A Conscious Consumer: An Oxymoron?

by Melissa the Marinade Maker

From a tender age, we all have been told we are unique; we are individuals possessing special characteristics and skills not common to others in society. Although many refuse to define themselves as based upon consumer products, it is extremely difficult to enact a complete separation between products and who an individual "is." The blatant question is this: Is the individual simply a product? Many would argue no, as any human being with even a moderately functioning brain is able to distinguish themselves from the products they consume for the sake of daily life, yet others assert that society is very uncritical and lacks the proper analytical skills to create such a separation between the being and the product.

The media have employed techniques, efficacious techniques, that have created a "consumer frenzy" in every possible venue of life. Newspapers, magazines, the radio, and lo and behold, television itself, have all been extremely effective and extremely profitable modes of consumer-mania. Debate has raged about the quantity of advertisements each individual is exposed to on a daily basis, some claim roughly 1,500, while others claim figures in the hundreds. The actual figure is irrelevant in that the bottom line remains that commercials have invaded every crevice of life, with commercials assertively advocating products ranging from savory, delectable chocolate to shampoo that renders impassioned screams in the shower. It is unarguable that the very function of a corporation is to generate revenue, utilizing the means necessary to ensure a sustainable market demographic. However, what is bothersome is that the individual is unable to venture for themselves and find a suitable product without it being portrayed as an absolute "must-have." The psychological implications of such advertising are ostensible: consumers passively expect to have everything presented to them, as opposed to being an informed and pro-active consumer. Rather than unconsciously absorbing all the advertisements being propelled, the consumer ought to make purchase decisions based upon individual discretion, as opposed to simply what the commercials tell them. Thus, the lack of personal opinion has resulted in commercials hindering a conscientious consumer.

Historically, commercials have played a vital role in the U.S. consumer market. The early to mid-20th century consisted of commercials that revolved around the suburban lifestyle, catered specifically for women to purchase the newest, most desirable kitchen and cleaning appliances. With the onset of the 1980s, commercials reached a newfound peak and horizontally diffused into all possible marketable venues, developing even further demographic specializations on a global scale. Specific examples are not needed because advertisements ranging for any possible product, be it peanut butter to car models, all create a must-have frenzy for that particular product.

For those of you still reading, this blogger asks that you be a conscious, analytical consumer, for the sake of your wallet and for the sake of your mental welfare. Yes the latest model of this or that may seem alluring and highly appealing. However, think for a moment if it is necessary, and if so, if you are making an evaluated decision. After all, a conscious consumer can make for a less manipulative market. Thank you.

(Graphic from radicalgraphics.org, which offers its material for free.)

media
consumer culture
television
culture
advertising
Add to Technorati Favorites


Subscribe in a reader

Men, the Media & Sexism

by Zack Huhn

You always hear complaints about how women have to deal with the stereotypical media roles that degrade how women are portrayed in society. Let’s discuss how men have to deal with the SAME stereotypes. Get over it — media glamorize being beautiful and powerful or important, regardless of sex. Many times, men often play one of a few stereotypical roles in media, which if the same reaction is taken to this as women, means they are expected to always act that way in everyday life. Be it the jock or the class clown, the superstar athlete or brave hero, this is obviously an impossible reality for almost any man to live up to. Be honest, how many shirtless, hairless, toned, athletic, tall, tan, intelligent, funny, interesting and entertaining male supermodels do you see walking around campus at American University every day? This nearly unattainable image affects men just as much, if not more than women; it affects our relationship opportunities, job opportunities, social circles and more. Men have to wonder: am I masculine enough, well enough dressed, tall enough, thin enough, muscular enough, athletic enough, smart enough, wealthy enough, funny enough, interesting enough, strong enough, caring enough, powerful enough — just like women. Are my teeth as white and straight as the guy in the commercial? Is my car as nice as his? Will people notice that my skin is slightly less than perfect? I work out, but I still have a little work to do. Will people understand? When we see images of women in swimsuits or underwear, we criticize. When we see images of men in swimwear or underwear, we don’t think twice. It’s ironic; the very girls complaining about the stereotypes they have to deal with are the same girls watching Gossip Girl and The Hills, reading Us Weekly and Cosmopolitan. Don’t get me wrong, I love that these shows encourage us to dress well and be hygienic. I’m not complaining about the images they portray, nor am saying one is wrong to complain; but we have to understand that men face the same media bias as women, and if people want to make a change, they have to stop supporting what they claim to be against through buying into the industry!

(The photo is from the Europa BSN Model Search competition in Irving, Texas from 2007; the photo is by SSCusp of Vancouver, WA via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
sexism
Gossip Girl
The Hills
Us Weekly
Cosmopolitan
culture
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Rise of Sports Media Networks

by Abdullah Faisal

What is a sports fan to do if they missed their favorite basketball team's game? After 1999, a fan could tune into NBA TV and watch highlights from that night of basketball games. The National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and the National Hockey League (NHL) all have television networks broadcasting 24/7. The National Football League is by far the most profitable professional sports league in the United States. To tap into the profitable sports media industry, the NFL launched the NFL Network in 2003. The launch of the NFL Network continued a trend that NBA TV started in 1999. Sports leagues are creating and marketing their own networks and services to provide in-depth coverage to their fans and make a profit.

The creation of league-sponsored television networks and premium sports packages like DirecTV's NBA League Pass ™ and NFL Sunday Ticket ™ are a relatively new trend that benefits sports fans. These sports networks and packages benefit fans like me who live outside of their favorite team's market. I am a fan of the San Francisco Giants, San Francisco 49ers, and Golden State Warriors. Because I do not live in California, I cannot watch them play on a nightly basis. Before the creation of sports networks and packages, I would have to wait until there was a nationally televised game on the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) or Turner Network Television (TNT). Now, I can subscribe to NBA League Pass and watch Warriors' games on my computer. And, if I happen to miss a game, I could watch extended highlight clips of that game on NBA TV. Watching your favorite team no matter where you are is revolutionary and sports leagues other than the NBA, NHL, and NFL realize that there is a lot of money to be made in the sports media industry.

