I want to share an interesting youtube clip I came upon not too long ago.
Originally, my intent was to share this video in my group presentation, because I feel it answers part of the "interesting" category-question of the Mexican media market.Subcomandante Marcos (shown in the clip) makes some startling and truly gripping comments in regards to the mass media and its intertwined role with economical globalization. And how consequently, the negative aspects, the receiver, so-called "minorities" of the short end of the stick in a capitalist society see themselves in caught in this idealistic/actual perception of reality....a cause for which he, and Zapatistas, wish to voice and continue to struggle.
It's a very intriguing video....and I'm sorry to say the English translation does not even come close to capturing the full effect originally voiced :/
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
What I've learned so far...
Last week, it was my group's turn to present for the Global News Media course I am enrolled in (and for which I have to keep up this blog), Journalism 312i. While the whole experience was very much overwhelming and stressful to say the least, in all honesty I admit that I had fun, and that I learned so much from my classmates alone...and for that I am very grateful.
Anyway, not to sound like a scratched disk or anything, but I really want to explain what the assignment entailed. Our focus was Latin American media, both in their respective countries and here in the United States.
Basically, as a group we decided to go about by first explaining and giving a brief overview of the media structure in each of our countries. (Coincidentally, we just so happened to be doing our blogs on Latin American countries: Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and Guatemala), in addition to mentioning characteristics of Latin American media as a whole.
Afterward, we were going to explain the latter half: interesting characteristics of Spanish-speaking media in the United States.
However, given the whole experience/research, there was so much information we felt was needed to cover, just to provide context and to fulfill the important individual characteristics of each country, that needless to say we took up the whole class period going over what we were just going to brush over "quickly"!
And ultimately, in my mind, it reinforced a very common theme I've found, and that I wanted to mention in class but don't think I really did...that it's very hard to generalize and wrap everything nice and pretty under one label. And that this is perhaps a metaphoric example of a larger issue.
What do I mean by this?
It seems to me, in my observation, that there exists the tendency to group Latinos under the same category, almost to assume that there really is no difference between people from Mexico and people from El Salvador. That you won't find cultural, political, and MEDIA-BASED structural differences, or at least enough to warrant an exclusive, independent outlook for each.
I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but I truly did grow frustrated with this, because it led me to the conclusion that if that is that case, then for sure it is something that should be addressed.
In this business where we hopefully aim to be responsible handlers and distributors of information, it's a real eye-opener to notice the stark diversity within each country, respectively, and in turn see an almost generic approach here in the United States. Like, there is so much more than what Univision has to offer, so much more to the stereotypes garnering headlines about Latinos in general but that media monopolies simply don't allow that extra room, that extra diverse coverage to clarify.
I mean, I understand that it is almost idealistic, to expect and demand full coverage of every little corner, but I don't know...it was just very unsettling to realize that this is, maybe, an example of how media conglomerates and large ownership of media outlets by few individuals tend to exclude the individualities of the "lesser" players.
This experience opened my eyes just a little more...and I know that besides Latin American countries, this tendency of generalizing what we aren't too familiar with (like i don't know, perhaps grouping most Middle Eastern countries together, for example?)
Anyway, I just felt like rambling about this a bit... :D
Anyway, not to sound like a scratched disk or anything, but I really want to explain what the assignment entailed. Our focus was Latin American media, both in their respective countries and here in the United States.
Basically, as a group we decided to go about by first explaining and giving a brief overview of the media structure in each of our countries. (Coincidentally, we just so happened to be doing our blogs on Latin American countries: Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and Guatemala), in addition to mentioning characteristics of Latin American media as a whole.
Afterward, we were going to explain the latter half: interesting characteristics of Spanish-speaking media in the United States.
However, given the whole experience/research, there was so much information we felt was needed to cover, just to provide context and to fulfill the important individual characteristics of each country, that needless to say we took up the whole class period going over what we were just going to brush over "quickly"!
