Meta-Aware Journalism

Do you think media is aware if itself as media? That is, does the media in its delivery of content reflect a self-critical or self-aware role it has either in its constitution / composition or as part of an overarching genre? For this blog, find a newspaper article (or any other media source around you) on a topic of your choosing and ask if it contains a metatextual component. In this way, does it reconfigure or recognise itself as writing? If so, do you think it means to subvert, satirise, or accurately depict the content? This blog topic wants you to explore the different relationships that exist before our eyes in media, especially in relation to our role as reader/listener/viewer as well as to the role of the journalist or media source in general.

Headache epidemic caused by having to think

18-01-12

EXPERTS have warned the Wikipedia blackout will cause widescale brain injuries as people try to know things.

Emma dropped an Encyclopedia Britannica on her head after forgetting that big books are quite heavy

The protest, triggered by American plans to make their internet more like China's, will last for 24 hours and make the Daily Sport the most factually-accurate newspaper in the UK as it is usually correct about the chest measurements.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute For Studies, said: "The part of the brain used for retaining facts has devolved so sharply in the last 10 years that people trying to look up something on Wikipedia will be physically unable to remember why they can't, because that would require knowing two things at once.

"As well as the piercing migraines normally associated with Davina McCall, the brain may also try using other parts usually associated with motor function or bladder control, leaving people slumped on the floor covered in piss as they try to remember the capital of Ukraine."

Until Wikipedia is restored Brubaker has advised using more traditional sources of completely unverified information, such as phoning up your dad or asking that bloke down the pub.
However, there are fears the website could return with a completely fictitious set of entries, as opposed to the wildly approximate database currently used by the world's feckless.

Brubaker warned: "The effort involved in going to one of the country's six remaining libraries and finding the relevant reference book to check whether Wikipedia is correct in naming Little Jimmy Osmond as the attorney general of Namibia is more than most people can be bothered with.

"This could usher in a new information age where facts are approximate and allowed to change depending on their popularity.

"The Vatican is going to fucking shit with joy."

The article I chose comes from a British website called "The Daily Mash", which satirizes and provides parodic commentary for current new stories. The article essentially makes fun of people for relying on Wikipedia to supply them with simple, basic knowledge rather than look for it elsewhere, such as in a book, therefore showing the ever-increasing dependance society is developing on technology and media. The temporary shutdown of Wikipedia was heavily publicized but not in such as way as this site does so. Websites such as "The Daily Mash" can be considered very metatextual due to what they 'report' and how they do it. They claim to be news websites, and because of the way sites such as this are laid out and written up, the articles could pass as newsworthy, but the fact is, its not necessarily fact that is being reported. The piece I have chosen has been manipulated and exaggerated in details so much that is cannot actually be true, nobody is really losing bladder control due to their brains multitasking (at least, not in relation to Wikipedia), the reporters know this -- they are mainly parodying the act of news reporting itself. If this article appeared in a legitimate, serious newspaper, it would be ridiculous. The goal of these falsified news websites is to show the public their own malleability and susceptibility to accept untrue information as fact simply because of the way it is presented. "The Daily Mash" is a parody site, it serves to satirize and its writers are very self-aware of its manipulation.

The aim of these parody news sites is definitely not to portray accurate content. For example, in the above article, the author has used prestigious titles such as "expert" and "professor" within the piece to make it seem like the content has some authoritative backing, to make it look more believable to their readers, when really there is no veritable content to back up in the first place. However, since these words are used, the intended audience will have an easier time taking it as fact. In this way, the writers of "The Daily Mash" are very meta-aware. They know their audience, and how to manipulate their readings to their advantage. There are people who will read the article and take it as fact, and there are people who will read it as satire -- point is, the article appeals to both sets of people, and the author is very self-aware in writing it to be taken in by both.

The relationship between media and the viewer has certainly become twisted. With so much inaccurate information out there claiming to be fact, and that can be changed by anyone at anytime through opensource sharing, it is difficult to be aware of what is reliable. Websites like "The Daily Mash" exemplify through satire the willingness of the public to accept as fact anything deemed news. They shine light on the influence of journalism and media on societal ideas and what people believe to be reality. This satirical ability is self-awareness in itself and demonstrates just how metacritical the article, and the website, really is.

Radicalism in Printing

Your first blog/journal topic is on radicalism in printing. For this, you will want to think about how technologies of (print) production shape our access to information. For example, consider Gutenberg, Martin Luther, William Blake to SOPA and beyond in your responses. Given our discussion on open-source, you may want to use "Wikipedia" as your first point of entry for each aforementioned person or political bill.

