Beer Advertisements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnMYerc0M-U

Emotional Storytelling Via Mainstream Media

In our discussions about the mainstream media's portrayal of war compared to alternative media's portrayal of war, the facts of the story, the narratives, and the motives for reporting all change, but we're still consuming information from both sides regularly. Even though we know of the disparity between the two sources, we continue to go back to the conspiracy blogs, the David Muir twitter account, and/or tune in to Fox News.

Why? 

I believe that, regardless of who's feeding us the information (or who we're consuming it from, whichever angle you want to look at it), we keep going back because we, as human beings desire a good story, rich with emotion, that makes us feel some kind of... catharsis, or emotional cleansing. My belief that is, within a 30 minute newscast, we can go from being engrossed in the courtroom facts about prosecutors seeking the death penalty for James Holmes, feeling shocked by the accounts of former Taliban Pakistanis that are going through a rehabilitation process, and finally, feeling relieved and grateful, knowing that our lives could be worse. 

I think that, in a way, we go out of our way to consume this information, because it's presented in such a traditional format, black and white, just the way we enjoy it. Simple, clean, separated, easy to understand. I feel that news from any source, mainstream or alternative identifies with that very foundation of a story. Take the James Holmes case for example... After he took the life of dozens in a movie theatre during "The Dark Knight Rises" last July, the story was laid out for a us very clearly. There was a villain (Holmes) and there were victims. The way that the story was framed for us was that this man was disturbed and deserved whatever the courts handed down to him. 

In addition to being able to recognize the patterns of stories we're presented in the daily news, I believe that we subtly make comparisons of the subjects in the news to our own lives. When I'm reading the story about how young Pakistani boys were kidnapped by the Taliban and brainwashed for several years, I'm thinking to myself, "This is terrible." But terrible compared to what? My own life? Yeah, that's pretty awful. But the story ends on a good note! And that's how we're left after reading the news, taken on an emotional roller coaster. But why? Do we enjoy it? Secretly? But we don't even know it? Perhaps... 

Thoughts on Gender

I recently Tweeted an article about the flexibility of gender, and how our nation is very physique-oriented. Similar to the Caster Semenya story, the individual at the center of the NPR story had her femininity questioned and faced discrimination at a spa in Virginia. Like Semenya, it was her physical appearance which created unease amongst other patrons of the spa, and she was asked to leave. Referring back to the most recent discussion in class, gender is individual, and I believe it's an entirely personal decision someone makes regarding their gender. The people that are faced with that choice are met full-force with resistance from our culture, which places gender into two neat categories: male and female. According to our culture, both genders have two very distinct and separate types of bodies as well as a set of societal norms to fulfill. But, what happens when someone doesn't fall into either of those two categories? We've created a gender 'system', where there's no middle ground. John Sloop wrote, "If not gender perfect, then not gender pure, while keeping male and female as the perfect models". We're seeing more men and women conforming to physical looks, clothing, and interests normally held by the opposite gender, despite Sloop saying that gender norms remain largely in place. I would like to believe that we're moving towards a more accepting society, but I've voiced thoughts similar to this in class and have admitted that I might have been deluded by the unattainable idea of a nation where people can go about their lives comfortably while identifying with any gender they want and knowing that it has no impact whatsoever on anyone else's life but their own. Admittedly, I feel that there has to be much more discourse and unrest similar to the events that unfolded in the Caster Semenya story. Similar to what Sloop wrote, we'll have to participate in more "undoing" of gender before we can begin to understand what the ever-changing concept of gender means.

Media's Effect on Children

Jennifer Siebel Newsom began her presentation last Wednesday evening with the story about the birth of her children, Montana and hunter, and the stark contrast of reactions from both family and friends regarding the birth of each child. When her daughter Montana was born, she received pink clothes and compliments on her beauty, while when her son Hunter was born, he received blue clothes and compliments on how successful he was going to be. It's in this very moment, that children are first exposed to the gender roles and identity they will be molded into by not only friends and family, but cultural factors such as media and advertising. From an early age, children are gently nudged in the "correct" direction by external forces, in the form of blue clothes and trucks or pink clothes and dolls. It's in these first years that children begin to understand what's acceptable, what's not acceptable, and how to behave according to their gender.

