Independent Research Project Sarah Clark

SOC 250

Independent Research Project

Naturally Occurring Data: Media Watch Segment

Video Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1puKmV_qOc




The Media shapes societies perception of the world micro and macro. It is the window to the world for most people. It is what we use to educate ourselves about our society. The media has a direct impact on how we as a human race interact daily. This research project will be focussing on Islamic (Muslims) people and how they are presented by the Australian media. To give a clear and relevant example this essay will focus on a segment from the ABC networks show Media Watch. The segment describes how a disagreement with a Muslim man and a camera man was subsequently blown up and taken out of context. It has to be understood that the political context in which this media has come from is post 9/11 and corresponds with the United States War on terror which Australia was a part of (Rachel, 2008). A lot of war propaganda was focussed through the media which sold the war on terror or Iraq war by marrying religion (Islam) to terrorism and the Middle East(Racheal, 2008). This often saw Islamic people being demonised by western media sources (Sway, 2005). The Treatment of Islamic people in macro society has direct implications on our everyday micosociety and human interaction.




The segment on media watch which aired on the 12th April 2010 explains how Seven news completely manipulated a media story in order to make a Muslim man and his son appear to be ‘angry Muslims’. Seven news starts the story with the following quote Peter Mitchell: “An accused rioter has clashed with a television cameraman after facing court on charges arising from the attack on the Oakleigh Bob Jane store “— (Channel Seven News, Victoria, 1st April, 2010). It then proceeded to show the confrontation between the man Mr Gad Amr and his son as if to imply that they weren’t provoked they simply lost control of their anger for no reason at all. Media watch then exposes the raw footage not shown by Channel 7. Mr Gad Amr and his son were actually badgered and harassed by camera men in particular Win News camera man Simon Fuller who calls the men a “fucking terrorist”. The use of the word terrorist incurs a dramatic and emotion fuelled reaction from both Mr Gad Amr and his son.

Media interest in Islam exploded after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Politics and the media made it hard to distinguish between Islam and terrorism, the two terms were coined together (Mamdani, 2002). What has occurred in the video from Media Watch of the raw footage of the confrontation is the peak of this process that the media has created in relation to terrorism and Islam. After Simon Fuller calls Mr Gad Amr a terrorist, his son Omar Amar reacts with ferocity and anger. He makes the statement “Calling my dad a terrorist! Who the f** are you to call him a terrorist? Why are you calling him a terrorist? 'Cos he has a beard and 'cos he's Muslim? It's what it comes down to? Is that what you guys have brung us down to? You can't even have a beard in this country any more without being called a f***ing terrorist!”. The fact that Omar Amar makes reference to the fact that simply because his father has a beard and is Muslim, people will make the identification that he is a “terrorist”. This raw footage, as Media Watch uncovers is an ironic example of how the media has created such a prejudicial stereotype. If Mr Gad Amr had not been in fact called a terrorist he would not have reacted in such a manner and therefore the angry outburst would not have been filmed and then subsequently displayed without context to make Mr Amr seem like an angry man. Not just any kind of angry man, an angry Muslim man.

What strikes out to me is the way in which all the men in the footage conduct themselves, including Mr Gad Amr, Mr Omar Amr and Mr Simon Fuller. The way in which they produce themselves socially in this situation is quite intriguing as they all act in ways which are deemed or considered normal for the persons that they are. Goffman explains this as rules of conduct, that are deemed by society and developed within groups of people (Goffman,1967). Rules lead to consistency and patterning behaviour (Goffman, 1967). This can be seen with Simon Fullers behaviour as he baggers the Amrs down the street attempting to get footage. Mr Fuller’s actions may well have been nothing to do with the fact that the men involved were Muslim. Many journalists have been known to disregard common decency and follow people attempting to get footage or a reaction from them. Mr Fuller then reinforces this by stating “I’m just doing my job mate”. It seems that in Mr Fullers eyes he is simply doing his job by rules of conduct created by media practices. Now despite it being blatantly an invasion of privacy and breach of common decency Mr Fuller continues to film and badger the Amrs. He is therefore expressing himself as a journalist because it is in his perceived right to do so, he may truly believe that it is within his rules of conduct.

All human interaction requires what Goffman refers to as performance from individuals. This is very apparent in the exchange and confrontation between the Amrs and Mr Fuller, especially by the Amrs. Goffman explains that while in the presence of others, individuals will come to a dramatic realization, meaning their actions infuses with signs that dramatically portray confirmatory facts(Goffman, 1971). Mr Gad Amr throughout most of the video maintains the statement “Please stop, Please, Leave me alone”. Now this statement alone reflects how Mr Amr feels about the present situation at hand, his performance is trying to stop the situation, and avoid dealing with the camera man. After Simon fuller uses the insult “fucking terrorist” Mr Omar Amr’s performance takes to the stage. In defence of his father his actions are seeking a dramatic response from those around him, so angered by what his father was called he takes it upon himself to seek justice in the situation and tell Simon Fuller how disgusted he is by the remarks. His performance can be specifically categorised by Goffmans interpretation and understanding of performance.

