Author Archives: grant wiler

In the “Saudi Arabia” episode of Patriot Act, host Hassan Minaj clarifies the coverage of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Using humor and his own personal background as Muslim, Minaj is able to simplify the coverage surrounding this event for a broader audience. This is an excellent example of what Stuart Hall describes as the “encoding/decoding process”. Through Minaj’s knowledge of this topic and through his background as Muslim, he is able to comment not only the events, but also how they’re broadcasted on the news. He notes the convenient blind eye that many politicians have- where they tend to pick and choose which atrocities deserve their attention. For example, when considering how to address this issue, their can be little doubt that the Saudi Crown Prince’s relations with the western world came into play.

Muhammad Bin Salman’s (or MBS) previous praise from the West as a result of him lifting the ban against women driving no doubt came into play. Previous favoritism from the west and money seem to play a large role in the encoding and decoding process for many politicians. As a result of the money and influence the Saudi royal family wields, they have enough power to change the encoding process for many people in power.

This was a process which, until the recent murder of Jamal Khashoggi, remained unchanged. Salman’s previous willingness to embrace parts of western culture was granting a free pass for any other atrocities committed. Now that the Saudi Arabian monarchy has finally admitted that they did kill Khashoggi, there has been little in the way of ramifications. Despite newfound media criticism, the power that MBS holds has managed to steer away the consequences. This shows that the money and resources in Saudi Arabia are enough to influence government action around the world. The power that the Saudi Arabians hold was enough to change the encoding process of people in power.

The show Patriot Act is able to simplify this sort of coverage for broader audiences through the use of humor. Through the lighthearted exchanges that Minaj provides, he is able to open the minds of his audience and make a larger statement. His background as Muslim grants him authority from the perspective of western audiences. This combination allows for Minaj to make political statements to more receptive audiences as a means to spread awareness.

Near the center of the Museum of Anthropology’s Multiversity Gallery, ’Nusi’s One Mind, One Heart is brightly lit and stands as the center piece of the room it hangs in. ’Nusi’s piece is a visage, a war-paint wooden mask with an oil rigger clamped in its jaws. The mask has been carved in what could be considered an angered expression. Beneath the mask, there are three separate images. Each are of protest- one is a march against the placement of oil pipelines, one is a depiction of a man standing alone, and the third is an image of a group of people in protest near docks in traditional vestments. The artist’s statement describes the piece as “support in opposing the Enbridge Pipeline project.” The artist also describes One Mind, One Heart, as a direct protest against the practice of establishing oil pipelines across Indigenous Territory. This sentiment can be seen in both the pictures beneath the mask and the mask itself- the mask itself depicts an oil rigger being crushed in the jaws of the mask, while the pictures beneath it show Indigenous people in all walks of life. This could be considered as a call for unity between Indigenous peoples against what many see as practices tarnishing Indigenous lands.

One Mind, One Heart isn’t necessarily representative of contemporary art- rather, it matches much of the rest of the room in being relatively traditional in nature. It acts as the center piece for the space that it’s in- it is brightly lit, as opposed to the more dim lighting in the other parts of the room. This room itself acts as a gallery for more traditional pieces; while there are some art pieces in the overall exhibit which could be considered more contemporary, they are the exception rather than the norm in this case. Themes of unity against an entity are main takeaway from the overall piece- though this is not a lesson that broader exhibit is trying to convey.

The writings on the piece reflect on this idea as well- the artist’s statement and the other information on the piece describe how the mask is a depiction of the ancient teachings of the Heiltsuk to protect their lands and territories against threats- threats that are now materialized in the form of the oil pipelines. The mask itself is made to depict the ancestral guardian ’Yagis, who is the main representative of these cultural teachings. Reflecting on the piece as a whole, it appears that to fully understand the piece, one would need prior knowledge of Heiltsuk culture. Is the guardian ’Yagis representative of all of Heiltsuk culture, or as more of a protector? I wonder if using a more broad symbol than ’Yagis, would the piece possibly do more to unify Indigenous peoples against a common threat?

Through the debate, my perspective on Dean’s overall view hasn’t so much changed as it has evolved somewhat as a result of the debate. My stance has remained largely unchanged- Dean’s view that social media has inhibited change was never something I totally agreed with. That being said, my personal view is now that social media creates change, but that the change may not necessarily be positive. This position was reinforced by the discussion that was created through the debate.

