Final Media Discourse CA

Can the news media continue to act as producers of meaning whilst remaining within the structures of formal rules about impartiality

The Press refers to themselves as the fourth estate, watching over all the other estates as a ‘watchdog’ for the general public and claim to be non-biased. However, from studying media discourse analysis we can see that there are a number of ways in which the media can weave a story together in order to get across their preferred meaning or to set their own agenda. The audience sees these events as a whole, but part of this whole is constructed by journalists.

For this essay I am going to analyze and compare two news broadcasts from within Ireland. One from a public service broadcaster and one from a commercial broadcaster. A public service broadcaster is non-profit. In Ireland it’s financed by the public through the payment of a TV licence. This licence costs €160 annually and must be paid by every household, business or institution in Ireland that is capable of receiving a TV signal (www.citizensinformation.ie). These channels have to provide programming that entertains, educates and informs all members of the public aswel as providing news and current affairs programming (Ibid).  A commercial broadcaster is owned by a company that finances it themselves. This is generally done through advertising. Commercial broadcasters are for profit and aim to attract large audiences. Pippa Norris states that private television should be used as a supplement to public television and not as a replacement as an increase in private television watching leads to less political knowledge (Glenn Doyle, Private Vs Public Broadcasting, lecture notes).  

The two news broadcasts I have chosen are from RTE Six One news (Public), and TV3 The 5.30 (Private). 

TV3 “started as Irelands first free to air channel not dependent on state aid at taxpayer expense. It offers viewers a quality alternative to the country’s three state-owned networks”, (http://www.tv3.ie/corporate.php).

“RTE’s vision is to grow the trust of the people of Ireland as it informs, inspires, reflects and enriches their lives”, (http://www.rte.ie/documents/about/rte_06_eng_annualreport.pdf).

Both broadcasts are from the 7^th May 2013 and cover the story about the three women found in Ohio who were kidnapped 10 years ago.

RTE Six One: http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10146656/

TV3 The 5.30: http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/450/0/0/The-5%3A30

Each news report begins with a headline on the story. RTE’s headline gives us the most information on the story. It begins with the newsreader saying “A dramatic escape of three women held captive in Ohio for more than a decade.” TV3’s newsreader opens with “Kidnap drama that appears to have a happy ending.” I think that while RTE’s headline is dramatic, TV3 try to make their headline sound more ‘Hollywood’.  RTE then go on to show ‘missing’ posters while they play the Audio of the 911 call saying “Help me, I’ve been kidnapped and missing for ten years.” They then show footage of outside the house they were held captive in of police, crime scene tape and members of the public in the street. The newsreader then informs us that one of the kidnappers is a former bus driver. An expert at the scene then says ”All three girls are healthy and doing well.” Whereas TV3 just show pictures of the ‘missing’ posters with the caption ‘Women Found’ and the newsreader tells us “Three women who went missing 10 years ago, all found alive in the US state of Ohio.” Here RTE are giving the audience a lot of the information all at once and then they address it in more detail in the main story, but TV3 are giving us a quick snippet to draw our attention. You could turn off RTE at this point and still know most of the story, whereas you have to stay tuned to TV3 to hear what happened. You can see here that RTE are providing us with the information and TV3 are trying to draw us in because they rely on viewers to make money.

Once the main story begins in the news report we can see how TV3 try to make it more sensationalized than RTE. TV3 put the raw events together like a narrative in a series of events as they happened to create drama for the audience. RTE try and give us as much information as they can at once where TV3 try to create a build up. In this way TV3 use connectives to weave the story together. They begin with a map that points out Cleveland, Ohio. A video then shows a crowd cheering in the street as police cars drive past. The newsreader narrates and explains how the crowd cheers after the ‘shocking’ discovery and how the ‘breakthrough’ came when a neighbour heard Amanda Berry ‘screaming’ and he broke down the bottom of the door for her to ‘crawl’ through to make the ‘emotional’ 911 call. All the words I have highlighted here are describing it as a very dramatic escape. They then play the audio of the 911 call with the pictures of the women on the screen. They also play more of the 911 call than RTE chose to play. At the end of the call, which RTE didn’t include, Amanda Berry could be heard saying to the operator that you need to get a police car out now before he comes back. This adds an element of suspense and drama for the audience as there was the fear there that he would come back and catch her. This adds to the ‘Hollywood type’ story that TV3 are trying to create.

