Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K91gKdQWLWY&list=PLA3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=3&feature=plpp_video

I could not find the original clip of the Fox News report. From the clip above you can see that in the reporting on the Democratic National Convention speech by Elizabeth Warren Fox News filtered some parts of the speech. In edited version only shows that Warren was making claims about the system without any proof. Although in the actual speech she gives evidence as to why people feel the system is rigged against them. This can be related to the second filter where the channel chooses which information to highlight in order to please their financial supporters.

Another point that is made in the clip the questions asked to guest. The anchor asked different levels of questions to each guest based on their political affiliation. This can be see as being partisan and filtering information to fit their goal.

Fox News

                                This video highlights the manipulative strategies used by Fox News to influence its viewers. The short video shows some clips of this year’s memorial of the 9/11 attacks and questions Obama’s lack of religion. The reporters comment upon how Obama avoids God and question whether he has given “God the boot”. This is very relevant when looking at the Fox News channel as it is perceived as a Republican news channel and therefore holds the value of religion highly. By playing on this factor the news report can influence people’s view point about Obama and consequently push them toward Romney. The report has very few facts and skips over other important factors such as Obama talking about community service, but he is being criticised for not imploring people to look to God. The way in which the story is presented creates the impression that Obama has completely forsaken God altogether.

                The first filter of ownership is present through the content and view point of the report, as a Republican channel it will be showing stories that frame the Democrats in a negative light.  It also works on people’s values, so the opposite of public fear, religion is something which is held highly and the story shows someone not treating in the same way as the public desires.

 http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/video/2012/09/11/fnc-foxandfriends-20120910-god-gets-boot

Fox Attacks: Black America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E

     In the particular youtube video I choose, it shows Fox news attacking Black Americans and being extremely prejudiced against them.  At a point in the video Mark Fuhrman speaks about the O.J. interview and says " They will get up everyday, they will kill somebody and go have some chicken at KFC."This is just a stupid remark because not all black people are bad and murder people.  They just get a negative connotation since, some blacks do commit nasty crimes.
     Another reporter mentions that Obama is such a big deal just because he is black.  This is very controversial because some people like Obama cause of his health care plan not because he is black. The reporter is acting as if it doesn't matter what Obama says he's going to do for the country, but the only reason he would be elected is so we would have our first black President.
     Also, another racist remark told was that the Trinity Unity Church in Chicago ,which Obama is apart of, was extremely focused on black folk.  A reporter said "Are they worshipping Christ or African things black." and also called the church racist and compared it to a cult.  As being apart of America everyone has their right to whatever religion they choose and religion has nothing to do with what Obama will do for the country.  Although, some people may want a President that will focus on all of us not just the black race.
     Filter one of Herman and Chomskys propaganda model is definitely applied in this video.  Fox is very powerful and pro right wing so they are a very prominent news organization.  Also, because they are very dominate, filter three comes in because people will believe what Fox says since they are very well known.  This could potentially cause less informed people to believing lies.  Filter four is also used in this because  this video is showing a negative response to Fox news.  The whole video is essentially flak, as it completely criticizes Fox news and is really only one sided on the argument.

Bill O'Reilly on Sandra Fluke

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=iYak3v4viCc

        In a news segment Bill O'Reilly had on March of 2012, he and fellow Fox news anchor, Megyn Kelly, discussed their opinions over Georgetown student Sandra Fluke asking the university to cover contraceptives under their students' health insurance. Megyn Kelly was asked to appear on the show so that a comparison could be made between her and Fluke. However, this comparison was clearly pointing Kelly out as a good virtuous woman, and Ms.Fluke as a naive college girl who is trying to scam the government out of money.
        Throughout the show O'Reilly and Kelly both pint out how they were hard working students, but the new generations seems to have bad values. O'Reilly then quickly links this "theme" of people asking the government for aid to the Obama administration. The issue quickly escalates and O'Rielly points out that this is not about Fluke trying to get free contraceptive coverage; its about her being used by the White House to bring about the issue of women's rights and get more votes out. Finally, Kelly follows up stating that this healthcare should be provided to those who need it rather than having the money go to waste by covering contraceptives for young college girls.
        In this Youtube clip there is a big push of the Republican platform on the viewer. Two conservative people are having a discussion on an issue they are clearly against without shedding any light on what the other parties views are. It is also manipulated to make Fluke appear lazy, self-important, and "manipulated" by the White House. According to Herman and Chompky's filters this particular segment is exposing both the first and fourth filters. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the FOX division, is a know conservative and the programing displayed on the show clearly coincides with his beliefs, as pointed out by OutFoxed. Also, O'Rielly and Kelly are both clearly trying to diminish any credibility that Fluke had and also linking her to a White House agenda, which is an assumption, in order to make the opposing party appear wasteful to the public.
          This clip, along with Rush Limbaugh's statement, where heavily covered by the media when they came out and also during the Democratic National Convention since Women's right is a big issue on the Democratic Party platform.

