Let's Jam with the Truth

Culture Jamming

Culture jamming is the various methods used to modify mass media to convey a different message, often by means of guerrilla communication – communication which is opposed or unsanctioned by the government or higher-powers. Culture jamming is often used to poke fun at the nature of popular culture.

There are numerous culture jamming groups out there, all with different methods of reaching out to the public. One group, called the Billboard Liberation Front, is devoted to “improving” billboards by changing the keywords on billboards to often create an anti-corporate message.

Another organization, known as the Billionaires for Bush, satirically purports to support George W. Bush for his actions which are perceived to benefit corporations and the super-wealthy. Members of the group often dress in stereotypically wealthy garb, such as in tuxedos, top hats, and evening gowns. In 1999, the group attended a rally for Steve Forbes when he announced his candidacy for presidency with signs saying, “Billionaires for Forbes: Because Inequality isn’t Growing Fast Enough,” and started chanting, “Let workers pay the tax so investors can relax!”

Cultural jamming is an important act in our society. It provokes the public to find an interest in civic engagement, stimulates personal interpretation and independent thinking. Groups such as the Billboard Liberation Front enable us to think about issues in a different way. As in the picture, these actions allows to us to see things in a humorous way, but at the same time gets us thinking about those truths that we tend to ignore.

Controlling the Delivery of Information: Cross-Media Ownership

Media Hegemonies

One of the major media companies in Canada is CanWest Global Communications. It is one of Canada’s largest international media companies. CanWest currently owns twelve major newspaper companies, three publishing groups, thirteen television channels, and three other individual companies. In addition, CanWest owns the nation’s capital’s largest newspaper, as well as one of the larger television networks, Global Television, which reaches 94% of English-speaking Canadians. With such a hold on these media companies, the relation of news through these networks is regulated by CanWest, and in effect, the stories and views become very uniform.

Cross-media ownership – where a single company owns companies in multiple media forms – reduces the amount of diverse editorial voices in the same market. As a result, one entity can effectively control the delivery of programming throughout that market. When cross-media ownership is present, there is a decrease in independent voices and views in that form of media. Companies are able to force their views upon us from multiple angles. If the same company owns multiple radio channels, television channels, and newspapers, the news we get will be standardized. Only one side is heard because the information is all coming from the same source.

Some restrictions have been made on what companies can own, such as how many different sources can be owned by a single company within one market. These types of restrictions on markets can ensure that the flow of information is unbiased and is coming from multiple sources, rather than a single one. However, as long as there is cross-media ownership, there will still be flaws in the flow of information in different forms of media.

Fair access for all!

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is the idea that public information networks aspire to treat content, sites, and platforms equally. It means equal access to the internet; the principle that internet users should be able to decide which content and applications they can view and use.

The argument is that internet companies should not be able to use their market power to discriminate against certain applications and content, just as telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can and cannot call. Broadband carriers should not be able to restrict online activity using their market control. Those who are in favour of net neutrality claim that the telecom companies’ purpose lies more in profiting from their control of internet material rather than from the demand for their services or content.

When I want to watch a video online, why is it that I am restricted to how much I watch or the quality of the video, when others can get the video with a faster connection and better quality? It is the private sector that wants to make money, and as result, opposes network neutrality. For the sake of network neutrality, I could argue that I have just as much right to watch the video in real-time as someone who pays a dollar more per month. We, the public, argue for the sake of net neutrality, and the right to access everything on the internet equally.

Cable companies, like Comcast – who illegally inhibited users of its high-speed internet service from downloading file-sharing software – should no longer be able to restrict the public of what we access we have on the internet.

We Are At War

We are at war, and have been since the early winter months of 2002. We aided the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan, after they began the foreign invasion in 2001. In 2005, Canadian troops began to move into one of the most volatile regions, Kandahar province, after US troops handed command over to the Canadians for that region. In 2006, Canadians solidified their presence in Afghanistan, establishing a base of about 2,300 soldiers in Kandahar province.

At the time of the invasion, the Canadian government defined its reasons for participating in the war as: to defend Canada’s national interest, to ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs, and to help Afghanistan rebuild. Canadian commitment to the war was planned to last until October 2003. We are now into 2008, and Canada has still not withdrawn its troops. In a time of economic downfall, can we really afford to continue to finance the mission in Afghanistan?

Both leaders of the Liberal and Conservative party deem the mission in Afghanistan necessary. Other party leaders, such as Jack Layton, as well as many members of the public, determine the mission in to be unnecessary: lacking clear objectives, success, and undermining the reconstruction of the country. I agree with the general public – Canadian troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible. As a country, we don’t have the money to continue the mission; it’s outworn its purpose. We haven’t seen results in a while, only deaths; as over September 2008, 97 soldiers have died in Afghanistan. It’s time to end this mission – we need to bring our soldiers home.

What Was The Deciding Factor?

The American Presidential Election

Since when should the appearance of the President be the most important deciding factor in an election? A friend of mine made a very valid point, “White people will vote for Obama because they don’t want to come across as racist.” The idea of having the first black American President eclipsed many other issues of the election. Personally, I would not have cared who won the election. Though Canada’s relations with the United States does lie heavily on the relation between both nations’ leaders, I felt that either candidate was a suitable choice for president. However, like many other uninformed people who watched the election, I was hoping for Obama to win the Presidency – the main reason being to see the first black American president in office. However, should it not be the policies and the ideas the candidates represent that is the main deciding factor?

Few people were actually aware of either candidate’s position on issues such as the Iraq war and the troubled housing market. Even now that Barack Obama is the President Elect, I am still asking myself, “What does he plan to do while in office?” The truth of the matter is people were so focused on the change that a black president would represent that many of the main issues were, for the majority, ignored.

While it’s a ground-breaking time – seeing the first black American president in history – it’s hard to be completely happy, knowing that Obama was voted into office, not for his ideas, but largely for the colour of his skin.

Let's Get Media Aware

National Media Education Week

National Media Education Week is an initiative to promote media education and encourage all Canadians to participate in media literacy activities throughout the country. Throughout the week of November 3rd-7th, I participated in this initiative by discussing the important issues in media that this week brings to light: the truths about the internet occurrences we tend to ignore in our day-to-day online activities. With a group of friends, I discussed the importance of being able to think critically and act ethically in online activities. When asking around and hearing what we each had to say on our participation and victimization online, it was clear that we each had a different outlook on what constitutes as cyber-bullying. It is often that these differences in views lead to conflict online because people fail to understand the severity of what they do and say. Too many people can say that they have or have been a victim of cyber-bullying; forty-one per cent of victims of cyber bullying in grade seven don’t know the identity of their attacker. We need to develop meticulous critical thinking as members of this cyber-society; to make sense of everything we read, hear, and see in the media. And in essence, that’s Media Education Week is about – giving us the knowledge to think critically about how we act towards and respond to media issues.