Posted on behalf of Bill Young:
John Tomlinson’s idea of media and cultural imperialism can be seen through the recent adoption of television into Bhutan. Tomlinson argues that media imperialism and cultural imperialism are often taken as the same thing, when in reality it is the culture that dictates how the people will use and view the media that they receive. In an article from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3812275.stm), it would appear that Bhutan’s recent adaptation of TV has changed their culture that was relatively unaffected by Western media until 1999. It states that violence and crime have risen since the introduction of TV, as well as a dilution of Bhutan’s culture due to the globalized culture represented on TV. Is it really TV causing these changes or is it the culture of Bhutan that led the people to act this way? Do we look at issues such as children imitating wrestling moves differently in America than in a developing country because of the differences in culture?One of Ferguson’s 7 myths about globalization is that there is a worldwide shared consumption of similar products and media, which is known as global cultural homogeneity. While this model does not exactly fit what occurs in the world, the argument of regional or national culture is also not without fault. The arguments about wrestling causing violence in Bhutan mirror what was occurring in the US about 10 years ago. I believe that there is a global culture, but that it does not necessarily appear globally in a simultaneous manner. We laugh when we see people from developing countries wearing fashion styles that were popular in the US years ago, but to them it is the current fad. The same thing occurs with music as well; with music that was popular in the 80’s and 90’s gaining popularity internationally years later. Can a global culture exist even when it is separated by a decade? Can it still be called a global culture if that is the case?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Obama's New World Order
Posted on behalf of Alysse Rossner:
Last week President Obama attended the international G-20 summit. Not only was he a representative of the United States, but he also became a representative of the Western world and even Americanization. On Friday, April 3 TIME Magazine online published an article titled, “Barack Obama’s New World Order” (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1889512,00.html). In this article, writer Michael Scherer reflects on the positive impact that Obama’s presidency has made on the international stage.
Upon reading this article, two things struck me: 1) Obama is “branding” the U.S. and 2) he truly is impressing leaders and foreign press around the world. Scherer feels that the United States’ “international branding campaign” led by Obama is effective. According to Baron and Davis, political economists may even say it is important that he is actively working for social change (213). Why is this so important?
As the most powerful country in the world and the most economically influential, America’s “cultural imperialism” was being addressed by Obama at the summit. According to Tomlinson, cultural imperialism ranges from “a pattern of inherited colonial attitudes and practices” to “the practices and effects of an ongoing system of economic relations within global capitalism” (Tomlinson, 223). In order to address this cultural imperialism during these economic times, “Obama has made clear that the U.S. is but one actor in a global community” and he has replaced “American economic supremacy” with a call for an increase in the growth of developing countries (Scherer). Is Obama imposing another form of cultural imperialism or is he truly asking to be a part of a team effort?
Obama’s perspective is taking on a ritual perspective role. The ritual perspective requires grand-scale interaction and the realization of “mass communication as the representation of shared belief where reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed” (Baron, 216). In other words, Obama’s words on behalf of the U.S. imply more than a “new frontier,” but a global change in the perspective of America. Scherer recounts when the foreign press applauded as he left the stage after Obama took questions from the British, Indian, and Chinese reporters. An event and reaction like this reminds us that due to the media, we “get a somewhat distorted picture” about what life is like in other parts of the world and even in our own” (Rosengren, 232).
On the other hand there are parts of the world without access or a lack of access to the media that cannot contribute to the “global village” or the social organization as electronic media that ties the entire world into one a great social, political, and cultural system (Baron, 220). The cultural elites still prevail making it even more important for Obama to spread his message.
Is Obama succeeding at changing how the world perceives America? Baron and Davis feel that the “ideal form of media will evolve naturally, no matter what we try to do” (Baron, 221). Do you think Obama and his administration have more control than the media when shaping these new perceptions? It is the foreign press that is impressed by him, or the countries they represent? Whatever the reasons, he has made it clear that he is looking for collaboration to build a collective vision and that is even impressive for Americans.
