transformations and truth

you ever have the feeling that the universe revolves around you? occasionally something so strangely coincidental will happen that it really seems the media is talking directly to you. most often this results from something happening that perfectly reflects the theory i'm being taught in a class. the latest installment of this brad-centric universe effect was this week with the linguistics readings and the current proceedings in the house over the sacking of the ethics committee.

when i first started reading hodge and kress's linguistical analysis essay it seemed like a very obscure linguistics text, not intended for non-linguistic majors. but as i read on i realized that the very idea they were describing about transformation could be seen manifested on c-span in the speeches being delivered by reluctant republicans grudgingly recommending the GOP's new ethics rules be repealed. in particular the essay's description of how various words can be transformed to eliminate the actor from the result, thus nominalizing the responsibility of the actor in the situation. this delicate and precise semantic editing could be seen perfectly performed by republicans, trying desperately to inspire the integrity of his colleageus and support repealing lenient ethics rules, while also not wanting to actually finger members of their own party as ethics abusers. this process of nominilization occurred over and over by representative after representative as they tried to transform their words to reduce the imphasis of the the actor, Tom Delay, in the actions they were condemning.

newspapers & satire

this week's reading sure covers a lot of rather disconnected topics - okay not quite disconnected - but thay are so diverse in their respective foci.

i particularly enjoyed Marshall McLuhan's front page piece. i agree that a lot of the interpretation of the new(s) comes from its packaging. however i wonder how relevant this is today. it's not that the design isn't important, but McLuhan seems to point towards the cubism of the front page as the key to being interpreted...

ooh, Lakoff, you sexy bitch!

I've gotta say, as i read the words of george lakoff, they cause me a lot of excitement. as i reflect on different passages that i find especially inspiring my mind keeps excellerating and i feel this enthusiasm that is nearly narcotic-like in its potency. it is because, as a realist (or maybe i'm just cynical), i recognize this enthusiasm as potentially harmful to my objective position in that it could blind me to the truth. for this reason i am trying to temper my excitement. i mean, c'mon, do i honestly believe some ny times bestseller spanning all of 100 pages, with a foreword by Howard "hoo-RAW" Dean is going to be the force of change necessary to convince the nation that tucker carlson is an idiot and a prick? Of course not. but what can it do? i think one of the most refreshing parts of the book is how many times Lakoff says that conservatives are smart. this is important. he is adressing the fact that infuriation and dissolutionment are the only weapons when progressives are forced to debate from the frame set out by conservatives...

...more to come...

The readings this week: A depressing look at the reality of our world

This week’s readings painted the picture of the sad state of media ownership, the subtle corruption of politics, and the apathy and ignorance of us, “the people”. It was altogether, quite depressing. The chapter from media monopoly, the article by Neil Hickey, and the article from The Nation basically overlap; telling us how inbred and intertwined the ownership of various types of media is and how rampant and dodgy are the conflicts of interest that arise.

I really don’t want to hear this – I know it’s true, but the implications of this are too grave. I don’t want to believe it with my heart. I appreciate mediachannel.org’s sensitivity to my preferred naiveté. Even though they are showing us a chart the traces nearly all media back to six companies, they relieve the anxiety this might create by putting each company on a beach ball. Even better, the title of the diagram, “ultra concentrated media” draws on the memorable brand recognition of laundry detergent, thereby codling the viewer of the diagram in the familiar insanity of post modernism; the same technique used to turn the compost of television content thereby continually fattening the coffers of media owners. The material is direly serious and yet cannot be treated too heavily without causing panic.

Really, who can accept this as truth without losing all faith in our current political/governmental process? In his book Ben Bagdikian talks about how the CEO of a major media company can request an audience with the president most any time. This clearly shows how the power dynamic that is touted as the basis of our democracy, “the people”, has become a sham when “the people” are merely pawns to be controlled. The real power lies in the controllers of the information who, as Bagdikian points out, are acting as should be expected in protecting their own interests. I question whether or not this influence over information that media conglomerates have amassed can ever be challenged, and by question I mean I doubt it.