Media and Language.

The use of language contributes significantly in the construction of a preferred meaning.
How is the world re-presented?
What identities are set up for those involved in the program? i.e who will they have on 'Tonight with Vincent Browne' representing the politicians, who will they have representing the media.
what relationships are set up between those involved? i.e what will the relationship between the journalist and the politician be like on 'Tonight with Vincent Browne.'

Conversationalisation.
Accent and Delivery- The first thing we hear when we read an article is our voice. The Journalists accent is not evident. (University of Chicago 2010). If accent is too difficult to understand it is considered less credible.

Research has shown that Native speakers are sensitive to foreign language.
The University of Chicago showed that accented speech was rated as less truthful than native speech, based on a test assigned to native speakers.

Sometimes natural accents can also be treated less creditable. An example of which being that of, 'Winning Streak' presenter Geri Maye 'mocking' a contestant for addressing Maye in her native tongue. The 'Winning Streak' presenter treated the subjected contestant differently from the rest of the contestants on the show.


Conversationalisation of Language.

Based on research from the Central Office of Information located in the UK, it found that audiences of entertainment programs tend to relate better to local accents whereas those watching genres such as News and Current affairs will relate better to a Recieved Pronononciation.
Examples.
Six one news- public (official) accent.
Hector/Joe Duffy radio shows - private, distinctive accents.

Norman Fairclough touches on the idea that the Presenter will re-present dialogue of 'Joe the Plummer' using conversationalisation to reach out to their target audience. Politicians often do this during campaigns to reach out to voters for their support.

Last week we looked at 'renting eyeballs' -selling information to sets of eyeballs. Conversationalisation plays a big part in a demographic wanting to watch a program. When we apply this to the recent news surrounding the Magdalene Laundries, most reports or articles contained interviews with survivors of the Magdelene Laundries. Their voice made the story more appealing to listen to.

This marketisation undermines the media as a public sphere, as suggested, there is a diversion of attention and energy from political and social issues when helping to insulate existing relations of power and domination from serious challenge. There is often an element of dumbing down - turning stories into entertainment because it is entertainment that sells advertisement.

CA1 Preferred Meaning and The Circuit of Culture

In this post I will  discuss an example of the presence of a ‘preferred meaning’ within a mediated text and other possible ‘realities’ that may not be pushed by the content. Here is a link to the example I have chosen to talk about.

Identity: This is an article which deals with Arsene Wenger's recent Champions League pre-match press conference. The event took place on Monday afternoon, 18th of February and the content was published a short time after.
The article is by 'The Mirror' a National British tabloid, it is available on the official website, Mirror.co.uk.

Representation:
The first thing we see when we look at the online article is a picture of a seemingly contrary looking Wenger preceded by the headline, 

"Wenger meltdown! Furious Arsenal boss rounds on reporters over new contract 'lies' in stormy press conference."

From this a vivid picture of a 'furious' manager is painted by Cross.

Words such as 'snapped', used 7 times in total, insinuate that Wenger "appeared to lose the plot."

Journalist, John Cross, who wrote the article, suggests "It was the most angry many regular Arsenal Observers had seen Wenger and raises doubts about his state of mind before such a big game."

In the provided video, we do not see, and barely hear, what the journalists are saying. From what we do hear, they have a very public sounding voice, making it impersonable to listen to. Based on the four minute video, there is a gender balance in the room as questions are asked by female as much as male.

Production:

The encoding process is influenced by Arsenal's recent down turn in form, causing some Arsenal fans to become dissatisfied with their manager. As a result, any news in relation to Wenger at the minute is topical and will sell advertisement space. Video footage of the press conference is used to set the tone of the quotes in the article, despite the fact the footage does not include the majority of quotes mentioned in the text. Most of the quotes used in the text do not reflect the tone of the provided footage.

Consumption:
The decoding occurs from the comments section provided under neath the article. Comments from the public provide a good balance between dominant, oppositional and negotiated views towards the articles preferred meaning.

Dominant view: "He's lost it big time. How can a story about him getting a new contract turn the fans against him ?" 

oppositional view: "Sadly some of the press trough brigade predictably take advantage & publish total fantasy stories plucked out of thin air. Today though Arsene Wenger, justifiably angry about trouble making press rubbish regarding new contract reports, returned fire."

Negotiated view: "if only he´d found his gangster mid season! your half past your sell by date,the honorable thing to do would be to fall on his sword not see the remainder of his contract out!"

Regulation:
All Print media is self regulated by the PCC(Press Complaints Commission).
The PCC consists of 17 members, 9 independent of newspapers and magazines 7 Senior editors from national and regional press. This self- regulation allows for print journalism to control what its allowed to write.

