Blogging

I had forgotten how clueless I was about blogging until I just reread my very first blog post. I just was not accustomed to having people reading my writing. The thought of putting it on the web for anybody to stumble across was kind of daunting. The truth is though, that if someone actually takes the time to read my blog, out of the millions of other websites they could be viewing, then I'm cool with them reading my writing. Even, if they disagree with what I have to say. With all this talking we've done this semester about the media as a public sphere where ideas are debated and negotiated, it's a good thing to have to hear somebody else's point of view and have a relative debate about it. And even if nobody is really reading my blog posts besides my class, I'm okay with that too. I realize that hasn't just been a waste of my time. It forced me to really take a stance and articulate it. Sometimes it becomes so easy to just "go with the flow" and accept things the way they are. Or even, if you don't agree with a certain dominant ideology, you find yourself just quietly grumbling to yourself about it instead of speaking out about it. This blogging process has been a good way for me to gage where I stand on certain issues. So it's fine with me if this is more of a personal thing then a message that is going to be received by a large audience. Not to say that it wouldn't be nice for it to reach somebody. I might want to start by actually telling some more people about it and hopefully that will be motivation enough to continue blogging.

On a side note, I've been listening to this band Grizzly Bear a lot lately and as I was perusing the New Yorker website earlier I came across this video....it kind of cracked me up:

Reality TV

The popularity of reality TV in our society is something that is hard to ignore and should be addressed. A lot of these reality TV shows like America's Next Top Model, American Idol, Project Runway, and So You Think You Can dance, tie in with ideal of the American Dream because they give people the hope that they can be famous too. A lot of these shows emphasize that anyone can make it, no matter what kind of a background you come from. There is always someone who on these shows that makes it pretty far, but came from a broken home, a small town, has a handicap, or some other challenge to overcome. While on the one hand it is good to have a diversity of people on the show and to believe in yourself, being a finalist on American Idol is still not a possibility for most people. Sure, someone who never thought they would make it big always wins American Idol, there were still the thousands of those who auditioned and didn't make the cut. Furthermore, the "reality" of reality tv shows is very questionable too. I recently watched a short clip of a talk given by the filmmaker Bill Guttentag about why reality tv is so popular:

Firstly, Guttentag points out, that is with all television shows, the primary concern is making money and selling a product. Reality TV shows are much cheaper to make then regular dramas

because you don't have to pay for expensive sets, or pay lots of money for involved screenplays, or hire expensive actors. Moreover, in the end the pay off for popular reality TV shows has been

much more then regular dramas. Thus, there is more incentive for producers to continue creating reality TV shows because they like to play it safe and show what they know sells.

Another important point to consider is that most of the time reality tv shows aren't all that real. The producers of the show want to create the kind of drama and dialogue that sells. So, a lot of

times the clips that we see on the actual show are taken out of context and manipulated in a way so that it fits into the idea of what the producer wants it to be. Personally I enjoy my share of

reality TV (Top Chef, SYTYCD, Project Runway anyone?) also, and there is nothing wrong with watching it for entertainment. It is just important to remember to distinguish between"reality" tv shows and actual reality.

Glenn Beck

The circumstances in which you grow up in have a large effect on how you view the world and how you you interpret things. Your race, gender, class, sexual orientation, and politics, all determine what perspective you approach things with. Thus, although media products have a certain message they intend to get across it does not mean that the audience will get that particular message out of a media text. What someone might find funny someone else might find offensive. This is where the clash between structure and agency come in to play.

I recently read an article in The New Yorker by Nancy Franklin, about "Fox News Channel's latest blowhard," Glenn Beck. As is well know Beck is an extremely controversial character. It would seem that Beck's intention is to get people riled up and support his wild notions about politics, and in particular his hate of the Obama Administration. However, Glenn Beck and his segment on Fox News is and example of how audiences can interpret the media in different ways based on the social context and background they are coming from (polysemy). As Franklin writes, "Some see him as a joke, and some see him as a danger, and some {...} are grateful to him and his efforts to 'take back America." Those people who tend to be more right wing and conservative, and those same people who are against the health reform and the Obama administration in general, might find Beck to be a spokesperson for them. Others think that he might have enough influence over his supporters to be dangerous. They think of him as war-mongerer who is just trying to stir up trouble. Still others view him as an egotistical joke, who is just a lot of loud talk, and who could take him seriously anyways? The scary thing is some people to do get sucked into his banter, but at the same time he turns many people off. When he makes statements that Obama is a racist and, "This President, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don't know what it is," he is alienating a lot of people, in particular probably the black/non-white population. On the other hand, for those people who agree with Beck, and are possibly racist themselves, it gives them even more reason to believe this is true.

I'm sure you've all heard some of the outrageous things Glenn Beck has said in the media, but here's a several clips to remind you:

"Folk Devils": Violence and Sex in the Media

There is no denying the fact that our media has become saturated with violence and sex. It seems that movies these days can get away with a lot more violence and nudity in pg-13 movies. The question is what does this say about our society? And what effect does this have on society?

