Globalization

Stephen Elfenbein
Blog
In class we talked about the article that Professor Burns was quoted in about Twilight, and how the journalist was not interested in the all facts and details regarding the movie, she was just interested in those that would help her story. This led to a class discussion in which we realized that the media has a habit of either over analyzing or crafting facts to fit their stories . In the discussion on Twilight I think at one point someone in the class said, “Get over it’s a love story nothing more”. The basic summary of that discussion was that while some media does stand for something and should be interrupted as more than just a movie or a song some are just songs or just film. In other words Masters of War by Bob Dylan is more than just a song and demands analysis. Whereas Britney Spears’s Hit Me Baby One More time does need not analytical analysis. This is what I believe what Conrad Lodziak was talking about when he said, “media theories often have a tendency to exaggerate the broader social significance of their subject of study”( Mcquail,226) This discussion has made me think of not a just a single medium of media, but a recent development in media, Globalization. Is Globalization really a problem or is it a non issue.
In Chapter 19 John Tomlinson address this very issue of globalization in the media. There are many critics of Globalization; some think it is another form of imperialism, Cultural imperialism. Done just for money. Marxist believe that cultural imperialism and Capitalism go hand and hand and that “capitalism is a homogenizing cultural force”’(Mcquail,229) in other words they believe that capitalism makes everyone the same. Tomlinson brings up an interesting point in that the Modernity of Globalization can be used for and against it.
My main question is, at its most fundamental stage is globalization of media wrong, should we see so much British T.V like The Office or the other works Ricky Gervias should we know what Bollywood is, and should other countries know so much about our media. My personal opinion is yes. I think that globalization is good. Media has the potential to help and impact other forms of media. The globalization of the media has given us the British Invasion, Film Noir and many other positives. Another positive that Globalization has brought is the opportunity to bring in a wider audience and therefore make more money. This is something that David Croteau and William Hoynes address in there article The Media Industry: Structure, Strategy and Debates which is also featured in my Media Studies text book by Eoin Devereux. Croteau and Hoynes give three reasons why Globalization is good for the U.S movie industry. The first however is the one that is most relevant to our discussion, “Domestic markets are saturated with media products, so many companies see international markets as the key to future growth” (Devereux 35) They go on and give an example of a film called The Island starring Ewan McGregor , which did horribly in the U.S. but did rather well in the foreign markets making 124 million dollars, thus making the film a success. In other words they are giving an example of how Globalization helps and is a positive. A recent article form Business Day Online describes just how successful the world wide box office has been this year, “The output of such a combined effort: the tally for 2009 from worldwide box office sales for all films was USD 29.9 billion, which reflects a growth of 7.6% over the previous year. It is estimated that in 2009 over 2500 movies were made across the world, even though in the United States the number of movies produced has declined over the last few years, from 920 in 2005 to 677 in 2009! And, today with the advances in technology, movies are dubbed or sub-titled in almost every language.) (“http://www.businessdayonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9458:movies-movies-and-more-movies&catid=96:columnists&Itemid=350
This is describing what we already know, movie making is no longer just an American business.
To make clear my main question is what do you think about globalization and its impact on the world of media.

All of this Media: Is it a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

There is so much media that we all consume on a daily basis. We consume media through many different devices. We consume media through the Internet, television, cell phones, newspapers, magazines, and other devices. Baran and Davis discuss media literacy and how important it can be in today’s society. Media literacy is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages (Baran & Davis 338). Two parts of media literacy really stood out for me and helped make sense of it all. Baran & Davis say that, “Media content can implicitly and explicitly provide a guide for action.” They also say that, “People must realistically assess how their interaction with media texts can determine the purposes that interaction can serve for them in their environments.” I think that these two statements can definitely be true because what people see in the media really can have an affect on how they live their lives or at least what they think can happen in real life. While reading about the effects that media can have on viewers and how they may interact in real life based on what they see, I started to think about how all of this media can affect children who use it. I found an article (http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/apr/11/not-all-tv-is-bad-for-kid-viewers/?partner=yahoo_feeds) that discusses how not all TV is bad for kids. Kurt Boyland, a marriage and family therapist said, ““Most research shows that educational, age-appropriate, non-violent, non-aggressive television programming may have positive effects on children and their social interactions with others” (Lober). “Shows that portray good pro-social skills can be a good opportunity to learn those things along with problem-solving skills. This contributes to their health, which can contribute to their self-esteem, which can contribute to their peer relationships,” said Dr. Lori Copeland, associate professor of psychology at Hardin-Simmons University (Lober). I agree with these statements because these types of shows can definitely have a good impact on their self-esteem and how children interact with other children. Boyland does go on to say, “Studies show that children may better understand and learn from real life experiences than from television” (Lober). So, does media literacy really pertain to everyone who consume media on a daily basis? Or, does it have a lesser effect on children?

