July 16th: Media Reality Construction

Short Reading on Logical Fallacies

I have a reading that's important for thinking about logical arguments. The reading has logical fallacies defined. The goal is to get you to think about how others (especially those in the media) present arguments. We're never going to get the entire story, but some stories are constructed through fallacious reasoning. This Logical Fallacy reading is important to help you try to identify was you might be manipulated by arguments.

Moodle Discussion Posts

Remember, besides the prompts I ask you to respond to, I want you to respond to a post from another classmate from July 9th's posts. You can respond to whomever you'd like (in at leas 250 words). Of course, you're supposed to be thoughtful and critically reflective. You aren't trying to necessarily go against (or be for) what your classmate wrote. Instead, you're trying to show you're reflecting on his or her post.

This might be an oversimplification of Baudrillard, but reality is constructed by viewer/audience interpretation and absorption of media. In other words, we piece together reality or the "reality of events" through our own filters. The images/messages we absorb aren't the entire story--they're illusions that we believe to be the truth. For the moodle prompts, I want you to consider yesterday's discussion on Baudrillard and media-constructed reality. Remember, Baudrillard claims we don't want the real--we want the hyperreal or the illusion.

Some of you have asked about how you should respond. I don't have a way that you should respond, and, as I've mentioned, I'm trying to not tell you exactly how to respond, so your reflection isn't stifiled by what could appear to be a requirement. Well, since some of you want more guidance, I'm going to risk being directive and provide an example for responding to a prompt. Please note that this example response isn't the ONLY way to respond. I hope it helps you see how you may reflect on the media we consume.

Example Prompt

We’ve already discussed gender issues in this class, but we’re going to go deeper into that next week. As a preview and a way to think about filters and reality construction, here’s a link to two videos that are overtly anti-Feminist. I’m purposely capitalizing the ‘F’ in Feminism because, as you’ll get a critique of the notion that feminism isn’t a monolithic movement, these videos respond to a construction of feminism or, for our purposes, a reality of feminism. By and large, these videos and many more like it lash out at some idea of feminism being a single movement trying to establish a matriarchal culture as opposed to the idea that feminism is the radical notion that women and men should be equal social and politically. Although you might read that I’m asking you to just refute these videos, I’m hoping you’ll also try to critique how the message is constructed. You don’t just have to find evidence contrary to what is given; you can point out that the evidence given isn’t telling the whole story

Using your own critical faculties and/or the fallacies from today’s web page (July 16th), identify how an argument (or two), in your opinion, isn’t giving the whole story. What is missing from the argument that might shed more light on the topic? For instance, the argument in the beginning of this video tries to explain away the fact that women make roughly 75% of what men make. Watch the short video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh2h4kOGubU) and consider my example response below:

Response: The speaker, who claims to be a freshman college student, tries to explain that the pay discrepancy isn’t that big a deal because “male dominated fields” pay more. Therefore, women aren’t being paid less because they’re women; they’re being paid less because they’re in careers that pay them less. If you’re confused, it’s ok because the logic is atrocious. What she’s missing is that patriarchal culture (male-dominated society) relegates women to lower paying jobs. She even says that fields such as “law and medicine get paid more than teaching and nursing” (1:08-1:13). Isn’t nursing part of the field of medicine? Women dominate that field, and it’s a good paying field for both men and women but it pays less than the other male-dominated medical fields. The second-class citizen status is the cause for women NOT being as accepted into more higher-paying careers than men. She completely misses the part of the feminist critique that points out that men’s work is valued more than women’s work. Male and female roles are socially constructed—including career paths. Pay discrepancy is system because it’s rooted in our sexist culture. Here’s another fact, even when they (whoever does the statistics) control for the same occupation, men still make more than women doing the same work. This Forbes.com article also tries to deny that women are paid less because of being socially pushed into lower-paying jobs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/. The author, Carrie Lukas, uses the same “logic” as the video speaker claiming that the pay discrepancy is because the statistic is compiled by aggregating the incomes of men and women and then drawing the percentage (Lukas claims it’s 81%). Both the speaker and Lukas miss the main point of the pay discrepancy fact (yes, it’s a fact if you accept the stat provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics): Women might work less than men, work in lower-paying jobs than men, and take on more childcare than men, thus, causing them to have reduced incomes. That’s not really worth arguing. The bigger picture, the reality, is that women in male-dominated societies are conditioned to fulfill a role that causes them to work less, work in lower-paying jobs than men, and take on more childcare than men, thus, causing them to have reduced incomes. Downplaying of the fact that overt discrimination (paying a man more than a woman for the EXACT same job) is also a factor in pay discrepancy is an attempt to create a different reality by using or accentuating other factors. Their goal, downplay discrimination and claim that women have reached equality/parity with men. (429 words)

Head on over to moodle for discussion prompts.

Another Example of Media Construction

For another example of the ways media talking heads construct reality, watch this Fox News segment and consider the following questions:

• What metaphors does Beck use for his view of government "addiction"?

• Why do you think Beck compares the answers to the poll to France?

• Why would an American audience be pursuaded by this? Now, you might not, but that's irrelevant for this analysis. The speaker is attempting to convey a message--what is it, and how does he convey it?

• What cultural beliefs do you think Beck is tapping into when he mentions "the soul of America"?

Consider this as you think about your Critical Media Analysis Essay.

Next Class--Capitalist Realism

For tomorrow (7/17), you have another short book to finish--Mark Fisher's (2009) Capitalist Realism: Is there no Alternative? Our very own Brian will lead us on that discussion.

...