With the semester now coming to a close, I would like to use my last blog to discuss all that I have learned in this class. I didn't know what to expect when coming into this class, but the title seemed interesting and I had heard nothing but good things about it. I took it not because I had to, which I didn't, but because I thought it would be a fun elective to fill my time during this fall semester.
The end result: I was pleased with my decision. I learned the names of several concepts I was somewhat familiar, but unclear as to the specifics. I also came to learn about other concepts I never knew existed. For example: the gay vague advertising ploy. I had seen advertisements like that before but never knew that there was a term for it or that it was purposely designed to appeal to both gay and straight audiences. That concept in particular fascinated me because it reassert the fact that everything is in the eye of the beholder.
In addition to learning about terms, this class helped me out in a real world sense, too. When I was covering the football team this season for the NT Daily, the racial allegations against coach Todd Dodge and his staff by former players erupted. I used this opportunity to employ some of the racial lessons we have learned in class about how specific races of people are portrayed and perceived in certain situations.
I was fair with my reporting and believe the stories reflected that, telling both sides of the issue as I didn't want to discredit the black players simply because they were suspended for disciplinary actions. I would have been fair and just even if I had not taken this class, but what this class taught me was a better understanding of how the media views and mistreats certain races, especially blacks, in certain situations, which I purposely avoided.
Another thing I liked about this class is the amount of videos that were shown. The Bamboozled movie was sharp, raw and incredibly well-written while the documentary on music videos was deeply insightful and powerful as together they stripped away the levels of sexism and racist stereotypes. The class as a whole was enlightening and I have very much enjoyed writing these blogs every week that we have class. I hope you have enjoyed my blogging as much as I have enjoyed your class. Thanks.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Blog 12: Images & Actions Depicted in Music Videos
A few weeks ago in class we watched a very insightful documentary on music videos. The film was so wonderfully made that I felt the need to discuss it here. However, when the film was originally shown in class, I was covering the racism allegations by former and suspended UNT football players which I blogged about, thus I was preoccupied at the time and not able to give the film over music videos the proper discussion it deserved until now.
Whenever someone famous who is not a rapper or musician of any kind makes a racist/sexist or even semi-racist/sexist remark, that person's supporters instantly come out of the woodwork and vehemently exercise one issue above all others: blame the music videos, not the person who said the offensive remark. They reason that the racist and especially sexist depictions in music videos, particularly rap and hip hop videos, glamorize and perpetuate those words and actions and stereotypes. In a sense they are right, but they should realize that their person was wrong to say what they said. While the person rightfully catches plenty of heat and bad press, why is it that for the most part the rappers and music video makers get off scott-free?
It is indeed true that they are perpetuating and glorifying horrifically racist and sexist actions, images and stereotypes. This medium (the rap song/music video) is one of the last remaining mediums where the overly offensive is not just accepted but encouraged. Too often do people who defend these videos say that it's just a music video, it's not real life. It's just an artist's marketing ploy to sell records, so relax.
Yet, what they fail to realize is that these videos are sending young boys and girls all the wrong messages. Their young and easily impressionable minds don't know that the video is surreal, that's is just about selling records and should not be taken seriously. They see these actions and scenes and like what they see and want to mimic and idolize it.
The film we saw was deeply insightful and incredibly well-researched. In the end, those who defend such music videos will continue to do so while those who oppose them will do the same. Still, while those who support the music videos continue to eternally cite freedom of speech as the backbone for their reasons to make such explicit and mature music videos, they need to realize that it is that very same freedom of speech that allows those who oppose it to speak out against it, boycott it and do everything they can to change things for the better.
Whenever someone famous who is not a rapper or musician of any kind makes a racist/sexist or even semi-racist/sexist remark, that person's supporters instantly come out of the woodwork and vehemently exercise one issue above all others: blame the music videos, not the person who said the offensive remark. They reason that the racist and especially sexist depictions in music videos, particularly rap and hip hop videos, glamorize and perpetuate those words and actions and stereotypes. In a sense they are right, but they should realize that their person was wrong to say what they said. While the person rightfully catches plenty of heat and bad press, why is it that for the most part the rappers and music video makers get off scott-free?
It is indeed true that they are perpetuating and glorifying horrifically racist and sexist actions, images and stereotypes. This medium (the rap song/music video) is one of the last remaining mediums where the overly offensive is not just accepted but encouraged. Too often do people who defend these videos say that it's just a music video, it's not real life. It's just an artist's marketing ploy to sell records, so relax.
Yet, what they fail to realize is that these videos are sending young boys and girls all the wrong messages. Their young and easily impressionable minds don't know that the video is surreal, that's is just about selling records and should not be taken seriously. They see these actions and scenes and like what they see and want to mimic and idolize it.
The film we saw was deeply insightful and incredibly well-researched. In the end, those who defend such music videos will continue to do so while those who oppose them will do the same. Still, while those who support the music videos continue to eternally cite freedom of speech as the backbone for their reasons to make such explicit and mature music videos, they need to realize that it is that very same freedom of speech that allows those who oppose it to speak out against it, boycott it and do everything they can to change things for the better.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Blog 11: Bamboozled Critique
Since we did not have a class this past week due to the Thanksgiving weekend, I've decided to blog about the most recent thing we did discuss in class. Last class we saw several major scenes from Bamboozled. I found the movie to be a sharp, honest look at race in our modern American culture and was thoroughly surprised at how daring many of the scenes were.
