MTR scenic spots

Have you guys pay attention to such photos before?

Do you have any impressions over these??

They are photos on the maps which posted at the MTR station, aim at introducing some great places to the tourists ( I guess). It may counted as one type of ads which are advertising Hong Kong.

In some extents, these kind of photos/ ads are problematic. Why would I say so? If you have ever pay attention to them before, you would found what they are introducing to a tourist are just the brilliant angles of Hong Kong, trying to construct Hong Kong as a diversity culture, flourishing, affluent city.

It is just a kind of construction, trying to construct the reality (in fact all are constructions in cultural studies's sence =P).

what they reflected are very little. How about the absent one??
If you live in Kowloon City, you must know that what's wrong with the representation of Wah Fu station--- by showing the Kowloon Walled City Park only...someone is trying to construct what they want, obvisiously not the truth, or partly true..

I am not going to talk so much...here are some similar photos took at the MTR station, you may take a look on them :)
http://x6c.xanga.com/55fb44e4c6d3045153365/b30506545.jpg
http://xf7.xanga.com/ba8815645672845153360/b30506542.jpg
http://x42.xanga.com/2ddb43e4c633145153354/b30506536.jpg

CUS 310 Media, Culture and Society

Manufacturing Consent

Your post reminded me a lot about a chapter out ‘Manufacturing Consent” by Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky. One of the ‘filters’, according to their propaganda model of news, is that of corporate ownership. Since papers derive their profits from advertisers, its important to remember that market forces are somewhat counterintuitive with respect to media products. Papers are not trying to sell content to audiences, rather they sell audiences to advertisers. Thus papers can never publish anything too anti-consumerist, or anything too far outside dominant mainstream discourse, otherwise they risk losing their advertising revenue and becoming unprofitable. Papers have to publish what advertisers, not readers, want.

In regards to your discussion point – I do think that publicly owned media can partially solve the problem, but only if it is sufficiently funded and independently administered. There is ongoing controversy in Australia over our public broadcaster the ABC – the government claims they biased towards the opposition and continually cut their funding, however when the opposition party was in power they did exactly the same thing. I think that the governments annoyance at how critical the ABC can be is a sign that the ABC is actually doing their job well.

presentation

i am really really sorry about poor presentation on 17/3 as i needed to hurry, so many points were skipped. so i would like to say something that i have prepared but not presented in class..and some question generates from the marketization..

1)media stresses on the rationality of entertainment
-development of the economy>individualism>encouragement of the consume
-media reflects the value trend and the situation> secularized media
-media role-civilizable>>> serve the readers
-examples: "entertaining news"; 硬新聞軟性化
**more user friendly?? readers may become more passionate in participating about the political events since their cognizance of the life around↑??

2)destruction of the news professionism
- the needs and the desires of the readers are ambiguous and unseparate..
- entertaining news like tabloid sacrifies the dessemination of information to provide entertainment>>eventually harm the public interest
- emphasis the entertainment, simplified and fragmented of the news >>constructs the reality >> separate the social problems as good and bad, correct or wrong, you and me.... such simple binary opposition..
- professionism is in the inferior position during the ideological resistence

3) homogenous content of media
- profits maximization-- serves who can gives money (middle and upper class)
- disabled; lower class; minority has less market value, media wont put much resources on them
- provides programs which cover most of the people>> standardization of the program
- many channels, but not diversitfy, just repetition :( , similar content, low quantity
Discussion pt.: can publicly- owned channels solve this problem? becoz it is not aim at earn money, so it can provides more choices, avoiding market driven, reveals, shows wt is high quality program; e.g. like "channel 4" in british which is an independent channel, encourageing experimental production, funds pay by the revenue of ads...

4) 1 dimensional man
- media commodified their programs, combined it with the audiences' aestho-physiological stimulation(我想講"生理感官的刺激"...英文太差...唔識講T-T,對不起..)
- understand entertainment and enjoyment as people's life
- not pay attention at cultivate people's self- management, participate in public affairs, but connive others to live a life of pleasure.
- the programs- "relax"; entertain; copying; standardized; "cheap"; conciliated; insensitive>> make ppl give up the responsiblities, their promises and become narcissistic.
- cancell the multiplicity of ppl's life>> no rationality but perceptual; no profundity but joyful; no reflexivity but evade everythings..

5)purchase of the demorcrazy
HAHA...i will edit it later...

