The relationship between media and the audience are two-way communication. Audiences can greatly affect the production of media, because of their growing and picky demands and rational choice of the media. In Adorno’s article “how to look at TV”, he pointed out that," Modern audiences, although probably less capable of the artistic sublimation bred by tradition, have become shrewder in their demands for perfection of technique and for reliability of information, as well as in their desire for 'service'; and they have become more convinced of the consumers’ potential power over the producer, no matter whether this power is actually wielded.” In fact, audiences have become more and more powerful to put influence on TV producers. In response to the power that the audiences have, producers begin to produce TV programs that can attract the audiences’ attentions most or satisfy their curiosities or demands.
The situation becomes more obvious during election period. People tend to be more critical about politics issues or politicians during an election. They like questioning the candidates’ policies and challenging some candidates’ qualifications. “Smart” producers are sensitive to audiences’ needs and will question and challenge the candidates' qualifications on TV shows. The linked video provides a good example. As we can see in the video, when Palin became a Vice President candidate, a lot of talks could be loudly heard to question her qualification. People began to talk about her history, her background, her scandal, etc., no matter if the news about her was true or not. It is obvious that the majority of the public want to see her fail in the election. If most of the audience liked Palin and would like to see her succeed, the program would simply change to praise Palin’s greatness. She would be endorsed as a celebrity.
The rule that making efforts in the way which is in favor of the public can also be applied to political election. Gramsci criticized, "the Popular Universities for dispensing 'bit of knowledge' without taking account of the different needs and background of a working-class public.” Although his main concern was about education, the viewpoint he advocated was to pay attention to working-class’s demands. This concept is true in politics too. To win the election, both candidates must take account of different needs of the public and try to propose policies of the public’s favor to acquire maximum number of voting to them. However, in the reality, there is no uniform solution for all people. The party that the candidates belong to limits their policy choices. The linked video shows the debate between Obama and McCain on public health policy. Traditionally Democrats represent middle class and lower classes, while Republics represent higher classes. The different targets of classes force the candidates to choose different sides of the same dice. In the topic of this video, Obama’s proposal seems more likely to benefit the middle class and poor people, that is why he chose tax cut as a part of his policies.
Adorno pointed out that, “The total effect of the culture industry is one of anti-enlightenment. Enlightenment, that is the progressive technical domination of nature, becomes mass deception and is turned into a means for fettering consciousness. It impedes the development of autonomous, independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves.” It is true for today’s media. Freedom of speech and justice more and more become a false appearance. Only mainstream messages can be heard by the public. Only sponsors’ interests can be fulfilled by the mainstream media. Individuals will be easily brainwashed by the overwhelming input and persuasive words. When individuals accept the input and give up their own otherwise more independent opinions, media successfully ruin the public’s consciousness. Realizing the real power of media, politicians are using media to promote themselves in an election campaign. In the TV advertisement, Obama has showed us how well he can do and what his plan will be. Through media (the television show, for example), he clearly and efficiently persuades many people to accept his viewpoints. In another video, his team uses the same technique to question his competitor – McCain. When all the similar programs intensively broadcast during an election, individuals are easily influenced and accept the input passively, because human nature shows that people are more likely to believe what they hear or see frequently.
Gramsci pointed out that, “The press is the most dynamic part of this ideological structure, but not the only one. Everything which influences or is able to influence public opinion, directly or indirectly, belongs to it: libraries, schools, associations and clubs of various kinds, even architecture and the layout and names of streets.” Different forms of media have different strength and overall serve as a complete system. New forms of the media can develop and expand the whole communication system. For example, this video shows that the Internet has become a more and more powerful place to express personal opinions, moreover, influence other people through its huge public accessibility. Unlike traditional media, the Internet forms a virtual community which has more freedom of speech than the real world. During the election, huge amount of videos were posted on the Internet. The Internet has become a more and more important battlefield for both political parties.
Assignment # 3:
http://www.bubbleply.com/player.aspx?pid=d838f68e-d92d-409f-86ba-3c6f5dfaa0fd
Assignment # 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzJK6UPYeI
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I was never a big proponent of the movement to legalize same sex marriage. In fact, up until the California State Supreme Court made its ruling, I was kind of against it; mostly because of the baggage that the word and the institution carry. However, I recognized the symbolic weight of the issue and soon got caught up in the battle when Proposition 8 made its shameful debut. Long before the first television advertisement had been aired, I had read somewhere that those who decide these things had chosen not to include gays and lesbians in the "No on Prop 8" (NOP) television ads based on the results of focus group research; instead the ads would feature the parents and friends of gay and lesbian couples. I thought at the time that that was a mistake and that the absence of gays and lesbians suggested the gay community had a sort of collective self-hatred , akin to the concept usually applied to psychologically messed up gay men. As the campaign has waged on, I've come to believe that there is at least a grain of truth to that.
