The Portrayal of Serious Issues in Humorous Media

In this video clip, Ellen speaks about the situation in Saudi Arabia in a humorous manner. This video clip caught my attention for a few reasons. First, at the beginning of the term, our class spoke about how one aspect of being a global citizen is to be up to date on news and spread awareness of these issues with the intention of providing help. This is something that an individual must intend to do because unless you make the initiative, the news will not come to you. As we discovered through studying the “Beware Online: ‘Filter Bubbles’”, the Internet is becoming increasingly tailored to suit it thinks an individual wants to see. I truly believe that unless you make an effort, an individual could go weeks without hearing any news, local or global. Even if they spent time going on Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc, because everything is designed to show us what we want to see, typically light-hearted entertainment, they might only hear about news through people in real life. So when I saw this clip from the Ellen show, I was slightly surprised. Initially surprised because her show is primarily comedic and she typically does not speak about serious issues unless it is a charity initiative. Secondly, I noticed that she did not speak about the issue in Saudi Arabia for very long amount of time. She took a serious issue and spoke about it with humour. On the one hand, I do not expect Ellen to speak very seriously about issues on her show or spread/discuss news. That is not the shows purpose. On the other hand, I was surprised that she would bring up an important issue and not elaborate on it.

This made me think about how light-hearted, popular media represents important, global issues and whether this is beneficial or disadvantageous for the viewers and those who are experiencing the issue at hand. I can expect that those who are watching the Ellen show are not watching to learn about the news. Nevertheless, if these types of media speak about issues, whether elaborately or not, they bring attention to the issue and spread awareness. This could be beneficial, perhaps people will watch the show and then do further investigation. Or perhaps they will share the video on social media. I do not see how this could be disadvantageous in any way. The cheery way of speaking about this may in fact bring the issue more attention because those who do not normally watch the news may be more intrigued to watch something like this. Conversely, due to these cheerful and humorous media sources speaking about serious issues in such a way, they may not accurately represent the situation. This might only distort the situation in a way that is harmful. In this case, those affected by the issue may not want any inaccurate information being spread in popular media when it could so easily be prevented. Obviously, the media continuously misrepresents issues and spreads false information however this typically occurs in a ‘telephone game’ type manner. Whereas on a popular TV show, presenting a specific and prepared segment, the way the issue is spoken about is entirely in their control.

Is slight misrepresentation or humorous interpretation damaging to the actual issue? Or is it acceptable considering that it brings further attention towards the issue? Having been informed about the issue in such a manner, are people more inclined to solve the problem and/or spread awareness? Or does it only distract from the real problem?

Debating Authenticity of Life Narrative

In a portion of my literature review, The child’s perspective of trauma within life narrative, I summarized a few scholar’s concepts of authenticity within this context. I had three scholars, Alexandra Lloyd, Gill Rye, and Hillary Chute discuss whether or not the child’s viewpoint can be authentic at all and what characteristics made it more or less so. The complex relationship between the adult author and the child narrator, effects of an overtly emotional narration on it’s own authenticity, and preservation of memory were all called into question.

As I was reading the articles, I never questioned the authority of these scholars to analyze the authenticity of these life narratives. Due to the author (writing trauma as seen by a child) no longer being a child, I believed it was understandable and logical to question the authenticity of the story. However, today in class (Nov.5th), Laurie made me re-think the concept of authenticity in life narrative. Who has the authority to determine what is authentic? When an author is telling someone else’s story, for example David Eggers in What is the What, there will always be issues of translation and mediation. Even if both contributors, the author and the real-life protagonist, speak the same language they may still run into problems with interpreting meaning. Mediation will naturally be an issue because life narratives are often edited in ways that will supposedly help them reach a larger audience. Even when an author is recounting their own experiences, their memory will never be 100% reliable. The authenticity of life narrative could be debated forever because there is no valid way to determine how truly authentic it is.

Are there any effective ways of measuring authenticity within life narrative? My belief is that unless someone is recounting their own experiences as they are happening and is being completely truthful, no other life narrative could be considered completely authentic. Even in that case, some aspects could be called into question. So, what is the point of debating authenticity at all? Perhaps it aids us in engaging with our critical thinking skills? On the opposite end of the spectrum, if we do not think critically about what we are reading, we are not actually doing our job as a reader. We should never take things at face value and blindly consume. Therefore, perhaps that best technique is to try to stand somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Take everything with a grain of salt, know that it may not be authentic, and consider the reasons as to why it may have purposely or accidentally been presented in that way. However do not scrutinize it to the point that you miss the bigger picture entirely. Questioning the authenticity of life narrative can have benefits for the reader but if taken too far will do more harm than good.

Truth and Reconciliation Response

Within the last few years of my life, I have learnt about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the residential schools through various means. The first time I became aware of what happened at the residential schools was during a highschool social studies class. I was very shocked and saddened after learning this but as the years went on, I slowly forgot about it. After hearing about it for the first time (four years ago), I do not believe I heard about it at all or to much length after that. That was until this last week. During the last week I continued to learn about the TRC through various forms; Teachers speaking during a lecture, other students, videos created by victims, online articles, social media websites, videos from various TRC events in Vancouver, and lastly, the Belkin Art Gallery ‘Witnesses’ exhibit. As I was taking in all of this information, I felt similar to the way I did when I first learnt about what happened. The exception to this was the ‘Witnesses’ exhibit. Although what I learnt through the exhibit was not anything I was not previously aware of, it affected me in a profoundly different way. I was truly touched by the exhibit and found it to be very powerful and emotional. I know that other people were also affected by it in a similar way. I began thinking about how the same idea, presented differently, can affect people in different ways. Some forms of expression may get the point across much better than others, and this particular form or forms are different for everyone. I believe that this is why there was such a large variety of events to choose from and different ways to learn during the reconciliation week in BC.

As I continued to learn about the TRC during the last week, I began to wonder if my highschool was doing anything to acknowledge or participate in the TRC. I was almost completely sure that they would have done something in recognition of the subject. But when I spoke to my sister (who currently attends the highschool) about the TRC, she had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. This brought two things to attention for me. The first being how much awareness still needs to be brought to the issue of the residential schools and how important it is that this happens. The second being how special and wonderful it is that UBC participated. I think it was incredibly important for UBC to give students a day to participate in the events. I believe that students really took advantage of that day to explore the TRC, the history of the residential schools, and the affects the schools are still having on people today. I think that for a lot of students it was a really eye-opening experience and one that will not be easily forgotten.