Where Freedom Ends

"NO, you cannot do that! It is not allowed!" How many times all of us have heard these sentences, either when were children or adults. There have been regulations and laws all around us. We have to watch what we say, how we act, what we write. Some regulations came from morality that our society accept, and some were made by the government or some kind of significant institution. The second way is how the media got regulated. Institutions such as the FCC regulates the media in order to cut off the inappropriate scenes, words, or talks. On the other hand it at least regulates the age limit of the shows, movies. Of course different mediums have different regulations. Believe it or not the Internet is also regulated. When I first heard that it was hard to believe, since it is so easy for an individual to create a website and just put anything he/she wants on it. Well, it is not that easy any more, at least not in China.

I have read an article in the website of Los Angeles Times that talked about China is planning to have new rules for personal websites. The new rule would require individuals to verify they identities with regulators and have their photographs taken before they create a website. This rule only applies to a domain known as .cn. The reason China wants to impose this rule is to decrease the number of websites, which have inappropriate content on it, such as pornography, violence, or instigation. However it is still unknown if the new law will be accepted or not as the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology have not replied to the request yet.
Media has been regulated by government for hundreds of years. According to the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." the government should not have a voice in what is happening in the media. However, David Croteau and William Hoynes say in their book, called Media Society, that it is more complex than it seems. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to intervene in the communication marketplace and protect the authorship and interest of the authors and inventors with copyrights. So the media are not that free any more, right?
I feel like it is important that the government regulates the media, because today's technology allows young children to use computer and watch different programs on TV and parents do not want their children to be influenced by something, like pornography or violence, they are not mature enough.

I don't know, but China is maybe going too far, and this law is just one more thing in the box with full of regulations. China has one of world's most strictest Internet controls.
How do you feel? Do you think the government should take a "hands off" approach toward the media? Or can media work on their own?

Klaudia

Dag… I wanted to work for a news company when I grew up =(

So every knows that companies have had to layoff and fire a lot of people, especially in the last couple of years or so; but I recently came across an article on www.cjr.org (Colombia Journalism Review) that reported that near 400 people who worked ABC News throughout the different divisions would be losing their jobs, either through voluntary buyouts or layoffs. The news of this happening is coming less then a month after CBS announced that they would be releasing workers from their news division. President of ABC news David Westin says that these jobs losses are due to ABC News’s attempt to undergo a, “fundamental transformation.” So, in other words, there is a recession going on in America right now so News companies have to lay off some people in order to save money. This is just more proof that it is becoming even harder to get and keep a decent job in journalism. I personally hope that journalism can make a turn around and once again be a highly successful profession. If not, I better start looking for other things to do when I grow up.

Even though the president claims that the news station is going through a, “fundamental transformation” nothing much is really going to be done toward changing the news station. According to the article, “network news still draws millions more viewers than any of the cable news programs.” But yet, they laid off many of their journalists who worked on their staff.

I believe that the news media today is on a decline. More and more people are turning to other ways to receive their news, such as their computers and cell phones. The news stations understand that, so it makes it easier for them to lay off people. The demand for journalists for news companies is unfortunately slowly decreasing. But if you look throughout history, this was only to be expected. Media has changed tremendously over the past couple of years, especially in the news industry. Newspapers are becoming a thing of the past and televised news may follow in its footsteps.

Who's selling What?!

(Sorry about the quality I couldn't find this clip in a better one.)

This article is about Tory party leader David Cameron’s promise if he is to be elected. His promise is to eventually stop sexual marking and advertising towards young children. He also proclaimed that the Tory administration would not support Government advertising for three years if marketing agencies proactively market products to children. However, Cameron said that, "You can't cut children off from the commercial world, of course you can't, but we should be able to help parents more in terms of trying to make sure that our children get a childhood and that they are not subject to unnecessary and inappropriate commercialisation and sexualisation too young."

There was a report last year that the ASA received about 799 complaints about marking to children. Sadly, only 28 of the complaints were upheld. The Tory party wishes to make the process of expressing concerns about advertisements from parents easier if they feel as if their child is being sexualized. Cameron feels strongly about changing the way online social networks advertise to children such as Facebook and Bebo.

