BECA 770 Class Blog

Two-way Communication and Influence

2008-11-18T05:42:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-04T09:20:00.000-08:00

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.

Like it or not

The New Style of Election Attack Ads

2008-11-04T07:10:00.000-08:00

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.

Socialism: The Final Frontier of Smears

2008-11-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

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.

Manipulation, Election and a Video(tape) Commercial

2008-11-02T21:05:00.000-08:00

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.

Why Obama for Asian Americans?

2008-11-02T18:44:00.000-08:00

The 2008 presidential campaign is special. It will either bring Americans the first colored president or the first female vice president. More and more minorities are standing up this year to take their vote. Asian-Americans only make up 5% of the United States’ population and have a vastly different cultural background than other minorities. Asian-Americans are participating in greater numbers in the 2008 Presidential Election, hoping to make a difference. (See video here) The extremely high support among Asian Americans for Barack Obama leads one to ask: Why are Asian-Americans choosing Obama?

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.

An appeal to stop using children in political campaigns

2008-11-01T22:42:00.000-07:00

This is assignment # 4 (number 3 of the trilogy):

Here is the link online too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXP6qsk40ms

Using Children in Political Media

2008-11-01T17:39:00.000-07:00

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.

A Cycle of Abuse: Children in Politics

2008-10-30T11:58:00.000-07:00

(For the purpose of satisfying this assignment) I will do something that I hate doing. I will take part in the perpetuation of an exercise that I am going to criticize negatively. It reminds me of previous societal arguments like, “how can someone dislike pornography when one hasn’t seen it”? or “how can one be anti-TV if one doesn’t know what is on it?” To make my point I must show examples of what offends me.

When elephants fight the grass gets trampled. This is happening when the innocent members of our society are used as pawns in our election brawls. If the members of society were aware of such atrocities I believe they would stop but they continue the cycle subconsciously or unconsciously (reference to Marx and Gramsci).

Look at this:

Why put images of children and children’s voices on the media in this fashion? Could adults not ask? Of course they could. But someone somewhere thought that having children ask would be cute or attractive. It is an abuse of our children to have them appear to say words which are really not their own. This is the powerful adults of society using the psychological implications of the innocent child for political gain. And this brings the child into the dominant hegemony before being aware enough to think for him or herself (reference Gramsci).

Look at this:

This seemingly benign use of children is an indoctrination tool being used on the children and then being presented to the public as a spectacle.

Someone in the public then chose to subvert the message through juxtaposing symbols resulting in a collison montage:

We get the point. Don’t we? This media producer sees the correlation between using our children to propose Obama’s presidency and using them to propose Fascism. But who is abused and who is the abuser? Is this how we hoped the shifting of the power of media to the masses would be used? (reference Adorno) Perhaps some would see fun in this juxtaposition. I see only abuse of the meek in both productions. Through my intuition I feel sick about this use of children in this new “free access” media. (reference Gitlin) When the powerless are used by the powerful there is something off whether it is on Youtube or Network TV.

I see the, sometimes ignorant, use of the media by adults to complicate and intellectualize that which should be left to the beauty of nature. Let the kids alone. Let them enjoy their undetermined youth. Should we parade them?

No, we should not parade children in political campaigns. Yes, these depict beautiful moments. Beautiful private moments forever stained by discussions of adult motives:

Have these professionals viewed this footage? Could they continue if they had? How can they call themselves serious professionals? Perhaps I ask for too much. Perhaps they are producing the media which they believe to be desirable? And who are they? Adults. (In the conventional sense of the word)

At least Michelle Obama thinks she should protect her children’s privacy. This is a noble cause but not the whole truth. While talking about protecting their privacy, we see the children in larger than life images behind the hosts of The View:

Children are not intellectual adults. They may have the capacity to ask many pertinent questions (even if done innocently). This use of children is an appeal to the psychological aspect of our fondness for children. Political candidates and commentators use children for these purposes, and it seems that they don’t really care if it has a negative impact on the children’s lives. Why not leave them alone until they can decide for themselves?

In closing I will post another video. Images of young children are paired with a child’s voice-over. Imagine as you listen and view if the images were the same and either John Mc Cain’s or Barack Obama’s voice was the voice-over.

Well, how did you do imagining our (political) adults as the voice instead of the child? Would it have the same impact? What if the video did not invade the privacy of the children in the footage and just showed Obama or McCain explaining their opinion? A novel idea perhaps? Have the candidates speak straight.

I suggest we get the children out of political fighting. Maybe the candidates will have to come up with more than a 10 second sound-bite.

Too much grass is trampled while elephants fight.
Too many children are having “their” politics spoon fed to them before they can chew hard and spit out the stale bits.

It's Time For Some Campaigning!

2008-10-27T23:21:00.000-07:00

Every four years, citizens of the United States get bombarded with advertisements, campaign stops, front-page articles, debates on television, etc. All of these 'beneficial' resources are ways to provide the voter with the knowledge that they need to make a valid decision for a candidate. Based on the information they receive, combined with their own personal beliefs, a voter should have all that they need to vote for the candidate they believe will be best for the country. One could argue that there are more media outlets available that criticize, or poke fun, at the upcoming election, as opposed to providing the voter with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The press acts as an outlet for this information. However, there are plenty of other 'viral' outlets that provide information as well.

I believe that for this election, the campaigns have been plagued with hegemonic ideals. The press is the 'delivery boy' for these ruling elites. We have seen countless stories--I believe more in this election than any other--about prominent politicians, officials, and even celebrities who support a certain candidate. We also see that trusted networks can promote a bias in the election. Raymond Williams' definition of hegemony proposes ideas further than the ideology of manipulation by ruling elites. He mentions that it "is a whole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living: our senses and assignments of energy, our shaping perceptions of ourselves and our world" (Goldman, p. 364).

The way that new media outlets--blogs, vlogs, and websites where you can upload videos such as YouTube--are being used in this election falls right in line with Goldman's idea of managed critique. To viewers, these videos may be seen as pushing back against ruling elites. Goldman would argue differently. These ruling elites have no problem with these outlets being available because any form of "doubt concerning the status quo is employed to steer the viewing audience back towards the reaffirmation of established forms of conventional morality" (Goldman, p.368). Allowing these outlets to continue pushing anti-McCain, or anti-Obama videos, may in fact do something good for society: produce more voters. If this is a possible outcome, then the possibility that managed critique is working is true. Dry, boring advertisements may not be the answer anymore. Perhaps cheery ads provide more for voters. Either way, when these videos are uploaded and viewed, it may appear like a challenge to the status quo, but it really is supporting ideas of elites through this idea of managed critique. Viewers think they are informed, and will head to the polls.

More voters may head to the polls on November 4, but are the voters really getting informed about their candidates and what these candidates plan to do if they are elected? It appears that more of the ads we have seen lately have been attacks on the other candidate. This is an interesting way to inform the voters. It provides no other message than the fact that the candidate who sponsors the message will not be like their opposition if elected. Ruling elites see this as a message nonetheless.

Whatever form of advertising is used to support, attack, or denounce a certain candidate, I've concluded that the media texts I've discussed are examples of managed critique and that they reinforce the status quo. Perhaps the best thing to do to facilitate change would be to not vote for these ruling elites at all.

Assignment #3: Talking back to a piece of media.

Assignment #4: My own creative piece.

Wax on, wax off. Wane on, wane off.

2008-10-27T23:13:00.001-07:00

It's time-to-elect-a-president season again. At this happy hour, my mind ponders on Theodor Adorno's “culture industry” idea. Right now, this industry, which exists for consumption by the masses, at the height of its influence. As seekers of power, politicians know the potency of radio and television. Through its inherent ordering of reality, “[t]he culture industry turns into public relations, the manufacturing of 'goodwill' per se... It proclaims: you shall conform, without instruction as to what; conform to that which exists anyway, and to that which everyone thinks anyway as a reflex of its power and omnipresence.” (Adorno, T. "The Culture Industry Reconsidered", from "The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture"
London: Routledge, 1991)

Adorno believed that everything carried by the culture industry becomes a commodity. When politicians use the media, they are selling themselves and must contort themselves into a new shape to fit the medium. In 2008, Sarah Palin has taken this to a new level, changing from appearance to appearance, playing the character demanded of her on whatever occasion. (It would be no surprise to learn that McCain's campaign team chose Palin for those very chameleon-like abilities.)

See for yourself Palin's waxing and waning across appearences. Who was Palin trying to be on...?

+ September 3^rd: At the Republican National Convention, Palin stands before a large live crowd as a confident, strong leader, aligning herself with an independent maverick.

Palin Type: The Leader

+ September 23^rd: The nation winces during Palin's interview with CBS's Katie Couric when the VP nominee cannot name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade and says that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. Why does Palin look so dumb? Perhaps she's pandering to the Joe Sixpacks out there.

Palin Type: The Lowballer

+ October 3^rd: After Couric, the nation doubts Palin's chances against Joe Biden in the VP debate, meaning that even a modest performance will mean a win of sorts for Palin (in politics, this is called “lowballing”: setting low expectations). At the debate, Palin mixes her “gosh, darn it” persona, with well-timed confident speech.

Palin Type: The Hocky Mom

+ October 18^th: After several wildly popular Palin impersonations by comedian Tina Fey, the real thing appears alongside her doppleganger on Saturday Night Live with an unsurprising non-comedian-grade performance. Palin confidently faces her liberal detractors, strong and smug to her supporters.

Palin Type: The Smug One

+ October 26^th: During a speech, Palin responds to the fuss over alleged purchases of wardrobe items amounting to $150,000 using taxpayers' money. Here, the VP nominee depicts herself as the local girl who's into clothes and rings from the same stores that you and me frequent (note: I don't buy clothes or rings).

Palin Type: The Shopper-Next-Door

Adorno wrote that what the culture industry paints as new is really a repackaging of the old. By this approach, Palin's hockey mom persona might be new to the political stage, but her ultimate goal is old: like me, relate to me, elect me.

------------------------------------------

See here for Assignment 3.

See here for Assignment 4.

“Is That A Pistol In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Glad To See Me?”* Gunslinger or American Idol—Caribou Barbie is Hot!

2008-10-27T11:15:00.000-07:00

At the drop of a hat, no matter what the target, they both shoot: wolves, moose, friend and foe. Voilà, the VP hero à la Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin.

Who cares who the VP is anyway, as long as we get to keep our guns? From the point of view of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution—the right to bear arms—might even trump freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the press.

