First off I ran across an article that I thought was interesting for class. It is from the Huffington Post and it speaks of how social networking sites have proved invaluable assets for those in Japan and across the world in light of the devastating earthquake and resulting tsunami. With this article in the back of our minds, which I found while reading various newspapers electronically at the coffee shop, and the contributions of Postman, Ewan, DeLuca, and Burgess & Green my question for class is where has the conflict of our cultural tensions led us to be as a society?
DeLuca argues that "the social world needs to be understood as the conflictual process of hegemony, where the cultural and ideological contest or negotiation among a variety of publics takes place" (p 21); and Burgess & Green appear to support this claim stating that there is an "increasingly complex relationship among producers and consumers in the creation of meaning, value, and agency" (p. 14). So are we merely the drooling entertainment seeking drones of Postman's world, or are we the creative, innovative, and socially networked individuals capable of creating socially significant "image events" that can turn "rational" rhetorical theory on its head? With dramatic examples like that of the Hiroshi Matsuyama, who used twitter to open up his web studio survivors of the disaster, I tend to think the latter.
Monday, March 14, 2011
This way to the egress
So it's all about slick images. Attitude and Latitude. Style and Sensationalism.
Welcome to the Greatest Show on Earth.
Are we being at best nudged, at worst tricked into what we believe? These readings would make it seem so. We are a people of style. A people sustained by entertainment. If it is not sensationalistic or entertaining, we turn away from the served dish. This is why the media cover these image events, be it Greenpeace or the Westboro Church. The reason it is news is because it is sensationalistic. We need to be entertained. We need these images to evoke emotions from us. Even in today's networked society, I doubt Fred Phelps could get the funding necessary to stage his disgusting protests without the media coverage. How easy it would be to essentially kill his hatred by simply not covering it. I applaud the newsroom here for not covering him, but you are the lone dissenter when even the Supreme Court covers it.
While I agree with much of what is discussed in these articles, I do not think it is quite as fatalistic as these authors make it seem, especially Postman. I just needed to grab your attention so you would read this far down :) Postman implies that media, due to its entertainment factor, has hijacked our religious, civic, and familiar duties. Perhaps it has, but I do not think that that means we are children of a lesser god. Maybe the fact that something is entertaining is a way to get more people to pay attention. Get more people involved in civic, religious and family duties. One quote in particular led me to believe that Postman has it wrong: "No one goes to a movie to find out about government policy or the latest scientific advances." I think many people do. How many documentaries are made? How many Academy Award winning movies (i.e. Hurt Locker) are about current government policy? How many Broadway musicals are about important societal issues (not counting Spider-Man)? How many people will read a popular press book about relationships as opposed to an academic journal article about the same thing. Perhaps the masses don't want to listen to CSPAN or read a journal article because it is boring and the language is often inaccessible. If we are a little entertaining, we may be able to get our point across to more people.
So is there an exit to this world of entertainment, or is it just another trick for all of us marks to do the bidding of P.T. Barnum?
Welcome to the Greatest Show on Earth.
Are we being at best nudged, at worst tricked into what we believe? These readings would make it seem so. We are a people of style. A people sustained by entertainment. If it is not sensationalistic or entertaining, we turn away from the served dish. This is why the media cover these image events, be it Greenpeace or the Westboro Church. The reason it is news is because it is sensationalistic. We need to be entertained. We need these images to evoke emotions from us. Even in today's networked society, I doubt Fred Phelps could get the funding necessary to stage his disgusting protests without the media coverage. How easy it would be to essentially kill his hatred by simply not covering it. I applaud the newsroom here for not covering him, but you are the lone dissenter when even the Supreme Court covers it.
While I agree with much of what is discussed in these articles, I do not think it is quite as fatalistic as these authors make it seem, especially Postman. I just needed to grab your attention so you would read this far down :) Postman implies that media, due to its entertainment factor, has hijacked our religious, civic, and familiar duties. Perhaps it has, but I do not think that that means we are children of a lesser god. Maybe the fact that something is entertaining is a way to get more people to pay attention. Get more people involved in civic, religious and family duties. One quote in particular led me to believe that Postman has it wrong: "No one goes to a movie to find out about government policy or the latest scientific advances." I think many people do. How many documentaries are made? How many Academy Award winning movies (i.e. Hurt Locker) are about current government policy? How many Broadway musicals are about important societal issues (not counting Spider-Man)? How many people will read a popular press book about relationships as opposed to an academic journal article about the same thing. Perhaps the masses don't want to listen to CSPAN or read a journal article because it is boring and the language is often inaccessible. If we are a little entertaining, we may be able to get our point across to more people.
So is there an exit to this world of entertainment, or is it just another trick for all of us marks to do the bidding of P.T. Barnum?
Show Business - My dear Mr. Postman
http://www.npr.org/tablet/#story/?storyId=134525412&ps=cprs
I heard this story on the radio this morning and it made me think of Postman's analysis of tv as entertainment. An NPR exec was harangued last week because of hidden camera footage. After careful analysis of the full video enounter, NPR has a lot to say about how the video was edited to make for great entertainment that cost someone very dearly, even though he probably wasn't half as bad as this "journalist" made him out to be on his expose blog.
