News is a best seller all the time 24 hours a day, and why is that? News gives their audience real life events that can be turned into stories. With narratives and twists and turns that were not expected. Except this is real life with real people so the story becomes more interesting. News stories can give us drama and inform the audience of the latest happenings. News can also warn us of the dangers that are out there, opening our eyes to the dangers all around us.
In news stories there are presenters, which are usually well spoken and attractive. This certainly is an incentive to watch the news. The way the presenter puts across the story certainly affects how we perceive it. Photographs can trigger our emotions related e.g. dead bodies, car crash etc. Video footage can give us drama and really pull on our heart strings. This gives the audience an insight into the events described.
When news is broadcast we have to remember that it has been shot several times and edited to give off a certain meaning. The journalist chooses what’s to be shown so it can give off any meaning the broadcaster wants.
A news broadcast is different than print. It cannot be understood without narration or voiceover. The difference between print and news broadcast is that a broadcast can use images to convey a story, but without narration the story has no meaning.
News stories are brought to us through connectives. This explains the connection of images or footage to the audience. The presenter can also link in words with certain types of language to continue or change a story.
The news is a window into the world and what’s happening around us. It is a 24 hour best seller, but it is also there for us 24- 7. We could not live without it, our daily fix of the unusual, obscene and horrifying events across the world. Then there is also happy news, news that gives us hope and sees some brightness in the future. There is also news that pulls on our heart strings and relates to our lives in some way. Whatever the case we could not live without news because it is certainly there for us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Public and Private broadcasting are quite different. A public serving broadcaster (RTE) is owned and financed by the public. This means that the TV license that is paid by us, the public, finances all of the public serving broadcasters. A private serving broadcaster (TV3) is privately owned and they have to finance themselves through advertisements. This means because the public is not paying the station, they can broadcast much more than the public broadcaster.
There are different reasons for broadcasting. For the public stations it is to serve the public who pay their license fees. John Reith said its roll was to:
“Educate, Inform and Entertain”
This statement is certainly true and explains why the public pays a licensing fee, to educate and entertain them. They want to know all that is going on in the world and the public broadcasting servers are there to bring the latest happenings to them.
Whereas a private broadcaster is not financed by the public and can broadcast much of what they want, within means of course. Private broadcasters have freer reign on but also have to make enough money on advertisements to pay for the station.
A private broadcaster is a commercial station, which wants to draw the biggest audience, which will promote their advertisements more and therefore adding more profit for the station. How well a private broadcaster does will determine how much the company will grow.
Private television did cause concerns when first lunched. There were fears that informational TV would be lost and replaced with entertainment TV. There were also fears that it would be a threat to the local economy. Concerns were that overseas programmes would be broadcasted more than local programmes, taking away money from the local economy. Private stations do have one major advantage and that is that the public does not fund it. This gives more incentive for people to watch private stations.
Public and Private broadcasters both have their good and bad points but there certainly is means for both broadcasters on the air.
The power within the media and their role as the creators and distributors of meaning within society is certainly dominant and influential. The media represents political issues and political content but sometimes can be seen as trying to gain political advantage or ‘propaganda’.
Propaganda can be evident during times of war. Historically it was strict how the war was mediated to the public. This was to show the public that things were not as bad as they seemed. I think this was a good idea because showing gruesome pictures of the bodies would have caused public outrage.
Although the media can censor too much where during the war:
“The BBC went as far as banning certain records from being played during thee Gulf War.” (Pluralism-hegemonic-pp4, slide 6)
This was certainly too much and leaving the public too sheltered from what was going on around them.
Media propaganda can be seen to side politically and try and persuade people to go for a certain political party. Many broadcasters phrase their headlines to sway the public, which is certainly not being bias and convincing the public one-way. I think this is wrong and in a sense ‘brainwashing’ public members.
Television and Radio are required by law to be bias. This certainly would have to be in order because Television and Radio are suppose to deliver the truth about news and what’s happening in the world.
Although they have to be bias the news is a product that is delivered in a certain way e.g. news broadcasters accent and look all have to be taken into consideration when selecting a TV presenter. Also the right content has to be chosen as to not offend anyone. So the news is a product that is bias but is certainly mediated to suit the public.
This is a link to the News report that we done. In my group there was Richie Malone and Paula O’Reilly. Our preferred meaning is how the Household charge and the Water charge is just there to bail out the banks of debt. I had great fun recording the vox pops and I found it a really interesting topic because it is so relevant in todays society. This was one of my favourite projects.
The broadcast I have chosen is about the Student protest in 2010. This story involved a degree of political controversy.
