I would like to add to Gunter Kress' comment on fixed and variable entry points and reading paths in a book page and a web page or CD-ROM, that while in a book/novel, it is true that things don't make sense if you don't follow the prescribed/conventional left-to-right path, in a newspaper page or web site, you are free to determine the order of reading, or not reading for that matter.
As a journalist, what I have been practising for a decade and a half — even without studying the theory behind it — is the best possible use of modes of communication available to the print medium. My experience in writing news and feature reports, designing and laying out pages on Quark and using Adobe Photoshop to deal with photographs and graphics encompass the subject of multi-modal communication.
The other day, a classmate asked if Hillary Clinton's speech at the Democratic convention was just a speech or a production. The question reminded me of the many times I had to file a report or design a page to mount a "production" of a news event. It was the print version of the same effort by an audio-visual medium. If the news channel repeatedly focussed on Michelle Obama's expressions and reactions to achieve a certain purpose, then I had to incorporate pictures of certain people at a given event for a similar effect.
While the newscaster uses speech material and image material to shape news during a live telecast, a print reporter or editor picks and chooses the written word to convey the meaning (s)he intends (which may not always be the same as "uncolored" facts). The only difference is, a newspaper cannot not serve news piping hot, the moment it happens. Serving it the next morning takes away some of the heat of the moment. That's a limitation of the print medium.
Talking of limitations of modes of communication, the audio-visual medium, while serving news live, does not alway have control over the content. This could be both for good or bad, as it offers you the chance to see uncensored news. A print report, on the other hand, allows time for reflection on the delivery of news. Also, the audio-visual medium can engage the viewer on an interactive platform by taking calls or holding a dialogue on the web page. But a newspaper/magazine can only offer space for letters to the editor in subsequent editions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I really appreciate getting your journalism perspective on this topic. It gives me a chance to think about what we've read in a different way.
In most of what I do, I have the freedom to choose the medium that best suits my intentions, but as a journalist or news caster, the medium is already decided for you. As you said, there are benefits and limitations to different media/mediums. I guess the nice thing is that we are able to compare and contrast what we see on TV and read in the newspaper to form our own decisions about the topics.
You have a really interesting perspective that blends education and professional writing. You make the point that we should be mindful of using the most appropriate mediums in the classroom because we are always already using and taking in those best mediums in our daily lives.
One thing you said that really caught my attention was the inability of some media to "control .. the content." I think this is a real challenge of multimodal texts. When we invite other people to shape a discourse with us rather than waiting for us to deliver it to them we lose a bit of control. I think that can be really scary, but maybe it also has it's place. What do you think?
I liked your perspective on this. I do disagree on point though, and it's not that I totally disagree, but I think that it is safe to say that even though the audio-visual medium may not have control over the actual content, there is some control on how that content is protrayed. A lot of what is shot for the news is shot ahead of time and edited and it's the editing that can change the idea that there is no reflection. I will say that there are definitely times when you are actually seeing something live, but it seems that most of the time it is edited, and I think that it is the editing that can be the issue.
It is like with the article on the writing with video class. Using that medium gave the students the chance to express themselves in a new way, but the content was controlled by them in the form of editing. They were able to edit out anything they needed to get the message across the way that they wanted. Just like with the audio-visual medium.
This is just what I think and I could be totally off. I do definitely completely agree with you about print media.
Jen,
I thought about the word "scary" that you used to describe how one might feel while shaping a discourse with other people. Obviously, this is an extempore activity during which one does not have total control over what is being delivered. It reminds me of the time when a McCain spokesman was asked by a CNN reporter if Sarah Palin had any overseas experience in diplomacy. The guy kept repeating that Obama did not have any, obviously avoiding a direct answer. The reporter kept repeating her question, and the spokesperson kept skirting the bush. Eventually, the exaspeated reporter said: "OK, I give it to you baby!"
This was a classic "scary" situation for the spokesman which he would have given anything to avoid. He had simply not come to the interview prepared with an answer to this particular query! But, on the other side of the table, and the TV screen, the reporter and this viewer had a big laugh, at the cost of the unprepared spokesperson. I wonder if he still has his job!
There is both the positive and the negative side to this situation, depending which side you are on. As a viewer of the live telecast, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the truth (about Palin) spill out through the spokesman's unpreparedness. Maybe that's the reason why Palin is not allowed to give any one-on-one or live interviews to the press (she may only deliver prepared speeches).
Moushumi
Post a Comment