شماره‌ی نهم ماهنامه‌ی اينترنتی هزارتو، با موضوع رسانه منتشر شد. اين موضوع را آقای مهدی جامی پيشنهاد داده بود که نويسنده‌ی مدعو اين شماره هم هست. حاصل کار به نظرم مقاله‌ای خواندنی است در سلسله مقالاتی که آقای جامی تلويحاً يا تصريحاً در دفاع از راديو زمانه نوشته‌است. و البته فقط يک دفاع نيست، با آن که من طبيعتاً در معرفی مجبور به ساده‌سازی هستم شما به اين سادگی و صرفاً با اين پيش‌داوری نخوانيد. نکات جالب ديگری هم در اين مقاله هست.
در مقابل، بعد از مدت‌ها يک نوشته از کلاغ سياه در نقد آماتوريسم راديو زمانه خواهيد خواند و دريدا و والتر بنيامين و مريلين منسون و ديگر روشنفکران محبوب هم در نوشته‌ها حضور دارند. دو سه تا نوشته با طعم وبلاگی هم هست، از ميرزا که به اندازه‌ی سه هفته پست‌های وبلاگش نکات جالب جمع کرده و از سر هرمس مارانا درباره‌ی اس‌ام‌اس. درباره‌ی نشانه‌شناسی هم هست که آخر نفهميدم (به قول صاحب ملکوت) «چی‌ست». هر چه هست ظاهراً مربوط به «فرزان سجودی» می‌شود.
نوشته‌ی من شامل يک timeline رسانه‌ی مدرن است. اگر حوصله کرديد و خوانديد، اگر اتفاق مهمی به ذهن‌تان رسيد که ذکر نشده، خوشحال می‌شوم اگر به من يادآوری کنيد، چون اين تاريخچه برای ويرايش تاريخچه‌ی ناقص فعلی در ويکی‌پديا استفاده خواهد شد. چهار قسمت ديگرِ اين نوشته: ديالکتيک رسانه، هفت‌لای رسانه (يک مدل)، اقتصاد رسانه، و رسانه و قدرت، تقريباً از هم مستقل هستند و هر کدام را می‌شود جداگانه خواند. نوشته‌ی من در رديف آخر و با نام نويسنده‌ی «امين» ثبت شده‌است.
لطفاً: يک کمی بازخورد و واکنش! نوشتن برای هزارتو سخت می‌شود اگر بازخوردی نداشته باشيم.
4 comments:
salaam,
I don't want to sound discouragin, but I can not help if my critism sounds harsh.
Well, I read Mehdi Jami's and your articles in Hezartou and I am confused who are you writing for. Let me be specific. I assume Mehdi Jami wants to raise some issues in the theoretic or philosophical aspects of media. As far as I know iranian intelectuals, anybody who will not be discouraged by the super formal tone of Mehdi Jami's style, ALREADY knows all of those basic issues and has thought and read about them. I think his article is a bore of overly repeated ideas of media power.... and even questions that he raises are not well baked and sound like a amature hurried observer's first thoughts not those of a digging scholar. He writes whether changes in Turkey are a result of media. What changes? what media? why should we even in the first place think those(??) changes has to due anything with media and not other factors say geography!!
Or he says why USA with its "lashkar e rasane" can not win Iraq? which "lashkar"? US media are not producing programms "for" Iraqies. and most of those media, that he calls "lashkar" are independent of government and not its "lashkar" and happen to be very often critics of US policy in Iraq.
so what is Mehdi Jami talking about when he says that? Even if he had a reasonable idea in mind, it is not well written.
Briefly, I think his either says nothing new or poses half(even 0.01)baked questions which an IRIB commentator would write to assemble something hurriedly.
I read your article too, aside from list of events which was nice, I had the same confusion regarding the second part, about layers of media...
who is supposed to read and benefit from this?
I think it is again full of same old ideas about media, how they are financed, ...., their relation with power...
