Revelations

Last blog. I'm not really sure what to talk about, it seems like we haven't been covering that much material in class lately. Or maybe its just that I don't care about LATA and all the other bullshit acronyms that we've been talking about. Anyway, since this is the last one, I figured I'd use it as an opportunity to reflect on the class in general and this assignment in particular.
While most of the class bitched up and down about the work load and writing the blogs, I have to say that I disagree. As someone who has been an undergrad since the end of the Clinton Administration (a lot of people go to college for seven years--yeah, they're called doctors), I can say from experience that it is not often that you'll take a class where you get to truly express your opinions. I mean, we got into some pretty heavy issues that fall under the umbrella of mass communications--the Holocaust, sexism, racism, war. And on each, we were each allowed to spout whatever insane opinion we wanted. Not many classes will give you the opportunity to do that. It was interesting to see where everyone stood on the controversial issues of the day. In a class where you get to honestly express what you think, it gives others a better understanding of who you are and where you're coming from, as well as exposing them to ideas that they may otherwise never considered.
As to the class in general, I thought it was a cake walk. Honestly, I don't know what y'all were complaining about all this time. I'll leave you with a piece of advice from someone who has breezed past the oft-attained rank of super-senior, to a level most of you will never know--the super duper senior x2. "It's college. Just do the work and shut the fuck up."

Does Anyone Even Care Anymore?

So only 3 weeks left, or whatever. I'm running out of things to complain about. I never thought I'd say that. Have you seen Waiting yet? If not, check it out, it hilarious. But watch out for the brain. I guess I should talk about mass communications or something, but I'm not really feelin it. I like those fake names like Phil Macrackin or I.P. Freely. My favorite is Heywood Jablome. I think I'm still drunk. Anyway. Down to business.
So I'm kinda salty at Lindsey for the discussion yesterday on racism in the media. Somehow, she shifted it back so that she was talking about women's issues again. I'm a dude. I dont' care about women's issues all that much. Yeah, the media makes chicks look like sluts or whatever. If girls didn't buy into it and dress and act like sluts, it wouldn't be a problem. The media would change their portrayals if the images they were using didn't sell their products. Racism is in the same vein. The image of blacks has been somewhat static for the last decade or so. Chicks are chickenheads, and dudes are thugs. Both are entirely hedonistic, concerned with instant gratification. Sex, drugs, violence. These are realms of blacks in the media. Look at music. In the early 90s, rap was in an afrocentric phase--black is beautiful and all that. The in 1992, The Chronic, Dr. Dre's first solo album, came out. Sex, drugs and violence. But suburban white kids ate it up. Record execs realized that they could make boatloads of cash by selling dramatized urban life to white kids in need of a danger fix. A decade later, nothing has changed. Is it because blacks haven't changed, or because the media won't let them change? How else can you explain a song where the chorus is, "wait till you see my dick"? But white kids love it. Go out this weekend. I guarantee you'll see some white kids jammin out to it. The worst part of it is, blacks have adopted the media image. They actually think that is how they're supposed to dress and act. So now, every black guy has some baggy jeans, a chain, a flatbrimmed ball cap cocked to the side. It's like, dude, you're from Centralia. You've never even seen a ghetto. But they have to look the part.

"Sit Right Back and Grab Some Tails..."

Another seminar rough draft due this week, so my heart's not really in this blog. If it sucks--oh well, sue me. Well, we've been talking about advertising and PR and all that in class recently. While admittedly that stuff is important in terms of companies getting the word out about their products, when did the defining chacteristic of America become consumption?
A friend of mine was in Mexico years ago when AlkaSeltzer had their "I can't believe I ate the whole thing" ad campaign. When they found out he was an American, they didn't ask him what it was like in America, or how to best sneak across the border. In bad English they exclaimed, "I can't believe I ate the whole thing!"(insert funny Mexican accent). America has come to be equted with our advertisements--with our conspicuous consumption.
TV is more ads than it is shows. And the worst part is, they show the same ad over and over and over and over. I was watching the NCAA tournament a few weeks ago, and Applebee's had an ad for their new shrimp dinners that uses the tune from the theme song to Gilligan's Island. "Sit right back and grab some tails, tails of some tasty shrimp..." Brutal. It ran every commercial break, and sometimes more than once. It's like, thanks yeah, I know you have shrimp you've already told me 50 FUCKING TIMES! And by the way, inby far the fattest country in the world, do people really need to be going to Applebee's to eat shrimp anyway? How about a salad you fat bastards.
OK, I'm tired of ranting, basically my point is, while advertising is a necessary evil, I hate it. Stop showing me all the things I can buy that I don't need and can't afford but will put on my credit card anyway and go deep in debt. But it's ok, cuz I just saw an ad for credit counseling.

