Popular Culture Ruined Blockbuster?

From going through this week’s readings about Popular Culture I started to wonder if the focus on the future of technology would really be a good idea. In the Baran and Davis section, "Research on Popular Culture in the United States," McLuhan says, "Unlike British critical theorists, most have no links to social movements. They focus much of their attention on television and, now the internet as the premier media of the electronic era." (217)

This article looks into the purpose that Blockbuster served and now the fact that they are going out of business.
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/hollywood/blockbuster-going-out-of-business-091510

After reading about what Popular Culture has done to America it got me thinking about how when I was growing up the place that everyone wanted to go was Blockbuster to get the newest videos out. There was a time when I'm sure everyone in this class can recall going to Blockbuster with their parents and friends so they could be the first ones to get their hands on the new movies.

Basically because of the internet and new popular culture, there are so many websites like Netflix that really impacted this once profound and very useful industry. You can go on Google nowadays and type in free movies and I guarantee you that you will find sites that you can download and watch for free. Cultural imperialism as defined by Tomlinson is the practice of promoting a more powerful culture over a least known or desirable culture. It is usually the case that the former belongs to a large, economically or militarily powerful nation and the latter belongs to a smaller, less powerful one. (McQuail, 223)

The way I looked at this was the in the society that we live in today, the internet is by far the most powerful tool to accessing anything in this World at any time you want. The way I looked at cultural imperialism in this way was that Blockbuster is now a third world country and the internet and Netflix. It’s sad to think that there was once a time where Blockbuster was the place to go to get your movies. So while new popular culture seems like it would be a really good idea, there is also some flaws to the system.

Take a look at this to check out the old Blockbuster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JWP1mTItD4

My questions to you are, do you think that because of the new popular culture in terms of the internet, will this ruin older businesses like Blockbuster? Do you think because of the way our society is today (lazy, sheltered) that this is part of the reason people don’t go to these businesses anymore? If you were Blockbuster what would you have done to keep the company going?

Shopping more because of social media?

Is Twitter, Foursquare, or Facebook influencing your shopping this holiday season? The following video discusses how some retailers are using social media to get shoppers through their doors: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/business&id=7766664

Baran and Davis cite McLuhan for explaining that, “The medium is the message (and the massage). In other words, new forms of media transform (massage) our experience of ourselves and our society, and this influence is ultimately more important than the content that is transmitted in its specific messages-technology determines experience” (220). Do you agree? When we look at the problems of cyberbullying and sexting, I think this is very true. And now retailors are using social media to come into your home and entice you out of it instead of encouraging you to shop online. Has the Internet and now social media changed the way you see yourself or society? Did you ever realize that Facebook, Twitter, and other apps/sites allow you to be "social" with your favorite retailors? How has that changed your shopping experience?

Erik Qualman points out that everything is different because of social media in his Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZ0z5Fm-Ng&feature=related

Qualman and McLuhan have a point, but is there a limit to this transformation that takes place as media shifts? I think there is and so does John Tomlinson who writes that, “Though the media may be analytically separable from other aspects of culture, it is clear that they are intimately connected with these other aspects in terms of people’s ‘lived experience’. People’s experience of television, for example, is very often within the cultural context of the family and this context has a significant mediating effect (224). As someone who grew up without cable television I can attest to this.

How have your ‘lived experiences’ mediated the ways you’ve changed with or adapted to new media technologies such as Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, BBM, Oovoo, and/or even HD? In what ways are these technologies affecting your or your family’s consumption?

Chilean Miner Media Coverage

While I was doing the reading for this week, about media across cultures, my mind kept going back to the media coverage surrounding the Chilean miners. Why was it that it received so much media attention? It is not as if this was the first time that miners have been trapped, and the fact that it did not even occur in the United States is even more interesting. Since Aug.5 when the miners were trapped to the rescue just a few weeks ago, the media coverage was nonstop. Why?

