Loading...

Mass Media

Written as midterm assignment for Media Studies:Ideas

In their 1988 book, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman posit a theory of “systemic propaganda” in which the mass media control content in order to serve the ends of the dominant elite.  The ingredients of this model are five “filters” used to censor content, which consist of concentrated media ownership, advertising, government news sourcing, flak, and anticommunism.  The cultural and technological landscape in which this theory arose is vastly different than today’s, which is characterized by interactive technologies that allow everyday citizens to manipulate media in ways that were impossible 22 years ago.   At the same time, interactive technologies pose their own set of challenges to the open distribution of news and other media content.   The strengthening of copyright laws benefitting corporate media creators, as well as governmental restrictions on technology, have created a situation in which government is still in control of the creation and distribution of content. Additionally, corporate media producers have engaged in practices of aggressively persecuting fans and citizen producers over intellectual property rights – forcing fan websites to be shut down, and litigating against consumers who share and remix media.

How do changing copyright laws and a participatory media landscape impact the fitters theorized by Chomsky two decades ago? To try to answer this, I will look specifically at Chomsky’s ideas of media ownership and examine how they may be challenged by contemporary media practices.  I will examine not only the concept of content ownership, but also ownership of the media companies themselves and try to discern how interactive media both challenges Chomsky’s theory, as well as how it has created an environment in which new censorship filters have emerged, and whether it’s possible for old economic models to survive in the digital age.

[continue reading this post...]

Share

{ 1 comment }

2001 Interview with Joey Skaggs

by tomtenney on April 4, 2010

Digging around in my virtual shoeboxes to find material for a paper I’m writing on Culture Jamming, I found this interview I did with media prankster Joey Skaggs in 2001 for a tiny little short-lived zine called VIM, published by the artist Faith Pilger.  Skaggs had just presented PRANKS: THE ART OF JOEY SKAGGS at the UCB Theatre as a part of the 9th Annual Toyota Comedy Festival.  I was interested in talking with him about the relationship of his work to comedy.  Full text is below:

==

Joey Skaggs

Joey Skaggs

Joey Skaggs,  is a storyteller, performer and artist who uses mass media as his canvas to reach audiences around the world. He has duped the world’s most respected news outlets with his fictional news stories for over 35 years, and shows no signs of stopping. I spoke with Joey at a cafe downstairs from his Soho apartment, a few days after his performance in the 9th Annual Toyota Comedy Festival.

TT: You began your presentation by saying “I’m not a comedian”, but in a sense, you are. You’re a satirist.

JS: (laughs) Well, but I don’t do ‘stand-up’

TT: Well, sure… but I thought it was an interesting idea to include you in the festival.  It’s like the producers are finally starting to realize that comedy means more than standup.

JS: I thought it was a brave and radical departure…. and I’m glad there was a turnout.  I was really impressed with the range of artists that were there [in the audience] because I think it shows the audience are all kinds of possibilities.  And there were all kinds of possibilities there… that were presented.  It was totally cool.

TT: For people who don’t know your work…what do you do?  How do you sum it up?

JS: It depends on what I think about the person who’s asking me (laughs). What I do is what I’ve always done and that is… I’m an artist, and I felt restricted by the way that the art scene, or the art world, is run, and I didn’t want to be limited to the censoring… and the acceptance, the timing… you know you have a show, or maybe a group show or maybe it’s going to be a theme show where you have to produce a work of art that goes along with that.  It’s all bullshit, so I didn’t want to be limited to that.  And there were so many social issues when I was growing up that I thought were really important and I felt that as a creative person, I could express what I thought about those issues creatively.  I didn’t want to just throw rocks through windows or do destructive things like that, because I didn’t think that was effective.  So, as an artist, I used the media as a medium, and I use deception, a lie, as a means of communicating.  And if you think about what art is… art is a lie.  Art is an illusion, art is a creation that is meant to deceive.
[continue reading this post...]

Share

{ 0 comments }

The Meaning of Media

by tomtenney on February 24, 2010

Originally posted for “Media Language & Society” class 2/24/10

Hegemony:

A search of Google Images for “American Hegemony’ resulted in this map:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/usaworld.htm

displaying the growth in the distribution of US troops throughout the world from 1989-2003. The page also includes a chart showing the relative military spending by the nations of the world in 2003. Incredibly, the US spends nearly HALF of all military spending in the world. This should be a fairly clear indication that American imperialism is alive and well, and that we’re exerting our influence and power now more than ever before (well, at least more than we were in 1989.)

Dominant Meaning:

I stumbled of this image on the web, of a female McDonald’s worker in Egypt, who has a red hijab as a part of her McDonald’s uniform:

Now, regardless of what you think about women wearing burkas, this photograph is interesting in that it is clearly juxtaposing 2 cultures in one outfit, but the inclusion of the burka seems ridiculous, and almost condescending to local culture and religion. The McDonalds-ness of the uniform seems overpowering of any local culture they tried to ‘incorporate’ – making it all the more offensive.

Then, out of curiosity, I checked out the McDonalds Egypt website:

http://www.mcdonaldsegypt.com/

Which is far more American looking than Egyptian, with the exception that there’s Egyptian names for the sandwiches, and even those have the American names written (in bold) underneath.

Context:

For my reference to context, I chose this trailer of Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker:”

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/dor/objects/893478/hurt_locker/videos/hurtlocker_trlr_041609.html

Now, as much as I hated this film, I think that it represents the beginning of our culture trying to contextualize the Iraq war in order to make sense of it. So much of what we know about this war was fed to us by the mass media and, as we know now, key pieces of data were kept from us by our government. Although the initial invasion was almost seven years ago, I think our lack of understanding of the war has created an anxiety that we’re now starting to express culturally. By placing the war in the context of what it meant to individual soldiers and their families, we are beginning to create a narrative for ourselves that makes more sense than the one we were fed.

Encoding:

Encoding and decoding seem similar to the idea of semiotics – encoding meaning into images, news, and other kinds of media meant to convey a message beyond what meets the eye.

As an example, I found this story on the Fox News website about beauty pageant queens who oppose same-sex marriage:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/02/23/miss-beverly-hills-lauren-ashley-same-sex-marriage-carrie-prejean/?test=faces

While this arguably shouldn’t even be called “news,” it seems clear that the message encoded in this story is one that implies that gay marriage is not just wrong, but it’s un-American as well. If these wholesome American ideals (who are so ‘good’ that they even retain their virginity until marriage) think that it’s wrong, then you should too. It also creates a situation where one WANTS to identify with these women because of their “beauty” that we are trained to place such a high value on in our culture.

Decoding:

This one was tougher, as I feel like encoding and decoding are simply opposite sides of the same coin. For this example, I chose this website that gives a lesson plan for teachers on how to teach a class on decoding advertising:

http://www.youthxchange.net/main/e_cw_007.asp

Being able to decode media messages is obviously a main objective of media literacy education. We’re more inundated with media and advertising today than ever before, and it’s critical that kids are educated to be able to deconstruct the media that bombards them, to understand the messages, decode them, and think critically about them.

Share

{ 2 comments }