Obama Conspiracy Theory

I am so sick and tired of all the media play that Trump's accusations about President Obama receive.  His theories, it seem, get a lot of attention in terms of content, while not a lot of attention is paid to where his accusations actually come from, nor how he backs them up.  Frankly, the media has been paying more attention to the silliness behind the birth certificate conspiracy theory than any other issue facing our society; the biggest news was the issue of Obama's birth certificate.

Like Obama, I find it frustrating that in a time of so many serious and bigger issues, the validity of his birth certificate is all American media talks about.

I think it's really unfortunate that Obama had to succumb to pressure from both Trump and the media in releasing his birth certificate.  Even more unfortunate is now that Obama's birth certificate has been released, Trump needed to come up with a new conspiracy theory concerning the validity of Obama's education.

Come on Trump.  Isn't it time to move on?

Celeb Twitter Feuds

In Ted Casablanca's section of the E! online website he always gets down to "the awful truth".  A recent story by Ted, "Are Celeb Twitter Feuds the New Trending Topics?" (it can be read here) struck me as pretty interesting.  Ted suggests that in an effort to gain new followers and keep their own names in the press, celebs start twitter feuds between themselves and another high profile individual.  Interestingly enough, I kind of think Ted's right.  It seems the celebrities who do steep low enough to have a Twitter feud are those who need a new reason to be in the spotlight, or those who we would expect immature behavior from.

The Last "Boys Club"

I found Corielle's part of today's presentation extremely interesting.  Her research behind the idea that the comedy genre is incredibly dominated by the male gender opened my eyes to something I'd never really paid attention to before.  Perhaps it's because I'm not generally a comedy watcher, but I had never truly realized the predominance of men in the comedy sphere.

I found it truly intriguing (and pretty ludicrous) that suggestions have been made that women never learn to develop a sense of humor in the same way men do.  The belief is that women don't need humor as a tool in the same way as men; women don't need humor to attract men or function in social scenarios.  I don't necessarily think this is a fair point. I may not be very funny, but I don't believe it's a result of not needing humor to function in social scenarios.  I believe women don't develop as strong of a sense of humor as men because of traditional gender roles.  However, it does seem the emergence of women comedians is occurring at a faster pace with our generation.  I would argue we are a generation of social change.

An argument that has been made through time indicates women don't understand life is quite possibly a joke to begin with.  Even though it's a presumptuous argument, Corielle explained it is highly backed up.  Again, I don't believe this is a fair suggestion.

I can absolutely see how women are excluded from comedy because it is aggressive, and humor itself is an exertion of dominance.  Through time, women have struggled to attain a role of dominance in any facet of media.  The woman is time and again represented as the subordinate, sexual being.  There are very few women with power roles who aren't in a position where an emphasis is placed to "look good" and attract all the while.

I really enjoy when I'm presented with information that is new to me, and I think Corielle's research behind male dominance in the comedy sphere was really pretty fascinating.

Our Changing World

For some reason, I found myself lacking inspiration for today's post.  I felt as though I had exhausted all of my topics concerning media and was pretty frustrated in coming up with an idea.  Desperate for an idea, I did what all Gen. Y does when they're in need of an idea or information: I searched the internet.  I went straight to Google, and after some failed search attempts, I came across a video that Dr. Bob has actually shown me in a class before this.  The YouTube video, entitled "Did You Know 3.0?" essentially explains our changing world and outlines how our changing world is fueling the growth of social media.

The video speaks for itself, so I encourage you to watch it.  I really can't present the facts any better than they do.

Isn't it interesting that in looking for inspiration on media I sought media tools themselves? The best part is that the inspiration I found came from one of the most popular media websites available, YouTube.

It truly is a changing world.

An Interesting Experiment

I'm writing a final paper for another class (not media related) which required me to perform an interesting and ultimately insightful experiment.  The experiment required that I watch three hours of media and explore the types of messages the media suggests to adolescents about sexuality and sexual relationships.  Then, I was required to contemplate how these messages might influence adolescents in their development of sexual identities.  In conducting my own research, I was sure I would discover a commonality between the types of messages the media transmits and how adolescents develop their sexual identities.  Although I did come across commonalities, I was surprised at some of the messages the media transmits. 

When it came time to gain experience and collect my own research, I chose to analyze television shows as the specific forms of media.  I wanted to have a basis to compare the media on, so I chose to watch episodes of varying genres: two episodes of the drama, House and two episodes of the reality show, The Jersey Shore.