I think there are some grains of truth to Postman's article on the medium of tv and entertainment. We have probably seen a few too many of these "stories" breaking on the Internet. Probably because they make for excellent entertainment and the power of the web makes it easy for anyone to create this type of video. Many news blogs are mere reproduction of the news shows of the past, probably because people don't want to read blabber any more than they want to watch it.
One final note: I think we are still buying snake oil, tv may be free enterprise, but there isn't that much truth in advertising. Just ask someone who bought one of those kitchen gadgets the frumpy elderly red head sells on informercials...
I heard this story on the radio this morning and it made me think of Postman's analysis of tv as entertainment. An NPR exec was harangued last week because of hidden camera footage. After careful analysis of the full video enounter, NPR has a lot to say about how the video was edited to make for great entertainment that cost someone very dearly, even though he probably wasn't half as bad as this "journalist" made him out to be on his expose blog.
I think there are some grains of truth to Postman's article on the medium of tv and entertainment. We have probably seen a few too many of these "stories" breaking on the Internet. Probably because they make for excellent entertainment and the power of the web makes it easy for anyone to create this type of video. Many news blogs are mere reproduction of the news shows of the past, probably because people don't want to read blabber any more than they want to watch it.
One final note: I think we are still buying snake oil, tv may be free enterprise, but there isn't that much truth in advertising. Just ask someone who bought one of those kitchen gadgets the frumpy elderly red head sells on informercials...
Social media saving the world?
If anyone know how to leverage the power of mass media it is Greenpeace; and now that our society has progressed to a networked society, Greenpeace continues to make image events, they are now online and create a social movement within the social media sphere. Below is an interview CNN conducted with Greenpeace's Executive Director Kumi Naidoo on their attack of Nestle last year.
I think that this video expands on ideas that we discussed last class on the power of our networked society to mobilize groups in mass around a central idea. I think that a networked society has the ability to go father than any traditional media campaign because of the direct connection from image event to interested parties.
I think that this video expands on ideas that we discussed last class on the power of our networked society to mobilize groups in mass around a central idea. I think that a networked society has the ability to go father than any traditional media campaign because of the direct connection from image event to interested parties.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
'Image Politics' and image events
“Making Waves” brought to mind two current organizations that love to produce “image events”: PETA and the Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas.
While PETA stages fairly frequent (perhaps 3-4 a year) protests/ “image events” in Lincoln, they rarely get news coverage. The protests often consist of women in stages of undress or supporters in chicken costumes protesting outside a restaurant, or other places of interest to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). However, in September, the Journal Star did run a photo of two PETA activists dressed in condom costumes dancing at 14th and O streets urging the spaying/neutering of pets. That picture stirred a debate in the newsroom about how to treat these sorts of image events -- the ones that we know are created specifically to draw attention and based on their frequency and blatant political message are relatively not newsworthy. The condom event was different from the organization’s usual sexualized (meaning, naked women) protests, and the message supporting spaying/neutering is more mainstream than its usual platforms. It also happened on one of the busiest intersections in the city. And while I don’t think we got a lot of reader protests about running the photo and indulging such a politicized image event, it did stir a newsroom debate. A result of this coverage, in my opinion, is that PETA will have to outdo itself to get attention from our photographers any time soon, because usually we observe this guide: Organizations like PETA thrive on image events. If we don’t pay attention to them -- and unless they’re exceptionally newsworthy and cause other types of news (counterprotests, car accidents, fights, etc.), we shouldn’t -- then they cease to be news and we won’t be exploited to promote their causes.
The Westboro church is at once a similar but different example. I’m assuming we’re all familiar with the church/hate group’s controversial protests of funerals, play productions and more to promote its, as Wikipedia diplomatically puts it, “extreme stance against homosexuality.” The church, like PETA, also uses image events to draw attention to its beliefs and causes, and generally, news organizations do their best to ignore it -- except when the church is the subject of a Supreme Court ruling or shows up in your town to protest a funeral or play.
The Journal Star newsroom receives a fax from Westboro whenever members will protest a funeral in the area. The press releases are full of violent, anti-gay rhetoric supporting the group’s belief that God celebrates these deaths because of U.S. tolerance for gay rights and many unrelated, illogical statements. When the church protested at the funeral for Robert Butler Jr., the shooter at Millard South High School who was from Lincoln, we mentioned the protesters in one paragraph in the news story of Butler’s funeral. This decision also was met with debate in the newsroom: Some feel to mention the protest only indulges an organization constantly seeking attention for its image events, while others felt it impossible to ignore these visible protests in a news story.
In any case, both of these organizations have perfected the art of the image event, even if they can’t control the press they receive for their works. I think Westboro also exemplifies an idea from the reading: That sometimes image events -- especially by radical groups -- help create identity among those in the dominant culture. Counterprotests against Westboro often crop up at the funerals they protest, including the Patriot Guard motorcycle group, personifying the idea that while we may differ in our beliefs on war, gay rights and other huge issues, the Westboro protests offer us a way to unite against their extremism.
And both organizations take to heart a quote on page 6 of “Image Politics”: “Smart and creative communication of the message is as important as the message itself.”
