Through critical analysis it has become increasingly obvious that in the Herald's representation of the South Newcastle beachfront particular perspectives are selected and emphasised, running parallel to the complete exclusion of others. There are roughly two core perspectives involved in the process of representative selection and exclusion within the text:
1) that of those who would like to see the prohibition of graffiti in its designated area, and the potential dismantling of the skate park.
2) that of those who would like to see the area continue to function as a legal graffiti zone and skate park.
The media both takes and represents the view of the former whilst omitting that of the latter. At the risk of making general assumptions, these perspectives branch apart through different groups of people. The diversity between these groups is characterised through their lifestyles, values and again by their points of view regarding the issue at hand. Demographic indicators may also help define these groups (age being a possible key indicator).
Within the text writer Greg Ray and the developer Mirvac are explicitly identified to project the former point of view. In the prior exposition of Ray's general aim to align with the business community we can assume that economic concerns are central to his values and thus perspective. It has been shown that Greg Ray attempts to assume the community view without actually showing that he has consulted the people of the community. In this assumption he assumes alot of things. Ray assumes and represents a community perspective that rejects the aesthetic value and cultural significance of graffiti. While he attempts to appeal to the viewers' notion of 'good taste', in establishing a perspective on the issue broader cultural ideologies come into play. The skate park and legal graffiti zone conflict with the aims of business and thus aren't good for the local economy - the public space is essentialised as a commodity. The positioning of economic concerns over the preservation of cultural space and art indicates an imbalanced perspective, perhaps motivated by particular lifestyle choices. A lifestyle situated amongst fancy apartment buildings and pristine (perhaps sterile) coastal/urban front yards appears to prevail.
No doubt, a significant proportion of the local population support Ray's implied notion, and the values represented in his message. However, after a long running authorities and media driven campaign to prohibit graffiti in the area, in April 2010 over 30% of the Herald's readers opposed the final decision to make the zone graffiti-free (link for the Herald's opinion poll). This figure indicates the fact that the Herald, or at least one of its writers, failed to present a balanced representation of the community view. In the video and other print based releases a significant portion of the community view has been omitted in a detectable attempt to naturalise a biased message and please the business community by forwarding their aims.
Although the perspective of those in support of the legal graffiti zone has been omitted, it does not go to say that their voice was absent else where. Until the council's decision to ban graffiti in the area was announced in early April 2010, 'the Loft' youth community group organised a year-long campaign to keep the proposed site legal. A large and identifiable community base of graffiti writers, artists and skate park users were among the campaign's members - none of which Greg Ray considered worthy of quote or mention in his entire "coverage" of the issue. In the case of his multimedia release video, Greg chose rather to construct and trivialize the omitted perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment