A space where multiple mediated voices talk about the media and its centrality in everyday life. A space where the media and its work in culture, politics, economics, and ethics is critically discussed. A space where scholars, students, producers, and consumers speak the unspeakable and engage with the challenges of a multiply mediated society. A space where the presence of multiple voices in a single discourse is acknowledged and respected. A space where criticism is practiced with the spirit of plurality and hospitality.

Here's a link to a comic-style "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman, rendered by Stuart McMillen. It serves as a nice intro to Postman's work and also George Orwell's and Aldous Huxley's.

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html

Your RaceWire Racial Justice Viewing Guide for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

by Anusuya Sivaram

Since I’m possibly the intern most excited about seeing Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince tonight, Channing asked me to give you guys a basic rundown of some racial justice themes we might see tonight, just like we did with Star Trek. I originally wrote this guide for internal use, but we’re putting it up for everyone to enjoy. Also, spoilers ahead — so for those of you who haven’t read all the books/seen the previous movies, read with caution.

And for those who say that “there’s no race issues” in a fantasy movie about predominantly white teen wizards — maybe your crystal ball is dusty? As much as Jeff Sessions hates to admit it, there’s no such thing as ‘race-neutral.’

Themes of Racial Justice that appear in the 6th book specifically (and will hopefully come up in the movie):
-The portrayal of terrorists/criminals. In the magical world of J.K. Rowling, Death Eaters, who are predominantly “purebloods” use terror tactics, as opposed to the pluralistic “Order of the Phoenix”, who don’t. In contrast, our mainstream media gives more airtime to terrorists and criminals who are people of color, rather than white domestic terrorists/criminals. It’s an interesting reversal that perhaps needs to be contextualized more, given the allegory. It’s also an interesting historical shift as well.

-Structural racism. The Ministry of Magic’s regulations on magical species (Centaurs, House-Elves, etc) that prevent them from using magic is analogous to structural racism in our Muggle World. Though this only plays a small role in Book Six, it’s interesting to see the reversal that takes place—from campaigning against the societal position of House Elves and other magical creatures, Harry and his friends start rely on these creatures (Dobby, Kreacher, Firenze), and seem to espouse their subordination as long as they are treated benevolently.

-Merit based achievement vs. Favoritism. This is especially important with the arrival of Professor Slughorn (the formation of the “Slug Club”, which rewards the privileged). Also the fact that Muggle-borns often have to work harder for everything than purebloods (Hermione Granger, though brilliant, simply doesn’t command universal respect like I think she should.), should be of some interest to us. This is also relevant under structural racism, as minorities (Muggle-born wizards) don’t have well-established avenues to recourse in the magical world (there’s limited infrastructure for Muggle-borns being introduced to the Magical world for the first time), and must rely on the benevolence of wizards. Harry’s status is also questioned—he’s just lucky, not talented, but reaps the benefits of his position, intentionally or not.

-The origins of racism/discrimination. Tom Riddle (Lord Voldemort) and his origins are a major plotline in the novel. Rowling's theory of discrimination mainly discusses individual racism, while structural racism is what ARC concentrates on eliminating. Also, Rowling emphasizes love as a way to combat intolerance (Dumbledore says this is the reason why Harry isn't like Voldemort)--you can interpret this to mean pluralism is better than purity. Still, it’s important to recognize that while Rowling’s magical world is amazing (who DIDN’T want to go to Hogwarts when they read the books?), it’s still stratified, and faces the same problems of equity and pluralism that our world does.

Read more.

Here's an interesting article regarding the reigning king of rap, and how lessons on his rise to power have a lot to teach us about foreign policy, international relations, US hegemony, and the top-to-bottom approach of power and media.

A teaser:
In a world of unipolarity, both win through co-optation, reconciliation between enemies, and the demonstration that the gains of cooperation outweigh the gains of resistance.

Foreign Policy: Jay-Z Schools Us In U.S. Hegemony

With the youth getting more and more engaged in sociocivic activities, and political unrest rising, marketing gurus have jumped onto the bandwagon of promoting nationhood and belonging. We are no longer constrained by geographic boundaries, but according to one guy, "the depth of our aspirations" as Filipinos.

Indeed all this new hoopla may be a positive thing, but as advertising often has a hidden agenda, what are these new campaigns, such as OneTama, AkoMismo, and IAmNinoy, not saying? Where is the substance to corroborate their do-gooding style? And how does the audience respond? What does this response tell us about identity and nationhood? 

