CI 5472 Post 6.2 - Assignment / Rationalle #2

**ASSIGNMENT TWO**

Title: Close analysis of newscast language

Objectives:

Students will identify and analyze the use of language, paying special attention to verbs, across a range of both “real” and “fake” newscasts to explore…

-potential underlying ideologies, assumptions, and motives that news personal, news networks, advertisers, and so on may hold toward the subjects of their stories.

-how the specific use of language in both “real” and “fake” newscasts both reflect and work to shape certain ideologies, assumptions, and motives.

-what / how specific types / patterns of language are used across "real" and "fake" newscasts to perpetuate certain ideologies, assumptions, and motives.

Procedures:

Lay a conceptual framework: spend time discussing:

• The ideologies, assumptions, and motives that we bring to our realities in order to make sense out of our lived experiences may manifest themselves / be reflected in the very language that we speak.
• Critical analysis of the specific language used in both “real” and “fake” newscasts (in particular verbs) may give us a “window” into the underlying ideologies, assumptions, and motives of the news personalities, network at large, and / or advertisers, sponsors, and affiliates.

Show and discuss the bellow examples:

Example #1


When juxtaposing these two stories:

Top story...

-What specific language does the writer use to describe what the young African American man is doing? ("Looting" a grocery store).

-What underlying ideologies, assumptions, or motives might this specific word choice reveal about the writer? About the news source (AP)? About the subject of the story?

NOTE: Depending on your specific class (ability levels, maturity levels, and so on) and your intended purpose, you might want / need to spend some time unpacking these and the following tough questions. I by no means intend to rattle them off in my post without acknowledging that additional scaffolding might be needed to "get" to this point, including discussing what exactly ideologies, assumptions, and motives are, as well as classroom appropriate ways to discuss this type of potentially controversial material.

Bottom story...

-What specific language does the writer use to describe what the two young white individuals are doing? ("Finding" bread and soda from a local grocery store).

-What underlying ideologies, assumptions, or motives might this word choice reveal about the writer? About the news source (AFP)? About the subjects of the story?

Example #2 (Although it's not a piece of news media, it is another wonderful way to model specific language study to uncover potential underlying ideologies, assumptions, and motives).



-How do the characters refer to the bloated bag that "Mexican Batman" brings into the house? What is questioned to be in it? ("Keys").

-In the context of this episode (a house full of individuals of Mexican descent), what might the viewer associate with this word?

Ideally, a discussion will develop in which someone will bring up the literal association (house keys), as well as another possibly more symbolic association (drugs; a key / kilo of measurement). Either way, make sure that the later symbolic association is clear to everyone.

NOTE: when I used this video during my media unit, my students immediately leaped to the symbolic drug association! I had to actually explain that the other association could simply be "real" keys as they all just moved into the house. Either way, my experience with the text makes me confident that students will not have a problem teasing out this symbolic assumption on their own.

-Do you think the producers of this show intended the viewer to possibly make such an association? Why or why not?

-Does this association represent individuals of Mexican descent in a positive or negative light? Why do you say so?

-What underlying ideologies, assumptions, and motives might this specific association work to reflect / shape?

-Does it make a difference that these "actors" are "fake" cartoons characters? Why do you say so? Would the association have more or less of an impact if the "actors" were real vs. "fake" people? Why do you say so?

After you and your class get "good" at this sort of language study (again, my class of seniors were pretty ready to jump right into it with minimal scaffolding, but depending on your personal classroom context, you might need to do more or less scaffolding), assign the following as homework:

HOMEWORK

-However you want to split things up, designate 1/2 the class as the "fake" news group, and the other 1/2 of the class as the "real" news group.

-Over the course of a few nights (I'm thinking 2-3, but it's really up to you), have students consistently watch a newscast associated with their group designation, keeping a viewing log that records 1.) the specific station viewed, 2.) the specific newscast viewed, 3.) specific story headlines, 4.) short summaries of each story, and most important 5.) a list of specific language used throughout each story, paying special attention to verbs.

NOTE: you might want to distribute this task across a range of networks / shows to ensure diversity of material and perspectives for the later class discussion. For example, assign 1/2 of the "fake" news group to The Daily Show on Comedy Central, and assign the other half of the "fake" news group to the news segment of SNL. Likewise, assign 1/2 of the "real" news group to ABC, and assign the other half of the "real" news group to CNN. Again, however you want to do it!

-When viewing logs are completed, place students into small groups based on what they were assigned to view. Have some sort of template created where EACH student per small group will insert: ONE specific headline, the summary for that headline, and ALL the verbs used during the story. As a group, students then discuss underlying ideologies, assumptions, and motives as inferred from each student's analysis (this part may need further scaffolding).

-EACH small group then pick TWO examples to present to the entire class. (In the end, the entire class will be left with 4 detailed "real" news examples, and 4 detailed "fake" news examples.

