Wednesday’s Class… March 26, 2007

Wow.  Why is the media so friggen influential?  I know I always say this, but I never really thought about how the media really does contribute to an individuals self image.  I guess I do compare myself to the media and all the girls etc… that are on the television/internet etc… and how they dress.  I thought it was really interesting to be able to hear a lecture that was basically about girls insecurities and how they fix them.

Now I am not going to lie, I am not the biggest chested person. But to be perfectly honest with you all, I can’t see myself going under the knife to get boob implants (I am not the biggest fan of pain/needles etc… though haha).  I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when the lecturer was telling everybody that when a girl decided to get hers done she was told to go through magazines and “pick which ones she liked best”.  Like how impersonal is that.  For many people this is a life changing surgery and to treat it so non-chalant is atrocious to me.

I thought it was kinda weird how some girls got the surgery because they wanted their boobs to look like they were in a push-up bra 24/7… I guess it’s understandable, but can’t say I’d want my boobs at my chin all day long.

It made perfect sense when it was said that girls like getting comments about their boobs after their breast surgery. I think that it is much more broad then that though because I think girls like getting compliments about anything.  Girls in my opinion are very very insecure and a compliment about anything makes them feel better about themselves (not to say that guys don’t want/need compliments either I just think it is more dominant in girls).

It sucks that society today is all about how girls are comparing themselves and always trying to be better.  I know that will probably never change now because no one settles anymore; people always want something better (perhaps that is why divorce is the way it is?)

I know the media is sweet and all, but after this class I kinda think it sucks.  I hate when i’m having an ugly day, and I think that the media makes people feel that way all the time.  People are always comparing themselves to the next broad or guy next to them.  That sucks!

Now to get to the thing that really pissed me off: “Today, real naked women are just bad porn”- Naomi Wolf.  Who is this broad? Like seriously?  I know a lot of guys who don’t like the balloon sized boobs etc… I think natural is fantastic.  Like why does this person think that people are only good looking if they are plastic? To be perfectly honest, I don’t think Barbie is that sweet looking and Ken is kinda ugly.

Well enough of my rant.  I will add in however that when it was stated that the pussy-cat dolls were viewed as role models and how that contributes to a “pornoized culture” I was kinda choked.  Like I get that they may not dress very appropriate all the time but who gets the right to define appropriate?  What is appropriate? I don’t think young girls are ever going to be looking up to politicians etc. as a role model because they aren’t fun.  Isn’t that what being young is about? I’m not saying go and dress like a slut or anything, but I think that there are reasons why artists are idolized and I don’t think that decision is solely based on their attire.

Why does everyone care so much??? March 20, 2007

For starters, honkeydoree…

I find that when I read the articles for the upcoming class, I am very angered.  When I read the article “Should gay people seek to cultivate representations of a unified gay identity in the media, or is this counterproductive?” I was rather distraught.

I don’t know why people can’t just let people be.  If someone wants to be gay, let them be gay… if someone wants to die their hair purple or pierce their tongue… let them.  I don’t know why some people feel the need to try and control/ brainwash others with their thoughts and ideas… half the time NO ONE CARES.

The article talks about how sexual acts and roles contribute to what makes homosexual human beings a culture. The article talks about how gay men are coming up with new things for their sexual activities. First off- gay couples I’m sure are not the only people who are finding new and exciting shit to do in the sheets, Second of all- who gives a shit? If someone wants to be kinky and get down and dirty… let them!

The part of the article that I really enjoyed was stated by Larry Gross.  Gross says “the media portrays gay people as “weak and silly, or evil and corrupt”… Gross worries about this because of the major role that mass communication has in our society.  I completely agree with this because I think that people act the way they do because that is how they see others.  No one wants to be the odd one out, or the black sheep if you will- especially when you are younger.  Growing up in junior high and high school all anyone wants to do is fit in.  If teenagers view on television and movies etc. that being gay is only associated with certain characteristics then children are likely to target others who hold these characteristics.  I think the media plays a large part in the stereotyping of an entire culture and it is despicable.  The world would not be what it is today if it were not for diversity.

