I think that the marketplace and the needs of the public do have a conflict between the two. One is what we think the market place expects us to tell the public and then you have the public wanting to know more than what the media is telling us as the public.
The thing that people have to understand is though as the public you want to know the truth about what is going on around you, you are also not the only one that may read the paper or watch the news. As the media they have to make sure they are appeling to a large audience. Not everyone wants to hear the truth.
I also think that it is a hard and fine line between the two. It is hard to understand being a person in the public to know what the media market has to conform to, and as the media having been a part of the public at some time has to find the fine line of getting out the news and media but not crossing the line of what is allowed.
I think that this is going to be something that we are constantly going to be disscussing expecially since times have changed and there is a lot more going on in the world. But who gets to decide what the public needs to know.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Pressures of the Marketplace and Needs of the Public
The pressures of the marketplace and the needs of the public have a strong relationship, yet an intriguing conflict in our country. No matter what, the public's needs will never ever completely agree with the pressure's of the marketplace because the content that will be provided due to the pressure's of the marketplace will only agree with most of society and not all of it. Because of this, broadcasting can never appease everyone which will eventually lead to the disappointment of some viewers. Someone's needs will be left out. The only problem though is that there is no real way to change that. You can't really complain to anyone, you can't really tell your cable provider exactly what channels you want or that you only want content that features this or that. They will try to force you to conform your needs to the needs of the majority of the public. For years those viewers who were left out had no power.
That is why the Internet and TIVO or DVR systems are so popular now. We now have more control/power than ever. Our anger at the fact that for years the marketplace never allowed us to request or make any sort of changes in the content that we need or when we needed has developed into us developing technology that will allow us to in most ways be in charge. We have now demanded our control and are now exercising it through other media outlets. I truly hate that anyone feels that they have the right to censor anything that airs on television because of its content or that they even feel the right to think that they know my needs as to when or what programming I should be watching. Pressures of the marketplace take away from the needs from some members of the public, but it is good now that the pressures of the marketplace are threatened by us taking more control of media outlets by choosing the content that we view on either the Internet or from our digital recording devices.
That is why the Internet and TIVO or DVR systems are so popular now. We now have more control/power than ever. Our anger at the fact that for years the marketplace never allowed us to request or make any sort of changes in the content that we need or when we needed has developed into us developing technology that will allow us to in most ways be in charge. We have now demanded our control and are now exercising it through other media outlets. I truly hate that anyone feels that they have the right to censor anything that airs on television because of its content or that they even feel the right to think that they know my needs as to when or what programming I should be watching. Pressures of the marketplace take away from the needs from some members of the public, but it is good now that the pressures of the marketplace are threatened by us taking more control of media outlets by choosing the content that we view on either the Internet or from our digital recording devices.
Rotten Apples
Let's take this analogy and run farther with it than anyone in their right mind ever intended...
The Marketplace is media and the public is the shopper. The shopper could be looking for anything, but in this case, let's say she's looking for fruit. No, it doesn't have to be fruit, but I like fruit. Write your own analogy if it bugs you that much!
Ok, fruit. The underlying theory residing in the marketplace is that the shopper will continue perusing fruit until she locates that one apple that shines brighter and tastes sweeter than all others. I've decided that the shopper should be a "she" and probably of some ethnic descent. If the individual was a white male, he probably wouldn't be allowed to visit the market in the first place. Digression aside, the other vendors, unable to compete with the unparalleled apple, would be forced to seek another venue, or disappear from the market long enough for everyone to forget about them.
I don't think the theory should be scrapped, it definitely has some good points. Besides, it has been a really long time since I've had a really good apple. The marketplace does provide a nice battleground for competition, and those that really have something to offer can excel. Not only that, but we see things at the marketplace we may not just love, but that we need, like bread, vegetables, or fish. What self respecting marketplace wouldn't have a big decapitated fish head for all to see.
There are some problems though. At some point, somebody jacked up the rent on stall space. In order to survive, vendors had to let people cover the fronts of their stalls with posters and fliers. In many cases the fliers are numerous enough to hide the apples. That's all assuming that you even like apples. Perhaps you like some really obscure fruit that most shoppers couldn't even pronounce. If it isn't cost effective for the vendor to carry it, you won't find it in the marketplace. That leaves you sad, with an empty nagging feeling in the pit of your stomach. Speaking of not finding things in the marketplace, we just assumed that the marketplace even housed some kind of uber apple. What if a really good apple didn't even exit. What if all the apples were bad. What if the shopper never learned how to pick a good apple.