I hadn't seen the movie before we saw it in class and was genuinly glad that it was shown to us. I feel that it's a film that is brutally honest and raw in its depictions of racism and differing perceptions among the races. It didn't pull any punches as Spike Lee was as edgy as ever while directing this movie.
I also connected with what you said about the movie Network. I saw that classic several years before and instantly recognized the scene where Man-Tan tells his fellow brethren to go to their windows and basically say the same thing as was said in the famous Network scene. Judging by what you said about the ending to Bamboozled being similar to that of Network, I drew the following assumption: That a lot of people die in Bamboozled, particularly Man-Tan and/or Sleep And Eat.
I'll never forget the ending to Network, which thoroughly shocked me. I hope we will get to see more of Bamboozled in later classes as it perfectlt demonstrated many of the racial themes and issues we have been discussing in class. I could tell by looking at the startled and impassioned faces of many of my classmates that they, too, had enjoyed and appreciated this honest look at race through film.
I hadn't seen the movie before we saw it in class and was genuinly glad that it was shown to us. I feel that it's a film that is brutally honest and raw in its depictions of racism and differing perceptions among the races. It didn't pull any punches as Spike Lee was as edgy as ever while directing this movie.
I also connected with what you said about the movie Network. I saw that classic several years before and instantly recognized the scene where Man-Tan tells his fellow brethren to go to their windows and basically say the same thing as was said in the famous Network scene. Judging by what you said about the ending to Bamboozled being similar to that of Network, I drew the following assumption: That a lot of people die in Bamboozled, particularly Man-Tan and/or Sleep And Eat.
I'll never forget the ending to Network, which thoroughly shocked me. I hope we will get to see more of Bamboozled in later classes as it perfectlt demonstrated many of the racial themes and issues we have been discussing in class. I could tell by looking at the startled and impassioned faces of many of my classmates that they, too, had enjoyed and appreciated this honest look at race through film.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Blog 10: The Players' Side of Things
I've done some thinking and decided that I wanted to discuss the role the three players more. These three players who have pointed the finger at Dodge and his coaching staff have created quite a media storm and all the while they have said very little. I've realized that right or wrong, the burden of proof is on Dodge and his coaching staff and not the players who have created the situation. They just get to sit back and let the coaches' take the hard hits.
I know this is the case because during the time last week when I spoke to the class, one female student said she knew two of the players. She said they were bragging about how they had created this mess and how it really wasn't such a big deal to them. This shocked me as I genuinly hoped that the players had filed a complaint because they felt wronged, not because they were too immature to accept the reality that they were kicked off the team, as stated by several of the current players who said these three players were jokes.
The three players haven't said much since they made their initial complaints. You would think they would want to get the word out as often as possible about their problems and give detailed, lengthy examples of the series of recurring hardships they have had to endure. Other than a very brief FOX 4 interview that mentioned friction over a team rule regarding hats and a few handpicked, thin interviews in between, the three players haven't been seen nor heard. Dodge, meanwhile, has had to suffer the brunt of the issue. The vast majority of Mean Green fans, especially through online message boards, support and believe Dodge. Many have even gone as far as to say that these three players are unfairly playing the race card.
Joseph Miller, who is biracial and like the three players, also plays defense (meaning he is quite familiar with them), emphatically told me on the record last week that these players need to accept the reality that they're no longer on the team and move on with their lives. He said there is no truth whatsoever to their claims.If what Dodge says is true is indeed true, then things are gradually going down the right path for him. However, if what the three players say is right, then they need to get the lead out and make up some ground.
They should want to be believed, but right now the consensus among the fans and the general support is in Dodge's favor.Once all the information is gathered and all parties have told their side of the story, a resolution can be made. Until then, closure will be withheld for all involved.One thing is for sure. This will unquestionably go down as an increasingly unforgiving season for Dodge, who is learning the hard way that the old college try is not good enough in college football.
I know this is the case because during the time last week when I spoke to the class, one female student said she knew two of the players. She said they were bragging about how they had created this mess and how it really wasn't such a big deal to them. This shocked me as I genuinly hoped that the players had filed a complaint because they felt wronged, not because they were too immature to accept the reality that they were kicked off the team, as stated by several of the current players who said these three players were jokes.
The three players haven't said much since they made their initial complaints. You would think they would want to get the word out as often as possible about their problems and give detailed, lengthy examples of the series of recurring hardships they have had to endure. Other than a very brief FOX 4 interview that mentioned friction over a team rule regarding hats and a few handpicked, thin interviews in between, the three players haven't been seen nor heard. Dodge, meanwhile, has had to suffer the brunt of the issue. The vast majority of Mean Green fans, especially through online message boards, support and believe Dodge. Many have even gone as far as to say that these three players are unfairly playing the race card.