In class we have talked a lot about opensource media and the implications of knowledge becoming universally owned due to digitization. The idea behind opensource information is that it is passed along without individual ownership, meaning anybody can add to or change it whenever they please. This can be considered a beneficial or harmful concept, depending on the way you look at it. Consider the computer operating system Linux; it was created on the basis of free or opensource software, and has become one of the most widely used and widely praised systems out there -- because it was improved upon by so many people during its development. However, there are some negative phenomena that have arisen due to opensource sharing as well. For instance, Wikipedia (from which I, shamefully, have gathered the majority of my information for this post) claims to be "the free encyclopedia", leading us to believe that the information found on its one million plus pages is factual when in reality, there is free reign for anybody to come in and change it at random. If this is the case, how can we be sure that we are getting academic information? Where should the line between opensource and academic ownership fall? Is it fair to charge people for knowledge? This is where it gets fuzzy.

In ancient times, knowledge was shared orally, by word of mouth, along generations of people until the direct origins or owner of the knowledge became indistinguishaable. In such times of epics such as the Iliad or the Odyssey, it was difficult to trace the authors because they had be retold so many times and filled in where parts were forgotten to perhaps become something completely different from the original. These epics do have authors names put on them, but if they have deviated so much in their retellings from the original, doesn't this make them publicly owned knowledge? Only when stories and information began being recorded did concrete ownership come into being.

Gutenberg revolutionized the spread of learning and knowledge to the masses with his invention of the printing press in 1439 which allowed for the distribution of printed books. Therefore, information once possessed by a few became widely known to the general public, while the authors and publishers still technically retained ownership and thus profited from it. The opensource media that is becoming increasingly popular today severely decreases this profit margin. While sources like Wikipedia can be useful for everyday people who want to access information quickly and cheaply, it can be a hindrance. Because knowledge is becoming so widely accessible and alterable, the validity of such knowledge comes into question. If people besides academics are allowed to manipulate the accessible information in the media so easily, how can we pick out what is fact and what is fiction?

Being a student, I cannot say that opensource isn't a lifesaver. I am granted free information from plenty of sites that I can use to do my schoolwork -- and with the expense of copyrighted materials, I am very thankful -- such as this very same blog post, fueled by Wikipedia. However, I am more comforted using sources deemed "academic" so I know that they are reliable. I would never use Wikipedia for an essay or research paper because I dont know where the information is coming from. In this way, like many of my classmates, I may prefer paying for a scholarly source because I feel that it is more trustworthy. Maybe SOPA is a good thing, shutting down sites that illegally use copyrighted intellectual materials, that would certainly ensure that the available information maintains its academic integrity. Though would the enforcement of SOPA mean that any materials are left available? I would definitely miss the accessibility and have troubles completing my university assignments if this were the case, much less my favourite youtube videos.

All in all, it seems to me that information sharing is coming full circle. Way back in the times of the epics everybody had a claim to the stories and knowledge passed around, private ownership was hard to pin down. This is much like the digitization and opensource sharing we have today. Sure, there are people who have come up with the ideas first, but opensource allows them to be modified and substituted publicly to the benefit of the masses. Whether this is reliable or not is completely dependent on the source. Opensource media has revolutionized the spread of information today much like Gutenberg and the printing press in the fifteen hundreds by expanding our knowledge. There are certainly flaws in its mechanics and validity of information in some cases, it definitely increases access to everyday knowledge (warped or otherwise) to some extent, which is nothing to sneeze at. Afterall, without opensource, I probably wouldn't have even been able to finish this blog post.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_culture#Transition_to_the_digital_era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

What defines "masculinity"? (revised)

In World Lit we have discussed multiple definitions, coming up with a consensus of the stereotypical factors that contribute to masculinity. In society, we view traits such as strength, bravery, wit, honor, aggressiveness and detachment from emotion as masculine qualities. It is also easy to define masculinity by saying what is not considered masculine, but rather the opposite of masculine: feminine. Weakness, sensitivity, kindness, nuturance, emotiveness, and dependence are considered more feminine traits according to societal opinion. Masculinity and femininity are often considered direct opposite, and to be completely masculine, one cannot possess any feminine traits and vice versa. I do not think, however, that everything is so cut and dry.

Society tends to pigeon-hole masculinity as a male characteristic, but both men and women can possess these perceived masculine qualities. Masculinity is not a biologically predetermined characteristic and in truth, not all men are conventionally "masculine", but rather have a balance of both femininity and masculinity. There are men out there who are brave and sensitive, strong and kind, emotional and aggressive. Similarly, women can be any combination of the supposed "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics. I believe that the concept of being masculine or possessing masculinity is not one that is so easily defined; there is too much grey area.

