fact anti-social, but quite the oppisite. She shows through Youtube, how people are actually linked, as they can share playlists and access people who have similar interests based on their creations. Moreover, I thought about how most videos have loads of comments – this is just another way how people can interact and form networks within the digital environment of Youtube. I also thought, in relation to Rizzos’ notion of flow, of how when one opens Youtube.com the home page will have videos ‘recommended for you’ by the server, based on your previously viewed clips, demonstrating the notion of flow.

The play list is definitely a commonly used tool within todays media environment as it enables a new level of customization. This is particularly true in regards to the iPod, as I know myself, I have a play list (of music and videos) for nearly every occasion – gym, sleep, schoolwork, long car rides, which are each based off the most relevant flow for the particular task I am undertaking. This new notion of flow, as defined by Deleuze and Guattari as based upon connections that a certain playlist forms (i.e. the flow of which hyperlinks you follow when surfing the web create connections based upon your interests) opens a whole new door for digital networks, as the flow of playlists enables people to create networks based upon similar intersts. For example, I can become part of an online network on Youtube when I find a particular playlist uploaded by another user which suits my interests. Examples of the older notion of playlist flow (that is, television where programs ‘flow’ into one another so the viewer is in for a night of viewing) are definitely still alive and well though. I think a great example of this is on Tuesday nights America’s Next Top Model is followed directly by Gossip Girl on Fox8, which are undeniably aimed at the same demographic, encouraging them to stay tuned. Similarly, on Monday nights on Arena, Project Runway is followed directly by Models of the Runway (a spin-off), which persuades fans not to shut off the tv, but rather keep viewing a whole different show.