While PETA stages fairly frequent (perhaps 3-4 a year) protests/ “image events” in Lincoln, they rarely get news coverage. The protests often consist of women in stages of undress or supporters in chicken costumes protesting outside a restaurant, or other places of interest to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). However, in September, the Journal Star did run a photo of two PETA activists dressed in condom costumes dancing at 14th and O streets urging the spaying/neutering of pets. That picture stirred a debate in the newsroom about how to treat these sorts of image events -- the ones that we know are created specifically to draw attention and based on their frequency and blatant political message are relatively not newsworthy. The condom event was different from the organization’s usual sexualized (meaning, naked women) protests, and the message supporting spaying/neutering is more mainstream than its usual platforms. It also happened on one of the busiest intersections in the city. And while I don’t think we got a lot of reader protests about running the photo and indulging such a politicized image event, it did stir a newsroom debate. A result of this coverage, in my opinion, is that PETA will have to outdo itself to get attention from our photographers any time soon, because usually we observe this guide: Organizations like PETA thrive on image events. If we don’t pay attention to them -- and unless they’re exceptionally newsworthy and cause other types of news (counterprotests, car accidents, fights, etc.), we shouldn’t -- then they cease to be news and we won’t be exploited to promote their causes.
The Westboro church is at once a similar but different example. I’m assuming we’re all familiar with the church/hate group’s controversial protests of funerals, play productions and more to promote its, as Wikipedia diplomatically puts it, “extreme stance against homosexuality.” The church, like PETA, also uses image events to draw attention to its beliefs and causes, and generally, news organizations do their best to ignore it -- except when the church is the subject of a Supreme Court ruling or shows up in your town to protest a funeral or play.
The Journal Star newsroom receives a fax from Westboro whenever members will protest a funeral in the area. The press releases are full of violent, anti-gay rhetoric supporting the group’s belief that God celebrates these deaths because of U.S. tolerance for gay rights and many unrelated, illogical statements. When the church protested at the funeral for Robert Butler Jr., the shooter at Millard South High School who was from Lincoln, we mentioned the protesters in one paragraph in the news story of Butler’s funeral. This decision also was met with debate in the newsroom: Some feel to mention the protest only indulges an organization constantly seeking attention for its image events, while others felt it impossible to ignore these visible protests in a news story.
In any case, both of these organizations have perfected the art of the image event, even if they can’t control the press they receive for their works. I think Westboro also exemplifies an idea from the reading: That sometimes image events -- especially by radical groups -- help create identity among those in the dominant culture. Counterprotests against Westboro often crop up at the funerals they protest, including the Patriot Guard motorcycle group, personifying the idea that while we may differ in our beliefs on war, gay rights and other huge issues, the Westboro protests offer us a way to unite against their extremism.
And both organizations take to heart a quote on page 6 of “Image Politics”: “Smart and creative communication of the message is as important as the message itself.”
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Reminder
For next week's class, come prepared to talk about your potential paper topic. Remember, you have to complete the sentence 'The shift from mass communication to networked communication has changed culture by…' Have perhaps 2-3 minutes of explanation--key examples, possible arguments, etc and then we can brainstorm as a group about different ideas. We'll have probably half the class go next week, and the other half go the week after Spring Break...so if you're still searching for a topic, no sweat, we can wait a couple of weeks.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
What can we learn about media through Cohen’s understanding of consumerism?
What I really liked about the book was attempting to find the communication that was represented within the book. When trying to understand this, one must look to the link between mass consumption within a mass public v. consumption in a segmented public. Within the mass public consumption is integrated into the ideals of abundance, democratic political freedom, and prosperity. However within a segmented market, consumption is also idealized into the ideals of democracy (more involvement and less cutthroat competition) (298) and perception of individualism. But most significantly in the segmented culture, we can see the tailoring of messages to individuals (eg Kennedy’s 1960 campaign, 366).
On a larger level, we can see that mass media has shifted from the ideal of one message to all (mass consumption) to a message that can be tailored to one individual or a group of individuals (segmented consumption). I guess my larger point is that when Cohen says market segmentation gave capitalists and rebels alike possessed a shared interest in using consumer markets to strengthen, not break down, the boundaries between social groups, this contributes to a more fragmented America (331), she hits the nail on the head. While the ideal of a mass consumed message that “rings true” to the “public” is romantic; in reality, our society is endlessly fragmented and modern media operates to “narrowcast,” or target programs at demographically specific audiences (302). What this means is that in contemporary society we can live in multiple “segments,” and in doing so, we serve as the links of the networked society.
The Suburbs and Punk
My version of A Consumers' Republic is electronic and doesn't come coded with page numbers (ugh), so I apologize if these quotations aren't easy to find.
I also gravitated toward Chapter 5. I grew up in miserable suburbia outside of Washington D.C., and many of Cohen's attributions to its character are accurate: boredom, isolation, and socioeconomic stratification are the most prominent, direct, and observable. Specifically, I latched onto the notion of increasing stratification from within the stratospheres, i.e. the most affluent moving into even more affluent suburbs, and the affect that had on the demographics of left-behind neighborhoods: "Whites left because they feared living near blacks, whom they considered culturally different and in some vague way beacons of greater poverty and crime."
