Caroline Criado-Perez: Female Presence On Banknotes
Criado-Perez is a feminist who started a campaign to get Jane Austen on the back of a banknote after Elizabeth Fry was wiped off the fiver pound note. After this, she started receiving death and rape threats on Twitter from which two people have been arrested. As she was fearing for her life (bombs threats were issued on Twitter), she left London for a few days to go to Kent - where the interview took place.
The initial incident that sparked all of this was when Criado-Perez started a campaign to get Jane Austen onto the back of a banknote. And, of course, this was a witch-hunt.
Caitlin Moran: Twitter Silence
After the events of the previous article, Moran organised a campaign on Twitter calling for total silence. She campaigned for fellow feminists to not speak out against the abuse being given. However, a lot of people, women especially, thought that not speaking out was exactly the opposite of what they should have been doing and further marginalizing women. Also, Moran's motivation for doing this is blurred and she "just wanted to do a thing". The initial incident was, again, the campaign to get Jane Austen's picture on a banknote. Finally, I think that this was not a valid campaign as this campaign was only an advertisement for Moran's brand of feminist: Middle-classed, middle-aged, white women.
Wednesday, 11 March 2015
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Article #11
No filter: Rupert Murdoch's Twitter feed provides a new take on the editorial
Known for being private, the media boss is offering unrestrained commentary on everything from Mitt Romney to British royals – and it could land him in trouble. The articles talks about how Murdoch has become very public since he joined Twitter. Also, how some of what he tweets is very controversial.
I think that one of the most influential men on the planet, is using Twitter to influence the views and opinions of the public. This is already achieved through his newspapers - such as The Sun - and he is taking this one step further. Furthermore, he may not seem to care as to what he is saying, but he knows exactly what he is doing: He is making people suddenly choose if they agree with this, or not agree; taking things to an even more extreme than they already are.
Known for being private, the media boss is offering unrestrained commentary on everything from Mitt Romney to British royals – and it could land him in trouble. The articles talks about how Murdoch has become very public since he joined Twitter. Also, how some of what he tweets is very controversial.
I think that one of the most influential men on the planet, is using Twitter to influence the views and opinions of the public. This is already achieved through his newspapers - such as The Sun - and he is taking this one step further. Furthermore, he may not seem to care as to what he is saying, but he knows exactly what he is doing: He is making people suddenly choose if they agree with this, or not agree; taking things to an even more extreme than they already are.
Wednesday, 4 February 2015
Article #10
Top Gear, BBC4 and the watershed: what we learned from Tony Hall
BBC director general stands by Jeremy Clarkson in Radio Times interview and says watershed probably won’t be around in 20 to 30 years. The 9pm watershed’s days are numbered. “The watershed is still a useful way of judging the content and sensitivities, and taste and decency issues. But has the watershed got a future in 20 or 30 years’ time? I suspect not.” Hall said.
The New media spin on this is that all the content is available online (all we have to do is tick a box that says we're 18 - not that hard even you're not). In 20 or 30 years time, I don't even think we'll have proper TV, but have everything online. I see us using our TV's to access online content. Essentially, we'll have bigger computer screens.
BBC director general stands by Jeremy Clarkson in Radio Times interview and says watershed probably won’t be around in 20 to 30 years. The 9pm watershed’s days are numbered. “The watershed is still a useful way of judging the content and sensitivities, and taste and decency issues. But has the watershed got a future in 20 or 30 years’ time? I suspect not.” Hall said.
The New media spin on this is that all the content is available online (all we have to do is tick a box that says we're 18 - not that hard even you're not). In 20 or 30 years time, I don't even think we'll have proper TV, but have everything online. I see us using our TV's to access online content. Essentially, we'll have bigger computer screens.
Article #9
The Internet Is Not the Answer review – how the digital dream turned sour
Andrew Keen’s pleasingly incisive study argues that, far from being a democratising force in society, the internet has only amplified global inequities. He argues that the internet is far from being the "answer" to societies problems, but rather the root of many of them. Like other critics, Keen challenges the dominant narrative about the internet – that it’s a technology that liberates, informs and empowers people. He does go on to say that the internet can do all of these things, but its not the whole story.
