16 thoughts on “Week 5 – Manipulative Effects of Media (T2)”
Jessica-Ann Vendawall
Enzensberger’s reading on media’s role in shaping consciousness resonated greatly with me. It falsifies our needs, making us believe that we’ll attain our desired lifestyle if we just have that product or service. This theory of ‘coolness’ (Marketing) that was created by a professor in NTU came to mind this week. This professor theorized that a product can be labeled as ‘cool’ if it challenges social norms. So for instance, the invention of torn jeans is cool because it goes against this social norm that torn jeans were for the working class that couldn’t afford to get a new pair of jeans. So by the upper middle class starting this trend they were challenging this social norm. And so that is how some products stand out, because they break these stereotypes attached to them and in that way the consumer is supposed to feel EMPOWERED. It was an interesting phenomenon that can be used to market a product however the reality is that all corporations care about is that you’ve bought their product. They actually do not care whether you’re empowered or not. To me looking at this concept from the lens of Enzensberger, it merely is empowerment to the company (and not the consumer). I guess in Marketing one thing we fail to do is question or challenge why our world operates the way it does. Instead, one comes up with ways to survive in this capitalist world because it certainly is like a ‘theatre’ we cannot turn our attention away from.
Lynette Loh
In my opinion, media in Singapore has come to a very sorry state (excluding some pretty awesome cable television of course). A very recent survey conducted by the MDA showed that Singaporeans spend 16.5hours watching mediacorp channels per week, as compared to 4.6 and 1.5 for cable channels. This type of statistic is incredibly misleading since mediacorp channels are the only free channels in Singapore, of course it will be the highest. However, that being said, imagine the amount of state propaganda being fed into Singaporeans’ minds in those 16.5hrs a week…
During tutorial we discussed about how independent newspapers and film industries have an extremely tough time surviving because of big corporations that are able to sell their newspapers under cost prices. This brings to mind the independent film Sex.Violence.FamilyValues, which created a big hoo-ha because it got banned by the MDA on account of it’s “racial references which are demeaning and offensive to Indians”.
The HPB’s FAQ on Sexuality that garnered so much attention on social media websites and even had MPs writing opposition pieces is also another example on how conservative and controlled our media is.
Well, all I can say is, Singapore is as conservative as it’s ruling party allows it to be…
Sakino Tan
I think the propaganda model proposed by Chompsky and Herman is very relevant to the media industry. As there are a few players in the world today. however, i feel that a lot of emphasis is on the United States since its paper is circulated around the world. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc, all have such great impact on people around the world. It shows the role it has in the media industry. The media is the key player that helps uncover these secrets that both the government and the major corporations have. It does shape the way people think and at the same time, it may change the audiences’ perception at times. Hence, the reason why the media is such a strong influence. It is not just news per se, it is manipulating power, information and the use of psychology. This overlaps with Ewen’s point.
I personally thought that having shorter working hours and a higher pay, is good for the working class. Thinking there is an increase in leisure time, unknowingly being manipulated into thinking that this little increase in leisure time will make us happier as we can consume the things we want in life. Knowing that the media industry is always trying to ‘con’ us into buying their products, i try to resist succumbing into the hands of these advertisers and the media in general. However, it is very hard. It is like no matter what people are in the hands of these people in power.
It is true that it is important that the masses do have power, however, the media does listen to the wants of the masses as well. The feedback mechanism is how the media industry listens to the needs and wants of the masses and make use of that information to give them what they want .
Vienna
In class this week, someone mentioned Bordieu’s idea of capital and how this is directly linked to the creating of consciousness. This really got me to think that there truly are no ways of escaping advertising when it fundamentally advertises things that are an outward reflection of self which then in turn become part of you. You want people to know you are classy, you have economic capital by carrying a Prada or Chanel bag whose ads cater to such people who want reflect that status. It then creates a public who is accustomed to such status symbols and universally know what they symbolise and hence it creates an environment where everyone is judged by everyone, based on their physical things, further increasing the importance of advertisers. They have created a desire for such goods.
Recently I saw a video that didn’t seem like an ad. It got people in remote areas to taste test the Whopper and the Big Mac and compare the two. The big deal was that these people had never tasted a burger before so their opinion is what someone untainted by advertising etc would like, almost as if they were capitalizing on what us as humans would like not as consumers in a capitalistic world. Obviously some said the Big Mac to keep with the authenticity of the ad but we all know in the end, seeing as how its done by Burger King, more would choose the Whopper. Another interesting thing to note is the ‘distractions’ they put in like the documentary style of video of the American men talking about the people trying the burger so really you buy into the whole concept of the ad of how they went to Romania and Greenland etc and found these people. They then have an INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER to ensure that the strict guidelines are adhered to for the taste test to show it is unbias. This video is a good example of framing because you think all these things are authentic when you first watch it and then you realize that Burger King did the ad. Who doesn’t want to see other human beings taking their first bite of a hamburger when we can hardly remember ours. Its nostalgic and subtly the ideas of the Whopper being the better burger come through.
“Salvation through products” how sad does this sound? But this is where we live in whereby we are expressed through the products we have, and these products are not even what we need, they are desires and above needs. All these for the fact that we want an identity for ourselves that is a social construct, and this identity is being mobilized by modern advertising.
Ewen also talks about “Higher Wages & Shorter Hours” and how our leisure time needs to altered in a way we would be consumers during that time. Although I agree with the fact that through this way, a larger consumer market can be created, I’m not fond of this because if there is really “Higher Wages & Shorter Hours” around, there wouldn’t be sweatshops, there wouldn’t be debates about the minimum wage. This idea is like an ideal situation which does not take into concern that producers despite wanting to have efficient production with efficient consumption, would not want to cut down their costs of production for maximizing profits. Hence, I think modern technology is the way whereby we are all drawn in to the fact that “Hey, I’m not perfect therefore I need this, this and that!” Advertising focuses on what we lack to evoke our desires and self-consciousness to follow whatever is considered the perfect person in society.
I would like to link how this advertising can also be closely joint with Kracauer’s idea of distraction, but not in the way about spectacles exposing disintegration. Instead, I think advertisements can be compared to Berlin’s beautiful picture palaces in a way, we are distracted from the “disorder” in society that we are all made into consumers that are desired by producers, in a way we are constructed. These advertisements packaged their products and the need for them very beautifully such that for a time being, we are being distracted. It is a distraction because we know these advertisements are packaged, but we still go ahead and engage in mass consumption.
Another interesting takeaway from this week’s reading is how our news are framed. They are the truth once they are endorsed by the officials. If you are not and you spread news, the response would simply be “Let’s wait for the official statement.” I’m guilty of this. Newspapers, even if how much they say it’s not regulated, the main purpose is also to leave it to the free market forces such that they can easily drive competitors who are inadequate so they can achieve their monopoly. And with this monopoly, they work with corporations we can’t even imagine like banks, and then now the newspapers instead of serving the public for the disseminating with news, the news are “filtered” and “constructed” in ways that serve the interests of those in power, of the advertisers.
You can say it’s different now with new media whereby it’s easier to spread news since you need not have the money to print. But then in the case of Singapore, the state intervenes and this state has Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GICs) which has investments in many different areas – it is clearly a business. So how much can we even trust this state intervention?
Iman
I wanna respond to Diyana’s point!
Enzensberger also points out that participation can be enslaving and not necessarily freeing. Hence pertaining to the ad that Diyana shared, advertising manipulates women to feel that they are not enough as human beings. There is always something to be improved on and in this case, women have to improve the state of their hair in order to improve on the state of their love life. They are ensnared in this vicious superficiality that consumes the world today; that looks are the vital ingredient to achieve anything in life. This idea is of course cooked up by the media to ensure that they earn revenue by tapping on other people’s insecurities.
Also according to Ewen, media and advertising creates artificial needs and the only salvation is via products. This is evident in the ad and as Diyana has already pointed out, you want a man, have great hair. During lecture, Prof posed us the question: Is there any kind of autonomy or emancipation (from advertising)? I think no. For example, some would argue that putting on makeup is a choice (vs feeling like they are under pressure to conform to society’s ideals of beauty) whereas others would argue that it is a false choice. Where would one get the notion of applying make up on in the first place if not for massive advertising that sells us this idea?
Audrey
The four readings carry the same theme of the construction of consciousness.
In Chomsky and Herman’s work, they introduce five filters of the media. What stood out to me was their point about advertising – the mass media is not democratic or representative as it makes itself to seem. Its very basis, which is to earn profit, propels its purpose to attract only audiences of buying power.
This helps us get into the heads of media content producers, realising their agendas for content producing.
“Advertisers want to avoid programmes with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that will interfere in the buying mood.”
This can be illustrated through their tactic of product-placement, infiltrating the media content itself. The Aston Martin is a character on its own in the Bond movies – it is not just a vehicle. It plays a central role to the films, and becomes almost a sidekick to Bond himself – the Aston Martin is reliable, fast, sexy.
The coca-cola cups are the ubiquitous items placed on the judges’ desk of American Idol.
