The Last Post!

So, we've finally reached the end of the semester and now it is time for the last post. While going through topics to talk about I was not really sure how to end this blog or what would even be a good end topic.

Looking back over the course we've learned a lot of different things and expressed a lot of different ideas. It's important to create this open dialogue and it's important to try and see where people are coming from. This class has been informative and important in the discussion of how media affects our lives and what role the media should have in our own private lives and that of the public.

I would like to end this semester by talking about:



Lady Gaga

Now some of you may be wondering why I have chosen Lady Gaga and that's a good question! I picked Lady Gaga because not only is she a strong female performer but she is the optimality of what we have been discussion. If there is one thing we have learned in class is that mass media is everywhere and that mass media is swirling into one large object that dictates our lives, our ideals, and the way we communicate.

Lady Gaga burst out onto the scene in a flurry of glitter and in your face viral pop. Playing off aspects of Queen, Bowie, and Madonna she quickly picked up a number one hit with "Just Dance" and released a number of viral videos shot in French expressionist style as she created her "House Of Gaga" in which she played with Gay and Lesbian subcultures where groups of outcast would live in "house" with a mother as the head.

Example:




Now why is this important to mass media? Sure Lady Gaga isn't a diplomat, and no she isn't a politician but she got us talking and for that I respect her. She has played with and exploited this new face of media where to get famous there has to be a gimmick, a show, a full frontal assault on all of our senses. Now the media has to work its way into every aspect of our lives and it has. Now it no longer means anything to have talent (though she has it), but the way you package. We found this out when we pitched our cartoon creation since we had to make a kid friendly cartoon yet, we also have to think about pitches and marketing.

By being outrageous and over the top Gaga has created that "IT" factor as a performer that we look for. By spreading rumors and being crazy she has created a persona that makes us want more. Yet, she also keeps herself at arms length for rumor magazines, by controlling this tight knit image she makes it hard to really spread anything or everyone would believe it, thus making it hard to damage her career.

Thankfully Gaga has found the special ingredient for making it in the American pop scene and that to always keep them guessing. I hope when you see artist like Lady Gaga you think about mass media and the effect it has and that by manipulating it you can raise to stardom too.

So sit back, enjoy, and get into the grove:

Once again, women's health ads are getting crazier and crazier!

Now, I know I talk a lot about ad's and that we've moved on from advertising and how advertisers prey on women's insecurities to sell products, yet, I wanna talk about a certain commercial that just gets me heated.

Recently Reebok had put out a series of commercial that advertises for their new shoe line, easytone. Now the purpose of the shoe is that it is suppose to tighten and tone your hamstrings and improve the way your butt looks. I get it. What women wouldn't want her butt to look nice and sexy as she tries to impress everyone else around her~! Yet, what does this say? That it conveniently fits into our easy and instant gratification culture to just walk around and look fabulous? What does it show to young women who see these commercials and think that this is the way that their bodies have to look?

It would be easy to understand if Reebok appealed to women who wish to look "sexy" but these commercials don't even try to hide the fact that they are objectifying women bodies! They use "voyeuristic" frames to stare at the women and never come in to focus on faces, giving the feel that the womens individuality is not important, just her body. They do not focus on health and fitness but vanity and that being slim is more important than improving your health and that by being slim you are instantly better than other people.

Here are the three commercials produced for line so you can see for yourself:








Maybe it might be a bit crazy to get so upset over something so "harmless" and to not see where the advertisers are coming from but it is hard to over look the messages that they are sending. It also is important to note the messages that are being sent about being sexy and the importance on sexuality in the foundation of "you". That without being sexy you really are not worth anything. It's horrifying to know that advertisers now a days are so brazen in their attempts to sell shoes that they are not even masking the sex anymore.

Power Ranger, are they really a threat?

For last week and this week reading, both articles focused on the effects of TV, specifically children programming, on creative childhood play and classroom dynamics.

The first article, entitled The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers reflected on the harmful effect of the TV show Power Rangers, and what teachers felt of the show and the consequences that they had personally witnessed from the shows impact on younger viewers. The article is very one sided in its representation of the show and sides with the teachers growing concerns that the Power Rangers promotes children to play violently and that it stunts their creativity in play by giving them a force script. The authors even go on to act like teachers know everything there is to do with children and their well being, stating that "As the Power Rangers have entered the lives of children, families, and schools, we are seeing the voices of teachers continue to go unheeded." (p. 364)

Yet, the second article we read Lay Theories of Media Effects uses a very smart and sophisticated way of look at schools and the effect TV has on them. By looking at class and socio-economics of the three schools, the author Ellen Seiter presents a much clear picture of how TV shows and film media are now entering schools and public/private daycare centers. By not just looking at the larger picture, Seiter is able to look at different factors that make up the children’s backgrounds and level of educational funding.

Children in the higher socio-economic class had been denied TV media and most film media but only because the teacher was afraid of this new media threatening her status in the class as the leader and the rule enforcer. Yet, children in the lower socio-economic classrooms had been allowed to bring in TV media and choose from a larger library of films their teacher already had. Why is this? It may be because the lower socio-economic teacher was use to dealing with these new forms of media because children in her daycare parents could not afford “higher material” and so she became forced to confront TV.

By TV becoming a dominant persistence in every day homes, she is forced to confront these shows head on and evaluate their educational merit and purpose unlike the other teacher at the Montessori Pre-school, whose children parents, could afford them “educated” items. There now is a debate over this class status of what is “educational” and not and certain items become “high culture” and “low culture” even in the classroom because of this social class divide presented in the comparison of the Montessori Pre-school, which uses “high brow” material, and Gloria’s Family Daycare, which uses “low brown” material.

