Showing posts with label Christopher M. Humphries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christopher M. Humphries. Show all posts
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Beyond Tolerance
Over the years were have seen more and more television networks incorporating homosexuality into their regular programming. From Ellen to now, we see a sort of evolution that provokes the question, has television progressed? However, the real question seems to be, have we?
When Ellen revealed she was homosexual, there seemed to be some turmoil, and time and time again, the question of how much gay-ness do we allow on television rose to the public's attention. What's crucial here is that we, as an audience, were asking how much we could tolerate. Tolerating seems to carry some weight with it, in my mind. Should we be tolerant at all? Is that not how we should feel about homosexual themes and plot devices in our daily t.v. shows?
To me, tolerance still conjures an image of unwillingness. For example, if you're around a smoker when they're getting their fix of nicotine--and you do not smoke--do you refuse to leave? In some cases--say, a best friend--you stick around and tolerate the smoke. But you still do not supporting smoking or having to inhale cigarette smoke second-hand.
Sure the aforementioned example is loose, but you get the idea. Tolerance insists that we still do not accept something as "normal" or fitting to our current ideologies, especially those socially constructed.
In a somewhat optimistic light, I do believe that television has progressed, taking baby steps, but nonetheless heading in the right direction. When Queer Eye for the Straight Guy hit the airwaves, many people were concerned about the reality show's content. Using the stereotype of gay males being fashion-sensible, the group (called the Fab Five) recreates heterosexuals' appearances in order to alter their lives, leaving them with a look that builds confidence and optimism. However, this show was depicting homosexuals as useful, promoting the idea of tolerance.
Then we have Will and Grace. Though the show uses many tired gay jokes, including the often found humorous 'flamming' gay man, it pushes beyond the idea of tolerance and adds the notion of homosexuals being like anyone else, indeterminate of space and time for the most part.
While most people don't think of it, Buffy the Vampire Slayer pushed the images of homosexuality even further by portraying women who were 'lesbian', but not masculine. The gay characters within in the show were meant to betray all stereotypical notions of being gay or being a lesbian. Around this time in television, the word tolerant strays further behind, but nevertheless, is still some what present. http://socyberty.com/gay-lesbians/how-homosexuals-are-portrayed-on-television/
And now we've reached a new standard. With shows like Modern Family doing well on t.v., we now spend our times discovering how homosexuals live out everyday life. For the most part, the idea of tolerating gay people is not expressed; instead, the show explores acceptance. In conclusion, I think television is definitely heading in the correct direction, as far as adding more perspectives to their shows. In my opinion, the way Modern Family depicts homosexuality is a more three-dimensional view. We are no longer left wondering how much we can allow, but instead asking much more can we know; how much more can we discover.
When Ellen revealed she was homosexual, there seemed to be some turmoil, and time and time again, the question of how much gay-ness do we allow on television rose to the public's attention. What's crucial here is that we, as an audience, were asking how much we could tolerate. Tolerating seems to carry some weight with it, in my mind. Should we be tolerant at all? Is that not how we should feel about homosexual themes and plot devices in our daily t.v. shows?
To me, tolerance still conjures an image of unwillingness. For example, if you're around a smoker when they're getting their fix of nicotine--and you do not smoke--do you refuse to leave? In some cases--say, a best friend--you stick around and tolerate the smoke. But you still do not supporting smoking or having to inhale cigarette smoke second-hand.
Sure the aforementioned example is loose, but you get the idea. Tolerance insists that we still do not accept something as "normal" or fitting to our current ideologies, especially those socially constructed.
In a somewhat optimistic light, I do believe that television has progressed, taking baby steps, but nonetheless heading in the right direction. When Queer Eye for the Straight Guy hit the airwaves, many people were concerned about the reality show's content. Using the stereotype of gay males being fashion-sensible, the group (called the Fab Five) recreates heterosexuals' appearances in order to alter their lives, leaving them with a look that builds confidence and optimism. However, this show was depicting homosexuals as useful, promoting the idea of tolerance.