Look at this paragraph
رسانه‌ها از زمان چاپ روزنامه‌ها و ژورنال‌ها، هم‌زمان با صنعتی شدن و توليد انبوه کالاهای مصرفی و خدمات، از پديده‌ی «بازاريابی» مدرن و تبليغات و آگهی‌های تجاری نيز برای کسب درآمد استفاده کرده‌اند. با اشباع بازارهای مصرف به خصوص در کشورهای توسعه‌يافته، سهم بازاريابی روز به روز در حال افزايش است و تبليغات تجاری به شکل محسوس و غيرمحسوس در بسياری رسانه‌ها فراوانی و تنوع چشم‌گيری يافته‌اند. بعضی شبکه‌های رسانه‌ای در مقابل دريافت هزينه‌ی اشتراک از تبليغات صرف نظر می‌کنند، و بعضی شبکه‌های دولتی هم با توجه به دست‌رسی به درآمدی که از فروش مجوز تلويزيون می‌گيرند در مقابل از پخش آگهی تجاری خودداری می‌کنند و اين بازار را به بخش خصوصی می‌سپارن
there is nothing new here! or this one
قدرت تلقينی رسانه‌ها و امکان تحريف واقعيات توسط آن‌ها باعث شده از يک سو مورد توجه سياست‌مداران باشند و از سوی ديگر همواره در مظان بی‌اعتباری و وابستگی به قدرت قرار گيرند. ظهور فاشيسم و نازيسم و استفاده‌ی مؤثر آن‌ها از تبليغات و رسانه‌های همگانی، و پارانويای ضد کمونيستی مک‌کارتيسم در دهه‌ی 50 ميلادی در ايالات متحد نمونه‌ای از اين نوع کنش و واکنش‌ها با توجه به نقش رسانه در جامعه است. رمان «هزار و نهصد و هشتاد و چهار» اثر اروِل شکل نهايی و ايده‌آل کنترل رسانه‌ای و تماميت‌گرايی و مغزشويی را مجسم می‌کند که قابليت آن را دارد که همه را برای هميشه فريب دهد و واقعيت برساخته‌ی رسانه را جايگزين واقعيت موجود کند. همين واقعيت باعث می‌شود که رسانه‌ها در تئوری‌های توطئه نقش بسيار مهمی داشته باشند.
again nothing new!
As I said, I am really confused why you write and who you are writing for. But it makes me sad that you put so much effort into something that will be ignored just because it is boring and old!
Dazzle it up!
It would be much more engaing and readble if you used case studies and examples of media networks involving say in political scandals when you talked about power and media. Or gave numbers, givig a sense of how big is the reliance of media on outside money, instead of just saying it as everyone else had done many more times.
sorry for the long and harsh comment. I just felt you guys write about media and are clueless how to attract to your media. At least that is how I see it. How do you see it?
needless to say, pardon the spelling. It is 2am!
Dear Faezeh,
Thanks for your very useful critique . It was not harsh at all and I can totally accept the part related to me (the part related to Mr Jami's article, I don't know why it is here in the first place!)
Alright, my argument is quite old and has nothing new or inspiring for you, eventhough there is a small possibility of its usefulness for the others.
I think it is a little bit due to the way we write articles for Hezartou, which is not self-stimulated and dictated by a unique subject we select by voting, which causes writers like me to write mostly the first things occur to them, and these things are not usually the most innovative and inspiring propositions. It's like writing "enshaa", especially when we have the problem of very general and broad subjects.
As Hezartou defines itself as a 'communal effort', all of us in there are responsible for this problem. Some people there (including me) are trying to find new ways to produce better articles on more specific subjects. Your suggestion about 'case studies' is quite considerable regarding this matter.
About the model describing layers of media: I thought it would be useful to see what are called 'media'. It is sometimes confusing: book is medium and the content also is. We can consider a TV set, its antenna or the waves as media, or the programme, or the channel. By using that model, we can specify they are media 'in which layer'. So a little less confusion in the language may help a little more clear image of what we call media.
Your golden question: who we are writing for? Honestly, I do not know. My ideal audience is someone who doesn't know about some of facts mentioned in my article and finds them inspiring, or who finds some of my opinions interesting, or at least, challenging.
I hope you read my reply here, as I have no other alternative way to send it to you.
salaam,
Thanks for the reply.
Well, if you are happy with a small probability of someone being inspired by your article, I have nothing to say and it is not none of my business either.
I think, however this attitud(not by you, by others!) can find its way to bigger media.Then it is not acceptable and is waste of oppurtunities and resources of the media owners. That is what I see in radiozamaneh. (I know you are not part of radiozamanhe. I am just clarifying what I meant before)
well, goodluck and best wishes
ارسال یک نظر