#comm 302

“The term “tactical media” refers to a critical usage and theorization of media practices that draw on all forms of old and new, both lucid and sophisticated media, for achieving a variety of specific noncommercial goals and pushing all kinds of potentially subversive political issues.”

“There is a long-term discourse on the U.S—Mexico borderlands | La Frontera as a space of conflict but also of negotiation, exchange, mixture and hybridity. As the border itself has become increasingly materialized as a fence, a wall, a line, there has of necessity been a shift to thinking of the border itself as a metaphysical binary. (36)”

Picking at this quote I find that along with many other essential details that are touched upon in this reading, we are generally analyzing in a depth so much more complex (pretty subjective) where meanings are drawn from this physical structure. Reactions on either end juxtapose one another, the people perceive the same structure perhaps obtusely, and appropriated images derive from a structure, and what results from the placement of a structure disregarding the reasoning of why it is there.

·       Borders control is both physical and symbolic—what does this mean? The border is a stage where the security is performed. It’s not just about having that physical performance; it has a theatrical aspect as well.

·       “’Successful’ border management depends on successful image management.” In my opinion, I find this to appear immensely true—within a spectrum there should be a level of order, structure, parallels, synchronization. I personally note that these are preferred methods or styles of having overall success. I also assume this is another attribute that contributes to the metaphysical binary that is mentioned above.  

·       “Border control is a ‘public performance’ for which the border functions as a kind of political stage.” The public performance metaphor holds significance, where even those who do not think that they are participants in the act, indeed are—because a greater emphasis is present when there are like, and contrasting segments.

Defamiliarization

·       “To change the way we see the otherwise ‘transparent codes’ of Empire” (36)

First, tactical media is a form of ventionism. * It challenges the existing semiotic regime by replicating and redeploying it in a manner that offers participants in the projects a new way of seeing, understanding, and (in the best-case scenario) interacting with a given system.

“Interactivity refers to the ways that new technologies have been designed to be more responsive to consumer feedback…” The article included examples of how television channels can be changed, and we act in ways that we are able to when presented in some distinct world within a video game. “Participation, on the other hand, is shaped by the cultural and social protocols.” It “is more open-ended, less under the control of media producers and more under the control of media consumers.”

“Allowing consumers to interact with media under controlled circumstances is one thing; allowing them to participate in the production and distribution of cultural goods—on their own terms—is something else altogether.”

This is the initial reaction I had as soon as I read Star Wars. It’s not something I had thought too much about, if at all—how the boundaries seem so subtle, though, naturally, the division is there. Between being accustomed to the consumer life, rather than being involved, attempting to be, taking action to participate and so forth… and producing a film, a program, a novel, that appeals to a wide array of emotions for a grand audience. My jaw pretty much dropped after reading about these Star Wars submissions, the fan fiction, and essentially how George Lucas was greatly impressed by the man who had shared his Storm Trooper policing Tatooine story—later becoming a comic book writer. How cool is that? I’m practically drooling at the endless possibilities for Star Wars.

The relationship between Agenda Setting and Framing

Agenda Setting: Media coverage of an issue can elevate the issue’s important in the view of audience members Framing: Subtle changes in how an event or issue is covered (terms, metaphors, images) can shape how audience members interpret and understand the event or issue.

How exactly does framing differ from agenda setting? It’s actually not complicated.

·        Framing is “selecting and highlighting some facets of events, or issues, and making connections among them, so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution.” (Entman, 2004, p. 5).

·        Selecting and highlighting: selecting some facets of an issue or event, and highlighting these facets, making them more noticeable, more salient.

·        Frames reside in media messages, and are built into messages through the choices authors make.

The Raw Material of Frames: Keywords, Metaphors, Symbols, Concepts, Visual Images

Entman looks at media coverage in two instances where two airliners were shot down by the military—Korean airlines 007 was shot down by the Soviet Union (1983) MURDER implies intent, “SHOOTING TO KILL,” deliberately by the USSR because they are “evil.” Several years later this happened again where the USA shot down an Iran Air plane 655 (1988). The manner in which it was presented definitely altered the perception of readers due to the images used in the background, complemented by the smooth disposition of the headline compared to the fully capitalized, and finger-pointing headlines ostracizing open-minds, resulting in fear, anger, or both.

According to Entman, Cultural Congruence “measures the ease with which – all else being equal -a news frame can cascade through the different levels of the framing process and stimulate similar reactions at each step” (Entman, 2004, p. 14).

“… The cascade model suggests that the media should provide enough information independent of the executive branch that citizens can construct their own counter-frames of issues and events” (Entman, 2004, p. 17).

·        When someone (whether a journalist or an advocate), constructs a media message they make a series of choices. What languages or terms should be used in order to describe a situation?

·        These choices create a message that frames the event or issue in a particular way. And then this frame, embedded in the message, then works to shape the audience’s interpretation of the issue or event.

Has anybody else noticed how complicated and overly complex every individual in this book seems to be? And why is it that most stories begin with the white seventeen-year-old female? (Just adding a bit of humor) Though, aren’t we all in one form or another complicated and complex? The intermingling of social lives and actively engaging through social networks have skewed the thought processes between generations, and as we mentioned in class, Social Media is:

1.)    Persistent (in a way that other forms of interaction might not be; things can come back because they have already been there—unless deleted)

2.)    Visible

3.)    Spreadable (can be shared, reblogged, retweeted, hashtagged, etc.)

