H.I.P.-H.O.P.

According to Professor Griff, former Minister of Defense for the HIP-HOP super group Public Enemy, the true definition of hip-hop is an acronym. Higher Internal Power-Helping Our People.

When people discuss who the face of HIP-HOP is today, you hear all sorts of different answers. If you are prescribing to Griff's definition you may want to look a little closer as to who you give this title to.

When I listened to Griff a little closer he revealed that there are insane forces at work behind the scenes in the Hip-Hop community. A world we may have never been exposed to if it weren’t for this brave and passionate messenger. Imagine for a moment if you will an industry filled with lies, secrecy, ritualistic sacrifice, mind control, and under the table financial dealings… According to Griff this is the current state of things in the mainstream music world. The part that makes it all a little scary is the grand affect that this one industry in particular has on the thoughts, behaviors, and buying patterns of mainstream American society alone! Here are a few examples

-Clothing (sean john-pdiddy rocawear-jayz phat farm/baby phat-russell simmons yumz-soulja boi … and the list goes on)

-Beverage (conjure conjac-ludacris ciroc vodka-p. diddy armadale vodka- jay-z crunk juice-lil jon vitamin water-50 cent… and the list goes on)

-Major World Events/Philanthropy (we are the world-haiti edition, vote or die campaign-gore vs. bush, the campaign to get Barack obama in office was HEAVILY influenced by hip hop artists…and the list goes on)

In the article, Professor Griff goes into more startling detail of his research and first-hand accounts of the current state of the hip-hop community. I think it’s a good read but don’t take my word for it. (reading rainbow reference)

Who Is the face of Hip-Hop?

Window Seat : Death of GroupThink

"They feel most comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow. They are us, this is what we have become, afraid to respect the individual. A single person within our circumstance can move one to change, to love ourself, to evolve."

Ebony Marie Chappel : naked. transparent. protected. individual. collectivization.

my latest facebook status got me a lot of questions from my friends that i couldn't readily answer. here is my best attempt :

ok. after i watched badu's video for window seat, i was like damn...i feel the need to be liberated also from all of the constructs and ideologies that i've let shape who i am, the relationships i have with people, how i see myself, how i see God, etc. I am naked. (as in im no longer hiding behind anything or covering anything) i am transparent (meaning i feel as if i am an open book. ask and you shall know) i am protected in all of that (even though i am in an extremely vulnerable position by being both naked and transparent i have peace and joy and i know that God has my back) i am an individual (meaning that my thoughts and beliefs are mine and i dont feel the need to conform. and lastly...collectivization, because all of those things work with eachother and exist because of the others. without one, i am missing something. collectivization is also there because i feel that i am this way not only to help liberate myslef but to liberate my environment (everyone around me) we should all have a collected mindset as far as liberation goes.

i think i may be pulling a badu soon...

Vanilla Ice's Impact

4I want to continue on the discussion that involved Vanilla's Ice's impact on a white rapper's chances of being successful in the rap music industry. I still think that Vanilla Ice jumped on the preverbal sword of what a white rapper should not do to make it in that genre of music. His background was fabricated in an effort to be accepted by the black artists and the black audience that make up the rap culture. Had that not happened to him, it surely would have happened to someone else. I truly believe that Eminem learned and benefited from Vanilla Ice's mistakes.

Vanilla Ice showed that it is a mistake to try to force yourself into acceptance of audience that is already skeptical of you joining their crowd. Eminem's approach was laying out his unappealing background, and not try to force any connections with the rap audience. His attitude seemed to challenge the black culture's methods. He was not afraid to throw his "Whiteness" in their face, and say that he was better at what he did than anyone.

The "rags to riches" story is commonly associated with a successful rapper. Vanilla Ice did not have one so they tried to make one up to force his success. Eminem does have a "rags to riches" story, but it is not the kind of story that we traditional see with successful rap artists. The problem may have been that the black artists refuse to believe that a white guy could have a rough background. Eminem certainly had a less than attractive background, but it was honest.

I do not think that the Vanilla Ice was used as a serious comparison to Eminem. He was so obsolete at the time that no one could honestly believe that there would be a second coming. There were other white hip hop artists between the two, but none of those appeared to legitimize themselves as rap icons like Vanilla Ice and Eminem looked to do.