The first salvo fired that I witnessed was the now-infamous "Whether you like it or not" TV ad featuring Gavin Newsom. I was resentfully impressed by its clever manipulation and sadly realized that this was going to be a dirty fight with no place for subtleties gleaned from focus groups. These religious nuts weren't fucking around; they were going after the heathens with all the righteousness their tiny souls could muster, whether Jesus liked it or not. The ad was effective because it tweaked the disgruntled public's frustration with politicians and then delivered its toxic package of lies designed to win votes through fear. Clearly, at least to me, an equally heavy-handed response was called for in order to refocus the debate away from the phony phantoms evoked by the "yes on Prop 8" (YOP) people and back to the discrimination that is the proposition's true intent.
Soon after the Newsom Ad debuted, I was tasked with a project in one of my classes that required using online resources to make a video addressing a current political issue. It was a no-brainer; I immediately began constructing a "No on Prop 8" television ad paralleling the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage with the Civil Rights movement using the most provocative images I could find. I spent countless hours finding and them learning how to use software that edited video, mixed audio and converted files in order to workaround technical incompatibilities and limitations in order to achieve my vision, compelled to perfect it in part by the fantasy that the "No on Prop 8" campaign might use it. By the time I finished it, though, the video was no longer as relevant and my critique of the Prop 8 campaign had changed. However, I learned two important things. The first is that in politics, timing is crucial; the window of opportunity to effectively respond to an opponent's allegations is small and getting smaller with new technology. The second is that I need a new computer, one that can handle big media files without freezing up or crashing every 20 minutes.
The focus of my critique of the Prop 8 campaign has now shifted to the YOP's claim that same-sex marriage will be taught in the classroom. Let me apologize beforehand if the following gets academ-icky, but I find it difficult to avoid when writing theoretical analyses (see, it's starting already). I mentioned earlier that the decision to exclude gays and lesbians from television ads might suggest that a form of self-hatred influenced the strategy adopted by the "No on Prop 8" campaign. Perhaps what some interpret as self-hatred is better understood in terms of false consciousness. In our culture, we are all socialized to believe that marriage is the ideal and the ultimate goal for intimate relationships; we are also socialized to believe that heterosexuality is the norm and, thus, good and that homosexuality is deviant and, thus, bad. As products of the dominant culture and subject to its ideology, gays and lesbians must confront an internalized bias against themselves in order to live emotionally healthy lives; but there has been very little discussion within the gay community about whether marriage is the best fit for gay relationships.
Yes, on the surface, Prop 8 is an issue of equal rights, but it is also about the desire for acceptance, and history shows that winning the former does not immediately bring about the latter. The NOP decision makers willingness to sacrifice gay visibility in order to win the election is troubling in that it suggests an failure to recognize that this is more than a legal issue. Far more troubling, though, is the failure of the campaign to challenge the notion that including same-sex marriage in classroom discussions is somehow harmful to children. Worst of all, however, is responding with ads denying that same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools if Prop 8 is defeated, in effect, tacitly affirming the ideologically inferior status of same-sex marriage and the danger it poses to children. While, individually, gays and lesbians may have recognized that they are not immune from being indoctrinated with the ideological bias against homosexuality, false consciousness still compels them to fight for the right to marry and prevents them from questioning why they fight for the right to conform to conventions such as marriage which manifest an ideology that considers them inferior; which is pretty much why I wasn't a big proponent of the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the first place.
The first salvo fired that I witnessed was the now-infamous "Whether you like it or not" TV ad featuring Gavin Newsom. I was resentfully impressed by its clever manipulation and sadly realized that this was going to be a dirty fight with no place for subtleties gleaned from focus groups. These religious nuts weren't fucking around; they were going after the heathens with all the righteousness their tiny souls could muster, whether Jesus liked it or not. The ad was effective because it tweaked the disgruntled public's frustration with politicians and then delivered its toxic package of lies designed to win votes through fear. Clearly, at least to me, an equally heavy-handed response was called for in order to refocus the debate away from the phony phantoms evoked by the "yes on Prop 8" (YOP) people and back to the discrimination that is the proposition's true intent.