Children as young as seven have become ‘min-marketeers’ in order to promote brands such as Fanta and Nintendo by spreading the news through their Facebook friends. This “controversial form of stealth marketing” is very discreetly interlaced into everyday conversation between children through online conversations and postings that “return for payments equivalent to up to £25 (about $39).”

One such company that exploits min-marketeers is the Dubit Leeds-based agency which promotes drinks such as Coca-Cola, Cheestrings, and Barbie MP3 players. The agency says that children should be advertising because they are “key campaign messages to friends, both on and offline.” They tell kids how to pitch to their friends by telling them how to think about the product and what is the best way to tell your friends about it and to not “start a chat about the project – it’s best to look for natural opportunities to drop it into the conversation.” The director of Dubit’s did however say that “anyone under the age of 16 must have explicit verbal parental consent to take part.”

David Cameron is aggressively seeking to stop marketing and advertising agencies such as Dubit to stop using and taking advantage of young children.

Last week I did an article review on energy drinks and cigarettes and I brought up the point briefly about how cigarette companies have certain advertising restrictions about marking to a young audience. I found that interesting but then in my mass media class, the lecture was about ethics which included a short talk about child advertising. I found this to be VERY interesting and wanted to do this week’s blog concerning this controversial topic.

Something that has been in the news not too long ago was the controversy of the Jonas Brothers and the purity rings. The boys claim to live in chastity while they are covertly selling sex (just like Britney Spears). Disney exploits the boys’ “attractiveness” and “eroticism” because sex sells very well. Jonas Brothers: 3D Concert Experience was a step up technological speaking (probably not in quality) from the Miley Cyrus movie which is a good “clean” way to make a profit. The premise of the concert is mostly concentrated on their at the time latest CD “A Little Bit Longer” and guest singers Demi Lovato and Taylor Swift. There are apparently a number of behind-the-scenes shenanigans that is inspired by “A Hard Day’s Night” by the Beatles in which girls run after the boys around New York City. Disney used narrowcasting in the production of this movie; they were mainly making this movie for their already devoted fans and not to obtain new ones. Is there anything wrong with having a purity ring – no – I believe that is a personal choice; however, do not use this moral object in order to make money. The boys claim to be a rock ‘n’ roll band that is in complete contrast to the message sent by the rings. I believe the brothers have been manufactured by Disney that is able to do whatever they wish with them.

What I want to know from you, my dear reader, is what do you personally think about the Jonas Brothers "selling sex" and/or these ‘min-marketeers’. Do you think this is a good platform to run on for David Cameron?

sARAH

Take a look at overseas

I guess I do not lie, if i say that the biggest film industries are in America and India; the Hollywood and the Bollywood. But what is going on between them? There is Europe with its beautiful countries. If you grow up in the United States, the most movies you see are American, although there are some of them that are set in Europe. The differences can be barely noticeable among movies set in America or in Europe, when the company is American. Why? Because they use the same equipments to shoot the scenes.
Let's take a look at the European movie industry, more specifically in central and eastern Europe. A Hungarian writer wrote an article about the film industry in Hungary and she also mentions some other countries in that area. She talks about the rise of Hungarian film industry. This little central European country has always had problems with money. (I do not exaggerate here when I say "always", as I grew up there, I experienced those problems.) In 2004 politicians proposed a great tax rebate to foreign film companies shooting in Hungary. According to that law, it gave 20% of all production costs spent in the country back to the filmmakers. In addition the law also gave 50% tax rebate for the constructions of new facilities in Hungary. It is all nice and good till 2007, when the government decreased its support with 30%. That was a big loss, but the international companies, which are already settled in and became co-producers helped a lot. What also helped was the money that came from private companies trying to take advantage of the tax break and investing into Hungarian Films.

