Media analysis

[SomeRandom]

So a rather disturbing “trend” that I’ve often encountered online is folks (particularly American, no offence) being unable to analyse media in any significant way.
That’s not to say I’m against people interpreting media however they please.
That’s what art is, imo. You get out what you put in.

Now media analysis was somewhat taught in schools here (maybe it’s more in-depth now, I dunno.)
But in English class we would often dissect a book and then it’s movie adaptation. Compare, contrast, that sort of thing.
Sometimes we would have to analyse a movie on its own by using the tools from English class in general.

So what do you think? Ever encountered interpretations of media that made you facepalm?
(I certainly have!)
What were your experiences of media analysis in school?
Do you think it could be improved upon?
And faves from that?
I particularly liked analysing Of Mice and Men, book vs movie. Don’t know why. It was just rather interesting.

Have at it and discuss as you please

 

[sun rise]

One thing I've noticed is that analysis of media can differ depending on who is doing it. There's agreement in all of these but some such as the place CNN (web) is placed differ. I prefer the second chart because accuracy is really really important to me. I'd be interested if anyone has some data on the accuracy of these.

Research Guides: versus
AllSides Media Bias Chart

Versus Static Media Bias Chart - Ad Fontes Media

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So a rather disturbing “trend” that I’ve often encountered online is folks (particularly American, no offence) being unable to analyse media in any significant way.
That’s not to say I’m against people interpreting media however they please.
That’s what art is, imo. You get out what you put in.

Now media analysis was somewhat taught in schools here (maybe it’s more in-depth now, I dunno.)
But in English class we would often dissect a book and then it’s movie adaptation. Compare, contrast, that sort of thing.
Sometimes we would have to analyse a movie on its own by using the tools from English class in general.

So what do you think? Ever encountered interpretations of media that made you facepalm?
(I certainly have!)
What were your experiences of media analysis in school?
Do you think it could be improved upon?
And faves from that?
I particularly liked analysing Of Mice and Men, book vs movie. Don’t know why. It was just rather interesting.

Have at it and discuss as you please

All I really remember about media analysis in school was looking at a few political cartoons, that seemed really vague, and I was tested on what the author might have meant.

There could have been more to it, not saying there wasn't - that's just all I remember.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

All I really remember about media analysis in school was looking at a few political cartoons, that seemed really vague, and I was tested on what the author might have meant.

There could have been more to it, not saying there wasn't - that's just all I remember.

More so, I remember reading more about things like the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government.

 

[Stevicus]

So a rather disturbing “trend” that I’ve often encountered online is folks (particularly American, no offence) being unable to analyse media in any significant way.
That’s not to say I’m against people interpreting media however they please.
That’s what art is, imo. You get out what you put in.

Now media analysis was somewhat taught in schools here (maybe it’s more in-depth now, I dunno.)
But in English class we would often dissect a book and then it’s movie adaptation. Compare, contrast, that sort of thing.
Sometimes we would have to analyse a movie on its own by using the tools from English class in general.

So what do you think? Ever encountered interpretations of media that made you facepalm?
(I certainly have!)
What were your experiences of media analysis in school?
Do you think it could be improved upon?
And faves from that?
I particularly liked analysing Of Mice and Men, book vs movie. Don’t know why. It was just rather interesting.

Have at it and discuss as you please

I don't think we had much media analysis taught formally in school, although we did learn somewhat about advertising techniques. My grandfather also was a salesman, so he was able to read the typical TV or radio advertisement with a certain filter. Likewise with political speeches. I also became aware of slanted newspapers, although back in the day when the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect, TV news tended to be different than it is now.

When I was in college, I took some Russian classes, and I also took a course on reading Russian (Soviet era) newspapers and getting an idea of how things can look different on the other side of the hill. But I also learned that many Russians didn't trust their own newspapers. The top newspapers of the time "Pravda," meaning "truth," and "Izvestiya," meaning "news." The joke was, "there's no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestiya." But through experience, Russians were able to read between the lines and be able to figure out what was really going on that way.

I find that that's a skill that Americans don't really have in abundance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was barely treading the surface in regards to media literacy/analysis, if you even want to do that. A little bit of "what do you think it means," but no real in depth analysis or critique of the movie or text. Even my 11th grade (16/17 years old) English class was less than baby steps towards learning such skills.

 

[Stonetree]

I recall analysis of classics such as Julius Caesar, The Charge of the Light Brigade, and some paperback book reports were required such as 'Ben Hur' and 'The Great Train Robbery'. We were never required to analyze modern media in an English class if memory serves. As a Senior, we did have a course in 'National Problems' and political news reports were discussed in class. I have to ask my granddaughter what she experienced in school concerning the subject offered in this thread.....(USA)

 

[exchemist]

One thing I've noticed is that analysis of media can differ depending on who is doing it. There's agreement in all of these but some such as the place CNN (web) is placed differ. I prefer the second chart because accuracy is really really important to me. I'd be interested if anyone has some data on the accuracy of these.