4.)    Searchable (“stalking”)

These general attributions of social media have been transforming teenagers in the manner in which they approach the real world in comparison to their interaction/participation on social media. This is actually analyzed and seen as one of the many alternatives in this continuous creation or evolution of identity work. I found it quite interesting after reading, thinking more in depth in regards to correlating these facts with how older generations might have evolved in their own identity work.

While going over chapter 3 (Privacy), the variety of definitions of privacy was something I found myself wanting to speak about in class, but tend to shy away from… but I recently completed an IT course that focused on Ethics in Cyber society which contained a separate definition of Privacy from the few we read in this chapter. Privacy dealt with proximity, accessibility, gaining knowledge over personal intelligence that was not meant to be shared/overheard, or the exposure of interpersonal concepts/content in relationships or between that person him/herself. We were then expected to categorize such findings or specific situations as either ethical or unethical. I attempted to put myself in the position mentioned in this chapter where teens did not necessarily think of any higher authority than that of their parents, school figures/teachers, coaches—which is something adults found to be quite limiting, or ignorant for a child to do such a thing. I can say that although I did at a certain point have a Myspace, AOL IM, Gmail, made Facebook in 2007, I was never as expressive as others, essentially the generation of teenagers today. I was hardly ever an avid poster or that opinionated individual. In high school, I became more exposed to witnessing other students, teammates, classmates get involved in serious trouble that affected their academic careers, their ability to be accepted/appropriately maintain the role of being student athletes, and their potential to attend university. It was a wide scope of not pitying them, and more so having thoughts like, “is it really that hard to keep your shit together, and act appropriately?” I never found it difficult to keep certain knowledge to myself, unless it was unethical to society. 

In chapter 5, Danah Boyd’s main focus is bullying, what defines bullying, and differentiating between who’s at fault, with the perception of what is dramatic, the constant seeking of a social status separates from the physical persona. A Swedish Psychologist by the name of Dan Olweus narrowed down three major components that are central to bullying in particular: aggression, repetition, and imbalance in power. Other areas include repeated psychological, physical, or social aggression. This chapter in particular I, of course, understood the stories and the scenarios given—though generally I despise how much caution individuals lack online versus face-to-face interaction. The boundaries are definitely different, and unrealistic when compared to the public, police officers, parents, adults, general authority figures. When aggressions and conflicts are excessively repeated online, it’s almost like people believe their words and intentions cease to exist whilst being thrown into this grand abyss, but it’s all a stagnant mess that is persistently visible, and accessible. I suppose it is in the way the individual approaches life based on their own epistemology and understanding whether they choose to bully or not, but it truly is sad and perplexing to me. I remember creating a Formspring account where other people would send you anonymous messages that were public for others to see if you allowed it. I felt like I really wanted to know what people thought about it, and expected the unexpected hate anons… what I received were anonymous messages on how chill I was, how great of a friend I was, how funny I am at school, comments on shoes I used to wear, or how the fact that I was (and continue to be) a huge Star Wars geek was cool. In the meantime, I would see other people I knew getting ridiculous anonymous messages on how annoying they were, and idle comments on their perceived sex lives, hair color, petty and childish things. I believe that treating others they manner in which you desire and expect to be treated always applied and worked well for me!

First thing we had simplified in class was defining the terms from the chapter and the Katz article:

(MEDIA Campaign messages / Election News> OPINION LEADERS Early deciders/high interest / Consume election media selectively> OPINION FOLLOWERS)

·        An opinion leader is someone who is known personally and whose opinion is trusted

Step 1: Early deciders (opinion leaders) selectively pull out information from the media that reinforces their strong belief Step 2: Opinion leaders pass on this information to opinion followers (late deciders) in order to influence their decision

Personal Influence (1955) Who are opinion leaders? How do people use opinion leaders to make decisions?

·        Personal influence (peers) trumped media influence in decision-making

·        Opinion leaders are “specialists,” not “generalists” (different leaders from different subjects)

·        Individuals turned to people like themselves (in gender, ethnicity, income, etc.) for advice (homophily)

Three distinct sets of findings within the Two-Step Flow Model explained in the article that constitute the process include:

Personal influence

·        “Personal contacts appear to have been more frequent and more effective than the mass media in influencing voting decisions.”

Flow of personal influence

·        Two questions in order to proceed with the findings: “Have you recently tried to convince anyone of your political ideas?” “Has anyone recently asked you for your advice on a political question?”

·        “Opinion leaders are to be found on every level of society and presumably, therefore, are very much like the people whom they influence.”

The opinion leaders and the mass media

“The Data, in other words, consists only of two statistical groupings: people who said they were advice-givers and those who did not. Therefore, the fact that leaders were more interested in the election than non-leaders cannot be taken to mean that influence flows from more interested persons to less interested ones… it may even be that the leaders influence only each other, while the uninterested non-leaders stand outside the influence market altogether.” I can agree here in regards to how non-leaders stand outside the influence market—I think every individual has their own degree of potential when it comes to whether or not they’re influential, and that all depends on how they enforce it (if they do). I don’t think all non-leaders are uninterested, almost leveling with how I don’t think some opinion leaders are that influential, hence they are found on every level of society presumably, and it is a given that those who find them influential will seek them out.

The voting study from the article managed to pinpoint two differences between the study being conducted, in comparison to the 1940 study: the first one that is mentioned is that there is a difference in the conception of opinion leadership. Second, it is assumed that the study was geared more toward finding the opinion leaders and a hint of the interpersonal relationship aspect, rather than the influence of mass media.