B.I.G. Misunderstanding

This week in class we talked about Adorno's theory of popular music. Two things I found most interesting about this theory are the idea of passive listening, and that of a rhythmically obedient listener. As a class we discussed how these two items apply to the popularity of rap music in our culture. For me, I was immediately reminded of a little phenomenon that occurred at my high school last year.

Last January, "Notorious" was released in theaters. The movie is a story of the life and death of rapper Notorious B.I.G. (a.k.a. Biggie Smalls, a.k.a. Biggie). Biggie, whose rap reign peaked right bef

ore his death in the late 1990's, is hailed as one of the best rappers of all time. Although most have heard of him, many have not heard his music. However that all changed when "Notorious" came to theaters, and half of my high school flocked to see it. Suddenly after the movie, I couldn't go anywhere without hearing "Juicy," "Hypnotize," or any other Biggie song. Whereas before car rides and parties would be filled by the sounds of the pop charts top 40 songs, Biggie had taken over our social atmosphere. His racy songs were even played in the high school gym. My white, middle class schoolmates (myself included) who had never faced real hardships like those Biggie rapped about could suddenly recite every word, with the same inflection and tone used by the rapper.

Here is a prime example of passive listening and how it works to create rhythmically obedient listeners. No one really payed attention to the words, and what they meant. We instead liked the beat, and the fact that we could all bond by singing the words of the rap legend. Listening to Biggie was a social activity as opposed to listening to the message behind the rap. We all became so entranced by the aura surrounding the movie, we forgot what we were actually listening to. Raps about stealing, drugs, and sex were what we listened to for weeks on end... but none of us ever really stopped to think about the contrast it presented to our own suburban high school lives. We just wanted to dance to it. We had all become passive, rhythmically obedient listeners.

becoming different

Cultural Imperialism is the topic that interests me the most in this week. Each nation has its own primary culture, but its culture gets influenced when the other nations’ culture is intruded into that particular nation. It has both positive and negative effects. One of the most popular examples is Mc Donald which is spread out through more than hundreds of countries. However, each country owns different menus, which is in order to provide proper and fitted taste to customers. Having different or added menus is to attract customers and eventually to have the company grow prosperously. However, on the other side, this tactical method might degrade Mc Donald’s originality and uniqueness. It might be transformed into totally different restaurants, bringing negative effects.
Another example is from my experience. Ninewest, a famous shoe-company, has dominated many countries so far, and it is also launched in Korea. Two years ago, a day before I went back to Korea, I went to Ninewest and looked for some heels; however, there was none that appealed to me. Then, I went to Korea and went shopping and found out that Ninewest was there. I looked around and found that shoes in a Korean mall were all different from shoes in US. I asked an employer and why styles of shoes were different, and he said each nation, customer has a different taste and sense of style; thus Ninewest in Korea selects particular shoes that might be popular and imports. Thus, even though Ninewest is scattered in the many countries, its shoes are different in each nation.

Cultural Imperialism

I found the most interesting topic of this weeks discussion to be that of Cultural Imperialism. This concept explains how one culture (America in this case) "takes over" other culture's by instating its culture in that society. For example, American movies, music, television, food, and art has all become mainstream in other societies such as Europe, Asia, Australia and many others. Movies for example are an excellent way of showing how Cultural Imperialism has taken over in many other countries. A vast array of movies ranging from Mean Girls starring Lindsey Lohan to The Matrix have all been converted in order to be understood by people in other countries who speak different languages. It is rare for a French or Spanish film to be viewed nation wide in America, however, American movies are almost always shown in other countries over seas. This is a perfect example of Cultural Imperialism. In addition, American music is usually famous in other areas of the world. Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, and many other artists are brought to other countries in order to be heard, whereas many foreign musicians are never heard in America with a few exceptions of course. Perhaps food is the most prominent example of Cultural Imperialism over seas. Coca-Cola and McDonal's are great examples of Cultural Imperialism. Most of the products are "Americanized" and the same as the food and beverages found in The United States, however, sometimes there are a few products on the menu that relate to that country and their food. Here are some images and examples:

Ultimately, It is important to think of how dominant our country has become in other areas of the world. Perhaps at times the American culture takes away from other society's cultures because America is universally seen as the ultimate power in many areas of the world. Cultural Imperialism is an interesting concept to grapple with and can be seen in both a positive and a negative light.

The Yes Men

On December 3rd, 2004, Jude Finisterra appeared on BBC as a representative of Dow Chemical, who owned the company, Union Carbide, which was responsible for the Bhopal disaster that killed thousands and left over 100,000 people needing lifelong medical care. Finisterra apologized to the people of Bhopal and then claimed that Dow planned to liquidate Union Carbide and use that money to pay for the damage they had caused including medical care and cleaning up the site. A few hours after this broadcast was made, it was revealed that it was a hoax created by a group called The Yes Men.

The Yes Men are a group of activists who “[impersonate] big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. [Their] targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else,” (theyesmen.org). The Yes Men have been successful in many past pranks and the reason behind that is due to what Sturken and Cartwright claim how we, as the audience, “rank modes of news media in terms of importance or credibility,” (Sturken and Cartwright 230). With the rise of new media such as blogs and networking sites that allow for easy distribution of information and also easy distortion of information, consumers have become more aware of where they are receiving their news. Sites such as CNN.com and Newyorktimes.com are given more credit because they have a long history in providing us with credible news but sites such as Wikipedia.org which its content can be altered by the public is seen as less credible (even though everyone uses it).

In addition to its past, Sturken and Cartwright claim the way the news is presented makes a big difference too. Using the television format as an example, they cite the age, gender, and appearance of the newscaster as well as the space of the newsroom, and the graphics of the news segments all affect the way we rank the credibility of the news. If we use online sites as an example, we judge their credibility maybe based on its reputation and the appearance of the website. If the website looks like something (or is something) that was on Blogger who can be made by anyone, we wouldn’t trust it as much. If the website has nice graphics with clickable links and an interactive interface such as the fake websites The Yes Men created, we would trust them more. The Yes Men when impersonating corporations or people got invited to many big name events and that only occurred because the events thought they really were the big name corporation or power figure. Whether we like to admit it or not, appearance and reputation are two things that are weighed heavily in our society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI

John Mean-er

Last night, I was lucky enough to go to the John Mayer concert for free. While watching this massive audience in Madison Square Garden surrounding the stage, I was able to see Marx and Adorno in action. He actually pointed at the area I was sitting and said, “You people are in the cheap seats….” He then pointed to the floor seats in front of him and said, “Now these people are the ones who bought the real tickets, these people wanted to be close to me.” I never knew John Mayer was such a jerk. He even admitted he never thought he would be applauded for being an asshole.