The Marketplace is media and the public is the shopper. The shopper could be looking for anything, but in this case, let's say she's looking for fruit. No, it doesn't have to be fruit, but I like fruit. Write your own analogy if it bugs you that much!
Ok, fruit. The underlying theory residing in the marketplace is that the shopper will continue perusing fruit until she locates that one apple that shines brighter and tastes sweeter than all others. I've decided that the shopper should be a "she" and probably of some ethnic descent. If the individual was a white male, he probably wouldn't be allowed to visit the market in the first place. Digression aside, the other vendors, unable to compete with the unparalleled apple, would be forced to seek another venue, or disappear from the market long enough for everyone to forget about them.
I don't think the theory should be scrapped, it definitely has some good points. Besides, it has been a really long time since I've had a really good apple. The marketplace does provide a nice battleground for competition, and those that really have something to offer can excel. Not only that, but we see things at the marketplace we may not just love, but that we need, like bread, vegetables, or fish. What self respecting marketplace wouldn't have a big decapitated fish head for all to see.
There are some problems though. At some point, somebody jacked up the rent on stall space. In order to survive, vendors had to let people cover the fronts of their stalls with posters and fliers. In many cases the fliers are numerous enough to hide the apples. That's all assuming that you even like apples. Perhaps you like some really obscure fruit that most shoppers couldn't even pronounce. If it isn't cost effective for the vendor to carry it, you won't find it in the marketplace. That leaves you sad, with an empty nagging feeling in the pit of your stomach. Speaking of not finding things in the marketplace, we just assumed that the marketplace even housed some kind of uber apple. What if a really good apple didn't even exit. What if all the apples were bad. What if the shopper never learned how to pick a good apple.
The Marketplace and the Needs of the Public
When dealing with the Marketplace in terms of "broadcast television" one can say that we are limited in access. We do not yet live in a world where we can pick and choose which channels we view on our tv's. Instead a room full of people decide what we watch, for long we will watch it and if we will get it at all for what we pay. This is not an ideal marketplace. This is why the internet is so popular. It has a vast amount of information almost all of it completely unregulated. People feel free to express themselves on the net through channels such as this (blogging). Think about this, how long does it take you to browse through all the channels on your tv? I tried and could see what was on all of them in a little under 5 minutes. Now try and see what "channels" are on the Internet... good luck, see you in a year or two, that is if you stop sleeping to sort through all that is on the net. The Internet is the channel out there that has this type of access. Radio...nope, satellite...please, the Internet is the only true marketplace out there. Just like the salons of the romantic era, every viewpoint is expressed free of censorship.
As to what the public needs, well that seems to be a very individual question. No two persons media needs are the same. People like to see different things, while MTV may entertain your average 14 year old prepster, it ain't getting it done for grandma. This is why the Internet works. Grandma can go and choose what she wants to see, unlike TV where she can only see what is available to her. If grandma doesn't like what she sees on the net then she can create her own net channel (if she is computer literate). The public needs to have access to it all... to suit their needs, I mean if it is truly to be a "marketplace". Yeah. Freedom in media. Let the people decide. Does Democracy not apply to broadcasting? It doesn't feel like it.
As to what the public needs, well that seems to be a very individual question. No two persons media needs are the same. People like to see different things, while MTV may entertain your average 14 year old prepster, it ain't getting it done for grandma. This is why the Internet works. Grandma can go and choose what she wants to see, unlike TV where she can only see what is available to her. If grandma doesn't like what she sees on the net then she can create her own net channel (if she is computer literate). The public needs to have access to it all... to suit their needs, I mean if it is truly to be a "marketplace". Yeah. Freedom in media. Let the people decide. Does Democracy not apply to broadcasting? It doesn't feel like it.
The Marketplace/The Needs of the Public
There are so many issues between the marketplace and the needs of the public, it is hard to know where to begin. Media ownership and consolidation are problems as are the public’s expectations of media.