These brands want to identify themselves with such programmes. Such culture, such identities. Coca-cola wants to tie in its brand as being dynamic or talented. Aston Martin sells the idea of ultimate manliness.
Rarely would you see such products in documentaries or art-house flicks.
Another point they made which struck home to me was how news is framed. Chomsky and Herman write that there is always this presumption of credibility of news when it comes out of press releases.
In Singapore, official news agencies have to be very cautious about what they report, especially with regards to government bureaucracies. Having done a 10-month stint at a local news press, I learnt the fundamental rules of reporting – always, always get the official statements. Otherwise, your story is not credible.
Bureaucratic statements are crafted ‘officially’ by workers of the press-relations department. Any additional information which journalists try to squeeze out of press-statements cannot be considered as ‘official’, thus cannot be written as ‘facts’. Newspapers protect themselves by using disclaimers. For example, if the information is not on-record, we’ll write: “Newspaper A believes that…. happened”
Ewen gives an excellent explanation of the impacts of advertising. Advertising does not sell products.
They sell ambitions, ideas about happiness, and states in which we try to reach, creating desires and habits. Advertisements are not the only culprits in creating such standards. TV shows explicitly advertise the notion of mainstream beauty and make fun of those who are not.
I chanced upon this clip of a Taiwanese variety show (watch the first two minutes of the clip) that gets contestants to submit pictures of themselves in make up, and later appear on the show sans-makeup, ‘shocking’ everyone with their true appearances.
My apologies to the non Mandarin-speaking friends – but do watch the reactions of the judges as one of them literally jumps out of his seats when a contestant reveals her true face.
This example would be apt for Ewen’s reading – especially his notion of self-conscious consumption. As we all now know, Ewen is critical of advertising and its manipulative ability to tap into our inner psyche through emotional branding. As humans, we are endowed with sentience i.e., the ability to feel. Advertisers contrive affect and craft stories with universal themes like nostalgia, love, belonging etc. to lure our attention towards their ads. However under all these layers, the ad disguises the product as not merely a product of its own merit (that is, showcasing a checklist of its selling points). Rather, it is now transformed into a product laden with our secret desires and wishes and offerings of solution to our problems. As Ewen argued, “…in order to get people to consume and, more importantly, to keep them consuming, it was more efficient to endow them with a critical self-consciousness in tune with the “solutions” of the marketplace than to fragmentarily argue for products on their own merit.”
In the aforementioned ad’s case, the desire to have a true love is perhaps attainable. The solution is simple: firstly, have nice hair. Then, you can flaunt it with hair flips and whatnot, and somehow your true love will be amazed by your beauty. Or if you feel like keeping your romantic life interesting, again, the solution is simple: dye your hair in a different shade and your true love will be happily surprised.
Having to think about this, all these social constructions (or contrived ad messages) of beauty and love, are a huge sham. “Advertising hoped to elicit the “instinctual” anxieties of social intercourse”, “through an appeal of instincts – ultimately feelings of social insecurity”. Why some ads seem emotionally potent to us is because it has found a way to seep into our psyche and nudge on our insecurities. In this ad’s description, it says “A declaration of love from Schwarzkopf Nectra Color, dedicated to all women in the world.” Here, the target audience is women who are insecure about their hair and, at the same time, fussing about a life companion. The main message of this ad, in my opinion: “get the perfect hair and land the perfect man.”
So in general, we consume to amass beauty, prestige, etc. because we’re insecure and self-conscious in relation to how we think others perceive us. And we got this psychic nudging from ads.
Maxly Inthaxai
In this section of reading responses “Constituents for a Theory of the Media” is raising the voice for realizing the true potential of the media. As Enzensberger calls for a much needed participatory model of communication and information exchange in opposition to the capitalist systems controlled by the bourgeoisie and influential.
Cultural Archaism in the Left Critique can be know that the consciousness industry is about to bring forth a radical change in the way media is perceived, it is important to discuss the concept of manipulation, which till now helped in self learning and development. The Democratic Manipulation is about manipulation as part of the cultural archaism and Enzensberger recognizes the fact that “manipulation” as such is political act when it comes to the media industry—“every use of media presupposes manipulation.” This, from a practical standpoint is fine. Any form of media is required to be first manipulated and then produced (even the live telecast of the sting operations that we see.) So, the bigger question is not the fact that media are manipulated, but who manipulates them? Such manipulation can be encountered only with the direct social control. To look at this in perspective with the current media order, such talks read and sound like fairy-tale. It is unimaginable for many to see a close world order like the one presented above. With internet burgeoning and media opening the public communication platform, we are, to a great extent, learning to harness the power the media as a medium for exchange of information. This brings us to an important point, which is also presented by Enzensberger that the new media is egalitarian in structure. And this is proven well from the point above that everyone now is participating in the process of information exchange and thereby learning themselves.
Enzensberger provides an example of telephone and telegram to explain this further. Telegram is still in the hands of bureaucracy, telephone is accessible to everyone. The former is till now, in the hands of the bureaucracy. And he says that the laws that regulate the transmission are antiquated and needs to be reformed in the foreseeable future.
The Subversive Power of the New Media, there are enormous political and cultural energies hidden in the masses. With their imagination and freedom, they can harness the opportunities offered by the new media.
Almost the mention above, I quite be interested and agree with him almost I have mention and I do believe that the new media is more cultural of our processing particular mass and it kind of like how do we related with the culture and the technology together for the maintaining of the subversive power in the freedom of new media contrasting.
Kerri Heng Yi Ping
CULT OF DISTRACTION ON BERLIN’S PICTURE PALACES (Kracauer)
Reading this made me think of the 1927 German movie, Metropolis, by Fritz Lang (link to Youtube movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Qk7HPMvuA). It depicts a dystopian, futuristic world, something that could be close to the ‘truth’ that Kracauer writes of. It portrays disorder, chaos and overwhelming glamour and riches. I agree that the medium of film can be used to reveal the ‘truths’ in society, instead of masking it. Large spectacles are needed to mask the actual conditions of our lives (being exploited, being consumers of a culture industry, etc) and the film Metropolis tried to portray this huge, glamorous, spectacle that belied the tension, shock, awe, confusion and disorder beneath it.
Today’s distractions are so much more than that of Berlin’s film period. Distraction – Social Media (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook), TV and the Internet (Onlline shopping, etc) serve to further elude us from the ‘truth’. We immerse in these distractions and do not have time or energy to contemplate certain things in life – Eg: Why do I keep going after this branded product? Why do I work so many hours but earn so little money?
A PROPAGANDA MODEL (Chomsky)
The five filters of the mass media and news media were very eye-opening when I read them. I agree with most of them, but not all.
I agree with profit orientation of the mass media – of course they need to make money in this advanced Capitalist era. The mass media to represent the ‘working class’ and to motivate alternative expression simply cannot survive today. Media is always about profit making today; after all it’s about selling news stories, pitching new show/programme ideas and reaching as many people as possible. In polytechnic media studies we were often drummed with: pitch us something that can sell. I never questioned it because after all, it seems the most pragmatic and economically rational way to do things. It seems like in the US today, the largest media conglomerates produce all the programmes we watch. The same handful of companies produce and fund the mainstream media. Only the rare (radical) Michael Moore documentary, all-self-funded, gets produced sporadically.
Advertising – of course programmes would strive to produce content that suits advertiser tastes. The idea struck me, again, as economically pragmatic, but it does reveal the glaring fault that certain types of shows/programmes will thus be left out of mainstream media. Like radical politics, sensitive national issues, etc.
I disagree with how Chomsky states that reporters are at the mercy of the corporations – that they merely act as the medium through which companies pass their overload of information through. Having worked for a news agency before, I understand how companies and the government get bombarded with ‘official’ information and press releases. However, the media does retain a sense of independence and critical thought. News editors write columns in response to government policies. News reporters do not always get caught up in what the govt and companies ‘feed’ them. More often than not, in Singapore, reporters do try to be less ‘PR’. They do try to find out more than what is ‘officially’ given to them. (Of course they don’t usually succeed as companies refuse to entertain probing journalists. But journalists do try.)
Of course, in Singapore, the media has OB Markers – out of bounds markers that they cannot, at all costs, cross. These include coverage on race, religion and the LGBT community. However, these are slowly easing up, as sites like Yahoo and TODAY Online do publish letters and articles that try to explain alternative POVs. Perhaps more will ease up in our near future, given the recent, fair and objective HPB Sexuality FAQ online.
There are also alternative news sites that the Singapore govt is very wary of – including The Real Singapore and The Online Citizen. Recently, the Breakfast Network, helmed by former Straits Times editor Bertha Henson, was closed down due to inadequate funding and resources. This is a very typical and sad case of our media company. It is true that alternative media struggles to present different and critical perspectives, and that there are taxes and regulations in place to ensure that they do not get very far. It is no wonder that Singapore ranks 140-something on the freedom of press index.
Flak agencies are common in Singapore, and they take the form of PR companies and departments who write to the media saying that they have portrayed certain issues in a negative way. Often, this negative way is seen to be detrimental to the company’s image/reputation. As discussed in tutorial today, flak can also come from the public. (HPB Sexuality FAQ example, on how some members of the public opposed the original version, citing Singapore’s ‘conservative’ family values.)