Hungary has been a one of the major host of foreign productions. I can tell you some well-known American movies that have scenes in Hungary, for example I Spy with the starring of Eddie Murphy and Owen Wilson, Munchen by Steven Spilberg, Evita, and Hellboy 2:The Golden Army. These are just some examples from the list. Hungary with its beautiful countryside and nice architecture are great for shooting a movie. Beside international producers, Hungarian producers like our opportunities as well. However there are differences when we see a movie made in Hungary and made in the United States. The two most noticeable differences that I see are the quality of the movie and the sounds. Clearly the equipments used in the USA and in Hungary are not the same at all. The equipments in the USA are more developed as they have the budget to spend more money on the movie. If we compare the average American budget of a movie and the average Hungarian budget of the movie the difference is pretty big. In the US it is around 5-20 million USD, while in Hungary it is 1-4 million USD. Needless to say that as average I am not talking about movies like Avatar, that cost $280.
We were talking about the media rules on my communication class, and one of the points in the first rule is that there is always a risk that the movie is going to be a flop. This is one of the reason why Hungarian movies are much cheaper, because, we cannot afford to lose a big amount of money. In order to make sure that the film is going to be a success, Hungarian producers take into consideration the first rule. We have a ten or fifteen very good and well-known actors and actresses who take part in all the good movies. So the producers choose the cast precisely in order to make the audience to see the movie. Another thing producers like to use to succeed is to make a second part of successful film. I can understand, because I personally, only see the movies that have good actors, actresses in it or I have seen the first part and I liked it. Of course do not forget the marketing. Producers spend a lot of money to let people know and make them interested about the upcoming movies. They do this with trailers, billboards, advertisements in magazines, newspapers, and in the radio as well.

Honestly, I like watching foreign movies better, but there are a few Hungarian movies that I can watch several times and never get bored of it.
Here are two videos from youtube. One is a small part of a Hungarian movie (Üvegtigris 2 = Glass Tiger 2)
and the other one is part of an American movie (I Spy) that was shot in Hungary. If you look at the part 2.00 the bridge scene, that was shot in Budapest (the capital of Hungary) Pay attention to the quality of the movie and sound effects in both. (unfortunately I could not find subtitled version of the Hungarian movie, but you don't have to understand the words to notice the difference)





So after watching these short videos, what do you think? Can you see the difference?

Klaudia

Lip-syncing, should it be legal?

Recently in China there have been a few issues with "miming", another term for lip-syncing. Americans are familiar with this problem as well...Anybody still remember the Ashley Simpson incident on SNL? See below...



Anyway, BBC reported on these two Chinese pop stars that are being sued for lip-syncing. You see, according to the article, "miming" has been banned in China ever since the 2008 Olympic in Bejing. Why, do you ask? Well, at one point in the opening ceremony a young girl appeared to sing 'Ode to the Motherland', but later it was revealed that the song was prerecorded by another little girl. This left China extremely embarrassed, because it was also revealed that part of the reason the actual singer didn't preform it herself was because it was decided that she wasn't "cute" enough!
Aside from this disturbing decision, I thought it was interesting that there has not been as much backlash in American against lip-syncing. Maybe it's because we assume that it is normal and we just don't expect that much from musical artists anymore. Or as they say about television, "the media don't give us what we want to watch; they give us what we're willing to watch". In other words, maybe sometimes we settle for what they hand us. This similarity, between television and singers, caused me to recognize other strong comparisons. I realized that music artists are like products in themselves.
Pop stars = Products
Croteau and Hoynes mention in their book, New Media that, "music videos are also used to develop and promote 'star identities,' which is key to long-term economic success in the music business,". I completely agree. These days most musical artists try to create a persona...cough cough Lady Gaga. This persona makes it easier for the public to identify them; and it is vital that people recognize them and their "talent", so that they can sell albums, and even represent other products (by being in commercials, or having their catchy songs in ads). One important element, aside from style, that comes into play with creating this identity, is what their voice sounds like or their ability to sing. (Sadly, does not seem to be as important anymore, but I digress...) Now, one way for artists to maintain their success is for them to preform perfectly live, which is usually only possible through lip-syncing to their prerecorded tracks. Wait a minute! So, if musical artists are "products" then could lip-syncing be considered a false advertisement?
Pop stars = the product
Lip syncing = false advertising?
Because if the audience is fooled into believing that the artist is talented and can sing, when really they aren't preforming live at all, then they are being manipulated, in a way, to buy the music or album. If this is true, shouldn't the government put a stop to the practice (like they did in China)?
I personally think so, because I think it devalues those artists who really are gifted and can actually sing live! So, check out this little paragraph or two on how false advertising is defined by the Federal Trade Commission, then...
Let me know what you think!