In “We Build America,” Gitlin identifies that the automobile is one of the most potent devices that advertisers use to exploit the American romance with power objects—metaphors for personal freedom, rugged individualism, and desirable social status. We create these icons all the time, even in politics, where they quickly become surrogates for critical thinking. As long as we wrap the particular political figure or organization in the American flag and other symbols of American virtue, we don’t have to think about what the politicians really represent—their political ideology, policies and agenda as well as their social values. An equally commanding power object is the gun, embodied in another staple American icon, the lone gunman who incarnates in many forms: the heroic hunter-explorer, the moralistic self-righteous cop, the Samurai gun slinger, and the lonesome cowboy or cowgirl. Politicians and political candidates are routinely packaged with stock symbols that connote a figure of strong moral character, a stalwart protector and defender, a self-sufficient and unshakable leader, and above all, a courageous patriot. “On the surface… commercials … manipulate the romance of freedom in order to sell automobiles” (Gitlin, 1986). The metaphor of the gun has been deeply embedded within the American psyche since the early years of our Republic and our aggressive Westward expansion.
Currently, both the Republican and Democratic candidates have adopted, as part of their public aura, particular class values that cut to the proletarian facet of the American persona. Every Joe six-pack and hockey mom can identify with these archetypes; and, in their present mode, they are all products of what Adorno recognized as the culture industry. But wait a minute, there might be a new sheriff in town!

Whether it’s the President or Vice-President, this militaristic vigilante type attitude affects the presidency and the country as a whole. Very few American Presidents have been successful who’ve held an anti-war, anti-violence position. Jimmy Carter ‘s lack of aggressiveness as “commander in chief” of the military was viewed by many as wimpy. Whether Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t seem to matter—if you are not ready to take up the gun, you are considered weak and un-American.

Palin was a nobody that no one remembered until she was recruited and coached by a Republican organization called GOPAC (“Preparing a New Generation of Republicans to Lead America”) for a political career in the same way that young, unknown wannabe entertainers are shaped and displayed on American Idol, creating the next blockbuster entertainment sensation—and you even get to vote! It’s an uncanny how similar American Idol is to the phenomenon of grooming politicians for elected office. First, a group of “experts” with a semblance of authority selects individuals they think are good material. Those who pass the audition are then appropriately tutored and presented to the public in well-scripted events, much like the coming out parties for debutantes. Finally, we the people get to cast our vote yea or nay. It’s all part of the art and science of marketing in which politicians are regarded in the same light as every other commercial product. Spending $150,000 on Governor Palin’s wardrobe and makeup is nothing new. Every politician with ambitions beyond municipal office must consent to be airbrushed by PR specialists in order to become consumer friendly—not only a clean and shiny package at the political check out counter, but a personage palatable to the culture makers: if the culture makers are displeased, the candidates—their public personas—will be shredded and sent back to the media makeover department.
Yes, icons of all stripes are now media products just like Madonna or Hannah Montana, with the potential for selling a variety of associated accessories conveniently included in the ideology box: guns, beer, identity, power. In the context of political marketing, it is definitely more important to spend $22,000 on Sarah’s hair and makeup, fashioning a faux feminist image, than educating her about foreign policy, the constitution, the law, social and domestic policy, history and how the federal government actually works.
Gitlin was speaking about car commercials, but the same methodology and technology are used to advertise politics and politicians. You begin with someone who is a “blank”, an unknown quantity, and turn them into an American idol, an archetype that embodies personal freedom, personal power, virtue and apple pie with all the trimmings. And one of the most enduringly popular archetypes is the gun slinging Dirty Harry

or Annie Oakley. Gramsci would probably ask us to decipher the meta-message: as long as you can keep your gun, you don’t need to worry about educating your children, health care, your job, teenage pregnancy or the poor. A comfortable, false sense of security quells your longing to rise up, protest and question the powers that be. What is being reinforced and rewarded is the attitude that it’s every man for himself: we don’t need solidarity if we can just look after ourselves.
As long as you feel a sense of personal power because you can own a lethal weapon, you don’t have to align yourself with others to improve your community or change the government. This is one of the traditional ways that the power elites have learned to divert the attention of the masses from thinking, speaking, discussing and acting together. Gramsci might acknowledge that the right to bear arms is indeed empowering, but only slightly. Even though every citizen has this right, it is a freedom that is exaggerated and romanticized to the point that it is felt to be the cornerstone of the foundation of our American democracy—as if all of our rights and freedoms are balanced on this singular one and, if we loose it, we will be at the mercy of the government and criminals. But in reality, what does this right confer upon us other than the power to kill an intruder, our neighbor, our boss or massacre our fellow workers, students and teachers.
The symbolic resonance of the gun ripples through our culture at every level and our political idols and leaders embrace it. A modern exemplar was Ronald Reagan, the iconic, modern, cowboy-actor President. With First Lady Nancy Reagan, they were the veritable Roy Rogers

and Dale Evans of the American Presidency. Now we have John McCain = soldier, a professional gun slinger in defense of flag and country; Sarah Palin = Amazon huntress, a Caribou Barbie ready to act and protect; and Dick Cheney = our supreme, predatory hawk, a true believer in the power of the big gun, the primacy of overwhelming military strength, the Bush administration’s primary strategy for driving a foreign policy whose goal is to maintain our global hegemony by any means necessary. Dick Cheney and his possible understudy, Sarah Palin, represent America’s number one sheriff.

Come to think of it, who should be the one with a finger on the button? Well, gosh, it ought to be someone who knows how to shoot and how to get the job done!

In his final days as President, Eisenhower gave a clear admonition that has gone unheeded—to reign in the military industrial complex. Socialists—not the Russian ones—have always warned against the consolidation of power between government, business and the military, and characterize it as the hallmark of totalitarianism.

Is it possible that we give way to a newfound hope on November 4th?

Got Gun ...Power or Crumb? (3rd assignment)
*(Mae West, “She Done Him Wrong” 1933)
Gitlin, T. (1986). We build Excitement: Car commercials and Miami Vice. Watching television: A Pantheon guide to popular culture. Pantheon Books
4th Assignment: The Pen is Mightier than the Gun

Politicking Celebs

2008-10-26T16:06:00.000-07:00

Celebrity, the word has caused quite a stir in the presidential race.

This McCain ad accusingly labels Obama a celebrity, as if fame is generally considered unfavorable in the US, as if celebrity were a pejorative term, as if McCain himself weren't recognizable around the globe. What the McCain PR team seems to have forgotten is that millions of Americans buy and buy into all the glamour, fashion, scandal and every minute detail of celebrities' lives. We encounter images and stories about the rich and famous everywhere: in the tabloids at supermarket checkout lines, on TV shows, including the evening news, and on websites and blogs devoted to spreading celeb gossip.

Celebrity is the driving force behind much of American mass culture, providing people in our society with both a commodity to desire and acquire, as well as an ideology to espouse. In this way, celebrities assume the characteristics and functions of the dominant class, which in turn subsumes the interests of the people who consume mass culture, thereby maintaining the power dynamic of the rich and elite over everyone else. Celebrities have high cultural status and hold the power to influence our choices; whether it's the shoes we wear or the beverages we drink, celebrities' opinions, image and lifestyles affect how and what we think. It should follow then, that celebrities can influence who we choose to vote for.

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

By the looks of this video, celebrities believe-- or at the very least hope-- that they have the ability to sway voters' decisions. Here, Ron Howard, Andy Griffith and Henry Winkler complement their celebrity with humor and nostalgia to appeal to viewers. In Marxist terms, what the pathos of this video may accomplish is false consciousness. By yoking entertainment with politics, this video subtly compels viewers to think favorably about the message and about the status of celebrities. Whether the viewer agrees with Howard & co. is beside the point; when someone watches the video, presumably enjoying the process, that person absorbs not only the overt message (vote Obama in this case), but also the idea that celebrities' opinions matter more than anyone else's and that celebrities are some of the most important people in the world-- they are ruling class. By asserting themselves as ideologically dominant in the US, celebrities continually establish their preponderant position in American society, which serves as a constant reminder that "we the people" are subordinate.

Two things are unclear with regard to the issue of celebrities dealing in politics: 1) whether people are genuinely persuaded to vote with the celebs, and 2) why the McCain campaign sought to equate Obama with celebrity in a negative fashion. Of the former, I cannot offer any conclusion. What I can see though is that celebrities don't hesitate to say whatever they're thinking regarding politics or "politicians", especially when they can share those thoughts with the whole nation.

Matt Damon wasn't the only celebrity to speak out against the high profile vice presidential candidate. Pam Anderson also expressed herself and though she was none too eloquent, she didn't mince words either.

This type of persona is probably closer to what the McCain campaign had in mind when it attempted to malign Obama with the celebrity epithet: someone who is famous for partying and being at the center of scandal, someone whose reputation is based on physical appearance, someone who deviates from down-home family values. The McCain ad uses the images of Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton to establish this conception of celebrity. What McCain's campaign did not anticipate was a direct response from the infamous heiress herself.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

While this video portrays Hilton as the vacuous jet-setter she is reputed to be, it also convincingly shows her to possess intellect and a form of social consciousness. That she speaks intelligently on serious political issues undermines the apparent claim of the McCain ad that celebrities are ignorant of or indifferent to the quotidian struggles of middle class Americans. This video response to the McCain ad became so popular that it merited a sequel, featuring more celebrities.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

The argument from the McCain camp that Obama is unfit to be president because he is a celebrity is not only petty but also obtuse in that it fails to recognize the power and popularity of celebrities. Celebrities are in fact model capitalists:
- they control the means to produce and distribute their message/cultural product
- they have the platform to reach the populace
- they posses the allure necessary to grab the attention of society
- they set the standards for acceptable behavior, which people emulate
- they can create false consciousness by coercing people to enjoy doing and thinking things that are against their interests by means of entertainment
- ultimately, they have the power to maintain the status quo by situating themselves in a class above all the non-rich and non-famous citizens of the USA

So then, if Obama is a celebrity, then he is the perfect person to salvage American capitalism. Isn't that exactly what McCain wants?

Here's another look at the celeb ad, along with my spin on it.

Or check out my original piece on celebrity phenomena.

I Don't Have a Dollar to My Name, but Can I Get Some CHANGE?

2008-10-25T15:44:00.000-07:00

Episode One:

"The Genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the West, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream... For that is our unyielding faith-- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."

-Barack Obama "Our Past, Future & Vision for America" February 10, 2007 Presidential Announcement

FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS- Convincing the masses to believe that they need something that is against their self interest. This means it will most definitely benefit the ruling class.

HEGEMONY- Control without physical force. The dominant groups control by securing spontaneous consent of subordinate groups through negotiated construction of a consensus that incorporates all!

In terms of this election year:

Distractors (using popular culture to convince the masses that they NEED to fall into line and vote a certain way.)

Gramsci asserts that the subordinated groups accept hegemony for reasons of their own and not necessarily to appease the ruling class.

BOTTOM LINE:

The working class unifies to overthrow the ruling class.

This election seems to have reshaped what the masses need; a more liberal Head of State. A conversation held in a coffee shop sparked my interest in whether or not the ruling class is using hegemonic ideologies to enlist the aid of the proletariat to meet a certain end. Really, what we need to question is who is currently the ruling class?