One of the major problems in media is the marketplace catering to an increasingly base audience. In recent years, it seems that most media have overly-sensationalized their content.
I feel like there is real hard news out there, but when you turn on CNN, they are broadcasting the latest details of Britney Spears downward spiral or debating who Anna Nicole Smith’s baby’s-daddy could be. Is this really what the public wants?
The marketplace has given in to the ratings game to such an extent; news is no longer a factor. The need to out-do the rival station and gain viewers has lowered the standard. In return, the public expects less.
Of course I like to be entertained, but there comes a point when news needs to be news.
One of the major problems in media is the marketplace catering to an increasingly base audience. In recent years, it seems that most media have overly-sensationalized their content.
I feel like there is real hard news out there, but when you turn on CNN, they are broadcasting the latest details of Britney Spears downward spiral or debating who Anna Nicole Smith’s baby’s-daddy could be. Is this really what the public wants?
The marketplace has given in to the ratings game to such an extent; news is no longer a factor. The need to out-do the rival station and gain viewers has lowered the standard. In return, the public expects less.
Of course I like to be entertained, but there comes a point when news needs to be news.
The Marketplace and the needs of the public
The marketplace and the public need each other. If we went back into time where if you didn't grow it or shoot it, you didn't eat; or if your wife couldn't sew it or patch it, you were naked, things would be a lot different.
To be progressive, the individual has to have everything the market place throws at him, commercials included. Your favorite TV show would not exist with the amazing (or not so amazing) actors cast with out commercials.
Journalists, in general, hardly make any money. We would make even less if ad and commercial space were not sold in abundance. I do agree that as journalist, our sponsorship can be sold off to the highest bidder, but our stories should stay un-bias and stick to the facts. Having the luxury of working for a non-sponsored university newscast, our only veto is on ethical grounds. Though we are technically an MTV station, we are still educationally based and would run a story in a heartbeat if something corrupt happened at MTV headquarters. Though we tend to stick to local stories, if we had a national reach, I'm sure we would run the story regardless.
Back to the main question, the conflict between the marketplace and the needs of the public is a necessary evil. In order for the public to have a marketplace, the public must have everything that comes with it, including commercials and sometimes bias. There would not be a marketplace without the commercial aspect, and without commercials and the funding that comes with them, there quality of journalism would be even less because everyone has to pay the mortgage (shameless steal from Thank You For Smoking).
To be progressive, the individual has to have everything the market place throws at him, commercials included. Your favorite TV show would not exist with the amazing (or not so amazing) actors cast with out commercials.
Journalists, in general, hardly make any money. We would make even less if ad and commercial space were not sold in abundance. I do agree that as journalist, our sponsorship can be sold off to the highest bidder, but our stories should stay un-bias and stick to the facts. Having the luxury of working for a non-sponsored university newscast, our only veto is on ethical grounds. Though we are technically an MTV station, we are still educationally based and would run a story in a heartbeat if something corrupt happened at MTV headquarters. Though we tend to stick to local stories, if we had a national reach, I'm sure we would run the story regardless.
Back to the main question, the conflict between the marketplace and the needs of the public is a necessary evil. In order for the public to have a marketplace, the public must have everything that comes with it, including commercials and sometimes bias. There would not be a marketplace without the commercial aspect, and without commercials and the funding that comes with them, there quality of journalism would be even less because everyone has to pay the mortgage (shameless steal from Thank You For Smoking).
The Marketplace and the needs of the public
The marketplace and the public need each other. If we went back into time where if you didn't grow it or shoot it, you didn't eat; or if your wife couldn't sew it or patch it, you were naked, things would be a lot different.
To be progressive, the individual has to have everything the market place throws at him, commercials included. Your favorite TV show would not exist with the amazing (or not so amazing) actors cast with out commercials.
Journalists, in general, hardly make any money. We would make even less if ad and commercial space were not sold in abundance. I do agree that as journalist, our sponsorship can be sold off to the highest bidder, but our stories should stay un-bias and stick to the facts. Having the luxury of working for a non-sponsored university newscast, our only veto is on ethical grounds. Though we are technically an MTV station, we are still educationally based and would run a story in a heartbeat if something corrupt happened at MTV headquarters. Though we tend to stick to local stories, if we had a national reach, I'm sure we would run the story regardless.