One of the hallmarks of my suburban experience were the profligate displays of youthful rebellion, namely punks or metal-heads or young people who were otherwise guided by some semblance of a subculture, usually tied to music. Chuang & Hart (2008) write that the reason subcultures have become so prominent in the suburbs is because they convey "the feelings of suburban punks who perceived their parents as hypocritical and thereby yearned for more meaning than their suburban lives appeared to provide" (p. 183). In fact, the themes that tend to unify punks, namely "boredome of middle-class life and ideals, self-marginalization, rebellion against order, search for authenticity, and anticorporate attitudes," (p. 185) are similar to those that bored and rebellious suburban youth conglomerate around as well, such as "a need for meaning rather than affluence, struggle against conformity and hypocrisy, and isolation" (p. 185). It would seem that the racial tensions produced by increased stratification also result in social fracturing from within the demographics.
Our own Dr. Ron Lee has also written about the suburbs and the suburban mythos. Below are the references:
I also gravitated toward Chapter 5. I grew up in miserable suburbia outside of Washington D.C., and many of Cohen's attributions to its character are accurate: boredom, isolation, and socioeconomic stratification are the most prominent, direct, and observable. Specifically, I latched onto the notion of increasing stratification from within the stratospheres, i.e. the most affluent moving into even more affluent suburbs, and the affect that had on the demographics of left-behind neighborhoods: "Whites left because they feared living near blacks, whom they considered culturally different and in some vague way beacons of greater poverty and crime."
One of the hallmarks of my suburban experience were the profligate displays of youthful rebellion, namely punks or metal-heads or young people who were otherwise guided by some semblance of a subculture, usually tied to music. Chuang & Hart (2008) write that the reason subcultures have become so prominent in the suburbs is because they convey "the feelings of suburban punks who perceived their parents as hypocritical and thereby yearned for more meaning than their suburban lives appeared to provide" (p. 183). In fact, the themes that tend to unify punks, namely "boredome of middle-class life and ideals, self-marginalization, rebellion against order, search for authenticity, and anticorporate attitudes," (p. 185) are similar to those that bored and rebellious suburban youth conglomerate around as well, such as "a need for meaning rather than affluence, struggle against conformity and hypocrisy, and isolation" (p. 185). It would seem that the racial tensions produced by increased stratification also result in social fracturing from within the demographics.
Our own Dr. Ron Lee has also written about the suburbs and the suburban mythos. Below are the references:
Inequality in Mass Suburbia
The chapter that most interested me in this week's reading was Chapter 5, Residence: Inequality in Mass Suburbia. Cohen gave a very detailed description of how the rise of suburbia inherently created inequalities in access to better housing and schools. My grandparents raised my mom and uncle in this sort of suburbia in Omaha. My grandpa had a corporate job in the city and they bought a large split-level home on 132nd and Center, which in the early 1960s, was the outskirts of Omaha. Cohen talks a lot about how people in suburbia were concerned with their property values and this fit my grandparent's description perfectly. Even to this day they are overwhelmed with concern over their property value. Every time someone moves into neighborhood, they talk about what it will mean to the quality of their neighborhood.
Another thing I was interested to learn was the inequality in education that arose in the 1950s. Communities today are still struggling with the problems suburbia created during this time. One example, is the proposal of the "Learning Community" in Omaha. As the years go by, the rich have gotten richer in West Omaha, and the poor have gotten poorer towards the city center. Of course this creates disparities in education funding and Omaha's best solution to this problem was to integrate the funding and allow children from the "inner city" to attend better schools out west if they wanted. West Omahans, however, didn't want their tax dollars going to schools other than those in their district. After all, they moved to these districts for their good school systems and they wanted to protect their investments.
So, my question is, could this inequality have been avoided? Was it inevitable this would happen during a population boom?
Monday, March 7, 2011
Democratic Space
I have been thinking a lot recently about the shrinking of public spaces/places. Cohen's discussion in chapter 6 concerning the commercialization, privatization, and feminization of public spaces highlighted the restrictions of civil liberties in our consumer's republic. Referencing Habermas, Cohen notes "the commercializing, privatizing, and segmenting of physical gathering places [...] has made more precarious the shared public sphere upon which democracy depends" (289). I think one of the more prevalent arguments for the embrace of networked communication is that it creates digital spaces for people to protest and express themselves without being arrested for trespassing on private property. I wonder if we might discuss however what is gained/lost by such an approach. Does networked communication replace the physical public space? Or, does it rather accentuate public spaces by creating technological avenues for prior organization and attention? Do we consider chat rooms and facebook places of assembly in a political sense?