The cut version of the confrontation that aired on Channel 7 does one of two things. Firstly is reiterates the stereotype that has been unfairly created by the media that all Muslim people are simply angry dangerous people and therefore have a direct relation with suicide bombers and terrorists. Secondly it again portrays Muslim men and misogynistic, it reinforces that women should be fearful of Muslim men (Ho, 2007). Now of course because the cut version that went to air was taken completely out of context, Channel 7 essentially manipulated this social interaction for their own political agenda. The performances made by the Omar, attempting to express themselves were made in vain and subsequently used against them. There is nothing in the confrontation that suggests anything about oppression of women or sexual misconduct, however the anger that is shown from the Amr’s that seems to be unprovoked encourages the perception that Muslim men are angry and misogynistic.




The Media Watch Segment begins with a warning from the host “I warn you the language isn’t pretty”. At the beginning of the confrontation, despite the arrogance by the camera man and the obvious discontent by the Amrs, they seem to all attempts to portray an aura of politeness. This can be understood as trying to save face and remain social respect in a situation (Daly,2004). All the language used within the first couple of minutes of the footage are deemed forceful yet polite, especially Mr Amr who says “Please” multiple times. Mr Fuller also reciprocates by calling Mr Amr “Mate”. Politeness theory suggests that if an interaction threatens the negative face of anyone involved the speaker will use negative politeness strategies (Daly, 2004). This is seen when Mr Amr over uses the word “please”, he is attempting to remain polite yet it is understood that his pleading is going unnoticed and he continues to use the word “please” over and over. As the situation turns and both parties become aggravated by each other’s presence the words “fuck and fucking” become the main part of the verbal banter between the parties. The word “fuck or fucking” are not always used in situations of rude, crude or defensive matters, it can often be used as friendly banter amongst friends (Daly, 2004). Fuck is used for a wide variety of situations; in this instance it is primarily to be impolite rude and express anger and discontent with the situation at hand. Fuck in this instance is used as an insult, and intensifier, in this situation it is not used to be anything but offensive (Daly, 2004)




The segment from Media Watch tells us a lot about everyday interaction. It explains that everyday interaction can be dictated by the media and how the media and manipulate information and therefore influence our perceptions of the world. The social interactions that take place within the footage explain a lot about social interaction amongst people, especially when looking at how they will perform in a social context that threatens them and makes them uncomfortable. The naturally occurring data that this situation produces can be understood when looking at the works of Erving Goffman who explains how individuals produce themselves in social interactions and context. Analyzing the language used especially the use of swearing and the word ‘fuck’. It gives us a very real situation that shows how swearing can be used in a negative and offensive manner.



















References

Sway, M. (2005). Islamophobia: Meaning, Manifestations, Causes. Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture, 12(2/3), 15-23.

Rachel A. D. Bloul (2008): Anti-discrimination Laws, Islamophobia, and

Ethnicization of Muslim Identities in Europe and Australia, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 28:1,

7-25

Ho. C (2007) Muslim women's new defenders: Women's rights, nationalism and Islamophobia in contemporary Australia Women's Studies International Forum Volume 30, Issue 4, July–August 2007



Mahmood Mamdani (2002) Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: A Political Perspective on Culture and Terrorism American Anthropologist , New Series, Vol. 104, No. 3 pp. 766-775 Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567254



Watch, M. (n.d.). Media Watch: Just doing my job, mate (12/04/2010). ABC.net.au. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2870685.htm

Goffman, Erving. 1967. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor.” Pp. 47-96 in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.

Goffman, Erving. 1971. “Performances.” Pp. 28-82 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Top of Form



Daly, Nicola, Janet Holmes, Jonathan Newton, and Maria Stubbe. 2004. “Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: pp. 945-964

week 12

I have been at university for 4 years and in my time I have encountered a number different characters as tutors, lectureres and co-ordinators. I have encountered all kinds of personality types and characteristics. Many have been quite friendly and willing to help, quite a few have been downright rude. I learnt in first year at university that who was teaching me had a huge affect on my learning and whether I enjoyed the subject or not. I found those who were genuinely passionate about the subject and treated and spoke to you as an equal, I was much more inclined to do well and enjoy the content. I found that those who were rude, bland and spoke as if they were above you, made me disinterested, angry and unwilling to learn. Although it is only 3 hours contact time, a tutor or lectures persona has much to do with people's learning. Environment I found could be created by a friendly tutor who was overly helpful and tried their best to encourage our learning and valued our opinions. I have a few experience with tutors who obviously felt as if they were superior to their students and it was quite obvious when in class as they would not help when asked, brush your opinion off and criticize your work in a mean and abrupt way. Whether they simply lacked people skills or had no idea how to deal with a class full of student, they had a severe affect on my quality of education. With just as many negative experience I have also had positive and those people that helped me learn and become passionate about my studies will stay with me for the rest of my life. People who are open minded to the differences between students, who are non judgmental about your opinion, who will listen and help to the best of their ability should be commended for educating people in the most comfortable learning environment.

