A Reflection

What do we think it means to be an American?

What do those in power (especially those who control the media) want us to think it means to be an American?

Is the answer to this question remarkably similar to the answer to the first question?

If the word "America" in those questions is replaced by the word "woman," or "consumer," or "Rush Limbaugh," are the answers to those questions still very similar? The answer is not necessarily yes or no for all of them (for many people, the answer might be "yes" for America, women, and consumers, but "no" for Rush Limbaugh). Regardless, the way media, or certain sections of the media, portray individuals, groups, or demographics often influences our perceptions of those same objects more than anything else in our society.

That is what this blog has been about. What is the media trying to tell us about ourselves? Why do advertisements work? Our lives are dominated by media. We are exposed to thousands of advertisements each day, and our minds do subconsciously process all of them. From our favorite television shows, to our favorite magazines, to our favorite shopping mall or Tube station in London, to our favorite far-right cable news channel, to our favorite "mainstream" cable news channel, to our favorite Youtube videos, to just about everything else, there is someone behind it trying to make money. Often, they try to sell us products or even ideologies that further their own careers and self-interest.

This is a roundabout way of getting to the message of this blog. It's not that the media is evil. It's not that we need to rise up and rebel against the evil Wall Street and Vine Street executives who are trying to control our lives. It's much more simple than that. All we need to do is to be aware. We need to be aware that we are surrounded by media, and all of the other things that I've talked about before. Through this awareness, we can develop a level of skepticism towards the media, so that we don't automatically believe everything that comes out of Sean Hannity's mouth. We can also view the stereotypes and dogma perpetuated by many areas of the media with more skepticism, which will help break through the gridlock and social apathy prevalent in our society today.

This is not, of course, a cure-all to solve every social, political, and economic problem that we face in the United States today. It is, however, a step towards being the independent, free-thinking individuals that a functioning modern-day democracy requires. It is a way to proceed through the twenty-first Century with direction and purpose, to allow a new generation, a Free Generation, to reshape the world with the great weight of centuries-old dogma lifted from their shoulders.

Erick Erickson: Sexist, Misogynistic, Racist, Homophobic, Islamaphobic, and a Highly Influential Conservative Commentator

For the quintessential example of sexism in our media and political system, look no further than conservative political commentator and thankfully-former CNN contributor Erick Erickson. Through his speeches and posts on his RedState blog, Erickson has said some really nasty things. The Daily Kos compiled a list of some of the more vomit-inducing bits. Many of these quotes are about race and sexual orientation, but a fair number are sexist, misogynistic, ignorant remarks about women, abortion, liberals, liberal women, liberal women having abortions, and Michelle Obama. A few examples:

"Michelle Obama is a marxist harpy wife"

"[An anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl]'s it!? That's what the feminazis were enraged over? Seriously?!? Wow. That's what being too ugly to get a date does to your brain."

"Good thing I didn't suggest the feminists … you know … shave. They'd be at my house trying a post-birth abortion on me."

and it goes shamelessly on.

What is really important, however, is that he gets away with it. Erickson says blatantly sexist things about the First Lady of the United States, a woman who is infinitely more subtle, intelligent, and eloquent than he will ever be. Yet, he worked as a commentator on CNN for nearly three years, and he left, not because he was fired, but because he went to work for, you guessed it, Fox. The question is, how did this happen? How can people like Erickson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Charles Krauthammer say sexist things on national television and still be highly regarded in our political world?

The answer may lie in who runs the media and who decides what to publish or air. The vast majority of executives in television companies and media conglomerates are men. Most of these are old, white men. While there are old, white men who are feminists or who believe in the ability of a woman to achieve what a man can, their number is few. These people are not directly offended by racist, sexist, homophobic, or Islamaphobic comments because they are not minorities, women, gay, or Muslim. As a result, the establishment is stacked against the most commonly victimized in our society. The media portrays women as objects for sex, and pigeonhole them into roles as mothers and housewives. They discourage and prevent women from moving up on their wits alone. That's why there are so few women on the news, and most of them are attractive, blond-haired, white, and rarely contributing much or substance to discussions. That's also why men like Erick Erickson can say despicable things about Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Claire McCaskill, Wendy Davis, and other strong, intelligent, powerful women whose gender the media has stacked against them.

How do you get to work in the morning?

Professional road cyclist Martyn Ashton recently made a series of youtube videos featuring tricks that he likes to do on his bike. The first starts with a warning that some of his stunts should not be attempted. My question is: only some?