Do these campaigns engage the people by talking to them or talking at them? How do they change the face of what it means to be a Filipino today? And for all of their shortcomings, is our little country all the better for their existence?

The ultimate question: What genuine impact do these campaigns create?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

In the meantime, here's an interesting commentary by the original Akomismo.

 African economist Dambisa Moyo points out that how her continent is being represented in the outside world negatively influences their ability for survival and independence. Her thesis is that the road to Africa's development is blocked by aid -- and lots of it. A taste of the article:

Taking after that famous anecdote about how Ernest Hemingway wrote his shortest story in six words, Not Quite What I Was Planning is a collection of such memoirs by writers, famous, and obscure. It is an interesting, often funny, often profound concoction of identity, reflexivity, and brevity. Couldn't help but notice how many of these memoirs are intimately tied up with national identity and diaspora, so I decided to post some of them here. Email me if you want more of the book.

Most Turkish Kurd, most Kurdish Turk. (Yasar Kemal)
Man of the world = illegal immigrant. (Rajat Suri)
American backbone, Arab marrow, much trouble. (Rabih Allamedine)
Mixed blood. I am America's future. (Holly Santiago)
Chinese? American? Chinese-American? The confusion endures. (Paul Chin)
Asian, white trash Scranton. Let's Polka. (Jeannie Lee)

There are more pithy sentences involving gender, place, and a whole bunch of other things.

There's even one memoir in here by former Sanggu President Omi Castanar: "Forgot to say I love her." (page 140). 

Facebook Group.
Facebook Event Page.

See you there!

DEFENSIVE PREAMBLE: Perhaps their interpretations might have been too close(d) and too far sometimes, but the important thing is that my students tried. And that's more than can be said about all of us in our moments of complicity and collusion. :P

This is a short paper for our Com11 class under Mr. Jason Cabanes (gurujace).


===

Lexie Dizon, Anna Moreno, Elaine Silan, Shanelle Tan, Krista Uybarreta, Miguel Zapata

Mr. Jace Cabanes Com11 B


 

                                                   The World Press Photo Exhibit

Acts of violence can happen anywhere and anyone can become a victim. It doesn’t matter if you live in a superpower country (China) or in a third world country (Pakistan/Columbia); whether you are young or old; no matter what religion you believe in; or whether you are white or black. Violence and death chooses nobody.

All three pictures involve signs that talk about death and violence. The pictures all involve “spectators” – the man looking at the names, the children watching the person press his/her gun against someone, and the people looking at the dead bodies. These spectators contrast with those who have, or will soon have, faced death; yet at the same time, it is the contrast that further highlights the theme of death. A certain curiosity can be seen from the spectators, who are perhaps wondering who has died or who will soon die (as in the photo with the gun). The spectators signify a sense of inquisitiveness as well as a sense of apathy in humans. When death is concerned, people get curious and want to know the details. The horror felt is often short-lived, and people usually get back into their everyday lives as if nothing happened.

 

The pictures also seem to show how people fear yet at the same time are intrigued by violent acts that happen around them. Humans are curious beings. We tend to hang around the place of violence as spectators, curious to see what will happen next, until the violent act threatens us personally. Once we realize we can be victims of this act, all curiosity leaves us.

 

Since signs usually make sense only within a system of related signs, there is a significant possibility that within a concept, most of the signifiers that are attached to the signified will appear, signaling the appearance of the specific theme.    This explains how the three photographs “resonate” with one another to talk about a particular theme.

 

It is said that the camera does not lie, but it only shows you a part of the truth and not the whole of it. The pictures in the gallery focus more on the victims rather than the cause of the violence. A one sided story clearly blinds the audience and misconceives society of the material reality that they are in since what is represented to them is the more sensitive/vulnerable/surreal side of the issue. Since there is a “fixed” way of talking about the death and violence, there is a very good chance that people will limit themselves in terms of how they view the reality that is projected to them.

                Photographers are taught to compose; to focus on a subject, and include only the important elements that support the subject, and the ideas that are to be represented in a picture. In a photograph, as not everything can be presented in the frame, the number of signifiers present is limited. This way, the picture, through limited signifiers, presents limited signified concepts, and it is this limited concept that shows a one-sided point of view. The result is the image, including the select ideas and emotions, that the photographer wants to show the viewer. The similarities of compositions in the photographs, the way the photographer wants to show a particular perspective, is how different pictures are able to talk about only a particular theme.

