Mass Communication, [multi]media, methodology and much, much more!
The “not-so-Super” Bowl is a fading memory, but the Microsoft spot for its adaptive controller was a home run (pardon the mixed metaphor).
The spot’s title is We All Win, and indeed we do when we use technology to minimize the differences that might otherwise hold us back. Great spot Microsoft…and a great lesson for us all to remember as we struggle to keep technology working for us, and not against us.
Leaving Neverland, a new documentary about to premiere at Sundance Film Festival, is shining a light on allegations of child molestation by the late Michael Jackson. But Jackson is not the only musician to be the center of attention by documentary filmmakers. Fans of R&B artist R. Kelly are well aware that last month’s Lifetime documentary series Surviving R. Kelly has focused intense scrutiny on Kelly and his alleged abusive relationships with underage women. Several news outlets have reported that RCA Records has dropped Kelly in light of these revelations.
Everyone has flaws, and for musicians at the pinnacle of success, those flaws become tragedies waiting to be exposed by the unblinking eye of the camera. Managers and fans wish that documentary filmmakers would stick to promotional content and not uncover the unsavory parts of the story; but that would be seen by critics and victims as a denial of the truth .
I recently watched the 2018 documentary Whitney and was reminded that any honest documentary about any superstar will contain dark and terrible episodes along with the moments of greatness. Whitney Houston’s incredible talent and musical success were clouded by her toxic relationship with Bobby Brown and the drug addiction that took her life.
Today in Park City, Utah, police are on high alert because of anticipated protests by fans of Michael Jackson. The estate of Michael Jackson is also pushing back, claiming that the two accusers who are at the center of the film earlier testified on behalf of Jackson. The estate is calling this film, “yet another lurid production…to exploit and cash in on Michael Jackson.”
That may be true, but it may also be true that victims will finally be heard. Perhaps truth will be the ultimate survivor.
Last week in class we spent some time laying the groundwork for our study of mass media and the societal effects of modern communications technologies. To understand media you have to understand communication and that begins with the ancient art of rhetoric and the modern study of semiotics and how we share and process symbols.
We discussed how we, as human beings, are born communicators. We like to connect with others and share our experiences. We are constantly communicating even when we’re not aware of it. We cannot NOT communicate. We discussed how everything that we SAY (or don’t say) and DO communicates…including our choice of clothing, our body language, and our use of space.
These points were illustrated and driven home in a video that circulated over the weekend. You might recognize this frame from a video clip that went viral on social media. The students had participated in the March for Life demonstration earlier in the day and were waiting for their buses to arrive to take them home. As you can see, some of the students (including Sandmann) are wearing MAGA hats. Phillips, an activist and Omaha tribal elder, had participated in The Indigenous Peoples March earlier in the day. A third group, members of the Black Hebrew Israelites sect, were also present and a factor in what transpired.
A real problem here is that many made up their minds about what happened on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Friday based on very little evidence…and evidence that may have been carefully selected to present a particular narrative. If you are willing to invest a bit of time to dig a little deeper, and are willing to keep an open mind, you may find out that your initial gut reaction is not entirely supported. In fact major news organizations are updating their initial posts and writing new commentaries to include evidence that became available in a number of long, unedited, videos posted to YouTube. You can find links to these videos in a commentary posted at the Reason.com website.
This week we’ll explore issues related to social media including: viral videos, manufactured outrage, public shaming, and doxing. This weekend’s events contains all of these and more. Later in the semester we’ll explore “fake news” and how confirmation bias and uncritical thinking are key factors in how so many are so easily misled by propaganda and biased reporting.
The screen shot on the left includes a tweet from Michael Green, a film and television screen writer. The commentary before and after the tweet is by Rod Dreher, an author and writer. You might consider the fact that Green and Dreher are modern-day storytellers and mass media heavyweights. They are shaping our culture and telling us how to think about the issues of the day. But they clearly see things from very different perspectives.
On this day set aside to honor the legacy of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., it is important to remember that racial bigotry remains and must be confronted at every opportunity. But as Reverend King reminded us repeatedly, only love drives out hate. Hatred is easy, fast, and decisive. Love is hard, slow, and often unsure. The choice is ours.
