Media as a Mirror

Do men around the country aspire to be like Jack Bauer in 24 or like Don Draper in Mad Men or like Daniel Craig in the James Bond films? Do women aspire to be like Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City or like Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider films?

Male leads are represented as the tough guy, while females are the lover - the sex symbol. We are shown gendered representations in the media, but do we really pay attention to them and see media as a mirror?

Someone in class mentioned that we all interact with media on a personal level. I might pay attention to different elements than the person sitting next to me. Through my upbringing, education and personal experiences, I have a unique perspective through which I see the world around me. I might see a portrayal of a housewife and form a negative association while someone else might form a positive association. We pick and choose which images to identify with, and hopefully, we have realistic expectations for ourselves.

However, that being said, I don't know whether I would've been able to recognize which images I identify with before taking the slew of media classes I have taken at Lehigh. I have become aware of representations and stereotypes in the media and I know to be critical of biased stories.

Through our brief time discussing these issues surrounding mass media, I have become a cognizant media consumer. I think everyone should take a media class like this. If everyone looked at the media with a critical eye, we would be less likely to fall prey to framing, agenda setting and false representations existing in mass media today.

Realistic Gay Representation on the Rise

An article from last September titled, Study Finds More Gay Characters on Network TV, reported that "The number of gay and bisexual characters on scripted broadcast network TV has risen slightly this season to 23 out of a total of nearly 600 roles, according to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.


The 15th annual "Where We Are on TV" report released Wednesday found that 3.9 percent of actors appearing regularly on prime-time network drama and comedy series in the 2010-11 season will portray gay, lesbian or bisexual characters."


In yesterday's presentation, the group mentioned that though the representation of homosexuals in the media is on the rise, the representation is fueled by the view of heterosexual media producers. Thus, the homosexual characters are representations of gay stereotypes and are not necessarily realistic.


The new show, Happy Endings, has broken from the flamboyant gay stereotype and has delivered us a different representation of a gay man.

According to the following review, "Happy Endings" Offers up a Lead Gay Character, the show does a better job of portraying the non-stereotypically gay character, Max.

"Max is refreshing in that he's not fussy and hypercritical a laWill & Grace's "Will," or superficial and flamboyant (and also hypercritical) a la "Jack." On the other hand, he's not so non-stereotypically gay that you feel like the writers are trying to make a point.

He's convincingly gay: his sexuality comes up from time-to-time, and he has an outsider's perspective, but he's not a particularly good dresser, cook, or decorator, and he's got weight and self-esteem issues."


So, Max is a normal person who just happens to be gay. Probably a little more realistic than the over-the-top gay characters we're used to. I think this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Royally Obsessed

Obsessive? Ya think?! Americans have been talking about the royal wedding non-stop! A report by a renowned market research firm, The Nielsen Company, just released some statistics that might shock you: American News Media Cover Royal Wedding More Frequently than UK Counterparts

In the past few months, it looks like we've covered the royal wedding more then twice that of the UK and Australia.

Ok, I get it - we're obsessed with the wedding details (the dress, the venue, the vows), the gossip surrounding the royal family, the fact that it will be streamed live online. But to be covering it more than the UK and Australia? I think we've gone way too far.

Another interesting tid-bit: 

"Though Kate has received considerable interest online, Prince William continues to be the more popular subject of social media discussion in the United Kingdom, both by buzz volume and share of all buzz. William is also mentioned more often in the United States and Australia."

I don't know - maybe it's because I am a female or the fact that I'm more interested in reading about the feminine aspects of the wedding, or because Kate is on the cover of every magazine on the rack - but I don't get why we're more interested in William. Why do we care about him? He was born into royalty - the real story is Kate who will marry into it! Just another example of American male-dominated media coverage.

Who Doesn't Want a Petite Lap Giraffe?

I'm sure many of you have seen the recent DirecTV commercials:



If that isn't a display of American consumerism, I don't know what is.

But, and I think many people might agree with me, my favorite element of these commercials is the tiny "lap giraffe." I recently just found out about a spoof website, created by the same ad agency that conceptualized the commercials, Sokoblovsky Farms.The best and only breeders of Petite Lap Giraffes.

The site boasts that they are the best and only breeders of petite lap giraffes. Written in broken English, the site has a history section, a photo gallery, and even a live giraffe-cam. When I tried to reserve my petite lap giraffe, I got the following message:

Congratulations!!! You make 949,654 on waiting list for petite lap giraffe. Share greatest news with family on the facebook or tweeter.