Is it:

The lower & middle class: As they make up a bigger part of the American population and seem to have a greater voice-- which is made so with their ability to create a buzz via the internet.

or is it:

The upper class, the meager two-percent of the population that seem to be screwed either way they vote. (see: Taxes.)

If we are to look at all angles of this election, the odds seem against the Republican party. It almost seems TOO perfect. Could it be that we are being directed to think and vote a certain way? Looking at the surface of the Republican party's candidate, it doesn't look too good.

The Stats (working against "the Man"):

The elderly, robotic candidate...
The inexperienced, but attractive, running mate...
The skimpy, [mostly] inaccurate, and shaky platform of the GOP party...

(...need I say more?)

Though we have the chance to choose our presidential candidate, it seems that we are being fed the answer to our problems. Reading through articles or watching videos about Barack Obama-- they seem to scream HEGEMONY! Someone is TELLING us to vote a certain way--without forcing us-- without outwardly saying: "This is the who you SHOULD vote for! This is who you NEED to vote for! This is the best possible decision you could EVER make."

Not to discount Senator Obama by any means. Yet, there is a sense that all things pop culture seem to be pointing that way. "The Obama way." There is a sense of rebellion that is attached to voting for Obama; that this is a presidential race built upon voting against the same person who always wins-- right wing, white and elderly. We find that change, for the positive, can be found in a biracial man, who does not quit in the journey to change a nation that finds itself with its index finger on a red self-destruct button.

Yet, in this case, is hegemony so bad? If we look at hegemony as a way to make change in our country, can we not embrace it as Gramsci suggests? Hegemony, in this situation, is pushing for the masses to vote a certain way; the "right way." It is pushing us to make a change. The "common man" is given this option. It almost seems as though the ruling class is giving the regular man-- as manifested, for example, through Joe the Plumber or Joe Six Pack (by the GOP party)-- a way to have a hand in the future of the nation. Oddly enough, we've always been given this right to CHOOSE, to VOTE, and yet, it seems like a gift that we are recently being given as a nation. Suddenly, the minorities of the population (whether referring to race, age, sex, economic stance) are primed to vote. Who is pulling the strings?

EPISODE TWO:

Obama as the Hegemonic Hero.

Discussion of selling an image to win votes.

EPISODE THREE:

Obama Platform: The Facts

Separating the image from the candidate's platform. A short video piece that gets straight to the point.

Culture Industry: Now! In Alaska!

2008-10-20T21:59:00.000-07:00

Theodor Adorno’s greatest contribution to the field of media studies is his declaration that there is such a thing as a culture industry. He likens the creation of popular culture as we know it to a factory, churning out product to pacify the masses. After all, if we are worried about inconsequential matters such as celebrity gossip and the happenings on our favorite television program, we won’t worry about the things that the ruling class doesn’t want us to. Hegemony at its finest!

This election has turned into a debacle and a sideshow, and there is no more obvious example of culture industry than Sarah Palin. Her candidacy for the Vice Presidency is completely manicured and calculated by the Republican party.

Remember Hillary Clinton?

Some people love her, many people hate her, but the fact of the matter is, she was very close to capturing the Democratic Presidential nomination. The fact that she’s a woman meant she excited the female voter base, many choosing to vote for her because she is a woman. With Clinton’s ultimate loss in the Democratic primary, many Democrats turned on Obama, refusing to vote for him for any number of reasons.

McCain won the Republican Primary easily and he had to choose a Vice Presidential candidate. But who? The Democrats had a black man and a woman – progressive! So why not cater to the progressive voters and try to get the disappointed Clinton supporters along the way? Let’s get a woman! But not just any woman, let’s get a pretty woman that no one’s ever heard of – who has no real political history to speak of and no built up bias after years in the public eye. Is there such a person out there? Why yes, yes there is.

She’s obviously qualified and very well informed about the job she’s going to be doing. It's refreshing to have someone so prepared and experienced with her eye on the White House.

The Republican party has been very careful to keep her away from interviewers, being very choosy about where she appears and what she ~~says~~ is allowed to talk about. Her appearance on Saturday Night Live last weekend was a ratings bonanza for the show and proves just how calculated her media appearances have been. After all, Tina Fey’s resemblance and perfect impersonation have been drawing viewers to Saturday Night Live since the season began in September. Why not show those naysayers, those Democrats, that Sarah Palin isn’t just a pretty face, she also has a great sense of humor!

It’s not actually certain that she even knows how to read.

But the scariest part of all of this is that people are buying it hook, line and sinker. This transparent farce is working, as a large population of the country is not batting an eye, even as the wool is being pulled over it...er...them.

Assignment #3: Video critique.

Assignment #4: Video response.

Drink It, My Friend! (V3)

2008-10-14T00:02:00.000-07:00

Drink It, My Friend!

The advertising industry in Turkey experienced a lack of creativity, capital and technology before 2000, because the visual electronic media only started to make a great amount of money in the mid-1990s. The spread of new visual media experiences and money to the advertising industry took time. It is true that there had always been a few successful campaigns, but the industry itself could not create stable success. Later, advertising agencies had to learn to use time and money efficiently after the devastating economic / political crisis in Turkey during 2000-2001. While the country was still recovering from the crisis, Cola Turka entered the market as a new soda with one of the most successful advertising campaigns in Turkish history.

Cola Turka's two TV commercials listed below were first aired in 2003. On these TV commercials, once the Americans drink Cola Turka they start to acquire Turkish cultural values and speak Turkish. The main message is that the Americans who invented the original cola prefer Cola Turka. In the beginning, we see people on a truck screaming "sampiyon Turkiye", which means "Turkey is the champion". It is related to the most popular sport "futbol” (soccer) in Turkey. This is how Turks celebrate soccer victory in international tournaments. Next, we see Chevy Chase meet with a guy in a bar who has a cowboy hat. They start talking and the guy who has a cowboy hat speaks in Turkish and drinks Turkish cola. He asks Chase how "yenge" is doing. That is a very Turkish way of asking how his wife is doing. The rest of the commercial stresses the message and in one case we see that Mr. Chase grows a moustache. The way that the commercial mocks both cultures is very smart. It draws attention to the commercial while delivering the message.

FIRST COMMERCIAL _( The video on Youtube does not show the beginning of the first commercial, so I had to find a different link. The fact that the video has a different codec on this link, I could not convert and uploaded it on Youtube). Alternative Link (No Beginning)

SECOND COMMERCIAL:

Focusing on a specific quality of a product is one of the key aspects in advertising. For example, everybody knows that Volvo produces cars that have many safety features and BMW produces fast cars. Cola Turka commercials have the same pattern, too. It can be assumed that nationalism was the specific quality of Cola Turka. There is nothing directly related to Cola Turka's taste; the focus is on nationalism. According to Gitlin, consumers feel that they acquire the qualities of a brand when they buy that product. From that perspective, consumers who buy Cola Turka will feel more nationalistic. However, nationalistic branding was not something only used by Cola Turka. Nationalistic branding was very popular in the United States, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. For advertising, marketing a brand at the right time and in the right way is very important. When the commercials were aired on TV in July 2003 in Turkey, Iraq had already been invaded by the U.S. and coalition forces. At that time, a majority of the Turkish people believed that the United States posed a threat to the whole region, which led to the rise of anti-Americanism and Turkish nationalism.

I remember how people were in rush to buy Cola Turka after these commercials were aired. People from any class, age, and sex wanted to taste the new cola in the market. I remember myself buying it in the first week of its release. Well, to be honest, I did not like it and have not drunk it since. On the other hand, it is the second biggest brand after Coke Cola in the soda market in Turkey now. Pepsi lost its place to Cola Turka in a very short amount of time. Successful brand marketing always sells and so companies from developing countries should not feel insecure. Finally, they should focus on creative messages and productions. Thanks to the Internet, today, there are more opportunities and ways to deliver a message, and show a product. Developing countries are still learning how to do more professional advertising campaigns. It is a hard and time-consuming process. Cola Turka's campaign is a good example of using financial and creative sources effectively from the perspective of acting as a professional in the market.

Mad Men, Bad Ads and Sad Women: Thanking My Lucky Stars I was Born in the 80s

2008-10-08T11:33:00.000-07:00

*This is reposted from class Ning*

So, turns out that 1960 was a crappy time to be a woman or a minority.

During the pilot episode of Mad Men, we learn that the Men of Madison Ave. are: misogynistic, racist, positively affecting the rates of lung cancer, and supporting Richard Nixon. The imperative of the series, then--much like that of the Sopranos--is to make "bad" characters sympathetic and relatable.

The pilot establishes the social hierarchy early and often, often through sexist/racist dialogue cloaked in paternalism ("simple enough for a woman to use") or other visual cues (the elevator scene). Sometimes the writers choose to hit you over the head with the 60s social structure (Joan's advice to Peggy to "always be a supplicant")--occasionally hamhandedly--but it's the pilot, after all, so that's OK.

And the hegemonic structure that defined this weird, repressed, smoke-saturated and sugar-coated post-war/pre-cultural-revolution era is in turn reflected in actual ads that appeared during that time. Here are some awesome, uber-creepy old ads for your morning coffee (or late-morning bourbon, if you're Don Draper):

Seriously, what will happen? I can't make out the smaller text. Is this unsettling spanking scene supposed to suggest that wifey could find her self in serious, potentially physically threatening trouble if she serves up stale coffee? Here's another:

This one causes me to ROTFLMAO. Blowing smoke in a lady's face--guys, this is a SURE FIRE way to get laid. I urge you to try it and see what happens.

Here's another, more insidious cigarette ad:

All babies want to be just like their dad, right? Even when dad's in the next room giving mom a vicious paddling for neglecting to "store-test", at least he won't feel over-smoked as per the Marlboro Miracle. This bewildered, faintly unibrowed baby is sure of one thing: He can't wait to take his first drag, if he hasn't already, and

especially can't wait to start shaving himself, free of Stropping and Honing! The artist managed to make this Amishly-attired baby look both menacing and strangely progeriatric. Could be that the art director was asleep at the wheel on this one, but who knows? These were the earlyish years of mass-produced advertising. Though today's conventional advertising wisdom would probably stipulate that commercials for state-of-the-art men's shaving products not include babies:

movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6D5_J943vOI&hl=en&fs=1">

because Gillette now wants men to associate their product with whipping around in a futuristic fast car and hot women in leather pants stroking their faces--appealing to the very same "adernal energies" that Adorno identified (38).

It's hard to talk about Mad Men without referencing our dear friend Bernays, who was among the first to mine the links between psychoanalytic theory and consumer habits, and who became famous for selling cigarettes to women as a symbol of independence. This is an ideal example of a "spoonful of sugar" moment, to borrow Michelle C's words.

As the series progresses, however, certain characters emerge as agitating against the strict social sedimentation in different, fascinating ways. I don't want to spoil the plot for those who haven't watched Seasons 2 and 3, but it's a great show and a reminder that we have in fact come a long way. (At least we've banned smoking indoors--yuck.) It's also an entertaining summation of all the principles we've talked about so far this semester.

