Big Mac Attack!- Culture Jamming
Culture Jamming is a tool or tactic used by activists to disrupt the mainstream corporations or cultural institutions. AdBusters a a 32,000 member strong online culture jamming website promotes culture jamming through creative and appealing advertisements.
This example of culture jamming was taken from the adbusters.com website which is a global network of culture jammers and creative activists who believe in working to change the flow of information, the way corporations wield its power and the way meaning is produced and understood in society. Now lets break down this advertisement. Its clear that there is someone being operated on in an operating room. clear enough? now looking too the right of the image a monitor showing the patients vitals can be see and in the middle of that vital reading is the Famous Mc Donalds Golden Arch, with the words Big Mac Attack at the bottom. With simple common sense and media literacy, my understanding of this straight forward example of culture jamming would be that the patient suffered a heart attack due to eating a Big Mac, one of Mc Donalds popular sandwiches. WIth that being said that can be translated into the fact that Mc Donalds is very unhealthy. But why would someone want to disrupt such a mainstream fast food corporation? Its pretty simple actually. I believe it is because Mc Donald' is the #1 fast food chain that causes health problems. I cant nor should anyone blame Mc Donalds solely for such unfortunate outcomes but we should also blame ourselves. We are the ones actually getting up and purchasing their food. was there a leash or a gun pointed to your head when you went to the front counter and asked for a #5 with a large coke? I don't think so. But, when you also think about it, with mc Donalds competitive prices and "great tasting food" why not? I probably wont die of a heat attack now. Wrong. Its a gradual Process that takes time. Remember the movie supersize me?
So i do commend these activists or culture jammers on a job well done of trying to educated society on the truth of what really lies behind these types of corporations. But on a brighter note, Mc Donalds is making their food much healthier. Or at least thats what their well paid PR agents are making people like me and you think. *Rolls Eyes*
Work Cited
"About Adbusters." Adbusters. 19 Nov 2009. https://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters. Web.
Time Warner- Media Hegemonies / Mapping Who Owns What
I've come across the word hegemony once in my life prior to entering my mass communications class. I really didn't know what it meant and never really bothered to look into its true meaning. now i've come face to face with this new 'hybrid' term 'Media Hegemony' in class and i'm now forced to write a blog post about. When breaking down the term, i've come to realize that the term hegemony is basically defined as "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others"[1] and the term 'Media From my research being defined as, the various ways or means of communicating information or things. so in a sense, media hegemony is basically influential or predominant cross media ownership. You'd be amazed when you realize what media hegemonies actually own. Owning production houses, cable networks, print publications, online content, retail chains as well as pieces of the music and film industry, Time Warner Co. is one of the top leading media hegemonies in the world.
HBO Cinemax CNN CNN International CNN en Espanol CNN Headline News Time Warner Inc. - Film & TV Production/Distribution [2] Warner Bros. Warner Bros. Studios Warner Bros. Television (production) The WB Television Network Time Warner Inc. - Magazines [2] Time In Style Southern Living AT HOME Southern Accents Cooking Light Cottage Living Fortune Online Services CompuServe Interactive Services AOL Instant Messenger ADTECH Advertising.com Time Warner - Merchandise/Retail [2] Warner Bros. Consumer Products Theme Parks [2] Warner Brothers Recreation Enterprises (owns/operates international theme parks) Time Warner Inc. - Turner Entertainment [2] Entertainment Networks TBS Superstation Turner Network Television (TNT) Turner South Cartoon Network
Time Warner Owns:
Time Warner - Cable [2]
These is less than 50% of what Time Warner Owns. To Find out what else they own visit http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=timewarner.
Some people wonder why big leaders in the media industry own other media corporations. I simply believe this is because the more you own in the media the more you can control it. Essentially media hegemony is the predominant influence over another or others. With that being said if a media corporation such as Time Warner owns hundred of media chains and outlets, they can make these consumers of such forms to hear, see, think and or believe pretty much what they want them to simply because they have a grater influence over them.