So clearly, these little guys are really popular. The website also tries to pull in the DirecTV ads by saying that one of their breed has made it famous. "Here is our most famous petite lap giraffe, Ivanka. Now she is big time celebrity, movie star."

This site has certainly created a buzz around lap giraffes - I heard about the site through Twitter and then realized that I recognized the little creatures from the DirecTV commercials. It was as if the giraffe was a product placement for the Sokoblovsky Farm - a great idea by the ad agency to create this fully integrated campaign.

Dear @BronxZoosCobra, No One Cares Anymore

"In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." Andy Warhol got it right in 1968 when he said this, and my previous post on @BronxZoosCobra is a great example.

The Twitter account got a ton of media coverage, businesses learned from its example, and there was even a campaign to get the cobra to host SNL. He clearly became an overnight celebrity from his witty 140-character quips.

But the excitement has started to die down. Ever since the cobra was found at the Bronx Zoo, the story has started to fade from the public eye.

What used to be a tweet-an-hour has dwindled to a tweet-a-day. It's looking like @BronxZoosCobra is coming to the home stretch of his 15 minutes of fame. His fame peaked and waned in the few weeks I've been blogging.

So what is it about "the future" that makes it so conducive to  these bursts of 15 minutes of fame? The internet is a huge factor - people can go online and create identities and gain followers and interact with fans. Technology has allowed us to have the world at our fingertips - it allows for exposure and fast acting word of mouth. People are constantly sharing the latest funny YouTube video or story links.

So, @BronxZoosCobra saw a story to take advantage of, created a character, and did his thing for a few weeks. People loved it, but now there isn't anything to sustain the excitement. It's time to admit that people have moved on to the next big thing.

When Fandom Goes Too Far

Baseball fans got a little too intense a couple weeks ago when 2 LA Dodgers fans beat up a SF Giants fan on opening day. The victim, Bryan Stow, is still in a coma trying to recover from serious brain injuries. Click here for the full story.

"The two suspects cursed and taunted three men in Giants gear as thousands of fans left the stadium after the 2-1 Dodger victory, Detective T.J. Moore said. The Giants fans ran and two got away, but the assailants caught up to one in the parking lot, struck him on the back of the head and as he fell, he hit his head on the asphalt, Moore said."

This isn't the first time acts of violence have erupted at a baseball stadium over a team rivalry. "Southern California ballparks have seen violence in recent years. In April 2009, a man stabbed his friend in the Dodger Stadium parking lot after the team's home opener... Two months later at Angel Stadium in Anaheim, an off-duty police officer shot and wounded two men who assaulted him in the parking lot after a game."


How can team rivalry over what is supposed to be a fun, friendly sporting event grow into violence? Alcohol and crowd mentality may have something to do with it. Why beat up a rival? To display pride and loyalty to your own team? 


When you hear about tragic stories like this, you have to wonder: How could someone think that a man's life is worth that short display of pride? Has sports fandom gotten too out of hand?

"Conservative Media vs J Crew: The Battle of the Pink Toenails"

I regularly receive J Crew emails, and when I received this ad, I didn't really think anything of it, but the media sure took hold of it (and didn't have very nice things to say about it).

I found the following article that nicely describes the media frenzy around this innocent, playful, fun-loving advertisement. It is titled, "Conservative Media vs J Crew: The Battle of the Pink Toenails." A great quote outlines the media's concern:

As expected, the Gender Police have emerged from their dark caves in flocks and a national debate has ensued about the “correct” way to raise children, as well as the importance of honoring one’s biologically assigned gender.

Erin Brown of the right-leaning Cultural Media Institute has called the advertisement “blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children” in an article that claims Beckett has been exploited for the sake of identity-politics. 

Conservative media has framed this story in a very negative light. They have turned a cute advertisement depicting a mother playing with her child into a political statement or propaganda regarding gender issues. As the article mentions, we "don’t know if Beckett likes to wear nail polish or if he even likes pink. [We] don’t know if Jenna forced him to do so, or if an advertising person forced him to do so, or if Jenna’s trying to make a political statement about freedom of choice and gender identity with her son at the epicenter, or if neither of them truly care and they’re just having a good time." They turned this advertisement into a national news story on their own.

Jon Stewart did a great segment on the Daily Show last night. I know the following clip is a little long, but I urge you to watch it. You can clearly see how news stations tried to frame this story as a serious concern.