Now since Eminem used his real background, so it is hard to say that it was influenced by record executives. Eminem maybe the kind of person that would not let himself be influenced in such a way, but if Vanilla Ice had not crumbled like he had then it is likely that someone one else would have been pushed into that same situation.

kids and advertising

I found the discussion about children and the media to be quite spot on. As a telecommunications student, I am not only encouraged, but sometimes required to analyze commercials and advertisements. There are so many companies and brands that target children in their ads without the audience even realizing it. Bright colors, loud upbeat music, and friendly cartoon-like characters are often times utilized in such ads. I think it’s sad that capitalism has reached the extent of “preying” on children. I know that money and merchandise and other material goods have somewhat taken over as the measure of success, but young kids should not be subjected to the tactics of big corporations. The fact that companies actually rely on the nagging of kids to their parents is somewhat startling. It’s like the toy manufacturers know that parents would rather just buy their kids a toy to get them to be quiet than discipline them and teach them to value the things they have. I could be a little biased in this area because I am not a kid person (at all) and find it to be quite annoying when I’m in a store (say, Wal-Mart) and I hear a child begging, and often times crying, to their parent to purchase a toy. I attribute this, in part, to the advertisers and marketing departments for the toy companies for making the children feel like they have to have whatever gadget is new on the shelves. And has anyone else noticed the ridiculous abundance of toys and games that are in stores these days? I hate to sound like my dad, but what happened to playing outside or making up games with your siblings/friends? I just think the companies know that even in a recession, parents want to make their kids happy while maintaining some shred of sanity, so they market their products to kids because kids have a way of persuading their parents to spend money.

Experience Economy

It was ironic when we watched No Logo in class because I felt like the topic being discussed was pretty much the same thing that had been preached in Sunday's sermon at Commonway in Muncie. The point of the sermon was that as Christians today, there are ways that we can honor God through the things we do such as listening to music, going to school, going to Starbucks, or other things. The big question he was asking was why we do certain things. For example, if I go to Starbucks, am I going because I really enjoy the coffee and can actually afford to spend my money on that, or am I going for the experience? It is very valid to say that we make a lot of purchases for the experience. When I came to class on last Thursday 3/25/10, it blew my mind that we were watching a video and learning about companies selling experiences. Pardon me using Starbucks again, but the angle that gets the sale is that there is this oasis in our hypothetical desert where we can drink fancy and expensive beverages, hook up to wi-fi to do business, read a book, listen to music, and essentially feel cultured. It is an experience. If you want coffee, all you have to do is scoop some out of a container and brew it in the comfort of your own home. We go to Starbucks almost searching for a way to feel better about ourselves. It is all too easy to get sucked into this experience economy and get fed ideas rather than products. A lot of products come with an idea, like No Logo explained about Coke taking on some idea of peace and togetherness in the 70s and Sprite's partnership with rap music in the 90s. We found out by watching the video, that it is very possible to not only market a product, but a revolution. I just find this absolutely fascinating. Next time you choose to buy a CD or go to a particular restaurant, think about the experience involved.

Uniqueness

Something that I was thinking about today was the question on our quiz, and discussion in class about what it means to be unique to us. I have my doubts about whether anyone will agree with this or not, but that is not what this class is about. I looked up the definition for unique, and it was defined as being the only one of its kind and being unlike anything else, but it was also defined as something particularly remarkable, special, or unusual. I tend to see the latter definition as my definition of uniqueness. It is very true that a unique thing can be unlike anything else, but I would like to argue that there can be uniqueness in things that are not a completely new innovation. Let us look at musical artists. Now I want to put a disclaimer out here and say that this post is mere opinion and can no way speak for the rest of the class, since taste of music is completely subjective. There are music artists that I like because they have done different and unique things, yet they have not revolutionized music as I know it. They may have even drawn their inspiration from bands in the past. I have no statistic for this, but if a band were to draw no inspiration from the past, I do not think a genre of music could stay remotely the same. What would rock music be if there were no similarities? In response to the quiz question, I was basically saying that I like U2 because I think their music is great, their sound is innovative, and they are activists on different fronts, whether it is Bono on AIDS in Africa, or the Edge with his Music Rising charity organization, there is this essence of helping the greater good, doing what is right, and being a catalyst for change. To me, their passion for the world outside of U2 is unique. My other example was Ben Harper, but other groups like mewithoutYou, and Dashboard Confessional come to mind as well. Whether you like or dislike these artists, they each have something unique to contribute to the overarching labels of uniqueness and rock as a genre. They are each very different emotionally, and lyrically, which to me, makes them special, unusual: unique.

Eminem

I realize many people do not agree with most of Eminem's lyrics and actions most of the time but I have been a big fan of Eminem for quite a while now and I consider him to be a great artist. I don’t get offended with his lyrics but I do see how someone might. I get such a real vibe from him and his music. He does have a lot of songs about murder but that really doesn’t mean he is out to do it. We have all said that we wanted to kill someone and that’s no big deal. I believe that he is as popular he is not because he did what was “cool” or what management said would sell. I think that people like his raw lyrics and his music. He is true talent when it comes to rapping, regardless of what style. I am a fan and probably always will be. He has had some amazing songs and has been featured in number one hits while also having some bad songs. But as an artist, I think he is doing just what he wants and that is actually honorable because there are so many people in the business that are changed and told exactly what to do. They do not become famous but they are made famous. Eminem is real in my opinion. He didn’t fit the rappers mold when he came on to the scene and he clawed his way in and he is still around despite how much some people hate him. He is one of the greatest because he is still around making great music. Proof. :) byeeeeeee

Culture Jamming and Politics

In the past few weeks as we’ve talked about culture jamming it got me thinking about the many examples of this in real life and why they are effective. Many examples of culture jamming, and the ones that I generally are able to remember the most, tend to be more politically oriented.

