Problems and Possibilities

The relationship between mass media and society, in many ways, exists to promote unity.  Millions of consumers, whether their diets consist of books, television shows, music, or other texts, may be quickly joined with other consumers based on sharing tastes or information.  This unity opens up countless possibilities, as well as problems, that result from this unique relationship.

Although the word "unity" is rather quite neutral by definition, it has assumed a positive connotation in our society.  Mass media provides our society with a sort of surface unity, making most of us aware of news, ideals, and even the ways in which our own emotions are common with those of our fellow citizens.  In the past, it has helped our nation rally with one purpose, providing us with a sense of solidarity and camaraderie, such as we saw following the tragic events of September 11, 2001.  In this sense, mass media's relationship with society is positive because the media informs the citizens of what is going on in our nation and others, sometimes promoting care and concern for our brothers (Hurricane Katrina comes to mind).

However, unity may be used negatively as well.  In fact, depending on the nature and intentions of those being unified, "unity" can be a dangerous collection of individuals with a shared harmful purpose.  This can be promoted, perhaps even intentionally, by media providing consumers with inaccurate or slanted information.  This can often be seen during election years, when it becomes hard to discern the truth among all of the stories and rumors that the media circulate around the candidates.  As a result, the society is in danger of becoming a misinformed (albeit unified) group of activists rallying around a cause with questionable validity.

It is important for us to realize that unity is beneficial only when centered on the truth, and that we are at the mercy of the media as it filters which information becomes available to us.  Being aware of these factors will help us to understand the relationship between mass media and our society and to help us pursue the benefits of the unity it enables.      

Truth/Fallacy in the "Pull Yourself up by Your Bootstraps" Myth

The myths in contemporary media can be beneficial to people who hear it and believe in it, organizing meaning in a way that allows them to identify their own experiences with it.  The truth in these myths can be helpful in this way, but these same myths also may be untrue in potentially harmful ways.  One of these myths, categorized as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," is both beneficial and potentially harmful because of its capacity for being both true and false.

History holds countless examples of individuals who overcame dire circumstances with little help other than their own will and determinism.  In doing so, these individuals often bettered the circumstances of others around them as well.  One such individual that comes to my mind is Jackie Robinson, the African-American baseball player in the major leagues.  Despite an unimaginable amount of opposition, prejudice, and hate mail, Robinson overcame the color barrier and had such a successful career that he has since been inducted into the Hall of Fame.  Not only that, but he also paved the way for other African-American ballplayers to be given the opportunity to play in the major leagues, and in today's game we are seeing much more diversity among both players and managers.  It should also be noted that both the current and previous career home run leaders, Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron, respectively, were African-Americans.  These records would not have been attainable by these men were it not for Robinson's courageous success in the majors.

However, it is my opinion that although there are numerous examples similar to Robinson's in which an individual overcame the odds and bettered the circumstances of those around him, this myth lends itself to the dangers of an "I can do it all myself" mentality.  We must not let this bold individualism overshadow the equally necessary skill of teamwork and cooperation with other individuals.  Certainly, teams and groups have also attained previously unattainable goals as the result of their chemistry and unity.  Faith solely in oneself and one's own ability can negate the benefits of working with others.

Thus we see that although myths in contemporary media can be beneficial in the right amounts/circumstances, they can also been misused in ways which are detracting.  We should be careful when applying these myths to our own lives, gaining hope from the success and being aware of the risks by which they are always accompanied.  

Bourne Identity: The Myth

Last night, I saw for the first time the movie "The Bourne Identity," which is the first in a trilogy.  I began to recognize some of the myths we learned about in class that were evident in the film's plot line.  In fact, the plot is sort of a hybrid between the myth "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "presence of a conspiracy."

I think the film borrows bits of the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" because the main character, Jason Bourne, has to work alone for most of the film.  Although he has a companion, Marie, Bourne doesn't even know who he is at the beginning of the film (the result of his being shot and nearly drowning in the ocean).  In attempts to ascertain his own identity, Bourne traces his own footsteps into the past so he might find the truth about who he is and what his life was before he lost his memory.  Because he works predominantly alone, I think the storyline fits the myth well.  However, the myth typically has the individual pull everyone else around him up with him, but this is not true in this film (although he is beneficial to his lone companion).

The movie intertwines this myth with the "presence of a conspiracy" myth, which dominates the story.  Bourne finds out that he was (is) an assassin who had been hired and trained by a secretive American government agency.  This agency is made up of powerful men who try to undermine the government by hiring assassins and working their will in international affairs behind the government's back.  Although the assassins themselves obviously know the secret of the agency, Bourne is the only one who is a threat to expose it.  Thus, Bourne and the agency line up with the "one man knows the dark secret of the powerful men" pattern that is true of the myth. 

Genres in a text

My favorite book, "The Moves Make the Man," fits into a couple of genres.  While I don't know the "official" names of these genres, I will define them as "sports" and "race/culture."  The book, which tells the story of an African-American basketball player, treats both of these issues (sports and race) with respect, frankness, and humor.  I originally read the novel because of my interest in basketball (my favorite sport), but it was the treatment of race that impacted me the most.