Women in Advertising
A part of the reading that stuck out to me this week Cohen's section in Chapter 6 titled "Feminizing Public Space" beginning on page 278. This section discusses the development of shopping centers moving from downtown shopping. Cohen talks about how women did most of the shopping at this time and developments were being made to better accomodate women and make them feel comfortable. Cohen then moves on to discuss how, "Shopping centers responded to suburban couples' growing tendency to shop together with stores and programming specifically designed to further encourage families to turn shopping chores into leisure time spent at the mall," (281). However, being an advertising and MCA student this got me thinking about what advertisers were focusing on during this decade. While Cohen does discuss this some, I wanted to learn more about it. I found a book titled "The 1950's" by William H. Young and Nancy K. Young. SInce it is a google book, I am not able to copy and paste the text I read in this post, but I will provide the link. The section begins on page 47 and is titled "Advertising and Women."
http://books.google.com/books?id=pt-o5xnJXvkC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=women+shoppers+in+the+50s&source=bl&ots=brvz_rjgex&sig=qa7Wbcgp8LbpuA2dSSikNI9mwS0&hl=en&ei=lqR1TaSQBfGD0QG74_jmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false
It discusses the woman as the household decision maker, mom creating the quintessential "happy home" and how marketers began to target not only household items, but also "Automatic transmissions in cars, wrinkle-free clothing, self-pasting wallpapers, and quick-drying paints could be counted among the many products aimed at the busy woman," (page 48). I found it interesting how it tied in with and sometimes contrasted with Cohen's ideas of women shoppers and feminizing public spaces.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pt-o5xnJXvkC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=women+shoppers+in+the+50s&source=bl&ots=brvz_rjgex&sig=qa7Wbcgp8LbpuA2dSSikNI9mwS0&hl=en&ei=lqR1TaSQBfGD0QG74_jmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false
It discusses the woman as the household decision maker, mom creating the quintessential "happy home" and how marketers began to target not only household items, but also "Automatic transmissions in cars, wrinkle-free clothing, self-pasting wallpapers, and quick-drying paints could be counted among the many products aimed at the busy woman," (page 48). I found it interesting how it tied in with and sometimes contrasted with Cohen's ideas of women shoppers and feminizing public spaces.
Hipsters: Counter Culture or Consumer Culture?
I enjoyed reading Thomas Frank's "Why Johnny Can't Dissent." It made me think about the "hipster" subculture that took hold through the first decade of the 21st century.
Hipsters are an example of a group that formed around the notions of non-conformity and individuality, but have quickly become a cliche... even mainstream. *Gasp!* You know the stereotypes: 18 to 30-somethings who openly despise all things "popular" and sport vintage flannel, thick-framed eyeglasses, and ironic haircuts, while sucking down Parliments and Schlitz.
In the Adbusters article, "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization" (July 2009), writer Douglas Haddow argues that hipsterdom is the "end product of all previous countercultures," except with a complete lack of originality or subversiveness. Basically, he says it's a subculture that claims to reject anything mainstream-- while borrowing "cool" from previous generations of rebel movements (Beats, hippies, punk, grunge, early hip-hop, etc.) rather than creating it. Here is an excerpt:
To conclude, I think that the individualism that hipsters seek to portray is more deeply rooted in capitalism than rebellion. Instead of defying the herd, they've become the herd. (Albeit a stylish herd.)
P.S. Did you guys know Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols is now promoting butter? Wow.
Hipsters are an example of a group that formed around the notions of non-conformity and individuality, but have quickly become a cliche... even mainstream. *Gasp!* You know the stereotypes: 18 to 30-somethings who openly despise all things "popular" and sport vintage flannel, thick-framed eyeglasses, and ironic haircuts, while sucking down Parliments and Schlitz.
In the Adbusters article, "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization" (July 2009), writer Douglas Haddow argues that hipsterdom is the "end product of all previous countercultures," except with a complete lack of originality or subversiveness. Basically, he says it's a subculture that claims to reject anything mainstream-- while borrowing "cool" from previous generations of rebel movements (Beats, hippies, punk, grunge, early hip-hop, etc.) rather than creating it. Here is an excerpt:
"Hipsterdom is the first 'counterculture' to be born under the advertising industry's microscope, leaving it open to constant manipulation but also forcing its participants to continually shift their interests and affiliations. Less a subculture, the hipster is a consumer group – using their capital to purchase empty authenticity and rebellion. But the moment a trend, band, sound, style or feeling gains too much exposure, it is suddenly looked upon with disdain. Hipsters cannot afford to maintain any cultural loyalties or affiliations for fear they will lose relevance... An amalgamation of its own history, the youth of the West are left with consuming cool rather that creating it."
To conclude, I think that the individualism that hipsters seek to portray is more deeply rooted in capitalism than rebellion. Instead of defying the herd, they've become the herd. (Albeit a stylish herd.)
P.S. Did you guys know Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols is now promoting butter? Wow.
As I was reading "Why Johnny Can't Dissent" automatically I started thinking about archetypes in advertising. There are 12 different archetypes and one of them is "the outlaw." Here is a complete branding strategy all about, "no longer enforcing order, but destroying it." (275) And there is no better company better at embracing this rebellious culture than Harley Davidson. To help illustrate this, check out the video below. I mean, what is more rebellious than, "we believe in the bucking the system that's built to smash individuals like bugs on a windshield."