We, as spectators, look at the pictures and try to figure out what is happening in each one. Horror is overpowered by curiosity. We are more amazed by how the pictures were taken and by how the photographers were able to capture the essence of the scene instead of feeling terror at how mankind kill one another without second thoughts.


~~~

The descriptions of the mentioned photos are listed below. The URLs provided link to the photos described. The photos are subject to copyright; the images cannot be copied, reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, as stated in the copyright information provided by World Press Photo.

1. Columbia (Francesco Zizola) -2^nd Prize, People in the News Story

There are a few kids at the background, crowding together and watching an event unfold in front of the camera.  A gun, directed at a civilian’s head at point blank. Dark skies above, signaling intense horror and a feeling of impending doom. The man holding the gun is ready to pull the trigger. The point of no return for his victim. Both of their identities unknown. Amazed and curious children crowd around as if it were only some sort of show.
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/images/photos/2008/PN/PNS2/PNS2-KL.jpg

2. Pakistan (John Moore)- 1^st Prize, Spot News Stories

A split second changes the course of history. A leader dead and a nation in ruin and chaos. A sea of dead bodies flood the road where democracy was being practiced a minute back. The bodies are bloodied, dislocated and unidentifiable. In a corner stands a man, arms outstretched from the unjustifiable violence he had just witnessed. Seemingly calling out for a god who can save him from his nation’s misery.
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/images/photocache/photos/2008/SN/SNS1/SNS1-HH_520x345x90.jpg

3. China (Oded Balilty) – 3^rd prize, People in the News Story

There are two men standing in front of a wall, their backs against the camera. One man, to the right, stands closer to the wall, while the other man, on left, stands closer to the camera. There is a pillar between them. The wall in front of the two men is covered with the tombstones belonging to the many victims of the Nanjing Massacre. The tombstones cover the whole wall, including the wall perpendicular to it. The shot looks simple, but what makes it appealing is the numerous names that are engraved on the wall. There is almost no room for additional names.
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/images/photos/2008/PN/PNS3/PNS3-AL.jpg

 

</lj>

Yesterday, I went online as a gay man looking for a high school boy. Yes, you read that right. But no, I haven't decided to be a "curve" (as my students put it) and, God forbid, a predator. It was just for this super fun experiment on online identities we did for my Information Age class. Indeed, while I was busy performing gayness, my nine students also had their hands full portraying an online prostitute, a pedophile, an innocent teen girl, a conservative mother, a hot playboy, a lesbian grandma, among others. And when we were done, we theorized about the complex relationship between the online and the offline world.

No doubt, I have a new approach to my media studies classes. If there's anything I learned last year (cf. Ayee, Franz, and Tami :P), it's this: Academic texts are important, but experiences are too. Hence Media Studies: Interactive Edition. For the coming semester, I'll be offering two of my older classes, now freed up from too many readings and spiced up with what I have termed "critical explorations."

Spread the word! Thanks! :)

1. Com 110.2: Political Communication

The late media scholar Roger Silverstone said, in the end, “We study the media because we are concerned about their power: we fear it, we decry it, we adore it.” This course critically explores Silverstone’s assertion by examining how, in the quest for power, the media control and are controlled by political forces.

The opening block of the course introduces you to the debates about what the field of Political Communication really is about. The next block considers the issues of mainstream political communication through the prism of media (a) institutions, (b) texts, and (c) audiences. The subsequent block approaches political communication from a more practical angle, as it expounds on how (a) political speeches, (b) political ads, and (c) political campaigns are crafted. The penultimate block presents issues of political communication from the radical angle, showing how power plays are communicated in things such as (a) Filipino food and culture, (b) beauty pageants, and (c) sporting events. Finally, the closing block argues that all of us are implicated in the constant struggle for power that defines the relationship between those who produce and those who consume the media.

( View syllabus )

2. Com 106.1: Audience Studies


The late media scholar Roger Silverstone said, “while it is perfectly possible to privilege those mass media as defining and perhaps even determining social meanings, such privileging would miss the continuous and often creative engagement that listeners and viewers have with the products of mass communication.” This course delves into the studies regarding these listeners and viewers—the so-called media audiences—to see how they have been conceived and reconceived over time. To do this, it approaches them from three different perspectives: industry, media studies, and politics/journalism.

The first block of the course looks at audiences from view of media organizations, considering both the strengths and weaknesses of considering them through the prism of media ratings and target markets. Next, it takes the perspective of critical and cultural studies, tracing how the understanding of audiences has moved from being passive to having constrained creativity. Then, it moves into the realm of the political, examining the audiences as citizens, whose degree of public/civic engagement is enabled/disabled by the media. Finally, it closes on a moral (not moralistic) tone, discussing how audiences are implicated in the imperative to establish a global space of appearance that is welcoming of the Other. 