House is a program whose central character, Dr. Gregory House, is a sarcastic and complex medical genius.  Dr. House, along with his team of physicians whom he shows little respect, solves a variety of medical mysteries.  I chose to watch House because Dr. House displays numerous crude characteristics.  I believed any sexual references he made would be sexist and crass; I was interested to explore the types of messages he potentially transmitted.    The Jersey Shore is a reality program whose central characters are a group of rowdy and perhaps, irresponsible young adults.  The cast is not shy about their sexuality or sexual endeavors.  I chose this show because it was a “reality” program.  Therefore, it sparked an interest in terms of what the media offers audience members as the deemed social reality or cultural norm.  Based on my findings (and from what we've learned in SSP 327), I can argue with conviction that the media exposes its audience to numerous messages about sex and sexuality.  Instances of sexual behavior and verbal discussions about sexuality and sexual relationships surfaced in numbers.  What struck me as most interesting however, was that the genre of the show didn't make too profound a difference in requisite to the amount of sexuality expressed.    Also interesting to me, was the difference in the amount of sexuality expressed in terms of gender.  Although both males and females were open in their discussions about sex, it seemed the males really came across as sexually aggressive and suggestive in both of the shows I watched. In the past, media focused a lot on the woman who is time and again "swept away" by the idea of sex.  Now, it seems media is much more focused on the sexually aggressive male who, no matter how crass he acts, ends up with a woman in his bed at night.    I was also quite interested in the media's inability to take sex out of literally any aspect of life.  All of the episodes of House take place in their workplace, but sex emerges over and over again.  If television really is playing the role of a super peer in terms of sex education, media sex warrants considerable concern.  I urge you to run this sort of experiment yourself while you watch television.  I bet you'll come across some pretty surprising and interesting sexual messages in the media, and I wonder if you too will think media sex warrants considerable concern.

Obsessed with the Royal Wedding

The fuss surrounding the upcoming wedding between Kate Middleton and Prince William is pretty outstanding.  The American media, it seems, is obsessed with the royal wedding and has been for quite some time.  For weeks we have been hearing about Kate's dress, her ring, the carriage they'll show up in and more.

Even more interesting is the commercial goods that have emerged as a result of the fuss behind the wedding.  Dunkin Donuts, for example, has a commemorative doughnut available between April 24 and 29 in honor of the pair.  GM is offering a Kate and Will refrigerator, complete with a photo of the couple on the doors of the refrigerator.  Pez candy company has created dispensers that look like the couple.  Papa John's is auctioning off a portrait pizza of the couple.  And, my particular favorite is the "Knit your own Royal Wedding Kit" that is being sold in craft stores all over the country.  Knit your own royal wedding?!---"Stitch together an entire royal party" is the catch phrase.  I actually laughed.  Is this so you can act the wedding out in your home with toys while you watch the live coverage of the affair?

I've spent a lot of time wondering what makes American media so obsessed with the royal wedding.  It doesn't affect us much, yet I'd assume we're more interested than the British media.  My guess is that because Kate is a 'normal' girl and not a celebrity people feel she is somewhat relatable.  If Kate gets her fairy tale, we believe that we too can get ours.  Are there perhaps other reasons we're so interested in the royal wedding?

The 'Created Celebrity' @ New Heights

All aspects of media are increasingly dependent on created rather than established celebrities.  Networks like Bravo, E! and MTV wouldn't exist without their 'Real Housewives', Kardashians or 'Jersey Shore' stars respectively.

It really does seem that the popularity of the created celebrity is at new heights, and I don't anticipate it stopping anytime soon.  These new stars lack the talents that traditionally lead to super-stardom, but their fame is undeniable.  The Kardashians, for instance have created an entire empire for themselves.  Their mom and manager, Kris Jenner, refers to their achieved fame as, "their brand".  Bravo's network, in particular, can't get enough of the 'created celebrity'.  Their newest addition to the network, Rosie Pope, is a woman who created celebrity for herself when she dubbed herself maternity concierge.  Talk about a nontraditional way of achieving celebrity;  Rosie caters to the rich, pregnant divas of NYC and has become a celebrity for it. (And yes, I'll admit -- I watch her show)

Being that I'm so interested in both media and celebrity, I've spent a lot of time considering why I believe people are so fascinated with the 'created celebrity'.  I've come up with several hypotheses, but the one that seems to be most plausible welcomes the fact that created celebrity gives 'regular' people, such as ourselves, the notion that we, too can achieve celebrity.

