Blog 5

“EMHE” and “Oprah” basically focus on individuals in society that are in some way deprived or lacking.  Particularly with EMHE, the program focuses on how the state has failed families that are deserving of more in life.  Oprah focuses on people like this as well, but also teaches people “The Secret”, being that people must embrace their situation instead of blaming society and accept responsibility for their fate and move forward.  The ideas behind these shows is based on capitalist ideals.  Capitalism teaches society that we are responsible for our place, and that every individual has the opportunity to be successful, while is not necessarily true of America today. Neoliberalism focuses on economic liberation and privatization, which leads to a divide in economic classes. Peck emphasizes the divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in our society, and how economic divisions have been exacerbated by these ideas of capitalism.  American politics asserts that those at the top are rewarded for their hard work, and that those on the bottom are there because of their own will.  EMHE looks at individuals who are on the latter end of this, but paints them as not responsible for their class standing.  Oprah looks at these individuals too, but tries to teach them “The Secret” implying that they can attain greater standing if they adhere to the “law of attraction”.

The authors of both readings critique the ways these programs engage with their guests and audeinces. EMHE shows audiences about “real people” in society, who appear to be deserving of rewards.  The community is drawn together, and Christian principles paint a caring, giving community that wants to help out a deserving family.  Palmer makes the point that may people benefit from this process, but that the program creates the illusion that only the subject family is being helped.  Commercial interests are still at the heart of this program, and businesses like Sears, local businesses, and the ABC network receive arguably the best kind of PR for their involvement.  They are seen as charitable, as giving back and inspiring people with a ‘can-do’ attitude.  Although EMHE seems socially responsible, it is using mutual exploitation to benefit each side, and ultimately is still produced to be sold to an audience.  Oprah is criticized for her ideological message in Winfrey’s Leadership Academy project and in her promotion of The Secret. She is criticized for simplifying how to teach people how to lead a successful life, and teaching people that they can overcome inequality by just being positive.  She has been criticized for helping a small group of South African girls while there are many impoverished U.S. communities.  Oprah, like EMHE, focuses on individuals that are “deserving”.  She says that she selected those girls in Africa because they showed they were willing and eager to learn.

I think that Oprah definitely ignores a lot of the inequalities people are faced with, and this whole concept behind “The Secret” is far-fetched.  Its nice to believe that if we take advantage of our disadvantages and exert more positive energy we will receive it, but I don't think this can really be applied (at least to this economic extent) in our society today.  As the readings made clear, it takes more than a positive attitude to succeed in American society, and may people are deprived the resources to do so.

Blog 4: Rich Media, Poor Democracy

McChesney describes each of the three tiers of the media industry.  The first tier are the huge giants, like Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, Sony, and Vivendi.  The second tier is one notch down, and consists of companies like Comcast or GE, and major newspaper giants like the NYT.  The third and final tier consists of hundreds of thousands of very small companies that fill some local need that the top tiers don't find profitable. The distinction is that the few media companies on the top tiers dominate the entire system, as a result of few remaining media regulations to stop these companies from merging to form these giant companies. Consolidation of companies spans across different media, and eliminate smaller firms.

McChesney claims that the “logic of corporate enterprise flows from the top” and that this shapes what ends up getting produced, how it gets produced, and what doesn't get produced.  “Media conglomeration” or “synergy” is a highly profitable tactic being used by these mega corporations.  They span across all different types of media forms and make for sensible business moves for these big businesses.  One reason they do this is for cross-promotion. A major company produces a movie in their film studio, and then they can use the cable channels, newspapers, and magazines they own to promote their product.  They also benefit from cross-production, which can be seen with commercial media content, that might start off as just a motion picture, but is then made into a TV show, and then a book, and then a soundtrack, and so on. They also are able to drive out smaller companies by offering major advertisers billion dollar deals for their advertisements to appear on all the different media that company owns.  The larger corporations drive out smaller, independent studios and dominate the industry entirely, dictating which movies will be talked about and promoted, which advertisements will be aired, and which will not be acknowledged at all. The selection of this material is contingent on profits and motives.

