Response - April 21st viewing

My first reaction to the viewing was to the viewing of the “STEW” cable access channel. I found it absolutely hilarious what these guys were doing to intervene with the public by controlling the airwaves of this particular channel. I found it as a great method of intervention because it forces the viewing to step aside from how they normally view television programs and interact in this sort of farce or parody of regularly scheduled type shows. Specifically they parody (or transform to their own mold) the “home shopping” or infomercial type of programs that have viewers call in. This parody (like having a caller play cards as the 4th person in a card game) is a great invention and comment on how these call in shows are somewhat ridiculous. They take events that you would never think would make it on the air and televise it with viewer interaction, thus intervening in their lives. Using a Quija board on air to answer people’s questions (with some viewers taking it seriously) is a great example of how this intervention (which is basically a giant joke) can be misconstrued by the viewers by the mere idea that “what’s on the tv has a certain sense of reality/authenticity to it.”

Going along those lines, I believe the “Media Burn” film sports that same type of idea. It’s a great intervention and comment on how the media feeds the public and sort of controls them by this sense of authenticity when in actuality the facts may not entirely be authentic or true. It may be biased or slanted. The intervention of crashing a car through the televisions helps demonstrate how biased and slanted the media has become and how it needs to be reconstructed and freshened up (like rejuvenating a prairie by a controlled burn) Thus, the title “Media Burn.” However, the Media Burn idea relies on the very thing they are trying to comment on (the media) to send out the message. It is a paradox that is very intriguing and witty. My question is, “Why would you send a message denouncing something through that very method which is being denounced?” Doesn’t that kind of conflict the point trying to be made? Also, (this is minor) but I think if I were trying to send the message of denouncing the current media, I would use images of the media on the televisions instead of having them turned off/blank. A blank tv is actually in favor of the message they are trying to create. Destroying a blank tv is pointless. It’s the media they are trying to destroy/change not the tv itself. However, I can understand that the tv is merely a symbol that conveys the media message, but I think it would have been stronger if the televisions had images displaying the media.