MEST3 PPE - Learner Response

1) Type up your feedback in full

• Many brilliant points and lots of critical anatomy 
• However, a little confused in places and drifts off question a couple of times 
• More revision needed? Lacked a few stats to show industry decline 

2) Did you succeed in meeting or exceeding your target grade for A2 Media? If not, how many additional marks do you need across Section A and Section B to achieve your target grade?

I did not meet my target grade, I was 9 marks off my target grade of an A*. 

3) Read through the mark scheme. Pay particular attention to pages 6-8 that have suggested content for each of the questions in Section A. How many of these potential points did you make? Did you successfully answer the questions?

Question 1 - 6 potential points made, successful overall answer

Question 2 - 2 potential points made, overall successful answer 

Question 3 - 2 potential points made, overall weakest answer, less successful than the rest

4) Which was your strongest question in Section A? Why did you do better in that particular question? Note the number of marks each question is worth.

My strongest question was question 1 and 2 as they were both 1 off full marks for the question. I fully developed my answer; the first question I had a very detailed response, whilst the 2nd question debated the question to a large extent.

5) Which was your weakest question in Section A? Again, try and identify why this happened. Did you misinterpret the question? Did you run out of time?

Question 3 was my weakest question as I didn't sustain an overall media debate to discuss the question. I lacked theory, where I could have debated about Marxism and hegemony and the role of institutions and elite conglomerates being in power and the controllers of audience values.

6) Now look at pages 11-12 of the mark scheme for Section B - New/Digital Media paying particular attention to the suggested essay content on page 12. How many of the broad areas suggested by AQA did you cover in your Section B essay? Did you successfully answer the question?

Historical role of media producers; Recent developments in new and digital media; Impact upon, and responses of, traditional media producers; Changing demands of audiences. I think I successfully answered the question, however I do think that I drifted away from the question focus and therefore missed out on some valuable marks. 

7) Read the Examiner's Report in full. For each question your answered, would you classify your response as one of the stronger answers or one of the weaker answers the Chief Examiner discusses? Why? What could you do differently next time? Write a reflection for EACH question in the paper: Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q6 OR Q7.

Q1- strong answer as I discussed both why the clips were 'authoritative' and 'trustworthy.' Exploring both between the texts.
Q2 - strong answer as I discussed and debated the question focus from a theoretical view point according to Marxism and hegemony
Q3 - I don't think this was necessarily strong but it was strong enough to explore the issues around identity and individuality but did not go into as much detail about debate
Q6 - This was a strong answer as it included a wide ranger of wider examples, a great range of media theory and media terminology; I think the only issue was sometimes the deviation from the actual question, making it lack consistency

8) Choose your weakest question in Section A and re-write an answer in full based on the suggested content from the Examiner's Report. This answer needs to be comprehensive and meet the criteria for Level 4 of the mark scheme. This will be somewhere between 3-6 well-developed paragraphs (depending on the question/number of marks available).

Q3 - Should the media provide accessible platforms for alternative or oppositional voices? You should refer to other media products to support your answer.

Social media prominently encourages new voices and opinions through user generated content and the idea of the blogosphere. Within social media, audiences are able to portray their own views and opinions and other people similarly share the same view, therefore I think by having alternative views on different accessible platforms would not necessarily benefit audiences as other individuals would not be exposed to new ideologies. In a society where the internet and social media is arguable seen as a democratic space, the range of ideologies amongst media platforms should become a rainbow. By specifically singling out a marginalised group, it would force them back into the dissociated position which this generation has pulled them from. For example, the idea of LGBT groups, by focusing on this in the media and on a mainstream platform it allows audiences to become accustomed to the idea and therefore be more likely to accept it and see it as 'unquestioned' and 'common sense' within society. Celebrities that come out as gay make this a more common and accepted issue, for example Gareth Thomas, who is a rugby player. He is an avid example of subverting the stereotypes of homosexuals as they are seen as feminine, however he contrasts this massively due to him being a rather masculine athlete. Furthermore, directors have also had a take on presenting homosexuality, for example the 1997 film 'Wilde', explores gay lovers in a society where the condemn gays; by revealing a sympathetic story to audiences, it allows a personal relationship between character and audience to be formed and therefore highers the chances of understanding the issue. As a rather famous film that gained recognition, it shows the importance of allowing alternative voices to be presented on mainstream and accessible platforms. 

However it could also be argued that alternative voices are a negative thing, through the ideas revolving around alt-right opinions and extremist views on issues like terrorism and sexism to name a few. In terms of feminism, audiences are clearly aware of the issues surrounding sexism and how it is still a potential problem today; there is even evidence to suggest that we are now entering the fourth wave of feminism due to the development of new and digital media. Twitter is a brilliant tool for being able to voice opinions for the better but also for the worse; Laura Bates is a fantastic example of a way that the social network can be used advantageously. She started the Everyday Sexism campaign and was able to get several other women and men to join and be part of her campaign, following her and her opinions to prevent sexism in everyday life and not to ignore it. However, sexism is seen in everyday videos, most prominently within popular culture. Rap music videos are the main perpetrators of objectification of women and the idea of misogyny is clearly presented in far too many videos; 'Blurred Lines' by Pharrel Williams and Robin Thicke is a great example of the objectification of women. The video was extremely controversial due to the treatment of women as mere plastic figures, evidently being an object of the 'male gaze,' which is one of Mulvey's ideas. By allowing videos like these on accessible platforms it allows a large majority of audiences to be exposed to negative views rather than alternative, proving to be an issue. 

To further extend this to politics, take the recent occurring of Donald Trump and the news of him groping a woman. This harassment was carried out by the president of the United States, which evidently reveals a hugely negative impact on a society when a leader acts in this particular way. Twitter also banned alt-right accounts from Twitter, revealing how social networking sites are attempting to regulate this control. However, depsite this, it can still be argued that due to media platforms allowing a democratic space and therefore allowing a freedom of speech, where do we draw the line in terms of what you can and cannot ban? What is ethical and what is purely inhumane? The evident issue is the fact that every individual has different views, however these views are shared by at least a fair few others globally, be it extremist views or the mainstream view or even the alternative view; the biggest problem is the idea of the echo chamber that is created with social networking sites. For example, take Twitter for example, if an audience member agrees with the opinion and shares the same ideology, it is very difficult for them to not agree with it and therefore it becomes a matter of removing an opinion from a democratic space. It can be argued that there is a huge different between extremist views and alternative however due to lives being at potential risk with extremist views. 

The media should be able to provide accessible platforms for alternative views and they should also appear on mainstream media sites. I think by providing accessible platforms just for alternative views it also allows a group to be formed together and therefore enables a sort of community to be formed. In terms of liberalism, every user should be able to provide their opinion on any social networking platform and should be allowed to share their ideologies, however extremist views and alt-right views should be censored and removed due to the potential risk and the idea of creating a moral panic or even a techno-panic, within a society. The media as a whole provides a moral panic (Stanley Cohen) but to further exert this panic in a extreme way would make the platform an unsafe place in terms of sharing views. Thus, the importance of accessible platforms for alternative views is highly required in order to conform to societal liberation and to provide a safe space for democratic speech to be presented and discussed.