War Made Easy & Manufacturing Consent

  "War Made Easy" is a film that focuses on how the United States government, in association with the large media companies, in a sense manipulate the population into believing that wars are righteous and should be supported. While the film focuses on the Iraq war, it displays how the same tactics are used by every president in order to rally support. We will use five filters from "Manufacturing Consent" to analyze how the media is controlled by outside sources, like the government, in order to only send across certain news or views to the viewers. 
  The first filter Chomsky writes about is size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media.  This refers to the large main four companies that run the major broadcasters of mass media such as Fox and ABC. There is brief mention of this in the film but it is not discussed in detail. 
  The second filter is advertising sponsorship of the mass media. This is referring to the advertisers that invest on the news channels and if they do not approve of the content of the news, they will cease to sponsor the channel. This filter is not really touched upon in the film. 
   The third filter is the symbiotic relationship between mass media and powerful sources of information. This is, in my opinion, the most clear filter in the film. The part of the film that stands out in accordance to this filter is when the news channel representatives go to the Pentagon in order to get a list of generals and sergeants approved to talk about the war and their take on it. The government obviously does not release full information on such fragile matters like the war so they control what the American population knows also. They can choose what to say to the media and what to let the media find out. If the media was to go against what these powerful sources wanted, they would face severe consequences. 
  The fourth filter is the projection of "flak" onto diverging views. In "War Made Easy" they showed how the few times elected officials try to go against the norm they are torn to pieces by news casters. For example, when veteran John Murtha stated that the troops should be pulled out, he was brutally scrutinized for not supporting the troops. Phil Donahue had the highest rating show on MSNBC but was fired in 2003 because he was an open critic of the Iraq war and NBC claimed he was a difficult face for the news channel during the time of war. Whenever someone openly diverges from the accepted views, they are immediately shut down.
   The last filter is the idea of protecting the nation and the people from forces like anticommunism, or more applicable today, Islamic fundamentalism. The 9/11 attack was used to wrongly connect Al-Qaeda  to Saddam Hussein and thus serve as motive for war.   

~Does (nostalgia) prove or disprove Sontag's point that "Photographs transcribed in a film cease to be collectible objects, as they are when served up in books"? (5) If so, or if not, why? Explain using specific examples from the film. 

   The film (nostalgia) supports Sontag's point that photographs presented through film cease to be collectible objects in a few ways. When photographs are presented in books, the viewer has the options of what to make of them. He or she may choose to look at it multiple times, or even extract it by cutting it out or framing it. A photograph in a book, in a sense, belongs to the reader of that book, so the photo can be treated as their own. However; when it comes to films, the viewer does not have that power over the photos. He or she cannot choose to keep that picture, or even how long to look at it. In (nostalgia) this becomes even more clear as the viewer watches the pictures burn. It emphasizes the fact that the pictures are out of reach and the viewer cannot control the flames ruining them. In the film, the length of time the viewer sees the photograph is in the control of the director. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the burning of the pictures sends the viewer the message that they cannot be collected. Photographs shown in film tend to be somewhat ironic. A photograph is supposed to be a snapshot of a specific moment in time and this is what makes pictures collectible. When placed in films, the photos become part of the story line of the film, thus losing the essence of being collectible due to that special moment they capture.   

Five Filters for War Made Easy

              In the film, War Made Easy, the subject of manipulation of the American public is broached by implying that a majority of decisions made, including those of going to war, are made due to deception. Certain media corporations along with the government have sorts of agreement to control, filter, and essentially chose what is exposed to the public in order to manipulate their opinions. Herman and Chomsky too the liberty of producing The Propaganda Model, which has five filters, to show how the media manipulates content in order to deceive the public audience. 