If we are to go by society's typical outlook on masculinity in relation to Orwell's 1984, we will definitely find the roles reversed between Winston and Julia. In the book, she is the one who is courageous and dominating, the one who makes all of the decisions, who seems to be completely free of strong emotions. Whereas Winston is dependent upon her to make all of the choices, he is the weak character who needs to be taken care of, he lacks bravery and strength and relies completely upon Julia. This reliance upon a woman is hardly considered masculine and it illustrates that masculinity is not strictly a male concept. Julia plays the traditional masculine role in the novel. This helps to broaden our view of masculinities, rather than have them trapped within the confines of gender.

I feel that this is why it is hard to come up with a clear definition of what it means to be masculine - because it is generally spoken of in relation to males than to people in general.

Big Brother also exemplifies masculinity in 1984. Appearing as the epitome of masculine – powerful, strong and protective – he devalues the masculinity of the males in society; thus he serves as an ideal for members of The Party to strive towards. This is stereotypical in that the most masculine figure in Orwell’s novel is male. It goes to show how biased society’s outlook on such qualities as “masculinity” and “femininity” has come to be. It is hard to pinpoint a clear definition of what it means to be masculine because what is perceived as masculine has become skewed by gender; we forget that both men and women can embody masculinity.

Is it possible to be happy? (revised)

The very premise of Freud's Civilizations and its Discontents is that happiness cannot be achieved unless we are allowed to express and fulfill our every desire as human beings. However, this absolute freedom could never be granted because it would supposedly lead to violence and the downfall of civilization. These conflicting points of view leave people trapped within a society where the desires of the id are suppressed, thus they are indefinitely "discontent" according to Freud. But the question is, is some measure of happiness attainable without full expression of every underlying desire?

I think that happiness can be found within a repressed environment, though it is fleeting. In the world of today, everybody is a consumer, which fosters an ever-increasing desire for material things that bring us a feeling of happiness to have. For example, buying a new phone or iPod or laptop or clothes or whatever it is, brings joy. This joy is not permanent, however, as newer and better products continue to be made to entice consumers. This quickly diminishes the happiness and creates a feeling of want that is insatiable - for the cycle never ends. Therefore, it is possible to find happiness with material things, but it will be temporary.

The immaterial can bring happiness as well. Love or affection is considered to contribute to joy and fulfillment, but not always - not complete happiness. Lovers fight or grow apart or break up or have difficult days that prevent joy. Love definitely creates happiness, but does not necessarily lead to unwavering content.

So happiness is possible, but does happiness inevitably mean contentment? I feel contentment is a more permanent and concrete feeling, while happiness is fleeting and fragile. This stability makes contentment harder to achieve.

I think that what Adam Curtis is saying in his documentary is much like Freud, that contentment within civilization is impossible because desires are suppressed. And while people are unknowingly satisfying their id's desires by falling for advertisements and the consumer market ploys, they can be happy but not truly content with life. The only way that people can find utter peace and satisfaction is if they break away from society where their ids are uninhibited.

Yet, I am hard-pressed to believe that contentment is attainable beyond the confines of society. Both Freud and Curtis claim that without the suppression of the id and the indirect fulfilment of its desires through consumerist substitution that there would be chaos. If this is true, how can contentment be possible? Unless a chaotic environment is a factor in feeling content, which I am sure it isn’t. Is the fragmentation of society thus the key to contentment?

Perhaps contentment is simply impossible from any viewpoint. Within society, we are suppressed and unable to fully express ourselves, and therefore discontent. Outside of society, we are free to express ourselves to the fullest, leading to violence and disagreement, and therefore discontent. People are either too suppressed or too uninhibited. There needs to be a balance between the two, or contentment remains elusive. So the question stands: Is contentment possible? Or is happiness forever the fleeting substitute for the ideal?

Basically, society is built upon substitution. People substitute material possessions for their underlying desires, happiness for contentment. It is definitely possible to find happiness within civilization, through buying new things or falling in love (etc.). The feeling of content, the uninterrupted complete and utter enjoyment and fulfillment that comes along with it, cannot be achieved. There are too many competing factors that conflict with it. This is the sacrifice we choose to make in order to maintain society, the temporary happiness may last for hours, days, months or years before it is interrupted...but there is always more to be found.

Socrates: A martyr-figure? (revised)

I can't decide.

I think that the problem is that martyrdom often gets muddled with personal conviction. It seems impossible to me to know whether a person's intentions are those of a martyr without their blatantly stating so. And if a person says that they are a martyr, doesn't that technically undermine their scheme?

