It may be interesting to look the time and coverage dedicated to MJ’s, rather than on real news issues, as a tool, a diversion tool, bear with me, I am not paranoid.. But it does bring me back to South American politics; namely, Brazil, just as an example, comes to mind the movie, The Year My Parents Went on Vacation (2006), see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Year_My_Parents_Went_on_Vacation
The movie is about a child who gets dropped off at his grandfather’s home, in Sao Paulo, in 1970, when his parents have to flee underground due of their political views and activism. The movie is told through the point of view of the child, and it is set in the 1970’s, which was a time in Brazil when people were disappearing, a time of oppression, but also the year that the Brazilian team that won the 1970 World Cup in Mexico, the year of Pele, and the year Brazil was voted the best team in soccer. Countless hours of media time were dedicated to soccer and to the pride of winning, while people disappeared quietly, a similar but different story happened when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, after six years of dictatorship (from 1976), many suggested that the invasion was a calculated move by the Argentinean government to deter the attention from the “desaparecidos” and create a national unified Argentinean identity.
So going back to MJ’ is the over coverage of his death is due to the fact that scandals and trash really sells or because it distracts, now distract from what? H1N1 flu virus? Medical coverage? Or maybe a little bit of both; it sells and distracts..

shirley. . .in SC we are being swamped by Obama-hatred. . .parents are organizing against the showing of Obama's talk to students. . .even calling on parents NOT to send their children to school this coming tuesday. . .the hyperbole and viciousness are almost cartoonish. . .if they werent so misleading and vile. . .and what role does the media play in all this?. . .any help negotiating through the distortions?. . .nope. . .media are so overwhelmed by the specter of failing that they have adopted a coporate approach to news: give the customer what s/he wants. . .paul thomas

Shirley, Robert, Laura,

When I taught in a military town in the southwest (Alamogordo, NM) that had a large, permanant contingent of German troops (stationed there so they could practice with their expensive phallic toys in "US airspace" in ways that are prohibited in Europe--and surely, collaborate in "special weapons" development and testing at New Mexico's extensive "restricted" facilities), new German arrivals often took courses at the local college, and I got the same amazed question several times:

"What's wrong with American news--we knew more about the US from our ordinary German news than we get here from the US news?!?!

Even more astonishing, some readers may remember that the US attack of Grenada (late 1983) was completely censored from all US news until the actual invasion, at which time no press of any kind were allowed to cover the war live (on a small island that kind of control is possible).

(Echos of the Falkland Islands--thanks Laura--what were the "distracters" at that time--beyond the sainted and senile "Great Communicator?")

--However, for weeks before that, over the Spanish language Mexican TV news, freely broadcast in the US, it was a constant story! I guess we are stuck in an "English Only" universe more securely than many of us think--apparently no-one in the entire world of US journalism with access to corporate media spoke Spanish, watched Spanish TV (or shortwave broadcast direct from Grenada/Latin America), or had the guts to protest . . .

Living in NYC at that time, I asked everyone I encountered if they knew anything about the planned US invasion of Greneda, and got not a single positive response from anyone, except the Puerto Rican friend who informed me in the first place, and his circle of friends! (Many thought I was simply nuts, or had gone paranoid . . .) Then it was a done deal, very minimally covered, and that with misinformation; and immediately dropped from the news.

Are we in danger of becoming a closed fascist state? Ask a Native American, north or south (or a Vietnamese, Iraqi, etc. etc. etc.)--we have been there from the beginning . . . we were founded to be that way and we will remain that way until the whole system collapses or until critical consciousness spreads faster than the H1N1 virus.

(NOT the SWINE FLU, sorry pork merchants and animal torturers, we beg your pardon on bended knees with fear in our hearts--the bacon rules and we salute it forever--we feed it to our kids and train them with corporal violence to salute it in our prison/schools . . . no, your constitutional right to immense wealth through the desecration of the environment, the slow poisoning of the population who can't afford healthy food, and the torture of innocent pigs will not be broached as long as a certain flag flies.)

If Media are life, we are dead--but Media are not life, Media are dead--they are false gods, as Shirley observes, put there as distracters--we just need to turn away and again inhabit the sacred space of a world shared with animals, plants, clouds, oceans . . . a world we feel and see with our own flesh, unmediated by anyone but the ones we love . . .

I'm not a history buff, but here is a quote about the US invasion of Grenada from the web that is accurate, as far as I know--please correct me If I'm wrong, and I'll remove/change it--that goes for anything I've said above, too, of course!):

"The invasion of Grenada in late 1983 can be seen as a small part of the rivalry between the U.S. and Cuba during the Reagan years. A bloody coup in Grenada, along with a perceived threat to American students on the island provided the U.S. with an excellent excuse to eliminate a Marxist regime allied to Fidel Castro's Cuba."