Week 11: Swearing

This week made me think about why I swear. Seriously why do I swear? Well I came to the conclusion that I am quite dramatic, emotional, passionate and the rest of it. Swearing to me, allows me to accentuate what I am trying to say. When I tell a story swearing is free flow out of my vocabulary. I swear when I am happy, sad, angry, really angry, irritated. Every emotion I am feeling can be described more accurately, by my standard with swearing. I always feel uncomfortable around people that do not swear and those who become offended by swearing, naturally because I swear. Although in situations where It is not appropriate to use profanity my brain instantly switches off the impulse to describe things with "F". In saying that I have been known to slip and say something inappropriate. I seem to be attracted to people that do however share the same love of the "f" word as I do.

Week 10: Online persona: Backstage or Frontstage?

I find the whole notion of a persons online personality intriguing. Essentially a person can be backstage in their actions while being front stage at the same time. Websites that allow for online communication through platforms such a photo sharing, chat and so on allow people to communicate with people from the comfort of their own homes. No one can see you typing to your best friend on Facebook, or your new romantic interest. You could be naked, dressed quite daggy it wouldn't matter because no body in that public social domain can actually see you. However the absence of face to face contact makes for people to be more open. In my experience when chatting online, a persons deepest darkest secrets can come out, because they do not have to look at someone in the face. I have also found it takes away from the awkwardness of dating, I cannot remember the last time someone asked for my number, to my face. I can recall numerous occasions where I have been asked for my number online. I cannot decide whether a persons persona online is in fact a true representation of themselves or a representation of what they want to be. Depending on what platform I am using will depend on what I am trying to say or put out their to my online community of social connections. I upload photos of myself, but only photos I consider that I look attractive. I will make status updates but they will not have any personal information about me. However in Private chat, I will say whatever I like. In my experience I would have to say I am "middle stage" I am neither at the front nor the back.

Week 9: Where the bloody hell are you?

In class we were discussing how normative it is to swear in Australian Culture. The discussion made me think about situations that I am exposed to profane language and my own use of profanities. Swearing is a common practice in my everyday life. I swear, my family swear, my friends swear, my work colleagues swear. I am desensitized to swearing that the word "bloody" really has no affect on me. To me it is a mediocre swear word it does not have the same affect as "fuck" and often I will use bloody in replacement of  the "f" word if I am in a setting where "fuck" may be too vulgar, or may offend people. In saying that when the Australian Tourism released the infamous commercial encouraging tourism to come to Australia with the famous quote from Lara Bingle "Where the bloody hell are you?". I was mortified, how tacky was my initial thoughts. Not only has the world been exposed to news reports of Racial Riots throughout Sydney, now the rest of the world is think "Why would I bloody want to go there". The word itself is perhaps desensitized in Australian culture, but that is not a global phenomena. A Global campaign that attempts to encourage tourism should be tasteful and appropriate to all audiences.   If it wasn't a global marketing campaign, and simple a commerical aimed purely at Australians my thoughts would perhaps be a little different.

Week 8: Codes

Telling the Code by Lawrence Wieder, explains his experience as a participant observer in a half way house. He described the codes used by those inhabiting the house. Codes meaning the words used to describe something else for example "ass kisser" is someone who sucks up to the authority. It got me thinking about my everyday life, everyday situations that I encounter and continual practices that I endure day to day. Codes are not exclusive to the half way house they are used everywhere. I have code words that I use with my friends, especially if we don't want the people around to understand what we are talking about. At work we have code words to describe when we are going to the bank, it is called the "lolly shop". A group of people I know use codes in their everyday speech to point where they have almost created their own language by changing words around, making the back to front or removing vowels. Codes to me develope out of context, people use them to help their everyday lives. To lessen the crudeness of something, or to emphasis their distaste or to conceal what they are talking about. Codes I'm sure are a universal concept, every culture, language, group of people must use Codes to interact everyday. Codes are an inherant part of the way I communicate. I have code words for almost every single person I interact with and they are dictated by whatever context I am in. They emerge out of different situations that occur at often in my everyday life. Some may be mundane, and boring, but some are quite humorous.

Week 7. Moral Interactions

This weeks reading made me question my thought process and how it affects how I act in Social Situations. I began to ponder on whether I act differently because of Moral constraints. When I thought about it I didn't actually realize how much my behavior is dictated by the moral norm of what is appropriate and considered normal.The morality of Cognition By John Hertiage discusses this paradigm. Does our cognition about morality affect the way we act within our  society. In my experience it certainly does, my behavior changes depending on the moral context in which that I am in. I can behave more conservative, I will dress appropriate to the moral codes of where I am going. I can behave more liberal if the situation calls for it, I can choose to use profane language or I can choose to not. I would not swear in a church or around someone who is an authorative figure, however I will dance in a nightclub and consume alcohol at a bar and swear around my friends. All these actions depend on what context I am or where I am located and who is around me. It is not moral to do some things in a church or example, but perfectly normal to behave such a way in a club. Our society, our cultural background, our family home has shaped the way we perceive what is moral, where it is moral and how we should act moral in certain situations. Upon thinking about this I realise my cognition, my thought process so swiftly changes my behavior without me realizing it is doing it.