I found this article from The Guardian, a newspaper from the UK, about the media coverage of the entrapment and rescue

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/18/chile-miners-global-media-coverage

In the article, the writer discusses how journalists flocked to Camp Hope, the temporary camp made at the San Jose mine. Over 2,000 journalists and technicians camped out there to broadcast the event all over the world. The entire world was able to live the experience with the miners through the camera that was inside the mine. The rescue of the miners was, arguably extremely emotional as all 33 emerged alive. The article commends the Chilean government for the massive media coverage. The Chilean President, Sebastian Pinera, once owned the Chilean TV network, Chilevision. The President is a media mogul, and knows how to work the industry, "Somehow the Chile authorities understood how to make it so emotional and appealing," Rosental Alves, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas, told CNN. "I think it really matters that the president is not only media literate but is a media mogul and he is surrounded by people who have that mindset."

Would other countries have even heard of the trapped miners if the Chilean government did not expose it? Do you think that it is possible that the Chilean government could have used this event to their advantage in order to gain coverage for Chile?

In the McQuail reading by Karl Erik Rosengren, he discusses how the 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme spread throughout news organizations around the world, “The fact that a piece of international news can be diffused among the different populations of the globe as quickly as is sometimes the case is due, of course, to the relative efficiency of the international mass media system.” (p 232). The article goes on to say that sometimes the news travels so quickly that it can be lopsided and that “We thus get a somewhat distorted picture about what human life looks like in other parts of the world---and our own” (232). Do you think that this is true—that media coverage of events from other cultures, nations, could be lopsided and that perhaps, we are not getting the true picture of life in other parts of the world?

The Baran and Davis reading for this week discusses the commodification of culture. It lists several reasons for the repackaging and marketing of culture to peoples. One element involves dramatization of culture, which I thought was pertinent to the Chilean miner example. It says, “Such dramatization makes the final commodity attractive to as large an audience as possible” (335). Could the rescue of the miners have been over dramaticized in order to gain more media coverage?

My questions to you are do you believe that the Chilean miner incident was overexposed potentially, by the Chilean government? Do you think we received a distorted version of it? Can you think of any other examples of international events that have received intense media coverage here in the U.S.?

The Lazy Sitcom Dad and Nagging Sitcom Supermom

I’m a huge sitcom fan. I usually spend my late night evenings watching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond, Roseanne, Home Improvement and even everybody’s favorite cartoon family, The Simpsons. This selection of sitcoms constituted a good portion of my television habit when I was growing up in the nineties and I’m sure that many of you would agree. Growing up in the nineties provided us the opportunity to watch some fantastic (and hilarious) sitcoms. The best shows came out in the 80s and 90s and the newer sitcoms today tend to showcase a similar family dynamic.

But what is this shared family dynamic between sitcom families? When thinking about what I was going to blog about this week, I was hit over the head with a topic when indulging in my late-night TVLand binge of Everybody Loves Raymond. Sitcoms are just swarming with notions of gender roles—what are “feminine” traits for females and what are “masculine” traits for men. I was watching an episode where Deborah thinks Raymond isn’t spending enough time at home with the kids. When she finds out that some of the other sports writers work from home, she forces Ray to work from home, so he can hang out with the kids. Surprise surprise. Raymond stays home and takes care of the kids for one afternoon while Deborah does errands and messes everything up. The kids destroy the house; he can’t find his twin boys, etc. etc.

And this is generally the trait in many sitcom families. In this article that I read by Sarah Macarelli , she explores how much sitcoms have changed the “dad” vision over the years. We have steered away from the caring, competent dads of The Brady Bunch era and into the era of sitcom dads who “are either ‘dead-beat dads’ or the funny, clueless type.” The sitcom father generally has very few parenting skills and will often mess everything up, if he is left to care for the kids. It is then that “supermom” sweeps in and makes everything better. Sitcoms today tend to showcase a self-indulgent father, who is much more concerned with getting his beer at night than talking to his kids.

