What struck me most while reading for tomorrow was the rationalization of the actual human dearth in the culture industry. By this I mean, the susceptibility of human thought being shaped by technology (media, press, propaganda, etc) and how our culture can be shaped by capitalistic technics such as the press. Humans have transitioned from being direct participants to being directed participants in their own culture. In both the Adorno and Horkheimer and Marcuse readings there was the notion that humans have been utterly desensitized and have conformed to technological and hegemonic rationales that their individualistic reality functions in. An individual’s perception and reality are shaped by efficient compliance with machine-like technological rationale. In other words, while it may seem that one does hold their own individualistic reality, their reality relies heavily on the external status quo of human behavior that is outfitted with the rationality of the machine process. Marcuse writes that, “The rational self-interest did not coincide with the individual’s immediate self-interest, for the latter depended upon the standards and requirements of the prevailing social order, places there not by his autonomous thought and conscience but by external authorities” (p. 140). The critical cultural theories surrounding media and communication that we have read about are strikingly similar to some Marxist theory where we see the division between classes of capitalists and proletariats. There is a division between the journalist and the public, one is focused on producing knowledge while the other is working to understand the knowledge in order to participate in democracy and to function in their society.
We have learned that one of journalism’s oldest and most honored principle is that journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. Keeping in mind the critical cultural theories of communication we have read about I think we should attempt to dissemble the dichotomy between the press and the public through utilizing individual narratives for what they are rather than weaving together narratives to portray one “truth” or story about guns in schools. We are not trying to create a story instead, we are trying to convey truth in a way that sparks dialogue and solution seeking. I think we have done a nice job of this so far by selecting a wide range of interviewees and participants for our media campaigns.
Engaged Journalism has arisen in an age where emphasis has moved from top-down dictation of all matters to a more democratized, bottom-up society. This comes in conjunction with the rise of a mass media that allows people to connect across time and space in ways that even 10 or 20 years ago would have been far more challenging and even impossible to pursue. How are we to consider the place of Engaged Journalism in society? Further, what role should Engaged Journalism play in the age of decentralization?
Engaged Journalism fulfills a desire of modern communities to play a role in telling their own stories. Humans are natural storytellers and have always sought ways to share their lived experiences with the world. For much time, there was not a real forum for telling one’s story with the knowledge that someone beyond one’s immediate circle would ever encounter it. Today, this has changed considerably, with the advent of media that allows people to push content out to the world through the internet. We have spent a lot of time in class talking about what does and does not qualify as journalism. I think we have pretty solidly agreed that Tweets, YouTube videos, and Facebook posts by general people are not in and of themselves pieces of journalism. That said, they can easily spark work for Engaged Journalists. For the Engaged Journalist, these can serve as nuggets of information that lead to news. Additionally, by engaging the original content creators in the creation of the final work, journalists can create collaborative work that serves both themselves and the community. In this way, the journalists become the experts on the forms and disciplinary conventions while the public become suppliers of content and, ideally collaborators in the whole process. This is an exciting time to be a consumer and aspirational creator of the media.
Journalists should be careful to manage their own desires with the desires of the community. The role of the journalist is no longer to dictate the whole story but rather to bring expertise and knowledge on a wider range of content to the creation of a final narrative. In recognizing the knowledge of the community, journalists can have more power to create work that can spark change and growth in society.
To summarize “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology” by Herbert Marcuse, he opens his text with defining technology as “a social process” in which humans are “an integral part and factor” (138). He goes on to complicate technology, positing that it does not exist in a simple binary of good or bad; rather, Marcuse argues, technology can foster either “authoritarianism” or “liberty” (140) depending on context and how it is exploited. After acknowledging its complexity, he suggests that technology is creating a new rationality (‘technological rationality’ versus the previous ‘individualistic rationality’), effectively standardizing the individual and erasing human autonomy. This standardization serves to produce submissive creatures in “the prevailing order” (Marcuse 145), which directly attends to capitalist interests of efficiency, production and compliance and encourages alienation of labor. Continuing in the arena of jobs and capitalism, Marcuse goes on to write about how technology helps ‘democratize’ (152) jobs by making employment opportunities about vocational training rather than innate skills; however, this democratization is “counteracted by their atomization” (154). Although much of his paper is centered around the disadvantages of and the challenges caused by technology, he concludes his paper on an almost hopeful note. Despite his clear hesitations about how technology will continue to (negatively) impact our world, Marcuse posits that technology also has the power to create a “utopia” (161), writing: “mechanization and standardization may one day help to shift the center of gravity from the necessities of material production to the arena of free human realization” (160). Thus, Marcuse suggests that technology could in fact create a utopia of sorts in providing humans more time for self-actualization and development because they are no longer beholden to the ever-present necessity of production.
Transitioning to analysis and theory, given the contents of our class, I was particularly struck by Marcuse’s discussion of ‘crowds’ and his distinction between them and ‘communities.’ He argues that crowds consist of “individuals…who cease thinking” and that crowds are “thus the antithesis of ‘community,’ and the perverted realization of individuality” (150). We’ve spent a large portion of class discussing the value of community and engaged journalists’ obligation to collaborating with community members. However, Marcuse’s quote reminded me that communities inherently consist of individual people with distinct ideals, beliefs, backgrounds and stories and that in covering and collaborating with communities, we need to include as diverse an array of members as possible and not paint a simple, homogenous picture.
Another Marcuse quote that I argue relates to engaged journalism is the following: “Rationality here calls for unconditional compliance and coordination, and consequently, the truth values related to this rationality imply the subordination of thought to pre-given external standards” (147). In my opinion, this quote speaks directly to the hegemonic tendencies we discussed today in class, and how as engaged journalists, we have to push against “external standards” and reveal the truth as determined by the community. Thus, to return to a discussion from last week, we must not focus entirely on the ‘rational’ but rather on the ‘emotive’ and the human experience. We cannot comply with previous coverage of a neighborhood if that coverage was one-sided or blatantly false; instead, we are obligated to collaborate and elevate the voices of those previously silenced and/or excluded.
