True or False?

She thought lies were the truth. Am I the same way?
http://www.slate.com/id/2122181/

After hearing the story of Judith Miller today in class, I asked myself a series of questions. To make a long story short, I came to a final question: "How do I know that what I hold to be the truth is actually true?" For Judith Miller, she trusted someone that was feeding her faulty information, which she honestly thought was based in fact. Miller's reality was manipulated, and she was ignorant to the outside forces controlling her like a marionette. If this woman could be so easily deceived, then how can I be sure of what is true and what is false? Am I just some puppet for a higher power to believe what s/he wants me to believe?

One thing I do know is that my knowledge of the world outside my own personal bubble is limited to the information the media provides me. And considering what I have learned about the propaganda model, that information has a very high potential of being either fragmented or altered to benefit the elite. Now every time I read a newspaper or watch the news, a little voice from my inner media studies scholar will ask, "are you sure that you can trust this source?"

I understand that the vast majority of media coverage provides me with accurate information, but the entire media as a source of news can be compared with Judith Miller and lose some credibility. I am sure that Miller wrote articles that were well researched and factual. However those faulty stories of hers, orchestrated by Scooter Libby, discredit her as a viable source for information and make it hard to trust her again. The same goes for the media. If I see several instances where journalists run inaccurate articles and are caught, how can I not go on to think that maybe this type of thing occurs more frequently than what can be seen on the surface? After all, the only way for me to know of faulty journalism is to rely on, you guessed it, the media.

The media and the many forces that manipulate the media are parts of such a tangled web, where the truth and lies can both be found. As an insignificant spectator to the powerful, invaluable component of our culture that is media, I feel as if nothing I do can ensure my consumption of the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help me God).

State of the Fragmented Union

Despite CNN's supposed "exclusive" coverage of the event, FOX News and C-SPAN were also streaming live footage of the State of the Union on their respective networks, providing insight and opinions before and after the President's speech. C-SPAN's coverage was quite impartial as always, but not FOX and CNN, which together illustrate the idea of "high choice media": people of certain beliefs and political views can watch and read news in so called "echo chambers"  where their beliefs are reinforced and over time intensified. As a media studies student, I put aside my political beliefs and watched a little bit of both the more liberal-leaning CNN and conservative FOX to see how these two sources differed and ultimately contribute to the fragmentation and polarization of American politics.

The preliminary coverage for both networks were relatively the same: CNN and FOX had panel-like discussions between liberals, conservatives and perhaps a few moderate analysts. But after the speech, the thoughts differed considerably.

While watching FOX, I heard people saying that Obama did nothing special and that he dropped the ball at a time when he could have gone out of his comfort zone and really sparked a movement toward a better nation. Charles Krauthammer was particularly negative about Obama's speech, basically saying that he played it safe and did not bring anything new to the table. One would expect harsh criticism  like that coming from the conservative network. On the bottom of the screen was a text box showing Obama's main points in the most simplistic, mundane sentences possible. I guess this is to help those who were unable to follow the speech, but it seems like FOX was making Obama's message boring and uninspiring.

I switched over to CNN to find Wolf Blitzer leading a panel discussion of contributers from mixed political preferences. The first thing I heard was "transformative speech," which was the total opposite of what I had heard on FOX not even a minute earlier. What next caught my attention was Piers Morgan, an entertainment journalist and new host of Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN. Now he may be quite politically educated, but he is a British talk show host helping to represent the conservative side of the post-State-of-the-Union debate. I may just be trying too hard to find faults in the media, but it seems like CNN didn't make the conservative side of the debate as strong as it could have been, or, as strong as the liberal side.

