Robert W. McChesney says that the American media system is “spinning out of control,” and by this he means in part that only a few corporations control almost all media. From books to internet content to newspapers to TV and radio, corporations like Time-Warner control a lot of what we see, read, and thus, think. Even reading or viewing material that is meant to be entertaining, such as movies or popular novels, can in my opinion be skewed by the company producing it. These companies, such as Viacomm and Fox, show us what they think is important: we view the entertainment and read the news that they pick and thus end up thinking about the issues they want. The freepress.net chart lends credence to this theory by pointing out just how much certain companies control our media access and what we see and thus, think.
I believe that while it is certainly true that the media is being taken over by a small number of companies, this is not as unremittingly bad as McChesney seems to think. In the age on the internet, especially Web 2.0 (the social media model of web networking and internet presence) , the user or consumer does have some control over what people consume. For example, if my blog becomes popular enough that many read it, it might get picked up by a feed aggregator or a larger blog read by even more people. If that happens, I might manage to cultivate a following who are interested in what I have to say. At that point, simply by writing, I have the ability to influence what people think and in fact to be the media they see and read. Thus, it may be true that several companies control too much media, but they certainly do not control nearly all of it, as I can demonstrate by having my own blog. If people choose to read it, that cannot be controlled by a large corporation--there are simply too many people like me and too many outlets for our expression for that to happen.
Video blogs can add up to the minute content as well as working to promote viewer interest in themselves or other content. As this political blog example shows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4Cn7Et3Suo)
, video blogs, even on possibly divisive topics, have a place on the internet even in this day of media controlled by only a few corporations. As long as that remains the case, I feel McChesney is overreacting. It is actually easier to start a blog than ever before. Early on, when the internet first became popular, AOL (which later merged with Time-Warner) controlled the internet market because it was easy to use, making the vast internet easy to understand for the average consumer, who was brand new to this new and daunting technology. AOL slowly but surely--and then, increasingly quickly--lost its market share as people began to become more conversant with the internet and how it works. Now, more and more people understand the internet and using it to express oneself is easier than ever before. Services like Tumblr and Blogger will give you a blog for free, and professional-quality software is easily and readily available to edit and format it. With such powerful tools available even to elementary schoolers, a whole new generation is growing up entirely able to use the internet. The important thing about this is that they can and will use it for their own ends.
Works Cited
McChesney, Robert W. "Making Media Democratic." Boston Review (Summer, 1998).
"The Big Six." Free Press. Online. Accessed 13 July, 2009 athttp://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Social Networking by Internet- Future of Lameness?
There is no question that social networking is all the rage today. In the history of human civilization, never before have people been able to communicate with one another with such speed or over such long distances. While the inventors of the telegraph and the phone may beg to differ with the uniqueness of the internet’s speed and ease of communication, they are a century too late. The sheer wealth of information and networking capabilities of the internet put it in a class of communication all by itself. Currently, social networking sites are allowing people of common (and uncommon) interests to get together and share ideas and pictures, plan meetings, and learn more about each other and the world with very little risk. The advancements of social networking have caused a wide variety of responses, from those that feel something like Facebook is a gift from heaven, to others that feel the origin of the social networking site comes from somewhere with a little more fire. Regardless of one’s personal opinion of social networking sites, they are immensely popular and are currently influencing the population in a variety of ways. And, while many experts claim that this is only a reflection of things to come and social networking will continue to proliferate with proper marketing and its ability to socialize those that lack social abilities, the more likely fate for social networking is not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Charlene Li makes a bold claim in her blog, “The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air,” though her claim that social networking will become an integral part of human existence only makes sense to someone posting a blog on a website promoting a book that she wrote the wishes to “harness the power of social technologies like blogs, social networks, and YouTube” (Li). Though her claim about the continued growth of social networking has all the momentum in the world behind it at this moment, there is little to suggest “that in the future, social networks will be like air. They will be anywhere and everywhere we need and want them to be. And also, without that social context in our connected lives, we won’t really feel like we are truly living and alive, just as without sufficient air, we won’t really be able to breathe deeply” (Li). This claim is almost ridiculous, especially to anyone that has lived life with and without social networking websites. Of course, to a young teenager, they have never even known life without the internet, so social networking is almost like air, just like the hula hoop, the Slinky, or Pokémon infiltrated every part of culture in their time, young and old. However, like all fads, social networking is mainly comprised of nonsensical advertising, games, and other unnecessary bells and whistles that can never truly make up for the fact that relationships fostered online are generally less intimate and more alienated than those conducted in person.