The readings from this night seem to largely have a negative view on technology/communication and its impact on culture; especially on the ideas of individualism versus collectivism. Arguments by the Frankfurt school follow the idea of media constantly needing to adhere to a changing audience, and having to lump consumers in as a whole. This media which Frankfurt describes is self aware of its impact on culture: “outliers” are swallowed up by the media industry. They “belong” to it far before they can even conceptualize the actual media industry. The characterization of the masses is almost dystopic in nature; the way that humans are allowed to be so easily shaped by technology. The journalist is the shaper in this narrative; isn’t this what we’ve already established? Journalists do shape what the public is thinking about merely by what they write about, who they talk to in order to write it, and when they put it out. Journalists, providers of content, are fully aware of the impact they have on the public which is why they are so efficient. In an age of media overload, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to have this guidance. To contextualize it, I look at the Martin Luther example that Anderson provides; in the age of Martin Luther, the Catholic church was dominant and confusing in the exposure which was coming out about indulgences and corruption. But this information was vital, in order to protect the people; and thus the 95 Theses were constructed and Protestantism was created. This is easier connected to engaged journalism than not. Journalists have means that the people don’t, and the people have experiences that the journalists don’t; Martin Luther utilized his literacy to share the peasants’ experiences. Culture is changed by the way that journalists cover stories. By creating his own ideas of solutions, Martin Luther was able to lead a group into a new religion, which was the answer to the problem of the Catholic church; it also led to new culture and new concepts. Modern journalists can do the same; there’s not too much of a difference. With guns in schools, there seems to be a culture of fear cultivated through the way that news has covered it. With the new way we hope to engage with the subject, we will propose a new culture of change and understanding.
I struggled with the readings and found them far denser than what we have read before in this class. I am still parsing out and digesting them, but here is what I understood. The point that I found most interesting was how the new technology impacted human individuality. Historically, people valued and thought individually. The piece discusses that humans have become, with the introduction of new technology, “indifferent and insusceptible to the impact of critical thought” and have been “stripped of their individuality, not by external compulsion, but by the very rationality under which they live.” The new technology creates and produces a singular truth that the public just accepts to be true, they “cease thinking.” Marcuse describes how individuality of thought is a thing of the past and now, with new technology, thoughts are standardized.
This piece made me think of our guns in schools project. I do not want to take away readers’ individualities and critical thinking. I want to create a story that provides them with the tools to begin coming up with their own solutions, not tell them what to think. Journalists should provide the public with a large variety of facts, truths, and breadth of information. It is up to the reader to start the conversations and begin problem-solving. I think we have done a good job with trying to parse out stories and truths from a variety of people. We are trying to gain many different perspectives and use the perspectives to create a story. We are allowing the public to be critical thinkers in the process of us creating our story, whether through art, interviews, or Facebook posts. I think a big thing to consider is how we end our story. How will we share enough information spark discussion in the public without concluding the topic? How will we ensure people are being active receivers of the news and starting to problem solve?
“The Work of Art in the Age of It’s Technological Responsibility” discusses the role that art plays in society as the conditions of production change. The piece states that tradition concepts such as “creativity and genius” used in an uncontrolled way “allow factual material to be manipulated in the interests of fascism”, and also for the purpose of political art (Benjamin 101-102). Photography came to be one of the most powerful forms of political art because it has the potential to be reproduced by technology (technological reproduction being a form of art itself).
Mass circulated photographs have the power to substitute, “a mass existence for a unique existence” (Benjamin 104). Emmett Tills’ mother, Mamie, took it upon herself to share the photo of her son’s mangled face with as many people as possible and in the process, Emmett lost his individuality and became the face of a movement for many communities. The photographs from the events following his death also held power in their lasting nature — the images are still well-known decades later and serve as a historical record, as does much of journalism. Contrastingly, “the alignment of reality with the masses and of the masses with reality is a process of immeasurable importance for both thinking and perception” (105). Both Ida B. Wells and Mamie strove to align their audiences with the harsh reality of race relations by sharing with them facts and stories. Our responsibility as a class lies in telling the stories of school shootings while grounding people in the facts of how unlikely school shootings really are.
The Benjamin article also points out that as journalism became more available to the public, more and more people began gaining the skills to become a journalist, given that it is a career not necessarily founded on higher education. As a trade of sorts, journalism is more accessible to those with less education. Perhaps a tenet of engaged journalism that we have yet to discuss is making the training to be a journalist more accessible to those interested. A part of going into communities could go beyond listening to community members stories by telling your own story of how you became a journalist and then providing people with the resources they need to get the proper training. Newspapers that practice engaged journalism could become resources for those looking to pursue journalism. Engaged journalism is a more moral form of journalism and thus necessitates more responsibilities.
In the excerpt “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology,” Herbert Marcuse delves into the depths of human instinct and desire in a world run by technology. Although only mentioning journalism once, Marcuse’s work can be applied to the modern-day need to have a functioning institution of the press.
Because of technology, Marcuse argues that people have become efficient and rational. Technology has halted every need to be spontaneous, and now humans are able to live their lives in the shadow of technology of all sorts, constantly directed by the most optimal use of their time. But this all comes with the predetermined assumption that society is mature and well-run. What Marcuse largely doesn’t touch on is the fact that equality doesn’t exist, society always has been created by a minority of powerful people, and it probably won’t ever become perfect.
This is where journalism steps in, and especially engaged journalism, given that traditional journalism, while beginning with upstanding principles, has largely failed in achieving a fair society. While the world’s wrongs are too large to be fixed by a certain entity, engaged journalism offers a fresh start to better represent a larger population than ever before, in its specificity to a given community.
For too long, society has been controlled by a power-having minority, and with the groundwork laid by the good side of traditional journalism, engaged journalism can rise to help problem-solve. As stated in Marcuse’s writing, the laws and norms have been set by those with access to technology. But engaged journalism can provide an outlet for the disadvantaged, helping to give a voice to the voiceless. With collaboration and engagement with people that have been taken advantage of for hundreds of years, a greater part of society can understand and educate themselves on how wrong society has been built. But it’s going to take a lot more than that to create strong, hard, change.
Companies have become more and more transparent in relation to their primary interests on making a profit. They no longer try to conceal the fact that they are working to reel in copious amounts of money or that certain tactics used in their projects—whether it be a movie produced by the film industry or an investigative piece produced by a news outlet—are mass produced and specifically exploitative of human instincts like fear, anger and sadness to draw consumers in. News pieces will often dramatize and sensationalize their stories and headlines to get more clicks and views. And as levels of technological accessibility continue to increase, the levels of transparency within big companies in terms of profit continue to increase as well. Even with the increased accessibility of finding how much money these companies are actually making, people continue to readily support them. The profit-driven interests of news outlets and other media companies do not seem to be much of a deterrent to anyone.
Adorno and Horkheimer emphasize that in media, there is something for everyone. Or in other words, there is no way to not be sucked in. Their article stresses the eeriness of the entertainment industry and the ways in which consumers are unknowingly manipulated and almost coded with “the latest psychological formulas” (4). Companies know what works and they continue to crank out pieces that fit a binary. Benjamin expands upon this when he explains “the unique value of the ‘authentic’ work of art always has its basis in ritual” (105). Artists create, their pieces sell, and they continue to recreate the aspects that allow their pieces that sell. They play off of emotions that they know will capture the attention of viewers. It always works and they continue to reuse the tactic. This formulaic approach to entertainment and news creates a level of commodification that could be viewed as shallow and meaningless.