Research Guides: versus
AllSides Media Bias Chart

Versus Static Media Bias Chart - Ad Fontes Media

I use the second one (media bias chart) from time to time.

I agree that accuracy is crucial. In fact, it is far more important than overall bias. A politically slanted paper or media channel can be capable of carrying accurate stories (bias can be by editorial selection of what stories to run, rather than by tampering with the truth of the story itself).

Regarding the thread topic in general I am convinced that, today, critical analysis of media output needs to be given more prominence in education than it has traditionally. Most media have almost given up on trying to be impartial in many countries, due to the money there is in reinforcing the prejudices of the target readership. This applies particularly in the poisonous post-Murdoch media landscape in the USA.

 

[Sirona]

What were your experiences of media analysis in school?

I learned English as a second language. In 12th grade, we watched Born on the 4th of July and afterwards Forrest Gump. Some parts of it could be read as parody / conformist re-telling of Born on the 4th of July.

 

[Viker]

I learned English as a second language. In 12th grade, we watched Born on the 4th of July and afterwards Forrest Gump. Some parts of it could be read as parody / conformist re-telling of Born on the 4th of July.

I never really looked at them that way. But now that you've brought it to my attention. Yeah, I can see now.

 

[Yazata]

So a rather disturbing “trend” that I’ve often encountered online is folks (particularly American, no offence) being unable to analyse media in any significant way.

Please pardon these comments from an American...

What do you take "media" to be? Various technologies for presenting content to people (recitations, sculpture, painting, live drama presentations, books and other print media, films, TV, assorted interactive digital media)? Or the creative content that is presented? (The legend, religious story, play, novel, screenplay, whatever the author puts into it and is trying to express)?

That’s not to say I’m against people interpreting media however they please.

Is there a single correct and objective way to do it?

Now media analysis was somewhat taught in schools here (maybe it’s more in-depth now, I dunno.)
But in English class we would often dissect a book and then it’s movie adaptation. Compare, contrast, that sort of thing.

We did similar things.

So what do you think? Ever encountered interpretations of media that made you facepalm?
(I certainly have!)

Yes. But the things that make me facepalm are more typically the content analyses than discussions of the technology. (Which obviously does have impacts on the content.)

I think that way too much literary theory these days is Marxist inspired. Except where the Marxists tried to reduce all artistic expression to economic class relationships and antagonisms, today it's race and "gender" relationships and antagonisms instead of economic class.

That might arguably be one valid way to look at art, but it's like looking at it through a toilet paper tube in my opinion. So narrow that it leaves out much of what attracts me to artistic expression in the first place.

I'm personally more interested in religious art, broadly conceived. What finds emotional resonance in me isn't so much medieval-style depictions of Bible stories as more Baroque-style art that seeks to depict a hint of transcendance. The science-fiction and supernatural horror genres sometimes strive for it. Books, films and video games can convey it.

 

[Ella S.]

As an American, I never understood the point of media analyses. Every media analysis I've seen has seemed either very obvious or completely wrong to me. For instance:

"The movie 300 has fascist overtones." This seems obvious to me. I didn't even see this as subtext, but it just seems like the text itself.

"The movie Fight Club has fascist overtones." This seems ridiculous to me. It's clearly a movie about anti-consumerism, inspired by secular Buddhist philosophy, down to using the symbols and practices of Zen monasteries.

Each of these theses can give rise to whole essays, but the essays, likewise, don't seem very necessary to me. It's like they're just going back through the media and painstakingly explaining every detail like I'm a moron. Sometimes they will give their subjective opinions and try to pretend that what they liked was "objectively good" and what they disliked was "objectively bad," but I already have my own opinions and I don't need theirs.

Much of American media analysis is done more as a form of entertainment in-and-of-itself, which I think makes a lot more sense. We gave rise to MST3K and figures like the Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd, which were very influential in pushing the whole genre of "internet reviewers." It's still not to my tastes, but I can at least see why other people like it, but I do not understand why there are so many British essays and video essays that just rehash the whole artistry of a movie or TV show in unnecessary detail.

 

[sun rise]

What do you take "media" to be?

To me "news" is implied as in news media.

Is there a single correct and objective way to do it?

I believe so. Honesty and accuracy are what I want first of all. I expect a certain amount of judgement about which stories to cover and what prominence to give them. I wish for as objective a decision making process as possible but I know political slant will come into the mix.

One of the reasons I look at headlines from NY Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, AP, Wall Street Journal, BBC and whatever Flipboard tosses my way is to try not to miss what's important and spending 10 seconds or so on each of those web sites gives me a good overview.

 

[Stevicus]

Please pardon these comments from an American...

What do you take "media" to be? Various technologies for presenting content to people (recitations, sculpture, painting, live drama presentations, books and other print media, films, TV, assorted interactive digital media)? Or the creative content that is presented? (The legend, religious story, play, novel, screenplay, whatever the author puts into it and is trying to express)?

I'm not the OP, although you do touch upon a key question: "What do you take 'media' to be?" That, in and of itself, might be an interesting topic.