There are also those that claim social networking can help severely socially inept people become more social. According to political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s theory on the spiral of silence claims that social networking sites can help eliminate the fear that often keeps people from interacting, bringing people “the characteristics of empowerment, enormous scales of available information, specific audiences” that help them become less socially withdrawn (“Spiral of silence”). However, conversely, social networking sites can also encourage people without such problems to become more socially withdrawn, substituting social networking online for personal interaction. Even when people are doing things in real life, they will take the time to Twitter about it, updating their status on Facebook in the process, and robbing the people around them and themselves of the benefits of personal interactions. Couple this with the fact that social networking is more of a fad than anything else, as evidenced by its evolution from small niche forums to the largely-dismissed-as-fad-and-then-used-as-marketing-tool Myspace to the now top-of-the-heap Facebook. While they may make changes that appeal to a wider audience, most people do get bored with what social networking has to offer, and will eventually “become less exclusive, less interesting, more overwhelming, and ultimately more annoying” (Schwartz). An example of this is the following video clip from YouTube, which reflects the frivolity of Facebook games and applications, as well as the growing anti-Facebook sentiment among people that use it, as well as other social networking sites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVA047JAQsk
I think that as soon as social networking becomes inevitably less profitable for the companies that sponsor it, people will eventually start to use them only as what they really are: a novelty. Social networking online will never be as crucial as air, or even face-to-face interaction. There may be elements of social networking in websites of the future, but there is little to suggest that humans will continue to use it once the novelty and profitability wears off. Social networking is nothing more than an ingenuous marketing scheme, whether for the sponsors advertising on it, or the people that advertise themselves and their lives to the World Wide Web. I think that in the end, it seems that social networking will become less like the essential air that we breathe and more like that toy we kind of liked as a child but gave to our little sister when we outgrew it.
Works Cited:
Li, Charlene. “The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air.” 6 Mar
2008. 6 Apr 2009. Groundswell.
Schwartz, Peter. “Facebook's Face Plant: The Poverty of Social Networks and the Death
of Web 2.0.” The Huffington Post. 9 Dec 2008. 6 Apr 2009..
“Spiral of silence.” Wikipedia. 5 Apr 2009. 6 Apr 2009.
Charlene Li makes a bold claim in her blog, “The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air,” though her claim that social networking will become an integral part of human existence only makes sense to someone posting a blog on a website promoting a book that she wrote the wishes to “harness the power of social technologies like blogs, social networks, and YouTube” (Li). Though her claim about the continued growth of social networking has all the momentum in the world behind it at this moment, there is little to suggest “that in the future, social networks will be like air. They will be anywhere and everywhere we need and want them to be. And also, without that social context in our connected lives, we won’t really feel like we are truly living and alive, just as without sufficient air, we won’t really be able to breathe deeply” (Li). This claim is almost ridiculous, especially to anyone that has lived life with and without social networking websites. Of course, to a young teenager, they have never even known life without the internet, so social networking is almost like air, just like the hula hoop, the Slinky, or Pokémon infiltrated every part of culture in their time, young and old. However, like all fads, social networking is mainly comprised of nonsensical advertising, games, and other unnecessary bells and whistles that can never truly make up for the fact that relationships fostered online are generally less intimate and more alienated than those conducted in person.