Work cited
[1]"Hegemony". Wordnik. 22 November 2009. http://www.wordnik.com/words/hegemony. Web.
[2]"Time Warner Company". Columbia Journalism Review. 22 November 2009. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=timewarner. Web.
Net Neutrality
To summarize the term, net neutrality or network neutrality is basically the idea of preventing ISPs (internet service providers) from deciding which websites a user can access [1]. I believe that ISPs should not have a say in what users are able to view over the internet, for the simple fact that they are paying for it. Also, if the forbidden content contains information that they really do not want us to view it should not be on the World Wide Web to begin with or there should be stronger measures of keeping such information safe and protected. Something that we need to keep in mind is that if net neutrality were not existent, ISPs would force users to choose one web service over another. For example, users of the MSN Internet service will only be able to use the MSN search engine instead of Google, while users of Comcast can only use the yahoo search engine instead of the MSN search engine. While there are positives of Net Neutrality there will always be some negative aspect. "Charging different rates for different sites can be compared to cable television, and this makes sense to a lot of internet providers who also provide cable and phone services. [2]" Therefore consumers are paying more in order to get more right? So why is it that ISPs aren't giving them what they paid for? Its only ethical.
If net neutrality were to become non-existent, there would be individuals who would understand the emotions and outrage of ISP customers and would create a whole new system to prevent ISP’s from limiting. Their new system would allow these deprived users the full access of the Internet that they once had with no boundaries and no limits. Wherever there is a demand (unlimited access to the internet), there will be someone or something to fill that demand (a whole new ISP that does not limit internet access and searching but may cost a little more money).
In reality, net neutrality has been an ongoing problem for many countries since the existence of the Internet, especially Canada. In Canada, this issue sparks up some major concern due to the fact that our major ISPs have willingly admitted to censored information through their ISP, controlling and traffic shaping. The principles of net neutrality go beyond those of what users can access and view on the Internet. It also involves receiving what you purchased from your ISPs. For example, I’ve purchased roger's Extreme Internet service costing me roughly $60 a month giving me 10Mbps. At times when I access the Internet it seems much slower than the speed that was advertised so I took it upon myself to check my actual speed online. My findings were that my Internet speed appeared to be much slower than what I’ve purchased. Also, recently ISPs put a limit on how much Gb of information you can view, use and access a month (Net neutrality). It is pretty clear now that the term net neutrality is being pushed aside slowly. The issue of controlling or throttling comes into play when an ISP purposely slows down the speed of user's Internet connections. In this case Bell has already admitted to doing so. Censoring and throttling our online content simply takes money out of our pockets and places it into the pockets of others.
Theory/Praxis- Media Literacy
When I first heard the term media literacy, I automatically knew what it meant. To me it seemed self-explanatory; the understanding of media. Like most people of my generation, I grew up in front of the television not knowing the true meaning and or understanding of the type of media I was being exposed to. Now, I cannot say the same. I do have somewhat of an understanding of what I’m being exposed to and I can comprehend what the community of the media is trying to convey through various mediums. Now I am able to ask pertinent questions about what is in front of me and what is actually not there. In other words, I can question things that I view to be reality and things that I view to be an illusion. Media literacy has become a tool to help me scrutinize various types of means and while doing so I have finally come to realize its true purpose.
A good example of something in the media that I have a better understanding of would be commercials for sponsoring children in third world countries. Although I see them as good causes, there is something uneasy about these organizations producing commercials showing the everyday lives and hardship of these poor children (little children working, talking about how their care takers are on their death beds and the children will have no one to take care of them). While flicking through channels you may come across one of these commercials and stop and watch to be "more informed" and initially that is their goal. But what most viewers do not know is that they are showing these particular clips to get you to pick up the phone and donate. They try and touch you on an emotional level so that you feel like emotions of guilt, and realize that you take the things you have in your life for granted and then finally pick up the phone and call. I refer to those viewers as being media illiterate because they do not understand the transfer of emotions that had just occurred.