            In my role as a member of the rebuttal team within my group, I was responsible for defending the position of my group- that the impact of social media is one that inhibits change. Though my groups positions were quite thoroughly taken apart, through the process of building our overall stance, my views were tempered by concrete examples. My views changed in that they were initially surrounding the idea that social media in general is a negative thing. Though I had no specific gripe with social media itself, my belief was and still is that large groups of people in general will struggle to accomplish meaningful or positive change.

            This view was made more concrete through research- by understanding that failed revolutions such as the Egyptian Revolution or the greater Arab Spring were made possible by social media, I am now able to view social media in more concrete terms as it pertains to my belief going into the debate. I believe that my role in rebutting the other group’s point was key in this evolution of my view on the issue. By largely losing that argument, I was exposed to views that I still disagree with, but also recognize as at least partly valid.

            Listening to the other debate impacted me at least partly, but it didn’t have the effect that actually participating in my debate did. This is partly due to parameters of the debate being somewhat unclear at the time- the other groups, as it was pointed out during the debate, were stuck in the unenviable position of going first and thus weren’t allowed the advantage of further clarification on the debate itself.

            As a result, I wasn’t able to draw a totally clear picture of Castell’s view from the debates themselves as a result of this. From what I was able to gather, however, it appears that Dean’s view is more focused on the human element of change, while Castell’s view was centered on how institutions used platforms. This is what I gathered from the debate, as the against group’s argument was largely centered on a government or a corporation was able to use previous modes of communication to subjugate the populace and prevent change.

            My view leaving the debate is now as follows: that social media is not necessarily instrumental in creating change, but that its use can act as an engine for change. However, as masses are involved, that change may not be positive, as movements can be hijacked by either institutions or other groups, as we saw with the Muslim Brotherhood during the Egyptian Revolution.

            The 2016 Presidential Election acts as a macrocosm for all the downsides of social media that critics have been so adamant in pointing out. More so than any other elections before it, social media played a huge role for both sides- through the campaigns, the use of rhetoric to arouse support, and in the spread of headlines.

            Throughout this election, Donald Trump used social media as a platform to connect with his base, and many of his supporters followed suit. In using this tactic, Trump was able to easily create headlines, spur his base forwards, and create an environment that exploited the downsides of social media to heavily divide people from one another. Many on the opposite side of the aisle, including candidate Hillary Clinton, but none were able to garner anywhere near the level of momentum that Trump was using this tactic.

            There was nothing new to be learned in terms of social dynamics in this process- rather, this election served to unearth the heavy divides between American citizens that almost always existed. Social media sites became highly politicized and were often the grounds on which arguments between people ignited into virtual shouting matches. These arguments between people online were often built on the increasing bias found in many news sources, paired with the increasing nature of social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter to act more as echo chambers than anything.

            Part of the reason for this conflict is the format of social media as a whole. Most social media websites use algorithms to determine what shows up in each user’s news feed. Though these algorithms will differ slightly depending on what site, the gist is simple- if a user has shown interest in a certain topic, that user will be shown more of that content based on past interest. While convenient in many cases, this sort of algorithm only works to further divide people come election time. If a user is shown only content based on their own interests, that same user will put less stock into more reliable sources of news.

Social media sites are also notorious for their propensity for fraud. For example, Twitter- which could be considered the main culprit of social media sites in terms of fake users- allows users to create anonymous accounts in minutes. These opinions can then be tweeted out in out in short, 280-character bursts- which, as Sam Saunders of NPR points out, “makes Twitter antithetical to sophisticated, thoughtful political conversation” (1). This issue, in conjunction with heavily biased new sites, allowed misinformation to rapidly spread through the internet.

Through the means of huge divides that social media is largely responsible for, Donald Trump was able to win the 2016 election. He did this by working to undermine the credibility of the press through Twitter, which allowed him to ignite feuds at a whim. Along with this, social media had evolved to largely create a personal echo-chamber for each individual user, serving to broaden the gaps in political views between people and to undermine previously trusted news-sources purely by the massive influx of extreme headlines. Overall, social media’s role in the 2016 presidential election was to make it a battle of extremes in which winning became more important than what was best for the most people. It destroyed moderate opinions, and largely created the political environment in which Americans live today.

Citations

1.     Sanders, Sam. “Did Social Media Ruin Election 2016?” NPR, NPR, 8 Nov. 2016, www.npr.org/2016/11/08/500686320/did-social-media-ruin-election-2016.