Reading Images

In the article "Reading Images" by Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen, the authors break down the composition of photographs, in order to depict the meaning behind the images.

Most notably among the various compositions, in my opinion, was Kress and van Leeuwen's explanation of why compositions matter.  The authors state that composition as it is selected by photographers and layout editors, develops the way that readers view the image (and often its corresponding article).

The type of photograph that I personally find the most striking is the "fly on the wall" photograph.  The authors explain this type of image as one that the subjects are unaware that someone is photographing them, unaware that this event or experience or time in their life is being recorded.  One example that immediately came to my mind was the following:

This photograph was taken by a "fly on the wall" and yet it had a tremendous impact result from it.  The photograph was taken by Wayne Tilcock of The Enterprise and was captioned, "University of California, Davis Police Lt. John Pike uses pepper spray Friday to move peacefully Occupy UC Davis protesters while blocking their exit from the school's quad in Davis, CA.  Pike is a retired US Marine sergeant twice honored for his police work on campus."

The image's photographer may not have known exactly what the media audience's reaction would be to it, but he still had a purpose in mind when he took the photo.  It was to very clearly make a statement about the almost "assailant" role the police officer played for the "victims" or students.

My questions for discussion are though, do all photographs have this same power?  Who decides the impact that a photograph will have?  Is this another case of the infamous "CNN Effect"?  How is the CNN Effect determined with regard to photographs?  Do all photographs have credibility if we know that photographers take certain pictures to represent certain perspectives?

Illusions

Within only a few seconds of beginning Sturken and Cartwright’s article “Viewer Make Meaning,” I had developed a conclusion about what the authors of the article were going to say.

The example that immediately sprang to my mind is the idea of an optical illusion.

Consider the picture below:

What do you see? 

This is a classic, perhaps the most classic, example of an optical illusion.  Some people see two faces looking at each other.  Some people see a wine goblet.  Some people still, see both.

But what did the artist intend to be seen?

This example mirrors precisely what Sturken and Cartwright’s article alludes to: First, that “meanings are produced through the complex negotiations that make up the social process and practices through which we produce and interpret images.”

Wow.  So everything we see as consumers is intentional?

Second, the article indicates that “most, if not all, images have a meaning that is preferred by their producers.”  The article cites advertisers as a great example of this.  To illustrate this point, consider the Dove campaign and ads.  Personally, I am a huge fan of the Dove campaign.  I see it as nothing but a dedicated, honest company’s attempt to show women how to embrace their bodies and themselves as beautiful.

However, my sociology class recently discussed the Dove campaign at length, and one of my classmates brought to my attention that perhaps – just perhaps – Dove was actually using their “Real Beauty” campaign as an effective advertising strategy. 

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with my classmates’ hypothesis (I am after all a huge fan of the company policies, classes, and advertisements after all!)  But the idea did get me thinking about what I see, versus what the company intends for me to see.  The two are very distinctly linked, and it is important that as a consumer of media (and especially of advertising) that I see that and remember it.  How do producers, especially advertisers, so effectively cause consumers to believe in products?  

A Step in the Right Direction

Rowe’s article “Framed and Mounted: Sport Through the Photographic Eye” covers a wide variety of information regarding the area of sports photography.

The introduction of the article discusses the task of “unveiling” media sports photography – the characteristics of it, the propriety of it, the framing of it.  

Rowe says early on in the article that “still photography is . . . a form of communication that relies on the notion of ‘capture’ – frozen for all time is a gesture, an expression, incident, or landscape . . . . conducted like any other communicative act through processes of selection; many ‘snaps’ may be taken but only one shot [is] selected out of the multiple variations of angle, focus, composition, and light” (143).

I thought this quote was a marvelous representation of the true essence of what sports photography should be.  Rowe goes on to present many different examples of how sports photography is not as it should be, even arguing that it objectifies women.  Rowe cites an example of a dominant-looking male athlete standing next a submissive looking female athlete, and argues that the submissive stance of the female is objectifying.  Consider the images below from Vogue magazine, of Olympic hopefuls:

What do these images say about male athletes versus female athletes?  Why is Vogue magazine portraying gender roles this way?