For tonights reading, I focussed on “The Culture Industry – Enlightenment as Mass Deception” written by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. This piece explores the capitalist environment Americans live in and how it has shaped an extremely rigid society. Specifically, the piece speaks a lot about this idea of “Culture Industry”. We live in a society where all industries are either directly or indirectly economically intertwined with one another. Additionally, the media and all art forms have been so manipulated that they no longer even qualify as art. This is because all industries are forced to follow the same formula, so that art actually becomes predictable to the consumer. As the Adorno and Horkheimer put it, “their [the media and all industries for that matter] prearranged harmony is a mockery of what had to be striven after in the great bourgeois works of art” (5). Because everyone and every industry get shoved through this filter, there is no room left for creativity. The consumers play a larger role in culture industry because it is inherently embedded in our society. Furthermore, they write “there is nothing left for the consumer to classify”. This is because the consumers are merely statistics on a scatter plot, and the media spoon-feeds the public what they want.
In thinking about the culture industry through the lens of engaged journalism, I am wondering about how engaged journalists avoid this. It is the duty of an engaged journalist to try to emerge from this industry and tell the public what they need to know to enable them for success. Thus a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism would most definitely not follow culture industry. Culture industry to me seems to be this monotonous and unbreakable pattern of industries following the status quo. Engaged journalism, however, is method of journalism that defies those standards of traditional journalism. Thus, a more accurate cultural theory of engaged journalism would be to not put all media through a filter, and publish what’s really happening even if it’s not conventional. News isn’t supposed to follow rules, it is supposed to inform the public.
‘The Cultural Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’ by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer presented the idea that all entertainment we consume is devised to make money and mostly follows the same script. Adorno and Horkheimer believed that “the culture industry” is a hazard to true art. The essay made me question if journalism should even be considered art.
At no point in time has a journalist ever written a piece of work devoid of bias. Writing, interviewing and editing all involve decisions which leads to a different end product. Furthermore, a journalist’s past experiences shapes these decisions making no product produced exactly the same as any another. In this way, journalism appears to be an art form. Each writer holds the tools to shape their piece in a specific and unique way.
However, addressing Adorno and Max’s idea that media is produced for consumption and can not be art, I struggle to fully understand journalism as art in a consumer world. Journalist’s work has no influence without audience. With many competing news outlets, journalists must fight for viewers. They use methods like breaking news without a full picture and flashy headings. In this way, as predicted in the essay, journalist articles do follow a script that is expected by the consumer. In conclusion, journalism may be an art form, but in today’s world it is hard to fully call it art.
Honestly, I very much struggled with these readings and processing all of them together. My main focus was the Marcuse reading, which, while being majority focused on technology, I found very relevant to how we’ve also discussed media. In this one statement, I think Marcuse captures the essence of power that both technology and journalism (which is now often shared through technology) have: “technology is...a mode of organizing and perpetuating (or changing) social relationships, a manifestation of prevalent thought and behavior patterns, an instrument for control and domination” (139). This ties together so many of the things we’ve been talking about in class regarding journalism -- words have so much power, and identifying that is wildly important to ensure that power and domination is not abused. It is common that whatever is written as journalism is assumed to be fact (particularly when it comes from people similar to oneself, or from a news source that one agrees with), and then shifts the discourse surrounding that topic. For each individual, it is often easier to believe what is written and adapt thoughts and behaviors around that belief than to evaluate and engage with each piece of information and disseminate individual meaning from it. “His [the individual’s] matter-of-factness, his distrust of all values which transcend the f acts of observation, his resentment against all ‘quasi-personal’ and metaphysical interpretation, his suspicion of all standards which relate the observable order of things...this whole attitude serves all too well those who are interested in perpetuating the prevailing forms of matters of fact” (Marcuse 145). If this is the case, a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism could be focused on who is sharing what knowledge and what their inherent biases are (as we talked about the past few days in class), and attempting to create a system of acknowledgement of these biases such that in engaged journalistic pieces they can be identified and, as much as possible, removed. The theory of engaged journalism entails providing context and information without providing decisions and opinions that can control the common narrative. I’m not sure how possible this is, or if Marcuse would believe that there is space for journalism to not have the level of domination that he describes it is...but I am not sure that there is any form of journalism that Marcuse would say is not controlling and adaptive.
W2D4 - What might a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism look like? - Isabella McShea
From what I have understood throughout the readings thus far, critical cultural theory is rooted in understanding how various types of art, technology, and communication are shaping our societies. Whenever new technology emerges, there is a large cultural shift as we adjust and understand how they are affecting our lives. From the printing press to Twitter, our lives are constantly evolving with how culture can change and adjust. I find it extremely interesting that this area of study (critical cultural theory) exists and is pushing academics to take time to look back and more fully understand how each new “thing” is changing each of our lives whether we know it or not.
In terms of engaged journalism, I find it intriguing to understand how professionals in the field can start to deconstruct their use of social media. I had no idea that many journalists go through Twitter crash courses and are even mandated to engage with our constituents through social media. Crowdsourcing information is a wonderful way to create audience participation through journalism. However, taking time to understand the implications of how social media is connecting people to the news is equally important. I think that a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism could look like many things, however, Twitter seems to be the central starting point of where this field could go.
Twitter has become a mass sourced breaking news machine. By monitoring how many news sources tweet their stories, and where those stories end up on twitter, could be a facining quantitative evaluation of how engaged journalism is spread and/or sourced. Do stories stay within the same demographics of people, or do they come in contact with a diverse range of genders/races/sexes/sexualities? Understanding that Twitter has become a sort of polarized echo-chamber of information, it could be fascinating to see if news does get around or just stays in one place. Additionally, by using Twitter to ask what people feel is important or deserves journalistic priority, engaged journalists could more easily pinpoint what stories or narratives are not be addressed. The public deserves more from our journalists, and using critical cultural theory to inform engaged journalism seems like a necessary next step!