The broadcast first starts off with two news reporters, a man and a woman sitting at a desk. The first thing they say is ‘Tens of thousands of students took to the streets of Dublin today’, ‘To voice their fury at plans to increase College registration fees’. This automatically makes you think that there were loads of students creating havoc on the streets.
It then switches to Gardaí on horses chasing students down the street. The reporter then says ‘There is no protest, like a student protest’. This gives the impression that students are of a different kind. There is Gardaí with battens and shields to protect themselves as to not get hurt by the students. While this is being shown the reporter says ‘A relatively small number were arrested earlier’. Even though this is said they are showing footage of the worst of what happened that day.
There is an ambulance with the sirens going off, students running down the street away from the Gardaí with battens. Gardaí are being shown most of the time in the footage. It shows them lined up to block off the students from running riot. All of this gives the impression that students are dangerous and that we should stay well away.
At the end of the broadcast it shows the students finishing off with a speech. It showed images of litter on the street and the reporter said ‘a clean-up is in operation on Baggot street’. The reporter said ‘a number of arrests have been made, and there is still a Gardaí presence at Dail Eireann’. While the reporter was saying this it showed a number of Gardaí standing outside and blocking the Dail.
The sources that were given priority were firstly a student that was interviewed said: “There’s blood all over me”. This was straight away showing the students in a bad light.
“This is disgraceful; they are taking away our future, getting us to emigrate. Well were not going to take it”: This is what a student was angrily shouting showing his rage at the cuts and fees.
“This march today shows that we are all here today. We need a new Government and we need a new stance for the future.”
“We have no money. We have to pay our rent; we have to pay our fees. There’s nothing we can do.”
“Yeah the students are the future, sure where else is the future?”“Where is the Country going without people that are educated?” “We’re going to other Countries if we don’t get a job and that’s it.”
All of these interviews with the students give them priority to express how they feel. From what they were saying they seem to be very angry and passionate about their situation.
A significant student that stood out was the man that was up on the platform who was shouting: “We are not going to give up and abandon Ireland without a fight. We are going to hang on. We’re going to survive. We will rebuild this Country.”
This student is passionate about how cutting the fees are making people flee the Country and he is not going to make this happen. He is not hitting Gardaí or causing havoc on the street, he is just voicing his opinion.
“We are making clear that we are not standing quietly by or idly by whilst any Government or any TD mortgages off our future.”
Members of the public are also interviewed. What they said was: “I’m delighted to see them out on the street and I think there should be more of us out on the street.”
“I wonder who they think is going to pay for their Education. Why not them?”
These comments by the public show that the public feel they should be out on the street. It shows that not only the students are passionate but the public are too.
There are no headlines in this broadcast. The only headline is “TV3 coverage of the student protest against education cuts”. The headings on the student’s signs include ‘Don’t force mam and dad to pick one’, ‘no cuts, no fees’. This signifies how the students feel about the situation.
The stories sequence does have meanings behind it. The footage of the students is shown with Gardaí firstly. This sets a bad image because there are hundreds of students on the street. It appears that they are up to no good with the way the footage is shown e.g. a student that is interviewed first says ‘there is blood all over me’. This certainly gets the viewer off on the wrong foot.
It then continues to show the students marching up and down the streets and also continues to show the Gardaí present. Over half way in it shows a reporter talking about how the cuts will most likely take place. Only then after this is a member of the public interviewed. The footage finishes off with an image of countless number of Gardaí at Dail Eireann and with the reporter saying ‘a number of arrests have been made’. This footage starts off showing the students in a bad light and finishes with the students in a bad light.
The language used is: ‘Fury’, ‘No protest like a student protest’, ‘Things had turned ugly’,‘Violence’, ‘Isolated pockets of violence broke out’. This language gives the public an opinion about the students before they can make one. They hear the words ‘violence’ and ‘things had turned ugly’ and they are automatically afraid. This language gives a bad opinion of the students.
Points of view created by camera shots is the Gardaí on the street, some of them armed, an ambulance driving down the street with the sirens on. The camera is shot from above the street showing the mass of students that attended. I think it emphasised the amount of students that were there. It shows the students in groups chanting and waving signs. These camera shots make the students look like they are out to cause trouble.
The students are shown prior to the public giving the students more air time. Their views and their behaviour are the main focus in this broadcast and I feel like they are shown in a somewhat bad light. It shows them chanting and shouting holding up signs. The first interaction with a student was that they “had blood all over them”. This first impression was not a lasting one.