I believe one of the main reasons we find sex and violence in the media is because sex and violence sells and the media industry is all about profit. But why is that this is what audiences want to see? Maybe it is because it seems thrilling and takes us away from what seems like our mundane everyday lives. Maybe it is an easy way for us to escape. In the news media the shock and awe aspect of violent news draws many viewers. Maybe it is that phenomena not wanting to look at something so horrible, but at the same time you can't seem to look away. Whatever the case it seems that the huge amount of images of sex and violence in the media has become a scapegoat for larger social issues, that may have some correlation, but are not fully to blame. Many try to claim that violence in the media is making children more violent. However, I believe this view completely disregards the agency of the audience. Even though people may enjoy watching violence in a movie or playing a violent video game most children are taught from a young age how to discern from right and wrong. I believe that most people are very aware of the implication in video game versus in the real world. In fact, video games and other media may be an outlet for feeling of anger that would otherwise be expressed in the real world. I think perhaps an issue that might be of more relevance, is not that we are becoming a more violent society, but that we are becoming more desensitized to the violence. Even by just watching the news we are exposed to so much violence, and the question that many people have asked is how can you people watch something so terrible on the news and then sit down to eat their dinner like any other night? We see so much death and destruction on the news and we begin to feel so helpless in the midst of it all. We have to cut off our emotions when we see the violence and suffering that is happening around the world.

Sex in the the media also gets blamed for teenagers being more sexually active and for more teen pregnancies and so on an so forth. Although, there is a lot of sex in the media and children and teenagers often to have misconception about the realities of sex because of how it is portrayed in the media, I think that they are more influenced by their peers and the environment they grow up in. I think peer pressure factors in a lot and teenagers will listen more to what their friends have to say or the people they look up to then what they see on the media. Thus, although it is hard to escape sex and violence in the media, people should be wary of placing too much blame on the media to avoid addressing the real problems in our society.

On a side note, I recently read an article in The New Yorker about Mr. Skin and his popular website at skin.com. It just shows you how much nudity really is a part of movies and what does the popularity of this website tell you about our society? Especially its portrayal of women as sex icons in the media? Anyways, here is a little more information on the website:

Globalization?

Two important questions to consider in today's world are, does globalization really exist? And if so, does it have a positive or negative effect? I think it is pretty difficult to deny that globalization is a very real thing that is happening and will continue to expand, thanks in large part to advancements in technology. Speaking specifically in terms of the globalization of the media, some argue that globalization isn't all that it's cracked up to be because there are many people in the world that do not have access to all the technology that allows them to view what the media has to offer. While this is true I believe that as time goes on more and more people will gain access to the necessary technology. It is true that we have not become a fully globalized world, but I believe we will continue to move in that direction. Where it will lead in the end, I am not sure. In some ways the globalization has a positive effect because it makes it easier to communicate more easily with other nations and share and exchange ideas. However, one major concern and downside of globalization is that, currently it seems to be more of a westernization. Because some countries are more wealthy and powerful then other nations it is inevitable that they have more influence on the media and where and how it is relayed to the rest of the world. The United States has the money to make all their products and media look really appealing and flashy. So, many people from other countries are attracted to it and want to be able to attain it also. The American media is so saturated with American ideals and advertisements that have started to have an effect on other cultures. The concern is that in the pursuit of the American ideals, other cultures will lose sight of their own ideals that could contribute so much to the world. Other countries that do not have the technology or the money are not able to put as much influential media out for the rest of the world to see. This world could use more diversity and openness, as opposed to more homogenization and closed-mindedness. I was really intrigued by this phenomenon of Korean women getting plastic surgery on their eye-lids so that they can have bigger eyes. Here's an interesting segment from CNN on the topic:

So I think that globalization has both benefits and disadvantages. Ideally globalization could be geared towards more exchanging and sharing of ideas. If different nations could learn from each other and incorporate new ideas into their culture, so that they can preserve their culture as well as evolve.

Earlier today I was thinking about by personal experience in Egypt as far as globalization is concerned and something that came to mind is Melody Tunes. Many small restaurants and shisha places in Maadi will several televisions that are all playing Melody Tunes which plays music videos of popular music. Melody Tunes has these commercials for many mainstream American songs, but with a very Arab twist to them. I think it is interesting how some cultures can take something from the western media, and poke fun at it and themselves, in order to put their own spin on it. Here are couple of examples for your viewing pleasure...



And....

Facebook

Many interesting phenomena of have arisen from the popular use of facebook, such as, the idea of "click-through activism". It might seem as though it's a good thing that it is so easy to join a worthy cause because there are always staggering numbers of people who claim they support the cause. But it also means that most of them are not as dedicate to the cause as those people who would have actually made the effort to join the group even if it wasn't so readily available on facebook. In these cases the number of people who are actually in the group does not equal the effectiveness of the group. People are able to join with just the click of a mouse, but then they don't actively participate in the group. This raises many interesting questions about why people join these groups and causes on facebook. Do they join out of some form of guilt? Do they not even think about and just accept any request that comes their way on facebook? Do they think it will make them seem "culturally sensitive"? Because we all know that once you join a group it's going to show up on every body's news feed.