For any inclined, the rest of the creepy old ads can be viewed here.

Mad Men and not(yet) Marxist women

2008-10-07T01:34:00.000-07:00

"What ever you are doing is okay” says Don Draper in a TV drama set in the late 1950s. We see that an advertising executive aim to make consumers sure that they feel happy when they smoke Lucky Strike cigarettes. Today, the main purpose is the same, advertising campaigns aim to make consumers feel happy. Karl Marx would probably think of advertising as way of manipulation to exploit proletariat by bourgeoisie (Rius, 92). Basically from his perspective we can assume that an advertising agency is a tool of manipulation for bourgeoisie, and an advertising agency is also owned or managed by a bourgeois. Marx would not only be very sad seeing the commercials but the role of women in Mad Men.

I knew that women did not have an equal role with men during the 50s in America, but I was still very surprised to see the amount of inequality between men and woman. A woman has two choices in the show; she can be a low paid worker or a housewife. Additionally, secretaries should entertain their bosses in and out of the office! Engels argues that administration of the household became private service and the wife was a domestic servant at home (Rius, 120). His argument crosses a path with women's role in Mad Men. According to the Marxist idea, working class (women at this point) does not know that it has been exploited by the boss(es). That is why women are not aware of the exploitation; they are blind to the truth.

Finally, I assume in upcoming seasons we will see the uprising of women's rights. The audience will have a chance to experience how roles were changed for women in American society. The show parallels American history and will soon depict the 1960s and 1970s uprising against the inequality of women in the society. Mad Men is a great drama. I have watched every episodes so far and it is one of the best TV productions that I have ever seen. Although it has a very slow paced story line, there is this high level of reality, story structure and acting that makes this drama something I would highly recommend.

Rius.(2003). Marx for beginners. New York: Pantheon Books.

High, Wide and Handsome: Mad Men

2008-10-06T19:01:00.000-07:00

Don Draper on Advertising: “Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. Making people believe that whatever they do, they are okay.”

Satire…I don’t think so. The characters and environment are not exaggerated enough to be ridiculous or even ironic. Rather, they are real, authentic characters. Perhaps they seem over-stated from our perspective, but they represent the cutting edge of what used to be called commercial art (advertising), the new media and marketing technology of that period.
Mad Men is an eloquent and skillful critique about the high flying world of advertising on Madison Avenue during the sixties, hence the term “Mad” (an abbreviation of Madison). The setting of the series, the early ‘60s, is a time of expansion that began in the victorious afterglow of World War II, grew during the social-political chill of reactionary Cold War propaganda and the McCarthy era hysteria, and teetered on the cusp of the radical shift that began in the mid ‘60s—a counter-cultural time bomb ready to explode all over Madison Avenue and Wall Street. It was a power-packed moment of dramatically unfolding possibilities that would change the country but not everyone in it. The Mad Men would survive and adapt to become stronger and more influential than ever before. Or as George Lois, one of the actual ad men of the time, points out, “the creative revolution was the name of the game and it was a lot of hard work.”

Music throughout—big bossa nova, riding high—the rhythm of the men on the move and dolled-up women queuing up.

Don Draper is a Bernays hero, a new archetype, the man that Bernays was trying to invent. He is the consummate advertising executive who had a native intuition—the kind that allows you to see the inside of people, to understand what they really want—what will hook them emotionally and shape their reality.

Opening scene-Draper in bar: he asks a black waiter why he smokes “Old Gold”—in the end, the 2 men, from different classes (the white bourgeois and the black servant) have a common denominator: women are dumb, underclass and they don’t understand them. Draper spends a lot of time asking “what do women want”—answering this question will enable him and his clients to profit from them.

Another scene: Peggy’s 1st day… “the new girl.” Joan lifts the cover off a typewriter and proclaims to Peggy, “don’t let all the technology overwhelm you, the men who designed it made it simple enough for a woman to use.”

Draper has intentionally and totally constructed his enigmatic blankness or, as Gitlin phrased it, [become] a symbolic element of the American culture: “…the emphasis on surface; the blankness of the protagonist; his striving toward self-sufficiency, to the point of displacement from the recognizable world.” (Gitlin p.139) And that is Draper’s hedge, his ace, and he plays it close to the chest. He’s a mystery man and even his wife is clueless: “Just think of me as Moses. I was a baby in a basket.”

The era marked the emergence of the stereotyped, new corporate man—the grey flannel suits who all think alike, who all aspire to the same lifestyle that displays their success, their pride, their modernity and their class. They are the new technocrats of the marketplace. Draper is WASPy, taking advantage of the prevailing ambience of bigotry, sexism and anti-Semitism but he’s also hip…he has a key to the Playboy Club. He is riding the crest of the wave of the post-WWII economic boom.

Roger Sterling asks Draper if the firm has ever hired any Jews. Draper, “Not on my watch.” At a meeting with a prospective Jewish client, the ad agency serves shrimp!! Jews don’t eat shellfish! Draper tells Ms. Menken (Rachel) that “She is way out of line! I’m not going to let a woman talk to me like this!!”

They walked the walk and talked the talk, wearing the same suits, drinking the same booze, owning the glitziest cars, and populating a harem of women. They believed their own hype and in their own market patriotism: sell, baby sell!

Draper meets Rachael Menken for a drink to “make-up”. They talk about love and Draper tells Rachael that real love doesn’t exist: “Love was invented by guys like me to sell someone nylons.” Rachael looks intently into Draper’s eyes, “It must be hard to be a man too; and until this moment…I just realized that you also feel disconnected…out of place in the world.” Like “us” Jews, “othered” and de-humanized.

Of the many thematic elements represented in Mad Men, the most fundamental of them is played out in the pilot episode concerning the tobacco industry’s dilemma: how to get people to desire and love something that will probably kill them… Happy sheep are easily led to the slaughterhouse.

At a meeting with tobacco executives Roger Sterling declares, “Through manipulation of the mass media people now believe that cigarettes are dangerous.” Lucky Strike executive, “By God, that’s what I pay YOU to do!! [manipulate the mass media for me] We’re selling America here—the Indians gave it to us for shit’s sake!!”

And for the sake of what? To sell someone a product and make money for the client so that you can also get rich? In the convoluted zeitgeist of business, this attitude is considered patriotic. How to make this country great becomes a scenario written by the captains of industry! We’re rich, we’re powerful, were modern and good-looking, and proud of it. We are the victors, and this country, its customers and its affluence are our reward. And by God, we’re gonna get what we deserve. Might makes right!

It was a time when the excessive arrogance or hubris of the era was in full swing. The Mad Men genuinely believed they could get away with anything and everything and that the consequences didn’t matter. Don’t worry, we’ll deal with it, they thought—our science, our technology and our wealth can solve any problem. We are the embodiment of the future, riding high, wide and handsome!

Curvacious Women - Mad Men

2008-10-06T13:49:00.000-07:00

Mad Men sucks the viewer into the virtual world of a 1960's New York advertising firm from the first sound and image experienced. The soundtrack has a stunted pre-emptive quality to arrest our attention to the discomfort of the unpredictable nature of a large advertising firm in the sixties in New York. Coupled with this is the minimalist presentation of the introduction sequence for the show. Stark vector lines and silhouettes litter the screen as a male image plunges from on-high into the abyss that is framed by oversixed sexualized images of the female anatomy. This is accompanied by the stunted soundtrack to give a feel of introspection and doubt about self and society.

This begining sequence of the show lends itself to analysis as satire. The overemphasis of the female anatomy as sexualized and oversized implies that the creators are giving us a commentary on the time and the society.

AMC is owned by Rainbow Media Holdings which is a subsidary of Cablevision which is the fifth largest cable provider in the U.S. Marx would not be impressed by the control of the means of production by such a huge organization but when we look deeper we learn that Cablevision is owned by the Dolan family in Long Island. The husband and wife team head the company with three of their six sons. This is a family owned business and Mr. Dolan was one of the founders of HBO. He sold his interest in HBO. Mad Men is the first original drama produced by AMC. Although the emphasis in the research leads us to believing that Mr. Dolan is the owner it is pointed out also that Mrs. Dolan is an equal player.

In Mad Men this overlooking of the contribution of women to society/the work-place is apparent. Mr. Dolan was born in the twenties so it can be assumed that he was involved in the reality that gives the impetus for the virtual world of Mad Men. It is this living through the experience and being a team in the work place with his wife that, from the Marxist perspective, may lead us to believe that Mad Men is a satire of the whole society of the sixties in an advertising agency in New York.

However, to analyze from the Gramscian perspective, this presentation of a sexist society as a satire is far enough removed from the time period to allow us to see and learn but to not let it influence us in the present day. The ease at which we are allowed to see this as a critique of the society of the sixties in an ad agency is indicative of the Gramscian idea of giving a little to quiet the masses. One could argue that this show could be set in the present day (with a few changes) and it could bring to our attention the continued sexism of our society (among other things). While talking to a friend about Mad Men and describing the show he responded "yea they (women) still cry in the workplace, it is still the same. But no man is allowed to cry." He proved to me that sexism is still alive and well.

The lighting of the show is of a chiaroscuro nature almost all the time indicating hidden agendas and deception. The flat lighting is used to show the multitude of secretaries who are all female and all the same i.e. easily replaced.

The dialogue has many examples of sexism: "Ladies love them magazines," If you do the right thing you'll be in the country not working at all," Men who design it (typewriter) make it simple enough for a woman to use." It goes on and on.

The camera angles when shooting men are generally at eye level with even balance. When shooting women the camera angles are usually below eye level and accentuate the curves of the female anatomy. Generally the shots are from the side or the back and many times index vectors of the (stupified) men direct our attention to the female anatomy.

While this does show men in a negative light and one could argue that these aesthetics admire the female anatomy, Gramsic would suggest that it is a satire only to the point where we can see the hypocrisy, but that it is not moving society for change. If it was to move society to change then it should be about the present day. Looking at the past allows us the comfort of subconsciously thinking that this is not how it is today but how it was in the past. To have a positive impact on society we would need to look at the present but perhaps the show would be too uncomfortable for the population to realize the wide spread sexism that is alive and well today. Gramsci would conclude that the removed time period is distant enough to placate society and hold the status quo.

But maybe this team, the Dolan family, do intend us to interpret the show as relevant to today. Maybe it is up to us to interpret the timeliness (or timelessness) of this production whether it is a satire or not. Equality of the sexes is not evident in society today. To admit this in 2008 is a strong step in the direction of evaluation and possible growth.

Maybe Mad Men will continue and grow and change. Maybe it will move forward historically and show us how little has changed since the sixties in relation to women's rights and equality. Maybe this show will tell us something and we will have a Marxist moment of truth for growth in society.

And maybe the Gramscian notion of a little carrot will keep us in our comfortable sexism of 2008 while we watch the "terrible" sexism of our past - the sixties.

A Brief Qual and Quant Overview of Today's Hot Vids!

