In class we talked about the five essential ingredients of our propaganda model which I thought was very interesting to learn about. I think that Rog did a really good job of explaining each one in a way that we could relate to what he was talking about. The first essential that we learned about was size, wealth, and concentration of the media ownership. Rog explained to us that this is when one company owns many others; therefore they give out the same information. We talked about this in class and how for example Abercrombie, and Hollister are both owned by the same person but we still think something say from Abercrombie is better then Hollister when really they are all the same thing made by the same person, just with different labels on them.
The second essential that we discussed in class was, advertising as a primary income source. Rog explained to our class that this is how the audience is targeted. For example, back at home by my house there is a billboard sign that is written upside down. The advertiser obviously does this to target his audience being interested to find out why the heck everything’s upside down, and what it says.
The third essential that we discussed in class was the reliance of media on institutional info sources. No matter what there seems to always be some sort of subconscious that we think that the media is telling the truth and is not biased. We trust everything that the news tells us and that is how our society is shaped.
The fourth essential that Rog discussed with us is flak, something that I thought was very interesting… Flak is simply what is being feed to the pubic, it is a way to be outside the norm and thus get more attention. For example, about two years ago Brittany spears buzzed her head and went bald. I think that the reason why she did this is because she knew she would get more attention and publicity (which she did) and this was simply because she did something “outside the norm”.
The last essential of propaganda is anti-communism (now anit-terrorism?) as a control mechanism. We label communists/terrorist as evil. This is when companies will push to have something to have conflict with. This is to get more trust from people as well as more viewers and more money, which is always the main goal of media.
As we approach our second exam I can say that I am very confident I will do just fine due to the great discussions that we have in class :0) and I look forward to the next theorists we will learn :0)
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
ESPN, 11/5
As we approach are second exam, we continued our way through more theorists. This week we discussed Jameson and Chomsky. I found Chomsky’s five Essential ingredients of propaganda to be Most interesting. I never realized how much went into propaganda. I had never thought about Reliance of media on institutional information sources like Number 3 states. It seems as if no matter what there is some sort of subconscious that we think that the media is telling the truth and is not biased. We trust the newscasters in some way which shapes society. It never ceases to amaze me at how much the media is influence is shaping society and as we have gotten deeper into cmc 300 I have almost become overwhelmed in noticing the influences of the media and the control they have in the world today and furthermore, it is not always true and always positive. I had never really heard of the term Flak before reading and didn’t really understand it until class on Thursday, it seems that it is simply a way to be outside the norm and thus gets more attention. The one I found most interesting from the propaganda model was however, Anti-communism (now anti-terrorism?) as a control mechanism. Companies will push to have something to have conflict with. It is just another way to get more trust from people and thus more viewers and more money which is the main goal of all media personal in the first place. We are all spectators at the mercy of the media. We just “opine and recline” as Chomsky says. We love to sit back and take all the media and technology in. we love are technology however, it is overwhelming are society to the point that some people now have High tech paranoia. This is the notion that Jameson describes where we are afraid of technology taking over the world. It is evident in many movies and while it is not probable, it is an interesting way to look at our over simulated media filled culture.
Captain Outrageous, 11/5
My favorite part about this week happened today actually in discussing Chomsky's concept "Advertising as a primary source of income", especially when the R.O.G. talked about the coca-cola shirt. It completely justified something my family has joked about for a while when I get really into some store and shop there a lot or promote it...."They should be paying you". Today its meaning became clear, and well a little embarrassing for all of us.
Let me start with Adorno: we don't choose what is given to us in the commodity market. We choose whether or not to accept it, but we don't choose its arrival, we don't choose its normalization and globalization. So let us think about this for a second. A new brand name appears, it spreads, we buy it, we wear it, we advertise it further (making catalogue collages stuff like that) and we don't think a thing of it, really. We allow them to come in to our lives, we advertise relentlessly for them, and yet we are giving them money. I think I can say with confident assurance that if this relationship occurred between people and people not people and corporation, it absolutely, one hundred percent, no way in hell, would fly. At least, not with us postmodernists.
And the catch is, its the stuff we need right? We need to wear clothes and shoes and stuff, but we don't need them all to be embellished with brand names. That's the other thing. There's this new title of job out there called "Brand Ambasador", someone who promotes companies, like when the Redbull girls come on campus. I guess its like a buy one get one free deal: We're invading your environment (not much of a choice) but we'll give you a free redbull, simultaneously causing incentive for you to buy one from us. Its a bit of a Catch 22. Who advertises who, and who really benefits? Sure you're going to have an outrageous energy spike when you drink that can of liquid gummi bears (my personal opinion on the taste) but you are perpetuating their stupid campaign that Rebull Gives You Wings, therefore Redbull sells like crazy and school campuses because people need the energy, therefore perpetuating the idea that you're more tired than you think and sugary caffeine is the answer...in the end Redbull Gives You A Bunch of Bull and You Give Redbull money and power.
I'm lost on my conclusion here, before getting into a rant on Redbull. "Advertising as primary source of income" its absolutely correct, that's all that it takes. Its like Barthes, the tease of the gape. Advertisements are the tease. Then we go buy the product out of curiosity, just like Barthes says a reader might skip ahead to the good stuff. Someone should pay us. Our jobs pay us, but that still leaves us working for someone else.
Where is the control? Where is the top of the ladder? Marx told us that there's the people who make this stuff, create these ideas, and the rest of us accept it. Would I be the only one holding the opinion when I say that we go to college to get degrees, get jobs and be on top in some ideologically constructed point of authority, creating the idea?
Its the Myth of the Self Made Man infecting every possible aspect of our consumer lives. I feel I finally have an answer to that horrid feeling I get mid-semester when I see the sun shining and wonder why I am following the routines of cement walls and class schedules...Wage war on totality people, wage war on the Myth.
This stuff has offically driven me nuts.
Let me start with Adorno: we don't choose what is given to us in the commodity market. We choose whether or not to accept it, but we don't choose its arrival, we don't choose its normalization and globalization. So let us think about this for a second. A new brand name appears, it spreads, we buy it, we wear it, we advertise it further (making catalogue collages stuff like that) and we don't think a thing of it, really. We allow them to come in to our lives, we advertise relentlessly for them, and yet we are giving them money. I think I can say with confident assurance that if this relationship occurred between people and people not people and corporation, it absolutely, one hundred percent, no way in hell, would fly. At least, not with us postmodernists.
And the catch is, its the stuff we need right? We need to wear clothes and shoes and stuff, but we don't need them all to be embellished with brand names. That's the other thing. There's this new title of job out there called "Brand Ambasador", someone who promotes companies, like when the Redbull girls come on campus. I guess its like a buy one get one free deal: We're invading your environment (not much of a choice) but we'll give you a free redbull, simultaneously causing incentive for you to buy one from us. Its a bit of a Catch 22. Who advertises who, and who really benefits? Sure you're going to have an outrageous energy spike when you drink that can of liquid gummi bears (my personal opinion on the taste) but you are perpetuating their stupid campaign that Rebull Gives You Wings, therefore Redbull sells like crazy and school campuses because people need the energy, therefore perpetuating the idea that you're more tired than you think and sugary caffeine is the answer...in the end Redbull Gives You A Bunch of Bull and You Give Redbull money and power.
I'm lost on my conclusion here, before getting into a rant on Redbull. "Advertising as primary source of income" its absolutely correct, that's all that it takes. Its like Barthes, the tease of the gape. Advertisements are the tease. Then we go buy the product out of curiosity, just like Barthes says a reader might skip ahead to the good stuff. Someone should pay us. Our jobs pay us, but that still leaves us working for someone else.
Where is the control? Where is the top of the ladder? Marx told us that there's the people who make this stuff, create these ideas, and the rest of us accept it. Would I be the only one holding the opinion when I say that we go to college to get degrees, get jobs and be on top in some ideologically constructed point of authority, creating the idea?
Its the Myth of the Self Made Man infecting every possible aspect of our consumer lives. I feel I finally have an answer to that horrid feeling I get mid-semester when I see the sun shining and wonder why I am following the routines of cement walls and class schedules...Wage war on totality people, wage war on the Myth.
This stuff has offically driven me nuts.
Elmo, 11/5
Something really interesting that we learned about in class this week was Jameson’s concept of “high tech paranoia”. Thinking about how far technology has come is baffling to me; it seems that technology can do almost anything imaginable these days. However, this is somewhat scary; it seems that at this rate computers and other technology will become smarter than the people inventing them. Movies such as “Terminator” depict situations where technology appears to be taking over, thus creating this so called “paranoia”. People think that situations such as these are imminent because of the fast paced changes technology has been making.
Another theory I found to be enlightening was Chomsky’s “essential ingredients of our propaganda”. The five “ingredients” are, size, wealth, and concentration of media ownership, advertising as a primary income source, reliance of media on institution information sources, flack, and anti-communism as a control mechanism. Thinking about all these steps really helped me to better understand the mass media industry. All of these ingredients explain what the mass media industry does and why. It was very helpful to look at all these aspects in order to better understand Chomsky’s conspiracy driven ideas about media.
Chomsky refers to the mass media industry as the biggest ideological state apparatus. He says that the media tells us how to do everything in our society; it essentially creates our entire culture. I still think that it’s really crazy that while we all know this, we still don’t do anything about it. We just let the media dictate to us what to do and how to act. However, the media does have billions of dollars backing it and spends just as much in order to have this control and pull over society. We all have these conforming ideas and agree about what the media tells us. Until becoming a CMC major I never really questioned this, but now I find myself constantly picking at the media and questioning the things they are telling us.
Another theory I found to be enlightening was Chomsky’s “essential ingredients of our propaganda”. The five “ingredients” are, size, wealth, and concentration of media ownership, advertising as a primary income source, reliance of media on institution information sources, flack, and anti-communism as a control mechanism. Thinking about all these steps really helped me to better understand the mass media industry. All of these ingredients explain what the mass media industry does and why. It was very helpful to look at all these aspects in order to better understand Chomsky’s conspiracy driven ideas about media.
