Bridget's Post: Yes Men -- EXTRA Blog

After reading/watching up on The Yes Men project, the first thing I thought about was just how vast the reach of the media really is and how the internet makes it so much more accessible. I actually watched the Dow interview before in a class, but I have no recollection of being told that it was completely fabricated. I’m not sure if that is because I wasn’t paying attention or something else. Whatever the case may be, I actually think that what the Yes Men do is really interesting and kind of necessary. Journalism and the media are supposed to be about bringing the truth to the masses, yet they often neglect to truly do that. Instead they feed us lies and half-truths about things that could potentially change the way we view our government, its relationship with us, and with those outside the confines of our American borders.

When thinking about the Yes Men project in terms of our own radio project, I think it does help in giving us ideas on the range of things we can say on air. It proves that we can virtually have a show in which no tongues are held (except for those trying to say the 7 words that are to be left unsaid) and no topic is off limits even if what we say isn’t the absolute truth. I think this freedom provides for an interesting element to be added to our show, yet I do still question the ethics of it all. I mean, lying is wrong in every sense right? So the Yes Men creating false news releases and interviews or my group broadcasting a radio show with false information trying to pass as being real should be just as wrong. The outcomes of such broadcasts are interesting, yes, but are it worth it to know you lied to millions of people (tens in our case) and gave them a false hope?

I don’t know what the answer to that question is, but the fact that the Yes Men have the balls to do it causes me to give them their props. More power to them, I’m just not sure if I am ready to follow in their footsteps. I’d rather make a path of my own…. Create my own footprints to stomp all over the media with.

Yes Men Blog

Although there may be fallacies, I think it is interesting that they are able to choose the angles they want and are able to tell people what they want them to know.  They can find things that they think the masses should know and are not being told and give them an angle that some may not have wanted to be covered.

I think that some a negative side to the Yes Men would be people who would think it was real and buy into it whole heartedly, and then they may be disappointed later on.

The media can be a very big problem today, especially with television and the internet.  Television news channels can be biased in the news they dish out just like the Yes Men, and although it may be easy to find a news channel that fits your slant it is important to just get the facts and determine their meaning as you choose without someone doing it for you.  The internet is a bigger problem than television now.  It is extremely easy to find false articles about any topic and mistake them for truth.  

I think in regards to our radio project, it would not be a good idea to do what the Yes Men did, especially with the type of non-fact-checking student run newspapers that may or may not be affiliated with the university that are present in our broadcasting radius.  However, it may be interesting and cruel to see if and how much we could get people to believe.  As it becomes more and more necessary to nail down our projects and get them done, I think it will be interesting to see what my band thinks about this idea and what others bands will do.

Bridget's Post: Warring Worlds

The War of the Worlds Broadcast was a really weird one. At least, I thought it was. When I first heard it, the first I thought about was why would any one want to play such a cruel joke on the public? Mass media outlets aren't for playing around; they are for bringing news and non-frightening entertainment to the masses (I suppose some people like to be frightened though). As I listened to it, I couldn't help trying to put myself in the place and that time to see if I would have believed such a thing if I was just an ordinary citizen driving in my car to some destination I would have called home. The answer that I come up with every time is a big fat no. I suppose that could be simply because I prior to listening to it, I knew that it was fake and I knew that some people believed it when it was first broadcast. This knowledge kind of ruined the thing for me because I was no longer able to separate the broadcast itself from my historical knowledge of it.

However, that lack of separation coupled with the things that I have learned in this class also worked to my advantage because it caused me to listen to the broadcast with my ears completely open. What I mean by that is I was able to focus on the elemental aspects of it as I paid close attention to detail. Like my band discussed in class on Wednesday and as Chase said in his blog, what I found most interesting was the how Welles' voice was such a good example of the grain of voice. For all I know, Welles could have deliberately made his voice sound that way for the sake of good and believable broadcast, but I feel as if they used anyone, the results would not have been the same. There was just something about his voice that pierced me in a way that I cannot explain and will not even try to. After all, that is the essence of the grain of voice and the third meaning, that it is lost once you attempt to explain is inexplicability.

Chase's Blog

War of the worlds was very interesting because of the context that we now know after the fact that it happened.  To me, I don't really see it as being believable because that could never happen today.  There are too many different sources of information that would have to all be saying the same thing in order for the general public to believe it.  The saying 'hindsight is 20/20" really fits when thinking about this broadcast.  Listening to it now, it sounds so ridiculous, but if one were to listen to it back then and were to come in during the middle or after the disclaimer, it does sound very real.  To me, Welles' voice played a major role in the scam being so believable.  The tone of his voice sounded legitimate and you could not tell that he was reading something.  When thinking about Welles' voice, I automatically think of Barthes' Grain of Voice.  I don't know if there is a plausible connection but from what I got, the believability of  Welles' voice can go along with some aspect of what Barthes' is saying.  It is hard to put my finger on it but something about Welles' tone makes him sound genuine and like he really is a radio DJ reporting the news.