I think when people commonly refer to the media, they're probably referring to the mainstream media - the large corporate conglomerates which ostensibly control the major TV/film production companies, the large newspapers and chains which have dominated or bought the smaller mom-and-pop outlets which used to be more numerous.

In practice, I think many people perceive media as "those who have the money and technology to influence the public." It's not merely a matter of analyzing the content of individual stories or works of art, but also determining which issues/topics are important and which should be ignored/discarded. It matters little what slant or stance one takes on a particular issue, as long as they're talking about that issue and not some other issue which the Powers That Be don't want brought up.

I would also say a lot of it is the fault of the general public, too. Many people are rather superficial, superstitious, and with short attention spans and short memories. It makes people easier to influence and mollify.

 

[SomeRandom]

Please pardon these comments from an American...

What do you take "media" to be? Various technologies for presenting content to people (recitations, sculpture, painting, live drama presentations, books and other print media, films, TV, assorted interactive digital media)? Or the creative content that is presented? (The legend, religious story, play, novel, screenplay, whatever the author puts into it and is trying to express)?.

No pardon necessary. I welcome your input
Media to me is like movie, tv and video games. Though I suppose you could include the visual mediums as a whole as well (sculpture, plays etc.)
Interpreting News media might be more of an American phenomenon, to be completely honest. Indeed whenever we had to decipher political messages/undertones using news media specifically, we usually used American examples because they seemed so overt to us. (Left vs Right biases.)
I mean sure we have biases in our news media here as well. But most try to distinguish themselves from the “neutral national news” by billing themselves as panel talk shows/variety shows, merely discussing various news events. So they’re a little bit more upfront about being politically inclined. Usually anyway

Is there a single correct and objective way to do it?.

Well my teachers certainly thought so lol

We did similar things..

Hmm that’s cool

Yes. But the things that make me facepalm are more typically the content analyses than discussions of the technology. (Which obviously does have impacts on the content.)
.

Fair enough

I think that way too much literary theory these days is Marxist inspired. Except where the Marxists tried to reduce all artistic expression to economic class relationships and antagonisms, today it's race and "gender" relationships and antagonisms instead of economic class..

Yeah that’s probably true.

Though I find when most Americans name drop Marx they do so just because they find him a scary boogeyman. There’s no real understanding of him or his theories.
Not directing that at you at all, just speaking generally.
It’s honestly a bit odd to be called a “Marxist” simply for pointing out a certain theme in like a movie or tv show though. Indeed that’s happened to me more than once. I don’t think I’ve ever fully read Marxist theory, so it always confounds me when it’s used as an insult towards me

That might arguably be one valid way to look at art, but it's like looking at it through a toilet paper tube in my opinion. So narrow that it leaves out much of what attracts me to artistic expression in the first place..

Well sure there are many different lenses to view art or media or what have you through. Some more narrow than others. I can agree

I'm personally more interested in religious art, broadly conceived. What finds emotional resonance in me isn't so much medieval-style depictions of Bible stories as more Baroque-style art that seeks to depict a hint of transcendance. The science-fiction and supernatural horror genres sometimes strive for it. Books, films and video games can convey it.

Fair enough. Baroque era religious art is quite dynamic and cool. I’m not very well versed in art theory so I probably couldn’t identify it on sight lol
But if it’s the kind of art I’m thinking of, then it’s very likely that I share your taste.

I do actually like a lot of religious art in general. Though again probably couldn’t distinguish between the movements on sight as I’m a bit dumb in that regard lol
I am quite the mythology/folklore junkie though.
I love reading about the different versions of creatures and tales that the various cultures came up with. Their similarities and differences are fun to read about for me.
Incidentally I finished The Iliad (Fagles translation) not too long ago.
Not sure if that qualifies as religious art per se. But it’s got the Greek pantheon interfering in the maybe real life war. So there’s that. But it is a fun read all the same

 

[Stonetree]

If the subject is stretched just a bit, I learned about interpreting information from my father. " Don't believe anything you hear; only believe half of what you see". The statement is an over statement but makes a good point.......I have trouble with those very intelligent members who are sold on the information from textbooks or other well-presented publishing. When I offered personal experiences to back up my argument, I was shown their concern and their hope I would get over my bad experiences. I wasn't presenting my experience for the purpose of sympathy. I was trying to make a bookworm understand the realities in life aren't always found in books. As someone who has had to support liberal politicians because the alternative is just insanity, I do not accept everything Rachel Maddow says as gospel..IMO....I apologize for being off thread.....(Maddow/MSNBC)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If we're talking about media as in books, etc, and not the news media, I may have answered this thread wrong. When it comes to books, etc, analysis was a pretty large subject covered in school for me.

What they didn't cover well, was analysis of news media.

 

[SomeRandom]

If we're talking about media as in books, etc, and not the news media, I may have answered this thread wrong. When it comes to books, etc, analysis was a pretty large subject covered in school for me.

What they didn't cover well, was analysis of news media.

No news media counts in this context
We analysed news media in school. Just relied on the US version a bit more than our own