On page 6 of the interview, Hall discusses the relationship between reality and fiction. This relationship seems to coincide with the ieda of naturalizing history. What "relationship" is Hall suggesting between fiction and reality, and how does this relate to the more popular understanding of "myths" (i.e. fictional stories created to explain historical events)?
"I've always thought that the well-established success of the British media in historical reconstructions in the last ten years is very much related to that attempt to find in the past a meaning for what is going on in society which they can't discover in the present." Hall, page 8. How does western media do this? Can we think of any examples of past events being used to explain or remedy present uncertainties? If so, what are the pros and cons to utlizing this method?
On page 14, Hall touches on journalistic objectivity. Is it ever really possible for a journalist to be 100 percent objective, or do their own personal ideologies or the ideologies of their networks/media outlets inflence stories? Similarly, when linguistics is considered a "medium," what effect does this have on audience reception, considering ideologies impact viewers as well?
On page 7 of the article Hall says that the way stories are constructed is an important part when looking at it’s meaning. He says that, “meanings are already concealed or held within the forms of the stories themselves.” He gives an example by looking at a dramatic story and trying to compute it into a children’s story. I know it could be possible, but since he states that certain meanings are already concealed within the form of the story, how is it possible to create the story into an appropriate feel for children without leaving out important information? The myth of a children's book is a friendly.
On page 10, Hall states that televison shows, show us what the myths of divorce and seperation are scene throughout certain cultures. Looking at the show "Friends," are we suppose to think the myth of friendship is how these characters interact with one another? If we don't have these types of relationships with other people can they even be considered our friends? The reason I bring this example up is to ask if meanings on televison shows like this popular well known one, is being created to give us myths in life. Are these shows suppose to shape our relationships?
On p9 Hall is talking about the tv show Coronation Street and its new twist of the woman cheat on her boring husband and leave him. While reading this, and Hall's comment on how programs such as this construct the image of the working class, I was wondering how influential are tv shows in challenging cultural myths?
I also was wondering if the radio had covered the Falklands...Hall mentioned on p3 that any news or pictures of the war could not be directly brought to the screen but had to go through the minister of defence first. If this was the case for only tv, how was the coverage of the war different through the broadcast of the radio as opposed to tv?
On page 5, Hall refers to the comparison that people made between Hitler and the General Galtieri and that people made those comparisons to help justify their right to be there. It is interesting that past events are often brought back to help gain public support. I know that it has happened in United States history, but how often?
Also, the reference to Coronation Street was interesting because it brings back the age-old question of how much people are influenced by what they see on television. It's normal to see trends seen in media become trends in real life, but when do you distinguish a fad between a possible issue in society?
On page 6 of the interview, Hall says that "although individual journalists may perform operations (or what is called originality) on top of that, they are working within a given language or within a given framework, and they are making those adjustments which make the old and trite appear to be new." If this is true, is it possible to ever have objective news? If all the news is being put through a funnel and coming out in the same shape, are there always going to be controversial details left out? And do the audience subconsciously prefer things this way? In other words, would the audience reject a new, audacious form of news? Hall goes on to say on page 12 that "the first break is to cut into that notion of common sense. You simply have to interrupt the flow of the plausible and say, 'yes, that is plausible.'" I find that interesting because, just like reading a book, one must adapt to the rules being established in the world they are being entertained by. So it becomes a question of art imitating real life, and I question just how much people learn from television about the myths that perpetuate their culture. Is it possible that the people creating the television are part of the elite who create the television to make the lower class accept their world as commonplace?
On page 7 Hall says that, "We used to think form was like an empty box, and it's really what you put into it that matters. But we are aware now that the form is actually part of the content of what it is that you are saying." Since media is comprised of retelling of events, is there ever an instance where communication can be free of an established form or ideological influence? If these frameworks were created to allow for context and better understanding, what is the purpose of the goal of separating the form from the content/message and discovering the implied "truth" behind the construction of reality?