Chomsky refers to the mass media industry as the biggest ideological state apparatus. He says that the media tells us how to do everything in our society; it essentially creates our entire culture. I still think that it’s really crazy that while we all know this, we still don’t do anything about it. We just let the media dictate to us what to do and how to act. However, the media does have billions of dollars backing it and spends just as much in order to have this control and pull over society. We all have these conforming ideas and agree about what the media tells us. Until becoming a CMC major I never really questioned this, but now I find myself constantly picking at the media and questioning the things they are telling us.
BiegieGo, 11/5
This week we discussed theorist Jameson and Chomsky. Even though Jameson was deep and dense he looks at things at ways we don’t really would notice in an everyday setting. One of his quotes that I am inspired by is “the underside of culture is blood, torture, death and horror.” An example that I have been thinking about for a long time now is the movie blood diamond. Within this movie we see famous actor Leonardo Dicaprio. The movie also does a great job of making the connection of how our culture is the underside of the blood torture, death and horror of the problems in the world. Our society just choose to look the other way when things like human killing are for diamonds are taking place within our culture. We never ask ourselves when buying a diamond or two about where they are coming from. Our society has but this ideology on diamonds that they last forever and they are a symbol of true love. By saying this is implying that killing humans in Africa and other parts of the world for diamond will last forever and is also a symbol of true love. I think this is a very good example of where our contemporary society is going and what we are not doing to stop it.
The second theorist we just talked about today is Chomsky. The most important thing Chomsky discusses is the 5 essential ingredients of our propaganda model. The fact that there is even such a model is sad because this just furthers the fact that there is ideology and hierarchies in our world, but the good thing about this is that we are learning about them and not just pushing them aside like everything else in our society. Today we were put into groups and my group talking about the first ingredient which is size, wealth and concentration of media ownership. We discusses how there are a lot of different clothing stories and brands but it all comes back to just a few or even one person in complete power of it all. Some example that the group came up with were: Mac is just a small computer company, there commercials are letting PC make themselves look bad, what is gained from making all different clothing brands…MONEY, and Small amount of people controlling the media and most of the clothing companies. We can connect this with Althusser and his talks about ideologies. I think that there are so many ideologies in our world that we as a society just go along with everyone of them and everything that is avant gard is also being pulled back into the regular culture and becoming main stream.
The second theorist we just talked about today is Chomsky. The most important thing Chomsky discusses is the 5 essential ingredients of our propaganda model. The fact that there is even such a model is sad because this just furthers the fact that there is ideology and hierarchies in our world, but the good thing about this is that we are learning about them and not just pushing them aside like everything else in our society. Today we were put into groups and my group talking about the first ingredient which is size, wealth and concentration of media ownership. We discusses how there are a lot of different clothing stories and brands but it all comes back to just a few or even one person in complete power of it all. Some example that the group came up with were: Mac is just a small computer company, there commercials are letting PC make themselves look bad, what is gained from making all different clothing brands…MONEY, and Small amount of people controlling the media and most of the clothing companies. We can connect this with Althusser and his talks about ideologies. I think that there are so many ideologies in our world that we as a society just go along with everyone of them and everything that is avant gard is also being pulled back into the regular culture and becoming main stream.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Nate Dogg, Herman & Chomsky
Domestic power interests fund my South Park, my Lost, my XL Records, my Batman movies, my Green Bay Packers, and the cans of Yoo-Hoo in my fridge. None of these things that I love so dearly would exist without someone attempting to sell me something. What's more is that the people trying to sell me products are also invested in the military-industrial complex, or support fascist regimes when it serves their purpose. With multinational corporations owning every facet of technological life, it's become very difficult to separate truth from fiction and vice versa. The different filters for propaganda all make perfect sense, and it also makes sense why people would want to manipulate others through the medium of print, radio, television, movies, internet, etc. It is a very profitable business to control what people buy in this country. GE and Westinghouse are not interested in journalistic ethics, they are interested in profit. And why shouldn't they be? We have always been a nation that does what it has to in order to make more money, be it supplying weapons to rebels who will use them to kill innocent people, or making money off of a privatized war economy. Money does not come with a moral compass. It's amazing to me that Herman and Chomsky were able to examine and explain the events of the past 100 years in propaganda and predict accurately what would later happen over the course of the Bush administration. What frustrates me the most about these essays is that while I'm eager to learn more about how government makes it expensive to become a source of news, or how "experts" relay news to us every day despite having no credibility in what they are reporting on, I don't feel that Herman or Chomsky offer any tips on what the hell to do about it. Obviously, the people in charge at General Electric are doing wrong by creating weapons and aggrevating hostile situations in the process, but is anyone really going to do anything about that? Simply knowing what is going on is one thing, but if what Herman and Chomsky say is true, then it's already far too late to change anything. Ethics and Media cannot coexist on a mass level. The wealthy will always sway the balance and their projected agenda will be published. The internet, the first personal publishing tool that has reached the masses, will become like the radio soon with net-neutrality on the horizon. I think we are doomed to be consumed by entertainment, and the more we pay and the less we complain, it's all the more profitable for great media.
Penny Lane- Herman and Chomsky
The article 'A Propaganda Model' asserts that a set of filters controls public perspective- (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and experts funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) 'flak' as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anti-communism" as a national religion and control mechanism. This model reinforces the notion that our government is highly responsible for the knowledge given to the public. This mindset is relevant to the cold war, as it is referred to in the reading as ‘anti-communist’. The fear of this invasion into our American way of life was internalized by the public and reinforced through the media. The red-scare was a highly publicized campaign to expose communism latent within the United States. This initiative pursued by Joseph McCarthy instilled a sense of paranoia, which called into question every American. Media fear tactics created the belief that everyone was a potential enemy. Furthermore, the arms race increased the risk for impending nuclear attack, which could occur at any moment. In recent years, similar methods were used to justify the war in Iraq. The presence of weapons of mass destruction was used as a means to rationalize offensive action after 9/11. Even though Osama Bin Laden was held to be the mastermind behind the September 11th attack, the term terrorist became a pervasive idea throughout American culture after the event. This que was then applied to Saddam Hussein. Without full understanding of our intervention, we correlated 9-11 with the Iraqi War through the influence of the media. Adorn presented the concept: “Hegemony never sees itself as political or ideological.” Dominant institutions are able to uphold hegemonic control because they present propaganda as truth.
Captain Planet, Herman and Chopsky
The past few weeks we’ve been focusing on two main concepts: ideology and ISA. Both of these key concepts highlight the notion that we all act according to a subconscious set of rules; rules which dictate every part of our lives, including religion, education, family, politics, media, and culture. The reading A Propaganda Model by Herman and Chopsky, dealt heavily with the two key terms of ideology and ISA. The article talked in-depth about the advertising industry and the major media giants. Corporate conglomerates are monopolizing on the media market, and creating a hegemonic tier within the media system. “It has longed been noted that the media are tiered, with the top tier – as measured by prestige, resources, and outreach… It is this top tier, along with the government and wire services, that defines the news agenda and supplies much of the national and international news to the lower tiers of the media, and thus for the general public” (260). Like the ruling class within the population, there are dominant media companies within the media system. The top tier companies are those that are the wealthiest and control the most within the greater media system as a whole. These ‘top tier’ companies set the ideologies that the rest of society follow accordingly. The very first sentence in this article is; “The mass media serves as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general population. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” (257). This quote really adds to the earlier quote by stating what the function of the media is, instead of the means of which it controls society. The graphs furthermore, strengthen Herman and Chopsky’s article by showing important statistics like dollar values, the controlling family, and the percentage of voting stock by the controlling group. The ideologies working in the media system are determined by these factors, making society subjective to the dominant hegemonic family in society.
DoubleBubble, Herman & Chomsky
The Propaganda Model is a theory developed by Herman and Chomsky that declares systemic biases in mass media and begins to explain the influence economic causes have on the mass media. There are “filters” which examine the main constituents of this model.
The first is Size, Ownership, & Profit Orientation for the mass media. Information given to the public, according to Herman and Chomsky, will be biased because the mainstream media outlets are either conglomerates or large corporations. Since these organizations go farther than the normal media fields they are changing the information given to the public because of their desire for financial increase. Owners of media will face the greatest bias and censorship because news items hurt the corporate financial area.
The second is The Advertising License to do Business. Funding for newspapers is a huge issue because production for the newspapers is extremely costly. In order to fund and provide for the newspapers, they need advertisers that can provide funds for the paper. Advertisers then place their advertisements in the newspaper and the newspaper is able to cover the cost of production. Without advertisements, the newspaper would have to increase their prices. Newspapers are then placed into a competition throughout media because they want as many advertisers as possible. Newspapers who have more advertisers are at a higher advantage than those who have fewer advertisers.
The third filter is Sourcing Mass-Media News. The media has slowly become dependent on running articles that can hurt the corporations by providing resources that the media relies on. A rise, because of this relationship, occurs in the "moral division of labor", where the facts are given by the officials and them they are simply given off to the reporters. After it is given off to the reporters journalists then attempt to develop an article that is uncritical and also allows for it to accept corporate values.
The fourth is Flak and the Enforcers. The fourth filter is 'flak', described by Herman and Chomsky as 'negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. Responses may be taken in the form of letters, telegrams, calls, petitions and many other modes of complaint or threat.
The fifth and final news filter that Herman and Chomsky identified was 'anti-communism'. In our western society is more well known as the “eveil person”.
I think it is very interesting that Herman & Chomsky take the ideas of the mass media and develop a propaganda model to represent and explain them. Herman and Chomsky provide us with a clear and understandable way to understand the issues within mass media.
The first is Size, Ownership, & Profit Orientation for the mass media. Information given to the public, according to Herman and Chomsky, will be biased because the mainstream media outlets are either conglomerates or large corporations. Since these organizations go farther than the normal media fields they are changing the information given to the public because of their desire for financial increase. Owners of media will face the greatest bias and censorship because news items hurt the corporate financial area.