People saved up for those tickets to surprise their girlfriends on Valentine’s Day for a good amount of time. Those tickets were probably close to $300 dollars a pop if mine were $150 originally (side stage). If Adorno is right, and all pop music is all standardized, why is John Mayer’s more expensive. Is it because, as Emile Durkheim would say, the collective sentiments and collective conscious of the masses determine the norm and rules of society? The society chose John Mayer as high art, worthy of high prices, worthy of playing at the Madison Square Garden. Was being there, seeing John Mayer live enough to make one forget about the fact that whoever bought those tickets had to spend $600 for them? Maybe go with out something for two weeks, so his girlfriend could be happy on Valentine’s Day?

Then I realized, although he is an asshole, his songs were still catchy. I found myself singing to the repetitive songs I knew and bouncing away to the ones I did not. The friend I was with actually did not know any of the songs, but you could still see her swaying to the music. Some people knew every single word to every single song. They could be Adorno’s emotional type of listener. They were completely oblivious to the real conditions of existence; they did not care at all how much they spent to see him live, to see his standardized songs. I suppose Kera and I were the rhythmically obedient, dancing in distraction to the rhythm of our own exploitation and oppression. I was distracted until he made that terrible comment, then I was just confused as to why I liked him so much. I was so thankful I had not paid for the concert.

Meanwhile, as I was there my media networking was in full force. I was taking pictures on my camera, which when I brought home because of media modalities I was able to connect it to my computer to upload the pictures. Once I realized my camera was going to die, I was able to start taking photos on my blackberry, which I then MMS-ed to my friends, sent a voicenote to my boyfriend, and if I really wanted to I could have uploaded the pictures and videos directly to my facebook from my phone. I even actively gave in to consumerism for a man I think is a jerk because I like his popular music. I am not really sure what that says about me, other than I am an active member of mass society, who passively listens, and is a consumer.

What you don't know can't hurt you...but it can hurt others

Commodity fetishism is the relationship between people and the object consumed, rather than the relationship to the consumer and the producer of the object. Rather impersonal, yeah? As discussed in class, in our capitalist society we think of commodities as having inherent value, rather than the value of work used to create them. In being unaware of each other (both the producer/laborers of the object and the consumer), people often have frilly little perfect ideas of the working conditions laborers often work in...otherwise known as ignorance. If we only knew half of what goes on behind the scenes of production.

Of course we are all familiar with the Nike sweatshop scandals in the 90s...(if you are not, here's a brief education), but what about our iconic, American Coca-Cola?
Killercoke.com is a campaign to stop the murders, torture, and kidnappings of union leaders dealing with the day-to-day strife and struggles at Coke bottling plants in Colombia. In July 2001, the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of the union. Coca-Cola bottlers “contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces that utilize extreme violence and murdered, tortured, unlawfully detained or otherwise silenced trade union leaders,” the lawsuit states. It also notes that Colombian troops connected with the paramilitaries have trained at the U.S. Army’s School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Ga., where trainees were encouraged to torture and murder those who do “union organizing and recruiting;” pass out “propaganda in favor of workers;” and “sympathize with demonstrators or strikes” (killercoke.org). The same year the lawsuit was filed, Coke made $4 billion and paid its CEO $105 million, yet,Coke continued to ignore the atrocities happening so close to home.
The Colombian bottlers demand: 1) Coke must acknowledge the facts.
2)Public statements denouncing Anti-Union Violence. 3)Coke must agree to support a Human Rights Committee in which workers can discuss issues at the bottling plant. 4) Coke must appoint the proper authority to investigate links between Colombian management and remove such links. 5) Coke must address anti-Union impact of violence. 6)Compensation for victims. (check out more at studentsagainstsweatshops.org).

Unfortunately, this is only one of many cases claimed against Coke, another claim belonging to India: Drinking water in the vicinity of the Coke plant has been drained and the water that the natives dig deeper in order to sustain their health tastes weird (a.k.a-Coke's WASTE draining into the drinking water).

This is why active, trendsetting, politically active, and worldly NYU has become the 12th university nationally to have banned Coke on campus in 2004, (at least in the fountain drinks). Ultimately, we need to realize, as in this case, the realities of our product's conception (how things are being produced and the producer). Otherwise, we can end up having unjust situations as such!

The iPad: The Holy Grail of Media Convergence

Recently Apple introduced its newest piece of technology, the iPad. The iPad combines the already popular formatting of the iTouch, its ability to play music, movies, access and the internet, as well as countless “apps”, with an E-Reader, an electronic interactive reading platform with the ability to download books from an iBook store. As put simply buy an online critic, “it’s like the lovechild of an iTouch, a MacBook, and a Kindle”. Apple it marketing the device as, “The best way to experience the web, email, photos, and video. Hands down.” The full list of features include: safari (Apples internet browser), email (provided by MobileMe, Yahoo! Mail, Gmail, Hotmail, and AOL), photos, (although the device can’t take pictures-yet-you can sync them from your computer, download them from an email, or import them directly from your camera using the optional Camera Connection Kit), video, YouTube, iPod, iTunes, Apple’s famous “App” Store (which runs almost 140,000 applications), iBooks (with the ability to download books directly from the device), Google Maps, Notepad, Calendar, and Contacts. To top it all off its lightweight, portable, and has an LCD touch screen. It really does have it all. The only things it can’t do are make phone calls and take pictures, which its size doesn’t readily lend itself to be able to do quite so easily.

The iPad appears to be the “holy grail” of media convergence. As defined by Sturken and Cartwright in Practices of Looking, convergence is “a term that refers to the increased combination of media together in one access point” (Sturken and Cartwright 352). The iPad surely fits that description and then some. Not only does it provide all the convergence of a computer, but it’s portable, much more portable than a laptop which offers many of the same conveniences, but is a pain in the neck to lug around all day. In addition to its being only 9.7 inches tall, 1.5 pounds and 0.5 inch thin, it has ten hours of battery life. My laptop only has four before I have to rush to an outlet and plug it in.