2008-09-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

Fact: I began this post not knowing exactly what my topic would be. The enormity of online media can be paralyzing. As the online space expands like a supernova in every natural aesthetic, organizational and ideological direction, one of the most complex and fascinating core problems remains the issue of how to filter, silo and interlink the literally endless amount of content. How to know what's really going on online? How much of this stupid shit/cat photos--to paraphrase Rimma--really matters? Perhaps he mother of all video channels, the third-highest trafficked site on the web, YouTube, can serve as some sort of barometer. Here's a screen shot of the most-viewed videos as of Sept. 28:

It's kind of hard to make out, but as of this date, the first five videos were Sarah Palin-related: replays, parodies or reactions to her Katie Couric interview. The top 20 videos, categorized first by content and then by source, are as follows:

Sports clips: 5
Political or Political Mash-ups: 4
Sarah Palin: 9
Personalities*: 2
____________________

User-Generated or Edited: 5
Pulled from Broadcast television: 15

This rough breakdown indicates that Youtube may serve popularly--predominantly--as a distillation of what appears on broadcast television, like a greatest hits reel. User-generated videos, on the other hand, can come in the form of either pure busts of individual self-expression (vlogs), interpretive mash-ups of outside content (often political messaging), or some combination thereof. To roughly paraphrase Marx, the means of production is now hypothetically in the hands of the people; the platform is potentially rendered egalitarian. The extent to which this is true is a whole 'nother debate--seriously undermined, of course, by the gaping digital divide and by the misguided lionization of the amateur, Andrew Keen would argue. I'd love to hear more of Lawrence Lessig's (usually optimistic) thoughts on the potential of the online space, as well as those of the self-described "leading internet critic" Keen.

But back to User-Generated Content. UCG comes in many forms, of course: political messaging mash-ups, silly remixes that take a newly birthed catchphrase (e.g. You Base Are Belong to Us, The Whistle Tip courtesy of our very own KRON, the "I like Turtles" kid and its remixes), mashups with no particular satirical target or an apolitical target.

There is also the phenomenon of YouTube stars, defined as those individuals who have used YouTube exclusively as a launch pad towards notoriety. Of those personalities, one is a familiar face first launched to YouTube stardom with a widely viewed video of herself hysterically imploring the public to Leave Britney ALOOONE!!!!! following her disastrous 2007 VMA performance. Crissy Crocker, the world's most infamous Britneyphile, is still on top, so she claims in her latest vlog, entitiled "I am YouTube."

The self-professed Most Popular Person on YouTube--which she questionably claims couldn't exist without her--Chris addresses charges that she's changed as a result of her fame. Advertisements for her new single (who knew?) litter the backdrop of her channel page. For all her grandiose claims of existensial solidarity with one of the web's most powerful platforms, Chris is right about one thing: She remains the most popular single YouTube personality if current "most watched" tracking is to be believed. By YouTube personality, of course, I am referring to those who built their fame by gazing existentially into their webcams and letting loose whatever outrageous chaos roils inside their minds. Through the inscrutable, practically unknowable process of meme pollination that Rimma expounds upon in her post, Crocker and a few others (Tay Zonday, Tina, Tricia "Crazy Eyes" Walsh-Smith) have become legitimate celebrities in their own right. Crocker and Walsh-Smith's channels have thus become hotbeds for advertising content.

What about these people in particular led to their popularity? At some point, they are deemed worthy of scrutiny in the blogosphere and sometimes, eventually, in the "traditional" press. Tina, for instance, the delusional teen girl who sings Backstreet Boys into her webcam, was first noticed and snarkily commented upon by Perez Hilton, whose blog is among the most popular in the world.

But why these individuals in particular, and what does it all mean? The long and short answer is that they get attention because, obviously, the poor things are all nuts, and seemingly (with the possible exception of ultimate YouTube Mean Girl Crocker) unaware of that perception. But by the same token, they are--as far as we know at least--authentic in their outrageousness. Yes, they really are genuinely nuts, and thereby compelling to watch.

As Rimma points out, and as I have alluded to in previous posts, this is the sense of authenticity that marketers are desperately trying to appropriate and mimic. LonelyGirl turned out to be a fraud. But what is the next step in the effort to close the gap between authentic experience and the image of life that advertising contrives and attempts to proliferate? Now that voice, agency and thereby power, so claims Crissy Crocker herself, is in the hands of "the people"--that is the consumers, the End-User rather than developer--advertising therefore must accept and pander to the individual empowerment and resistance to authority (advertising, copyright laws, for instance) that this all yields. So how can brands most effectively insert themselves into this process of identity-building and impression management that occurs online--of which Crissy Crocker perhaps stands as a high-profile, if extreme, case study?

Will individuals even more brazenly offer themselves up for branding? My Life and Personhood sponsored by Marshall's, Doritos, Kia?

If the right brand were to make you an offer, would you accept it?

Americanization of the popular Television Shows in China

2008-09-30T08:37:00.000-07:00

When observing most popular Chinese TV shows, people will easily notice that these shows all “borrow” the format of some of the popular American TV shows. For example, “American Idol” is so worldwide popular that many other countries such as China, Australia, New Zealand, Spain and Sweden are producing similar kind of TV programs. China broadcasted a TV show called “Super Girl” (or “Super Girl Voice”) in the past years, which had similar format of “American Idol” with different rules. All of these TV shows have been very popular and had great impacts on various aspects of the societies during all these years. The format of the show is turning to a worldwide media trend, which seems like a guarantee of high ratings, satisfied commercial outcome, becoming famous rapidly (for the contestants or the judges), and success in TV industry. Suddenly, many countries from different cultures were linked by an invisible internal connection called “Pop Idol Culture” and were sharing this common “culture”. This “culture” is becoming an international issue.
“Dancing with the Stars” is another popular TV show, which the format was also borrowed by a Chinese TV dancing contest called “Dancing Together”. This program shared exactly the same format of “Dancing with the Stars”: they invite celebrities to compete their skills in different types of Latin dance. In addition, there are some intelligence and knowledge challenge shows (such as “Happy Dictionary” and “Lucky 52”) and situation comedies (like “I Love My Family” and “My Own Swordsman”) are very popular in China in recent years, which borrowed the format of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” and “How I Met Your Mother” respectively.
The “pop idol culture”, the dancing show, situation comedy, and intelligence and knowledge challenge show turn out to be the representations of “media globalization”. Because the origins of these shows were all from the United States, I would call the phenomena of applying American TV show format into Chinese TV shows as “Americanization of Chinese TV show”.

1. Relationship between media globalization and technology
Development of technology is the base of media globalization. The success of the competition shows based on the development of both traditional media and modern media. Traditional media refers to television, which not only provides a platform for TV program, but also earns great profits through rating and the commercials. New media refers to the internet and mobile phone. The internet helps the TV program to get lots of attention and reputation, which plays significant role in promoting the program. In addition to the internet and television, text message is an essential form of media in the whole program. It brought the organizers, sponsors and telecommunication companies enormous profits through sending and receiving text messages. For “Super Girl” case, voting through text message is a new form of involving the audience to the TV program, it gave people not only a chance of free choice but also a sense of cultural democracy, mobile interactivity in ‘Super Girl’ has given the Chinese population a new mouthpiece – and one that it is very hard for the government (who have even managed to censor the Internet) control.

2. Manipulation of art activities in the age of globalization:
Media Americanization is well presented in the “Americanized” shows through the similarities that the shows have been manipulated. The existence of “pop idol” helps with making profit for the creators and developing TV and pop music industry. Both American idol and Super Girl have got great success because of the common ways they manipulate the show: the songs that contestants selected were all very famous or classic, which help the audience have a better perception of American / Chinese pop music; The judges are all famous music professionals and their comments are humorous and unpredictable; easy access of the competition; great audience involvement. The winner was selected by audience’s voting, which makes audience feel like being respected and involved, and so their passion for the show is motivated.
There are similar functions of both of “Dancing with the Star” and “Dancing Together”: some popular stars present the other side of them to the audience through this program, and some other unpopular celebrities join the competition to keep more exposure to the public.

3. China’s reactions towards media Americanization:
Although there are lots of similarities between these American and Chinese TV shows, China still have different applications about this “Americanized culture” because of different culture, social or political policy. “Super Girl”, for example, only women were allowed to apply for the competition. The reason for this is that unlike women in western cultures, Chinese women have been educated with conservative traditions which do not encourage them to freely express and present themselves. Therefore, the existence of “Super Girl” became the representation of rebel of Chinese traditional value and provides a stage specifically for Chinese girls to present themselves. That is why Li Yuchun, who is not as charming as the meaning in Chinese traditional concept, won the first prize in the competition in 2005.
In situation comedy like “How I met your mother”, there are lots of scenes with talks about sex and romantic relationships. However, in Chinese situation comedies, sex talk will never be allowed to appear on the small screen. Instead, the stories more concentrate on friendship and the relationship between family members, co-workers, etc.
Comparing with the American style, more “gambling”-like game in “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”, Chinese “Happy Dictionary” and “Lucky 52” are less money-motivated and more about “making dreams come true”, because in Chinese culture and values, we do not encourage people to be too utilitarian or material.
Despite the traditional culture, further government control and arrangement of “Super Girl” is also different with “American Idol” because of different political policies. The (Chinese) State Administration of Radio, Film and Television issued new rules to regulate Idol-inspired shows. The rule pointed out that the contests should contribute to "constructing a harmonious socialist society”, which means the program should be positive and healthy. This action revealed that “Super Girl” may bring problems to Chinese society: because of the text message voting, somebody considers “Super Girl” as a force for democracy. For a country like China which is lack of democratic choice, this opportunity to vote would make a huge difference in people’s mind and inspire Chinese intellectuals to imagine about arrangement for democratic elections and awake people’s democratic consciousness in the younger generation. Some people were worried that voting for TV contestants would make Chinese want to vote in other contexts, such as for their political leaders.

The application of popular American TV show into Chinese TV program becomes a representation of “media Americanization”. However, although “pop idol”, situation comedy and knowledge challenge show are mass-produced in China, it does not mean that Chinese TV programs are totally Americanized. While borrowing the popular form of American TV program, Chinese TV station make the American culture localized, so that the program maintained the features of Chinese nation. Besides, because of the different culture and social policies, Chinese TV programs which have similar formats with American ones may have different content and treatment.

A few things off my chest

2008-09-30T07:06:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure what to write about, so many things are troubling these days, but there are some things that have been bothering me for quite a while and seem perpetually timely; so I thought I might as well use this opportunity to get them off my chest.
I'm bothered by cultural amnesia and that I am old enough to watch history repeat itself. It's not the getting old that is upsetting - well, it is tiresome, to be honest - it's the realization that we as a people do not learn from our past mistakes nor heed the warnings of those we claim to esteem the highest.