I definitely do agree that Rowe presents some honest, realistic examples of the way females can be objectified by the media, particularly in terms of sports photography.  However, I also think that conversely, some media outlets do make attempts to show women as strong, athletic individuals.  The example that first comes to mind for me is the Nike commercial below.

Rowe certainly has a point when she asserts that the success of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue isn’t the result of the public’s sudden and short-lived interest in sports.  There is definitely media out there that is still objectifying women.  But I also think that companies like Nike are taking a step in the right direction.

My questions remain though - what do you think?  Is the sports journalism that you encounter day-to-day representing empowered, strong, female athletes?  Or is it seeking, in your opinion, to have women play a submissive role?  If the latter, how can we as consumers of the media, change this?  Either way, why do you think this is?  

The Reality Behind Photographs

“Images, Politics, and Power” by Sturken and Cartwright offers a extremely thorough perspective on the significance of photographs.  Whether they are icons, paintings, or photographs taken with a traditional or digital camera, images in general have an incredibly important role in our society.

Think about it.  What is the one thing that you absolutely can’t leave home without?  Drive without?  Travel without?  Purchase alcohol without?  Use a credit card without?

Your photo I.D.

I probably have to show or swipe my college photo I.D. card a minimum of three times a day.  Now that I am a junior in college and live in an apartment, I don’t have to use it nearly as often as I did in the past, but I still use it every time I want to purchase food or enter a university building.

Is it possible that nationally and even globally as a society, depend on photo I.D.s too much?  This article by Sturken and Cartwright suggests that may be the case.  After all, people are able to purchase fake identification if they want.  I.D.s can be reproduced.  Identities can be stolen.  Our photo I.D.s are easily the most prominently used identification methods in day to day life, whether it is for work, school, security, purchases, or driving.

Another aspect of the article that I found particularly interesting was the section regarding photo manipulation.  Photographs are so often used for evidence in courtrooms, in magazines, in our personal lives, on social media – and yet, Photoshop, iPhoto, and even editing options on our cell phones allow us to alter images.  This seems problematic to me, not only from an identification standpoint, as I already mentioned, but from a self-image standpoint.  An understanding of what is and is not real.  Of what should and should not be used comparatively.

The two main questions that this article caused me to reflect upon most are first, whether or not it is problematic that our society depends on photo I.D.s too much.  With so much opportunity for digital reconstruction at the average person’s fingertips, surely technology is emerging for professionals that could make identities stolen or created more easily.  How could this affect society?  

My second question is about what this will do for body image, particularly for women.  How will girls who are growing up at this very moment be able to remain confident in a time when images can be so easily altered? Will young girls increasingly compare themselves to people (especially models) who do not even exist?  I'm reminded of the Dove commercial that shows the inside scoop of an ordinary looking woman who receives a complete makeover, models for an advertisement, and then whose picture is digitally altered.  The end result is a woman who does not even exist.  It perfectly illustrates the realities of altering images.

P.S. Check out Dove's website here to view their social mission, beliefs about body image, and much more!

Blogging Brands

Rettberg’s article, “Blogging Brands” offers insight regarding different forms of advertising utilized by bloggers, and the positive and negative aspects of each.

Until my Digital Communications class, I honestly did not know that some people blogged professionally.  Blogging as a career, with a salary was a completely foreign concept to be.  For someone to “bring home the bacon” just by writing for free online was confusing to me.  If anyone may blog, then how can people possibly make a living off it?  Then of course, it came to me – everything made sense – these bloggers use advertising.

Blogs that get a lot of traffic, naturally, can be supported by advertising.  It is up to the bloggers themselves to determine what types of ads they are comfortable with – some prefer small ads on the sidebar of the blog, some like banner ads, and some, use sponsored ads.

