Strategically Communicating

Living in Saudi Arabia for almost all my life, I know what a dominant ideology in a society means.  I used to live it everyday. The ideology of accepting extremism and bureaucracy or else!

Over the years,  I’ve heard many Arabic words that have shaped our society, but just two words, “Haram” and “Aeb,” represent an entire dominant ideology that’s been imposed on the people.

“Haramحرام ” is a sinful thing, act, behavior that would take you straight to hell according to Islam.

“Aeb عيب ” is a concept of forbidding people to act, talk ,behave in a certain way according to society norms. It is seen inappropriate in culture and tradition. The Aeb is an act that often not forbidding according to Islamic views.  However people who commit an Aeb could be punished and isolated socially.

By one word a whole dominant ideology is imposed. Many Saudis have adopted that ideology to belong to the community socially, culturally or even politically.

Words like“ Freedom”, “democracy” don’t exist. We hardly find them written, be it in the press, on posters, T-shirts or other forms.

That is a form of imposing the dominant ideology by ignoring it. Therefore many people would not even know the ideology of democracy as their lives have been normalized without it. My grandparents are an example of this.

Do you know of an English word that represents a whole ideology?
Have you ever been a victim of a dominant ideology?

In this week’s reading from McLuhan, I was struck by the suggested relationship between ideology, progress, and the potential for numbness within the framework of “hot” and “cool.” While McLuhan’s definition of “hot” and “cool” is explicitly stated and seemingly leaves no room for a blurry gray area of meaning, it is obvious that given the a certain cocktail of social, cultural, and technological cues, a “hot” thing can suddenly become “cool.” In fact, the author even purports that an intense, “hot” experience must become “cool” — by way of censorship or forgetfulness — before it can be learned or assimilated by mass culture. In order for new trends or ideas to be accepted into our mainstream lives, McLuhan contends, we must become numb to their effect (p. 23).

I have experienced this idea illustrated by ever increasing doses of violence in the media in the past few decades. I opt out of consuming violent content, so I’ve not kept pace with the rest of our culture as progressively violent content seeps into movies, TV, video games, and print. Resultant to this personal media sensor, I have witnessed the gradual immersion of our culture and its subsequent desensitization to violence. A formerly “hot” element that has become “cool.” That which once was shocking and fragmented from everyday life, is today accessible to the masses and readily accepted.

Do you agree with the assertion that violence in media has become “cool?”
What are other examples?
Is it possible for “cool” to become “hot?”

Reading the semiotic analysis of the Hahn beer ad, I felt like a stranger in my own country. I thought someone was trying to tell me about my ideology, but the only information they could use was a Hahn beer ad. As a naturalized citizen of the beer drinking, male, 15 to 40 year-old world my unconscious consciousness was blissful. I could not find any ground breaking revelations about beer, beach or boobs. But by changing my view of the ad away from the cultural dominate ideology, and looking at how this ad represents a “patriarchic ideology….and gender, class, consumerism and age” it is very interesting.
While reading the semiotic analysis I kept on thinking of the saying “I can’t tell you what good music is, but I know it when I hear it”. As the implied reader of this ad I understand exactly what this ad is selling, but it does not mean that everyone will arrive at the same conclusion. As for good music? I now realize I can tell you what it is! But, unfortunately it is only in relationship to my ideology.

Does advertising targeted at you say anything about your ideology?
Does advertising you don’t see effect you?

I too was intermittently incensed throughout this week’s reading. But, although, like Lee, my frustration is often evoked by representations of mainstream ideologies in the media, this week what irked me more than anything was that the authors of this book seem to have left out the possibility that the media could accomplish, or at least set out to accomplish, something good.

In chapter fourteen we hear incidents of media activism against ads that portray oppressive ideologies about gender and smoking, but the authors do no mention positive efforts by the media that set out to counteract dominant ideologies, such as Dove’s beauty campaign or graphic anti-smoking ads.

While I do not pretend that the media is all good, far from it, I again wish the authors would place more separation between the different types of media out there, which brings me to ask if, by repeatedly generalizing the aspects of our culture that they wish to analyze, and in so doing, putting down the same aspects, do the authors perpetuate dominant ideologies of our culture, ideologies which are of course often conveyed through these specific mediums that they intend to analyze?

Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg  announced recently that the social media site had reached one billion active users. With it’s nerdy beginnings in 2004, to it’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) in May 2012, to hitting one billion users in early October 2012, it looks like the it looks like this trend is unstoppable! Well, not so fast Mr. Z.

Apparently the  folks at The Joy of Tech have gotten to the bottom of the mystery of to whom all of those Facebook accounts belong. At least the Facebook Faker accounts anyway. 😉  See below.

On a more serious academic note, one could argue that Facebook Fakers  are communicating ideological values by creating accounts with a different  persona.

Let’s first establish the term Facebook Fakers to describe those who create fake Facebook accounts, for whatever reason. By maintaining the need to be present in the social community, but to also maintain their anonymity in their personal life or professional self, they do communicate their values. What those values are are negotiable.

Certainly their presence does not always reflect the reality of who they are and are not. But what does it reflect? What message do the Facebook Fakers send to those of us who are honest in the social world?

By the way, there’s even a Facebook page dedicated to ending the practice of secrecy so many seek, it’s called STOP Facebook Fakers.

A fun look at the why some Facebook accounts are fake. Completely scientific, no doubt!

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines journalism as “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism).

I found the section in chapter 8 that discusses denotation and connotation particularly interesting. As journalists, we strive to report stories with as little bias as possible. In last Thursday’s MMJ class on Foundations of Multimedia Journalism, we had a discussion about whether or not reporting without bias is actually possible. O’Shaughnessy and Stadler’s discussion of denotation and connotation made me ponder this further.

Ideally, as journalists we strive to write without an attempt at interpretation; without stating our own opinions. Yet, when reading the news today, I couldn’t help but notice that journalists chose words carrying strong connotations. This is not unintentional. To sell papers, articles now incite rather than just report.

Today, the New York Post reported about a guidance counselor who had been fired because of lingerie modeling photos she posed for ten years ago. The website that linked to the article actually stated that the Post’s “decision to play the story with very little innuendo should serve as proof that [the counselor] seems to have gotten a raw deal” (Jezebel.com). The Post’s headline: “Manhattan HS guidance counselor stripped of job over steamy-photo past.”

As we enter a more content-packed news environment, will more outlets follow the Post’s standards rather than the New York Times (or Murdoch rather than Sulzberger)? Do headlines with words carrying strong connotations get more readers, and why?