Major League Baseball is currently the only major professional sports league in the United States without a network. However, that is going to change on January 1, 2009. The new MLB Network will be different from other sports networks because it is partly owned by cable and satellite companies. As a result, the MLB Network will reach the most households out of any of the other sports networks. On the other hand, the NFL Network is not owned by any media companies so distribution has been an issue. The NFL wants its channel to be offered in a basic cable package without any extra charges, but cable companies like Comcast refuse. As a result, the NFL Network is struggling to reach a large potential audience. Although sports networks like the NFL Network have had some issues, they are in high demand and will have a tremendous impact on how people watch sports and sports news.

(Note: For viewers at American University, NBA TV is Channel 33 on the campus television system and the NFL Network is Channel 81. More information on the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies is also available on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

sports
football
baseball
basketball
hockey
nfl
mlb
nba
nhl
NFL Network
NBA TV
MLB Network
Comcast
cable companies
cable television
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Invisible Children: Exposing Humanitarian Needs

by Emily Norton

As has been said countless times before, we of the global North failed our brothers in the Rwandan genocide. Unwilling to let another African catastrophe slip by unnoticed, three boys documented their trip through Northern Uganda and ended up launching a life-changing NGO, Invisible Children Inc. A completely grassroots non-profit, it has succeeded in raising worldwide awareness and support (nearly 3.5 million dollars in the last year and a half) for the thousands displaced by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. While it began as a rough documentary, the organization's mission statement now accounts for "improving the quality of life for war-affected children by providing access to quality education, enhanced learning environments, and innovative economic opportunities for the community." The crazy thing is, they are actually accomplishing this goal. However, it's not necessarily just their programs that are doing it, but rather the mass support and attention garnered f by their excellent Western world-friendly media.

It almost seems as though we've heard it all before; the mantra of "stories changing lives." So what happened in Rwanda? Television was not entirely devoid of those scenes of carnage, and yet the desired active response was not elicited.

Invisible Children points to an adage frequently repeated by my parents (usually to quell heated words between my sister and me): it's not what you say, but how you say it. Sometimes a good hook or carefully repeated image will carry a farther reaching impact than a briefly distressing scene or statistic. The Invisible Children organization has displayed genius at marketing and presenting their cause. Their website is filled with photos of the shining faces of the young, hip activists and Africans, big-band name benefit concerts, well-constructed YouTube-style videos, and interesting advertisements of hands-on simulation events that bring the tribulations of Africans to American soil. I personally was greatly affected by their "Global Night Commute" a nationwide event in which thousands walked miles to sleep in outdoor locations, symbolizing the Ugandan children who commuted to hospitals nightly to escape abduction into the army of child soldiers of the LRA.

This on-fire group has developed a humanitarian aid teen subculture, perpetuated by the first positive media-induced domino/bandwagon effect I've seen in a long time. Once you participate in one of their events, you become a member of the cause (and their very thorough and enlightening e-mail list!). Though it could be said that they are trying to manipulate an emotional response, I don't think they're duping anyone. Currently, they are actually offering followers the opportunity to go on site and see the effects of their fundraising and petitioning. With their flashy website and appeal to the belief that youth can "make a difference," Invisible Children Inc. has sparked an international compassion movement.

(The photo of three Ugandan boys in a diplacement camp is part of the promotional materials compiled by Invisible Children.)

media
war
human rights
Invisible Children
Uganda
Lord’s Resistance Army
LRA
politics
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media & Body Image

by Anna Waterfield

The phenomenon of the media has always held a strong power over society since the beginning of its existence. From newspapers to television to advertisements to movies to radio to magazines to the internet, in today's world it has become virtually impossible to stray from the mainstream. While the mass media can be used for advocacy, enrichment, education, information, and entertainment, they are also capable of influencing the way we think in a negative fashion.

Thanks to the media, we are constantly bombarded with a series of images, most of which portray beautiful, happy, thin people. Seeing these people on a daily basis has the effect of pounding a standard body image into one's head.

Even though obesity is a growing problem in America, with the percentage of people who are considered overweight or obese due to their body mass index rising from 28% in 1980 to 64% in 2000, the models and actors we see every day do not reflect this progression. In fact, twenty-five years ago the average model weighed 8% less than the average American woman; now, the average model weighs almost 25% less than the average American woman. Basically, the average woman is getting fatter as the average model is getting skinnier, all while women and men across the country are being told to love themselves and their bodies as they are. These contradictory messages only serve to increase instances of things like low self-esteem and eating disorders.

So why do the media buy into this idea of a standard body image? The answer is largely economical. When consumers are convinced that they have to wear a certain size of clothes or have certain facial features in order to be at the so-called "normal," then they are more likely to purchase diet aids or cosmetic products in order to attain these goals. Therefore, cosmetic and diet industries are more likely to thrive.

Advertisements for these and other products also employ a standard body image in order to appeal to consumers. Ads on television and the internet, in magazines, or even on billboards frequently feature a thin, beautiful model wearing or using a certain product. When consumers see these people, they get tricked into thinking that if they wear the right clothes or eat the right foods then they too will be thin and desirable like the model in the ad.