By this point TV3 have still not mentioned anything about the Kidnappers, where RTE have mentioned them twice at this stage, letting us know it is a former bus driver and two of his brothers but TV3 try to keep us interested by withholding this for now. They then link up the audio clip with the man who helped her by saying he was at a BBQ with the house owner and never suspected a thing. This is followed with a clip of the neighbour, Charles Ramsey, giving his account of events and how he got the woman out. This gives the audience first had information from the ‘hero’, and makes the audience feel like a witness to these events. RTE also chose to show footage of the man recalling what had happened. We can see here that this is a genuine event as this has happened without the media present but once the news broke it turned in a huge media event with interviews with the ‘hero’, audio recordings of the 911 call being released and images of the scene and the house they were held captive in. It turned into a huge orchestration by the media.

The TV3 narrator then describes when the girls went missing and gives details of each disappearance while they show a photo of Amanda Berry in the hospital with her sister and a little girl believed to be her daughter. A photo of Amanda smiling with her daughter is also shown where they look like a normal happy family, this would make the audience empathize with them even more. When RTE describes how they went missing, they show a map pinpointing each area they vanished from with a photo of each victim. The map also shows where they were recovered less than a mile away. The way this is shown keeps the audience disconnected from the victims and is just providing the information.

TV3 then show Amanda Berry’s sister talking to the reporters. She talks about how excited she is and she constantly repeats the word excited numerous times and she is laughing and smiling. This also makes it more personal to the audience. They then contrast this with a photo of one of the kidnappers. They inform us that this is the man who owned the house and drove the bus.

RTE show experts talking such as the doctor describing the women’s condition and a policeman giving a statement about the kidnappers. Whereas TV3 shows the Mayor of Cleveland giving a statement and then the newsreader talks about how they were examined in hospital and that the police called Amanda Berry the ‘real hero’.  RTE chose to use more credible sources here with the doctor and the policeman rather than just having the newsreader report on it. Each report then finishes with very different but very rememberable conclusions. TV3 end it with you typical ‘Hollywood type’ line, “The ‘nightmare’ is over for then women and the ‘healing’ can begin.” RTE finish the report with a talking head claiming at the end, “Cleveland is great, God is good.”

However RTE don’t finish there. They go back to studio where the newsreader talks to Richard Downs ‘live’ from Washington. A split screen shows him with pictures and videos from the scene with the caption ‘OHIO KIDNAP’. He then goes deeper into the story talking about the tell tale signs that included coverings over the windows and how no one was allowed into the house. He then goes on to say that the house was in foreclosure because the owner didn’t pay his property tax. This gives the audience a further insight into the character of the kidnapper.

 Conclusion

We can see the selection process that went on here with both news reports. RTE selected the information and gave it to us in a matter of fact form where TV3 selected the information that sensationalized the story and gave it to us in a way that we can empathize with the victims. RTE have also given us extra information on the story telling us about the tell tale signs and the house being in foreclosure. I also feel that while they are both getting the message across RTE’s sources for this information are more reliable, coming from the doctor and the policeman. In this news report I think that RTE are living up to their mission statement to grow the trust of Irish people and inform them. From watching this news report I would certainly trust RTE’s information in the future and I feel like I have been given all of the information I need to understand what happened. In regards to TV3 I think that their report is more theatrical. The are going for entertainment value rather than just giving us the information but as a private broadcaster this is what they need to do to generate revenue. Going back to their mission to provide a quality alternative they are certainly providing an alternative in the way of a more sensationalized approach, whether this alternative is of a certain quality is up to the viewer. Personally I believe RTE’s quality to be better and more professional. Based on all the information given to us in these two news reports, I feel that a public service broadcaster is more capable of producing meaning while remaining impartial as they are not trying to turn a profit, while a commercial broadcaster produces meaning to make it more dramatic and entertaining for the audience so they tune in and therefore earning them a profit.