Joseph Miller, who is biracial and like the three players, also plays defense (meaning he is quite familiar with them), emphatically told me on the record last week that these players need to accept the reality that they're no longer on the team and move on with their lives. He said there is no truth whatsoever to their claims.If what Dodge says is true is indeed true, then things are gradually going down the right path for him. However, if what the three players say is right, then they need to get the lead out and make up some ground.
They should want to be believed, but right now the consensus among the fans and the general support is in Dodge's favor.Once all the information is gathered and all parties have told their side of the story, a resolution can be made. Until then, closure will be withheld for all involved.One thing is for sure. This will unquestionably go down as an increasingly unforgiving season for Dodge, who is learning the hard way that the old college try is not good enough in college football.
Blog 9: UNT Football Racism Situation
Dr. Lambiase: I thank you for letting me speak to the class last week about the football team's racism allegations. I felt like the class was interactive and was very glad that so many students cared to discuss such a very vital issue on campus.
The issue is not quite dead as the NAACP hasn't made their ruling yet, but for the most part the issue has been put to bed. Especially after the UNT administration recently cleared the coaching staff last week of any wrongdoing.
My thoughts are that the recent allegations of racism towards head coach Todd Dodge's coaching staff from three former players have created more of a stir than any of Dodge's seven current losses in eight games this season. And that's saying a lot considering there have been some truly gut-wrenching losses, too.Although I'm sure Dodge has realized the following long before now, the fact remains that the events of this past week drove home the revelation more so now than ever before: despite the geography which states he's only a little over 20 miles from his old stomping grounds, in truth he is a world away from Southlake Carroll.
The three players have continually said that their issues have been with the coaching staff as a whole, but since Dodge is the head coach, he must speak for them because he is the head of the program. Not one of Dodge's coaches has said anything to the media yet. Whether it's right or wrong, Dodge has come under the most fire since he is the head coach and as a result, he is responsible for the actions of his coaching staff. In this "very disappointing" season of multiple hardships, Dodge has also admitted that several games have been "nightmarish" for him. Through hindsight, the word best describes this past week more than it does any football game. According to the calendar, Dodge is not even one year removed from his fourth high school state title in five years, a streak in which he lost only one game. Realistically, though, he's about as far removed from those glory days as he can possibly be.
The honeymoon has been over for quite some time, but these series of allegations have only further divorced him from his last dominant stop. The first game of the season (a 79-10 historic thumping by OU) is arguably NT's worst loss ever, but even that didn't cut Dodge as deeply as these allegations have. I was there with several other news outlets last Tuesday as Dodge gave his first interview since the story broke. I have never seen Dodge so out of his element and visibly distraught as I did that day, not even in the post game interviews following the many tough, heartbreaking losses NT has endured.
Dodge has always been honest, constantly taking responsibility for things that don't work in a game or blaming himself for mistakes he made. He has given me no reason to disregard his words now. He takes great pride in knowing that he does his best to run a professional, classy program. At the beginning of the season, he said the reason why he brought his assistant coaches to NT was because he could trust them. Their loyalty and character meant more to him than their strong lack of college coaching experience. However, if there is truth to what the players say, then it appears that the problem is with his coaches.Then there are the three players. I don't doubt that they felt discriminated against, but that doesn't mean that they were.
Misunderstandings, especially with a new coaching staff, are common as everybody tries to get comfortable under a new program. Winning cures all ails, so I can't help but wonder if these allegations would have surfaced if the team was winning. That's not to question the validity of the claims or to say that the coaching staff is to blame, just that troubles are endured and forgotten as long as teams are winning. This has been seen throughout the world of sports for decades. As long as things are going well, everyone is happy, but once the losing starts, suddenly things that weren't a problem become one.
The issue is not quite dead as the NAACP hasn't made their ruling yet, but for the most part the issue has been put to bed. Especially after the UNT administration recently cleared the coaching staff last week of any wrongdoing.
My thoughts are that the recent allegations of racism towards head coach Todd Dodge's coaching staff from three former players have created more of a stir than any of Dodge's seven current losses in eight games this season. And that's saying a lot considering there have been some truly gut-wrenching losses, too.Although I'm sure Dodge has realized the following long before now, the fact remains that the events of this past week drove home the revelation more so now than ever before: despite the geography which states he's only a little over 20 miles from his old stomping grounds, in truth he is a world away from Southlake Carroll.
The three players have continually said that their issues have been with the coaching staff as a whole, but since Dodge is the head coach, he must speak for them because he is the head of the program. Not one of Dodge's coaches has said anything to the media yet. Whether it's right or wrong, Dodge has come under the most fire since he is the head coach and as a result, he is responsible for the actions of his coaching staff. In this "very disappointing" season of multiple hardships, Dodge has also admitted that several games have been "nightmarish" for him. Through hindsight, the word best describes this past week more than it does any football game. According to the calendar, Dodge is not even one year removed from his fourth high school state title in five years, a streak in which he lost only one game. Realistically, though, he's about as far removed from those glory days as he can possibly be.