There have been attempts to reform the perception of thin being beautiful. Unfortunately, many have failed. At Milan's Fashion Week, models were required to maintain a Body Mass Index within the healthy range (18+) to participate, but this spawned an outcry from models who said that their "natural" body weight could not be helped and designers who felt that their artistic creativity was being imposed upon.

n 2004, Dove launched its more successful "Campaign for Real Beauty," choosing to feature everyday women in their ads as opposed to models in an effort to widen the definition and discussion of beauty and thus make women feel more beautiful every day.

n terms of their weight, Americans need to find the right balance (no pun intended): not striving to be unhealthily thin, but not allowing for high rates of obesity either. In order for the image of health to become the new ideal body image, the media need to begin to promote it. Encouraging the media to follow the Dove company's example and present a greater variety of body types, with depictions of real people and more positive messages about self-image, will not completely eliminate the potential for eating disorders in the United States; however, the pressure individuals feel to conform to a certain body type will surely be decreased. If healthy men and women who celebrate their differences are portrayed more frequently in the media, then we will have a healthier country both physically and mentally.

(Photo by Christi Nielsen of Los Angeles, CA via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
body image
body mass index
models
Dove
Campaign for Real Beauty
advertising
Add to Technorati Favorites


 Subscribe in a reader

The Hologram: Media Miracle or Cheap Trick?

by Dan Sweeney

On election night, November 4th, a media phenomenon occurred that I did not think I would ever see in my lifetime. On CNN, the network beamed in correspondent Jessica Yellin to their studio for an interview about the crowds gathering in Grant Park in Chicago to see Barack Obama. My jaw literally dropped when I saw this and I thought there was no way that this could be happening right now. In a sense, I was correct.

According to CNN, the cable news network used 35 cameras to circle Yellin and film her, well, all 220 degrees of her. She stood inside a large circular room with green screens all around her and the cameras captured all of her movements blocking out other background factors. When she appeared it looked like she was from some science-fiction film, complete with the hazy blue outline. The technology comes from an Israeli company, SportVU. It looked like she was actually in the studio with Wolf Blitzer and he talked to her like he could actually see her. However, this was not the case. The cameras circling Yellin were synchronized with the cameras in New York to make it appear like she was actually there. Yellin could see Blitzer from a television at the front of the room where her live remote report originated. CNN has not discussed the technology much further.

Various technology savvy critics denounced this so-called "hologram" as nothing more than a cheap trick. It was not a real hologram because: it did not actually photograph her in the complete 360 degrees; Yellin's "hologram" not actually present in the studio with Blitzer, and there was no way for Yellin, inside the so-called "hologram" to see Blitzer without the aid of a television. Some criticized CNN because they superimposed Yellin's enhanced image on the picture of Blitzer in the studio, and called it a hologram although such green-screen technology to superimpose images has been widely used in television since the 1970s. In other words, there is still a ways to go before we have anything like a Star Wars' Princess Leia-type of hologram. CNN projects that it will take about ten to twenty years for their "holograms" to reach near that level. Although, the "holograms" on election night had their flaws, they set the foundation for future hologram production.

The benefits of possible hologram technology are huge. First, news has something cool to draw in more viewers and possibly tempting young people to watch it. Interviews can be given with a more intimate setting. according to CNN, by cutting out all the background of the one interviewed. People can have a more personable conversation without having to look at a television or just hear their voice on the telephone. If holograms are successful in the news industry, they could spread to other industries as well. In stores a pre-recorded holograms could appear and tell you about the day's sales, instead of having it listed on a sign. This makes shopping a more pleasant and friendly event.

I never thought I would have seen a hologram in my life, even if some say it was not a real hologram technically. Hopefully, as this technology evolves over the next few decades, it will become more commonplace. Needless to say, although present holograms have their flaws, it was really cool to see that on election night.

(Photo by zephyrbunny of Seattle, WA via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
television
cable television
CNN
hologram
SportVU
Jessica Yellin
Wolf Blitzer
Star Wars
technology
Add to Technorati Favorites

Korea: Kim Jong-Il & his Hermit Kingdom

by Althea Avice de Guzman

In North Korea, foreign influence is prohibited. Media are barred. There are few televisions sets and limited uses for radio and the internet. Outside influence is so minimal, it seems as though the country alone exists in the world. And incredulously enough, the people's beliefs reflect just that: North Korea is the Garden of Eden while everyone else must be living contemptuously.
It is an inconceivable concept for Americans. The images we receive from that part of the world are emaciated children picking at the muddied grounds for any scrap of food. North Korean defectors are returned from China only to be executed. Human rights organizations have rallied for the United States' government to have an active role in intervening when such clear violations are being made to the human rights of North Korean citizens.

This is where American compassion can be misconstrued for arrogance because the real problem is that North Koreans do not believe there is anything wrong with their way of life. Why? Because it is the only thing they have ever known. Yes, they may acknowledge that difficulty exists, especially with the famine that continues even today, but it must be endured for the ultimate fate of the country.

If Freddy Krueger ever wore Mao's suit, it would be Kim Jong-Il, stalking the nightmare that George Orwell dreamt in his novel, 1984. Yet while Orwell dreamed of a government's pervasive control by totalitarianism, Kim Jong-Il takes it even further by establishing a theocracy, where he is God. The North Korean Constitution is essentially the Bible that is taught upon entering school, where its principles must be reflected in each class, from Russian to biology. As detestable as it may be, one must be in awe of such a perfect system of indoctrination.

In Orwell's novel, the government controls every aspect of a citizen's life, and it is no different in the reality that Kim has created: every citizen is his disciple, a fate borne from the womb. It is no surprise that for the past sixty years, there has been no documented sedition, no protests, coups or strikes. After all, a citizen is but a common believer who cannot possibly rebel against God.

