Buy Nothing Day (If Only I Could!)

I have to say I admire anyone who can actually go through with this day. Buy nothing? Seriously? It would be like the world imploding on my head. Which, in and of itself, is a sad fact. I wish that I could do this, and maybe I'll give it a try (my bank account will probably appreciate it), and see how it goes. But if you break it down, how realistic is it that you won't buy anything in a single day? So we can all abstain from hitting the mall and buying shoes (sometimes), but what about food? And I don't mean that tiger brownie from Williams', I mean real groceries. If you drive a car, what happens if you run out of gas, or pop a tire? If you take transit, do you just not pay your fare? As ideal as this day is, I'm sensing some flaws.

But maybe I'm just being overly skeptical, because the thought behind this day is really admirable and intriguing. Saying no to consumerism, something we have been raised on? It's almost unthinkable. We're so prone to buying things. Just, accumulating 'stuff', without any regard for what we're spending our money on. When are we going to be satisfied with our 'stuff'?

This reminds me of a point Ian made when he was discussing 'The Real World of Technology' by Ursula Franklin. He was talking about prescriptive versus holistic technologies. In a prescriptive technology, the working resembles an assembly line. Each person makes a piece, and someone else puts it together to make the whole. Whereas in holistic technologies one person makes the whole using their skills. To me, this relates directly to the idea of consumerism.

We constantly buy, buy, buy, and we're never done - never satisfied. And just as you can't be satisfied by just building a part, and not having anything to do with the whole, in the same way you can't be satisfied with buying parts that are supposed to contribute to making your life "whole". The idea of consumerism is a prescriptive technology unto itself, because it is constantly giving us pieces, but never the whole.

So I encourage everyone to participate in Buy Nothing Day, at least as much as you can. I know I'm going to try, as hard as it might be.

(My bank account will be thanking me later though.)

Net Neutrality

I found that being asked to discuss the most important features of the conflict of net neutrality was a little bit ironic, considering the fact that I'm discussing these points on a blog. 

Net neutrality refers to what kind of restrictions should be placed on this infinite space known as the internet and what gets published here. The ideas that users should be in control of the content they view, and what they have access to use, are some of the fundamental points in the net neutrality conflict. The question becomes; which side of the conflict are you on?

One side of the argument says that net neutrality is a necessity, and something that will shape the future of the internet. There are some major corporations who want to decide what information you get, how fast you get it, and what they can gain from this. If this were the case, the openness and freedom that most users find in the internet would be gone.

On the other side of the argument, there are those that believe that net neutrality should stay exactly where it is. With the ability to see what you want, when you want, most users find the internet to be the most open space available. They are fundamentally against the control that some people want to enforce on the world wide web.

What I found most interesting in doing this research was this; when doing a quick Google search for some opposing definitions of Net Neutrality, I came across this - www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html. This is a site posted by Google to "help" users understand the ideas of net neutrality. Although the site is against net neutrality and promoting stricter controls on the internet, it seems to be promoting it's source (Google) quite a bit. Encouraging the user to do further readings sponsored by Google, with quotes from Google associates. Seem like control to you? Same here. It seems as though it is a minimal way to promote oneself while promoting the greater good at the same time.

However, the site did provide me with two quotations that seem to be very apt on the subject of net neutrality:

"Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see or do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny." - Vint Cerf, Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol

"The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net." - Tim Berners-Lee, Inventor of the World Wide Web

Media Hegemonies: Mapping Who Owns What

When asked to discuss a Major Media Company, I automatically searched for which companies those were. And, both surprisingly and not, the Disney Corporation is one of the best, alongside Time Warner and General Electric. As someone who is part of the Disney generation (by this I mean I was raised on the animated classics, and still watch them from time to time), I thought it would be appropriate for me to discuss one of my childhood staples as a business rather than a pleasure.

Disney has grown over the decades, increasing sales and output. But, what most people don't know (including myself until I did the research) was just how much Disney owns. The "Walt Disney Company" website offers this information in neatly organized sections, so I will do the same.

