Social Media 101: Hall and Shannon

Recently I came across an image in my social network that sparked my attention. I'll attach the image below, but first I'm going to describe it. The image contains three men, cropped, in their own individual panel. The first panel is a man of Middle Eastern descent, with some scruff on his face. He's holding what looks like an AK47 and dressed in what I assume is the cultural wardrobe in his native land. Behind him is a flag on a flagpole that's green and has some sort of Arabic writing on it. In the lower third portion, there is a word blazed across this man: "TERRORIST"

The second man, in the middle, is a man of African American descent, also with some scruff on his face. He's holding what looks like a semi-automatic, 9mm pistol, and dressed in a "wife-beater" shirt, a backwards cap of sorts, and has an earring(s). It's hard to tell what is in the background since the image is cropped, but it looks like a blacklight is above him and he's in a common bedroom. In the lower third portion on this panel, it says, "THUG".

The last man, in the last panel, is a Caucasian man, with a trimmed goatee and a cigar in his mouth. He's holding what looks like an AR15, with a scope. He too is wearing a "wife-beater" shirt and has a military styled hat. I think he might have a tattoo on his collar-bone, but I can't really tell. The background of the image looks like he's standing in the woods. The lower third this time says, "2ND AMENDMENT".

Here is the image...

Now, what do you take from this? Seriously think about it and hold onto that thought.

I mentioned that I saw this image in the timeline of my social network. The person that shared this is a friend (who is African American) I was in the military with. One day we went out to lunch, and I'll never forget that day because he taught me more about the social construct of race then I've ever learned up to that point. Where I'm from in the world, majority of African Americans speak in a very urbanized manner. The media I've consumed, represents African Americans in an urban manner (one of the first albums I bought was Snoop Dogg, "Doggiestyle"). It never dawned on me that black people could speak like those white people from the suburbs. I watched The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air growing up, and I remember Will constantly criticizing Carlton for the way he spoke, it was a running joke that viewers waited for. It was a thought process that pop culture and contemporary media reinforced, this is how you're suppose to talk. My friend taught me that NOT every black person speaks the way the media had influenced me for so many years, and it's actually kind of offensive the think that. It changed my life forever.

Anyway, back to the image. This is a powerful image, because it's things like this that are supposed to be thought provoking. This is a current trend in our news media. Armed arabs are terrorists. Armed blacks are thugs. Armed white men are exercising their rights.

My friend included the comment, "If you have to un-follow me I understand..."

Considering that I've been studying communication, media, and the effects it has on people, I commented back saying, "Of course things look like that when you take them out of context."

Naturally, someone replied with something along the lines of "Enlighten us". Not wanting to get into an argument I said, "I don't disagree with him" and backed off. You know how these things go. Something said gets taken the wrong way, there's back peddling, massive trolling, etc. Social media becomes tiresome. I swear, I should just have my girlfriend manage my social accounts. She often acts as a mediator for things like this saying, "Why bother?"

But the comment stuck with me. The image stuck with me. The fact it came from an influential friend, stuck with me. So if you're willing to learn a little bit, I'll enlighten you to why it's important to not take media shared out of context. But first, some fundamentals.

As you can tell from the diagram, the is The Mathematical Theory of Communication (The Sender/Receiver Model). It was created by Dr. Claude E. Shannon in 1948. The path is as follows:

The information source produces a message -> A transmitter operates on the message to create a signal, which is then sent through a channel -> A channel, which is the medium or method over which the signal, carrying the information that composes the message, is sent -> Noise in introduced, whether wanted or unwanted, this cannot be avoided -> A receiver, which transform the signal back into the message intended for delivery -> A destination, which can be a person or a machine, for whom the message is intended

So what does this mean? This explains how the symbols of communication are transmitted, how the transmitted symbols convey meaning, and the effect of the received meaning.

This is the Encoding/Decoding Model created by Stuart Hall in 1973.  This model explains how media messages are produced, disseminated, and interpreted.  In contrast to the traditional linear approach of the sender and receiver, Hall perceives each of these steps as both autonomous and interdependent.  "Each stage will affect the message (or ”product”) being conveyed as a result of its ’discursive form’ (e.g. practices, instruments, relations).  This implies that, for example, the sender of information can never be sure that it will be perceived by the target audience in the way that was intended, because of this chain of discourse." 

Broken down, this is the path:

On the left you have Production – This is where the encoding of a message takes place. By drawing upon society's dominant ideologies, the creator of the message is feeding off of society's beliefs, and values. 

In the middle you have Circulation – How individuals perceive things: visual vs. written. How things are circulated influences how audience members will receive the message and put it to use.

On the right you have Use (distribution or consumption) – This is the decoding/interpreting of a message which requires active recipients. This is a complex process of understanding for the audience.