All of this is possible because outside influence is not allowed and what modest media that exists in the country are controlled by the government as a means of intensifying indoctrination with propaganda reflecting the principles of Kim's Bible. Only 55 out of every 1,000 citizens even own a TV set and television only shows programs that the government approves of having patriotic principles, glorifying the leader. Reports are saturated with Kim's actions and ideals and thus do not have any room to report hardship. Even if any foreign media outlet could be accessed, there is a severe punishment for paying it any mind. Also, it seems that if ever the internet had a boundary, it would be found in North Korea. Such measures to limit media outlets like television, radio and the internet are easy because the country cannot afford any development in technology that even compares to the standard of living found in the West. All the money is invested in Kim's military ambitions including nuclear advancement.

Hence, the first step to be taken in aiding North Koreans is not through direct negotiations with the leader. There is some merit in the rest of the world criticizing America for its interference in other nations' sovereignty over their citizens. We may have good intentions, but what we need to realize is that the rest of the world has not been as privileged to know a better fate. The media saturation in this country allows for the proliferation of ideals in liberty and individualism; other countries are not so lucky.

So, where do we begin? Well, reading George Orwell doesn't hurt.

(The photo shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il meeting with troops; the photo was released by the North Korean Central News Agency in August, 2008, and is in the public domain.)

politics
North Korea
Korea
Kim Jong-Il
George Orwell
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Obama, Pakistan & the Media

by Ali Golomb

The media are a public service, and they are supposed to report unbiased information through raising tough questions. The New York Times' Stephen Dubner reported that 67.8% of all daily newspapers, 98.4% of college newspapers, and 100% of alternative weekly newspapers endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency. Because the majority of the media supported Obama, they failed to ask follow up and vital questions that were left unanswered during his candidacy. Even though I myself am a Democrat and an Obama supporter, I see how the media presented Obama as a knight in shinning armor who will save the American people.

One of the ways the media failed was that they did not ask President-elect Obama to go more in depth with his foreign policy plans. Obama argued the war in Iraq has distorted U.S. foreign policy. Obama said he would withdraw troops from Iraq, and focus instead on Pakistan. However, the media failed to question Obama further. Obama said that if Pakistan does not comply, he will consider taking action. The media played down the fact that Pakistan's government does not support terrorism, and Obama is giving another sovereign nation an ultimatum — adhere to our policies or else we will take action against your nation. President George W. Bush has this same attitude with Iraq.

Even though I too would like to be assured that our nation is going to be safe, the American people do not need the media to continue to glorify politicians. Rather, the American people need the media to raise difficult questions, and demand difficult answers because we cannot trust the government totally; we need the media to serve as a watchdog. We saw what happened when we did not raise difficult questions out of fear: American involvement in an unpopular war in Iraq that the majority of the public opposes.

(Political graphic from StrangePolitics, a website that offers copyright-free political material.)

politics
2008 campaign
2008 election
Barack Obama
Pakistan
Iraq War
newspaper endorsements
George Bush
media
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites


Subscribe in a reader

Proposition 8: Where's the Outrage?

by Chelsea Ritchie

Last week, while voters were casting their votes in mass numbers for Barack Obama in the presidential race, a different vote was counted and pronounced. California’s controversial Proposition 8 passed, making gay marriage illegal in the state. (For more on Proposition 8 and gay rights, please see: "California's Proposition 8's TV Ads" and "The Story, the Truth and Fred Phelps.") Basically the proposition bans the right of same-sex couples to marry, nulls the bonds of those already married, and overrules Proposition 22. The vote was 52.5% in favor and 47.5% against, although those percentages don't include absentee and provisional ballots.

Why have the media covered so little of this topic? While my classmates argue over the future under president-elect Obama and whether his policies are adequate, I can’t help but to wonder why the media have said so little about Proposition 8. After all, this is the highest- funded campaign on any state ballot (a combined total of $73.4 million). Clearly the media frenzy for Obama’s campaign has been shown all over CNN, ABC, NBC, and other major television news networks.

Perhaps being a Californian, I feel compelled to research but I found that while I was in California I didn't see much information about what Prop. 8 proposed. ProtectMarriage.com, a major organization which sponsored the Prop. 8 ballot, cleverly made the campaign into voting for Prop. 8 to “protect ourselves and children.” Contrasting that position, the ads against Prop. 8 hardly used “gay,” or “lesbian” and I think the ads actually looked so similar that one could easily confuse what Prop. 8 did. Since May 15, Proposition 22 has allowed same sex marriages and I have never felt the need to “protect myself.” I did the research and saw what exactly Prop. 8 petitioned, but my fellow Californians may not have. My good friend Remie even told me she was proud to vote for Prop. 8 because she wanted to protect gay marriages. What she really did was vote to ban it. It’s this kind of confusion that probably changed the voter outcome for or against Prop. 8.

There needs to be more awareness about this proposition and I blame the limited coverage of the media to the passing of this petition. It is the responsibility of our news anchors, newspaper columnists, radio DJ’s and bloggers to spread the awareness. Yes, it is also the voter’s responsibility to research before you vote, but many people rely on the mainstream media to deliver the facts. Just because the media were occupied with the presidential election is not an excuse to barely show a proposition this big.

(The photo shows a post-election protest by those against California's Proposition 8 in San Francisco. The photo is by ingridtaylar via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. For more on this topic please see these posts on the iVoryTowerz blog: "Isn't Love All You Need?" and "California: Prop 8 Turns Back the Clock.")

politics
Proposition 8
Prop 8
California Proposition 8
gay marriage
gay rights
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media & Today's Patriotism

by Sarah Filley

After what seemed like the never-ending story of a fight for the presidency; the United States will soon have a new administration. During election, my network of choice was CNN. After a quick and painless vote count, floured with mostly ignored commentary by the likes of Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, and, of course, Wolf Blitzer, I found myself saying to a friend, “Oh my lord, I love America!” and instantly I wondered, why have I never said this before election night. I attribute this in part to my upbringing in a nearly anti-right wing, raging liberal town where “Fuck the government,” and “Shit I better move to Canada,” are chants that were heard far too often throughout the past eight years. But I also think that for me personally, the media have altered my sense of patriotism.

