News, Trust, and "Truthiness"

Having read my classmates' blog entries I have to admit I am pleasantly surprised. I am happy to see that the majority of my classmates whose blogs I read shared my belief that shows like The Daily Show are indeed an effective form of culture jamming. 

Having read some fellow bloggers' views, in combination with my own, I believe there will be plenty of room for satirical news shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, etc. to expand and receive more attention. It is quite possible that along with more viewers, these types of shows will become a more popular method used to inform oneself of the public and political goings on in the targeted groups. 

In her most recent blog entry Shaiann Richards wrote “In the end, I believe that satirical news is a form of culture jamming that is used to display different viewpoints of social and political issues.” (http://shaiannrichards.wordpress.com/). This is a good example of my point in my own blog entry; satirical news opens up different avenues of informing ourselves about current goings-on when the mainstream “normal” news doesn’t appease or appeal to us.

Another benefit of this form of culture jamming is that it helps take away the extra dramatic angles that newscasters and their stations impose on their stories in order to gain more attention. Another student wrote: “By adding humor to their show the topics on these shows lose significance. However the public is still made aware of these issues so these news broadcasts do not create misconceptions with their media portrayals.” (http://jattinc.wordpress.com/2013/11/). I agree with this statement and believe that that factor will play a major role in the snowballing popularity of satirical news shows.  

These shows are reaching out and getting the attention of different audiences than the mainstream news shows do, yet another reason this type of media will be quite viable in the future. I am not the only one that feels this way, either. Alana Lutz wrote “…these shows are using culture-jamming techniques to engage a different audience than the regular news outlets.” (http://itsalanalutz.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/is-the-fake-news-the-real-news/). She was not the first either who agreed that these shows are engaging to an entirely different crowd!

All in all this boils down to my opinion after having read many of my classmates’ blogs which still stands: these shows are now, and will continue to be, a very viable form of both culture jamming and informing oneself of the news without having to resort to the “normal” outlets.

IF25 Post 4: Is the fake news the real news?

Culture jamming is a new term to me, introduced to me a few days ago when I read Chapter 14 in the Media and Society textbook. What is not new to me is the purpose of culture jamming; I grew up on satirical, political based television shows (thanks Dad!) so the idea of resisting the messages of the mainstream media and retaliating with parodies and other propaganda is one I am familiar with.

Satire is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc.” and is the main technique used in delivering subversive messages on shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I liken it to a more professional and adult way of being sarcastic in order to make a point: the message is there! Like I said, I grew up on these shows; I was watching The Rick Mercer Report before I could even wrap my head around my own attitude let alone someone else’s. O’Shaughnessy and Stadler wrote “It is the form of communication, as well as the content of individual messages, that makes culture jamming subversive.” (p.216). Indeed the messages delivered by these shows are quite subversive!

My answer to the question “would it be legitimate to suggest that satirical news reporting is a mainstream form of culture jamming?” is a biased one based, of course, on my past experiences: yes, satirical news reporting is indeed a mainstream form of culture jamming. What better way to make a point than to use what the mass media says and does against them? The whole purpose of using humor in those shows, being satirical etc., is to keep the audience entertained. The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, The Rick Mercer Report, etc. all manage to pull in viewers because they keep their viewers in good spirit: fired up but still laughing. I was able to learn more about the political goings-on of the world by listening to Jon Stewart go on and on every night than I ever was by reading the articles and books assigned to me by my teachers. Watching those shows kept me interested by making me laugh but also making me curious enough to ask questions. When I was much younger I looked to my Dad for clarification, now I go online to credible sources to answer my questions; effectively I ought to be crediting those shows for making me dig deeper.

Like the textbook says, satire is a form of culture jamming that can “be used simply to be clever or funny, without a political or critical motive.” (O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J., p.214) Some shows, Saturday Night Live for example, use satire as an avenue for a more direct approach to humour (direct in that it lacks an underlying motive) and don’t always expect their readers to think much further than that. When it comes to culture jamming and politically satirical comedies, I do believe the aforementioned political based satirical news shows to be a useful addition to the public sphere. These shows allow people to ask questions about the mainstream/mass media and the messages they deliver; a very good asset in today’s day and age. 

O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J.. (2012). Media and Society. 5^th Ed. South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

1F25 Response 3: Demonstrable Demographics

I spent quite a bit of time reading my classmates' blogs trying to figure out the commonalities and differences in the hailing/interpolating techniques that they each made mention of. I struggled a bit with this assignment because I found that every person had a different idea of what the media were doing to group people together and get their attention. While in some ways we all participate in different demographics (i.e. race, culture, etc.), we all have the following in common: young adults (students) with our eyes open to the media. 

Most of the bloggers whose entries I read used advertisements for either a) sports games, b) make-up, or c) clothing. I feel like these three main categories that I came across are a good demonstration of the age group that most of the students in this class are in. Between the sports ads and the make-up ads, the stereotypic gender norms are covered, too. 

It seems that people our age (going to take a guess that we're mostly between 17 - 19 and upwards of 25 years of age) are easily targeted through ads related to alcohol, fashion, and appearance. I would certainly beg to differ were anyone to insist that this is an accurate depiction of the interests of everyone in this demographic, however that is not to say that it doesn't depict the interests of some quite well.

In one student's blog, she wrote that she needs to be able to identify with an ad in order for it to play on her successfully. "First, I look at this and see models, not myself, in the product. When I see an ad I need to be able to identify with it, or see myself in the product, to be able to count it as effective." (http://lookingformargo.wordpress.com/) Despite the ad being targeted towards young females of all races, she felt like she couldn't identify with it because of the way the women in the ad were portrayed (a lingerie ad from Victoria's Secret that only displayed women that fit a certain criteria). Generally this ad does indeed focus on younger, more impressionable women, who will crave the sexiness that the ad pours on. 

Another student found an ad and was actually able to identify with it. He felt that the ad represented his demographic quite well and for that reason he believed the ad to be a successful one. "I find this ad to be successful for a number of reasons. First off it was relatable to both my gender and age- they utilized working class men in their ad who seemed very realistic to the audience. As well, they incorporated their slogan into the ad without making it a central focus." (http://cardilloblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/1f25-post-3-what-the-hail/). This shows that our demographic isn't always misrepresented, that perhaps it's not that black and white.

The last, and perhaps my favourite blog that I have chosen to make mention of here, was written by a student who chose a PSA (public service announcement) about drinking and driving as her example of advertising. Her ad depicted a young, white woman in a bed who was clearly ill and hurt. This ad looks to be marketed towards young caucasian women. "Although the person in the advertisement is a white female, I do not believe that it is focusing primarily on Caucasian girls." (http://torigligic.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/1f25-blog-post-3-what-the-hail/). The author of this blog and I share the opinion that we do not think the ad is targeted only at the aforementioned demographic but rather a wider, more susceptible one; young adults, regardless of race and gender, can be affected by such a powerful ad. 

I think that our demographic can be represented quite well, and has been in many cases, but that it is never that black and white. There will always be outliers. I used the aforementioned blogs to show the disparity between ads that "work" and ads that do not. I personally think that it just depends on the advertisement.