Soon after the Newsom Ad debuted, I was tasked with a project in one of my classes that required using online resources to make a video addressing a current political issue. It was a no-brainer; I immediately began constructing a "No on Prop 8" television ad paralleling the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage with the Civil Rights movement using the most provocative images I could find. I spent countless hours finding and them learning how to use software that edited video, mixed audio and converted files in order to workaround technical incompatibilities and limitations in order to achieve my vision, compelled to perfect it in part by the fantasy that the "No on Prop 8" campaign might use it. By the time I finished it, though, the video was no longer as relevant and my critique of the Prop 8 campaign had changed. However, I learned two important things. The first is that in politics, timing is crucial; the window of opportunity to effectively respond to an opponent's allegations is small and getting smaller with new technology. The second is that I need a new computer, one that can handle big media files without freezing up or crashing every 20 minutes.
The focus of my critique of the Prop 8 campaign has now shifted to the YOP's claim that same-sex marriage will be taught in the classroom. Let me apologize beforehand if the following gets academ-icky, but I find it difficult to avoid when writing theoretical analyses (see, it's starting already). I mentioned earlier that the decision to exclude gays and lesbians from television ads might suggest that a form of self-hatred influenced the strategy adopted by the "No on Prop 8" campaign. Perhaps what some interpret as self-hatred is better understood in terms of false consciousness. In our culture, we are all socialized to believe that marriage is the ideal and the ultimate goal for intimate relationships; we are also socialized to believe that heterosexuality is the norm and, thus, good and that homosexuality is deviant and, thus, bad. As products of the dominant culture and subject to its ideology, gays and lesbians must confront an internalized bias against themselves in order to live emotionally healthy lives; but there has been very little discussion within the gay community about whether marriage is the best fit for gay relationships.
Yes, on the surface, Prop 8 is an issue of equal rights, but it is also about the desire for acceptance, and history shows that winning the former does not immediately bring about the latter. The NOP decision makers willingness to sacrifice gay visibility in order to win the election is troubling in that it suggests an failure to recognize that this is more than a legal issue. Far more troubling, though, is the failure of the campaign to challenge the notion that including same-sex marriage in classroom discussions is somehow harmful to children. Worst of all, however, is responding with ads denying that same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools if Prop 8 is defeated, in effect, tacitly affirming the ideologically inferior status of same-sex marriage and the danger it poses to children. While, individually, gays and lesbians may have recognized that they are not immune from being indoctrinated with the ideological bias against homosexuality, false consciousness still compels them to fight for the right to marry and prevents them from questioning why they fight for the right to conform to conventions such as marriage which manifest an ideology that considers them inferior; which is pretty much why I wasn't a big proponent of the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the first place.
The New Style of Election Attack Ads
I'm John McCain, and I endorsed this message.
Whether from John McCain, or one of hundreds of other politicians, this discarded phrase is certainly not the political food-for-thought most people seek to devour. However, the disclaimer appears before numerous radio and television political ads, and may be gaining in importance. A relatively underdeveloped style of campaign ad is emerging- one where the ad's supporter might be difficult to deduce. As campaign attack ads shift towards identity masking, and away from finger pointing and just plain making stuff up, the public's ability to make an informed decision weakens. Using the theories of Gramsci, Adorno, and Marx, a critical eye can be applied towards the latest style of political treachery.
The facilitation of a hegemonic culture caused by presenting the ideals of the bourgeoisie as "common sense" was identified by Gramsci decades ago. Yet, this still endures in terms of political campaign ads, perhaps stronger than ever. Identification with religious beliefs is a time-tested way of normalizing the public through a combination of fear and common sense. This controversial Elizabeth Dole 2008 North Carolina senate campaign commercial implies that voting for Dole's opponent means condemning oneself to a world of heathenism. Note the end of the commercial, where a photo of Dole's opponent is shown while a women's voice says, "there is no God." That's not the candidate's real voice- this commercial crosses way into the land of fraudulent representation. Using a website called Viddler.com, I further extrapolate on the fraudulent implications here. Please note, though, that the commercial is obviously against Dole's opponent, so the "I'm Elizabeth Dole, and I approved this message,” is not necessary to identify the true backer to the audience.
This wasn’t the case in several areas during the 2006 regional elections. Democrats claimed that Republicans were calling people in the middle of the night, with automated messages featuring the Democratic candidate’s name prominently. It is alleged that the goal was to trick people into believing Democrats were calling before angrily hanging up. By using this suspect tactic, campaign managers were banking on a notion popularized by Adorno. As Adorno put it in "How to Watch Television," "The message is invariably that of identification with the status quo." Specifically, by making their opponents appear outside the realms of normalization, they were hoping to appeal to the public’s sense of what is appropriate.