 References

Citizens Information Board (2013) Citizens Information - Television Licence [online], available from: [accessed 8^th May 2013].

Doyle, G. ‘Private Vs Public Broadcasting’, lecture notes

RTE (2006) Radio Telefis Eireann Annual Report and Group Financial Statements 2006 [online], available from: <http://www.rte.ie/documents/about/rte_06_eng_annualreport.pdf> [accessed 8^th May 2013].

RTE Six One News (2013), RTE One, 7^th May, 6.01 p.m.

The 5.30 (2013), TV3, 7^th May, 5.30 p.m.

TV3 (2013) TV3 – Corporate [online], available from: <http://www.tv3.ie/corporate.php> [accessed 8th May 2013].

Media Bias

I have chosen a news broadcast from the RTE nine o'clock news that was broadcast on Sunday the 14th April. The specific report I have chosen covers the vote at the constitutional convention that same sex marriage should be legalised in Ireland. Politicians and a panel of citizens representing the electorate discussed the issue over the weekend and on Sunday they voted a majority of 4 to 1 for change.

The news broadcaster reporting on this referred to it as a 'controversial issue' and informed us that a spokesman for catholic bishops expressed dissappointment with the outcome. The picture shown to us on screen while the newsreporter was talking was that of a crowd of people holding up different coloured signs with the word 'equal' on them. I think these colours represent the rainbow colours of the gay pride flag. Although there is no headline to accompany the report I think that the word 'equal' can be seen as the headline for this story. As this is the only time that the catholic church is mentioned in this report we can see that it is biased in favour of same sex marriage and therefore shows us that the role of the catholic church is no longer as important as it once was in Ireland.

A video then plays of a crowd of people in the street cheering and holding 'equal' signs.  We can see here that this is a celebration as people are cheering and smiling. It is being portrayed to us as something positive. It then goes to a shot of the convention with people casting their ballot and we are informed that people voted 'overwhelmingly' for civil same sex marriage.

Gay and lesbian couples are given priority in this news report. Senator Katherine Zappone is interviewed after we are informed that she is fighting in the courts for legal recognition of her lesbian relationship as a marriage. The vote is described as 'sweet music' to her ears. She describes her feeling as being 'overwhelmed'.

With words such as 'overwhelmingly', 'equal' and phrases like 'sweet music' being used to describe the participants and their actions we are shown a happy, positive side of this report in favour of the gay and lesbian couples.

People who were at the convention and politicans who are in favour of gay marriage are given priority in the report as these are the people being interviewed. They are interviewed at the convention and outside the hotel it took place in. However one of the expert witnesses who addressed the convention was acused of being biased. We are told his name is Professor Jim Sheehan who teaches in Norway and who is a social worker and and experienced family therapist. Senator Ronan Mullen was then interviewed and assused him of showing his true colours more than he should have done as a neutral expert. The Charimain of the convention, Tom Arnold, was then mentioned for standing over Professor Jim Sheehan's comments calling them impartial and objective and said that there was no evidence that same sex parenting was bad for children. We are not told the full extent of what Professor Sheehan said but with the chairman saying that there was no evidence that same sex parenting was bad for children again shows support for same sex marriage.

The next piece of information we are given in the report is that Fine Gael has no position in legalising same sex marriage so the question is posed can cabinet ministers who are in favour bring the largest government party with them.This shows that the report is in favour of same sex marriage. If they were against it they could have said can ministers who are not in favour bring Fine Gael with them. The wording used here is favourable to same sex marriage. TD Frances Fitzgerald is then interviewed saying that they would have to tease out the possible consequences if such a referendem were held, she goes on to say that there are many issues that need legislation and detailed attention. This tells us that it is still a controversal issue with some people and it's not as straight forward as it may look after this vote.

The camera shots then go back to the people on the street showing them posing for photos and there's a close up of a gay couple holding hands where you can see an engagement ring on their finger. The camera shots show the point of view of the gay coulples and how much a vote like this means to them.