McChesney states that in this age of media consolidation, conflicts between commercial interests and the public interest arise. In a democracy, citizens are supposed to be well-informed and provided with unbiased information, so that they can effectively exercise their rights and duties as citizens. Media conglomerates are concerned with their private, profit-driven interests, and regulations that would be in the best interest of preserving the interests of democracy have been lifted. This can be seen in any news sources today. All news sources are somewhat biased, and they report selectively on issues that best serve the company as a whole. News networks like FoxNews are almost deliberately promoting a particular agenda, and thus defeating the real purpose behind journalism in the first place. Citizens are not being given objective news stories and then independently forming their own opinion on it; we are instead being told from a particular point of view that will inevitably frame news stories in ways that will sway opinion. Also, networks like FoxNews and MSNBC are not encouraging citizens to challenge and evaluate their beliefs.  Most of these viewers subscribe to a news outlet depending on what they already believe, and consumption of that news outlet reinforces those beliefs, instead of getting another perspective to make the most informed, well-rounded decisions.

It makes perfect sense to McChesney that our major media sources of journalism would dedicate more coverage to sensationalistic stories than to stories that should most affect people’s lives because those media outlets will report on the stories that will draw the most attention and generate the most profits. Professional journalism doesn’t make sense in a commercial sense because its not always the most profitable route. Journalism is increasingly less investigative and less controversial, because those stories don’t fit this mold that corporations want to follow to keep their ratings up, while using fewer resources and cutting costs at the same time.  They report more “puff” pieces, more trivia, entertainment, and celebrity coverage. Journalism is much weaker as a result, with reporters claiming “fair and balanced” political reporting, that does not seek to figure out whose telling the truth or if the claims made are true, it simply reports them as fact. Viewers are becoming more passive citizens, consuming news that gives them a ready-made opinion, and teaches them not to challenge things like the War on Terrorism. McChesney notes that journalism in other countries covers a much wider range of issues, because they don't have the stipulations from corporate bosses to report in a particular way. Their papers say things that would get a media outlet here in trouble with our government, and so news outlets in other countries tend to give more objective points of view, uninfluenced by big business or the government. Their journalists stay true to the real purpose of investigative journalism, that being that they should give people the facts that challenge every side of an issue.

Blog 3: Dominant Ideologies in Advertising

            Stuart Hall defines ideology as the “images, concepts, and premises” that provide the framework through which we “represent, interpret, understand, and ‘make sense’” of some aspect of social life.  Hall says that ideologies consist of specific, deliberate concepts, which are then articulated into a distinctive set or pattern, and ideologies are transformed when articulated differently.  Ideologies also predate us as individuals, so we form social constructions within existing ideologies, but they are often unconscious formations.  Lastly, ideologies use discourses that feel natural to subjects, and in effect construct positions of identification and knowledge (81-82). Mass media forms are important in the production, reproduction, and transformation of dominant ideologies.  Media can be a platform through which ideologies can progress and change; or media can be a source of reinforcement of dominant ideologies.  The following media objects represent dominant ideologies articulated through both print and commercial advertisements.

            This advertisement launched by Nivea in 2011 was criticized for its overt racism and quickly removed.  The advertisement shows a clean-cut black man getting ready to throw the head of an African American man with an afro across a football field.  It reads “Re-Civilize Yourself” and “Look like you give a damn”.  In this ad, dominant ideologies of black men are represented.  It represents this idea that there is a need for black men “re-civilize” themselves, implying that they are uncivilized in the first place.  It represents nice clothes and a clean shave as the “civilized” black male, who is then throwing the head of the “unvcivilized” black male, as to symbolize that he is rising above that version of himself, and that he is superior.  The “uncivilized” black male is represented with an afro and a beard.  The advertisement is overtly racist, as Hall defines as an occasion when a racist argument or view is directly addressed.  It is confronting how black males need to revise themselves to be considered more “civilized”, and provides an example of what each side looks like.  This Nivea advertisement also uses inferential racist ideology through “unquestioned assumptions” about black males (83).  The ad is assuming that black men need to be civilized in the first place, and that this clean-cut, well-dressed version of a black man is more desirable.  This message is unconsciously racist because they are based on these unstated and unrecognizable assumptions.  In the end, this Nivea advertisement reinforces dominant ideologies of black men.