Implying one’s identity is that of one’s rival candidate is only one of the more ethically questionable ways to use an opponent’s persona against him or her. Another popular style is to use favorable endorsements as ammunition against a rival candidate. In a strong sense, this plays into Adorno’s notion of a “culture industry.” A notable quote from Adorno's "Culture Industry Reconsidered," reads, "the culture industry misuses its concern for the masses in order to duplicate, reinforce and strengthen their mentality, which it presumes is given and unchangeable." Rather than popularize sound bytes which express each candidate’s unique approach to the issues, news outlets frequently air clips of the candidates attacking each other on nothing more than party line differences, which adds nothing new to elections. I side with Adorno in believing that the media outlets must truly hoist the largest share of blame for this, as they choose which sound bytes to air.
As campaign ads continue to become more misleading and fraudulent, an overhaul of the campaign process might even by seen. As such, current election media campaigns face many of the same problems Marx saw with capitalism. Namely, the top-down information system purported by the media and the bourgeoisie could cause irreparable tensions in the entire system, eventually leading to collapse. Certainly, the beginning stages are evident, including voter disillusionment and general distrust of politicians. Also note the "related videos" for this clip. Right now, the system in place to oppose these ads is woefully inadequate. Campaign ads are often banned from the airwaves, but they can find resurrection in youtube.com, as is the case with Elizabeth Dole’s attack ad. In addition, the punishment of fines only serve to increase the distance between the opportunities of the wealthy and those of the common worker.
Taking this to a speculative level, one can humorously speculate on the future of campaign ads. For instance, in this self-made creation, an innocent campaign by a fun-loving children’s entertainer could easily be run into the ground by misrepresentation.
Whether from John McCain, or one of hundreds of other politicians, this discarded phrase is certainly not the political food-for-thought most people seek to devour. However, the disclaimer appears before numerous radio and television political ads, and may be gaining in importance. A relatively underdeveloped style of campaign ad is emerging- one where the ad's supporter might be difficult to deduce. As campaign attack ads shift towards identity masking, and away from finger pointing and just plain making stuff up, the public's ability to make an informed decision weakens. Using the theories of Gramsci, Adorno, and Marx, a critical eye can be applied towards the latest style of political treachery.
The facilitation of a hegemonic culture caused by presenting the ideals of the bourgeoisie as "common sense" was identified by Gramsci decades ago. Yet, this still endures in terms of political campaign ads, perhaps stronger than ever. Identification with religious beliefs is a time-tested way of normalizing the public through a combination of fear and common sense. This controversial Elizabeth Dole 2008 North Carolina senate campaign commercial implies that voting for Dole's opponent means condemning oneself to a world of heathenism. Note the end of the commercial, where a photo of Dole's opponent is shown while a women's voice says, "there is no God." That's not the candidate's real voice- this commercial crosses way into the land of fraudulent representation. Using a website called Viddler.com, I further extrapolate on the fraudulent implications here. Please note, though, that the commercial is obviously against Dole's opponent, so the "I'm Elizabeth Dole, and I approved this message,” is not necessary to identify the true backer to the audience.
This wasn’t the case in several areas during the 2006 regional elections. Democrats claimed that Republicans were calling people in the middle of the night, with automated messages featuring the Democratic candidate’s name prominently. It is alleged that the goal was to trick people into believing Democrats were calling before angrily hanging up. By using this suspect tactic, campaign managers were banking on a notion popularized by Adorno. As Adorno put it in "How to Watch Television," "The message is invariably that of identification with the status quo." Specifically, by making their opponents appear outside the realms of normalization, they were hoping to appeal to the public’s sense of what is appropriate.
Implying one’s identity is that of one’s rival candidate is only one of the more ethically questionable ways to use an opponent’s persona against him or her. Another popular style is to use favorable endorsements as ammunition against a rival candidate. In a strong sense, this plays into Adorno’s notion of a “culture industry.” A notable quote from Adorno's "Culture Industry Reconsidered," reads, "the culture industry misuses its concern for the masses in order to duplicate, reinforce and strengthen their mentality, which it presumes is given and unchangeable." Rather than popularize sound bytes which express each candidate’s unique approach to the issues, news outlets frequently air clips of the candidates attacking each other on nothing more than party line differences, which adds nothing new to elections. I side with Adorno in believing that the media outlets must truly hoist the largest share of blame for this, as they choose which sound bytes to air.