Maybe it has to do with the quality of television programming. Herbert Schiller says that, “The absence of programming that might shed some light on the country’s deepening general social crisis does not seem to concern the industry’s owners. Instead, the audience is regaled with endless hours of sports spectaculars, fortuitous human tragedies, and infomercials (6). Basically, Schiller is discussing how the lack of quality programming on TV has an effect on the way people view the world and there isn’t enough culture in the media. Now, this could relate to children because they see this kind of programming on TV. They may see sports, violence, and programs with bad language and too much drama. This could affect their interactions with other people and it could also affect the way they see the real world and the society they live in. With all this said, do you think media literacy is important in today’s society? Should children be watching as much TV as they are or does it not have too much of an effect on them? Also, is it a good thing or a bad thing for children to be media literate at such a young age?

Does the media give athletes "power"?

So the media has been a part of our lives since we were born and it only has gotten bigger. In these last four years of college we all have been looking the media in a different light. We have looked at every component of the media and what it has done to this society. I have noticed it has been a positive and negative part of our lives.

In this week’s readings Baran and Davis talk about the idea of bias of communication. They state “bias of communication is Innis’s idea that communication technology makes centralization of power inevitable” (Baran and Davis 219). The meaning I got out of this was that the media gives people the idea of having that “power” in the world. This “power” is mostly seen with athletes in today’s society. The media’s coverage of a superstar athlete is ten times more the coverage about the war. But this is how society is built today. Do you think the coverage of famous people will die down soon? Personally I think it is only growing bigger and bigger.

I know we brought up Tiger Woods a hundred times this semester but he is best example. Before the car accident he was in a few months ago, he was not only on top of the golf game but sports as a whole. He was living the dream life of having that “power”. But after the car accident he wasn’t looked at as being the king of sports any more. He was now looked at as being the asshole of sports. There was no more coverage on his golf game but on his addiction and his marriage. This article explains it all.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/10/sports/AP-GLF-Masters-Tim-Dahlberg-041010.html?_r=1&ref=golf

Do you think the media gives superstar athletes the so called power? Or do you think the media just makes a big deal about everything in their lives, that they feel like they have the power? Does all superstar athletes have that power or just a hand full?

Are you in, or are you out?

In the music industry, your image and personal life are just as important as the actual music that you make. Undoubtedly, for success in the industry, you need to have a certain amount of sex appeal. You also need to play up your sexuality and discuss your sexual escapades in detail whether it’s in an interview or in your song lyrics.

Liesbet Van Zooten writes, “gender does not determine or exhaust identity (51).” But I believe that in the music industry, your sexuality DOES determine your identity. For example, Adam Lambert is a new rising star who has made his mark by being very much out of the closet. I don’t think there was ever really a doubt in anyone’s mind from the moment he first stepped on stage at American Idol whether he was gay or straight. Since then though, his sexuality, and consequently his image, have been amped up 100% into a gay musical icon. He has only fueled this by doing performances that are incredibly sexual and sometimes make it abundtantly clear what his sexual orientation is.

Adam Lambert’s openness on his sexuality doesn’t necessarily make his musical career any easier though, as many conservative people have been outraged over some of his performances, causing many news stories written about it. Lesley Robinson writes, “the study of popular music is a relevant and consequential project capable of revealing the ways hegemony is reinforced in culture (51).” Seeing that hegemony is the idea that ideology (a belief system that comes from society and culture) is used to keep certain groups in power, it’s easy to see how Adam Lambert might not fit into the equation very nicely, since he stirs the pot with his image, music and performances that are not particularly conventional in our society.

Looking back many (many, many, many) years ago when Ricky Martin was in the prime of his music career, the image that he portrayed was MUCH different than the person that he truly was. If anyone can remember his music video’s from back in the day, I’m sure that like me, you remember lots of attractive, scantily clad women dancing around in a provocative manner. Of course, Ricky Martin was interacting with these women in a sexual manner, because sex (of the heterosexual kind) is what sells. Just recently, Ricky Martin has come out of the closet and declared that he is a gay man (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/29/ricky.martin.gay/index.html?iref=allsearch). We haven’t seen Ricky Martin involved in the music scene recently (or at least, at the level he was back in the days of Livin La Vida Loca), but can you imagine what his coming out of the closet would have done to his career back then? Would it have ruined him? Or sky-rocketed his career because he was someone who was “different”?