Engaged journalism is journalism that has evolved to meet the needs of citizens in the age of information. Modern technology enables people to recieve information and provide information more readily than ever. Although this can relate to a more homogenous culture as elaborated by Marcuse, I would argue that the vast amount of information avaialbe at our fingertips can promote individuality because for better or for worse we can largely choose to hear whatever information we want to, Ideally, engaged journalism is produced with the purest of intentions - to facilitate conversation and prioritizing of issues, to build community and raise awareness... In line with Adorno's views on art, engaged journalism can be a weapon of social change because its power isn't that it contains a radical message - the form itself of engaged journalism is radical and works against social norms. Capitalist society can work against the ideally pure intentions of engaged journalism. To produce the kind of work described, the citizens must be first priority. This might not always be possible when journalists must make a living. As described by Adorno, capitalism rids art of individuality and creativity, producing a formulaic culture. This can be seen in the world of journalism when many stories seem to cover a similar arc. In the guns and schools realm, we have seen how coverage of Columbine produced a formula for news coverage to come, and how much coverage focuses on similar parts of the stories.
The readings last night presented two core outlooks on the impact of a collective culture. The more optimistic one typified in Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, whereas Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s work The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception casts a condemning light on the web of shared culture that our current society is enmeshed in. Horkheimer and Adorno bemoan the uniformity of produced culture to be almost jail-like, robbing consumers and producers alike of any space to create original content that is free from capitalist constraints. They argue that under this structure, art can no longer exist. Further, works that market themselves as art no longer have to “pretend to be art” in order to be sold as such, as long as they can fit within a pre-existing, marketable framework for consumers to see. I disagree with this argument and feel that anyone who believes in the value of engaged journalism must as well. Art is not bereft of meaning, and nor are we bereft of feeling, solely because the circumstances are reproducible. Meaning can be made sense of by art or other works, such as journalism, even if they are created under the gridlock of a “culture industry” On the other hand, Anderson’s core argument posits that “the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community” (page 46). This vision of shared community provides a significantly more positive outlook on the future of global culture. Rather than arguing that the convergence of multiple cultures lock them all into one formulaic future, Anderson sees a possibility for this convergence to create a “new form”. Perhaps this new form can allow a space for engaged journalism. It can participate in the creation of a shared community, be that online or actual.
The reading I was tasked to focus on the most last night was Adorno and Horkheimer’s The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. The argument Adorno and Horkheimer were trying to make, as I understand it, is that our culture has become a commodity and therefor so have we. Our culture industry has become “identical” and “need no longer pretend to be art,” (Adorno, Horkheimer). I think Adorno and Horkheimer make this claim of no longer being considered to be an art to due our economy and power of industry leaders, “People at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly,” and “They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed,” (Adorno and Horkheimer). In interpret this to mean that the products of our culture industry are controlled by big money rather than art. The culture industry is not autonomous from the “people at the top”.
In terms of our class and engaged journalism I think it is important to keep in mind Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument. Although their article paints a picture of citizens following the whims of a culture industry that is manipulative of its audience. It's important in journalism to remain independent from outside sources and not allow money and power to write the stories.
Another point Adorno and Horkheimer raised that is interesting is how consumers see through the façade, “The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them,” (Adorno and Horkheimer). The fact that those in the culture industry are able to so openly influence the industry and it be okay is interesting. I think not only do journalists have to be aware of their role, but so do citizens. The audience has to be critical and questioning.
One of the main goals of engaged journalism was highlighted by Horkenheimer in his analysis of the creation of roles in which to consume media under capitalism. He compares telephone to radio with "The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same." His further examples of various types of marketing based on class distinctions further cemements the point, which we can easily apply to engaged journalistic practices. Rather than dictating or 'truth telling', there is sometimes needed an approach that allows for much more subtlety and freedom and this is where engaged journalism comes in. Community focused journalism allows us to sidestep the issues Horkenheimer highlighted to explain why "No machinery of rejoinder has been devised" for example the fact that private/independent producers of media are labeled amateurs who "have to accept organisation from above". Though the citizen journalism branch of engaged journalism has many flaws, it does show that more human, more hopeful, and more practical journalism without agenda can be easily accepted by people even if it comes from social media, as this is already where they have been accepting less positive media for years.
What might a critical cultural theory of EJ look like?
Well, I found the article "Some Social Implications of Modern Technology" by Herbert Marcuse extremely interesting, though I'm not sure yet how to connect it to the question "What might a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism look like?". I suppose there are two ideas that I could connect to theories of engaged journalism, both linked to Marcuse's discussion of individuality.
Marcuse speaks about the traditional, 16th and 17th century view of the individua las a blank slate taking rational actions in pursuit of self-interest. In the machine age, the individual is stripped of all individual characteristics that define his behavior except that of self-interest. Thus, I would like to think that engaged journalism shows and portrays individuals for their full selves. Engaged journalism takes the time and effort to understand people not only as parts of a "crowd" but as individuals with varying desires and motivations beyond the pursuit of self-interest.
Further, I found Marcuse's statements on the "crowd" quite interesting. Marcuse asserts that the crowds we find ourselves into are in on way true communities, rather perverted realizations of individuality. I consider a central theme of engaged journalism to foster true community through fair representation of events and perspectives as well as the fostering of dialogue among community members. Thus, we are not mere individuals clumped in a crowd with our own separate lives, rather a community working towards common goals.
I found the Benjamin reading to be a little difficult (the reading I am ‘expert’ at today) but from what I understood from it and the other readings is critical cultural theory of engaged journalism is based on our use of technology, art, and communication. To me, this means that journalism is going to always be changing and adapting as those three characteristics (technology, art, and communication) also change.
The use social media is a great example of how journalism has had to change. Working for Peoples Climate Movement this summer really showed me how there had to be adaptations. I had to utilize social media to help release information about the march to the general public, but also reach out to different journalists through social media as well. This was something my co-workers didn’t know how to do, and I had to host webinars on how to use social media efficiently.
Out of tonight’s readings, I focused on Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s “The Culture Industry – Enlightenment as Mass Deception”. Considering it was originally written in 1944, it really struck me how their implications and commentary about capitalism and the society we live in are still highly applicable. In short, they make the statement that popular culture is basically a mass-producing standardized cultural goods that can be used to exploit the general public and manipulate them to think in the same ways. Through the simple consumption different forms of media, such as radio, magazines, newspapers, and TV, the people learn to be satisfied, at least temporarily, through the subtle manipulation which the messages and distractions of these cultural goods. The danger which exists in this “culture industry” is the creation of “false psychological needs” which can only be filled by products of capitalism. While Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s critiques of our reality are harsh and intimidating, I do think they have a serious point of the way we are so easily controlled by the media we are consuming and choose not to question the existence which we live in.