I will give the media props however for starting to show more and more diverse sets of people on their shows etc… Will and Grace for example was a prime-time hit! I loved that show.  I think that when people view shows like this it shows that these “weak or evil” stereotypes are just formalized and really contain no substance.

The stereotypes that are surrounding the gay community is astonishing.  Clothing, apperance, actions are all things that people attribute differently to a homosexual person.  Why can’t people just let people be? 

Gross really hits home later on in the article when he says “…the reason minorities are afflicted with negative stereotyping…is because they aren’t represented enough and have too little control over the means of production”.  This is sooo true in my opinion.  If the majority rules for the majority then there really is no one left to represent the minority because lets face it, the majority is heterosexual.  Homosexuals are faced with discrimination all the time, most of the time it is hidden which sometimes makes it even worse (for example- female police officers- my friend has to hide her sexuality).  This discrimination prevents gays and lesbians from being able to get a position of power to make positive changes for their culture.  It is a never ending vicious cycle.

Friends is the Ultimate Prime time Television Show… March 11, 2007

In doing this weeks readings, there were so many I did not know which one to choose.  When I scanned the list I came across the article that was on the “Friends” sitcom that was based on Joey and Chandler’s friendship.

I think parts in this article are atrociously written.  There is a section in the article that discusses how Chandler in a sense is ”anti-gay” because of a bracelet that was given to him from Joey. The quote in the article reads as follows: “Having received the bracelet, Chandler reacted in a way that simulated gay camp from a hysterical heterosexual standpoint, labelling it a ‘woman repeller’”.  Just because Chandler did not like the bracelet that Joey gave to him does not mean he is feeling like he is in a homosexual relationship with Joey, or that Joey in any way, shape, or form is trying to tell him something.

I think people are reading way to much into things on television these days.  There are so many critics out there who just want to be “heard” that they are picking apart situations and applying certain stigmas to them that really do not work.  For instance, I was a dedicated “Friends” fan right up to when the last episode aired; never in the 9 or 10 seasons “Friends” was on did I think that Chandler or Joey were homophobic or were gay themselves.  People have too much time on their hands.  Why can’t people just leave things as they are?

Joey and Chandler had one of the best on screen friendships I have ever witnessed.  I enjoyed watching them so much that I wanted to be their friend in real life (I still do!).  Joey is like the little kid and Chandler is like the dad who takes care of him.  There is no sexual chemistry between the two of them; especially not because Chandler did not know how to accept an ugly bracelet that was given to him as a present.  I would like to throw this out there: has anyone ever been given a gift that they don’t like but feel obligated to wear?  Oh wow, this has happened to me so many times and I acted the exact same way that Chandler did, I wore it because I had too, but I hated every second of it.  That is just what you do to save face.

Society today is so focused on the media and everything that surrounds it (internet, cell phones, TV, movies, etc…) that, in my opinion, no one ever just sits back and enjoys the show you might say. People are bombarded with all this bull shit information that a hug between males on a television show means they are gay… seriously why can’t people just let shit be? 

In conclusion, I think that Joey and Chandler had a phenomenal relationship that always put a smile on my face when I watched the show.  I remember the one episode where Chandler cheated with Joey’s girlfriend and Joey made Chandler sit in a box sealed up for hours.  That was an awesome episode, I highly recommend it!

Until later…

Here is a clip from “Friends”:

Anger March 5, 2007

So as you can tell by my title, I am a little angered at the article “Take Those Old Records Off the Shelf”: youth and music consumption in the postmodern age” by David Hayes.

Hayes says he interviewed many teenage music fans who felt the same way about how music nowadays is all the same shit and there is no diversity from singer to singer.  For starters, who did he interview? Where did he get his information? And what type of sample size is he conducting?  I have no idea where he is getting his information from and if his sources are even valid.  This media article does not say anything about the validity of the information.