I think a classic example of this would be the Billionaires for Bush movement that existed throughout much of former President George W Bush’s Presidency, and especially during the 2004 Presidential Election campaign. The Billionaires for Bush were a grassroots movement of people who opposed the President, and would satirize him and his supporters by dressing as so called “billionaire moguls” and CEOs that would normally support the President and most Republicans in general. They would generally hold up signs promoting pro-Bush policies in a rather mocking way, and would often go to anti-war or anti-Bush rallies and pretend to be defending the Bush Administration, when in reality they were merely mocking the Administration. While I didn’t agree with the group, I found their method to be rather effective because they managed to draw a lot of attention at events and would do so in a more peaceful/nonviolent way. By posing as a satire of the Bush supporters, they were able to last throughout the entire previous decade as an effective grassroots movement. In fact just recently due to the healthcare debate, they have adopted a new name for the moment, called “Billionaires for Wealthcare”.

This is one of many examples of political culture jamming that I think has been used lately and could eventually be used in the future as well. Obviously not all examples of culture jamming are political, but when you tie in politics or a political issue toward a group, then it can be used as a very effective culture jamming method.

The Truth Campaign/Culture of Cool

When we talked about the Truth campaign in class, (as an ad major) I got pretty excited because it is one of my favorite campaigns. I also think the Truth campaign uses the culture of what is “cool” to its advantage.

The Truth campaign created a new product and branded it. It made itself seem cool to teens by attacking “the man,” (in this case, “the man” is tobacco company execs who want teens to smoke) which teens seem to respond to. The Truth campaign also does not just talk at teens; it involves teens in their brand, giving them an outlet to yell at “the man.”

It takes a different stance on smoking; it doesn’t say they are against smokers, it says they are against the industry. I believe this is a better positioning than other campaigns. They realize teens want to be rebellious; this is why the Truth campaign doesn’t simply say, “Don’t smoke.” (Because they will!) The campaign points out that by smoking, teens who smoke are being the opposite of rebellious by listening to the tobacco companies’ message. This way of treating teens as smart consumers attracts them even more to the Truth campaign.

In response to Christopher’s post, I believe the Truth campaign has been very successful. I believe using the power of “cool” made the campaign very successful. By pointing out that smoking is not rebellious, many teens stopped seeing smoking as cool. The Truth campaign also presents research that its campaign has been successful too. (On the Truth web site – it claims in 2002 there were about 300,000 fewer youth smokers due to Truth.) By encouraging advocacy participation and focusing on rebellion/culture of cool, the Truth campaign rallied together a united youthful voice. Although there are now taxes on tobacco and other laws governing tobacco companies, I believe the Truth campaign helped lead to these regulations.

On another note, my favorite thing about the Truth campaign is how it used promotions to involve its target audience in the brand. For example, Truth wanted to point out to teens that cigarettes contain ammonia. Their first idea was this: “Cigarettes contain ammonia. So does dog poop.” Gross, right? But if they did not market this in the right way, it would not have spoken to their target. So, they stuck small signs directly into actual dog poop in parks that stated that message. They took these signs and put it on their print ads, so the reader could punch them out and do it themselves. They also filmed Truth volunteers putting these signs in dog poop and showed it on television. They created their own culture of “cool” by being “culture jammers.”

Cool...

Merchants of Cool is one of the videos that we watched in class after discussing the "cool" culture. It was interesting to see the way companies and agencies were constantly hunting for what is (or was) cool. These companies are always trying to stay on top of what is cool because the money that teenagers have really drives a portion of our economy. Teens seem like they always have money to spend, and usually spend it on frivolous things. I can remember some of the stupid things I bought as a teenager because it is what everyone else had, or I saw it in a magazine, so it was automatically cool. The bad thing is, as soon as something cool is discovered and marketed, it is no longer cool. Like the movie said, cool is quickly shifted to something else as soon as it is made mainstream. So then here comes my dilemma, is anything really ever cool? I say this because if something is only cool as long as mainstream media does not get ahold of it, then how is something in mainstream "cool". I'm sorry if that does not really seem to make sense but I don't really know how else to say it. This whole cycle of what is and is not cool just seems like it is exactly that, a cycle. Things come and go and then come back around again. For example, popular fashions of the 1980's are once again seen as cool. Will this cycle ever end? No, but it is interesting to study. I'm sure there are tons of companies who already know what the next "cool" thing will be, but none of us will know what it is (or was) until it is no longer cool again.