‘Realities’ that may not be pushed:
Although Wenger may have lost his cool, it wasn't the alleged 'meltdown' the content suggests. Before the Press Conference journalists are reminded by the Press Officer, of clubs involved, they are only permitted to asks questions in relation to the upcoming match. In this case most journalists chose to ignore this. Wenger didn't do himself any favours by dignifying such questions with answers. What the video footage does not show is an articulated Wenger addressing a German speaking journalist in her native language, smiling at what she had to say. This perhaps would contrast the preferred meaning that Wenger "Appeared to lose the plot."

Whenever Wenger appears  'angry' or 'furious', it is to answer questions non-related to the press-conference. When it is suggested he 'snapped' at one journalist, the full length footage shows Wenger using a sarcastic tone in addressing the journalist in question, who in turn laughed. This is not shown in the video provided with the article.

The content's insinuation is  that the Arsenal players may not be in the right frame of mind 
"Mikel Arteta looked very uncomfortable sat to his left at the press conference." 
This perhaps is taken out of context given most players are traditionally uncomfortable when on media duty.

I finish by briefly comparing this press conference to Alex Ferguson's pre match Champions League press conference a week earlier. The very first question goes off topic and United's press officer, Karen Shotbolt, does not allow the question to be answered, cutting the journalist off. The start of this press conference also highlights the amount of people present at the event. Ferguson repeatedly looks at the wrong journalists when answering questions, just as Wenger did.

It is not important for the press to try and provoke Ferguson because his job is safe. Wenger's job may not and they know any controversy surrounding the Arsenal Manager will sell. 

Decoding and Encoded 'Reality'

This week we are looking at Decoding and encoded 'Reality' in relation to Media discourse and Analysis. There are a five key points to take into consideration when it comes to decoding media content in order to figure out why a message was encoded in the first place.

1. Who created the message? i.e what paper, TV channel, journalist, reporter wrote the article. McQuail argues is not objective or impartial rather it is a socially manufactured product  because it is the end result of a selection Process, in which gatekeepers such as editors, journalists and even sometimes proprietors, make choices about what events are important enough to cover and equally important how to cover them.
2. What Creative techniques are used to attract my attention? i.e is there sound or intro music that sets the tone. A video montage at the start of a football match for example might set the stage for a 'heroic' comeback. Colour, Camera and Sound are very important when it comes to attracting the viewers attention. 
3. How might different people understand this message 'differently' than me? i.e If a Liverpool Fan agreed with what John Aldridge had to say in an article about a Liverpool v ManU match, the United fan would be likely to have a difference of opinion. John Aldridge, being an ex-Liverpool player, is known to be biased towards the team he also supported as a boy. However if somebody who disliked football gave out about how boring the article was, then both football fans would have similar ground to agree upon, in-turn disagreeing with the non-football fan.
4. What values, Lifestyles and POV are represented in, or omitted from, this message? i.e Has the publisher of the Televised Interview chose to re-edit/cut out certain sections of an interview to ensure the interviewee fits his/her perceived image. Mainstream beliefs sell. Alternative theories are seen as risky and publishers/broadcasters may chose not to air them because of this. That said Don't assume alternatives are true either. I.E Michael Moore's documentary 'Bowling for Columbine' contained manipulation of interviews and Moore gained accessed to the interviewee, Charlton Heston, under false pretense.
5. Why is this message being sent? 
   Lets consider the "Renting Eye Balls" Theory: The reason behind putting programmes on TV (commercial) and articles in a magazine is to create an audience (and put them in a receptive mood) so that the network or publisher can sell time or space to a sponsor.
   i.e if a news station has had a particularly slow day for news, they might edit an interview to sensationalise a news item. This is more likely to generate a bigger audience which in turn will lead to revenue for advertisement. News values determine newsworthiness. A story may not be always considered as 'real' but the meanings we take from them has a real impact.

Briefly just to add some important points to our 5 key considerations.

One way of helping us to decode an encoded 'reality' is to look at syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. To help understand Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations, let us imagine they are positioned on an X and Y axis Graph. 

If the syntagmatic relation was the X axis of a graph, then the Paradigmatic would be the Y axis of this imaginary graph. Syntagmatic is the construction of meaning arrived at the completion of a sentence The Paradigmatic is seen as a substitution of a word. So if a word in the constructed syntagmatic is changed, or substituted by the Paradigmatic, then the Syntagmatic will take on new meaning. Where the X and Y graph intersects can be likened to the relations between Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic. An example of this would be how Michael Collins was reported as a 'Freedom Fighter' in the Irish Media whereas he was known as a 'terrorist' by English media during the Irish war of independence. The paradigmatic substitute of 'Freedom Fighter' for 'Terrorist' changes the Syntagmatic meaning.