Have a great Labor Day weekend everyone: "Cultural Workers of the World, Unite in Diversity over Power"

Steve

Maybe we subconsciously allow ourselves to be distracted by such things because ignoring more pressing issues is more convenient than actually taking actions to bring about positive change.

You know before we gave up T.V. all together , I decided to give up the News.  I found watching the news very depressing or ridiculous.  How is news whether Britney Spears breaks up with her husband? How is news whether John and Kate plus 8 will resume after the divorce? Why is news always about car accicdents, deaths, drownings, murders, numbers dead, and suicides? Why is this all people want to hear?   News channels should be using the opportunity to educate the pubic about "real" news.  If I were in charge I would play scenes of what is happening in Darfur all day opposed to news coverage of Michael Jackson.  What were they showing when the Holocaust was going on??? What was everyone around the world busy watching while all my family was murdered? Makes me think what I'm not seeing on the news. 

We talked about our likes and dislikes in class last Thursday, and I began to ponder about how network executives have, in the past, attracted a particular audience into watching their shows. However, this fall, a particular show seems to be doing quite the opposite: attraction by repulsion.

With the recent advent of remakes of early 90's shows such as Degrassi, the next generation, Beverly Hills 90210 (...the next generation), and now, Melrose Place.......(the next generation), it seems that the creative juices from writers and network executives have dried up. In 1990, Degrassi aired compelling episodes about topics such as being diagnosed with a learning disability, contemplating abortion, and living with AIDS. Beverly Hills 90210 in the 90s had aired episodes of similar topics: Tori Spelling's character petitioned the school to allow condoms to be dispensed in the school. However, a closer inspection of episode summaries reveals Degrassi had aired a show about this same issue, and 90210 regularly recycled Degrassi's topics, although adding a truck load of melodrama into the recipe.

Now, shows like Gossip Girl and another remake of a 90's show, Melrose Place is taking up the 8-o'clock to 9-o'clock time-slot. In order to attract audiences, website poster ads portray characters in these shows as hyper-sexualized, spoiled, and scandalous. A website tagline for the new Melrose is “nice, naughty, bad-girl”, and last year's ad for Gossip Girl was “Every Parent's Nightmare”. However, an examination of the Nelson Ratings reveals that Gossip Girl ranked a low 196 and 168 for their first two seasons, respectively.

 Other networks, on the other hand, have decided to take a different route in attracting their audiences. Executives seem to be banking on the idea that we, the audience, are sick of watching shows about people who are “prettier, richer, endowed” than we are. A glance of the new show “Glee” reveals characters that, from the beginning, are not well liked at all. In fact, as an audience member, I don't seem to want to place myself into any of the characters' shoes: The leading male teacher who is having marital problems (nope); the leading female teacher who is a germophobe (has mysophobia) (nope); I would like to continue on with using the term “leading”, except none of the other characters dominate the spotlight: the female gym teacher who reveals that “living with hepatitis is a @#$”! (nope); the girl who gets paint thrown in her face (nope); or any of the other characters that make up the “glee club” ensemble (perhaps:I would love to become proficient at playing the guitar someday).

Does choosing actors with little star power and who portray characters with dislikable qualities seem to be what today's audiences actually like? Are audiences so sick of watching young, attractive, rich people frolic in the land of the forbidden, that they are tuning into shows that allow one to appreciate what they have ? Will we say “aha, it looks like my life is pretty good after-all, (except for the fact that I still can't seem to master the strumming pattern for “Stairway to Heaven”), and continue watching as these characters perceive through being the abject of their school; or, will we continue watching because what this show offers is merely a rough copy of those mentioned above?  After all, who wouldn't give their next plane ride to Paris for a singing voice fit for an audience of a few million viewers. 

Lukas

information to digest. Just as many of us seem to feel that we are bombarded by media and by information I feel very similar after reading all of the preceding blogs (really...reading some and skimming others, there were just too many). Everyone had very interesting points of view, backed up with compelling examples, but how am I supposed to feel about all of them? Should I take the time to respond to everyone? Should I be respond with as much passion and vigor to a blog as the author who wrote it?