Anticommunism – it is no wonder that since young, communism was always seen to be the ultimate evil in the media and in school history textbooks. Also, the account by Dr Thum Pjin Jin on Operation Cold Store (on Youtube) asserts that the people detained were not communist, but just asserted to be. It is strange and true that the media is seen to portray critical thought/expression as communist, and thus anti-democratic.
CAPTAINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (Ewen)
This helped me to realise that the shorter hours worked and slightly higher wages received were designed to make us have more time to spend on consuming, and to have a little more money to spend on consumer products.
It’s not about selling the product, but selling the meaning/idea/symbolism behind the product. Today’s tutorial on advertisers capitalising on consumers’ low self-esteem brought to mind something I read a few years ago, that advertisements are designed to make consumers feel inadequate, thus they buy the advertised products. It was something about how for instance, make-up, skin-care and weight-loss programmes reinforce a standard model of beauty, and anything that falls short needs to be fixed.
CONSTITUENTS OF A THEORY OF THE MEDIA (Ezenberger):
With new media technologies, we can now be mobilised participants in the media, instead of being passive. New media can be used to mobilise new expressions of thought. I thought of blogging as a means of using new media to express critical thought. However, blogging, by one person with a really small audience, does not have much social impact. If online media is used in a collective, significant manner, it can mobilise people and create social change. Eg: social media/online petitions, debates, discourse.
I agree that having the technology, having the access to technology or the permission to use technology, does not mean that we are empowered. Watching cable TV and surfing though Facebook are just forms of consumption. We don’t create new ideas or social action. New media technology should be seen as an outlet from which the ‘masses’, like us, can mobilise for change. (Eg: the Internet).
Sasha Kaur Dhillon
This week’s theme on the manipulative effects of media provided an engaging and useful insight into how our minds are shaped by media effects that ultimately beyond our control. Thus, essentially what we think is our response or our thoughts are actually the thoughts and responses that the elites of society wish to bestow upon us.
Chomsky & Herman:
Chomsy & Herman provide us with the five filters that the media industry incorporates into its model of propaganda and how it disseminates information. Firstly, we are presented with the state censorship on independent media. I found this facet of the model to be particularly intriguing because countries like Singapore who display overtly their use of “censorship” are severely criticized by the Western nations that also partake in this censorship ( albeit in a masked form). Thus, it would seem that censorship is used by everyone and anyone who seeks to sustain and exact power via the media.
The second filter focuses on the advertising forces and revenue that the media forces are accorded with. Many media industries are monopolized by a few corporations who invest in them and therefore control what they wish these media companies to portray. As restrictive as this sounds, it is perhaps the only alternative for these companies to adhere to in order to survive – since advertising reduces the cost of production for the media industry, allowing it to reap greater economic profits. Thus the messages portrayed by the media are those that are pumped into it by the people who provide the financial resources to the industry.
Thirdly, the media is also influenced by the manner in which it frames the sources who provide it with information. Usually these sources are usually official and bureaucratic ( draws link to Max Weber’s bureaucratic affiliations) and unofficial sources are not deemed to be worthy of publication because they involve most in investigating their credibility. The media also co-opts experts – who are all from the same field previously to give advice on matters. Thus, the institutional biases that they portray in their advice is always apparent and will always seek to reinforce what the elite have been trying to drill into our heads.
Fourth – comes the element of flak. Which essentially draws upon criticism and its relation to the media. What the propaganda model postulates is that only people in power can create flak and it is interesting to note that they create these counter-arguments towards their own arguments to showcase to people the very strength of their own arguments and to ridicule at opposing views ( if this isn’t manipulation in all its scheming glory, I don’t know what is).
The last filter takes the form of an ideology and is that of Anti-communism. Chomsky and Herman bring into emphasis the aspects of worthy vs unworthy in this filter. This essentially means that the elite decide which news is worthy of reporting ( according to their ideology) against which is not ( against their ideology). This would for instance explain, why the US reports extensively about shooting sprees or about North Korea but refuses to report as extensively on the daily drones that its military conducts in the Middle East.
Kracauer:
The main gist of this six-page reading was the idea of how a spectacle was used to distract the masses. This distraction took the form of picture palaces. In this sense the masses get so engrossed in the spectacle that they are distracted from the fact that they are getting exploited. It is used precisely because it is felt that masses are close to discovering the truth. However, Kracauer also insinuates that this very spectacle can be used by the masses to use against their exploitation ( by its sheer magnitude) and can become a potential challenge to power.
Ewen:
Ewen emphasizes the industrial democracy of workers which isn’t very democratic after all because it grants workers higher pay for working fewer hours but because these workers have more leisure time by default, the capitalist economy stands to reap greater benefits from the very income that they spend on leisurely activities. I found this to be a very powerful manipulative tool as well because the masses are blinded by the surface pleasures only to be deceptively lured into the deeper consequences of being at the losing end. In this sense, I feel that working longer hours might actually be a better thing – in terms of savings from lesser participation in leisure activities ( gulps).
Enzenberger:
Honestly, it is very funny how Enzenberger mocks many theorists and exalts other – Benjamin. However, I still found the reading to be dry and complicated because it kept integrating too many aspects of the media theory all at one go. Nevertheless, there were many important points to glean from this reading. Namely, how Enzenberger focuses on people using technology to mobilize people into action and not merely using it to distribute messages. Furthermore, I encountered a “duh” moment because Enzenberger feels that the feedback mechanism that new media comes with is not unprecedented but in fact a normal progression in its history. However, I did not realize this and was heartened to see through his point. Essentially he feels that media should be used to strategize and be an active form of participation. This in his viewpoint, is what distinguishes it from old forms of media and is what is so revolutionary about new media.
Stanley Wong
Taking a Marxist perspective, this week’s readings deal with the media as a component of the superstructure, and how it relates to other aspects of the superstructure to manipulate the masses. For me, Enzensburger’s essay is the overarching one this week, with the other 3 articles expanding on different aspects of his article. One important concept that he highlights is the consciousness industry. If I am not wrong, the consciousness industry implies that social consciousness can be reproduced within the masses by industrial means. Seen this way, mass media is a way to perpetuate (false) consciousness.
One example of the consciousness industry in action can be observed in advertising. Ewen’s article discusses how advertising came about through mass production, and how advertising, together with other social processes like the organization of time, mass production, and the increase in purchasing power, resulted in how the proletariat was redefined. Instead of a worker, he is now framed as a consumer. Seen this way, the role of the advertising industry is to change the masses’ role. This is done through the creation of desires and knowledge that fundamentally changes their psyche and consciousness. This is done through the “creation of universal notions”, and appealing to the right instincts. At the same time, through construction of information, representation and argument, the advertising industry is attempting to inculcate the desire to consume and the culture of consumption within the masses. In a way, this is also imbuing a form of consciousness within them.
Enzensburger also points out the emancipatory potential of media; media technologies enable everyone to be a producer. By focusing on the productive aspects of media technologies, new forms of consciousness can be formed by the transmitting and sharing of knowledge and thus effect new forms of social organization. However, its emancipatory potential is stilted by modern capitalism and politics. Chomsky’s article comes in here, as he highlights the various mechanisms within the mass media industry that not only reduces communications to that of transmission and reception (between industry giants and the consumers), but also stunts the production and distribution of radical knowledge that’s not “mainstream”. For example, economies of scale and private interests (cf Habermas) in the form of advertising ensure that not only mass media is easily available to all, but also contains messages that entice them to consume as well by subsiding cost of production. Similarly, the inclusion of key social actors, like the government and people of authority entering into the realm of media production means less effort is not only required to ensure “credibility”, but also allows for the mainstream view to be echoed. The inclusion of these social actors also hampers alternative radical knowledge to enter the network of knowledge, which further perpetuates the mainstream view. Indeed, the filters that Chomsky identified relate media to other institutions within the superstructure. The filters also prevent consumers from becoming producers and generating information outside of what is framed by the mass media, and makes entry into the mass media market difficult for producers of radical knowledge, as they are not back by advertisers who will not finance those that are not aligned with their position.
Enzensburg also references Benjamin, where he argues that the mechanical reproduction of art decouples it from ritual and authenticity. Instead of it being based on ritual, it is now based on politics. This is similar to Kracauer’s concept of distraction, whereby he uses cinema to illustrate it. The moving images in cinema, the fast bombardment of images do not give the audience time to think about what is happening or make sense of it, unlike high art. Editing techniques employed within the film is, in a sense fragmented, though it gives the film a sense of coherence. These two processes compels the audience to focus on the external and superficial, which is carried over to how they perceive reality.
