News, Trust, and “Truthiness”

                Personally, I don’t believe that satirical news reporting is as reliable as main stream news in the sense of providing the most important details of current events. However, I do believe that they are still very valuable in making news more appealing to more people and inciting discussion within the public sphere, sometimes even more so than in genuine news sources.

                After reading a variety of different blogs posts, I noticed that most of them aligned with my point of view, in terms of how satirical news should not be an exclusive source of current events, but it can provide a broader appeal as well as some perspective and insight. Sarah Trotman said, “[satirical news] may be focused more on humor than important facts about the world” but that means it can “appeal to a younger generation”. I believe this is an important attribute because it can make normal news, which can be dull and depressing, engaging and can also invite a younger demographic into the public sphere.

                Ultimately, satirical news isn’t that reliable as a singular news source. That doesn’t mean that everything it says is false. Isaac C. says “It’s still news” and I have to agree with him on that. Typically for these types of shows, the facts of a popular news story serve as the set up to a joke. The audience needs to be informed of the news to some degree or people may not understand the joke or find the joke funny. In a sense, satirical news shows can function as a source of news, but this should be complimented with an actual news source.

                Like I said in my previous post, satirical news can be quite valuable in the public sphere. Not only does it welcome a younger demographic otherwise uninterested in the news into the public sphere, it can also, as Cameron Phillips puts it, “[present] a new side to the information being given to the masses, which can only lead to discussion and a desire for understanding”.

                When comparing satirical news with broadcast news, I find that they are two different entities which serve different purposes. You probably wouldn’t sit down and watch the evening news if you wanted a good laugh, and you wouldn’t refer to a satirical news show for the hard facts on world events. I don’t think either one is any better or worse than the other. They are both derived from truth and are both beneficial to society for different reasons. News gives you the facts, and satirical news gives the perspective to explore and question those facts.  At the end of the day, they should be complimentary to one another.

Is the Fake News the Real News?

                I do believe that satirical news reporting is a form of mainstream culture jamming. Although they may be more humorous than serious in nature, they can show things in a different light and are valuable within the public sphere.

                The more satirical the show is, the more powerful an example of culture jamming it is.  The Colbert Report, for example, is extremely satirical, especially with the main character of Stephen Colbert himself.  Colbert, through his exaggerated personality and absurd antics, is able to highlight the ridiculousness of American politics, especially conservatism. Because these particular shows imitate the elements of typical news and political programs so successfully, not only does it making the mocking of their targets so entertaining, but it also grounds the show in a reality that is relatable to the viewer. The more the viewer can relate to the elements of the program, the more the show can “subvert and rework the intended meaning of existing media” (Michael O’Shaughnessy, Media and Society, pg.213) and henceforth function as a form of culture jamming.

                I have no problem considering satirical news reporting a form of mainstream culture jamming, but if I were to reconsider my opinion, it would be because of the “mainstream” aspect. It is interesting to me that these shows operate through a medium that inherently contradicts the typical “counter-cultural” or “counter-hegemonic” (pg.217) quality of culture jamming. You’ll watch a segment on one of these shows that pokes fun at the absurdity of US consumerism, and immediately afterwards be exposed to 5 minutes of advertising during the commercial break. The fact that these shows can contradict themselves, gives me a sense that their messages are somewhat hollow.

                Within the realm of the public sphere, I find that these satirical news shows can be effective. They have the ability to underscore the problems with politics and society in a unique and entertaining way. They appeal to variety of demographics young and old, with the combination of humor and actual insight into world issues. They have ability to get a variety of different people and topics into the public sphere. They are also very good at inciting discussion, as questioning the current state of the world and society is an integral part for many of these shows.

                So although I am a little undecided about the “mainstream” aspect of these shows, I do consider them as a form of culture jamming. Despite how silly they can be sometimes, that silliness is derived from truth. I would argue that they can be quite effective in challenging our perceptions and even the current state of the world.