The sequence of the story begins and ends with the happy crowds on the street to leave the lasting image in our heads that this is something good and positive for Ireland and that all these couples are being supported.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTNmQBkZHxY

Media as a means of production

According to Silverblatt (204) it can be argued that the media have emerged as a new social institution replacing traditional social institutions like the family, church and school. An increasing number of people are looking to the media for direction with respect to values and rules of behaviour although there is a tendency to avoid the unpopular and unconventional. The media have a huge effect on people's lifestyles, dictating daily activities, language and fashion. Daily activities include families sitting down at the same time every evening to watch the news. Language and Fashion can include people following the influence of what celebrities are doing and wearing.

Media production is essentially based on the need to please the audience. If the audience needs are ignored then the likely outcome is commercial failure. These needs are met with their daily dose of news from whats going on around the world or from giving viewers their daily dose of soap opera drama or celebrity gossip. Media figures have emerged as societal role models, representing a standard of success that their fans seek to follow (Silverblatt, 2004).

However, ideology refers to a set of ideas which produce a partial and selective view of reality, this in turn serves the interests of those with power in society. We can see this in times of war when the government seek direct control over the media, they do not want their public support being undermined by images of civilian casualties.

Looking at it this way I think that the medias main role is circulating and re-inforcing dominant ideologies that are put in place by those in power. Because of the people in power they rarely undermine and challenge these ideologies.

Wag The Dog

Wag the Dog is a film from 1997 directed by Barry Levinson. The film begins with the American president getting caught in a scandal of sexual misconduct in the days leading up to the re-election. It shows how his advisors work with a Hollywood producer to fabricate a war with Albania that the president can heroically end therefore drawing the attention away from the sex scandal.

Wag the Dog shows the power of the media. Through made up story lines and special effects the media can make the public believe anything. Big media production companies who have the money and the resources can create just about any situation. In the film we see how the production company hire an American actress to play the role of an Albanian teenager running from a burning building holding a kitten. We can see all the little things considered in this scene to make it effective for the audience. The presence of a young girl and a helpless kitten would pull at viewers heart strings. A sound track of people screaming was also played to make it more believable. A green screen was used in the production process with the war zone background and even the kitten being put in digitally at the end.

We also see in the film how the people addressing the media were told what to say by the advisors. This makes me think about if anything we see in the media or at a press conference is coming from the actual person themselves or have they been trained by advisors on what to say and how to 'sell' what they are saying. Even when the presidents opponent in the film ends the war to the public, the presidents advisors come up with another 'brilliant' idea to make him look like a hero. They create a war hero who has gone missing so the president can rescue him and be the hero again.

I don't think that something to this extreme is possible in the real world but I do believe that some people would be willing to go to these lengths of deception to make themselves look good and to avoid a scandal. The public look to the media for advice and trust that the media have done their research, so having said that I don't think the public are the gullible ones here I believe that it's the news reporters who are gullible and will report on anything with very little evidence just so they have news to broadcast.

Although very controversial and raw at the moment are the recent bombings at the Boston marathon. They are a lot of conspiracy theories on the Internet at the moment about how this was a set up. There is a picture circulating online of an army vet, who took part in the marathon, in a wheel chair with his legs blown off. The internet posts are talking about how there doesn't seem to be a trail of blood behind him or any blood still coming from him and that if he has bled out completely he would be passed out. In the picture he is awake and sitting up in the wheelchair. Some posts also say that this army vet has already landed himself an acting role with out any acting skills. Now I am not saying that this is true or is at all possible I am just using it as an example as a potential similar event occurring in the real world and to demonstrate how the public are becoming more and more suspicious of the media and the government. People are no longer believing everything they are seeing in the media and are becoming more suspicious and critical of these kind of events.

Semiotic Print Advertisement Analysis

The advertisement I have choose to analyze is an ad to stop smoking. The image shows two cigarettes upside down with quite a large amount of smoke coming from them. The denotative level of meaning that comes from this image is that it's just two cigarettes and that smoking is bad for you. But the connotative level of meaning is that its a symbol of the twin towers on the day of the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001. 