If we’re being completely honest (and I promise to always be honest on my blog!) I am not completely on board with the idea of blogger using advertisements.  Rettberg puts my perspective perfectly in her assertion on page 138:

Blogging is an unregulated area, and this is the sort of question that shows that blogging is not simply a form of journalism.  It is not clear whether blogging should follow the rules of mainstream media about separating editorial content from sponsored content, and even if there were an agreement about this, there would be no way to make bloggers follow it.  J.D. Lasica argues straight out that a blogger who wishes to be thought of as a journalist cannot post sponsored entries.

I am of the feeling that bloggers who post about specific products or companies for payment, are not necessarily being true to themselves, to their blogs, or to their audiences.  It would frustrate me to follow a blog that suddenly gained significant-enough traffic to where the author decided to start posting about random products.  I don’t choose to read blogs to be made to feel like a consumer.  I read blogs because I like what the author posts.  Once the author begins posting sponsored ads, it may not be the blog it used to be, and I may not like it as much as I did before.

I have less of a problem with sponsored ads if the authors completely disclose that they are paid to write reviews of particular products, etc.  After all, “truth and integrity are at the core of both the success stories and the failures of commercial blogging,” so if the author of a blog does not disclose this information to his or her readers and then is later found out, it is extremely likely that the author will have lost all credibility (Rettberg 153).  In fact, they definitely lose credibility for me.

So my questions are, do blog authors lose credibility for you when they start allowing advertisements on their pages?  What about when they participate in sponsored blogging?  At what point would an author lose your interest because of advertising on his or her blog page?

Are Bloggers Journalists?

Are bloggers journalists?

It is a question I have taken on before, but after reading Rettberg’s article, “Citizen Journalists” and Rosenstiel’s “Journalism of Verification,” I feel more qualified to take a stab at the question.

This entire debate began with the start of the Internet.  As Internet use progressed, the “blogosphere,” as it is called, opened up.  There has always been freedom of the press, but, as Rettberg puts it, “The Internet changed one of the greatest obstacles to true freedom of the press . . . . by the end of the century, bloggers could, in effect, own a press” (85). 

Suddenly, there is no longer a need to be published in a magazine or newspaper to spread news.  Someone with the details about an event doesn’t have to phone tip the local news station.  Instead, anyone with news, or anything to say for that matter, can with the click of a mouse.

So the question is again, is this journalism?

My answer remains that no, it is not.  Bloggers can be journalists, in some instances, but all bloggers are not journalists because they blog, and similarly, blogging is not necessarily journalism.  Here is what Rettberg identifies as the main difference: “You call yourself a journalist if you work as a journalist” (89). 

Rosensteil takes this concept to an even deeper, but very simplified level.  He says, “the essence of journalism is a discipline of verification” (71). 

In my opinion, that is a fantastic way to explain the difference between journalism and blogging.  Rosensteil elaborates by explaining, “in the end, the discipline of verification is what separates journalism from entertainment, propaganda, fiction, or art” (79).

Journalists are professional writes.  They adhere to their professions code of ethics.  They answer to superiors in the publishing industry, regardless of the medium.  Journalists have accountability.  They must always, verify their information, their sources, their facts.  They must be transparent.

My questions for discussion are, aside from the reasons listed above, are there any other ways to separate bloggers from journalists?  And additionally, when exactly does a blogger become a journalist?

From Oral Com to the Blogosphere

The emergence of mass media had a tremendous, multi-tiered effect on mass communication. 

Prior to the distribution of mass media, information could not be spread as readily, as widely, or as easily.  Even before this was the emergence of print – another phenomenon that allowed for a significant shift in the absorption and spread of information.

I find all of this particularly interesting as it pertains to blogging, because throughout my lifetime, I have progressed from simply speaking words (starting at eleven months old), to writing words on paper (preschool and kindergarten), to typing on a desktop computer (age five), to sending emails (age eleven), and now, to joining the blogosphere.  How fascinating the impact of blogging becomes when I look back at these progressions over time - especially when I think about how in my lifetime alone, these technological advancements were made.