1)The Walt Disney Studios: Disney films that are released are affiliated with a number of production studios, including; Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar Animation Studios, Touchstone Pictures, Miramax Films. 

(The Walt Disney Music Group also has a number of affiliates including Hollywood Records and Lyric Street Records.)

2)Parks and Resorts: The Walt Disney Company own numerous theme parks and family resorts, to be specific:

-eight Disney Vacation Club resorts

-the Disney Cruise Line

-five other resort location, including eleven theme parks, spanning three continents

3)Consumer Products: Fairly straightforward, and encompassing everything from footwear, to books, to "health and beauty" products, and even Disney stationary.

4)Media Networks: Possibly the section most important to this blog post. Here are just a few of the networks owned by and affiliated with Disney:

- Disney-ABC Television Group

- ESPN Inc.

- ABC Family

- SOAPnet

So, with all of this information, how has your outlook on Disney changed? Personally, this is not the Disney I thought I knew as a child. Which goes to show how much a corporation can change with the evolution of media. Disney is now a multi-media conglomerate, dominating most of today's markets, and doing it well.

This makes me wonder what Walt Disney would have to say about all of this, in comparison to what he started out with.

Fake News

In today's media driven culture, it seems like we take everything at face-value. Nothing that we are told, sold, or shown is questioned anymore - especially by our generation. That is a discussion all on it's own, but what should be focused on when discussing news or, more appropriately "fake news" is who is behind it, and why it is that we as a whole never see that side.

I had never really thought of this until I started reading "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You; Lies, Damn Lies, And the Public Relations Industry". From the very beginning of the book, they describe cases in which PR companies, hired by larger corporations, alter and manipulate what the public sees and hears regarding certain things - things which could be harmful to the corporations that have hired them. 

The first chapter "Burning Books Before Their Printed" gives the best image of just how larger companies control what it is that we do or do not see. The example that they give is very clear and to the point; a book was about to be released that could financially threaten a company. This company then hired one of the best PR agencies in the country to do 'damage-control' and make sure that as little was heard about this book as possible. And, since the PR agency did their job, that was the outcome.

The fact that this was all carried out without any public knowledge is astounding, but then again, that's what the PR agencies are for right?

This first chapter, among others, really highlighted how much control larger companies have on what we as a society see and hear. Headlines are altered, stories are completely turned around to benefit one over the other, and the list goes on. But we never question it. We never stop to think about where this information is coming from, who it's going to benefit, or more importantly, who's paying for it to be there.

Fake news is something we deal with every day, but we never register it. Maybe it's time we did?

Implications of Technology On Media (Or 'Yes I Named My MacBook')

Similarly to one of my earlier blog posts, this post has to do with an aspect of technology that mediates my life. Where do I even start? There are so many different things that I could choose, since I am through-and-through a child of the 21st century; and by this I mean that technology is my life. And, since I need to discuss how my life is mediated by technology, why not start right here, with this blog. Well, to be more specific, with what I'm using to write this blog - my MacBook laptop.

Even though I've only had it for about a month, and it's original purpose was for school so that I could be "on top" of my work, Billie Jean (yes, that is correct, I have named my laptop. I like to think that she has a personality all her own, and I do refer to "it" as "she") has become an integral part of my life both in and out of school. I turn it on in the morning to check the weather, my emails (all three accounts), my Facebook, and bus schedules so I can get to class on time. Then, once in class, Billie Jean is turned on again to take notes, check online postings for my classes, and - obviously - to check my Facebook. It is used for the same things on my breaks, and then again at home. I have even begun to use it to watch movies, tv shows online (so that I can keep up to date) and take pictures. 

Billie Jean has become such a huge part of my life, I almost bring her everywhere with me. She comes to school with me every day, and on the occasional Starbucks trip so I can do my homework while enjoying my Salted Caramel Hot Chocolate. And although the reason my parents agreed to buy her for me ( a combined christmas and graduation present), it was so I could do my school work, I use her every single day, without fail. On days when I don't have school, she is mostly a social networking tool all to herself, with the occasional reference to homework.

