Representation Essay

It has been said that media representations often reflect the social and political concerns of the age in which they are created. Discuss.

I agree that media representations are often reflected through social and political concerns

In the early 70’s women in society were concerned that they were not recognised to be equal to men and this sparked the feminist movement. The fact that women were not seen to be equal to men meant that during this period there were no women working in the media. The people that were working in the media were middle aged white men who reinforced the hegemonic values by oppressing groups of people in society which were known to be treating (women) to the hierarchy. The media did this through media representations so women in the 70’s there were two different types of representation of women. They were either shown to be a domestic housewife looking after her husband and family, doing the cooking cleaning and all the house work. Another representation is women were shown to be ‘femme fatale’ they were shown to be dangerous and fatal to men. Women were misrepresented by being shown to smoke and shoots of them holding a gun which reinforced they were dangerous. This created concerns which lead to a moral panic and ever women were seen to be dangerous and evil as this moral panic was reinforced by the media representation of women in the media. Women saw this as a concern and began to express there freedom of speech and expressions by burning their bra which was a symbolic icon reinforcing the control of men on women so they chose to burn them. Media representation also shows that women after the war started the suffragettes movement which illustrated there concern and was reflected through media representations all over the world as women got together and protested dominating news values as this was a significant political movement as they aimed to gain equality.

Laura Mulvey ( 1975: Visual Pleasure & Narrative Cinema) argues that the audience that consume these media representations look at women in these media text in two ways voyeuristically and fetishistically for example in a cinema men observe women in a media text voyeuristically as they are not being washed by the women being represented neither are they being watched by the following audience also consuming the media text as the cinema is dark. This gives rise to a concern depending on the way the audience interpret these media text could lead to the objectification of women in the media. This could be a concern of the age as women are powerless to defend themselves due to the whole concept of voyeurism and them just being watched through the ‘male gaze’

Historically the media has been responsible for reinforcing stereotypes surround women to reinforce the patriarchal society this is done my subordinating women and representing them as being housewives and domestic servants. This was portrayed by having them play roles were they would be inferior to the male actors and would be playing a supporting role these helped to reinforce that men were dominate in society. This also prevented the audience from challenging the status quo as the audience would have been desensitised to images of women doing domestic work which would have made this they of representation acceptable in society.

However media representation has changed over time and pro feminism representation shows that there is now the female gaze were women sexually objective men by just seeing them as decorations this is clear in some D&G and Armani fragrant adverts

Judith Butler (Gender and Performance) argues that “Gender is not fixed but constructed” this can be true as media representation of males and females constructs the way we see that gender and how they are treated in society.

 Zeitgeist refers to the spirit of the age.

The Guardian article - "Ha-Joon Chang: The net isn't as important as we think"

I believe that the washing machine is a more innovative innovation then the internet as the article states that the washing machine shaped society be giving women more time and free  to get out of the kitchen and increase the labour force by doublings prior to that it was just men that were working and supporting the economy. However the washing machine have women an opportunity to do less domestic work and educate themselves and work increasing the labour market.

From a media perspective the washing machine was an innovative innovation as it could possibly have given rise to the feminist movement as women demanded to become equal to men, so this innovation gave them more time to concentrate on the movement as they were spending less time doing these domestic tasks.

In addition it could be argued that the washing machine has never sexually objective women were as the internet has and has held back the whole feminist movement if anything.

Furthermore the fact that the washing machine was invented before the internet concludes that the washing machine is a more technological innovation when compared to the internet as we’ve lived without the internet for a very long time and society would rather walk around with clean clothes then have no internet. The fact that not everyone has access to the internet but ever home does have access to a washing machine suggest that society values a washing machine to me more important than the internet.

The Guardian article - "Ha-Joon Chang: The net isn't as important as we think"

The economist and author says the washing machine changed the world more than the internet, a tool we overestimate while ignoring its downsides.

Ha-Joon Chang says the washing machine revolutionised society in more profound ways that the internet

Ha-Joon Chang, born in South Korea in 1963, is an economist based at Cambridge University specialising in development. Known for his heterodox views, he is the author of several books, including Kicking Away the Ladder (2002) and Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism (2008). In his new book, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism (Allen Lane, Chang debunks many cherished myths about the free market. In one chapter, he says: "The washing machine changed the world more than the internet."

Is it really true that the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet?

When we assess the impact of technological changes, we tend to downplay things that happened a while ago. Of course, the internet is great – I can now google and find the exact location of this restaurant on the edge of Liverpool or whatever. But when you look at the impact of this on the economy, it's mainly in the area of leisure.

The internet may have significantly changed the working patterns of people like you and me, but we are in a tiny minority. For most people, its effect is more about keeping in touch with friends and looking up things here and there. Economists have found very little evidence that since the internet revolution productivity has grown.

And the washing machine was more transformative?

By liberating women from household work and helping to abolish professions such as domestic service, the washing machine and other household goods completely revolutionised the structure of society. As women have become active in the labour market they have acquired a different status at home – they can credibly threaten their partners that if they don't treat them well they will leave them and make an independent living. And this had huge economic consequences. Rather than spend their time washing clothes, women could go out and do more productive things. Basically, it has doubled the workforce.