So in the end I found two huge news networks covering the same story in similar fashions, but yielding completely different opinions and thoughts on the matter. Personally, this experience has reinforced the idea that these large media networks purposefully appeal to a certain politically-minded demographic. And why wouldn't they considering pandering to a group of people and telling them what they want to hear ensures a steady revenue? These partisan networks are dragging this nation farther and farther away from political harmony: a utopia where both sides of the political debate are knowledgeable of and understand the views of the opposing side. As sources of biased information and analysis become more powerful, so will the forces that are polarizing politics and fragmenting the nation.


The information obtained for this article pertaining to high choice media can be found here.

Funny AND True?

http://www.tvrage.com/The_Daily_Show

I love humor. It is a constantly adapting tool that, when used correctly, can be incredibly effective. Perhaps the most effective style of humor is satire, described by dictionary.com as, "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc." I could not have said it better myself. 

From John Swift's A Modest Proposal  (less commonly but more humorously referred to as "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public,") to a recent article in The Onion titled "Kim Jong-Un Privately Doubting He's Crazy Enough To Run North Korea," satire has been used to take the truth and throw it into a context so absurd and untrue that it makes the truth more apparent. 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOnion

Like we have discussed in class, these satirical stories from various media such as The Daily Show and The Onion present absurdly false truths that expose truths of their own. But unlike the media presenting false truths, such as the statue toppling in Firdos Square, satirical articles are apparently works of fiction. But if a satire is done effectively, the real intended truth behind it will shine through. 

Take the article entitled Congress Honors 9/11 First Capitalizers  from The Onion for example. Although less subtle than some fake news satires, this article exposes an idea that people might not think twice about without it being brought abruptly to their attention. People exploiting a tragic event is not a funny issue, but playfully honoring these people to show how absolutely ridiculous it is that some capitalists and political figures used the occasion to promote self-interests makes the issue much simpler and understandable. It makes the reader say, "Wow, I never really thought about it that way." 

A satire's ability to make certain problems more apparent and approachable makes me regard this tool, and the tool of humor in general,  as a powerful one that can help show some important truths in our world.  

 

Julian Assange: Unfiltered

An unlovable Australian by the name of Julian Assange did what governments try to prevent on a daily basis: he leaked information that sparked immense controversy and trouble for the U.S. and other nations. American military field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan were leaked in July 2010, and over 250,000 diplomatic cables were presented by the Wikileaks website in December of 2010. These leaks wreaked a great deal of havoc, hurting U.S. diplomatic relations, uncovering questionable actions by political figures, revealing the identities of U.S. informants and secret operatives, etc.

Now where does Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's propaganda model fall into all of this? Cowering at the feet of Assange, apparently.

Assange was able to bypass every one of the five filters that are meant to limit the information released by the media, sticking a big middle finger in the face of the propaganda model.

1) As an activist and head of a non-profit website, he was not held back by the profit-driven mass media.
2) For the same reason, he cared very little or probably not at all about losing advertisers that may disagree with his actions.
3) Because his information came from direct leaks from the government, he did not have to rely on the government and other entities mentioned in the leaks in order to put them up on his website.
4) Perhaps he was only thinking in the short-term or does not care about the repercussions of his actions: either way, flak did not stop him from leaking the information. (After seeing his calm, "I don't care" demeanor from footage taken in the wake of the wikileaks and rape allegations in Sweden, I don't think flak is a big concern of his.)
5) Terrorism, or anticommunism for that matter, did not play much of a role in the wikileaks.

Obviously the leaked information would have never made it to the public mass media had it gone through the filters of the propaganda model. This both frustrated those wanting to keep these things a secret and delighted the mass media, because they were able to cover things that would have been taboo otherwise. So many stories and headlines resulted from information leaked by Assange's website, and the public eye was shown a side of politics and war never before seen.

At the end of all this I have one question lurking in my mind: What would Herman and Chomsky have to say about the internet as a part of their propaganda model?

(Side note: One thing proven by the wikileaks is that governments withhold and manipulate information given to the media not just to propel their political agendas but to protect people who should remain secrets, such as informants and allied military forces. These people, such as Afghan informants, are seen as traitors to their native people when their names are leaked and must either seek U.S. sanction or fall victim to those who feel betrayed.)