The second is The Advertising License to do Business. Funding for newspapers is a huge issue because production for the newspapers is extremely costly. In order to fund and provide for the newspapers, they need advertisers that can provide funds for the paper. Advertisers then place their advertisements in the newspaper and the newspaper is able to cover the cost of production. Without advertisements, the newspaper would have to increase their prices. Newspapers are then placed into a competition throughout media because they want as many advertisers as possible. Newspapers who have more advertisers are at a higher advantage than those who have fewer advertisers.
The third filter is Sourcing Mass-Media News. The media has slowly become dependent on running articles that can hurt the corporations by providing resources that the media relies on. A rise, because of this relationship, occurs in the "moral division of labor", where the facts are given by the officials and them they are simply given off to the reporters. After it is given off to the reporters journalists then attempt to develop an article that is uncritical and also allows for it to accept corporate values.
The fourth is Flak and the Enforcers. The fourth filter is 'flak', described by Herman and Chomsky as 'negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. Responses may be taken in the form of letters, telegrams, calls, petitions and many other modes of complaint or threat.
The fifth and final news filter that Herman and Chomsky identified was 'anti-communism'. In our western society is more well known as the “eveil person”.
I think it is very interesting that Herman & Chomsky take the ideas of the mass media and develop a propaganda model to represent and explain them. Herman and Chomsky provide us with a clear and understandable way to understand the issues within mass media.
Serendipity, Herman and Chomsky
In recent classes, we have spent much time discussing ISA's. These work through cultural ideology and not by force. One of the most interesting parts in today's reading I thought, was on propaganda. The modelincludes, “(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and ‘experts’ funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) ‘flak’ as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) ‘anticommunism’ as a national religion and control mechanism” (257-258). This immediately made me think of propaganda as a huge ISA during World War 2. The people were being brainwashed by these images and captions, and the images were one of the ways that the Nazi's kept the country in line. People were not likely to question huge culturally wide assumptions, they would simply remain oblivious and continue to follow the crowd. The ISA's (the propaganda images) were in my opinion, just as much at fault as Hitler himself. They perpetuated his beliefs nationwide and kept the war going much longer than it probably would have.This also made me think of Benjamin's quote "the camera lies". Even though these were widespread images, most of them were not true, but because they were so plentiful and out there, people didnt even think that what they were saying might not be true. Nowadays, we have the saying "not everything you read is true", which hints than once, people did think everything they read was absolutely the truth.
Daisy, Herman and Chomsky
As CMC majors we have been dwelling on the fact that the dominant class has the power in our society, they are the ones that create the ideologies we follow. Herman and Chomsky’s article, “A Propaganda Model,” expands on the fact that “the media serve the ends of a dominant elite” (257). The article goes into detail, talking about the “filters” that the media goes through before it is released into the public. Once the news passes through the filters, it is cleansed of anything that may not fit the description of what the elite want presented. I found this idea of filters to be related to Horkheimer and Adorno when they said, “the whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry” (45). Everything we see in the media has been modified in some form or another.
Reading the article, you realize how difficult it really is to achieve something in the media unless you have a product that a larger company is interested in. Looking at the charts in the Herman and Chomsky article, you realize that major media conglomerates not only have enough money to control the media, but are also made up of powerful directors, specifically individuals who have a background in banking. No wonder the companies like GE are so powerful, they are made up of some of the most powerful people. Even if powerful individuals do not have much knowledge in the company they are directing, their status ups the status of the company.
I found the discussion on client profiling extremely interesting. I always wondered how companies decide about where to put their commercials. Herman and Chomsky said, “the mass media are interested in attracting audiences with buying power, not audiences per se” (268). Not only do the dominant media companies keep smaller and lower groups out, but they also avoid targeting lower class with commercials. This goes along with the idea of sameness, the media is created by the powerful class for the powerful class, because they are the ones who are able to afford to buy the products, this just seems to create a larger aspirational gap. There is no variation in our culture, and this is the hegemonic power; our culture does not run on difference. As Hebdige talked about in his article, “otherness is reduced to sameness” (157). Being different is being the same.
Reading the article, you realize how difficult it really is to achieve something in the media unless you have a product that a larger company is interested in. Looking at the charts in the Herman and Chomsky article, you realize that major media conglomerates not only have enough money to control the media, but are also made up of powerful directors, specifically individuals who have a background in banking. No wonder the companies like GE are so powerful, they are made up of some of the most powerful people. Even if powerful individuals do not have much knowledge in the company they are directing, their status ups the status of the company.
I found the discussion on client profiling extremely interesting. I always wondered how companies decide about where to put their commercials. Herman and Chomsky said, “the mass media are interested in attracting audiences with buying power, not audiences per se” (268). Not only do the dominant media companies keep smaller and lower groups out, but they also avoid targeting lower class with commercials. This goes along with the idea of sameness, the media is created by the powerful class for the powerful class, because they are the ones who are able to afford to buy the products, this just seems to create a larger aspirational gap. There is no variation in our culture, and this is the hegemonic power; our culture does not run on difference. As Hebdige talked about in his article, “otherness is reduced to sameness” (157). Being different is being the same.
HOLLA! Herman & Chomsky
After really going over, analyzing, and understanding ideology more through the last couple of classes, ideology can be seen as a huge factor throughout the Herman & Chomsky reading. As they state in the beginning, “mass media serves as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace” (257). Mass media first of all is a system that reaches the entire populace being an ideological power in itself. The individuals and corporations that have control over mass media are also players in ideology as they completely control the mass media system. It was interesting to read about the 5 filters whose functions are to “narrow the range of news that passes through the gates, and even more sharply limits what can become “big news,” subject to sustained news campaigns” (279). Mass media started off as citizen’s media, a way for individuals (predominantly the working class) to reach out and relate to one another. Ideological powers tapped into, monopolized, and dominated this type of media and as a result we can all see that mass media versus citizens media is easiest to see, hear, and find. I didn’t really know how much the 5 filters played into what actually appears on the news and how they produce it into this form of almost blind propaganda. I personally see mass media as another ideological state apparatus used to keep the worlds citizens under control without us even knowing. For example, news stations in America continue to keep us blinded from the horrors that were and still are going on in the Middle East. If American news were to show us the whole truth and nothing but the truth American’s might begin to have a larger say in what’s going on in the Middle East and this could result to anarchy (maybe not this aggressive, but do you see my point). By major media giants controlling what we see through mass media, they are really blinded us to the truth in order to keep us under control and under the power of the few ideological strong holds that dictate how we should act, live, be, etc. This form of dictatorship I think according to Herman & Chomsky can be seen as propaganda in the mass media system, falsified ideas and beliefs that most American’s do not know the difference between.
Capri Sun, Herman and Chomsky
Throughout reading the Herman and Chomsky article, many of their ideas reminded me of previous theorists we have talked about in class. The article talks about how the media is constructed and who is constructing it. I think the most important part of understanding media and its influence on society is realizing who is controlling it. Because it is only a small minority of wealthy individuals everything the public views is being filtered through their eyes. We assume that the various forms of media, especially the news, are unbiased however this is impossible. Marx talks about how the dominating class is created through money therefore money controls the media. The media provides the mass public with images of what life is supposed to be like and what is “normal.” What the average American does not realize is that what we see on television or listen to on the radio are actually hegemonic ideologies that are produced to advance the people in the ruling class. Last semester, I wrote my CMC200 paper on advertisements and the effect is has on its viewers. After researching I learned that the more an advertisement has to do with ones lifestyle or if it succeeds the image one is looking for the more effective the advertisement has on production sales. This made me realize, that we are living in an on going cycle. People buy what they see on advertisements because of the pre-existing ideologies that Americans believe and trust. So, when a man sees an ad regarding Nike running shoes, where the male in the image looks strong and masculine they will be more likely to buy the shoes because society has told him his whole life that in order to be a man one must be strong. Advertisements sell products because they are selling the images we see in the media. And because the media is controlled by an elite group of people these images are only ideologies not reality. If you turn to someone and ask them if they think advertisements work most likely the person will say no but they also most likely will be wearing Nikes. Benjamin would agree with Herman and Chomsky by explaining that the American public is absent-minded viewers, even when we do not think its effecting us, it actually is and in order to stop this cycle we must start questioning and challenging where our media comes from and what are its motives.
Mongoose, Herman and Chomsky
The article “A Propaganda Model” points out some very eye opening facts about how our media is constructed. I think we all knew that it is just a few rich people that control what we see and hear, but seeing the statistics has to make one think a little more about this. These stats also point out how funny it is that media tries to portray itself as unbiased and fair coverage; Herman and Chomsky point out that media “are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news ‘’objectively’ (258)” even though every one involved would scoff at this notion. This article points out many reasons why the elitists are able to continue to dominate the media market and keep alternative media from becoming any sort of a threat; although there are several reasons listed the one that really stands out to me is money. Those who are in power will continue to rule and continue to have their ideas spread throughout the masses; or as our friend Marx would agree with (not say) those who have the gold, rule. These authors would probably get along quite well with Horkmeier and Adorno who brought up the idea that our culture is infected with ‘sameness’; they were referring to many aspects of media, advertising etc. and this article elaborates on the sameness which they were referring to. Because all of our media corporations are owned by a small handful of individuals we see and hear the same things no matter which national station we chose to watch / listen to; we see the same commercials coast to coast and have the same new stories, with the same spin, on all of the major news channels. This is also a good example of Althusser’s notion of ISA’s; because these media corporations have so much power, and they know it, they are able to control what information is spread to the public and keep us from hearing about certain stories if they so chose. The fact that so many do not realize that the media is an ideological force reinforces his idea that those who are in ideology, do not realize it; media controls the world and so few of us are able to realize it.