Secondly, just because these “teenagers” Hayes interviewed feel this way (and we don’t even know how many he interviewed- 10 maybe 20? Whose to say?)… does not mean the entire population does.  I can say that I completely disagree with the opinions of these teenagers that there is no originality or uniqueness in music today between singers.  Of course there is the same shit being performed by certain artists (Christina, Brittney…), but I do not find JT’s music the same as Usher’s or Jesse McCartney.  Just because people sing under the same genre does not mean that every song has the same meaning.

Thirdly, who are these people to say that there is no “meaning” in the songs as there was in the olden days.  That there are no true, real statements being made.  This is absolute horseshit!  These people are completely speculating on how music is made; let alone assuming the meaning that recording artists’ feel their songs have.  For instance, Brittney’s song “Hit me baby one more time” clearly does not have the same meaning as Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You”.  Some artists just sing songs about random shit. Other artists, such as Whitney, write about passion and love and relate it to their life.

To wrap things up, I just wanted to say that just because these teens say that music today is not unique and it gets published in the media (journal article) does not mean that it is true.  Like most things in the media, just because one person says it is true, does not mean it is.  Always check your sources, because in cases like this one, they are not necessarily speaking for all teenagers. 

Here is Whitney’s music video for “I Will Always Love You”…Enjoy!!!:

Movie Sighting Post!!!! February 27, 2007

            For me, going to movies is like eating and breathing; I do it like it’s my job.  For this assignment I thought it would be interesting to see the difference of a movie in two different theaters.  To add on to this excitement, I thought I would one up myself and see the same movie in two different cities.  I saw “Because I said So” with Dianne Keaton and Mandy Moore in both Lethbridge at the Galaxy Cinema and in Calgary at
Paramount studios.  To my surprise, I did not notice much of a difference.

            I do not care what anyone says; when you watch movies in certain surroundings or if you watch movies with others instead of just yourself, the final opinion of the movie can be completely altered. For instance, the first time I saw Napoleon Dynamite in theatres with my little brother I thought it was the most unintelligent, brainless film I had ever seen.  Later on however, I watched the film again with a few friends and thought it was quite possibly the best thing that has ever happened to me in my entire life.  Surroundings and people have a HUGE impact on the outcome of a show.  I found this with “Because I said So” in the Lethbridge Cinema.  People were just enjoying being out in public having a good time, there were conversations and laughter all around me. The atmosphere really got me excited and eager to see the film. Hearing other people’s excitement and anticipation about the movie in turn made me more excited.

 It was not hard for me to take note of my surroundings at the theatre in
Lethbridge (or
Calgary for that matter) and the people there because I love people watching (in a non-creepy way). It is always interesting to see what people do and how they act in certain situations (the Calgary Stampede is great for this!).  For example, I noticed how there were more people with children in the concession line then people without children.  I also noticed that the “younger” couples and groups of friends were more off to the side in their own corner near the arcade room then with the crowd. It was as if the young adults had made a divide between themselves and everyone else.  The main thing I did notice at the Galaxy Cinema was how the in the theatre itself before the movie started, there was an abundance of females and a lack of males.

              In
Calgary however, the first part of my “experience” was not that pleasing due in full part to the fact that I had to pay $3.50 or something like that for a BOTTLE OF WATER.  I almost lost my mind, I could not believe it (I sound like Russell Smith here, but on the contrary I do disagree with him).  I did notice when I was in line to purchase my bottle of water that many of the people waiting to get their food and drinks were very anxious.  This was very interesting to me because it seems to act in accordance with all the media ads posted everywhere in the theatre (and not to mention commercials on television) endorsing the popcorn and encouraging the audience to try some. Anyhow, when I did get into the theatre and got into my seat that would be all mine for the next 2 hours, I was as happy as could be.  I love the smell of popcorn and the taste of sour patch kids and pop.  That is an experience worth every penny (yes all those ads work on me).  The people all around me were laughing and chatting and much like
Lethbridge, just enjoying being out. It is amazing how other peoples’ moods can affect your own!

