Problem

The book The Problem of Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century written by Robert W. McChesney discusses the issue of media Reform. He argues that, “The Policies, structures, subsidies and institutions that are created to control direct and regulate the media will be responsible for the logic and nature of the media system whether their content is good, bad or a combination, the media therefore presents a political problem for any society, and an unavoidable one at that” (16).

He contends that there are two main issues on this problem.  The first problem is the structure that creates the content of the information and the second is the structures themselves.  He believes that the way society makes it decisions on how to structure the system and how it decides to solve this needs reformation.  Debates, he believes, will direct shape and create value to the media system.

McChesney writes of how media will exist in all societies.  But their structure and content is determined cultural, economic and political and this determines the amount of solutions each society has to choose from.  In different societies the controlling government decides how this is structured.  He mentions dictatorships and authoritarian regimes will create the type of media that will influence and give him more power and stopping any chance of opposition.  With a democratic society the problem exists between those with power and those with none.  In this society the power is with the media and it is this power that gives a strong support in the building of democracy making media a political tool.

The problems with media being a political tool in a democracy, he states is well known.  The foundation of this is that in order to have a democratic society the citizens must be informed and the media is the tool for this.   It is not that the media is to create the democracy but help to make it more effective to members of that society.  The issue in the reform is all about content.  If it is balanced with views that express both sides of the road.  Giving an opposite stand to democracy, equally important for the society members to make choices on how to structure their society and even more important is how media affects economics.

Media’s beginning influences were in economics and soon spread to politics.  McChesney believes that, “In the United States the starting point for grasping the problem with media is seeing where the media fits in the broader capitalistic economic system” (117).  The problem is between the role media has in the profit-making commercial structured organizations and the need for information that deals with information needed for a democracy.  “It is this tension that fuels much of the social concern around media and media policy making” (17).

The author gives great attention to the meaning of problem and how it relates to what is deemed the problem of media.  I thought this to be kind of repetitious because he gives meaning to the word problem often throughout the book.  I thought that maybe he was trying to make a point at how media will take something and give it so many different meanings as he did.  He then goes on to give a history of the media to give the reader a sense of where it was coming from to see where it was going.  Giving a good historical account of the affects of broadcasting in the 1930’s that created the way our society makes media policy.

He then moves into an analysis into how media became corrupt, deceitful, and missing ethical bases just within this century.  McChesney believes that the United States has not faced these problems making media a servant to those in society that are self-servant.  These are usually the ones that make any decisions in private such as the media corporations that are driven by profits, ignoring what society needs.

“This system has contributed to a political crisis of the highest magnitude and unless it is confronted directly will severely limit our ability to make progress on any of the other major social and political problems that face the nation” (21).  Media should help to give the society an ability to have informed debates on issues that arise from that society.

After reading the book it gave me much to think about, but really no clear solution.  Granted he did talk of reforms but in what sense?  In my opinion reform should come in the way we educate our society.  Now with new technology freedom of speech is a whole new attitude.  Everyone has something to say, whether right or wrong.  I do think there should be some kind of reform, but I’m not sure what kind of reform would be effective.  Education society more on what the meanings of context and content would be more effective than trying to define the problem in multiple ways.

I really didn’t understand context or content until I went to college.  It’s pretty simple but applying it everyday wasn’t something I did until college.  Now everything I read or see on television I take with a grain of salt, until I research it a little more I don’t hold it true.  This kind of education needs to be applied in primary learning structures.  This would help greatly with structuring a well informed society.

I felt the book was very informative, but difficult to read.  I believe that this would make a very good book for educational structures to use.  It awakened an issue in me that I knew was there, but really didn’t think about too much.  I believe this to be pretty true with much of society.  Just yesterday a friend had mentioned something he had heard on the radio about making young school children in Australia stop sing a Christmas song that used the phrase “Ho, Ho, Ho” because of the implications of it’s meaning, whore.