Last week President Obama attended the international G-20 summit. Not only was he a representative of the United States, but he also became a representative of the Western world and even Americanization. On Friday, April 3 TIME Magazine online published an article titled, “Barack Obama’s New World Order” (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1889512,00.html). In this article, writer Michael Scherer reflects on the positive impact that Obama’s presidency has made on the international stage.
Upon reading this article, two things struck me: 1) Obama is “branding” the U.S. and 2) he truly is impressing leaders and foreign press around the world. Scherer feels that the United States’ “international branding campaign” led by Obama is effective. According to Baron and Davis, political economists may even say it is important that he is actively working for social change (213). Why is this so important?
As the most powerful country in the world and the most economically influential, America’s “cultural imperialism” was being addressed by Obama at the summit. According to Tomlinson, cultural imperialism ranges from “a pattern of inherited colonial attitudes and practices” to “the practices and effects of an ongoing system of economic relations within global capitalism” (Tomlinson, 223). In order to address this cultural imperialism during these economic times, “Obama has made clear that the U.S. is but one actor in a global community” and he has replaced “American economic supremacy” with a call for an increase in the growth of developing countries (Scherer). Is Obama imposing another form of cultural imperialism or is he truly asking to be a part of a team effort?
Obama’s perspective is taking on a ritual perspective role. The ritual perspective requires grand-scale interaction and the realization of “mass communication as the representation of shared belief where reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed” (Baron, 216). In other words, Obama’s words on behalf of the U.S. imply more than a “new frontier,” but a global change in the perspective of America. Scherer recounts when the foreign press applauded as he left the stage after Obama took questions from the British, Indian, and Chinese reporters. An event and reaction like this reminds us that due to the media, we “get a somewhat distorted picture” about what life is like in other parts of the world and even in our own” (Rosengren, 232).
On the other hand there are parts of the world without access or a lack of access to the media that cannot contribute to the “global village” or the social organization as electronic media that ties the entire world into one a great social, political, and cultural system (Baron, 220). The cultural elites still prevail making it even more important for Obama to spread his message.
Is Obama succeeding at changing how the world perceives America? Baron and Davis feel that the “ideal form of media will evolve naturally, no matter what we try to do” (Baron, 221). Do you think Obama and his administration have more control than the media when shaping these new perceptions? It is the foreign press that is impressed by him, or the countries they represent? Whatever the reasons, he has made it clear that he is looking for collaboration to build a collective vision and that is even impressive for Americans.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Reality TV and The Image of Women
This week’s readings discuss issues of females in the media especially their positive or negatives stereotypes, images and connotations. The van Zoonen reading states that “It seems indisputable that many aspects of women’s lives and experiences are not properly reflected by the media. Many more women work than the media suggests, very few women resemble the ‘femme fatales’ of movies and TV series, and women’s desires extend far beyond the hearth and home of traditional women’s magazines. The feminist calls for more realistic images of women and definitions of femininity may therefore seem entirely legitimate. In fact, they are problematic” (pg 48). Do you agree with van Zoonen? Do you think that the portrayal of women in media is accurate?
To break down the subject even more, I would like to examine current reality TV and the roles of women in that genre today. Since the popularity of reality TV has grown over the past few years clearly many women are depicted. With shows ranging from “Dancing With the Stars” to “The Desperate Housewives of Orange County/New York City” to even “A Shot of Love with Tila Tequila”, do you think that women in these shows are portrayed positively or negatively? Do you think reality TV has helped or hurt women?
Consider the characters of many of these shows. You can look at the strong females such as Stephanie Izard, the winner from “Top Chef”, or Parvati Shallow, one of the many “Survivor” female winners. But then look at characters such as Gretchen from the “Desperate Housewives of O.C” and how the season’s biggest drama focused around the debate of whether she was money hungry, or truly in love, with her fiancé. What about the recent public “dumping” of Melissa Rycroft by bachelor Jason Mesnick? Check out this article by Erin Carlson of the Associated Press recapping the major reunion show events as well as the public opinion of the situation.
http://www.reflector.com/mixer/mixer-entertainment/the-bachelor-dumps-fiancee-melissa-for-runner-up-472175.html
How do you think situations such as these that are publicly shown and exploited mediate the image of women in today’s society? And do you think seeing Melissa turn around and become a competitor on “Dancing with the Stars” has any impact on how she has represented herself as a women in society?