In the
Calgary theatre, I paid special attention to the people in the row right in front of me because they had a “fake seat”.  The lady put her purse down on the seat to her left so that there was only 1 seat left that was available.  A couple came by and asked if it was taken and the lady responded that it was.  Throughout the movie, I noticed that the seat was never filled.  I’m assuming it was a filler seat so that this particular lady did not have to sit beside a random person.  Why then do you go to movies in the first place?  This is what mystified me in Smith’s article: Why does he go to movies in the first place if he already knows he is going to hate them?  In my opinion I think he is fulfilling his own fate.  It’s as if he goes into the theatre with the idea that everything is pointless and that every single person in the theatre is a dirty, greasy, germy human who should just go home and shower.

Smith talks in his article about how he can not stand waiting in line for a ticket.  In today’s society this is not always the case; companies were created and advertised (mainly on the television and the internet) about pre-purchasing your tickets online and then printing them out at home.  This is a huge advancement for people who are impatient (which seems to be Smith) to avoid the ticket lines (every single fast-lane ticket booth in the
Calgary theatre was lined up).  This is what I did when I arrived at both theatres…makes the process much more smooth and fast (Smith should try it, I think it might make him just alittle happier!)

Smith uses an entire article to discuss how angry he is at the movie going world; yet he does not realize that this one form of media that he “can’t stand” must influence him because he is writing an entire article on his anger about it.  For example, Smith talks about how the trivia that is displayed pre-movie “…are there to remind you that you do actually know all the stars’ names, even without wanting to…”.  I find this fascinating because it really emphasizes the fact that people are influenced by media in so many different ways.  How else would people, including Smith, know all these actors names “…without wanting to…” (television, radio, internet etc.)?  Sitting in the theatre with my bottle of water, I noticed how the sound level among the audience went up when the trivia game came on.  Everyone began talking amongst their “group” trying to solve the question. I noticed how many groups would be laughing and having a good time with the trivia game to see who was right!

OK, now I am going to delve deeper into my movie surroundings in accordance with Smith’s article.  Considering how it is winter out and very cold, both times I went to see the movie everyone was all bundled up because it was freezing cold outside (lets be honest, in Lethbridge the wind makes me feel like it is -50 outside).  Smith does not appreciate or understand (in my opinion) that people enjoy staying warm when it is frozen outside.  I did not see a single person in either theatre not wearing a coat, scarf, hat, or vest.  I also did not notice people shuffling around with “seats pilled high with coats and scarves”.  I found that everyone in both the
Lethbridge and
Calgary theatres placed their coat behind them or on top of their lap and ate their food and talked amongst themselves.  There was no shouting across the theatre or food being thrown everywhere; needless to say, I did not feel like I was in a pig barn.  On the contrary, I found it amusing to listen to the ladies behind me in the
Lethbridge theatre talk about their children and how they are doing in school, or the couple beside me in the
Calgary theatre who, from what I could hear, sounded like they were having an argument about the night before.  

            This is what the experience is: being able to take all of the surroundings in. This is why in my opinion theatres are much more appealing and entertaining then watching a movie at home.  I attribute this reasoning to how the first time I saw Napoleon Dynamite I hated it versus the second time when I saw it with my friends I loved it. Maybe I am easily guided by my surroundings, but the second time around it was much more enjoyable.

My movie going experiences are ones that I do not intend to give up.  I love how people can talk about nothing and have a good time… who wants to think all the time?  I enjoy sitting there in the complete darkness with sound so loud my ears hurt when I leave the theatre, and I really love the food.  Popcorn from movies theatres is the best hands down (yes the advertising REALLY works on me).