NOTE: While EACH group is presenting their ONE specific story, keep some sort of log going of specific verbs on the board / overhead / LCD projector.

-As a class, discuss / analyze the following questions:

• What types of language patterns do you see?
• What are the general tone(s) created by each of of these patterns? Can we lump them into any categories (e.g., funny, happy, joking, sad, angry, cynical, hateful, sarcastic, serious, indifferent, random, whatever else you and your class can think of!
• What types of language patterns appear to be associated with the "real" news?
• What types of language patterns appear to be associated with the "fake" news?
  
• How does word choice (what's said) AND tone (how it's said) work to represent the subjects in question?
  
• What underlying ideologies, assumptions, and motives might be reflected / perpetuated by word choice (what's said) and tone (how it's said)?
  
• Is the tone funny? Does the humor divert your attention away from an issue? If so, what specific issue? How can you tell? Or does the humor focus your attention on an issue? If so, what specific issue? How can you tell?
  
• Is the tone serious? Does the seriousness focus your attention on an issue? If so, what issue? How can you tell? Or does the seriousness divert your attention away from an issue? If so, what specific issue? How can you tell?
• Any other questions you can think of to analyze / explore the patterns across "real" and "fake" news that you and your class can think of!
  

NOTE: Again, this set of questions should by no means be "tacked on" to the end of this lesson to simply cap it off. Also, the scaffolding, time spent, and direction you want to take each question in is totally up to you!

---------------------------------------

RATIONALE

Topping the list of the observations that shocked me during my student teaching experience was my students' taking the every day language they use for granted and failing to recognize the power of the words they speak. After having to scold one of my seniors for singing his self-composed, highly offensive "breast" song (a song filled with expletives about the female chest) as he strolled carelessly into class, I experienced first hand the idea that we become so accustomed to the language that we use that we seldom stop to think about, or perhaps never learn to think about in the first place, the underlying ideologies, assumptions, and motives that our very words both reflect and perpetuate. After hearing a painfully innocent "What's wrong Mr. Filipkowski? I'm just joking" in response to my frustration toward the "breast" song, I decided to incorporate a language study lesson similar to the one above in my media unit.

In his book A Web-Linked Guide to resources and Activities, Professor Beach supports applying specific language study to the news as he states, "Students can also study how news writers may use metaphors or hyperbolic language to describe an event in a manner that represents a particular attitude toward that event" (91). Although Professor Beach goes on to discuss specific language use as reflective / supportive of potential underlying ideological orientations to the event in question, my above lesson digs even deeper to uncover potential underlying ideological orientations to the specific subjects implicated in each specific event. For example, where critical analysis of my student's singing of the "breast" song reveals a potential underlying patriarchal ideology of women as objects, the specific language use in the above news article reporting on Hurricane Katrina reveals a potential underlying ideology of African Americans as inherently conscienceless, lawless thieves. In each case, critical analysis of the specific language used to communicate something reveals a potential underlying ideology, assumption, or motive that is not visible on the surface, and possibly unconscious to the speaker themselves for that matter, that threatens to do harm to another group of subjects. In short, critical analysis of the specific things we say, as well as how we say them, allows us to slow down our realities, uncover the ideologies, assumptions, and motives that we have internalized, scrutinize them, and ask if they are where we want to "end up" as a people. This is a skill that students NEED to be taught and practice as they live in no other moment than the present.

Furthermore, with adult-themed, animated programming such as Family Guy and adult-themed, "fake" newscasts such as The Daily Show so wildly popular, current students are even more inclined to internalize the potentially harmful ideologies, assumptions, and motives they see as "OK" as they perceive such programming as absolutely hilarious to watch. As such, I argue that it is extremely important to view texts that use comedy / humor, hold them up to the light, inspect them, and ask ourselves if they communicate the specific ideologies, assumptions, and motives that we perceive as being "healthy" to our world and futures.

In her article "When Fake is More Real: of Fools, Parody, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Ana Kothe discusses comedy's use of the "it's just a joke" defense as she states: "The 'it's just a joke' argument that protects comedians... while simultaneously allowing them to voice unofficial criticism needs further investigation, particularly in relation to mean-spirited use of comedy..." (3-4). Although I sincerely believe that my senior had no true "mean-spirited" intent toward the women in my class, he had internalized somewhere in his life education the idea that anything is OK as long as it's a joke, unconsciously utilizing the exact "relax, it's just a joke" defense Kothe describes - "What's wrong Mr. Filipkowski? It's just a joke." In short, it is extremely important for students to critically dissect programming responsible for shaping their perceptions of reality and ask if it is cloaking otherwise undesirable ideologies, assumptions, and motives, in laughter to make them more desirable, digestible, and easier to internalize.

Thanks for reading, watching, and listening.