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.
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:
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.
As is now common knowledge, former South African President Nelson Mandela died last Thursday, Decamber 5. I, like most people around the world, was deeply saddened by this news. Mandela was and still is a role model and an inspiration to me, and his death greatly affected me. It was with shock, therefore, that I learned that some Americans were openly hostile to Mandela.
It started with this clip from the O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santorum. Take a look at 0:57-1:24, 2:07-2:37, and 3:02-3:32.
Where can I begin? Let's start with the first bit. Bill O'Reilly says that, sure, Nelson Mandela was a great guy. He did a lot for "his people," but he was a COMMUNIST. Because he was a COMMUNIST, real Americans cannot claim to agree with him. O'Reilly was so impudent as to tell Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu that he "disagrees with them." The most startling thing about this clip is its gross inaccuracy. Nelson Mandela was not a communist. He worked with many communists, but he himself never identified as a communist. Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk To Freedom, describes his interactions with South African communists during his career. It also shows that the idea that Mandela was a COMMUNIST was propagated by the Apartheid government and the ANC's rival organization, the extremist Pan Africanist Conference (PAC), to discredit him among South Africans and Westerners abroad.
While Bill O'Reilly's mistruths are shameful, if not surprising, another important aspect of this clip is the reification of the word COMMUNIST. In the previous paragraph, I write the word "communist" two different ways. One is the simple, correct, lower-case version, referring simply to the definition of communism. The other, "COMMUNIST," is the reified version. Read "COMMUNIST" the same as Bill O'Reilly says it. In American culture, communism is associated with everything evil. If someone is marked as a COMMUNIST, they immediately become a negative figure. Sure, O'Reilly says, Nelson Mandela was a strong, passionate, great man, but he was a COMMUNIST, and we therefore cannot agree with him. Imagine what Mandela and Archbishop Tutu must have thought when this white American guy with anger management issues came up to them and said that he "disagreed with them." Frankly, the way that man represents the United States abroad almost makes me ashamed to be an American.
But right-wing Mandela-sacrilege doesn't stop there. Mercifully-former Senator Rick Santorum crossed a line when he compared Mandela's fight against Apartheid to the Republican fight against the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," in the U.S. First of all, it is important to note that the ACA was originally an idea proposed by the Heritage Foundation, a very Conservative think tank. The ANC most certainly did not propose Apartheid. So, right from the get go, we see that the Republican's efforts are based on lies and hypocrisy, while the ANC's were not. Second, comparing nation-wide legalized racism so nauseating that it can be hardly expressed in words to a benign institutionalization of capitalism is loathsome beyond belief. Santorum's despicable words betray an indifference to honoring the men and women who have done so much good in this world. He uses Mandela and his bravery to his own political advantage. It will suffice to say that Rick Santorum and Bill O'Reilly will never be as brave, honorable, kind, and honest as Nelson Mandela was.
Shockingly, it doesn't stop there. This story on NPR's "Here & Now" tells how everyday Conservative Americans, not looking for any political edge, complained to the leaders of their movement about their compliments to Nelson Mandela. One such person wrote, "This clenched-fist murdering guerrilla warrior does not deserve respect from informed Americans." To be honest, I'm not sure how to respond to that in a civilized manner. As an "informed American," (at least compared to this person), I happen to know that Nelson Mandela, as head of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, took every precaution possible to avoid deaths in committing acts of sabotage. He was certainly not a "murdering guerrilla." Mandela's composure, bravery, and never-ceasing optimism and friendliness in the face of unbelievable adversity certainly demands respect from all "informed Americans." But if respecting and looking up to Nelson Mandela makes me a "clenched-fist" radical, then I am proud to say that I am a "clenched-fist" radical.
First, a reminder: Rosetta Stone is the language-learning software that they sell in airports and shopping malls all over the world. This particular advertisement for the software appeared in an issue of National Geographic. That being noted, the most important part of this ad is the image. Advertisers in National Geographic often use the tactic of placing picturesque pictures of nature in their ads both to mimic the style used by the magazine itself and to appeal to certain needs of the viewer.