My favorite quote: "If you take them to a facepainting booth, it doesn't make them cats." It illustrates how the media took a simple photo and exaggerated the meaning behind its context.

Now, clearly I am biased in this instance because I take a very liberal stance on gender and sexuality and I am a firm believer that children should be allowed to explore such things at a young age. Others who have different viewpoints on this matter would probably agree with the media's portrayal of this advertisement. Regardless of what you believe, didn't the media just make a story out of nothing? Did they have to draw attention to it? Could they have just left the ad alone and let people think what they want about it? It seems to me there must be some agenda setting going on here - that the media somehow wants us to think that this advertisement was outrageous. And thats the part I don't like.

Kudos to you, Jon Stewart!

Modern (Wealthy, Educated) Family

So, stemming from my last post on ethnic representation in the media, I would like to touch on some other forms of representation.

Take the show, Modern Family - a fairly new family sitcom that features the Dunphy/Pritchett family: Phil, Claire, and their three children Haley, Alex, and Luke,

Jay, his new wife Gloria, and her son, Manny,

Mitchell, his homosexual partner Cameron, and their adopted daughter Lily.

So we've got some great representation here, right? We have the divorced grandfather who has remarried a younger exotic Latina who has a middle-school aged son. We have the gay couple who has adopted an Asian baby.

However, Modern Family still fits the mold for family sitcoms when it comes to wealth and education. Each family has a large house in suburbia, jobs, children applying to college, etc.

So I love that we've come so far, but we still have ways to go. Baby steps.

The Token Black Guy

Consider the following trailer for Not Another Teen Movie, a spoof on the typical teen movies of the 80s and 90s. Pay close attention at around the 1:12 minute mark.



Think about it, token black guys are everywhere! There is always one black comedian in the cast of SNL (right now it's Kenan Thompson), one sexy black twenty-something in MTV's The Real World, the list goes on. It doesn't surprise me that the only black kid in the show South Park is named Token. Seriously, that's his name.

The following scene from Not Another Teen Movie pokes fun at how there is only supposed to be one black guy at the party in a mainstream teen film like this one.



In yesterday's presentation, we discussed the fact that although minority representation in media has increased, it has come with the reinforcement of stereotypes. In this case, the "token black guy" says things like "Damn!" and "That is whack!" - it is a manifestation of how upper-class white men view black people. (The upper-class white men, of course, being the head honchos at the media production companies).

Also, with the role of the token black guy comes the responsibility of representing an entire race of people with one character - a difficult task. How can one person represent an entire race? Surely stereotypes will emerge, and surely there will be groups of people who are still vastly underrepresented, creating a false image of African American culture.

It makes me wonder: is having increased representation via the "token black guy" really better than no black guy at all?

Fanatics never change

The article we read titled "'Get a Life': Fans Poachers and Nomads" traces the word "fan" back to the Latin word "fanaticus," which basically means temple servant or devotee. This definition was stretched to contain some negative connotations - devotion to the point of obsession or "enthusiastic frenzy."

This definition really makes sense when you think about fanatic fans. The meaning has carried on for centuries and centuries.

Here we have Justin Bieber fans...

...compared to Beatles Fans:

Notice the similarity?

It is clear that something like obsessive fandom is something that has been a part of our culture forever. Screaming girls going crazy for bands and musicians and actors.

Why, especially as females, do we go so crazy for these guys? How do we get to the point of freaking out and crying and fainting?? It seems kind of ridiculous if you think about it...

And yet fandom comes in waves of repeating itself - I'm sure many of us can say we were crazy fanatics of either NSYNC, Back Street Boys, or Hanson (or all three).

So I pose the question, what is the underlying motivation for the fanaticism young girls exhibit for these idols?

Does watching E! News make me a bad citizen?

Pretty much since, well, forever, I have been fascinated with E! News and the celebrity gossip and updates the television show provides audiences. It wasn't until taking this mass communication class that I questioned whether E! News was even "news" at all.

If you visit the E! News website on any given day, you'll see tons of celebrity updates including what the celebrities are up to - who is pregnant, who is engaged or breaking up, fashion highlights, and other gossip.

This goes along with my earlier post about consumerist culture. We consider a video like the following to be "news." This is a video posted by E! News' Youtube channel of the launch of Khloe and Lamar's new fragrance, Unbreakable.