Not necessarily picture, lastly you have Reproduction – This is the stage after audience members have interpreted the message in their own way based on their experiences and beliefs. What is done with the message after it has been interpreted is where this stage comes in. At this point, you will see whether individuals take action after they have been exposed to a specific message. (Ex. Sharing an image you like on social media) 

In simpler terms, Encoding/decoding is the translation of a message that is easily understood.  When you decode a message, you are extracting the meaning of that message into terms that you are able to easily understand.  Decoding has both verbal and non-verbal forms through communication.  Decoding behavior without using words would be observing body language.  People are able to decode body language based on their emotions.  For example, some body language signs for when someone is upset, anger, or stressed would be a use of excessive hand/arm movements, red in the face, crying, and even sometimes silence.  Sometimes when someone is trying to get a message across to someone, the message can be interpreted differently from person to person.  Decoding is all about the understanding of what someone already knows, based on the information given throughout the message being received.  Whether there is a large audience or exchanging a message to one person, decoding is the process of obtaining, absorbing, understanding, and sometimes using the information that was given throughout a verbal or non-verbal message.

For example, since advertisements can have multiple layers of meaning, they can be decoded in various ways and can mean something different to different people.  Hall claims that the decoding subject can assume three different positions: Dominant/hegemonic position, negotiated position, and oppositional position. 

Additionally, we have three media effects models that were popular from the 1920's-1960's and still speak volumes today.

The first is known as the Hypodermic Needle Model (or Magic Bullet theory, or Direct Effects Model) This model assumed that audiences passively accepted media messages and would exhibit predictable reactions in response to those messages.  You don't question what is being sent, you just believe what you're told.  

Ex. You see a commercial that says "Join the Army, you're life will be better" and you run out and join the Army. (You see this a lot in social media. People will share images or articles without questioning authenticity.)

Second is the Minimal Effects Model (selective exposure/retention - individual based) 

Searching for media that reinforces personal values.

Ex. You have a liberal perspective, so you watch liberal news stations.

Third is the Uses and Gratifications Model (instead of asking "what", this model asks "why")

Using certain media to fulfill certain uses/needs.
Ex. Watching Fox News to argue with their points because you don't agree with them.

Watching a specific TV show, so you can tweet about it with other people who are watching it.

Finally, we have this:

This is a popular picture of Richard Sherman.  In 2014, at the end of the NFC Championship game, he went off in a rant and was quoted as saying, "I'm the best corner in the game. When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that's the result you're gonna get! Don't you ever talk about me!"

Social, sports, and news media exploded calling this dude a thug.  But let me ask you a question, who is pictured?  

Simply put, that picture is NOT Richard Sherman, it's the media representation of Richard Sherman.

Again, that picture is the media representation of Richard Sherman, not Richard Sherman.

Given the nature of how messages work, the intentions of the sender might not be the same as those receiving the message.  It's a new world out there.  We're all content creators and producers of media.  The second you come across an image or an article and you share it, you're feeding the fire.  It's a matter of whether or not that fire is going to be used for warmth or destruction.

So when I say, "Of course things look like that when you take them out of context," I mean exactly that.  The original image shared serves no purpose, because I don't know the context of those images. Is that guy labeled a "TERRORIST" an actual terrorist?  Is that black guy a "THUG"?  What about that white dude, is he just exercising his "2ND AMENDMENT" rights?  

I don't know... and neither do you.

Nightcrawler, or Who is to blame here?

After viewing the film “Nightcrawler”, I can point out several instances where media ethics are compromised in favor of “if it bleeds, it leads”.  In the beginning of the film, we’re introduced to the main protagonist, Lou Bloom, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, a character detached from social norms and unemployed petty thief.  What’s so intriguing about this character is his vernacular; how he speaks to people and body language throughout the film is an eerily reminder of Gyllenhaal’s earlier work in “Donnie Darko”.  Lou stops at an accident on the highway and witnesses the CHP save a woman’s life, but that’s not what excites him, it’s the independent news media videotaping the entire scene that awakens a fire inside.  Lou doesn’t like people, and he eventually admits this later in the film, and since he doesn’t like people, filming the aftermath of gruesome crimes or accidents just might be the career he so desperately needs.  Since he is able to detach himself, he can get those intimate shots.

After making a quick few hundred dollars, and a few instances of failed crimes scenes, Lou finds something news worthy to film, a shooting.  Coming a little too close for the likes of the rescue crew, the police shut down the scene.  There’s problem number one, Lou’s complete disregard for the haste and space the rescue crew needs puts the patients life in jeopardy.  There was another cameraman filming the same scene, but a little further back.  This cameraman probably knew through experience that if he went any closer, the police would shut the location down and he would lose his chance to get more footage.  But Lou, unaware of the norms, literally shoves the camera right in between the rescue workers, roughly two to three feet away from the patient.  It’s a little tasteless and a reminder that people like this exist out there.  The other cameraman criticizes Lou for going in close and causing the police to shut down the scene. 