Apple seems pretty convinced that the iPad is the future of interactive media and after watching this promo video Adobe and Wired magazine I’m pretty convinced myself:

The interactive capabilities of the iPad seem incredible. The ability to reach into a magazine and move around the images has allowed for journalism to no longer be simply two dimensional. Magazines and newspapers can now also include video clips, and links to other sources that can be viewed instantly and all in one sitting. The possibilities seem endless. I have to admit I was a skeptic at first. Why do I need one more piece of technology? But after seeing just how convenient it is I have to say I’ve become an iPad believer!

http://blogs.jmc.ksu.edu/mc580stacy/2010/02/18/the-ipad/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/design/

They are same but different

An interesting thing that we talked in this week was about cultural imperialism. Cultural imperialism is usaully seen as a threat to local culture, in that "the products of first world "invade" the third-world (Wikipeida)." Indeed, Mcdonald's, which is a representative icon of cultural imperialism, has over31,000 locations worldwide.

However, the recipients do not just absorb the first-world products of culture as they are. Mcdonald's are everywhere around the world but they are not exactly the same. For example, Mcdonald's in Korea, there is a 'Bulgogi-burger' that can not be found in the original Mcdonald's. 'Bulgogi' is one of traditional Korean food. Also, in Japanese Mcdonald's, there is a 'Teriyaki-burger', also can not be found in U.S Mcdonald's. Pizza-hut in Korea could gain a success only after they changed their menus to fit to the taste of Korean. And the menus of Domino pizza in Korea and those in U.S are completely different. Only the same thing is its name, 'Domino'.

Bulgogi Burger in Korea
Teriyaki Burger in Japan

Not all products from first-would are successful in other countries. if they do not fit to culture of recipient countries, they also fail. For example, Google, a successful web search engine in U.S that enables people to search various websites, has failed in Korea, becuase the style of Google did not fit in to the culture of Korea. Korean, who want to communicate through the Internet, and are used to asking questions and answers can not be used to Google system, which is unable to interact with other people. That is why 'Naver' (a Korean web search engine. it enables people to interact) has successed while Goole has not.

Google

Naver

Although America has intruded many other countries, injecting its cultures to others, the receving countries has deveopled those products in their own style to fit the taste of their people.

American Cultural Imperialism: Gift or Threat?

Through the mass media, the United States is spreading some universal values and human rights. It spreads ideas of freedom of expression, democracy, equality, and rights - concepts that should be, in some people's opinion, universal. This has done in the name of freedom of the market and freedom of expression. Today, the United States is inevitably intruding into the cultures of other countries of the world. Some believe that the American's spread of culture is beneficial to the world, while others consider this cultural imperialism a threat.
Universality of some values may be possible - human nature is not that different from one culture to another, and many values are shared across cultures. However, the majority of the world's cultures undervalue women and children in practice. American ideals of equality, freedom, and democracy now available in the world may give more freedom to women, children, and to minorities in all cultures, and will promote anti-racist, anti-sexist or anti-authoritarian messages and regimes.
But the American cultural imperialism can be seen as a threat to other cultures. We should not forget that the differences in cultures make the world a rich and diverse place. Every individual of each country should have the right to express his or her own culture. A cultural uniformity would lead to the extinction of cultures and it would definitely represent a great loss.
However, the American culture is intruding on most cultures in the world, in many cases threatening their existence. For example, Superman, Spider-man, and Batman replace local heroes; Pepsi and Coke replace local fruit drinks. Today, the spread of American culture goes through every communication medium: huge percent of the information available on the Internet is in English, and CNN is seen in 120 countries. Obviously, there is already a process of cultural uniformity going on, and this can be seen as a great loss.

Cultural Imperialism

The most interesting topic we talked about this week was cultural imperialism.
Cultural imperialism is one culture, especially Western culture, erodes the other cultures and values. America or Western countries are seen to dominate the world capitalism and their popular culture; Hollywood, the English language, and companies that include Nike and MacDonald are some examples that show western cultural imperialism over the world (http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Cultural_Imperialism_-_The_Internet)
For example, in the global music industry, the majority of music is sung in English -mostly by American artists. If one becomes a star in America, the one can be a star all over the world.
Cultural imperialism has been people's concern, but now the trends are mixed: in the course of westernization, many countries also fight with it to protect their own local cultures.

MacDonald are scattered all over the world. Because of this, so-called, American fast food, people's eating habits must have been changed in many cultures. However, each culture has its own local menu to meet the interests of the local people. For example, in the class, we already know that the MacDonald in Korea has Bulgogi burger. Similarly, MacDonald in Japan has Teriyaki burger and a green tea shake and also there is a rival company called MOS burger, which has the fast food with a little higher quality than MacDonald and has more kinds of burgers that Japanese might prefer. And in India, they have the Maharaja Mac, a Big Mac made of lamb or chicken instead of beef, because the Hindu people do not eat beef.
MacDonald represents American cultural imperialism over the world, but many countries do not simply accept the American culture. They devise some ways to keep their own local culture and meet the local interest.
MOS Burger

As to the movie industries, the United States has played a dominant role in the phenomenon of
cultural imperialism. Hollywood movies are seen throughout the world.
But we have to remember that it is not only one way street. Many other countries contribute to the movies in the global marketplace; especially these days, Hollywood is more open to foreign countries and they remake other countries' films.
As far as I know, there are many American remakes of Japanese horror movies: The Ring (2003), The Grudge (2004), Dark Water (2005), SILENT HILL (2006), One Missed Call (2008). And there are also remakes of Japanese movies from other genres: Shall We Dance? (2004), Eight Below (2006).




Now many other cultures are increasingly producing their own cultural and media products that succeed both domestically and on the global market. The cultural imperialism is not simply Westernization or Americanization today. The phenomenon is more complicated and mixed than might be apparent at first sight. Local cultures are resistant to the wave of Western culture and also Western industries now develop the strategies to cope with the local cultures, not merely threatening them.

TV: The Great Communicator?