There are also those that claim social networking can help severely socially inept people become more social. According to political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s theory on the spiral of silence claims that social networking sites can help eliminate the fear that often keeps people from interacting, bringing people “the characteristics of empowerment, enormous scales of available information, specific audiences” that help them become less socially withdrawn (“Spiral of silence”). However, conversely, social networking sites can also encourage people without such problems to become more socially withdrawn, substituting social networking online for personal interaction. Even when people are doing things in real life, they will take the time to Twitter about it, updating their status on Facebook in the process, and robbing the people around them and themselves of the benefits of personal interactions. Couple this with the fact that social networking is more of a fad than anything else, as evidenced by its evolution from small niche forums to the largely-dismissed-as-fad-and-then-used-as-marketing-tool Myspace to the now top-of-the-heap Facebook. While they may make changes that appeal to a wider audience, most people do get bored with what social networking has to offer, and will eventually “become less exclusive, less interesting, more overwhelming, and ultimately more annoying” (Schwartz). An example of this is the following video clip from YouTube, which reflects the frivolity of Facebook games and applications, as well as the growing anti-Facebook sentiment among people that use it, as well as other social networking sites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVA047JAQsk
I think that as soon as social networking becomes inevitably less profitable for the companies that sponsor it, people will eventually start to use them only as what they really are: a novelty. Social networking online will never be as crucial as air, or even face-to-face interaction. There may be elements of social networking in websites of the future, but there is little to suggest that humans will continue to use it once the novelty and profitability wears off. Social networking is nothing more than an ingenuous marketing scheme, whether for the sponsors advertising on it, or the people that advertise themselves and their lives to the World Wide Web. I think that in the end, it seems that social networking will become less like the essential air that we breathe and more like that toy we kind of liked as a child but gave to our little sister when we outgrew it.
Works Cited:
Li, Charlene. “The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air.” 6 Mar
2008. 6 Apr 2009. Groundswell.
Schwartz, Peter. “Facebook's Face Plant: The Poverty of Social Networks and the Death
of Web 2.0.” The Huffington Post. 9 Dec 2008. 6 Apr 2009.
“Spiral of silence.” Wikipedia. 5 Apr 2009. 6 Apr 2009.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Understanding Our Dependence on Media and Gratifications
The Internet as a form of media can be described in terms of the media dependency theory, as described by a number of researchers. This theory posits that “the more dependent an individual is on the media for having his or her needs fulfilled, the more important the media will be to that person” (Wikibooks). This is connected to Sunstein’s observation that the proliferation of media on the Internet allows individual users to choose and filter the news they read to a strong extent, filtering out information that does not meet their current views. Sunstein posits that the individual design of information access inhibits the use of the Internet as a public forum because it does not provide an opportunity for views to come into conflict. With a development of high Internet media dependency the reduction of public discourse could take place.
I believe that it is to some extent true that individual users can filter the information that they view on “their” internet. However, an individual with high media dependency will have links into a number of different viewpoints, due to the nature of the Web. Because individuals link things in such a way that it does not regard how others see the connections, it is likely that users will be exposed to different points of view regardless of their personal preferences. In effect, this is no different than choosing what newspaper to read depending on how much you like its views.
A media example of intersecting opinions that are not filtered on the Internet is Jon Stewart’s interview with Jim Kramer that occurred a few weeks ago. This video provided two different viewpoints of the financial crisis from individuals that represent starkly different points of view, and represents a dialectic discussion that led to formaiton of public attitudes across a range of public opinions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt-fb7IQ4Ko
Works Cited
Sunstein, Cass R. The Daily We: Is the Internet Really a Blessing for Democracy? 2001.
24 March 2009 http://www.bostonreview.net/BR26.3/sunstein.html.
The Daily Show. YouTube- Stewart and Cramer Face Off. 13 March 2009. 24 March
2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt-fb7IQ4Ko.
Wikibooks. Communication Theory: Uses and Gratifications. 28 January 2009. 24 March 2009
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Theory/Uses_and_Gratifications
I believe that it is to some extent true that individual users can filter the information that they view on “their” internet. However, an individual with high media dependency will have links into a number of different viewpoints, due to the nature of the Web. Because individuals link things in such a way that it does not regard how others see the connections, it is likely that users will be exposed to different points of view regardless of their personal preferences. In effect, this is no different than choosing what newspaper to read depending on how much you like its views.
A media example of intersecting opinions that are not filtered on the Internet is Jon Stewart’s interview with Jim Kramer that occurred a few weeks ago. This video provided two different viewpoints of the financial crisis from individuals that represent starkly different points of view, and represents a dialectic discussion that led to formaiton of public attitudes across a range of public opinions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt-fb7IQ4Ko
Works Cited
Sunstein, Cass R. The Daily We: Is the Internet Really a Blessing for Democracy? 2001.
