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.