Truth Commercials

http://www.thetruth.com/videos/

Flipping through the channels the other day, I managed to spot at least three different Truth commercials being played on various networks, which in my case were Comedy Central, CNN, and Fox. Interestingly enough, during an old Family Guy episode, in which Peter Griffin becomes the president of a big tobacco company, one of those three commercials played. Furthering my curiosity, the commercial involved a job interviewer mentioning how one big tobacco CEO pleaded the fifth some 97 times in a deposition. Coincidence? Maybe.

Dismissing the coincidence, which I now suppose was not a coincidence at all, but rather a clever advertisement choice, I began to look into the Truth group of pranksters. As we all know by now (and if you don't, it's because you do not own a TV), Truth is responsible for all those body-bag pranks around tobacco industry headquarters. Their goal is promote awareness of the many harms of smoking and to help shut down tobacco companies, have cigarettes and the like illegalized, or at the very least, persuade tobacco companies into changing their methods. For the full set of mission statements, visit http://www.thetruth.com/aboutUs.cfm

I guess my point behind this, is what are they doing? http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/022109/new_396272914.shtml The aforementioned link, as well as many others, suggest that tobacco sales have remained strong during the recession, even despite the many Truth prank campaigns. It is said that the only thing hurting sales is the new federal tobacco tax increase and the banishment of flavored cigarettes.

Even after all this contemplation, I still do not know what is going on. Is it the tax that can fulfill Truth's mission? Or are laws banning child-friendly cigarettes cutting youth sales? Or has Truth succeed in doing the most basic of things: making people aware? I'm leaning towards the idea of Truth's awareness pranks leading to people raising their voices and asking for help from the government, which has recently been seen through the outlawing of flavored and clove cigarettes. However, I am overeager to know anyone else's opinion on this matter.

Feminism in Sons of Anarchy

One of my current favorite shows is Sons of Anarchy. Ever since the Sopranos left, everyone had been searching for a show that let us know that it is good to be bad. Sons of Anarchy has the ability to be that show with a twist. The show is about a small town in California that is the home to the motorcycle club known as SAMCRO.

The club serves as gunrunners for the different gangs in the area. Their clubs unique culture seems to be the dominant hegemony of the town, regardless of how much the local law enforcers push for that to change. So there are some obvious similarities to the Sopranos. The audience find themselves rooting for the criminals to succeed, and both groups (Sopranos and SAMCRO) have their own culture and family traditions that they follow.

The one difference between the two shows is the role that women play. On the Sopranos, most of the women are seen as objects by the male characters and their primary goals tend to be materialistically influenced. The women on Sons of Anarchy are at times treated as objects, but certain female characters are the most authoritative on the show. One of these characters, named Gemma, is the mother of vice president of the club and the wife of the president of the club. For the most part, Gemma stays out of club affairs and does not attend their meetings. She does keep her finger on the pulse of the club’s major business, and provides subtle input. Like they said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, “The men and the head of the house, but the women are the neck, and they can turn the head any direction they want.”

The villains on the show even recognize the power of the clubs queen. In season 2, the clubs competition captures Gemma to beat and rape her. Their hope is that she will run and tell the club, so that they will respond violently. Gemma realizes this, and chooses to keep the incident a secret until the time is right. Through out the 2nd season, she showcases so much leadership and you see how often the club members will turn to her for guidance.

Sons of Anarchy provides great examples of feminism, because the hegemony is being countered. SAMCRO counters the hegemony by trumping the local law enforcement and government officials, and Gemma counters the hegemony by being the behind the scenes leader of a predominantly masculine club.

No Logo

I thought that the movie we watched the other day in class was very interesting. I found it to be very true, we are a society based on brands. They are a huge form of advertising in our culture and they are everywhere. Just look at Times Square, it is one big advertisement.

Many corporations and companies pay athletes and celebrities millions of dollars to be in ads and wear their products. The exposure causes millions to buy their product and be billboards themselves. Most have a celebrity that they look up to and are more likely to buy something if they see it on that celebrity.

For little girls it is usually Miley Cyrus, for sports fans it is Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning and the list could go on forever. It just goes to show that in a culture that would like to pride itself on individuality we are just a bunch of followers.

It is almost impossible not to own something with a brand on it. Most girls own North Faces and Uggs (I do, but give me a break, I live by Chicago-it’s cold!) and most guys have shopped at Abercrombie or American Eagle. It’s hard to avoid the inevitable. We are all going to buy stuff that is branded. Maybe because our best friend is wearing it, maybe because or favorite celebrity is wearing it or maybe just because we like it.