As campaign ads continue to become more misleading and fraudulent, an overhaul of the campaign process might even by seen. As such, current election media campaigns face many of the same problems Marx saw with capitalism. Namely, the top-down information system purported by the media and the bourgeoisie could cause irreparable tensions in the entire system, eventually leading to collapse. Certainly, the beginning stages are evident, including voter disillusionment and general distrust of politicians. Also note the "related videos" for this clip. Right now, the system in place to oppose these ads is woefully inadequate. Campaign ads are often banned from the airwaves, but they can find resurrection in youtube.com, as is the case with Elizabeth Dole’s attack ad. In addition, the punishment of fines only serve to increase the distance between the opportunities of the wealthy and those of the common worker.
Taking this to a speculative level, one can humorously speculate on the future of campaign ads. For instance, in this self-made creation, an innocent campaign by a fun-loving children’s entertainer could easily be run into the ground by misrepresentation.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Socialism: The Final Frontier of Smears
Smears.
Let's unpack that. What qualifies as a smear?
It's been oh about ten years since I've opened a written assignment with a dictionary definition (perhaps the ultimate five-paragraph-essay cliche), but over the course of this unbelievably gripping and tumultuous campaign, the use of semantics, language, and semiotics has glaringly underpinned the ideological landscape, exerting an unquantifiable influence on voter preferences and allegiance. Words, phrases, appellations--all have experienced a usurpation of their signified-s. This linguistic usurpation process is, of course, a tale as old as language itself, but all the more pressing considering the truly urgent nature of this election season. This way of looking at things is always relevant; everything begins and ends with language. So without lapsing into a game of Saussurian Mad-Libs, let me present the dictionary definition of smear:
3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively (a smear campaign)(a smear job)
Being the armchair language cop that I strive to be, I was frustrated throughout the presidential campaign by the cavalier linguistic use of "negative campaigning" and "smears" and the resulting conflation of the two. T0 be fair--and in spite of Obama's pledge to avoid "negative campaigning"--campaigning necessitates negativity. But at what point does the requisite "negativity" devolve into "smear tactics"--i.e., pure lies?
The operative word is unsubstantiated.
Calling John McCain old may have been negative, but it wasn't a smear. Noting Obama's solidly liberal voting record may have been negative in some circles, but it wasn't a smear. Both are true.
Obama was the first presidential candidate to establish an organized response effort to smears, enabled of course by the Web and Obama's aggressive presence here. Some of the smears are concrete--if inexplicable--and can be traced to concrete, identifiable sources: an email, a calculated "offhand" remark by a seemingly distant surrogate. Smears seek to tap into conscious and unconscious fears that voters harbor regarding the securities that our government pledges to sustain. One of the latest, and last, smears lodged against Obama is that he is...dun dun dun...a SOCIALIST:
Socialism and its even worse-reputed sibling, Communism, are two of the dirtiest "-ists" in the American political vocabulary, narrowly behind "terrorist" as the most hysteria-provoking threats, either existential or actual, to our freedoms (to borrow dear old Retarded Cowboy's parlance).
Obama was smeared as both during this campaign, but in the 11th hour (and relatively effectively, if the last-minute tightening of polls count for anything) he was accused in all seriousness of experimenting with "the s-word", first by Samuel Wertzbacher the Unlicensed Contractor and Comically Transparent Manufactured McCain Pawn a.k.a Joe the Plumber (FF to about :40 for the s-word):
and then in turn by John the Senator's running mate Sarah the Dim-Witted Fundamentalist Demagogue:
and finally by the Candidate himself (FF to about 0:35):
and in turn by a cacophony of McCain and/or Fox spokesbots who somehow managed to equate a progressive tax policy--a run-of-the-mill Democratic platform that McCain's hero Teddy Roosevelt also advocated--with socialism.
The irony, however unsurprising, is that few of the pundits and pawns have much concept of what socialism actually means. Rather, "socialism", according to their definition, is a broad-to-the-point-of-meaningless condition characterized by taxation, "big government" and therefore some vague imposition of uniformity on the masses and stripping of personal liberty, identity and self-expression. Socialism is the very antithesis of what we purport to value most in America--personal freedom. Still, over the past eight years we have allowed unprecedented, unchecked powers of domestic surveillance and hyper-exceptionalist military aggression as a response to the other Bogeyman: Islamic extremism.
We detest and fear the communist Cuban government such that it's actually illegal for U.S. citizens to travel there. (No other country shares this distinction.)
Clearly, America has an extremely complex and tormented relationship with the waves of Marxist influence that we've seen over the years--whether real or paranoid fantasy.