ESPN, Herman and Chomsky
In the opening quote from Herman and Chomsky they states, “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse us, entertain, and inform, and inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into institutional structures of the larger society.” The quote is relatively easy to understand. Are society would not be what is it today without the media continuously providing all of our information and entertainment. Furthermore, as discussed before we are essentially at the mercy of the media companies who give us all the mentioned information and entertainment. We know they control what is going but we still watch and listen. It is like what Benjamin says when we stated the public is a viewer, but absent minded ones.” They are the ones who control what we see and hear. Even though we may have different thoughts, we still listen to everything they have to say; we absorb it and rarely question it. Like Althusser says it is unconscious when theses ideologies are working on us but they still work on us and that structures into what is are larger society. Media can control people and for one who hasn’t studied it, it can be dangerous, it has a huge effect on why are society is the way it is today. Before the mention of the important 5 filters, one can see the quote “a propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices.” This quote just goes back to what I have been continuously noticing throughout of all my CMC classes, everything in the media seems to be because of money. It is only about how big companies can get and how much money they can make. It is like we were talking about with Marx, the person or company with the most material items or money rules in society and that is what they all strive for.
Gwatter06, Herman and Chomsky
The excerpt, “A Propaganda Model,” by Herman and Chomsky is a bit different from anything else that we have covered in class. It was very straightforward and fairly comprehendible and provides the reader with a very detailed summary on mass media in which is quite compelling. Right off the bat that authors pretty much say it all, “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages…it is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them in the institutional structures of the larger society” (257). Hebdige would concur this concept of mass media and propaganda to his concept of conformity of culture through ideology. This also directly relates to Horkhemier and Adorno’s notion of “sameness,” in the sense that mass media and propaganda agents in relinquishing cultural indifferences and creating “sameness.” Another interesting concept that the author’s cover in their piece is the concept that, “the mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest” (270). What I believe the are stating here is that mass media consistently produce information on what appeals to the onlooker and what cost the least in the production of the information. The problem with this is that we might not be getting the most important news, or the most reliable new for that matter. This is where propaganda is at its strongest, where it utilizes only beneficial information to their organization to keep the populous in its place while remaining in control. This profoundly relates to Althusser’s concept of Repressive State Apparati, in this sense it is where the administration manipulates the populous through mass media’s propaganda. Lastly, the concept that stood out the most to me was the concept of anti-Communism as a control mechanism. The author’s explain how anti-Communist powers “exercise a profound influence on the mass media” to create a “dichotomized world of Communist and anti-Communist powers, with gains and losses allocated to contesting sides, and rooting for ‘our side’ considered an entirely legitimate news practice” (279). This concept just exemplifies just how potent mass media and ideologies can be when combined nonetheless on their own.
Teets, Herman and Chomsky
Reading Herman and Chomsky confirmed some facts that I already assume/know. Mass media plays a huge role in society today, whether it be social networking, advertising, news, etc. Americans can’t seem to function properly today without a healthy dose of the mass media in their daily routine. The most disturbing feature of mass media is that it is controlled by a handful of people in relation to the United States population. It follows the idea of “He who has the gold rules” (Somebody that wasn’t Marx). Those in control of the mass media therefore control the advertising done by the mass media. Advertising is problematic because it makes small businesses obsolete to an extent. An example would be a small coffee shop getting pushed out by Starbucks. “Mom and Pop” businesses will become extinct due to advertising and the role it plays in media. Corporations will eventually take over everything, leaving limited options of where to consume. Americans subconsciously witness thousands of ads per day, which then causes them to make decisions based on said advertisements. What I’m getting it is people buy into anything that is thrown in their face. Infomercials are an excellent example of this. While a good portion of Americans would argue that infomercials advertise below average products, people continue to order these products based on the amount of advertising. Infomercials have become a huge part of media advertising, especially on television. Americans watch these infomercials and end up trusting the false statements being made by the pitchmen. This blind consumption is what will drive society even further down into the pit of mass media. Unfortunately we are in a downward spiral that does not seem to be reversing any time soon. More and more companies will be gobbled up by conglomerates until they become even more massive. There will be a point of no return, which I would argue has already been passed. Americans will see a decreased level of consumption options in the years to come, almost solely due to the success of mass media advertising.
Captain Outrageous, Herman and Chomsky
I was just surfing through Anchor Man quotes to find something useful to use here after reading Herman saying that media newspeople convince themselves of professionalism and a freedom of choice in the news they report. I noticed however, that nowhere in the quotes, nor in the movie as I remember it, do you often hear the word "report". More often than not the characters say "reading the news". Quite interesting in terms of propaganda.
Quite interesting also in relation to other theorists we have read lately like Adorno and Marx. For the sake of this example at least, news anchors are even left out on the loop when it comes to the production of ideology. Adorno says we don't get to have an opinion on things, how incredibly true when it comes to news and particularly propaganda. I know I have said a million times, "I don't want to hear this crap on the news anymore", but no one listens to me. No one bothers to ask me, either, if when campaigns or advertisements come out that is the way I'd like to be marketed to..."Why, no, AXE, I really do not enjoy your complete and total exploitation of females and as a matter of fact the scent of your products makes me want to peauk not rip my clothes off and voraciously attack the next closest male."
If Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone read the news they are given, told what to report and where, we essentially as media consumers do the same thing. What is being transmitted to us live as breaking news is in the opinion of other people. No, national broadcast television people, I would not like my daily re-runs and pointless television interrupted by yet another car chase. Let me know what happens in the end.
Alas, I suppose in some ways propaganda has caught a bit of the Jameson bug with symptoms of Habermas indeed. Propaganda, news, anything conveyed by the media, is only spectacular until it isn't new anymore and the sensation has subsided. However, this cannot be entirely true since there is still murder and rape on every nightly news programming.
Quite interesting also in relation to other theorists we have read lately like Adorno and Marx. For the sake of this example at least, news anchors are even left out on the loop when it comes to the production of ideology. Adorno says we don't get to have an opinion on things, how incredibly true when it comes to news and particularly propaganda. I know I have said a million times, "I don't want to hear this crap on the news anymore", but no one listens to me. No one bothers to ask me, either, if when campaigns or advertisements come out that is the way I'd like to be marketed to..."Why, no, AXE, I really do not enjoy your complete and total exploitation of females and as a matter of fact the scent of your products makes me want to peauk not rip my clothes off and voraciously attack the next closest male."
If Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone read the news they are given, told what to report and where, we essentially as media consumers do the same thing. What is being transmitted to us live as breaking news is in the opinion of other people. No, national broadcast television people, I would not like my daily re-runs and pointless television interrupted by yet another car chase. Let me know what happens in the end.
Alas, I suppose in some ways propaganda has caught a bit of the Jameson bug with symptoms of Habermas indeed. Propaganda, news, anything conveyed by the media, is only spectacular until it isn't new anymore and the sensation has subsided. However, this cannot be entirely true since there is still murder and rape on every nightly news programming.
FloRida, Herman/Chomsky
Mass media must be able to inform, entertain, and persuade using common beliefs, values, and signs that people will identify with. The way this happens is through a propaganda model. Herman and Chomsky explain a propaganda model that includes, “(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and ‘experts’ funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) ‘flak’ as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) ‘anticommunism’ as a national religion and control mechanism” (257-258). We have been learning a lot about ideology in class lately. According to Althusser, ideologies cause us to play mental games based on the systems we interact with. Ideology is not really real but cause us to do real things. This can specifically relate to dominant media firms that are controlled by wealth and are subject to constraints. Mass media corporations are so overpowering that, “…Twenty nine largest media systems account for over half of the output of newspapers, and most of the sales and audiences in magazines, broadcasting, books, and movies” (259). These twenty nine firms control ideology. Herman and Chomsky states that, “The greater profitability of the media in a deregulated environment has also led to an increase in takeovers and takeover threats, with even giants like CBS and Time, Inc., directly attacked or threatened” (262). Hebdige says that ideology saturates our everyday lives without us even realizing and television is being the main form of communication to the masses. “Many older newspaper-based media companies, fearful of the power of television and its effects on advertising revenue, moved as rapidly as they could into broadcasting and cable TV. Time, Inc., also, made a major diversification move into cable TV, which now accounts for more than half its profits” (265).
BiegieGo, Herman and Chomsky
So I know these are two big quotes, but I thought they were very good quotes that did a lot of self explaining for the topic we are talking about. “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes for behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.” This quote explains how our media is played out in our society and how they are so influential in our contemporary society. For example, we can see this amusement, entertainment and information played out on: TV, the radio, and most all advertisements.
“The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news “filters,” fall under the following headings (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2)advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) “flak” as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism.” Since we are talking propaganda I saw this quote at showing how all of propaganda is played out. These are the “ingredients” for our propaganda. It shows us how it functions in our society and how we can tell if it is really working or not. We can relate this to the question of what is real. Even though our media is entertaining and people enjoy it, however, it also fills our minds with things that we must question the realism of it.
“The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news “filters,” fall under the following headings (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2)advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) “flak” as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism.” Since we are talking propaganda I saw this quote at showing how all of propaganda is played out. These are the “ingredients” for our propaganda. It shows us how it functions in our society and how we can tell if it is really working or not. We can relate this to the question of what is real. Even though our media is entertaining and people enjoy it, however, it also fills our minds with things that we must question the realism of it.
Elmo, Herman & Chomsky
Reading about what Herman and Chomsky said about media made me realize how huge the media industry actually is. Their one and only job is to communicate “messages and symbols to the general populace…to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” (257). But, this job is a huge one; there is so much to make known to the public and so much we as consumers of media expect to be told. In 1986 there were “over 25,000 media entities in all” (259) but I’m sure now there are even more. There are so many places for us to gain information and all these places where we do get the information are competing for our attention. The media needs to catch our attention so that their corporation is the one we turn to when looking for the latest, up-to-date, information. It was shocking for me to read that “for a television network, an audience gain or loss of one percent point in the Nielsen ratings translates into a change in advertising revenue of from $80 to $100 million a year” (268). It is crazy that even one percentage point can yield that much of a financial difference. I had never really thought about how the advertising industry really worked I guess, or how much money actually went into even making one advertisement. Another point that I found interesting in the essay was when Herman and Chomsky said, “the mass media themselves also provide “experts” who regularly echo the official view” (274). This made me think back the Marx and his ideas of ideology, who says that these people reporting the news to us are even “experts” and is this “official view” just what they think people should believe, an ideology perhaps? Overall I think the Herman and Chomsky provide a lot more in depth look at the media than we have been getting with the other theorists; they take more of a numerical and mathematical approach to media which was a nice change.