Then we have Will and Grace. Though the show uses many tired gay jokes, including the often found humorous 'flamming' gay man, it pushes beyond the idea of tolerance and adds the notion of homosexuals being like anyone else, indeterminate of space and time for the most part.
While most people don't think of it, Buffy the Vampire Slayer pushed the images of homosexuality even further by portraying women who were 'lesbian', but not masculine. The gay characters within in the show were meant to betray all stereotypical notions of being gay or being a lesbian. Around this time in television, the word tolerant strays further behind, but nevertheless, is still some what present. http://socyberty.com/gay-lesbians/how-homosexuals-are-portrayed-on-television/
And now we've reached a new standard. With shows like Modern Family doing well on t.v., we now spend our times discovering how homosexuals live out everyday life. For the most part, the idea of tolerating gay people is not expressed; instead, the show explores acceptance. In conclusion, I think television is definitely heading in the correct direction, as far as adding more perspectives to their shows. In my opinion, the way Modern Family depicts homosexuality is a more three-dimensional view. We are no longer left wondering how much we can allow, but instead asking much more can we know; how much more can we discover.
Monday, March 29, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Reality Porn
(Ha-ha, got your attention with the title, didn't I?)
Remember when we used to laugh at such productions as Girls Gone Wild? Sure, maybe chortling wasn't your first reaction then, but I'm confident that you ridiculed the teeny soft-core pornography series at some point. In 1998, most of us thought, Why the hell would anyone actually act like this. They're just doing it for the camera. Yet in 2010, we still stick our noses up at GGW while applauding the likes of The Jersey Shore and other party-based reality television series.
In my opinion, it is that sort of voyeuristic, fetishistic, and narcissistic juxtaposition that appeals to the general audience. If the aforementioned notion proved to be erroneous, I might argue that there would be no reality television as consequence.
Take voyeurism for instance. None of us like to think we act like the girls on GGW or The Jersey Show, but what might intrigue us more is the notion of seeing other people's exciting lives. If reality television (and I don't mean GGW; it just relates to reality television) consisted of individuals study or working hard or doing laundry and taking naps, then we might feel the urge to snatch the remote control to our TV sets and flip to another channel. However, we are not seeing these things; rather we are observing the lives of people who have everything they want, which of course, might lead to us thinking we want what they want, too.
As far as fetishism is concerned, it is easy to see why many viewers have at least caught a glimpse of Girls Gone Wild or the commercial. Now place that commercial next to one for just about an show on MTV, VH1, and the like. You'll notice the similarities quite quickly. We are obsessed with things that we are not supposed to enjoy or have. Even Fraud would argue the same. Therefore, when we see people 'gettin' crunk'd up' and having a good time, we stay tuned in and possibly escape to a world where we can be carefree and spontaneous true. More often than not, shows do not depict the downfalls of behaving such a way. I'm not saying one shouldn't have a good time, but it's within reason to mention there may be consequences.
And narcissism. There a numerous shows about people who are sexy and powerful, and how they morphed into the perfect body and whatnot. People Magazine and similar magazines aren't any less guilty than television shows of appealing to narcissism. Take pregnant celebrities, for instance, since they are all the rage in 2010. The idea is to have the baby quick and transform into the beauty queen you were before and evade the thought of ever having a baby from the public's eyes. I honestly do not understand this notion. Why would you be so afraid of people remembering you had a baby? Anyway, you get the idea.
To conclude this blog, I'd liked to say I hope you all understand my point, no matter how much of a rant this post may seem to be. How have we gotten to the point where the same traits of pornography have entered our mainstream media? Visual pleasure--voyeurism, fetishism, and narcissism--are surely the answer. We are attracted to socially imposed unobtainables. We want what we cannot have and love to see of self-love projected on the boob-tube.
Remember when we used to laugh at such productions as Girls Gone Wild? Sure, maybe chortling wasn't your first reaction then, but I'm confident that you ridiculed the teeny soft-core pornography series at some point. In 1998, most of us thought, Why the hell would anyone actually act like this. They're just doing it for the camera. Yet in 2010, we still stick our noses up at GGW while applauding the likes of The Jersey Shore and other party-based reality television series.