I agree that the internet can be a force for good, its been proved many times over on social networking sites, however, the internet has evolved into something else. The anonymity provided by the network allows people to cause harm (not physically). Cyber-bullying comes into this as well as many other aspects.
Andrew Keen’s pleasingly incisive study argues that, far from being a democratising force in society, the internet has only amplified global inequities. He argues that the internet is far from being the "answer" to societies problems, but rather the root of many of them. Like other critics, Keen challenges the dominant narrative about the internet – that it’s a technology that liberates, informs and empowers people. He does go on to say that the internet can do all of these things, but its not the whole story.
I agree that the internet can be a force for good, its been proved many times over on social networking sites, however, the internet has evolved into something else. The anonymity provided by the network allows people to cause harm (not physically). Cyber-bullying comes into this as well as many other aspects.
Article #8
TransAsia crash: Taiwan plane in deadly river crash
A plane carrying mostly Chinese tourists has crashed into a river in Taiwan, killing at least 16 people. Dramatic video footage emerged showing the TransAsia Airways plane clipping a bridge as it came down shortly after take-off from a Taipei airport. The plane, carrying 58 people, has broken up and the fuselage is lying half-submerged in the Keelung River. Rescue efforts are ongoing.
The new and digital aspect is the UGC. Citizen journalism is heavily featured and this is what the audience is interested in. Even with the professional content, The USG is more heavily sought after.
A plane carrying mostly Chinese tourists has crashed into a river in Taiwan, killing at least 16 people. Dramatic video footage emerged showing the TransAsia Airways plane clipping a bridge as it came down shortly after take-off from a Taipei airport. The plane, carrying 58 people, has broken up and the fuselage is lying half-submerged in the Keelung River. Rescue efforts are ongoing.
The new and digital aspect is the UGC. Citizen journalism is heavily featured and this is what the audience is interested in. Even with the professional content, The USG is more heavily sought after.
Friday, 23 January 2015
Identities and the Media: Reading The Riots
How did the language and selection of images in the coverage create a particular representation of young people?
Language such as the "feral youth", the "hoodies", and "yobs" paired alongside the image of "one black, hooded young man which appeared on at least five front pages" created a very negative representation of young people. The representation created by the coverage showed the youth to be destructive who don't care about anything and just give in to these primal urges.
Why does David Buckingham mention Owen Jones and his work Chavs: the demonisation of the working class?
Owen Jones points to emergence of a new form of class contempt. He argues that the working class have become an object for fear and ridicule and are being targeted by the media, despite the fact that most of those convicted after the riots were actually from respectable middle-class jobs, or wealthy backgrounds.
What is the typical representation of young people – and teenage boys in particular? What did the 2005 IPSOS/MORI survey find?
The typical representation of young people - and teenage boys in particular - is, the vast majority of the time, negative. The IPSOS/MORI survey found that 40% of newspaper articles featuring young people focused on violence, crime or anti-social behaviour; and that 71% could be described as having a negative tone.
How can Stanley Cohen’s work on Moral Panic be linked to the coverage of the riots?
It can be argued that the coverage of the riots were perhaps misrepresented to reflect a much more general fear of young people (and especially of working-class young people); a view that is already held by many of the adults of Britain's society. You can also argue that media talked up the disturbances into a bigger 'Moral Panic'.
What elements of the media and popular culture were blamed for the riots?
Rap music, violent computer games, and reality TV were blamed for provoking young people to go out and start rioting. It was also suggested that the looting of sportswear shops were inflamed by advertising.
How was social media blamed for the riots? What was interesting about the discussion of social media when compared to the Arab Spring in 2011?
Social media was blamed for allowing rioters to co-ordinate their actions. Twitter was heavily mentioned as many rioters were telling others to "roll up and loot". Blackberry's messaging system was also mentioned: Being described as a "communications tool for high-flying executives", "gang members" used this to organise the mayhem. However, social media and technology was seen in a much more positive light during the "Arab Spring". Would there need to be a dictatorship and, subsequently, revolution in Britain for social media to be seen as a good thing? Or is it just one more thing the media is trying to put the blame to keep the masses' eyes away from the more important issues.