Finally Let us consider the Reference to elite nations: McLurg's Law:

1 dead Briton = 5 dead French = 20 dead egyptians = 500 dead Indians = 1000 dead Chinese People. The idea behind this is that a dead Briton is as much breaking news in the UK Media as the deaths of 1000 Chinese people would be. The news is more personal if people can relate to it. British people will be interested in the sad news that 'one of their own' has died, whereas the death of a China man/woman is less likely to attract interest. The opposite could be said for news Story being reported in China.

'A Pseudo Event' feat. George W. Bush!

Bush delivering his speech, with the aid of a bull horn, to the workers of Ground Zero. The low angle shot empowers Bush.

Having been introduced to the subject of Media Discourse last week, we distinguished between a Genuine Event, a Media Event and a Pseudo Event. This week we will be focusing in more detail exclusively on Pseudo Events with reference to Daniel Boorstin's 'A Flood Of Pseudo Events.' To help illustrate Boorstin's theories I have chosen  George W. Bush's '9/11 Bullhorn Speech' as an example of a psuedo event.

Briefly just to recap, a genuine event is one that will occur regardless of whether the media takes note of them or not. Any media involvement will not have an effect on the story. A media event is one which probably would have taken place without media involvement but has since taken on new meaning. 
In the case of a media event, 
"Staging an event for a media audience and telling a story for the audience to follow is the main concern of such happenings"- Glenn Doyle.

A pseudo event is 'staged by the media'.
"They only happen to induce media coverage. They happen live, but are always media products which are altered by technical or dramaturgical means to create a difference between what happened on site and what is shown." - Glenn Doyle.
According to Daniel Boorstin, A pseudo-event is a happening that possesses the following characteristics,

1.  It is not spontaneous.
2.  It is planted primarily (not always exclusively) for the immediate purpose of being reported or reproduced.
3. Its relation to the underlying reality of the situation is ambiguous.
4. Usually it is intended to be self fulfilling prophecy.( a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to come true).

With that in mind this brings me to 'The Bullhorn Speech' by George W.Bush. It was september, 2001, three days after 9/11. The, then, President of the U.S.A George W. Bush arrived at the wreckage scene of ground zero to deliver, with the aid of the bullhorn, a message of encouragement to the volunteers working on site. Bush delivers his speech on top of a mound of rubble with an arm around a Chief Fireman. He is surrounded by a crowd who, through-out the speech, appear un-able to hear what the President is saying. At the climax of his speech Bush delivers the line "I can hear you, the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." There is rapturous applause and chants of 'U.S.A' as Bush concludes his speech, exclaiming 'God Bless America'.

This event has all the characteristics of a Pseudo Event. For starters the President is dressed in plain clothes as opposed to a suit, this may be done deliberately to show he is a man of the people. He gives his speech standing on a mound above all the crowd. Although it may be argued that this was done so that people could see him, the mound is not that high. It does however, add enough height for the camera man to capture an empowering shot of President Bush. The camera is looking up at the president initially capturing a mid-shot of Bush and the fireman before zooming out to show a surrounding crowd in the foreground and remains of the twin towers in the background. In the distance is an american flag wrapped around a pole. The shot is perfectly composed to set the scene. The low camera angle creates an almost ' Demi-God like' shot reminiscent to Leni Riefenstahl's filming of the Nuremberg Rallies.

Riefenstahl's filming was propaganda however and it is important to note that pseudo events must be distinguished from propoganda.

'A pseudo-event is an ambiguous truth, propaganda feeds on our willingness to be inflamed. Pseudo-events appeal to our duty to be educated, propaganda appeals to our desire to be aroused. While propaganda substitutes opinion for facts, psuedo-events are synthetic facts which move people indirectly.' -Daniel Boorstin (1961).

The fact of the matter is, 9/11 happened and Bush was responding to the event. Boorstin writes that "Propaganda -- as prescribed, say , by Hitler in Mein Kampf -is information intentionally biased." Bush technically did not say anything inaccurate in his speech. The world was watching, courtesy of large scale media coverage, and if there was any intentional bias in his speech, the feeling was reflected mutually across the globe and the event was unlikely to have changed the opinions of its demographic, America and the western world. As Boorstin eloquently phrases it "We cannot say that we are being fooled. It is not entirely inaccurate to say that we are being 'informed'."

"What happens on television will overshadow what happens off television."- Daniel Boorstin, (1961).

The above statement couldn't be more fitting when returning to the 'Bullhorn Speech' example. The most alarming characteristic which mirrors that of a pseudo event, is what we see in the footage of Bush's speech as opposed to what we hear. 