The honeymoon has been over for quite some time, but these series of allegations have only further divorced him from his last dominant stop. The first game of the season (a 79-10 historic thumping by OU) is arguably NT's worst loss ever, but even that didn't cut Dodge as deeply as these allegations have. I was there with several other news outlets last Tuesday as Dodge gave his first interview since the story broke. I have never seen Dodge so out of his element and visibly distraught as I did that day, not even in the post game interviews following the many tough, heartbreaking losses NT has endured.
Dodge has always been honest, constantly taking responsibility for things that don't work in a game or blaming himself for mistakes he made. He has given me no reason to disregard his words now. He takes great pride in knowing that he does his best to run a professional, classy program. At the beginning of the season, he said the reason why he brought his assistant coaches to NT was because he could trust them. Their loyalty and character meant more to him than their strong lack of college coaching experience. However, if there is truth to what the players say, then it appears that the problem is with his coaches.Then there are the three players. I don't doubt that they felt discriminated against, but that doesn't mean that they were.
Misunderstandings, especially with a new coaching staff, are common as everybody tries to get comfortable under a new program. Winning cures all ails, so I can't help but wonder if these allegations would have surfaced if the team was winning. That's not to question the validity of the claims or to say that the coaching staff is to blame, just that troubles are endured and forgotten as long as teams are winning. This has been seen throughout the world of sports for decades. As long as things are going well, everyone is happy, but once the losing starts, suddenly things that weren't a problem become one.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Blog 8: Maxim's "Unsexiest" List
My last blog was about the new Axe Shower Gel and their attempt to out-do themselves with their new sexually-encouraging commercial contest. It appears that Maxim is doing much of the same. In an attempt to be even more sexist that usual, Maxim, which annually releases a very much-hyped sexiest women alive list, recently unleashed a new list.
This list is the "Unsexiest List." In other words, they are blatantly calling these women ugly, which may be better because at least they would honest. The list included Madonna, Sarah Jessica Parker and Britney Spears among others. Not only did Maxim list the girls, but they also described in detail why these female celebrities are so unappealing. They didn't shy away from their true feelings, either.
I can't help but wonder why this list was created. It is because these five women repulse the collective Maxim staff so much that they had to do something about it? I doubt it. My guess is that it was done for sheer publicity through debate and shock value. What is certain is that they have achieved in their goal.
The message this is sending to young girls is as bad as anything else Maxim has ever done. What are all the girls who like Madonna and Sarah Jessica Parker supposed to think now? Their idols have been labeled as the ugliest in Hollywood. Not only do these young girls have to look like the women on Maxim's sexiest list, but now they probably feel like they shouldn't look like any of the five women on the unsexiest list. Maxim, like Axe, never ceases to shock me.
PS: The story I found, which I am sure has ran on countless other websites in countless other stories, is as follows:
The folks over at Maxim magazine think it's too easy picking Charlize Theron as the Sexiest Woman Alive. They'd rather weigh in on who's unsexy.
The unfortunate recipient of the lad mag's Unsexiest title is "Sex & the City" star Sarah Jessica Parker, whose character Carrie Bradshaw is not only in high demand with the opposite sex, but is also a fashion diva among the fair sex.
Maxim, however, points out her more, um, equine features: "How the hell did this Barbaro-faced broad manage to be the least sexy woman in a group of very unsexy women and still star on a show with 'sex' in the title? Pull your skirt down, Secretariat, we'd rather ride Chris Noth."
In the runner-up position is the Beehived One herself, "Rehab" singer Amy Winehouse, whose "openly hemorrhaging translucent skin, rat's nest mane and lashes that look more like surgically attached bats."
On the small screen, "Grey's Anatomy" star Sandra Oh took third place for playing "Dr. McSkinny, with her cold bedside manner and boyish figure."
Rounding out the Unsexy 5 is Madonna in the penultimate position "with a mug that looks Euro-sealed to her skull." The heir to her pop princess throne, Britney Spears, took last place because, "Less than five years ago, Britney had a python wrapped around her well-toned torso onstage at the VMAs. Since then, she's lost the ability to perform, but gained two kids, two useless ex-husbands, and about 23 pounds of Funyun pudge."
This list is the "Unsexiest List." In other words, they are blatantly calling these women ugly, which may be better because at least they would honest. The list included Madonna, Sarah Jessica Parker and Britney Spears among others. Not only did Maxim list the girls, but they also described in detail why these female celebrities are so unappealing. They didn't shy away from their true feelings, either.
I can't help but wonder why this list was created. It is because these five women repulse the collective Maxim staff so much that they had to do something about it? I doubt it. My guess is that it was done for sheer publicity through debate and shock value. What is certain is that they have achieved in their goal.
The message this is sending to young girls is as bad as anything else Maxim has ever done. What are all the girls who like Madonna and Sarah Jessica Parker supposed to think now? Their idols have been labeled as the ugliest in Hollywood. Not only do these young girls have to look like the women on Maxim's sexiest list, but now they probably feel like they shouldn't look like any of the five women on the unsexiest list. Maxim, like Axe, never ceases to shock me.
PS: The story I found, which I am sure has ran on countless other websites in countless other stories, is as follows:
The folks over at Maxim magazine think it's too easy picking Charlize Theron as the Sexiest Woman Alive. They'd rather weigh in on who's unsexy.