Before we address any needs to which this advertisement appeals, let us discuss the target market at which this ad is aimed. A good place to start would be National Geographic readers. The stereotype is middle-class young to middle-aged men and women who enjoy outdoor activities, have kids, day jobs, spouses, and are generally more liberal in their political views. They like to travel, and are culturally adventurous. This is a perfect target market for a company that teaches people languages.
The picture in this ad features a person rowing in a picturesque lake in the early morning. This picture is aimed at the consumer's need to escape. The exotic appearance of the image conjures ideas of travel to a tranquil, peaceful place, far from the business of their everyday life, going to work, transporting children, and worrying about a plethora of things. They begin dreaming of rowing calmly across that lake, walking along its shores, and, in a trance of desire fueled by stress and subtle manipulation, they decide to learn Finnish and order a set of Rosetta Stone disks. Well, maybe not, but the advertisement makes the product seem more appealing by putting images of that escape from their normal lives in consumer's minds.
This advertisement uses several common techniques, such as simple solutions and association. The simple solution in this advertisement is implied. Rosetta Stone wants you and me to believe that we can learn a new language well enough for everyday use simply by using their software. While that might help, to really become versatile in a new language one must interact with others in that language on a day-to-day basis, thereby acquiring fluency by daily real-life exposure. But to consumers, just being able to sit in front of a computer for a few minutes each day and learn a new language so that they can travel to that pretty lake is very appealing. The second technique is association. By using that picture, Rosetta Stone associates itself with the idea of escape and the ability to do so. The goal of this ad is that consumers will think "pretty lake" and "I want to go to the pretty lake" when they see Rosetta Stone, subconsciously persuading them to purchase some software.
This simple, seemingly unobtrusive advertisement really is full of parlor tricks and subtle manipulations that advertisers use all the time. It taps in to our human need to get away from it all, it gives us an easy solution, and it associates itself and its product with all of the positive things in the ad. Genius, really, and maybe a little bit terrifying.
We pay a very steep price for our democracy. In the midst of all this freedom to express ourselves however and believe whatever, we must face the terrible prospects of political advertisements in election years. Notoriously deceptive, these commercials invade the airwaves and our television screens for several months on a semiannual basis. But how much do politicians lie in their messages? Let us look at this ad for Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign.
This advertisement performs the classic trick of turning one's opponent's words against them. Often, this includes distorting the intended meaning or context of the phrase being used. Does Romney's campaign lower itself to this level? Yes, they do.
First of all, the speech that the Romney campaign references was not delivered on July 24, 2012 as the commercial suggests, but on July 23 2012. This could be interpreted as a pointless act of deception, used to make it harder for fact-checkers to look at Obama's entire speech to make sure Romney was accurate. The far more likely scenario, however, is that the person making the video simply made an honest mistake and typed in the incorrect date.
To check whether the Romney campaign was being totally honest, let us look at the text of Obama's speech. The line in question, which is a little more than half-way down the page, comes after Obama explains his plan - to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year - and how the same thing worked during the Clinton administration. Despite what Romney For President claims, therefore, President Obama was not asserting that the current recovery has worked, or even that he has had a chance to try his plan during his presidency. Rather, he was referring to the successes of tax increases during the Clinton years.
The Romney campaign distorted President Obama's words. They stated a mistruth to the general public. They lied. But what is perhaps more disturbing is the frequency with which this occurs in American politics. Because the Federal Communications Commission does not regulate how accurate political advertisements have to be, politicians can lie with impunity, as long as the public doesn't realize it. Both sides do it, too. There are many examples of Obama for America advertisements with varying levels of deception. During the month of October in years that are multiples of two and especially four, we are constantly bombarded with lies, mistruths, deception, and trickery. What is worse is that we carry all of that to the polls with us. We elect officials partially based on false information. What does it mean for our democracy that our very government is run by the people who are the best liars? Frankly, it's a terrifying thought.