Clarinda Ong
Stuart Ewen writes about the increased productions and how it influenced the need of efficient consumerism. To motivate workers to consume, there is the logic of ‘higher wages and lower working hours’ to allow workers to have more free time for consumption of market goods. Also, advertisements mobilized the masses, creating desires for the products which may not be a compulsory need. It’s all in the mind – desires are psychologically-motivated by advertisements, for instance, advertisers selling a lifestyle, a value…
He went on about the techniques of advertisers – which is to notify and amplify people’s problems so that they can provide/ sell their products as solutions to them. People will be more self-conscious about themselves, comparing themselves with others around them, and hence, buy products that will help them look like the rest or feel better. For instance, there are companies like Mintel, which provides consumer trends, market analysis for businesses in helping them capitalize and continually manipulate consumers’ needs. Mintel actually has reports on consumer trends such as ‘5 essential consumer trends for Asia Pacific in 2014’. (http://www.mintel.com/)
Enzenberger writes about the future of media, and it is so surprising that it was such a relatively close prediction of the future conditions. He empowers the media and argues that new media (with advent of internet) will mobilize the masses, and they are not just passive users but active producers and transmitters of information.
‘Consciousness industry’ – shows the dominance of man over man. It is important to note that false consciousness is always a social thing, related to people, and can be reproduced by industrial means but not produced during industrial process. New media enables opening up of media, and enhanced interaction/ exchange of information between the transmitter and receiver (this is a form of feedback).
Pre-modern media is distributive, while new media is now communicative; hence, people can actually feedback about the information passed to them. Although there are still prevalence of bourgeois overpowering media and controls the information being spread to the masses. His main idea is to realize the importance of organization so that people are able to get authentic information and not true the filter of the related parties.
Chomsky and Herman write about 5 different classes of ‘filters’ that define ‘news’ in their propaganda model. Mainstream news rarely covers alternating opinions of the public, but the state and big companies have control over what messages/ news to spread to the masses, hence, news will always be in the interests of political and economic elites.
Focusing on one of the filter – “reliance of ‘’expert’ information from official sources – these elites have access to information via the periodical news conferences, press releases, think-tank reports and hence, there is easy access to supposedly accurate information. Though it is certainly not true for the supposedly accuracy, un-biasness, and credibility of news from these sources (for instance, US news media just report accordingly with regards to the officials, and helping the state garner public support for Iraq War in 2003, everything were swept under carpet, including real situations in Iraq, just so US state and military corporations plans could go through.
Kracauer writes about the relation of distraction with mass culture in the context in 1920s. He analyzes the role of movie theatres and films for the masses, and points out the rationalization of capital.
Kracauer is slightly similar to Walter Benjamin in their thinkings. Benjamin tackled distraction with relations to mode of industrial production, while Kracauer focus more on the mode of representation. The two brought out the irrelevance of classical art. The meaning and aura of work of art has been loss. However, Kracauer believes that film-distraction is meaningful as it is the representation of the messy reality.
Cheryl Chern
Enzensberger talks about the new media as a consciousness industry; as such media operates to perpetuate the inequalities in society and calls for the acceptance of such a society. Also, because of the large size of the media industry, we see that capitalists seek to make large profits through it. The media is effective in that it has the power to mobilize the masses, making mass participation possible. With such ability, media is often manipulated, in fact all media is manipulated because it is created with a goal or purpose in mind. We see media being manipulated almost everywhere today, for example, newspapers that serve the state in achieving political goals.
Herman and Chomsky regard the mass media as a socializing agent, and in order to do so, systematic propaganda is needed in light of the fact that we are living in a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest. They shed light on the propaganda model and the 5 filters that interact and reinforce each other. With these filters, we find that news articles are manipulated and subject to interest of gatekeepers and other powerful parties or elites. The news agencies thus serve the interests of their interests in order to maximize their profits.
Ewen’s articles centers on advertising as a means of social production where advertisements seek to create consumer desires. Advertising industries thus play an important role because they help to develop and sustain a responsive consumer market. They appeal to the masses and they appeal to instinct, creating a desire in the individual to meet their own personal needs. As a result, consumers consume and they consume constantly, much to the delight of businesses.
Sherilyn Tan
Enzenberger explores the new media within the context of social processes and elaborates on what is termed the “consciousness industry”. He is critical of Marxists, who are only concerned with capitalism’s economic exploitation, hence failing to understand the capabilities that the consciousness industry and ideology possess. Thus Marxists fail to appropriate and see the possible benefits of new media. This includes the mobilizing power of masses it had, being action-oriented, decentralized and freed from a top-down effect of transmission. Enzenberger also opined that “every use of media presupposes manipulation”. In fact, any use of media would make anyone a manipulator. The more pressing question is who is manipulating, instead of whether there is manipulation involved. For instance, newspapers might provide a swayed and biased view depending on who their main financial backer is. But with each receiver now a potential transmitter, there may be a higher level of discernment among the masses and the hegemonic message is not always successful decoded. The notion of “truth” may be appropriately confronted. To Enzenberger, new media therefore has the potential to challenge and subvert those in power. Thus, he critiques McLuhan who depoliticsed media and “mystified” it. Ezenberger argued that the medium and media may be controlled substantially by the bourgeois and are hence, not neutral. On the other hand, Enzenberger agreed with Benjamin that new media no longer creates objects, rather, it reproduces and recreates. Thus new media cannot be analyzed from the perspective of older production modes. Instead, they must be analysed from the perspective of the modern conditions of production.
Ewen also talked about the “consciousness industry” that has evolved from mere industrial goods production of the past. From Ewen’s perspective, it was the dawn of mass production that resulted in the opening up and expansion of new markets, that cut across national boundaries, class and ideology. With the revolution in production, namely Fordism, no longer did industrial production only catered for a largely bourgeois upper/middle class market. Media was instrumental in getting the masses to engage in consumption, as labour became increasingly consumerized as well. Workers now received higher pay and work lesser hours, just so they have more time to spend their money on goods and leisure. This is similar to what Adorno and Horkheimer argued, that the cultural industry (through the mass media), seeks to encourage the masses to spend their money on mindless entertainment, so they could get reenergized and throw themselves back into another round of work to earn more money to fuel their desires (as informed by the lulling calls of advertising), the following week. Ewen opined that one’s consciousness of the self, is derived from the how others view one. Hence, advertising taps on this sense of insecurity and appeals to one’s desires. Thus, what one consumed became a marker of social prestige and taste. The time and energy spent on consumption decisions also slowly results in a commitment to it and eventually morphing into a habit or lifestyle. For instance, when one calculates just how much time spent on deciding before buying an expensive product. Weighing of the pros and cons of the product, comparing prices, attaching a value to it etc.
Kracauer talked about how the picture palaces in Berlin, with its grandiosity and luxurious architecture, program, effects etc, assaults all senses and act as distractions to the level of culture, and aimed at the masses. Gone are the days where the masses were totally oppressed by the bourgeois as they are no longer satisfied with the bourgeois’ form of high culture. It was the beginning of mass culture. The grand displays provided external distractions for the masses yet they also reflect real life and the social disorder of society, that is revealed through the sheer opulence of the shows. Like Benjamin, Kracauer was also sceptical about film, which he claimed is two-dimensional and illusionary, similar to how a reproduced painting loses its authenticity and aura. He is also against film as they tend to mask reality as it really is, compared to theatrical acts which expose the social realities of society.
Evon Thung
Enzenberger
The message that I got from his reading is that media is not merely a distribution medium but it could also be a communication medium however due to politics such is not present. Hence, manipulation exists where the person in power, the state, is likely to be the one manipulating what is being distributed, produced and consumed by the masses. There underlies the political motive when state manipulates and intervenes in issues of social relevance.
In my view, I think such manipulation could be represented in the form of censorship where news coverage is manipulated according to the principles of the ruling party. For example, in China, news coverage about negative aspects of the Chinese ruling party is commonly absent in most public newspapers and censored on social media. Hence, china could represent the repressive use of media.
In the current context, the emancipatory use of media is realised where the consumers are actually active producers and transmitters of content with internet and social media instead of just passively receiving the contents.
Ewen
With the production of goods, consumers would be needed to buy the goods produced and it is through mass production where the creation of consumers is realised. With mass production, individuals have shorter working hours and higher wages, together with their psychic desire to consume, mass consumption is created. Advertising mobilizes the instincts of individual’s psychic desire to consume by selling an experience associated with the advertised product and the creation of fancied needs. With advertising, products are no longer bought on the basis of necessity but on the basis of consumption for the experience that he or she wishes to achieve or desire with the product purchased.
Hence, advertising is actually selling a kind of consuming consciousness that encourage individuals to always be discontented with what they have and purchase more than what they actually need. For example, clothing is associated with fashion where individuals usually do not purchase clothing for necessity but rather to follow trends.
Chomsky,Herman
The propaganda model consists of 5 filters (Ownership of the medium, Advertising, Sourcing, Flak and Anti-communism) which determine the type of news that is presented in new media. With the presence of these 5 filters, bias existed in the news presented. At times where there is a clash of interests between profitability and objectivity, the former is emphasized bringing about a censorship of news that could be unfavourable to the stakeholders of the corporation if the news is reported.
Therefore, selectivity is present in the coverage of news and news that passed through the filters of the propaganda model is then presented to the masses. For example, in Singapore, it is rare to see headlines or large news coverage that present news on the dissatisfactions Singaporeans have of PAP other than during elections. This is because the Singapore government which is PAP owns and controls the news agencies and printing press and such news would not pass through the filters.