What struck me most while reading for tomorrow was the rationalization of the actual human dearth in the culture industry. By this I mean, the susceptibility of human thought being shaped by technology (media, press, propaganda, etc) and how our culture can be shaped by capitalistic technics such as the press. Humans have transitioned from being direct participants to being directed participants in their own culture. In both the Adorno and Horkheimer and Marcuse readings there was the notion that humans have been utterly desensitized and have conformed to technological and hegemonic rationales that their individualistic reality functions in. An individual’s perception and reality are shaped by efficient compliance with machine-like technological rationale. In other words, while it may seem that one does hold their own individualistic reality, their reality relies heavily on the external status quo of human behavior that is outfitted with the rationality of the machine process. Marcuse writes that, “The rational self-interest did not coincide with the individual’s immediate self-interest, for the latter depended upon the standards and requirements of the prevailing social order, places there not by his autonomous thought and conscience but by external authorities” (p. 140). The critical cultural theories surrounding media and communication that we have read about are strikingly similar to some Marxist theory where we see the division between classes of capitalists and proletariats. There is a division between the journalist and the public, one is focused on producing knowledge while the other is working to understand the knowledge in order to participate in democracy and to function in their society.
ReplyDeleteWe have learned that one of journalism’s oldest and most honored principle is that journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. Keeping in mind the critical cultural theories of communication we have read about I think we should attempt to dissemble the dichotomy between the press and the public through utilizing individual narratives for what they are rather than weaving together narratives to portray one “truth” or story about guns in schools. We are not trying to create a story instead, we are trying to convey truth in a way that sparks dialogue and solution seeking. I think we have done a nice job of this so far by selecting a wide range of interviewees and participants for our media campaigns.
Engaged Journalism has arisen in an age where emphasis has moved from top-down dictation of all matters to a more democratized, bottom-up society. This comes in conjunction with the rise of a mass media that allows people to connect across time and space in ways that even 10 or 20 years ago would have been far more challenging and even impossible to pursue. How are we to consider the place of Engaged Journalism in society? Further, what role should Engaged Journalism play in the age of decentralization?
ReplyDeleteEngaged Journalism fulfills a desire of modern communities to play a role in telling their own stories. Humans are natural storytellers and have always sought ways to share their lived experiences with the world. For much time, there was not a real forum for telling one’s story with the knowledge that someone beyond one’s immediate circle would ever encounter it. Today, this has changed considerably, with the advent of media that allows people to push content out to the world through the internet. We have spent a lot of time in class talking about what does and does not qualify as journalism. I think we have pretty solidly agreed that Tweets, YouTube videos, and Facebook posts by general people are not in and of themselves pieces of journalism. That said, they can easily spark work for Engaged Journalists. For the Engaged Journalist, these can serve as nuggets of information that lead to news. Additionally, by engaging the original content creators in the creation of the final work, journalists can create collaborative work that serves both themselves and the community. In this way, the journalists become the experts on the forms and disciplinary conventions while the public become suppliers of content and, ideally collaborators in the whole process. This is an exciting time to be a consumer and aspirational creator of the media.
Journalists should be careful to manage their own desires with the desires of the community. The role of the journalist is no longer to dictate the whole story but rather to bring expertise and knowledge on a wider range of content to the creation of a final narrative. In recognizing the knowledge of the community, journalists can have more power to create work that can spark change and growth in society.
To summarize “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology” by Herbert Marcuse, he opens his text with defining technology as “a social process” in which humans are “an integral part and factor” (138). He goes on to complicate technology, positing that it does not exist in a simple binary of good or bad; rather, Marcuse argues, technology can foster either “authoritarianism” or “liberty” (140) depending on context and how it is exploited. After acknowledging its complexity, he suggests that technology is creating a new rationality (‘technological rationality’ versus the previous ‘individualistic rationality’), effectively standardizing the individual and erasing human autonomy. This standardization serves to produce submissive creatures in “the prevailing order” (Marcuse 145), which directly attends to capitalist interests of efficiency, production and compliance and encourages alienation of labor. Continuing in the arena of jobs and capitalism, Marcuse goes on to write about how technology helps ‘democratize’ (152) jobs by making employment opportunities about vocational training rather than innate skills; however, this democratization is “counteracted by their atomization” (154). Although much of his paper is centered around the disadvantages of and the challenges caused by technology, he concludes his paper on an almost hopeful note. Despite his clear hesitations about how technology will continue to (negatively) impact our world, Marcuse posits that technology also has the power to create a “utopia” (161), writing: “mechanization and standardization may one day help to shift the center of gravity from the necessities of material production to the arena of free human realization” (160). Thus, Marcuse suggests that technology could in fact create a utopia of sorts in providing humans more time for self-actualization and development because they are no longer beholden to the ever-present necessity of production.
ReplyDeleteTransitioning to analysis and theory, given the contents of our class, I was particularly struck by Marcuse’s discussion of ‘crowds’ and his distinction between them and ‘communities.’ He argues that crowds consist of “individuals…who cease thinking” and that crowds are “thus the antithesis of ‘community,’ and the perverted realization of individuality” (150). We’ve spent a large portion of class discussing the value of community and engaged journalists’ obligation to collaborating with community members. However, Marcuse’s quote reminded me that communities inherently consist of individual people with distinct ideals, beliefs, backgrounds and stories and that in covering and collaborating with communities, we need to include as diverse an array of members as possible and not paint a simple, homogenous picture.
Another Marcuse quote that I argue relates to engaged journalism is the following: “Rationality here calls for unconditional compliance and coordination, and consequently, the truth values related to this rationality imply the subordination of thought to pre-given external standards” (147). In my opinion, this quote speaks directly to the hegemonic tendencies we discussed today in class, and how as engaged journalists, we have to push against “external standards” and reveal the truth as determined by the community. Thus, to return to a discussion from last week, we must not focus entirely on the ‘rational’ but rather on the ‘emotive’ and the human experience. We cannot comply with previous coverage of a neighborhood if that coverage was one-sided or blatantly false; instead, we are obligated to collaborate and elevate the voices of those previously silenced and/or excluded.