The riots generated a huge amount of comment and opinion - both in mainstream and social media. How can the two-step flow theory be linked to the coverage of the riots?
As the riots were covered and people saw this coverage, opinions were being formed about the events happening. These opinions caused their comments to be altered, and influenced, into a somewhat biased comment. When these influenced comments are plastered all over the internet, the rest of the audience will read these comments - from the 'opinion leaders' - and become influenced themselves. This fuels a circle in which most of the audience becomes encapsulated in a biased opinion-influenced comment, and anyone with an alternative opinion or comment is immediately disregarded and shot down.
Alternatively, how might media scholars like Henry Jenkins view the 'tsunami' of blogs, forums and social media comments? Do you agree that this shows the democratisation of the media?
Jenkins thinks that the convergence of media should be understood as a cultural process, and not a technological end-point. Also, I think that this does show more democratisation in the media as the masses now a anonymous point-of-access; in which they can show their views and have freedom of expression. However, this has resulted in people taking advantage of this by trying to cause offence. Trolling has also formed as a part of this as there can be no backlash due to anonymity.
What were the right-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
The right-wing response to the cause of the riots was to blame 'liberal', left-wing values and , particularly, the idea of a welfare state. Max Hastings of the Daily Mail said ‘Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, unparented, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters’. Right-wingers have also blamed schools specifically for failing to instil discipline and respect for authority.
What were the left-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
The left-wing response to the cause of the riots was to blame poverty and deprivation. They also point to the cuts in youth services, rising youth unemployment, and the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance.
What are your OWN views on the main causes of the riots?
I think that a lack of guidance from a young age mixed in with the media itself constantly showing the youth in a negative light has caused these people act out. Being told that you're good for nothing and having services to help you cut, as well as the influence of gang culture (drugs and alcohol come into this) can make for a very amoral youth. If no-ones helping you when you need it, then why would you stay quiet when something s happening to your community or to someone you know or love. However, it doesn't help when people who are doing for the fun of it start to join in. That defeats the purpose of acting out.
How can capitalism be blamed for the riots? What media theory (from our new/digital media unit) can this be linked to?
Many made the link between the riots and capitalism. If politicians or executives can lie, cheat and bribe their way to the top of the hierarchy, then why can't the less-privileged working-class do the same. Due to the materialistic society we live in, we see our possessions as defining our worth in society (of course our jobs and backgrounds come into this as well), so when an opportunity arises where we can steal goods to raise our worth,we take it. This can be linked to the theory of hegemony; where the corporate elite try to keep the power by manipulating the media and keep the class divide.
Were people involved in the riots given a voice in the media to explain their participation?
Many people were not given a voice as this would challenge the representation already established by the media. This comes back to Marxism as the elite was to keep control of what is being shown and said in the media so they can control and influence the opinions of the masses.
In the Guardian website's investigation into the causes of the riots, they did interview rioters themselves. Read this Guardian article from their Reading the Riots academic research project - what causes are outlined by those involved in the disturbances?
What is your own opinion on the riots? Do you have sympathy with those involved or do you believe strong prison sentences are the right approach to prevent such events happening in future?
I can understand why those who acted out did so, but it's still inexcusable. A man died and a teenager was assaulted by police at a peaceful protest. But that doesn't mean you should go and steal a TV from your local ASDA! Also, people died during the riots and many people were harmed in some way. And for what? So you get those trainers you couldn't afford from Footlocker. I can sympathise with that minority who were actually standing up for what they believed in, but those who just took advantage of the situation are the reason why the media portrays the youth in such a negative light. It can be argued that because of this negative portrayal, that these people took advantage of the situation. But, then that just fuels the media even more and thus becomes this vicious cycle in which will probably end in another riot. Its like the question: What came first, the chicken of the egg (although scientists did prove in 2010 that the chicken came first)? Lastly, I think that strong prison sentences isn't the right approach. I think providing these youth-specific services again will help to keep them on the right track.