24 March 2009 http://www.bostonreview.net/BR26.3/sunstein.html.
The Daily Show. YouTube- Stewart and Cramer Face Off. 13 March 2009. 24 March
2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt-fb7IQ4Ko.
Wikibooks. Communication Theory: Uses and Gratifications. 28 January 2009. 24 March 2009
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Theory/Uses_and_Gratifications
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Web as The New Public Sphere?
The public sphere is a concept defined by Jürgen Habermas as “a virtual or imaginary community which does not necessarily exist in any identifiable space” (Soules), where private people use dialogue and assembly to create opinions and attitudes. The public sphere, which does not exist as a tangible concept, still pressures the formation and direction of democracy. The Internet provides an avenue for realization of the public sphere, according to Poor, by creating virtual spaces and communities in which public opinion and attitude can be formed using the same mechanism described by Habermas.
I believe that there is evidence that the Web provides a means of creation of a public sphere as described by Poor. Habermas’ definition of the public sphere includes universal access, autonomy, rejection of hierarchy, the rule of law, and quality of participation (Soules). These characteristics can be identified within Internet communities that are focused on public opinion and formation of dialogue and attitudes. For example, the access to the Web is nearly universal now (although older and very poor users may still be excluded), there is no clear means of enforcing hierarchy, and there is a high degree of autonomy.
One way the Web serves as a public sphere is providing a voice for political protest and formation of public opinion. One way this can be done is through the use of YouTube to distribute information and viewpoints. An example of this is the MoveOn.org YouTube video playlist, which brings together videos that support anti-war policies and drive public opinion about the political and military operations in Iraq as well as in other areas. For example, the “Betrayal of trust” series describes ways in which politicians have failed to protect the public interest,
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F830FD92F13887B3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=bwoORln51NI
a clear indication of the creation of a public sphere within the Internet.
Works Cited
Moveon.org. Moveon.org video playlist. 23 March 2009. 23 March 2009
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F830FD92F13887B3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=bwoORln51NI.
Poor, Nathaniel. "Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot." Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 10.2 (2005): Article 4. <>
Soules, Marshall. Jürgen Habermas and the Public Sphere. 2007. 23 March 2009.
I believe that there is evidence that the Web provides a means of creation of a public sphere as described by Poor. Habermas’ definition of the public sphere includes universal access, autonomy, rejection of hierarchy, the rule of law, and quality of participation (Soules). These characteristics can be identified within Internet communities that are focused on public opinion and formation of dialogue and attitudes. For example, the access to the Web is nearly universal now (although older and very poor users may still be excluded), there is no clear means of enforcing hierarchy, and there is a high degree of autonomy.
One way the Web serves as a public sphere is providing a voice for political protest and formation of public opinion. One way this can be done is through the use of YouTube to distribute information and viewpoints. An example of this is the MoveOn.org YouTube video playlist, which brings together videos that support anti-war policies and drive public opinion about the political and military operations in Iraq as well as in other areas. For example, the “Betrayal of trust” series describes ways in which politicians have failed to protect the public interest,
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F830FD92F13887B3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=bwoORln51NI
a clear indication of the creation of a public sphere within the Internet.
Works Cited
Moveon.org. Moveon.org video playlist. 23 March 2009. 23 March 2009
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F830FD92F13887B3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=bwoORln51NI.
Poor, Nathaniel. "Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot." Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 10.2 (2005): Article 4. <>
Soules, Marshall. Jürgen Habermas and the Public Sphere. 2007. 23 March 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Agenda Setting Theory and Narrow Perspectives of News Media
With the proliferation of the twenty-four hour cable news channels and the rise of the Internet, the news media is faster and more comprehensive than ever before. While this does not necessarily give the news media more influence now than when the masses got their news solely from newspapers or magazines, it does provide them with a greater platform and reach into the lives of their audience. While most news organizations currently operate under the auspice of objectivity, the fact remains that they are the ones deciding what is news and what is not. The agenda-setting theory explains the large influence news media outlets have on audiences by simply choosing what to report and how much attention to give to a story (“Agenda-setting theory”). This immense influence over its audience has become the subject of scrutiny by those that feel the objectivity of the news media is nothing more than an illusion fostered by the media itself.