Robinson wrote that “The gender politics represented in Aguilera’s music video then are not irrelevant or inconsequential; rather they contribute to the larger discourse of cultural hegemony” (p 46). Through her writing and this quote we can clearly see that Robinson sees that gender and the debate around their image is unfairly portrayed through today’s music. Do you think the same applies for reality television?
To break down the subject even more, I would like to examine current reality TV and the roles of women in that genre today. Since the popularity of reality TV has grown over the past few years clearly many women are depicted. With shows ranging from “Dancing With the Stars” to “The Desperate Housewives of Orange County/New York City” to even “A Shot of Love with Tila Tequila”, do you think that women in these shows are portrayed positively or negatively? Do you think reality TV has helped or hurt women?
Consider the characters of many of these shows. You can look at the strong females such as Stephanie Izard, the winner from “Top Chef”, or Parvati Shallow, one of the many “Survivor” female winners. But then look at characters such as Gretchen from the “Desperate Housewives of O.C” and how the season’s biggest drama focused around the debate of whether she was money hungry, or truly in love, with her fiancé. What about the recent public “dumping” of Melissa Rycroft by bachelor Jason Mesnick? Check out this article by Erin Carlson of the Associated Press recapping the major reunion show events as well as the public opinion of the situation.
http://www.reflector.com/mixer/mixer-entertainment/the-bachelor-dumps-fiancee-melissa-for-runner-up-472175.html
How do you think situations such as these that are publicly shown and exploited mediate the image of women in today’s society? And do you think seeing Melissa turn around and become a competitor on “Dancing with the Stars” has any impact on how she has represented herself as a women in society?
Robinson wrote that “The gender politics represented in Aguilera’s music video then are not irrelevant or inconsequential; rather they contribute to the larger discourse of cultural hegemony” (p 46). Through her writing and this quote we can clearly see that Robinson sees that gender and the debate around their image is unfairly portrayed through today’s music. Do you think the same applies for reality television?
Women: The Weaker Sex
Women have changed a lot in society through the years. They have become more independent, seen as professionals, and stronger. Yet, why are women still subjected to misrepresentation in the media? Yes, there are depictions of women being strong and self-sufficient but do you think the other images of women are overpowering those of successful women? Muriel Cantor criticizes “that public broadcasting in
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/opinion/stories/2009/03/27/redblue_rihanna.html
Friday, March 27, 2009
Steroid Media and the Workplace
Posted on behalf of Tony Majersky:
Gender plays a large role in all aspects of media. Through movies, television, music and more we are shown and almost taught the roles that men and women should play their part in daily life. One place this stands out the most is in sports. Baseball is a great example of this and is brought out more and more every day, especially now that we are in the steroid era. We have seen that steroids make you bigger, stronger, faster and will heal you from injury faster than anything else. In a Sports Illustrated article titled "Steroids in America: The Real DopeCulture of enhancement extends far beyond sports" and located here http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids1/index.html Jack McCallum starts out by writing "Athletes who take performance-improving drugs make all the headlines. But the culture of personal physical enhancement has pushed the use of steroids and HGH everywhere -- from Hollywood to the music industry to your next-door neighbor who doesn't want to grow old. Don't blame only the jocks. We are a juiced nation." (McCallum pg. 1) Not only do men take these steroids, but women do too for anti-aging effects and that one third of rappers take steroids like HGH to look huge because thats what people want to see. Consumers want to see rappers that are built with lean strong muscle and no body fat. They do not want to see an overweight rapper or a skin and bones rapper. Do you want to see rapper like that, what about action heros in movies or tv? why or why not? is the same for women though? guys especially, do you want to see a built woman with 8 pack abs and lean cut shoulders or is a sexy look better for film and tv? why or why not? Are these looks reasonable and real to you and others?