As they continue to develop throughout life, children are bombarded by a media environment full of advertisements selling them products to enhance how they look, in order to fit "appropriate" dimensions as deemed by the authorities in charge. Women see digitally enhanced female figures with these "perfect" physical attributes, and are reaching for this unattainable goal of perfection. How is anyone expected to be physically and emotionally healthy when they're constantly trying to accomplish something that's impossible? Aside from the advertisements, messages from the television, movies, and other entertainment medias disseminate this gross representation of women as objects, demonizing any woman in power who speaks out, is absolute in her words, and contributes a substantial intellect. To the entertainment media, that kind of woman is the opposite of what women are supposed to be. How are we supposed to teach our children about developing a healthy sense of gender identity if we're locked in the current system at home and with advertising and entertainment media promoting this negative, objectification of women in roles of power and authority?

Jennifer Siebel Newsom said that first, we, as the United States, need to be clear on who we are. The United States has a moral imperative to be a media role model, and break away from the celebration of a singular female and male body type, and discontinue perpetuating this unattainable concept of perfection to our women, and end the promotion of "emotional constipation" to our men. Entertainment media can be a part of the solution by recognizing women in roles of power as women of substance, instead of criticizing their style. Our advertising leaders can follow the trend of the United Kingdom, as the country now monitors misleading advertising. And we can make a change in our individual households by educating our children about the importance of individuality and self-worth.

Making A Case For Facebook

If students had to take away one thing from class earlier today, I think it would be that social media (namely Facebook) have a terrible reputation for its affect on us as people, and how we alter our appearance in the digital world compared to real life. Today in class, we talked about how Facebook allows us to create a highly curated and carefully constructed representation of the self. We noted, that yes, it’s not accurate reflection of our every day life. But, what if the way we use Facebook is actually a form of self-affirmation (“Affirming the Self Online”, 2011)? Claude Steele, a social psychologist proposed the theory of self-affirmation, which claimed that accessing positive and meaningful information about the self satiates the fundamental need for positive self-regard, and has profound psychological benefits, such as increased self-confidence and open-mindedness, and decreased biased processing.

When we use social networking sites, such as Facebook, we behave the way we do because we like feeling that what we’re doing is attention-worthy of our networks, and because we believe we’re expressing our individuality to our networks. Through the process of uploading our carefully selected images from the previous night, and “liking” a product for our network to see, we feel as if we’re valuable and worthy, which is why we continue to carry on like we do on Facebook and other social networks. In order for users to achieve self-affirmation, their Facebook profiles must meet three criteria: Represent domains of the self on which self-worth is contingent, offering a flattering portrait of the profile owner, and be accurate, given information that the self-presenter knows to be untrue cannot increase positive self-regard (“Affirming the Self Online”, 2011).

By representing domains of the self, users reveal personal information about themselves, such as their job, birthday, and allow networks to see interactions with friends. In order to present a flattering self-portrait, users take meticulous care of their public activity on Facebook, from wall-to-wall conversations to the photographs that they’re tagged in.  Finally, since users’ networks are composed of friends and acquaintances, they are challenged to provide content that is both accurate and honest.

In conclusion, while our Human-Computer Interaction may limit our Human-Human Interaction, it’s unfair to say that there are not benefits to making an effort to ensure that our online identity lives up to our personal standards.

References

Affirming the Self Online: Motives and Benefits of Facebook Use. (2011). Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-49.

Why Should We Study Popular Culture And How Should We Study It?

So, we already know the textbook definition of “popular culture”, the everyday objects, actions, and events that shape our behaviors and beliefs. But, seeing that popular culture is a facet of our everyday life, I can’t help but feel that popular culture has to do with something called Information Overload, which was this idea proposed by computer scientist Vannevar Bush in his writing, “As We May Think” for The Atlantic in 1945. Bush proposed this idea that humans needed to create the means of managing information overload through a partnership with computers.  I find popular culture as a form of information overload, except we’re not always going to be using computers to manage the information overload.

 I think that the first step in managing this overload of popular culture, it’s important to recognize the source of the popular culture. The trouble with that, though, is that we’re living in a democratized media environment where anyone can create media, which in turn, will affect us in some way in the form of popular culture. Being able to recognize the source of popular culture can be useful to us when studying it. Similar to way we would apply rhetorical perspectives, identifying sources of popular culture makes analysis more orderly and provides both a common language and technique, which would differ across different sources. Being able to recognizing sources of popular culture and apply a rhetorical perspective is significant because we can study why and how popular culture affects our attitudes, beliefs, and opinions.