The unfortunate recipient of the lad mag's Unsexiest title is "Sex & the City" star Sarah Jessica Parker, whose character Carrie Bradshaw is not only in high demand with the opposite sex, but is also a fashion diva among the fair sex.
Maxim, however, points out her more, um, equine features: "How the hell did this Barbaro-faced broad manage to be the least sexy woman in a group of very unsexy women and still star on a show with 'sex' in the title? Pull your skirt down, Secretariat, we'd rather ride Chris Noth."
In the runner-up position is the Beehived One herself, "Rehab" singer Amy Winehouse, whose "openly hemorrhaging translucent skin, rat's nest mane and lashes that look more like surgically attached bats."
On the small screen, "Grey's Anatomy" star Sandra Oh took third place for playing "Dr. McSkinny, with her cold bedside manner and boyish figure."
Rounding out the Unsexy 5 is Madonna in the penultimate position "with a mug that looks Euro-sealed to her skull." The heir to her pop princess throne, Britney Spears, took last place because, "Less than five years ago, Britney had a python wrapped around her well-toned torso onstage at the VMAs. Since then, she's lost the ability to perform, but gained two kids, two useless ex-husbands, and about 23 pounds of Funyun pudge."
Blog 7: More on the Axe girls as first discussed in class
For a few weeks now I have been seeing this commercial for Axe Shower Gel that encourages the viewer to go online. Once there, the viewer should enter into a contest to create "The World's Dirtiest Film." The promos for it has perennial B-List actor David Spade and several dozen scantily clad women.
The women are doing many things. Some are eating very messy ribs with barbecue sauce that smears all over their bodies. Others are playing in a large bathtub, throwing bubbles and suds at each other. I find it interesting that while the girls are playing in the tub, Spade is standing in the center, watching them have their fun, not doing anything himself.
I am blogging about this because a few weeks ago in class you showed us the Axe commercial with the Bow Chica Wah Wah ladies of the evening. These women encouraged clean, responsible women to throw caution to the wind and just go crazy and sleep with many men.
If you can, please find a link for this video contest online as I feel it would be great to show the class. I haven't been able to find a link for it myself just yet, but I will keep looking.
Ultimately, it appears that Axe is at it again, but on a much grander scale as they are trying to recruit as many men around the country to add to their self-labeled "dirty" commercial. I wonder how far the participants will take it? How dirty will their versions be? Will any of it be able to be viewed on television? I'm sure the answer will be no. Some will do a nice, artistic job, however I am sure that many will not and will only go for gross sexual shock value. Axe, you've managed to out-do yourself.
The women are doing many things. Some are eating very messy ribs with barbecue sauce that smears all over their bodies. Others are playing in a large bathtub, throwing bubbles and suds at each other. I find it interesting that while the girls are playing in the tub, Spade is standing in the center, watching them have their fun, not doing anything himself.
I am blogging about this because a few weeks ago in class you showed us the Axe commercial with the Bow Chica Wah Wah ladies of the evening. These women encouraged clean, responsible women to throw caution to the wind and just go crazy and sleep with many men.
If you can, please find a link for this video contest online as I feel it would be great to show the class. I haven't been able to find a link for it myself just yet, but I will keep looking.
Ultimately, it appears that Axe is at it again, but on a much grander scale as they are trying to recruit as many men around the country to add to their self-labeled "dirty" commercial. I wonder how far the participants will take it? How dirty will their versions be? Will any of it be able to be viewed on television? I'm sure the answer will be no. Some will do a nice, artistic job, however I am sure that many will not and will only go for gross sexual shock value. Axe, you've managed to out-do yourself.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Blog 6: Looking into gay vague advertising
We have learned many terms in this class, most of which I was familiar with concerning the basic principle while not necessarily the literal term itself. One term has stuck out above all others so far. Before I took this class, I had never before heard of gay vague advertising. The concept intrigued me and after understanding what it is and why it is used, I started to wonder how many other straight people like myself have failed to notice this? After doing some research online, it appears that gay vague advertising is on the rise.
I never realized what was going on in certain ads because the sole purpose of those ads was for me to see what I as a straight man would traditionally see while a gay person would naturally see something else altogether. I didn't know such ads were out there because I didn't know what to look for. I knew there were advertisements targeted towards homosexuals, but I never knew there was a stealthy concept out there that allowed for advertising to everybody.
Some people think gay vague advertising is offensive. I do not think this is the case. Gay people have a right to be advertised to, as well. If anything, those people who are offended by such things should rejoice because gay vague advertising is meant to please all parties. I'm willing to bet that those people who are angered by such a concept have failed to realize examples of gay vague advertising in the past, thus proving my point.
Now that I am familiar with the concept of gay vague advertisementing and having seen examples of such in class, I am purposely on the lookout to see how many such ads I can realize on my own. I've already told some friends of mine who are not taking this class about the concept and they were just as surprised as I was. This includes a gay friend who loves the idea.
I never realized what was going on in certain ads because the sole purpose of those ads was for me to see what I as a straight man would traditionally see while a gay person would naturally see something else altogether. I didn't know such ads were out there because I didn't know what to look for. I knew there were advertisements targeted towards homosexuals, but I never knew there was a stealthy concept out there that allowed for advertising to everybody.