Sincerely,
C

Energy Drinks are Bad, Mmmkay...

Annable McGilvray of ABC Science wrote an article about the effects of energy drinks. Increasing the damage of blood vessels and “stickiness” of blood, energy drinks are dangerous according to research conducted by the University of Adelaide. Dr. Scott Willoughby said that though these drinks are made to increase energy levels, they encourage heart conditions to even healthy individuals. He also said that, “Given the prolific use of these drinks within the young population, further research into the link between energy drinks and heart disease is urgently needed.” There were results published recently in the American Journal of Medicine that expressed concerns about the safety of energy drinks.

The mission of the researchers was to find the cardiovascular effects following anecdotal reports of the link between heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths. There were 50 healthy participants aged in their early 20s who after drinking only one can of this beverage (250ml), there was “an increase in blood clotting potential and blood vessel function is reduced – both of which increase the risk of a heart attack.” This test however was conducted in a laboratory and there is need for a more “real world” tests.

There is another product out that is just as dangerous as energy drinks yet is regulated by the government. One example is in 2003 when all advertisements of this product were removed from school libraries and four leading magazines with high percentages of young readers under the agreement with the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). The practice of this can only be allowed only in certain places and varies from state to state along with the age at which one is legally able to buy. If you haven’t figured it out by now what this mystery product is - it’s cigarettes.

The reason for cigarette companies not advertising their product to a younger audience is because of government regulations. Cigarettes are marketed to a more “mature” audience in contrary to energy drinks that are marketed to teenagers and young adults. According to David Croteau and William Hoynes, “advertisers are not interested in media products, except as a kind of bait to lure audiences and expose them to the ads” (64). There is even a store called the Energy Drink Outlet that has aired local radio and television commercials. The radio commercials are aired on a local radio station (Jackson Hole Radio) which features popular progressive music and Adult Rock from the past in order to each their potential costumers. Energy drinks are easily found in not only "specialty" shops, but also any convenience store and can be purchased by people of all ages. However, the health effects are almost as bad as cigarettes that need proper identification in order to purchase.

So now are energy drinks on the potential list of another government regulated item of consumption? If they’re regulating the age at which you can buy cigarettes because of health reasons, then why not energy drinks. We all know the health risks that smoking presents and as noted above, we now know some of the dire effects of energy drinks on your heart. There was a case last year in the Medical Journal of Australia in which cardiologist Dr. Kevin Alford outlined where a healthy 28-year-old died of a heart attack after drinking seven cans within the time period of six hours WHILE doing strenuous exercise. I believe that energy drinks are just as bad as smoking; however, I do believe one can consume anything in moderation.

Please note: I am a FIRM believer in that the government should not regulate what I put into my body whether it be an energy drink, cigarette, or even a Big Mac. These are all examples of me hurting my body and not causing chaos in society such as drunk driving. If I want to drink seven cans of energy drink and then go for an intense run or if I want to smoke nonstop all day, that is my prerogative and the government needs to stay out of my personal life and not tell me what I can consume, where I can consume it, and at what age I am legally allowed to consume.

sARAH

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/02/2808104.htm

What happened to Tom??

Hey, remember MySpace? Remember when it use to be one of the biggest and most popular websites on the internet, and know body knew what Facebook and Twitter was? Its safe to say that those days are long gone. At least MySpace is trying to make an effort to regain what it once had. Well, at least they it tried trying to. I recently came across an article that said that reported that MySpace had fired its CEO of nine months, Owen Van Natta. Van Natta was hired to help turn around the falling website, which has been going down hill ever since Facebook became popular. Executives that work for MySpace have been trying to enhance the webs site to make it more appealing to people, in order to keep up with its main competitor Facebook. But unfortunately for them, MySpace is still considered a long lost website that is obsolete.