The movie did a good job of putting clips together that depict the lives and trends of today’s youth. It was interesting to see it from another perspective and just a little bit disturbing.

Why we should study pop culture

I wanted to wait until the end of the year to write the answer to this question. I figured that after an entire semester of studying the topic I would have a better understanding of why we should study it.

Studying pop culture gives us a chance to take a deeper look into the society that we live in. When I say pop culture most people just think of tabloid magazines and celebrities. While that is an aspect of pop culture it is not the entirety of it.

Learning about the Narrative, Dramatistic, Marxist and Feminist perspective helped me to see beyond the traditional definition of pop culture. What I found most interesting to learn about was the Neo-Aristotelian Approach. This was my favorite because I enjoy philosophy as well as politics and this approach combines them both.

When we watched the video of Colin Powell in class it was interesting to try and examine it from a different viewpoint as opposed to me just watching it on TV. The five canons of the Neo-Aristotelian Approach are invention, arrangement, style, delivery and memory. These five canons help to analyze and interpret the rhetorical text at hand.

As with everything we learned in class it is a different way to look at things that we see everyday. Rather than just seeing a speech made by an important political figure we see an approach, a new method, and a new strategy.

So why should we study pop culture? We should study it because it teaches us something new. It challenges us to learn more about the culture that we live in and it forces us to look twice before we make a decision or judge something. I know after taking this class I take a closer look at things in the media to see if they are a trend or if they express a certain message. Before I would just read the news and accept it for what it was, but now I take a closer look.

NO LOGO -- opinion

Yesterday's class was about the video 'No LOGO' with Naomi Klein and the whole hype around brand logos and the globalization of that logo. Our class got into a huge discussion of how 'our generation' is basically numbed to the whole business of globalization and that to catch our attention and get us to change is an overwhelming task even to merely talk about. I really wanted to make sure that I didn't make myself sound like I think globalization is a bad thing or that the big cooperations of our world are somehow tearing our society a part. I think what is more important is to see the difference in our culture to other cultures that don't have such massive amounts of media and advertising in our faces all the time. I would think that somewhere between the two extremes is a nirvana of happy consumers, workers, and a place where all people are critical analysts. I think this is where our discussion of culture jamming and pranking comes into play. We wanted an answer to how do we keep the big heads at the top to come down and play on a fair field... well, I think although some lack the desire to be apart of a resistance, most people our age would be thrilled to, for the lack of a better phrase, bring the man down. In my opinion, our generation lacks a leader and a message. Our actions are to show others that this kind of extreme globalization and logo mania isn't something we should fall trap to. By pranking the message is sent. Then to recruit people to a cause and a stance, you need a credible leader for people to rally behind. Hopefully the future will bring emerging new leaders that can bring the people together to be smarter, more analytical, and more aware of what the 'big man' is doing.

The Culture of Immediacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beYPuRN23QM

Whether we like to admit it or not we have developed into a culture of immediacy. We expect things to happen at the snap of our fingers. When my iTunes does not load fast enough or my Blackberry takes too long to search something on the Internet I get impatient.

And then I took a trip to one of my friend’s aunt’s house and was brought face to face with my worst nightmare: dial up Internet. If you’ve ever seen ‘The Proposal’ the scene where Sandra Bullock’s character walks into a ‘Internet Café’ and is forced to switch from her fast paced life to the annoying beeping of dial up-this was pretty much what it felt like.

I think we all take our fast paced culture for granted. Thinking back (which makes me feel old) I remember when dial-up was the newest thing and my first laptop, which I believe weighed more than I did. In the past decade technology has advanced so much that I think we forget what it used to be like.

My boyfriend hates texting. If you’ve ever met me (I’m usually attached to my Blackberry returning e-mails, texting, event planning, etc.) you know that I have no patience for lack of communication. So, it has been a challenge for me to understand that not everyone loves technology as much as I do. I’m used to the world on my fingertips and I don’t know what to do without it.

After stepping back from the situation I realized that maybe, just maybe I could put the immediacy of my world down and just relax. So, I did a social experiment. I went a whole day without my phone. While in the beginning it was not the easiest thing in the end it turned out to be worthwhile. I realized that there is more to everyday life then updating my Twitter and firing off e-mails. Our culture tends to forget that.

72 text messages, 102 emails & 10 voicemails later I came to the conclusion I was not the only one addicted to our immediate culture.

Marketing vs. Parents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vqt6R6qCHA

This clip just shows an example of marketing in the media and if it is safe for children. It discusses the effects of pop on children and if marketers should be allowed to market to the younger generations.

The other day in class we talked about marketing attempts to make children more effectively ‘nag’ their parents. In my personal opinion it seems that these marketing firms are to blame on a small scale-however, the ultimate culprit is the parent that allows their young children to control their bank accounts.