One topic I thought was interesting after this week's readings was the idea of there being no message without the media, from the Sturken and Cartwright reading. It's interesting to think about how social ideals changed and evolved throughout history, especially during times where there were no methods of mass media like newspapers or television or even the internet. I think it definitely coincides with the idea of technological determinism. Clearly societal standards have evolved over time, just as technology has, and the technology has served as somewhat as a catalyst in spreading the ideas of change.

Currently, I think TV has been a key influence is spreading messages; especially in terms of social standards. HBO and Showtime in particular have incorporated many controversial issues into main themes of their shows. Shows like Big Love and The L Word revolve around polygamy and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people, which have for a long time have been controversial and not discussed publicly.

But, what makes the shows even more interesting is that they are aired on networks like Showtime and HBO, networks that do not have commercials and viewers have to pay to watch. These networks do not have to worry nearly as much as getting money from advertising, and I think that plays a huge role in the content of the shows they air. Because, clearly there are people that are interested in watching the shows, but regular networks cannot afford to air them in case they lose viewers and advertising money.

But nevertheless even these once controversial issues are becoming more prevalent with regular networks, even though it might be at a much slower rate. TV continues to spread the messages of changing social values, even if some channels communicate it faster than others.

Moore is SO the new Marx.

Michael Moore recently released his new documentary: Capitalism a Love Story

What's interesting to me is how much this, and the rest of his documentaries, focus on Marx's idea of "commodity fetishism." It seems that in the past decade, liberal documentary directors have attempted to make audience members aware of our ongoing fetish. Documentaries talking about Walmart, Nike, and other manufacturing corporations seem to almost GUILT viewers into admitting our lack of awareness about the production of the items we consume. 

However, I have to wonder about the medium of this consumer guilt-trip. Television, film-industry (even in the realm of documentaries) are items of mass consumption. The biased views and interviews (notice that Michael Moore's experts consist of exclusively Democratic representatives) and camera editing (with its lighting darkening the shadows of corporate america, yet the light on the low-class truck driver's face is light and innocent) seem to align directly with the ways Marx believed the bourgeoise would utilize media to brainwash our society. You call it awareness, I call it propaganda set in by a hegemonic-class (film industry, hollywood... I'd call that bourgeoise). 

While I certainly believe it's a good thing to be aware of where I food, clothes, and cars come from (and the people who produce them), I think perhaps the film industry should start with connecting themselves with the under-represented people making the MOVIE ("these camera men don't speak english...") and then move on to matters at hand. It just goes to show that just because one person is a revolutionary, doesn't mean that they don't represent a dominant ideology (right Karl?). 

On a last note: I did like this documentary, and it is enlightening to the attitudes of some citizens of our capitalist society. I recommend it. 

Trapped by the Internet

A court in Milan, Italy, convicted three Google Inc. executives on 2/24/2010 for violating the privacy of an Italian boy with autism. The conviction resulted from a video of the boy being bullied by classmates, which was posted on Google’s website in 2006, and ran for two months without being removed. This is the first case to hold the company’s executives criminally responsible for the content posted on its website. Critics of the ruling compared it to “blaming the mailman for delivering a nasty letter.” Google is appealing the verdict, which sentenced the three executives to a six month suspended jail term in Italy.  A spokesman from the United States Embassy in Rome responded to the verdict by reiterating, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement on February 21^st that “a free internet is an integral human right that must be protected in a free society.”

            This article is pertinent because of our class discussions on censorship in the media. The ruling certainly raises questions about the freedom on which the internet is based. None of the Google employees had direct contact with the video; they did not up load, film or review it.    The Italian decision to hold Google’s executives responsible for photographs or videos made available by people through Google and its online services such as YouTube challenges the premise on which the company is founded as well as those of internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter. Google’s search and advertising business relies on its ability to have access to all of the global internet and on giving its users access to postings. Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owns most of the private media in Italy and indirectly controls the public media, so the internet is regulated more vigorously in Italy than in other European countries. This attempt to control the content of the internet has been criticized as a way to stop competition by the Web to public television stations and Berlusconi’s own private channels.

             I understand the prosecution’s point that the verdict is not about censorship, but about the balance between free enterprise and protection of human dignity; I also understand its contention that  the distasteful video ran for months, was widely viewed, and  generated advertising revenue for the company.   However, Google’s point, that it would be impossible for the company to monitor all the videos on its website, since twenty hours of video are uploaded to the site every hour, makes sense. Also, Google removed the video within hours after receiving a formal complaint from the Italian police. I think the need to protect freedom of the internet, supersedes the posting of the distasteful video. Also, this case did illustrate one positive effect of internet freedom, also pointed out in textbook.  The “enhanced circulation of images, even troubling ones, plays a key role in exposing injustice around the world, even when making and circulation the images can be founded upon that injustice,” (Cartwright and Sturken 259).  As a result of the video, the teenagers who made it were brought to the attention of school authorities and their parents, were disciplined by the school, and sentenced to six months of community service because of the evidence provided by the video.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html

When One Medium Closes, Another Opens

The Beautiful Life: TBL was a television program on the CW network that centered around the lives of young male and female models living in New York City and sharing an apartment. Gitlin says that “there is something of an over sensitivity to a given success; the pendulum seems to swing hard to replicate a winner” (257). So after seeing the successes of shows like The O.C., Gossip Girl, and 90210, the producers of The Beautiful Life probably felt fairly confident that they had a shot at making a successful program, operating under the notion that rich, over-privileged beautiful teens and young adults + big problems + [insert any setting here] + lots of drama= big hit, especially for the 18-34 age bracket, which is the CW’s target audience for most of their programming.

However, the show was cancelled after only two episodes because of low ratings, but six episodes had already been filmed. So producer Aston Kutcher decided to upload the remaining episodes to YouTube, saying that he wanted “this to be the first show ever that gets more viewers on the Web than what it got on terrestrial television” (NYT Blog). This meshes perfectly with what Sturken and Cartwright say about webcasting, that “users may upload content and images to personal websites and to centralized Web forums, and, in some cases, have their images, videos, or blogs viewed by thousands of other viewers” (234). Though the show did not garner more viewers online than on television as Kutcher had hoped, it did come somewhat close, with about 652,000 hits for the pilot episode on YouTube and 1.4 million viewers when it originally aired on television in September 2009. But this exhibits great possibilities for the future of a web series—there is an obvious audience, and with deft advertising for a web show, it would be possible for a show to be very successful on the Internet.