And ultimately, in my mind, it reinforced a very common theme I've found, and that I wanted to mention in class but don't think I really did...that it's very hard to generalize and wrap everything nice and pretty under one label. And that this is perhaps a metaphoric example of a larger issue.
What do I mean by this?
It seems to me, in my observation, that there exists the tendency to group Latinos under the same category, almost to assume that there really is no difference between people from Mexico and people from El Salvador. That you won't find cultural, political, and MEDIA-BASED structural differences, or at least enough to warrant an exclusive, independent outlook for each.
I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but I truly did grow frustrated with this, because it led me to the conclusion that if that is that case, then for sure it is something that should be addressed.
In this business where we hopefully aim to be responsible handlers and distributors of information, it's a real eye-opener to notice the stark diversity within each country, respectively, and in turn see an almost generic approach here in the United States. Like, there is so much more than what Univision has to offer, so much more to the stereotypes garnering headlines about Latinos in general but that media monopolies simply don't allow that extra room, that extra diverse coverage to clarify.
I mean, I understand that it is almost idealistic, to expect and demand full coverage of every little corner, but I don't know...it was just very unsettling to realize that this is, maybe, an example of how media conglomerates and large ownership of media outlets by few individuals tend to exclude the individualities of the "lesser" players.
This experience opened my eyes just a little more...and I know that besides Latin American countries, this tendency of generalizing what we aren't too familiar with (like i don't know, perhaps grouping most Middle Eastern countries together, for example?)
Anyway, I just felt like rambling about this a bit... :D
Sunday, April 11, 2010
A Case of Media Meddling
For the past couple of weeks, the tragic story of missing 4-year-old Paulette Gebara Farah has been rocking Mexican main media outlets non-stop.
The case, which quickly garnered publicity given the missing girl's well-to-do background (she was part of an elite family) proved to be even more horrific with its confirmed linkage to Mexico's infamous drug wars.
Things got even more complicated as the parents themselves were declared possible suspects. In addition, unsettling details began to surface in this apparent nation-wide concern for the missing child: that the mother (possible suspect) was tired of being a mom, confessions and stories of marital infidelities, as well as countless private details about key family members just to name a few.
Undoubtedly, the story skyrocketed, especially as details did not add up, and as a ghastly discovery of the child's rotting corpse in her very own bedroom launched even more attention.
Overall, however, a fundamental issue surfaced above all: the role of the media outlets in this situation.
An article published in today's LA Times brought up the interesting question about press responsibility. At what point does covering a story trespass into outright sensationalism, into an "if it bleeds it leads" situation?
The article basically sums up the story, but goes into detail to explain the outright, almost aggressive style in which the story developed. While reporting important elements is necessary for any story, how necessary is it to go beyond the murder scene and reveal private details about the family?
You can check out the Los Angeles Times article for yourself by clicking here.
(Photograph: Paulette Gebarah Farah, courtesy of LA Times)
The case, which quickly garnered publicity given the missing girl's well-to-do background (she was part of an elite family) proved to be even more horrific with its confirmed linkage to Mexico's infamous drug wars.
Things got even more complicated as the parents themselves were declared possible suspects. In addition, unsettling details began to surface in this apparent nation-wide concern for the missing child: that the mother (possible suspect) was tired of being a mom, confessions and stories of marital infidelities, as well as countless private details about key family members just to name a few.
Undoubtedly, the story skyrocketed, especially as details did not add up, and as a ghastly discovery of the child's rotting corpse in her very own bedroom launched even more attention.
Overall, however, a fundamental issue surfaced above all: the role of the media outlets in this situation.
An article published in today's LA Times brought up the interesting question about press responsibility. At what point does covering a story trespass into outright sensationalism, into an "if it bleeds it leads" situation?
The article basically sums up the story, but goes into detail to explain the outright, almost aggressive style in which the story developed. While reporting important elements is necessary for any story, how necessary is it to go beyond the murder scene and reveal private details about the family?
You can check out the Los Angeles Times article for yourself by clicking here.