Watching the news has instilled in me a resolute uncertainty about my country. There are too many conspiracies, too many plots, and overall too many analysts with frightening things to say about our leaders to always feel a sense of confidence or trust. News outlets exist to bring to light the little known secrets of the influential men and women of America. In February 2008, The New York Times falsely accused Sen. John McCain of having an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Skepticism arose through the media’s coverage of Barack Obama’s connection with William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The media took a comment made by now Vice President-elect Joe Biden and implied it had racially insensitive connotations, potentially stirring up trouble. Investigative journalism wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the mistakes and discrepancies made throughout history.

The definition of patriotism has changed drastically with the emergence of the media. Since Thomas Paine incited revolutionary sentiment in 1776, the media have flourished by presenting the American people with the kind of information that makes it possible to lose faith. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of living in a cloud of ignorance. Having the power and right to question our authorities and be made aware of what’s going on at the national level is part of what makes living in America so great. But since the media began uncovering certain inconvenient truths about our government, there are fewer and fewer people who can, without doubt, say that they have full faith and trust in our nation and its leaders. So during this week, after history was made and a beautiful example of the democratic process was displayed to the world, I would like to take a chance to profess my love for this country. By next week there will be more scandals. Something new will arise in the media that might scare us or cause us to doubt. But in this pause for celebration, I will remember that I do have faith in my country. And despite the fervent scares that the media have maxed in on, I know it is possible to be informed as well as patriotic. I am proud, and always have been, to be an American.

(The photo of CNN Center in Atlanta, GA is by tanjila via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

politics
2008 campaign
CNN
Barack Obama
John McCain
Joe Biden
Thomas Paine
media
Biden
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

America's Youth: Rocking the Vote

by Liz Marjollet

Although it is usually thought that the youth vote is severely underrepresented in elections, I would beg to differ in this election. Youths are definitely becoming more involved in the democratic process. For example, as a college student, I spend my days on Facebook and my nights watching shows such as Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report, along with studying. Facebook has been advertising the election like crazy, with the ability to give your friends free pins endorsing either the Democratic or Republican candidates. Also, many people have been "donating their statuses" to one of the two candidates.

Much of the youth are also more excited about their ability to vote, especially with this election. The historical ramifications alone are reason to want to get involved. Either America's first black president will be elected into office, or Sen. John McCain may have the possibility of a big upset; not to mention McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin, who would be the first woman in the number two position. As well, there has been more fuss over exercising one's right to vote. It gives power to the people, who take their responsibilities seriously.

The media have also used the election as an advertising point to great extremes. For example, Starbucks, McDonald's and Ben and Jerry's have all promised free product with a patron's sticker testifying that they voted. As well, the election has been the lead news story for weeks, if not months. Last night, SNL ran a special two hour program because of the elections. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report both have been poking fun at the candidates and the election in general for weeks. Even now, on my Yahoo! page, there is a poll asking if I voted, and there's an ad for Dodge Rams, with a blue truck and a red truck attached by a chain and facing each other with an American flag backdrop, stating, "Pick your ram. Click to Vote." Google's homepage is creative as usual, with all the letters covered by curtains, as if they were voting, and the second "g" has a "vote" pin on it.

Along with the internet, radio and television have also been a huge part of the hype. Radio stations spend their time reserved for talking discussing the elections. Television is also flooded with the ads put out by both campaigns. Because the election is now able to be everywhere, young people cannot feign ignorance about the issues both campaigns discuss, because no matter the medium, the issues are discussed, whether in serious or satirical terms. The current state of foreign and domestic policy, along with the economic crisis, only add to the list of reasons that youth voters need to get to the polls. But I have a feeling much of the youth already did.

(Graphic by Shep Fairey for ObeyGiant. To see a joint announcement about voting from Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, please check below.)




politics
2008 campaign
rock the vote
Saturday Night Live
Daily Show
Colbert Report
Sarah Palin
John McCain
facebook
google
Palin
McCain
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

So Where's the Truth in the Election?

by Irena Schneider

Looking backward now even before the polls close: the election is over. Somebody won and somebody lost. And the world goes on, promises to save the universe gone, tears from fervent supporters gone, silly half-truths in the demagogic limelight… well, perhaps those will never be gone. November 4, 2008 is the apex of a legacy left by a populace that has exhausted its frustration with the past eight years, filled with convictions incredibly sturdy, melodramatic, imbued with a prophetic tone beaming in quivering surety all lodged somewhere at the back of our throats. In twenty years, we will perhaps remember the magnetism under the dome of the Democratic National Convention, when Barack Obama stared ahead and waved, engulfed by a stage of crying supporters while the theme from Remember the Titans blasted across our TV screens and made us want to begin sobbing with hope. We will remember fellow diva Sarah Palin and her insistence to discuss energy policy when asked about taxation policy. Surely, we will remember our friend Joe the Plumber, a hero for a good couple of hours until someone leaked that the poor man doesn't even have a plumber's license. And while our favorite journalists in the CNN newsroom bemoaned the end of such a great metaphor to feed to unconcerned so-called "average" citizens (big compliment to the middle class, of course), at least we had the privilege to kick back and laugh at the process with Saturday Night Live.

It's been a good time. We will remember the agonizing attempts to figure out who's more "presidential," the panic from sexist and racist jibs and jabs, the lies, the ads, the comfortable commotion of establishment politics painstakingly picked apart, tossed around, and put back together by American punditry. Perhaps we will also remember the darker shades of this critical moment. There's the fear and uncertainty about what America has become. We may recall the bailout, for instance, but will we recall the rescue?