Standards of evaluation in a "consumer republic"
Throughout reading consumer republic I found myself agreeing with many of Cohen's observation. What it left me with was a profound desire for the rational world paradigm. Market segmentation allows specific appeals to such niche markets that, as Cohen points out, people begin feeling entitled and, in many ways, constrained by their own specific desires. While this may be liberating in a consumerist mindset, it is severely limiting in a sense of the civic. Engagement, when it becomes personalized, loses the very rationality that I desire. The fact of the matter is most issues of public policy made at the governmental level are created around the idea of effecting large masses of people. That level of impact rarely finds itself easily marketed to the individual consumerist level expected within the framework and cultural norm of market segmentation. It is how an issue like global warming, which has the potential to effect the world (global) becomes a niche issue that is argued only by those people who fit a particular segment of the population (environmentalists). At a more abstract level, it also helps explain how large political issues (the Iraq War, Health Care, Food Aid) can be ignored by many who are not "interested" in politics. The apathy that becomes the norm in a consumer driven model leaves me wondering, is it such a stretch to ask that people be able to hold two separate rubrics of evaluation in their heads at once? Doesn't Toulmin's (1958) model of argument in some way allow people to evaluate their television programming by a different standard than their civic engagement? And if not--why? The fun thing about the blog is having no answers--only questions.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
'Consumption' overload
Throughout my reading of Cohen’s “A Consumers’ Republic,” I waited and waited for the comparisons to our consumption of mass media, though what I read instead was an interesting history of how we’ve gotten to the consumptive culture and economy we have.
Still, I felt a bit relieved to read this column by Mark Harris in Entertainment Weekly magazine and have it speak to me on a new level, thanks to the Cohen book and the focus on the word “consumption.”
Harris’ point is that we all need to stop gorging on technology -- or at the very least, enjoy our technologies one at a time. But this line, discussing the idea of converging social media with entertainment and being able to watch your friends discuss a TV show embedded on your TV as you watch it, brought it home to class: “To some, this may sound great. To me, it represents ... the gaping mouth of hell. I don’t know about you, but anybody who peppers me with witticisms, commentary, or any other interruption while I’m watching ‘Mad Men’ is going to get unfriended fast. For one hour, I want my only relationship to be with that show. I don’t just want to consume it; I want to be consumed by it. Which is what the entertainment we really love always does for us.” (emphasis mine)
Finally: that word, consume -- and the interesting idea that good entertainment also can consume us … in a good way.
But the article two pages later in that magazine lends itself even further into the consumption of media, and the idea of being consumed by it. The article, “You’re Invited to a Royal Frenzy,” details the mass media’s work to chronicle and scoop one another on the April 29 royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. It seems that at a time when Harris is preparing his own diet of mass media enjoyment, the rest of the entertainment media, and beyond, is preparing a smorgasbord for the masses on this light, happy tale. The lengthy article tells of the various magazines’ and TV stations’ work to share the upcoming wedding and the impact that having a networked society -- as opposed to just the mass communications available during Charles and Diana’s wedding a few decades back -- will have on the way we all view this event. As Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University, is quoted: “This is going to be a massive global conversation.”
The contrast of themes -- the diet we require and yet the overload we’re all going to get with this one spectacular event -- was notable. Then this week’s Entertainment Weekly arrived in my mailbox, with Charlie Sheen on the cover, and that’s another topic of entertainment news consumption we could discuss and digest.
Still, I felt a bit relieved to read this column by Mark Harris in Entertainment Weekly magazine and have it speak to me on a new level, thanks to the Cohen book and the focus on the word “consumption.”
Harris’ point is that we all need to stop gorging on technology -- or at the very least, enjoy our technologies one at a time. But this line, discussing the idea of converging social media with entertainment and being able to watch your friends discuss a TV show embedded on your TV as you watch it, brought it home to class: “To some, this may sound great. To me, it represents ... the gaping mouth of hell. I don’t know about you, but anybody who peppers me with witticisms, commentary, or any other interruption while I’m watching ‘Mad Men’ is going to get unfriended fast. For one hour, I want my only relationship to be with that show. I don’t just want to consume it; I want to be consumed by it. Which is what the entertainment we really love always does for us.” (emphasis mine)
Finally: that word, consume -- and the interesting idea that good entertainment also can consume us … in a good way.
But the article two pages later in that magazine lends itself even further into the consumption of media, and the idea of being consumed by it. The article, “You’re Invited to a Royal Frenzy,” details the mass media’s work to chronicle and scoop one another on the April 29 royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. It seems that at a time when Harris is preparing his own diet of mass media enjoyment, the rest of the entertainment media, and beyond, is preparing a smorgasbord for the masses on this light, happy tale. The lengthy article tells of the various magazines’ and TV stations’ work to share the upcoming wedding and the impact that having a networked society -- as opposed to just the mass communications available during Charles and Diana’s wedding a few decades back -- will have on the way we all view this event. As Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University, is quoted: “This is going to be a massive global conversation.”
The contrast of themes -- the diet we require and yet the overload we’re all going to get with this one spectacular event -- was notable. Then this week’s Entertainment Weekly arrived in my mailbox, with Charlie Sheen on the cover, and that’s another topic of entertainment news consumption we could discuss and digest.
Info Overload Leads to Triteness
While segmenting the masses may have been the beginning of the Networked Society, as people, business and the government understood the benefits of targeting similar groups of people as opposed to the masses, it may also have been the beginning of the end of the citizen consumer.
After WWII, the mass communication/consumption train had left the station, and business and government worked together to promote the idea that everyone should want a particular lifestyle (i.e. suburban, middle class living). The Broadway musical, Little Shop of Horrors, satirically depicted both the reality and fantasy of this lifestyle especially as it related to the urban poor. The song, "Somewhere That's Green," most effectively details that disconnect for the urban poor.