Kiwi, Herman and Chromsky
“advertisers will want, more generally, to avoid programs with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that interface with the buying mood.” (269) when I read this the first thing that came to mind was, Disney and how they advertise in movies, shops, games etc… they are not trying to have serious complexities but are simply trying to get across the point that Disney is a happy place. They try to create this image in our head of magic to create realism which reminds of versimilitude and how Leyotard says it is used to create realism to dominate our world. I think that this is exactly what is happening and exactly that point that Herman and Chromsky are trying to get across. Going more off of the whole Disney idea I think that also connects to this quote in how he believes that Disneyland presents itself as reality, when really it is not. But again this repetitive nature makes us come to view the magical world as real. Disney masks the reality of what is real. It is presented as a real land that exists but in reality it was man-made to depict “real” land but in fact it is fictional. However it has to depict itself as “real” land in order to function to get people to come and accept it.
What I understand Herman and Chomsky are trying to say is that all advertising is trying to advertise to us in a way that they can get us to buy their specific product and doing it in a way that isn’t to complex. They don’t want us to have to think to much because if we think to much then we may just realize that for instance Jergans soap is just the same as Dove soap? Im not sure if I’m reading this correctly or not but that is what I got from the reading, that advertisers are trying to tell us no this is not just lotion…. This is DOVE lotion.
I will be interested to see tomorrow in class if I was going in the right direction with this or if I was totally wrong :0) Im not sure why I was having a hard time understanding this reading but for some reason I struggled a little bit with it.
What I understand Herman and Chomsky are trying to say is that all advertising is trying to advertise to us in a way that they can get us to buy their specific product and doing it in a way that isn’t to complex. They don’t want us to have to think to much because if we think to much then we may just realize that for instance Jergans soap is just the same as Dove soap? Im not sure if I’m reading this correctly or not but that is what I got from the reading, that advertisers are trying to tell us no this is not just lotion…. This is DOVE lotion.
I will be interested to see tomorrow in class if I was going in the right direction with this or if I was totally wrong :0) Im not sure why I was having a hard time understanding this reading but for some reason I struggled a little bit with it.
Ace Ventura, Herman and Chomsky
Advertising has been a prevalent theme in all of the CMC classes that I have taken so far. I believe that this is because it seems to have the most impact on the public and also the most impact on the mass media corporations. As Herman and Chomsky tell us, a television show, magazine, or newspaper publication definitely benefits from attracting advertisers. And in turn, "the advertiser's choices influence media prosperity and survival" (267). Clearly, advertising is a profitable industry that increases media spending as well. However, what I think needs to be critiqued about advertising is that it purposely excludes certain demographics of people, based mostly on socioeconomic standing. When it comes to television or print publications, advertisers choose the media sources that maintain an audience that are purchasers or have the money to buy. This " Client Audience Profile" to me seems almost the same as stereotyping. It is the advertisers saying "if a person watches this show, they don't have the means to be buying our products and therefore we won't waste our money on advertising during this program." This is similar to Lyotard's idea of the metanarratives because the advertising and media industries are attempting to control how certain people view the world by only allowing certain demographics to have access to their products. While this strategy has seemed to be profitable for the advertising agencies, I think they are missing out opportunities to make products that appeal to these groups of people that they are ignoring. And these people should at least have access to KNOWING about these products and it should be left up to them whether they want to buy them or not.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Ron Burgundy, Herman and Chomsky
For Thursday’s class we are looking at Herman and Chomsky’s piece “A Propaganda Model”. Their work discusses the propaganda model which “focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multi-level effects on mass-media interests and choices” (257). As soon as I began this work I immediately thought of a project I am working on for my other course, The Political Economy of the Media, where I am looking at the media policies behind a foreign country, Italy. The concept of the political economy is extremely comparative to the propaganda model as the political economy of a nation determines their media policy and shapes their propaganda model. In Italy,a single man, Silvio Berlusconi , is the determining factor of the propaganda model as seen in the political economy of the nation. Silvio Berlusconi, the current prime minister of Italy, is the biggest media tycoon of the nation as well as the owner the largest ,monopolistic public media power Mediaset. The single regulator of the Italian media, the Media Regulatory Authority, has a board which is determined by the prime minister of Italy, conveniently being Berlusconi. In this way he is able to shape media policy to fit his best interests both economically speaking and politically speaking. He has been safeguarded by Italian law that he cannot be prosecuted for any violations he may commit because this may interfere with his role as Prime Minister. In all ways he has complete power to exercise complete control over the media industry in Italy and has done so promoting his candidacy and his company at the same time. This type of “monopolistic control over the media” that Berlusconi currently holds is exactly the concerns of Herman and Chomsky as they assess the dangers of such as system where "the media serve the ends of a dominant elite" (257).
Ron Burgundy, 11/3
Today in class, we finished up our discussion on Horkheimer and Adorno and their critique of the current media/culture industry. One particular quote that I found extremely interesting dealt with the merging of advertising with the culture industry. Horkheimer and Adorno write that “advertising and the culture industry are merging technically no less than economically… in both, the same thing appears in countless places”. This quote is referencing product placement that often occurs in television and film, sponsorships by companies of popular artists, as well as the use of celebrities as spokespersons for products. Advertising has become part of the storyline as a character in a television show tries out a new product, or buys a new car, promoting a certain brand through the plot. Advertising becomes part of cultural events such as concerts, and sporting events are sponsored by the companies and therefore are decorated with banners of their logos and stands that hand out free promotions of their products. Celebrities who serve as main influences of popular culture today even merge with advertising as they become spokespersons for different products, receiving significant sums for being seen with a particular brand and that brand only. In this way advertisements become part the event, part of the trends, part of the culture industry that is passively consumed. This concept of the merger between advertising and the culture industry is also discussed with Jenkins as he explains the concept of “media convergence” by which various media forms are used to promote a single product. This in essence is advertising at its best as each type of medium, book, website, film, etc. promotes the last and sells a commodity. It is almost as if the story is no longer an attempt at a piece of art or work but rather a detailed advertisement created to sell a product. In my opinion, the opportunity that large companies have in advertising their products through product placement, sponsorships is extremely dangerous. When large media companies allow this sort of advertising, it is solely because of the profit they are making from the companies advertising their products. This follows the market model for the media which is based upon profit rather than public sphere, therefore not serving the interests of the people. Currently the FCC does not regulate product placement advertising, only the advertising time for commercials. In my opinion this should be something that is addressed for media policy as it may prove to promote programming that is more for public interest rather than the market model. In Italy such policies are in place that regulate advertising within programming so that branded products are not allowed to be seen in shows and when advertisements are shown between shows they have to be addressed as advertisements with pre-claimers. Perhaps this is a policy that we should consider since the line between advertising and programming continues to be blurred.
p.s. I put the link to the article on the defense of the balloon boy on the last post with the name of the author. Its a great article so you should definitely check it out!
p.s. I put the link to the article on the defense of the balloon boy on the last post with the name of the author. Its a great article so you should definitely check it out!
Graham, Herman & Chomsky
I thought that this article was interesting, because I have been studying this a lot since I became a CMC major. Previously I was under the impression that the majority of what we heard in the media was true, because there has to be some law against falseness in the media, right? Wrong. The authors discuss this, and a quote that I think sums it up fairly well is “a propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices.” This has a lot to do with what goes on in society today. In my economics class we are discussing cross-media ownership, and the way that large corporations can easily control the information that is heard and seen by the viewers. This means that oftentimes, the companies with the most money are the ones who control the media and it becomes very narrow. We also discussed this a lot in the CMC100 class that I took last year, because we discussed how corporations can hide information about the fact that their products could possibly be harmful to those who use them. I think that this story relates really well to the ideas of Jameson, and how he discusses that we do not even think twice about the things that we see in media anymore, because we see the advertisements so much that it becomes second nature. To analyze the thousands of advertisements that we view on a daily basis would take far too much time. Maybe this is why we purchase products such as fat-loss supplements based solely on the fact that the commercials say that we are guaranteed to lose weight (with diet, exercise, and the risk of heart attack and stroke) but that is not something that we choose to focus on. We just want the weight loss. The more money that these companies spend on advertisements, and the more companies that they befriend, the chances become smaller that the “truth” will be exposed about what is really going on.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
10/29, Serendipity
One of the quotes by Adorno that we went over in class on Thursday, I felt summarized the “big concept” of the major Critical Media and Cultural studies. This quote was “Amusements always means putting things out of mind, its root is powerlessness”. It made me think of how the media needs to be critically evaluated at every moment, since we otherwise really are just mindless observers. We are simply passive. The quote refers to for when example you laugh at a joke in a sitcom that is racist. You know that it is a bad thing to be racist, but since it is on TV and put in comical context, it is “okay” to laugh and to go along with the norm. But that is exactly what you are doing, going along with the norm and not critically evaluating not only media, but more importantly culture. Media is a reflection of what is going on in culture, and to understand parts of the media is to understand parts of culture too. The other quotes from the rest of the class are also closely related to this concept. The quote “No one has to answer officially what he or she thinks” also portrays this by showing that we do not have to have our own opinions anymore because we are swept into cultural norms simply by immersing ourselves in media culture. If we did not stop to critically think, which many people don’t, especially ones that are not educated by this major, then it would be easy not to have to make up your own opinion and just trust the opinions of those controlling the media. For example, when I used to watch the news I would always get really scared about terrorism and think that it was everywhere. However, since this major, I now see that it is just the culture of fear and that we are endoctrined by the government to be scared so that we will be patriotic and stay in line. This concept is portrayed perfectly by the quote”Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine”. We are so used to being scared of everything, such as in the news, that it becomes the norm (like everything extreme and avant garde eventually becomes normal). To be scared is to be normal, and we do not stop to think where the information comes from and what kind of frames they are put in in order to make us feel a certain way. When reading these quotes, it really hit me why this is my major and I am very glad that I am not a typical American consumer of information. I realized just then how important it is to really challenge everything, because that is the only way to get to the what is the “truth”.