Back to baseball, the Trujillo reading states that "Media critics and scholars of gender ideology have at least described five features of hegemonic masculinity in American culture: 1. physical force and control 2. occupational achievement 3. familial patriarchy 4. frontiersmanship 5. and heterosexuality." (Trujillo pg. 2) With this he describes men of having the role of the dominant person, having a better job, head of the household, an outdoors strong man, and a straight man. With this he talks about Nolan Ryan and how he is an example of these things. He is called a "Force" or "power" pitcher from Texas and was categorized like a mythological god at the height of his career. His outside life from off the baseball mound is categorized by the five factors given of being straight and dominant, from the country and having a good home life with a lot of money. Do you think things would have been the same or as easy for Nolan Ryan if he was gay? Also, there are very few women baseball players in the world, so they are stuck with softball which is more recognized as a female sport, but yet older men also play it. Does this mean to say that young women are only on par with men when they are in their 40's and 50's? Why do you think baseball hasn't invited women to play and why do you think that our "National Past Time" is a strongly male dominated sport? I
f we look at gender more in the background of a baseball game, off of the field,who owns/manages/controls the teams? There have been very few women in offices and high position until fairly recently, but before that it was out of place for a woman in the work place to have a high paying job with people under her she could order around. This is even seen as one of the five categories above, occupational achievement. Van Zoonen brings a situation like this up on page 56 of B&D saying "She or he is participating in a profoundly social process, in the sense that social relations are reflected definitions of reality as well as definitions of reality influencing social relations." (B&D pg. 56) This is thinking about the social acceptance of a female in what is generally a males role. Do you think that this idea is still true today in many areas of society and the work place? Can you think of any big business with a female CEO or do mostly men come to mind?
Gender plays a large role in all aspects of media. Through movies, television, music and more we are shown and almost taught the roles that men and women should play their part in daily life. One place this stands out the most is in sports. Baseball is a great example of this and is brought out more and more every day, especially now that we are in the steroid era. We have seen that steroids make you bigger, stronger, faster and will heal you from injury faster than anything else. In a Sports Illustrated article titled "Steroids in America: The Real DopeCulture of enhancement extends far beyond sports" and located here http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids1/index.html Jack McCallum starts out by writing "Athletes who take performance-improving drugs make all the headlines. But the culture of personal physical enhancement has pushed the use of steroids and HGH everywhere -- from Hollywood to the music industry to your next-door neighbor who doesn't want to grow old. Don't blame only the jocks. We are a juiced nation." (McCallum pg. 1) Not only do men take these steroids, but women do too for anti-aging effects and that one third of rappers take steroids like HGH to look huge because thats what people want to see. Consumers want to see rappers that are built with lean strong muscle and no body fat. They do not want to see an overweight rapper or a skin and bones rapper. Do you want to see rapper like that, what about action heros in movies or tv? why or why not? is the same for women though? guys especially, do you want to see a built woman with 8 pack abs and lean cut shoulders or is a sexy look better for film and tv? why or why not? Are these looks reasonable and real to you and others?