I believe that through the Internet, more accessible and democratic media paradigms are emerging that will ultimately replace the present corporate controlled model; however, I fear that this might further exacerbate the schisms that already divide our culture. While the current trend of community building is a positive development in the use of the Internet, the technology actually discourages communal use and experience. Much like the automobile's effect on transportation, the Internet physically isolates the individual and precludes a shared journey. Instead, the Internet user can avoid new experiences and chance encounters by sticking to the same path and associating only with communities of similar belief or worldview.

I'm wary of a future where each individual can create a virtual world in which all assumptions go unchallenged, all associations reaffirm, where one can indulge in conformity and revel with only the like minded. As we progress towards digital convergence, personal communication and media become increasingly entangled; if, as James Carey defines it, communication is the symbolic process by which we produce, maintain, repair and transform reality, what kind of future are we looking at? Even more of what we already have.

I remember thinking back in 1984 that I saw nothing of Orwell's vision of a future dystopia; in recent years I have seen it increasingly manifest in our culture. What happened between then and now was the implementation of the neo-con political economic vision championed by Reagan and carried out by those following who canonized him as the patron saint of the conservative. What Gitlin describes as the "cultivation of surface" and the "stylized blankness" that emerged during the Reagan years seems to have evolved into an Orwellian disconnect between surface and substance, where words (compassionate conservative) can appear on the surface to mean one thing while actually signifying the opposite in meaning and where identity (Christian Right) can become the opposite of its defining characteristics when co opted for political power.

We are currently in the midst of an economic crisis; what some say is the result of the full realization of the neo-con economic policy. If this is true, can the cultural fallout be far behind?

Peace

Brand New Jokes, Same Old Theories

2008-09-30T06:47:00.000-07:00

The creation of the modern “easy” video distribution model has led to many “unrestricted” viral sketch comedy videos hitting the Internet. I would attempt to argue that modern viral videos apply elements of centuries-old theories to create comedic moments, elements which have been applied to a lesser-degree in mainstream media for decades. Naturally, many have argued that dissecting humor immediate removes the comedic value, thus rendering any advanced analysis fruitless. Towards these valid, but open-ended arguments, I wish to submit the following rebuttal: It’s flipping easy, and I’ve got the cashed checks to prove it. By using the applied studies of theorists such as Marx, Freud, and others, formulae for creating comedic moments can be made, and can be applied to create new humorous sketches.

The old joke of portraying figureheads behaving in farcical manners, can be viewed as more than just silly. When a public figure is portrayed as both nutty and abusive of power, they are illustrating the extreme ends to which the bourgeois can oppress the commoners. Marx passionately argued against this type of power abuse, and furthermore argued that it can be manifested in many types of governments. The above short illustrates the hidden power of the ruling class in democracy. Notice the strong Marxist symbolism when John Wilkes Booth finally “rises up” and defeats the ruling class with a hammer.

While the discredited volumes of Freud are veritably mountainous, there’s comedy gold in them thar’ hills. In fact, the Freudian defense mechanism of repression, particularly hetero- and homosexual repression, is almost always sound fodder for a comedic premise. The simple manifestation of unconscious desire, or a verbal spillage of the unconscious can almost always bring laughs if delivered correctly. In addition, the general acceptance of applied psychology, which Freud helped pioneer, has led to many skits and scenes with the main premise of psychological testing.

It’s not just these founding theorists who can be used to create humor. Most modern theories, if stark and depressing enough, can be twisted to create a comedic flow. The speculations on the extreme drive of business-driven greed, most notably by Todd Gitlin, has been parodied in modern media for decades. In fact, this notion is often spoofed by the media itself, such as in this classic sketch where the talk show host feels only for ratings. In fact, simply having outlandish characters ignore human perils and common convention in search of profit is frequently the fodder for popular viral sketch videos.

Though comedic presentation is an art form, by juxtaposing exaggerated theories of power and repression with modern inconveniences, a practically timeless formula for humor creation is revealed. Naturally, a bit of joke writing is needed, but these applications have been proven for decades of broadcast sketch comedy. With the introduction of the home video studio revolution, it is possible to distribute even more stark exaggerations and examinations of modern life, without the sharp restrictions of the broadcast regulatory agencies. This could lead to a revolution in more than just video distribution, perhaps the very limit in our ability to be self-expressive and comment socially is loosening.

Drink it my friend

2008-09-30T02:30:00.000-07:00

Advertisement sector in Turkey has been operating for a very long time. However, it is hard to say that most of the commercials and advertising campaigns are made very professionally until 2000s. In 2003 a new soda brand Cola Turka, which sells cola soda, entered the market. Their advertising camping was very professional and successful. The brand name became known immediately.

I believe that developing countries are still learning how to become more professional. It is a hard and time consuming process. Cola Turka's campaign is a good example of using financial and creative sources effectively from the perspective of acting as a professional in the market.

Two TV commercial videos below were first aired in 2003. Commercials show that Americans are becoming Turkish after they drink Cola Turka. The main purpose is to impose the idea of nationalistic branding at first. Commercials basically try to impose the idea that even Americans - the creator of cola- drink Turkish cola. Whenever an American in the commercials drink it, they start saying Turkish words and doing Turkish oriented expressions. Just in the beginning, we see African American people screaming "sampiyon Turkiye" on a truck which means Turkey is the champion. It is related to the most popular sport "Futbol" (Soccer) in Turkey. I should inform you that whenever there is a victory in an international soccer tournament, Turkish fans go out celebrate like crazy with other fans on the streets. Later on we see Chevy Chase meets with a guy in a bar who has a cowboy hat. They start talking and the guy who has a cowboy hat says Turkish words, and drinks Turkish cola. He asks Chase how is "Yenge" doing which means how is his wife doing. That is such a Turkish word and an excerpt from lifestyle. Yenge is literally means sister in law, however in Turkish culture especially close friends use the word yenge in a way as in the commercial. Rest of the commercial and the next commercial are also about how Americans that drink Cola Turka becoming Turkish. We even see Chase's new mustache after he drinks too. The way commercial mocks both culture is very smart. It both creates attention and delivers the message.

FIRST COMMERCIAL ... alternative link
SECOND COMMERCIAL ... alternative link

I remember how people were in rush to buy Cola Turka after these commercials were aired. People from any class, age, sex wanted to taste the new cola in the market. I remember myself buying it in the first week of its release. Well, to be honest, I did not like it and have not drink that since. On the other hand, it is the second biggest brand after Coke Cola in cola market in Turkey now. Pepsi lost its place to Cola Turka in a very short amount of time. Successful brand marketing is always sells and companies from developing countries should not feel insecure. They should focus on creative messages and productions. Thanks to the Internet, today, there are more opportunities and ways to deliver a message, show a product.

Athletes and Advertising, SCORE!

2008-09-30T01:32:00.000-07:00

Professional athletes are held in high regard amongst sports fans. You don't even have to be sports fan to understand who these players are. For example, some people may have never seen a professional basketball game, but they know who Michael Jordan is. Some may have never played or watched golf, but they know who Tiger Woods is. The reason being, is that that these two athletes are all over the advertising world. This shows the possibility that using athletes for advertising is working. The point is that most viewers are captivated by these athletes. Advertisers are clued in to this, and have figured out creative ways to use athletes to sell their products.

I'd like to look at the way in which professional athletes are being used to help persuade consumers to purchase certain products. Throughout the post are examples of Gitlin's idea that media/advertising/images help the viewer slip away from the 'encumbrances of society', providing the viewer with a look into the life of an athlete. Advertisements portray athletes as everyday individuals, off their playing field, while showcasing their celebrity status in an obvious commercial way. In so doing, the advertisement leads the viewer to believe that what that product does for their favorite athlete, would be good for them as well. Looking at some examples that use humor, I will show how this process truly does provide an alternative look at the mainstream form of advertising: 'here's the product, now buy it' mentality, while reinforcing the hegemonic idea of capitalist America.

While using professional athletes is the most ideal, sometimes writers stray from this concept, and invoke a parody of an athlete. This particular character may not truly be an athlete, but has no problem playing one. The form stays true however, in depicting an athlete in a comedic way to sell, in this case, Bud Light.

Sometimes the comedy is light, but it doesn't mean that some media writers won't paradoy it, and take it to the next level.

Gitlin would not be proud of some of the commercials of today. They remove the viewer from themselves, and fall into the world of what they are watching. Some organizations are getting very good at the way they put their commercials together. One that comes to mind is ESPN, that promotes their show Sportscenter. They give you a behind-the-scenes look at the life of the sportscaster, no matter how comedic it may be. There was a particular commercial that was able to accomplish two motives: one to publicize the show in a humorous way, and the other, perhaps even more of a marketing form of genius, a subtle plug to drink Vitamin Water (new at the time).

It is these subtle ways that reinforce the hegemonic goals of advertisers in television. Sometimes, they even play for personal gain to these professional athletes.

It's important to note what types of commercials I'm not referring to. They aren't direct. They don't usually say watch me, or buy me. However, I should acknowledge that this direct marketing can work, and a lot of athletes are seen in this type of marketing.

Sometimes the commercials don't even have to be funny. All they need to do is captivate the viewer.

The point is, these commercials allow viewers to simply feel the role of these professional athletes. They lighten the mood from life in general. The moment we are removed from this state of consciousness of 'I am being sold something', to 'man, this is pretty funny', is the exact moment when the hegemonic ideals concerning the hierarchal power of marketing executives are implemented into our train of thought to remember their products. Sometimes they don't even have to be funny, sometimes than can just plain make you feel good.

This stuff makes them crazy

2008-09-30T00:04:00.000-07:00

Government, glory be its name, claims the monopoly on both violence and the rules that govern our lives. So-called illicit “drugs” present hegemony-minded government with two challenges: dealing with perceived problem groups and maintaining a predictable and obedient public mindset. And who can think of a more disruptive bunch of garden party-crashing, pee-on-your-bonfire types than the marijuana-smoking cabal?

Marijuana prohibition began as an outlet of anti-Mexican-American sentiment, beginning in Utah in 1910 and quickly spreading across the country. One Texan senator said, “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy.”

In Eastern US states, fear of blacks drove marijuana prohibition as the drug traveled from New Orleans to Chicago to Harlem and became part of the music of Cab Calloway, Louis Armstrong, and others. An editorial in a newspaper in 1934 ran, “marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

But racially-motivated prohibition didn't stop marijuana's spread. In the 1930s, the racial story was dropped in favor of the violent behavior rationale and the government's attention began to focus on general public obedience.

However, a few decades later, the 60s happened and pot was everywhere. The government tried to propagandize against the flow, but look who they were up against.

When hegemonies can't beat down a threat, they often try to neutralize it, absorbing part of it into public culture (this is not necessarily a conscious process). It took 1978 to finally make it happen to pot on the silver screen, when the leaf was cast as a fun diversion for (lovable, I guess) losers.