But that was after World War II. Consider this amazing 1932 Betty Boop cartoon. The notion of a classless utopia has surfaced in often odd and surprising ways (this is Assignment #3):
And here's my Assignment 4, A Slacker's Guide to Socialism in American Political Discourse, also embedded below.
Let's unpack that. What qualifies as a smear?
It's been oh about ten years since I've opened a written assignment with a dictionary definition (perhaps the ultimate five-paragraph-essay cliche), but over the course of this unbelievably gripping and tumultuous campaign, the use of semantics, language, and semiotics has glaringly underpinned the ideological landscape, exerting an unquantifiable influence on voter preferences and allegiance. Words, phrases, appellations--all have experienced a usurpation of their signified-s. This linguistic usurpation process is, of course, a tale as old as language itself, but all the more pressing considering the truly urgent nature of this election season. This way of looking at things is always relevant; everything begins and ends with language. So without lapsing into a game of Saussurian Mad-Libs, let me present the dictionary definition of smear:
3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively (a smear campaign)(a smear job)
Being the armchair language cop that I strive to be, I was frustrated throughout the presidential campaign by the cavalier linguistic use of "negative campaigning" and "smears" and the resulting conflation of the two. T0 be fair--and in spite of Obama's pledge to avoid "negative campaigning"--campaigning necessitates negativity. But at what point does the requisite "negativity" devolve into "smear tactics"--i.e., pure lies?
The operative word is unsubstantiated.
Calling John McCain old may have been negative, but it wasn't a smear. Noting Obama's solidly liberal voting record may have been negative in some circles, but it wasn't a smear. Both are true.
Obama was the first presidential candidate to establish an organized response effort to smears, enabled of course by the Web and Obama's aggressive presence here. Some of the smears are concrete--if inexplicable--and can be traced to concrete, identifiable sources: an email, a calculated "offhand" remark by a seemingly distant surrogate. Smears seek to tap into conscious and unconscious fears that voters harbor regarding the securities that our government pledges to sustain. One of the latest, and last, smears lodged against Obama is that he is...dun dun dun...a SOCIALIST:
Socialism and its even worse-reputed sibling, Communism, are two of the dirtiest "-ists" in the American political vocabulary, narrowly behind "terrorist" as the most hysteria-provoking threats, either existential or actual, to our freedoms (to borrow dear old Retarded Cowboy's parlance).
Obama was smeared as both during this campaign, but in the 11th hour (and relatively effectively, if the last-minute tightening of polls count for anything) he was accused in all seriousness of experimenting with "the s-word", first by Samuel Wertzbacher the Unlicensed Contractor and Comically Transparent Manufactured McCain Pawn a.k.a Joe the Plumber (FF to about :40 for the s-word):
and then in turn by John the Senator's running mate Sarah the Dim-Witted Fundamentalist Demagogue:
and finally by the Candidate himself (FF to about 0:35):
and in turn by a cacophony of McCain and/or Fox spokesbots who somehow managed to equate a progressive tax policy--a run-of-the-mill Democratic platform that McCain's hero Teddy Roosevelt also advocated--with socialism.
The irony, however unsurprising, is that few of the pundits and pawns have much concept of what socialism actually means. Rather, "socialism", according to their definition, is a broad-to-the-point-of-meaningless condition characterized by taxation, "big government" and therefore some vague imposition of uniformity on the masses and stripping of personal liberty, identity and self-expression. Socialism is the very antithesis of what we purport to value most in America--personal freedom. Still, over the past eight years we have allowed unprecedented, unchecked powers of domestic surveillance and hyper-exceptionalist military aggression as a response to the other Bogeyman: Islamic extremism.
We detest and fear the communist Cuban government such that it's actually illegal for U.S. citizens to travel there. (No other country shares this distinction.)
Clearly, America has an extremely complex and tormented relationship with the waves of Marxist influence that we've seen over the years--whether real or paranoid fantasy.