In my opinion, it is that sort of voyeuristic, fetishistic, and narcissistic juxtaposition that appeals to the general audience. If the aforementioned notion proved to be erroneous, I might argue that there would be no reality television as consequence.
Take voyeurism for instance. None of us like to think we act like the girls on GGW or The Jersey Show, but what might intrigue us more is the notion of seeing other people's exciting lives. If reality television (and I don't mean GGW; it just relates to reality television) consisted of individuals study or working hard or doing laundry and taking naps, then we might feel the urge to snatch the remote control to our TV sets and flip to another channel. However, we are not seeing these things; rather we are observing the lives of people who have everything they want, which of course, might lead to us thinking we want what they want, too.
As far as fetishism is concerned, it is easy to see why many viewers have at least caught a glimpse of Girls Gone Wild or the commercial. Now place that commercial next to one for just about an show on MTV, VH1, and the like. You'll notice the similarities quite quickly. We are obsessed with things that we are not supposed to enjoy or have. Even Fraud would argue the same. Therefore, when we see people 'gettin' crunk'd up' and having a good time, we stay tuned in and possibly escape to a world where we can be carefree and spontaneous true. More often than not, shows do not depict the downfalls of behaving such a way. I'm not saying one shouldn't have a good time, but it's within reason to mention there may be consequences.
And narcissism. There a numerous shows about people who are sexy and powerful, and how they morphed into the perfect body and whatnot. People Magazine and similar magazines aren't any less guilty than television shows of appealing to narcissism. Take pregnant celebrities, for instance, since they are all the rage in 2010. The idea is to have the baby quick and transform into the beauty queen you were before and evade the thought of ever having a baby from the public's eyes. I honestly do not understand this notion. Why would you be so afraid of people remembering you had a baby? Anyway, you get the idea.
To conclude this blog, I'd liked to say I hope you all understand my point, no matter how much of a rant this post may seem to be. How have we gotten to the point where the same traits of pornography have entered our mainstream media? Visual pleasure--voyeurism, fetishism, and narcissism--are surely the answer. We are attracted to socially imposed unobtainables. We want what we cannot have and love to see of self-love projected on the boob-tube.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Product Intergration
Commodification, in my opinion, is becoming much too powerful in media nowadays. When television first started, the main agenda of companies supporting production was to make a substantial sum of money--that is, once people started tuning in every day. Therefore, it goes without saying that television runs on advertising. Remember: shows are just the filler between commercials.
Once television abandoned the straight-forward product integration of the Kraft Television era, commercials were key to keeping companies interested in paying networks to run their programs. However, due to post-modern technologies, consumers are now allowed to skip any of the advertisements that they do no want to watch. So, of course, those who paid to be advertised needed to revert back to their old ways: product integration.
Some shows such as 30 Rock make their product integration obvious. In a very The Truman Show-like way, 30 Rock pokes fun on the products they advertise in their shows, but simultaneously please sponsors by advertising without "advertising". Product integration appears to be humorous in 30 Rock, but not all television shows, nor films, make obvious attempts to humor the consumer into buying a particular product.
Instead, we now witness the hundreds of disguised advertisements in our TV programs and movies. Take our music videos. While this may apply more to music than television, it is important that we see how ads are sneaking into all media. In 2005, McDonald's offered to pay many rappers to make references to its food. Just check it out.
Do you remember iRobot, the futuristic Will Smith flick? First off, I'm sorry. But take a look at the car he drives.
This same image can be found on www.audi.com. It's not hard to spot the product integration here, but how many people really think about the car as an important feature to the film? I don't think many do, but for some of us, we now want to buy an Audi, especially in the future, although we don't know why.
The point behind my rant is that we need to be weary of product intergration. We need to keen our senses, so that we are no longer on the wrong end of the chicken-and-egg cycle. The question has always been, do we influence the products in media or do they influence us. In my strong opinion, product integration that has been blended smoothly into what we see and hear has the potential of influencing what we buy and want. The same concept has been around for ages, but I suggest that we are no longer being treated as human beings when these ads subconsciously influence us; instead, we are being leered upon by those who see us a meaty cash-cows.