Sociologist Herbert J. Gans, author of the 1979 book, Deciding What’s News, believes that journalists should be less concerned with the almost sanctified issue of “objectivity” and more concerned giving audiences a myriad of different perspectives in an attempt to improve society as a whole: “journalism has to be more than about the issues and problems that concern the white middle class mainstream. But multiperspectivism goes further; it also means reporting all ideas that could resolve issues and help problems, even if the ideas come from ideologically small groups” (Rosen). Gans’ hope is that journalism can encourage greater democracy in coverage, better educate the masses on political and economic issues, and facilitate more truth in reporting by emphasizing perspective over “objectivity,” which is often not objective at all.
The ideas of Gans are perhaps the best on how the news media can finally achieve the objectivity that it claims to seek, but continuously fails. Most Americans have become accustomed to getting news from organizations that make no apologies for reporting news from a decidedly narrow perspective, while claimed to be objective, fair, and balanced. The example of Fox News is perhaps the most dramatic in the past decade, with its decidedly right-wing take on the news, while proclaiming its position necessary as a counter to what it sees as an overly liberal news media. Fox News made a habit of claiming its objectivity, yet continuously failed to live up to its own ideals. Through its success, the rise of commentary shows, pundits, and other talking heads with specific agendas helped only to contribute to the great divisiveness that gripped the nation. If done under the blanket of multiperspectivism, this type of reporting would have been fine in presenting the conservative slant on the news. But, Fox News portrayed itself as an objective news outlet, misrepresenting itself and creating news stories strictly out of its own political agenda. This type of journalism is by no means objective, and helps show that objectivity is perhaps too much to ask from a news media so highly dependent upon ratings, advertising, and the politics of the corporations that own each respective outlet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eexy-51sIao
There are few stories from the recent news that display the agenda-setting theory, as well as Gans’ ideas on subjective reporting, as the story concerning the “feud” between CNBC’s financial analyst, Jim Kramer, and The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. Stewart criticized financial analysts on cable networks, including Kramer, for creating a circus-like atmosphere in the financial news world, which helped contribute to the easy money attitude that helped lead to the current financial crisis. Many news outlets picked up on the debate, including CNN, the origin of the clip; CNN’s Rick Sanchez shows each side of the story, with clips of Kramer defending his actions on numerous other news and entertainment shows, and clips of Stewart showing clips of Kramer and the many mistakes he made, as well as the ridiculous manner in which he made his predictions. While Stewart is a comedian and his show a satire of the news, Kramer is portrayed by himself and his station as serious financial analyst. The debate between the two became a widely reported news story illustrating the responsibility of the news media to report and represent itself honestly and accurately to its audience. It also helps illustrate Gans’ idea that openly subjective perspectives such as Stewart’s are just as valuable in creating honest discourse in the media as those that claim to strive for objectivity such as Kramer; while covertly subjective perspectives masquerading as objective are detrimental not only to the credibility of the news media, but also the political, economic, and social health of its audience.
Works Cited:
“Agenda-setting theory.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 9 Mar 2009. 16 Mar 2009.
.
Rosen, Jay. “Special to PressThink: Interview With Herbert Gans, America's Senior Sociologist of News.” PressThink. 13 Jan 2004. 16 Mar 2009..
Sociologist Herbert J. Gans, author of the 1979 book, Deciding What’s News, believes that journalists should be less concerned with the almost sanctified issue of “objectivity” and more concerned giving audiences a myriad of different perspectives in an attempt to improve society as a whole: “journalism has to be more than about the issues and problems that concern the white middle class mainstream. But multiperspectivism goes further; it also means reporting all ideas that could resolve issues and help problems, even if the ideas come from ideologically small groups” (Rosen). Gans’ hope is that journalism can encourage greater democracy in coverage, better educate the masses on political and economic issues, and facilitate more truth in reporting by emphasizing perspective over “objectivity,” which is often not objective at all.