I think that I am going to treat blogging (I am new to it) just as I treat television, movies, and music, I will read and respond to those that interest me. They may be blogs with an interesting title, or they may be blogs whose first sentence steals my attention away from whatever else I am doing on the computer while I browse the Freireproject site, or I may be bored, head over to this site and browse away (catchy titles, interesting beginnings, stealing my attention...isn't that something that media advertisors are always trying to do?). Who knows? What I do know however is that it will be interesting to see the interaction between our class (and others). Will it mirror in class discussion? Will some people be more open and honest on their  blogs, unchained from the social norms that contain our classroom discussions? It feels to me like I just had an epiphany about blogging. I think I might like it...but then again...

Well...my seatbelt is buckled and I am ready for the ride!

I guess this is a good example why I wouldn’t watch CNN under normal circumstances.

Good evening all.

Have finally found the courage to log in. You will have to excuse me for my inadequacies, this is all new to me. After last week's class, this might take me some time to get used to.

More comments to follow.

Regards,

Linda

 I found last weeks class refreshing when compared to some of the other classes I am taking this semester.  I have a feeling discussion worth listening to will happen in this classroom. I realized that I may have been a little harsh when stating that my media dislike was radio DJs. I am a little irked by some of the tactics they are using to keep listeners. I have to jump on the against anti John Tesh band wagon and other DJs who try to improve the listeners lives by educating us with what current studies say.  I listen to the radio for music and not self-help.

<!--StartFragment-->

          Another trend I noticed is how radio talk has become much more daring and racy with sexual content. The terms that are being used and topics discussed harken back to the daily school bus ride and all the material not fit to print discussed there. Listening to DJs using some of the terms we used awakens loads of repressed shame and guilt from the misuse of subject matter and redneck ignorance we were full of.

 Did you know that David Bowie and Neil Young have spiders named after them. If you listened to the Q last night you would have. I like these. These are bits of info that find their way into daily conversation when know one knows what to say.

 On that note (insert radio conversation info here)……

<!--EndFragment-->

Everybody talks about the impact media has on the people and we complain about the negative influence it has on society in general, but would it be wrong to say that it is society that shapes the media at the same time? Aren`t we, as consumers, defining the type of news we want to hear, or the type of shows we want to see? (not each and every one of us, of course, but the majority). Isn`t the content of what we see on TV a reflection of our preferences?

Reality shows like Survivor (how real can this show be, anyway?) are popular, or they wouldn`t continue season after seson. The reasons for which people watch them are diverse, but the bottom line is they all do, and ratings go up. We all know the media will only show what they know will sell. Watching news channels/programs, we realize that criminals, pundits, and talentless actresses get more attention than researchers, scientists, or renowned artists, so my question is, are the producers giving us what we want , or are we too blasé that we are only impressed by what gives us the creeps? Real-life stories are no longer interesting, so producers pick the most attention-grabbing stories, playing on our fears and anxieties. If they don`t create panic, it`s not news worthy.

So what do you think? Are we able to change anything?

Good morning all

What is the purpose of media these days? I always believed that media was suppose to be informative and cultural? I guess it is not necessarily what sell these days! I find that the media has become a very depressing source of information.  We rarely hear anything positive or educational on the news.  In today society people are all about gossips and breaking news!!!! Breaking news are now tabloids about the personal life of Hollywood stars.  If you actually think about this for a minute the most watch television show during dinner time are things like "Entertainment Tonight, Entertainment Canada, Access Hollywood" Is that what we consider Important Breaking News?  It is quite sad that CTV news, fox news are more focus on the entertainment part of their news!!! I truly believe that there is a place for everything in today's society but we must share the wealth around so things are evenly covered!

Have a great day!

In class I stated that my least favourite media was Zach and Cody...Since then I have re-discovered a new bit of media that "irks" me.

I work with the LBPSB as a high school administrator and every fall we participate in valuable professional development sessions in alternate locations (politically correct way of saying a retreat...gotta watch out for negative press...).  At this particular (retreat) there was a specialist in media relations brought in to tel us how to speak with the media.  Before I go any further with this I want to apologise to any member of the class (Donna B.) who was on the organizing committee...

Anyways, we spent 1 to 2 hours hearing how before we go in front of a microphone, we need to sit down with a specialised team, decide what the three most important messages are and script a "sound bite" meaning that we say our three statements over and over and over.  The thinking behind it being that news media will only play about 10 seconds of what we say so we better say the right things and not deviate because 3 or 4 different microphones mean 3 or 4 different sound editors and heaven forbid that they all edit things in different ways.

He showed us an unedited press scrum of our national leaders practicing this technique and without the editting, everybody sounded like morons, answering questions, no matter what they were, with the same statements.