This symbol can be interpreted all over the world as this image of the twin towers has been seen everywhere. We can even see in the image how one of the cigarettes is burning quicker than the other further representing the twin towers. The cigarette on the left is representing the north tower which the plane crashed into at 8.46 a.m, and the cigarette on the right represents the south tower that the plane crashed into at 9.03 a.m. The syntagmatic axis is very important here. If the two cigarettes were in the opposite order it wouldn't look very like the twin towers the day they got hit so people could take a different meaning from the image. 

The large amount of smoke coming from the cigarettes is a signifier and the signified is the image of the smoke that came from the twin towers on that day. The blue background of the image also further indicates that this is a symbol of the twin towers as it represents the skyline in new york that day. This blue background is on the paradigmatic axis. If you took out this blue background and replaced it with a different color like red or yellow it wouldn't look like the new york skyline and therefore it could give it a different meaning. 

Everyone in the twin towers who was above where the ash is in this picture died where the people below the ash had a chance to survive. This could be related back to get people to stop smoking where the people who keep on smoking the cigarette further will die but if they stop now they have a chance of survival. 

You could also look into this further in terms of myths that are present in society. These myths are also culturally specific. The world trade centre would have been seen as a symbol of economic might and represented the elite and powerful in America and New York. Back in the 1960's smoking would have been associated with powerful businessmen and seen as a sign of style. Most notably, advertising execs in Madison Avenue which we can see in the TV series 'Mad Men'. But now smoking is no longer stylish or associated with the workplace just like the twin towers no longer represent the powerful in America. The terrorist attacks showed that America is weak and cigarettes can be associated with the weak also. 

At the very bottom left hand corner of the ad we can see some writing. It says 'Terrorist related death since 2001 11,377 + tobacco related deaths since 2001 30,000,000'. This could be something that would really hit home with some people. Smoking related deaths are preventable. The ash that fell from the sky that day caused a lot of people breathing problems whereas on a daily basis people are still choosing to put this into their bodies. 

I think this is a very controversial ad as it would bring back lots of painful memories for some people but I also think it's a very powerful ad and it would definitely get the message across to others.

Sources:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0913_TVsymbol.html

http://www.canada.com/stylish+smoking+sign+times/7754257/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

Semiotics

This week we revisited semiotics from first year and then looked at it in a bit more detail also. Semiotics can be defined as the study of signs but it can be applied to paintings, advertisements, posters, films, songs, etc. We use semiotics everyday without even thinking about it by using gestures, e.g. tapping your wrist with your finger where a watch should be could signify to someone that they are late. As a media student I need to be able to look at semiotics within texts as the construction of meaning, whether this is a preferred meaning or an authored meaning. Semiotics relies on a shared societal and cultural understanding of conventions. For example if we see a film trailer that shows us funny clips we go to see that film expecting it to be funny. If we went to see it and the film was scary, people would get a shock because this is not the accepted semiotic conventions. This is communicated through arrangements of music, lighting and camera shots. Here are two examples of comedy film trailers made to look like thrillers.

The Hangover

Dumb and Dumber

Margritte makes the point that we forget that signs and symbols are all around us because we see them as 'things'. He states that an image or a sign of a 'thing' is not the 'thing' itself. We generally don't take the time to look at the signs and symbols for a deeper meaning or understanding.

There are different levels of meaning:
Denotation is the most immediate level of meaning, the basic or literal meaning.
Connotation is the second order of meaning. It reflects values that are attached to a sign. Likely to be culturally specific.

According to de Saussure signs are organsied into codes in two ways:
A Paradigm is a vertical set of units from with the required sign is selected.
A Syntagm is the horizontal chain into which units are linked to make it meaningful.

Advertisements use culturally desirable paradigms to get people to buy their product. Viewers know that if you buy a product you will not be like the person portrayed in the image so advertisers need to be clever with their use of signs to make the product look desirable to the audience. They also have to ensure that these signs adhere to the cultural conventions of the audience. In my next blog I will look at a specific advertisement in more detail.