The ideas of Gans are perhaps the best on how the news media can finally achieve the objectivity that it claims to seek, but continuously fails. Most Americans have become accustomed to getting news from organizations that make no apologies for reporting news from a decidedly narrow perspective, while claimed to be objective, fair, and balanced. The example of Fox News is perhaps the most dramatic in the past decade, with its decidedly right-wing take on the news, while proclaiming its position necessary as a counter to what it sees as an overly liberal news media. Fox News made a habit of claiming its objectivity, yet continuously failed to live up to its own ideals. Through its success, the rise of commentary shows, pundits, and other talking heads with specific agendas helped only to contribute to the great divisiveness that gripped the nation. If done under the blanket of multiperspectivism, this type of reporting would have been fine in presenting the conservative slant on the news. But, Fox News portrayed itself as an objective news outlet, misrepresenting itself and creating news stories strictly out of its own political agenda. This type of journalism is by no means objective, and helps show that objectivity is perhaps too much to ask from a news media so highly dependent upon ratings, advertising, and the politics of the corporations that own each respective outlet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eexy-51sIao
There are few stories from the recent news that display the agenda-setting theory, as well as Gans’ ideas on subjective reporting, as the story concerning the “feud” between CNBC’s financial analyst, Jim Kramer, and The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. Stewart criticized financial analysts on cable networks, including Kramer, for creating a circus-like atmosphere in the financial news world, which helped contribute to the easy money attitude that helped lead to the current financial crisis. Many news outlets picked up on the debate, including CNN, the origin of the clip; CNN’s Rick Sanchez shows each side of the story, with clips of Kramer defending his actions on numerous other news and entertainment shows, and clips of Stewart showing clips of Kramer and the many mistakes he made, as well as the ridiculous manner in which he made his predictions. While Stewart is a comedian and his show a satire of the news, Kramer is portrayed by himself and his station as serious financial analyst. The debate between the two became a widely reported news story illustrating the responsibility of the news media to report and represent itself honestly and accurately to its audience. It also helps illustrate Gans’ idea that openly subjective perspectives such as Stewart’s are just as valuable in creating honest discourse in the media as those that claim to strive for objectivity such as Kramer; while covertly subjective perspectives masquerading as objective are detrimental not only to the credibility of the news media, but also the political, economic, and social health of its audience.
Works Cited:
“Agenda-setting theory.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 9 Mar 2009. 16 Mar 2009.
Rosen, Jay. “Special to PressThink: Interview With Herbert Gans, America's Senior Sociologist of News.” PressThink. 13 Jan 2004. 16 Mar 2009.
Monday, March 9, 2009
When Everything is a Commercial.....
In Frontline’s “The MTV Machine,” a critic claims, “Everything on MTV is a commercial. That’s all MTV is. Sometimes it is an explicit advertisement paid for by a company to sell a product; sometimes it’s going to be a video for a music company, there to sell music; sometimes it’s going to be the set that’s filled with trendy clothes and stuff, there to sell a look that will include products on that set; sometimes it will be a show about an upcoming movie, paid for by the studio, though you don’t know it, to hype a movie that’s coming out from Hollywood, but everything is an infomercial. There is no noncommercial part of MTV.” This critic essentially argues that MTV’s programming content does not represent, as they claim, what kids want to see, but instead tells them what to see, buy, wear, and even how to act, making MTV the titular “merchants of cool.” The assertion is that the media machine of MTV generates, as the excerpt from the Ewen article states, not just advertising but propaganda which manipulates youth into purchasing decisions and conforming their opinions and behavior as well (Soules).
I agree that this assertion has truth in it, but it’s only true to an extent. MTV and other music channels do bombard their viewers with a highly slick, commercial format. There is no arguing the critic’s point that MTV programming is like a long infomercial. Every aspect of it is, indeed, intended to sell something, whatever that something may be. However, it all comes down to the individual. We may receive signs and symbols and urges and promises from a commercial, as we have studied, which can sway our decision-making process as consumers. But at a certain point, a person must be willing to be manipulated, particularly in the case of MTV. MTV’s programming is narrow in focus, very precisely positioned on a certain “type” of teenager, tween, and young adult. Their recognition and continued creation of this type means that the type hangs on their every programming turn, every word that their veejays and guest star event announcers utter. But a large segment of the population in that same age group does not allow MTV to sway their decision-making process, or creation of identity (myself included). While the 24-hour-a-day airing of a channel that deliberately has, as the critic says, “no noncommercial part,” seems sleazy and insidious, it is not as all-pervasive or far-reaching as the critic makes it seem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ica0S13BTh4
In this opening clip from the 2001 film Josie and the Pussycats, a typical segment of MTV programming is parodied. A boy band emerges on the runway of their private jet and gives a performance to hordes of screaming fans. Each member of the band has an expertly crafted image designed to sell a look to several different types of consumer/fans. When they return to their jet, it is literally filled with the products they hawk for their record label as MTV stars. Their handler, Wyatt, is shown to be a domineering music advertising executive. The clip is humorous, but it also foreshadows that, through the music of the bands they promote, MTV allows a shadowy cabal to hide subliminal advertisements in the music kids are listening to. The film is an entertaining example of the opinion of the critic in the Frontline video taken to the extreme. While it is a funny satirical parody of the way modern music and videos influence young people, there is a grain of truth in it, the same grain that is true in the critic’s original complaint: MTV is one long commercial. The difference is only in what the target of the ads can do about it.