What is also interesting about The Beautiful Life and its transfer from television to “webvision” is how it relates to convergence. Because of convergence it has become very easy to translate media messages from one medium to another. The show, made for television, was instantly compatible to be uploaded and viewed on the Internet, and Kutcher advertised the YouTube airings on his Twitter page, hoping to get his 4 million Twitter fan followers to respond by going to YouTube and “hitting” his links. Now, taking this media transfer even further and seeing true convergence in action, The Beautiful Life uploaded to YouTube can be watched on a smart phone anywhere, anytime. The show is now transferrable to several different media forms. The entertainment industry can now borrow from the spiritual saying that “when God closes a door, he opens a window”; when network executives prematurely pull the stop on a show, the Internet creates an opportunity to put the finished work on display.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/kutchers-beautiful-life-moves-to-youtube/

This Post Has Been Censored by the NCBA*

The government is not the only power capable of censorship. Corporate companies can, too, censor materials that could hurt their reputation in the public eye.

On April 16, 1996, Oprah hosted a debate between Gary Weber of the National Cattleman's Beef Association and Howard Lynman, a vegetarian activist, regarding the production of meat. Lynman put Weber to shame, exposing details of how farmers feed animals to other animals in order to produce more meat and how this practice lends itself to mad cow disease. The audience was shocked, the producers were crying tears of joy at the ratings, and news networks reported on the sensational, ground-breaking program, after which Oprah stated she would, essentially, never eat a cheeseburger again.

The National Cattleman's Beef Association (NCBA) immediately pulled $600,000 in advertising and threatened to take legal action. Oprah, responding to the pressure, invited Connie Grief, an Iowa cattle producer, onto the show, WITHOUT an opposing viewpoint- something that rarely occurs on Oprah's show. Oprah apologized for the sensationalism of the last program (through her teeth,) but the damage had been done. The NCBA filed a lawsuit against Oprah, and, while Oprah won the case after years of tiresome legislation, the incident sparked debate on "product disparagement laws," which had been recently passed through legislation.

To this day, even "alternative" media stays hush-hush on the issues of the food industry. Indeed, Oprah, queen of the network talk-show, barely made it out of the Public Relations debate alive. Such an event shows that censorship is not just done by governments but by large corporations whose success lies in high public opinion of their product.

If you google-image-search "oprah winfrew mad cow," no relevant images will pop up, unlike most Oprah episodes which have a few screenshots available online. While there's a multitude of articles on the subject, the mad cow controversy is still a relatively untouched subject. And, considering the attention span of the public, who has surely forgot the Oprah episode in which audience members cringed at descriptions of cannibalism, as well as the power of the food industry, which can impact ($$) law-making processes, I doubt this subject will emerge again any time soon.

Think twice before munching on that Big Mac.

Apple, Its Applications, and Their Implications

With all of the advanced technology available nowadays, it's no surprise that today we have cell phones that can apparently do anything and everything from reading and sending emails to reminding you where you parked your car. The phones capable of these multitudes of tasks are called "smartphones," with Apple's iPhone being one of the most popular. One of the reasons for the iPhone's popularity is attributed to its App Store, a virtual marketplace where users can download a slew of the nearly 50,000 (free or paid) applications created for use on the iPhone. These applications are self-contained programs that allow users to do well, anything and everything. Need your iPhone to do something? As Apple puts it, "There's an app for that."

One important aspect of Apple's App Store is its application approval process. Before users can download an application from the App Store, Apple must first approve it. This process not only checks for "buggy software, apps that crash too much, use of unauthorized APIs, [and] privacy violation," but it also filters out "inappropriate content for children...and anything that 'degrades the core experience of the iPhone'" (CNET). So not only does the approval process look at the technical specifications of an application, but it also takes into consideration an application's content. Censorship? Maybe.

Apple's approval process came under fire recently last summer. In July 2009, Apple rejected a Google Voice app. Other applications that were created for use with Google Voice were removed from the App Store as well. Apple claims that the reason for the rejection and removals is that these apps replaced certain iPhone functions and features.

Apple recently removed upwards of 5,000 applications with sexually objectionable content from its App Store. The removal of these explicit applications may have been due to the pending release of its latest gadget, the iPad. Apple, whose success with the iPhone is based on these powerful applications, hopes to duplicate such success with the iPad. The tech company also hopes to expand the iPad to a wide range of users, including parents and their tech-savvy children. These parents, aware of and concerned about the kinds of explicit and inappropriate content available online, would greatly value Apple's decision to remove these kinds of applications from its App Store.

Nowadays, Apple is not just a company that makes computer products; it now also provides its customers with actual content. Much like Disney-owned ABC, Apple must maintain a certain set of values regarding the content it provides in order to please its consumers. Though Apple still provides content that may not be suitable for children, movie downloads on iTunes that feature nudity and graphic violence for example, the applications provided on the App Store seem more directly connected to Apple as a company. Much like the advertising agencies of the 1950s that had direct influence over the content of television shows that featured its commercials, Apple wishes to control the content of its applications that are deeply associated with its brand.

Media Censorship: Tienanmen Square

Sturken and Cartwright discuss this iconic image of a young man standing in front of a procession of tanks in Tienanmen Square in 1989 on pages 232-33 in the textbook. The question of censorship in media has been a hot political topic as long as national media have existed. Whether or not we are directly cognizant of it, essentially all media are censored. According to Sturken and Cartwright, "when labor activists, students, and intellectuals joined together to protest government corruption and to call for democracy, the Chinese government blocked media coverage, banning foreign press from the country and tightly controlling coverage by the media of the People's Republic of China" (232). Although we consider censorship by the government to be incompatible to a democratic nation, we often forget that the United States government actively censors material in media--photographs of dead soldiers and child pornography are not seen in American newspapers and television.

Song mentioned in class that an interesting "experiment" would be to search "Tienanmen Square" on American google and Chinese google and compare the search results. After class on Wednesday, I did such a search and the findings were quite interesting:

Each website listed on American google almost consistently refers to the protests of 1989. The iconic image of the young man in front of the tanks is also listed, as well as various news reports about the protests. Words such as "massacre, bloody, killing, mass demonstration" appear under the website descriptions.