Thinking back to all of Ricky Martin’s hits, they painted him as a heterosexual male who yearned for many women. But knowing now that he is in fact gay, does that change everything from the past? What if his songs had been about men instead of women? Take for example, the lyrics to one of his hits, She Bangs:

And she bangs, she bangs
Oh baby
When she moves, she moves
I go crazy
'Cause she looks like a flower but she stings
like a bee
Like every girl in history
She bangs, she bangs

Not to be crude, but, what if for every “she” you inserted a “he”? Would the song have been so popular?

So overall, what do you think? Do you think that an celebrity’s sexuality can help give that specific person an identity? Do you think it can overshadow more important things in regards to that person’s career?

Gender Stereotypes in the Media (on behalf of Heather Edwab)

In an article titled, Media Portrayal of Women, by Brenna Coleman (http://medialiteracy.suite101.com/article.cfm/media_portrayal_of_women), she discusses various female stereotypes that are perceived through the media. She has two viewpoints: the negative female stereotype and the positive female stereotype. She includes many examples of how women are negatively portrayed in the media. Women in video games are usually wearing revealing clothing and women in ads are usually half naked. She says that females in Disney movies are “slender, unrealistically curvaceous, and quite vulnerable young women” (Coleman 1). They are dependent on men and lack a sense of empowerment (Coleman 1). Did you also perceive this stereotype when you were younger and watched Disney movies? Did you notice that the movies made the male seem dominant and powerful, perhaps even proved the theory of hegemonic masculinity? As for me, I really don’t think that I even thought about this when I was younger.
She then brings up a few movies that represent the essential female role as powerful, dominant and hardworking at her career. But unfortunately because the female actress is so focused on her job, she “sacrifices a healthy relationship, family, and possibly even her sanity” (Coleman 1). In another words, she is saying that when a female has the role of being perhaps the dominant business owner, she lacks the predominant female role of being the loving mother and housewife. Do you think that the media rarely portrays the female role with “the whole package”(hard-working, loving mom, healthy relationship with husband, etc.)?
“A common response to the feminist claim that media distort reality by showing women in stereotypical roles of housewives and mothers, is that in reality many women are mothers and housewives too” (McQuail 48). Why do you think media executives put these stereotypes in shows & movies? Do you believe such stereotypes? I personally think that the public interprets the media by their perception of the reality of truth. If a stereotype is depicted by a certain race or gender and I encounter or see the same stereotype than it will be reinforced. But if I have familiarity with the specific race/gender and my experience goes against the stereotype than it will be dismayed. Would you agree/disagree?
Subsequent to the examples of negative stereotypes, she discusses positive stereotypes. Some shows do depict women with positive female roles, such as Lisa in The Simpsons, and she believes girls should be able to find more female roles, like Lisa, in the media. However, I think it is rare that people watch shows just because they like the gender role that is seen. In the Twilight series, my roommates and I perceived Bella as one who surrounds her life around Edward and depends on him for her survival. But, some of them are obsessed with Twilight, and in fact most girls are, so they obviously get past the stereotypical female gender role that is portrayed. So, how much do you really think these gender roles in the media truly affect one’s self image, self-esteem and even our culture in general? How do you enjoy a movie or show that depicts such negative gender roles?
In a study done in 1986, Lichter and Rothman analyzed the prime time network television for over 31 seasons from 1955 to 1986. Their results were, “Female characters are less in evidence than males, and in many ways are portrayed as the weaker sex. They are less likely to be mature adults, are less well educated, and hold lower status jobs. Their activities tend to represent the private realm of home, personal relations, and sexuality, while men represent the public realm of work, social relations, and sexuality” (Steeves 394). What is your overall perception on how the media portrays women today? Is your perception different from the analysis that was conducted over thirty years ago?

Nike's Attempts at Symbolic Interactionism

The term which was studied by George Herbert Mead was intended to show “how we learn culture and how culture structures our everyday experience” (Baran and Davis 301). Furthermore, Baran and Davis write that “social roles and many other aspects of culture are learned through interaction, through experiences in daily life situations. Over time, we internalize the rules…” (302). It is apparent that the meaning of symbolic interactionism is intended to portray the idea that people learn cultural norms through interaction with others. They do not challenge what is learned but rather accept it as “right” and therefore this dictates the so-called rules to a society.