Back to baseball, the Trujillo reading states that "Media critics and scholars of gender ideology have at least described five features of hegemonic masculinity in American culture: 1. physical force and control 2. occupational achievement 3. familial patriarchy 4. frontiersmanship 5. and heterosexuality." (Trujillo pg. 2) With this he describes men of having the role of the dominant person, having a better job, head of the household, an outdoors strong man, and a straight man. With this he talks about Nolan Ryan and how he is an example of these things. He is called a "Force" or "power" pitcher from Texas and was categorized like a mythological god at the height of his career. His outside life from off the baseball mound is categorized by the five factors given of being straight and dominant, from the country and having a good home life with a lot of money. Do you think things would have been the same or as easy for Nolan Ryan if he was gay? Also, there are very few women baseball players in the world, so they are stuck with softball which is more recognized as a female sport, but yet older men also play it. Does this mean to say that young women are only on par with men when they are in their 40's and 50's? Why do you think baseball hasn't invited women to play and why do you think that our "National Past Time" is a strongly male dominated sport? I
f we look at gender more in the background of a baseball game, off of the field,who owns/manages/controls the teams? There have been very few women in offices and high position until fairly recently, but before that it was out of place for a woman in the work place to have a high paying job with people under her she could order around. This is even seen as one of the five categories above, occupational achievement. Van Zoonen brings a situation like this up on page 56 of B&D saying "She or he is participating in a profoundly social process, in the sense that social relations are reflected definitions of reality as well as definitions of reality influencing social relations." (B&D pg. 56) This is thinking about the social acceptance of a female in what is generally a males role. Do you think that this idea is still true today in many areas of society and the work place? Can you think of any big business with a female CEO or do mostly men come to mind?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Chapter 8 “The Emergence if Critical and Cultural Theories of Mass Communication” of the Baran and David text discusses the impact of new forms of mass communication on society. The text discusses several communications theories about the way media catalyzes changes in social life. Advancements in communications and media affect social practices and the way we interact with one another. From the telegraph to the Internet each advancement in technology leads to changes in the ways we interact with one another from one generation to the next. “The new perspectives argued that media might have the power to intrude into and alter how we make sense of ourselves our relationship to others”(Baran and Davis 199).
Media makes a huge impact on social institutions and culture. Today’s youth consumed by media, they are often referred to as Generation M (for media). “Increasingly, children and young adults live in a mediated world where face-to-face communication with others is supplemented by and interwoven with a broad range of mediated communication, from instant and text messaging to email to television to movies to interactive video games” (Baran and Davis 200) The abundance of different ways to communicated at all times has allowed people to stay in contact with anyone and everyone. “Today some critics argue that newer media technologies such as iPods, the Internet, and video enabled cell phones are ‘personal media’ that are inherently biased toward individualism” (Baran and Davis 201) Generation M holds a great deal of power in the media industry. As the consumers technologies are constantly improved and reinvented. The internet is one of the most powerful sources of communication threw instant messages, video chats, email, message boards, blogs, and networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook, people can communicated instantly from anywhere in many different ways. Generation M has made websites such as Facebook a huge phenomenon. In the past five years it has evolved and grown.
“Facebook’s redesign: Time to listen to users?” by Jonathan Skillings discusses the recent redesign of Facebook and the negative reactions from its large number of site users. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10201694-2.html “Hopeful, positive comments from Facebook users have been awfully hard to come by in recent days since the powerhouse social networking site pushed out a redesign that seems inspired, at least in part, by the up and coming Twitter service.”(Skillings) The article discusses how Facebook users have been protesting the new Facebook design. While Facebook is looking to consumers advice on how to make the site better is they only listed to users there would be no innovation. Do you think Facebook should listen to its users more? Do this would lead to a lack of innovation? Do you think Facebook is an example of a form of media that has effected our culture?
Drugs in the Media
Posted on behalf of Marlaina Luciano:
Chapter 27 of McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory explains that “advertisements are one of the most important cultural factors molding and reflecting our life today. They are ubiquitous and inevitable part of everyone’s lives: even if you do not read a newspaper or watch television, the images posted over our urban surroundings are inescapable” (299). McQuail also explains that the signification of advertising is intentional by saying, “in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional; the signifieds of the advertising message are formed a priori by certain attributes of the product and these signifieds have to be transmitted clearly as possible” (290). Advertisements have made a huge impact on each and every one of our lives whether we realize it or not. It is happening every day because we are constantly being surrounded by advertisements even if we do not read newspapers or magazines, or watch television.