Following successful institutional efforts dominant powers usually rely on continued and spontaneous consent by the public. With marijuana widely accepted by much of the public as undesirable, the drug (and drugs in general) has become interwoven with other government hegemonic messages, be they post-9/11 terrorist fears, use of superhero role models, fear of disapproval from one's dog, or, most infamously, danger of overcooking eggs.

However, neutralization through absorption might mean eventual victory for the rebels. If the role models in this newest absorption device are the current faces of pot, is marijuana legalization so far away?

20 years of American pop culture in China

2008-09-29T23:45:00.000-07:00

In the early 1980’s, television started to enter the average family's household. At the time, Chinese-made TV shows were very popular. The first big event, the 1983 spring festival gala, was a milestone that represented a new era of television in China. Despite the popularity and strong desire for Chinese-made programs, American pop-culture made its imprint on Chinese culture. I will introduce to you a few items that were signs of this throughout years.

Breakin (1984)

Only a few foreign programs and movies were imported to china during this early period. With a movie called Breakin, break dancing became extremely popular among young people. With only a "boombox", they would dance anywhere in the city, challenging the traditional Chinese way of dancing. Break dancing mocked the traditional way of dancing. And American pop culture, for the first time, entered public attentions. This is not merely a new entertainment for the public, Breakin presented the American culture to the nation, a different ideology which people can compare with their owns.

Small wonder (1985-1989)

This is certainly a comedy. It was broadcast on CCTV in the early 1990’s. Small wonder (translated to Chinese as “Robot girl”) is about an engineer who has secretly built V.I.C.I (Voice Input Child Identicant). The storylines involve the family from keeping the secret of their "daughter" from the neighbors. Because traditional Chinese folklore is more historical and less involved in science and technologies, Small wonder was a big success. Many people today still can remember watching this as a child.

A native of Beijing in New York (1993)

This is a story about a Chinese couple that immigrates to New York, chasing the “American dream”. Struggling with culture differences, divorce and remarriage, the characters reflect the true posture of the immigrants from China during that time. “If you love him bring him to New York, for it’s heaven. If you hate him, bring him to New York, for it’s hell.” was a classic line that became popular with the Chinese.

Titanic (1997)

This movie didn't make it to theatres until 1998 in China. This big-budget Hollywood movie had no problem attracting Chinese audiences. The novel, music cassettes and posters were sold out frequently. The sound track from the movie was as popular as Chinese pop music, and Celine Dion was well known from then on. "Titanic" is even used as a fashion word, describing a hopeless or desperate situation.

American Idol (2002- now) VS Super Girls (2004-2006)

Many young Chinese watched foreign shows online. American idol became incredibly trendy show to watch among young adults, even though it was not broadcast on any Chinese television station. Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini are well-known. Until 2004, a local Chinese TV station held a similar version of “American Idol” which translated as “super girls”.

Human is in the center of society, who manipulates the nature of history. “Culture is an organization, discipline of one’s inner self,” Gramsci indicated. If a single piece of opinion is gradually accepted by the public, then it quickly forms culture. Gramsci saw the huge power that culture brings along, and therefore he believes in the revolution of changing the society by means of ideology.

Equality and stupidity for everyone.

2008-09-29T19:30:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia, that bastion of accuracy, defines an internet meme as: a neologism used to describe a catchphrase or concept that spreads quickly from person to person via the Internet. The term is a reference to the concept of memes, although this concept refers to a much broader category of cultural information.

And sure enough, funny things (hereafter referred to as lulz) on the internet have been disseminated through word of mouth, or rather, word of e-mail since such a thing became possible. I remember my first e-mail account in 1993 being filled up with forwards of primitive lulz from my dad, an internet veteran even then - he was probably the only other person I knew with an e-mail address. Often times, these lulz are inexplicably funny. They’re sometimes witty and clever but frequently nonsensical and absurd. Something about them compels viewers to share with their friends and as a result, our inboxes are stuffed with genuine humor and countless imitators that fall flat. Videos, images, comics, essays - nowadays, everyone is trying to be funny.

Does anyone remember All Your Base? This was a phenomenon of lulz dating back to 2001; almost primitive compared to some of the things circulating nowadays. It began innocently enough - a poorly translated video game from Japan (as shown in the first few seconds) generated a catch phrase (All your base are belong to us) that was absurdly funny. A clever few Photoshopped the phrase into unexpected situations and the 'net was soon flooded with imitators, spawning hundreds or even thousands of All Your Base lulz. A band composed a catchy song and someone took the best of the Photoshops (or Photochops as they are frequently called) and the song and strung together this video that spread even faster than the original meme. Watch it here:

There's no way to explain why this is funny - it was certainly the funniest thing anyone had seen in a long time during its heyday. Numerous other lulz have been shot around to varying successes, even creating some minor internet celebrities along the way. Do we not remember Numa Numa guy? Star Wars kid? Tay Zonday? Or maybe it's just me.

Marketing firms have attempted to capitalize on this phenomenon, creating viral marketing videos that they hope will catch on and spread like genuine memes have been known to do. True memes are funny spontaneously; for every video and image that gets passed around, there are hundreds that are forgotten because they lack the je ne sais quoi that sends something around in the first place. Nonetheless, the internet is seeded with fake videos created by corporate megaliths, all trying to find the formula for why this sort of thing takes off and occasionally succeeding. This is somewhat boring and not at all in the spirit of lulz; if you are so inclined, you can read about a few examples here.

Back to the fun! Lately, there's been a phenomenon of putting funny text over a picture, frequently that of a cat; misspellings are very nearly mandatory. These are called image macros and they seem to be everywhere. The website I Can Has Cheezburger, a continuously updated blog of lolcats and image macros again, according to our friend, Wikipedia is: one of the most popular lolcat sites on the internet, receiving as many as 1,500,000 hits per day. And someone, or rather thousands upon thousands of someones are out there, continuously contributing lulz and attempts at lulz at breakneck speeds. But why is this crap funny? Perhaps the internet really is the great equalizer, making all of us equally stupid in the attempt to outclever each other and usually failing.

Not actually a lolcat.

And finally, this video attempts to explain memes and lulz; an exemplary montage of some of the stupid shit that people are putting on the internet. Warning: may contain offensive material.

Post script: I am such a nerd that what little actual HTML exists in this post was coded by hand.

Forget Taco Bell... Yo Quiero Justicia

2008-09-29T16:32:00.000-07:00

Guess what time it is...
It's cliché time!

We live in America! The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We're free! We can pursue ~~happyness~~ happiness! With enough hard work and perseverance, anyone can achieve just about anything they put their minds to and be rewarded for their efforts!!! [IN THEORY.]

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... [so that they may work repetitive menial jobs, for no money, no respect, and be subject to discrimination and alienation.]"

As discussed in the Gitlin article, there is a sense that the media marginalizes human beings as secondary to the objects that they own. The car is personified and replaces the idea of the human with a mechanical object that, in reality, does not have emotions nor a practical function. I see the same linear thinking when looking at images of immigrants and minorities in the media. Personally, as a San Diego native and the daughter of a Mexican immigrant, I have seen the dichotomy of American culture. America promises sidewalks paved in gold and a world of opportunity. It isn't until they've arrived, that they realize that this is farce; America promises back-breaking labor at $5.25 (or less) an hour and a loss of identity. And yet this is far better than what they are promised in their own distinctly poor homelands.

Growing up in a border town, I was given context for the immigrants' plight. Each day hordes of people run to the border to secure a better life for themselves and their families. American media trivializes this idea of "running to the border" by marketing TACO BELL in the same way-- Make a run for the Border. Think about it-- you can go buy cheap, fakey Mexican food at all hours of the night from the same people who actually did make a run for the border. Ironically, they probably never fathomed that they'd be working in a place where they're ice cream scooping refried beans and squeezing tubes of sour cream into cardboard taco shells. Cross the border and you'll find out that the alternative to selling Taco Bell tacos and living in tiny shoebox-sized apartments is pimping out your six-year-old child to sell Chicklets and living in tiny shoebox-sized huts made of flattened tomato cans and cardboard. Sons and daughters are sent to the U.S. to make enough money to eventually bring the entire family and save them from the numbing poverty that plagues Latin America.

Latinos, particularly "illegal immigrants," are marginalized into one huge collective group, stripping the individual of their own identity and applies a truckload of stereotypes in order to keep hierarchy alive in American culture. Marx would agree that the working class, those working the menial jobs, will prevail, feeding on the "goodness" that can be, theoretically, found in every person (cough-employer-cough). Here's the catch-- the employer isn't looking at his Latin employee as an individual with a family to feed and rent to be paid; rather he's looking at this faceless droid as cheap labor. The Latin individual is blank, devoid of identity-- of self worth. Rather, Latin Americans must resolve to be a part of this network of stereotypes that the media tends to proliferate.

In my search for clips of Latinos in the Media, I've found evidence that Latinos are nothing more than nondescript, chihuahua-loving, taco-eating, slow, dirty, border jumping, party-loving, egotastical, menial workers. Isn't there more to this group of people than what the media paints them as? Yes. Does the average American care to dig further than what they've seen? No. That's the problem, we're not making the effort to defuse these predetermined ideas.

In short, we live in a land based on the exploitation of non-citizens.

Japan Detoxifies Gitlin... and displays a more toxingly creative side

2008-09-29T14:36:00.000-07:00

After letting Gitlin's article, no, commentary, sit for a week, I still find that the the term DETOXIFICATION in reference to another culture that is not American very offensive. As a reminder, in reference to Japanese marketing their cars to Americans, Gitlin describess; “detoxify themselves of ‘Japaneseness,’ in order to retail their cars as genuinely American.”

Are examples of this stated? No. Is this opinion one-sided and seemingly biased? Yes. Where are such examples of detoxification? Does he mean it literally, like a colon-cleansing?

After typing in the word "detox" on youtube, this came out as one of the top results:

Scroll to 3:25 in the video and you will see what detoxifying really means; what the Japanese must rid of their system in order to sell a vehicle in America.

Wiki's answer to "detoxify" is as follows:

"Detox, short for detoxification, in general is the removal of toxic substances from the body. In conventional medicine, detoxification can also be achieved artificially by techniques such as dialysis and (in a very limited number of cases) chelation therapy. There is a firm scientific base in evidence-based medicine for this type of detoxification. Many alternative medicine practitioners promote various other types of detoxification such as "diet detoxification" but there's no evidence that detox diets have any health benefits.[1]
Detoxification can also refer to the period of withdrawal during which a person's body to return to homeostasis after long-term use of an addictive substance.

See also:

Colon cleansing
Decompiculture
Xenobiotic
Toxification"

Is it toxic for any sort of Japaneseness to be found in car commercials in our American culture? Should the Japanese think about cleansing themselves of any form of culture before they even think about marketing in the US? Where is a freaking example of the "too Japanese" car commercials?

There are none. BUT this is what a Japanese car commercial from the 1980s looks like:

Notice the uniqueness and creativity... even though done in the 80s, the graphics surpass the time, as the cars seem to be dancing with each other and flying to the beat of the music. Back in the 80's, could Ford or Dodge come up with something this creative? Let's see...