                The first filter is size, ownership, and profit made by the media. It sugests that a quasi-monopoly has been created in the Media industry since almost all media outlets are control by a few companies which have the most money and resources. This makes it very hard for resources such as local newspapers or radio shows to emerge. The larger companies take away the main source of profit, advertisement, and with now profit a media resource won't be able to prosper, thus making it crumble or become absorbed my one of the tycoons. 

                The second filter is the importance of advertisement in media.  Advertisers have a big say in what goes on in television and if something is suggested in a program or article that goes against their beliefs or is too controversial, advertisers pull out to avoid being associated with it. Thus causing the media company to loose its main source of profit. The example presented in the film was Phil Donahue from MSNBC. 

                  The third filter is that the government has control over what news is made public. The government is the highest authority in the United States, and because of this they can control or censure the news presented to the public if they deem it "harmful to the public". The government has done this on countless occasions during times of war, such as the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

             The fourth filter in knows as "Flak". Flak is a negative response from the public due to anything portrayed in the media. If a news network shows protestors or riots, advertisers are afraid it will have a negative effect on the public and ruin their reputation.  Going back to the film, this can also be seen through the Phil Donahue example from MSNBC. 

                   The fifth filter is the use of anticommunism as a way to control and influence people through media. This filter was heavily used during the Cold War for example. Another way to view this is today's current stigma towards those who are followers of Islam. Due to the events that transpires on 9/11, the media used this to implement a sort of anticommunism technique, only directed towards those who follow Islam in order to promote favor for going to war. 

Outfox Fox

Outfox Fox by embedding in your next blog post a video of a particularly biased or unethical Fox News broadcast. In searching for a pertinent clip on YouTube or another video resource, think of some of Fox's manipulative and questionable strategies highlighted by Outfoxed. Explain in your post how your video exemplifies the Fox approach to partisan, prejudiced, filtered, and fear-mongering news programming, and why it might fit the criteria of Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model.

An example: Calling Out Fox News

Chomsky's Propaganda Model and War Made Easy

The first filter in Chomsky’s Propaganda Model is that of the size, ownership, and profit of the mass media. This filter explains how the media is owned by the wealthy because money is what determines which news stations have the most influence on public opinion. Additionally, as soon as a news caster says anything that goes against America or what should be the dominating opinion, investors will stop providing money for that media company. In War Made Easy, the example of the first filter was that of Phil Donahue who had the highest ratings on MSNBC. After making some anti-war comments on television, MSNBC dropped him from their news program because they did not want to lose their investors. This shows that the primary concern with mass media is for the company’s reputation and how they portray their interests rather than what the public is concerned about.

The second filter in Chomsky’s Propaganda model is that advertising is important for sponsorship of the media. Advertising is a way for newspapers to obtain money. This way, they can sell their papers for a lower, more competitive price, which will result in said paper being more popular with the public. This is also true of news programs. While they do not have to worry about selling a physical product to the public, news programs still benefit from advertisements. Without advertisements and sponsorships, news programs cannot hope to remain on the air. While there is no explicit example of this filter in War Made Easy, the news programs shown in the film were surely careful of what was said on the air as they did not want to lose investments.

The third filter of Chomsky’s Propaganda Model is money and authority have control over what is emphasized as far as current events in the news. The government is seen as being of the highest authority. Therefore, any information the government gives is considered truth in the public’s eyes. High authority figures such as the government have the most control as to what news programs show the public regarding events such as the Iraq war. An example of this filter in War Made Easy was when the Pentagon approved of the generals that could be represented on the news. This shows that the news is usually biased towards whatever the government wants us to know about a situation.

The fourth filter of Chomsky’s Propaganda Model is known as “Flak.” "Flak" is any negative responses that could be made regarding any information presented by the mass media. This can include organized petitions on a local level or lawsuits and letters on an individual level. Advertisers try to avoid “flak” as much as possible because they are concerned with maintaining their image. In War Made Easy, an example of this filter in the film was that if you did not side with the troops, you did not support the war. This train of thought was considered to be un-American. The Media could not portray this opinion because that would generate a lot of negative response from the public.