Overall, now that I have her in my life, I don't think I could ever let her go. She is quite literally like my little white rectangular shadow, and I think I might be technologically starved without her. And yet, before she was given to me, I was perfectly fine not having her. I could use my very very old home computer, take notes by hand, and turn on the TV or open the paper to get the weather report. But now that everything I need is at my fingertips in this beautiful portable device, it's as if none of those things were ever part of my life. Strange, how before you have something it couldn't matter less, but when you get it, and think of taking it away, it couldn't matter more.

Theory/Praxis (Or Lookin' Through My Rearview)

For today's blogging adventure, I have chosen to discuss Marshal McLuhan's "rear-view mirror" theory. McLuhan stated that we are only consciously aware of what has happened, not what is in the process of happening. This is why we are always looking back at what we have achieved - and usually praising ourselves for it. This theory explains that an environment can only be completely viewed and understood once it has been followed by another, showing us that we can't get past the past.

This theory is one of the main McLuhan ideas that has stuck with me through the rest of my readings. The fact that we as a culture cannot get past our own successes in order to further them boggles the mind (at least my mind). But it is completely true, sadly enough. I feel like, at least for me, I can't get past one thing until something else has happened. I couldn't get past the fact that I had a discman, until the iPod was introduced to my life. And now that I have an iPod, which I cannot live without (see a later blog post to understand more) it is hard for me to grasp how technology is developing past that.

It's pretty similar with the world of media and technology, which is why the theory was mentioned in the first place. Everything is based on what has been done, we model our new creations on what we have already achieved. This, to me, is something incredibly strange and yet still understandable. You work from what you know, and what you know is something that has already happened, so it's logical that the rear-view mirror theory is the one that would be used most. But what makes it tricky is that an enivronment doesn't become real until it is followed by the institution of another. 

All in all, it seems to me like this theory is one of the most relevant, and yet still entirely confusing. Slowly but surely, I am beginning to understand the circles that Marshal McLuhan speaks in.

Happy blogging:)

Deconstructing Advertising (Or 'Une Fille Au Masculin')

For this particular blog post, I will be addressing two forms of the same advertisement; one designed for print, and the other designed for television. The advertisement is for Jean-Paul Gaultier's new fragrance for women, "Madame". The ad features model Agyness Deyn, and both the print and television ads represent a distinct evolution in the fashion industry.Agyness Deyn has been known for her outrageous personal sense of style and spunk, which is something that comes across in both advertisements. Let's begin with the television side of this ad campaign.

The commercial is strictly black and white, and begins with our spokesmodel dressed in a conservative suit, with long blond hair, walking towards the camera. As the catchy french music playing in the background kicks in, she quickly chops off her hair for a short punky coiffe, and within seconds has demolished the conservative suit and turned it into a sexy work of fashion art. Agyness Deyn is embodying the very words of the song in these shots; "Une fille au masculin, un garcon feminin" (a masculine girl, a feminine 

boy) showcasing the androgyny that she is representing, something that is taking the fashion world by storm. 

The print ad shows the same spunk, androgyny and playfulness as the television commercial, but in a slightly more one-dimensional way. Also in black and white, the print ad shows Agyness Deyn in all her fiery punk glory playfully kissing the designer, Jean Paul Gaultier, on the cheek. Layered on top of this image is the bottle of perfume, so as to market the product itself rather than just the model and designer.

When you look at these ads, they seem very simple. Directed towards women who will buy this perfume, black and white, not very hard to understand. But what isn't directly shown is the sense of empowerment that this ad is trying to achieve. With the given sense of androgyny, as well as the sexuality that Deyn exudes, another dimension is added to the commercial and print ads. 

Overall, I found this set of advertisements to be very effective. Personally, I was intrigued by Agyness Deyn and her determination and spunk ( I realize I've used this word a lot to describe her, but there just isn't any other way to do it!). And it made me feel almost as empowered as it was supposed to, because hey, if she can defy the norm, why can't I?

Until next week, happy blogging:)