At first I was shocked and angry but after thinking awhile I first thought, the content wasn’t probably reliable or it was taken totally out of context and if it had to do with a more important issue I would have researched the information to find the truth.  This is why I believe media reformation is something that needs to be addressed but the key to the solution is education.

Works Cited:

McChesney, Robert W.  The Problem of Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the       Twenty-First Century.  New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004.

Graduates’ names will no longer be separately called- the alumnuss during the beginning ceremonial will be recognized harmonizing to their several college and grade. Names will no longer be called separately. While this seems a major divergence from the traditional ceremonial where alumnuss will be called one by one. it besides aims for efficiency because of the increasing pupil population.

Two graduation ceremonials each year- there will be two beginnings viz. the spring and winter beginnings after autumn semester and spring semester.

There is no more summer beginning ceremonial. The pupils who finish school after the summer category have to wait following semester for them to be able to go to the graduation ceremonial. Students will hold to wait for the following graduation semester which makes life hard for them. They will non be able to happen a occupation instantly after graduation for they have to wait until they were able to process on the graduation ceremonial.

Beginning: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. gsu. edu/es/graduation. hypertext markup language

We often hear about the employers that don’t treat employees well; but you know, it sometimes works the other way as well. I had a call from a gentleman who was at his wits end as to what he could do with an employee that he has had on his payroll now for 5 years. This employee is running the entire show! He’s a bully and the employer is to the point that he is actually afraid of him – not in a physical sense – but in the sense that he’s afraid to stand up to him because – oh no – heaven forbid – he may quit!

The employer has completely lost control of this fellow because he never had the courage to set any boundaries or expectations from the start and his leadership has been extremely inconsistent. So, how did this happen, you may ask? The background: The business owner has a small restaurant. He and his wife and brother-in-law opened the restaurant about 7 years ago.

The business started to grow and he brought in the employee in question to help them out. At first, the employee was really good and the owner gave him more and more responsibilities, to the point that he felt fairly comfortable in leaving him to open up on occasion and actually assist with the business decisions, etc. The business continued to grow and he hired a few more people, mostly part time, to work during lunch and dinner times.

After a few more employees were hired, the original employee (we’ll call him Joe), started to exhibit some less than desirable behaviours by coming in late; opening the doors and then within 15 minutes, he would go out back to have a smoke break (virtually leaving the business open without anyone inside, which the owner found out by coming in a couple of mornings right after Joe and finding the place empty); talking on his cell phone right in front of customers (putting the customers on ignore while he chatted away on the phone); and when the owner tried to speak with him, Joe just held his hand up right in the owner’s face shutting him down.

On occasion, when Joe decided he’d made enough tips for the night – he would just leave – an hour – sometimes two hours before his shift actually ended! To heck with the schedule… he’d had enough…too bad…so sad. Oh – and he didn’t like the owner’s wife – so he told the owner to keep her out of the restaurant – and he did! It has now gotten to the point (according to the employer) that Joe comes and goes as he pleases and in fact, he has told the employer that he can’t do anything about it because he’d have to pay him to terminate him.

The employer, unfortunately, does not know his rights in this case – and he has let it go on for so long now that he is getting treated this way by all of his employees. The example has been set! The saddest part of all is that the employee tells the employer what he will and will not do and the employer has no one else that can step into this fellow’s shoes because everyone else is part time and does not have the same level of restaurant business experience. At least, that’s what the owner believes at this time.

So; how did we go about finding a solution to this problem when up to this point in time nothing was documented?Case Study – Problem Employee – Part 2 Published: November 1, 2010 The first thing we recommended to this employer was to take a good look at his current employees and consider which ones he could provide more training and development to so that if this problem employee did walk out; he could still manage his business.

We also advised him that allowing others to develop their skills would not only increase his ability to provide a better quality business for his customers, it would also provide learning opportunities for his employees that would encourage them to stay. The next thing we did for this employer was to give him information around the basic employment standards act that he needed. He was allowing an employee to tell him what was required by law, and in fact; most of what he was being told was inaccurate.