Last evening President Trump took to the airwaves to make his case for greater border security in the form of a wall. The argument for a wall, one that Mexico would pay for, has been a constant theme of the Trump campaign and presidency. Last evening’s remarks were the President’s first Oval Office address and there was considerable hand-wringing from TV network executives about giving him this platform. Sacrificing lucrative prime-time real estate to a political figure who has a history of playing fast-and-loose with the truth made for a difficult decision. However, in the end (and in light of the government shutdown and the potential for news to be made) all major TV networks agreed to air his remarks, and the Democratic rebuttal, in real-time.
While there is little disagreement about the need for greater security on our southern border, there is considerable debate on how to best achieve that security. Trumps wants a wall while others argue for heat-sensors, drones, and other forms of electronic surveillance. All of these would slow down illegal entry, drug smuggling, and other abuses of our national sovereignty. An effective barrier would also serve to funnel immigrants and those seeking asylum to legal ports of entry. These ideas are not terribly partisan. Democrats, including Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, voted for 700 miles of border fencing in 2006.
But what is most surprising to me is the arguments that seem to hang on the disagreement over the idea of a barrier and what we will call it. President Trump calls it a wall while others use the term fence. Whether it is made of concrete or steel appears to be important to some. There was even a debate last week about whether former President Obama had a wall constructed around his residence in the District of Columbia. Some argued that the brick and steel fencing did not amount to a “wall.”
Any rational person can see that this argument, and the ensuing government shut down, is not actually about border security and immigration policy. Instead it is about scoring political points and playing to constituents who are divided on this and so many other issues. Effective communication depends on a level of trust between parties who are willing to listen to each other…and sadly that appears to be nearly impossible in this current political climate.
An interesting article in High Country News raises an interesting issue for reporters who are working in an increasingly divisive political environment. In this particular case it is the question of whether a news reporter’s decision to wear Patagonia apparel is a political statement that undermines her perceived objectivity.
Now before you roll your eyes here’s some background. Reporters for credible news operations have historically distanced themselves from anything that might allow their readers/listeners to question their objectivity. We all recognize that reporters are human and they have inherit biases, but part of being a reporter is being aware of one’s biases and taking precautions to minimize them. Whether you work for a conservative or liberal news outlet you are expected to present yourself in a way that minimizes questions about your objectivity, and maximizes the appearance of fairness. After all, news organizations at both ends of the political spectrum claim to be fair and balanced.
So what’s up with wearing a Patagonia jacket while covering hard news? Well, last year during the run-up to the midterm elections Patagonia–which has always been an outspoken defender of environmental causes–took the additional step of endorsing two liberal candidates who were in contentious battles with more conservative candidates. While some businesses outwardly endorse political candidates and show their true colors, most take care to try to appear apolitical. After all, if your business is selling widgets, you don’t want to alienate potentially half of your customer base.
As the article points out, a journalist wouldn’t wear an NRA hat or a Greenpeace t-shirt and one can easily see how these “brands” could be seen as taking a political side. Are clothing brands any different? And if not, should a news reporter steer clear of the appearance of bias?
In 2005 two guys at Poynter Institute updated a video project that they had produced the year before. Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson’s Epic 2014 was a hit in late 2004 before being updated in January 2005 as Epic 2015. The short video (technically a Flash animation) was widely distributed online and became a flashpoint for issues that were just beginning to gain the attention of media analysts and journalists.
The events mentioned in Epic 2015 begin in 1984 and continue through 2004. Events from 2005 through 2015 are presented as factual but are actually predictions made at the close of 2004. But as many have reminded us, making predictions is hazardous, especially when they involve the future!
Now that 2015 has come and gone, it is easy to see which predictions came to pass, and which ones didn’t. What is striking is how many of the events described from 2005 through 2015 have taken place in one form or another. Amazon and Google have not merged, but their use of algorithms to track users’ behavior is obviously on target. And while the NYTimes is still available in both print and online formats, so many of the other observations about the future of print journalism have come to pass. Filter bubbles and customized news, aka the “custom content package” described as EPIC, fits the description as, “a collection of trivia, much of it untrue…all of it narrow, shallow, and sensational.”
Too bad they didn’t make a new version in 2015 called EPIC 2025. Those of us who are “the elite and the elderly” want to know what’s next!