While Ashton's skill is certainly noteworthy, it is not the purpose of this post. One of the first images (after, of course, the rather understated disclaimer) was a clip of a garage door opening to reveal a shining, fancy Pinarello bicycle. At several points throughout Ashton's stunts, the Pinarello brand name is clearly visible, as well as the name of Ashton's cycling team sponsor, Sky television. At the end of the video, Ashton has a sort of pit crew, who shine the Pinarello name on his bike, and the video includes several angles of the bike clearly showing the brand name. It is clear, therefore, that Ashton was not simply making a video to make a video. He was sponsored by Pinarello, and is presumably being payed considerable amounts of money to contribute to Pinarello's advertising campaigns.

How does Pinarello think that this video will help sell their product? Obviously, I don't really know. I can, however, make some educated guesses. While it is not a commercial, this video serves as an advertisement. As such, it appeals to several basic human needs. First, it addresses the need to achieve. It associates the bike with the feats completed by Ashton. In a way, Ashton is not the only one given credit for his accomplishments. His bike is also a character in the video, in a way that imbues it with the qualities of achievement. The video also addresses a need for autonomy. Take the clip of Ashton riding over the bridge, above all of the average people walking or driving through their daily lives. He stands out, with his bike. They, as a pair, are unique, and appeal to that need in the viewers.

Pinarello uses several advertising techniques in their video. The first is quite apparent: testimonial, or celebrity endorsement. Ashton is a professional cyclist. While that may not be the most prominent popular position, nor is Ashton a particularly preeminent racer, his status adds a feeling of prestige to the video in a way that a lawyer who happened to be a talented cyclist would not. The video also uses the technique of transfer/association. Ashton's tricks and talents are associated with the product as well as Ashton himself. All of the unusual locations for a bike to go give the Pinarello a feeling of adventure and excellence. One of the last clips also features a picture of the white Cliffs of Dover, the awe and beauty of which add to the prestige of the product.

Bike companies often advertise by paying the pros to do cool things on their bikes. Professional cyclist and crazy-person Peter Sagan once advertised for both the bike company Cannondale and the car company Citroen by parking one on top of the other, while still on the one. Similar videos have been made featuring Colnago, Trek, and other biking brands. Perhaps it can be said, therefore, that bike companies tend to like to advertise to the adventurous and creative amongst us. As well as the nuts.

You Can Be A Billboard, Too!

New technologies and advances in computer programming have found their way into the ever-advancing advertising sector. Companies have begun to use interactive billboards in large cities like London and New York. These advertisements attract attention. They involve the viewer and their surroundings in an unprecedented manner. Most of the time, however, they do not use a direct appeal to the viewer on the basis of a product's merits. They are representative of a trend in advertising to appeal to consumers so that the consumer does not feel like the advertisement is an advertisement.

These billboards are higher-concept than the "High Concept" ads of the last decade. Those billboards and commercials sought to imbue a product or brand with certain abstract ideas, so that the consumer might begin to associate a brand with certain emotions or ideas that they (hopefully) find appealing. Intangible marketing has now actually surpassed tangible marketing in frequency, with the possible exception for advertisements for law firms.

Now, however, not only are companies using predominantly High-Concept advertising, but they have gone farther to use interactive advertising. These advertisements are farther from the actual product than their predecessors. They seek simply to bring the brand, whether it is British Airways or Lynx body spray, closer to the consumer, to allow the consumer to interact and identify with the ideas associated with the product. In some cases, like the angel-falling-from-a-billboard example or the domestic-abuse-PSA example, the interactive aspects of the advertisements build on the High-Concept principals used exclusively before. In others, however, like the kid-pointing-to-and-identifying-flights example, simply seek to connect with the viewer on a more intimate level.

Dodge Charger: All-American, Macho, Tough, and Makes Good Commercials

I never had a poster of a Volkswagen Passat on my bedroom wall. For that matter, I didn't have a poster of a Doge charger, either. Yet the message of the commercial still comes across, despite my lack of interest in how macho my car is (and the fact that I don't have a car and that I'm not planning on getting one any time soon).

In dissecting this ad, it is important to note that it was shown during football games. I saw it first watching football with my cousins, who said that they loved it. My cousins are from Texas. Figures, right? Most people who are closely watching football games, and also paying some attention to the commercials that accompany he games, are men. It is also more common for men who watch football to care about a car's macho-ness and reputation for style and speed than women who don't. The target audience for this ad, therefore, is the type of men who grow up with posters of Mustangs and Ferraris on their walls, and bring those principals of speed and power with them as adults in to how they purchase cars. This commercial draws on the childhood dreams of men, that when they grow up they might have a muscle car like the Dodge Charger.

The imagery of the commercial also contributes to its effect. It begins with a cloud of smoke, and, as the narrator is speaking, the car emerges dramatically from the cloud that it created. This scene supports the explicit message that the Charger is a total muscle car, that it embodies the boyhood dreams of the football-watching men, whose boyish tendency towards the drama of destruction is piqued by the smoke-like effect of the raging dust cloud.