Ignorance is definitely not bliss for a business owner who employs others. We gave him “fact sheets” with the main areas that he should make himself familiar with so that it was easy to understand and didn’t have a lot of unfamiliar language to interpret. The next thing we recommended is that he considers doing is allowing us to develop an employee handbook and some basic policies that would help him in communicating to his employees moving forward.

We recommended that he have a staff meeting prior to the construction of the handbook to allow the employees to have some input or suggestions. We offered to provide support at the staff meeting if he wished; but certainly this is something that he could do on his own as well. We offered to present the handbook to the employees with him so that we could respond to any questions and he didn’t have to feel concerned about how to respond (particularly because he believes the problem employee is going to challenge the implementation of a handbook and policies).

We next suggested that he implement a performance management system that aligned with the handbook and policies and we will assist him through coaching sessions as to how he can manage the process. While this is a lot of work for him and it will not be an overnight solution; he has unfortunately allowed his employee to gain control of his business – and not in a good way. Due to the fact that he has not managed the whole relationship well and it has deteriorated to this stage, it will be a long process to repair the damage.

The good thing is that he did seek help and he will learn how to retain employees through the provision of learning opportunities; he will have some ‘standards of operation and behavioural expectations’; and he will have a performance management system to ensure a more fair and just working environment. Last, but not least; we are also going to provide some ‘culture coaching’ sessions so he can develop a strong and healthy workplace that fits within his mission and values. As this project is not yet complete, we will report back on occasion to let you know how we move through the recommended processes.

When one thinks of the Coppola, one inevitably thinks of the great Francis Ford, whose striking Godfather movies have set the bar for dramatic storytelling and cinematography for generations of filmmakers to come.  However, recently, the younger Coppola, Sofia, has taken over the moviemaking role, and has sought to reinvent the historical story of Marie Antoinette, the infamous French queen beheaded at the start of the French Revolution.  However, for those expecting a serious, dour, and historically play by play rendering of the tragic (some say scandalous) life of the queen, they are in for somewhat of a surprise.

Indeed, the intentionally contemporary, visually stunning twist on the well-known tale is jarring in its departures from traditional historical thought.  So, too the visual liberties do much to literally force the audience to see the young queen from a different perspective.  The problem is, however, although Coppola can assert that her attempt is an artistic one, it is also one of manipulation.

That is because in the end, the audience is fully aware of the juxtaposition of their new, interpretation of Antoinette as delivered by the film, with the overwhelming force of historical fact (in as much as we are aware).  This departure from reality eventually leaves the audience feeling a bit cheated, as if the visual, auditory, and even literary ministrations of Coppola on the story have been nothing but a cheap trick—a meandering of whimsy intentionally downplaying the legitimate tragedy of Antoinette’s death and the serious principles behind the French Revolution.

To be sure, Coppola’s Marie Antoinette is beautiful.  Released in 2006, the film is set and filmed in Versailles.  The audience meets the young queen as a new bride, delivered from her native Austria to the bosom of the French court.  From the beginning, Antoinette is presented as gentle, almost simple, and kind hearted—concerned with leaving her family and her beloved pet dog behind to start a new life of duty and service at the behest of her family.

Almost as striking as the gentleness of the queen, the visual imagery of the film is without par.  The colors are as vibrant as any 50’s Technicolor dream, and the screen is consistently resplendent with bright pinks, blues and pastel wonders beyond imagination.  This is particularly true of the costuming, which is rendered in striking richness both in color and texture—helping to evoke the extravagant luxury of the French Court and the life of the queen.

In addition to the visually descriptive nature of the film, Antoinette’s relationship with her husband is portrayed as amazingly genteel, with her displaying endless patience for her husband’s quirky ways and obvious lack of sexual prowess.  Further, her important role as a mother and bearer of heirs is portrayed convincingly, with visual (only) mention of the death of one of her children in infancy.