The readings from this night seem to largely have a negative view on technology/communication and its impact on culture; especially on the ideas of individualism versus collectivism. Arguments by the Frankfurt school follow the idea of media constantly needing to adhere to a changing audience, and having to lump consumers in as a whole. This media which Frankfurt describes is self aware of its impact on culture: “outliers” are swallowed up by the media industry. They “belong” to it far before they can even conceptualize the actual media industry. The characterization of the masses is almost dystopic in nature; the way that humans are allowed to be so easily shaped by technology. The journalist is the shaper in this narrative; isn’t this what we’ve already established? Journalists do shape what the public is thinking about merely by what they write about, who they talk to in order to write it, and when they put it out. Journalists, providers of content, are fully aware of the impact they have on the public which is why they are so efficient. In an age of media overload, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to have this guidance. To contextualize it, I look at the Martin Luther example that Anderson provides; in the age of Martin Luther, the Catholic church was dominant and confusing in the exposure which was coming out about indulgences and corruption. But this information was vital, in order to protect the people; and thus the 95 Theses were constructed and Protestantism was created. This is easier connected to engaged journalism than not. Journalists have means that the people don’t, and the people have experiences that the journalists don’t; Martin Luther utilized his literacy to share the peasants’ experiences. Culture is changed by the way that journalists cover stories. By creating his own ideas of solutions, Martin Luther was able to lead a group into a new religion, which was the answer to the problem of the Catholic church; it also led to new culture and new concepts. Modern journalists can do the same; there’s not too much of a difference. With guns in schools, there seems to be a culture of fear cultivated through the way that news has covered it. With the new way we hope to engage with the subject, we will propose a new culture of change and understanding.
ReplyDeleteI struggled with the readings and found them far denser than what we have read before in this class. I am still parsing out and digesting them, but here is what I understood. The point that I found most interesting was how the new technology impacted human individuality. Historically, people valued and thought individually. The piece discusses that humans have become, with the introduction of new technology, “indifferent and insusceptible to the impact of critical thought” and have been “stripped of their individuality, not by external compulsion, but by the very rationality under which they live.” The new technology creates and produces a singular truth that the public just accepts to be true, they “cease thinking.” Marcuse describes how individuality of thought is a thing of the past and now, with new technology, thoughts are standardized.
ReplyDeleteThis piece made me think of our guns in schools project. I do not want to take away readers’ individualities and critical thinking. I want to create a story that provides them with the tools to begin coming up with their own solutions, not tell them what to think. Journalists should provide the public with a large variety of facts, truths, and breadth of information. It is up to the reader to start the conversations and begin problem-solving. I think we have done a good job with trying to parse out stories and truths from a variety of people. We are trying to gain many different perspectives and use the perspectives to create a story. We are allowing the public to be critical thinkers in the process of us creating our story, whether through art, interviews, or Facebook posts. I think a big thing to consider is how we end our story. How will we share enough information spark discussion in the public without concluding the topic? How will we ensure people are being active receivers of the news and starting to problem solve?
“The Work of Art in the Age of It’s Technological Responsibility” discusses the role that art plays in society as the conditions of production change. The piece states that tradition concepts such as “creativity and genius” used in an uncontrolled way “allow factual material to be manipulated in the interests of fascism”, and also for the purpose of political art (Benjamin 101-102). Photography came to be one of the most powerful forms of political art because it has the potential to be reproduced by technology (technological reproduction being a form of art itself).
ReplyDeleteMass circulated photographs have the power to substitute, “a mass existence for a unique existence” (Benjamin 104). Emmett Tills’ mother, Mamie, took it upon herself to share the photo of her son’s mangled face with as many people as possible and in the process, Emmett lost his individuality and became the face of a movement for many communities. The photographs from the events following his death also held power in their lasting nature — the images are still well-known decades later and serve as a historical record, as does much of journalism. Contrastingly, “the alignment of reality with the masses and of the masses with reality is a process of immeasurable importance for both thinking and perception” (105). Both Ida B. Wells and Mamie strove to align their audiences with the harsh reality of race relations by sharing with them facts and stories. Our responsibility as a class lies in telling the stories of school shootings while grounding people in the facts of how unlikely school shootings really are.
The Benjamin article also points out that as journalism became more available to the public, more and more people began gaining the skills to become a journalist, given that it is a career not necessarily founded on higher education. As a trade of sorts, journalism is more accessible to those with less education. Perhaps a tenet of engaged journalism that we have yet to discuss is making the training to be a journalist more accessible to those interested. A part of going into communities could go beyond listening to community members stories by telling your own story of how you became a journalist and then providing people with the resources they need to get the proper training. Newspapers that practice engaged journalism could become resources for those looking to pursue journalism. Engaged journalism is a more moral form of journalism and thus necessitates more responsibilities.
In the excerpt “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology,” Herbert Marcuse delves into the depths of human instinct and desire in a world run by technology. Although only mentioning journalism once, Marcuse’s work can be applied to the modern-day need to have a functioning institution of the press.
ReplyDeleteBecause of technology, Marcuse argues that people have become efficient and rational. Technology has halted every need to be spontaneous, and now humans are able to live their lives in the shadow of technology of all sorts, constantly directed by the most optimal use of their time. But this all comes with the predetermined assumption that society is mature and well-run. What Marcuse largely doesn’t touch on is the fact that equality doesn’t exist, society always has been created by a minority of powerful people, and it probably won’t ever become perfect.
This is where journalism steps in, and especially engaged journalism, given that traditional journalism, while beginning with upstanding principles, has largely failed in achieving a fair society. While the world’s wrongs are too large to be fixed by a certain entity, engaged journalism offers a fresh start to better represent a larger population than ever before, in its specificity to a given community.
For too long, society has been controlled by a power-having minority, and with the groundwork laid by the good side of traditional journalism, engaged journalism can rise to help problem-solve. As stated in Marcuse’s writing, the laws and norms have been set by those with access to technology. But engaged journalism can provide an outlet for the disadvantaged, helping to give a voice to the voiceless. With collaboration and engagement with people that have been taken advantage of for hundreds of years, a greater part of society can understand and educate themselves on how wrong society has been built. But it’s going to take a lot more than that to create strong, hard, change.
Companies have become more and more transparent in relation to their primary interests on making a profit. They no longer try to conceal the fact that they are working to reel in copious amounts of money or that certain tactics used in their projects—whether it be a movie produced by the film industry or an investigative piece produced by a news outlet—are mass produced and specifically exploitative of human instincts like fear, anger and sadness to draw consumers in. News pieces will often dramatize and sensationalize their stories and headlines to get more clicks and views. And as levels of technological accessibility continue to increase, the levels of transparency within big companies in terms of profit continue to increase as well. Even with the increased accessibility of finding how much money these companies are actually making, people continue to readily support them. The profit-driven interests of news outlets and other media companies do not seem to be much of a deterrent to anyone.
ReplyDeleteAdorno and Horkheimer emphasize that in media, there is something for everyone. Or in other words, there is no way to not be sucked in. Their article stresses the eeriness of the entertainment industry and the ways in which consumers are unknowingly manipulated and almost coded with “the latest psychological formulas” (4). Companies know what works and they continue to crank out pieces that fit a binary. Benjamin expands upon this when he explains “the unique value of the ‘authentic’ work of art always has its basis in ritual” (105). Artists create, their pieces sell, and they continue to recreate the aspects that allow their pieces that sell. They play off of emotions that they know will capture the attention of viewers. It always works and they continue to reuse the tactic. This formulaic approach to entertainment and news creates a level of commodification that could be viewed as shallow and meaningless.