The washing machine is just one element here. Other factors have contributed to the liberation of women – feminism, the pill and so on.

Yes, but feminism couldn't have been implemented unless there was this technological basis for a society where women went out and worked. Of course it's not just the washing machine, it's piped water, electricity, irons and so on.

Do we tend to overestimate the importance of communications revolutions? 

Not always. The invention of the printing press was one of the most important events in human history. But weoverestimate the internet and ignore its downsides. There's now so much information out there that you don't actually have time to digest it.

In another chapter of the book, I talk about the American economist Herbert Simon, who argued that our problem now is that we have limited decision-making capability rather than too little information. If you try to find something on the internet, it's a deluge. And in terms of productivity, the internet has its drawbacks – for example, it makes it a lot easier to bunk off work.

But what about the sheer speed at which it allows us to do things?

That is exaggerated too. Before the invention of the telegraph in the late 19th century, it took two to three weeks to carry a message across the Atlantic. The telegraph reduced it to 20 or 30 minutes – an increase of 2,000-3,000 times. The internet has reduced the time of sending, say, three or four pages of text from the 30 seconds you needed with a fax machine down to maybe two seconds – a reduction by a factor of 15. Unless I'm trading commodity futures, I can't think of anything where it's really so important that we send it in two seconds rather than a few minutes.

Does it matter that we overestimate the internet's importance? 

On one level, no. If I think the Sun goes round the Earth, it's not going to affect how I do my grocery shopping or teach economics. But where it does matter is that a lot of people have come to accept a policy action or business decision on the grounds that this is something driven by technological changes rather than by active human decisions. So anyone who is against total globalisation is a modern luddite.

This idea that the internet is driving globalisation has enabled business leaders and politicians to get away with decisions made for their own self-interest, because people have been too ready to accept that things have to be like this.

Do we fundamentally misunderstand the nature of capitalism, as the title of your book implies?

Let me start by saying that I am an advocate of capitalism. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I think it's the worst economic system except for all the others. So I'm not an anti-captialist, or anarchist. I want capitalism to work. But the version of capitalism that we have practised in the past two or three decades is a very extreme free-market versionwhich, contrary to the claims of many economists, is not the only or best way to run things. There are many different ways and in the book I show that countries that have run capitalism differently – even if they practise free-market capitalism today – have done much better.

Next Step

Next Step

 Link every paragraph back to the question by starting with a topic sentence

 Give some more textual examples for producers

Intro..

“Digital media have in many ways changed how we consume media products” Who do you think benefits most audience or producers

In this essay I will be arguing weather audiences or producers benefit most from the change in media consumption.

Firstly audiences have benefited from new and digital media as they are being exposed to more content and are seeing more representations due to Citizen Journalism which allows ordinary people to report on a moral panic a good example would be the democratic protests in the middle east against the government which has made it difficult and dangerous for journalist to get to the protest and report on them and they have relied on normal people filming footage from those protests. This is a benefit for the audience as there able to view raw footage and there is no longer restriction to the content they are able to view as they are able to demand for content and get it instantly. This means that the users and gratification theory is being met as the audiences of today are being entertained and informed more than ever.

In addition audiences are able to accesses media content using a number of devices such as mobile phones, itouch, iphone ect. This means that audience are no longer restricted from viewing media content on just a television they can also access this content instantly and in cases such as BBC and Sky news able to access this content 24 hours due to rolling news. Furthermore audience are no longer passive they are more active as they can leave a comment on news articles meaning they are not just being injected with the ideological messages of the mainstream media they can become active and challenge these views

Net Neutrality: Relevant articles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net-neutrality

•  "two-speed internet" policies to customers.
• As the web becomes a vehicle for the transport of richer and richer content, the question of whether all content from all providers is treated equally by the networks becomes ever sharper,"
• The ISPs plan to publish how they manage internet traffic – such as video viewing, music streaming and movie downloading – in comparison to their rivals. That will make clear if they throttle popular services such as the BBC's iPlayer to maintain capacity for all customers on their network.

www.savetheinternet.com/blog/11/03/14/sen-franken-we-cant-lose-net-neutrality

• On Monday, Minnesota Sen. Al Franken made the corporate takeover of the Internet – and the government's acquiescence to these corporations – frighteningly clear.
• “The Internet has proven not only to be a hotbed for innovation [and] an incredible engine for job creation, but also the ultimate self-distribution channel,” Franken said. “Now you don’t need a record deal to make a song and have people hear it.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12791376

• ISPs are increasingly looking to prioritise some traffic on their networks and block some.
• "Internet traffic is growing," he said. "Handling that heavier traffic will become an increasingly significant issue so it was important to discuss how to ensure the internet remains an open, innovative and competitive place.
• Most ISPs manage traffic at peak times to enable faster speeds for their customers. The BBC has been in fights with ISPs over the amount of bandwidth used to stream its iPlayer service.