Enzensberger’s reading on media’s role in shaping consciousness resonated greatly with me. It falsifies our needs, making us believe that we’ll attain our desired lifestyle if we just have that product or service. This theory of ‘coolness’ (Marketing) that was created by a professor in NTU came to mind this week. This professor theorized that a product can be labeled as ‘cool’ if it challenges social norms. So for instance, the invention of torn jeans is cool because it goes against this social norm that torn jeans were for the working class that couldn’t afford to get a new pair of jeans. So by the upper middle class starting this trend they were challenging this social norm. And so that is how some products stand out, because they break these stereotypes attached to them and in that way the consumer is supposed to feel EMPOWERED. It was an interesting phenomenon that can be used to market a product however the reality is that all corporations care about is that you’ve bought their product. They actually do not care whether you’re empowered or not. To me looking at this concept from the lens of Enzensberger, it merely is empowerment to the company (and not the consumer). I guess in Marketing one thing we fail to do is question or challenge why our world operates the way it does. Instead, one comes up with ways to survive in this capitalist world because it certainly is like a ‘theatre’ we cannot turn our attention away from.
In my opinion, media in Singapore has come to a very sorry state (excluding some pretty awesome cable television of course). A very recent survey conducted by the MDA showed that Singaporeans spend 16.5hours watching mediacorp channels per week, as compared to 4.6 and 1.5 for cable channels. This type of statistic is incredibly misleading since mediacorp channels are the only free channels in Singapore, of course it will be the highest. However, that being said, imagine the amount of state propaganda being fed into Singaporeans’ minds in those 16.5hrs a week…
During tutorial we discussed about how independent newspapers and film industries have an extremely tough time surviving because of big corporations that are able to sell their newspapers under cost prices. This brings to mind the independent film Sex.Violence.FamilyValues, which created a big hoo-ha because it got banned by the MDA on account of it’s “racial references which are demeaning and offensive to Indians”.
The HPB’s FAQ on Sexuality that garnered so much attention on social media websites and even had MPs writing opposition pieces is also another example on how conservative and controlled our media is.
Well, all I can say is, Singapore is as conservative as it’s ruling party allows it to be…
I think the propaganda model proposed by Chompsky and Herman is very relevant to the media industry. As there are a few players in the world today. however, i feel that a lot of emphasis is on the United States since its paper is circulated around the world. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc, all have such great impact on people around the world. It shows the role it has in the media industry. The media is the key player that helps uncover these secrets that both the government and the major corporations have. It does shape the way people think and at the same time, it may change the audiences’ perception at times. Hence, the reason why the media is such a strong influence. It is not just news per se, it is manipulating power, information and the use of psychology. This overlaps with Ewen’s point.
I personally thought that having shorter working hours and a higher pay, is good for the working class. Thinking there is an increase in leisure time, unknowingly being manipulated into thinking that this little increase in leisure time will make us happier as we can consume the things we want in life. Knowing that the media industry is always trying to ‘con’ us into buying their products, i try to resist succumbing into the hands of these advertisers and the media in general. However, it is very hard. It is like no matter what people are in the hands of these people in power.
It is true that it is important that the masses do have power, however, the media does listen to the wants of the masses as well. The feedback mechanism is how the media industry listens to the needs and wants of the masses and make use of that information to give them what they want .
In class this week, someone mentioned Bordieu’s idea of capital and how this is directly linked to the creating of consciousness. This really got me to think that there truly are no ways of escaping advertising when it fundamentally advertises things that are an outward reflection of self which then in turn become part of you. You want people to know you are classy, you have economic capital by carrying a Prada or Chanel bag whose ads cater to such people who want reflect that status. It then creates a public who is accustomed to such status symbols and universally know what they symbolise and hence it creates an environment where everyone is judged by everyone, based on their physical things, further increasing the importance of advertisers. They have created a desire for such goods.
Recently I saw a video that didn’t seem like an ad. It got people in remote areas to taste test the Whopper and the Big Mac and compare the two. The big deal was that these people had never tasted a burger before so their opinion is what someone untainted by advertising etc would like, almost as if they were capitalizing on what us as humans would like not as consumers in a capitalistic world. Obviously some said the Big Mac to keep with the authenticity of the ad but we all know in the end, seeing as how its done by Burger King, more would choose the Whopper. Another interesting thing to note is the ‘distractions’ they put in like the documentary style of video of the American men talking about the people trying the burger so really you buy into the whole concept of the ad of how they went to Romania and Greenland etc and found these people. They then have an INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER to ensure that the strict guidelines are adhered to for the taste test to show it is unbias. This video is a good example of framing because you think all these things are authentic when you first watch it and then you realize that Burger King did the ad. Who doesn’t want to see other human beings taking their first bite of a hamburger when we can hardly remember ours. Its nostalgic and subtly the ideas of the Whopper being the better burger come through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWjDTjvbao8
“Salvation through products” how sad does this sound? But this is where we live in whereby we are expressed through the products we have, and these products are not even what we need, they are desires and above needs. All these for the fact that we want an identity for ourselves that is a social construct, and this identity is being mobilized by modern advertising.
Ewen also talks about “Higher Wages & Shorter Hours” and how our leisure time needs to altered in a way we would be consumers during that time. Although I agree with the fact that through this way, a larger consumer market can be created, I’m not fond of this because if there is really “Higher Wages & Shorter Hours” around, there wouldn’t be sweatshops, there wouldn’t be debates about the minimum wage. This idea is like an ideal situation which does not take into concern that producers despite wanting to have efficient production with efficient consumption, would not want to cut down their costs of production for maximizing profits. Hence, I think modern technology is the way whereby we are all drawn in to the fact that “Hey, I’m not perfect therefore I need this, this and that!” Advertising focuses on what we lack to evoke our desires and self-consciousness to follow whatever is considered the perfect person in society.
I would like to link how this advertising can also be closely joint with Kracauer’s idea of distraction, but not in the way about spectacles exposing disintegration. Instead, I think advertisements can be compared to Berlin’s beautiful picture palaces in a way, we are distracted from the “disorder” in society that we are all made into consumers that are desired by producers, in a way we are constructed. These advertisements packaged their products and the need for them very beautifully such that for a time being, we are being distracted. It is a distraction because we know these advertisements are packaged, but we still go ahead and engage in mass consumption.
Another interesting takeaway from this week’s reading is how our news are framed. They are the truth once they are endorsed by the officials. If you are not and you spread news, the response would simply be “Let’s wait for the official statement.” I’m guilty of this. Newspapers, even if how much they say it’s not regulated, the main purpose is also to leave it to the free market forces such that they can easily drive competitors who are inadequate so they can achieve their monopoly. And with this monopoly, they work with corporations we can’t even imagine like banks, and then now the newspapers instead of serving the public for the disseminating with news, the news are “filtered” and “constructed” in ways that serve the interests of those in power, of the advertisers.
You can say it’s different now with new media whereby it’s easier to spread news since you need not have the money to print. But then in the case of Singapore, the state intervenes and this state has Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GICs) which has investments in many different areas – it is clearly a business. So how much can we even trust this state intervention?
I wanna respond to Diyana’s point!
Enzensberger also points out that participation can be enslaving and not necessarily freeing. Hence pertaining to the ad that Diyana shared, advertising manipulates women to feel that they are not enough as human beings. There is always something to be improved on and in this case, women have to improve the state of their hair in order to improve on the state of their love life. They are ensnared in this vicious superficiality that consumes the world today; that looks are the vital ingredient to achieve anything in life. This idea is of course cooked up by the media to ensure that they earn revenue by tapping on other people’s insecurities.
Also according to Ewen, media and advertising creates artificial needs and the only salvation is via products. This is evident in the ad and as Diyana has already pointed out, you want a man, have great hair. During lecture, Prof posed us the question: Is there any kind of autonomy or emancipation (from advertising)? I think no. For example, some would argue that putting on makeup is a choice (vs feeling like they are under pressure to conform to society’s ideals of beauty) whereas others would argue that it is a false choice. Where would one get the notion of applying make up on in the first place if not for massive advertising that sells us this idea?
The four readings carry the same theme of the construction of consciousness.
In Chomsky and Herman’s work, they introduce five filters of the media. What stood out to me was their point about advertising – the mass media is not democratic or representative as it makes itself to seem. Its very basis, which is to earn profit, propels its purpose to attract only audiences of buying power.
This helps us get into the heads of media content producers, realising their agendas for content producing.
“Advertisers want to avoid programmes with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that will interfere in the buying mood.”
This can be illustrated through their tactic of product-placement, infiltrating the media content itself. The Aston Martin is a character on its own in the Bond movies – it is not just a vehicle. It plays a central role to the films, and becomes almost a sidekick to Bond himself – the Aston Martin is reliable, fast, sexy.
The coca-cola cups are the ubiquitous items placed on the judges’ desk of American Idol.
These brands want to identify themselves with such programmes. Such culture, such identities. Coca-cola wants to tie in its brand as being dynamic or talented. Aston Martin sells the idea of ultimate manliness.