For tonights reading, I focussed on “The Culture Industry – Enlightenment as Mass Deception” written by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. This piece explores the capitalist environment Americans live in and how it has shaped an extremely rigid society. Specifically, the piece speaks a lot about this idea of “Culture Industry”. We live in a society where all industries are either directly or indirectly economically intertwined with one another. Additionally, the media and all art forms have been so manipulated that they no longer even qualify as art. This is because all industries are forced to follow the same formula, so that art actually becomes predictable to the consumer. As the Adorno and Horkheimer put it, “their [the media and all industries for that matter] prearranged harmony is a mockery of what had to be striven after in the great bourgeois works of art” (5). Because everyone and every industry get shoved through this filter, there is no room left for creativity. The consumers play a larger role in culture industry because it is inherently embedded in our society. Furthermore, they write “there is nothing left for the consumer to classify”. This is because the consumers are merely statistics on a scatter plot, and the media spoon-feeds the public what they want.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking about the culture industry through the lens of engaged journalism, I am wondering about how engaged journalists avoid this. It is the duty of an engaged journalist to try to emerge from this industry and tell the public what they need to know to enable them for success. Thus a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism would most definitely not follow culture industry. Culture industry to me seems to be this monotonous and unbreakable pattern of industries following the status quo. Engaged journalism, however, is method of journalism that defies those standards of traditional journalism. Thus, a more accurate cultural theory of engaged journalism would be to not put all media through a filter, and publish what’s really happening even if it’s not conventional. News isn’t supposed to follow rules, it is supposed to inform the public.
‘The Cultural Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’ by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer presented the idea that all entertainment we consume is devised to make money and mostly follows the same script. Adorno and Horkheimer believed that “the culture industry” is a hazard to true art. The essay made me question if journalism should even be considered art.
ReplyDeleteAt no point in time has a journalist ever written a piece of work devoid of bias. Writing, interviewing and editing all involve decisions which leads to a different end product. Furthermore, a journalist’s past experiences shapes these decisions making no product produced exactly the same as any another. In this way, journalism appears to be an art form. Each writer holds the tools to shape their piece in a specific and unique way.
However, addressing Adorno and Max’s idea that media is produced for consumption and can not be art, I struggle to fully understand journalism as art in a consumer world. Journalist’s work has no influence without audience. With many competing news outlets, journalists must fight for viewers. They use methods like breaking news without a full picture and flashy headings. In this way, as predicted in the essay, journalist articles do follow a script that is expected by the consumer. In conclusion, journalism may be an art form, but in today’s world it is hard to fully call it art.
Honestly, I very much struggled with these readings and processing all of them together. My main focus was the Marcuse reading, which, while being majority focused on technology, I found very relevant to how we’ve also discussed media. In this one statement, I think Marcuse captures the essence of power that both technology and journalism (which is now often shared through technology) have: “technology is...a mode of organizing and perpetuating (or changing) social relationships, a manifestation of prevalent thought and behavior patterns, an instrument for control and domination” (139). This ties together so many of the things we’ve been talking about in class regarding journalism -- words have so much power, and identifying that is wildly important to ensure that power and domination is not abused. It is common that whatever is written as journalism is assumed to be fact (particularly when it comes from people similar to oneself, or from a news source that one agrees with), and then shifts the discourse surrounding that topic. For each individual, it is often easier to believe what is written and adapt thoughts and behaviors around that belief than to evaluate and engage with each piece of information and disseminate individual meaning from it.
ReplyDelete“His [the individual’s] matter-of-factness, his distrust of all values which transcend the f
acts of observation, his resentment against all ‘quasi-personal’ and metaphysical
interpretation, his suspicion of all standards which relate the observable order of things...this
whole attitude serves all too well those who are interested in perpetuating the prevailing
forms of matters of fact” (Marcuse 145).
If this is the case, a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism could be focused on who is sharing what knowledge and what their inherent biases are (as we talked about the past few days in class), and attempting to create a system of acknowledgement of these biases such that in engaged journalistic pieces they can be identified and, as much as possible, removed. The theory of engaged journalism entails providing context and information without providing decisions and opinions that can control the common narrative. I’m not sure how possible this is, or if Marcuse would believe that there is space for journalism to not have the level of domination that he describes it is...but I am not sure that there is any form of journalism that Marcuse would say is not controlling and adaptive.
ReplyDeleteW2D4 - What might a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism look like? - Isabella McShea
From what I have understood throughout the readings thus far, critical cultural theory is rooted in understanding how various types of art, technology, and communication are shaping our societies. Whenever new technology emerges, there is a large cultural shift as we adjust and understand how they are affecting our lives. From the printing press to Twitter, our lives are constantly evolving with how culture can change and adjust. I find it extremely interesting that this area of study (critical cultural theory) exists and is pushing academics to take time to look back and more fully understand how each new “thing” is changing each of our lives whether we know it or not.
In terms of engaged journalism, I find it intriguing to understand how professionals in the field can start to deconstruct their use of social media. I had no idea that many journalists go through Twitter crash courses and are even mandated to engage with our constituents through social media. Crowdsourcing information is a wonderful way to create audience participation through journalism. However, taking time to understand the implications of how social media is connecting people to the news is equally important. I think that a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism could look like many things, however, Twitter seems to be the central starting point of where this field could go.
Twitter has become a mass sourced breaking news machine. By monitoring how many news sources tweet their stories, and where those stories end up on twitter, could be a facining quantitative evaluation of how engaged journalism is spread and/or sourced. Do stories stay within the same demographics of people, or do they come in contact with a diverse range of genders/races/sexes/sexualities? Understanding that Twitter has become a sort of polarized echo-chamber of information, it could be fascinating to see if news does get around or just stays in one place. Additionally, by using Twitter to ask what people feel is important or deserves journalistic priority, engaged journalists could more easily pinpoint what stories or narratives are not be addressed. The public deserves more from our journalists, and using critical cultural theory to inform engaged journalism seems like a necessary next step!
Engaged journalism is journalism that has evolved to meet the needs of citizens in the age of information. Modern technology enables people to recieve information and provide information more readily than ever. Although this can relate to a more homogenous culture as elaborated by Marcuse, I would argue that the vast amount of information avaialbe at our fingertips can promote individuality because for better or for worse we can largely choose to hear whatever information we want to, Ideally, engaged journalism is produced with the purest of intentions - to facilitate conversation and prioritizing of issues, to build community and raise awareness...