Now that Lou finally has something worth selling and overhears a quick negotiation from the other cameraman, he heads to a low rated local news station to sell his work.  Considering Lou got so close to the scene, the news director Nina, played by Rene Russo, immediately wants to buy the footage, but is met with some restraint from a coworker who proclaims, “Do people want to see this during breakfast?”, which is a reference to the Breakfast Test we’ve discussed at one point in our lectures.   They eventually buy the footage from Lou and now he’s hooked.  He is detached from society and found a chance to have a career that accepts him for who he his, while being his own boss.

The next instance of compromise is when Lou enters a home that’s been taped off by police.  Knowing the he wasn’t going to get any good footage from behind the tape, and watching another camera-crew pack up, Lou goes under the tape (strike one), enters the home (strike two), modifies picture placement on a refrigerator (strike three), films some junk mail for a name (strike four), and films the homeowner being questioned by police from inside the home, through the bullet ridden kitchen window (strike five).  While he managed to get some great footage that no other camera-crew was able to get,  this example of Lou’s complete disregard for the law and social constructs are just a tip of the iceberg of what he’ll do to get the shot.  At one point during this scene, he questions a neighbor about what happened, she supplies him with a curse laden response, and he asks her to respond again, only this time please don’t use foul language.  While the interaction is hilarious, it’s the perfect representation of how local communities feel in times of sorrow.  A neighbor was possibly shot, the last they care about is talking to the media.  Think about the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, an entire community under the spotlight of the media, but only a handful of interviews.  People thrive off terror and fear, but not when it’s in their backyard.  When it hits close to home, people want their space and privacy.  Is the news media to blame for this, or is it our violent nature that fuels the news feed?  I don’t know.  Anyone can go onto the internet and view the most violent deaths one could possibly imagine, but the internet is an uncensored playground, what about television?  The Budd Dwyer suicide has been rebroadcast numerous times and is often used in documentaries, uncensored.  But the suicide of journalist Christine Chubbuck has only been viewed once, when it occurred on live broadcast, which was quickly cut away and the family later brought an injunction against the station so the footage could never air again.  

To question who is responsibly in the film is difficult.  The character Lou invades privacy, modifies crime scenes, withholds evidence from law enforcement, gets his partner and competitors killed or injured, and manipulates people throughout the film to get what he wants.  Overall his character is unlikable in the sense of, “I’m just doing my job”.  But his character points out an interesting topic to be made.  Rene Russo’s character Nina works for the low rated news station that repeatedly buys Lou’s footage.  He knows they’re failing and her job is in jeopardy, and he uses this to his advantage.  The “Quid Pro Quo” deal he makes with Nina is sleazy and even though she has her grievances about it, she accepts because he’s right.  If her media outlet doesn’t buy his footage, someone else will.  See, it’s not just Lou who is the issue here, it’s also the outlets and the public.  This particular local news station has to compete with various other stations for stories and footage.  Since Lou is willing to break boundaries (and laws) to get footage, Nina is willing to compensate him accordingly, thus in turn boosting the ratings of the station and securing her career.  

Do I personally think that situations like these actually happen?  Yes and No.  There was an older film that touched a similar storyline about ten years ago, called “Paparazzi”.  

This fictional work focused more on the privacy of celebrities and what a man will do to protect his family.  But there is one scene in the film that goes along with the narrative of Nightcrawler, the paparazzi cause a horrible car accident and even though one of the members of the group notify the authorities, they’re still firing off their cameras to get the exclusive.  Tom Sizemore is seen defending his career as a “photojournalist” after a woman criticizes him that his “pictures hurt people”, stating, “My job is to provide a window of reality for society, it’s up to them whether they want to look through it or not... I mean, everyone wants to have a little peek... It’s human nature.” He’s one hundred percent correct., people are generally curious creatures.  The scrutiny that the media faces whenever they broadcast something tasteless is an endless discussion of “Who is to blame here, the media (who are just doing their jobs) or the people” that’ll never be answered until society can answer the question:  What do we care about more, bloodlust or happy endings? Until people can change their views on what’s important to them, the media will never change.  It’ll be the same story every night, violence and fear.  So yes, I do think the film Nightcrawler is an accurate reflection of the news media, but I also think it uses artistic license, because I’ve never heard a story about a journalist tinkering with evidence and basically creating a crime so they can get the scene from two angles (the last instance in the film). But more-so, I think it’s an accurate reflection of societies desire to see stories that are raw and real.