Check out this clip from Everybody Loves Raymond:

Deborah had asked Ray to accompany her and the children to Happy Zone (a play place for kids) as a family outing, but Ray makes some excuse not to go and raids the fridge instead. But even though the woman is supposed to have more power as “supermom,” it is obvious that she submitted to her husband’s wishes by allowing him stay home instead of going to the play place with their children. The father still calls the shots.

What kind of message is this sending to children who are watching the show? That their father doesn’t care about them, or that he’s just supposed to sit at home watching TV and mom is there to take care of them? Macarelli explains that a “supposedly harmless skit on tv can be internalized by a child and help shape their view of fathers and men.” In H. Leslie Steeves’ article “Feminist Theories and Media Studies,” she discusses cultivation studies done with children concerning gender roles and feminism in media. The children were remarkably perceptive and created visions of the “man” and the “woman” easily. She says, “Interviews with children indicated that even at a very early age they bring considerable knowledge of gendered behavior to the viewing situation and use this knowledge to interpret and embellish what they see” (397). The “masculine” father comes home from work, cracks a few jokes then sits down to watch the game and drink his beer. The "feminine" mother nags him, complains and takes care of the house.

In his article “A ‘new’ Paradigm,” Zoonen says, “…the definition of femininity present content: submission, availability and compliance are characteristics held up as ideals, and consumption is presented as the road to self-fulfillment” (48). Even today, these traits are still present in sitcoms. The mother does everything because the father will mess it up, but by doing that, she is preventing the father from learning how to be a caring dad. She is submitting to him instead of teaching him and she may be doing that because she wants to prove her own self-worth—she is the only one who can get the job done and women do matter. Female characters may now be able to do anything that a man can do, but they’re still being displayed as possessing original feminine traits.

Has feminine advancement really been made in how sitcoms portray women? Do you think that children really are internalizing how mothers and fathers respectively are supposed to act and what roles they play in their lives? Is a child going to approach their mother for everything they need and think of their father as a statue on the couch? What kind of negative ideas might they be forming about their mothers and fathers? Gender roles and the wide expanse between masculinity and femininity are easily seen through the mother and father characters on sitcoms. This light and entertaining television genre may be imposing lasting effects on children today.

Lady Football Coach???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030903708.html

What are your reactions to this article? A head football coach is a job that is male dominated. When most people think of a football coach, a male comes to mind. On the other hand, the female is viewed as a cheerleader. When it comes to a woman, the media portrays them as the person who stays at home, cooks, cleans, watches the kids, take care of the house etc...Women and football do not go in the same sentence; you would not expect the average woman to have more football knowledge than the average man, Also, it seems as if men simply love the game more than women.

In Mcquails article he says "it seems indisputable that many aspects of women's lives and experiences are not properly reflected by the media"(48). The media stereotype women and this is something that has been going on for a long time. The mentality of society is basically saying that women cannot have a "man's" job- such as a football coach. He is not just speaking about this job in particular but other male dominated job's as well.

In the media it never shows a women as a football coach because that is something that is rare. This is shown in the article I posted. The only movie that I can remember where a woman is the head coach of the football team is "The Wildcats" starring Goldie Hawn, which came out in 1986. (which was a great movie by the way, if you've never seen it before, you should check it out). Football is a masculine sport which we all know, "Masculinity is hegemonic when power is defined in terms of physical force and control" (Trujillo, 291). A women is not the first person who comes to mind when you think of those characteristics.

To be honest, I never thought it would come a time when a woman would be a football coach. I was sure proved wrong. What is the first thought that came to your mind when you first read the article? Do you think this is good for football? Will more women become football coaches in the near future? How would u feel if your football coach was a women? How long will it be before women football coaches are shown in movies and on television?