But that was after World War II. Consider this amazing 1932 Betty Boop cartoon. The notion of a classless utopia has surfaced in often odd and surprising ways (this is Assignment #3):
And here's my Assignment 4, A Slacker's Guide to Socialism in American Political Discourse, also embedded below.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Manipulation, Election and a Video(tape) Commercial
Assignment# 2 (First of the trilogy) - updated -
The United States is not the only country that suffers from an economic recession, but also countries all over the world suffer from the breakdown of the global economy. The worst moment of the recession started with the failure of credit system (Credit-Crunch) and it first occurred in the United States. Obama argues that George W. Bush has failed to create a successful and steady economy since Bush’s first election in 2000, which led to an economic recession. Although this devastating economic situation has not destroyed or will not destroy capitalism, it has started to change the way it works. Eventually, some of the purely capitalist policies will have more socialist content. For example, many countries have already intervened in economic markets and have sponsored major banks’ debts worth billions of American dollars. On the other hand, economy is not the only problem in the United States. President Bush could not handle the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks successfully. Now, the United States is seen as a reason for instability and an illegal war maker in the international arena. I believe the 2008 election has the potential for Americans to change their country's image in the international arena and to create a stronger economy. For the upcoming election, Barack Obama looks like a charismatic and an intellectual leader who can heal the wounds of his country’s problematic economy and bully image. It was a rocky road for him to become the democratic candidate. Furthermore, he has had to fight against McCain’s unethical campaign. In a few days, we will see if America has given him the right to govern them.
Recent polls show us that most voters care more about the economy than terrorism or security issues. However, McCain’s election campaign heavily depends on promoting the idea that Obama cannot find a successful way to deal with security issues. Instead of focusing on the economy for his election campaign, he focuses on his competitor’s inability to deal with security issues. Keep in mind; Gramsci argues that people are in favor of reasons for their own good like economy today. People (voters) want a ruling class that can create wealth for the citizens. Obama understands that trend and focuses on the economy as the first priority. Additionally, national security is a very important subject in his political agenda. Obama usually combine the economical issues with security issues in his speeches, because he he thinks that national security spending is affecting the economy in a very bad way. Gitlin argues that consumers buy a product for its promoted qualities, because they think that they acquire those qualities. If we see Obama as a product to be sold to consumers (voters), then his message (political decisions related to security, economy, etc...) would be the qualities. Voters may want to buy (vote for him) Obama in order to acquire his qualities (politics).
In order to keep the status quo of electing a republican for the white house, McCain aired commercials that point out how Obama is unable to govern a country. Some media companies even tried to show Obama as a candidate, who is weak to fight against terrorism because of being a Muslim. Although he is not a Muslim, as he stated several times, relating a religion to terrorism was also a disgraceful approach. Gramsci believes that media are in favor of a status quo. Then, should we expect that media in the United States want another republican in office again? Even though there are media firms hating Obama as I mentioned before, I believe the answer to that question is no! Media companies are always trying to make money and unfortunately in last 8 years the economy did not go well. Today, media companies expect a change for the economy, which is Obama’s focus in his campaign. The change can bring the old status quo of Clinton’s era, which led media companies to generate great amounts of profits.
Finally, in every election period most candidates try to manipulate voters through commercials. They do it, and they will continue doing that. Politicians like Obama should not get frustrated with that kind of campaigns and they should continue on their way in order to create a better standard of living for their citizens.
Here is the video for assignment#3 (CLICK) (Second part of the trilogy)
Here is the video for assignment #4 (Last part of the trilogy):
- Please be patient, it will load the video soon -
In case it does not work on the blog, watch it from here.
The United States is not the only country that suffers from an economic recession, but also countries all over the world suffer from the breakdown of the global economy. The worst moment of the recession started with the failure of credit system (Credit-Crunch) and it first occurred in the United States. Obama argues that George W. Bush has failed to create a successful and steady economy since Bush’s first election in 2000, which led to an economic recession. Although this devastating economic situation has not destroyed or will not destroy capitalism, it has started to change the way it works. Eventually, some of the purely capitalist policies will have more socialist content. For example, many countries have already intervened in economic markets and have sponsored major banks’ debts worth billions of American dollars. On the other hand, economy is not the only problem in the United States. President Bush could not handle the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks successfully. Now, the United States is seen as a reason for instability and an illegal war maker in the international arena. I believe the 2008 election has the potential for Americans to change their country's image in the international arena and to create a stronger economy. For the upcoming election, Barack Obama looks like a charismatic and an intellectual leader who can heal the wounds of his country’s problematic economy and bully image. It was a rocky road for him to become the democratic candidate. Furthermore, he has had to fight against McCain’s unethical campaign. In a few days, we will see if America has given him the right to govern them.
Recent polls show us that most voters care more about the economy than terrorism or security issues. However, McCain’s election campaign heavily depends on promoting the idea that Obama cannot find a successful way to deal with security issues. Instead of focusing on the economy for his election campaign, he focuses on his competitor’s inability to deal with security issues. Keep in mind; Gramsci argues that people are in favor of reasons for their own good like economy today. People (voters) want a ruling class that can create wealth for the citizens. Obama understands that trend and focuses on the economy as the first priority. Additionally, national security is a very important subject in his political agenda. Obama usually combine the economical issues with security issues in his speeches, because he he thinks that national security spending is affecting the economy in a very bad way. Gitlin argues that consumers buy a product for its promoted qualities, because they think that they acquire those qualities. If we see Obama as a product to be sold to consumers (voters), then his message (political decisions related to security, economy, etc...) would be the qualities. Voters may want to buy (vote for him) Obama in order to acquire his qualities (politics).