The entire commercial is centered around the purpose of associating the Charger with the emotions of tough machismo and disassociating it from the small, non-American Passat. It ultimately succeeds in conjuring the emotions that it wishes to create. It is short an to the point. All in all, it's really a very good commercial in terms of its potency and technique. I wouldn't buy a Dodge Charger after seeing that commercial, but then again, I am a little bit odd.

Winning a War on War?

For the first and, I hope, the last time ever, I nearly agree with Steve Doocy of "Fox and Friends" about Barak Obama. On the campaign trail last year, and even in his State of the Union speech early this year, the President proudly claimed that "Al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead." It would appear to an observer, however, that that is an only half-correct analysis. Osama bin Laden is certainly dead, but is Al-Qaeda really on the path to defeat?

A look at recent news seems to show that Al-Qaeda may actually be growing. Recent terrorist attacks in Nigeria point to a growth in Islamic extremism there, with some groups liked to Al-Qaeda. In Somalia, the continuing unrest continues to allow the growth of Al-Shabaab, an Islamic militant group allied with Al-Qaeda. There is little evidence to indicate that Al-Qaeda has shrunken in Yemen and Pakistan, despite American drone strikes aimed at militant targets. Those drone strikes, by the way, are not just ineffective. Arguably, they also are unconstitutional and in violation of international law. Evidence points to Al-Qaeda being responsible for the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya last September, as Mr. Doocy was good enough to point out. The War in Iraq (which most certainly was not Obama's fault) enabled Al-Qaeda to spread there, too, in the power vacuum created by the absence of the strong and Shia government of Saddam Hussein. Obama wisely decided not to pursue defeating Islamic extremism there through continued occupation.

So, an overview of the region shows that Al-Qaeda, though they lack the figurehead of Osama bin Laden, is quite alive and kicking. Perhaps President Obama is privy to information that would prove me wrong. That is a likely scenario. That's why I nearly agree with Doocy. Perhaps my impression of the "War on Terror" is incorrect. But it still seems to me that Obama is lying. Terror attacks continue. Car bombs explode in Baghdad these days with a regularity seen only in the hight of the American occupation. Drone strikes are breeding high levels of anti-American antagonism among the citizens of Yemen and the areas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and with that comes increasing sympathy for Islamic extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Here's a novel idea: What if, simply by fighting the "War on Terror," we lose? Perhaps we will lose a little less if we don't fight. Our present conundrum reminds me of a song by the band Wilco called "War on War." It goes like this:

It's a war on war (x7)

There's a war on

You're gonna lose

You have to learn how to die

…

You have to lose

You have to learn how to die

If you want to be alive

Miley Cyrus. 'Nuff Said.

This summer's top new story was not the Syrian Civil War, or Anthony Weiner making a fool of himself in New York, or the Supreme Court striking down DOMA and Prop. 8, or even (gasp!) the royal baby. No, this summer was made when, at MTV's Video Music Awards in August, pop star Miley Cyrus twerked. For readers who are not familiar with twerking and have no inclination to watch the video, Wikipedia defines it as, "A type of dance in which the dancer, usually a woman, shakes her hips in an up-and-down bouncing motion." The point is, Cyrus danced suggestively on national television, in more ways than twerking. Not only did Miley Cyrus twerk, she twerked on someone, that person being singer Robin Thicke. Thicke's mother was quoted by NPR's "Wait Wait … Don't Tell Me!" as saying, "I was not expecting her to be putting her butt that close to my son!" Well, neither were we.

I could make snarky comments about this incident for some time, but there is something more here than that. Miley Cyrus is the latest example of the "midriff," the image of the hypersexualized young woman that the entertainment industry is marketing to teenaged girls. Think 16-year-old Brittany Spears. It is true that Miley Cyrus is the ripe age of 21, meaning that technically, she is not a teenager. She is, however, a major star performing on a channel aimed at teenagers. Unfortunately, Cyrus' status as a pop star makes her a roll model or trendsetter for many teenage girls. That's not to say that, because of her performance, all teenage girls are going to start dressing in just underwear and twerk in public on a regular basis. It does, however, perpetuate the image that teenagers will strive for, the image of a young girl as a sexual object long before they are mature enough to understand what that means.

Pop stars like Miley Cyrus are reshaping America's youth. Female pop stars often act in a way that persuades their loyal fan base to act as they do. They perpetuate the idea that a woman's body is her best, or even her only, asset. Girls see this message, and become sex objects long before they are mature. Miley Cyrus is, therefore, an example of what is wrong with popular culture in America today.