Intro
Who
do you think you are?
What
is your role in media consumption, critique and/or media making. How much of
who you are is measured against media examples and images? How much of our
common experience involves shared mass media images, events and stories? Use
several media examples to illustrate your description of your relationship to
media.
Can
you think of ways that the media covers activists, acts of resistance and
protest? How do you feel about this relationship? Use examples to illustrate your
answers. Your blog post must be at least 4 paragraphs and you must include at
least one link and ONE IMAGE.
One of the distinguishing features of
generations y and z is the instantaneous access to “news” and false standards
shared through the internet, specifically through social media. Social media
has slowly taken over newspapers and magazines as the principal source of
information. Thus, it is not uncommon for youth to have several social media
accounts. As a personal preference, my media consumption is limited to
Instagram, YouTube, and occasionally Pinterest; although I must note that I
also have a Facebook account that I rarely use and is designated for
communication with distant relatives. I have never used social media—or any
other form of media—to vent, share political ideas, agree with issues, or
criticize anything in particular. My view of media is this: it is a tool and
privilege that can be used to construct or destroy. I have chosen to use media
to construct. YouTube is my source for DIY videos, study tips, and career
ideas; Pinterest is a bottomless hole of crochet diagrams, room decor, outfit
inspiration, and novel writing ideas; and Instagram is my primary source of
contact with media. I follow Instagram accounts related to my faith, studying,
laboratory science, physician assistants, and calligraphy/handlettering. In
terms of the content that I actually create, I use this social media app to
share my faith through my own handlettered pieces in a modern calligraphy
style, pictures of my curly afro hair, and occasionally some of my crochet and
macramé creations. I occasionally read news articles on refutable sites, but I
do not tend to watch television or listen to radio. Hence, my connection to
media is almost exclusively—if not entirely—based on the web.
Despite my limited
use of media, the media frequently bombards its users with false stereotypes,
unrealistic beauty expectations, bad influences (i.e. eating Tide Pods), and
the assumption that if you belong to a certain group or category of people you
must believe or act a certain way. I safeguard myself against those false
standards by simply blocking or ignoring the pages that constantly sell me
unrealistic or unhealthy lifestyles, thereby allowing me to maintain a clear
view of who I am without being influenced by popular images in media. However,
I do not believe the media is an outright ‘bad thing.’ It is often the first
source for news and has proved especially useful in events such as mass
shootings, accidents, natural disasters, social injustice, etc. For instance,
during the shooting at Capital Gazette* in August 2018, a journalist used her
Twitter account to report the location of the event among other details that
contributed to police officers’ rapid response to the site. Other journalists
also joined her efforts and used the social media site to inform family and
friends that they were okay. Such an occurrence proves the benefits of social
media in today’s society. Nevertheless,
not all information posted on online media comes from refutable sources.
Comment sections often testify that a significant portion of the population relies
on social media as information. People often inundate these designated spaces
with heated debates about reported issues, only to find out after a period of
time that most opinions are ungrounded because the event never occurred or
there is another side to the story. Many have recognized this issue and take
advantage of consumer’s vulnerability by sharing propaganda through the media,
which has proven especially effective in an age where images are rapidly shared
through the internet. Such ideas include the stereotypes that all Hispanics/Latinos
are undocumented immigrants, criminals, have large families, and are dependent
on government-funded programs; African Americans are loud and aggressive;
Asians are smart and antisocial; and all Caucasians are racist. While some of
these stereotypes do apply to a portion of the aforementioned
races/ethnicities, many Hispanics/Latinos are law-abiding national citizens
that have never received government aid and have small families if any, many
African Americans live quiet lives and are lawful citizens, not all Asians meet
the education standards for their race and many are outgoing, and many
Caucasians are culturally aware and accepting. Unfortunately, the media often
falsely presents that race or ethnicity determines character. Similarly, Christians are often portrayed as brainwashed people who always side
with one party in politics and are slaves to religion. Yet many Christians are
neutral on certain issues, open to hear others’ opinions, or side with other
parties. This same misrepresentation applies to other religions and those categorized
as nonreligious such as atheists and agnostics. Thus, when a certain event
occurs, the media often relies on ethnic, political, or religious stereotypes
to justify or dispute people’s actions.
The media’s ability to twist events can cause
the general population to support or reject a plethora of social issues. For
instance, during the Dreamers’ protest for DACA, Hispanic television channels
often rejected the majority of the Republican party while closely following the
protests and featuring activists who were considered success stories in terms
of having received a college education or started a highly successful small
business after receiving DACA. Said news channels favored the students’ acts of
resistance by often referring to their protests during commercial breaks and
interviews. Yet, on some American channels, the Dreamers were portrayed as
leeches who wanted to suck the money out of this country by taking away
employment and education opportunities from citizens, and shipping their earnings
to their native countries instead of investing in this nation. Thus, depending
on a person’s source of media, he/she might be convinced that DACA is an
amazing investment or a complete waste of time and money. The “Me Too” movement
also experienced a similar response once it became viral. With the revelation
that many celebrities had been raped, harassed, or molested, several media
sources promoted the movement as the official end of sexual abuse and referred
to the celebrities as successful activists. Yet, other media sources either
dismissed the movement as a viral topic that would soon be forgotten or implied
that celebrities’ involvement placed the spotlight on them and not on ‘actual’
or ‘real’ victims. The subsequent birth of separate movements focused on
certain groups or nationalities that did not feel included in the general protest
was arguably detrimental to the momentum of the movement, leading it to slowly
fizzle out, as the media substituted the coverage of this issue for other
social events. Thus, depending on which media source is covering a protest,
acts of resistance may be presented as a social milestone or an unnecessary
riot to consumers.
 |
| #MeToo Women's March posted on "#MeToo Movement Has Lawmakers Taking About Consent" by Rebecca Beitsch on January 24, 2018 url: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/metoo-movement-has-lawmakers-talking-about-consent_us_5a6758dfe4b06bd14be5067f |
Despite the conditional display of social
activism, one ongoing protest that has generally managed to receive positive
portrayal by the media is the natural hair movement. The natural hair movement
encourages all people, especially people of color to embrace their textured, natural
hair (wavy, curly, or afro/coily/kinky) and stop chemically altering their hair
to fit into the historical beauty standard that only straight hair is beautiful
or professional**. The movement has made strides in decreasing the purchase of
relaxers and perms among colored women, in exchange for the production of minority-owned
products made specifically for textured hair, which tends to be dry, frizzy,
and categorized as “unmanageable.” Although this movement was not initially meant
to be a social act of resistance—rather as a way for women and later on
men to accept how they naturally are and learn to take care of their
hair—the movement shed light on race relations and stereotypes. Specifically, it showed skin color
and hair texture’s ability to decrease a person’s chance of getting hired. As
people learn to take care of their textured hair, more work environments and
the military are beginning to accept non-straight, natural hair textures as
professional***. Perhaps one of the reasons that this movement has been so
successful is the position of people of color in various branches of media
and the facility for relevant hair content to become globally viral through
popular hashtags such as #naturalhair and #naturalhaircomunity. Although some
people have deemed the movement unnecessary and argue that only straight hair
belongs in the workplace, the movement has generally been favored by media as
people become increasingly fascinated with hair’s natural diversity.
 |
| #NaturalHair on Instagram |
No comments:
Post a Comment