Rarely would you see such products in documentaries or art-house flicks.
Another point they made which struck home to me was how news is framed. Chomsky and Herman write that there is always this presumption of credibility of news when it comes out of press releases.
In Singapore, official news agencies have to be very cautious about what they report, especially with regards to government bureaucracies. Having done a 10-month stint at a local news press, I learnt the fundamental rules of reporting – always, always get the official statements. Otherwise, your story is not credible.
Bureaucratic statements are crafted ‘officially’ by workers of the press-relations department. Any additional information which journalists try to squeeze out of press-statements cannot be considered as ‘official’, thus cannot be written as ‘facts’. Newspapers protect themselves by using disclaimers. For example, if the information is not on-record, we’ll write: “Newspaper A believes that…. happened”
Ewen gives an excellent explanation of the impacts of advertising. Advertising does not sell products.
They sell ambitions, ideas about happiness, and states in which we try to reach, creating desires and habits. Advertisements are not the only culprits in creating such standards. TV shows explicitly advertise the notion of mainstream beauty and make fun of those who are not.
I chanced upon this clip of a Taiwanese variety show (watch the first two minutes of the clip) that gets contestants to submit pictures of themselves in make up, and later appear on the show sans-makeup, ‘shocking’ everyone with their true appearances.
My apologies to the non Mandarin-speaking friends – but do watch the reactions of the judges as one of them literally jumps out of his seats when a contestant reveals her true face.
What is the media selling us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mu_betPexI
In light of Valentine’s Day, I would like to criticize this ad called “You – A Declaration of Love”, featuring Schwarzkopf’s hair care product line. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOVJK3m1yZM&feature=player_embedded
This example would be apt for Ewen’s reading – especially his notion of self-conscious consumption. As we all now know, Ewen is critical of advertising and its manipulative ability to tap into our inner psyche through emotional branding. As humans, we are endowed with sentience i.e., the ability to feel. Advertisers contrive affect and craft stories with universal themes like nostalgia, love, belonging etc. to lure our attention towards their ads. However under all these layers, the ad disguises the product as not merely a product of its own merit (that is, showcasing a checklist of its selling points). Rather, it is now transformed into a product laden with our secret desires and wishes and offerings of solution to our problems. As Ewen argued, “…in order to get people to consume and, more importantly, to keep them consuming, it was more efficient to endow them with a critical self-consciousness in tune with the “solutions” of the marketplace than to fragmentarily argue for products on their own merit.”
In the aforementioned ad’s case, the desire to have a true love is perhaps attainable. The solution is simple: firstly, have nice hair. Then, you can flaunt it with hair flips and whatnot, and somehow your true love will be amazed by your beauty. Or if you feel like keeping your romantic life interesting, again, the solution is simple: dye your hair in a different shade and your true love will be happily surprised.
Having to think about this, all these social constructions (or contrived ad messages) of beauty and love, are a huge sham. “Advertising hoped to elicit the “instinctual” anxieties of social intercourse”, “through an appeal of instincts – ultimately feelings of social insecurity”. Why some ads seem emotionally potent to us is because it has found a way to seep into our psyche and nudge on our insecurities. In this ad’s description, it says “A declaration of love from Schwarzkopf Nectra Color, dedicated to all women in the world.” Here, the target audience is women who are insecure about their hair and, at the same time, fussing about a life companion. The main message of this ad, in my opinion: “get the perfect hair and land the perfect man.”
So in general, we consume to amass beauty, prestige, etc. because we’re insecure and self-conscious in relation to how we think others perceive us. And we got this psychic nudging from ads.
In this section of reading responses “Constituents for a Theory of the Media” is raising the voice for realizing the true potential of the media. As Enzensberger calls for a much needed participatory model of communication and information exchange in opposition to the capitalist systems controlled by the bourgeoisie and influential.
Cultural Archaism in the Left Critique can be know that the consciousness industry is about to bring forth a radical change in the way media is perceived, it is important to discuss the concept of manipulation, which till now helped in self learning and development. The Democratic Manipulation is about manipulation as part of the cultural archaism and Enzensberger recognizes the fact that “manipulation” as such is political act when it comes to the media industry—“every use of media presupposes manipulation.” This, from a practical standpoint is fine. Any form of media is required to be first manipulated and then produced (even the live telecast of the sting operations that we see.) So, the bigger question is not the fact that media are manipulated, but who manipulates them? Such manipulation can be encountered only with the direct social control. To look at this in perspective with the current media order, such talks read and sound like fairy-tale. It is unimaginable for many to see a close world order like the one presented above. With internet burgeoning and media opening the public communication platform, we are, to a great extent, learning to harness the power the media as a medium for exchange of information. This brings us to an important point, which is also presented by Enzensberger that the new media is egalitarian in structure. And this is proven well from the point above that everyone now is participating in the process of information exchange and thereby learning themselves.
Enzensberger provides an example of telephone and telegram to explain this further. Telegram is still in the hands of bureaucracy, telephone is accessible to everyone. The former is till now, in the hands of the bureaucracy. And he says that the laws that regulate the transmission are antiquated and needs to be reformed in the foreseeable future.
The Subversive Power of the New Media, there are enormous political and cultural energies hidden in the masses. With their imagination and freedom, they can harness the opportunities offered by the new media.
Almost the mention above, I quite be interested and agree with him almost I have mention and I do believe that the new media is more cultural of our processing particular mass and it kind of like how do we related with the culture and the technology together for the maintaining of the subversive power in the freedom of new media contrasting.
CULT OF DISTRACTION ON BERLIN’S PICTURE PALACES (Kracauer)
Reading this made me think of the 1927 German movie, Metropolis, by Fritz Lang (link to Youtube movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Qk7HPMvuA). It depicts a dystopian, futuristic world, something that could be close to the ‘truth’ that Kracauer writes of. It portrays disorder, chaos and overwhelming glamour and riches. I agree that the medium of film can be used to reveal the ‘truths’ in society, instead of masking it. Large spectacles are needed to mask the actual conditions of our lives (being exploited, being consumers of a culture industry, etc) and the film Metropolis tried to portray this huge, glamorous, spectacle that belied the tension, shock, awe, confusion and disorder beneath it.
Today’s distractions are so much more than that of Berlin’s film period. Distraction – Social Media (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook), TV and the Internet (Onlline shopping, etc) serve to further elude us from the ‘truth’. We immerse in these distractions and do not have time or energy to contemplate certain things in life – Eg: Why do I keep going after this branded product? Why do I work so many hours but earn so little money?
A PROPAGANDA MODEL (Chomsky)
The five filters of the mass media and news media were very eye-opening when I read them. I agree with most of them, but not all.
I agree with profit orientation of the mass media – of course they need to make money in this advanced Capitalist era. The mass media to represent the ‘working class’ and to motivate alternative expression simply cannot survive today. Media is always about profit making today; after all it’s about selling news stories, pitching new show/programme ideas and reaching as many people as possible. In polytechnic media studies we were often drummed with: pitch us something that can sell. I never questioned it because after all, it seems the most pragmatic and economically rational way to do things. It seems like in the US today, the largest media conglomerates produce all the programmes we watch. The same handful of companies produce and fund the mainstream media. Only the rare (radical) Michael Moore documentary, all-self-funded, gets produced sporadically.
Advertising – of course programmes would strive to produce content that suits advertiser tastes. The idea struck me, again, as economically pragmatic, but it does reveal the glaring fault that certain types of shows/programmes will thus be left out of mainstream media. Like radical politics, sensitive national issues, etc.
I disagree with how Chomsky states that reporters are at the mercy of the corporations – that they merely act as the medium through which companies pass their overload of information through. Having worked for a news agency before, I understand how companies and the government get bombarded with ‘official’ information and press releases. However, the media does retain a sense of independence and critical thought. News editors write columns in response to government policies. News reporters do not always get caught up in what the govt and companies ‘feed’ them. More often than not, in Singapore, reporters do try to be less ‘PR’. They do try to find out more than what is ‘officially’ given to them. (Of course they don’t usually succeed as companies refuse to entertain probing journalists. But journalists do try.)
Of course, in Singapore, the media has OB Markers – out of bounds markers that they cannot, at all costs, cross. These include coverage on race, religion and the LGBT community. However, these are slowly easing up, as sites like Yahoo and TODAY Online do publish letters and articles that try to explain alternative POVs. Perhaps more will ease up in our near future, given the recent, fair and objective HPB Sexuality FAQ online.
There are also alternative news sites that the Singapore govt is very wary of – including The Real Singapore and The Online Citizen. Recently, the Breakfast Network, helmed by former Straits Times editor Bertha Henson, was closed down due to inadequate funding and resources. This is a very typical and sad case of our media company. It is true that alternative media struggles to present different and critical perspectives, and that there are taxes and regulations in place to ensure that they do not get very far. It is no wonder that Singapore ranks 140-something on the freedom of press index.
Flak agencies are common in Singapore, and they take the form of PR companies and departments who write to the media saying that they have portrayed certain issues in a negative way. Often, this negative way is seen to be detrimental to the company’s image/reputation. As discussed in tutorial today, flak can also come from the public. (HPB Sexuality FAQ example, on how some members of the public opposed the original version, citing Singapore’s ‘conservative’ family values.)