My experiences at both theatres were ones that were worth every dollar (minus the bottle of water).  The atmosphere, the people, the food…everything about the theatres surroundings makes the “experience” superior to sitting on a couch at home by myself with imitation popcorn… how awful.  The movie “Because I Said So” is a great chick flick that I might even see a third time!

Why is it that we never get the full story? February 11, 2007

This is a scary thought: we only know what the media tells us.  Society bases their opinions and decisions on, in my opinion, a fragmented story. 

For example, the article Abuse Your Illusions by Russ Kick talks about the political dimensions in Venezuela. It discusses  how it is stated in certain American newspapers, like the San Fransisco Chronicle, that there were way more people who did not support Chavez (in other words anti-Chavez) then people who supported him.  Kick talks about howin the San Fransisco chronicle, there was only a photo and a caption (no actual article) on how about 100,000 people marched against Chavez. Yet there was another march of about 200,000 people in support of Chavez that was never printed or for that matter acknowledged.  This was not posted or printed in any American newspaper! Why is this? Why is the media picking and choosing what to tell society? I feel that this is what society is coming down too… lies and cover-ups.  There is no way, unless you witness “life” everywhere with your own 2 eyes that you can know whats going on everywhere.  This is a problem because people can not be in 2 places at once; which is why people depend on the media so much.

So to bring me to the point of my blog here, I am worried.  I am scared that everything we know aboutthe media we do not really know… I would love if someone could refute me on this but I really don’t see how it is possible.

There is no way to know if society is actually getting the full story when somethinghappens across the world.  How do we know that both sides are being fairly told, or if a story has been influenced by blackmail?  We will never be able to tell because we are so dependent on the media for all of our information.

The media is so much more powerful then I ever could have thought.  I never really understood how they actually do RUN our world. They basically have the power to pick and choose what they want us to know.  THIS IS INSANE!!!  Why do a few people get to choose what the WHOLE WORLD gets to know? What is so much power placed into the hands of the people who run the newspapers, Internet, news shows etc…? 

This makes me ponder… is society the way it is today; with so much violence and lack of contentment, because of what the media is portraying? Is our society lacking the vibe of the “good ol’ days” because of what the media is depicting to us?  I am choked. 

p.s- Even though the media may not always tell us everything, Seinfeld really did contribute to today’s society!  Like Festivus!  Seinfeld created festivus and now it is a holiday that people actaully celebrate! This is awesome!!!

Canadian Networks Versus American Networks February 5, 2007

Now this is strictly my opinion but American TV and cable is wayyy better then Canadian.  Yes as stated in chapter 5 Canada does have some major networks like CBC, CTV, Global, and Chum… but who really watches the Canadian programs on these channels when they show them? 

For example, CBC “was created by an act of Parliament in 1936 as a radio network” (109); who watches this show for anything but news updates…and of course hockey night in Canada (woohoo!!!)?  Peter Newman supports my point by saying “Canadians need the CBC to become important again. With our kids watching more then 900 hours or more of TV a year-and it least 80% of it spreading the gospel of the American way of life…” (109).  This could not be more true.  Who watches more then 1 program of Canadian television besides the news religiously?  I am in my third year of university and I do not have a single friend who religiously watches more then 1 Canadian program.  This may be why CBC is not the most popular network for people around my age (unless it is Hockey Night in Canada)!

Now Global television on the other hand…that is fantastic programming.  Global started in Winnipeg (weird I know haha).  The text talks about how after more then 30 years of buyouts and takeover the now CanWest Global is Canada’s 3rd national network and 2nd private national network (110).  Global shows many American programs that I thoroughly enjoy such as House and the newly acclaimed Heros.  The Canadian programs such as Survivor:Canadian style…well I did not know that existed until I read the chapter.

Now onto American Programming…the good stuff!  The American system has fabulous networks like NBC and ABC.  I really learned alot reading this chapter.  For instance, I had no idea that NBC was bought by General Electric in 1985…who knew?  I really like NBC and the shows that they air because well for starters who does not like Saturday Night Live or any of the Law and Orders? Great shows, very relatable and very enticing.  ABC is however my favourite network because it airs GREYS ANATOMY!!! hands down, best network.  Now I do know that other networks do air Greys, but no one else has as good of previews as ABC!