Ace Ventura, 10/29
Since I just realized I wrote my blog on the wrong author, I'll reflect on our class about Adorno and Horkheimer. Much like the theorists that we have read lately, Horkheimer and Adorno talk about ideologies in our society. One particular thing that I found interesting was the fact that fighting these ideologies and attempting to be "different" is almost impossible. This is made evident in the fact that we, as a societal whole, has created "types" of people. People that try to be different we have labeled as "punk" or "hippies" or "emo". By applying a label to these people, we avoid anybody becoming different because they can't escape these ideological categories that we have placed them in to. In this way, it seems that the ruling class is able to stay in power because they can even exert their ideas onto these people that are attempting to break away. This is similar to Benjamin's idea of the "waning of affect". When a person for the first time pushes the ideological envelope and attempts to be different, it can be shocking and definitely draws attention. But once it has been done many times by many different people, it loses its value and can now be put into a category. And this comfortability that we have with reproduction allows us to create a signifier for this type of person so that we can readily identify it.
Captain Planet 11/01/09
In class on Thursday we discussed Adorno, and his ideas on culture. We went over a lot of quotes that are important to Adorno’s concept about our society and the culture we live in. Adorno was writing in the 1940’s. It’s amazing to see what Adorno was talking about during that time period. During the 40’s we were moving towards the idea that if it’s a mass produced brand name than it must hold value. Hotels were starting to create hotel chains and McDonalds was starting to pop up everywhere. All of society placed a mutual importance and favoritism on mass-produced products. The concept of ‘agreement’ within society is seen in the quote, “To be entertained means to be in agreement” (57). This quote means that today is there isn’t any entertainment that is out of the ordinary. All entertainment is the same because we are all in agreement with what we want to watch. This quote relates to Benjamin and his notion of being a mindless viewer. Because we have all become mindless viewers when we are entertained we are in agreement with the dominant culture of television. We, the audience, don’t want to see anything new; we want to see what we’ve already seen before. The dominant culture has determined what shows the audience will like. TV shows like Lost and Survivor are so similar to each other. They are mimics of each other. One is ‘reality TV’ and the other is a series, but both have the same underlying details. The quote makes you wonder, what happens if we aren’t in agreement? Can we still be entertained? Adorno would say no. Mindless entertainment only happens when we agree on what to see. When there isn’t a mutual agreement the entertainment is no longer ‘mindless’ entertainment.
HOLLA! 11/1/09
In class on Thursday we discussed Adorno and his ideas on how culture has become what it is today and almost how it got there. One quotation in particular that sums up Adorno’s idea is, “The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent to power” (47). This idea means that if you want to be in the ruling class its normal for you to have style. It goes back to Marx’s idea of how the individuals with material well-being are the ruling class. So if you have style you are materialistic well off, you are the leader, you are the haves who are producing style for the have-nots to internalize. The world functions on this notion of ideology how the stylish individuals in this world are the ones who really develop our culture. Even though Hebdige might say that subcultures become the new trend in many cases, it is the haves and the stylish who bring it to the forefront. Designers are who bring the “grunge” look into the mainstream for example, these designers are the haves producing this subculture into the new stylish idea that will be internalized by the have nots. This idea is what our culture focuses on and I believe that this is the idea that Adorno was trying to capitalize on. The standardized forms…were originally derived from the needs of the consumers…(42). The consumers, the haves, are who determine what will be the stylish in thing. Adorno also capitalized in his reading on the idea of, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” (41). Everything is the same in our culture, and we want the same things. So the haves produce the style that everyone else buys into, yet we are buying into these same ideas tat have been circulating for forever, this is based on Lyotard’s idea of Bricolage. I think Adorno had a lot of true thing to talk about on culture, and he really summed up how our culture functions as a whole.
Gwatter06, 11/1
This week in class we covered a lot on Hebdige, Hockeheimer and Adorno. With Hebdige we covered his concepts on culture and hegemonic ideologies. It was easily noticeable how much of Hebdige’s concepts relate to other theorists both that we have covered this semester and other’s that I’ve encountered in other areas of critical media. Hebdige defines culture as, “all these tightly wound ideologies that make people act and respond a certain way under the belief that they are under a set of ideologies.” To comment on this, “belief that they are under a set of ideologies,” I full heartedly agree with this statement. I believe that our society and the different cultures that are found within are too susceptible to conforming to base ideologies. These ideologies created by cultures establish this subconscious belief that people are bound to one culture solely through ideologies. Another interesting concept that we covered from Hebdige was the notion that, “subcultures represent ‘noise’ (as opposed to sound): interference in the orderly sequence…” (154). This directly relates to Hebdige’s concept of “deviance” in saying that those who know what the hegemony is but make choices that are deviant or counter-cultural (anti-hegemonic) represent deviance. He explains that these people make those choices to not be ascribed to hegemony. An example of this that we were shown in class was the graffiti artist who chooses not to express his art on the conventional canvas, but to rather express his art on the sides of buildings and trains. I think this deviance found within culture relates to Macherey’s concept of rupture in literature in the sense that it is a change or separation from societal conformity. We also covered some interesting topics from Hockheimer and Adorno, but one of the main concepts that stood out to me was, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” (41). What I believe the authors were explaining with this quote is that conformity is infectious and that cultures are controlled by ideologies in which create this sameness between those who are signified by that culture. All in all, I thought we covered a lot on all of the theorists this week and I was surprised at how much I was able to comprehend and incorporate it to past works.
Nemo 11/1
In class on Tuesday we connected our reading by Dick Hebdige to other theorists such as Althusser, and Barthes. We spent some time analyzing Althusser's quote "the author and the reader...both live...'naturally' in ideology" (46). We said that the ruling class would be the author and the reader would be the majority. When we talked about this quote in class we came up with many different ideas of what it means. One idea was that Althusser was trying to say that ideology has become so normalized that we don't even question it anymore. Another was that maybe the author doesn't now that he or she is even functioning under ideology. We gave the example of how people don't even question a police man, they just do what they are told because they have too.
During class this week we also discussed how culture, myths, ideology, and hegemony are all the same thing just with different terms attached to the meaning. We looked at Barthes' quote "myth is a type of speech". Here we said that Barthes is talking about the same thing as Hebdige but instead of calling it culture he refers to it as myths. We looked at Althusser's idea of hegemony and "social authority" and how it is the dominant ideology in power - which is what Marx describes as the ruling class. We discussed Mythology and normalization. The words deviance and freaks were given as an example of how the 'ruling class' has created these words to describe people and now the majority uses them just because they were told that one of these terms describes a certain myth. We then looked at Hebdige and his idea of recuperation of the subculture, and how subcultural sings become mass produced. The quote that highlighted this point for me the most was "as soon as the original innovations which signify 'subculture' are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become 'frozen'" (156). Here he is saying that strategies are created in order to deal with the other. We said how we trivialize, domesticate, and naturalize in order to reduce otherness to sameness. The class discussions this week were really helpful in making me understand that even though all the theorists are saying things in different ways they are the same thing. That the 'ruling class' has made people become zombies, in a sense that they just do what they are told, they become the same and that there is no room to challenge the authoritative figures.
During class this week we also discussed how culture, myths, ideology, and hegemony are all the same thing just with different terms attached to the meaning. We looked at Barthes' quote "myth is a type of speech". Here we said that Barthes is talking about the same thing as Hebdige but instead of calling it culture he refers to it as myths. We looked at Althusser's idea of hegemony and "social authority" and how it is the dominant ideology in power - which is what Marx describes as the ruling class. We discussed Mythology and normalization. The words deviance and freaks were given as an example of how the 'ruling class' has created these words to describe people and now the majority uses them just because they were told that one of these terms describes a certain myth. We then looked at Hebdige and his idea of recuperation of the subculture, and how subcultural sings become mass produced. The quote that highlighted this point for me the most was "as soon as the original innovations which signify 'subculture' are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become 'frozen'" (156). Here he is saying that strategies are created in order to deal with the other. We said how we trivialize, domesticate, and naturalize in order to reduce otherness to sameness. The class discussions this week were really helpful in making me understand that even though all the theorists are saying things in different ways they are the same thing. That the 'ruling class' has made people become zombies, in a sense that they just do what they are told, they become the same and that there is no room to challenge the authoritative figures.
Bubbles-11/1
In our class discussions this week we focused mainly on ideology, hegemony and culture. We discussed how the media uses ideology to manipulate their audience into believing ideas that are set by the ruling class. I found the Adorno and Horkmeier reading to be very helpful in understanding the medias ways of manipulation. The quotes that we went over in class on Thursday helped me connect a lot of different theories and helped me get a better grasp on ideology and hegemony.
My quote in class stated, “ The concept of genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent power.” Here Adorno is explaining that “style” has become a way of acquiring power. As Hedbige would say style naturally becomes a way to acquire social authority. I find this idea to be extremely prevalent in our culture today, products are not sold any more; style is. For example, Jimmy Choo, and extremely luxurious shoe and handbag brand, whose products are hand made from the finest leather and sell for hundreds and thousands of dollars, recently released a new line at H&M, a fast fashion store, selling “quality and fashion at the best price.” The Jimmy Choo line for H&M is not made with the same materials, or talent that their regular line is made of, so why would H&M collaborate with Jimmy Choo? Because in this culture and our ideology tells us that just the name “Jimmy Choo” means better, luxury, even if they are made out of the same materials and the made by the same hands that the regular line at H&M is made from. This relates to Adorno’s idea that “mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same.” The H&M line and the Jimmy Choo for H&M line are mechanically all the same, yet the products with the Jimmy Choo sticker are sold for more and are viewed as more luxurious. There is sameness between everything that is produced yet the media uses ideology to make us believe that the products are differentiated.