However, apart from this reflection of historical trivia, the film does little to delve deeply into any of the issues of the time, or of Antoinette’s life.  Further, even the casting of American’s Kirsten Dunst and Jason Shwartzman seems to function as a way to move the film away from historical accuracy, if only in the audience’s mind.  This is particularly true when one hears the somewhat jarring sound of Dunst’s and Shwartzman’s flat American accents against the stylized French-accented comments of the Mistress of the Court.

Although one could say that Coppola’s portrayal of Antoinette in such a candy-pink, innocent and accommodating fashion (perhaps more devoid of malice due to her “straight forward” and simple American twang) could be authentic in that some of it describes the queen’s relative youth and innocence as she entered the court.   However, this does not progress to increased complexity, and the audience does not see her increased politicialization that by all historical accounts marks the last years of her life.

Indeed, as historians point out, Marie Antoinette was political, some say a bit of an activist, determined to resist the changes brewing in the midst of the growing revolutionary fervor in the country.  In fact, the movie seems to curiously, if perhaps, intentionally stay away from any true politicalization, “ugliness,” unrest or upheaval.  Apart from one or two references to the “people” being hungry and their not being enough bread, one simply does not see the common people or their plight at all.

“What revolution?,”the audience may wonder (perhaps more so amongst today’s less educated tween moviegoers).  Indeed, as the film closes, we are left with nary a glimpse in to the tragic fate of the queen.  Further, one would not imagine too horrible a fate, after all, according to Coppola’s portrayal, Antoinette would never have been so callous as to have said, “Let them eat cake!”  Certainly she was too good for that!  After all, didn’t she give up getting new diamonds so that the people may eat?

In addition to the creative storytelling that Coppola entertains throughout the film, the music, itself sets the soundtrack as a kind of point-making device to further help the audience to identify with the kind queen.  Strains of largely upbeat popular music (Bow Wow, Cindy Lauper) make everything seem more innocent, and heck, can’t the audience see they are “just like us,” not so foreign, not so historic!

Yes, it could have been any wealthy American or European girl in her shoes.  One can even see Paris Hilton in Versailles.  Under this treatment, Antoinette seems less distant, complex, serious, and significant in history.  Indeed, all of the messages gleaned from her experiences and narrative seem to melt away to the tune.  Yes, some classical music is incorporated into the film, but only after the jarring point of the modern has been thoroughly made.

Although the cinematic techniques utilized by Coppola definitely lead the audience to reinterpret history, several of the references to historical fact are accurate.  After all, the French did help the young America against Great Britain, and they did deplete sizable financial stores from France (exacerbating the plight of the poor) (Brinton, 1963).  However, by the time these historical points are made in the film, the other visual, dialogue, and tonal points have been made. Historical errors and downright tragedies of perception seem insignificant, just another point of verbal backdrop rather than pivotal junction.

In addition to the twisting of the audience’s perception of Antoinette as a function of tone (visual, dialogue, etc), Coppola also departs from historical fact to presumably make the movie “more interesting” to its audience—who are perhaps used to a “Dangerous Liaisons” kind of film.  Indeed, in departing from established historical fact and blithely embracing a supposed extramarital affair between Antoinette and the Count von Ferson, Coppila goes out of her way to add to history, simply for the entertainment value.

Although one cannot defiantly prove that such an affair did not occur in reality, historical sources do not indicate that it did.  This is hardly a trivial point in that it further contemporizes Antoinette, implying that such matters were commonplace (as they are today), and carried little consequences.  The historical and religious reality of Antoinette’s times were all to different, with serious consequences for both royal and common wives who strayed from the marriage bed. Of course none of these issues are dealt with and the whole “affair” is portrayed as just one more pleasant visual interlude among many, without meaning or serious interpretation.

Given all this, if one were to accept that Coppola did in fact deliberately attempt to use cinematic devices and storytelling in order to create a new version of the story, is this problematic?  If such a film were simple entertainment the answer would be no.  However, the difficulty that comes along with dealing with a historical subject is that there is some expectation from the audience that an attempt toward accuracy be made.  Yes, costumes in the Antoinette court were probably very pretty.

