Module 5 Review
The key word for this module was influence. As I read the articles, powerpoints, and chapters provided, I tried to make connections with some of the most recent news stories. I was able to establish a few connections between the readings and the current American media, and recognized how much influence news sources have on the public, and also how much influence the public has on the media.
One quote I read that really resonated with me was from Robert McChesney. According to him, the closer news sources get to power, the less reliable their content will be (McChesney, 2002). The issue of journalism and democracy is especially important right now. So far this election season, we have seen biased press all favoring one candidate while continually excluding another. I remember on Monday, June 6, several news sources including the Washington Post reported that Hillary Clinton had won the democratic nomination in their headlines before California even had a chance to vote in the democratic primary, and before the super delegates could meet and help determine the final outcome. Upon reading the article further, it appeared that Clinton’s victory was merely a projection, or a prediction based on past success, and she had not actually won anything. Many readers were convinced that she had won. Others were outraged and accused the Washington Post of discouraging voter turnout and said they had been bought by the Clinton administration. This also relates to Benjamin Redford’s idea of news bias, and how the news will distort their reporting of events in order to illicit a certain reaction or outcome from the audience (Radford, 2003). In this case, by reporting that Clinton had clinched the democratic nomination the night before the California primaries, readers assumed that Clinton had won, and voter turnout was lower than expected.
An example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/06/make-no-mistake-hillary-clinton-will-clinch-the-democratic-nomination-on-tuesday/
Another concept that resonated with me was Benjamin Radford’s analogy of “light or heat”; light represents knowledge, while heat represents sensationalism (Radford, 2003). I was reminded of how the media tends to sensationalize violence in America and glorify mass shooters, especially when religion comes into play. I remember watching the news as reporters invaded the home of the San Bernadino shooters. Reporters cleverly juxtaposed items such baby toys with Muslim literature and weapons. They would make statements identifying the baby toys as being “normal” household items, while the other religious items and weapons were associated with terrorism. The heat in this story is the perpetuation of inaccurate stereotypes about Muslims being dangerous and violent. The light of this story should have been that the shooters were an exception when it comes to Muslim beliefs and practices, and that the majority of Muslims believe in peace.
An example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHnuQxh_-tQ
It is very easy to demonize and criticize the media for society’s flaws. When James Holmes attacked dozens of people inside of a movie theater, it was easy to blame violent movies for his behavior. Whenever there is a mass shooting, it seems logical that these shooting persist because of the attention and notoriety they receive from the media. However, blaming the media for our problems completely removes responsibility from ourselves as consumers. As previously established, the media is a representation of who we are as a society, and not a reflection. We help the media create a distorted image of who we are when we encourage consumerism and sensationalism. Sternheimer (2013), suggests that rather than going on a witch hunt and blaming the media for society’s flaws, we should use it as a tool to understand who effects the media instead of how the media effects us. For instance, earlier I mentioned that the media tends to only focus on Muslim culture when it includes violence. Instead of accepting these messages as truth, we should investigate who benefits from the spread of these messages, and why it is advantageous for them.
Throughout all of these modules, one thing has been common; consumers have the power. If we do not agree with the way things are portrayed, whether it is through advertising or news stories, then it is up to us to demand a change. For instance, I remember earlier this month when Brock Turner was accused of raping an unconscious woman, and was given a light sentence because he was a great swimmer with a bright future. People became outraged with the media’s coverage of this story and were horrified at their tactics to preserve Turner’s reputation, such as using his senior class photo instead of his mugshot, or focusing on his swimming career instead of his crime, or referring to his crime as “sexual assault” instead of rape. Once there was an uproar from consumers, other news sources began to change their tone, and brought their attention to the injustice of the judicial system.
This raises the question of who influences who; does the media truly influences us, or do we influence it? I think that we influence the media through consuming. Consuming is our way of telling corporations “yes” or “no”. For instance, when we all rush to purchase guns after a mass shooting, we are communicating that fear-based news stories lead to profit. Through media literacy, we can learn how to better interpret messages and communicate in a way that benefits society as a whole.