Unlikely. Just as unlikely that we'd remember July 12th and Ron Paul's march for freedom, where more than five thousand individuals clambered onto the front lawn of the Capitol and wondered how to become a "mainstream" voice. Neither will we remember the debates between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader or the footage of Bob Barr responding to Obama and McCain during debate time. We will not remember the cancer in our monetary system. On the bright side, at least we might bask in our once-gloried intentions to apply a band aid (and bring back the wisdom of certain reporters at CNBC trying to figure out how to bypass the Constitution when the bailout was initially rejected). There was the housing boom, we might ponder. But what caused the housing boom? To suggest that federal reserve or government policies have been the motivation for our crumbling infrastructure would not only be considered preposterous, but it would be much too difficult to relay. Such is the reality of corporate media: the importance of today's political world is the soundbite and the bottom line. The point is not to encourage critical thinking and provide the populace with information necessary to effectively question the government (as the founding fathers intended our democracy to function). The point is to herd the populace into the realm of irrational responses and gut-provoked indignation and finger pointing spurting from headlines and pithy political drama. There is almost nothing behind the lines. And why would there be? People are much too busy with daily life to ask the deeper questions about root causes or discover the few brave souls struggling on the fringes of the bureaucratic-media-interest-Congress issue network. Within such recycled surface sentiment, journalists are simultaneously much too busy thinking of how they'll next grab the attention of that very busy public.

So where's the truth?

Perhaps we might find it after our love affair with our candidates has subsided. After all, there is a limit to how much we can bandage a patient before we realize he's actually dying of something much deeper inside. But in the meantime, we're not intended to seek the truth. So in the final moments of this historical election, let us lay back and recall the jib jabs and the lies. Let us sob and point fingers. Let us be average joes. Relax, it's only about November 4th, 2008. Nothing new to say. We need not wonder.

(The political cartoon is by Thomas Nast of Harper's Weekly from the 19th Century. This cartoon is now in the public domain. To see John McCain's appearance on NBC's Saturday Night Live with Tina Fey, please check below.)



politics
2008 campaign
Sarah Palin
Barack Obama
John McCain
Republicans
Democrats
Ron Paul
Chuck Baldwin
Ralph Nader
Joe the Plumber
Saturday Night Live
Palin
McCain
Obama
corporate media
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Argentina & the Mainstream Media

(Editor's Note: This piece is cross-posted on the blog, iVoryTowerz.)

by Rick Rockwell

The issue of how mainstream media frame reality and change the political landscape through their choices doesn’t end at the U.S. border. No. Recent experience reinforces the belief that this is an issue from here to Tierra del Fuego. And the problem flows east and west, globally too.

But let’s get back to Tierra del Fuego.

If you go there, you won’t find many imprints from the media, of any type. But if you do — likely they’ve flowed from Argentina’s capital of Buenos Aires.

One of the topics the mainstream media in Buenos Aires are trying to avoid is the one they like the least: media reform. The government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has set a goal to rewrite the country’s telecommunication laws by the end of her term in 2011. To that end, the government convened an international conference in Buenos Aires to gather ideas for the reform. (The author was among the invited and addressed the conference.) Hundreds of Argentina’s elite attended: members of Argentina’s Congress; bureaucrats; lawyers; influential academics and writers. Speakers from seven countries (including Spain and the U.S.) spoke to the group and the conference was conducted in three languages. Yet beyond public television, only one national network carried any news about the conference. And not one newspaper mentioned it.

If you depended upon the mainstream media, the conference and its message of reform didn’t exist or meant very little.

But if deciding for citizens that media reform is not necessary through ignoring debate and discussion of the topic, the media barons of Argentina show exactly why such reform is necessary.

Much like in the U.S., the electronic media are in the hands of a powerful oligarchy of businesses. The players are different. But they tend to act in familiar ways. Beyond the corporate media’s concentrated economic and political power, another concern is whether these corporations have Argentina’s best interests at heart or whether their international origins and need for increasing profits trump all.

For instance, Argentina's market is dominated by Grupo Clarin, one of the most powerful multimedia concerns in the region, which owns a television network, the Spanish-language world's most popular newspaper website, and the most circulated newspaper in Latin America. Although owned by Argentines, Grupo Clarin has significant minority ownership from abroad: Goldman Sachs in New York holds a key stake in the multimedia company. And many in Buenos Aires believe Grupo Clarin acts in the best interests of its investors in New York first.

Then there's the television network owned by Telefonica of Spain, which is also involved in cell phones in Latin America and Europe. One of Argentina's television networks is also controlled by a holding company that when you strip away the various shell enterprises is run by a Mexican businessman who lives in Miami. And Carlos Slim, one of the world's richest men, who owns Mexico's phone giant Telmex is also on the scene, controlling large swaths of the wired and wireless phone networks, and the internet service providers that are a natural outgrowth of such businesses.

What these giants of the media world are trying to avoid is a 21-point plan drawn up by civic groups and the Fernandez government. The plan would limit the control of huge media giants and promote diverse ownership and pluralism in the electronic media.

Will the reform work? Does it have a chance?

If the big media have any say, such reform doesn't exist. So why worry? Be happy. We now return you to your choice of corporate media entertainment channel.

(Graphic by saguayo of Mexico City, D.F., via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
Latin America
Argentina
media reform
corporate media
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
Cristina Fernandez
Buenos Aires
Carlos Slim
Telefonica
Clarin
politics
Add to Technorati Favorites

Late-Night TV Satires and the 2008 Election

by Anna Waterfield

Since the official beginning of the presidential campaign several months ago, John McCain and Barack Obama seem to be forefront on everyone's thoughts, including that beloved collection of late-night TV satirists. With the crucial day less than a week away, any show dealing with political satire is guaranteed to center the majority of its jokes on the upcoming election. Why? Because there are people like newfound celebrity vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin who make it almost too easy!