Anticommunism – it is no wonder that since young, communism was always seen to be the ultimate evil in the media and in school history textbooks. Also, the account by Dr Thum Pjin Jin on Operation Cold Store (on Youtube) asserts that the people detained were not communist, but just asserted to be. It is strange and true that the media is seen to portray critical thought/expression as communist, and thus anti-democratic.
CAPTAINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (Ewen)
This helped me to realise that the shorter hours worked and slightly higher wages received were designed to make us have more time to spend on consuming, and to have a little more money to spend on consumer products.
It’s not about selling the product, but selling the meaning/idea/symbolism behind the product. Today’s tutorial on advertisers capitalising on consumers’ low self-esteem brought to mind something I read a few years ago, that advertisements are designed to make consumers feel inadequate, thus they buy the advertised products. It was something about how for instance, make-up, skin-care and weight-loss programmes reinforce a standard model of beauty, and anything that falls short needs to be fixed.
CONSTITUENTS OF A THEORY OF THE MEDIA (Ezenberger):
With new media technologies, we can now be mobilised participants in the media, instead of being passive. New media can be used to mobilise new expressions of thought. I thought of blogging as a means of using new media to express critical thought. However, blogging, by one person with a really small audience, does not have much social impact. If online media is used in a collective, significant manner, it can mobilise people and create social change. Eg: social media/online petitions, debates, discourse.
I agree that having the technology, having the access to technology or the permission to use technology, does not mean that we are empowered. Watching cable TV and surfing though Facebook are just forms of consumption. We don’t create new ideas or social action. New media technology should be seen as an outlet from which the ‘masses’, like us, can mobilise for change. (Eg: the Internet).
This week’s theme on the manipulative effects of media provided an engaging and useful insight into how our minds are shaped by media effects that ultimately beyond our control. Thus, essentially what we think is our response or our thoughts are actually the thoughts and responses that the elites of society wish to bestow upon us.
Chomsky & Herman:
Chomsy & Herman provide us with the five filters that the media industry incorporates into its model of propaganda and how it disseminates information. Firstly, we are presented with the state censorship on independent media. I found this facet of the model to be particularly intriguing because countries like Singapore who display overtly their use of “censorship” are severely criticized by the Western nations that also partake in this censorship ( albeit in a masked form). Thus, it would seem that censorship is used by everyone and anyone who seeks to sustain and exact power via the media.
The second filter focuses on the advertising forces and revenue that the media forces are accorded with. Many media industries are monopolized by a few corporations who invest in them and therefore control what they wish these media companies to portray. As restrictive as this sounds, it is perhaps the only alternative for these companies to adhere to in order to survive – since advertising reduces the cost of production for the media industry, allowing it to reap greater economic profits. Thus the messages portrayed by the media are those that are pumped into it by the people who provide the financial resources to the industry.
Thirdly, the media is also influenced by the manner in which it frames the sources who provide it with information. Usually these sources are usually official and bureaucratic ( draws link to Max Weber’s bureaucratic affiliations) and unofficial sources are not deemed to be worthy of publication because they involve most in investigating their credibility. The media also co-opts experts – who are all from the same field previously to give advice on matters. Thus, the institutional biases that they portray in their advice is always apparent and will always seek to reinforce what the elite have been trying to drill into our heads.
Fourth – comes the element of flak. Which essentially draws upon criticism and its relation to the media. What the propaganda model postulates is that only people in power can create flak and it is interesting to note that they create these counter-arguments towards their own arguments to showcase to people the very strength of their own arguments and to ridicule at opposing views ( if this isn’t manipulation in all its scheming glory, I don’t know what is).
The last filter takes the form of an ideology and is that of Anti-communism. Chomsky and Herman bring into emphasis the aspects of worthy vs unworthy in this filter. This essentially means that the elite decide which news is worthy of reporting ( according to their ideology) against which is not ( against their ideology). This would for instance explain, why the US reports extensively about shooting sprees or about North Korea but refuses to report as extensively on the daily drones that its military conducts in the Middle East.
Kracauer:
The main gist of this six-page reading was the idea of how a spectacle was used to distract the masses. This distraction took the form of picture palaces. In this sense the masses get so engrossed in the spectacle that they are distracted from the fact that they are getting exploited. It is used precisely because it is felt that masses are close to discovering the truth. However, Kracauer also insinuates that this very spectacle can be used by the masses to use against their exploitation ( by its sheer magnitude) and can become a potential challenge to power.
Ewen:
Ewen emphasizes the industrial democracy of workers which isn’t very democratic after all because it grants workers higher pay for working fewer hours but because these workers have more leisure time by default, the capitalist economy stands to reap greater benefits from the very income that they spend on leisurely activities. I found this to be a very powerful manipulative tool as well because the masses are blinded by the surface pleasures only to be deceptively lured into the deeper consequences of being at the losing end. In this sense, I feel that working longer hours might actually be a better thing – in terms of savings from lesser participation in leisure activities ( gulps).
Enzenberger:
Honestly, it is very funny how Enzenberger mocks many theorists and exalts other – Benjamin. However, I still found the reading to be dry and complicated because it kept integrating too many aspects of the media theory all at one go. Nevertheless, there were many important points to glean from this reading. Namely, how Enzenberger focuses on people using technology to mobilize people into action and not merely using it to distribute messages. Furthermore, I encountered a “duh” moment because Enzenberger feels that the feedback mechanism that new media comes with is not unprecedented but in fact a normal progression in its history. However, I did not realize this and was heartened to see through his point. Essentially he feels that media should be used to strategize and be an active form of participation. This in his viewpoint, is what distinguishes it from old forms of media and is what is so revolutionary about new media.
Taking a Marxist perspective, this week’s readings deal with the media as a component of the superstructure, and how it relates to other aspects of the superstructure to manipulate the masses. For me, Enzensburger’s essay is the overarching one this week, with the other 3 articles expanding on different aspects of his article. One important concept that he highlights is the consciousness industry. If I am not wrong, the consciousness industry implies that social consciousness can be reproduced within the masses by industrial means. Seen this way, mass media is a way to perpetuate (false) consciousness.
One example of the consciousness industry in action can be observed in advertising. Ewen’s article discusses how advertising came about through mass production, and how advertising, together with other social processes like the organization of time, mass production, and the increase in purchasing power, resulted in how the proletariat was redefined. Instead of a worker, he is now framed as a consumer. Seen this way, the role of the advertising industry is to change the masses’ role. This is done through the creation of desires and knowledge that fundamentally changes their psyche and consciousness. This is done through the “creation of universal notions”, and appealing to the right instincts. At the same time, through construction of information, representation and argument, the advertising industry is attempting to inculcate the desire to consume and the culture of consumption within the masses. In a way, this is also imbuing a form of consciousness within them.
Enzensburger also points out the emancipatory potential of media; media technologies enable everyone to be a producer. By focusing on the productive aspects of media technologies, new forms of consciousness can be formed by the transmitting and sharing of knowledge and thus effect new forms of social organization. However, its emancipatory potential is stilted by modern capitalism and politics. Chomsky’s article comes in here, as he highlights the various mechanisms within the mass media industry that not only reduces communications to that of transmission and reception (between industry giants and the consumers), but also stunts the production and distribution of radical knowledge that’s not “mainstream”. For example, economies of scale and private interests (cf Habermas) in the form of advertising ensure that not only mass media is easily available to all, but also contains messages that entice them to consume as well by subsiding cost of production. Similarly, the inclusion of key social actors, like the government and people of authority entering into the realm of media production means less effort is not only required to ensure “credibility”, but also allows for the mainstream view to be echoed. The inclusion of these social actors also hampers alternative radical knowledge to enter the network of knowledge, which further perpetuates the mainstream view. Indeed, the filters that Chomsky identified relate media to other institutions within the superstructure. The filters also prevent consumers from becoming producers and generating information outside of what is framed by the mass media, and makes entry into the mass media market difficult for producers of radical knowledge, as they are not back by advertisers who will not finance those that are not aligned with their position.
Enzensburg also references Benjamin, where he argues that the mechanical reproduction of art decouples it from ritual and authenticity. Instead of it being based on ritual, it is now based on politics. This is similar to Kracauer’s concept of distraction, whereby he uses cinema to illustrate it. The moving images in cinema, the fast bombardment of images do not give the audience time to think about what is happening or make sense of it, unlike high art. Editing techniques employed within the film is, in a sense fragmented, though it gives the film a sense of coherence. These two processes compels the audience to focus on the external and superficial, which is carried over to how they perceive reality.