( View syllabus )

Please disseminate (and dialogue) to your friends! :)

Sign up for Com 106: Media and Society [Media and Morality]! (Schedule Wednesdays 930-1230NN)

Traditional discussion of media ethics is usually confined with legal case studies, codes of ethics, and stiff admonitions of sex and violence in the media. This course then is not about these little ethics but about morality—that is, the consequences of media consumption and production to the very meaning of our humanity. Media & Morality asserts that our everyday choices with the media—from poking, friending, and flaming online to taking photos of tourist destinations to watching foreign-language films—reflect how we see, hear, and touch distant others and how we ultimately regard ourselves.

Some of the questions we ask include: How social are social networking sites? Are Facebook users narcissistic poseurs or can they also be self-aware beings-with-others? What is emo-journalism and how can it contribute to identifying with distant others? How well did The Guidon report on the Ateneo suicides? In using the words “suicide incident” over “tragedy”, what moral claim did they make about the living and the dead? When is a joke only a joke? What can we learn about Teri Hatcher’s and Malu Fernandez’s “jokes” about OFWs and their fiery aftermath? What charity ads encourage donation—those that invoke happy thoughts or those that invoke shame and guilt?

As a brand new elective, M&M is ideal for pop culture aficionados and aspiring media producers. It encourages creative work, as students will participate in a) designing humanitarian campaigns and presenting them to advertising professionals, b) pitching other-oriented documentary and telenovela story concepts to GMA executives, and c) organizing a media studies conference headlined by a Cambridge professor. This course is taught by Jonathan C. Ong, creator of the MediaTalk@admu series, former advertising and broadcasting executive, and firm believer that the media is at the heart of our moral future.

Why the media should apologize

By ROGER SIMON |
politico.com

ST. PAUL, Minn. — On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn’t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

But where did we go wrong with Sarah Palin? Let me count the ways:

First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes mooseburgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture.

Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it).

Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: “Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. … Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints.”

Why go there? What trees does that plant?

Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.

Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”

Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to.

Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.

Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

The official theme of the convention’s third day was “prosperity,” but the unofficial theme was “the media are really, really awful.”

Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying “I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,” discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody.

“I’d like to thank the elite media for doing something,” Huckabee said, “that, quite frankly, I didn’t think could be done: unify the Republican party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media? To unify the Republican Party?

No, that is simply the cynical, media view.

Though as Lily Tomlin says, “No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”

I couldn’t resist that. For which I am sorry.

A series of 8 prints. Media celebrities are transformed into Greek Gods as metaphorical commentary on the power that individual pundits and journalists have in controlling access to information and in the shaping of public opinion. (Rauch, 2008)

Teaser:


(just a quick post before I get back to the behemoth that is Thesis. Enjoy guys. :)

Recent news have spurred alarmed and alarming remarks from the Ateneo community. Granted, I sympathize with the people implicated in Angelo Brillantes' recent demise--his family, friends, loved ones, people who knew him--but this post isn't about the intimate details of this tragedy. I think at least a few of you would agree that we've all heard more than bystanders should be allowed to hear as it is.

This post is about The Guidon Online's report on the death--or reports, since I managed to catch two or three versions. The first version was pummeled with comments, most of which tackled the sensitivity of the details--such as the opinions of Brillantes' friends as to why he committed suicide, the ex-girlfriend's name--while some questioned the veracity, or the accuracy of the claims.

The second version saw a shorter article, omitting names and details that were mentioned before. But the comments would not let up. The third, current version, or version 2.1 retained the more concise article, but now includes this note from the editor:
 

Editor’s note: This article has been published to inform the Ateneo community on the basic details of Gelo’s death. Some parts of this article have been removed because of the sensitivity of the matter.

 

Due to the defamatory remarks directed towards the people involved, the obscene language used, and the speculative nature of some comments, the commenting function in this article has been disabled. Some comments have been removed because of these reasons. The GUIDON still welcomes valid and relevant comments regarding this article through email at feedback@theguidon.com.