(Photograph: Paulette Gebarah Farah, courtesy of LA Times)
Monday, April 05, 2010
Earthquake!
Image courtesy of Hoy, shows damage to Mexican building after the quake.(click image for site)
It's blazing all over the news: a 7.2 magnitude earthquake struck Baja California yesterday evening, so powerful it even rocked the LA county as well.
The tremor, estimated to have lasted anywhere between 30-45 seconds, was so widespread that at least 20 million people felt the shaking.
Although the epicenter was located south of the border, earthquake coverage this morning (as with this ABC 7 clip) mainly focused on damages to buildings in the San Diego county, las with cities like Calexico and El Centro.
After about an hour of the repetitive information shown on these newsclips, I was pretty surprised to note that once I switched the channel to Univision, certain key points had been omitted in the ABC 7 and Fox newscasts.
For one thing, Univision's reporting pretty much focused on the direct damage to buildings in Mexico.
This is not to imply that the effects to southern California were left out (after the all, the tremor was felt even in Bakersfield). It's just a mindblow (for me at least) to come to terms with the fact that in emergency situations like these, it's a staggering advantage from a reporting perspective to possess the type of coverage accessibility where language is not a barrier. It really makes a difference in reporting, because for me as a viewer, I kind of felt like I was almost getting a different perspective of how things were going once I heard the same news, but in Spanish.
But I guess this is all relative. I mean, I'm pretty sure that if I were to understand French I would probably experience, or rationalize the details to the Haiti earthquake in a different manner as well.
Another thing, during the morning segment in Univision, one of the reporters was interviewing an expert, summarizing the basics of the quake (where, when, how). Once more, what I found interesting (and different) to the previous news coverages I'd seen, was a fact that seemed to have been left out in other news clips I'd seen so far in English. This expert really stressed a key point in all of this:collaboration. He explained that because the quake happened in such close proximity, because so many people felt it across the U.S./Mexico borders, and because to this day --and in the days following --the ground is still prone to aftershocks, nothing will help out more than to be on the same page and to implement a solid flow of information between U.S. and Mexican geologists.
It's blazing all over the news: a 7.2 magnitude earthquake struck Baja California yesterday evening, so powerful it even rocked the LA county as well.
The tremor, estimated to have lasted anywhere between 30-45 seconds, was so widespread that at least 20 million people felt the shaking.
Although the epicenter was located south of the border, earthquake coverage this morning (as with this ABC 7 clip) mainly focused on damages to buildings in the San Diego county, las with cities like Calexico and El Centro.
After about an hour of the repetitive information shown on these newsclips, I was pretty surprised to note that once I switched the channel to Univision, certain key points had been omitted in the ABC 7 and Fox newscasts.
For one thing, Univision's reporting pretty much focused on the direct damage to buildings in Mexico.
This is not to imply that the effects to southern California were left out (after the all, the tremor was felt even in Bakersfield). It's just a mindblow (for me at least) to come to terms with the fact that in emergency situations like these, it's a staggering advantage from a reporting perspective to possess the type of coverage accessibility where language is not a barrier. It really makes a difference in reporting, because for me as a viewer, I kind of felt like I was almost getting a different perspective of how things were going once I heard the same news, but in Spanish.
But I guess this is all relative. I mean, I'm pretty sure that if I were to understand French I would probably experience, or rationalize the details to the Haiti earthquake in a different manner as well.
Another thing, during the morning segment in Univision, one of the reporters was interviewing an expert, summarizing the basics of the quake (where, when, how). Once more, what I found interesting (and different) to the previous news coverages I'd seen, was a fact that seemed to have been left out in other news clips I'd seen so far in English. This expert really stressed a key point in all of this:collaboration. He explained that because the quake happened in such close proximity, because so many people felt it across the U.S./Mexico borders, and because to this day --and in the days following --the ground is still prone to aftershocks, nothing will help out more than to be on the same page and to implement a solid flow of information between U.S. and Mexican geologists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)