To wrap up my little discussion here I guess the whole point in this blog is that American television is more popular and in a sense, better then Canadian television.  How happy am I for instance that MTV is showing in Canada on normal cable now?  American and Canadian television is like American and Canadian movies… when I go to Blockbuster I walk right by the Canadian section…don’t even look.  American television is more popular perhaps because it is more publicized, or maybe because of the better actors? Hmmm…

Enjoy…(sorry I could not resist….)

Internet is taking over the world… January 29, 2007

OK, so some of you may be reading this and thinking “this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard” but, I think that this statement is in many ways true.

In the article “The Significance of Virtual Communities” by Karen Evens, the importance of the Internet is stressed.  Manuel Castells predicts that the Internet will in fact be the main source of communication between people.  I completely agree with him.  There is nothing that the Internet can’t provide that the television and phone can.  You can go on web-cam to see someone, you can instantly send messages you can download and watch movies etc…  The Internet even builds relationships between random people.  Dating sites where you find your “true love” are everywhere.  People like Dr.Phil even endorse them. The internet is slowly taking every other form of mass communication over.

If you were to ask someone 10 years ago if they had a computer and the Internet, I would think that people may have looked at you like you had no brain.  Today however, it is weird if someone does not have a computer or a laptop.  Technology is changing everyday.  You purchase a brand new dell laptop one day, the next there is something new that is bigger and better.  Computers are much like cars, as soon as you turn it on and install all your programs it is not worth nearly as much as its retail price.

The article discusses how the Internet makes relationships easier over distance.  That people do not have to make friends on the basis of their geography.  The Internet makes it easier to keep these long distance relationships running.  If your neighbour is very annoying you do not have to pretend you like them to have some company.  It is so easy nowadays to just log onto the Internet and talk to your friends that live in a different country (minus the time zone difference!).  Even for people who do not have many friends, you can go onto the Internet and join 100 different chat-rooms if you wanted to and just start conversations with people.  This technology is amazing.

The effect that this technology and mass communication device has on the people that use it and the virtual communities that are made, as stated in the article, are still to be understood.  The significance and importance of these relationships vary between the individuals who are conversing. 

The internet is huge everywhere.  Msn, facebook, myspace etc… are lifelines to many people (I won’t lie, I live on msn and facebook!).  They are an easy way to talk too and understand other people that you know or want to get to know!

The Internet is taking over the world….

Publication Bans January 22, 2007

So I started this weeks readings with chapter 11.  A few pages into this chapter I discovered the publication bans that are instituted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.  I had never really considered or deeply thought about how the names of individuals under the age of 18 are not allowed to be named when they are charged of a crime – unless it is an adult sentence.  It makes complete sense of why this is so.  Considering how the media is so influential, audiences, particularly jury members, I’m my opinion, would most likely be swayed one way or another before even reaching the courtroom.

In the case of Karla Homolka, her evidence may have influenced the public for Paul Bernardo’s case.  This is a very interesting notion.  Stories would later arise that it was to protect both of their families privacy. Society really does understand how influential the mass media is.  Even murder trials are being censored to the public for this very reason.  I find it interesting however that when Karla was released the media (I believe-correct me if I’m wrong…) was not allowed to discuss where she was going because she wanted a new start.  She was trying to start a blank slate.  She did not want to be followed by 100 different news stations.  I even heard that she changed her name so she would not be noticed everywhere she went in Canada. 

Anyways, back to the publication ban.  This ban does have its pros and cons.  It does protect the defendent (guilty or not…), but at the same time, does the public not have a right to make their own decisions based on the information they are given when it happens?  (Given that we trust we are being told the whole story!).

Media seems to be the pillar in society…