Interestingly, the famous photograph previously mentioned is listed under the search results on Chinese google. However, not one of the websites listed mentions the famous protests that took place on the square in 1989. All of the results are websites about the physical features of the square--how it is one of the largest city squares in the world and in important part of Beijing and Chinese culture.

Censorship remains an interesting issue in modern political and social thought. Although China's "communism" is beginning to appear strikingly similar to Western democracy, "media access and information flow within and out of China continues to be controversial" (Sturken and Cartwright 233). If the Chinese can have a burger from McDonald's and enjoy a cup of coffee from Starbucks, why can't they research an important historical event on google? The things governments will do to stay in power.

Photo: http://aroundtheedges.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/and-you-cant-speak-of-tiananmen/

Electronic Babysitter

We hear a lot about parents today using television as a babysitter. However, its hard to determine what the outlasting effects of sitting kids in front of the TV for hour after hour each day does to their development and learning, not to mention what it does to their eyesight. I don’t know about other kids my age, but when I was growing up, I don’t think I watched an obscene amount of television; I know our generation’s “screen time” was significantly less than of children today, because the internet did not become popular until late elementary school.

This article (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-24-kids-media_x.htm ) describes the enormous amount of parents who feel the impact of television on their children. Many of them feel guilty about leaving their kids in front of the television, but as one mother plainly states, “In reality, we think no TV is best, but the truth is sometimes it makes a pretty darn good babysitter when you just have to get something done.” And that mindset is alarming. Media begins to influence children from as early as toddlerhood these days. I can only imagine the repercussions—socially and mentally.

Personally, I think the lack of physical activity (leading to obesity), time in solitude watching television, and the types of obnoxious shows and commercials on TV directly lead to the increase in behavioral problems such as ADHD. Parents may justify their electronic “babysitter” by putting on ‘educational’ programs, such as the Baby Einstein series, but in reality, those videos have not been proven to impact a child’s intellect.

Parents, please step up and get your kids away from the screens—computer and television—and get them moving again. That’s the way to keep them healthy and active. They don’t need to feel the media influence before they’ve learned to talk or been to school.

Teens Spend Every Waking Minute Online

The New York Times published an article about a month ago about teens and media consumption. The title of the article reads "If Your Kids Are Awake, They're Probably Online," and it's serious. It provides amazing statistics to prove that the youth of our country is saturated by media now more than ever before. According to the article, people between the ages of 8 and 18 spend more than 7.5 hours a day using devices such as smart phones, computers, and television. That 7.5 hours doesn't include the hour and a half teens spend texting daily. What's more shocking is that when you factor in multitasking, such as surfing the net while listening to music, teens pack in a staggering 11 hours of media content into 7.5 hours.

A similar study was conducted back in 2005, and the authors of the study said back then that media consumption could not possibly grow anymore. There simply aren't enough hours in the day. And yet, consumption did grow, aided by devices such as the iPhone that did not exist in 2005 but that have caused a fundamental change in how people consume media, as now they can watch YouTube videos while walking to work or update their Facebook and twitter accounts while stuck in traffic.

There has been a debate ever since the internet exploded about whether all this media consumption was good or bad for society, whether listening to music all the time is making teens more anti social and dependent on technology for just about everything. Dr. Michael Rich, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital Boston and who directs the Center on Media and Child Health, believes we should stop focusing on whether the ubiquitous use of media is good or bad and accept it "as a part of children's environment, 'like the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat.'"

These statistics are shocking to me. Even though I am probably part of this group of teens who consumes an astonishing amount of media in a day, I am still amazed that this is possible. The first things I do in the morning and the last things I do at night are check my twitter and Facebook accounts, check my email, look at the weather, and maybe check my texts. Ever since I got an iPhone last summer I have become addicted and used to consuming media and checking everything at least a dozen times a day, and when I go a day without these things, I feel detached from the world. I also send a ton of texts. Among the four people in my family, I send and receive about 55-60% of all the texts that appear on the monthly bill every month for all four of us (in the last billing cycle my text count was around 3,000 for the month for an average of about 100 texts a day).

For my generation who don't remember life without the internet, these things are perfectly acceptable, normal aspects of life. My parents can't understand why I have to text someone 50 times a day when I could just call them, and I don't understand why they have to call me to tell me something that they could've articulated with a quick text. This disconnect represents a fundamental shift in the way people communicate, and this generational rift is likely to only increase as more and more people grow up in the world of the internet, texting, and smart phones. The long term social and cultural implications of this digital information revolution remain to be seen, though it appears as though they will be profound.

the article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html

Get 'Em Young

There's a billboard on Sixth Avenue and West 4th Street for Gap Kids that reads, "It Starts with Good Jeans." The advertisement plays off of a parents' desire to provide the best for his or her child(ren.) The wide majority of products marketed to parents for children under 3 stress the notion of buying a product not for some narcissistic consumerism but for the baby's well-being. The parent's responsibility towards the child is probed; the advertisement asks, "Don't you want your child to be well-dressed? Healthy? Happy? A functional adult, later in life?"

In this Michelin ad, buying tires is not about your car or your travels, but about the helpless child that is in the car - the child that YOU, the parent, are responsible for. Here, the precious baby, sitting only in a diaper to stress his innocence, looks into the camera, as if asking for protection.

This coke ad is actually fake, though you wouldn't know it by the typicality of the techniques it uses. On one hand, it stresses the link between the child's health and cola drinking. On the other hand, it romanticizes the relationship between the mother and child, suggesting that a mother's bond to her child may grow through the purchase and use of the product.

This Johnson & Johnson ad, however, IS real, and displays a happy baby with no soap in her eyes. Again, both the child's experience in the shower/bath, as well as the parent who has to wash them, is commented on. Not only will the child will enjoy the non-irritating chemicals, so will the parent - as his or her job in cleaning the baby will be easier and more pleasant.

Fashionista

Iconic figures in advertisements play a significant role in appealing consumers. Most figures in a high level of advertisements are popular celebrities who are loved, respected, and iconized. On fashion advertisements, many beautiful and sexy icon figures such as Miranda Kerr, Lindsay Lohan, Victoria Beckam, and etc are shown. They have perfect appearances including not only visages but also bodies. As they have perfect body lines, they can make clothes look worthier, prettier, and more attractive.