Anyone who considers him or herself an avid fan of political satire, however, has surely noticed the dearth of reference to Sen. Obama (D-IL) or Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from the beginning of September through the end of last week, the Republicans were the target of 475 jokes just by Jay Leno and David Letterman. Obama and Biden, on the other hand, fell victim only 69 times. Throughout the month of September, John Stewart and Steven Colbert collectively joked about the Republicans 211 times, as opposed to a meager 29 jokes about Obama and Biden. That means the Republicans have been ridiculed about 7 times more frequently than the Democrats.

This could be for various reasons. The first possibility is that the Democratic ticket is a relatively dull one. In contrast to Palin's glitzy glamour-queen folksiness, Biden is just another aging Caucasian man in politics. When it comes to choosing who to spoof, Gov. Palin (R-AK) is clearly the more fascinating subject.

Another possibility, is that there simply is not a lot to make fun of about the Democrats . For the most part, Obama has consistently come off as calm, cool, and collected. The weak link in this argument, however, is Biden and some of his less-than-impressive remarks that have been passed up by the media vultures. If Palin had made Biden's recent comment, "Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television" after the stock market crash in 1929 (Herbert Hoover was in office and television did not yet exist) we would never hear the end of it; however, since it was Biden who made the slip-up, we've hardly heard it at all.

The logical explanation for why political satire has strayed away from the Democrats this election, is the race issue. A good majority of comedic writers are left-leaning Caucasians that in their own self-interest might be refraining from making even a reference to Obama's race for fear of a public backlash. A joke with only a mild racist connotation has the potential to be blown out of proportion or put in the wrong context.

Has this tendency to bash McCain and Palin helped the Democrats? It's a good possibility. Late-night "fake news" shows are more entertaining than regular news, so at least some fragment of the American public is likely to choose John Stewart over Anderson Cooper, and thus only see the political campaign through the eyes of those who consider the McCain camp an easy target. For instance, anyone who has watched Saturday Night Live recently knows that Tina Fey's impression of Palin makes her out to be more of a joke than an actual candidate for the vice presidency of the United States. One major upside, if the Republicans do win the election is that we'll have a very entertained nation for the next four years. Otherwise, comedians are going to have to learn how to toe the fine line between appropriate and inappropriate when dealing with issues of race as they adapt to an Obama presidency.

(Political graphic by Frederick; you can see more of Frederick's graphics at the blogs Guys from Area 51 and MCCS1977. This graphic is made available through a Creative Commons license. To see one of the latest satires from NBC's Saturday Night Live, please check below.)



media
television
late-night tv
satire
Jay Leno
David Letterman
John Stewart
Saturday Night Live
Election 2008
Sarah Palin
John McCain
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Add to Technorati Favorites

A Film Called W.

by Dan Sweeney

The first thing I noticed upon walking into the theater to watch W. was the small size of the audience. The movie first came out on October 17th and only a week later there were only eight people in the theater to watch it! This illustrates a definite lack of interest toward George W. Bush and his administration. The timing to show this film could not have been better, due to all the election hype and more people than ever becoming involved in the political process. However, this film shows that people today are not willing to pay money to watch a political drama and are still not fully involved within the democratic process. On the other hand, people might not have seen it, because they dislike George W. Bush so much that they do not even want to watch a satire on him. This points out that the film medium does not have nearly the political persuasive power as the other types of media out there.

The star of the film is Josh Brolin, as President George W. Bush. He does a great job imitating the president's speech and mannerisms. He quickly draws the viewer into believing that he is actually George W. Bush, even though he physically resembles Sen. John Kerry quite a bit. The other actors did just as well imitating the respective personas of the Bush administration. These personas are the only real comedy in the film, because they act in the way that they are stereotyped to be. (An old man in a suit, two rows behind me, was the only one who laughed multiple times throughout the film and mainly when these personas such as Karl Rove appeared.) Although the director portrayed these people in a comedic light, their perspectives on the war in Iraq should have been seen by the public before the war, especially Colin Powell's.

The trailer misleads people as to the genre of the movie. The movie is not a comedy, but more of a drama and biography. On a deeper level, one could argue that the trailer misleads the viewers as much as President Bush has misled this country. The film shows President Bush's life from his college days up to 2003 in the middle of the Iraq War. It follows his life truthfully taking only a few creative twists. Surprisingly, the film shows many aspects of his life that the public might not know about him and should know about him, with a major aspect being the relationship between George W. Bush and his father. However much that the audience might hate the story, the cinematography is incredible and explains why this film managed to achieve such rave reviews. The director, Oliver Stone, utilized incredible cinematographic effects that ended up being much better than the actual plot. Overall, the movie added a different perspective on the life of George W. Bush and his administration that should not be ignored. Although it might not be worth the ten dollars to see it in theaters, it is definitely worth renting. After watching this, you, like me might just end up feeling sorry for the guy.

(Promotional photo for the film from Lionsgate Studios. The film is rated PG-13. To see a trailer for the film, please check below.)



media
films
W
biography
satire
drama
Oliver Stone
Josh Brolin
George W. Bush
Add to Technorati Favorites

California's Proposition 8 TV Ads

by Alissa Scheller

On May 15, 2008, California became the second state (after Massachusetts) to legalize same-sex marriage. So called “activist” judges, ruled that statutes limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Since June 17, same-sex marriages have been recognized by the state of California. Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative that would introduce an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Both the Yes on 8 and No on 8 campaigns have used media outlets, such as television ads, to promote their viewpoints. One television ad sponsored by Let California Ring features a woman going to through various obstacles to reach her wedding, and concludes with the statement: “What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?” Other No on 8 television ads parody the Mac vs. PC ads, and focus on how leaving the state constitution as it is would have no effect on traditional families.