My favorite part of the piece “From Bards to Blogs” in Chapter 2 of Rettberg's work was his speculation about what Plato might have thought about blogging.  Rettberg says, “Plato complains that a written text is basically unresponsive” (32), but goes onto explain how Plato likely would have appreciated blogs because they allow the audience a unique opportunity to respond to what is written, and in the same way, allow the author of the piece to respond to audience’s comments.

I also appreciated the section of the piece entitled “The Late Age of Print” which described the ownership that authors can now take with their pieces, that before, songs, plays, and stories were dictated orally, and thus changed with every performer.  Now, however, with the effects of publishing, the words and stories and characters within a book belong to its author, and its author alone.

Chapter 3 of Rettberg’s work, “Blogs, Communities, and Networks” describes the role of the blogger as a writer, and also the role that blogs play within the new, virtual public sphere.  Three points in particular stood out to me in this piece: first, that blogs serve a social purpose in the public sphere; that the authors of blogs are looking for followers to read and comment on their work, and also that blogs serve as a form of social media, that can be highly criticized.  Second, the fact that as a result of the first point, no blog can be created equal.  The blogger for an editorial New York Times blog is not necessarily looking to be (and likely never will be) equivalent to a personal blog or a food blog.  Third, the fact that blog posts typically remain accessible on the Internet for significant periods of time, and thus discussions can continue well after a topic that is blogged about has become stale.

Among these points, I was most interested in the section that described the social media role of blogs.  Is this a good thing?  Is it beneficial to the public sphere to have people willing to share their entire lives online?  What are the potential positive and negative effects of blogging?

Hello and Goodbye

I'm a big believer in the importance of greetings.

Letters, emails, post-it notes to my roommates . . . I think there is inherent value in a salutation, be it formal or informal.

Yesterday, I received an email with no greeting or closing - just three short sentences, two of which had abbreviations in them (ASAP and FYI).

I thought to myself, how rude of this person to send me an email without so much as a "Hello" and "Goodbye"?  I don't expect anything flowery, but really - how much extra effort does it take someone to type 12 extra letters?

I mentioned these thoughts to my roommate Katie, who is a senior Political Science major, hopes to become a lawyer, and works several internship positions in attorney offices.  We got into an in-depth conversation about email formalities, and I was astounded to hear that she never uses greetings or closings in her emails.  In fact, her exact words were, "Writing that stuff is a waste of time, and whenever I get an email with extra fluff in it, it makes me think the person is unnecessarily detailed and taking up too much time."

Wow.  I guess the etiquette of email is expressed differently to Political Science majors than it is to Communications Studies majors.  How interesting is that?  The fact that email has taken us to a point where it isn't even rude to write three lines without a greeting or closing.  I think back to centuries ago when a man's signature and closing showed how powerful he was, and thousands of years ago when greetings listed all the positions held and attributes and points of interest about their intended readers.  How much has Internet communication transformed what was once polite and obligatory to something that some people apparently read as "fluff"?

I would love to have a discussion to hear what my Digital Communication class thinks about this - most of the class are Communication Studies majors, as I am, so I wonder if we will have similar or differing perspectives.  Why have informal, salutation-less emails become the norm?  Isn't that destroying some of the most beautiful aspects of communication?

Since I still believe in greetings and closings (even in the blogosphere), I'll leave you with this:

Headlines, Hyperlinks, and the Hot Debate: Are Bloggers Journalists?

We’ve all heard it before: Don’t judge a book by its cover.  But do we?  Of course.

In the same way, we all judge news stories by their headlines.  And why shouldn’t we?  The purpose of the headline is, after all, to draw readers in, to encourage them to take the time to read the full text story.

A great headline can combat a “scanner,” drawing him or her in to begin a story.  If the heading and headers are strong as well, the scanner might even read an entire story, which is what journalists hope for.

The job of a headline may seem almost too simple - it is, first and foremost, the title of an article.  It seeks to inform, not to entertain.  It doesn’t need to be cute and catchy; it needs to be striking and interesting.  It also needs to properly summarize the article it precedes.

Additionally, headlines also serve the important job of helping readers to figure out what not read – a job of huge importance within the wealth of information available online and in newspapers and magazines.  Headlines help readers to determine what to invest their time in.

