Is the fake news the real news?!

               Satirical news reporting is a somewhat prominent source of political news for me. Is it fair however to say that these forms of news are real news, or better put are mainstream forms of culture jamming? This questions needs to be approached by looking firstly at if them being mainstream degrades their being defined as culture jamming, I don’t believe it does. Culture jamming can be defined as “a mode of resistance to the norms and conventions of mass culture that exposes and opposes the media’s underlying power structures and ideological messages (Media and Society pp 213).” So then how can these forms of mainstream media be considered culture jamming?

This is because of counter-hegemony and the idea that “culture jamming speaks about refusing to consume, and refusing to be seduced by images that offer unattainable, unhealthy, or unethical ideals (Media and Society pp216).” These satirical news programs present a world view that goes against what is typically presented to us in western society, in doing so they act as a medium to disseminate these counter hegemonic views on the world. Although it must be noted that these programs do exist inside of mass culture and mass media, which would seem to lessen their ability to be called fully culture jamming. However, through existing inside these forms of mass media, they are better able to express their views to the masses, which much like media is a goal of culture jamming; to expose and oppose ideological messages.

So then these programs being mainstream, may lessen their ability to be named as culture jamming, but does not however degrade the effect that comes out as a result of the counter hegemonic ideas.  The goal of culture jamming is to promote a better understanding and promote a discourse around a subject, which is achieved by these satirical programs. They present these ideas and ideals to the masses and in doing so they encourage the same thing as culture jamming does.  In doing so these programs become invaluable to a society that does not place much emphasis on political discourse or counter hegemonic ideas in the traditional media (mainly tv news). By being inside of the traditional media but presenting a different and critical view of events, these satirical shows are presenting a new side to the information being given to the masses, which can only lead to discussion and a desire for understanding. Without these forms of counter hegemonic views, the public sphere would be greatly lacking, even if these views are presented in a comedic way.

These satirical programs may not be as radical as some forms of culture jamming tend towards, but this does not change the programs tendency towards approaching situations from a counter hegemonic view, even if just slightly. This promotion of alternative ways of thinking and approaching a subject is what marks these programs as being a mainstream form of culture jamming. They may use jokes and be inside a system that is counter to their presented ideals, but they offer an approachable and understandable view on counter hegemony and critical thought relating to the dominant ideology.

                Work Cited

O'Shaughnessy, M., Satdler, J. (2012). Media and Society. 5th Ed. South Melbourne, Oxford \University Press

Demonstrable demographics

To be honest I am a little dumbfounded this week in regards to my classmate’s blog posts. There seemed to be an overwhelming idea that yes adds do work and that they are properly marketed towards the demographics that my classmates are contained in. There seemed to be a great deal of similarities between how I viewed the marketing strategies of companies being based off of gender and sexualisation of  genders and gender roles. However I was not expecting everyone to say that they were properly marketed towards through these adds.

There were many blogs that talked about how these adds reflect societal norms, and through those norms the company begins to be seen as a way to be accepted. As is the case with Grace Burgoyne's blog where she said "Girls also want to portray a popular social image, Victoria Secret is hailing those girls and giving them an opportunity to dress socially acceptable and desirable. With few words the ad pulled me in and made me feel like an acceptable woman in society(http://souspression.weebly.com/blog.html)". I was not expecting such an apathetic view on socialization and sexualisation from my classmates. These representations of a socially accepted person, mainly in this case woman, is troubling and not all that accurate in representing woman. It presents the idea that we are no more than our clothes, and that is how we should treat ourselves. There was a blog by Cassandra Graham where she talked about the effectiveness of a cover girl add, in response she said  "I particularly like Cover Girl because it targets young females to use this product, however, it is a line of cosmetics that embraces natural, light beauty! (http://cassandragrahamblog.wordpress.com)". I know this blog post is not supposed to be about whether or not I buy into these adds, it is about whether or not they are effective, which is apparently yes they are. I was not expecting such a pro commercialism response, which is not the point of this blog post, but the point of this blog post is do I think these representations are real. In response to that I have to say no, these representations of a makeup product presenting the natural light beauty of a woman, so long as you have makeup on as being a real representation.

There is a great deal of idealizing a body present in all these adds, and my classmates pointed out that this is an effective advertising technique. Keenan Beaumont talks about the effect that sports advertising has on him when he says "It is when we feel as if we are missing something, that the company presents us with their product, which is supposed to improve our performance and turn us into successful athletes like the ones we idolize.(http://keenbeau80.wordpress.com)" I understand the idea that we idolize those that have succeeded in the past, that seems like a good marketing strategy to get those idols to push a product. So representing an athlete as someone who wants to get better makes sense, the representation there is accurate. There are other social implications to using a face to sell a product that had nothing to do with past success, but the demographic appears to be properly hailed.

There may be no place in this here for my opinion on whether or not these representations are good for those being represented but I have to say something. The common theme between many blogs was that of the ideal figure and attaining it to get status or acceptance. This alone is something I could handle by just being annoyed, there was something else though, a pseudo self-aware apathy involved. I think the best example of what I read was said by Lauren Sterling "Ultimately since I have been brought up within a world that operates this way, I feel that these advertisements and ways of hailing me to a specific message are successful most of the time.(http://lostirling.wordpress.com)" This is saying that the representations are false, yet because I have been raised into them I should accept them and follow them. I do not believe that any representation in these advertisements was correct in its showing of gender or idealism, but this apathy towards these inaccuracies or life dumbfounds me.

What the Hail?

There was a series of advertisements launched by Axe a couple years ago. I focused on the idea that if you spray Axe on your body that you will inevitably just be forcing woman off your body. They set up the commercial as if it was some scientific trial to study Axe, and in the end the participant disappears and is presumably pleasured by the mass of woman. This add is marketed towards a young male audience who are heterosexual and desire a traditional “attractive” female.

Axe targets a very specific audience in its approach to selling its product. It assumes that all males watching the add will desire the same idea of what makes a woman, and also that because they think about a woman in a sexual way will desire these woman to be attracted to them, which is aided by the use of their product. “The audience is also positioned within the discourse of sexuality and is assumed to be not just male, but also heterosexual” (media and society p 185). Though this quote is related to another add, it is effectively the same ideology present in the axe advertisement, in that it calls out to a specific audience and forces all those who do not fit into that group to think in terms of that group during the add.

If I was to say whether or not this add is effective in attracting myself to the add itself, I would say no. It present too narrow a view on sexuality and what is desirable.  The hailing of the audience as teenage heterosexual males.It assumes that all heterosexual males will view these woman as attractive and will try to garner their attention by using Axe. This presentation causes young teenage males to internalise the idea that they should think and act in this way, which causes males to buy their product. It attempts to present their product as a sure fire way to get what every man should want, and in doing so becomes ineffective as an advertisement due to their attempts at showing what is desirable. Though I know many people would disagree and say the add was effective, however it did not properly reflect my values, beliefs, or norms in order to gain my interest in their product.

This raises the question about what is the societies view on being a male and what it means to be a male. Media and society points out the idea of subjectivity as “draws attention to our autonomy and to the fact that our actions are predetermined or subject to influences beyond our conscious control” (Fiske 1987, pp 48-61, media and society p190). So in presenting this singular way of looking at sexuality and at people, it can be argued that people are being taught that this is how we should act.