If you think about it, its not that surprising that MySpace isn’t as popular as it once was. Huge trends always seem to die down after a while. This is because the world is always changing and people like things that are new. I’m sure in a couple of years, Facebook wont be as big as it is now. (I personally think that in the future, everyone will have their very own website.) But the Ideology of what is popular is always changing. This is why so many things grow old and become obsolete. As soon as something is released to the public, someone start trying to make something better. Just look at how the way we watch movies have changed just in the past ten years. Its almost impossible to find watching VHS anymore. This is because something new and better came out, DVD’s. Unfortunately this same thing happened to MySpace.

As I said before, MySpace use to be one of the biggest and most popular websites on the Web. Now, no one hardly uses it. This makes me think about what other popular modern day things will be replaced in a couple of years. If Ideology is true, there will be a lot of changing trends in the years to come. I think people should just be aware that when things are popular, it more then likely wont last forever. Well, the way technology is changing today, it might not last more then five years. Its unfortunate, but things such as MySpace, and probable one day Facebook, are destined to one day fall out of popularity.

P.S. If you have any ideas about what else might be falling down hill and what it will be replaced by, you should post it. (Ex: Facebook will be replaced by everyone having their own website.) It is fun to read peoples creative ideas!

Link: http://kara.allthingsd.com/20100210/myspace-ceo-van-natta-was-fired-by-news-corp-digital-head-miller-in-late-afternoon-meeting

Women vs. Men

What is the first thing you think when you see this ad?

Maybe you're thinking, look how tough this woman is! She is standing like a man to use the bathroom. I think this advertisement is trying to show the woman as man's equal, because she can do her business the same way. However, their method for exuding that message is flawed. They attempt to justify woman's equality by putting the woman in a man's place. I think this subtly affirms the idea that men are superior and the "dominant ones" in society because it is suggesting that women can only be considered equal to men, or "strong", if they mirror men, or take the exact same role. So, while some may argue that this picture is a "step forward" for women I would say that it is not. One picture that I think has lack exposure, especially in the past, has been a figure of a woman in the household that is strong. Now, as there are more portrayals of single mothers, this is changing, but there has been a "time lag". This lag is described by Gaye Tuchman as when the mass media's representations of society are not up-to-date. You see, for many years there have been strong women in society, intellectuals, artists, mothers, who have done well f or themselves without the help of men. However, it has taken time for media to embrace this picture of women. A picture where women are not dependent on men; a picture where women can still be "in the home" and yet that does not have to be a "lower" place.

This "time lag"creates a sticky situation because of, what Tuchman calls, "modeling". Modeling is when girls, for example, use the media as their guide to society. They use media to define their beliefs, behavior, etc. So, when women, young girls in particular, see these advertisements that are not in sync with reality they are not being prepared for the "real world". Also, women will continue this cycle because they are "modeling" the roles they think they are suppose to play in society.
So, there is definitely a link between media's portrayal of women and the actual roles/perception of women in society. Unfortunately, this link does not usually produce positive results. Some say that the depiction of women has come a long way because it used to be that all women were represented as house-mothers. I agree that in the "real world", yes, women have many more opportunities and they are asserting themselves. However, the present amount of advertisements, and other mediums of the media, that objectify and belittle women is astounding. The images today may not be as blatant...

,or maybe they are...but whether a message is subtle or not, it can still be received.

Erving Goffman, a sociologist, conducted a study on advertisements with human models in the 1970s. His findings, on the different ways men and women were portrayed, are very interesting and maybe even disturbing because many are still true today!

Here are some examples that I found just the other day in a few women's magazines:

"stance subordination"

Goffman says, "this can include a 'head cant' or tilted head as well - another sign of submission"
Also, if you notice in this particular picture the woman is standing in a way that is slightly leaned back that suggests instability. Meanwhile, a shadow of a man seems to be watching her as though she is a show. In other words, she is merely entertainment; here the woman is just a sexual object.

