Lately I've been wondering about media. This class I'm taking is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak, but it has the rusty wheels in my head slowly and painfully turning and forcing thoughts out. I wonder how a "story" in the news comes about. If it's true that the press is a tool by which to mass-produce and maintain hegemony (in a nutshell, the idea that the elite and powerful convince the rest of us that their view is best and "common sense"), how do they go about writing their stories? I've been reviewing a lot of my course readings for a summary paper that's due tomorrow (just taking a break from it; don't worry, I've been at it for days already), and there is so much interesting stuff to think about. Mats Ekstrom outlines in one of his articles a few of the tools and strategies that reporters in broadcase media can create their stories. I guess the key word there is "create". They can take Billy's sound bite and put it into a different context, often juxtaposing it against Willy's comment. This creates a dialogue, even though Billy and Willy have never met.

Context is so important - it really determines the meaning of the reported speech. So basically someone can ask Billy a question, and then use his answer against a completely different question. To what extent does the media take this? Does this sort of thing happen(?):

Willy: Do you like puppies?
Sara: Yes!

And then all of a sudden there's an interview on television that has the reporters voice asking "Do you like to run over small children in your car, Sara?" and there's me sitting there smiling and saying "Yes". Is there some sort of regulation that prevents this from happening to such an extent or is it ALL fair game? It has me paranoid!!

Journalism is crazy stuff. Journalists have a lot of power - they are in many respects story tellers, weaving quasi-fiction through their editing and snipping and clipping and recontextualization (I don't think that's a real word)... you can see it in other stuff as well.

I wonder, when someone set out, for example, to write a story about something, are they looking for a story, or do they already have a story and they need to manipulate and appropriate their sources to support and strengthen the story? One or two quotes that seem to go along with the underlying themes and opinions of the article can often be enough.

Hmm... storytellers. Splicing, splicing, splicing? Those who write songs- refining and repenning their work in order to convey in a few dozen lines a moment in their life; an event or an emotion, etc. Those who make films- do they go in there with an idea already in mind and then search for the opportunity to shoot the footage to support it? Or do they film as much as they can, capturing life as it presents itself in a particular circumstance, to get the biggest picture, and then look for the story? If there isn't a story, is there a way to MAKE one? And do people DO that? How do they decide what hits the cutting room floor and what gets released to the world. Those who write novels - I watch Ashlee tear out page after page because this is not what she wants to convey through her writing. She sometimes claims that she isn't being true to her characters. Are we all characters in a way? And another thing. Do storytellers really have that much power? Or are they under the control of their medium?

I don't know where I'm going with any of this to be honest. But maybe I'll try to work through a bit of it one of these days. I just like to share my thoughts sometimes. It's kind of fun :).

CSI at 9, Tim Ho's at 10. Good thing they don't close.