Work Cited
[1]http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/teachers/media_literacy/what_is_media_literacy.cfm
MADD- Activist Project
MADD or mother(s) against drunk driving founded 1980, is an activist group which assists victims who were involved in crimes by people who were under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving or to give families of victims the aid and support needed. They also help to increase public awareness of the problem with drinking and drugged driving.
I was first introduced to this activist project when i was in elementary school. A commercial was broadcasted on TV of a first person perspective drunk drive and a bunch of wine glasses being placed on the dashboard until the screen got blurrier, until he got into a car accident. This is sometimes the reality of what happens behind the wheel of a drunk or drugged driver. MADD took the initiative to make these real life situations publicly aware to the world, basically to express that this the reality of what drunk driving actions cause and that it should stop.
I personally have not been involved with with this activist group directly with the organization, but i live in a society of drunk and drugged drivers, and i do have friends and family who do drive as well. SO in a sense, i do have some political engagement to this cause because i'm a surrounded by it and will be a driver soon. I also had a uncle who was killed in ca car crash due to drunk driving about 11 years ago and its clearly something that i haven't forgotten. Drunk and drugged drving is a very serious issue within our society, and someone needs to put a stop to it. Although this serious cause probably will not stop, MADD has taken the initiative to confort, aide, assist and console the victims, families and friends of such atrocities.
Work Cited
http://www.madd.org/About-us/About-us/Mission-Statement.aspx
Fake News
“Is this ‘fake’ news?” is a common question one may ask when it comes to the authenticity and accuracy of a news story. The term ‘fake news’ has become associated with governments’ and corporation’s pre-packaged news that has been released as news outlets. A majority of these corporations and governments release these pre-packaged news pieces through something called VNR's (visual news releases) [1]. VNR’s are essentially designed to look like an authentic news report. Through the VNR’s, people are more willing to believe that what is being displayed is truthful because it is portrayed as ‘news’. As a result, the government and corporations are finding new innovative ways to make their commercials and advertisements more news-like in order for them to be viewed as something that they may often not be; something truthful, something called news.
I personally do not think that corporately funded news is positive for our society. In essence, it seems that if you have money you have the ability to make society think, see or believe what you want them to. This means that money can be the cause or allowance of the transfer of misleading information in the media. With the booming public relations industry, dreams are becoming realities. "The fact that corporations and governments feel compelled to spend billions of dollars every year manipulating the public is a perverse tribute to human nature and our own moral values. The public relations industry has stolen our dreams, and returned them to us packaged as illusions. It must be our duty to dream more deeply, and to participate in the process of transforming those dreams into reality [2]."News should focus on the main idea of a story and abstain from all unnecessary corporate influences within them. Therefore the truth is that where ever there is money, there will always be false or ‘fake’ news.
A couple of days ago, I watched a movie called "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". The movie was about a high profile lawyer, named Hunter who had an amazing record of putting criminals behind bars and was a shoo-in for governor in an upcoming election. But when an investigative journalist, C.J., who was known for one of his award winning news reports, begins to investigate this lawyer he comes to realize that he is tampering with evidence to secure his convictions. C.J essentially frames himself as a murder suspect to catch Martin in the act, and he does this with the help of his girlfriend causing a ‘mistrial’. But what C.J’s girlfriend later on comes to discover is that C.J hired the murdered victim from the previous case to act in his new report and later on actually murdered her because she was threatening to expose him.
It is evident that the government and corporations are implicating fake news into our world, but in relation to the film, we can see that this is happening with journalists as well. They only do this primarily for self benefit and profit. They effectively exhibit this ‘news’ to touch viewers on an emotional level and once that is accomplished, then you pretty much have the viewers in ‘the palm of your hand’. On that note, I would like all readers to keep this in mind: "Only a select few are aware that most of what's in a newspaper is either fact-plus-fiction or truth-minus-fact, which evens out to be just about the same thing.-Chuck Klosterman
Work Cited
[1] "Fake News".
[2]Klosterman, Chuck. "Sex, Drugs, And Cocoa Puffs" New York, NY: Scribner, 2003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