Language such as the "feral youth", the "hoodies", and "yobs" paired alongside the image of "one black, hooded young man which appeared on at least five front pages" created a very negative representation of young people. The representation created by the coverage showed the youth to be destructive who don't care about anything and just give in to these primal urges.
Why does David Buckingham mention Owen Jones and his work Chavs: the demonisation of the working class?
Owen Jones points to emergence of a new form of class contempt. He argues that the working class have become an object for fear and ridicule and are being targeted by the media, despite the fact that most of those convicted after the riots were actually from respectable middle-class jobs, or wealthy backgrounds.
What is the typical representation of young people – and teenage boys in particular? What did the 2005 IPSOS/MORI survey find?
The typical representation of young people - and teenage boys in particular - is, the vast majority of the time, negative. The IPSOS/MORI survey found that 40% of newspaper articles featuring young people focused on violence, crime or anti-social behaviour; and that 71% could be described as having a negative tone.
How can Stanley Cohen’s work on Moral Panic be linked to the coverage of the riots?
It can be argued that the coverage of the riots were perhaps misrepresented to reflect a much more general fear of young people (and especially of working-class young people); a view that is already held by many of the adults of Britain's society. You can also argue that media talked up the disturbances into a bigger 'Moral Panic'.
What elements of the media and popular culture were blamed for the riots?
Rap music, violent computer games, and reality TV were blamed for provoking young people to go out and start rioting. It was also suggested that the looting of sportswear shops were inflamed by advertising.
How was social media blamed for the riots? What was interesting about the discussion of social media when compared to the Arab Spring in 2011?
Social media was blamed for allowing rioters to co-ordinate their actions. Twitter was heavily mentioned as many rioters were telling others to "roll up and loot". Blackberry's messaging system was also mentioned: Being described as a "communications tool for high-flying executives", "gang members" used this to organise the mayhem. However, social media and technology was seen in a much more positive light during the "Arab Spring". Would there need to be a dictatorship and, subsequently, revolution in Britain for social media to be seen as a good thing? Or is it just one more thing the media is trying to put the blame to keep the masses' eyes away from the more important issues.
The riots generated a huge amount of comment and opinion - both in mainstream and social media. How can the two-step flow theory be linked to the coverage of the riots?
As the riots were covered and people saw this coverage, opinions were being formed about the events happening. These opinions caused their comments to be altered, and influenced, into a somewhat biased comment. When these influenced comments are plastered all over the internet, the rest of the audience will read these comments - from the 'opinion leaders' - and become influenced themselves. This fuels a circle in which most of the audience becomes encapsulated in a biased opinion-influenced comment, and anyone with an alternative opinion or comment is immediately disregarded and shot down.
Alternatively, how might media scholars like Henry Jenkins view the 'tsunami' of blogs, forums and social media comments? Do you agree that this shows the democratisation of the media?
Jenkins thinks that the convergence of media should be understood as a cultural process, and not a technological end-point. Also, I think that this does show more democratisation in the media as the masses now a anonymous point-of-access; in which they can show their views and have freedom of expression. However, this has resulted in people taking advantage of this by trying to cause offence. Trolling has also formed as a part of this as there can be no backlash due to anonymity.
What were the right-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
The right-wing response to the cause of the riots was to blame 'liberal', left-wing values and , particularly, the idea of a welfare state. Max Hastings of the Daily Mail said ‘Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, unparented, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters’. Right-wingers have also blamed schools specifically for failing to instil discipline and respect for authority.
What were the left-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
The left-wing response to the cause of the riots was to blame poverty and deprivation. They also point to the cuts in youth services, rising youth unemployment, and the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance.
What are your OWN views on the main causes of the riots?
I think that a lack of guidance from a young age mixed in with the media itself constantly showing the youth in a negative light has caused these people act out. Being told that you're good for nothing and having services to help you cut, as well as the influence of gang culture (drugs and alcohol come into this) can make for a very amoral youth. If no-ones helping you when you need it, then why would you stay quiet when something s happening to your community or to someone you know or love. However, it doesn't help when people who are doing for the fun of it start to join in. That defeats the purpose of acting out.