The fifth and final filer of Chomsky’s Propaganda Model is that of using anti-communism as a control mechanism. This filter refers to the media appealing to people’s emotions in order to influence their opinions. This is best seen in War Made Easy when all the different speeches made by different Presidents are shown. In each speech, the enemy is regarded as being “evil.” Making this distinction between good and evil plays on what people fear, and influences opinion by playing on people’s emotions rather than stating cold, hard facts.

Propaganda in War Made Easy

Herman and Chomsky identified five filters that affect the way information is spread to the general public through propaganda. These filters are present in the documentary War Made Easy, which gives an account of the way propaganda is used by the government and media to essentially "sell" and gain approval for wars; specifically the war in Iraq.
The first filter is the size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media, which refers to the few high-tier media outlets which control most of the information that is released in television, magazines, and newspapers. This enforces that all information readily released to the public is on the same page and does not disagree on local or mass levels. The media are looking for profit, and as seen in War Made Easy they will be eager to pass along the information offered by the government to avoid seeming un-American. When Phil Donahue made anti-War statements, the MSNBC network pulled away from him even though they are known to usually be very left-wing.
This desire to air popular opinions is related to the advertising sponsorship of mass media. Most television programs and news websites rely on advertising to fund their operation costs, and profit oriented media outlets will not be acting in their best interest if they express opinions that divert from what the public or, more importantly, government wants to hear. This filter was not directly exemplified in War Made Easy, but it can be gathered that most large media corporations were all airing news that supported the war in order to not lose sponsorship.
The symbiotic relationship between mass media and powerful sources of information was emphasized in the War Made Easy, which stressed that the high tier media corporations relayed information from the government in order to please them and keep all their sponsorships, while the government also relies on media to convince the public to support the war. In the film, many examples are shown of the media asserting that there is a high security risk with the keyword "weapons of mass destruction." There is a clip that says the president said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair said they do, the United Nations said they do, the "experts" say they do, and Iraq says they don't. This uses the argument of authority to convince the public that they should side with the long list of experts, and gives people the false choice of either agreeing with them or agreeing with terrorism.
Another filter is the "flak," or negative responses, received by those with dissenting views from authority. This can also be applied to the Donahue example in War Made Easy, since MSNBC wants to avoid getting negative feedback from viewers and its parent network. Usually shows that express controversial ideals are dropped due to low viewership. Those who do not "support the troops" and in turn support the war are marked off as siding with the enemy.
The final filter described in Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky is the use of anticommunism as a control mechanism, which in War Made Easy parallels Islamic fundamentalism. This involves the use of fear to win agreement in the public, appealing to emotion rather than reason. It is exemplified in the documentary in the clips of George Bush comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and the narrator stating that the "pure motives" being described by Bush and government officials imply that we are killing people "for very good reasons."
All five of these filters use and bend information in very selective ways, giving the general public little room to create. opposing conclusions

War Made Easy and the "Propaganda Model"

In Chomsky and Herman's book Manufacturing Consent, the two authors describe a model called the "propaganda model" in which mass media filters news content. These filters are used by media corporations in order to present the news that they (or their parent companies) want to the masses to hear. This model can be applied to the documentary War Made Easy, which shows how the media skewed and filtered news from the Iraq War to Americans.
The first filter is one that shows how the semi-monopoly of the media controls our perception of the news. Since there are only a small number of companies that own a majority local and national sources of media, they can choose what Americans hear. They determine what is newsworthy because if they don't like a story, none of their stations or articles will report it. In War Made Easy, this is apparent when the show Donahue is shut down by MSNBC (owned by GE) because they didn't like what he was saying about the imminent war with Iraq. Since the higher-ups didn't want the government to grow angry with them, they shut it down.
The second filter is advertisement. Without advertising, the news corporations wouldn't have money in order to run their TV program, or print their newspapers. If these advertising companies don't like what the media is reporting, they will pull their funding and the media wouldn't be able to report anything. However, in War Made Easy, this is not shown.
Filter number three is how the media and their sources interrelate. Media, a lot of the time, takes their sources for granted. They don't necessarily do any followup research and just take what they hear for granted, especially with information from the government. In War Made Easy, media sources asked the Pentagon's recommendation and promptly used retired military generals as news experts--giving a very biased perspective. This biased perspective gave the viewers a very biased perspective and gave us a militaristic view of the upcoming war, making it seem necessary. Since the news stations used what the government gave them, the viewers only got a filtered report of the actual news.
The fourth filter is the generation of negative responses to the news, also called "flak". These negative responses can be in many forms, from petitions to Congressional Bills. Since the media likes having people listen to their reporting, they won't dissent to their constituents and will try to make the least amount of flak possible. All of the media in War Made Easy is propaganda in support of the war. In the case of this movie, the media didn't want to cause flak with the government, so their reports were very pro-war.
The fifth and final filter was, originally called the Anti-Communism filter. Nowadays, and in War Made Easy, it can be transposed onto another culture: the Muslim society. Many a media source have used the public's fear of Islamic beliefs in their favor. Anything Islamic is portrayed as bad by the media, thus justifying the Iraq War. The public is quick to jump to blame anyone Muslim for anything anti-American, so the media uses this as an advantage.