Back to the main question, the conflict between the marketplace and the needs of the public is a necessary evil. In order for the public to have a marketplace, the public must have everything that comes with it, including commercials and sometimes bias. There would not be a marketplace without the commercial aspect, and without commercials and the funding that comes with them, there quality of journalism would be even less because everyone has to pay the mortgage (shameless steal from Thank You For Smoking).
To be progressive, the individual has to have everything the market place throws at him, commercials included. Your favorite TV show would not exist with the amazing (or not so amazing) actors cast with out commercials.
Journalists, in general, hardly make any money. We would make even less if ad and commercial space were not sold in abundance. I do agree that as journalist, our sponsorship can be sold off to the highest bidder, but our stories should stay un-bias and stick to the facts. Having the luxury of working for a non-sponsored university newscast, our only veto is on ethical grounds. Though we are technically an MTV station, we are still educationally based and would run a story in a heartbeat if something corrupt happened at MTV headquarters. Though we tend to stick to local stories, if we had a national reach, I'm sure we would run the story regardless.
Back to the main question, the conflict between the marketplace and the needs of the public is a necessary evil. In order for the public to have a marketplace, the public must have everything that comes with it, including commercials and sometimes bias. There would not be a marketplace without the commercial aspect, and without commercials and the funding that comes with them, there quality of journalism would be even less because everyone has to pay the mortgage (shameless steal from Thank You For Smoking).
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Media Education
The primary source of my media education came from my parents. They would turn off my cartoons, or video games, to switch on the news. We also left piles of news paper out when we planned to be gone for long periods of time so the dog would have a place to do her business if we didn't get back in time.
As far as learning anything media based in formal education... I was in an advanced class in middle school where they had us look at top stories in the news paper. i remember getting in trouble for not knowing how to fold a paper, so the whole class got to learn because of my inability. Later on in high school Spanish we learned that everything you read on the internet isn't true through translation websites. We were given a phrase in Spanish and asked to find 4 different translators to get the job done. Come to find out... none of them were accurate.
I was never fully educated on the topic of media until I got to college and my roommate filled me in on her major. But, I do not see how budgeting would allow for the topic to be fully examined before college.
As far as learning anything media based in formal education... I was in an advanced class in middle school where they had us look at top stories in the news paper. i remember getting in trouble for not knowing how to fold a paper, so the whole class got to learn because of my inability. Later on in high school Spanish we learned that everything you read on the internet isn't true through translation websites. We were given a phrase in Spanish and asked to find 4 different translators to get the job done. Come to find out... none of them were accurate.
I was never fully educated on the topic of media until I got to college and my roommate filled me in on her major. But, I do not see how budgeting would allow for the topic to be fully examined before college.
Media Literacy
Well my personal experience with media literacy really didn't begin until I came to college. I would say that the only thing I did was sometimes I would read the paper, but that was just because my dad always did that so I guess I thought I should too.
When I started my college classes was really when I started to pay more attention to what was going on in the world around me.
The one class however, that helped me most in learning how to read and become a critical reader of the media was Dr. Gades' class. I learned how to pick out important information and retain the meaning of what was being said.
From that class and now others as I am in the Journalism field of study I have come to enjoy learning and understanding about what is going on around me. But to say that I had a good background in Media literacy before I came to college would not be true, but I do think it is good that schools are doing that.
When I started my college classes was really when I started to pay more attention to what was going on in the world around me.
The one class however, that helped me most in learning how to read and become a critical reader of the media was Dr. Gades' class. I learned how to pick out important information and retain the meaning of what was being said.
From that class and now others as I am in the Journalism field of study I have come to enjoy learning and understanding about what is going on around me. But to say that I had a good background in Media literacy before I came to college would not be true, but I do think it is good that schools are doing that.
My Media Literacy Education
I never received any formal media literacy education while I was in school. Our school had a newspaper, but all it was about was gossip and other school stories like the football team or basketball team. We did have channel 1, but only one of my teachers ever showed it. When she did, the news was on early in the morning before our 8am start time and it was always muted. I never really paid attention to it, because I was usually really tired and it looked really, really bad. I always wanted to change the channel, but she never would let me.
