Showing posts with label Kristen Thornberry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kristen Thornberry. Show all posts
Monday, April 19, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Entertaining/Intriguing Pop Culture Trends
For my last blog entry, I thought I would write about some trends I have noticed within pop culture. These are just observations, not complaints. Here’s my list; hope you enjoy!
- America has a fascination with British people. Why else would we have Simon on “American Idol,” the Orbit Gum spokeswoman, Piers on “America’s Got Talent,” Jamie Oliver on the new show “Food Revolution,” or even that Dyson Vacuum guy? Are they more trustworthy? Please fill me in.
- Marriage as a love-hate relationship. I don’t know if I’m the only one that’s noticed, but marriage gets a lot of flak on television shows. In a society that claims to value marriage, television shows make it seem like you suddenly transform into this miserable, sexless person when you tie the knot. Is it just me, or are these jokes kind of old and tired now?
- We shake our fingers at teen moms, but love to watch them do it. The sudden influx of shows featuring teen mothers is crazy! “The Secret Life of the American Teenager,” “The Pregnancy Pact,” “Teen Mom,” “16 and Pregnant”…the list keeps growing.
- No, no, Miley Cyrus…but oh yes, Taylor Lautner! There seems to be a double standard in Hollywood about underage stars. They both did modeling shoots while they were under 18, both showing a lot of skin. People were outraged about Miley, but no words were said about Taylor.
- Being a “real man” is more important today. After the Super Bowl, I have noticed tons of ads that address the issue of masculinity. If you haven’t noticed, look up Dove’s “You Are a Man,” Dockers’ “Men Without Pants,” and Dodge’s “Man’s Last Stand.” I have also recently heard a radio commercial for a jeweler stating that you had to visit their store to be a man. Apparently all you men out there need to toughen up, rub some dirt on it, and wash it off with Dove.
- Apparently, if you’re a white woman, men want to kill you. SNL did a humorous skit about this. Recently, the target audience of security-based products has been white women. And the guys that are trying to break in are angry murderers who don’t seem to want to steal anything. Take a look (one is an actual commercial, the other is the SNL skit):
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syjM1dPriBA&feature=related
- http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/broadview-security/1208834/
- Social media = excellent source for branding/image control. Most companies today are embracing things like Facebook and Twitter. When used right, these sites can do great things for a brand. Because consumer control keeps on increasing, social media provides companies with a way to interact directly with consumers and make changes based on feedback. A good example is the latest Nike/Tiger Woods commercial, which has been posted on Nike Golf’s Facebook page (along with many others). Although a strange commercial, it is an attempt at image rebuilding.
- Just a couple fashion trends I don’t understand. Apparently, pants are no longer needed before you leave your residence. Throw on a shirt and some leggings and you’re good. Is that really comfortable? Aren’t these girls cold? Also, the bigger your hair is the better. With Bumpits to your rescue, you’ll make Snooki look like she needs some volume. (I blame this class for knowing who Snooki is.)
- Congrats to you for getting married. Oh, but you’re not cool if you don’t have a viral video. Viral videos seem to have become a status symbol for newlyweds. Recent YouTube hits have shown wedding parties dancing down the aisle to Chris Brown and people dancing to “Thriller” at a wedding reception. These couples have even been featured on news media. Here is the wedding party dancing down the aisle:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8DCt3Lmi28
- America has a fascination with British people. Why else would we have Simon on “American Idol,” the Orbit Gum spokeswoman, Piers on “America’s Got Talent,” Jamie Oliver on the new show “Food Revolution,” or even that Dyson Vacuum guy? Are they more trustworthy? Please fill me in.
- Marriage as a love-hate relationship. I don’t know if I’m the only one that’s noticed, but marriage gets a lot of flak on television shows. In a society that claims to value marriage, television shows make it seem like you suddenly transform into this miserable, sexless person when you tie the knot. Is it just me, or are these jokes kind of old and tired now?
- We shake our fingers at teen moms, but love to watch them do it. The sudden influx of shows featuring teen mothers is crazy! “The Secret Life of the American Teenager,” “The Pregnancy Pact,” “Teen Mom,” “16 and Pregnant”…the list keeps growing.
- No, no, Miley Cyrus…but oh yes, Taylor Lautner! There seems to be a double standard in Hollywood about underage stars. They both did modeling shoots while they were under 18, both showing a lot of skin. People were outraged about Miley, but no words were said about Taylor.
- Being a “real man” is more important today. After the Super Bowl, I have noticed tons of ads that address the issue of masculinity. If you haven’t noticed, look up Dove’s “You Are a Man,” Dockers’ “Men Without Pants,” and Dodge’s “Man’s Last Stand.” I have also recently heard a radio commercial for a jeweler stating that you had to visit their store to be a man. Apparently all you men out there need to toughen up, rub some dirt on it, and wash it off with Dove.