Strangely enough, it seems there is a desirable quality associated with achieving superstardom for things that don't necessarily make an individual worthy of super-stardom.

The Real Men Campaign

Chapter 8 of our text focuses a lot on PBS (public service broadcasting), so when I came across a highly controversial recent PSA (public service announcement) I was excited to introduce it in this post.

The purpose of PBS is to broadcast content intended to inform the public.  Similarly, a PSA intends to raise awareness of a public issue, affect attitudes and potentially spur action through means of an advertisement.

Husband and wife Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, celebrities we are very familiar with, are behind the Real Men Campaign.  The Real Men Campaign aims to engage the public, specifically men, with the isue of child sex trafficking.  Kutcher explained the campaign as follows...

"We came up with the concept of the 'Real Men Don't Buy Girls' campaign, which aims to engage poeple, specifically men, in the issue. To do so, we filmed short, funny videos about things 'Real Men' do, starring high-profile influential men and women. The concept of the campaign is that real men do a lot of silly, even foolish things. But one thing they don't do is buy children for sex. That's not funny, and real men don't do it."

Celebrities such as Justin Timberlake, Sean Penn and Kutcher are some of the "real men".  Kutcher and Moore chose to use a humor appeal because they thought it would help to get people talking more about the issue at hand.

Despite their good intentions, Kutcher and Moore have received intensely negative feedback from media consumers all over the country.  It seems people are disgusted with their efforts to make such a serious issue humorous. Many critics argue that they would have liked to see some hard facts in the PSA to show the cold, hard truth about sex trafficking. Also, many argue that these celebrities don't truly represent a "real man".

Personally, I don't mind the ads.  I think Kutcher and Moore are doing amazing things for this cause.  Although I don't entirely get the humor, it did make me think and further prompted me to talk about it in my post here.  (Isn't that ultimately the point?)

I do believe an enlightened society comes from individual freedom of behavior and expression, so I'm glad to see Moore and Kutcher using their fame to promote a terrible issue that faces society today.  Whether or not the commercial did so appropriately (you decide), it did increase my knowledge about the topic.  What are your thoughts?  Do Kutcher and Moore 'dumb down' the campaign with their humorous PSAs?

Harry Potter Fanfiction

I wanted to share a bit from my fan paper here to introduce this post...

With the release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in 1997, the world became bewitched by the tale of a young orphan, Harry who struggles to overcome adversity in his life as a wizard.  "Poterrmania" (the madness behind Harry Potter) quickly ensued, and "Potterheads" (extreme versions of the Harry Potter fan) couldn't get enough of all things Harry Potter.

Although author J.K. Rowling intended the books to be for children between the ages of nine and twelve, Potterheads of all ages in fact developed.  Older fans, specifically can testify to the fact that their desire to pretend never really vanishes.  Fans of all ages, however, took pleasure of the ability of the novel to place them in a magical, enchanting world.

When we think of crazy fans a lot of the time we think of the screaming Beiber fans, or the fainting Beatles fans (thank you, Morgan)  We often forget about the amazing, and incredibly artistic production of activities that comes with being a fan.  In the Get a Life article the author said, "Media fandom constitutes as well its own distinctive Art World..." 

I like this quote because it emphasizes the outstanding creation that comes with being an inspired fan. Potterheads, for example, discovered numerous methods to demonstrate their attachment to the novels.  Most significant of all production of activities is the Harry Potter fan fiction.  Fan fiction are stories written and distributed by fans, and Harry Potter fan fiction is the MOST searched of all fan fiction on the web.  It impressively surpasses the fan fiction in the Star Trek fandom (take that Trekkies!)

Harry Potter fan fiction is, for lack of a better world, overwhelming.  I did a Google search on it myself, only to find that the very first website I clicked on had 68,000 instances of fan fiction alone.  The stories are within all sorts of genres such as romance, drama, horror, humor, mystery, even "slash" fiction which features homosexuality between the characters. 

I'm simply so impressed by the fan who is inspired by what he/she adores that I wanted to talk about it.

Agenda Setting Perhaps?