Some people think gay vague advertising is offensive. I do not think this is the case. Gay people have a right to be advertised to, as well. If anything, those people who are offended by such things should rejoice because gay vague advertising is meant to please all parties. I'm willing to bet that those people who are angered by such a concept have failed to realize examples of gay vague advertising in the past, thus proving my point.
Now that I am familiar with the concept of gay vague advertisementing and having seen examples of such in class, I am purposely on the lookout to see how many such ads I can realize on my own. I've already told some friends of mine who are not taking this class about the concept and they were just as surprised as I was. This includes a gay friend who loves the idea.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Blog 5: Discussing Ch. 10
After reading chapter 10, I realized what was going on in my youth between the beer kingpins which I had never noticed before. In the section labeled, "Coors Light" it said that the three kingpins of Coors, Anheuser-Bush and Miller, began to increase their efforts more than ever before to attract the younger demographic, starting in 2001 to today. I found the many ways they went after the younger demographic to be slick and well-played. I say this because at the time I was in high school and my friends and I would always laugh at and enjoy their new commercials, not really knowing the truth behind them as I do now.
I still remember the softer, more family-oriented Coors Original commercials with the grandfatherly Pete Coors walking through the snow. Such a commercial today probably would not attract a lot of attention and be successful compared to the current racy beer commercials as they are the new standard lately.
The Coors Light commercial with "the twins" was a favorite among my friends and I. I was 17 at the time, still four years from 21, but the campaign worked it's subtle magic by generating conversation and positive buzz among the younger crowd like my friends and I. We were the next beer drinking generation and the beer kingpins knew they had to hook us early.
Still, probably the most favorite one among my friends and I would have to be the "Catfight" commercial. This Miller commercial was seen as a stroke of genius among my friends and my older brothers and their friends. Looking back on it now as a 23 year-old, I can see through the facade and notice how sexist such a commercial really is. Not only that, but it's about as unrealistic as you can get, but it worked because it played to our fantasies. The fact that it was a product of one of the actors in the commercial, it being his way of making a beer commercial, made it relatable to every straight man. Heck, I mean even the twins commercial is more realistic because there's just two hot twins who love football. But this one could have only worked on the level that it did because it was presented in a fantasy setting.
Looking back on all those commercials now I can't help but wonder how much they influenced me at the time. My friends and I certainly enjoyed them, but did they eventually lead me to drink alcohol? I am a responsible social drinker, but would I even be drinking if not for those commercials? I'm sure they had some influence since they glamorized and sexualized the act of drinking. I'm glad this chapter was included in the book because it not only revealed to me what I didn't know about the behind the scenes aspect of the commercials (such as the large volumes of money the kingpins were spending, the shift in campaigns and so on), but i also reaffirmed some theories I had been considering for quite some time.
I still remember the softer, more family-oriented Coors Original commercials with the grandfatherly Pete Coors walking through the snow. Such a commercial today probably would not attract a lot of attention and be successful compared to the current racy beer commercials as they are the new standard lately.
The Coors Light commercial with "the twins" was a favorite among my friends and I. I was 17 at the time, still four years from 21, but the campaign worked it's subtle magic by generating conversation and positive buzz among the younger crowd like my friends and I. We were the next beer drinking generation and the beer kingpins knew they had to hook us early.
Still, probably the most favorite one among my friends and I would have to be the "Catfight" commercial. This Miller commercial was seen as a stroke of genius among my friends and my older brothers and their friends. Looking back on it now as a 23 year-old, I can see through the facade and notice how sexist such a commercial really is. Not only that, but it's about as unrealistic as you can get, but it worked because it played to our fantasies. The fact that it was a product of one of the actors in the commercial, it being his way of making a beer commercial, made it relatable to every straight man. Heck, I mean even the twins commercial is more realistic because there's just two hot twins who love football. But this one could have only worked on the level that it did because it was presented in a fantasy setting.
Looking back on all those commercials now I can't help but wonder how much they influenced me at the time. My friends and I certainly enjoyed them, but did they eventually lead me to drink alcohol? I am a responsible social drinker, but would I even be drinking if not for those commercials? I'm sure they had some influence since they glamorized and sexualized the act of drinking. I'm glad this chapter was included in the book because it not only revealed to me what I didn't know about the behind the scenes aspect of the commercials (such as the large volumes of money the kingpins were spending, the shift in campaigns and so on), but i also reaffirmed some theories I had been considering for quite some time.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Blog 4: Discussing Chapter 8's content
The issue presented in chapter 8 (sexual content on television commercials) is one that I found very interesting beyond the obvious nature of the content being discussed. I think this issue is one of the most pertinent in the book and was wondering why it was listed so deep into the book at chapter 8. I am not sure how the setup of the book came about. It is clear that the book is very well researched and if there is a specific order to the book that logically relegated this issue to a later chapter, I was previously unaware of such measures.