In the last portion of the interview, Hall says that the medium is the mediator and that it makes the difference between reality and representation. To me, this seems to suggest a sort of inherent "purity" of reality. Aren't real life events, void of representation and media, already the result of ideology? I guess this points out to me how heavily people rely on media as a way of validating reality.
On Pages 6-7, Hall details on how certain stories are told by the journalist who is writing them. Hall makes a specific note on how there is specific journalists who "tell exactly the same story." Is Hall refering to set of standards that journalists live by? I understand he is talking about the codes that is used to craft stories. But he says that some people write the same exact story as someone who completely disagrees with that person.
The example that Hall used of Coronation Street in that people see the things on that show and look at that as a form of real life. Hall seems to think that is a bad form of entertainment for people. I couldn't help but to agree with Hall but the question I thought to myself was that is this always a bad form of entertainment for everyone? I think some things could be good for one group of people while the same thing could be beneficial to another group of people.
In response to the second paragraph on page 5, Hall talks about the media was essentially reconstructing the story of the Falklands. Does the news media's ability to essentially write their own version of history make them too powerful?
I also wonder how might a certain country's values affect the way the media might portray a story? What would they choose to emphasize in the story, as well as how they may glorify their own and demonize others?
On page 7, Hill talks about form and content. He states, “Form is much more important than the old distinctions between form and content.” Hill compares form to an empty box, but says it’s what’s in the box that matters. So, is he suggesting that form and content the same thing in this discussion? I understood his use of the word form as similar to the meanings of discourse or narrative. In this case, a form is a set way in which journalists tell stories based on their myths and prior discourses. Is this a correct understanding?
On page 11, Hill discusses two ways in which media critics can leave ideologies and forms to critically analyze a media text. He states that a media critic needs to “see what the particular structure of one narrative is, and essentially what its limits are.” He calls these limits “silences.”
What could we say the “silences” of a live presidential debate are? What are some particular structures a presidential debate has?
On page 6 of the interview, Hall discusses the relationship between reality and fiction. This relationship seems to coincide with the ieda of naturalizing history. What "relationship" is Hall suggesting between fiction and reality, and how does this relate to the more popular understanding of "myths" (i.e. fictional stories created to explain historical events)?
ReplyDelete"I've always thought that the well-established success of the British media in historical reconstructions in the last ten years is very much related to that attempt to find in the past a meaning for what is going on in society which they can't discover in the present." Hall, page 8. How does western media do this? Can we think of any examples of past events being used to explain or remedy present uncertainties? If so, what are the pros and cons to utlizing this method?
On page 14, Hall touches on journalistic objectivity. Is it ever really possible for a journalist to be 100 percent objective, or do their own personal ideologies or the ideologies of their networks/media outlets inflence stories? Similarly, when linguistics is considered a "medium," what effect does this have on audience reception, considering ideologies impact viewers as well?
On page 7 of the article Hall says that the way stories are constructed is an important part when looking at it’s meaning. He says that, “meanings are already concealed or held within the forms of the stories themselves.” He gives an example by looking at a dramatic story and trying to compute it into a children’s story. I know it could be possible, but since he states that certain meanings are already concealed within the form of the story, how is it possible to create the story into an appropriate feel for children without leaving out important information? The myth of a children's book is a friendly.
ReplyDeleteOn page 10, Hall states that televison shows, show us what the myths of divorce and seperation are scene throughout certain cultures. Looking at the show "Friends," are we suppose to think the myth of friendship is how these characters interact with one another? If we don't have these types of relationships with other people can they even be considered our friends? The reason I bring this example up is to ask if meanings on televison shows like this popular well known one, is being created to give us myths in life. Are these shows suppose to shape our relationships?
On p9 Hall is talking about the tv show Coronation Street and its new twist of the woman cheat on her boring husband and leave him. While reading this, and Hall's comment on how programs such as this construct the image of the working class, I was wondering how influential are tv shows in challenging cultural myths?