"Homicide: Life on the Street" An Essay

Episode: "The Subway"

The subway.  Mass transit.  Millions of people use this mode of transportation each day.  It’s quite simple really.  You pay your fare, maneuver yourself through a maze of tunnels, people, and panhandlers, wait for your train, and let someone else do the driving for you.  It’s a simple mindless act, for a simple, mindless morning commute.  I used to work in NYC, and let me tell you, mass transit is the way to go.  It’s cheaper and less stressful, plus it affords you the opportunity of my favorite pastime: people watching.  You’ll see all sorts of characters on the subway.  Sometimes, you’ll see incredibly heinous acts...

When this episode of “Homicide: LOTS” opens up, it seems like a traditional story.  We see the average Baltimore morning, attention focused on the Inner Harbor and a couple saying goodbye for the day.  John Lange is a guy that we all know.  He’s brash and important, at least, he likes to think he is, his peers probably think he’s an asshole.  When you take the subway, you become accustom to the routine of waiting your turn, it’s an unspoken social rule.  Unless your John Lange.  You push your way through people and don’t look back.  After all, you don’t normally take mass transit, you drive, except on Friday’s, on Friday’s, you take mass transit because you “work the phones, talking wholesalers”.  Pretty average Friday, except for that time someone pushed you into an oncoming train, remember that?  Of course you do, because you’re still alive, for the next forty-five minutes or so.

Since I’ve never seen an episode of “Homicide: LOTS” prior to “The Subway”, I’m going to
assume that they follow the same formula that most prime-time dramas follow (and sitcoms for that matter): It’s a police drama and the title is “Homicide”, it’s a pretty safe bet that someone is going to die within the first five minutes (that is, if they aren’t already dead, also, this probably doesn’t happen in sitcoms, although, if it did, I’d certainly watch them).  The rest of the episode will then focus on detectives interviewing potential suspects, motives, conflict, and finally, resolution.  Unless it’s a multiple episode story arch, then add some more intense drama and call it a day.  

So generally speaking, if there’s a victim that requires a homicide detective, chances are, that one hundred percent of the time, that victim is dead.  John Lange didn’t die, so why call homicide?  This is what makes this story arch so incredible.  What if the deceased victim of a crime you’re investigating had a voice?  Would they be mad?  Sad?  Apologetic?  Remorseful?  Put yourself in the shoes of these officers.  Yes, they’re trained to deal with intense, deadly situations, but they’ve probably gotten used to the redundancies of police work.  This is obvious in the banter between the two other detectives searching for Sarah, Johns girlfriend, so the couple can have that one last goodbye.  Detective Pembleton and his partner, Detective Bayliss, are left to interview the victim and the suspect, with Pembleton going to the former.  He’s essentially speaking to a dead man.  How do you break the news to someone that they’re going to die?  Considering this is Baltimore, and you’re a homicide detective, you’ve experienced death, you’ve seen it, up close, daily.  You probably have a stack of unsolved cases in your office, but this time, you’ve got the chance to speak with a victim directly, this is unheard of in homicide work.  

Vincent D’Onofrio (John Lange) and Andre Braugher (Detective Pembleton) smack this out of the ball park.  D’Onofrio portrays his character like someone who doesn’t quite understand the gravity of the situation.  He’s incredibly hostile, and at one point compares himself to that of a death row inmate, he doesn’t even get a last meal.  He displays that he wasn’t an easy person to get along with, so this is his execution.  While at the same time, expresses shock when the firemen go through “a feat of engineering, for me”.  Again, he knows he’s a bit of a jerk, but surprised at whats being done at attempts to save him.  He continues taking out his frustrations on Pembleton the entire time, along with the EMS medic, all the while, he had no one to blame but himself, and the guy who pushed him, but seriously, situational awareness buddy, you’re asking for trouble when you’re too close to the tracks like that.  He’s going through the grieving process.  Pembleton doesn’t know what to do.  At a few points, he stands up and backs away, surprised by Lange’s hostility. 

He’s confronted with the fear of his own mortality. 

Eventually, Lange dies.  The climax leading up to his death is intense.  Every official on the scene is scrambling to prepare for this, Pembleton and Lange lock eyes and Lange says something about sugar maple trees and how they turn their leaves over when a storm is approaching to suck in the rain.  When you’re about to die, your mind goes haywire.  I like to think that this is a place your consciousness goes as a way to cope with impending doom.  You’ll hear stories from the battlefield about soldiers who were mortally wounded making jokes before dying.  It’s a coping mechanism.  No one wants to die, but it’s a sad fact that we all do.  If you had forty-five minutes to live, how would you act?  Angry?  Sad?  Apologetic?  Remorseful?

In the closing scene, Pembleton regurgitates the sugar maple fact to his partner as they’re
leaving the scene.  He says, “You learn something new everyday”.  I think he learned a lot more that day.  Then again, it’s just another day in the city.