"tactility"

Women tend to hold things lightly and men with a tight grasp, as demonstrated in this picture. In addition, in this photo the women goes as far to be almost leaning on the man for support. All these small elements send a big message that men are stronger and more independent than women.

Gaze

Goffman states that, "women's gazes are generally diverted," and this lack of presence in the ads scenarios suggests that the women are absent from the situation.


Mouths

In the next two pictures you will notice that the women's mouths all seem to be slightly open. Also, the majority of them have their heads tilted.

So, these messages from the 1970s still seem to exist. The ideology that women are inferior to men is not as forthright as before, but the media is still sending it. Be warned; many questions are coming...
But if this is not the true picture of women in reality, than what is?
What images of women are being underepresented?
Do you agree, are advertisements still suggesting that women are sexual objects that are below men, or has this changed?
What does this say about reality?
Have we reached equality yet? Will we ever?


Who leads now?

Sincerely,
Cristi

"I wanna be like her"

Have you ever looked in the mirror and not been satisfied with what you have seen? Thinking, "Oh no, I'm fat, I have a big belly, I should lose weight, I should stop eating this and that..." These and similar thoughts go through every day mostly girls' and women's mind, but it's not completely uncommon among boys and men either. WHY? Why cannot we accept ourselves the way we are? The answer is easy and simple. We have all been manipulated to believe what is beautiful and what is not. And what has been manipulating us is the media. Different mediums, such as TV, magazines, advertisements create a norm and an ideology about beauty. Literally they try to brainwash us. Hmm, do you know how I feel? They mostly succeed. As an evidence, click here and read the article I found on a website, called americathebeautifuldoc.com.

The article says that there are depression and eating disorders can be observed among girls at an early age. When they read and see advertisements with airburshed and perfect models, whose pictures were digitally retouched, young girls try to look alike as the women on the cover of the magazine. They would start unhealthy diets, feel insecure when they don't succeed and fall into depression. In order to change this situation, researchers from Europe, America and Australia have written to the ASA (Advertising Standard Authority) to ban on digitally retouched photos in advertising aiming at the age under-16s.
A sad research by Girlguiding UK showed that half of the young girls between age 11 and 16 have done or are on a diet to be thin. As you can see on the Ralph Lauren ad, the woman was made impossibly thin. "Where are your ribs girl?" This look is just medically impossible if she has all of her 24 ribs.
Unfortunately, ASA has refused to act so far, "insisting that no scientific evidence has been provided to back up the complaints."

All of us know that mediums are giving us unreal pictures of beauty pretty often. These pictures have a big influence on our life and eating habits. Needless to say that most of the mediums depict women stereotypically, like homemakers/mothers or sexual objects. According to Gaye Tuchman young girls, and adolescents see women as their role is only secondary, and the only place they are needed is behind the four walls at home.
The ideology that media create about women is far away from what is going on in our real world.

I personally do not understand those girls, who believe those stereotypes and try to look alike those women in the ads. Honestly, when I look in the mirror and see something that I don't like about myself, I just start doing more work out, but I would never stop eating. Why would someone give up eating??? Eating is awesome, especially when you eat delicious foods. Of course everybody has to know where his/her boarder line is. I also cannot see myself as a housewife, who stays home and raises the children. I need to feel that I am not 100% dependent on someone. Well, this is how I feel and what I think. How about you? Have you changed something in your life after you have seen something in the media?

Klaudia

Whites are "blacking up"

Have you ever heard the word “wigger” before? Well, I hadn't until a few days ago. Apparently, “wigger” is a word, with extreme negative connotations, used to describe white people who identify with hip-hop music and who emulate the culture of the African Americans. Looking at the word, you might notice where it came from. It is a combination of the derogatory word “nigger”, which is a term typically used by racists to refer to blacks/African Americans, and the word “white”, so the first letter changes from “n” to “w.”