A Korean singer, actress, and model, In-young Seo has been received incredible popularity from people especially who are interested in fashion. Her sense of style is so remarkable that all fashionable leaders applaud her and follow her styles. Other celebrities have also known for great fashion styles, but why is Ms. Seo the center of attention? The reason is that she insists on having her own way: a craving for only brand-new products. Even before brand-new products are being sold, she always owns them and makes herself luxurious.
The fashionista Ms. Seo, thus, is shown lots of various fashion advertisements as she is recognized as one of the best fashion leaders. She appears in Instyle Magazine in Emporio Armani Undersear. As she has a perfect appearance, visual and body, she absorbs those brand products very well. She looks very sexy and appealing to consumers. Not only Emporio Armani underwears but also her short cut hair style started to boom. Many women started to have their hair like Ms. Seo’s in order to be sexier. Therefore, figures in advertisements lead the fashion society to be broader and assimilate others to follow them, which is a way for both advertisement companies and those celebrities to succeed.

What's the real message?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gheSjQccc6w

This Bud Light Commercial begins with a group of females sitting down for what appears to be an attempt at an intellectual book discussion. As one of the book club member's husband leaves the house, he realizes that there is a strategically placed group of Bud Lights on the hors'devours table. He rejects his original plans of watching "the game" and sits down promptly between two of the females. As they try to explain the plot of the book,(two women who are thrust together by war..) he manages to hear "two women thrusting," while getting his Bud Light and sitting back on the couch. The women are trying to engage him in what they are saying and he clearly writes them off by saying "awesome...good times. I love book club! I'd love to hear you read some words!" The women look astonished as he sits back. The scene finishes with a lady asking a man if he liked "Little Women" (the book) and he replied ignorantly, "yeah, I'm not too picky, you know?"

What the hell is this about?! After having missed a majority of the Superbowl and catching the last quarter, I was really angered by the message of this ad. The connotation: belitting of females, thus, making them appear inferior.
The denotation: What they really want us to get from this somehow is HOW INCREDIBLY BRO BUD LIGHT IS! HOOAH!

The fact that Bud light thought this was a clever advertisement puzzles me. Not only did they present women as merely talking heads, but they managed to make the beer-bros look incredibly stupid.
I hope this was your intention, Bud Light. Good work.

Gap.com Ad

The Gap is generally seen as a store for everyone in the sense that everyone shops there. People from all different races and ethnicities shop at the Gap. Its clothes are affordable but not dirt cheap, somewhere between Macy's and Armani. Like all companies that advertise (which is to say all companies), the Gap's campaigns are not always perfectly diverse and representative of America's overall makeup. Nevertheless, they aren't as bad as some other ad campaigns.

The current front page ad on gap.com is one of the more diverse one's I've seen. It features five people, four women and one man, standing beside each other. The woman on the far right is nearly out of the frame for some reason I can't figure out. The woman on the far left is white and blonde, while the other two women on either side of the man are black with black hair. The man is white with dirty blonde hair. All three women's hair is blowing in the wind, and the man's shirt is half unbuttoned, presumably to show off his chest in a sort of pseudo shirtless fashion. The man and the woman to his right are holding hands. All in all, it seems as though Gap had diversity in mind when it made this ad. Two out of three of the women are not white (this is if you don't count the fourth woman on the right, though if you only glance at the ad you don't notice her). The general feel of the ad is that if you're a man and wear gap jeans, you'll get all sorts of women lining up to be with you.

While this ad definitely deserves criticism, I think it also deserves praise. We've seen countless examples of mainstream companies only featuring white people in their ad campaigns, and Gap is no exception. However, it appears here as though they are trying to inject some racial diversity into their ads, even though the ad is still sexist and racist in that it only portrays blacks and whites.

The ad can be found at www.gap.com

Dolce and Gabbana, Fendi and MADONNA??

No stranger to endorsing products, Madonna has recently teamed up with the Italian fashion label, Dolce and Gabbana, as the new face of the luxury label's Spring 2010 collection. The Queen of Pop needs no introduction to explain her iconic status around the world. I first saw the Dolce and Gabanna ad in the January edition of Vogue and I was struck by the image. The four page, black and white ad features Madonna in two positions. Firstly: sitting on a counter, eating spaghetti with her hands:

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2009/12/17/sneak-peek-madonnas-dolce-gabbana-ad-campaign/

and secondly: washing dishes with an array of dirty pots and pans decorating the background:

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2009/12/17/sneak-peek-madonnas-dolce-gabbana-ad-campaign/

Madonna is not the only iconic image displayed above. Her actions and the photos' backgrounds bring to mind the iconic image of a housewife. Not only a housewife, but that of a traditional, perhaps rustic, Italian household. This can be determined from the connotations the different props in the scene have. The lace curtains, fresh produce, wooden cabinets, and Madonna's cross necklace all connote the idea of a traditional household. This idea of a rustic home with the woman of the house running things is often romanticized in movies dating back to the 1950's. In fact, the inspiration for this ad campaign was the Italian actress Anna Magnani in the 1951 Luchin Visconti film Bellissima.

Anna Magnani was an icon in her time, and her character in Bellissima is recreated here by an icon of today. However, Madonna's iconic status is dependent on sex appeal and the celebrity lifestyle rather than the image of a housewife. These iconic traits are the connotations which come along with the name "Madonna." The blend of these two connoted images (housewife=traditional/attainable, Madonna=celebrity/idealized), is where the myth of Dolce and Gabanna fashion arises. The ad is saying that one can be high fashion and idolized without walking the red carpet. Dolce and Gabanna can be worn to make everyone, even stay-at-home housewives feel like an icon.

EVA status

I have been seeing this ad campaign since my time here at NYU. I saw them in this order actually. Using semiotics one does not only see Eva Mendez oiled up, oozing sex appeal, but instead you see the 1% of women who naturally look like that. Men instead think that it is possible to find a girl as sexy as Eva, especially if they are wearing Calvin Klein. In turn, women then have the idea the their curves can compare to hers if they put on a pair of Calvin Klein jeans or underwear. Men can also fantasize that they are the man, wearing those Calvins, with Eva wrapped around their back. Oh and did I mention all of these imaginings include being completely oiled up? That is natural, of course.