Works Cited
Soules, Marshall. “Excerpts from PR! A Social History of Spin, by Stuart Ewen.” 2007. Malaspina University-College Media Studies Department. 7 March 2009.
“The MTV Machine.” Chapter Three, “The Merchants of Cool.” Frontline. 27 February 2001. 7 March 2009.
I agree that this assertion has truth in it, but it’s only true to an extent. MTV and other music channels do bombard their viewers with a highly slick, commercial format. There is no arguing the critic’s point that MTV programming is like a long infomercial. Every aspect of it is, indeed, intended to sell something, whatever that something may be. However, it all comes down to the individual. We may receive signs and symbols and urges and promises from a commercial, as we have studied, which can sway our decision-making process as consumers. But at a certain point, a person must be willing to be manipulated, particularly in the case of MTV. MTV’s programming is narrow in focus, very precisely positioned on a certain “type” of teenager, tween, and young adult. Their recognition and continued creation of this type means that the type hangs on their every programming turn, every word that their veejays and guest star event announcers utter. But a large segment of the population in that same age group does not allow MTV to sway their decision-making process, or creation of identity (myself included). While the 24-hour-a-day airing of a channel that deliberately has, as the critic says, “no noncommercial part,” seems sleazy and insidious, it is not as all-pervasive or far-reaching as the critic makes it seem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ica0S13BTh4
In this opening clip from the 2001 film Josie and the Pussycats, a typical segment of MTV programming is parodied. A boy band emerges on the runway of their private jet and gives a performance to hordes of screaming fans. Each member of the band has an expertly crafted image designed to sell a look to several different types of consumer/fans. When they return to their jet, it is literally filled with the products they hawk for their record label as MTV stars. Their handler, Wyatt, is shown to be a domineering music advertising executive. The clip is humorous, but it also foreshadows that, through the music of the bands they promote, MTV allows a shadowy cabal to hide subliminal advertisements in the music kids are listening to. The film is an entertaining example of the opinion of the critic in the Frontline video taken to the extreme. While it is a funny satirical parody of the way modern music and videos influence young people, there is a grain of truth in it, the same grain that is true in the critic’s original complaint: MTV is one long commercial. The difference is only in what the target of the ads can do about it.
Works Cited
Soules, Marshall. “Excerpts from PR! A Social History of Spin, by Stuart Ewen.” 2007. Malaspina University-College Media Studies Department. 7 March 2009.
“The MTV Machine.” Chapter Three, “The Merchants of Cool.” Frontline. 27 February 2001. 7 March 2009.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Diets and Boot Camp and Boob Lifts, Oh My!