When I was little I nagged-every kid did. However, I learned at a young age to pick my battles. My parents bought my sister and I things but not when we nagged. Our parents could sit and listen to us nag for hours and it would not change their mind at all.

The parents play a crucial role in this scenario. They are the educators, the inspiration and the role model for children. If they are giving in to whining and nagging what kind of message are they sending to their kids? That every time they throw a fit they get what they want. It seems that some people, even as college students, still operate under this assumption.

The ads, the commercials, the toys, tricks and strategies of marketing firms get the children’s attention. They go home to mom or dad and ask for whatever their heart desires based on an ad created on the 65^th floor of an agency. Marketers have the power to influence children and what they desire but the parents have the obligation to raise their children responsibility.

Gender in the Media/United States of Tara

In response to Kristen's post of "Why is Angelina turning Shiloh into a boy?" I wanted to discuss the gender ideology of young girls. After studying pop culture this semester, I understand why the media is overreacting of the way Angelina's daughter was dressed. In Life&Style's article it stated, "When Brad Pitt was spotted in Paris on Feb. 23rd, it looked like he and Angelina Jolie had adopted a new child--an adorable blond boy. Instead, it was the couple's 3-year-old daughter, Shiloh, sporting boys' clothes and a new haircut so shockingly short it immediately ignited a firestorm of controvery (Life&Style, 2010)."

http://http://www.lifeandstylemag.com/2010/03/large-1011-cover.html

To me, this ridiculous comment was made because Shiloh did not display long locks of hair and have a floral, pink dress on. The ideology of little girls in today's society is obviously portrayed as having long hair, pink clothing, etc. I think it is sad the ways the media attack children for the way they look, regardless of who their parents are.

After seeing this article, I googled "Angelina Jolie's children." I was shocked when I saw all of the articles talking about various things about Angelina's children. They varied from "Angelina's Children All Hate Eachother" to "Angelina Jolie's Adopted Children Made Into Fashion Accessories in Online Game (links below)." After seeing these articles, it made me realize that celebrity children are media targets. Not only are they targeted in the gender hegemony, but also in the celebrity ideology where anyone can know everything about them.

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7074778/Angelina-Jolies-adopted-children-made-into-fashion-accessories-in-online-game.html

http://http://www.hecklerspray.com/brad-pitt-angelina-jolies-kids-all-hate-each-other/200813387.php

Parasocial Networking

As we learned in class, a parasocial relationship is one where you know a lot about somebody who knows very little about you. The most obvious example of this is celebrities. Thanks to the Internet and magazines, it is very easy to learn enough personal details about actors or musicians that you can almost feel like you know them. You can know their birthday, their favourite food, their political views, anything they open up about in an interview. What makes the relationship parasocial is the fact that these celebrities don’t know us the way we know them.

I feel that the social networking site Twitter is taking parasocial relationships to a new level. In the past, you had to read interviews or biographies on your favourite celebrity to find out about their personal lives and histories. But now, thanks to Twitter, celebrities are sharing the mundane details of their daily lives with thousands (in some cases millions) of followers. In one hundred and forty characters, these celebrities are giving us real time updates on their every thought and action. How can you read an actor’s inner monologue and not feel like you know them?

The irony of Twitter being a parasocial relationship is that the celebrities choose to participate. Unlike before where you had to seek out information, now they are putting everything out there for people to read. The relationship is still one-sided because the celebrities in question don’t know anything about their followers, but they are definitely encouraging it in a way they did not in the past.

The Child Market

Until reading the last two articles for class, I never realized how much of today's advertising really is geared towards children. I mean of course I realize it and see it when the commercials are selling toys, but things like cars and gasoline never really came to mind. The one commercial that really caught my attention was advertising BP gasoline. I did not even realize that it actually is marketing more towards children until I saw a clip from one on the YouTube clip we watched in class. This sparked my curiosity and I came home and looked at a few more from BP. It is quite alarming to me that BP gasoline is more concerned with marketing their product to my 5 year old niece, who is years away from buying gasoline, then gearing their commercials towards someone like me who is 21 years old and purchases gas quite often. It really is amazing though that at the age of 5 and even younger than that, companies are already marketing products irrelevant to this age group as a means of building product loyalty later in life. When I was that age it seemed like the only companies marketing towards children were toy companies (i.e., Mattel and Fisher-Price) and fast food restaurants (i.e., McDonalds and Burger King). I am not really sure if all this irrelevant marketing to children will make a difference in their adult lives, but I guess I will have to wait until my niece is of driving age to see if the BP commercials rubbed off, making her a loyal customer.