Upon hearing the definitions of these media influence terms, I was immediately drawn to thinking about the NBA and its typical stereotypes. It is of no surprise to anyone that the NBA and basketball in general is associated with African-American athletes. The league is made up of 75% African-Americans. This, is a very strong stereotype dominating our sports nation today. However, there is little being done to alleviate this dominating image and that is most evident within sports advertising. Judith Williamson furthers this statement in relation to advertising by saying “certainly advertising sets up connections between certain types of consumers and certain products” (McQuail 300). And this is exactly what is happening with Nike.

Nike is a leading advertiser of athletic apparel. The majority of their ads have undoubtedly been targeted towards basketball fans and thus they have taken an approach to emphasize the role of African-Americans in the commercials as well as interests (emphasizing certain consumers with certain products) Fred Edmund Jandt conducted a study in which he analyzed several Nike commercials over time. He examined the language, stories, messages and other elements of the ads to see how they fit in to consumers lives and found an overwhelming majority of the time these ads were aimed at African-Americans. Although the study was done several years ago, the same results can be found today and possibly even more justified. Jandt wrote, “More systematic investigations are needed but (nonetheless) based on the premises of symbolic interactionism, Nike has packaged and presented its advertisements in a culturally appropriate manner that perhaps may promote optimal communication with Black consumers.” A copy of the study can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zutRiJJMBQYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA264&dq=symbolic+interactionism+and+sports&ots=VdYEdDfqVb&sig=OlRreK4kxndsB71Jax15RPYH5k#v=onepage&q=symbolic%20interactionism%20and%20sports&f=false

So in summation, it is quite evident of the strong role of Black consumers within Nike advertising with particular respect to basketball but is this a good thing? Therefore, I leave you with a few questions to think about. Is it appropriate that Nike targets African-Americans because they are the primary consumers of basketball content? Do you think ads of this sort are fair and justified? Does Nike have a social responsibility to promote its products to all potential consumers? And based on your understanding of symbolic interactionism, do you think Nike’s promotion of these ideas facilitates appropriate communication with Black consumers?

Advertising vs. Real Life

After finishing this week’s readings I was ultimately attracted to the chapter on meaning and ideology with advertising, by Judith Williamson. It is interesting to think about how much advertising really does play a role in our everyday lives and how it has become a definition of how to live our lives and what should be important to us as a society. Sometimes these values that are being portrayed in the ads are good, but often times what you are seeing and what is surrounding us is advertising that is trying to persuade people to live a certain way that may not be the most realistic or ideal lifestyle. This has become an issue, especially in today’s society, when the media is always present in our daily lives therefore making it easier for ads to be influencing our thinking on a constant basis. As Williamson says in chapter 27, “Advertisements are one of the most important cultural factors moulding and reflecting our life today. They are ubiquitous, an inevitable part of everyone’s lives […]” (299).
Because of this large presence of advertising in our lives, it is important to look at what is advertised and the images that are portrayed. The first thing that came to mind is the way that women are depicted in ads and the pressure that is put on women as a whole in the society because of this. In an article from the TODAY show, they were talking to a woman who was a model for Ralph Lauren for eight years and just recently fired because they said she wasn’t fitting into the sample clothes that she needed to wear. As a size 4 she could not believe that they were firing her for this reason. Soon after this, she found an advertising image that had shown up on a blog site that had been photo shopped in a way that made her look unhealthily skinny. Ralph Lauren removed the ad and apologized for their poor retouching that resulted in a distorted image of a woman’s body. Filippa Hamilton, the model who was fired, said “It’s not a good example when you see this picture, every young woman is going to look at it and think that it is normal to look like that. It’s not. I saw my face on this super-extremely skinny girl, which is not me. It makes me sad. It makes me think that Ralph Lauren wants to have this kind of image. It’s an American brand ... and it’s not healthy and it’s not right.” (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33307721/ns/today-today_fashion_and_beauty/)
The way that women are depicted is not only dangerous to the model, but also to the young girls looking at the ads. Baran and Davis discuss symbolic interactionism in chapter 11 when saying, “Social roles and many other aspects of culture are learned through interaction, through experiences in daily life situations. Over time, we internalize the rules inherent in various situations and structure our actions accordingly” (302). This would explain the way that our society gets its values and ways of life from the media and its advertising. After seeing a number of skinny perfect women in magazines getting all the guys, it would be understandable to think that a young girl would act accordingly and try to manipulate the features of the women in the ads.
Do you believe that in our culture advertising tells us who we are and who we should be? Do you think that the way that women are depicted and the way the images tell us that in order to be accepted we need to be painfully thin? To what extent does advertising really keep us trapped in these specific roles that we are supposed to play, and specific characteristics that each gender should have?