But I did notice that it was appropriately listed as the first chapter in the section 2 heading of sexualizing products. My point of all this being I found it to be the most fascinating chapter we've read yet. I credit this, among other great aspects of the chapter, to the statistical breakdown of television programs/sexual content per show/percentage of boys who watch and so on as seen in tables 8.3 and 8.4. In fact, the breakdown per network was also well researched as seen in table 8.2 which discusses the seconds of sexual content in certain areas.
As for the text itself, there was on single line that stuck out the most and really got me thinking. "While media scholars, parents, and politicians often talk about whether adolescent exposure to television is problematic, the discussions rarely focus on advertising."
I always thought that sexually explicit advertising was potentially harmful if not highly suggestive to young, impressionable minds. The way I see it, it's just a quick 15 seconds to 30 seconds of jokes and sexually-related dialogue which can be easily remembered. I guess I was in the minority. I suppose I was a little naive, but I'm not ashamed of that. I'm proud of my thinking and will continue to keep a watchful eye open when I'm around my younger cousins while watching television.
But I did notice that it was appropriately listed as the first chapter in the section 2 heading of sexualizing products. My point of all this being I found it to be the most fascinating chapter we've read yet. I credit this, among other great aspects of the chapter, to the statistical breakdown of television programs/sexual content per show/percentage of boys who watch and so on as seen in tables 8.3 and 8.4. In fact, the breakdown per network was also well researched as seen in table 8.2 which discusses the seconds of sexual content in certain areas.
As for the text itself, there was on single line that stuck out the most and really got me thinking. "While media scholars, parents, and politicians often talk about whether adolescent exposure to television is problematic, the discussions rarely focus on advertising."
I always thought that sexually explicit advertising was potentially harmful if not highly suggestive to young, impressionable minds. The way I see it, it's just a quick 15 seconds to 30 seconds of jokes and sexually-related dialogue which can be easily remembered. I guess I was in the minority. I suppose I was a little naive, but I'm not ashamed of that. I'm proud of my thinking and will continue to keep a watchful eye open when I'm around my younger cousins while watching television.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Blog 3: Understanding the Watergate scandel
The oral history we had to turn in last week got me thinking on a few things. I knew beforehand that history is surely written by the victors. I also knew that time has a way of changing things, especially perspective. What I didn’t know was how it changed the Watergate scandal over time.
It will forever be remembered as one of the most infamous political blunders in American history. Seeing the front page from the Los Angeles Times dated the day after President Ford was sworn into office coupled with talking to my father who bought the paper opened my eyes. The experience showed me how Nixon and Ford’s legacy has changed over time.
Nixon back then was seen as an insecure power-crazed politician (more so than most.) Now he is now lauded as a master of foreign policy. His relations with China are largely responsibly for where America is now in the foreign corporate world.
Then there’s Ford. Back then he was seen as a fill-in president. Today he’s praised for helping to bring the nation back together after the scandal. He wasn’t too overpowering and maniacal in his political aspirations, which would not have been what was best for the country at that fragile time.
In this particular case, time heals all wounds. People who were once seen as only one way are now seen from a different perspective as another way. The truth comes out and flaws are accepted as human nature while the work accomplished is finally given the appropriate appreciation it deserves once prejudice is removed through time and hindsight. It was a very interesting oral history and I was glad I had the opportunity to discuss the issue with my father.
It will forever be remembered as one of the most infamous political blunders in American history. Seeing the front page from the Los Angeles Times dated the day after President Ford was sworn into office coupled with talking to my father who bought the paper opened my eyes. The experience showed me how Nixon and Ford’s legacy has changed over time.
Nixon back then was seen as an insecure power-crazed politician (more so than most.) Now he is now lauded as a master of foreign policy. His relations with China are largely responsibly for where America is now in the foreign corporate world.
Then there’s Ford. Back then he was seen as a fill-in president. Today he’s praised for helping to bring the nation back together after the scandal. He wasn’t too overpowering and maniacal in his political aspirations, which would not have been what was best for the country at that fragile time.
In this particular case, time heals all wounds. People who were once seen as only one way are now seen from a different perspective as another way. The truth comes out and flaws are accepted as human nature while the work accomplished is finally given the appropriate appreciation it deserves once prejudice is removed through time and hindsight. It was a very interesting oral history and I was glad I had the opportunity to discuss the issue with my father.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Blog 2: Vick and the issue of race
This blog allows me to bring up a very interesting story I have wanted to dissect for a while: the Michael Vick case. Michael Vick, former quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, was a popular, rich pro athlete who had it all. He was the face of the NFL for several seasons. That was before his darkest secrets were revealed.
Turns out he liked to watch dogs literally kill each other and occasionally he would do the same by killing the ones that weren’t up to snuff. Over the past few months, the federal government began building its case against Vick after a raid on his property earlier in the same showed evidence of a dog fighting ring operating on the premises not to mention the nearly dozen buried canine corpses found in the back yard.
The case never went to trial. Vick’s co-defendants ratted him out for better deals for themselves and he in turn pleaded guilty before a jury ever had the chance to make matters worse for him. He is now a convicted felon. His sentencing will take place in December.