I will be connecting ideology, hegemony, and semiotics to the effect of drugs that are being used in the media. Because drugs are constantly being placed in the media everywhere we look, is that making it more socially acceptable for people to be doing drugs more? Can you think of any media outlet that is constantly showing drug usage by celebrities? There are plenty to choose from. Many celebrity gossip websites are constantly making jokes about celebrities who use drugs. For example, Perez Hilton often makes remarks about Lindsay Lohan being too skinny from the fact that she has been doing too much cocaine. The reason why he is on her case is because she has been in and out of rehab before. In the article, http://perezhilton.com/2007-09-27-lohan-stole-my-coke, he talks about how Jackass star Steve-O claims that Lindsay Lohan is a “drug thief” and has stolen his coke before. This may be hard for some to believe but they are many teenagers that look up to Lindsay Lohan as a role model. What kind of effect is this having on those teenagers if Perez Hilton is often writing about Lindsay Lohan and her drug addiction? Is it making them want to experiment new things too?
In the article, http://dragon.soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/jmmys%20world.htm, the article discusses a controversial article that was printed in the Washington Post. The reason why it was so controversial was because it talked about an eight year old boy named Jimmy who was a third generation heroin addict. It talked about his home life and what he planned on doing when he grew up. Unfortunately, his home life was not a very good one and it was described as there being drug addicts “casually” buying heroin from his family every day. Jimmy talked about his future drug dealing career which was of concern for many after reading this article.
After this story was printed, the controversy sparked and many people called and wrote letters to the Washington Post and to local officials claiming that something needed to be done in order to find Jimmy. Many people were worried for his well-being, especially because of his young age.
I chose to look at this story also because it was different in the sense that drugs may have had the opposite effect on the reader’s of this media outlet. The people who were reading this outlet were much more concerned about the child’s well-being and took action on trying to find him.
Do you think that all of the media outlets that are covering drugs are having a negative effect on it’s readers or not?
Chapter 27 of McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory explains that “advertisements are one of the most important cultural factors molding and reflecting our life today. They are ubiquitous and inevitable part of everyone’s lives: even if you do not read a newspaper or watch television, the images posted over our urban surroundings are inescapable” (299). McQuail also explains that the signification of advertising is intentional by saying, “in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional; the signifieds of the advertising message are formed a priori by certain attributes of the product and these signifieds have to be transmitted clearly as possible” (290). Advertisements have made a huge impact on each and every one of our lives whether we realize it or not. It is happening every day because we are constantly being surrounded by advertisements even if we do not read newspapers or magazines, or watch television.
I will be connecting ideology, hegemony, and semiotics to the effect of drugs that are being used in the media. Because drugs are constantly being placed in the media everywhere we look, is that making it more socially acceptable for people to be doing drugs more? Can you think of any media outlet that is constantly showing drug usage by celebrities? There are plenty to choose from. Many celebrity gossip websites are constantly making jokes about celebrities who use drugs. For example, Perez Hilton often makes remarks about Lindsay Lohan being too skinny from the fact that she has been doing too much cocaine. The reason why he is on her case is because she has been in and out of rehab before. In the article, http://perezhilton.com/2007-09-27-lohan-stole-my-coke, he talks about how Jackass star Steve-O claims that Lindsay Lohan is a “drug thief” and has stolen his coke before. This may be hard for some to believe but they are many teenagers that look up to Lindsay Lohan as a role model. What kind of effect is this having on those teenagers if Perez Hilton is often writing about Lindsay Lohan and her drug addiction? Is it making them want to experiment new things too?
In the article, http://dragon.soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/jmmys%20world.htm, the article discusses a controversial article that was printed in the Washington Post. The reason why it was so controversial was because it talked about an eight year old boy named Jimmy who was a third generation heroin addict. It talked about his home life and what he planned on doing when he grew up. Unfortunately, his home life was not a very good one and it was described as there being drug addicts “casually” buying heroin from his family every day. Jimmy talked about his future drug dealing career which was of concern for many after reading this article.
After this story was printed, the controversy sparked and many people called and wrote letters to the Washington Post and to local officials claiming that something needed to be done in order to find Jimmy. Many people were worried for his well-being, especially because of his young age.
I chose to look at this story also because it was different in the sense that drugs may have had the opposite effect on the reader’s of this media outlet. The people who were reading this outlet were much more concerned about the child’s well-being and took action on trying to find him.
Do you think that all of the media outlets that are covering drugs are having a negative effect on it’s readers or not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)