Questions# is it marketization is the only way out?
# is there any alternatives?
# marketization is the only way to make money?
# how about the political reasons?
# regulations towards the media? is there any?
# discussion of karl marx's criticism over the cultural industies?
# case of rthk>>ownership determine it form of operation ...
# ideology and hegemony
-consensus may not come from ruling class..
-media takes the existing values and plays on it (very clever...huh?)>>reinforcing?>>circulation??
# how does the media manufacture the stereotyping?
# criticism behind--capitalists?
# international corporation like Disney is even more problematic! standardization!
# base on the discussion above, what's the case in hongkong?
# wt are the problems of the existing solutions?? why dont they work??

CUS 310 Media, Culture and Society

Hey guys,

sorry if i posted this already!

Great presentation last week - I’ve been meaning to blog, but just haven’t got around to it.

One of the things I find most striking (and disturbing) about reality television in Australia is its racial homogeneity and hetronormativity – I can distinctly remember last years season of Australian Big Brother was particularly bad. All the males on the show were unabashedly misogynistic and homophobic – I was actually surprised that they aired some of the stuff they did.

Towards the end of the season a transsexual was introduced to the house for a couple of days. The show focused exclusively on her gender and sexuality, ignoring all other aspects of her personality – effectively reducing her to a freak-show. The produces were essentially encouraging audiences to join in with the housemates as they watch in scopophilic disgust, reinforcing the idea that to be a moral, helthty, normal Australian one must completely hetronormative, and comply to a strict, rigid model of gender and sexuality

I think that one way of looking at reality television is as a kind of moral police force, It patrols the borders of dominant discourse and (re)articulates archetypes of gender, sexuality and race. Audiences can collectively reinforce their own sense of normality and community by voting of anyone who doesn’t comply. If someone is not an Anglo-Australian heterosexual they don’t stand much chance on any of Australia’s reality game shows. Its sad.

See you all tomorrow

Jon

Reality TV

Hey guys,

Great presentation last week - I’ve been meaning to blog, but just haven’t got around to it.

One of the things I find most striking (and disturbing) about reality television in Australia is its racial homogeneity and hetronormativity – I can distinctly remember last years season of Australian Big Brother was particularly bad. All the males on the show were unabashedly misogynistic and homophobic – I was actually surprised that they aired some of the stuff they did.

Towards the end of the season a transsexual was introduced to the house for a couple of days. The show focused exclusively on her gender and sexuality, ignoring all other aspects of her personality – effectively reducing her to a freak-show. The produces were essentially encouraging audiences to join in with the housemates as they watch in scopophilic disgust, reinforcing the idea that to be a moral, helthty, normal Australian one must completely hetronormative, and comply to a strict, rigid model of gender and sexuality

I think that one way of looking at reality television is as a kind of moral police force, It patrols the borders of dominant discourse and (re)articulates archetypes of gender, sexuality and race. Audiences can collectively reinforce their own sense of normality and community by voting of anyone who doesn’t comply. If someone is not an Anglo-Australian heterosexual they don’t stand much chance on any of Australia’s reality game shows. Its sad.

See you all tomorrow

Jon

From Natalie

Discussion Part

Q: What is the background psychology of reality TV shows appear？
--High crime rates, declining of private and public morality, culture of cynicism "a sneering fault-finder."犬儒主義(泛指一種冷漠、嘲諷、自以為什麽都知道，于是否定一切的一種態度)àa commitment to common values, whether political or religious has attenuated
--Heavy television viewers were more likely to see the world as an intimating and threatening place than the light viewersàassociated with civic ignorance, cynicism and lessened political involvement

Q：What is the reason of the insatiable of demand for reality show?
--The traditional TV programmed format are overwhelm
--Narrative well has run dry
--Entertainment
--Voyeurism(窺淫狂症)
--Traffics in anxieties
--Realistic fashion
--Build up a “Brand you”form of individualism
--Reinforce a traditional sense of community(ex：Trust)
--“active audience”

Q：Do you think there is any community on reality TV shows？
--Community emphasis a commitment to a set of shared values, a sense of belonging to and an identification with a group on a place(Young,1990)
àvarious narrative contrivance which reality TV programmed use :
For community:1)direct invocation--Survivor：16 contestants creating two “new society”
--somber music, slow motion camera work and close-up shots enhance and underline the emotional power of the community
--the losing contestant is voted out by the others, like with the principles of democracy(The tribe spoke: You must leave the Area immediately) like “ANTM” models must packing up their belongings before the judgments
2)Indirect evocations—community frequent discussions of the trust
3)Narrative contrivances—produce a desire effect
--a standard convention of the programmed feature(showing their concern or frustration, sleeping side by side, getting mail…)