The definition of “martyr” that I am using to examine Socrates is different than what is considered the conventional one. Usually, a martyr is somebody who is put to death for refusing to renounce their beliefs (generally religious), but in this context, the definition I am going by is “somebody who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration”. The first definition could be applied to various religious people who have died for their beliefs. Such is the case with the crucifixion of Christ, who willingly died for humanity’s sin. I do not think that this conventional definition applies to Socrates’ situation for he is fighting for his own innocence rather than religious belief.

Socrates is a long-standing iconic figure in several nations worldwide due to what is believed to be his "martyrish death". However, there are plenty of people who believe that Socrates was simply defending himself because he was genuinely willing to die for what he knew to be true. I think that I am being persuaded to join this category for a number of reasons.

During his trial, Socrates defends himself and his principles with passion and a perplexing logic, which, I'm certain, is where the "martyr-figure" label originates. I do not think, however, that Socrates's words are meant to instill a feeling of sympathy upon his audience; rather he is just speaking in the manner he usually would. He is more interested in speaking the truth than inciting pity; making a point of explaining his innocence down to the tiniest detail, not for fear of punishment or death, but because he so strongly believes in what he has to say.

It is the method in which Socrates goes about cross-examining people and their ideas that both makes him a genius and leads to his condemnation. He is a man on a quest to discover whether he is most wise, as the Delphic Oracle suggests, and is therefore accustomed to cross-questioning every man he is confronted with. The logic he uses when talking to people is astounding. He seems able to find fault with any claim presented to him. The man had the great talent of making men feel like fools, leading - as we discover - to his arrest for "corruption" of the youth. This Socratic Method of conversation and cross-examination is also evident in Socrates's trial. He is constantly questioning everything Meletus claims against him. This does not bode well. In the end - though Socrates has put forth a very thorough and convincing argument - I think the court judges have just gotten fed up with him. Perhaps this persistent form of questioning assisted Socrates in achieving martyr status, because in such a situation it is near impossible to tell whether he was adamantly searching out sympathy or simply trying to reach a logical conviction; although anybody who knew what Socrates was really about would realize it was the latter.

From my interpretation of both the personality and speaking strategies of Socrates, I suppose I would have to come to the conclusion that he cannot possibly be a true martyr. The philosopher was too humble a man, too immersed in his principles, too blunt in his speech to ever give a thought to searching out sympathy. He seemed to me to be someone who was to be taken at face value, with no hidden intentions, and I like that about him. Socrates didn't need to be a martyr because he didn't fear death. In Crito, he is even given an opportunity to escape, but he doesn't take it. Socrates has the courage to face death.

The only way to know for sure is to ask. And that brings me back to my previous query: If a martyr admits to being a martyr, isn't their martyrdom thwarted?

If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk? (revised)

Would I walk away from Omelas? The conscious part of my brain, the compassionate part, the ethical part, tells me that I should say yes. Society would most likely expect me to say yes. Many other people would undoubtedly say that they themselves would walk away. However, the implications of such a statement go far beyond what the average person can comprehend. Walking away means leaving literally everything behind: your family, your friends, your livelihood - even your dog. Everything that you know would disappear the second you decided to step away from Omelas, with only the vast unknown awaiting. This is a lot to give up for the misery of one child; a sacrifice that I don't know that I would have the courage to make.

 Fear often governs the process of decision-making, and I hardly think that this situation is an exception. It takes immense bravery to be able to, as was discussed in class, "exercise self-determination" and make an individual decision. This is made especially difficult when the pressures to conform are as great as they are in Omelas. Every other person that has been to visit the child has been able to accept that its existence is necessary, except for the handful that opt to walk away never to be seen or heard from again. Which would be the easier option? Both choices have their benefits and their downfalls but neither is particularly easy to stomach.

 If Omelas is truly as utopian as it seems to be, the issue of the child would never arise. A perfect society would never put the choice upon its citizens - whether purposefully or otherwise. Perhaps that is why Omelas has no guilt, to keep its people from leaving when faced with the horrible child, for I cannot believe that anyone should be able to peer into the cupboard and view the suffering within without feeling guilt. Not under normal conditions. In Omelas, the emotion has been removed completely from the repertoire of feeling and thus the child can be forgotten, neglected, and left to fester by the hundreds of people that visit.