The only thing that I learned about media bias before I came to college, I learned on my own through two different experiences. The first experience happened when I watched Bill O'Reilly's show in high school. It presented the stories in a different way and it surprised me that it seemed to have an obvious bias in every story that was aired or discussed. It was not that I necessarily disagreed with the bias all the time, but it was just weird to me at the time that there was such an apparent bias and it shocked me. The second experience had to do more with radio. I remember being in Tulsa and listening to a station and then going somewhere (I think it was Florida), and on the exact same frequency, was a station that sounded exactly like the one at home with the exact same host, who was reporting the same news and playing the same music! That sort of shocked me, but it opened my eyes to the fact that if this was happening that only a certain few were in control of the messages that were being sent out to the American public.
The only thing that I learned about media bias before I came to college, I learned on my own through two different experiences. The first experience happened when I watched Bill O'Reilly's show in high school. It presented the stories in a different way and it surprised me that it seemed to have an obvious bias in every story that was aired or discussed. It was not that I necessarily disagreed with the bias all the time, but it was just weird to me at the time that there was such an apparent bias and it shocked me. The second experience had to do more with radio. I remember being in Tulsa and listening to a station and then going somewhere (I think it was Florida), and on the exact same frequency, was a station that sounded exactly like the one at home with the exact same host, who was reporting the same news and playing the same music! That sort of shocked me, but it opened my eyes to the fact that if this was happening that only a certain few were in control of the messages that were being sent out to the American public.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Media Bias and me!
I can say, with some certainty, that before college, I have had no education with the explicit intent of preparing me to recognize and react to media bias. I'm interested to know what it was like in larger systems, but my school had enough trouble finding history and science teachers. My senior year, I called three of my teachers "Coach." I never played any form of sport in high school.
Somewhere along the formative process of becoming...well, me, I came to realize that people have this nasty little underlying habit of wanting you to believe what they believe. If I was to muster a guess as to why this is, I think I would have to go with the idea that very few people tend to believe in things that they hold to be wrong. I would denominate this to be human nature, but call it whatever you'd like.
It didn't seem to be a terribly hard concept to realize that newspapers, magazines, radio, television and the Internet were all conceived, staffed, managed, transmitted and financed by humans, or at least what can pass for them in public. All of these different seemingly-human individuals had their own set of beliefs, their own ideas of right and wrong. I fear the day that I meet the person who is apathetic enough to be completely unbiased in everything he does. I don't want to see media made by this person. It would probably resemble reading a dictionary, although if on looked hard enough he or she would probably find some form of bias there too.
I guess the world at large is a bit more naive that I would like to admit. Hell, maybe I am too. I buy products that I see on TV. I'll stop and listen to a news broadcast that is talking about something that attacks or supports an strong bias that I have.
Am I part of the problem?...
Somewhere along the formative process of becoming...well, me, I came to realize that people have this nasty little underlying habit of wanting you to believe what they believe. If I was to muster a guess as to why this is, I think I would have to go with the idea that very few people tend to believe in things that they hold to be wrong. I would denominate this to be human nature, but call it whatever you'd like.
It didn't seem to be a terribly hard concept to realize that newspapers, magazines, radio, television and the Internet were all conceived, staffed, managed, transmitted and financed by humans, or at least what can pass for them in public. All of these different seemingly-human individuals had their own set of beliefs, their own ideas of right and wrong. I fear the day that I meet the person who is apathetic enough to be completely unbiased in everything he does. I don't want to see media made by this person. It would probably resemble reading a dictionary, although if on looked hard enough he or she would probably find some form of bias there too.
I guess the world at large is a bit more naive that I would like to admit. Hell, maybe I am too. I buy products that I see on TV. I'll stop and listen to a news broadcast that is talking about something that attacks or supports an strong bias that I have.
Am I part of the problem?...
Media Literacy Education
I grew up going to two separate high schools and I don't recall either of them providing much education about the media. One of my high schools did have a student news cast, but it ran during our lunch hour on a small television in the cafeteria. It's not surprising that no one payed any attention to it.
Both of my schools did have a school newspaper, BUT neither were very informative. They were both mostly about our school, the people in it and our sports teams. I don't really remember ever being shown the real "news."