TV should not be seen as “educational” or “non-educational” but for what it is: entertainment. TV is to entertain and provide an escape from real world problems, just like with movies that grew in popularity in the Great Depression because they were a way to get people’s minds off the state of the economy. TV should not be presented as educational in my opinion because when you claim TV is “educational” it then is deemed to prosecution in the argument of whether it is appropriate or not or is “high brow” or “low brow”. If TV was “educational” than more studies would come out about this “good media” and its effect on the growth and development of children, like stated in class, the Baby Einstein line is being recalled because it serves no educational purpose. If we look at TV as pure entertainment than I believe, it be easier for parents to regulate the amount of TV children watch and what kind of entertainment their children watch. By labeling TV “educational” it makes it easier for TV to become a bigger presence in younger children lives, thus allow them to be a bigger marketing target to advertisers. Though I will admit that if there is any TB that I have found to be “educational” it be the use of Sesame Street, which was revolutionary for its time and helped in providing educational PBS programming.

So where does this leave The Power Rangers?


I think the issue with the Power Rangers has to be one that should be looked at culturally, for too long have we worried about race, class, and gender when studying media but we forget a crucial aspect, which is culture. Our culture makes up who we are, and the things we find social acceptable.

The Power Rangers is actually a cross over hit that was imported from Japan and remade with American actors. While not all of it is, but most of its action footage was made with Japanese stunt actors. This is not something that was ever mentioned in the top two articles nor something taken into account in my opinion as teachers were voicing concerns or different groups were doing different studies. If we forget that something is of a different culture than we forget to look at its broader social impact that transverses the globe and makes impact globally.


The genre that Power Rangers falls in is what is known as Tokusatsu, which literally means "special effects" when translated. The genre of tokusatsu is known for its use of superheroes and special effects as it pits good versus evil. A popular version of this is the well known Godzilla film franchise that uses this over the top spectacular type of filming to create dramatic effects and explores this dichotomy of good versus evil.

The Power Ranger was originally known as Super Sentai in Japan which literally refers to the use of what is known as Mecha (machines or robots in Japanese culture) and sentai which means task force. The series actually starts out with a group of people gaining magical powers that allow them to transform into magical super heroes. Each super sentai then became its own season, which would include a new cast and a new story line. The first series of this sentai franchise was Himitsu Sentai Goranger in 1974. The original story plot was that when world peace is threatened by the emergence of an international secret society of evil called the "Kuro Juujigun" (Black Cross Army/Black Crusaders), the United Nations sets up an "EAGLE" (EArth Guard LEague) (Kokusaiteki Heiwa Soushiki Iiguru) to combat the threat. This special army is distributed to various parts of the world (designated as "Blocks"). One of the largest "Blocks" is Japan and as this secret society goes about destroying its "targets" a group of individual rise up and fight for the cause.

Now this story plot relies heavily on Japanese mentality and culture. In Japan it is more popular to work for the good of the group. This group mentality is reflected in its social norms and accepted behavior so it is easy to see why this type of show would be popular in Japan yet, how does this relate to America and the U.S. cultural norms? Why would we miss the point of the group dynamic and focus in on the violence?

I want to show an example of both shows by featuring a clip of the Japanese version compared to the English U.S. version. Can you see differences? Or does it look similar?








So, if there doesn't seem to be much difference in the structure of the show than why all the uproar? Because these shows use live actors to film some of the stunts?

I think instead of just blaming the power rangers for "violent" play we should look at cultural and structural issues that cause these problems. Even if we just banned Power Rangers would the problem solve itself? Or would something else just take its place? If we regulate children TV and marketing to children under the age of 17 I think a lot of these problems would start to solve themselves. By marketing to children we create these structure play be it from the Power Rangers to "educational" material like Sleeping Beauty. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Or maybe it's just because I grew up with Power Rangers and never experienced this kind of play. Who knows? Maybe it's me just being a grumpy old grandma trying to protect the things she grew up with.

Advertising and women's health. Where should the line be drawn?

It is not surprising to find politicians often use fear as a tactic to win political campaigns. Fear has always been a strategic tactic in convincing others to follow you, which can be seen in examples like WWII, the American occupation of Iraq, and the Cold War to name a few. Fear is such an important emotion to humans and crucial in our need for survival and order; it is no wonder that political parties would use it for their own gain.

Recently women’s health has become a battleground for conflicting ideologies between political parties. By using scare tactics, they can play on the fear of women who face such life altering diseases like cancer and their survival to sway voter’s opinions about issues like health care and health care reform.

This happened recently with an ad ran by the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), a nonprofit organization that considered themselves both conservative and Republican. This group recently ran an ad that uses fear tactics to try and sway women to vote differently on the health care reform bill. By using a breast cancer survivor as their spokesperson they comment that if Washington offers a federally ran health program then thousand of women will die from diseases like breast cancer. They also comment that countries like England, which has a public health care option, has a higher death rate than the United States, which is irresponsible and false.

Looking at factchecker.org (link refdirects to original article), a project of the Annenberg public policy center, they actually spoke to an epidemiologist with the cancer society told us that the way the figures used in the ads were calculated "really faulty” and

In addition, they stated:

-The ad uses outdated survival rate statistics. More recent numbers show England’s survival rate to be closing the gap with that of the United States.

-Experts with the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute told us that mortality rates provide a much more accurate comparison.

-And the mortality rates for breast cancer for the two countries are similar.

Here is the ad in question:




Now why do you think they would use women as a way to win votes? Also do you think it is fair for political parties to use ads like these to push their own agenda? In fact who are we really hurting with ads like these? We hurt the thousand of women who battle breast cancer and the programs that would help in finding a cure. it's horrible that they would use such a serious issue as a way to end the health reform bill.