Another hugely important aspect of articles is hyperlinking.  I confess, hyperlinking is not an aspect of online journalism that I had ever thought twice about.  But in thinking about it now, it is a huge opportunity for writers to inform our readers.  Even more so, it is an opportunity to gain reader credibility, by establishing with the click of a mouse, a chance for readers to make even more sense of what an article is trying to tell them.  

However, I am still curious as to when exactly it is appropriate to use hyperlinking as a resource?  Is it acceptable to use in the middle of an article?

Vastly different from simply online journalism or print news sources websites, lies the “blogosphere,” which provides another opportunity for readers to be educated, persuaded, and informed.  Blogs are at their very core, another form of journalism.  They offer perspective.  They are a trend that is catching on more and more as time progresses because at the very heart of blogs is opportunity – anyone can blog. 

However, the content and information varies enormously from blog to blog.  Some are simply personal blogs – think Julie Powell’s blog in the Meryl Streep and Amy Adams movie Julie and Julia.  Other blogs, like the editorials for The New York Times and The Washington Post are based out of classic, reputable print news sources.

In my heart of hearts though, I question whether or not bloggers are true journalists.  As someone who hopes to become a print journalist, I have a distinctly particular view of bloggers.  Bloggers are writers, I certainly agree, but are they journalists?  I have to say no.  The job of a journalist, in my opinion, is an ethical, moral obligation to an audience – to inform them.  To produce the facts.  To conduct interviews.  To present the truth in an unbiased way.  Journalists are required to adhere to a code of ethics – bloggers can write whatever they want.  I see the two as inherently unequal.

I pose the above question for discussion – do you think bloggers are journalists as well?  Why or why not?

A Review of The Huffington Post Website

The Huffington Post is one of my favorite sources for clear, concise, and informative news.  Today in my Digital Communication class, I conducted an evaluation of The Huffington Post's website with two classmates.  Take a look!

What is your first impression of the site? 

Our first impression of The Huffington Post website is that it is very overwhelming.  Even the tabs at the top are over stimulating, and there are too many pictures.

How does this site establish credibility? How does it establish trust? Or does it?  Authentic voice?  Genuine?  Transparency?

By looking at the website, it doesn’t immediately establish credibility because the more serious stories are mixed in with completely irrelevant “fluff”.  However, the articles themselves are generally credible, with appropriate quotes, interviews, and links to other articles.  There is a mix of unbiased, transparent articles as well as editorials and blog posts.

What is the general writing style? Biased?  Objective?

Generally the articles are written from an objective point of view; the blog posts and editorials are understandably biased.

Does the writer IDENTIFY with his or her readers, or not? How (or why not)?

The actual articles are more information based and focused on telling the facts, so these authors do not really identify with their readers within the article.  However, beneath some articles are picture slideshows with very persuasive and powerful images that do sway the readers.  The editorials and blog post authors do identify with their readers, because their writing is more passionate and opinionated, and seeks to persuade readers to their points of view.

Does the writing style get to the point?

The writing is very clear and concise, giving information but not unnecessary details, so it gets to the point very quickly.

How is it arranged? Is it arranged in reverse pyramid style?

Yes, the articles are arranged in reverse pyramid style, with the most important facts and information at the beginning of the article.

Is content shaped for scanning? How is the content layered?

Yes.  The content is layered with large images and smaller sections of text, so it is easy to scan.

Is the tone or rhythm of the site consistent throughout?

On the home page, the tone is not consistent because there are heavier articles placed below or right next to “fluff” articles.  However, within the articles themselves, the tone remains consistent.

How does the site use headlines?

The main article that the site is trying to promote has a massive headline.  Other articles with pictures have smaller headlines.  The wording of the headlines draws readers in.

How does it use links? Effectively or not?

The Huffington Post uses links extremely effectively.  Every article (except the “Most Popular” articles) offers the option to select “quick read” with a one or two sentence abstract that gives the general information relayed in the story. 

How is multimedia used? Is it distracting? How is it displayed on the site? Does the multimedia tell the same story as the text, or a different side of the story?