I have never heard of the channel 1 everyone was talking about in class the other day. Neither of my schools offered that.
So as far as formal media education... I didn't have much until I got to college.
Both of my schools did have a school newspaper, BUT neither were very informative. They were both mostly about our school, the people in it and our sports teams. I don't really remember ever being shown the real "news."
I have never heard of the channel 1 everyone was talking about in class the other day. Neither of my schools offered that.
So as far as formal media education... I didn't have much until I got to college.
Media Literacy
I've come to realize now that most of what is most reported is a target of what sells the most. I do not think the media, overall, cares about reporting all sides to a story. They are only interested in reporting stories that tend to create controversy. Controversy or a train-wreck on television, radio or newspaper will get the high ratings that translates into a lot of cash. I do not like that. I want the media to report fair and accurate news of all sides to a story. Liberal or conservative..... I do not care. Before, I thought the media was mostly liberal bias. I see it now as which ever story, whether it is a liberal or conservative slant, has the most controversey is the one that will be reported. It goes back and forth with both sides and I am tired of it. I watch little news now and I find that disappointing. I want to be able to count on the news media to report stories that do not have any slant to them. In this day in age, I do not think that is possible.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Media Literacy Education
Previous to coming to OU, I do not recall having any formal media literacy education. Ive always understood that the media can be biased and self serving to particular interests, no one really had to explain that to me.
One event that opened my eyes to both positive and negative aspects of media biases was my trip to England for the British Media Studies program. On one side is a company like the BBC, while still having objectives and interests, was striving for accuracy and truth in their reports. On the complete other side was Sky News (owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns FOX) where we were told their main objective was to be first. If the facts were wrong, so be it, they will worry about it later.
The approaches to reporting were so vastly different. Sky News didn't (seem to) care about manipulation or dishonesty while the BBC did its best to be reputable and honest above all.
One thing about it is viewers of these two stations seem to know what they are getting in to when they watch either channel. Sky News didn't try to pretend they were serving the public good. They weren't worried about being exploitative or sensational.
As far as the US goes, this sentiment seems to hold. As long as you take the news with a grain of salt and consider where it is coming from, you don't have to worry so much about being manipulated. It's your responsibility to be an educated viewer.
One event that opened my eyes to both positive and negative aspects of media biases was my trip to England for the British Media Studies program. On one side is a company like the BBC, while still having objectives and interests, was striving for accuracy and truth in their reports. On the complete other side was Sky News (owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns FOX) where we were told their main objective was to be first. If the facts were wrong, so be it, they will worry about it later.
The approaches to reporting were so vastly different. Sky News didn't (seem to) care about manipulation or dishonesty while the BBC did its best to be reputable and honest above all.
One thing about it is viewers of these two stations seem to know what they are getting in to when they watch either channel. Sky News didn't try to pretend they were serving the public good. They weren't worried about being exploitative or sensational.
As far as the US goes, this sentiment seems to hold. As long as you take the news with a grain of salt and consider where it is coming from, you don't have to worry so much about being manipulated. It's your responsibility to be an educated viewer.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Symposium Speaker
While it was true that the symposium was probably aimed at an audience differing from our group, I think I'd be safe in saying that even if I was a journalist or even a film maker of foreign origin, I don't believe I would have taken much from the speaker's contribution (which I perceived to be the main part) to the presentation. The video's that she showed would have been perfectly insightful as stand alone pieces, he collage demonstrating how much of a barrier culture can be, while the train ride showed an individual's personal experience with language divide and preconceived notions. Both of these implied problems, but did not attempt to define them, possibly leaving it up to the audience.
Nouzeilles's part confuses me to a high degree. Perhaps, she was trying to define the problems illustrated by the videos for us, or perhaps she wasn't sure herself what she was trying to do. I sure wasn't. She tended to favor using the word "exile" which confused me. Maybe the definition isn't explicitly different from immigrant, but it impacts me differently. If I synopsized my understand of what she said, it was basically that exile is hard and unpleasant. I'm afraid I must react with a very unenlightened "Duh."