I think it will be interesting to see how our groups broadcast goes and how everyone sounds on recording, but I look forward to seeing what the musicians that we choose think about Grain of Voice.  

Bridget Post: Memory

This week has definitely been one of the longest of my life. I'm really starting to realize how very fast time has been moving. It's like every time I blink another 24 hours passed and I am left wondering where all this time has gone. While I am on the subject of time, I think I want to talk about a topic that came up in Roswell in my blog this week. I actually watched it again this morning for no reason at all and became intrigued with how it deals with time as being some kind of enemy that will eventually take away our memories, turning us all in to amnesiacs.

This caused me to take a deeper look into memory and the actual act of remembering in relation to time. It's true what he said in Roswell because as time passes and we get older, we do tend to forget our earliest memories. Its like with each day that goes by, a little bit of me vanishes. When I say "me" I am referring to my memories of course because they are a large part of who I am. Having said that, one can understand how fearful it is to think that there might actually come a time when you forget many of the memories you have worked so hard to create and keep. I can't imagine what I would do if I woke up one day and I no longer remembered the last day I spent with my older brother before he died or my first kiss or even the day Barack Obama was elected president. I can barely take it when I can't remember where I put something much less to lose and know that I have lost an entire memory. But then again, if the memory is lost to me how will I ever know that it was once there?

I guess that is what makes memory so unique, the fact that we have sooo many yet we are not even aware of how much that we don't remember. For instance, yes I remember my first day of college but I do not remember the name of the first professor I saw that day, nor do I remember any of the people who were in that first class with me. Yet, I do remember what I wore to school that day. I remember walking from Turlington Plaza to Little Hall and seeing this tree that had the weirdest looking branch on it. It was soo weirdly shaped that I had to pause to take a closer look and I haven't forgotten it since. Now thinking back I wonder what exactly was so intriguing about a meaningless branch. Besides its shape, I really don't know what drew me to it or why I still remember what it looks like. It's strange how we cultivate these memories choosing to remember some while forcing others out of our minds either consciously or sub-consciously.

Sometimes I wish I could remember the little details that our minds choose to forget. I wonder if a tiny detail such as the color of someone's shirt or the shape of a cloud in the sky, could change the memory all together for me. I will never know the answer of that, of course, because the bottom line is I can't remember.

Jordans' Post

My comment that Barthes’ theory of the Third Meaning was essentially “useless” was perhaps a bit premature. Upon further thought I feel as though the notion of a third meaning is personally effective in understanding a deeper sense of oneself as well as the direction of humanity. However I am still troubled by the kind of “black hole” effect of Barthes’ theory. It feels as though Barthes theory occurs in a vacuum; that is to say that there is no tangible evidence only a surreal feeling that said meaning exists. The Third Meaning can then be described as alive, evolving and in constant flux. The reason I said “useless” is because of this definition precisely. Without a concrete example it becomes very difficult to not only discuss the Third Meaning, but to even explain why something fits in such an abstract category. The danger is that without context anything becomes susceptible to claims of Third Meaning. The problem then stems from Barthes claim that the Third Meaning is a luxury, an exchange without gain, and therefore becomes hazardous to ignorance when it goes unchecked. How then do we “check” the Third Meaning? Barthes’ himself is unsure whether or not it is even justified to articulate a Third Meaning. I believe the Third Meaning MUST be articulated but with a vigorous attention to detail as well as a wholehearted effort at exhausting all limits of said meaning. Third Meaning should only be discussed in extremely controlled situations where content, and purpose of said consultation, is crystal clear to all those involved. Without a clear understanding there is no way of expanding beyond superficial assertions of symbols and meaning.
With this mind I will attempt to explain my choice image for this week. It is a still from Michael Man’s cops and robbers saga, Heat. The reason I chose this image? In a word, subtlety. The scene pits two men from opposite sides of the law having a casual conversation in a quiet coffee shop. The shear magnitude of two of the greatest actors in film history sitting across from each as detective and criminal runs shivers down my spine. This spark ignited from said image doesn’t necessarily constitute Third Meaning for me but something about how the entire film as a whole is represented by this single image is significant. The way an entire film can be exemplified by a single image is representative of Barthes’ Third Meaning. Still I feel as though Barthes’ theory leaves much to be desired in terms of application. How can something so subjective and abstract be worthy of extended usage in objective style discussion? I know that there is a way to connect these notions in apparent contradiction but what that is I am quite unsure how to clarify. I commend Barthes’ attempt to express the inexpressible but his theory is not immune from critical response.