Since the 1970s, women have made tremendous strides in terms of professional success. Thanks to the feminist movement, America has more female scientists, politicians and senior managers than ever before. Women even managed to break into the male-dominated field of broadcast journalism, which requires bulldog tenacity and ambition—traits traditionally associated with men. Unfortunately, even when they prove themselves not only competent, but also exemplary in their fields, women are judged on whether their breasts are high enough and their faces wrinkle-free. Granted, when one is watching television, one expects to see attractive people on the screen; however, something is fundamentally skewed when older women have to have unwrinkled faces, dyed hair, and breast lifts while men can get away with letting their jowls and wrinkles hang out because they are ‘distinguished’ and ‘have character.’ Women comprise more than half the television audience and they would like to see some more attractive men on the screen too! However, that is not likely to happen because American culture is structured around what heterosexual men find fascinating. No matter how engaging a reporter can be, if she does not appeal to straight male sensibilities, then she must either get plastic surgery or lose her job. “Over the past 10 years, we have seen more women journalists than ever on the national airwaves, but they are still evaluated as visual objects in ways that men are not” (Kim). Observe your average sitcom for example. The man can be overweight, insensitive, low-income, and have all kinds of disgusting habits, but the woman is always attractive and knowledgeable. Of course, all men would feel that they are entitled to the most attractive women (7-10 on the ‘looks scale’) while the rest of womankind should either go through the contortions of dramatic weight loss and cosmetic surgery to appease the Average Joe. However, as far as we have come, we still have a long way to go. No matter what women accomplish professionally, they are evaluated primarily on how they look.
The message that females must be eternally hot starts very early. In fact, many little girls believe that they have a weight problem, and many start diets before they are twelve-years-old. Since most crimes against humanity can be justified by following the money, a new generation of young women is primed to support the ever-burgeoning dieting industry. “In 2003, Teen magazine reported that 35% of girls 6 to 12 have been on at least one diet, and that 50-70% of normal weight girls believe they are overweight. Overall research indicates that 90% of women are dissatisfied with their appearance in some way” (Gerber). When images of unrealistic beauty are shoved down the throats of our young, they feel that in order to have any social worth whatsoever, they must conform to these ideals as closely as possible. However, young men who see very attractive men on television do not suffer the same way, probably because they often see average to plain guys with attractive women. Young girls never see the situation in reverse. In addition, it is well known that men judge women visually and harshly while men get some latitude for having a great personality and financial security. Women are usually unsuccessful in employing compensatory strategies for unattractive looks (i.e. developing a quick wit, making a lot of money). The problem is intensified if you are an ethnic minority—then your looks have to be ten times better than theirs, only to be considered for mating. Given this sociological fact, is it any wonder why young girls have such complexes these days?
Here’s a CNN report titled: ‘American Beauty Standards: The Ugly Side of Beauty’ that helps bring home points from the articles.
Works Cited
Gerber, Robin. “Beauty and Body Image in the Media.” Media Awareness Network, 2009, 23 February 2009, <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_birls/women_beauty.ctm >
Kim, L.S. “Do We Still Need Feminist Media?” Ms. Magazine, November 9, 2007, 23 February 2009, <http://www.alternet.org/story/67388 >
Video Thanks to Youtube.com
The message that females must be eternally hot starts very early. In fact, many little girls believe that they have a weight problem, and many start diets before they are twelve-years-old. Since most crimes against humanity can be justified by following the money, a new generation of young women is primed to support the ever-burgeoning dieting industry. “In 2003, Teen magazine reported that 35% of girls 6 to 12 have been on at least one diet, and that 50-70% of normal weight girls believe they are overweight. Overall research indicates that 90% of women are dissatisfied with their appearance in some way” (Gerber). When images of unrealistic beauty are shoved down the throats of our young, they feel that in order to have any social worth whatsoever, they must conform to these ideals as closely as possible. However, young men who see very attractive men on television do not suffer the same way, probably because they often see average to plain guys with attractive women. Young girls never see the situation in reverse. In addition, it is well known that men judge women visually and harshly while men get some latitude for having a great personality and financial security. Women are usually unsuccessful in employing compensatory strategies for unattractive looks (i.e. developing a quick wit, making a lot of money). The problem is intensified if you are an ethnic minority—then your looks have to be ten times better than theirs, only to be considered for mating. Given this sociological fact, is it any wonder why young girls have such complexes these days?
Here’s a CNN report titled: ‘American Beauty Standards: The Ugly Side of Beauty’ that helps bring home points from the articles.
Works Cited
Gerber, Robin. “Beauty and Body Image in the Media.” Media Awareness Network, 2009, 23 February 2009, <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_birls/women_beauty.ctm >
Kim, L.S. “Do We Still Need Feminist Media?” Ms. Magazine, November 9, 2007, 23 February 2009, <http://www.alternet.org/story/67388 >
Video Thanks to Youtube.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