Interviews - a case study

The interview I'm using as my case study is Dr.Phil interviewing Dina Lohan, the mother of troubled Hollywood actress Lindsay Lohan. I've taking the first 20 mins of this interview to analyze. Before the interview begins a VT is played of Dina where she summarizes her life with her kids and her husband, who apparently abused her, and claims to be 'just a normal mom that juggles everything'. She then says the purpose of the interview is to set the record straight because there are so many stories out there about her and her children and she wants people to hear her story and nobody else's. She says she wants to shed some light on herself and on Lindsay. It's very much pushed from the beginning that this is an exclusive interview and that this is something thats happening for the first time. I think all of this is used to draw the viewer in and let them know what to expect. But then the interview itself takes a completely different turn and becomes almost uncomfortable to watch. Dr Phil admits himself at the start that what he thought would be a normal in depth interview turned into something entirely different.

When the interview begins everything seems normal. Dr.Phil tells Dina that he wants to give her a chance to tell her story and set the record straight so people know who she is. Dina then seems to 'stall' by asking 'Are we to camera now, we're rolling?' She then goes into some detail about her past and turns to the camera and says 'Can we cut?' and she covers her face. She then asks again 'Is this rolling?' Dr.Phil tries to relax her by telling her to take a deep breath. I think she has gone into this interview with an agenda of making herself look like a victim. She talks about domestic abuse but because of how 'strange' her behaviour is, I feel that the audience won't connect with this or have sympathy for her. She comes across like she is drunk or on drugs during this interview.

At around the 7 min 30 sec mark Dr.Phil summarizes what Dina has said already about her relationship with her ex husband. I think he does this so the audience can get an understanding of what she has said. He is forced to operate under the constraints of her behaviour so he needs to summarize for the viewer.

At the 8.30 mark Dr.Phil asks her what was the lowest point. She then starts crying and covers her face and asks can they stop because she doesn't want to be on camera, but then she continues to answer the question making it look like attention seeking, playing the victim again (agenda).

The next question he asks her she tries to avoid by saying 'next question' but he just asks the same question again and she answers it. He doesn't let her get away with not answering the questions. He's firm with her but tries to make her feel comfortable. She then asks can she go home and he tells her she can do whatever she likes. You can see here that while he's not letting her get away with not answering questions he's also not willing to put up with this behaviour, as he reminds her that she was the one who wanted to do this interview to put everything behind her. He stays very relaxed and encourages her to keep going or she will regret it.

After this he then asks her what she wants to talk about, trying to make her feel in control, but she says you tell me you have the list. She then continues to talk about her ex husband saying he pays no child support and sees Lindsay as 'the goose that lay the golden egg' and that he never talks about his other children. Her agenda here is to make her husband look like the bad guy. We can then see how Dr.Phil is being neutral and wants to show the viewer both sides to this story by telling her that that's exactly what her ex husband, Michael Lohan, says about her, that her relationship with Lindsay is financial and she uses her.

At 11.50 Dr.Phil summarizes again what Dina came to talk about. She says she doesn't want to talk about something and he calls her out by calling back to her all the reasons why she wanted to do this interview. She tells him that she's being honest and he says 'no your not', he doesn't let her away with anything. From this point on he calls her out on everything she's doing. He tells her she's using words she doesn't know the meaning of. She calls him 'you people', and he responds by saying he's a highly trained professional, he's knows how to interview people and that he's not the media. He asks her again why is she here. He knows this interview means more to her than it does to him.

She tries to avoid questions again by commenting on his shoes so he calls her out again. He tells her that everything she is doing is a 'dodge' and she deflects everything. He summarizes how she keeps stalling asking about the cameras rolling and he calls her a 'phony' and a 'fraud'. At this point she sticks her finger up at the camera. This is around the 16 min mark. The interview continues where she keeps interrupting him and she keeps trying to put across her point or agenda that she just a normal person and she continues to play the victim by saying it's 'hard'. He describes her as 'flitting' around.

Throughout this interview we can see the interviewer using formulation because of the constraints they are under. You can also see how the interviewer is neutral. He tries to keep her calm and relaxed while also calling her out on what she's doing. I think by doing this he is getting the audience on his side. We can see erratic behaviour from the interviewee where she is avoiding questions by crying, playing the victim, changing the subject and stalling. She is also pushing her own agenda. But the interviewer doesn't let her get away with this. The interviewer in this case comes across as the better person.