This brings me to what I find most fascinating about facebook and other such websites where you create an online profile of yourself. This gives people a chance to pick and choose what parts of themselves they want the world to see. What profile pictures do people choose to put up? What status update do they choose to put up? What are they going to put as their activities and interests? Is it even a true representation of reality? Is there a disconnect between a person's physical self and their online self? I think that people to become very good at sort of subconsciously censoring what they are putting up online for people to see. People try and fit the complex person that they really are into this certain format that isn't really a fair representation of who they are. And maybe a lot of times their profile ends up being more of an image of who they want to be.

And then there are those times that having everybody see what you're up to on facebook, gets you in trouble...



Don't let facebook ruin your life. Real life is hard enough as it is.

What kind of tech user am I?

A Media Mover

If you are a Media Mover, you have a wide range of online and mobile habits, and you are bound to find or create an information nugget, such as a digital photo, and pass it on. These social exchanges are central to your use of information and communication technology. Cyberspace, as a path to personal productivity or an outlet for creativity, is less important to you.

More on this later...

Cultural Branding: Building an icon

In Douglas Holt's, "How is Cultural Branding Different?" he explores why certain brands become icons. Holt are argues that in order to truly become an icon advertisers need to understand what social issues are of the most significance of the time. This means that often times to remain an icon it means a company may need to change it's approach with the changes in social issues of the nations. Ads for iconic brands need to have strong ties with the point of utmost tension within a society. This then means a company can market the product as a way to solve the pressing problems of the time (Holt). Weather it be a time of war and people want peace or a time of division when people want to find unity, a company must be able market the problem as a healer. An example that Holt uses of an iconic brand was Snapple. At its outset the Snapple company was run by amateurs who had no real experience in business and they brought that out in their commercials. This was during the populist movement of the 1990s so Snapple jumped on the bandwagon and went against everything that represented the major corporations. Their original commercials were often times poorly made, but they were very real and natural. They used a woman who did clerical work at Snapple for their commercials instead of some paid actor (Holt).





However, eventually Snapple was bought out by the Quaker Oats company that instead tried to implement more traditional ways of advertising (Holt). Snapple no longer has the same cultural ties it use to have with the American people that used to feel empowered by drinking a Snapple and "sticking it to the man". If you watch more recent Snapple commercials they are much more polished, have real actors, and even make an attempt at humor, but it is not memorable and relatable like the old Snapple commercials use to be.





In an age when we are bombarded by thousands of commercials people are getting more and more sick and tired of hearing yet another one. Many commercials these days leave a negative impression on people because it is simply and annoying. It we have already heard something like it a million times before. That is why if a company really wants to sell their product and make it an icon they must go above and beyond mind-share branding, or emotional branding, or viral branding. They must make their product matter and seem invaluable to us. They need to manipulate their product to seem like it can heal a nation.


Citation:

Holt, Douglas. How Brands Become Icons. Boston: Harvard
Business School Publishing Corporation, 2004. 13-38. Print.

Glocal Scene: A Documentary

Glocal Scene is a documentary made by two young amateur filmmakers from Leeds. It is obvious when watching the film that they have no experience with filming. Their camera is often times very shaky, there are weird camera angles, and poor sound quality. The beauty of it, though, is that adds to the overall atmosphere of the documentary and the idea they are trying to get across. The film has a very organic feel because it is about struggling artists that have very little chance of getting much publicity and so it is up to themselves to get known. They are all very unpolished just like the film itself, but in this way, their true passion for their music shines through because it isn't just about the fame.



However, as is made clear in the film, making and recording music is about connecting with people and that is where the challenge begins. Since, the people who control the music industry is so concentrated it is hard for these local artists who are so different to get well known. Thanks to the internet and myspace, though, many are able to be heard and can create a fan base, however small. Another way for them to be heard is to tour and play in small venues weather it be nightclubs or even people's houses. These bands usually only make enough money to cover the costs of the trip.


The film also presented some interesting points that I never would have thought of before. It is interesting how bands get to another bands that know another band and they are able to sometimes form these small networks that can help each other out. In the film there was an example of a two woman band that had other bands play at there house in exchange for a breakfast of pancakes. The women said that once a band came to play at their house they always came back. Another interesting point made in the film is that the more isolated a city, often times, the more creative and unique the art will be. One gentleman in the film from LA believes that if you are exposed to too much music as you are growing up, you will lose a certain element of innocence when creating your own music. This reminds me of the video we watched during the marketing talk where they were able to predict the ad that the advertisers were going to create based on the ads they passed by on their trip to the studio. It shows how we are bombarded by so much of the same music and advertising that it starts to creep into our lives without even realizing it.