You may look at the photograph, but you're not SEEING the photograph

I can look at a photograph, investigate every little detail one by one, and be pretty well-prepared to explain to someone what the photo depicts. But I can never truly understand the context in which it belongs with the photo alone. In the words of Susan Sontag, "the truths that can be rendered in a dissociated moment, however significant or decisive, have a very narrow relation to the needs of understanding." It is one thing to be able to know of the situation depicted in a photo: it is an entirely different thing to be able to understand and empathize with whoever and whatever inhabits the photo. I believe that one's ability to relate to and therefore truly understand a photograph relies on experiences comparable to those in the photograph. 

In the above photo, I am the very insignificant rhythm guitarist in the top left. Although my stint on the musical stage was brief, it was an experience nonetheless that helped to shape the way I view the world (just like all experiences). Because I have played music on a stage in front of a decent amount of people, I am better equipped to understand the men seen in this photo: 

http://www.fatberris.com/2010/01/26/rolling-stones-under-my-dub-todd-terje-remix/

In no way am I attempting to compare myself with Keith Richards and Mick Jagger: that would be an act of heresy. What I am trying to convey through this peculiar means is that I can relate to the actions of these men because of my past experience in a band on stage. There are millions of photos I am able to understand because there are millions of photos depicting scenarios and events similar to those in my life. This is how people understand a photo, by being able to relate with whatever is in it. 

The most popular and intriguing photographs however, depict things not so easily understood as the one of Keith and Mick. A photo of a woman kneeling and sobbing over the body of her dead son shows an experience that most people cannot relate to. It is our inability to understand clashing with our "needs of understanding" that make the most popular photos ones of violence, tragedy and other unthinkable occurrences that your average person cannot even begin to comprehend. 

So as we scroll through the newspaper or turn on the news, we cannot help but be entranced by shocking photos from war torn countries and terrible tragedies. The superficial extent of our viewings of such photographs perplex us greatly: we wish so badly to understand what is happening in the photo, but are limited to just knowing. 

Photographs: The Building Blocks Toward a "Moral Position"

 "Photographs cannot create a moral position, but they can reinforce one-and can help build a nascent one." -Susan Sontag, On Photography (pg. 17)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?scp=8&sq=loughner&st=cse

 Without a context to place this photo, the boy depicted seems like a regular high school kid. There is no evidence to suggest that he is out of the ordinary, let alone capable of unloading a .9mm Glock pistol on an innocent congresswoman and then the surrounding crowd of supporters and fellow members of Arizona's 8th District.

That is where photographs fall short: without a story or place with which to pair a photo, much of its meaning is lost to the uninformed viewer. But when a photo of a seemingly normal kid is said to depict a mentally ill terrorist by the name of Jared Loughner, it takes on a whole new meaning and significance to the story behind it.

The countless articles reporting that Jared Loughner killed six people and wounded 14 others, including
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, give readers feelings of sympathy and catharsis for the victims and their families. At the same time, the image of a ruthless killer is forced into their minds. For a few days the only face that newspapers, news networks and other publications could give the suspect Jared Loughner was that of a happy and superficially normal guy. The "moral position" that reporters were leading their readers to was one of sensitivity toward the victims and hate and disgust toward the one who caused it all: unfortunately for these reporters, the only available photographs of Loughner did not fit the articles' and stories' intended effects on readers and viewers. A plain head shot that one could imagine in his/her own yearbook does not make readers feel any more disgusted or angry. The first photo I saw of Loughner was the one below, and to be honest I thought it was supposed to be a picture of one of the victims. It was not until I had finished reading the article and saw the caption under it that I realized that that happy, nice looking gentleman is the murderer I had just read about. So while Sontag's statement above is correct, it really depends on the caliber and tone of a photo to reinforce people's positions on a story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?scp=8&sq=loughner&st=cse