               

               

               

               

               

               

Demonstrable Demographics

                I read through a bunch of different blogs, and the authors did a good job of deconstructing their chosen ads.  After reading them, I noticed the importance of hailing in advertisements, and how hailing can be approached from a variety of different ways. Also, it gave me insight into how my particular demographic is targeted and portrayed.

Hailing in advertising can be a very beneficial marketing technique, and after reading some other blogs I can see why. I think this occurs because interpellation and hailing can be used in a variety of different ways. I’ve seen examples of hailing being used in a very direct way “Get in. Get Happy” in a Volkswagen commercial (http://normanazi.blogspot.ca/). Pretty straightforward, it is a “buy our car and you will be happy” approach. I have also seen an indirect approach, such as the Van’s Warped Tour “Best Day Ever” poster (http://earthtosydney.wordpress.com/) , which basically addresses the viewer in a way that makes them feel “left out” if they aren’t participating in the event. Indirect or direct, it is clear to see how this can really hit home for some viewers.

I also noticed after reading the blogs that identity seems to be a prime focus of many advertisements. Considering that we are all a similar age demographic (18-25), and at this point in our lives we are still trying to figure out who we are. Marketers take advantage of this and use it as a selling point. Mm13sa makes an interesting point when she says that marketers “try and sell our identity to us”. In my opinion, when we buy a product that is advertised, not only are buying the product itself but we are also buying into the ideology or identity that is portrayed.

I don’t think our demographic is represented accurately in advertisements and that is intentional. I have to again agree with mms13, in that, advertisers will depict an idealized version of our demographic so we can strive for it. In most cases, the product in the advertisement is presented as the solution to reaching that idealized state. I think the key part, however, to making convincing, effective advertisements, is by making the depictions of our demographic believable enough so we can relate to it, but at the same time make it unbelievable, almost unattainable, so we desire it.

This was very enlightening for me. I realized how advertisements can give you a sense that the influence itself is more important than the product advertised. Marketing strives to give people the feeling that they can become whoever and whatever they want, and be fully realized as a person. It is interesting to see the extent in which people can be manipulated, whether they know it or it not, through this particular type of marketing.

Thanks to,

http://normanazi.blogspot.ca/

http://earthtosydney.wordpress.com/

http://mm13sa.wordpress.com/

               

                 

               

What the Hail?

                I found this interesting advertisement by American eagle. It depicts a huddled group of young adults, probably in their early 20’s, all wearing American eagle denim products. In front of them is a super imposed slogan that says “We the People” and below that it says “Live in AE Jeans”.

                I see what they are trying to do with this ad, they are trying to promote their products by suggesting a sort of “revolutionary” or “rebellious” feel to their products. By wearing AE products, the company wants you feel like you are part of something bigger, like a movement or an action group. This is apparent in the young people depicted: some are shouting, others throw their arms up, and a strong sense of community is conveyed. It echoes the counter culture and social revolution of the 1960’s. I believe this goes hand in hand with the particular fashion trend depicted, which is clearly inspired by 1960’s style.

                I personally believe that it is ridiculous in this situation, that wearing a particular brand of jeans is somehow associated with, what is really, an intentionally ambiguous cause. I feel like this is ad is more concerned with creating the illusion that there is cause as opposed to actually supporting one.

                Although I do believe that the ad itself doesn't make any sense, I understand the Company’s approach. They are clearly addressing young a younger audience, probably around the ages of (18-25). They are also tending to the widely held belief, that youths, are rebellious and are active in their cause. I think this is especially evident in the use of the slogan “we are the people”. The use of the word “we” is functions as a “rich interpellative [mechanism]” (Media and Society pg. 188). It separates the viewer from the people depicted, in that only the people who wear American Eagle qualify as “the people”. Even though is separates the viewer, the slogan also indirectly invites them or “hails” them to be a part of the group, “the people”. Clearly this is an example of “positioning the addressee in relation to the addresser”(pg.185) to serve as a means on interpellation.

                Like I said, the marketing strategy is clearly pandering to the idea that the youth of society is inherently rebellious. And in the context of the ad, American Eagle products can serve as an outlet for this rebellion. I personally don’t give in to their angle, but I see how it works.