ReplyDeleteIn line with Adorno's views on art, engaged journalism can be a weapon of social change because its power isn't that it contains a radical message - the form itself of engaged journalism is radical and works against social norms.
Capitalist society can work against the ideally pure intentions of engaged journalism. To produce the kind of work described, the citizens must be first priority. This might not always be possible when journalists must make a living. As described by Adorno, capitalism rids art of individuality and creativity, producing a formulaic culture. This can be seen in the world of journalism when many stories seem to cover a similar arc. In the guns and schools realm, we have seen how coverage of Columbine produced a formula for news coverage to come, and how much coverage focuses on similar parts of the stories.
The readings last night presented two core outlooks on the impact of a collective culture. The more optimistic one typified in Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, whereas Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s work The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception casts a condemning light on the web of shared culture that our current society is enmeshed in.
ReplyDeleteHorkheimer and Adorno bemoan the uniformity of produced culture to be almost jail-like, robbing consumers and producers alike of any space to create original content that is free from capitalist constraints. They argue that under this structure, art can no longer exist. Further, works that market themselves as art no longer have to “pretend to be art” in order to be sold as such, as long as they can fit within a pre-existing, marketable framework for consumers to see. I disagree with this argument and feel that anyone who believes in the value of engaged journalism must as well. Art is not bereft of meaning, and nor are we bereft of feeling, solely because the circumstances are reproducible. Meaning can be made sense of by art or other works, such as journalism, even if they are created under the gridlock of a “culture industry”
On the other hand, Anderson’s core argument posits that “the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community” (page 46). This vision of shared community provides a significantly more positive outlook on the future of global culture. Rather than arguing that the convergence of multiple cultures lock them all into one formulaic future, Anderson sees a possibility for this convergence to create a “new form”. Perhaps this new form can allow a space for engaged journalism. It can participate in the creation of a shared community, be that online or actual.
ReplyDeleteThe reading I was tasked to focus on the most last night was Adorno and Horkheimer’s The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. The argument Adorno and Horkheimer were trying to make, as I understand it, is that our culture has become a commodity and therefor so have we. Our culture industry has become “identical” and “need no longer pretend to be art,” (Adorno, Horkheimer). I think Adorno and Horkheimer make this claim of no longer being considered to be an art to due our economy and power of industry leaders, “People at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly,” and “They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed,” (Adorno and Horkheimer). In interpret this to mean that the products of our culture industry are controlled by big money rather than art. The culture industry is not autonomous from the “people at the top”.
In terms of our class and engaged journalism I think it is important to keep in mind Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument. Although their article paints a picture of citizens following the whims of a culture industry that is manipulative of its audience. It's important in journalism to remain independent from outside sources and not allow money and power to write the stories.
Another point Adorno and Horkheimer raised that is interesting is how consumers see through the façade, “The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them,” (Adorno and Horkheimer). The fact that those in the culture industry are able to so openly influence the industry and it be okay is interesting. I think not only do journalists have to be aware of their role, but so do citizens. The audience has to be critical and questioning.
One of the main goals of engaged journalism was highlighted by Horkenheimer in his analysis of the creation of roles in which to consume media under capitalism. He compares telephone to radio with "The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same." His further examples of various types of marketing based on class distinctions further cemements the point, which we can easily apply to engaged journalistic practices. Rather than dictating or 'truth telling', there is sometimes needed an approach that allows for much more subtlety and freedom and this is where engaged journalism comes in. Community focused journalism allows us to sidestep the issues Horkenheimer highlighted to explain why "No machinery of rejoinder has been devised" for example the fact that private/independent producers of media are labeled amateurs who "have to accept organisation from above". Though the citizen journalism branch of engaged journalism has many flaws, it does show that more human, more hopeful, and more practical journalism without agenda can be easily accepted by people even if it comes from social media, as this is already where they have been accepting less positive media for years.
ReplyDeleteWhat might a critical cultural theory of EJ look like?
ReplyDeleteWell, I found the article "Some Social Implications of Modern Technology" by Herbert Marcuse extremely interesting, though I'm not sure yet how to connect it to the question "What might a critical cultural theory of engaged journalism look like?". I suppose there are two ideas that I could connect to theories of engaged journalism, both linked to Marcuse's discussion of individuality.
Marcuse speaks about the traditional, 16th and 17th century view of the individua las a blank slate taking rational actions in pursuit of self-interest. In the machine age, the individual is stripped of all individual characteristics that define his behavior except that of self-interest. Thus, I would like to think that engaged journalism shows and portrays individuals for their full selves. Engaged journalism takes the time and effort to understand people not only as parts of a "crowd" but as individuals with varying desires and motivations beyond the pursuit of self-interest.
Further, I found Marcuse's statements on the "crowd" quite interesting. Marcuse asserts that the crowds we find ourselves into are in on way true communities, rather perverted realizations of individuality. I consider a central theme of engaged journalism to foster true community through fair representation of events and perspectives as well as the fostering of dialogue among community members. Thus, we are not mere individuals clumped in a crowd with our own separate lives, rather a community working towards common goals.
I found the Benjamin reading to be a little difficult (the reading I am ‘expert’ at today) but from what I understood from it and the other readings is critical cultural theory of engaged journalism is based on our use of technology, art, and communication. To me, this means that journalism is going to always be changing and adapting as those three characteristics (technology, art, and communication) also change.
ReplyDeleteThe use social media is a great example of how journalism has had to change. Working for Peoples Climate Movement this summer really showed me how there had to be adaptations. I had to utilize social media to help release information about the march to the general public, but also reach out to different journalists through social media as well. This was something my co-workers didn’t know how to do, and I had to host webinars on how to use social media efficiently.
Out of tonight’s readings, I focused on Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s “The Culture Industry – Enlightenment as Mass Deception”. Considering it was originally written in 1944, it really struck me how their implications and commentary about capitalism and the society we live in are still highly applicable. In short, they make the statement that popular culture is basically a mass-producing standardized cultural goods that can be used to exploit the general public and manipulate them to think in the same ways. Through the simple consumption different forms of media, such as radio, magazines, newspapers, and TV, the people learn to be satisfied, at least temporarily, through the subtle manipulation which the messages and distractions of these cultural goods. The danger which exists in this “culture industry” is the creation of “false psychological needs” which can only be filled by products of capitalism. While Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s critiques of our reality are harsh and intimidating, I do think they have a serious point of the way we are so easily controlled by the media we are consuming and choose not to question the existence which we live in.
ReplyDelete