The reality that this ideal lifestyle is not attainable by everyone, nor is it desired by everyone, led businesses to segment the marketplace. A consumer group is upset about some business practice, then business responded by putting a fresh coat of paint over the problem by speaking directly to that segment without necessarily fixing the problem. As communication grew more and more fragmented, it became increasingly easier to reach particular segments, but it also became increasingly important to reach them with short, quick statements as the amount of attention time one had to reach the people was rapidly decreasing. As this Newsweek article discusses, the more information a person has available to them, the more that a person will rely on cognitive biases to make decisions. One of those biases being catchy repeated phrases that can break through the clutter. This has led to the personalization of politics and the avoidance of discussing actual issues in the present political environment. This Family Guy clip is a disturbingly accurate picture of what takes place in political debates.
My question or fear is this, in a segmented Networked Society, certain groups may get power to speak for everyone when in fact they only speak for a few (ex. Christian Parental Group forcing the FTC to create new decency regulations after the Janet Jackson nipple slip in the Superbowl). What does everyone think of this?
After WWII, the mass communication/consumption train had left the station, and business and government worked together to promote the idea that everyone should want a particular lifestyle (i.e. suburban, middle class living). The Broadway musical, Little Shop of Horrors, satirically depicted both the reality and fantasy of this lifestyle especially as it related to the urban poor. The song, "Somewhere That's Green," most effectively details that disconnect for the urban poor.
The reality that this ideal lifestyle is not attainable by everyone, nor is it desired by everyone, led businesses to segment the marketplace. A consumer group is upset about some business practice, then business responded by putting a fresh coat of paint over the problem by speaking directly to that segment without necessarily fixing the problem. As communication grew more and more fragmented, it became increasingly easier to reach particular segments, but it also became increasingly important to reach them with short, quick statements as the amount of attention time one had to reach the people was rapidly decreasing. As this Newsweek article discusses, the more information a person has available to them, the more that a person will rely on cognitive biases to make decisions. One of those biases being catchy repeated phrases that can break through the clutter. This has led to the personalization of politics and the avoidance of discussing actual issues in the present political environment. This Family Guy clip is a disturbingly accurate picture of what takes place in political debates.
My question or fear is this, in a segmented Networked Society, certain groups may get power to speak for everyone when in fact they only speak for a few (ex. Christian Parental Group forcing the FTC to create new decency regulations after the Janet Jackson nipple slip in the Superbowl). What does everyone think of this?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Book Report Dates
At long last, you can get off the edge of your seats, for the book report assignments are here! Huzzah! I'll detail more about what I am looking for in the next class, but here is when I want the reports done. Email me a copy on the day you are presenting. Each presentation should be 5-7 minutes and should try to connect with some of the course concepts. I think that everyone is represented here; if not, email me and we'll get you slated for a date.
March 29 (Visuality)
Jessy--Refiguring Mass Communication
Kelynne--Typecasting
April 5 (Network Society I)
Malika--Six Degrees
Dana--Long Tail
Chad--Personal Connections
April 12 (Network Society II)
Tuck--Lingua Fracta
Kathy--Convergence Culture
Adam--Net Effect
April 19 (Network Society III)
Farmer--Networked Publics
Alisha & Blake--Socialnomics
Stephanie--Cognitive Surplus
April 26 (Critics of Conectedness)
Mike--Alone Together
Spencer--Facebook Effect
March 29 (Visuality)
Jessy--Refiguring Mass Communication
Kelynne--Typecasting
April 5 (Network Society I)
Malika--Six Degrees
Dana--Long Tail
Chad--Personal Connections
April 12 (Network Society II)
Tuck--Lingua Fracta
Kathy--Convergence Culture
Adam--Net Effect
April 19 (Network Society III)
Farmer--Networked Publics
Alisha & Blake--Socialnomics
Stephanie--Cognitive Surplus
April 26 (Critics of Conectedness)
Mike--Alone Together
Spencer--Facebook Effect
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
It pains me to see that society is most interested in this today. I saw it as one of the most viewed articles and had to contain myself from being sick to stomach. She was arrested and released early this morning. Which means she wasn't even in her own home before society knew that she was drunk in public. Imagine if this is how parents found out about how we spend our college days or when we(if any of you have) broke the law. Granted my parents or family don't follow my every move on TMZ. There should be a 24 hour clause on when TMZ, Entertainment Tonight and so forth can post information like this. Sad thing about this, I really don't even like Christina just disappointed that it made the top stories of the day.
Christina Aguilera arrested for drunkenness
Singer Christina Aguilera and her boyfriend have been arrested on suspicion of being drunk in a car that was stopped on a West Hollywood street.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41848647/ns/today-entertainment/from/toolbar
"Slow Food" Consumer Movement (Response to Stephanie)
In response to Stephanie's post regarding the current revival of consumer consciousness and reforms in the food industry...