How can capitalism be blamed for the riots? What media theory (from our new/digital media unit) can this be linked to?
Many made the link between the riots and capitalism. If politicians or executives can lie, cheat and bribe their way to the top of the hierarchy, then why can't the less-privileged working-class do the same. Due to the materialistic society we live in, we see our possessions as defining our worth in society (of course our jobs and backgrounds come into this as well), so when an opportunity arises where we can steal goods to raise our worth,we take it. This can be linked to the theory of hegemony; where the corporate elite try to keep the power by manipulating the media and keep the class divide.
Were people involved in the riots given a voice in the media to explain their participation?
Many people were not given a voice as this would challenge the representation already established by the media. This comes back to Marxism as the elite was to keep control of what is being shown and said in the media so they can control and influence the opinions of the masses.
In the Guardian website's investigation into the causes of the riots, they did interview rioters themselves. Read this Guardian article from their Reading the Riots academic research project - what causes are outlined by those involved in the disturbances?
What is your own opinion on the riots? Do you have sympathy with those involved or do you believe strong prison sentences are the right approach to prevent such events happening in future?
I can understand why those who acted out did so, but it's still inexcusable. A man died and a teenager was assaulted by police at a peaceful protest. But that doesn't mean you should go and steal a TV from your local ASDA! Also, people died during the riots and many people were harmed in some way. And for what? So you get those trainers you couldn't afford from Footlocker. I can sympathise with that minority who were actually standing up for what they believed in, but those who just took advantage of the situation are the reason why the media portrays the youth in such a negative light. It can be argued that because of this negative portrayal, that these people took advantage of the situation. But, then that just fuels the media even more and thus becomes this vicious cycle in which will probably end in another riot. Its like the question: What came first, the chicken of the egg (although scientists did prove in 2010 that the chicken came first)? Lastly, I think that strong prison sentences isn't the right approach. I think providing these youth-specific services again will help to keep them on the right track.
Friday, 5 December 2014
Marxism And Pluralism Essay
The development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production. Discuss the arguments for and against this view.
A Marxist perspective would argue that the mass media are a tool used by the corporate elite (or ruling bodies) to maintain hegemonic control over the masses and a class divide system. It is believed audiences are put under the illusion that they have choice. Consumption and production are two of the main points in which they indeed have no choice, but only think they do. An argument, in terms of consumption, is the dumbing down of media. An example to support my argument is Radio 1's Newsbeat. Radio 1 took a sophisticated and intellectual news segment, and transformed it into a fragment of what it was. Designed to appeal to a much younger audience (mostly teens), this now slice of news has shown that the institutions are trying to control what the masses are seeing, reading and hearing. In terms of production, an argument can be made that audiences have more power through the use of e-media, however, the hegemonic values that have been instilled into society have had a great impact. This is when the status-quo stays the same as power is kept within the elite corporations. Furthermore, any alternative opinions to the popular are quickly disregarded as the same values and opinions are forced upon the audience everywhere. Audiences don't challenge these values as they have been formed for them. A theorist that supports this argument is 'Pareto's Law'; Pareto argues that 20% of the corporations control and distribute 80% of the news. Lastly, a domination of class has been fostered considering that the elite want each class to stay as it is. Any disruption in class would change the status quo that been put in place.
On the other hand, a Pluralist perspective would argue that new media has allowed audiences a great deal of opportunity, equality. and freedom of speech. This could be through the use of social media or even user-generated content (UGC). In terms of consumption, it can be argued that media corporations provide what the audience want to see and hear. The media provides the different types or genres of news from which we, as the audience, can pick and choose from. An example of pluralist values showing in the news are the riots in Ferguson. Social media was the basis for which these riots started and were being covered. Sites such as Twitter and Reddit showed exactly what was happening as the riots occurred. In terms of production, audiences are able to produce whatever content they like to be distributed amongst sites such as YouTube and Facebook. This democratisation of self-expression lets audiences make and look at what they want. These new opportunities let us argue there is no social divide any more, however, this is not the case. If content is deemed to be unsuitable, then it is removed. To be put simply, we are still being regulated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)