Author Archives: MertMizrahi

In the “Saudi Arabia” episode of The Patriot Act, hosted by the Muslim American-Indian  Hasan Minhaj, appeared to portray the deeper methods of the encoding/decoding process as given by Stuart Hall, its usage and its relation to how many US politicians employ it within their interactions with Saudi Arabia. Mihnaj firstly addressed the gruesome killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and tied it to the diplomatic crisis that the US had with Saudi Arabia. He admitted that it ‘blew his mind’ that people only realized that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman was not true reformist after this killing. He then went on to explain why this might have been the case, he stated that the Saudi Arabian royal family held around 1 trillion dollars in total wealth and that the US politicians always tended to be wary and overlooking when it came to unwanted actions by Saudi Arabia. The violence committed by Saudi Arabian officials in Yemen is clearly an example of this and it showcases how the encoding/decoding process in journalism sources in America can be biased towards individuals that are financially and politically beneficial towards the United States. The significance this holds for Minhaj is that he is Muslim and that he tends to get judged upon the doings of Saudi Arabia even if he has nothing to do with it, he tries to communicate that this is not acceptable by expressing how the Saudi influence is increasing in North America.

As for the Patriot Act, the show and the host encode their messages in the purpose of creating humor-related material, this is not only a great way of conveying information off to viewers since humor has been shown to increase information retention and wonder levels, but this type of message encoding provides viewers with their own ability to interpret and decode the message in their own ways without guiding them towards an intended message. Which ultimately is the way any platform of objective news outlets should be following.

The piece ‘One Mind, One Heart’ currently displayed in the ‘Anthropology Museum’ at UBC is one such that is bringing up one of the many underlying problems between the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada and the Canadian government for all to see.

Within a seemingly ordinary exhibit in the museum where heaps of little baskets made of fibers are featured next to one another, little artifacts that these people had used are encased behind giant glass walls. And merely a few feet from these pieces, a rather odd-looking mask encased behind a glass frame that covers it on all four sides sits staring.

The whereabouts of the piece did not make a great impression on displaying the importance of this mask since it was sort of in the middle of small and insignificant every-day usage artifacts, but then I realized that perhaps this was the point. Despite my thoughts on the location impairing the artifact’s importance, the fact that it was out of place did in fact make me think it stood out and drew my attention to it even more. This appears to be a great tactic to draw more attention to the mask without shoving its importance down people’s throats.

At first glance, the piece appears to be just another one of the countless aboriginal-made masks portrayed in the museum, it has the traditional blue/red paint covering around its eyes, deep black eyes, a broad nose and long brown hair that falls from either side of the mask. At closer inspection however, it becomes clear that some kind of boat is placed between the lips of the mask, the angry facial expression and the angle of its facial expression gives off the feeling that it is perhaps biting down on the boat, as though trying to snap it in two. This was a direct reference by the Heiltsuk Nation to the relevant Canadian government officials that they did not approve of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and to the oil tanker traffic that would pass through their territory and their waters. This piece is perhaps the perfect example that showcases the ancient teachings of the Heiltsuk peoples, those of protecting their land and waters against such perils. The creator of the mask Nusi delivers “I created ’Yágis for One Mind, One Heart, an installation at the Museum of Anthropology to show my support in opposing the Enbridge Pipeline Project. He hunts down oil tankers and protects our territories and coast.”.

Citations:

Bonar, Thane. “One Mind, One Heart Exhibit at MOA.” Aboriginal Portal, aboriginal.ubc.ca/2013/01/02/one-mind-one-heart-exhibit-at-moa/.

After taking part in the heated discussion in ASTU class earlier last week, I feel like I gained more insight on the topic from both sides considering I was put into the assessing group. Before the debate started, I gathered information on the subject and tried to put myself in the shoes of the ‘for’ group first. I thought about which points they might argue and how they would support those ideas. As ‘for’ the ‘against’ side, I mostly focused on how they would perhaps respond to the claims of the ‘for’ side and how they would go about refuting those claims.

To my surprise, some things discussed were things that I had thought of beforehand, such as the case of reliability and social media. After partaking in the debate, I can safely say that most of my views on the Castell’s reading remained the same even after both groups displayed their own views on it. I felt like the ‘for’ group mostly addressed how the news of the revolution spread with the help of social media and that social media had most certainly allowed this sort opportunity ‘for’ the revolution to gain more followers. The ‘against’ side had some interesting things to say about this exact topic, they argued how social media was in fact incredibly alterable and vulnerable to manipulation by the government and other anti-revolutionary parties in order to help achieve their goals. Overall, I definitely think my assigned role made me see, and judge the reading through a somewhat more objective lens while trying to assess the strength and possible weaknesses of the reading.