Please watch out for updates to this story.

Ah, how the tables turn. I am curious about what you think this says about the exercise of the freedom to speak--does this curtail aforementioned freedom, or is it just a tactic to keep things (such as privacy, order) in check? Is this an attempt to moderate this space, or outright censorship? What are the ethical implications--not to mention the ironic twists--present in this case of a college paper either suspending or moderating the feedback mechanism, which is supposedly a space for open discussion?

These are more of questions and reflections in hindsight. But just the same, if I missed certain areas, or misread an issue, feel free to correct me.

Wow, things have been pretty quiet around here. What has been keeping everyone (extremely) busy? Well, whatever you've been up to, this might just stir up some well-needed controversy:


A lament and exaltation. Quite tragic and funny. It's entertaining, to say the least. Admit it--the title holds several magic words. Go on, clickyclick. I imagine you'd find yourselves quite surprised. Whether you end up liking it or not, I bet you'll have something to say.

Teaser:

Ooh. New buzzword! I stumbled upon Dr. Wesch--or some of his youtube videos and his blog--one particularly quiet night. This particular entry in Dr. Michael Wesch's blog talks about:

• the constant dialogue between the self represented to others and the audience's (multiple) reading(s) of that representation (the complex process of "face-work") in the context of youtube
  
• why vlogging or video-blogging can be perplexing
  
• how staring at the webcam opens up a myriad of possibilities insofar as audience reach is concerned
• but leaves so, so little room for understanding:

And I quote:
The would-be vlogger, now frozen in front of this black hole of contexts, faces a crisis of self-presentation... Like a building collapse, context collapse does not create a total void but a chaotic version of its once ordered self. The would-be vlogger sits stultified as his imagination races through the nearly infinite possible contexts he might be entering, all of which pile up as parts, pieces, and pieces of parts, a rubble that becomes the ground on which he must struggle to get his footing. The familiar walls that help limit and define the context are gone. He must address anybody, everybody, and maybe even nobody all at once. (Wesch, 2008)

For the most part, Dr. Wesch talks about youtube. But I guess this extends to a lot of user-generated content online, too. This, after all, is the reason why we pick the nicest pictures to upload on Friendster or Myspace; even the headshots we choose for our LJ and Multiply accounts; the applications we add and constantly peruse on Facebook, as well as the network we choose to belong to.

But getting back to the blog, if you notice in the comments section, someone brings up the question of the "authenticity" of these online personas (In other words, Shirley Turkle comeback ba ito?!)... I'd talk about it more but it's probably a better idea if you hop on over to the page yourself.

What do you think of context collapse? In your own experience as a blogger, vlogger. web 2.0 aficionado, image uploader, etc., does this hold true? Is "authenticity" a big issue for you? And what is "authentic" in the context of user-generated content?

Time to get crackin', kids. Just kidding.

Silverstone's Army, should we dare do it again?


We're tossing around ideas for upcoming MediaTalks. And I'd love to hear your suggestions... whether on the theme, speakers, scheduling, logistics, etc. Jason and I have already discussed the possibility of one topic being RealityTV (with Bianca Gonzalez as our most wanted guest).  And definitely we want to do a MediaTalk in January when Mirca Madianou of Cambridge and Daniel Miller (of Young and the Restless in Trinidad fame) visit!

Let's start brainstorming!

15 June is the birthday of the "violent prophet" of media studies Roger Silverstone. Had he been alive today, he would have been 63 years old.

Roger has been my one true touchstone in my academic research and writing. I had applied to the LSE thinking that he would be my supevisor, only to find out that he passed away two months before I would arrive. Nevertheless, his powerful ideas on media and morality, everyday life, the other, enabling/disabling, inclusion/exclusion, and home/globe remain at the heart of my own work,. And it's also his epic writing style, staccato sentences, and "speaking in two voices" that I try to pay homage to in my own essay writing. And of course, in my teaching, my syllabus is pretty much book-ended with Roger's works, wishing that his critical voice disturbs students enough to "take the media seriously", as Roger himself put it in 1999's Why Study the Media?

To toast Roger, here are some of other media scholars' tributes to him:
John Durham Peters: "Roger Silverstone has done us a lasting service of teaching us how to see media not only as clotted vehicles of maya and mayhem, but also as pointers to a better world. He showed us what it is to wait for the messiah while making sure not to get stung one more time."

Kate Lacey: Roger's sense of hospitality was institutional. He made the departments and centres he founded into places where people were at home.

Shani Orgad: "For me, perhaps Roger's greatest legacy and my most vivid memories of him will be what he engaged on... throughout his life: conversation with colleagues and others, both mediated and unmediated, within the UK and beyond, in academia and beyond. Crucially, he always listened as well as spoke. It is the media's responsibility, Silverstone maintained, to provide a space that lets the other speak, and in which this voice can be heard."