Chase's Blog

I would first of like to suck up a bit and say that Chorus of Stones is one of my new favorite books.  As I read this book more and research more about it, it is changing the way I view the world.  My analysis of everyday events and people's actions has changed very drastically.  As I sat on the bus today a Jehovah's witness approached me with a pamphlet to read.  After reading the pamphlet I couldn't help but question religion as a whole.  As I sat and thought about the pamphlet, ideas from Chorus of Stones popped into my mind.  What makes the secrets of the German's or others different than those of the people who have formed religious texts and religions.  Catholic corruption came to mind, and although it may not be a problem now, I can't help but wonder how much of the truth is hidden and unknown.  I usually am not a very deep thinker but that is changing slowly and I can't help but analyze ideas and people on a daily basis.  The city bus is an interesting place to think about the concept of repressed secrets.  Looking at people on the bus and thinking about what is going on inside their heads, what has happened to them in their life, why they dress the way they do, what secrets they are pushing down and when will it all come to the periphery.  Reading Jordan's comments on the correlation between von Braun and the underground railroad is interesting to me, although von Braun and the slaves are on opposite sides of the spectrum, they are still hiding and wanting to escape through safe passage.  Such horrific things such as slavery and Nazi Germany are easy to analyze in relation to each other, but I find the most interesting application of the concepts in Chorus of Stones is to the very basic things we as humans look over, such as religion and daily human actions.

Bridget Post 5: Knowing

A Chorus of Stones was one of the best and most provocative books I have ever read in my life. Although there were parts that I simply could not wrap my mind around, the construction and insightfulness of it all caused me to view life in a whole new light. Perhaps what I found most fascinating was Griffin's way of weaving information about the cell and the start of all life throughout her text in a manner that almost seems like it doesn't fit until you think about the deeper meaning of it all.

After some heavy thinking, I finally realized that Griffin had used all these different elements (the war, private lives, secrets, gender roles/sexuality, evolution, childhood, and the cell) to weave a web of stories that embrace the over all notion that history intersects with self on a biological/molecular level, and that reality is as much environmental as it is social and political. The fact that a person could even think on such a level to make such a profound connection is mind-boggling to me, yet once this information was placed in front of me I do feel as if I have always known it. It wasn't as surprising as I thought it would be because it made SENSE!

“I am beginning to believe we know everything, that all history including the history of each family, is a part of us, such that when we hear any secret revealed… our lives are made suddenly clearer to us, as the unnatural heaviness of the unspoken truth is dispersed.”
-Susan Griffin

I really don't need to say much about the quote above, it pretty much speaks for itself, but I have included because it is the one that hit me the hardest. I feel like because of our molecular connections, we do actually know everything before we really know it. I mean the simple fact that we all are humans, biologically made up of the same basic things has to be what connects us to one another. Why else would we care or feel any emotions at all when something terrible happens to a stranger? Why else would we want to help the children who are suffering in another country an ocean away from us or be compelled to end the genocide that as fallen on those who either can not or aren't allowed to help themselves? Is it simply human nature or are these tendencies generated or manufactured by the society we live in? Is there even such a thing as human nature?

It should come as no surprise that I am overcome with a surplus of questions after reading this book because that is often the case with any and everything that I have been exposed to in this class. One thing I can say is that I have developed a keen appreciation of artistry and those who think outside the "normal" realm of worldly existence. I love the excitement such controversial topics bring to my own life. I have always been one to want to go left with everyone else is going right so someone like Griffin has really brought out the inner historical/literary rebel in me.

One thing that does worry me though is this idea that such cruel things have taken place in the name of science and warfare. If the stories of the people documented in the book are truths, is there no limit to the lengths that humans will go to for fame, for science, or to simply win? Does that mean I, too, am innately ruthless, or even evil when it comes to the things I want just because I am human?I wonder how many deadly experiments are going on right now as I sit staring at my computer screen on this seemingly ordinary day of my ordinary life. I wonder if there was ever such thing as "ordinary" because for every day we think we are living in "normalcy", something dark, deadly, and extraordinary in probably going on. Things that we probably cant even comprehend. Things that society says we don't even want to know. But.... I say... SCREW SOCIETY because I WANT TO KNOW. After all... You have to KNOW, in order to KNOW.... right?

Ahh... another exciting week in ENG1131... until next time ;-)

We talked a lot this week about secrets and while we all have them it is important to realize as well that we all discover them. I knew very little of Werner von Braun prior to Griffin’s Chorus of Stones yet I feel as though I have always been interested in World War II technology especially that which was thought of as “classified”. We spoke moderately about government secrets but perhaps not to the extent which was necessary to gain an advanced appreciation. What is sexier or more intriguing than a spy story or a government cover-up/conspiracy? What event garnered more attention for espionage than World War II and the resulting Cold War which followed? I think the awesome involvement of so many forces (and therefore secrets) intensifies our interest in fully understanding all the aspects of this haunting event. This brings me to my posted picture which is von Braun late in his life. Since chorus of stones I have been incessantly researching the influential scientist on the web. I even purchased a biography on the German with the byline, Dreamer of Space; Engineer of War. Something about von Braun’s flee to the United States reminds me of those slaves who used the Underground Railroad for save passage to the North. The mysterious nature of both events correlates to Griffin’s point that somehow the secrets of humanity become our own and in that sense become alive with an ability to evolve over time. When I think of von Braun or slaves secretly fleeing in the night I am overcome with a sense excitement that can only be compared to the urgency one is overcome with when a revelation demands our immediate action. I am overcome with a feeling my actions can change history. I am overcome with a feeling that I am alive.

-Jordan Diaz