The queen might have been innocent, kind, sweet even.  Perhaps she never did say “let them eat cake.”  Such an assertion would not be new (1963).  However, using technique to reframe the events of the movie, be it through music, cinematography or dialogue creates either a problem with history itself—in essence changing it for the audience if they are impressionable, or though creating frustration or even anger in those who know better—and perhaps feel more than a bit cheated that the association of the character with the defining event of her times (the Revolution) was all but overlooked in film.

Although Coppola, herself has stated that it was not her intention to deal with politics or the political reality of her subject (Dudec, 2006), she does—if by omission.  In fact, her infamous statement, “Marie Antoinette was not interested in politics, so why should I be?” (2006) is problematic on many levels.  First, in its erroneous assumption that Antoinette was not interested in politics, she indicates a real unfamiliarity with her protagonist which is troubling.  Second, by “not being interested in politics,” one has to wonder at the appropriateness of Coppola dealing with the subject matter at all.  Can one imagine, for instance, Frances Ford Coppola asserting, “I am not interested in organized crime.”?

Coppola’s troubling attitude and treatment of the subject matter was so striking when the movie was screened in Cannes that the audience actually booed the film.  This may be in part due to the fact that Coppila did not take her information from respected historical sources.  Instead, she almost exclusively drew from Antonia Fraser’s contemporary biography, which itself is rife with similar flaws and omissions to the movie.

In the end, the audience is never privy to the “meat” of the Antoinette story—a story that the young female audience members that Coppila obviously targets could only learn from.  For example, she never showcases her strength, intelligence, or real power.  She does not take time to fully draw the immense political opinion and pressures against her as a “foreign queen,” nor does she deal with the complex nature of her death, the differences between rumor and political reality.

Of course, this is not to say that the film does not have its fans.  In fact, even among French audiences some appreciated the way in which Marie Antoinette was played outside of the norm.  Although some might argue that some French critics may be pleased that a large Hollywood producer would deal with the subject at all, one can assume that some found genuine satisfaction in the portrayal—puzzling or no.

Thus, the problems with the film hinge directly on the historical material.  Given any other non-historical subject matter, the same story might be just fine.  An afternoon of entertainment and “lavish visual effects.”  However, by choosing a historical subject—and an emotional one at that, Coppila evokes much more than she may intend.  Further, the reactions of audiences must be interpreted in the context of the subject matter, not simply on the basis of film quality, direction, art or sensibility.

Audiences either like the film or hate it—and each opinion carries with it serious implications.  After all, if one likes the film what does that say about one’s view or knowledge of history?  Has the “magic” of film influenced that opinion, and by continuation, one’s historical view?  Conversely, should one hate the film, would that person lack the ability to appreciate the “beauty” of the visual art in the film?  Or, instead, does one’s consciousness of the subject matter as history prohibit any such appreciation?

In the end, Coppola’s decision to use history as her muse may be the downfall of the film.  This because history demands a certain treatment in order to be molded into entertainment.  One cannot mould entertainment into history—it simply smacks of hollowness and superficiality—two of the most common criticisms of the film.

Worse, one can see that (as in the case with this film), even in the presence of some truly spectacular cinematography and visual beauty—not to mention some pretty significant financial investments, it is not enough to overcome the historical liberties taken with the film.  It is as if her subject matter has become her stumbling block.  To be sure, one can assert that the film is great in part.  However, in part is not enough for true greatness.  No, Marie Antoinette will be no Lawrence of Arabia, enjoyed for generations to come—and isn’t that the true test of a film’s merit?

Works Cited

Brinton, Crane. A Decade of Revolution 1789-1799. Harper and Row, 1963.

Dudec, A.  Cannes reality check. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 25, May 2006.  Retrieved on April 23, 2007, from, http://findarticles.com/?noadc=1