I suppose I could be wrong. There is the chance that's she's a frightfully intelligent human being that purposely used a word that is literally correct while different in interpretation to illustrate the very culture barrier that she was focusing on the whole time. On top of this, she bungled around with the technology and had to have an individual come up to click on the icons to play her clips, for the sole purpose of satirizing the stereotype that people who have funny accents have a lesser grasp on technology. If this beautifully conceived plan was he modus operandi all along, well, the whole presentation just went over my head.
Either way...I lost.
Nouzeilles's part confuses me to a high degree. Perhaps, she was trying to define the problems illustrated by the videos for us, or perhaps she wasn't sure herself what she was trying to do. I sure wasn't. She tended to favor using the word "exile" which confused me. Maybe the definition isn't explicitly different from immigrant, but it impacts me differently. If I synopsized my understand of what she said, it was basically that exile is hard and unpleasant. I'm afraid I must react with a very unenlightened "Duh."
I suppose I could be wrong. There is the chance that's she's a frightfully intelligent human being that purposely used a word that is literally correct while different in interpretation to illustrate the very culture barrier that she was focusing on the whole time. On top of this, she bungled around with the technology and had to have an individual come up to click on the icons to play her clips, for the sole purpose of satirizing the stereotype that people who have funny accents have a lesser grasp on technology. If this beautifully conceived plan was he modus operandi all along, well, the whole presentation just went over my head.
Either way...I lost.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Symposium Speaker
Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship
First of all, it was difficult to understand Maria Gabriela Nouzeilles because of her accent and the fact that she was reading her entire presentation off of the podium.
Immigration was one of the main topics of her presentation. She mentioned how a girl on the subway would not smile because Hitler had complicated the smile of immigrants. I would call this a claim and evidence. The warrant is that Hitler forced these people to leave their country to join an unfamiliar culture. Therefore, she could not smile. Another way to put it:
Claim: Spanish and other immigrants aren’t recognized in the social structure of larger countries. Reason: Immigrants have yet to break through racist overtones, they are discriminated against, portrayed poorly, and left out of American culture because of the way they assimilate or hold on to their original culture. Warrant: Portrayal in the media, placement in the workforce. The social and economic stereotypes they face.
She also talked about electronic media and the fact that we are a visual culture. A booth was set up with a video camera for anyone to sit and film in. In the booth people sang, chanted and acted like most people would unattended. Through this, a video was compiled and titled “Parabolic People.”
It was problematic to clearly identify arguments, let a lone evidence and warrants.
First of all, it was difficult to understand Maria Gabriela Nouzeilles because of her accent and the fact that she was reading her entire presentation off of the podium.
Immigration was one of the main topics of her presentation. She mentioned how a girl on the subway would not smile because Hitler had complicated the smile of immigrants. I would call this a claim and evidence. The warrant is that Hitler forced these people to leave their country to join an unfamiliar culture. Therefore, she could not smile. Another way to put it:
Claim: Spanish and other immigrants aren’t recognized in the social structure of larger countries. Reason: Immigrants have yet to break through racist overtones, they are discriminated against, portrayed poorly, and left out of American culture because of the way they assimilate or hold on to their original culture. Warrant: Portrayal in the media, placement in the workforce. The social and economic stereotypes they face.
She also talked about electronic media and the fact that we are a visual culture. A booth was set up with a video camera for anyone to sit and film in. In the booth people sang, chanted and acted like most people would unattended. Through this, a video was compiled and titled “Parabolic People.”
It was problematic to clearly identify arguments, let a lone evidence and warrants.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Symposium speaker
I attended the symposium from Deborah J. Yashar titled "Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge". Yashar discussed the importance of indigenous movements in Latin America and their effects on the countries in which they are occurring. Yashar provided evidence that they were good for the countries. She explained why countries are trying to stifle these movements and whether or not they were making any progress. According to Deborah Yashar, these movements are overcoming the governments and are making positive strides in there countries.
Yashar claimed that some people are against indigenous movements because they feel that indigenous people do not have enough resources for their movements to be successful. She showed though pictures and other charts including the influences on the countries economies, that these movements prove differently and that they are in fact helping the countries instead of hurting them. In fact these movements are to both change the citizen regimes and change the economies of these countries and the movements have been having more positive effects than negative ones.