War Made Easy

     War Made Easy shows how mass media portrays political events biasedly, specifically the Iraq war and Bush’s presidency.   The “propaganda model” written by Herman and Chomsky shows how the biased goes into different categories and filters.

     In this video it showed only a few news channels dominate and it all has to do with money and investment.  Also, whatever the government wants will be persuaded to the public through media.  For example in the video Bush is very pro going to war and wants the viewers approval.  Hence, some of the media is pro going to war with Iraq even if they don’t have solid evidence on why.  They showed retired generals saying that it is inevitable that America will be going to war with Iraq to show the public authority figures as a convincing mechanism.

     Most people will believe anything if the government gives approval of it because of their status.  The government and media have a very close relationship.  This is shown in War Made Easy when reporters are in the pentagon showing papers as evidence which seems very real to the viewers.  Another thing seen is how presidents promote peace to calm the public but when making crucial decisions they choose violence instead.

     This video also shows lots of “flak “which is a negative response to media.  Literally almost the whole thing is mocking how rarely anything seen in the news on TV is ever true.  It all has bias behind it, which is caused by powerful companies trying to persuade their beliefs and actions.  The video shows lots of retaliation against war.  The media is very contradictory; one channel is saying something while another is saying something completely different.  This can make the public very uneasy and cause distrust toward media and the government.

War Made Easy and The Five Filters

                War Made Easy discusses how American citizens have largely entered wars based upon deception. The media and governments have worked together to produce a media enterprise that produces a range of propaganda that influences the general public to support the cause of war. The Propaganda Model proposed by Herman and Chomsky has five filters that help to explain the deception and manipulation of the media.

                The first filter describes ownership within the media and the hierarchy that exists with a few large companies controlling the entire media landscape. This is not largely demonstrated in War Made Easy however it does mention several of the large news channels and corporations involved in presenting the war to the American public. The second filter is about advertising sponsorship. Again this filter is not mentioned explicitly in War Made Easy but references are made towards it.

                The third filter is shown very evidently in War Made Easy. This filter looks at the relationship between the media and its source of information. Often the media presents facts and information which it has been fed from governments or advertisers, very little investigation goes on.  A clear example of this in War Made Easy is the list of army officials from the Pentagon that one journalist produces as a form of evidence in support of the war. The official titles and locations of the news give the information prestige and authority and so make them more believable.  Another example is the journalist put in the field of war. As a viewer we expect them to be showing us the real information as they are part of the event however what they can report is closely monitored and controlled.

                One of the main ideas within War Made Easy is to link the troops and thus support the war and if you don’t support the war you are against the troops. We can apply flak to this as when we see any opposition towards the war it is attributed with negative connotations. In War Made Easy we can see the juxtaposition of images of those speaking against the war and images of young soldiers in the heat of war and are reminded regularly of the Twin Towers bombing.

                Finally in the fifth filter the media plays on public fear. In War Made Easy an example of playing on fear is the use of Islamic fundamentalism, which has become a fearful concept. The Twin Towers bombing is used as a regular reminder to justify the war and names such as Saddam Hussein become well known and links are made to other events whether they are involved or not. This creates a fearful concept that the public does not want to be part of. It is portrayed as something very different from American life and so as something unknown it is feared. In this way the media has created a “good guy” and a “bad guy” that is very simple and straight forward as the public wants to support the “good guy” naturally.

