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!