Mary J. Blige Burger King Commercial

            The infamous Burger King commercial featuring Mary J. Blige and fried chicken stirred enormous controversy last year as being racist.  Mary J. Blige enlightens customers about the new crispy chicken wrap with an R&B ballad.  There are representations of African Americans and stereotypes about their culture.  The popular stereotype that black people like fried chicken and fast food is illustrated here.  Mary J. Blige’s R&B styled song about fried chicken and just Blige herself support this dominant ideology of African Americans.  As Hall states, ideologies work by using discourses that feel natural to their subjects, so this commercial uses stereotypes of who eats fried chicken in accordance with this popular, dominant ideology of African Americans. (82). I think that Burger King very well may have purposely used these stereotypes in parody as a way to challenge them, but they really only made these ideologies stronger.  Whether overt or inferential, dominant ideologies about African Americans and the food they consume is reinforced through this advertisement.

Burger King's "Manthem"

            Burger King also recently launched their campaign advertising breakfast with the “Manthem”, as we looked at in class.  I remember when this commercial first came out, and thinking how blatantly sexist it was.  It represents masculinity with food consumption, specifically meat.  It says that men specifically have this need to eat more meat, and blatantly attaches meat with “being a man”.  It shows a ton of men marching down a city street doing a number of “manly” things, such as not settling for “chick food”, punching another guy, flipping a fan over a bridge, and of course eating a Texas Double Whopper.  Wesley Buerkle draws on this idea of eating meat as being gay or “un-ladylike”.   He discusses how in our culture there is a link between meat consumption and masculine identity (78).  The “Manthem” represents this dominant ideology that masculinity is defined through food consumption, and that eating meat is a “man” thing.  It genders something so common as eating, supporting that women eat “lighter” foods, and less.  Buerkle notes that men eating goes unnoticed, while women feel more pressure to abide by social norms for proper consumption (80).  In our society, dominant ideologies focus attention on women’s physical appearance and body image, and thus, women’s consumption of food isn’t a popular idea. 

            Similar to this ideology emphasizing the physical appearance of women is the Dove “Campaign for Real Beauty”.  The idea behind this campaign was to celebrate “natural physical variation” among women and to inspire confidence in women to be comfortable with their bodies.  Instead of your typical skinny models, these ads used heavier women, older women, women of all races, and women without makeup.  Dove’s campaign really sought to challenge the dominant ideologies of beauty.  It deliberately represents different standards of beauty for women, and asserts this idea that these women represent “real” beauty.  In her article on race representations in Ugly Betty, Jennifer Esposito briefly discusses how beauty and femininity is defined as “white, thin, upper-class” (96).  This very narrow conception of beauty can be seen in just about every other typical advertisement.  Dove combats dominant representations of beauty by teaching women to be comfortable in their own skin, what Stuart Hall would call “breaking of the chain” (81).  On the other hand, one could argue that by differentiating these women, the dominant ideology is reinscripted.  The campaign has also been criticized because Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also produces AXE products and “Fair and Lovely”, which is a skin-lightening product for women with darker skin.  Regardless, I still think that Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty had positive intentions and was productive in challenging dominant ideologies of beauty.

            In these advertisements, different ideologies are conveyed through media outlets.  While some reinforce ideologies (Nivea, Burger King), others challenge dominant ideologies by portraying groups of people in unconventional, atypical ways (Dove).  Advertisements, as well as other media, play a huge role in the distribution of these ideologies and influence how we think about certain groups of people.  By recognizing these sometimes very discreet ideologies, we can alter our representations of things like race, gender, and beauty to develop an ideology that better serves individuals.