Interestingly enough, few of the No on 8 ads actually depict gay people — the very people the campaign is fighting for. The ads mainly feature heterosexual couples with gay children, friends, or family members urging voters to ensure that all people are treated equally. One ad has two women (who are very clearly not a lesbian couple) talking about the issue. Another has Superintendent of Schools, Jack O’Connell, telling voters that Prop. 8 has “nothing to do with schools or kids” (after a Yes on 8 ad asserted — falsely — that if the proposition failed, schools would be required to teach children about same-sex marriage). The entire ad does not mention the words “gay,” “lesbian” or “same-sex.”

One Yes on 8 ad features a child telling her mother that she learned about same-sex marriage in school (the impossible circumstance to which the No on 8 ad with Superintendent O’Connell was referring). Another shows San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, proclaiming to a celebratory crowd (after same-sex marriage was legalized in May) that “It’s going to happen whether you like it or not,” and later — again, falsely — claiming that if Prop. 8 fails, its supporters will be sued for their personal beliefs. Again, there are no depictions of actual gay people.

I think that this exclusion of gay couples from the television ads is because it could easily backfire — use words like “discrimination” or “exclusion” and people are more willing to be on your side. Use words like “gay marriage” and, well, a lot of people will disagree with you. However, by not showing gay people in their ads about gay people, it seems to me as if the campaigns don’t want gay people to become the focus of an issue about gay people.

To be quite honest, as a Californian, I fervently hope that Prop. 8 fails, but I think both campaigns have made mistakes in their television ads. I understand the reasoning behind the exclusions of gays from television ads on both sides — to make the ads more appealing to heterosexual voters — but I find it interesting that in the ads, Californians rarely get to hear from the main benefactors of same-sex marriage.

(The photo of demonstrators in favor of gay rights and gay marriage was taken in San Francisco; the photo is by crichton91 via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. For more on the gay rights debate, please see: "The Story, the Truth and Fred Phelps." Also, please see the iVoryTowerz blog's "Isn't Love All You Need?")

media
television
advertising
television ads
gay rights
elections
California
Proposition 8
same sex marriage
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media Cover for Obama

by Camila Perez Gabilondo

With the presidential election only eight days away, Senator Barack Obama decided to leave the campaign trail for two days to visit his ill grandmother in his home state of Hawaii. This is a historical occurrence since no presidential candidate before him had abandoned the campaign this close to an election. Obama was absent at his scheduled rallies in Wisconsin and Iowa this past week, leaving his running mate Senator Joseph Biden and his surrogates on the trail. This could have been a chance for candidate Senator John McCain to make the most of the final stretch of the campaign in his favor, but Obama had an important player on his side: the media.

Thanks to media coverage of his personal hardship, Obama's absence was not felt at all. Over the last several days, countless articles on his grandmother's condition and the tragedy it entails for the presidential candidate were published in diverse media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Not to mention that his ads continued to run. We could say that he was just as present, or even more so, in the media than if he had actually gone to his rallies as planned.

Besides, the emotional note that many journalists included in their coverage of the story certainly helped strengthen Obama's image as a sensitive family man, as well as inspire sympathy in the public. Obama was quoted numerous times saying that these were probably his grandmother's last days, and in an interview with Good Morning America, he stated: "Without going through the details too much, she's gravely ill. We weren't sure and I'm still not sure whether she makes it to Election Day." Most articles also included quotes of Obama mentioning his grandmother's importance in his life during the campaign, or even the fact that he affectionately calls her "toot", the short form of the Hawaiian word for grandparent, "tutu."

The media have managed to make most of us sympathetic with Barack Obama's situation, and his current personal struggle has, even if mildly, tugged at our heart strings. If this has not helped Obama's campaign, it has certainly not harmed it.

(Political graphic © copyright Comandante Agi and used with permission; you can see more of the comandante's political graphics at his blogs, PIME and Guys from Area 51.)

media
elections
election 2008
Barack Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Story, The Truth, and Fred Phelps

by Emily Norton

In the United States, it’s well understood that the media have a vast amount of power. With enough thorough coverage, any group can gather momentum for their cause. Obviously, the effects of this are not always positive (read: terrorism). Fred Phelps is a perfect example of the ramifications resulting from media manipulation.

Pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), Phelps is the leader of a gang of intermarried Christian extremists whose aim is to teach America that it is a doomed nation and to spread hatred for multiple groups (namely homosexuals). As one of their key goals is to gain publicity for their message of extreme prejudice and damnation, the group has assumed drastic measures to gain attention. The WBC has enjoyed extensive broadcasting of their highly disruptive picketing of soldier and celebrity funerals, as well as television interviews, and notice for their outrageous websites, entitled GodHatesFags.com and GodHatesAmerica.com (to name a few). Worse yet is that the 71 members are passing on their profoundly twisted message to their young children. With the attention they are getting and the way their parent-to-child system is structured, it seems unlikely that the foundation of the Westboro Baptist Church will be shaken anytime soon.

Undeniably, a primary focus of the media is to spread the truth. But what happens if that truth has an overriding negative effect? Although the Fred Phelps story is highly interesting and profitable, its widespread coverage only perpetuates the life of a hate group and extends an already tainted misconception of the Christian religion.

Consider, part of the stock market collapse was due to the panic produced by the media; it was not until the public discovered that the market was declining that they cashed in all at once and caused the greatest damage. Therefore, is truth always good? Is a “good story” always worth its consequences? Although I can posit no perfect solution or answer to these questions, I would hope that in the future either the media more aggressively fight manipulation, or the terrifying and detestable truths they share would only incite social activism rather than panic or hate.

(The image is from godhatesfags.com which allows the free reproduction of its media materials.)

media
freedom of speech
hate speech
hate group
Fred Phelps
Westboro Baptist Church
Add to Technorati Favorites