I came across these magazine covers and it reminded me of the time we were shown the covers of OJ Simpson in class.  Both Newsweek and TIME had the same image of Simpson, but TIME portrayed him as much darker.  Similarly, both of these covers have the EXACT same image of Beyonce, yet they look entirely different.  Glamour magazine has chosen to represent Beyonce as a much darker version of herself.  It could also be argued, however, that Joy magazine chose to represent Beyonce as a much whiter version of herself. (see above picture to compare)

Back when we spoke about OJ Simpson's covers, we determined that it seemed TIME had a specific agenda in making OJ seem darker.  This thought carried over and made wonder if either of these companies had a specific agenda in altering their images of Beyonce.

I did a little research and came across an interesting article indicating that a Glamour magazine editor had made public apologies for racist remarks the same year the cover came out.  I wonder if this darkening of Beyonce was Glamour's attempt to regain control of their "celebrating the beauty of all women" image.

Interestingly enough, this has happened to Beyonce once before.  L'Oreal created a campaign where they lightened her skin too much, but they denied any wrongdoing and defended their relationship with Ms. Knowles.  

My question here is whether or not you think these magazines had specific agendas in their photoshopping, and if so, what versions of the 'story' are they trying to tell?

Adolescent Sexuality and the Media

A lot of our in-class discussions have been central to sexuality and the media, so when I came across an article from another class regarding a similar topic I was interested to see what it had to say.  The article, which came from Strasburger's book Adolescents and the Media: Medical and Psychological Impact, argues that in the absence of widespread, effective sex education (both at home or in schools), television and other media have become the leading source of sex education in the U.S.

Strasburger says, "American media are the most sexually suggestive and irresponsible in the world."  That said, does media sex warrant concern?

Similar to that of violence, the rates of sexual activity in young people have increased dramatically in the past two decades.  This paradox, in my opinion, comes from the amount of sexuality (just like violence) they are exposed to.  Numerous studies have proven the violence hypothesis, but barely any studies have been done to prove the paradox when it comes to sexuality.  

This question has been raised over and over again:  Does the media influence public opinion, or does public opinion influence the media?  In this instance, I may argue that television influences viewer's perceptions of social behavior and social reality.  Without much reflection, I'll argue, teengaers pick up directions from their social environment.  Strasburger says, "Television may offer teenagers 'scripts' for sexual behavior that they might not be able to observe anywhere else."

My question to everyone else then is, does media sex warrant considerable concern?  Do you think it plays a role in influencing teenage behavior, or do you think the media is influenced by public opinion in this instance?

The Public Sphere

Haberamas' concept of the Public Sphere essentially emphasized a belief in rational communication.  He hoped the Public Sphere would create a place in which ideas, values and events could be discussed.

A blending of the state and society was fundamental to Haberamas' concept.  He believed that public ideas should drive the market and public policies.  In other words, Haberamas hoped market and public policies would be motivated by ideas from the people, as opposed to the other way around.  

Over time, arguments have been made that Capitalism has blurred the lines of the Public Sphere; media is framed in a specific, commercially driven way.  Others argue that a Public Sphere never really existed in the first place; media never really represented public opinion, or presented information in as unbiased a way as possible.

Based on the reasons given for the decline of the Public Sphere, I'd have to argue that a Public Sphere existed at one time, and Capitalism has ultimately blurred its lines.

With the introduction of the internet, it can be argued that there is hope for the Public Sphere.  The internet has the ability to provide the interactivity that the Public Sphere has been missing.  However, it's incredibly fascinating to consider whether the internet will bring back the public sphere, or if it's just another way for powerful industries to control us.  When considering my opinion on this matter, I kind of flip-flop in how I feel.  I think the internet can go both ways in today's society and I'm interested to see the route it ultimately takes.

Currently, I feel as though the internet provides more of the interactivity that the public sphere has been missing.   It is an outlet for us to communicate ideas against media conglomerates.  However, there is always the chance that powerful industries can control us through it.  Consider the latest YouTube rumor.  YouTube became popular for allowing pretty much anyone to publish content to its site.  They provided that outlet for anyone to communicate their ideas.  Recently, rumors have spread that YouTube may be encouraging less of the average Joe's created content and instead, more celebrity created content.  YouTube is willing to pay up to $5million dollars for certain celebrities to create YouTube channels. 

Although many think this is a smart move for the site, I think it shows just how quickly a powerful industry can control us.  Instead of opening more space for our communication, it's creating space for content that is commercially driven.  We have seen this over and over again in the media, and I wonder when powerful industries will stop worrying about programming that makes them a profit, and instead maintain outlets for us to communicate our ideas.