The point I’m trying to make here is I am disgusted with the way Vick has been so vehemently defended by many. Numerous high profile athletes, actors and entertainers have came out in defense of Vick and tried to reason why he did what he did. It should be noted that the vast majority of his defenders are black, as is he and they have continually contended that it’s a racial issue.
Call me naive, but what really struck me as odd is how this issue has quickly become a racial issue. What everyone who is defending Vick seems to be forgetting is that what he did a white man or Hispanic man or any other man could do. Vick is not being hated on and protested against by PETA and other such groups because he is black, rather, it’s because he is a convicted felon who took pleasure in personally murdering numerous dogs.
We are a country of pet lovers, especially dog lovers. It doesn’t matter what race you are, if you do horrific things like that, you should be punished. However, so many people have turned it into a race thing and I hate it when the race card is used. Yes, there is racism in this world, but this is not a racial issue and should not be treated as such. For further evidence, just look into Vick’s history.
He has a rap-sheet longer than any touchdown run he ever accomplished. He has a documented history of getting into continued trouble with the law. Vick is seen as innocent by many and that confuses the hell out of me. In the spirit of full disclosure, I must say that I used to truly admire Vick. I thought he had an incredible talent, but he wasted it away, not because he was black, but because he made poor decisions time and time again.
Turns out he liked to watch dogs literally kill each other and occasionally he would do the same by killing the ones that weren’t up to snuff. Over the past few months, the federal government began building its case against Vick after a raid on his property earlier in the same showed evidence of a dog fighting ring operating on the premises not to mention the nearly dozen buried canine corpses found in the back yard.
The case never went to trial. Vick’s co-defendants ratted him out for better deals for themselves and he in turn pleaded guilty before a jury ever had the chance to make matters worse for him. He is now a convicted felon. His sentencing will take place in December.
The point I’m trying to make here is I am disgusted with the way Vick has been so vehemently defended by many. Numerous high profile athletes, actors and entertainers have came out in defense of Vick and tried to reason why he did what he did. It should be noted that the vast majority of his defenders are black, as is he and they have continually contended that it’s a racial issue.
Call me naive, but what really struck me as odd is how this issue has quickly become a racial issue. What everyone who is defending Vick seems to be forgetting is that what he did a white man or Hispanic man or any other man could do. Vick is not being hated on and protested against by PETA and other such groups because he is black, rather, it’s because he is a convicted felon who took pleasure in personally murdering numerous dogs.
We are a country of pet lovers, especially dog lovers. It doesn’t matter what race you are, if you do horrific things like that, you should be punished. However, so many people have turned it into a race thing and I hate it when the race card is used. Yes, there is racism in this world, but this is not a racial issue and should not be treated as such. For further evidence, just look into Vick’s history.
He has a rap-sheet longer than any touchdown run he ever accomplished. He has a documented history of getting into continued trouble with the law. Vick is seen as innocent by many and that confuses the hell out of me. In the spirit of full disclosure, I must say that I used to truly admire Vick. I thought he had an incredible talent, but he wasted it away, not because he was black, but because he made poor decisions time and time again.
First Blog for Jour Class
Dr. Lambiase, like most of my 100+ classmates, I was a little late on posting my first few blogs because I didn’t understand what we were supposed to blog on.
I sincerely appreciate that you said in class Friday, September 21 that it was okay if we wrote our first three blogs from the first three weeks right now and they wouldn’t be counted as late.
First blog:
I enjoy sports. There’s just no way around it. I guess you could say I am a sports nut, a sports junkie. Everything of that nature and everything in between. I bring this up because I really enjoyed one of the first major discussions we had in class. In was either the first or second class, I can’t recall. I think it was the first.
We discussed women in sports reporting. Specifically we talked about them as sideline reporters for NFL games. Many people shared their comments on the issue in class. I was one of them.
I agree that the women in those segments are often viewed as just a cute face asking simple questions and in my opinion that is wrong. I also think that such a trend is only seen in NFL games and that female journalists working for several other media outlets are valued and respected.
Chief among them is ESPN. ESPN often has women featured prominently on SportsCenter, their flagship show. These women have major assignments on big stories. They are also anchors on the show itself. Women may be devalued on NFL sidelines, but that does not mean that’s the way it is in the entire sports world.
I sincerely appreciate that you said in class Friday, September 21 that it was okay if we wrote our first three blogs from the first three weeks right now and they wouldn’t be counted as late.
First blog:
I enjoy sports. There’s just no way around it. I guess you could say I am a sports nut, a sports junkie. Everything of that nature and everything in between. I bring this up because I really enjoyed one of the first major discussions we had in class. In was either the first or second class, I can’t recall. I think it was the first.
We discussed women in sports reporting. Specifically we talked about them as sideline reporters for NFL games. Many people shared their comments on the issue in class. I was one of them.
I agree that the women in those segments are often viewed as just a cute face asking simple questions and in my opinion that is wrong. I also think that such a trend is only seen in NFL games and that female journalists working for several other media outlets are valued and respected.
Chief among them is ESPN. ESPN often has women featured prominently on SportsCenter, their flagship show. These women have major assignments on big stories. They are also anchors on the show itself. Women may be devalued on NFL sidelines, but that does not mean that’s the way it is in the entire sports world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