FANTASTIC! No sense of a cheesy hegemonized American family at all. This family gets down in their Aerostar--and can do it all! Too bad little Timmy didn't have time to discuss his frequent trips to his little homos in the making club, er boyscouts. I kid!

But a commercial of the 80s that exemplifies Gitlin's appeal of excitement, or "revved-up, high-tech, staccato barrages of images with a whoosh of crisp editing, as if the commercials themselves were being driven at four-on-the-floor, zero-to-sixty acceleration," is this Camero commercial released around the same time as the Japanese car commercial:

Speed, masculinity, liberation, destruction (dang that car can tear up some cardboard boxes!) are all typical factors of American car commercials of the time. Did we see the driver? No. Can we assume they were male? Yes. But what I find odd was the setting of facing through a suburban neighborhood at 140, what if the Camero smashes into that Aerostar family and runs over little Timmy? Should this car really be promoting speeding in these settings, zooming by other parked cars and smashing into boxes? What is this asshole driver trying to prove? Oh, America...

The future alludes to a uniqueness in the marketing of Japanese cars, capturing the art of precision drag racing around an EMPTY race track (smarter setting), with cute and catch music, and a touch of humor as the car is occupied with old...German men?

"The Japanese car the Germans wish they'd made." Now America is trying to point the blame at the German's, instead of taking the blame for their own lack of creativity. Go America. Go figure.

PS--this is the reason why I love Japanese culture so much, why I become so defensive over it, and why I want to go to Japan so badly (it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm half-Japanese):

A Spoon Full of Media Helps the Hegemony Go Down…in the most delightful way*

2008-09-29T09:01:00.000-07:00

Theodore Adorno was interested in people taking media into their own hands, countering the effects of established, corporate capitalism and re-educating the public through the very engine that feeds the status quo, the mass media. In large part, the rationale behind why right-wing America has resisted acknowledging global warming is that in doing so, they would have to agree that the energy industry has to also change, and that would lead to a loss in profitability. Giant corporations such as the auto industry (closely linked to the energy industry) have also not embraced energy-efficient cars because it would require tremendous capital investment on their part to re-tool their companies. They would suffer a severe loss of profitability (in the short run) for an industry that is already vulnerable, having already lost a large part of its market share to foreign auto makers. No one in corporate America wants (or has any incentive) to spend the capital necessary to retool in order to “save the polar bears from global warming,” so they will attempt to hold off as long as possible. There is still plenty of money to be made without conceding to the demands of the masses or scientific evidence of climate change. NASA is an arm of the government that, with other government agencies, routinely uses the mass media to quell people’s discomfort by suggesting that there really isn’t a problem, at least not one worth worrying about. The media tend to go along with this “false conflict,” without examining its validity. When possible it is better for established institutions to appear ready and able to resolve conflicts and solve problems, particularly ones that are of little concern. This is an example of the tacit collusion between the mass media and the government to never question its authority or expertise unless it is unavoidable.

"The power of the culture industry’s ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness. While it claims to lead the perplexed, it deludes them with false conflicts which they are to exchange for their own. It solves conflicts for them only in appearance, in a way that they can hardly be solved in their real lives" (Adorno, 1991).

The motivation of mainstream media can never be delinked from corporate advertising since that is what pays for their programming. It is these corporations that are the clients of mass media, not the public.

The “We campaign” represents a form of new media whose client is the public. This group is making a concerted effort to undermine the corporate media monopoly.

In these clips, we see, we hear a message about global warming—that we are in crisis; that we need to solve it together, and we need to do it now as a united force of many rather than a unilateral effort of a few. Stop drawing arbitrary lines in the sand that divide and thwart the process of this endeavor to save our planet—we all live here—act now! Freedom from dependence on fossil fuels is within our sights—demand it! Take it into your own hands, make a difference and do it along side your adversary.

"Although the culture industry undeniably speculates on the conscious and unconscious state of the millions towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary…the customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object" (Adorno, 1991)

I believe that Adorno would applaud these attempts, but he also might criticize it since it is merely the bourgeoisie competing with the ruling class and not really empowering the people. In fact, the We campaign might be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, since these new media are trying to influence the masses in much the same way as the ruling class, because they have the means to do it. The We campaign is using the media in an attempt to reform the ruling class, undermine the rigidity and oppressiveness of the status quo, but without realizing that there is another class to which they are not speaking—the unmentioned class—the working class or the lower class—commonly referred to as the “working families” families of America. This particular campaign does not speak for these people. The We campaign speaks for the liberal segment of the bourgeoisie. They are clearly not class conscious in the Marxist sense, and they do not see that there is something missing from their campaign. They believe in what they are doing because they know that there mission is to save the planet. The bourgeoisie is not the ruling class. The bourgeoisie is the class that performs the entrepreneurial and administrative work required by the ruling class to rule. The people aligned with the We campaign have the economic and political freedom to pursue their activism—the kind or work you don’t need to get paid for. What about the masses of working families? They still don’t have a voice. “We” is a good movement, a liberal reform, but Adorno, like Gramsci, would probably say that it’s not nearly enough.

"The total effect of the culture industry is one of anti-enlightenment, in which, as Horkheimer and I have noted, enlightenment, that is the progressive technical domination of nature, becomes mass deception and is turned into a means for fettering consciousness" (Adorno, 1991)

Where is the radical media re-organization!?

*A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down

The medicine go down

The medicine go down

Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down

In a most delightful way

(Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins)

She's crafty, and she's just my type

2008-09-26T22:21:00.000-07:00

Turn on the Food Network any weekday between 4 pm and 7 pm. Here's what you're likely to see: women preparing meals in a home kitchen. Five women each host a show in the hours in which (presumably) viewers are at home and thinking about what's for dinner that night. By the looks of it, you'd think every woman in America cooks dinner every night. . . or is supposed to. What exactly are we looking at and integrating into our beliefs when we watch these cooking shows?

I have a few guesses.

Let's meet our cast of characters. First up is Sandra Lee. Semi Homemade with Sandra Lee is all about taking shortcuts; for each recipe she combines 70% ready-made products with the other 30% of the ingredients prepared by hand. The best part about her show is that she ends every episode with booze.

Next is Giada di Laurentis. In her show, Everyday Italian, di Laurentis cooks (what else?) Italian food. She has a lot of male fans.

Fancy foods (with French names) are Ina Garten's forte. Barefoot Contessa is set the Hamptons, where Garten entertains in her picture-perfect farmhouse kitchen. She likes to make labor-intensive recipes with expensive ingredients.

Paula Deen dishes out generous helpings of Southern comfort food in her programs. Paula is infamous for starting every recipe with a stick of butter and for making funny faces when she tastes her dishes.

The afternoon cooking block ends with an hour of Rachael Ray's 30 Minute Meals. Ray has been a fixture on Food Network for over a decade. And despite her inordinate perkiness and unique phraseology (she coined such terms as EVOO for extra virgin olive oil); her popularity only increases.

So what are the prevailing trends among these shows? The most obvious, of course, are issues of gender and space -- or gendered space. All of these programs tell a story from the same point of view: the home kitchen is the place in which women must cook. According to these shows, womanliness and domesticity are inextricable. And for whom do the cook? Their husbands; all the women are married (except Lee, a divorcee since 2007, who allegedly has been dating the same man since the divorce). Preparing food may be viewed as an act of subservience to men.

Another strong undercurrent in the shows is linking food with desire and sensuality. Watching shows like this will whet one appetite or another. That connection is easy to make just by looking at how the women dress; it's pretty clear that this is eye candy for admirers of the decolletage. But I believe that there are subtler forms of desire that the shows address as well.

These women seemingly "have it all": a beautiful home, a family, a successful career, and enough time each night to make a fabulous dinner to boot. It's as if they provide a model for female viewers to emulate. Is this the way of life that the viewer (male or female) is supposed to desire?

And what did you think of their posh kitchens? Clearly these ladies are living the good life. . . maybe even the American Dream. All of the kitchens evoke a sense of wealth, which is sometimes combined with a WASPy sensibility (as is the case with Sandra Lee). The back stories on Lee and Paula Deen are very rags to riches; they both were the sole providers for their families of young children and came into their fortunes by ingenuity. Similarly, Rachael Ray came into her profession by a lot of hard work and more than a bit of dumb luck; she never trained as a chef. Their shows give the audience a hope of upward mobility, and reiterate the promise of the American Dream.

Just keep watching the Food Network and sooner or later you'll find something (or rather, someone) to suit your tastes.

Look at me-- I've watched Rachael Ray so much that my initial annoyance with her quirks has evolved into full blown idolatry. Not only do I watch and enjoy her daytime show every chance I get, but I also want her to be my BFF.

Hmm, looks like I'm complicit in my subjugation.

Beautiful aging of the masses: A proposal for appreciating what everybody will be.

2008-09-25T21:16:00.000-07:00

It is (intuitively in the Gitlin sense) a fact that the elderly members of our society are treated with less than optimal respect. In the vein of intuitive discovery that Gitlin has used in his post on pop culture which we have read for this class I assert that it is easy to convince people that the elderly deserve to be appreciated more than they are. (This insert is a little long but you might just let the music play while you read on as the tone of the tune/soundrack has an aesthetic element which lends itself to the sentiment of what I am asserting. Otherwise forty seconds will inform you.)

However, there are people in society who know this as a result of their experiences.

Among this population are these young medical professionals who (presumably) care for the elderly. The way in which they have taken control of "the means of production" as per Marx is an indication of the true humanistic nature of some members of our society. They wish to do good. They have done good by attempting to understand through "ethnographic" analysis what it is like to be old.

In the Gramscian sense perhaps one could criticize this exercise as a useless crumb thrown to the agressive train of humanity which will never accept our geriatrics as fully human. But in the Gramscian sense there is also (I would assert) potential here for the use of the means of production to become more than a crumb. That is not to take away from the positivity that created this media looking at the elderly. Marx would congratulate the producers of this kind of media:

In the Marxist sense this is a departure from the control of media by conglomerates.

In my opinion, it is the first step. This media needs to be seen to be appreciated. I believe, in the Gitlin sense, intuitively that I would have a challenge ahead of me to find one who would disagree with the sentiment that our elderly deserve better/more.

Therefore, this kind of media needs to be shown in schools and spread out through the virtual (and therefore real) world. We need to get this message to the forefront of people's thinking. People want to help and love our elderly. They just need to be shown how. This media can do that - people do want to help:

Media have a certain amount of power to influence. Surely it can be a force for the realization of the attributes of our elderly. But these media need to be seen. Now that we have the means of production distributed among the masses, how do we get the masses to see the production?

This may seem simplistic but if each of us brings this blog to the attention of our mother/father/grandmother/grandfather/aunt/uncle/etc. - then more people will be aware that they are not alone in their thoughts about the elderly in our society, whether they are elderly or not.

Now, that is progress.