Its crazy that now, everywhere I look, I see consumerist culture being endorsed by celebrities. The group who presented yesterday stated that the commercialization of mainstream media has contributed to the "dumbing down" of the public sphere.

I have now been able to see that E! News is more infotainment than news, and taking that a step further, has contributed to the lack of involvement by the public sphere in current events and politics.

I mean, I rarely read an actual newspaper - and if I do, it is rarely and online. I consider getting my dose of daily news to be checking my friends' and celebrities' Twitter feeds and watching shows like E! News. When I engage with the media I consume, it is about something that interests me, not politics or world affairs.

This realization makes me feel like I've been a bad citizen. A democracy is all about coming together to express ideas and opinions about the important issues, and I have failed to take part in that.

But if I wasn't consuming entertainment news, it isn't like I'd be spending my free time reading up on foreign policy. The internet and collaborative media has actually, in all honesty, increased my awareness when it comes to politics. I follow President Obama on Twitter and I Google stories that my friends are talking about so I don't sound like an idiot in conversation.

I'm not sure if I would consider myself "actively engaging" or "opting out" of the public sphere. Its more like the public sphere comes to me, and there is no way I can get away from it. I feel bombarded by information wherever I go, and collaborative media is the root of it all. And maybe I'm not a bad citizen, but a typical citizen.

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange- A Threat to National Security?

I just found this infographic on digg.com about censorship on the internet:

What most interests me here is the last image: Why are they censoring the internet? There seems to be three major motives: (1) Censoring to maintain traditional social values, (2) Censoring to maintain political stability, and (3) Censoring to maintain national security.

The U.S. has been placed in the "Censoring to maintain national security" category. This is very fitting considering the recent debate over whether the government should be censoring WikiLeaks.

The argument is quite clear: Do WikiLeaks pose a national threat? If so, we should censor them. But if not, censoring WikiLeaks is infringing on freedom of speech. An article, "Harvard Law Reviews WikiLeaks Censorship," examines the case.

The following quote is very relevant to some of our class discussions: "Benkler explains, “The political attack on WikiLeaks as an organization and on Julian Assange as its public face was launched almost immediately upon release of the cables. Their defining feature was to frame the event not as journalism, irresponsible or otherwise, but as a dangerous, anarchic attack on the model of the super-empowered networks of terrorism out to attack the U.S.”

So, it is clear that from the beginning, the government tried to frame WikiLeaks in a negative light. Then, main stream media started an echo effect:  "Immediately after top U.S. officials falsely framed WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization engaged in an attack on America, the main stream media picked up on the false framing and ran with it. Benkler shows commentator after commentator, on all the main stream media outlets, began echoing the 'WikiLeaks hurts America' theme."

Julian Assange has now attained celebrity status. He is thought of as a hero to some, a terrorist to others. The media had a large role to play in the way in which WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was framed. 

I believe this was an attempt by the government to justify censoring WikiLeaks. By protraying WikiLeaks as terrorist-like activity (a very extreme accusation), they were able to garner mass distrust of the site. Therefore, people were content with the censorship. 

I think the biggest question that results from all of this is: How do we know when something threatens national security? Where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and terrorist activity?

Can Celebrities Facilitate Social Change?

We have had some discussion about the ways in which celebrities rise to and maintain stardom, how media companies set agendas by framing and selecting content, censorship, etc.

I want to backtrack for a moment to the class where we watched Madonna's Like a Prayer video. We performed a content analysis and came up with a few themes the video was representing: discrimination, interracial relationships, commentary on religion, etc. The video aligned with some issues that were at the forefront when it was made.

The video reminded me of Lady Gaga's new song Born This Way. The song has powerful lyrics and a video that has sparked discussion in the media. I found a great article that performs a content analysis: Deconstructing Lady Gaga's 'Born This Way' Video. I suggest watching the video first, gathering your own interpretation, and then reading the article to understand some of the imagery.



The article mentions some striking imagery that contains themes like gender equality, god references, non-conformity, good vs evil, sexuality. (Also very interesting that the author makes connections between this video with Madonna's Express Yourself video).

We see some of the same themes in both videos - a reference to religion and equality. You can see how the two music videos (Like a Prayer and Born This Way) reflect the societal struggle of the time. We have progressed from racial issues (not that racial issues have been completely eliminated) to sexuality issues.

What I'm really wondering is, can songs and music videos by major pop stars influence public opinion and facilitate social change?