                

War Made Easy and the Five Filters of Herman and Chomsky's "Propaganda Model"

For your next blog post, apply to War Made Easy -- and its points about mainstream media collusion with the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq -- Herman and Chomsky's "propaganda model" for understanding biased media coverage of United States governmental policy and conduct. Specifically focus on the propaganda model's "filters," how they operate, and the particular portions of War Made Easy that exemplify the ways the media spins, distorts, and elides facts in order to further federal interests. Not all of the filters may apply. The filters:

-- Size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media

-- Advertising sponsorship of the mass media

-- The symbiotic relationship between the mass media and powerful sources of information

-- The projection of "flak," or negative reactions and responses, onto divergent or dissenting views

-- Anticommunism as a control mechanism against dissent (Note: Manufacturing Consent was published just before the fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite states when communism was still perceived to be the greatest threat to American democracy. Thus for our times Islamic fundamentalism can easily be substituted for communism, although the latter certainly remains an effective fear-mongering boogeyman.)

If you need to rewatch clips from the film, War Made Easy is available for viewing on YouTube:

Sontag & Surrealism in (nostalgia)

 

In (nostalgia), which narrational dialogues and photographic images exemplify Sontag's theory that "Though an event has come to mean, precisely, something worth photographing, it is still ideology (in the broadest sense) that determines what constitutes an event. There can be no evidence, photographic or otherwise, of an event until the event itself has been named and characterized"? (18-19) What further points about interpretation, knowledge, and image production does Frampton make in the unusual and witty manner through which he demonstrates this theory?

In this quote, Sontag is saying that unless the photographer tells us what a picture represents, we as viewers are inclined to form our own stories as to what a picture may be telling us. Throughout the movie (nostalgia), the narrator describes the image before the viewers see it. This allows the viewer to project his or her own experiences and ideologies onto a photograph before seeing it. Then, when the true photograph is revealed, the viewer is usually taken by surprise because it is different from what they had imagined. A prime example of a photograph that had this effect in the movie is the one of the two toilets that Frampton described as the crucifixion of Christ. With the description being given, one would probably think the picture was captured in a church rather than a bathroom. Another example of this quote in the movie was the picture of the man picking fruit from the ground. This was a photograph not taken by Frampton, so Frampton makes up his own story to describe the events in the picture. This is an excellent example of how if one is not given information about the picture from the photographer, they are inclined to project their own opinions and beliefs onto the photograph in order to describe the event. Another picture to consider is that of the moldy spaghetti. Because the picture is in black and white, it is difficult to tell that the spaghetti is moldy. In fact, it just looks like spaghetti spread out on a plate for seemingly no reason at all. It is only once the photographer tells the viewer that the picture is of moldy spaghetti on the 18^th day of it being out in the open, that the viewer can understand what the picture is actually showing.

(nostalgia) <--> Sontag

...Which photographs in (nostalgia) most strongly attest to the surrealist tendency of photography, and why? In what way is the film possibly surrealistic itself?

Sontag describes the innate surrealism of photography stemming from its representation of an image from the past that is now dead. A photograph does not capture a moment as much as it captures the nostalgia of the photographer, and reflects that emotion back at him/her. It is a version of something that probably was once there, in a strange almost ghostlike form. The image is now an echo of words untold. What is really attached to a photograph is sentimentality, and all of the pictures shown in (nostalgia) mean something to Frampton, with perhaps the exception of the one picture he did not take himself. Each image is just a surface look at events in his life; a window into his experiences. One of my favorites was the moldy spaghetti, photographed in a way that looks abstract in the absence of context.

The black and white filter on the film hinders the audience even more in projecting their own story onto each photo because it is difficult to distinguish details. The viewer is lead to be constantly trying to sync up the descriptions of the photos with their respective images. The context of this story stuck out to me just because it was different from most of the other ones in a whimsical way. The tone of the person speaking does not suggest that it's supposed to be a statement art piece, but is just a photo of some spaghetti and sauce left out that Frampton took a picture of every day for two months because of a friend. I wondered why he chose the 18th day, and why his friend wanted these pictures in the first place, but realized that any justification I decided on was just my own experiences being stirred into the image. The thought put in by viewers about the meaning of all these images that cannot really mean anything to us is kind of surreal in itself.