Around the same time there were presidential debates or prime ministerial debates and I couldn't help but wonder how much of what these people were saying was not scripted and organized into "biteable" chunks, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on image consultants, hair and makeup (heaven forbid that Stephen Harper wears a reddish tie or has a hair out of place)

Contrast all of that with a rare clip I happened to see on some Bravo special somewhere of President Nixon preparing for his debate.  The shot was in the wings of the set and it was Mr. Nixon with his chief advisor licking his hand and smoothing down Mr. Nixon's already uncannily smoothe combover. Not that I am familiar enough with Mr. Nixon to have an informed opinion on his poitics, I sited this example because I miss a world where we public figures could be publicly real, could say things without the fear that what they said wouldn't be edited and blasted around the world and if they said something wrong, apologised and then moved on.

In conclusion, back at the retreat, we all finished our role playing of spitting out sound bites (and trying not to laugh) and then some of us (not Donna B.) complained about the session but we all came away with an understanding of how carefully we need to choose our words and if we ever get in front of a microphone, BE CAREFUL.

My latest "media dislike" is the fact that I have to pay more attention to being careful than I do to being genuine.

In the very recent past, hardware and software manufactures were like Sonny and Cher: They each shared and marvelled in the other's dream of forcing consumers through a yearly computer hardware and software upgrading schedule. Up until the software manufactures had loyal followers, hardware manufacturers were able to offer only one (or two) types of operating systems, because they knew there was no other choice. However, in the same manner that high school nerds quickly became tired of getting hit in the face during phys-ed dodge ball games, so did they become annoyed with the corporate greed that has shaped the history of our computer-buying culture.

Personally, I made it through the ranks of computer nerd not unlike a pimply-faced intern would starting out in the corporate mail-room. As a youngster, I found myself continuously erasing and reloading my entire software library (286 days, for you computer lovers, using the very first version of “pc operating system) while my friends were learning how to balance a hackie-sack on the side of their Converse shoes. As I learned that “tethering myself” to metal objects while tinkering around old internal hardware components made very little difference, as I still managed to “kill” a few power supplies and many ram memory sticks, I also learned that I was constrained by the very purpose of the computer found in front of me: I couldn't play newer, cooler games unless I continuously upgraded my operating system. With no other operating system option, resistance was futile.

Upgrading upgrading is a process which the corporate brain geniuses have crafted in order to stay in business; it is also one of the reasons why computer software is so expensive. However, during the last ten years, geeks and nerds have come together to share in their crafty ways of subverting this process, and in doing so, have become cultural “icons” in both senses of the word (see image of Linux Penguin). They have become culture jammers.

Software companies have crafted a subculture of computer consumerism. Even before the birth of the internet, the war between corporate-source (pay for operating system) and open-source (design your own), software design has been a hot topic for many who found themselves “waiting patiently for the customer service representative” during long hours of the night before their papers are due. It seemed counter-intuitive to have to work to pay for software, to work to pay for customer support, and work to pay for upgrades to fix currently paid for buggy software. Culture jammers have come to the rescue. They have invented an ingenious solution to solve this madness: open-source software.

Open-source software production is a process by which software coders from all over the world collaborate on the production of free, user-friendly, fully-functional computer programs. Instead of paying some corporation a yearly “stipend” to keep up with the charade of needful upgrading (to stay currently productive, to allow users to “stay with the times”), computer-lovers all over the world have “thrown a wrench” into this crazy “machine” that as consumers, we must upgrade for the sake of upgrading, and we must pay to fix the maker's mistakes. Instead of paying a multi-million dollar corporation, year after year, to help the technological world keep turning, average citizens from all occupations (who have a passion and aptitude for software development) have made it possible for end-users to freely download and distribute (and even contribute to the building of) software that does the same thing that one's currently paid-for one does.

Software titles like Linux and Open Office, while not entirely new, have recently become a hot topic among the inter-web bloggers. As computer hardware manufactures sell new upgraded machines, historically, they have offered the consumer very little choice for operating system. Until now! As certain software companies have come to the end of their ability to trick the consumer into believing that their newest software is better than the consumers' current version, hardware manufactures have also become culture jamming. They have started offering consumers an option to purchase their hardware components running open-source software, eliminating the necessity of continuously paying for something that doesn't work, all the while preventing alliances between hardware manufacturers and end-users from becoming obsolete. While software manufactures have yet to see how frustrating it is to have to continue to pay for expensive yearly operating “upgrades”, hardware manufacturers have at least met the end-consumer half-way: by joining the computer geek in a round of culture jamming, they now offer at least a more economical, democratic way of using ones own.