Overall this can be seen as propaganda because the manipulation of information in order to gain political advantage. The students were shown in a bad light. It could be said that the government controlled this to make the students look bad. The government wants to say that’s why their grants are being cut.
Everyday society has its own institutions that can provide a type of meaning for ‘who we are’, ‘where do we fit in’. We all have those questions and we all want to find our own institution. Whether it’s with music, sport or anything we have interest in. The traditional institutions did give us meaning years ago. Nowadays that is not the case. Traditional institutions are no longer looked upon as the institution to be in.
Although as a society we are not as traditional as we use to be we still need institutions to give us meaning. The media shows us them institutions to give us meaning. They open ours eyes to what is going on around the world e.g. War, Recessions, and Homeless etc. The media show us different cultures and languages, groups and societies. All of this is creating different identities for us.
Before T.V was invented Ireland was a sheltered Country. Never before were Irish people kept away from what was going on in the world. News screened right to your Living room for all the family to see. We started to see different cultures and societies which in turn influenced our interests.
The power society had with newspapers, then radio, then television. When the internet came along it really changed how we saw society and how we communicated. Our eyes were opened yet again to new societies. This meant that the power within the media and their role as distributors and creators were changing and influencing the public even more.
Media Production is always there to please the audience. If they do not it is seen as a failure. A failure to deliver mediated content to the user.
Advertising can try to persuade audiences to vote for particular content. This can be seen as trying to brainwash the public into their view. Other broadcasters have to be bias e.g. T.V and Radio have to be politically bias. All of this is for the viewers to vote for a particular party. I think this should not be the case. Political party’s should try to win people over themselves. I don’t think the media should persuade or veer the public into a decision that is not their own.
The news is a highly mediated product that can win us over, bring us up, steal our hearts, carry us through our working day. It fills us in on the information all day everyday to help us connect with the world. It educates us and opens our eyes to what is all around us.
The Print Advertisement I choose was “Anyway, you didn’t burn the Schlitz!”
This is an advertisement for Schlitz beer. It is an American beer and the advertisement is from the 1950’s. It was the largest producer of beer in the world in the early 1900’s. This advert is from the 1950’s and is a typical advert of that time. It has the house setting with the woman in the kitchen and the man home from work in his suit.
The woman has her apron on and the table set and well presented with the beer in the middle for her husband. They are both dressed stereotypical of what you would expect of them for this time. It is a typical house setting for the 50’s.
In the text it reads:
“There’s hope for any young bride who knows her man well enough to serve him Schlitz Beer. For what man (or woman) can resist the taste of Schlitz Beer… A taste millions prefer to the taste of any other beer. No we’re not just saying that. Here’s the single proof.”
The denotations in this advert are the man, woman, table, frying pan and bottles of beer. There is also a division in the ad, the top two-thirds is the picture setting of the man and woman in the kitchen and the bottom being the text.
This advert for Schlitz Beer brings to mind a whole host of associations or connotations that belong in the paradigm of “The American housewife”:
The signifiers are Iconic of ‘The American Housewife’ with her apron on and her husband just home from work, the kitchen setting in the background and the table just neatly set. The woman is cooking dinner. These are all Symbolic of what you learn of the ‘stereotypical’ housewife.
There are also indexical signifiers in this ad. You have your typical 1950’s house setting with the woman in the kitchen cooking. This automatically puts the woman in the category of ‘young housewife’ and the man is the ‘working man’ who has come home for his dinner and beer. The beer propped on the table representing ‘masculinity’. The woman holding the frying pan and wearing the apron represents ‘housewife’.
Connotations of ‘stereotypical housewife’ are further strengthened by several other signs within the advert:
The cooker in the background setting. The written words ‘There is hope for any young bride who knows her man well enough to serve him Schlitz Beer’.
The Paradigmatic Relationships in this advert is the beer replacing the food. The food that the woman was cooking for dinner has burnt but the man says “Anyway, you didn’t burn the Schlitz!”
It is the man saying it doesn’t matter if she has no food ready as long as he has beer. We instantly substitute the beer for food when we look at this advert. The Paradigmatic relation between the man and the woman are what we see when we look at the advert and what is the stereotypical duties of both male and female in a relationship, the female cooking the dinner and the man coming home from work in his suit and tie. It signifies the man’s masculinity that he does not mind there is no food, as long as he has Beer.
The brightness of what the woman is wearing immediately draws our eye to her. She is weeping with a handkerchief in her hand with her head turned to him. He has his arm around her supporting her all dressed in a smart black suit and tie. His arm around her shows masculinity as he is comforting her.