Sontag and (nostalgia)

 Does (nostalgia) prove or disprove Sontag's point that "Photographs transcribed in a film cease to be collectible objects, as they are when served up in books"? (5) If so, or if not, why? Explain using specific examples from the film.

                (nostalgia) enforces Sontag’s opinion about photographs transcribed in film. This is because the director controls the time period in which the image is presented to us denying the viewer any possession of the photograph unlike an image in a book which the viewer is able to contemplate for any duration that they choose. In (nostalgia) the photographs are shown to us for the time it takes for them to be destroyed, the audience has no choice in the matter of time. This further emphasised by the destruction of the images, we are made more aware of how we have no possession over these images.

                Another reason for the distinction between photographs in film and in a book is the physical distance. A book can be touched, stored or even destroyed according to the owner’s decision. However in a film the photograph is shown to us from a distance, the viewer can do nothing to the photograph. Again, this refers to the idea of ownership. Only a physical object can be claimed but film shows us an image of the desired object and so the object is no longer collectible. For example, in (nostalgia) we are forced to watch each of the images get destroyed and are helpless to do anything about it.

                Photographs transcribed in film cease to become collectible objects as they can be watched over and over again. Whilst photographs in books may be replicated or copied each new copy is still a photograph which can be collected, but in film the case is different. I think that because in a film the photograph is only an image within that film that it has already been replicated, in addition to the distance which has already been created between the viewer and the image through time and physical dimensions, the photograph has lost its value in some way. It is no longer worth collecting. 

DNC & Barthes' 5 Codes

   The possible enigma that this photo brings to surface is the question of what is this picture actually representing? Where is this located and what is going on? These questions can illustrate the hermeneutic code since they rise interest in the photo and make viewers want to know more.
   Although action cant actually be seen in a photo, we are still able to make conclusions about what is going on based on what we see. The President is clearly giving a speech while his supporters cheer in the background. These actions show the proairetic code.
   Through the semic code, people are characterized with certain attributes. This pictures Barack Obama as the center of attention at the convention, thus letting the viewer see him as important and in charge. These characteristics are reinforced with the help of the camera angle, since he is centered and we can see the audience giving him all their attention.
  The out-of-focus American flags swaying in the foreground are symbolic of the United States and what the nation, and in this case the President, stand for.
   The referential code is made present in the photo through the signs that audience members are holding which probably have Obama's name on them.

(nostalgia) Sontag's quote 18-19 narrational dialoges and photographic images

     Sontag is saying that a picture is open to interpreting unless the photographers tells the viewer what is happening and what they captured in this picture.  The viewer then looks at the photo in the photographers point of view.  This is shown throughout (nostalgia) as we hear him tell a description or memory of a photo he took then after we see the picture, but not during.  This allows the viewer to image what the photo looks like but then after they see the actual picture and can compare it to the one they imagined.  If there was no dialogue or words in (nostalgia) the audience would make their own interpretations of the photos.  The narrator even does this on a photo of man and his destroyed fruit orchard.  He did not take this photo so he simply makes up what he believes or wants to believe is going on in it.  Like Sontag says " There can be no evidence, photographic or otherwise, of an event until the event itself has been named and characterized."  Another photo that surprised me in (nostalgia) was when he was describing the two toilets that looked like the crucifixion of Christ.  When the picture was shown it looked nothing like what he described but simply two toilets.  If he had not said that I would not have even thought of that.  What I learned from this video was that the description of a photo may change the whole view and what a person sees in it.

(nostalgia)

For this week's blog post, analyze an aspect of Hollis Frampton's (nostalgia) by reflecting on the film through the prism of Sontag's On Photography. Answer one of the following questions:

-- Does (nostalgia) prove or disprove Sontag's point that "Photographs transcribed in a film cease to be collectible objects, as they are when served up in books"? (5) If so, or if not, why? Explain using specific examples from the film.

-- Sontag writes of photography and its relation to surrealism: "The error of the Surrealist militants was to imagine the surreal to be something universal, that is, a matter of psychology, whereas it turns out to be what is most local, ethnic, class-bound, dated. . . . The Surrealists misunderstood what was most brutally moving, irrational, unassimilable, mysterious—time itself. What renders a photograph surreal is its irrefutable pathos as a message from time past . . ." (53-54). Which photographs in (nostalgia) most strongly attest to the surrealist tendency of photography, and why? In what way is the film possibly surrealistic itself?