There is a documentary that will air soon on television that addresses this specific term, and subject, called Blacking Up: Hip-Hop's Remix of Race and Identity (click here to watch the trailer). I came across an article that introduces Robert A. Clift, a filmmaker from Washington D.C., who is producing the documentary on “wiggers”. In the film he shows various perspectives on racial differences in America, through which Clift portrays white people's identification with hip-hop music. He interviewed several well-known figures from different fields of the media industry. For example, Clift includes rappers, like Vanilla Ice, comedians and writers, such as Paul Mooney. The documentary's setting ranges from New York, NY to Bloomington, IN. It deals with racial/cultural ownership and authenticity. In the opening scene of the movie there is a verbal fight going on between a white and black rapper. Clift then poses a question to the audience, “Is this the face of new racial understanding in white America? Is this transcending racial stereotypes or is it reinforcing an ugly history, mimicking a degraded idea of what it means to be black?"

This documentary shows that assimilation does not go only one way, but cultures have effects on each other. When African Americans became a part of the American culture, they had to adjust to the American laws and norms. However, the Africans also had an influence on the Americans. Americans started listening to the African-American style of music, hip-hop, and dressing in a similar manner. Clarence Page, a senior editor of the Chicago Tribune, made a valid point when she said, "Through the eyes of a rising generation, Clift shows us an America that is less melting pot than mulligan stew. Cultures and subcultures don't easily melt, yet each contributes a rich flavor to the pot." Page means that, as opposed to the “melting pot” idea in which all the cultures mix into one, the “stew pot” idea is when the cultures retain their individual identities. So, when two different people meet, they may each take something from the other. It can be anything, a word, a phrase or a gesture, etc. This is what has occurred in the cases of “wiggers”. These white, Americans have taken from and adapted to some aspects of African-American culture, but they still keep the American norms and laws.

In their book, Media Society, David Croteau and William Hoynes say that, “the U.S. media have taken 'whites' to be the norm against which all other racial groups are measured.” In other words, when those of us who are white mention our culture we tend to completely forget to say that we are white. We may talk about the typical foods we eat, the habits and hobbies we have, but the sentence “I am a white woman or man.” is never spoken. This suggests that Croteau and Hoynes are right. Being white is considered the norm; we don't even notice it. We never see ourselves as unusual, but we certainly see others differently.

I felt the documentary shows a different view, in which the whites are the “different ones”. He turns the situation inside out. If we look at the mass media, on the one hand we mostly see African Americans acting, dressing, and being part of the white culture. On the other hand, Clift's documentary presents the opposite; it demonstrates another culture in which whites act and dress in a “black” style. This left me with a lot of questions…

Are “wiggers” stealing pieces of African-American culture? Who creates these stereotypes? Do stereotypes really go only one way? Can black people be racist too?

Klaudia

30 Seconds = 2.5 Million Dollars?!

The Super Bowl is right around the corner, and you know what that means...time for some of the best commercials of the year! Okay, maybe not the best, but they are defiantly the most watched commercials; therefore, they are also the most expensive. I know you have probably heard by now that the cost to make and air a commercial during the Super Bowl is very, Very expensive. I recently came across an article that said that this year CBS had sold all of its slots for Super Bowl commercials with prices ranging being 2.5-2.8 million dollars. The writer for the article was amazed how CBS was able to sell all of its slots for such a high price even though the country is in one of the worst depressions it has been in for a while. I to was also amazed and it made me ask myself, is it really worth it? The companies that will air commercials during the Super Bowl are the same companies whose commercials can be seen in the middle of any programming now. So, will putting all of this extra money for thirty seconds during the Super Bowl really make a difference?

This question got me thinking, because personally, I don’t think that a thirty second commercial will make that much of a difference in sales that a company would spend 2.5 million dollars. This might be because I don’t own a company, (or have 2.5 million dollars) but it still made me think that maybe there were other reasons to spend all of this money on one commercial. It made me think about a particular section in the book Media Society by David Crouteau and William Hoynes when they were talking about advertisement. The book talked about something called “consumerism“, which is a movement that advocates the greater protection of the interests of consumers. When this idea was first mentioned in the earlier stages on televised advertisement, “ads sold consumerism… as an ideology that would smooth over social conflicts” (Pg 187). This means that commercials were being used to sell the company’s ideas on certain topics, and usually the idea being sold is that their product is more helpful than the next.