Against community:1)direct invocation -tension around the contestant(prize, voting out)
2)Indirect evocations—race, class or sexuality stereotype
3)Narrative contrivances—offer as private asides by a contestant to the camera(ANTM etc)overhear two contestants whispering

Q: Why voting each other off per episode?
--Excitement
--It may also reflect a sense of community that focus less on share values or geographical place, and instead is defined y technology and audience membership, invisible electronic network(audience can entering into a web community to support their favorite model


Q: Is the ethic standard important in reality show?
--Case of lesbian Kim makes love with other contestant in the show VS a girl don’t want to cut her hair in the competition

Q: What is the reason of those kind of girl join the ANTM?
--The prize
--Self-development--The passion of performance in the stage

PRogramme about South Asians tonight

WHile we are talking about racial representations on mainstream TV, there 's a programme on South Asians and how they integrate into Hong Kong society, tonight at 7pm on TVB Jade. Please watch and we can comment on it, either here or in class.

Lisa

comments on the success of Lee Ang

If you read today's news, you can realize how Lee Ang's success is related to a more national and cultural issue in the commentaries and the reports. WHat do y ou think about it?
THe other issue is definitely about the film's success on the perception/ representation/ discussion of homosexuality. Do you think the representation/ tone about homosexuality in recent news has changed?

2 become 1

You can enlarge the picture by clicking it :)

This is one page of the leaflet that introducing the film "2 become 1" (play by mirriam and Richie), the film is talking about mirriam discovered she has breast cancer in a sudden, in what ways she would face her diseases, and how she would hall in love with Richie..

I am not going to talk about the story, what make me curious is that the leaflets posted above.. let me make a little (really little)translation over this. The 4 words in the middle is a question asking "Do you mind?"...and 7 positive responds made by 7 male pop stars are posted. They all accept this and think that breast cancer is not that matters to them.

Let's see, what is present? what is absent?
presence: all male; 7 popolar, young, handsome men...
absence: female; different age group; people who suffer from cancer; disabled.....

PATRIARCHY? It showed that what a male think is really matter to women, woman as appendage to man, why the suffered women should/would get consolation after reading this?
"oh~it's okay~ as Andy Lau said that breast cancer is not really matter~" or "yeah~even eason chan do not mind girls who only have one breast..."
Male dominant, women need to consider THEIR opinion when WE have breast disease? Besides, male can suffer from breast cancer too (though it is really rare), why not interview women?

HOMOPHOBIC? well this film is talking about love affairs, so the interviewees may stand for "partners of women"...it is focusing on heterosexual only, how about homosexuals?

The absence may sometime reflects more...
The minority groups are always be ignored...
This piece of leaflets showed the mainstream in some extents..

representation of women in recent ads, films or TV dramas

Dear all,

Related to classmates' presentation, what do we think about the image of women in recent media? do we find a generalized pattern in the way women are portrayed in different media forms? are they very much changed, or do they tend to reinforce traditional stereotypes about women (in terms of social roles, characterization, or sexuality) that confirm the traditional patriarchy that still persist in the millenium? we can carry on the discussion here.
on the other hand, how do you think about the portrayal of 'men' in mainstream media? does that illustrate a new kind of masculinity, or are they very much the same?
We also see the rise of gay and lesbian images in the media, do we see the kind of negative stereotypes that we have been discussing? we can use different case studies to discuss this.

Lisa

discussion about stereotypes

DEar all,

AFter today's class, we can discuss many questions related to the media's representation about different minorities in society and its relation with stereotypes. The 'minorities' which are often in the limelight these days seem to be discussion and representation about gays and lesbians. What do you think about the recent news reports about the group of gays who contracted HIV disease? Do you think some reports are 'just reporting' the facts, or try to brand them as the group that are often linked with AIDS? HOw is that related to the recent discussion by the Equal Opportunities Commission to propose a law on anti-discrimmination on sexual orientation? How is that also related to the discussion around 'Brokeback Mountain', the film itself as well as how mainstream Hong Kong news adopting 'Brokeback Mountain' in their coverage of gay sex in public toilet? I think this issue is very interesting and deserves discussion here.

Lisa