ReplyDeleteI also was wondering if the radio had covered the Falklands...Hall mentioned on p3 that any news or pictures of the war could not be directly brought to the screen but had to go through the minister of defence first. If this was the case for only tv, how was the coverage of the war different through the broadcast of the radio as opposed to tv?
On page 5, Hall refers to the comparison that people made between Hitler and the General Galtieri and that people made those comparisons to help justify their right to be there. It is interesting that past events are often brought back to help gain public support. I know that it has happened in United States history, but how often?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the reference to Coronation Street was interesting because it brings back the age-old question of how much people are influenced by what they see on television. It's normal to see trends seen in media become trends in real life, but when do you distinguish a fad between a possible issue in society?
On page 6 of the interview, Hall says that "although individual journalists may perform operations (or what is called originality) on top of that, they are working within a given language or within a given framework, and they are making those adjustments which make the old and trite appear to be new." If this is true, is it possible to ever have objective news? If all the news is being put through a funnel and coming out in the same shape, are there always going to be controversial details left out? And do the audience subconsciously prefer things this way? In other words, would the audience reject a new, audacious form of news?
ReplyDeleteHall goes on to say on page 12 that "the first break is to cut into that notion of common sense. You simply have to interrupt the flow of the plausible and say, 'yes, that is plausible.'" I find that interesting because, just like reading a book, one must adapt to the rules being established in the world they are being entertained by. So it becomes a question of art imitating real life, and I question just how much people learn from television about the myths that perpetuate their culture. Is it possible that the people creating the television are part of the elite who create the television to make the lower class accept their world as commonplace?
On page 7 Hall says that, "We used to think form was like an empty box, and it's really what you put into it that matters. But we are aware now that the form is actually part of the content of what it is that you are saying." Since media is comprised of retelling of events, is there ever an instance where communication can be free of an established form or ideological influence? If these frameworks were created to allow for context and better understanding, what is the purpose of the goal of separating the form from the content/message and discovering the implied "truth" behind the construction of reality?
ReplyDeleteIn the last portion of the interview, Hall says that the medium is the mediator and that it makes the difference between reality and representation. To me, this seems to suggest a sort of inherent "purity" of reality. Aren't real life events, void of representation and media, already the result of ideology? I guess this points out to me how heavily people rely on media as a way of validating reality.
On Pages 6-7, Hall details on how certain stories are told by the journalist who is writing them. Hall makes a specific note on how there is specific journalists who "tell exactly the same story." Is Hall refering to set of standards that journalists live by? I understand he is talking about the codes that is used to craft stories. But he says that some people write the same exact story as someone who completely disagrees with that person.
ReplyDeleteThe example that Hall used of Coronation Street in that people see the things on that show and look at that as a form of real life. Hall seems to think that is a bad form of entertainment for people. I couldn't help but to agree with Hall but the question I thought to myself was that is this always a bad form of entertainment for everyone? I think some things could be good for one group of people while the same thing could be beneficial to another group of people.
In response to the second paragraph on page 5, Hall talks about the media was essentially reconstructing the story of the Falklands. Does the news media's ability to essentially write their own version of history make them too powerful?
ReplyDeleteI also wonder how might a certain country's values affect the way the media might portray a story? What would they choose to emphasize in the story, as well as how they may glorify their own and demonize others?
On page 7, Hill talks about form and content. He states, “Form is much more important than the old distinctions between form and content.” Hill compares form to an empty box, but says it’s what’s in the box that matters. So, is he suggesting that form and content the same thing in this discussion? I understood his use of the word form as similar to the meanings of discourse or narrative. In this case, a form is a set way in which journalists tell stories based on their myths and prior discourses. Is this a correct understanding?
ReplyDeleteOn page 11, Hill discusses two ways in which media critics can leave ideologies and forms to critically analyze a media text. He states that a media critic needs to “see what the particular structure of one narrative is, and essentially what its limits are.” He calls these limits “silences.”
What could we say the “silences” of a live presidential debate are? What are some particular structures a presidential debate has?
@Rachel. Yes, the form is the way journalists tell stories, rather than the stories themselves.
ReplyDelete