So this brings us back to the Super Bowl and why companies are spending all of this money on commercials. I believe it is because companies are trying to sell a little more then their product. These companies use the Super Bowl, the most watched event on television, as a chance to share their ideologies to the world. And what is the ideology of any company? It’s that a person will be better off in they have/own their product. Companies don’t want to just sell their product, they want people to believe that you cannot live without it so that you will keep on buying it. If you have ever met or have heard about anyone who is “addicted” to coffee, this would be a perfect example. No one can actually get addicted to coffee (unless you drink it everyday, all the time) but yet more then 50% of Americans drink coffee at least once a day. Why? Because the new ideology in America is that you drink a cup of coffee to start your day off right as Dunkin’ Donuts suggests, “America runs on Dunkin”. So during the Super Bowl, a company like Doge will not only try to sell you a truck, they will try to sell you the idea that no truck is better then a Doge.

Something to watch for if your planning to watch the Super Bowl- Well, actually two things. The first it that the popular phone company Boost Mobile will be airing a commercial for the first time during a Super Bowl. Good for them! The second it that the car company General Motors chose not to air any commercials during the Super Bowl this year. I will be looking in the weeks following the Super Bowl to see if their sales numbers are better or worse then those car companies that chose to run a commercial during the game. I will be sure to let you know!

David Smith

Related stories:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/sunday/main529388.shtml

http://www.gaebler.com/Television-Advertising-Costs.htm

"Producing a Culture of Resistance"

PR Newswire wrote an article about a company based in Los Angeles, California – BlackTV247.com. The BTV247 is a digital media company that is “focused exclusively on Black culture.” This website will host a number of Black-inspired programming that are free such as the Dave Chappelle Show, the Jefferson’s, Tyra Banks, and many more including many of BTV247’s original programming. One of their original shows being streamed is The Trial Of HueyNewton which is a documentary hosted by the current Miss Arizona that shows the never before seen footage of the Black Panther Party. David Hilliard, the founding Black Panther Party Chief of Staff, says that, “BlackTV247.com will facilitate a level of uncensored cultural expression that was inconceivable when the Black Panther Party was founded in 1966.” He was also eager that this footage will be available to a greater audience. BlackTV247 will offer a number of genres from domestic to international, comedy to politics (all which are “Black-inspired programming), in order to appeal to all of the wants of their viewers.

“Black consumer expenditures are expected to exceed $1 trillion by 2012 and BlackTV247.com’s unique combination of original and acquired programming, targets a consumer market which is becoming more diverse relative to its programming appetite” according the enthusiastic CEO of BTV247, Justin Beckett. A recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and Press showed that “71% of American and 68% African Americans – 90% of which represents black teenagers – are actively using the Internet, an indication that the nation’s online population is steadily on the increase.” An Emmy-nominated producer, Cox, said that BTV247.com is set up nicely to be the exclusive site for fans of Black-inspired programming and as a result, being very successful.

Is creating an exclusively black website in the best interest of African Americans? Though it makes money for the producers and it entertains people watching, it very well may be promoting the stereotype which has historically led to the discrimination of African Americans. As David Croteau and William Hoynes said in their book, Media Society, that, "historically, African Americans and other minorities have responded by producing a culture of resistance” (210). One way to help break down stereotype is to produce more shows like The Cosby Show on the major networks. The Cosby Show was aired on NBC which appeals to all kinds of races. This program showed an extremely successful black family where the father was a doctor, the wife a lawyer, and five wonderful children who lived in a nice home. This was a positive view of the black family who was not retaliating but who were actively productive humans in their society. If blacks want to put forth a positive image, then air shows like The Cosby Show on a NBC like venue where you are reaching many races and stop having these exclusive channels and websites that continue to show African Americans in a sub culture. If African Americans want to be in mainstream America, they should stop producing a “culture of resistance.” African Americans should produce more shows like The Cosby Show on major networks that appeal to many different kinds of races that depict an African American family being a part of society and not resisting; therefore, putting forth a positive image.

Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/black-culture-goes-front--center-with-the-launch-of-blacktv247com-82785432.html

Sarah