Some multimedia, like the pictures used on the homepage, are overwhelming and distracting.  The pictures are displayed too often and too heavily.  However, the slideshows at the end of some articles and the videos used are very effective, and often tell a different story than the articles,  in the sense of offering more persuasive perspectives.  For example, an unbiased article about war had a slideshow at the conclusion with extremely powerful images that relayed information more intensely and persuasively than the text.

How does the site “package” stories?

In terms of the tabs at the top of the Web page, the site attempts to package stories based on their topics.  However, on the home page, major and minor stories are placed next to each other.  In some cases, “fluff” is placed above major stories.  This is not an effective way to package stories.  Additionally, each paragraph is relatively short.  The photos are clear and show almost solely human faces.  The font used is also Georgia, which is very readable.

How are graphics used? Too cluttered?  Are the graphics consistent through out the site, and consistent to the brand? Do they encourage or discourage use, and how?

The graphics are too cluttered on the home page.  However, in the articles themselves, the graphics contribute to the article.

Can each page stand on its own?

Yes, each page and each article can definitely stand on its own.

How is the navigation? Do you get lost? Do you always know where you are? How (or why not)?

The site is fairly easy to navigate.  There is a prominently displayed search bar and tabs at the top of the page that separate stories into topics.  There is also a scrolling ticker at the top below the tabs that displays breaking news headlines.

How does the site incorporate/interact with its audience? How does it embody the social aspect of the internet (or does it)?

The site effectively interacts with its audience by allowing them the opportunity to respond to articles by using a comment section.  The site also allows the audience the share articles on social media, and lists articles according to popularity.

Overall, I would recommend The Huffington Post.  It is user friendly, and presents unbiased articles solely based on facts and personal interviews.  I will certainly continue to utilize it as a news resource.  What about you?  What do you like and dislike about The Huffington Post?

Digital Media vs. Analog Media

The parallels and perpendiculars of digital and analog media are more numerous than I thought possible.  After reading Chapters 2 and 3 of Writing for Digital Media by Brian Carroll, I am intrigued by the major differences between these two forms of media, which are so often lumped together as one – they are both major forms of media, after all.

My perspective of the chapters is that although both digital media and analog media strive to inform readers, they are vastly different.  Digital media is much more instantaneous.  Credibility must be established with a virtual audience – one that can easily respond either positively or negatively in a comment section; one with the ability to conduct instantaneous Internet research to confirm the facts while simultaneously reading an article.  There is major competition for credibility on the Internet because as Carroll states, it is constantly changing.  Hearsay and rumors are written about, proven false, and deleted from the Internet in a matter of minutes – but that doesn’t stop an audience from already having read it.  As a result, there is also more “accident forgiveness” available for digital communication - because information emerges so rapidly, audiences understand that mistakes are made.

 

 Analog media has much more riding on it.  It dates back for centuries.  It is established.  It is printed out and publicly distributed.  For all of these reasons, it has much more of a reputation to protect and uphold.  In major newspapers and magazines, credibility already been established with audiences, and as a result, readers are much less forgiving and much more disappointed when mistakes are made.

Additionally, the format and layout of both forms of media differ significantly.  Web design is centered on drawing the eye in with a strong headline in the upper left corner, on striking images with concise captions underneath, with important information hyperlinked to make it easily accessible for readers.  Every article and page on a Web site is what Carroll calls an “island” – it should be able to stand on its own.  Conversely, the layout and design of analog media is traditional.  There are major headlines and multiple stories per page and a fixed paper structure.

The ideals of good journalism remains celebrated in both digital and analog media, however.  Clarity, simplicity, and credibility are sought earnestly by journalists despite the medium, which is the most important aspects of journalism.  Good journalism is out there – it is just now up to the reader to determine which medium he or she wishes to read.

Thoughts for discussion:
Is it the audience that demands changes from analog media to digital media?  Maybe the audience's progression with technology is part of the reason why there are so many differences.
Because digital media is so rapidly emerging with changes, will analog media begin making changes to keep up with this progression?