-- In (nostalgia), which narrational dialogues and photographic images exemplify Sontag's theory that "Though an event has come to mean, precisely, something worth photographing, it is still ideology (in the broadest sense) that determines what constitutes an event. There can be no evidence, photographic or otherwise, of an event until the event itself has been named and characterized"? (18-19) What further points about interpretation, knowledge, and image production does Frampton make in the unusual and witty manner through which he demonstrates this theory?

Barthes and the Onion

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obamas-19yearold-son-makes-rare-appearance-at-dnc,29458/?ref=auto

The hermeneutic code is one of Bathes' codes that brings up questions in the readers mind and doesn't aim to answer them right away. In this article, the hermeneutic code appears very often. Why so often? Well, the Onion is a satirical news source, if you weren't aware, and they like to play on people's ignorance by using false information. The title of the article is an enigma in itself, because, as far as the public is informed, President Obama doesn't have a 19-year-old son. This brings up many other questions, like "who is the mother of this child?", "why has Obama been keeping this 'secret'?", and "why is his son making his existence known now?". These questions are answered later in the article and the answers are obviously fake, but humorous at the same time.
The proairetic code is not as prevalent as the hermeneutic, but can still raise as much mystery and suspense. The fact that Obama's "son" appeared at the Democratic National Convention leaves the reader wondering how people would react. Would they be in shock? Would they greet him warmly?
The semic code looks at the underlying meaning and possible connotations of certain phrases and sentences within the article. At the end of this piece, Obama has a "quote" where he says he wasn't the perfect father who wasn't always there for him, but he's proud of how his son turned out. Now, I might be way over-analyzing this (after all it is a satirical article), but it's possible that this is the relationship that the Onion writers believe Obama has with Americans: that he's not always there for us, but we've come around and, although we've not had an amazing relationship with each other, we know that Obama is always here for us.
The symbolic code is the application of semic codes with one another, such as by antithesis, and they are a lot harder to find. Obama's past relationship with his son is the negative in the antithesis of their relationship, and the present and future is the positive aspect. If my analysis of the semic code is correct, then the sybolic meaning of this article is the Onion saying that Obama should be reelected because his relationship with the Americans (or his son) is going to be positive in the future as opposed to the past.
The final code, referential, is used a lot as well. The Onion uses the referential code against us, in a way. They make up false quotes or statistics by people and organizations that we normally would trust, which can create an air of different responses. If you're aware of the Onion's shenanigans, then you might get a laugh out of these references, but if you aren't, then you might be slightly confused. Specifically, the author uses references from Obama and a few other political figures. They also use the referential code to appeal to our knowledge of the Obama family, the campaign process, and health.

DNC Analysis using Barthes' Codes

The Hermeneutic Code is shown in the beginning of this article. Specifically, it is seen in the title as well as in the first few words of the first paragraph where the author lets readers know that Bill Clinton supports President Obama. However, knowing that Clinton supports Obama may raise the question of “why?” in the readers’ minds. The curiosity to find the answer to this question encourages readers to continue reading the article.

The Proairetic Code is shown throughout this article in the examples Clinton uses to show how Obama has made a difference, even if “many people do not feel it yet.” For example, Clinton states that because of Obama’s actions as president, the economy has grown with specific reference to banks and housing prices. He further states that in order for the effects of these improvements to be felt, the people need to vote Obama into a second term.

The Semic Code represents characterization of people or places in the narrative. In this article, Clinton used the phrase, “winner-take-all, you’re-on-your-own” to characterize the type of society supported by the Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. In contrast, the phrase “we’re-all-in-this-together” was used to characterize the type of society that Barack Obama and Joe Biden stand for.

The Symbolic Code may come into play when one considers what Clinton represents. Despite what happened towards the end of his presidency, Clinton is still a respected man of the Democratic Party. Since he is a symbol of respect, I think that having his support can provide a great boost of support for the Obama campaign.

The Referential Code is used here because everybody knows who Bill Clinton is. He is a recognizable and respected political figure to the American people. Additionally, the referential code is evident in Clinton’s reference to Ronald Reagan when he uses the phrase, “There they go again” while discussing how the Republicans want to be put back into office after leaving Obama a “mess” that he was unable to “clean up” quick enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/bill-clinton-speech_n_1850526.html