Frames of Reference, Constructed Reality, and Stereotyping...

I found last weeks class conversation to be pretty interesting, for it tied in with some things that I had learned quite sometime ago in "Intro to Sociology." Something that has stayed with me is the concept of "Constructed Reality" and the "Five Agents of Socialization." These five agents refer to the five main areas of influence that change and affect how we view the rest of the world; these include influences from the Media, Family, Friends, School, and Special Interest Groups. These all come together and help us create a sort of frame of reference for not only ourselves but for the rest of the world, called a constructed reality. Within the framework of our constructed reality we generate stereotypes, these help us sort of build a basis for understanding the rest of the world. So we can assume that through our experiences (and the theory of the five agents of socialization) we generate our stereotypes... so when someone in class mentions "Chinese-men" several things jump to mind. First of which is the Asian Bistro that opened up in the bottom floor of my building which holds a sign out front that says "We Open." Secondly probably is a flood of Jackie Chan movies sadly... I think its good to recognize that stereotypes shouldn't only be considered a bad thing, it's just our mind's way of being able to attempt to understand the world around us (through our experiences), prejudices born out of stereotypes are the bad stuff.

Anyways bringing it back to class conversation, I thought this whole "Cloned Meat" was a really odd concept. The ideals of "organic" meat and vegetables confused me for quite sometime... I grew up on a farm, a beef farm no less so I grew up on home grown meat and neighborhood's vegetables. So the thoughts of artificial this and artificial that had never really crossed my mind growing up, and is a relatively a new concept for me. The idea of cloned meat gives me mixed feelings... on one hand what's the big deal? It's essentially the same animal, over and over again and as long as these artificial additives aren't being added then what's the big deal? What bothers me is the ideal of not only cultural and ideological hegemony, but also with the food we eat too? Genetically and quite literally we'd be eating the same foods over and over again... just feels odd doesn't it? Yet I'm generating all of these opinions from my experiences and through the lens of my constructed reality...

So when I'm reading chapter 16 of Ron Smith's "Ethics in Journalism," and Smith discusses the ethical dilemmas between the business aspects of a news studio and it's responsibilities for keeping the public fully informed, I get really concerned... After thinking about I've just discussed with constructed reality, is it not essential that we receive the whole news and have it not filtered by monetary interests? The media has a definite influence in how we see ourselves and the world, and if it's been jaded so will our views... We deserve to hear the whole news, not the news picked for us to see... the good, the bad, the whole... and if sources are getting paid to do interviews, like Clay Aiken's interview with People Magazine, then we really have to question the legitimacy of the story or is someone out to just make a buck.

Is it silly that I watch two News Stations?

Are opinions really necessary when reporting news? Am I incapable of reaching my own opinion through hearing both sides of the story? I've been reading and hearing a lot about the concept of "Truth and Objectivity" in regards to journalism and I just can't help but feel as though I want to be presented with merely the facts. It seems as though many of the arguments behind opinion bases reporting is that if a reporter is completely neutral, the audience may get confused with the information they are presented and be unsure of what "side" to take on an issue. I could be wrong in believing that it is ok if someone isn't sure of which side to take after hearing all of the facts, it's up to them to decide or debate about. It's not the media's job to promote one side over the other...

(Click to enlarge)

I found this sort of funny, when looking for an article to "dissect," I went to both CNN and to Fox News... Notice the difference in advertising already? Before I even start reading I'm already presented with blatant forms of each's opinion. We've got angry Obama on the right, on progressive Obama on the left with a convenient little "vote for Obama" informational link. Objectivity has been lost here.

I'm sort of torn at times to try to find the real facts behind an issue, and I find myself hoping between sources like Fox News, to CNN, to even Comedy Central to find some sort of happy medium in reporting. Growing up in a heavily Republican family, and attending College in Vermont has certainly given me it's fare share of opinions all over the board. Although I relish in this and believe that true educated people need to know each side of an argument, understand it, and then can make their decision on their own. I feel the most comfortable when I hear the whole story and cut through the emotions tied to whoever is reporting it. There are many cases where I don't really agree with some one's opinion, but I still want to hear it... I understand that at times it's impossible not to have an opinion when presenting an argument, but I completely disagree with the statement that if an opinion is not given, then the audience will merely be confused. Do we really need to be herded like sheep to one opinion or another? If I'm a Democrat I must watch CNN and agree with their reporting, or if I'm a Republican I agree with Fox. It's silly and limiting... Like we discussed in class, I can recognize the importants of opinions in reporting, only if the audience is recognizing that it is in fact an opinion they are being preview to.

This translates well into gaming world as well. Ever heard of Grand Theft Auto? Sure this is an extremely negative game that promotes some of the most negative aspects of the impact between culture and gaming. Yet at it's most basic concept... it's not half bad. The sole idea behind it is to have a large city that you can do anything in, yet with the name alone it encourages the player to commit immoral acts. What if the game was neutral? What if you could do both good and bad things, what sort of beast would it be then?

For far too long many of us has taken the back seat and absorbed what we've been meant to absorb. Critical thinking and analysis has lost it's place in many aspects of popular culture, and we've allowed ourselves to be fed information. It's now assumed that the general public can't come up with it's own opinions and so they are provided for us. We live in a world where things are never strictly (hope you don't mind the analogy) black and white, there are always shades of grey. I disagree with un-objective reporting and believe that any educated person is going to want the whole story and doesn't really care about where the reporter stands.

A loss of respect...

While reading Chapter's One and Five of Ron F. Smith's "Ethics in Journalism" (6th Edition), I found Smith's portrayal of the general distrust of News media and Journalism quite interesting. When thinking about the distrust of Journalism I couldn't help but think of the Paparazzi incident with the Death of Princess Diana. I had never really taken into account how much bad representation that Journalists and news reporters of the like really get throughout all kinds of media. Movies that I think of throughout my life have mostly all laid our reporters under a very specific stereotype... Thinking of movies such as "Anchorman," "Spiderman," and yes even the Teenage Mutant Turtles all seem to put journalists into a selfish role, only looking for their way to the top and someway to impress their oppressive cigar smoking boss. It's sort of silly really how we dismiss reporters so quickly and yet in a time of crisis we all rely so heavily on them as our source of current and factual news. When something significant happens in the world it's the reporters job to get that information to us, yet we don't really recognize them when they do. "It's their job," and if they weren't able to get us that news than there would be public outcry. I had never through of a reporter's job as a thankless position, but in all reality it is.

The general decline in American's respect for organizations has been a topic that has been on my mind for quite some time. We live in an uncertain age where the "norm" is to think against the "Man" and really anything that may be considered "American." Some still may call themselves patriots, but I'm finding more and more people are ashamed to be considered an American. It's become socially respectable to bash our Nation's leaders with television publications such as "Little Bush." What is this really doing? I'm not writing this as a support of Bush or his policies, but it gets to a point where we wonder why Americans have such a negative stereotype when we don't even like ourselves… In fact if you do your weird.

I find it interesting that so many people of my generation get their news by watching John Stewart or Steven Colbert... (I know I'm making many Comedy Central references but bare with me) It's sad really we don't question the sort of "News" they report or where they are getting their information from. They are funny, and so we watch and listen to them. The thing we don't ask ourselves is if they are Comedians or Journalists? Either way they have a huge impact on today's popular culture and the opinions of many (See the “Colbert Bump” phenomenon). Would we be more apt to question the stereotypical News Anchorman's report? Perhaps more so because of our preconceived expectations, in turn we expect Stewart and Colbert to be funny and so when we watch do we think critically about them at all? I know I don’t.