Once television abandoned the straight-forward product integration of the Kraft Television era, commercials were key to keeping companies interested in paying networks to run their programs. However, due to post-modern technologies, consumers are now allowed to skip any of the advertisements that they do no want to watch. So, of course, those who paid to be advertised needed to revert back to their old ways: product integration.
Some shows such as 30 Rock make their product integration obvious. In a very The Truman Show-like way, 30 Rock pokes fun on the products they advertise in their shows, but simultaneously please sponsors by advertising without "advertising". Product integration appears to be humorous in 30 Rock, but not all television shows, nor films, make obvious attempts to humor the consumer into buying a particular product.
Instead, we now witness the hundreds of disguised advertisements in our TV programs and movies. Take our music videos. While this may apply more to music than television, it is important that we see how ads are sneaking into all media. In 2005, McDonald's offered to pay many rappers to make references to its food. Just check it out.
Do you remember iRobot, the futuristic Will Smith flick? First off, I'm sorry. But take a look at the car he drives.
This same image can be found on www.audi.com. It's not hard to spot the product integration here, but how many people really think about the car as an important feature to the film? I don't think many do, but for some of us, we now want to buy an Audi, especially in the future, although we don't know why.The point behind my rant is that we need to be weary of product intergration. We need to keen our senses, so that we are no longer on the wrong end of the chicken-and-egg cycle. The question has always been, do we influence the products in media or do they influence us. In my strong opinion, product integration that has been blended smoothly into what we see and hear has the potential of influencing what we buy and want. The same concept has been around for ages, but I suggest that we are no longer being treated as human beings when these ads subconsciously influence us; instead, we are being leered upon by those who see us a meaty cash-cows.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Why Study Popular Culture?
It is crucial to study pop-culture, especially its rhetorical elements. For the most part, communication experts are torn between how popular culture functions. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Or in this case, does the public influence such things as the media, or do the media influence the public?
Raymie McKerrow argues that the end-goal of partaking in a rhetorical analysis of popular culture is to go beyond Aristotle's five canons of communication, accept some of the negatives as positives, and understand how "emotion" affects communication as a whole. As for the latter, I use the term "emotion" to describe how audiences respond to a communicator beyond the address being given. Is the speaker of a specific ethnic background? How might someone respond to that information? Although we regret to admit such things can alter our thoughts, they do.
With McKerrow in mind, I believe it is crucial that we, as the pop culture audience, collect the fragmented, mediated texts and use them to discover what influence pop-culture has on us, and likewise, how much influence we have on pop-culture, especially the media. Now I come to my point.
I believe that, while it would be groundbreaking if we discovered what came first, our focus should be on what comes next. We know what influences we currently have on pop-culture and what it has on us, but we do not which entity influenced the other; therefore, we should use our knowledge to try to race ahead of the curve. By taking a rhetorical analysis on pop-culture, we may discover how it reacts to certain national/social events. If we can do the aforementioned, then I believe we can possess a stronger direct influence on what pop-culture portrays and enforces in the near future.
Raymie McKerrow argues that the end-goal of partaking in a rhetorical analysis of popular culture is to go beyond Aristotle's five canons of communication, accept some of the negatives as positives, and understand how "emotion" affects communication as a whole. As for the latter, I use the term "emotion" to describe how audiences respond to a communicator beyond the address being given. Is the speaker of a specific ethnic background? How might someone respond to that information? Although we regret to admit such things can alter our thoughts, they do.
With McKerrow in mind, I believe it is crucial that we, as the pop culture audience, collect the fragmented, mediated texts and use them to discover what influence pop-culture has on us, and likewise, how much influence we have on pop-culture, especially the media. Now I come to my point.
I believe that, while it would be groundbreaking if we discovered what came first, our focus should be on what comes next. We know what influences we currently have on pop-culture and what it has on us, but we do not which entity influenced the other; therefore, we should use our knowledge to try to race ahead of the curve. By taking a rhetorical analysis on pop-culture, we may discover how it reacts to certain national/social events. If we can do the aforementioned, then I believe we can possess a stronger direct influence on what pop-culture portrays and enforces in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)