My quote in class stated, “ The concept of genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent power.” Here Adorno is explaining that “style” has become a way of acquiring power. As Hedbige would say style naturally becomes a way to acquire social authority. I find this idea to be extremely prevalent in our culture today, products are not sold any more; style is. For example, Jimmy Choo, and extremely luxurious shoe and handbag brand, whose products are hand made from the finest leather and sell for hundreds and thousands of dollars, recently released a new line at H&M, a fast fashion store, selling “quality and fashion at the best price.” The Jimmy Choo line for H&M is not made with the same materials, or talent that their regular line is made of, so why would H&M collaborate with Jimmy Choo? Because in this culture and our ideology tells us that just the name “Jimmy Choo” means better, luxury, even if they are made out of the same materials and the made by the same hands that the regular line at H&M is made from. This relates to Adorno’s idea that “mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same.” The H&M line and the Jimmy Choo for H&M line are mechanically all the same, yet the products with the Jimmy Choo sticker are sold for more and are viewed as more luxurious. There is sameness between everything that is produced yet the media uses ideology to make us believe that the products are differentiated.
Teets, 11/1
In class this week we covered Hebdige (Tuesday) and Horkheimer and Adorno (Thursday). In discussing Hebdige we looked at the idea of sameness, and how deviant behavior has been redefined as normal. A great example we looked at in class is body art. Body art in our culture 30 years ago is much different than body art today. It is still seen as deviant behavior to an extent, but it is normalized as well. When more and more people deviate from what is normal, their deviation becomes normalized. A loose connection can be made to Horkheimer and Adorno with regards to the trivialization of deviance.
“Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine” (62).
Tragedy and deviance are similar in this comparison because once they become normalized and broadcasted by the media they lose their significance. They become completely trivialized because of mass reproduction through the media. This relates to Barthes notion of Authenticity. When an idea, product, theory, etc, becomes mass reproduced it loses its aura, its authenticity. All types of media trivialize certain aspects of society without intending to. An example of an idea loses its authenticity would be the graffiti artist we talked about in class. His work became famous through the media and he eventually made a lot of money from his works on buildings and trains. His original works, on the sides of trains and buildings, lost its authenticity when it became reproduced in many ways. The aura of the original was lost, as Barthes would say.
The way we covered Horkheimer and Adorno on Thursday was different than normal, but it seemed to get more people engaged in discussion. It was beneficial in that each person or group of persons learned a very specific part of Horkheimer and Adorno’s argument. Switching up the daily routine forced people to be active participants in discussion, which should help people understand Horkheimer and Adorno a little bit better. I think switching up the routine should be done more often. Not too often though, because then it would be trivialized and lose its authenticity.
“Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine” (62).
Tragedy and deviance are similar in this comparison because once they become normalized and broadcasted by the media they lose their significance. They become completely trivialized because of mass reproduction through the media. This relates to Barthes notion of Authenticity. When an idea, product, theory, etc, becomes mass reproduced it loses its aura, its authenticity. All types of media trivialize certain aspects of society without intending to. An example of an idea loses its authenticity would be the graffiti artist we talked about in class. His work became famous through the media and he eventually made a lot of money from his works on buildings and trains. His original works, on the sides of trains and buildings, lost its authenticity when it became reproduced in many ways. The aura of the original was lost, as Barthes would say.
The way we covered Horkheimer and Adorno on Thursday was different than normal, but it seemed to get more people engaged in discussion. It was beneficial in that each person or group of persons learned a very specific part of Horkheimer and Adorno’s argument. Switching up the daily routine forced people to be active participants in discussion, which should help people understand Horkheimer and Adorno a little bit better. I think switching up the routine should be done more often. Not too often though, because then it would be trivialized and lose its authenticity.
Ron Burgundy, 10/29
This week in class we discussed the works of Hebdige and Horkheimer and Adorno. When we looked at Horkheimer and Adorno, we discussed the prominence of the culture industry and how it dominates the way our society lives. The piece discussed how "the whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry", so much so that the reality seen on TV and film looks so similar to that of real life that we just accept it as so. In this way we begin to see the culture in films, etc. as our own and therefore try to mimic it. We become consumed with the consumerism that they portray and want to be a part of the action, in a sense, to live up to the Jones'. After reading this article this week, I came across an article written by a journalist in the New York Times, who frequently writes critiques of the media industry and the culture it develops. The article specifically was discussing the "Balloon Boy" phenomenon and how the actions of the parents of little Falcon were just a product of the desire to be a part of the culture industry. The author writes that, "Richard Heene is the inevitable product of this reigning culture, where “news,” “reality” television and reality itself are hopelessly scrambled and the warp-speed imperatives of cable-Internet competition allow no time for fact checking". This idea reminds me of the critique of Horkheimer and Adorno as the author explains that the media industry is profit driven, that fact-checking and deep journalism no longer reign over the spectacle that can grab big numbers and great ratings. Horkheimer and Adorno support this idea as they explain the structures of the programming that fill our television screens today that are no longer concealed and that show a market model media industry. The article in the New York Times also explains the phenomenon of how we accept the reality seen on TV as the truth without asking any questions as no onlookers "questioned how a balloon could waft buoyantly through the skies for hours with a 6-year-old boy hidden within its contours". According to the author the fact "that so few did is an indication of how practiced we are at suspending disbelief when watching anything labeled news, whether the subject is W.M.D.’s in Iraq or celebrity gossip in Hollywood". This not only supports Horkheimer and Adorno's notion of the "illusion that the world outisde is a seamless extension of the one which has been revealed in cinema" but also Zizek's idea that today's audience enjoys the "spectacle" and that these types of dramatic tragedies are exactly what the people want. So in the end, is it really Falcon's father that America spent two hours watching a hoax played out on national television or is our culture and our media to blame?
Captain Outrageous, 11/1
This week we examined the works of Adorno and Hebdige, discussing the culutre industry and the subculture industry respectively. I found these reading to correspond perfectly. Whether normalizing a subculture or normalizing a higher culutre, the process of mass production normalizes our cultural environments.
Normalization was the concept that most struck my fancy this week in conjunction with the concepts we discussed through Marx last week about those who control material production control mental production, likewise Althusser and ideology. As a capitalistic society, particularly as consumers, we don't often find ourselves being asked our opinion on what we want. As Adorno described, we never give an official opinion on anything and everything we do recieve is based off of our "needs". I don't personally recall telling Starbucks that I needed them to be in every strip mall or telling Apple that I needed ten different kinds of ipods. To break this down analyitically, there's somewhat of a chronological process. Someone (ruling class) makes a decision to create a product (material production), that will be the next big thing that people will want (ideology). Then suddenly Miley Cyrus happens and it happens everywhere. Then different kinds of Miley Cyrus show up (all culture being the same). Now I understand that society either accepts or rejects what is given to them, but we still don't have a say; mostly, because there are enough people who will buy it and the monstrosity continues.
Because of this, I find, is why normalization happens. Between the workings of ideology and media conglomeration, new trends and new culture enter our environment so rapidly and so vastly that its only natural for things to seem natural. And yes it is natural for the markets to change, culture to change, trends to change, but again, these readings showed us that its imperative to remember it is only natural because someone else makes it so.
Normalization was the concept that most struck my fancy this week in conjunction with the concepts we discussed through Marx last week about those who control material production control mental production, likewise Althusser and ideology. As a capitalistic society, particularly as consumers, we don't often find ourselves being asked our opinion on what we want. As Adorno described, we never give an official opinion on anything and everything we do recieve is based off of our "needs". I don't personally recall telling Starbucks that I needed them to be in every strip mall or telling Apple that I needed ten different kinds of ipods. To break this down analyitically, there's somewhat of a chronological process. Someone (ruling class) makes a decision to create a product (material production), that will be the next big thing that people will want (ideology). Then suddenly Miley Cyrus happens and it happens everywhere. Then different kinds of Miley Cyrus show up (all culture being the same). Now I understand that society either accepts or rejects what is given to them, but we still don't have a say; mostly, because there are enough people who will buy it and the monstrosity continues.
Because of this, I find, is why normalization happens. Between the workings of ideology and media conglomeration, new trends and new culture enter our environment so rapidly and so vastly that its only natural for things to seem natural. And yes it is natural for the markets to change, culture to change, trends to change, but again, these readings showed us that its imperative to remember it is only natural because someone else makes it so.
BiegieGo, 11/1
This week we discussed theorist Dick Hebdige and Adorno. Hebdige talks a lot of hegemony and taking something and making it completely normal to the mass population. For example, we looked at a few pictures and one was a drawling on the side of a train. Well the person who did this is probably making famous art works in our society somewhere today. At one point, it was seen a being deviant and different and the next think we know this person is making millions off of us for something that once was not acceptable in our culture but now is normal. Not one questions drawings on walls anymore because we have seen it so much that it is not AUTHENTIC anymore. We can relate this notion of be authentic back to the theorist Benjamin and how he talks a lot about when something is being reproduced then it loses its value for example the panting of Mona Lisa. This panting has been reproduced so many times that when people see it, it’s nothing special to them because they have seen it a thousand times before that. Other pictures we looked at were natives with tattoos and a guy with a lot of piercings. When our culture sees this, they want it. we all seem to want what we don’t have a I think that one thing that keeps our society running and also the corporate people because they just continue coming up with the new.
The second theorist we talked about was Adorno. We did not finish discussing Adorno but in class we each got a quote from Dr. Rog and we had to come up with something to say about it. The quote I received was “The standardized forms…were originally derived from the need of the consumers.” Well, we can look at this quote and say that everything is becoming the same because the consumers are making it that way or we can look at this quote and say the producers are making everything the same… every time our culture changes, noting really stays different, it all stays the same and we all follow this idea of changing as our society changes. For example, when our fashion comes into style then all the stores change in order to follow the trend…instead of staying with what is considered old style…we follow the fashion and become consumed in what is new to us. We can relate this to Hebdige and how he thinks that something is exotica and we make it normal. Without one you cannot have the other.