Many of you are aware of the "real food" trend that has emerged in recent years. Consumers (hippies and non-hippies alike) are starting to demand more high quality food choices with short ingredient lists and words they can actually pronounce. Several books and documentaries focusing on the current state of our food system have helped educate consumers about healthful eating and ways to bring about reform. As a result, consumers have started talking about these issues (i.e. industrialized agriculture, reliance on corn, pesticides, GMOs, animal cruelty, etc.) in public forums via networked communication-and taking action with their pocketbooks.
We're starting to see a lot more restaurants touting their local and sustainable food sources and advertising that emphasizes "real," "pure," "simple," and "natural" ingredients. (Although, we should be skeptical about whether manufacturers can truly mass-produce healthy foods without loads of processing and preservatives. Nevertheless, they're marketing them to us as such.) It is interesting to compare the current recession to the Great Depression era. Instead of demanding lower prices in tough economic times, there has been a surge in backyard gardens and farmer's markets, as well as the increased expectation that the food industry provide us with quality food without giving up convenience.
Author and food expert Michael Pollan discusses how consumers are starting to reform the food industry by voting with their dollars:
"Perhaps more than any other, the food industry is very sensitive to consumer demand. Every major food company now has an organic division. There’s more capital going into organic agriculture than ever before. If consumers make good choices, the industry will respond. Will it be everything we hope? Probably not. They didn’t come up with organic, after all. That came from small farmers and consumers working together in relative obscurity. We need to sustain a noncorporate food chain to serve as the antennae for culture and agriculture. Whatever works will be picked up by the larger companies...When Wal-Mart and McDonald’s start selling organic food, it will drive down the price to farmers and risk growing a new monoculture. On the other hand, the whole country will be educated about the virtues of eating organic food. So the center will move, which is how change always comes to this country." (source: http://michaelpollan.com/profiles/the-cheapest-calories-make-you-the-fattest-a-food-chain-journalist-looks-for-stories-in-our-meals/)
Even if this trend will not lead to large-scale boycotts of processed food, fast food restaurants, and corporate agriculture-- at least I feel we're moving in the right direction as consumers. We're starting to question whether we can sacrifice our health for the sake of cheap food. Our networked society has enabled people to spread the word about the health risks associated with our current food system via blogs, podcasts, social media, films, books, and even old fashioned word of mouth. Like Stephanie, I think that the “Slow Food” movement is more than a fad. It appears to be a revival of consumer activism towards eating real, whole foods – much like those consumers ate back in the 1930s amidst the food price protests. My question is -- does networked communication make our purchasing power more effective or does it dilute it? Even though we can communicate with each other on a much large scale, perhaps a more concentrated, local boycott of unhealthy food providers would have more of an impact on reform.
Many of you are aware of the "real food" trend that has emerged in recent years. Consumers (hippies and non-hippies alike) are starting to demand more high quality food choices with short ingredient lists and words they can actually pronounce. Several books and documentaries focusing on the current state of our food system have helped educate consumers about healthful eating and ways to bring about reform. As a result, consumers have started talking about these issues (i.e. industrialized agriculture, reliance on corn, pesticides, GMOs, animal cruelty, etc.) in public forums via networked communication-and taking action with their pocketbooks.
We're starting to see a lot more restaurants touting their local and sustainable food sources and advertising that emphasizes "real," "pure," "simple," and "natural" ingredients. (Although, we should be skeptical about whether manufacturers can truly mass-produce healthy foods without loads of processing and preservatives. Nevertheless, they're marketing them to us as such.) It is interesting to compare the current recession to the Great Depression era. Instead of demanding lower prices in tough economic times, there has been a surge in backyard gardens and farmer's markets, as well as the increased expectation that the food industry provide us with quality food without giving up convenience.
Author and food expert Michael Pollan discusses how consumers are starting to reform the food industry by voting with their dollars:
"Perhaps more than any other, the food industry is very sensitive to consumer demand. Every major food company now has an organic division. There’s more capital going into organic agriculture than ever before. If consumers make good choices, the industry will respond. Will it be everything we hope? Probably not. They didn’t come up with organic, after all. That came from small farmers and consumers working together in relative obscurity. We need to sustain a noncorporate food chain to serve as the antennae for culture and agriculture. Whatever works will be picked up by the larger companies...When Wal-Mart and McDonald’s start selling organic food, it will drive down the price to farmers and risk growing a new monoculture. On the other hand, the whole country will be educated about the virtues of eating organic food. So the center will move, which is how change always comes to this country." (source: http://michaelpollan.com/profiles/the-cheapest-calories-make-you-the-fattest-a-food-chain-journalist-looks-for-stories-in-our-meals/)
Even if this trend will not lead to large-scale boycotts of processed food, fast food restaurants, and corporate agriculture-- at least I feel we're moving in the right direction as consumers. We're starting to question whether we can sacrifice our health for the sake of cheap food. Our networked society has enabled people to spread the word about the health risks associated with our current food system via blogs, podcasts, social media, films, books, and even old fashioned word of mouth. Like Stephanie, I think that the “Slow Food” movement is more than a fad. It appears to be a revival of consumer activism towards eating real, whole foods – much like those consumers ate back in the 1930s amidst the food price protests. My question is -- does networked communication make our purchasing power more effective or does it dilute it? Even though we can communicate with each other on a much large scale, perhaps a more concentrated, local boycott of unhealthy food providers would have more of an impact on reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)