In order to keep the status quo of electing a republican for the white house, McCain aired commercials that point out how Obama is unable to govern a country. Some media companies even tried to show Obama as a candidate, who is weak to fight against terrorism because of being a Muslim. Although he is not a Muslim, as he stated several times, relating a religion to terrorism was also a disgraceful approach. Gramsci believes that media are in favor of a status quo. Then, should we expect that media in the United States want another republican in office again? Even though there are media firms hating Obama as I mentioned before, I believe the answer to that question is no! Media companies are always trying to make money and unfortunately in last 8 years the economy did not go well. Today, media companies expect a change for the economy, which is Obama’s focus in his campaign. The change can bring the old status quo of Clinton’s era, which led media companies to generate great amounts of profits.
Finally, in every election period most candidates try to manipulate voters through commercials. They do it, and they will continue doing that. Politicians like Obama should not get frustrated with that kind of campaigns and they should continue on their way in order to create a better standard of living for their citizens.
Here is the video for assignment#3 (CLICK) (Second part of the trilogy)
Here is the video for assignment #4 (Last part of the trilogy):
- Please be patient, it will load the video soon -
In case it does not work on the blog, watch it from here.
Why Obama for Asian Americans?
Culture is the crucial reason. In former elections, many voters solely supported candidates based on policy stance, but now, many see Obama as a beginning to a new era of diversity in America. They identify themselves with his policies and his culture. This year, Obama may collect 52% of Asian-American votes. (Click here) When confronted with questions about their devotion to Obama, supporters seem excited about his opportunity to lead change. As the media continues to closely follow the election, many Asian-Americans are confident in an Obama victory. They, like other Americans, are concerned about the candidates’ policies on various economic, social and health-care issues, but many express their feeling as “just seeing his name on the candidates list is a change.” For many Asian-Americans, seeing hope for Obama in this election helps them see hope for their own lives, with Obama representing a huge step for diversity. Many Asian-Americans who were hesitant to vote in prior elections, frustrated with the lack of choice, now vote for a single candidate, including his background and life experience. Some supporters even identify with Obama's upbringing in an Asian country. (See video here)
Gramsci pointed out in his article saying that culture is Culture is an inevitable property that everyone has. A person’s culture is encoded in the way one speaks and acts; culture nurtures opinions and shapes the way one perceives the world. These voters see Obama as themselves, and the crucial factor that Obama brings is his culture. Though Obama is not Asian, he represents a mainstream America where people have different cultural identities and backgrounds. Actress Kelly Hu, speaking for AsianAmericansForObama.com, finds that Obama is the only candidate with whom she has a personal connection. Asian-Americans feel that Obama's experience living in Asia gives him a unique understanding of Asian culture.(Watch video here)
Because of cultural differences, McCain cannot claim a good standing with Asian-American voters, and is not widely supported among the minority. However, with a large number of Asian-Americans vote for Obama, there are voices from the opposite side. There are still people who are afraid of “change”, questioning the direction of this change and whether this is a better option for America, and remain standing with the Republican candidate. Early in the Democratic primary race, Obama and Clinton's approval ratings were split. A Japanese-American revealed in an interview that many Japanese-Americans feel uncomfortable with change, and leaned more with Clinton due to familiarity. Within their culture “change” is akin to breaking the rules, and is not generally celebrated. (Click here)
When we delve closer into the importance of culture, we see that a vote for Hilary Clinton is not only about familiarity, but that it also encompasses their own positive life experiences during the Clinton Administration. When looking at the support for Obama, we see that his culture satisfies an identity that other candidates do not. Voters will choose who they believe best represents them. They will choose from who they are.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
An appeal to stop using children in political campaigns
This is assignment # 4 (number 3 of the trilogy):
Here is the link online too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXP6qsk40ms
Here is the link online too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXP6qsk40ms
Using Children in Political Media
Here is the assignment #3 (number 2 of the trilogy) where we must "talk back" to an existing piece of political media.
Now that we have the access to the tools, what are we going to do with them?
link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsjjYUcSvGI
T.
Now that we have the access to the tools, what are we going to do with them?
link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsjjYUcSvGI
T.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