In the novel, Jerome Foxworthy (an African-American) befriends Braxton Rivers III ("Bix," a caucasian) and shares numerous life experiences with him.  As the two grow closer, race at times becomes a barrier that they must overcome in order to maintain their vulnerable companionship.  Throughout the story, basketball is the common thread that holds them together, as well as a venue through which the author (Bruce Brooks) divulges their true character.

I think it is the sports genre that most attracts the readers of this novel, as was the case for myself.  Basketball plays a key role in the story, although I would describe it as a "foundation," rather than the "focus."  The basketball action is beautifully and accurately described in detail, and is sufficient for enjoyment of the book.  But the real substance of the story is in Brooks' treatment of race.

Race is likely the true genre of this book, and I would expect this to be especially true in the eyes of the author and publishers.  A sport, basketball, is really an effective tool which is used by Brooks to convey strong views on race, culture, and the way it affects relationships.  Brooks treats these issues with complete honesty - sometimes brutal, sometimes hilarious (e.g., Jerome's admission that he feels sorry for white boys when they have to take off their shirts, because their chests are so boringly pale).  This use of humor seems to relax the reader, increasing the receptivity of Brooks' opinionated stance on cultural issues.

In the end, I think the book is marketed in the "sports" genre in order to convey a very deliberate "race/culture" stance, though not deceptively so.  Brooks uses basketball and race effectively, beautifully weaving his own cultural views into an gripping and entertaining sports novel.   

Visual Semiotic Analysis, second edition.

I've been watching basketball games on television my whole life. I've analyzed the players and their moves, the coaches and their schemes, and, yes, even the officials and their calls. But last night, I analyzed part of a basketball game that I had never really even thought of before: the camera angles. This was primarily in an attempt to reconcile my inability to restrain from watching the Arizona-California basketball game (I'm from Arizona, and sadly, we lost) with my need to blog, blog, blog to give my grade a little bit more justice than I did in prior to midterms ;)

The most standard camera shot used is the wide shot. This is primarily out of the necessity of allowing viewers to see everything that's going on (typically the camera pans back and forth, showing whichever half in which the ball is being handled). But some of the other angles clearly have a more specific subject position. This is evidenced most unmistakeably during free-throw attempts. On occasion, the camera shows a view from behind the shooter, using a low angle that looks up slightly towards the hoop. This gives a similar perspective to what the shooter is seeing - most notably the crazy fans wildly thumping thundersticks in an effort to distract the shooter.

Also during free-throw attempts, the camera crew take advantage of the stop in the action to get a close-up of the player shooting the free-throw. Close-ups are also used frequently when showing the coach's expression. During time-outs, a medium shot is sometimes used to show the coach and the players circled around him. While transitioning into or out of commercial breaks, the camera usually uses an extra-wide shot (for lack of a better term) to show the entire court and bleachers, and sometimes even gives an outside view of the arena or city. I think this is effective in positioning the viewer - in a way, showing the city, arena, and court before settling into the primary view gives almost the same effect as driving to the arena, finding a seat, and watching the game live. When leaving for a commercial break, the reverse has a similar effect, easing the viewer out of the setting before getting bombarded with advertisements.

It was a strange feeling to watch a basketball broadcast in this manner, but it was intriguing. I've watched literally hundreds of games, but had never given much thought to the choice of camera angles - much less analyzed them!

Lecture Summary

In class this Thursday, we looked in depth at the concepts of media conglomerates and media conglomeration. We looked closely at vertical integration, which occurs when all the steps in a given production process are owned by one company. To many, vertical integration borders on monopoly, and thus feel that it has a negative effect on our society. However, to some (and presumably mostly those involved in vertical integration) is a means by which we (the USA) can better compete on the international level (i.e., "our monopolies versus yours").

Another thing that plays a role in this balancing act is the concept of "synergy." This refers to the positive of effects of vertical integration. A helpful way to think about it was described as "1+1 = >2." I agree with this concept and I really like the way the previous formula helps me visualize it. I think the concept is rather evident in our society, particularly in team sports - although there are probably better examples that relate more to media conglomerates.

Something I had never thought about, but was made clear to me in class today, was the fact that advertisers are, in fact, consumers. Even more eye-opening was the truth that they are indeed buying me. This startling concept has caused me to think more about the commercials I see on television and I have begun to make some observations about them. I guess it seems silly to me now, but I had never thought about how certain commercials are really only played on certain types of broadcasts (e.g., the retarded "power-stripe" deodorant commercials are predominantly aired during sports broadcasts). I'm starting to see new connections between the commercials and the broadcasts they air on, and am even beginning to realize that the commercials are really a reflection of the advertiser's view of me (my interests) based on the show(s) that I am watching. Honestly, I'm not completely sure what to make of all of this yet, as it is still sinking in, but I am certainly giving more thought to television commercials than I ever thought I would!