Representation Of Celebrities: Fashion comparison

 

It is not news to us that ‘The Daily Mail’ is a very opinion based media text, they enforce their personal ideologies and make it seem like a ‘fact’ or a true representation of what happened. Like most of the world I was very much addicted to reading ‘The Daily Mail’, they offered several different topics on one page and it was easy for me to read because of the language they use, but I soon started to realise just how corrupt they actually are.

Whilst looking through todays news on ‘The Daily Mail’ I came across this article about Ariel Winter’s bold fashion choice and it immediately reminded me of something Kendall Jenner had worn back in September:

 

Displaying image4.PNG
posted on The Daily Mail’s Snapchat account 27/11/16
Displaying Marwa blog.png
Posted on The Daily mail website23/09/16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue reading “Representation Of Celebrities: Fashion comparison”

Was it Facebook ‘wot won it’? – BBC News

Here’s an article I just read closely related to my post yesterday: Is the media responsible for Trump’s victory? (In a way you may not expect)

Is broadcast and print media not as influencial as it thinks it is?

Facebook played a large role in the US election, but Mark Zuckerberg is not engaging with claims that it helped Donald Trump win.

See below for the full article:

Source: Was it Facebook ‘wot won it’? – BBC News

Is the media responsible for Trump’s victory? (In a way you may not expect)

usa-election.jpg

I was listening to LBC (http://www.lbc.co.uk, 97.3fm) during the commute today (More than expected as the journey in took an hour and a half, but I digress).  It’s a talk radio station, which I felt was probably worth a listen today, due to the news from the other side of the Atlantic. You should give it a go.

There was a particularly interesting conversation on the way home, where a caller (Named Sam in case you were wondering), suggested the involvement US media institutions had in the coverage and representation of both (President-elect) Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. The caller and the host agreed that all-but-one major TV networks (CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC), showed clear support to Democratic candidate Clinton (The exception being Fox News).

“Yeah, so she should have won?” I hear you cry.

But consider the alternative possibility; what if all that positive coverage from the majority of institutions for Clinton actually hid the fact that the American people didn’t actually want to vote for her? What if they (and we over here in the UK), thought it would – of course – go to Clinton as she was getting all the positive representation, but in the process actually missed out on hearing from the audience?

In case you’re wondering how the states voted:

usa-election-mapv35.jpg

A reminder perhaps in the shift in power from institutions to audiences?

What do you think? Agree or disagree?

 

A print publishing reality: advertisers, not readers, are the customers via The Guardian

As Trinity Mirror closes another free title while bemoaning a lack of audience, a US newspaper owner tells it like it is: journalism is of secondary importance

Further reading: Curran (1986) – In your theory booklet.

Curran (1986) argues that the advertising industry has a major influence on the structure and output of the British print media.  It is argued that media producers focus on providing the media for the sectors of the population that the advertising industry wants to address.  For many publications, advertising is the main source of revenue and therefore the advertisers could wield significant power in print publications and may affect the content; the use of sponsored promotions in magazines like Empire may seem harmless, but what if a newspaper was reluctant to print a story because it might upset one of their major advertisers?

Source: A print publishing reality: advertisers, not readers, are the customers | Media | The Guardian

Institutions and political allegiances

An important part of learning about institutions is that they tend to align with political parties. This can be for a number of reasons, but is mostly to please the dominant ideologies of their audience.

This is clear to see in this first image:

est-newspaper line.png

It is clear by looking at this that The Guardian is predominately read by a labour supporting audience (centre-left), whilst The Telegraph, in contrast, leans very much to the centre-right, supporting the Conservatives (Or Tories). Other observations; over a quarter of Daily Express readers support UKIP (quite obvious if you just look at the front page), along with The Star and there is not a single newspaper that has anything near a 50/50 labour/conservative split.

The history of such allegiances can be seen in the diagram below, with support shown in every general election from World War 2 until 2005, note how support from institutions – like audiences – tends to change to reflect the zeitgeist and ideologies of the era:

paper-political-choices-g-002.jpg

Only The Mirror and The Telegraph‘s support has remained consistent since the end of World War 2.

What other observations can be made, based on these two diagrams? Answers in the comments please.

Time for a new audience model?

Year 13 this week applied Marxist theory and Hegemony to audiences, allowing us to revisit some audience theories (Both credited to Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955); namely…

The Hypodermic Syringe model:

Screen Shot 2016-10-15 at 12.31.29.png

Here audiences are ‘injected’ with representations, values & ideologies directly from institutions – such methods are used in propaganda materials, for example. Continue reading “Time for a new audience model?”