And then to the delight of countless journalists, publications and news networks (just in time for the Sunday papers), this photo of Jared Loughner was released.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12legal.html?scp=13&sq=jared%20loughner&st=cse

Crazy, mentally ill, killer: just a few words one would use to describe the man in this photo, most likely even without knowing who it is. It is no wonder why this photo could be found on myriad front pages of newspapers and on TV, because this is the face of a man who murders innocent men, women and children. This is the photo journalists want to back up their stories about a man showing signs of mental illness and a progressive retreat from the world. The feelings of anger writers want readers to feel are certainly intensified by this photograph. And, like Sontag says, the photo reinforces ones moral position on the situation.

Obviously there is only one basic "moral position" for someone to take in a situation like this. But reporters and writers influence readers to have a heightened sensitivity to their moral positions, so that they feel more for the story and its characters (and want to read more from that source in the future). Everyone wanted the photo of the shaved, crazed Loughner because they knew that photo would truly show Loughner not as a normal guy, but a cold murderer.

In the end I think Sontag would agree that the now infamous photograph of Jared Loughner epitomizes an image capable of reinforcing one's moral position on the Arizona shooting, and could quite easily "help build a nascent one."

Family Photos

Like most families, photographs and paintings are riddled throughout my house. A portrait of me as a young boy, painted by my uncle, hangs in the living room with one of my sister not far from it. The walls of my room use images to tell the story of my week in Germany, illustrate the intensity of my days in little league baseball and show the excitement of a friend's bar-mitzvahs. Most commonplace in my house are the many staged family photos, which briefly take me back to the dread of having to stand completely still whilst holding a smile and ignoring every mental distress call crying out, "If another flash of blinding light hits your eyes, you better get used to using four rather than five senses." These photos have become nothing more than other pieces of my house, acting as background noise to the rest of my life. But their purpose is much more substantial than what my busy mind holds them to be: I have grown so accustomed to seeing old photographs that I often forget why they are there.

I believe that certain experiences and occurrences affect the body and mind in such a way that we are sometimes driven to hold onto that memory. Although the recording and storing of a person's neurological and physical sensations for a certain point in time is not (yet) possible, there are certain methods by which these feelings can outlive the present. Evolution was kind enough to entrust every human with a virtually limitless space to store memories of past experiences. And with the help of this highly capable brain, written word, photography and video were developed to aid our memories and store more than we can or would ever want to keep in our heads. Photographs, in particular, visually capture the happenings in life we want to remember, almost like a backup file in case of a mental failure. However, and no offense to photographs, four crucial angles by which one experiences a photo's content are unaccounted for: photographs are unable to capture smell, taste, touch and sound. A shortcoming indeed, but not a failure. I personally find that a photo's visual piece of a memory can help to trigger some if not all my other senses to go back to the moment in the photo. When I see a photo of me playing guitar, my mind briefly tricks my ears into becoming filled with hard snare drums, and I remember the bass travelling through the stage and into my legs. Photos act as a stimulant for memories to escape the dark abyss of the human mind and scratch the surface, if only for a nanosecond.

Photographs can not only help us to remember personal experiences but also present us with new knowledge. Photos of far off places or depicting historic events provide a brief glimpse into a world not one's own. For a moment, a person can take on the perspective of someone thousands of miles away or living years in the past, instilling a more personal and realistic view of a certain point in time. Without photographs, history and the lives of others is limited to written descriptions or word of mouth, and our views of contexts other than our own would be distant and impersonal. Photos are capable of telling stories and providing the viewer with not only knowledge but a different way to take in this knowledge.

 I cannot help but think that in this world, which calls for more dependence on and communication with people of differing ethnicities, cultures and nationalities than ever before, photos can help to close the gap between dissimilar worlds through a sharing of perspectives. As corny as this may sound (which is very, very corny), photos help to bring the world together.