Parasocial Relationship

I know that this concept was discussed a while ago in class, but it was never something I really gave much thought until this past week. I remember talking about it in class and wondering to myself if I had a parasocial relationship with anyone and pretty much convinced myself I did not. I did not actually realize until Spring Break that I really do have a parasocial relationship with someone famous. I came to this realization while watching a music special on PBS with my dad. The special was a Michael Buble performance, who happens to be my favorite performer, and the subject to my parasocial relationship. As he was singing, I found myself rambling off random facts about his life, where he grew up, his parents, his favorite hockey team, how he got started in music, etcetera. It was not until about half way through the show when my dad looked at me and said "You really know a lot about this guy and he doesn't even know you exist," that I realized it was a little weird. It seemed odd at first but the more I thought about it, I knew I was not alone. I think that everyone has a parasocial relationship of some sort. Even if someone does not come to mind automatically, I am sure that if you think long enough, you can think of some celebrity or sports star or musician that you know way too much information about and secretly think that if you were to meet someday, you would be the best of friends.

parents ALLOWING children to be consumers

Today in class we were discussing how the children are consumers because they nag their parents and are constantly asking them to buy them some product or food, or asking them to take them to somewhere and do something new. But while taking a deeper look into it-thats what any child does. I know personally thats exactly what I did when I was younger, always asking my parents for something or for permission to do something however, my parents reacted differently then most do now, by telling me "no". Businesses are trying to do their job by selling their products and creating new advertisements that will help spread the word and build on the "want". While its true that for many companies children are their target audience, parents are still the ones who make the decision on what they are able to view on television and what their children get to own. 

I know its not possible to prevent advertisements for reaching children, they are everywhere! But I do think that having some sort or parental control over what a child is viewing can weed out a lot of potential investments and wants. For example the Disney Channel is constantly coming out with a new show and new products to support them. While their tv shows are directed towards children, there is not a specific age limit. Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers are a huge boom right now (or were previously...I'm not really in the loop with Miley and the Jobros) and to be perfectly honest they are not too appropriate for younger children to view or hear. Yet Hannah Montana products are sold everywhere, as well as the Jonas Brothers and many of their consumers consist of children who are too young to be viewing them in the first place. Being able to filter your child from certain shows or information can make a big difference on the types of products they are interested in. 

Another way parenting can swoop in and save the 20-40% purchases that are made because of children nagging is simply by telling the child "NO" and not spoiling by buying them the things they want exactly when they want it. 

In conclusion, I dont feel as though the marketing and advertising of products is the problem--but the parenting is. 

How I Met Your Mother

How I Met Your Mother (from spring break)

So this is my second post in three days, however it's spring break and as I’ve taken residence at my girlfriends house with a comfy couch and a large television I’ve had my fair share of pop culture to enjoy (most of that being sitcoms and television in general). I’ve just watched another episode of ‘How I Met Your Mother’. In the episode we see the traumatic after math of the break up between Robyn and Barney.

However what struck me about this episode is that we see Barney moving on with his life, whilst Robyn struggles through the break up unable to date others. At first my reaction was well this makes sense, after all it is Barney the ‘Joey’ of ‘How I Met Your Mother’ a man who dates everyone and who doesn’t care for women’s feelings and only usually cares for sex. Although with closer inspection you realize that Robyn was the exception to this he really did care about her, it was real relationship. Also Robyn is renowned in the show for being a woman with ‘masculine’ style characteristics. She doesn’t really believe in marriage or children and isn’t your stereotypical woman.

However when it comes to the scenario of a break up the show seems to still revert to classic gender stereotypes, the woman is the one who can’t get over it and who cannot move on. Whilst Barney the male can continue seeing women guilt free. For me it was interesting to see even a show that goes against so many gender types, can still find it so easy to fall back into them.

Two and a Half Men

Just watching an episode of Two and a Half Men for the first time. This may seem weird for such a long running show, but they just don't show it in my country. What struck me was the representation of not just women but also sexuality.

The episode focused on Charlie's attempts to win back his ex girlfriend, he came across as slightly pathetic and desperate which to my knowledge comes as a slight change to the usual womanizing antics that he participates in during episodes, showing a typical 'man' in a different light. In this episode we see Charlie sleep with a woman (being his ex) and then the next morning he has ideas of moving in together, where as she blows him off, a massive gender role reversal from what we come to expect as a pop culture consuming audience.

We also see the ex's Dad and his partner who happen to be a gay couple. Who in general were not portrayed in the show with stereotypical gay actions (which disappointed me as i planned to write about it and criticize it in this blog post) but they did speak of how Charlie could solve his problems by turning gay. Saying that "we like the same tv shows and eat the same food" giving of the idea that men and women are designed to have different interests and cannot like the same thing. This showing another specific idea of gender we are expected to believe as a consuming audience.