For starters all the cheering appears to be off camera. When the cameraman zooms out just before Bush deliverers his 'I can hear you' line, it reveals a contextual crowd made up of firemen and volunteers. The crowd also consists of a perimeter of security guards surrounding the president. This crowd explains the ecstatically loud cheering. However if we examine the footage whenever there is cheering, there is only ever a small handful of people actually engaging in the act. Given the sheer scale of the tragedy and the exhaustion of the workers, it is hard to believe that the President would be greeted by such rapturous roars of approval. The widespread muted applause which we see in the picture is more fitting.

I couldn't help but notice the rise in audio levels shortly before Bush reaches the pinnacle of his address to the workers. This occurs in the video attached at approx. 28-33 seconds. The levels seem to peak more from then on and we can hear Bush better than previous to this occurrence. The rapturous applause does not fit with footage and the fact that we cannot see where the noise is coming from suggests that the shots are strategically framed. Bush's audio levels dip again towards the end of the footage shortly before a chant from the crowd of 'God Bless America.'

This seems like a well planned 'staged media event'. Although it is conceivable to expect Bush to visit the workers, I find it hard to believe he would have stood up and gave a speech in such a manner if the media were not involved. The fact that there is a perimeter of security guards around the event suggests that it was planned out in advance, staged.

Boorstin writes of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

"On his production team, in addition to newspapermen, there were poets, playwrights, and a regular corps of speech writers." upon viewing the closing close up shot of president Bush holding an american flag aloft, I would suggest that he too had a similar team which helped to contribute to this pseudo event. I will finish with the subject of the speech, the bullhorn speaker used by President Bush. It suggests that the event was spontaneous. 

However, I believe if Bush were to have such a production team, the bullhorn would have been used for dramatic effect. All the media surrounding the event would have had aptly suitable equipment to ensure the crowd could hear the president properly and yet the bullhorn was first preference. Such a prop enabled for a self fulfilling title 'The Bullhorn Speech,' and dramatised the occasion by prompting the 'I can hear you . . .' line.
The fact that media were aloud into such a hazardous environment is also something that leads me to believe this was a pseudo event.

This event in turn triggered a snowball effect of pseudo events, as media reporting of the event made it an iconic symbol of the 9/11 aftermath.

"in America, illusions and fabrications had become a dominate force within society."- Daniel Boorstin.

Media Discourse Analysis - A True Story!

"This Erosion of 'reality' emphasises the need for an ability to analyze the media content we are mediated as 'real'." - Glenn Doyle

This week I had my first class in Media Discourse Analysis.
From my understanding this module is about questioning everything we read and hear about across news, current affairs, entertainment and sport. The only stories that we can treat as definite and accurate are, local, the ones we witness. 

Although a lot of news headlines in the media can be seen as genuine, it is important to understand that the media can turn a news story into a media event. A media event is where the media form an opinion on the story and this opinion is sometimes received as fact. This in-turn can manipulate public opinion. Sometimes the media will stage an event to break a story. This is known as a pseudo event.

Media Discourse Analysis is also about realising that there can often be two realities on the same issue depending on the area and demographic.

It is hard to distinguish what is genuine, a staged event or a pseudo event in the media. I always thought 'The Toppling of The Statue' in Iraq in 2003 was a genuine news event, I remember watching it live. However it was highlighted in class that this was a staged media event by the US forces to manipulate public opinion into thinking that there was a large Iraqi support for what the US soldiers were doing. In truth although many of the Iraqi population felt relieved Saddam Hussein was removed from power, they were in no mood for celebrating. The event enabled the then US President George Bush to give a 'Mission Accomplished' speech.

This will be an interesting module because I have questioned certain media events in the past. The Oprah Winfrey interview with Lance Armstrong last month was breaking news globally across all news networks. In my opinion the interview with Armstrong and Winfrey was a staged media event to keep the story in the headlines. The interview was pre-recorded, Armstrong didn't really reveal anything new and yet there was two days of persistent analysis on the event. Anyone who wasn't following the story could have been enticed in by the headlines. Very little new information was actually revealed in the interview.

The recent press conference where David Beckham was unveiled as a PSG player in Paris seemed to be a pseudo event to reveal that he was donating his salary to charity. 

I have even had my doubts surrounding the Andy Gray sexism storyline and how it was leaked. It would have been known to Gray's employers, 'Sky Sports', that this was not the first incident in which he used derogatory comments towards women. The leaked footage seemed to date back long before the incident in question occurred. What I find more interesting is that Andy Gray was in fact suing 'News of The World' At the time, a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch's 'Newscorp'. Murdoch also owns 'SkySports'. Was the Sian Massey incident the media event Murdoch needed to get rid of Andy Gray?

Gray's words in a Daily Mirror Article, 'I've been stitched up'.

Media Discourse Analysis, its good to be able to put a title to a growing skepticism I have for Media Reporting.