Listening to the Dean groups argument, more than anything, helped me get a better understanding between the terms ‘inhibit’ and ‘enable’. In my opinion, the Dean debate featured more definitive claims and points when compared to Castells. The way they talked about social media and the way that it tends to miss the point and drift off the initial point struck me, given the ALS ice bucket challenge example. But considering all things, I do not believe that my view on social media and sociopolitical change a whole lot because the things that were mentioned and supported were already somewhat in my radar and therefore inspired no actual difference to the way I think on these matters.

So, I’m sure everyone has heard of the opinion-expressing media-breaking friendship-ruining Yanny/Laurel debate of 2018 by now. This interesting phenomenon split the social media literally in half where 47% of listeners insisted that the recording was saying “Yanny” while the remaining 53% believed that the voice clearly said “Laurel”. But before all of this mess and online warfare, there was only a dictionary.

The Yanny/Laurel debate firstly began on May 11, Katie Hetzel, a freshman at Flowery Branch High School in Georgia, was studying for her world literature class, where “laurel” was one of her vocabulary words. She looked it up on Vocabulary.com and played the audio. Instead of the word in front of her, she heard “yanny.” She then proceeded to put the audio recording on her Instagram story. Soon, a senior at the same school, Fernando Castro, republished the same audio clip on his own story where one of his buddies, Roland Camry, saw it and posted it on reddit under the title r/blackmagicfuckery where people of all sorts publish unusual nature-related events.

But most importantly, other than causing a massive cyber battle, this small audio clip debate between a kid’s high school class resulted in a massive media outburst where people from all countries, ethnicities and religions could experience this event. However unimportant and unnecessary this particular audio clip may seem, it undeniably sparked a massive wave of spreading throughout many media platforms such as newspapers, Facebook , Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, 9GAG and many more. This is a very clear example of how impressive the internet and the web has become in distributing information.

Social media, I believe, although having a great part in popularity, just reveals and magnifies an already existing topic and social dynamic such as it was in the Laurel/Yanny case. The controversy was definitely affected greatly by the influence of social media to help it spread and grow. But social media itself did not create the argument and controversy in the first place. Social media in general merely took part in the distribution of the news, not create them

Works Cited:

Matsakis, Louise. “The True History of ‘Yanny’ and ‘Laurel’.” Wired, Conde Nast, 18 May 2018, www.wired.com/story/yanny-and-laurel-true-history/.

“Laurel – Dictionary Definition.” Vocabulary.com, www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/laurel.

Nowadays, in order for a successful story to be made, the creator must include such aspects in the story on which both hardcore fans and regular viewers can enjoy and relate. The ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy captures this method very efficiently, both the methods of spreadability and stickiness are clearly represented within the story.

‘Lord of the Rings’ manages to portray these qualities by introducing viewers to many events that are interpret-able in entirely different ways. For example; some viewers may find the ‘one ring to rule them all’ just as a symbol of power that the villain controls, like in any other standard story. However, some viewers may interpret the ring to be a vessel for the corruption that power brings, as it is displayed in the story, the person that controls the ring (power) inevitably becomes corrupt. Such is generally the case in reality. These types of different views show how the story is open to interpretation.

The story could be experienced in two ways; the viewers may just watch the movies/read the books and absorb all the information provided whilst not delving deeper inside and just witnessing the obvious. Another type of audience might be very keen to learn more, explore the possibilities, create fan-theories, interpret things differently than the average viewer and all-round delve deeper into the story and the meaning of the material.

The people that do not delve deeper into the story are known as spreaders, these type of people tend to, after experiencing the story, share their views and opinions with their friends with their own views. Viewers who dive deep in the story are people affected by the stickiness of the given story. These people are likely to be more involved in any kind of debate or theory crafting regarding the material, maybe even set up a fanbase to find like-minded people as themselves.

If we were to think about and perceive both of these perspectives at the same time, we would be able to experience to the full extent, the decisions that the creator has made in order to appeal to both of these types of viewers, as well as the obvious differences that these two types of storytelling express.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Spreadable Media.” NYU Press, nyupress.org/books/9780814743508/.

Jabar, Cynthia. “Sticky Vs Spreadable: If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead by Henry Jenkins.” TransmediaKids.com: Multi Platform Storytelling, 1 Jan. 1970, www.transmediakids.com/2011/09/sticky-vs-spreadable-if-it-doesnt.html.

admin, Author. “Spreadable Media – Stickiness vs Spreadability.” MediaPedagogy, www.ralphbeliveau.com/uncategorized/spreadable-media-stickiness-vs-spreadability/.

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Fellowship of the Ring. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. Print.