Chuck Norris and Toddler Pageants

(Yes, seriously – you have to read it now, right?)

Like Katie, lately I cannot watch a show without thinking about if it is reinforcing stereotypes or resisting them (and for that I thank this class and my sociology of media class). Last night, I was watching a Family Guy episode (I’m sure the title is starting to make sense now, huh?) – This episode is called “Boys Do Cry.”

Before I start talking about this episode in more detail, I think Family Guy is brilliant. In my opinion, it is the perfect example of an inflected oppositional text. In some ways, it reinforces certain beliefs, such as a nuclear family and heterosexuality. But in other ways, this show pokes fun at what we believe as normal or desirable. As you’ll see in this episode, it also pokes fun at media effects studies (which tend to blame the media for problems).

This jab at media effects can be seen at the very end of the episode, when Peter tells parents they shouldn’t blame the television shows. Instead, they should take responsibility and maybe not let their kids watch the show in the first place (See – brilliant! I agree with this statement to a point because I don’t think viewers are led to identify with characters on Family Guy, aka anti-models). I researched this part of the episode, and it is actually in response to the Parents Television Council, who has criticized Family Guy about the themes and language in the show. They frequently name Family Guy the worst of the week on their web site.

Another main focus in this episode is gender. The title of the episode, “Boys Do Cry,” goes against superficial gender markers. After a little more research, I found that this episode is actually a parody of the film, “Boys Don’t Cry,” which is based on a story of a transgender man (if you are interested, you should look this Family Guy episode and this film on Wikipedia to see the similarities).

In the episode, Stewie competes in a beauty pageant, dressed as a girl, of course (more superficial gender markers being pointed out – only girls compete in beauty pageants). When Stewie’s wig accidentally falls off, the audience calls him a “queer-o-sexual” and tries to rush to stage to attack him. Here, Family Guy seems to be challenging society’s common beliefs about gender markers (beauty pageants, homosexuality, etc.). Some could see it as reinforcement, but I do not believe that is the intention.

This episode also portrays clichéd stereotypes of the south (most of this episode is based in Texas), religion, George W. Bush and anything else remotely right-wing. It also pokes fun at how 9/11 changed our views about a whole ethnicity. Whether these are reinforcing stereotypes or opposing them, that is for you to decide. But in my opinion, I think Family Guy challenges what society believes as appropriate. Sometimes my immediate reaction to parts of Family Guy episodes is to feel offended, but after thinking about it, it seems to resist more than reinforce.

This episode is full of spoofs, both reinforcing and resisting. I could not find mini-clips of this episode, but you can check the whole episode out at this link: http://familyguy-tv-show.sequd.com/season-5/episode-15-boys-do-cry.

Notice Anything About This Cover?

Superficial markers of gender....

Change in thought processsss

When I signed up for this class I didn't actually think it would change my in any way or the way I think about and view things. I just picked this class because I needed more comm classes for an extra minor I recently picked up. But it has actually changed the way I see things. I won't say that I am a super rhetorical thinker by any means but I do see things a little deeper than I had before. Well, deeper may not be the best description but I do see things differently. I watch shows now and notice when characters are either reinforcing stereotypes or resisting them. I have also realized why I like some shows and some shows I have no interest in at all.

For example, the show LOST does not get my attention. I kind of watched the first few episodes on and off but then there was a preview for a mysterious creature that also inhabited the island after one of the episodes I did catch. That is completely unbelievable to me. The coherence and fidelity were not strong for the show in my opinion so I stopped even trying to watch an episode. I also noticed that some other shows don’t look interesting to me because of the coherence and fidelity. I tend to be a realistic person so I typically do not like sci-fi shows and movies. However, there are always exceptions that have something extra that draws me in. Transformers was a sci-fi movie with robots coming and invading and aiding the world but the actors pulled me in more than the plot and I really enjoyed the movie despite the fact that I do not believe in robots what so ever.

I have also discovered that my level of necessary coherence and fidelity varies with my mood. If I am in a serious mood everything has to be perfect and make complete realistic sense or else I will hate it. I have a tendency to pick out the littlest things in movies and shows that don’t match up or seem real and it will ruin the movie for me. Little details like basketball movies when they double dribble, travel, don’t play completely by the rules or the game clock is off somehow I get worked up about how fake it is. I now know what that is and why I don’t enjoy movies and shows when they don’t make sense to me.


:)

Interesting New Video Game

So, I'm not really a gamer. Nothing against it I just have never gotten into it. (Unless you count Mario on Super Nintendo ages ago.) This story popped up on my news feed today and I thought it was really interesting and decided to share.



http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/01/evoke.game.africa.poverty/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

I think this could be an interesting trend in the gaming world. I could see something like this used in the future for classes. It also, in my mind, relates to the movie Gamer and the book The Hunger Games.