 It has been suggested that Omelas is an analogy for our own society, a statement that I can't dispute. The child could represent any number of modern day things, from children in sweatshops of third world countries to the homeless people in our very own city of Vancouver. The point that the story is trying to convey is that tragedy is all around us; poverty is what bolsters wealth, that our very lives are dependent on the misery of others. While this may only be true to a fraction of the magnitude that the people of Omelas depend on the child, the facts still stand. Need surrounds us. There is always somebody worse off than ourselves; but we rarely do anything about it. Maybe we opt not to act because we feel that the demise of others is what keeps us happy, that it is simpler to accept things as they are rather than attempt change. I'm sure many people would be desperate to leave Omelas, to free themselves from the thought of the child; to essentially cleanse their minds from the shame upon which their lives are built. But who is to say that the memory of the child will not linger? Would leaving wipe the mind clean indefinitely or would the unpleasantness reoccur? We can't say. Fear governs. Striking out alone is far more dangerous than living with the occasional thought of the child (or so we tell ourselves). Fear tells people that walking away isn't worth it, fear binds people to society - and if we are bound, how is it ever going to be possible to completely walk away?

 Ethically speaking, is walking away the best decision? Does it really benefit anybody besides those leaving? Maybe choosing to leave Omelas is more selfish than ethical. After all, the act does not solve the problem; it merely frees those who walk away from individual guilt. The child is still locked away in the broom cupboard. The suffering still continues. Nothing has been achieved that can lead to the betterment of the child or the society built upon it. If those who walk away had the guts to steal the child with them – then and only then will that guilt disappear, because a truly ethical thing had been done. However, what about the guilt of leaving the entire society of Omelas to crumble? The city’s entire happiness hinged on that one child’s suffering, is it ethical to remove that from all those people? Thus stands the dilemma.

 In the end, I think that my sub consciousness would take over. While my consciousness would be fighting to scream out, to run from Omelas and from the unethical principles on which it is built, it is much more realistic to admit that I just wouldn't have the courage. Yes, it is sad that the child must suffer. Yes, I think it unfair to base the happiness of many on the misery of one; especially one so innocent and undeserving. It seems selfish and unsettling that so many people just accept the child as part of life, but I can see why they do. Society has an overpowering influence in the individual's decisions, and it can be hard to choose a separate path. To venture out into the unknown, alone, unsure of whether the action of walking away is actually making a difference, rather than just putting my singular mind at ease, is hard. It is impossible for me to comprehend abandoning my family, my friends, everything I have ever known, for a life that has no certain outcome. A life that may not have an outcome at all. And while the existence of the child in Omelas, the existence of the thousands of suffering children in the world, plagues my heart and fills me with guilt, I cannot say that my leaving would accomplish anything worthwhile. I cannot say that I would take the child with me, and I cannot say that I wouldn’t. I cannot say with certainty that I would walk away from Omelas, I don't know that I possess the courage.

What defines "masculinity"?

In World Lit we have discussed multiple definitions, coming up with a consensus of the stereotypical factors that contribute to masculinity. In society, we view traits such as strength, bravery, wit, honor, aggressiveness and detachment from emotion as masculine qualities or "masculinities". It is also easy to define masculinity by saying what is not considered masculine, but rather the opposite of masculine: feminine. Weakness, sensitivity, kindness, nuturance, emotiveness, and dependence are considered more feminine traits according to societal opinion. Masculinity and femininity are often considered direct opposite, and to be completely masculine, once cannot possess any feminine traits and vice versa. I do not think, however, that everything is so cut and dry.

Society tends to pigeon-hole masculinity as a male characteristic, but both men and women can possess these percieved masculine qualities. Masculinity is not a biologically predetermined characteristic and in truth, not all men are conventionally "masculine", if we are to go by typical societal consensus of masculinity, but rather have a balance of both femininity and masculinity. There are men out there who are both brave and sensitive, strong and kind, emotional and aggressive - the concepts are not so black and white. Similarly, women can be both weak and witty, or any combination of the supposed "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics. I believe that the concept of being masculine or possessing masculinity is not one that is so easily defined; there is too much gray area. Perhaps it is subjective; where one may find someody masculine, another might not depending on individual views.

If we are to go by society's typical outlook on masculinity in relation to Orwell's 1984, we will definitely find the roles reversed between Winston and Julia. In the book, she is the one who is courageous and dominating, the one who makes all of the decisions, who seems to be completely free of strong emotions. Whereas Winston is dependent upon her to make all of the decisions, he is the weak character who needs to be taken care of, he lacks bravery and strength and relies on Julia to make all of the decisions. This definitely goes to show that masculinity is not strictly a male concept. Julia certainly plays the traditional masculine role in the novel. This helps to broaden our view of masculinities, rather than have them trapped within the confines of gender. I feel that this is why it is hard to come up with a clear definition of what it means to be masculine - because it is generally spoken of in relation to males and not to people in general.

If only society could break free of the view that masculine and masculinity are terms relative only to males, we would have a much less biased definition of the concepts.