- Apparently, if you’re a white woman, men want to kill you. SNL did a humorous skit about this. Recently, the target audience of security-based products has been white women. And the guys that are trying to break in are angry murderers who don’t seem to want to steal anything. Take a look (one is an actual commercial, the other is the SNL skit):
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syjM1dPriBA&feature=related
- http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/broadview-security/1208834/
- Social media = excellent source for branding/image control. Most companies today are embracing things like Facebook and Twitter. When used right, these sites can do great things for a brand. Because consumer control keeps on increasing, social media provides companies with a way to interact directly with consumers and make changes based on feedback. A good example is the latest Nike/Tiger Woods commercial, which has been posted on Nike Golf’s Facebook page (along with many others). Although a strange commercial, it is an attempt at image rebuilding.
- Just a couple fashion trends I don’t understand. Apparently, pants are no longer needed before you leave your residence. Throw on a shirt and some leggings and you’re good. Is that really comfortable? Aren’t these girls cold? Also, the bigger your hair is the better. With Bumpits to your rescue, you’ll make Snooki look like she needs some volume. (I blame this class for knowing who Snooki is.)
- Congrats to you for getting married. Oh, but you’re not cool if you don’t have a viral video. Viral videos seem to have become a status symbol for newlyweds. Recent YouTube hits have shown wedding parties dancing down the aisle to Chris Brown and people dancing to “Thriller” at a wedding reception. These couples have even been featured on news media. Here is the wedding party dancing down the aisle:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8DCt3Lmi28
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Ball State’s “Ass Slapper”
(Yeah, I decided to go there.)
Personally, I can see both sides of this controversy, but probably lean more toward being against the Facebook fan page.
I will admit, the e-mail alert did make me chuckle, because I did not really know what to do with that information, which is how a lot of people felt. I didn’t feel any more unsafe and didn’t feel like I needed to be any more careful, so maybe the e-mail alert was too much. I don’t think there would be all this controversy without that e-mail. This relates to how we think of what constitutes “news” as well.
I think it has turned into waaay too much with the Facebook fan page. After thinking about the whole situation - we have no idea what the female victims are feeling. Maybe they have been raped and this incident could have brought back terrible memories. Maybe they just didn’t know what else this guy would do and decided to call the police to be safe. Maybe not, I haven’t read any more details. Everyone’s different – maybe some would take it as a compliment or just laugh it off. It’s like the discussion in class today about the mainstream vs. alternative news; we need to look at diverse opinions, then make our own judgments.
The fan page of this “ass slapper” is basically glorifying someone that committed a crime, according to laws. Whether everyone agrees with these laws is a different debate. I just hope this group doesn’t lead to any further glorification of other negative things. While this may be “part of college” and happens at parties, it doesn’t mean it should be.
If this makes the news, I will feel pretty embarrassed to be associated with this kind of community. Yes, laughing off some situations may be a good thing to do too, and I understand that. Maybe I’m more conservative than others, I don’t know, but I do think we need to look at all sides of this story.
Personally, I can see both sides of this controversy, but probably lean more toward being against the Facebook fan page.
I will admit, the e-mail alert did make me chuckle, because I did not really know what to do with that information, which is how a lot of people felt. I didn’t feel any more unsafe and didn’t feel like I needed to be any more careful, so maybe the e-mail alert was too much. I don’t think there would be all this controversy without that e-mail. This relates to how we think of what constitutes “news” as well.
I think it has turned into waaay too much with the Facebook fan page. After thinking about the whole situation - we have no idea what the female victims are feeling. Maybe they have been raped and this incident could have brought back terrible memories. Maybe they just didn’t know what else this guy would do and decided to call the police to be safe. Maybe not, I haven’t read any more details. Everyone’s different – maybe some would take it as a compliment or just laugh it off. It’s like the discussion in class today about the mainstream vs. alternative news; we need to look at diverse opinions, then make our own judgments.
The fan page of this “ass slapper” is basically glorifying someone that committed a crime, according to laws. Whether everyone agrees with these laws is a different debate. I just hope this group doesn’t lead to any further glorification of other negative things. While this may be “part of college” and happens at parties, it doesn’t mean it should be.
If this makes the news, I will feel pretty embarrassed to be associated with this kind of community. Yes, laughing off some situations may be a good thing to do too, and I understand that. Maybe I’m more conservative than others, I don’t know, but I do think we need to look at all sides of this story.
Monday, March 29, 2010
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.”
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.”
Friday, March 5, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Pop Culture Study, So What?
So why study pop culture? After all, your favorite television show is just a show and that Reese’s ad is just an ad. But is it really just a TV show or just an ad? My answer, and hopefully everyone’s answer, is no. They are much, much more than that. Why?
Pop culture texts are complex and contradictory. They are open to many interpretations and subject to unexpected uses. People can enjoy the same television show for two totally different reasons. Pop culture’s relationship with its consumers can’t be reduced to “just a show.” According to Sellnow, there is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to pop culture. Media consumption is something we do, not something that happens to us. So why wouldn’t we want to study something that we are actively doing? (Especially because it affects us, as rhetorical critics, too.)
We construct our own personal traditions from the contents made available to use through pop culture texts. We use these media texts as ways to explore who we are, what we want, what we value and how we relate to other people (and so on). Images and symbols from these texts help us read against our perception of the world. All in all, we are greatly influenced by pop culture; therefore, we should care about it enough to know why we are so influenced.
To look at it another way - some people study the periodic table and how its elements react to other elements. If it is important to know those interactions, why wouldn’t we want to know about our interactions with pop culture and its elements?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)