The text at the bottom of the page breaks up the picture. The text is a syntagmatic related sign because it decoded what the graphics were all about. It says:
“There’s hope for any young bride who knows her man well enough to serve him Schlitz Beer. For what man (or woman) can resist the taste of Schlitz Beer… A taste millions prefer to the taste of any other beer. No we’re not just saying that. Here’s the single proof.”
We know that she is a young bride and most likely experimenting how to cook and that’s why she burnt the dinner. We also know that she got him Schlitz Beer so it is ok because now that he has beer he doesn’t mind. They go on to say at the end of the text “No we’re not just saying that. Here’s the single proof.” This saying that ‘here is the proof in the picture’ that it is Schlitz beer everyone prefers.
The ‘narrative’ or the ‘myth’ in this image is – if you drink this beer, you will become masculine. In this image the working man comes home to have his beer to relax at the end of the day. The advertisers try to connect the Beer Schlitz with the man’s working life and masculinity.
Wag the dog is a film about how the President is caught in a scandalous situation and he needs help to get out of it. A top Hollywood producer is contacted in order to help them and he comes up with quite a far-fetched story. It is to stage that there is a War in Albania and that the President heroically saves, giving him his ‘credibility’ back.
The media’s role regarding the production of the reality that was communicated to the public was familiar to them. It was mediated in such a way that it was a story that seemed believable to the public. It had a good narrative. It was a war and who is not going to believe that the media are lying about a War. They took it in and really felt the story because it was mediated in such a way that it touched the public. It touched the public because there was death and destruction, this gives ‘familiarity’ to the people and ‘brings it home’ in a sense that this could happen to them. That is why it worked so well with the young girl running out of the war driven town.
The reality, that was faked was set up quite well, when I say well I mean they had all the tear jerker moments thought of in the media e.g. Video of war, cheesy song etc. All of these were good Narratives that the public can take away with them and remember. The girl running from the town that was being bombed will stay in your mind because of the severity of it. We all felt for her when we saw her run for shelter with her cat. This all plays on the public’s minds and makes them want to do something about it. This will be the image they remember because it is ‘Symbolic’.
This deception is quite extreme I thought. It was a bit far to go to make the President look good. Pretending people were being terrorised in a War. Although it was a big enough event for him to save to get his credibility back. It showed the media well and how they can manipulate or make us be gullible, but in an exaggerated form.
The public can, in reality, be quite gullible just look at ‘Media blamed for covering Libya unrest with fog of war’. This is a possibly a similar event.
“The fog of war has settled over the ongoing unrest in Libya. There are conflicting reports on the number of killed, airstrikes by Gaddafi forces, the number of cities controlled by the opposition – about literally everything. Last week a wave of reports suggested the opposition was in control of almost the whole country and colonel Gaddafi was doomed. RT’s Okasna Boyko went to opposition held Benghazi to find out why these turned out to be exaggerations at best”
The viewing public can be gullible with a good sob story. It shows they can trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence. We see all these stories in the news, on YouTube, Facebook, x factor and many other websites and we believe them. We believe them because they touch us and may sometime bring a familiar feeling home to us. An event can be Iconic and symbolic and that’s where it gets us as the public.
Semiotics is the study of signs but it can be applied to so much more. We use signs every day to communicate with each other. Waving, beckoning and gestures all are semiotics.
We can also think of text as signs because it is another way we communicate. We read the text to understand what the other person is signalling. We can communicate through paintings, music and dance. There is information communicated to us through many ways of delivery. The structure in the way it is delivered makes it different. Although they all are communicated through different forms they are all regarded as signs and signalling. When we write text or speak to each other it all has to be signalled through the use of understanding and sharing the Language. Just like a shared interest in music, in order to share the interest.
Saussure says that signs are organised into two particular ways: Paradigm and Syntagm.
Paradigm is vertical and Syntagm is horizontal. Paradigm and Syntagms are necessary into which any signs are organised. Words in which the signs we communicate, are formed into Syntagms called words, then they can be put into a syntagm called words, verbs, phrases and they can be put into a syntagm called Language. All because of grammar they can have many categories.
In a picture you can have an object e.g. a flower, but that picture is not a flower it is a digital image of the flower, or a digital image of a photo of a painting of the flower!
An image or a sign is not the thing itself, it is a signifier. The signifier is what is represented to us.
Signified: Concept
Signifier: triggers the concept in your head.
Signifier is words on a page. A rose is a signifier, which is Primary. The actual object is signified, which is Secondary.
M-e-d-i-a-1-3-N-i-a-m-h-B-u-r-k-e 