Consuming media, like eating food, is both necessary and pleasurable. One could easily make a case that eating is a much more important and necessary act than consuming media, but going for long periods of time without either one can be difficult. And while nutrition is clearly more critical than information intake, both can provide a source of pleasure that can become problematic. Either one can become an addiction or compromise one’s health if not consumed with careful consideration for the nutritional value (or lack thereof) within.
If you’re like me you may have consumed a few too many Christmas cookies over the holidays. At the same time you may have “binged” on your favorite TV show, the new video game that was under the tree, or the books that you’ve been waiting to read. Downtime during the semester break and over the holiday season is a good time to catch up on media consumption that may have taken a back seat to more important tasks last month.
But by now you’ve probably realized that there is a down-side to all of this binging. Too much “junk-food” media can make you soft (think brain instead of waistline) and unfit for rigorous mental activity. If you’re guilty of overdoing it a bit you may want to consider a more balanced diet as you begin 2019. A healthy balance of F2F human interaction and physical activity can help to off-set the risks of a media-heavy diet.
So even if you’re not a big fan of New Year’s resolutions you might consider your media consumption habits and think about how you can regain control of your mental health and your time. I’ll be right there with you.
Unconscious bias infects our every thought and decision. It is a given, and most of the time we learn to live with our own (and with others’) biases. However, as media content producers we should learn a few best practices to minimize the effect of our personal biases if we want to rise above petty partisanship and minimize the reproach of our readers/listeners/viewers. As the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics says, “Seek the Truth and Report it.”
The YouTube video below by Julia Galef explains how we approach new information from different perspectives when we’re acting as a soldier or a scout. The “soldier” is seeking to win the battle, while the “scout” is simply trying to understand the context and the facts on the ground.
This concept also applies to the role of media consumer. When you’re consuming new information try to step outside of your team/group identity before you rush to judgement. Try to adopt a scout mindset, especially when confronted with information that counters your existing values and opinions. If we can all take a small step in that direction we’ll find that truth is much more likely to begin to chip away at our unconscious biases.
Elle magazine may have had good intentions, but their strategy to encourage readers to register to vote was terribly misdirected. Here’s the tweet that Elle sent out to its followers:
The catch is that Kim and Kanye are NOT breaking up, and the link provided takes users not to a news story but to a Voter Registration website. What some have called “trolling for good” is anything but good for media credibility which is already suffering from years of decline.
Some saw the stunt as a slap in the face of young women who are frequently depicted as politically unengaged and only interested in celebrity news.
Which led Elle to tweet an apology for the original tweet; a reminder once again that social media gone wrong is a constant threat to brand credibility.
Perhaps you spent a good part of your day on Thursday listening to sworn testimony about something that is alleged to have happened at a house party more than thirty years ago. Media coverage of the hearings and breathless commentary about the credibility of the two witnesses has been nearly worthless in helping us better understand what did or didn’t happen. Conflicting testimony, both offered with 100% assurance of confidence and accuracy, leave us with an empty feeling that we may never know the truth. What we do know is that lives hang in the balance and no one will emerge unscathed.
Truth is slippery. Many who are certain that they know the truth are either too blind or proud to acknowledge their own ignorance. A famous quote (often mis-attributed to Mark Twain but actually sourced to Josh Billings) says…
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
But just because truth is difficult to pin down doesn’t mean that it’s a mirage. Journalists, of all people, need to stay optimistic about the power of unbiased research to yield facts that will eventually point the way. But unless you’re an opinion writer or commentator you’ll need to work doubly hard to set aside your personal views and biases when covering a story as emotional and significant as this one.
This internet meme (see image below left) circulated a few years ago and makes a point about the relative nature of perception. If you ask untrained observers to evaluate a situation they may offer very different observations. But as the updated text on the right indicates, the truth of the matter is not subject to interpretation. The symbol on the ground doesn’t care where you’re standing or what you “think” it means. The truth just is…and it is up to us to figure it out.
In response to the Kavanaugh hearings I found several comments on social media that seemed to want to have it both ways.
I am unwilling to accept the idea that these testimonies are just wildly different interpretations of a shared event. And while FBI investigators may be able to shed light on the “facts” of the alleged incident, responsible reporters should be careful to report facts and avoid offering opinions about whose testimony is more “believable.”