The second theorist we talked about was Adorno. We did not finish discussing Adorno but in class we each got a quote from Dr. Rog and we had to come up with something to say about it. The quote I received was “The standardized forms…were originally derived from the need of the consumers.” Well, we can look at this quote and say that everything is becoming the same because the consumers are making it that way or we can look at this quote and say the producers are making everything the same… every time our culture changes, noting really stays different, it all stays the same and we all follow this idea of changing as our society changes. For example, when our fashion comes into style then all the stores change in order to follow the trend…instead of staying with what is considered old style…we follow the fashion and become consumed in what is new to us. We can relate this to Hebdige and how he thinks that something is exotica and we make it normal. Without one you cannot have the other.
Elmo, 11/1
In our class discussion on Adorno I felt as if everyone had a lot of good ideas and had a good grasp on the material at hand. I personally felt that by hearing what everyone else had to say I got a better grasp on the concepts from the reading. It was neat to see how Adorno’s ideas related back to what we had previously learned with Benjamin. Adorno and Benjamin relate well with regards to Adorno’s quote, “Mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same” (43). This quote basically means that everything we consume or are shown in stores is ultimately the same, just displayed differently. This relates to Benjamin’s idea that the reproduction of goods makes them less authentic. This seems sort of funny to me because if we are so into having something that is “real” and authentic, why do we play into the ideas of the ruling class by consuming their unauthentic, mass produced goods and ideas? This then relates to how we are absent-minded observers and just consume things without even thinking twice about what we are doing. This is how things gain so much popularity. For example, say there is a really popular article of clothing one season and everyone “must” have it. This item is usually very expensive and can only be consumed by those who have the means of doing so, usually the ruling class. However, the ruling class also runs large companies and can make this item and sell it to stores such as Target or Wal-Mart for them to sell at a much lower price point. This enables everyone to have it, and the trend catches on. This happens all the time over and over again. But these replica goods have lost their authenticity and therefore there’s the question, are they real? I would say no, but a majority of society would probably disagree. Learning more and more about ideology has really made me start to question things more but also has helped me understand why things happen the way they do.
Graham, 10/27
This week’s discussion related to Benjamin, and the idea that reproduction eliminates authenticity. I think that these authors (Benjamin and Hebdige).
We used to look at people who had tattoos, and think that it was completely ridiculous and unorthodox, but more and more people have began to get them, making it more accepted by society. This is because the idea is not “new” anymore. People do not like things when they are not normal, which brings me into my discussion on “sameness”.
“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” this means that if you are not a part of the hegemonic idea (clothing styles, groups, friends…) then you do not fit in with society. We also discussed when you are driving down the highway, and you see hotel signs for Mama’s Country Inn, and Holiday Inn, then you are typically going to choose the Holiday Inn, because you do not want to try something new. These small businesses are beginning to be put out of business by the chain businesses, which society has a huge part in. There is no longer originality in our society. We like commodities, even though they control us constantly. We want to be ‘normal’ and have things that are ‘normal’ but ideologies have created these ideas, and society goes along with it. Why is it so important to be just like everyone else?
We discussed “Amusement always means putting things out of mind forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness.” This reminds me of the concept of Ecco and Disney. When we go to Disney, we forget all of our stresses and feel as if we are in a fantasy world. It gives us the feeling of escapism. We have so many things in society that take our minds off of everyday life, such as television, movies, theme parks…etc.
We used to look at people who had tattoos, and think that it was completely ridiculous and unorthodox, but more and more people have began to get them, making it more accepted by society. This is because the idea is not “new” anymore. People do not like things when they are not normal, which brings me into my discussion on “sameness”.
“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” this means that if you are not a part of the hegemonic idea (clothing styles, groups, friends…) then you do not fit in with society. We also discussed when you are driving down the highway, and you see hotel signs for Mama’s Country Inn, and Holiday Inn, then you are typically going to choose the Holiday Inn, because you do not want to try something new. These small businesses are beginning to be put out of business by the chain businesses, which society has a huge part in. There is no longer originality in our society. We like commodities, even though they control us constantly. We want to be ‘normal’ and have things that are ‘normal’ but ideologies have created these ideas, and society goes along with it. Why is it so important to be just like everyone else?
We discussed “Amusement always means putting things out of mind forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness.” This reminds me of the concept of Ecco and Disney. When we go to Disney, we forget all of our stresses and feel as if we are in a fantasy world. It gives us the feeling of escapism. We have so many things in society that take our minds off of everyday life, such as television, movies, theme parks…etc.
ESPN. 10/29
There were a few quotes from this week that I completely agree with and also have a better understand after learning about them in class. The notion that are culture is infected with sameness made a lot of sense to me and made me question of who culture subconsciously gets a hold on us to buy into such things. For example the way so may brands of clothes are the same but certain ones are just priced more for their name. One can see a support for this in the quote “Mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same.” On another note, Adorno states Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness. This is something I agree with but it is a shame. Our culture today has gotten to a point that we get humor at the costs of others. It is saying that we must forget about other suffering in order to have our own entertainment; it is a selfish but true quote. There may not always be things we can do to help the suffrage we get entertained by, but we should not laugh at it. It is interesting concept that lets clear are mind for humor; we are immune to the suffering. On the same topic of immunity, we also do a similar thing in reference to the quote, “Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine.” The word tragedy is thrown around so much and so much is shown in the media that when w e actually do hear a tragedy it does not have as strong as an effect. Similar to Dr, Rog’s example in class with Hanna Montana, I had a similar experience this weekend. I went to the Fla/Ga football game this weekend and people were saying it would be such a tragedy if Fla lost. I later saw coverage about some Starvation and genocide in Africa, all I could think was that was a tragedy not if Fla had lost, however, people use the word in the same way.
Mongoose, 10/29
This week’s classes focused on the concept ideology and particularly the ways in which we see the media manipulating their viewers or listeners through ideological influences. The ideology and other ideas that we see through the media are no accident, it is a conscious effort to influence the viewers and in many ways turn them into passive viewers rather than allowing for active participation and rhetoric. Adorno and Horkmeier had an interesting quote on this behalf: “[The radio] democratically makes everyone equally into listeners. 42” by this they mean that there is no way for the listener to dispute anything that they may hear and disagree with on the radio; the audience is turned into passive listeners and spectators with no way to discuss their views with the show host. This allows the media to enforce ideological views on their spectators because they have no way to challenge the authority. The interesting part of this quote is the word ‘democratically’, which means that we subject ourselves to this one way communication street, no one is forcing us to listen or in today’s day in age, view, yet we continue to follow and be spectators of ideology perpetuated. I think this idea is not as big of a problem today because of our new technological capabilities; now when we listen to a radio show, and even some television talk show, we have the ability to call in or e-mail the show or host and discuss our take on whatever the situation may be. They did not have this capability in the day of this essay which made it impossible to get your view across to the show host or hosts. I also believe that we have advanced our critical thinking as time has gone on, the idea of challenging authority and being your own person seems to have increased with each generation and allowed individuals the opportunity and capability to express your own views and opinions without the fear of backlash by those who you are challenging.
Capri Sun, 10/29
Today in class we reviewed the Horkheimer and Adorno article and a few things came to mind that I did not think about when reading it the day before. For starters, I began to connect the idea of “sameness” to Jenkins. In Jenkins’ article he explains: “People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication.” (556). This means that you could randomly meet someone on the street and you will most likely share similar knowledge. In class that day, we talked about how people who follow sports could talk about it to anyone even if they had never met before. Jenkins, Horkheimer and Adorno, all share similar beliefs in the idea of “sameness.” Culture today is heavily influenced by the media and pop culture and because of this the majority of the people feel the same way. Even mindless pieces of media like YouTube have become sensations, however we all share an interest in it.
In class today I was suppose to define pseudo-individuality reigns and I decided to break up the term and define it. “Pseudo” meant pretending or trying to be followed by individuality, I took this as meaning a made up identity. “Reigns” is defined as the dominative force. So without even reading its context within the Horkheimer and Adorno article, I felt that this meant people create fake identities based off the dominant images seen within society. A famous musician has a sleeve full of tattoos so people take this image and base their own false identity from it. I feel like identities have become a commodities, even when people try to be different they actually just reproducing an already before seen image. Which further perpetuates the idea of sameness within the identities of the mass culture.
In class today I was suppose to define pseudo-individuality reigns and I decided to break up the term and define it. “Pseudo” meant pretending or trying to be followed by individuality, I took this as meaning a made up identity. “Reigns” is defined as the dominative force. So without even reading its context within the Horkheimer and Adorno article, I felt that this meant people create fake identities based off the dominant images seen within society. A famous musician has a sleeve full of tattoos so people take this image and base their own false identity from it. I feel like identities have become a commodities, even when people try to be different they actually just reproducing an already before seen image. Which further perpetuates the idea of sameness within the identities of the mass culture.
FloRida, 11/1
I really loved when we were in discussing the language of culture in class. It was so interesting to see some of these actions unintentionally play out. Language of culture includes raising your hand in class, being on time, going to class, not talking back or having attitude towards authority. Society has ingrained these actions in our minds so we will not have to be “punished.” Even though we are in college now, these cultural “expectations” are still in place. Hebdige states that, “Ideology saturates everyday in the form of common sense.” Ideas of Hebdige’s normalization really connect to Althusser’s ideas of ideology. Althusser states, “Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” Even though ideology might not originally be normal, eventually it seems as if it is. We play mental games based on the systems we interact with. Ideologies are not real but somehow cause of to do real things. These ideologies and representations are what create definitions of our culture. Parts of culture are through our unconscious (althusser). We as a society never want to be considered deviant or freaks. Subcultures represent deviance or freaks. The problem with that is that when subcultural signs become mass produced and part of our ideology. Hebdige clarifies that, “as soon as the original innovations which signify ‘subculture’ are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become ‘frozen.’” The deviant behavior is now redefined!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)