Lady GaGa and Feminism

Article Link:
http://feministhemes.com/lady-gaga-feminism-so-hard-to-believe/

The media is a powerful influence on the way that we perceive reality. The images and messages that we internalize from the media teach us what is normal and how we should act. In regards to gender, the media attempts to enforce gender roles by delivering stereotyped images and messages for people to imitate. The McQuail reading states that “Feminist research assumes a rather straightforward ‘sender-message-receiver’ sequence in which media are conceived as transmitting particular messages about gender (stereotypes, pornography, ideology) to the wider public.” The problem with this is that those who control the media are mostly white rich men. “There is every incentive for them to present the capitalist, patriarchal scheme of things as the most attractive system available – and to convince the less privileged that the oppression and limitations of their lives are inevitable.” However, feminism attempts to challenge the norm by stressing the importance of remodeling and reinforcement by parents, teachers, and the media in the attainment of gender role behaviors. Feminists also focus their efforts on creating and changing laws to promote women’s opportunities and equality. They also stress the liberal ideal of increasing women’s public visibility and criticize traditional stereotypes. So can anyone be considered a feminist?
A hot topic that interviewers seem interested in investigating is whether or not Lady GaGa is in fact a feminist. Although the pop star says yes she is, some people are having a hard time believing it. The article I found discusses the stereotypes linked to feminists, and tries to answer the question as to why it’s so unusual for Lady GaGa to be considered a feminist. The part in the article that stuck out to me questioned “Is it because she is a pop star, and somehow we have obscured pop music/stardom with instant sell-out status, misogyny, and manufactured faux empowerment?” The link between pop stars and gender stereotypes is very strong in most cases, and Lady GaGa definitely fits the criteria for some of the stereotypes. She is seen as a sex symbol from her choice of barley there clothing and suggestive dance moves. However, the correlation between pop stars and gender stereotypes is being challenged. In Lesley Robinson’s article, she discusses how Christina Aguilera’s video for her song Dirrty is an example of sex-positive post feminism which “embraces a feminism focused on individuality, independence and women’s choice to engage in heterosexually attractive bodily display.” Although female performers do work within patriarchal conventions, they have a lot of control over what they create and are largely marketed to a female audience. In Christina Aguilera’s video as well as Lady GaGa’s and many others, their performance implies self-assuredness and authority which undermine the objectification. They flaunt the fact that men cannot control female sexuality. “The ongoing and dialectical struggle between woman and patriarchy is constantly renegotiated in cultural productions. Rather than serving only to disseminate the ideas of male hegemony, popular music acts as a stage upon which the many nuances of an emerging female identity are played out.”
What are your thoughts on gender and pop culture? Do you think that someone like Lady GaGa can be both a stereotype in regards to being a sex object, but also be a feminist? How can we challenge or change these stereotypes?

Is Today’s Media Helping or Hurting Kids?

Kids today have grown up in an era where they can't remember a time when there were no cell phones, no internet, no DVDs, and no video games. That's all they've ever known and it has become a big part of their social (or anti-social) lives. "Advertisements are selling us something else besides consumer goods...they are selling us ourselves" (McQuail 300). Media tells children that they need to have all of these things (a cell phone, video game, etc.) because they don't want to be left out.

The media shapes the way kids today grow up. "The sheer amount of time young people spend using media - an average or nearly 6 1/2 hours a day - makes it plain that the potential of media to impact virtually every aspect of young people's lives cannot be ignored" (Baran & Davis 200). As we know, sometimes parents use the TV as a babysitter, but the kids are suffering the consequences.

I read an article about the negative effects of technology on kids [see link below] that made me wonder, is today's media helping or hurting kids?
http://www.helium.com/items/1629062-the-negative-effects-of-technology-on-kids

Many people think that because of technology, today's kids' social skills are severely lacking. If they aren't watching TV, kids are texting or checking out their friends' Facebooks (because as we know, Facebook is no longer exclusively for college students). Because they are bombarded with media and technology, kids are spending less and less time having face-to-face interactions. Parents worry that kids today are lacking activity. When we were kids we used to go outside and play, but today kids are too busy playing video games inside. And when they do go outside to play, they take their cell phones with them so they can text their friends.

Media is a powerful influence on people of all ages. But do you think that kids are especially dependent on their media consumption today? Is is affecting their social skills? What activities did you do when you were a kid compared to what kids do now? Were we the same back then or do kids today have it worse?