Yashar claimed that some people are against indigenous movements because they feel that indigenous people do not have enough resources for their movements to be successful. She showed though pictures and other charts including the influences on the countries economies, that these movements prove differently and that they are in fact helping the countries instead of hurting them. In fact these movements are to both change the citizen regimes and change the economies of these countries and the movements have been having more positive effects than negative ones.
Symposium Speaker
I attended Thursdays talk titled, "Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship" by Maria Gabriela Nouzeilles. Ms. Nouzeilles talked about the hard social and economical transition that individuals make when immigrating to a new country. I think that one can assume that Ms. Nouzeilles is talking about those migrating to top tier nations, say like America, France, England... countries with an established and more sophisticated government. I think that her speech shed a valuable light on how immigrants are portrayed in a more developed society. The barriers that she highlighted as those that were difficult for an immigrant to transcend were realistic and feasible, that is to assume that the immigrant(s) came from a lesser developed nation. But what about those that migrate to nations that are less developed, or those with money that can bridge the drop in social status that is associated with moving to another country. I guess a formal but loose definition of what an "immigrant" is would have been a nice touch to the presentation. I do think however that it is an interesting perspective...that of an immigrant... myself having never been put in that type of situation. I recall when my Mother and I moved to Canada. We lived in Calgary, Alberta for close to a year. Yet during this time I never felt like an immigrant, we looked like most Canadians, we just talked a little different! Curious Canadians would ask us what part of the United States we were from, hearing the accent, and when we would respond with "Washington" we were assumed to be tourists. There wasn't a lack in the transition between Canada and the United States, we seemed to fit in just fine.
Ms. Nouzeilles paints a different picture. She indicated that immigrants are discriminated and out of place in their new country. She gives her reasons when saying that immigrants are treated different based on the color of their skin, the accent and or native languages they speak, and the views of the general public when dealing with said immigrants. She lists the place of the immigrant in the social structure as at the bottom, as well as saying that immigrants have a difficult time transitioning into the upper classes. She evidences these points with stories, some colorful, describing encounters are subways, observations from others, as well as videos highlighting unique experiences while traveling as well as individual profiles of those we see as "different" to us. She says that immigrants are different from tourists and are thus treated differently. Money seems to be the root of the issue here. With money one can immigrate into a new society fairly easily...but most immigrants are in the search of more money with a little slice of the promise of a better life. That sort of life is developed through time, often through many generations. Perfect example: Immigrants to flow through NYC in the late 1800's and early 1900's... some prominent families grew out of a few immigration tales.
To recap, we must ask what immigration is as well as determine social and economic factors of the countries involved in the transfer before we can say that all immigrants are truly discriminated against. Sidebar: if you are going to give a presentation to college age kids it is better to integrate them into the presentation then to read it to them People learn by involvement not listening.
Ms. Nouzeilles paints a different picture. She indicated that immigrants are discriminated and out of place in their new country. She gives her reasons when saying that immigrants are treated different based on the color of their skin, the accent and or native languages they speak, and the views of the general public when dealing with said immigrants. She lists the place of the immigrant in the social structure as at the bottom, as well as saying that immigrants have a difficult time transitioning into the upper classes. She evidences these points with stories, some colorful, describing encounters are subways, observations from others, as well as videos highlighting unique experiences while traveling as well as individual profiles of those we see as "different" to us. She says that immigrants are different from tourists and are thus treated differently. Money seems to be the root of the issue here. With money one can immigrate into a new society fairly easily...but most immigrants are in the search of more money with a little slice of the promise of a better life. That sort of life is developed through time, often through many generations. Perfect example: Immigrants to flow through NYC in the late 1800's and early 1900's... some prominent families grew out of a few immigration tales.
To recap, we must ask what immigration is as well as determine social and economic factors of the countries involved in the transfer before we can say that all immigrants are truly discriminated against. Sidebar: if you are going to give a presentation to college age kids it is better to integrate them into the presentation then to read it to them People learn by involvement not listening.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Speaker
Well I have to say that I am not sure if I fully understood what the speaker was talking about in the session I attended for class. But if I were to take my best shot at it I would say that she was referring to the unequal treatment of different ethnicities in the world. She mentioned feeling like an alien I believe. I also think that there is also a language barrier which also contributes to the barrier. I think that she was trying to make people aware of the problem in hopes of finding a way to solve it someday.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)