The PR of Terror

In this week's reserve reading, Tamar Liebes and Zohar Kampf explore the changing nature of media coverage on terrorism following the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington D.C. They argue that the media has essentially made celebrities of terrorists by shifting their coverage from the victims to the attackers.
CNN broadcasting an interview with Osama bin Laden was quoted by CBS News president Andrew Heyward as being comparable to "interviewing Adolf Hitler or Emperor Hirohito." Heyward must have forgotten that in 1938 Hitler was named Time Magazine's "Man of the Year." And why are our enemies always compared to Hitler? First Osama, then Saddam, Kim Jong Il. Admittedly not nice guys. But I don't think any of them can hold a candle to Hitler. Or are the incessant WWII references simply intented to draw a parallel between this war and the last just war fought by this country?
The main reason for the shift in coverage is the motive. Showing the effect terrorism has on the victims elicits feelings of sympathy and sadness from the audience. Showing the terrorist makes people feel scared. Is it just a coincidence that everytime a new bin Laden tape comes out, President Bush's poll numbers go up? I don't think so. He's just reminding people to be afraid. Keep the polulace afraid and they will do or believe anything. How else can you explain the outrageous claim that Saddam was going to unleash chamical weapons over major cities by means of UAVs? His military wouldn't have been able to hit Tel Aviv, much less New York. But people were willing to believe anything because they were scared.
James Madison said, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." Osama bin Laden is the modern incarnation of 1984's Emmanuel Goldstein. The "5 minute hate" begins whenever his latest tape is broadcast on CNN. Wasn't he our guy in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation? Oh, I must be mistaken. I forgot that Oceania was always at war with Eastasia.

Online Reporting of the Iraq War

The reserve reading for this week highlighted the dramatic spike in the number people going online to get their news about the situation in Iraq. Allen noted several reasons for this, including the immediacy of information, the chance to be exposed to a wider range of opinions, and the ability to comment on what was read. The relatively recent advent of broadband internet service, which gives individuals the ability to watch live streaming video, was also cited as a reason for this rise.
The vast majority of Americans get their news from television. It's difficult for CNN or MSNBC to give in-depth coverage of a story that has to be presented in 30 second clips for an American populace with an attention span the size of a pea. Rather than report on the entire length and breadth of an issue, only a brief overview can be given which results in the illusion of an informed citizenry, who in truth merely get headlines without any understanding of the context or nuance of a story. With an event as controversial as the Iraq War, many felt that they needed more than just headlines, especially if one of their loved ones was in the service. So they went online to expand their understanding of the situation.
While the news channels do ultimately inform, albeit minimally, it is often forgotten that their primary goal is to make money for the parent company. Unpopular or controversial stories and opinions are often avoided in favor of "safe" stories or pop culture crap that will keep the audience tuned in. CNN is perceived as having a liberal bent, FOX is conservative, and MSNBC just sucks. But despite small differences in the spin of a story (ie. "NSA domestic spying" vs. "terrorist surveillance program") all of the channels say pretty much the same thing. And when they do have a "debate" on a controversial issue, it's always a matchup like, "Today we have former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger here to talk about why the government is telling the truth about Iran vs. Some cock-eyed intern with a lisp to give the tin-foil hat conspiracy theory about a vast right-wing cabal bent on world domination." It's never an honest and open debate, and it become readily obvious that the news media as a whole are pushing a certain viewpoint and ideology.
In order to be exposed to differing viewpoints is one of the main reasons people go online for their news. During the run-up to the Iraq War, television news didn't bother to do any investigative reporting. If Bush said that Saddam had WMDs, it was taken as fact. Uranium from Niger, fact. Saddam hiding under your bed waiting to get you when you fell asleep, fact. (ok, so I made that last one up) My point is, TV news reported all of this as fact, and in the end it all was fiction. All the networks were apparently duped by a guy who says "nookular." I think trust waned for TV journalism. People wanted to know what was really happening. So they went online in order to get a broader perspective on the issues.