Stuart Ewen writes about the increased productions and how it influenced the need of efficient consumerism. To motivate workers to consume, there is the logic of ‘higher wages and lower working hours’ to allow workers to have more free time for consumption of market goods. Also, advertisements mobilized the masses, creating desires for the products which may not be a compulsory need. It’s all in the mind – desires are psychologically-motivated by advertisements, for instance, advertisers selling a lifestyle, a value…
He went on about the techniques of advertisers – which is to notify and amplify people’s problems so that they can provide/ sell their products as solutions to them. People will be more self-conscious about themselves, comparing themselves with others around them, and hence, buy products that will help them look like the rest or feel better. For instance, there are companies like Mintel, which provides consumer trends, market analysis for businesses in helping them capitalize and continually manipulate consumers’ needs. Mintel actually has reports on consumer trends such as ‘5 essential consumer trends for Asia Pacific in 2014’. (http://www.mintel.com/)
Enzenberger writes about the future of media, and it is so surprising that it was such a relatively close prediction of the future conditions. He empowers the media and argues that new media (with advent of internet) will mobilize the masses, and they are not just passive users but active producers and transmitters of information.
‘Consciousness industry’ – shows the dominance of man over man. It is important to note that false consciousness is always a social thing, related to people, and can be reproduced by industrial means but not produced during industrial process. New media enables opening up of media, and enhanced interaction/ exchange of information between the transmitter and receiver (this is a form of feedback).
Pre-modern media is distributive, while new media is now communicative; hence, people can actually feedback about the information passed to them. Although there are still prevalence of bourgeois overpowering media and controls the information being spread to the masses. His main idea is to realize the importance of organization so that people are able to get authentic information and not true the filter of the related parties.
Chomsky and Herman write about 5 different classes of ‘filters’ that define ‘news’ in their propaganda model. Mainstream news rarely covers alternating opinions of the public, but the state and big companies have control over what messages/ news to spread to the masses, hence, news will always be in the interests of political and economic elites.
Focusing on one of the filter – “reliance of ‘’expert’ information from official sources – these elites have access to information via the periodical news conferences, press releases, think-tank reports and hence, there is easy access to supposedly accurate information. Though it is certainly not true for the supposedly accuracy, un-biasness, and credibility of news from these sources (for instance, US news media just report accordingly with regards to the officials, and helping the state garner public support for Iraq War in 2003, everything were swept under carpet, including real situations in Iraq, just so US state and military corporations plans could go through.
Kracauer writes about the relation of distraction with mass culture in the context in 1920s. He analyzes the role of movie theatres and films for the masses, and points out the rationalization of capital.
Kracauer is slightly similar to Walter Benjamin in their thinkings. Benjamin tackled distraction with relations to mode of industrial production, while Kracauer focus more on the mode of representation. The two brought out the irrelevance of classical art. The meaning and aura of work of art has been loss. However, Kracauer believes that film-distraction is meaningful as it is the representation of the messy reality.
Enzensberger talks about the new media as a consciousness industry; as such media operates to perpetuate the inequalities in society and calls for the acceptance of such a society. Also, because of the large size of the media industry, we see that capitalists seek to make large profits through it. The media is effective in that it has the power to mobilize the masses, making mass participation possible. With such ability, media is often manipulated, in fact all media is manipulated because it is created with a goal or purpose in mind. We see media being manipulated almost everywhere today, for example, newspapers that serve the state in achieving political goals.
Herman and Chomsky regard the mass media as a socializing agent, and in order to do so, systematic propaganda is needed in light of the fact that we are living in a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest. They shed light on the propaganda model and the 5 filters that interact and reinforce each other. With these filters, we find that news articles are manipulated and subject to interest of gatekeepers and other powerful parties or elites. The news agencies thus serve the interests of their interests in order to maximize their profits.
Ewen’s articles centers on advertising as a means of social production where advertisements seek to create consumer desires. Advertising industries thus play an important role because they help to develop and sustain a responsive consumer market. They appeal to the masses and they appeal to instinct, creating a desire in the individual to meet their own personal needs. As a result, consumers consume and they consume constantly, much to the delight of businesses.
Enzenberger explores the new media within the context of social processes and elaborates on what is termed the “consciousness industry”. He is critical of Marxists, who are only concerned with capitalism’s economic exploitation, hence failing to understand the capabilities that the consciousness industry and ideology possess. Thus Marxists fail to appropriate and see the possible benefits of new media. This includes the mobilizing power of masses it had, being action-oriented, decentralized and freed from a top-down effect of transmission. Enzenberger also opined that “every use of media presupposes manipulation”. In fact, any use of media would make anyone a manipulator. The more pressing question is who is manipulating, instead of whether there is manipulation involved. For instance, newspapers might provide a swayed and biased view depending on who their main financial backer is. But with each receiver now a potential transmitter, there may be a higher level of discernment among the masses and the hegemonic message is not always successful decoded. The notion of “truth” may be appropriately confronted. To Enzenberger, new media therefore has the potential to challenge and subvert those in power. Thus, he critiques McLuhan who depoliticsed media and “mystified” it. Ezenberger argued that the medium and media may be controlled substantially by the bourgeois and are hence, not neutral. On the other hand, Enzenberger agreed with Benjamin that new media no longer creates objects, rather, it reproduces and recreates. Thus new media cannot be analyzed from the perspective of older production modes. Instead, they must be analysed from the perspective of the modern conditions of production.
Ewen also talked about the “consciousness industry” that has evolved from mere industrial goods production of the past. From Ewen’s perspective, it was the dawn of mass production that resulted in the opening up and expansion of new markets, that cut across national boundaries, class and ideology. With the revolution in production, namely Fordism, no longer did industrial production only catered for a largely bourgeois upper/middle class market. Media was instrumental in getting the masses to engage in consumption, as labour became increasingly consumerized as well. Workers now received higher pay and work lesser hours, just so they have more time to spend their money on goods and leisure. This is similar to what Adorno and Horkheimer argued, that the cultural industry (through the mass media), seeks to encourage the masses to spend their money on mindless entertainment, so they could get reenergized and throw themselves back into another round of work to earn more money to fuel their desires (as informed by the lulling calls of advertising), the following week. Ewen opined that one’s consciousness of the self, is derived from the how others view one. Hence, advertising taps on this sense of insecurity and appeals to one’s desires. Thus, what one consumed became a marker of social prestige and taste. The time and energy spent on consumption decisions also slowly results in a commitment to it and eventually morphing into a habit or lifestyle. For instance, when one calculates just how much time spent on deciding before buying an expensive product. Weighing of the pros and cons of the product, comparing prices, attaching a value to it etc.
Kracauer talked about how the picture palaces in Berlin, with its grandiosity and luxurious architecture, program, effects etc, assaults all senses and act as distractions to the level of culture, and aimed at the masses. Gone are the days where the masses were totally oppressed by the bourgeois as they are no longer satisfied with the bourgeois’ form of high culture. It was the beginning of mass culture. The grand displays provided external distractions for the masses yet they also reflect real life and the social disorder of society, that is revealed through the sheer opulence of the shows. Like Benjamin, Kracauer was also sceptical about film, which he claimed is two-dimensional and illusionary, similar to how a reproduced painting loses its authenticity and aura. He is also against film as they tend to mask reality as it really is, compared to theatrical acts which expose the social realities of society.
Enzenberger
The message that I got from his reading is that media is not merely a distribution medium but it could also be a communication medium however due to politics such is not present. Hence, manipulation exists where the person in power, the state, is likely to be the one manipulating what is being distributed, produced and consumed by the masses. There underlies the political motive when state manipulates and intervenes in issues of social relevance.
In my view, I think such manipulation could be represented in the form of censorship where news coverage is manipulated according to the principles of the ruling party. For example, in China, news coverage about negative aspects of the Chinese ruling party is commonly absent in most public newspapers and censored on social media. Hence, china could represent the repressive use of media.
In the current context, the emancipatory use of media is realised where the consumers are actually active producers and transmitters of content with internet and social media instead of just passively receiving the contents.
Ewen
With the production of goods, consumers would be needed to buy the goods produced and it is through mass production where the creation of consumers is realised. With mass production, individuals have shorter working hours and higher wages, together with their psychic desire to consume, mass consumption is created. Advertising mobilizes the instincts of individual’s psychic desire to consume by selling an experience associated with the advertised product and the creation of fancied needs. With advertising, products are no longer bought on the basis of necessity but on the basis of consumption for the experience that he or she wishes to achieve or desire with the product purchased.
Hence, advertising is actually selling a kind of consuming consciousness that encourage individuals to always be discontented with what they have and purchase more than what they actually need. For example, clothing is associated with fashion where individuals usually do not purchase clothing for necessity but rather to follow trends.
Chomsky,Herman
The propaganda model consists of 5 filters (Ownership of the medium, Advertising, Sourcing, Flak and Anti-communism) which determine the type of news that is presented in new media. With the presence of these 5 filters, bias existed in the news presented. At times where there is a clash of interests between profitability and objectivity, the former is emphasized bringing about a censorship of news that could be unfavourable to the stakeholders of the corporation if the news is reported.
Therefore, selectivity is present in the coverage of news and news that passed through the filters of the propaganda model is then presented to the masses. For example, in Singapore, it is rare to see headlines or large news coverage that present news on the dissatisfactions Singaporeans have of PAP other than during elections. This is because the Singapore government which is PAP owns and controls the news agencies and printing press and such news would not pass through the filters.