Calvin Klein is trying to say that by buying their line you are sexy, topless, and very close to being naked at all times. They are also saying that you are just like Eva, or at least you can be if you wear their line. This message is the signified with the signifiers of underwear, and, well, nudity. You can be famous, sexy, and every man's fantasy. Any man can have Eva if he wears the excellent fitting jeans that Calvin Klein offers. Overall, Calvin Klein is selling sex and it is good to think critically into the semiotics of the campaign so as not to lose self-confidence when you cannot have her curves or the jeans do not fit just right.

Mercedes-Benz vs. Hyundai

In class, we discussed the different aspects advertisements of various level of clothing brands.
They represent in different, specific way because consumers they are targeting are different depends on their economic status.
Obviously, the expensive brands seems more exclusive and make a person who wears feel special unlike other brands like Tommy Hilfiger looks more casual and open.
There are similar trends on car commercials: Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai.Mercedes-Benz is knows as very expensive car while Hyundai is more economic and popular. Therefore, they target different consumers according to their economic status.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-tHKRRJvPA&feature=related
The first advertisement of Mercedes Benz is about a blonde joke, set in the local library. A woman greets a librarian and proceeds to order French fries, a burger and a milkshake. This ad is full of stereotypes -- the loud American dumb blonde and the polite, patient librarian woman with curly hair. And the intelligent engineers behind the German Mercedes. "Beauty is is nothing without brains." The second advertisement is about interviews of prominent, rich owners:Diana Rudman, Keith Barksdale, John Brigandi, Ken Austin, Dr. Tom Haveron, Todd Morici, Ban Gasby. Also, it says "unlike any car" as it specializing the car. The third ad describe the car is "avantgarde" and "elegance". The music in the commercials are relatively quite and classic. With these examples, Mercedes Benz aims people who is rich, intelligent, upperclass.


Unlike the commercials of the Mercedes Benz, the first ad of Hyundai seems more casual and happy. The scene that young babies drive car implies anyone can drive the car easily even young people. Also, the scene two people together in the car makes the ad more casual. The music is more playful and enjoyable than Mercedes Benz. The second ad shows how Hyundai car has "reasonable price" and "amazing warranty." This shows the car is economic. The quote that "that's what everyone wants" means how anyone can buy the car without economic pressure and popular it is. Therefore, the people Hyundai targeting are middle class and ordinary who consider price, warranty, and efficiency more than design, brand, and performance.

Everything is under "control"

Recently, I was in a friend's dorm room and noticed this poster on the wall. I had seen it before, but after talking about media semiotics in class on Wednesday, I viewed it in a much different light. After some light research, I learned that this advertisement was British propaganda during World War II. A sense of panic and worry undoubtedly surrounded the citizens of England during this time.

Jonathan Bignell writes that "every political view, even if it does not acknowledge the fact, is a representation of an existing state of affairs which implies that changes of certain kind, with a certain purpose, should be made" (25). We have also learned that advertisements almost always reflect the view of the Bourgeois, or those who are in power--be it political or socioeconomic power. This ad certainly reflects the views of the British government: Just keep thinking that everything will be alright and it will; In other words, "Don't worry, be happy." The apt placement of the British crown works to convey several different messages. This ad conveys a certain sense of British-ness, from the classic yellow color against the crisp white text to the auspicious location of the British crown at the top of the ad. The message in the ad, "Keep Calm and Carry On" was meant to give the British a sense of comfort--that the British crown would protect its citizens indefinitely. "Don't worry about it, it's all under control."

Bignell also argues that "the existing state of society...is most effective and convenient to maintain it by eliminating oppositional and alternative ways of thinking. The way that this is done is by making the current system of beliefs about society, the 'dominant ideology,' seem natural, common-sense and self-evident" (26). This propaganda advertisement definitely allows the average British citizen to think that maintaining calmness makes the most sense and is the most "self-evident" reaction. Carry on, British citizens...carry on.

Photo: http://www.swiss-miss.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/05/kcmg.jpg

Quote: Jonathan Bignell, "Media Semiotics." Pages 25-26.

enjoy decoding ads

Bignell says "ads often seem more concerned with amusing us, setting a puzzle for us to work our, or demonstrating their own sophistication ......[encouraging] us to participate by decoding their linguistic and visual signs and to enjoy this decoding activity" (33).

Ads do not really say you "should" buy this or you "should" buy that. It makes us decode the massage via the ads that the advertisers want to communicate, using cultural ideology we have.


This ad does not say anything about the product. The image of the products is clearly shown only in the very end of ad for a moment and the ad does not even indicate what is good about this product nor what is the benefit for us, consumers, to buy it. But somehow it attracts consumers; this is because the consumers read and decode the message on the visual image.



The ad is from Japanese mobile phone company called softbank. Even though they do not sell their mobile phones internationally, which means that the target audience is Japanese, the image the audience see is far away from Japanese culture. The company depicts Western or American high-class party using Cameron Diaz, a famous Hollywood star. What can we decode from these images?

First of all, by portraying western images, I think the company gives their mobile phone the image of more cutting-edge, sophisticated, privileged, urban life-style compared to the rival companies using Japanese-like images on their ads. The image of foreignness for Japanese might also show them that even though the products are not supposed to be used internationally, they are for those who are internationally-minded people and live in the metropolis like Tokyo.
Moreover, using a Hollywood star in the ad, that also sends the audience a message that the mobile phone is a part of luxurious life. And also, the company might also target women by casting Cameron Diaz, a typical figure of a beautiful woman, that is, a Caucasian with blond hair, blue eyes, nice body, as they sell the image of their products because many Japanese women choose their mobile phones depending on the look and brand-image and how the products would make them look. Communicating this recognisable sign of absolute western beauty and maybe cuteness of how she acts, the company might cut a prominent figure among other companies in terms of telling their brand image to the women.

Now almost all people have mobile phones. In Japan the mobile phone market is quite competitive, and for consumers buying a new model of the mobile phone costs a lot (around $500 or $600). For the companies it might be important to enable the consumers to decode their ads and to buy into the connotations while making them enjoy the process of decoding.