Cooler than a Polar Bear's Toenails

In class on Monday, we watched part of the Frontline documentary The Merchants of Cool. The film focused on what corporations have to do to keep up with ever-changing youth trends. Or, in the case of Sprite, become part of the trend itself. What amazed me most was the hyper-conglomeration of the market. Huge conglomerates like Disney and Viacom own 4 of the 5 companies that sell 90% of the music in this country...Honestly, I just don't care this week. Usually giant corporate conspiracies are right up my alley, but I'm trying to get my seminar paper done, and this just isn't on my radar right now. Yeah, so 5 companies own everything. We already know that. They have focus groups to find out what we want so that they can sell us something they already have prepackaged, but tell us it's actually what we want. The trendsetters don't care what's on MTV or what jeans are "so cool" right now. Do you think that kid in the gas mask gives a shit what Rupert Murdoch tells him is cool? Of course not. As soon as the marketing departments of these huge companies latch on to something and make it cool, it's not cool anymore. The gas mask kid will be on to something else. The media sells caricatures like the "midriff" and the goofy white guy, and the ghetto black kid, and people buy it. They believe that's how they're supposed to dress and act. You can't be cool unless you have the Ecko jeans and the Phat Farm hoodie, and some Lugz. Individuality through mass consumption--what kind of crazy shit is that? Whatever. Be yourself. Fuck what they say. That's what I say. Focker, out.

Hoop Dreams and the Reinforcement of Cultural Stereotypes Through Film

In the chapter on Hoop Dreams from her book, Reel to Real, Bell Hooks argues that, far from being a great documentary worthy of the praise lauded upon it, Hoops Dreams was essentially a propaganda piece designed to reinforce popular stereotypes of inner city blacks. The movie had the classic ghetto characters one would expect to find in the average "ethnic" film--the single mother struggling to keep the family together, the drug-addicted father who isn't there, and most importantly, basketball players.
Hooks makes much of the fact that the film does little to challenge the prevailing perception that one of the only ways a black male can rise in society is by being an athlete. She compares the commodification of these black boys by coaches and talent scounts to that of the slave market economy, where the worth of a black man is determined by his physical prowess. Once the body breaks down, they are of no more use and are cut loose in a skewed "what have you done for my lately?" mentality. When William Gates blows out his knee a second time and walks away from the game, he is portrayed as the "loser" in the invented competition between the two boys. In reality there was no "competition" between Gates and Arthur Agee, but the film is constructed in such a way as to create tension and drama between the two.
I don't remember what Gates ended up doing--it's been a long time since I've seen the film. But I do remeber Agee going to some crappy college in the middle of nowhere so that he could continue playing basketball and chasing the dream. He did get to continue his education becuase of basketball, but that is simply a sidebar, not why he's the "winner." Society doesn't care about the education of young black men. Playing basketball isn't portrayed as a vehicle towards an education, it's the end in and of itself.
Negative stereotypical images of blacks, espeically black men, pervade our society and the media does little to challenge these assumptions. Blacks can be atheletes, singers, dancers, in short--entertainers. Or criminals. Hell, even the atheletes and singers are criminals these days. Gradually, people begin to take on the persona that the media assigns for them, begin to believe what they are told about themselves--a classic example of life imitating art. There are very few positive portrayls of blacks in the mainstream media. Even now, during Black History Month (the shortest, coldest month of the year--thanks, white America!) the images are repetative--Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver, Fredrick Douglass. Others may get a little face time, but every February, without fail come the big 4--the Mount Rushmore of black history. Few people have heard of Carter G. Woodson, Bejnamin Banneker, Garrett Morgan, or Charles Drew. On the History Channel website, they have a list of "African American icons" up for Black History Month. 34 out of 65 are atheletes, musicians or actors. What message is this sending to the black youth of America? During his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Barak Obama said that we must "eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white." Unless the media changes the way blacks are portrayed, I fear that that slander with be with us for many years to come. Sorry Barak.